Last Tuesday, the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board met to
review state plans to implement Addendum
II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic
Striped Bass.
Such
plans had been submitted to the ASMFC on or before March 1, in order to
allow members of the Atlantic Striped Bass Plan Review Team and Atlantic
Striped Bass Technical Committee to review them and determine whether they met
the requirements of Addendum II. While
the Plan Review Team generally had few problems with the implementation plans,
a few of the state proposals did raise red flags.
The Plan Review Team listed the
outstanding issues in a memo to the Management Board.
With respect to recreational size
limits, bag limits, and seasons, it noted that Pennsylvania had proposed
delaying implementation of its new slot size and bag limit until 2025, because
“changing the slot size in the middle of
the 2-month April-May season in 2024 would be procedurally burdensome and
likely to lead to angler confusion and noncompliance and enforcement issues.”
Also,
“Pennsylvania noted the current
(pre-Addendum II) regulation is published in the 2024 Pennsylvania Fishing
Summary,”
which anglers consult when
determining the relevant regulations.
With respect to the requirement
that the racks of any striped bass filleted at sea or at a shoreside location
be retained, and that no more than two fillets per rack be in anglers’
possession, the Plan Review Team raised questions about many states’ existing
regulations, questioning whether the states’ interpretations of their rules met
Addendum II’s requirements.
Finally, addressing what were
probably the most serious shortcomings of some of the implementation plans, the
Review Team noted that
“Maryland, Virginia, and the Potomac River
Fisheries Commission have not implemented the required 7% commercial quota
reduction for their Chesapeake Bay commercial fisheries. Maryland has also not implemented the
reduction for their 2024 ocean fishery.
Maryland, Virginia, and PRFC note that due to the timing of the Bay
commercial fisheries starting prior to Addendum II approval, and the fact that commercial
tags were already distributed, the 7% quota reduction could not be implemented
in 2024. PRFC and Virginia note that
their commercial landings in recent years have been below the new Addendum II
reduced quota level, so they do not anticipate an overage of the Addendum II
quota level in 2024…
“Regarding the payback of potential
overages, Maryland and PRFC note that if an overage occurs above the Addendum
II quota level in 2024, that overage will be deducted from their 2026
quota. They note that the 2025 quota will
have already been distributed to permit holders before the end of the 2024
fishing year, so the deduction could not occur until 2026. This is inconsistent with Addendum II, which
states: In the event a state exceeds
its allocation, the amount in excess of its annual quota is deducted from the
state’s allowable quota in the following year. In the case of a 2024 overage, the payback
should occur in 2025. Virginia noted any
potential 2024 overage payback would occur in 2025.”
With those issues highlighted by
the Plan Review Team, the Management Board began its review of the states’
implementation plans.
Maryland chooses not to act in
accordance with Addendum II
Perhaps not surprisingly, Maryland’s
inaction with respect to required changes in its commercial fisheries drew the
first question, with Roy Miller, the Governor’s Appointee from Delaware, noting
that even though Virginia did not reduce its Chesapeake Bay commercial quota,
it did implement a reduction in its commercial ocean quota, and asking why Maryland
could not have done the same.
Pat Geer, the Virginia fisheries
manager, followed up by noting that, on average, Virginia commercial fishermen
have only landed about 77% of their quota in recent years, and so are expected
to stay under Addendum II’s reduced quota in 2024; however, he also remarked
that Virginia would be monitoring the 2024 landings, and could close the
fishery if an overage appeared likely.
Dennis Abbott, New Hampshire’s
Legislative Proxy, then turned the focus back on Maryland, asking whether,
given the Board’s discussions last fall and the likelihood that a commercial
quota reduction would be adopted for 2024, Maryland didn’t consider acting
proactively to reduce its commercial quota in anticipation of the Board doing
so at the ASMFC’s Winter Meeting. He
also addressed a second question to Maryland,
“Would you have the ability to close the
season to avoid an overage?”
Michael Luisi, Maryland’s
fisheries manager, addressed the questions posed by both Mr. Miller and Mr.
