Fishing Industry Alerts

House and Senate negotiators unveiled a $1.012 trillion spending bill late yesterday which would fund the government until October and hold off the threat of another shutdown until then.

The bill includes $75 million in disaster mitigation funding for "commercial fishery failures" and "fishery resource disasters."The full House is scheduled to vote on the measure tomorrow.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate last fall, and again this month, urged appropriators to include funding for disaster relief.  Their letters advocating for the funding can be read here.

The description of the Fisheries Disaster Assistance from the conference report follows:

This Act includes $75,000,000 for Fisheries Disaster Assistance. The agreement modifies Senate report language by clarifying that eligibility for this funding includes fishery disasters declared by the Secretary of Commerce in calendar years 2012 and 2013. Funding in this bill for fisheries disaster assistance is a one-time occurrence and responds to the specific disaster declarations in 2012 and 2013. The Department shall continue working with States and Tribes in the future with respect to fishery disaster determinations and shall continue to work with the Congress on future fisheries disasters funding requests, as necessary, consistent with existing Federal laws and authorities.

The text of the bill pertaining to Fisheries Disaster Assistance follows:
 
18  FISHERIES DISASTER ASSISTANCE

19  For necessary expenses associated with the mitiga-

20  tion of fishery disasters, $75,000,000, to remain available

21  until expended: Provided, That funds shall be used for

22  mitigating the effects of commercial fishery failures and

23  fishery resource disasters as declared by the Secretary of

24  Commerce.

The full text of the bill is available here.

Additional information is available from the House Appropriations Committee

 

For Montauk as a community, the ocean remains a blessing and a curse. It is the lifeblood of the town, the essence of its economic livelihood, the reason the tourists keep coming back. But it is also a constant threat.

January 2, 2014 — The following is an excerpt from a story originally published in the New York Times:

Looking back, John Aldridge knew it was a stupid move. When you’re alone on the deck of a lobster boat in the middle of the night, 40 miles off the tip of Long Island, you don’t take chances. But he had work to do: He needed to start pumping water into the Anna Mary’s holding tanks to chill, so that when he and his partner, Anthony Sosinski, reached their first string of traps a few miles farther south, the water would be cold enough to keep the lobsters alive for the return trip. In order to get to the tanks, he had to open a metal hatch on the deck. And the hatch was covered by two 35-gallon Coleman coolers, giant plastic insulated ice chests that he and Sosinski filled before leaving the dock in Montauk harbor seven hours earlier. The coolers, full, weighed about 200 pounds, and the only way for Aldridge to move them alone was to snag a box hook onto the plastic handle of the bottom one, brace his legs, lean back and pull with all his might.

And then the handle snapped.

Suddenly Aldridge was flying backward, tumbling across the deck toward the back of the boat, which was wide open, just a flat, slick ramp leading straight into the black ocean a few inches below. Aldridge grabbed for the side of the boat as it went past, his fingertips missing it by inches. The water hit him like a slap. He went under, took in a mouthful of Atlantic Ocean and then surfaced, sputtering. He yelled as loud as he could, hoping to wake Sosinski, who was asleep on a bunk below the front deck. But the diesel engine was too loud, and the Anna Mary, on autopilot, moving due south at six and a half knots, was already out of reach, its navigation lights receding into the night. Aldridge shouted once more, panic rising in his throat, and then silence descended. He was alone in the darkness. A single thought gripped his mind: This is how I’m going to die.

Aldridge was 45, a fisherman for almost two decades. Most commercial fishermen in Montauk were born to the work, the sons and sometimes the grandsons of Montauk fishermen. But Aldridge was different — he chose fishing in his mid-20s, moving east on Long Island from the suburban sprawl where he grew up to be closer to something that felt real to him. He found work on a dragger and then on a lobster boat, and then, in 2006, he bought the Anna Mary with Sosinski, his best friend since grade school. Now they had a thriving business, 800 traps sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic, and two times a week they’d take the boat out overnight, spend an 18-hour day hauling in their catch and return the next morning to Montauk loaded down with lobster and crab.

Sosinski had a reputation on the docks as a fun-loving loudmouth, a bit of a clown — he actually rode a unicycle — but Aldridge was the opposite: quiet, intense, determined. Work on the Anna Mary was physically demanding, and Aldridge, who was lean but strong, drew a sense of accomplishment, even pride, in how much he was able to endure each trip — how long he could keep working without sleep, how many heavy traps he pulled out of the water, how quickly and precisely he and Sosinski were able to unload them, restock them with bait and toss them back in. Now, alone in the water, he tried to use that strength to push down the fear that was threatening to overtake him. No negative thoughts, he told himself. Stay positive. Stay strong.

