News release from Barney Frank

_________________________________________________________

Congressman, 4th District, Massachusetts
2252 Rayburn Building · Washington, D.C. 20515 · (202) 225-5931

July 25, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Peter Kovar 202-225-9400

Five Members of the U.S. House of Representatives today asked the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to delay until approximately May 2010 the implementation of major New England fishery management rules -- currently expected to take effect toward the end of 2009 -- in order to help prevent unduly harsh economic impacts on the regional fishing industry.

In a letter to NOAA Administrator Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, U.S. Reps. Barney Frank, John Tierney, James McGovern and Michael Capuano (all Massachusetts Democrats), and Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT), recommended moving the effective date of the “Amendment 16” fishery management plan to ensure that there is sufficient time for fishery managers and other stakeholders to fully analyze fish population data that will form the basis of the Amendment, and to better synchronize the Amendment with the comprehensive 2006 federal fishing law, key elements of which will also go into effect in 2010.

The lawmakers also urged Admiral Lautenbacher to bring a heightened focus to three important issues affecting the New England fishing industry: maximizing the harvest of healthier fish species; reducing the discard of “bycatch” fish; and assessing the effectiveness of closed area policies. These three issues emerged as vital points of concern for the fishing industry during a recent regional “summit” meeting in New Bedford.

“I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to join with me in this effort,” Frank said. “I will continue doing all I can to work for the adoption of fishery management policies that promote the conservation of fish while maintaining the survivability of our fishing communities during these difficult economic times.”

Copies of the letter to Admiral Lautenbacher and the New Bedford summit statement are attached.

July 25, 2008

Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher

Administrator

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

U.S. Department of Commerce

Herbert Hoover Building

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Admiral Lautenbacher:

We are writing to urge you to delay the implementation of Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan for one year to properly align the Amendment with the 2010 deadlines set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act (MSRA). We recognize that Amendment 16 will include measures to comply with some version of the regulations for implementation of the MSRA. However, the New England Fishery Management Council will be forced to develop the Amendment without certainty as to what the final regulations will allow or require in such areas as Annual Catch Limits, Accountability Measures and other key questions relating to implementation of the law that have yet to be conclusively answered. Proceeding with Amendment 16 while these important issues are still unresolved runs the risk of causing unforeseen negative consequences. We believe a year’s delay in order to bring the implementation of the Amendment into synchronization with the implementation of the MSRA is the most responsible way of proceeding at this time, and, again, we urge you to take that action.

This change in the Amendment timetable would also provide greater time for public comment and allow for a thorough review of scientific data as management alternatives are considered. While we appreciate the Council’s recent decision to revise the schedule for implementation of Amendment 16 by delaying it for approximately four months, the longer delay we are requesting to more appropriately incorporate changes in the law would provide both fishermen and managers with the time necessary to make fully informed decisions.

There is an equally great need to mitigate the economic harm to fishermen, their families and the communities they support financially, through direct agency action on several key issues that are linked to Amendment 16 and how it is implemented. We believe that every effort must be made to alleviate, to the extent possible, the negative trends that are currently affecting the New England fishing industry, including continued reductions in fishing effort because of fewer Days at Sea, increased fuel prices that have severely cut into profits for fishermen and boat owners alike, and current methods for allocating allowable catch that prevent maximization of harvest.

On June 10, the attached statement was widely distributed by Dr. Brian Rothschild who is both Chairman of the City of New Bedford’s Ocean and Fisheries Council and also the Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. The statement presented a list of recommendations that were discussed at a recent “summit” meeting in New Bedford composed of fishermen and industry representatives who had come together to discuss the most serious issues affecting the multispecies fishery, and to articulate potential solutions to long-standing problems that have put so many fishermen into financial jeopardy. While we are broadly supportive of the summit’s recommendations, and we urge NOAA to give serious consideration to the entire statement, we would like to emphasize three of its key recommendations, relating to maximization of yield, bycatch, and closed areas.

