Fishing Industry Alerts

The following is an excerpt from an op-ed that appeared today in the Bangor Daily News.

The piece is by Julie Keene, an eel harvester from North Trescott, Maine and secretary of the Maine Elver Fishermen Association, and Tim Larochelle of Woolwich, Maine, an eel harvester, commercial fishing boat captain and member of the American Eel Sustainability Association:

Over the past decade, eel fishermen in Maine and all along the Atlantic coast have been part of a responsibly managed fishery, adhering to stringent regulations developed across state, provincial and international lines. Even as demand for eels has spiked in the last few years, the fishery has set a course of proactive management, with sustainable catch limits helping to secure the future of the stock.

Despite these notable management efforts, in late 2014, the environmental group International Union for the Conservation of Nature placed the American eel on its "Red List" of endangered species. But a close examination of all of the available evidence – including a 2007 report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which the agency has called "the most comprehensive analysis of the American eel's range wide status ever undertaken" – reveals that the IUCN designation is misplaced, at best.

Some researchers predicted a species-wide collapse following a steep decline in the number of Great Lakes eels beginning in the 1980s. But after decades of observation, this prediction has not borne out for the rest of the population. Instead, populations have remained resilient. This was noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in its report, which stated that "the species currently appears stable."

The key measurement here is the recruitment – the number of new eels that are born and enter the eel population – of younger glass eels. It's one of the best indicators of the health of the eel stock and was recognized by the Fish and Wildlife Service's report as the measurement that "best represents the species status range-wide."

Read the full opinion piece at the Bangor Daily News

This new assessment exemplifies the impact of pursuing and incorporating the best available science in menhaden management.

WASHINGTON (Menhaden Fisheries Coalition) — January 15, 2015 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

Earlier today, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) released the 2014 Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment, the first assessment since the highly contentious 2012 stock assessment. The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition is pleased that the 2014 assessment process evaluated and addressed the issues in the previous assessment. The results determined that the Atlantic menhaden stock is not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. The 2014 assessment also corrects problems in the 2012 assessment report and invalidates that assessment's methods and results, replacing them with more accurate models and data sources and setting a new standard in menhaden stock analyses.
 
Harvest cuts enacted in 2012 yielded economic hardship and job losses in many fishing communities, and proponents for these cuts have already cited this new assessment as justification for their agendas. But only one year affected by these cuts, 2013, factors into the date range used in this overhauled assessment. This new stock assessment is not a before-and-after comparison of conditions from 2012 before the harvest cuts to conditions in 2013 following their enactment. The 2014 Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Report is a reevaluation of the species' status dating all the way back to the beginning of its recorded history in the 1950s. The report finds that the stock's healthy status appears largely unrelated to harvest cuts.
 
To improve the model, the assessment team first created two new regional adult abundance indices, generated using nine fishery-independent survey data sources. To better reflect fishery catches, the assessment modeled the northern bait, northern reduction, southern bait, and southern reduction components of the fishery separately, and applied dome-shaped selectivity to each of the fisheries to provide the best-possible information on the age of fish caught by the commercial fishery. Previously assumed menhaden maturity schedules were also reanalyzed and corrected. Finally, the draft assessment underwent, and comfortably passed, a rigorous peer-review. 
 
According to the new assessment, the fishery is experiencing some of its lowest levels of fishing mortality recorded since 1955. In addition, the stock is projected to be about 170 percent of its target abundance level measured in terms of fecundity-that is, annual egg production. In terms of spawning stock biomass, or the total estimated weight of the mature population, the menhaden population is near record levels and is currently well above historic averages. A comparison of estimates published in the 2012 and 2014 assessments, such as estimations of abundance or fecundity, demonstrates the vast differences between the flawed 2012 assessment and the more comprehensive 2014 assessment.
 
The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition supports this revitalized approach to understanding the Atlantic menhaden stock. The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition strongly advocated for several of these changes to stock assessment science in 2012, including corrections to retrospective patterns, addressing inconsistencies in collectively evaluating the four distinct fisheries, and using the dome-shaped selectivity curve, among other revisions.
 