Read the full story at the New York Times

Heading into the holiday season, stories out of two of our nation’s top fishing ports – New Bedford and Gloucester – remind us that cooperation between regulators, scientists and fishermen is essential to cultivating sustainable and economically viable fisheries. WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) December 23, 2013 — Heading into the holiday season, a story and an editorial from two of our nation's top fishing ports – New Bedford and Gloucester, Massachusetts – underscore the need for cooperation and communication between regulators, lawmakers, scientists and fishermen, and make clear that only turning a new leaf in terms of cooperation and communication will allow the return to sustainable and economically viable conditions for all fisheries.

From Gloucester:

On December 21, the Gloucester Daily Times reported on a chance conversation between a Gloucester fisherman and a NOAA representative that led to mutual understanding. At a Gloucester middle school, long time fishermen Peter Ferrante gave a guest presentation about the fishing industry, in which he intended to be critical of NOAA. But after speaking with NOAA biologist Colleen Coogan, who was also presenting that day, Ferrante changed his mind. In a constructive conversation that took place before the lectures, Mr. Farrante and Ms. Coogan found some common ground.

The Times reported:

"Coogan, according to Ferrante, explained that NOAA, in its mission to manage the nation's fisheries, is beholden to higher powers and the mandates that spring from the letter of the laws that govern the nation's fishermen and fisheries. They are not, she told him, in business to hurt fishermen, that there is no solution to the current crisis without them."

Ms. Coogan correctly notes that there have been times when well-intentioned NOAA employees have had their hands tied by higher authorities.  Of course, a more nuanced and detailed discussion of this subject would take note of the many times when when the issue has not been the letter of the law as written by Congress, but its interpretation by NOAA's legal counsel and administration appointees who have at times twisted and reinterpreted the clear intent of Congress.  No one was a more outspoken critic on this point than former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. His amendment to the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization — requiring a referendum among fishermen before the imposition of quotas — endured an agonizing reinterpretation by NOAA lawyers.  NOAA's interpretation, which allowed the introduction of catch shares without a referendum, was upheld by the courts even in the face of an amicus brief from Mr. Frank, the congressional author of the provision.

When Saving Seafood and various news organizations have filed Freedom of Information Act requests in an attempt to understand and shed light on the reasoning of NOAA's general counsel, NOAA has hidden behind attorney-client privilege. While attorney-client priviege is a sacrosanct part of our legal system, these are not private lawyers paid by private clients. We question the degree to which government lawyers, interpreting government laws for government employees — who are charged with implementing government regulation upon the citizenry — should be able to hide their interpretations from the public whose tax dollars fund those government lawyers.
   
From New Bedford:

An editorial published in the New Bedford Standard-Times on December 22 addresses the need for better communication but on a wider scale. Dr. Brian Rothschild, the former and founding dean of the UMass Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) and president of the Center for Sustainable Fisheries, met with the Standard-Times editorial staff to discuss solutions for the laws to which Ms. Coogan referred, which are currently hurting fishermen. 

The Standard-Times wrote:

"The New England groundfishery is a disaster. Conservationists know it, the federal government knows it, processors, shipyards and supply houses know it. And nobody knows it like fishermen do… What is needed is the best science, a more robust development of marine law and a rewritten Magnuson-Stevens Act."

These stories illustrate conversations that lawmakers, regulators, scientists, and fishermen need to have going forward.

We are in a time of transition — New England's historic fisheries are in flux and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the law presiding over fishery management, is undergoing rewriting and reauthorization. As the New Year approaches, we need all parties to resolve to increase cooperation, transparency, and open communication between regulators and the people they regulate.

We urge our readers to take a look at these two pieces from two of New Englands celebrated fishing ports.

Happy Holidays,
Saving Seafood

Read the stories:

Read the story "The fishing gap – school style" at the Gloucester Daily Times

Read the editorial "Complex fisheries need the best minds" at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Today, the U.S. Atlantic sea scallop fishery, the most valuable fishery in the United States, was certified as being in compliance with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard for sustainable, well-managed fisheries.

