For more than two
years, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Interstate Fishery Management Program
Policy Board (Policy Board) have been working on something they call a “Harvest Control Rule”
(Control Rule), which could make very significant changes to the way that the
recreational fisheries for bluefish, summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass
are managed.
Currently, all four species are managed by the Council and the appropriate Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) species management boards (Management Boards), which have historically compared recent recreational landings with the recreational harvest limit (RHL) for the upcoming year, and set recreational management measures based on whether such recent landings were above, below, or about equal to the next season’s RHL.
Because of
unavoidable uncertainty in the recreational landings data, and because angler
behavior varies from year to year, the Council and Management Boards have had,
at best, indifferent success in keeping recreational landings at or below each
year’s RHL. As a result, recreational management measures often change from
year to year, even when the biomass of the managed stock shows little change.
The Council and Policy Board began work on the Control Rule in the hope that it would better account for management uncertainty and so avoid annual changes to management measures. The various versions of the Control Rule being considered all consider factors other than the estimated recreational landings and the next year’s RHL, which might include such things as the biomass of the managed stock, whether such biomass is increasing or decreasing, the number of young fish recruiting into the population, and trends in recruitment, which might provide a more nuanced picture of what management measures should be.
The management
measures adopted pursuant to the Control Rule would be predetermined, with each
set addressing a particular combination of factors. Such predetermined sets of
management measures represent a big change from current practice, which sees
management measures calculated in direct response to recent landings. While one
version of the Control Rule would only require a handful of management
measures, others establish complex processes, which might require biologists to
devise 52 sets of
varying measures to manage a single stock.
The scientists raise many concerns
Yet, while the Council
and Policy Board invested a substantial amount of time and effort into
determining how management measures would be established, they spent little
time determining how such measures might impact the health and stability of
managed fish stocks. At a joint meeting of the Council and Policy Board, held
on February 6, 2022, both management bodies adopted a motion that read:
Request that the
[Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee] provide a qualitative
evaluation, in time for final action at the June 2022 Council/Policy Board
meeting, regarding the potential effect of each of the five primary
alternatives in the Harvest Control Rule Addendum/Framework on the SSC’s
assessment and application of risk and uncertainty in determining the
[Acceptable Biological Catch]. The intent is to provide the Council and Policy
Board with information to consider the tradeoffs among the different
alternatives with respect to the relative risk of overfishing, increasing
uncertainty, fishery stability, and the likelihood of reaching/remaining at
[the biomass target] for each approach at different biomass levels (e.g., for
[a situation where the biomass is below the biomass target, but the stock is
not overfished], the relative risk among alternatives is (highest to lowest)
E>C>B>A>D).
The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) created a Harvest Control Rule Subcommittee (Subcommittee), which was instructed to address the motion. In response to the issue raised in the motion’s first sentence, the Subcommittee advised that “The proposed Addendum/Framework is triggered by determination of the [Acceptable Biological Catch], and as such, the actual [Annual Catch Targets] and RHLs are determined only after the ABC has been specified. Consequently, the proposed Addendum/Framework does not affect the structured process the SSC uses to specify the ABC.”
However, the SSC
could not provide a clear response to the other issues addressed in the motion.
In attempting to do so, it raised a number of
serious concerns.
One of the
Subcommittee’s comments, which undoubtedly caught some Council and Policy Board
members by surprise, was that the so-called “Harvest Control Rule” wasn’t
really a “control rule” at all. The SSC noted that
Harvest control rules
are quantitative relationships that specify how management endpoints, such as
catch, should vary with stock biomass to achieve management objectives…Neither
the no action option, nor any of the alternatives described in the
Addendum/Framework represent harvest control rules…The proposed alternatives
described in the Addendum/Framework are triggers for action only. Specification
of how regulations on season length, size limits, and bag limits or other
management endpoints would change is missing. Until such details are
provided, the performance of the proposed alternatives
cannot be determined. [emphasis added]
The Council and Policy Board are thus being asked to adopt a Control Rule, without having any concrete idea of how such Control Rule might affect the health of fish stocks.
