Herring pair trawlers leaving Gloucester, MA. Since the mid- 1990’s large midwater trawlers have been herring fishing in the gulf of Maine. By-catch of ground fish by these trawlers has been an issue for ground fishermen since they arrived. Limited observation of the herring catch has made hard numbers elusive. ©Photo by Sam Murfitt

The premise behind giving midwater trawlers access to groundfish closed areas is that these vessels allege they are fishing in the midwater area of the water column and therefore do not interact with groundfish. Trawlers have been allowed in the closed areas since the late 1990’s.

However, other fishermen and conservationists said the data show that interaction is indisputable. They said that any groundfish bycatch in the sensitive groundfish spawning and nursery areas is particularly harmful.

The Midcoast Fishermen’s Association (MFA) in Port Clyde and Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (NAMA) in Saco, with the help of Earthjustice, recently sued NMFS in an effort to get the trawlers excluded from the closed areas.

NEFMC has received numerous communications from fishing and environmental groups expressing concern about recent bycatch events in CA1 involving midwater trawl vessels and, in particular, bycatch of haddock.

But Kurkul said, and NEFMC agreed, that the data is sparse.

“I couldn’t reach a conclusion,” Kurkul said.

That’s because there were few observed trips in recent years. For the 4.5-year period from May 2004 through October 2008, only 40 tows were observed in CA1, from 16 separate observed herring trips.

Still, there was some indication that allowable groundfish bycatch is being exceeded.

Overall, said Kurkul, the data indicates the 1 percent threshold for groundfish bycatch was exceeded at the trip level twice, and, at the tow level, eight times. Observed bycatch levels in those tows ranged from 1.05 percent to 9.69 percent.

For the 4.5-year period, a total of 57,560 pounds of haddock bycatch was observed on herring trips into CA1. That was about half a percent of the 10.3 million pounds of observed herring and mackerel catch from the trips.

About 84 percent, or 48,098 pounds of the observed haddock bycatch was during the month of October.

There were no observer reports of the 1 percent threshold being reached at either the trip or haul level in any other groundfish closed area during this time period.

The general sentiment of communications sent to NEFMC was to ask the council to rescind access to closed groundfish areas by midwater trawl vessels, to allow them back in only if they have 100 percent observer coverage to see if the catch is “clean,” and to prohibit dumping of fish so that the entire haul can be observed.

Midwater trawl access to groundfish closed areas is addressed in the draft document for Amendment 4 (A4) to the herring management plan. However, A4 is still being written, and NEFMC agreed that groundfish bycatch in CA1 needed to be addressed immediately.

NEFMC member David Pierce said that data from just four trips per year is not enough information to justify the wholesale exclusion of midwater trawlers from CA1.

“So I struggle with this,” said Pierce. “I struggle with the comments being provided by groundfishermen” because there is no clear indication of just how much groundfish is being caught by midwater trawlers.

Pierce advocated for a balancing of concerns. The core issue, he said, is observer coverage and individual accountability.

Pierce suggested that, until Amendment 4 measures addressing herring vessel access to groundfish closed areas are implemented midwater trawlers should be allowed continued access to CA1 through a revision to their current Letters of Authorization to require that all catch from Area 1 must be brought on board for sampling; and an observer must be on all trips into the area, with the cost of observers being equally divided between the vessel and NMFS.

The cost of observers to vessels would be reduced to the extent that NMFS has resources to provide additional coverage. Any vessel with regulated groundfish exceeding 1 percent of the catch of herring in two trips would be denied access until ruled by the A4 approach for access to groundfish closed areas.

“Let’s learn what’s happening in that area and let’s get observer coverage,” Pierce said.

Kurkul said she was concerned that requiring a split in funding specifically for CA1 essentially constituted a fee to fish that area. Another problem, she said, is that if there aren’t enough observers available, it would restrict the ability of vessels to fish in CA1.

Maggie Raymond asked about the economic impacts of the funding mechanism for observers. Vessels, she said, would be forced either to pay for observer coverage or to lose income because they will be restricted from CA1.

“It’s just saying you don’t care,” she said “It forces people to pay very high fees to fish, or not fish at all.”

In the end, NEFMC members voted to require that midwater trawlers must have 100 percent observer coverage in order to fish in CA1. They also voted to require that there be no dumping of unsampled catch. The funding mechanism was not finalized.

With regard to future midwater trawl access to groundfish closed areas through Amendment 4, NEFMC’s Herring Committee in December 2008 raised the following questions for discussion:

• What specific kinds of criteria should be considered in Amendment 4 for allowing or prohibiting midwater trawl access to groundfish closed areas?

• To which groundfish closed areas would these criteria apply?

• How would the closed area access criteria and the associated review process be structured?

• How would the process for reviewing these criteria be structured? Who would be responsible for evaluating the criteria and determining the appropriate course of action regarding midwater trawl access to the closed areas?

• How often would the review process occur, and what management action(s) would be required to modify either the criteria or provisions for access to the groundfish closed areas?

The committee developed a general approach to be included in at least one alternative for consideration in the amendment, and two alternatives have been proposed by the Herring Alliance.

The Herring Alliance proposals would prohibit midwater trawlers from groundfish cloased areas except with an experimental fishing permit meeting specific requirements, including full observer coverage, electronic monitoring systems to augment observer data, a prohibition on pair trawling, and certain gear, towing, and trip limits.

The committee’s preliminary proposal says that if, on any given trip, a vessel targeting herring in a groundfish closed area has groundfish exceeding 1 percent of the catch of herring, the vessel will be required to have 100 percent observer coverage for one year as a condition to gain further access to the closed areas. If the 1 percent bycatch allowance is exceeded again, the vessel would be denied access for one year.

In other business, NEFMC tabled a discussion regarding how downward adjustments of the annual catch limits could be made for the herring fishery, to account for herring harvested by Canadian fisheries, primarily the New Brunswick weir fishery.