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — December 19, 2013 — The following was released by the American Scallop Association:

The certification covers Atlantic sea scallops fished along the U.S. Atlantic coast from Maine to North Carolina by limited entry federal permit holders. The fleet accounts for 95 percent of the total U.S. scallop catch. 

The certification will allow the 14 member companies of the American Scallop Association (ASA) to display the blue MSC eco-label on catch from this fishery and to continue to sell to global customers who require certification. An independent, third-party Conformity Assessment Body conducted a rigorous, scientific, and stakeholder-engaged assessment and concluded that the U.S. Atlantic sea scallop fishery is "one of the best-documented and thoroughly researched scallop fisheries in the world."

"For too long, activists have blamed all of the ocean's woes on fishermen," said Ross Paasché, ASA President. "This certification provides solid evidence that fishermen are capable of being guardians of the ocean's future."

Earlier this month, John Bullard, the Northeast Regional Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) told the Boston Globe that scallopers "have become tremendous stewards of this resource."

A threat of severe fishing effort cuts by Federal regulators in the 1990s provided the impetus for the scallop industry to band together, seek assistance from their representatives in Congress, and to fund additional cooperative research by non-government academics.  Today, Atlantic sea scallop vessel owners voluntarily contribute $10 million a year from their harvest to pay for ongoing scientific research on scallop populations.

"This is an American fisheries success story," said Attorney John Whiteside, who represents the ASA and led the certification effort for the industry group. "This certification is further validation for the efforts of an industry which worked together to progress from the brink of oblivion to prosperity."

Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Fisheries Oceanography at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) who served as the ASA's lead consultant through the three and one-half year review process said "The industry deserves this. It's a well-managed fishery. It has come back to sustainable levels. The sort of cooperation offered by the scallop industry doesn't come along every day."

The certification was granted following an independent assessment conducted by Intertek Moody Marine.

Dr. Stokesbury gave credit to his SMAST colleague Jonathan Carey, who assisted in the reviews of survey and habitat information, along with a number of individuals whose contributions were reviewed by Intertek. These included: Cate O'Keefe of SMAST, who leads a program that assists scallopers in avoiding unnecessary bycatch of yellowtail flounder; Dr. Bradley Harris of Alaska Pacific University, who has contributed to extensive study of habitat; Dr. William DuPaul, of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), who led scallop surveys in the Mid-Atlantic region; and Ronald Smolowitz of the Coonamesset Farm Foundation, who led the development of sea turtle avoidance technology.

Attorney Whiteside expressed thanks to Deirdre Boelke of the New England Fishery Management Council and Deborah Hart of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center at Woods Hole, who worked with Intertek to provide answers related to the fisheries management process and the government's interaction with the industry.

A History of Cooperation

In the late 1990s, Federal fisheries managers continued to maintain that scallops were overfished, cutting fishing effort even while NOAA's own surveys showed a build-up of scallop biomass and the larger size composition of scallops in areas closed to scalloping.  A 1997 survey, later determined to have contained errors, caused great alarm when it showed low population levels, despite observations from fishermen to the contrary. 

Facing severe cuts, scallop boat owners formed the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF).  Marjorie J. Orman, a Fairhaven, Mass. settlement house owner and an FSF founder testified in court that the proposed cuts "were so severe that they threatened to reduce scallop fishing to levels at which the vessels could not cover their costs and economically survive."

The scallopers enlisted the help of Dr. Brian Rothschild of SMAST to survey scallop abundance in the closed areas.  Boat owners donated fuel, food and their vessels to make the effort possible. SMAST's Dr. Kevin Stokesbury developed video technology, which surveyed areas of the closures when government regulators denied independent scientists access for dredge surveys.  It turned out to be a blessing in disguise as the video survey was exceptionally valuable in determining abundance, bolstering the industry's confidence in science, and eventually provided the ability to survey much larger areas of the continental shelf than traditional dredge surveys.   

The industry provided similar support to the VIMS for research in the mid-Atlantic and New England.

The industry also turned to its representatives in Congress.  Then-Congressman Barney Frank and the late Senator Ted Kennedy took additional scientific evidence to Commerce Secretary William Daley, who accepted their arguments and overturned the decision of regulators, allowing an increase in the quota for scallops. Secretary Daley was sued by the Conservation Law Foundation for his position.  Writing in the New Bedford Standard-Times in 2010, Congressman Frank reflected, "…he not only won the lawsuit, he won the argument. He based his decision on data presented by the seafood industry in New Bedford which turned out to have been accurate, and we benefitted from an increase in scallop quotas without any negative effect on the stocks."