Abbott. In response to Mr. Miller, he
said that Maryland’s commercial season opened on January 1, well before
Addendum II was adopted, that some fishermen held so little quota that they
might land it within a single day, and so Maryland intended to allow the
harvest of fish pursuant to the quota that existed on the day that the season
opened.
His responses to Mr. Abbott were
more detailed, as well as more defiant, foreshadowing the uncooperative stance
he would take throughout the meeting. Mr. Luisi noted that there was some
discussion within his department about Addendum II quota reductions, but
because they did not know the ultimate outcome of the reduction proposal, because
the commercial fishery produced only a small percentage of overall fishing
mortality, and because the intent of Addendum II was not to manage the
commercial fishery, Maryland fishery managers didn’t feel that they
were in a position to “guess” what any quota reduction might be. He said that Maryland lacked the
administrative ability to send out a held-back portion of tags later in the year,
particularly because some fishermen’s quotas were so small that the later
mailing might consist of only a single tag.
And he reminded the Management
Board that he had warned them in October what Maryland’s situation would be if
Addendum II wasn’t adopted until January 2024.
Maryland’s Luisi then continued his
response to Mr. Abbott, saying that while it has in-season harvest records,
because of its individual transferrable quota system and December 31 season
close,
“We would not close the season in the
middle of the season. Fishermen have the
understanding that they have the whole season”
to land their fish.
With that statement, he made it
clear that whether or not it had the ability to take the required
action, Maryland had little intention to adhere to the explicit
requirements of Addendum II.
New York’s Governor’s Appointee,
Emerson Hasbrouck, called him out on his comments, saying that he could not
support Maryland’s—or the Potomac River Fisheries Commission’s—implementation plans,
particularly because they did not provide for paying back any 2024 overages
until 2026. He said that he hadn’t heard
Maryland provide any good reason why they couldn’t issue reduced allocations to
its commercial fishermen to account for any overage, but that
“They are just not willing to do it.”
Mr. Luisi naturally took
objection to that.
At
last January’s Management Board meeting, he had tried to delay the commercial
quota cuts by a year, complaining that Maryland’s season had already started. That effort failed, so he began his response
to Mr. Hasbrouck with the complaint that
“This all could have been avoided. We could have done something completely
different had the Board considered the administrative burden.”
He then went on to inform the
Management Board that Maryland would manage its 2024 commercial fishery to the
pre-Addendum II quota, that it won’t have final 2024 commercial landings data
until April 2025, and that it will begin distributing commercial striped bass
tags for the 2025 season sometime around October 2024. That time sequence, he argued, means that
Maryland can’t pay back 2024 overages until 2026.
He never conceded that there was even a possibility of Maryland amending its current procedures in order to comply with Addendum II’s payback requirements. Instead, he merely expressed his hope that no payback would occur, and then minimized the impact of any possible overage, arguing that 7% of Maryland’s pre-Addendum II quota, at about 100,000 pounds, would be small when compared to other sources of fishing mortality.
He
again tried to blame the Management Board for Maryland’s unwillingness to
conform its actions to the dictates of Addendum II, saying that he hoped that
the Board wouldn’t find Maryland out of compliance
“for an administrative burden that didn’t
have to be a part of this discussion had a different decision been made in
January.”
He refused to
consider Maryland’s obligation to conform its actions to the dictates of the management plan. Everything was couched
in terms of what actions Maryland might be willing to take without incurring too
much inconvenience.
The difference between what Maryland
was able to do, and what it was willing to do, surfaced moments later, after
Doug Grout, the Governor’s Appointee from New Hampshire, asked whether it was
possible for Maryland (or the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, which claimed
to be in a similar position as Maryland, but didn’t openly defy the Management
Board) to issue a portion of its commercial striped bass tags—perhaps 80%--prior
to the 2025 season, and hold back the rest until the 2025 landings data were
finalized. He noted that other
states had managed to accommodate next-year paybacks “for many years.”
Mr. Luisi responded by saying
“There is a way to do anything,”
thus admitting that Maryland
could find a way to conform to Addendum II’s requirements, but then added,
“but whether or not it’s worth the
challenges for the administration and worth the challenges to our resource”
was a different issue, again
underlining the fact that Maryland’s failure to comply was, in the end, a
matter of preference, and not of necessity.