This new assessment exemplifies the impact of pursuing and incorporating the best available science in menhaden management. By reevaluating the science, this new assessment reveals that the previous 2012 assessment was far too pessimistic and the subsequent cuts were perhaps unnecessary, when gauged against management objectives the Commission had identified. If these models and data sources were available in 2012, it appears the assessment would have yielded significantly different results. The report's new models and data sources uncovered the discrepancies underlying the 2012 stock assessment report, and now addresses these issues and disparities, setting an exemplary precedent for future stock assessments of this species.
 
About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition
The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition is a collective of menhaden fishermen, related businesses, and supporting industries. Comprised of over 30 businesses along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition conducts media and public outreach on behalf of the menhaden industry to ensure that members of the public, media, and government are informed of important issues, events, and facts about the fishery.

View a PDF of the release here

View the full 2014 Atlantic menhaden stock assessment here

WASHINGTON — The following is an excerpt of an article by Michael Conathan published today by the Center for American Progress:

But for commercial fishermen,* climate change is not a future economic problem: It is a problem right now, and it is costing fisherman both income and jobs. While the fossil-fuel lobbies and their political allies craft predictions of certain economic doom if meaningful limitations on carbon pollution should someday find a firm foothold in public policy, those who make their living from the ocean are already bearing the cost of delaying such action.

The profession of fishing is often multigenerational, with knowledge typically passed down from parent to child to grandchild. The combination of constant exposure to all kinds of weather; the consistent logging of data in the form of catch totals and locations; and a seemingly imperceptible understanding of life over, on, and beneath the waves puts fishermen collectively in a unique position to assess the ecosystems that sustain their livelihoods and that, in turn, nourish the rest of us.

Spend time on the bridge of a boat from which people still hunt giant tuna with harpoons, and you'll observe a captain who can sense a ripple on the surface of the ocean almost before he sees it, practically intuiting the telltale sign of a bluefin. Watch a lobsterman turn off her GPS and navigate to her buoys by memory of wind, waves, and currents alone. Sit in a waterfront diner and listen to the fish stories. They're not all about the ones that got away; these days, they're all too frequently about the ones that disappeared and never came back. These stories can help illuminate the challenges we all face as a result of runaway carbon pollution and global climate change.

Ocean warming and acidification-arguably the two most dramatic effects of climate change on oceanographic conditions-are already wreaking havoc on those who make their living from the sea. Oyster aquaculture operations in the Pacific Northwest are struggling to maintain productivity in waters that operators have farmed for decades but that are now too acidic for oyster spat to form their shells. Blue crabs, the iconic species of the Mid-Atlantic's Chesapeake Bay, are facing a dramatic decline in population, even as they are beginning to show up in greater abundance in northern waters such as the Gulf of Maine.

More directly relevant to this report is the fact that in the Northeast, lobster populations have been devastated in recent years in the waters of Long Island Sound and off the southern coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. According to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, from 1998 to 2011, the amount of lobster caught annually in Long Island Sound fell from 3.7 million pounds to just 142,000 pounds, a decline of more than 95 percent. While scientists have not yet been able to confirm the cause of this decline, it is becoming increasingly clear that warming water temperatures are a major factor. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which coordinates management of the lobster fishery, has found that lobsters are "moving to deeper, cooler waters, thereby concentrating their populations in much smaller areas" in southern New England.

To determine fishermen's perspectives on these changes, the Center for American Progress contracted with Edge Research to conduct a survey of New England commercial fishermen in summer 2014. Edge Research completed telephone surveys  of nearly 600 permit holders in the northeast multispecies fishery-better known as the groundfishery because it targets bottom-dwelling fish such as cod, haddock, and flounders-as well as the lobster fisheries in Maine and Massachusetts. The results clearly show that although fishermen generally tend to be politically conservative, they believe climate forces such as ocean warming and acidification are not only happening but also rank among the gravest environmental threats to their employment and the future of their industry and their communities. Here are a few key results from the fishermen surveyed:

– Although roughly two-thirds of them identify politically as either "conservative" or "moderate," fishermen who say climate change is happening outnumber deniers by four-to-one.