Dr. Steve Murawski of the University of Central Florida's College of Marine Science, who served as NOAA's top fisheries scientist at the time, today describes the story of the scallop fishery as "a great collaboration between the scientific, regulatory, and academic communities."

In the years since, scientists and scallopers have worked with managers to promote a formal "rotational management" system for harvesting the rebounded population. This method directs vessels away from juvenile scallops and allows for controlled harvests in areas with high adult abundance. Formally established in 2003 following a series of industry-initiated access programs, rotational management remains the foundation of this fishery's remarkable success. Dr. Deborah Hart, head of sea scallop research at NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center, wrote in 2005 that rotational closures "are much more likely to improve scallop yield than permanent closed areas." In the years since, the system has proved successful. 
 
Member Companies of the American Scallop Association

American Pride Seafood, LLC, 40 Herman Melville Blvd.
New Bedford, MA 02741
 
Atlantic Cape Fisheries, Inc., 255 MacArthur Drive
New Bedford, MA 02740
 
Chesapeake Bay Packing, LLC, 800 Terminal Avenue
Newport News, VA 23607
 
Eastern Fisheries, Inc., 14 Hervey Tichon Avenue
New Bedford, MA 02740
 
Hygrade Ocean Products, Inc., P.O. Box 6918
New Bedford, MA 02742
 
Lund's Fisheries, Inc., 997 Ocean Drive
Cape May, NJ 08204
 
Marder Trawling, Inc., 22 South Water Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
 
Marlees Seafood LLC, 10 North Front Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
 
North Coast Seafoods Corp., 5 Drydock Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
 
Northern Wind, Inc., 16 Hassey Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
 
Oceans Fleet Fisheries, Inc., 11 Hassey Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
 
Raw Sea Foods, Inc., 481 Currant Road
Fall River, MA 02720
 
Seatrade International Co., Inc., 8 South Street
New Bedford, MA 02740
 
Wanchese Fish Company, Inc., 2000 Northgate Commerce Parkway
Suffolk, Virginia 23435
 
The American Scallop Association is comprised of twenty member companies which harvest, process, package and distribute the world's finest scallops, with an on-going commitment to providing the highest level of integrity to consumers around the globe.
 
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an international non-profit that runs the only certification and eco-labelling program for wild-capture fisheries consistent with the International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labeling Alliance (ISEAL) Code of Good Practice and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization Guidelines for the Eco-labelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries.  

 

The following story by Maryland newspaper the Cecil Whig appeared on CecilDaily.com on December 17. 

December 17, 2013 — CAMBRIDGE, Md. — The Maryland Department of Natural Resources has missed the date by which it had to reply to interrogatories (written questions from one party in a case) after being served discovery requests in Dorchester County Circuit Court over the 2013 menhaden regulations.

“We’ve been working steadily on it,” Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wazenski, who is handling the case for DNR, said. “It’s a significant amount of information that has to be reviewed and prepared for production. We’ve given them a date by which we will respond and are preparing to do that.”

Watermen and plaintiffs Burl Lewis and Larry “Boo” Powley, who are a part of the Harvesters Land and Sea Coalition that is supporting the case, filed the lawsuit on Oct. 18 alleging DNR illegally promulgated menhaden regulations.

Along with the motions the plaintiffs filed in October, discovery requests were served to DNR that asked for various documents and numbers. DNR had until Dec. 5 to respond.

Many of the interrogatory requests relate to the plaintiff’s allegations. For instance, DNR is being asked to turn over any economic impact study, ecological study and a fair and equitable fishery management plan, all of which are required before setting regulations.

Also, the plaintiffs want DNR to show its numbers for the poundage of menhaden caught between 2009 and 2013, since they believe the species is not being overfished in the Chesapeake Bay and that there are disparities in the numbers DNR gave regarding the poundage of menhaden caught in a given day that would not be possible for watermen using pound nets.

Read the full story at the Cecil Whig

WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) today unveiled a draft proposal to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which was last authorized by Congress in 2006 through fiscal year 2013. The draft proposal, H.R. ____ Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act , would renew and amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act – which governs the recreational and commercial harvest of fisheries in Federal waters – to implement common sense reforms that will promote increased flexibility and transparency, improve data collection, create jobs, and give predictability and certainty to the coastal communities that depend on stable fishing activities. Click here for a copy of the draft proposal. 
 