He then fell into another line of attack that revealed his continuing bias
against the recreational fishery, claiming that everyone was getting concerned
about a possible, but “biologically insignificant” commercial overage, while
asking
“What’s the accountability on the
recreational fishery?”
and arguing—perhaps forgetting about the emergency measures that the Management Board adopted in May 2023, which applied solely to the recreational fishery—that real-time accountability for the recreational fishery would not occur.
Mr. Luisi declared the measures needed to ensure prompt paybacks for overages “too
burdensome” and then declared,
“We are not going to jump over hoops, and we
are not going to do it,”
with “it” referring to paying
back 2024 overages in 2025.
Mr. Abbott responded by saying that
“There’s a keen awareness of what’s been
going on in the striped bass fishery for years now,”
referring to the Management Board’s
past (but, fortunately, not current) propensity to let states cut corners and
get special exceptions to the management plan’s rules. He noted that states are expected to comply
with the Board’s actions.
A motion takes shape
At that point, the Maryland issue
was briefly set aside as the Management Board addressed the other issues raised
in the Plan Review Team’s memorandum, including Pennsylvania’s plan to adopt
the slot and bag limits for its spring fishery in 2025 and other states’
efforts to clarify that their rules on filleting striped bass at sea were, in
fact, in compliance with Addendum II.
But it wasn’t long before Megan Ware, the Maine fisheries manager who
chairs the Management Board, called for a motion on the states’ implementation
proposals.
Not surprisingly, Maryland’s
Luisi was quick to put a motion on the floor, which simply read,
“Move to approve Addendum II state
implementation plans as discussed today.”
Such motion was seconded by Stephen
Train, Maine’s Governor’s Appointee.
Mr. Luisi tried to soft-sell his
motion, saying that Board members had asked some good questions, and that there
will inevitably be some issues related to process and administrative
workload. He said that all states made “fair
attempts” to implement Addendum II, but there are hurdles, and that if his
motion was passed, the Management Board could try to work in the future to
allow implementation
“on a timeline that is more amenable to
administration.”
In a supporting statement, Mr.
Train expressed sympathy for Mr. Luisi, saying that
“I don’t think that what we have is
perfect.”
But then he said something interesting,
that unintentionally reinforced Mr. Abbott’s most recent comments:
“We are the ASMFC, we are not National
Marine Fisheries. We don’t come down
heavy-handed”
but instead give states a chance
to take actions that might not be in complete accord with the management plan.
Long-time
readers of this blog will recall that I’ve criticized the ASMFC in the past for
just such an attitude—for not fully enforcing the terms of its management plans (for example,
failing to enforce the requirement to begin a 10-year rebuilding plan after the
2013 stock assessment tripped a management trigger in Amendment 6 to the Interstate
Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, which required initiation of
such a rebuilding plan)—and I’m more than pleased to report that, in recent
years, that attitude seems to have been replaced among most state delegates
with one that takes a more rigorous stand on management issues.
Thus, I was pleased to see that
Mr. Train’s comments received little support.
Instead, Dr. Michael Armstrong,
the Massachusetts fishery manager, rose to make a substitute motion which eventually
read (once some minor amendments were made),
“Move to approve Addendum II state
implementation plans as discussed today, with the following exceptions:
·
CT, MD, VA, NC, PA: not planning to the
two-fillet per legal fish possession limit rule for recreational filleting
allowances;
·
PA: not planning to adhere to the May 1
implementation deadline; and
·
MD, PRFC: not planning to adhere to the
commercial quota overage payback provision for deductions to occur in the
following year.
“These jurisdictions must submit revised
implementation plans by April 12, 2024.
The Management Board will review and consider approval of the revised
state implementation plans at its May 1, 2024 meeting.”
His motion was seconded by Mr.
Hasbrouck.
