Dear Mr. Whitmore,
I am writing on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) to comment against the proposed GOM cod sector exemption request in the absence of significant changes. The context for CLF’s comments is our understanding of the GOM Cod Update Assessment, which indicated that a best case estimate for GOM cod was that it continued to be overfish and overfishing continued to occur. F/rebuild for FY2015 was determined to be in at the 200mt level which was also the September Groundfish PDT’s recommendation to the SSC. The assessment scientists indicated that even this estimate had a significant chance of being too high given the historical consistency of cod assessments overestimating SSB and underestimating overfishing rates. This analysis included the further gloomy forecast that there were no positive biological signs in the fishery, repeating earlier similar estimates. Rather than rebuilding, the symptoms of this population seem far more consistent with a dispensating population with a real potential of a full collapse that will negatively affect many other fisheries.
There are two fundamental problems with this proposed action. First, like the interim measures themselves, it authorizes overfishing given the information that the agency currently has before it from the GOM cod update assessment. A 700+ metric ton FY 2014-15 catch, even assuming that it was accurately reported, is several times the catch levels that would prevent overfishing and it is twice the ABC level for the commercial and recreational sector that the NEMFC’s SSC has recommended to be in place for the fishing year that starts in two months.
Second, there are not adequate control measures to ensure that the sector exemption will not result in significantly high unreported discards of GOM cod and misattribution of GOM cod catch to GB cod quotas. While this is in theory a perfect circumstance fort the sectors to add flexibility to the ground fish fishery without compromising the long term biological or economic future, the system is not in place to make this happen. The sector managers have not demonstrated that they have any reliable way of assuring themselves or NMFS of the accuracy of the daily VTRs. Without 100% observer coverage or electronic monitoring, this proposal will lead misreporting of GOM cod as GB cod; it will lead to high-grading of the cod landings; it will likely increase discard incentives for GOM cod; and it will increase interactions with protected species. The 30mt “savings” being offered by the sectors is only savings if the catch of GOM cod is the same or lower than the estimated catch under the interim measures. CLF did not support the 200-pound trip limit when it was proposed for this fishing year in the GOM cod BSA. We argued then and argue now that there should be full retention of GOM cod caught during a trip; there should be no “legal” discards, regulatory or otherwise. This the analysis i the proposed action comparing the “certainty” of the proffered 30mt reduction as compared to the numerous uncertainties—most of which CLF would fully agree with—is not the relevant comparison. It should be the the benefits of a 30mt reduction to a full retention strategy where all cod caught would be landed and fully counted toward the sector’s ACE and the stock quota. Another relevant comparison would be between the excessive FY2014-15 quota that this action maintains with the 386mt ABC for the commercial and recreational fishery recommended by the SSC for FY2015-16, which itself is substantially higher than an ABC legally based on the F/rebuild fishing level.
Because of the limitations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act on judicial action, this action is impossible to successfully challenge in court, although that would have merit. Responsibility therefore, for the consequences of continuing to fish at such high and reckless levels on GOM cod remain on the conscience of the agency, the NEFMC, and the sectors making these exemptions requests. We believe the agency is kidding itself if it believes that this proposal will reduce GOM cod catch in FY2014-2015 over the existing measures or comply with legal requirements. This is yet another circumstance where short-term economic interests are being weighted over long term economic and biological objectives. We believe the sectors’ time and the agencies energy would be far better spent on sorting out how F/rebuild-complaint catch levels can be honestly achieved in the 2015-1016 fishing year than it is with this “last hurrah” exception request. There is no margin for error or compromise at this time with the biological imperatives of rebuilding GOM cod, which has been subject to overfishing and been in an overfished condition since 1990 with Amendment 4. This action increases the risk that GOM fisheries could be subject to regulation under the Endangered Species At and rebuilding of GOM cod should be the absolute highest priority, regardless of the interim marginal economic or social impacts.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Peter Shelley, Esq.
Interim President, Conservation Law Foundation