The Natural Resources Committee has held eight hearing over the past three years related to fisheries management and the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Members of the public interested in commenting on this draft proposal can email MagnusonStevens@mail.house.gov.
 
"The purpose of this draft proposal is to gather public input and to see how to best improve and modernize this important law governing fisheries. This proposal would give regional fishery managers increased flexibility to deal with the complexity of fishery issues and provide economic stability and certainty to fishermen and fishery dependent communities.  It also would improve data collection and increase transparency so that management decisions are based on sound science and all who are impacted by this law can have an active role in the process.
 
"The Magnuson-Stevens Act has enabled the U.S. to have the best managed fisheries in the world and has been instrumental in providing a framework for allowing regions to address their own unique challenges. Yet, as the Committee has heard at multiple oversight hearings, many fishermen and coastal communities that depend on healthy fisheries are currently facing challenges – including sudden severe cuts to quotas, rising costs, and restrictive fishing seasons. I believe there are updates to the law that should be considered that will address these concerns and ensure there is a proper balance between the biological needs of fish and the economic needs of fishermen," said Chairman Hastings.
 
The draft proposal, while maintaining the key themes of the Act, would make the following improvements:
 
– Provide flexibility for fishery managers when rebuilding depleted fisheries
 
– Provide flexibility for fishery managers when setting annual catch levels
 
– Provide more transparency for fishermen and others in both science and management
 
– Provide more predictability and stability for fishermen and fishery-dependent communities
 
– Allow fishery managers to take the economic impact of their decisions into account when setting harvest levels and developing rebuilding plans
 
– Allow fishery managers to take environmental conditions into account when establishing harvest levels and developing rebuilding plans
 
– Allow fishermen in regions where catch share programs have been controversial to have a say in whether a new catch share program will be implemented and to be provided better information when considering such a program
 
– Provide a schedule for obtaining better fishery dependent and fishery independent data especially for data poor fisheries and provide greater protection for confidential information submitted to regulatory agencies
 
– Authorize appropriations for an additional five fiscal years at current funding level
 
Visit http://naturalresources.house.gov/magnusonstevens to learn more.

 

Researchers contracted by the NEFMC have found no evidence of any excessive market power based on ownership of quota shares in the New England multispecies groundfish fishery.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription website. It is reproduced on Saving Seafood with permission.

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by John Sackton — Dec 17, 2013 — Behind this unsexy headline is an important fact.  Researchers contracted by the New England Fisheries Management Council have found no evidence of any excessive market power based on ownership of quota shares in the New England multispecies groundfish fishery.

The council contracted an economic analysis of the Northeast multispecies (groundfish) fishery with the economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon. The purpose is to provide the NEFMC with an analysis that would help determine whether there are excessive shares of fishery access privileges in the multispecies fishery, and if so, what form those excessive shares take.

The draft report was published this week for comment, and will be presented to the Council in January.

In their executive summary, the report says In particular, imbalances between ACE holdings and availability of species sometimes create a situation in which a species has a low catch limit and may not be itself commercially viable for harvest, but cannot be avoided by fishermen harvesting other species (what some in the fishery call “choke stocks”). A large holder of ACE for a choke stock could potentially engage in the exercise of market power in either the output market for fish or in the markets for ACE trading. This would be inconsistent with the principles of fairness embodied in National Standard 4, and could affect investment in new vessels and gear that would ultimately be to the detriment of the long-term efficiency of the fishery.

Compass Lexecon says the standard for determining market power and concentration is something called the Herfindahl-Hirshman Index – HHI.  Markets with scores below 1500 are considered unconcentrated; between 1500 and 2500 are moderately concentrated, and over 2500 are high concentrated.  This is also the methodology used by the US. Federal Trade Commission in evaluating mergers.

The first issue they address is whether the flow of other seafood into the New England market means that the local fishery cannot be concentrated.  They reject this argument, finding that there are times – especially in respect to the fresh local market – that local species do have a specific market that is not subject to as much substitution at particular times.

Among the nine species with Annual Catch Entitlement landing data, they find landings have been unconcentrated.  Cod for example, has a score of 188 to 280 – suggesting a highly competitive market.  Only winter flounder had a moderate concentration with a score of over 1600 for two years.

The group then looked at trading in quota shares (ACE). They found that trading was unconcentrated for all species, never exceeding 700.  “We observe no time trend in concentration.”

