Saving Seafood

Fishing Industry Alerts

AESA Urges U.S. Government to Reject ESA Listing for American Eel

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 21, 2015 — The following was released by the American Eel Sustainability Association:

Following a petition from the Council for Endangered Species Act Reliability (CESAR), the U.S. government this month will once again consider calls to list the American eel as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The American Eel Sustainability Association (AESA) reiterates its position that the American eel does not require either a “threatened” or “endangered” designation. AESA cites ample scientific study from a Federal agency and strict regulations already in place as support for this stance.

Substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that American eels are being harvested sustainably and are not under threat, according to AESA. The organization notes that CESAR’s petition does not consider the current, responsible management structures in place for American eel, and ignores previous rulings on the issue that further verify the species’ health.

The American eel stock has already been the subject of a comprehensive review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as to whether it requires protection under the ESA. In 2007, FWS conclusively determined that American eels were not endangered, and that extending ESA protections to the species were not warranted. Specifically, the Service found “the species’ overall population is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.”

Because there has been no significant increase in the amount of fishing pressure being exerted on the eel population, AESA contends that the 2007 ruling should stand.

Independent estimates support the FWS’s 2007 conclusion, according to AESA. Young-of-the-year recruitment, the measure of eels born into the population, has been stable for much of the last 30 years. And, according to a 2013 study, recent estimates place the annual breeding population of the species somewhere between 50 and 100 million eels.

AESA remains confident that the stock is being sustainably fished under the responsible, precautionary management of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). In 2014, the Commission established a coastwide quota for the species, with the support of its Eel Management Board, including representatives from the FWS.

In tandem with other effort restrictions and controls against illegal fishing, existing regulations ensure that eel quotas are not exceeded and the species is not overharvested. The fishery finished under its quota for the 2015 fishing year, indicating that overfishing is not currently a problem in the eel fishery.

AESA is committed to a sustainable future for American eel, and is an advocate for responsible management, strong law enforcement, reliable science, and other initiatives that strengthen the health of the species. An ESA listing for eels is not necessary.

The American Eel Sustainability Association (AESA) is a leading industry organization focused on the science and management of American eel.

Read the release from the American Eel Sustainability Association

Fishermen Unite In Opposition to Atlantic Marine National Monument

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 15, 2015 — Tonight, at a NOAA town hall meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, representatives from two of the largest fishing industry organizations in New England presented a letter that will be sent to President Obama opposing calls for a new marine National Monument in the waters off the coast of New England.

READ SAVING SEAFOOD’S ANALYSIS OF THE NEW ENGLAND MARINE MONUMENT PROPOSAL

Drew Minkiewicz, of the Fisheries Survival Fund, and Jackie Odell, Executive Director of the Northeast Seafood Coalition, will present the letter. In just 24 hours, over 630 fishermen, seafood industry workers, and members of our nation’s fishing communities have signed the letter. Signatures will continue to be collected, and the letter will be submitted to the White House, with copies to the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The meeting in Providence is being called to discuss the possibility of declaring Cashes Ledge, as well as the New England Canyons and Seamounts, as National Monuments. The signers of the letter strongly oppose the proposal as unnecessary and harmful to current management efforts. The letter notes that Cashes Ledge is currently protected, as has been so for over a decade. It also notes a National Monument designation, which would result from unilateral Presidential action under the Antiquities Act, would remove the areas from the open, democratic regulatory process that is currently responsible for managing them.

The Fisheries Survival Fund represents the majority of the full-time Limited Access scallop fleet. The Northeast Seafood Coalition represents members of the commercial groundfish fishery in New England.

The Northeast Seafood Coalition is a non-profit membership organization representing commercial fishing entities in the northeastern United States on political and policy issues affecting their interests as participants in the multispecies (groundfish) fishery. 

