New England Fishery Management Council 50 WATER STREET I NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950 I PHONE 978 465 0492 I FAX 9784653116 John Pappalardo, Chairman I Paul J. Howard, Executive Director Herring Amendment 4 Scoping Comments New England Fishery Management Council 50 WATER STREET I NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950 I PHONE 978 465 0492 [ FAX 9784653116 John Pappalardo, Chairman [ Paul J. Howard, Executive Director Herring Amendment 4 Scoping Comments Comments received via Email to NMFS with Attachments AMERICAN PELAGIC ASSOCIATION 4 Fish Island New Bedford, MA 02740 (508) 979-1171 June 30, 2008 Via Electronic Mail Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 Re: Scoping Comments on Herring Amendment 4 Dear Ms. Kurkul: I would like to make reference to a letter submitted to you today by Kelly Drye, on behalf of Cape Seafoods, Inc., Lund's Fisheries, Inc., Northern Pelagic Group, LLC, Western Sea Fishing Co., Inc., and the numerous vessels associated with and supplying these businesses. In addition to the Kelly Drye comment letter, we wish to make the following comments in response to the National Marine Fisheries Service's ("NMFS") call for comments on the elements under consideration in Atlantic Herring Amendment 4. 1. Catch Monitoring The herring fleet and shoreside processors are currently subject to some ofthe most stringent monitoring and reporting requirements of any fishery in the northeast. Any additional monitoring and reporting requirements should be consistent with other fisheries in the region, should be developed to support fisheries management plan goals and objectives, and not made "punitive". The loudest critics ofthe current herring fishery management are those associated with the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA) and their proxies. A recent e-mail correspondence (June 6, 2008) with NMFS NERO (Mark Grant, Sector Policy Analyst) showed that "the two groundfish sectors currently operating have a few more-stringent reporting requirements, primarily the necessity to notify their manager of all landings more rapidly and the manager's responsibility to track landings and provide data to NMFS in addition to the required VTR submissions." Reporting requirements for the herring fishery are as follows, according to an e-mail of June 24 from Carrie Nordeen, NMFS NERO Herring Plan coordinator: "In general, APA, Herring Amendment 4 scoping comments 1 7/8/2008 reporting requirements for the herring fishery include weekly IVR (limited access vessels must report every weekly even ifthere was zero catch; open access vessels must report if their catch was greater than or equal to 2,000 lb in one trip) and monthly VTR reports. If a vessel anticipates landing herring, it should declare a herring trip in VMS, contact the Observer Program about carrying an observer, and make the pre-landing notification. Reporting requirements may vary ifthe vessel has a herring carrier or herring transfer/receive catch at sea LOA. Quota monitoring for herring is based on a combination ofIVR and dealer data." Perhaps NMFSINEFMC staff should conduct an analysis ofthe differences in the reporting requirements ofthe two groundfish sectors (with only a handful ofvessels participating) compared to the herring fishery with upwards of20-30 vessels participating. Our sense is there would be little problem bringing herring vessels and plants onto a reporting "par" with the CCCHF A sectors, ifit served important fishery management plan goals and objectives. This could include provision offederal fishery observers according to SBRM guidelines, and of 100% weighing ofthe catch at first point of offload (or first point ofprocess, whichever achieves this goal best). We do object to the more "punitive" proposals for monitoring and reporting requirements advanced by the CCCHFA and its proxies. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Peter Moore American Pelagic Association APA, Herring Amendment 4 scoping comments 2 7/8/2008 Friel10s of the Blacksume Frank Matta, President June 29. 