Their conclusion is that there is no evidence of market power being exercised  by quota holders. in respect to landings.

However they do say that “ It is reasonable, however, for the NEFMC to attempt to maintain unconcentrated ACE distribution by species and by “stock,” which means aiming to keep the HHI below approximately 1,500 for each stock. As discussed below, this target can be achieved without interfering with economies of scale.

They then go on to recommend a cap of 15.5% for PSC – which is a measurement of the percent of harvest rights an individual permit holder has for a particular stock.

Looking beyond the fourth goal of Amendment 18, we do not find any evidence that an excessive-share cap is an effective means to achieve progress on any of the other goals, without sacrificing the efficiency benefits that motivated the adoption of PSC allocation and ACE trading rules. Instead, we note that the PSC allocation and ACE trading can co-exist with other regulations, and that NEFMC should address the other goals of Amendment 18 through these other regulations.

The report will be discussed at the January New England Fisheries Council meeting.

Read the draft final economic analysis here

Read the project's Terms of Reference and Project Phases here

Questions have been raised over whether they are best left closed to facilitate conservation, or if the scallop and groundfish fleets should once again be allowed access to some of the most abundant fishery areas in the region.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — December 16, 2013 — Georges Bank is home to some of the most important fishing grounds in New England. But large portions of it have been off-limits to commercial groundfishermen and scallopers for almost twenty years, with a network of closed areas in place intended to restore habitat and assist in the rebuilding of fish populations. Now that network is up for revision with the Omnibus Habitat Amendment, which is currently being considered by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC).

The Amendment process has sparked a debate among fishermen, scientists, and environmental groups over these areas’ future. Questions have been raised over whether they are best left closed to facilitate conservation, or if the scallop and groundfish fleets should once again be allowed access to some of the most abundant fishery areas in the region. Added to that, is a discussion as to whether or not these closures have even benefited groundfish at all. 

One of the most hotly debated closed areas is the one containing parts of the Northern Edge of Georges Bank. The area was initially included in the first round of area closures in 1994, which were designed to curb groundfish fishing mortality. Later in the decade, it was labeled a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) as part of an effort to officially recognize the area’s perceived value as a groundfish habitat. Since the initial closures, scallopers have been prohibited from entering this portion of the Northern Edge.

The Northern Edge and the Scallop Fishery

Historically, the area has been one of the most productive scallop grounds in New England, with this relatively small portion of Georges Bank being home to some of the largest and densest concentrations of scallops in the region. In the two decades since first being closed, an entire generation of scallops (the species has a maximum life expectancy of 16 years) has gone unharvested, representing a significant loss of potential yield for the scallop fishery. There is strong evidence that the area has retained its historic abundance of scallops, one of the most valuable resources in New England.

A 2012 survey by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) confirms this abundance, having found an estimated 20-25 million pounds of scallops located in the boundaries of the Northern Edge HAPC. Other studies estimate that the Northern Edge may contain as much as 10 percent of the Georges Bank scallop population.

The scallop industry has argued that opening areas of the Northern Edge to scallopers would allow the fleet to once again access scallop grounds that have historically been an integral part of the fishery. It would allow the harvest of potentially millions of pounds of scallops that would otherwise be lost. And, by allowing access to an abundant scallop area, an opening of the Northern Edge would decrease fishing effort, thereby minimizing the amount of time scallop gear interacts with the ocean bottom in general. This not only benefits the scallop fishery, by making it more efficient, but also the overall marine ecosystem.

The Northern Edge and Groundfish

The value of the Northern Edge as a habitat for scallops and cod also factors into the current debate. Several habitat features make the area an ideal scallop ground: the Northern Edge’s gravelly substrate allows developing scallops to settle on the ocean bottom, and the prevailing currents in Georges Bank bring a large number of scallop larvae through the area. But the same facets of the Northern Edge ecosystem that have been such a boon to scallop populations may also prove valuable to the life cycles of other species, particularly cod.

Juvenile cod settle and pass through the Northern Edge in the summer months, driven by the same currents that carry so many scallops into the region. Several studies conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s found that, while in the Northern Edge, cod may benefit from some of the area’s more complex habitats, including areas with gravel, larger rock formations, and significant amounts of aquatic plants.