The text of the letter is reproduced below:

We, the undersigned, in conjunction with the Fisheries Survival Fund and the Northeast Seafood Coalition, object to any attempt to manage New England’s offshore marine habitats through the use of the Antiquities Act and the designation of National Monuments. Doing so undermines the public and democratic processes that are now in place to manage these areas, shuts out important stakeholders, and prevents meaningful outside input. Considering that the current public process has led to the substantial habitat protections already in place throughout the region, such a designation is both unnecessary and damaging to the long-term management of these areas.

New England’s marine habitats are currently managed through a consultative process that considers the experience and input of expert scientists, fishermen, environmentalists, and regulators. It is where the best available science and analytical approaches are vetted in an open and transparent venue.  Large-scale closures, enacted by executive fiat and not based in science, are not only undemocratic but they can have substantial unintended adverse impacts on bycatch composition, region-wide habitat, and the economies of coastal communities.

Recent actions by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), specifically the recently passed Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) reinforce habitat protections in New England waters into the foreseeable future.

In addition to protecting features such as the kelp forests on Cashes Ledge under OHA2, the regional management councils have gone to great lengths to further safeguard essential habitats such as corals. The NEFMC is considering the Deep-Sea Coral Amendment, which would preserve the coral habitats in the New England Canyons and Seamounts, areas that have also been frequently under discussion for National Monument designation. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) also recently acted to protect over 38,000 square miles of deep-sea coral. These are clear demonstrations that current habitat management is remarkably sensitive to conservation and the need to protect unique habitats.

Replacing this collaborative, open management with top-down Presidential action undermines these successful efforts. It makes it less likely that local voices are heard in the deliberations, narrows the decision-making process from broadly democratic to single-handed, and in consequence disregards crucial stakeholder input and expertise. It ultimately results in a regulatory process that is not responsive to feedback and is not accountable to the people who are most affected by it.

As members of the fishing communities whose livelihoods depend on inclusive, responsive management we recognize that such a fundamental altering of the regulatory process is unacceptable. Any management of public resources needs to preserve public input and involvement, not disregard it. We oppose unilateral Executive Action to declare marine National Monuments in New England.

Click here to add your name to the letter

 

New Bedford Standard-Times slams federal at-sea monitoring decision in dual opinion pieces

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 15, 2015 — This past week, the New Bedford Standard-Times ran two opinion pieces criticizing current federal policy that will require fishermen to directly pay for the costs of at-sea monitoring. The first, an op-ed by fishing boat owner Carlos Rafael, notes that many of the remaining fishermen will be unable to afford the cost of the program, which is expected to cost the fishery an estimated $2.64 million per year. This will cause many to leave the fishery entirely and lead to further consolidation of the fleet.

The second piece, from the Standard-Times’ editorial board, argues that the policy on at-sea monitors is the latest in a series of rules and regulations from the federal government that have distorted the seafood market and do not properly take into account the economic costs imposed on fishing communities. The editorial calls for environmental groups to fund further studies to more accurately estimate the health of regional fish populations.

Excerpts from both articles are reproduced below.

Carlos Rafael: White House should heed call
on burden of at-sea monitors

In a show of bipartisan cooperation that’s all too rare in today’s politics, Massachusetts’ Republican governor and all-Democratic congressional delegation united late last month to call upon the Obama administration to reverse a particularly egregious federal policy: the current plan by NOAA to require the fishing industry to pay the full cost for at-sea monitors for the groundfish fishery. Fishermen will now be required to hire monitors from an approved short list of for-profit companies. This policy will impose a significant burden on area fishermen, and poses a threat to the future of a fishery that is already reeling from a string of onerous federal regulations.

Thanks goes to Gov. Charlie Baker, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, and all nine of our Massachusetts representatives in Congress for giving voice to what fishermen have been saying for years: Forcing fishermen to pay for the observers who monitor their catch will be a financially disastrous outcome for the fishery. As their joint letter notes, ther National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s own analysis of shifting the cost of monitors onto the industry finds that 60 percent of the fleet would be operating at a loss if required to pay for monitoring. In just the first year, the program would cost fishermen an estimated $2.64 million.