These are issues that have proven to be extremely difficult to address through the Council process, and we urge you to utilize the additional time associated with a delayed implementation of Amendment 16 to bring a renewed focus on them. In particular, we urge you to provide additional staff, financial and other resources for the purpose of developing solutions to these problems in collaboration with non-governmental stakeholders. Whether that involves the convening of a separate working group, or some other mechanism that will allow for the kind of intensive analysis needed to make more progress in these areas, we urge that steps be taken as soon as soon as possible to begin to address these three key issues. We believe that addressing these issues, which are discussed below in more detail, during the period prior to implementation of Amendment 16 will help mitigate the industry’s economic distress as Amendment 16’s implementation proceeds.

First, many of the fish within the multispecies complex are harvested at levels far below their total allowable catch. The summit quoted from the Agency’s own summary report for the 2007 fishing year, noting that only “42% of the Georges Bank cod TAC was caught; 30% of the Gulf of Maine haddock; 4% of the Georges Bank haddock; 43% redfish; 83% white hake; 49% Georges Bank winter flounder; 20% witch flounder, etc.” The summit report also pointed out that in some cases fishing is allowed for species in a way that is poorly timed with demand. In other words, in addition to taking steps to maximize yield, it is important to develop management policies that better match fishing of specific species with market potential.

Second, the level of discards, or fish caught by fishermen that must be thrown back in the water (for the most part dead), was conservatively estimated at 20%, with a value of $12 million. Discards have been an intractable problem for fishery managers, and to date no management approach has been developed that would allow for the reasonable use of this significant catch, and as a result it generally ends up being wasted. While the agency provides financial support for research efforts to test gear that might alleviate this problem, there has been no comprehensive solution. We believe it is important to develop a more pragmatic approach that would both allow appropriate safeguards to prevent overfishing, while also recognizing that unavoidable bycatch could provide a much needed economic benefit to the industry, if it is properly managed, and not simply thrown away.

Third, the summit statement points out that the 1995 closure of 30% of Georges Bank has not been evaluated in an in-depth manner. Therefore, it is not clear that the closures in that area have had a significant positive impact on the stocks they are purported to conserve. In fact, large quantities of valuable scallops in these areas now appear to be past the point when they can be usefully harvested. In order to ensure that these closures accomplish their intended goals, rather than unnecessarily restricting effort, we believe it is essential to initiate a serious review of their effects as soon as possible.

Again, if management measures addressing these issues can be developed, they could significantly mitigate the economic decline experienced in the New England fishery, even as Amendment 16 is implemented. By maximizing fishing opportunities that have gone unrealized because of efforts aimed at protecting one or two troubled species; developing a bycatch policy that allows the benefit of retention rather than the wasteful disposal of discard; and revisiting the efficacy of a closed area management strategy that has not been adequately analyzed and may be counter-productive, we may be able to help more hardworking fishermen to stay in business.

We endorse the summit recommendation in favor of intensive, short-term focus on these and other pressing matters affecting the industry. Specifically, we urge you to make these recommendations top agency priorities in the Northeast region, and, again, that you make available the appropriate staff and the necessary resources to fully review and address these critical issues. And, to reiterate, we urge you to take the necessary action as soon as possible to delay implementation of Amendment 16 for a full year.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to your response.

___________________________________ ___________________________________

Rep. Barney Frank Rep. John Tierney

___________________________________ ___________________________________

Rep. Joe Courtney Rep. James McGovern

___________________________________

BACKGROUND—This report represents recommendations of a Fisheries Summit convened by the Mayor’s Ocean and Fisheries Council in New Bedford on May 28, 2008. Its main purpose is to share concerns with our congressional delegations regarding the conservation of the stocks and the maintenance and survival of fishing communities.

The Fisheries Summit was opened by Mayor Scott Lang and was attended by 60 members of the fishing industry and representatives of elected officials. The states of Rhode Island and Maine were also represented. Attendees are listed in an Appendix.

The fisheries-management system appears to be broken. Confidence is eroded. It is generally believed that neither conservation of the stocks nor sustained participation of fishing communities is being maintained. There is a substantial waste of the resource and the fabric of fishing communities is being torn apart. As this is happening, NOAA is attempting to promulgate Amendment 16—involving substantial reductions in days at sea—without taking into account analyses on the state of the stocks as mandated by law.

The goal of balancing conservation with supporting fishing communities is clearly described in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These goals obviously constitute the law of the land. The participants of the Summit were unclear as to what NOAA was doing to align its programs with its mandated dual responsibility.