One study, conducted in 1991 by the U.S. Geological Survey, found that many of the species in the Northern Edge “exhibit a close relationship with the sea floor environment during a part of their life cycle,” and that one of the most important factors in maintaining biological diversity was the area’s gravel habitats. In contrast to sandy bottoms, which are too unstable to support much permanent habitat, gravelly areas allow for the development of aquatic plants and other habitat features that support a wide array of marine life. Only a small portion of the American segment of the Northern Edge contains such gravel habitats. Nearly 90 percent of the gravelly areas along the Northern Edge are found on the Canadian side of the border.

Based on the amount of juvenile cod observed in these areas, the USGS study concluded that the gravel habitats might provide several benefits to the species, including protection from predators, and a reliable source of food. These insights, supported by several other studies, provided much of the foundation for the 1998 decision to designate the area an HAPC.

Maintaining the HAPC designation and other area closures in Georges Bank is a key goal of several prominent environmental groups, who have been critical of many of the current options in the Omnibus Amendment. The Conservation Law Foundation called the Amendment “a squandered opportunity” to enhance habitat protections, and accused the NEFMC of “elevating the short-term desires of industry above the need to protect habitat for the long-term benefit of stocks, the fleet and the ecosystem.”

The Environmental Defense Fund, while supportive of the overall Omnibus Amendment process, has been critical of the proposals for Georges Bank. In a letter to the Chairman of the NEFMC, they wrote that “the alternatives on the table are entirely unacceptable,” further adding that the proposals do not meet the goals of “minimizing adverse impacts to [Essential Fish Habitats] and enhancing groundfish productivity.” Other groups have sought to expand, rather than open, the HAPC. In one proposal to the NEFMC that was ultimately not included in the Omnibus Amendment, the Ocean Conservancy recommended that the HAPC be enlarged to include areas west of the current HAPC’s boundaries.

The Future of the Northern Edge

At the heart of the current debate over the Northern Edge are two questions: whether the current habitat closure is essential for groundfish, like cod, and whether scallop fishing in these areas will lead to long-lasting negative effects on the region’s habitats. Unfortunately, since going into effect, there has been little follow-up research to confirm what effect the HAPC closure in Georges Bank has had on the area’s juvenile cod, or whether the species has specifically benefited from the Northern Edge closure.

“The directed science in the area has been spotty at best,” said Richard Taylor. An experienced scalloper and scallop researcher, Mr. Taylor works on HabCam, a seafloor mapping project that has collected data in many areas of the Atlantic, including Georges Bank. He added that the current debate is “more of a political and economic question than a scientific one,” citing the fact that the majority of juvenile cod caught in several trawl surveys was actually found in near-shore areas on the coast.

Mr. Taylor emphasized that, regardless of the outcome of the Omnibus Amendment process, there needs to be a committed effort to conduct follow-up monitoring on the effects and the efficacy of the closures. “We’re enacting these regulations and not making a strong commitment to understanding their utility,” he said. According to Mr. Taylor, long-term monitoring of the closed areas is the only way to determine if the Amendment is actually achieving its goals.

“The chances of us getting it right the first time were one in a million. The chances of us getting it right the second time without continued monitoring are not much higher.”

While the effects of the HAPC closure have not been closely studied, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on the effects of fishing in areas similar to the Northern Edge. A 2006 study from researchers at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) compared the HAPC with recently fished areas on Georges Bank. It found no significant differences in habitat between the two. SMAST also published, in 2010 and 2012, maps detailing sediment type and the impact of tidal forces on the Georges Bank seabed. These maps show that much of the sediment in the Northern Edge is of the granule-pebble variety, a type of sediment that likely remains stable despite high amounts of natural disturbances.

Currently, several proposals for modifying the Northern Edge stand before the Council via the Omnibus Amendment. They reflect a wide range of scientifically acceptable scenarios, each of which presents unique methods for balancing conservationist concerns with the needs of fishermen and their communities. While one of these options maintains the status quo and preserves the existing closed areas, most of the proposals allow the scallop fleet some kind of access by reducing the size of the current area closures. The proposals also still reserve parts of the Northern Edge for habitat preservation.

Resolving the status of the Northern Edge is of critical importance to the scallop fleet, which has been cut off from one of the largest concentrations of one of New England’s most important resources. But it is also crucial that any opening be carried out in a way that best protects and preserves the habitat therein. These two goals, providing for economic opportunity and habitat preservation, are not mutually exclusive. The range of options available to the Council considers both the needs of the fishery and the needs of the environment, indicating that an environmentally and economically sustainable solution is possible.