2008 To: The New England Fishery Management Council Re: Herring Amendment 4 Scoping Comments On behalf of the state-designated Blackstone River Watershed Council/Friends of the Blackstone, I write to express our concern about the fate of river herring in danger of being caught up as by-catch by fisheries harvesting other small species out in the ocean. As the initial proponents of the fish ladders scheduled to be constructed as of August 2008 at the three southernmost dams ofthe Blackstone River, we are especially concerned about the anadromous fish that we hope will soon have access to these passages and to the their natural spawning grounds. The Blackstone River Watershed Council/Friends of the Blackstone strongly urges that the New England Fishery Management Council, in reviewing its fishery management plan, require more stringent monitoring of the herring fishery, assure appropriate enforcement of pertinent regulations, raise fines for non-compliance and endorse the notion that such fines be channeled towards supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) promoting fish ladders not only in the Blackstone but in other supporting waters ofthe state. We thank you for your attention to what we believe is a matter ofconsiderable urgency, given the federal government's designation ofriver herring as a "species ofconcern". Sincerely yours, t> : /~ (L [) '- \k..L- II ~'-- Alice R. Clemente Secretary, BRWC/FOB OUELLETTE & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW AND PROCTORS IN ADMIRALTY A Professional Association 127 EASTERN AVENUE SUITE 1 GLOUCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01930 Stephen M. Ouellette* Telephone: (978) 281-7788 David S. Smith' Facsimile: (978) 281-4411 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.fishlaw.com *Also Admitted in Maine http://www.maritimelawusa.com June 30, 2008 Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 Re: Comments on Herring Scoping Document for Amendment 4 Dear Ms. Kurkul, I have been asked to submit comments on the Scoping Document for Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Herring Management plan on behalfofMargaret F., Inc. and the FIV OCEAN VENTURE. My clients are particularly concerned with two aspects ofthe Scoping Document; 1) the proposal to allow formation ofsectors and; 2) the proposed control date ofDecember 31, 2006 for establishment ofquota allocation for Area l A. For the following reasons, my clients believe that the New England Fishery Management Council and NMFS should remove these items from consideration in the current amendment process. I note initially, that it has barely been one year since Amendment 1 to the Herring Plan implemented a limited access permit structure. Under the implementing regulations, vessels were qualified based on their fishing history between January 1, 1993, and December 31,2003. Following issuance oflimited access herring permits a number ofindividuals, including my clients, have made significant investments in the herring fishery to continue their activity in Area IA. Banks, previously reluctant to finance herring vessels, loaned significant sums relying on establishment ofthe limited access herring permits to these owners. Even before the final application date for those initial limited access permits passed, the NEFMC is considering adopting a proposal to limit any future allocation for an Area lA allocation to history prior to December 31,2006. We have also been advised that NMFS is unable to separate landings by area before 2002, so that, in effect, the Amendment 1 qualifications will be rendered meaningless, and a vessel's future landings from Area lA will be determined based on the 2003 to 2006 timeframe. The proposal will effectively invalidate the recently issued limited access herring permits and threatens to wreak havoc in the existing fishery, as vessels owners and their lenders face significant losses in their investments. Commnets on Scoping.doc OUELLETTE & SMITH Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator June 30, 2008 -2- The rationale for this unusual limitation on qualification period makes no sense and appears intended to benefit a few vessel owners who increased effort in the years leading up to 2006. The increase that was so large, it prompted action to seasonally limit access to Area lA to these vessels, which extracted significant and disproportionately large quantities offish from Area 1A. As such, iflandings after December 31, 2006 are utilized, this small number ofvessels will not be disproportionately benefited by their excessive, and determinately harmful, landings, which gave rise to the seasonal gear limitations. It is evident that the dramatic growth in harvesting capacity ofthe mid-water and pair trawl fleet in the past five years placed significant stress on Area lA, resulting in exclusion ofthis excessive fishing power. The proposal would actually reward this harmful explosion in effort by transferring a disproportionate share ofthe fishery to a very few, large vessels, to the detriment ofthe fixed gear and purse seine vessels, most with significant history preceding 2003. In the event that the Council adopted this new control date, this would force vessels remaining in Area lA to buy or lease quota from those excluded based on excessive fishing power. While it is not unusual for fishermen to seek to have quota allocations based on their best years in terms oflandings, NEFMC and NMFSshould not do so where it both runs contrary to the existing limited