– 65 percent of fishermen surveyed believe climate change could leave them "unable to profit" and ultimately "forced out" of their fishery.

– A plurality-roughly 40 percent-of them believe observed ocean changes are a "bad thing" for their business, while about 20 percent say it's a mixed bag and just 10 percent think it's a "good thing," with the remaining 30 percent unsure.

– 40 percent of groundfishermen, 44 percent of Massachusetts lobstermen, and 63 percent of Maine lobstermen say they have noticed "warmer water temperatures."

– More than 80 percent of those who have noticed a warming trend attribute it to climate change.

– In ranking the environmental challenges their industry faces, 36 percent of fishermen listed "ocean warming" as a major problem-roughly equivalent to the 37 percent who listed "declining fish stocks," the 35 percent who listed "bycatch" of nontargeted species, and the 33 percent who listed "overfishing." "Water quality" came in at 31 percent, and "ocean acidification" came in at 29 percent.

– In each fishery, at least 40 percent say they are catching new fish species in areas where those species have not traditionally been found.

– Fishermen who have been on the water for more than 20 years are somewhat more likely than their less experienced colleagues to perceive climate-related changes as a "serious problem."

Read the full article from the Center for American Progress here

Using the best available science for the species, AESA addresses these matters in their December response to the IUCN.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — January 12, 2015 — The following was released by the American Eel Sustainability Association:

The American Eel Sustainability Association (AESA), a leader in the promotion of responsible fishery management and habitat protection for the American eel, released a statement on stock status for the species today in response to a recent designation published by an international environmental organization. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) added the American eel to its "Red List," alleging the species to be threatened by extinction, a categorization that contradicts the 2007 finding of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Using the best available science for the species, AESA addresses these matters in their December response to the IUCN.

In adding American eel to its "Red List" of species it deems "threatened," IUCN's volunteer authors noted they were "on the fence" between listing the species as "threatened" or applying the lesser status of "vulnerable" due to several positive trends in eel populations. In stark contrast, authorities from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that "there is no evidence of a sustained downward trend" in the stock.

AESA has carefully studied key reports on the status of American eels by regional and national authorities in both the United States and Canada. The body of evidence in the stock science indicates that adult American eel numbers may be low compared to historic and prehistoric levels, but that the breeding population has been sufficient to produce new recruits in stable or growing numbers going back several decades.

Using the data found in various reports, AESA has compiled a comprehensive response to the IUCN's recent listing, and submitted these materials directly to the organization. The IUCN has acknowledged receipt of AESA's response, noting that the organization takes the Association's concerns seriously and will thoroughly consider its position. AESA now awaits a formal response from IUCN.

While identifying and correcting misleading aspects of the IUCN report on American eel, AESA remains committed to working with all responsible government agencies and non-governmental organizations to ensure sustainable eel fisheries management in the United States and Canada.

This week, AESA will further address these issues when they present on American eel management, regulation, and stock assessments at the Northeast Aquaculture Conference & Expo in Portland, Maine. Other organizations will discuss strategies for developing eel aquaculture in North America at that event.

By providing the industry and interested parties with essential information and fostering innovative partnerships, AESA provides science-based solutions to achieving eel sustainability. AESA works collaboratively with partners in U.S. government agencies, foreign government fisheries management departments, private companies, international organizations, fishermen, and individual members of the public.

View the release online at AESA's website

Penny Pritzker, the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, is expected to appoint a new member to the New England Fishery Management Council before the council's January meeting.

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. (Standard-Times) — December 23, 2014 — We would urge the secretary to appoint New Bedford scalloper Charlie Quinn to the post, filling the seat vacated by Tom Dempsey.