References

Harris, B.P. and Stokesbury K.D.E., “The Spatial Structure of Local Surficial Sediment Characteristics on Georges Bank, USA,” Continental Shelf Research 30(17): 1840–1853, 2010

Harris, B.P.; Cowles, G. W.; Stokesbury, K.D.E., “Surficial Sediment Stability on Georges Bank in the Great South Channel and on eastern Nantucket Shoals,” Continental Shelf Research 49(2012) 65–72, 2012

Howe, A.B.; Correia, S.J.; Currier, T.P.; King, J.; Johnston, R., “Spatial Distribution of Ages 0 and 1 Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) off the Eastern Massachusetts Coast, 1978-1999, Relative to ‘Habitat Area of Special Concern’,” Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 2002

Lough, R.; Valentine, Page; Potter, David; Auditore, Peter; Bolz, George; Neilson, John; Perry, R, “Ecology and distribution of juvenile cod and haddock in relation tosediment type and bottom currents on eastern Georges Bank,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, August 10, 1989

New England Fishery Management Council, “Draft Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2,” September, 2013

Rudders, David; DuPaul, William; Bergeron, Jessica, “An Inventory of the Sea Scallop Resource in the Georges Bank Closed Area II and Surrounds,” Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Northeast Fisheries Science Center Cooperative Research Program, 2012

Stokesbury, K.D.E.; Harris, B.P., “Impact of a limited fishery for sea scallop, Placopecten magellanicus, on the epibenthic community of Georges Bank closed areas,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, 307:85-100, 2006

Valentine, P. C; Lough, R. G., “The influence of geological and oceanographic environmental factors on the abundance and distribution of fisheries resources of the northeastern United States continental shelf: The seafloor environment and the fishery of eastern Georges Bank,” US Geological Survey Open File Report 91-439, 1991

 

The complaint alleges that decision was not based on the best science available is based on antiquated and unfounded stock assessment methods.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — December 10, 2013 — The states of New Hampshire and Rhode Island have joined a Massachusetts lawsuit that seeks to reverse a regulation by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) imposing a 77 percent reduction of ground fish allotments across the region. The complaint alleges that decision was not based on the best science available and that the criteria used to assess the ground fish stock is based on antiquated and unfounded methods.

New Hampshire joined a motion for summary judgment recently filed in US District Court by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley against the Commerce Department. In its initial filing, Massachusetts claimed that the regulations, issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, are "unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious." New Hampshire is further challenging the law on the grounds that it violates National Standards 1 and 8 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

In Rhode Island, Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin filed an amicus brief in United Sates District Court in Massachusetts in support of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts lawsuit. "As a state, we recognize the importance of protecting and managing the marine fishery resources. We also recognize that we must adopt principles and policies that will ensure the protection, preservation and enhancement of our natural resources so that present and future generations may enjoy them. Although, there are numerous provisions of state and federal rules and regulations in place to protect Rhode Island's broad interest in its fisheries, it is more important than ever for the federal government to craft regulations that balance the need to conserve fishery resources with the well being of the fishing communities that it will impact," said Attorney General Kilmartin.
 
National Standard 1 requires that fisheries be managed to both prevent overfishing and also to obtain optimal yield, which is defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as the fishing level that "will provide the greatest overall benefit to the nation" while preventing overfishing. According to New Hampshire's filing, NMFS' method for determining catch levels did not include any social and economic factors among its considerations, and the new restrictions on the cod fishery prevent fishermen from being able to successfully catch other healthy species, like haddock.
 
National Standard 8 requires that any regulations "take into account fishing communities," as well as attempt to "minimize the adverse economic impacts." New Hampshire argues that this standard was violated in part because, when issuing the regulations, NMFS admitted that there was "limited quantitative socio-economic data upon which to evaluate the community specific importance of the multispecies fishery." The state also claims that, as a result of the new regulations, "groundfish revenues in New Hampshire are expected to plunge," and that no attempt was made by NMFS to minimize the negative impacts of the regulations.
 
At stake for New Hampshire is a groundfish fishery that caught 3.2 million pounds of fish last year, valued at $3.9 million. Hundreds are currently employed in the state's fishing and fish processing industries, which the state says will be threatened if the new regulations go into effect.

Read the filing from the state of New Hampshire here

Read a press release from the Rhode Island Attorney General here