The Subcommittee
expressed concern that the Control Rule would make it more difficult to manage
fish stocks, stating that
The sub-committee
felt that the proposed alternatives failed to address explicitly the complexity
of the problem of specifying a vector of how regulations around season, size,
and bag limits would change…The current [Acceptable Biological Catch] process
that uses the Council’s risk policy involves control of a single variable, the
ABC. However, there are at least three specifications that have to be set
simultaneously for the proposed alternatives to be implemented. The
sub-committee notes that this increases substantially the complexity and the
difficulty of the challenge which the sub-committee believes should be
explicitly stated so Council and Commission members have a solid grip on the
decision they are being asked to make.
The Subcommittee also
noted that, because both the Control Rule and the Council’s risk policy
incorporate some of the same information, there was the risk of creating
“feedback” that would lead to increased variability in
fishery performance. While the Control Rule was intended to reduce such
year-to-year variability, and provide for more stable regulations, such
feedback would stack “precaution on top of precaution” when a stock’s biomass
is below target, resulting in more restrictive management measures than are
currently imposed, while increasing risk to the stock by permitting more
liberal regulations when fish abundance exceeds the target biomass.
The Subcommittee also noted that, when the SSC currently sets the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) for multiple years, it typically assumes that each year’s ABC will be fully caught, but not exceeded. When, as in the case of black sea bass, the ABC is frequently exceeded, the SSC will instead assume that future overages will occur, and so will reduce the ABC in later years. With respect to the Control Rule, “There are structural issues in several of the alternatives…that may lead to increased uncertainty in whether the ABCs may be exceeded, which could lead to the SSC setting lower ABCs than it otherwise would in multi-year specifications.”
Since the ABC governs
both the recreational and commercial sectors, setting a lower ABC in response
to a Control Rule that solely benefits recreational fishermen could result in
commercial fishermen having to accept lower quotas while receiving no
countervailing benefits of their own.
In addition, the
Subcommittee expressed concern with some of the Control Rule alternatives,
which placed management measures in “bins” defined by different levels of, and
varying trends in, biomass, recruitment, and other factors. It noted work done by Dr. Paul
Rago with respect to such binned management measures, and
advised that “Preliminary conclusions from this simulation are that the effects
of binning and random recruitment lead to a marked increase in the likelihood
that [Overfishing Limits] would be exceeded. Moreover, populations were not
rebuilt as frequently as occurred with population-specific optimal fishing
mortality rates. Perhaps more importantly, a greater fraction of populations
that were previously above [their biomass targets became overfished] when
controlled with a binned [Harvest Control Rule].”
The totality of the
Subcommittee’s concerns are summed up in the conclusion to its
report, which states, in part, that
the actual efficacy of the
proposed alternatives in the Addendum/Framework is unknown. This uncertainty
comes from two sources. First, the actual measures that will be taken in
response to any of the triggers identified in the Addendum/Framework are not
specified…Until such specificity is provided, quantitative evaluation of the
performance of the options is not possible. Second, performance of the discontinuous nature of the options proposed in
the Addendum/Framework has not been proven effective in other fisheries nor
formally evaluated, to the knowledge of the sub-committee. Preliminary modeling
conducted by the sub-committee to evaluate the binning of population
states, reliance on various metrics of stock condition
and recent catch history, and implications of recruitment variability could
result in and increased risk of overfishing and becoming overfished.
This suggests that the appearance of precision in
the process that leads to regulatory specifications does not necessarily
translate into precision in catch performance and compliance.
The sub-committee expresses the concern that some of
the overly complex, contingent decision-making processes included in the
proposed alternatives do not reflect the actual level of control likely
achieved in marine recreational fishery management. [emphasis
added]
Those seem damning
comments. Replacing the current approach to recreational fishery management
which, although admittedly imperfect, contributed to the successful rebuilding
of once badly overfished summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass stocks, with
an untested Control Rule of undetermined efficacy, which might lead to
increased uncertainty and catch variability, and also increase the chances that
even healthy stocks might become overfished, would seem to be an unwise thing
to do.
Council staff offers a better alternative
It would seem far
better to fix the worst flaws in the existing management process, and that is
precisely the course recommended by Council staff.