Quinn has been scalloping for decades, dragging with his own boat since the age of 18, and has seen the scallop fishery under bad management, good management and great management.

The secretary has two other candidates to consider, but Quinn's experience and intellect make him the right fit for the council, which is responsible for conservation and management of fishery resources off the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Quinn was in Washington, D.C., Monday as the process moves forward. Parts of his resume suggest the appointment should be obvious. He would be the only scalloper on the council, which covers the major New England fishing ports of Portland, Point Judith and Gloucester, in addition to the biggest money port in the U.S., New Bedford, which derives most of its landings from scallops.

Quinn was one of the first in New Bedford to take the risk of dragging for bigger scallops, and said it took him a year to be convinced that leaving the small ones behind would be good for the business.

But it was. He went from 264 days at sea, harvesting scallops with 3-inch rings, to 31 days at sea with 4-inch rings and 10 times the haul. It took cooperation among gear developers, like himself, researchers such as those at UMass Dartmouth's School of Marine Science and Technology, Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Coonamessett Farm in East Falmouth, regulators, marketers, buyers and other scallopers, but it changed the fishery.

His open-minded, research-based approach on scallops is just what's needed in the troubled groundfish fishery. It will take different answers than those applied to scallops, for sure, but he has proved he knows how to cooperate, take reasoned risks and succeed.

Dempsey, who vacated the seat to become senior fisheries policy director with The Nature Conservancy in Monterey, California, was the policy director of the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance. One of the other names submitted to to Pritzker is that of another CCCFA member, John Pappalardo, the CEO. The alliance, much of whose funding comes from environmental groups, represents a constituency that is responsible for one-tenth of the landings New Bedford has – 7.6 percent versus 78 percent – in Massachusetts.

We are concerned about the environmental health of fisheries, but Quinn's experience includes the development, design and testing of gear now used that protects turtles. Environmentalists who consider that fishing families and communities are part of the environment should be satisfied that Quinn would provide pragmatic, sensible representation on the council.

Our hope is that the Commerce secretary sees the value of Quinn's experience, creativity and intelligence when she makes the appointment.

Read the editorial by the New Bedford Standard-Times

Yesterday, President Obama signed into law the "Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014.

WASHINGTON — (Saving Seafood) December 19, 2014 — After Congress voted unanimously this week to extend a three year moratorium exempting commercial fishing vessels 79 feet and under from needing incidental discharge permits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for deck washing, the President signed the extension into law on Thursday.

Yesterday, President Obama signed into law the "Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014," exempting small fishing vessels from the EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit requirements. The law extended the exemption provision for three years on the very day that the EPA's NPDES permit requirements would have taken effect.

The regulation was intended to prevent fuels, toxic chemicals, or hazardous waste from entering the water. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told the Alaska Journal of Commernce that requiring a permits for fishermen to hose down a boat is overkill – especially when recreational boats, including mega-yachts – are exempt from the rule.

"We want to abide by environmental regulations that make sense," Murkowski told the Journal, "But I don't think any of us believe it should be a requirement for a fishermen who has had a good day out on the water, and they are cleaning up the boat, and hosing slime and maybe some fish guts off the deck and that then becomes a reportable discharge to the EPA…. Let's use some common sense here."

Read more about the extension from the Alaska Journal of Commerce here

View the full Act signed by the President here

With the Council now considering habitat management areas, it is crucial to remember the responsibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to carry out these protections in a way that doesn't further damage the groundfish fleet.

December 17, 2014 — The following remarks were delivered by Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk at the December 17 meeting of the New England Fishery Management Council regarding Draft Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2:

Council Members,
 
These past several years have been very hard on our groundfish fleet. A series of recent quota cuts and emergency actions have only exacerbated the region's federally declared economic disaster, and fishermen face a diminishing set of opportunities to make a living. As Mayor of Gloucester, I must confront the consequences of these decisions, and the economic toll they have taken on our storied waterfront, every day.
 
