Localized Herring Depletion Alternatives on Table

by Laurie Schreiber

DANVERS, Mass.—At its September meeting, the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) decided to consider whether to exclude midwater trawlers within a 50-mile buffer zone south of Area 1A.

The idea of a buffer zone—with other, smaller buffer zones also under consideration—came about in response to concerns regarding localized depletion of Atlantic herring. Last year, NEFMC heard from thousands of people who asked the council to address the issue in Amendment 8 to the herring management plan. At that time, NEFMC received communications from 468 people. And 28,000 people signed three form letters; 1,300 of them provided comments.

NEFMC has defined localized depletion as “a reduction of population size, independent of the overall status of the stock, over a relatively small spatial area as a result of intensive fishing.”

Scoping comments for Amendment 8 have identified concerns with concentrated, intense commercial fishing of Atlantic herring in specific areas and at certain times that has caused detrimental socioeconomic impacts on other user groups—commercial, recreational, and ecotourism—that depend on adequate local availability of herring to support business and recreational interests both at sea and on shore.

Steve Weiner, of CHOIR—the Coalition for Atlantic Herring’s Orderly, Informed and Responsible Long Term Development, representing commercial and recreational fishermen and ecotourism companies—said CHOIR supported including the 50-mile buffer among the range of alternatives to be considered by NEFMC.

“There’s got to be a wide spectrum of options, and there’s a large portion of our membership that supports a 50-mile buffer,” he said.

Jeff Kaelin, with Cape May, N.J.-based Lund’s Fisheries, said the idea of localized depletion is “ephemeral” and urged NEFMC to focus more on issues around overlapping fisheries and catch trends in the herring fishery.

“It’s more about spatial conflict,” Kaelin said. “I would not expect a trawler’s impact to last 50 miles out from shore….So I think a 50-mile buffer is a slap in the industry’s face. It’s intended to eliminate a gear type.”

Peter Kaizer of Nantucket, Mass., a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s Squid-Mackerel-Butterfish Advisory Panel, said the 50-mile buffer zone should be considered. The area under consideration includes both a river herring avoidance area and an Atlantic herring spawning area, he said. And, he said, “There’s not enough herring in there to make a sick cat a meal. So you talk localized depletion—we’ve witnessed, it, we’re living it.”

“It makes sense for us to have a 50-mile buffer zone in the mix for analysis,” said NEMFC member David Pierce. “I’m not saying I want to put the midwater trawl fleet out of business. It’s important to Massachusetts and it’s an important supplier of bait.” But a study of potential impacts of a buffer zone would be worthwhile, he said. “I’m just trying to be sensitive to the comments made at scoping. An analysis would be revealing regarding the significance of a buffer zone on the midwater trawl fleet. Would it create tremendous economic impact” on the midwater trawl fleet? “Perhaps it would not.”

NEFMC member Mary Beth Nickell-Tooley said the 50-mile zone should be removed from the range of alternatives because it could encompass up to 84 percent of the fleet’s catch.

“A reasonable range of alternatives is not everything under the sun,” Nickell-Tooley said. “I don’t know why we want to be spinning the wheels of the plan development team on an alternative that’s well beyond a reasonable range.”

But NEFMC member Matthew McKenzie said there was considerable stakeholder support for including the alternative. “I think it’s fair that we include it for analysis,” he said.

NEFMC member Terry Alexander suggested including a 25-mile buffer as the middle ground, rather than 35 miles.

“I’m just wondering why we went from 12 to 35 with nothing in the middle,” said Alexander. “If we just want to see the economic analysis, why didn’t we go 50 and 25, somewhere in the middle? I don’t mind seeing the analysis, but I think there’s no way we can accept it. I’d rather see another option of 25, somewhere in the middle, because 12 to 35 seems like a big jump.”

NEFMC member Doug Grout said NEFMC’s charge is to come up with a reasonable range of alternatives. “I don’t think that a 50-mile buffer would be a reasonable alternative.” It goes “beyond trying to address our goal, which is really to try to reduce the impacts of having multiple fisheries occur at the same time.”

Chris Weiner, a tuna fisherman from Portland and a member of CHOIR and the American Bluefine Tuna Association, said the 50-mile analysis will likely show a large impact, and is therefore unlikely to be approved. “So I don’t see the fear,” he said. “What I worry about is this council proactively taking things out before even analyzing something.”

Another commenter said it would be a waste of the PDT’s time to have it analyze an alternative that’s unlikely to be approved.

But Erica Fuller, an attorney for the Boston-based Herring Alliance, said the number of stakeholders asking NEFMC to consider 50 miles should not be ignored.

“Almost a year ago, we submitted a scoping letter recommending an inshore buffer of 50 miles south of 1A,” said Fuller. “Fifty miles benefits herring, and also has ecological benefits for groundfish, marine mammals, and seabirds….We ask that you just consider this.”

Emily Tucker, a fisheries policy associate with the Brunswick-based Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association (MCFA)—an industry-led nonprofit that advocates on behalf of the community-based, inshore Maine fishermen—said MCFA supports the inclusion of 50 miles in the range of alternatives, especially considering what she said was low observer coverage in the midwater trawl fleet.

But, Kaelin said, “It’s a ridiculous option that’s going to have significant economic impact. Who around the table can afford a 30 or 40 or 50 percent hit when there’s no biological reason? And 50 percent of these landings are being observed. That data has been available for the last several years.” Regarding the idea that the fleet has few observers, “I don’t think the facts support that kind of hysteria,” Kaelin said. The midwater trawl fleet in this fishery, he said, consists of only about 10 boats, and they’re currently engaged in installing electronic monitoring systems to provide transparency about fishing practices.

“We’re bending over backwards right now…to install cameras, that we all want, on the boats to get the monkey off our back,” said Kaelin. “People don’t like big boats. People say, ‘We don’t care what the economic cost is.’ It creates a lot of uncertainty in the industry, and there are bait shortages.”

In the end, NEFM agreed to include, in the range of alternatives for PDT analysis, a 25- and 50-mile inshore closure year-round to midwater trawl gear south of Atlantic Herring Management Area 1A that is within Areas 1B, 3, and 2. They removed a proposed 35-mile buffer for consideration.

According to a NEFMC presentation, the PDT will continue to work on summarizing herring catch within the alternatives compared to total catches; provide monthly catches to potentially inform seasonal options; and is still brainstorming if a metric can be developed to measure the degree of fisheries overlap to help compare alternatives in terms of user conflict—some fisheries have data limitations.

NEFMC expects to have Amendment 8 ready to implement in 2018.