In his statement
supporting the motion, Dr. Armstrong focused on Addendum II’s requirement that states
pay back overages in the next year, observing that such requirement was nothing
new. Despite all of Maryland’s claims
that it created an unreasonable administrative burden, such payback requirement had
actually been a part of the ASMFC’s striped bass management plan since it
adopted Amendment
5 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass
in 1995. Given that, Dr. Armstrong
observed,
“At some point we need to follow the rules
that we have made.”
Mr. Hasbrouck expanded on his
earlier observation, saying that while he sympathized with Maryland’s
administrative concerns,
“What I hear is not that Maryland cannot
do it, but that they won’t do it, doesn’t want to do it.”
Most of what happened after that
was anticlimactic.
The Management Board votes
Connecticut’s fisheries manager,
Dr. Justin Davis, made a motion to amend the substitute motion by deleting the
first bullet point related to filleting fish, which was seconded by
Pennsylvania fisheries manager Kris Kuhn.
Such motion passed easily, 10 in favor, 3 opposed, 1 abstention, and 1
null vote, without any need for discussion.
Mr. Kuhn then moved to amend the
substitute motion by deleting the bullet point relating to Pennsylvania’s plan
to delay adopting new size and bag limits for its April/May fishery until 2025. Such motion was seconded by New York
fisheries manager Martin Gary.
Mr. Kuhn argued that the spring fishery provides many Pennsylvania anglers with their only opportunity to catch a striped bass, and that the state would face a substantial administrative burden in implementing the new regulations by May 1, when they would only impact the fishery for two weeks or so, and opined that the impact of the delay would not be biologically significant, but Dr. Armstrong responded with the comment that
“’Burdensome’ is not a reason not to put
in regulations, or try your darndest to,”
and noted that Massachusetts
frequently changes its regulations, even though it supports a large fishery.
In the end, Mr, Kuhn’s motion
failed on a vote of 5 in favor, 7 against, 1 abstention, and 2 null votes.
That vote, which expressed the
Management Board’s reluctance to allow even a minor exception to Addendum II’s
requirements, was a good indication that Maryland would not get its way
on the payback issue. Thus, instead of trying
to amend the substitute motion, Mr. Luisi merely engaged in a last bit of rhetoric.
He said,
“We have lost our way if we are at the point
in time right now, [where] within a year’s time”
the Management Board took
emergency action and adopted Addendum II, and then exhibited
“the complete lack of caring as to the
burden…by continuing to press the issue on things that are not biologically
significant.”
He objected to Mr. Hasbrouck’s comment that
Maryland “doesn’t want to” comply with every detail of Addendum II, even though
his earlier comments effectively admitted that such was the case. He commented that
“The Board just seems lost in this detail,”
as if timely paybacks of
commercial overages, something that Maryland had been obligated to do for
nearly three decades, was a new and insignificant matter, and baldly told the
Board that Maryland’s revised implementation plan will probably not address
their concerns. He observed that a new
stock assessment update was coming out, and that the Board may have to begin
the process of revising management measures all over again.
When his soliloquy was done, the
Management Board approved the substitute motion on a vote of 8 in favor, 5
opposed, 1 abstaining, and 1 null vote.
The substitute motion then became the main motion, and was approved on a
vote of 11 in favor (ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, DC, VA and NC), 3 opposed
(PA, MD, and the PRFC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service abstaining.
What happens next?
The big question is what comes
next.
For most states, that answer is
simple. They will comply with Addendum
II.
In the case of Maryland, though,
things may be different, for immediately after the final vote, Mr. Luisi asked
when Maryland might be found out of compliance with the Addendum. He asked whether that finding might occur on
the May 1 implementation date, if the state’s revised implementation plan isn’t
approved, or only after any overage that might occur is not paid back in 2025.
Robert Beal, the ASMFC’s Executive
Director, noted that whether—and when—Maryland might be found out of compliance
is up to the Management Board, which decides whether to refer a noncompliance
finding to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior for further action. Mr. Beal also noted that
“There’s more conversations to be had
before we go down the road to noncompliance.”
But given the defiant stance that
Maryland has taken so far, and its seeming refusal to comply with Addendum II’s
payback requirements, even if such conversations are held, there is little
reason to believe that they will do too much good.
No comments:
Post a Comment