With the Council now considering habitat management areas, it is crucial to remember the responsibility under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to carry out these protections in a way that doesn't further damage the groundfish fleet, and gives fishermen the best opportunity to harvest allocations that remain available to them.
 
Area fishermen need to be able to catch their allocations in the most efficient way possible, a way that minimizes costs and allows them to stay financially viable. Several of the proposals before the Council today do not achieve these objectives. Instead, many of the proposals recommend taking some of the most productive fishing grounds away from the groundfish fleet, which would lead to negative environmental and economic consequences. They would displace fishing effort, forcing fishermen to fish longer in less productive areas which not only leads to higher expenses but actually offers less protection for habitat overall.
 
Protecting habitat and ensuring that the groundfish fleet stays viable does not have to be an either/or proposition. There are proposals before the Council that carefully balance the needs of habitat with the needs of the fishery. The industry is mindful of the potential benefits derived from sound habitat protection, and industry groups, from the Northeast Seafood Coalition representing the groundfish fleet to the Fisheries Survival Fund representing scallopers, have worked with each other and with members of the scientific community to search for a balanced solution for the region.
 
One of the most prominent examples of this is in the Western Gulf of Maine closure. The closure, which has been largely off-limits since 1998 due to a series of mortality and habitat regulations, has restricted access to fishing grounds where Gloucester-area groundfishermen historically caught haddock and pollock. Considering the current state of the fishery allowing fishermen to once again access parts of these areas, and catch groundfish stocks that they have traditionally fished, would provide a much-needed boost to the groundfish fleet.
 
Establishing an alternative area for the Western Gulf of Maine closure other than status quo as currently recommended by the Council is strongly recommended. The industry and NOAA's Stellwagen Advisory Committee collaborated to develop Western Gulf of Maine Alternative 6, or "Stellwagen Large." This alternative provides protection for habitat areas that have been deemed important through the SASI analysis, while also allowing fishermen more flexibility than the current closure to access fish stocks in the Gulf of Maine. For these reasons, the Council should adopt this option.
 
For Central Gulf of Maine, the Council should also continue to support its preferred alternative for Central Gulf of Maine referred to as Alternative 4 or "Modified Cashes, Modified Jefferies Bank and Amen Rock".
 
There are other alternatives, which also should be supported and ultimately selected by the Council. For Georges Bank, Alternative 7, which has received support from members of both the groundfish and scallop fisheries, provides essential habitat protection while allowing access to both key scallop grounds and groundfish areas not only along the Hague Line but also in areas where Georges Bank winter flounder is caught. Currently, with the closed area border aligned with the U.S. border, Americans are prevented from fishing along the edge of the closed area, yielding this advantage to Canadians.
 
For the Great South Channel, Alternative 5 strikes a similar balance. It advances and improves habitat protection while allowing the groundfish and scallop fisheries to successfully operate.
 
Too often the debate over habitat areas has been portrayed as a conflict between science and economics, between conservationists and fishermen. But the alternatives I've highlighted demonstrate that this isn't the case. Fishermen take their responsibility to be good stewards of the environment seriously. Faced with these challenges, these alternatives demonstrate that there can be serious and substantial habitat protections that are not economically ruinous.  
 
As Mayor, I am frequently challenged to work in the best interests of all parties in Gloucester, and I take that responsibility seriously. As Council Members, I am sure you do the same. Fortunately, this is a circumstance that provides the opportunity to balance interests for the greatest benefit of habitat and our fisheries.

Read the remarks here

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia released a decision today in Oceana's long-running challenge to National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion for the scallop fishery.

WASHINGTON — December 17, 2014 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia released a decision today in Oceana's long-running challenge to National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion for the scallop fishery, in which the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) participated as a Defendant-Intervenor.  This was the seventh challenge by Oceana under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to NMFS' assessment of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery in which FSF has intervened. As previously, in the present lawsuit, captioned OCEANA, INC. v. PRITZKER et al, NMFS and FSF prevailed on every major challenge.
 