Julia Beatty headed
the Fishery Management Action Team responsible for the Control Rule. In a May 27, 2022 memo addressed
to the Chris Moore, the Council’s Executive Director, she recommended against
its adoption. In her memo, Ms. Beatty stated that
Council staff do not
recommend implementation of the Percent Change, Fishery Score, Biological
Reference Point, or Biomass Matrix Options…as they reduce the flexibility
managers currently have to set measures to prevent overfishing. In addition,
the process for setting measures under Options C-E (the binned approaches)
would be much more complex than the Council staff recommendation…Also, many
details are lacking regarding the process for setting measures under these
options…
…measures recommended
by the Council must prevent recreational [Annual Catch Limit] overages in order
to prevent overfishing and comply with the law…Options B-E will not change the
process for setting ACLs and they will not change the requirement to prevent
ACL overages. Therefore, Options B-E could require frequent changes in measures
unless managers are willing to set more restrictive measures to allow for
stability while preventing ACL and RHL overages.
Thus, Ms. Beatty
recognized that the Control Rule might neither provide regulatory stability nor
allow anglers to maintain even their current level of landings, assuming that
stock biomass remains unchanged. As an alternative, her memo proposed
meaningful improvements to the current approach to setting management measures.
The staff
recommendation is to: 1) set recreational measures for two years at a time, 2)
use improved statistical methods for predicting the impact of measures on
harvest and discards, and 3) incorporate considerations related to variability
and uncertainty in the recreational data…
Council staff do
strongly support the use of statistical models such as the Recreational
Economic Demand Model and the Recreational Fleet Dynamics Model (both of which
are currently in development) to inform the setting of recreational measures.
These models will allow for more statistically robust predictions of future
harvests and discards under different combinations of measures and different
stock sizes. In addition, they will incorporate data other than Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP) data, such as angler preferences and
availability of the stocks to anglers. In addition, Council staff support
prioritizing completion of the previously initiated Technical Guidance Document
to describe best practices related to identifying and modifying outlier MRIP
estimates, using confidence intervals, and guidelines for maintaining status quo
measures.
The May 27 memo maps
a reasonable way forward, which will allow fishery managers to make needed
improvements to the current management process, but does not require them to
completely abandon that process in favor of the untested and, given the SSC
report and Ms. Beatty’s memo, seemingly dubious Control Rule approach.
Will managers follow the science?
The only remaining
issue is whether the Council and Policy Board accept the counsel of Council
staff and the SSC.
That is a difficult
question to answer. About one-third of the members of both the Council and the
Policy Board are state fishery managers. For most of the past decade, those
managers have been unfairly criticized and harangued by some elements of the
angling community, and in particular by members of the for-hire fleet, for
adopting black sea bass management measures that seemed unduly restrictive,
given that biomass has been at least double the target level
since 2014. Such criticism, which sometimes grew vicious, was
leveled by people who had no interest in hearing about increased fishing effort
or the mandates of federal law. They only cared about harvesting more fish.
No one likes to be constantly targeted by critics. The Control Rule offers state managers an opportunity to demonstrate that they are trying to improve the management process, and ease the regulatory burden imposed on the for-hire fleet. It’s impossible to predict how many such managers will be seduced by the Control Rule’s promise of a safe harbor, although Council staff’s memo, which warns that the Control Rule may not eliminate the need for frequent regulatory changes, might make at least some of them wonder how safe the promised harbor will be.
In addition, the
recreational representatives on both the Council and Policy Board are heavily
skewed toward the for-hire sector, either as vessel owners and operators or as
persons otherwise connected to the industry. They could find the Control Rule,
and its promise of higher black sea bass and scup landings, too attractive to
pass up, regardless of what the SSC and Council staff may say. It’s hard to
predict whether the likelihood that the Control Rule will lead to more
restrictive regulations for less abundant stocks will dampen such members’
enthusiasm.
The Control Rule
issue will come up for a vote, at a joint Council/Policy Board meeting, on June
7, 2022. It is then when we’ll learn whether the decisionmakers will heed the
advice that they were given, or adopt a Control Rule that could very well leave
both fish and fishermen worse off than they were before.
-----
This essay first
appeared in “From the Waterfront,” the blog of the Marine Fish Conservation
Network, which can be found at http://conservefish.org/blog/
No comments:
Post a Comment