On
September 26, Representatives Debbie Dingle (D-MI) and Brian Mast (R-FL)
announced the reintroduction of the Forage Fish Conservation Act, a bill
that was
initially introduced over three years ago, in the 117th Congress.
In explaining their rationale for
introducing the bill, Reps. Dingle and Mast noted that its purpose was
“to strengthen key protections for
fisheries and promote responsible management of forage fish. The Forage Fish Conservation Act improves
protections for forage fish—including herring and shad—that support marine
ecosystems as well as other recreationally and commercially important species
such as tuna, salmon, and cod. These
populations have experienced substantial decline because of human activity, which
threatens the stability of marine ecosystems as well as opportunities for
recreational fisherman [sic]. Currently,
there are few management measures in place to address this decline.”
Because the Omnibus Amendment was
just that—an amendment to all of the other fishery management plans overseen by
the Mid-Atlantic Council--one of the criteria for a species being listed in, and
protected by, such Amendment was that a fish, mollusk, or crustacean not only
served as forage, but that it either served as forage for one or more of the species
managed by the Mid-Atlantic Council or was caught as bycatch in one of the fisheries
overseen by that council. Thus, the
National Marine Fisheries Service disapproved the proposed inclusion of bullet
and frigate mackerels in the Omnibus Amendment, for
“While the amendment includes some
information suggesting that these species are consumed by large pelagic species
such as tuna, billfish, and sharks, it is not clear what portion of the diet of
these species that bullet mackerel and/or frigate mackerel represent…[E]ven applying
the lower forage thresholds used by the Council…there is no scientific evidence
presented in this amendment that indicates bullet and frigate mackerel are
forage for [Council] managed species…
“While there is evidence that a small
amount of bullet mackerel was caught with bottom trawl gear that resulted in
the landings of species managed by the Council, the information and analysis
indicate co-occurrence that is not necessarily indicative of systematic bycatch
in those fisheries…With no dealer reported landings of bullet mackerel and an
average of less than 7,500 lb.…of frigate mackerel reported landed each year
between 1996-2015…there is limited information to support that these species
are caught as bycatch in managed fisheries…”
In the end, the Omnibus Amendment
extended its protections to ten families and one species (the Atlantic saury)
of fish, to pelagic mollusks (other than sharptail shortfin squid), and an
array of zooplankton and other animals that attain a maximum length of less
than one inch. Landings of all such
forage species must be recorded, only NMFS-permitted vessels may legally land
them, and vessels are limited to a 1,700 pound possession limit of all
designated forage species, combined.
However, to some extent, such protections
are illusory, as the Omnibus Amendment also allows
“use of an experimental fishing permit…to
support any new fishery or the expansion of existing fisheries for Mid-Atlantic
forage species. The Council would
consider the results of any experimental fishing activity and other relevant
information before deciding how to address future changes to the management of
fisheries for Mid-Atlantic forage species.
Pursuant to existing regulations…the Regional Administrator already
consults with the Council’s Executive Director before approving any exemption
under an EFP request.”
Thus, although the
Council’s stated intent in adopting the Omnibus Amendment was
“to prohibit the development of new and expansion
of existing directed commercial fisheries on certain unmanaged forage species
in Mid-Atlantic Federal waters,”
And even though
“The Council intends to prohibit such
fisheries until they have had an adequate opportunity to assess the scientific
information relating to any new or expanded directed fisheries and consider
potential impacts to existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine
ecosystem,”
the exempted fishing permit
process provides fishermen with a potential opportunity to do an end run around
the protections that the Omnibus Amendment would seem to provide.
Data on unmanaged forage species
is necessarily limited, as funding for stock assessments is directed toward
managed species, as are the human resources needed to produce such
assessments. Thus, there may often be
little or no scientific information available on the status of forage fish
stocks, or on the impacts of increased harvest of forage species on the species
itself, on existing fisheries, or on marine ecosystems. Yet under such circumstances, the exempted
fishing permit process could frustrate any efforts to apply precautionary
principles to forage fish management, and allow the directed harvest of such
species without any knowledge of what then consequences of such harvest might be.
Fortunately, that hasn’t happened
so far.
Mid-Atlantic Council staff have
noted that
“GARFO staff are focused on other fishery
management priorities, therefore, they are currently unable to assist with
additional analyses to ensure compliance with [the National Environmental
Policy Act] and [the Endangered Species Act].
The same is true for Council staff.
The applicants are currently considering the possibility to develop the
necessary documents with assistance from contractors.”
Thus, it is unclear whether an
exempted fishing permit for threadfin herring will ever be issued. It is also unclear whether, if the fact
pattern had been a little different and staff at the Council or regional office
had a little more time to consider the application, an exempted fishing
permit might have been issued, despite the lack of information regarding its
possible impacts.
And given that only the
Mid-Atlantic and Pacific fishery management councils have adopted relatively broad
protections for forage species, directed fisheries for forage fish could be
developed along much of the United States’ coastline with virtually no
consideration for such species role in the ecosystem.
Thus, the Forage Fish
Conservation Act addresses an important issue.
No
copy of the bill’s text has yet been made readily available to the public. However, assuming that it resembles the
bill introduced in 2021, it will create basic protections for forage
species by requiring each regional fishery management council’s scientific and
statistical committee to provide advice on
“maintaining a sufficient abundance,
diversity, and localized distribution of forage fish populations to support their
role in marine ecosystems,”
while also requiring each such
council to
“develop a list of unmanaged forage fish occurring
in the area under its authority and prohibit the development of any new
directed forage fish fishery until the Council has considered the best
scientific information available and evaluated the potential impacts of forage
fish harvest on existing fisheries , fishing communities, and the marine
ecosystem; determined whether conservation and management of the forage fish
fishery is needed; if a determination is made that the conservation and
management is needed, prepared and submitted to the Secretary a fishery
management plan or amendment…; and received final, approved regulations from
the Secretary…”
Such explicit requirements would
better protect forage fish everywhere in United States waters, and also make it
less likely that the exempted fishing permit process could be used to work
around existing forage fish protections.
The bill’s further requirement
that
“when setting annual catch limits for
forage fish fisheries, assess, specify, and reduce such limits by the diet
needs of fish species and other marine wildlife, such as marine mammals and
birds, for which forage fish is a significant part of their diet,”
would help to assure that, in
managing forage species, maintaining their ability to fulfil their role in
marine ecosystems would take priority over economic concerns.
Unfortunately, while the Forage Fish Conservation Act is a good bill that deserves passage, the odds of it actually being signed into law sometime this year are vanishingly small. There is no Senate companion, and no strong indication that any Senator is willing to champion such legislation. To add to the headwinds militating against the bill’s passage, 2024 is an election year, and members of Congress will spend all of their time this October trying to maintain their seats for another term, and will not be paying particular attention to their legislative duties.
In the likely event that Congress reconvenes for a lame duck session, legislators will be addressing higher-priority items, including appropriations bills for all branches of government, rather than legislation with a narrower focus, such as the forage fish bill.
However, the fact that some
legislators are still willing to champion the forage fish issue should provide some
reason to hope that forage fish legislation will eventually get the attention
that it deserves, perhaps sometime after the new Congress convenes next
January.
No comments:
Post a Comment