The only issues on which the court found for Oceana relate to inadequate explanations provided by NMFS for how takes of sea turtles in the dredge and trawl sectors were monitored.  To remedy this, the court has required that NMFS provide more detailed explanations, but the biological opinion – which allows the fishery to operate – will continue in force.
 
In the case, Oceana raised three claims:

1. That NMFS used the wrong Endangered Species Act "jeopardy" standard: Oceana argued that any level of loggerhead sea turtle take that "measurably" or "perceptibly" reduces chances for recovery or survival must lead to a finding that the fishery "jeopardizes" the species.  Oceana also argued NMFS failed to consider takes in other fisheries and that it inappropriately used a statistical technique to measure the scallop fishery's impact (which found that over 100 years, there was a 1% chance scallop fishery would cause loggerhead extinction). A jeopardy finding would require new, mandatory constraints on the scallop fishery;
 
2. That NMFS failed to reasonably consider the impacts of climate change.  In particular, Oceana complained that assessing climate change over only a ten-year period (the maximum NMFS said it could reasonably anticipate such impacts) was unreasonable;
 
3. That the use of the dredge hour surrogate to determine if the scallop fishery exceeds its estimate of 161 sea turtle takes in a given year was unlawful.  NMFS established this surrogate given that use of turtle-protecting chain mats and the turtle deflector dredge – each developed with FSF support to protect sea turtles – prevent turtles from coming aboard a vessel and counted by observers.  Instead, the agency employed a "surrogate" which assumes that 161 turtles would be taken if total dredge hours used in the mid-Atlantic exceeds 252,353 hours between May and October.  Oceana argued that cameras should be used, or that chain mats should be removed on observed trips, characterized by FSF as the "kill them to count them" alternative.

United States District Judge Paul Freidman found against Oceana all major claims.  As to the key issue of the jeopardy finding, he found NMFS' interpretation of the law and its regulations to be reasonable and lawful.  Specifically, he found that in order to find that an action jeopardizes the continued existence of a species – defined in regulation as meaning to "reduce appreciably" its chances for survival and recovery – such a reduction must be "considerable" or "material," not merely measurable or perceptible.  In arriving at this decision, the judge followed the argument made by FSF that "appreciable" can be and is used to mean considerable or significant, and that Oceana's preferred definition would require a finding of jeopardy in any instance where a take is observed.
 
The court also found that NMFS adequately accounted for other fisheries and actions that impact sea turtles.  In particular, Judge Freidman cited increased nesting trends provided by FSF as supportive of NMFS' "no jeopardy" finding.  He also rejected the claim that the statistical test used to measure the scallop fishery's impact – which, using an assumption of a declining trend in the fishery, found loggerhead turtles would reach a 50% chance of "quasi-extinction" in 213 years with the fishery and 240 without – proved that the scallop industry would cause sea turtle extinctions in a "substantial" way.  The court agreed with NMFS' conclusion that an increase in the chances the fishery would cause loggerhead extinction from 0% to 1% over 100 years was a rational basis for the no jeopardy conclusion and it was reasonable to discount speculative events 200+ years down the road.
 
In the second count, the court found that NMFS adequately discussed climate change impacts and was reasonable in limiting its projections to 10 years.
 
Finally, Judge Freidman upheld the use of a dredge hour surrogate, meaning that scallopers will not have to place cameras on dredges.  If cameras were required, scallopers could face trip terminations if the equipment were damaged by rocks or during dumping operations. They would also face onerous operating constraints to protect the cameras.  FSF cited Capt. Ron Smolowitz's reports on experiences and difficulties presented by use of cameras to monitor the fishery.
 
The only finding in Oceana's favor related to the dredge sector is the conclusion that NMFS never provided a clear explanation as to how it determined that 250,000+ dredge hours (an average from 2007 and 2008) equates to an estimate of 161 takes.  The parties are required to confer and report back to the court on January 16, 2015, as to a timeline for providing such an explanation.
 