Broken confidence arises as costs of engaging in business are increasing because of skyrocketing fuel costs. Fuel is now a major cost in fishing. Sustained high costs of fuel will generate major economic realignments in the fishing industry.

It is not clear to the Summit how NOAA is taking account of the cost of fuel in modifying policies and strategies to nurture the sustained participation of fishing communities in their traditional economic and social livelihood.

A ONE YEAR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENT 16 IS ESSENTIAL—The most striking concern voiced by the Summit relates to the failure by NOAA to manage the implementation of Amendment 16 so that scientific and related conclusions could be thoroughly exposed to public scrutiny in the manner required by law. Basically, the way it appears is that the agency is proceeding to supplement draconian cuts in days at sea with even more draconian cuts in days at sea before making scientific analysis regarding the state of the stocks available to the public. This flies in the face of “best science available” and is a problem exacerbated by the fact that there will not be enough time to vet these serious actions with the public.

The Summit acknowledged the strongest support for the letter written by Senators Snowe, Kennedy, Kerry, and Collins to NOAA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Dr. James Balsiger, suggesting that the NOAA delay the implementation of Amendment 16 until it can conduct the necessary analyses and fully vet its implications with the public.

While the Senators did not specify a particular time for a delay, the Summit supports at least a one year delay. The Summit observed that no delay would,

The economic and social integrity of coastal communities is being held at stake along with the livelihoods of thousand of fishermen. The economic shocks will reverberate not only through the fishing industry; they will affect everyone in terms of tax revenues and welfare costs.

The Summit felt that the high priority of delaying implementation of Amendment 16 should not obscure the systemic ills associated with fishery management. Without curing these ills, the congress would be faced next year with huge disaster relief claims and yet additional Amendment 16-like problems.

A DELAY AFFORDS THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BACK ON TRACK—The Summit foresees that a one-year delay in implementing Amendment 16 would occur at a propitious time. The delay would enable the system to get back on track. The delay would be a chance for NOAA to be accountable for the waste that has occurred in recent years and to develop a system that more evenly strikes a balance between conservation and fishing community welfare.

The Summit was of the opinion that it was necessary, particularly in light of back-breaking regulations and the fuel cost issue

In the short run, the Summit believed that this could be done by obtaining optimum yield from each stock; reducing discards; and making more effective use of closed areas.

The Summit thought that the costs and benefits of management should be evaluated taking into account failure to maintain optimum yield and discards.

The conclusion is that it is time to change the system—A practical approach during the one year delay period would be to increase the flow of fish through the economic system. The idea would be not to view the Magnuson-Stevens Act as a constraint, with negativity, and with pessimism, but rather to view the Magnuson-Stevens Act as an opportunity, with positivity, and with optimism. In the short run, among other things, data systems need to be overhauled to become real time and universally accessible; a short–run intensive monitoring of the catch needs to be maintained to minimize not attaining optimum yield; fishermen should be encouraged to keep bycatch; and the closed areas need a reanalysis to improve conservation while increasing economic throughput. With regard to encouraging fishermen to keep bycatch, it will be necessary to provide compensation for bycatch, which is greater than the cost of catching the bycatch but less than the current market price. The bycatch would of course be sold for the full market price and the revenues would be invested in fishermen-based observation and data-collection programs—a win-win setting. Finally, new strategies need to be developed for the closed areas to make their conservation and management more efficient and effective.

Beyond the above major strategy and policy shifts, the Summit made a number of important recommendations that included, for example,

A principal recommendation to arise from the Summit is that NOAA’s approach to management needs to be revised, listening to and taking account of advice from industry while maintaining the conservation of the stocks.

Experience has shown that concerns such as those expressed by the Summit are often met with a written response that is not necessarily responsive to the concerns. It is the opinion of the Summit that NOAA needs to form a working group to initiate and follow through with addressing the issues and approaches raised by the Summit.

In closing, everyone realizes that the shortfalls in the process of fishery management are the result of accreting various approaches taken over the years. While each individual approach at the time made sense, the composite of the individual approaches has significant waste and inefficiencies. Now is the time to test the perceived legal bounds of the management system and to explore new opportunities for common sense management.

Search on Thomas