This is a significant victory for the industry.

Consistent with its duties under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council needs to balance the needs of habitat protection and restoration with the preservation of access to fishing grounds vital for the future of fishing communities.

December 16, 2014 — The following remarks were given by New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell at the December 16 meeting of the New England Fishery Management Council regarding Draft Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2:

Dear Council Members:
 
As the Mayor of New Bedford, I have the responsibility of representing the most valuable fishing port in the country, home to New England's scallop fleet and a large number of its groundfishermen. We've been able to build a thriving port over the past several years due to the success of a rotational management system that allows our fleet to be both economically successful and environmentally sustainable, with one of our industries, the scallop fishery, one of the most valuable fisheries in the nation.
 
As the Council considers additional habitat protections through the Omnibus Amendment, it needs to be mindful of both the economic as well as the environmental impact of the proposals before it. Consistent with its duties under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council needs to balance the needs of habitat protection and restoration with the preservation of access to fishing grounds vital for the future of fishing communities.
 
For example, the continued success of the scallop fishery depends on a functional rotational closure system that allows the fleet access to the region's most valuable scallop grounds. When it works, not only is the fleet able to harvest the optimal number of scallops, but it is also able to minimize its time at sea and the interactions between scallop gear and the ocean bottom, leading to the least possible amount of bycatch and environmental disturbance.
 
But many of these habitat proposals would close off some of the densest, most productive scallop grounds in the region, such as the Northern Edge of Georges Bank. This would prevent scallopers from accessing their traditional fishing grounds, with the scallops in some of the closures ageing and dying off with no net benefit to scallop populations outside of them. The Council should instead consider proposals that would both improve and update existing habitat protections, while not interfering with the scallop fishery's long-term ability to be managed on a rotational basis.
 
Similarly, the Council needs to consider both the long-term protection of groundfish habitats along with the long-term survival of the groundfish fishery. Most available evidence finds that the best way to reduce the environmental impact of groundfish vessels is to improve the fleet's efficiency and increase catch per unit of effort (CPUE). This minimizes environmental disturbances while allowing fishermen to be as productive as possible. And the best, most proven way of accomplishing this is allowing fishermen access to the most productive fishing grounds.
 
Fortunately, I am pleased to note that, in two of the areas under consideration, both the scallop and groundfish industries, as represented by the Fisheries Survival Fund and the Northeast Seafood Coalition, are in agreement on Alternatives before the Council that will not only improve on existing habitat protections, but also minimize their negative economic impacts.
 
As you know, the Fisheries Survival Fund represents much of the New England and Mid-Atlantic scallop fleet, while the Northeast Seafood Coalition represents the region's commercial groundfishermen.
 
In Georges Bank, Alternative 7 is the proposal that best strikes this balance. It improves upon current closures by providing protection for a diverse array of essential fish habitats and by allowing the scallop fleet to minimize its ecological footprint by accessing some of the region's densest scallop beds. Crucially, it also allows groundfishermen access to fishing grounds along the Hague Line, in order to better compete with Canadian fishermen, who for years have reaped the benefits of fishing near the closures on the American side of the border.
 
In the Great South Channel, Alternative 5 would provide significant habitat protections while minimally displacing fishing effort. It's the end result of a collaborative effort between the fishing industry and the scientific community, and thus represents a well-rounded proposal that takes into consideration the concerns of both groups.
 
The cooperation and collaboration between fishermen and scientists also extends to the Western Gulf of Maine area, where the groundfish industry and NOAA's Stellwagen Advisory Committee worked on developing Alternative 6. This "Stellwagen Large" Alternative is both an improvement over the existing Western Gulf of Maine closures and a benefit to the local groundfish fleet that was previously locked out of the area.
 
The current set of area closures can certainly be improved upon, given the wealth of scientific knowledge that has been gained since they were first established. These Alternatives provide the best chance for the Council to put both the region's habitats and its fisheries on a sustainable future course.

Read the remarks here