Yet NOAA does not seem to fully realize how seriously this policy puts the fishery at risk. The $2.64 million that NOAA expects the fishery to pay in monitoring costs is $2.64 million that fishermen simply don’t have. The fishery still has not recovered from years of declining quotas and a federally declared economic disaster in 2012. Imposing another unfunded mandate on the fishery will force many remaining fishermen to exit the industry altogether.

The agency at least needs to look into alternatives to reduce the exorbitant price tag for the at-sea monitoring program, as well as look at ways to make the program more cost-effective. A program that is too expensive for the fishery and which the federal government refuses to pay for is not sustainable in the long term.

Read the full opinion piece here

New Bedford Standard-Times: Environmental groups’
misguided spending on oceans

In a free market, fishermen are going to see a net filled with sanddab and move to another part of the ocean. They’ll judge whether it makes more sense to spend labor on discarding the bycatch or to land the fish at a loss while pursuing a more valuable species.

This minutia of the market shows how poorly devised is the current regime of management tools. Our confidence in what good data would say notwithstanding, we would not advocate wholesale changes to policy based on our certainty. We also know that the government is hardly going to be convinced to reallocate scarce funds to measure the vast, unseen worlds below the surface.

Therefore, we would call on the most powerful advocates for ocean health to put their hundreds of millions of dollars to the highest use, that is, to count the fish. Environmental groups that for two decades have solicited and spent half a billion dollars trying to restrict fishing under the narrative that the oceans are in crisis owe it to their benefactors to determine how accurate their claims are.

The lower fish landings we count at the dock can be blamed on overfishing, but it’s far more likely that the cause is the changing ocean environment. Let’s find out for sure. Let’s see if one environmental group has the integrity to actually improve fishery science by supporting good work like that being done at UMass Dartmouth’s School for Marine Science and Technology to improve the accuracy of stock assessments. Ironically, the environmental groups appear to have blamed fishermen and overlooked the true culprit of challenges in the fishery: climate change.

There is no indication that any stocks considered to have been “rebuilt” achieved that status as a result of regulations. Fish aren’t bouncing back, we would argue, they’re just swimming back. Environmental advocates have resources and leverage that could maintain sustainable fish stocks and fishing communities. It’s a shame that power is misdirected.

A Simple Map Shows Cashes Ledge Habitat Is Already Protected

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 2, 2015 — Yesterday, Saving Seafood released an analysis explaining how the proposal to use a National Monument designation to protect Cashes Ledge, as advocated by the Conservation Law Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, the National Geographic Society, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, overlooks existing protections and overrides the current, successful system of open, democratic management. In short, we called the proposal “a solution in search of a problem,” one that removes the public from the management of public resources.

Read the full Saving Seafood analysis here

The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) today provided Saving Seafood with an updated map (see below), one that is clear, simple, and easy to understand. It delineates the protections the Council voted for last June in  Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2), which are currently being evaluated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for final approval. In light of this evening’s public event at the New England Aquarium which will describe the uniqueness and value of this region, Saving Seafood is sharing this map so that all interested parties can be fully aware of the protections already in place, additional protections currently in progress, and of the decade of work by numerous scientists, fishermen, regulators, environmentalists, elected officials, researchers, academics, and career government staff at the Council and the Agency that has gone into developing them.

As we noted in our analysis, the NEFMC and NOAA have successfully protected Cashes Ledge over the last decade though a collaborative, consultative process that built a consensus among the scientists, fishermen, regulators, and other valuable New England stakeholders. The Council has also ensured that the region remains protected well into the future with the recent approval of Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2), and is working to extend similar protections to the New England Canyons and Seamounts through their in-progress Deep-Sea Coral Amendment.

These developments support Saving Seafood’s conclusion that the process as it exists is working, and the a National Monument designation would only circumvent and undermine the public management of these areas that have been so beneficial to Cashes Ledge and other unique habitats.

See the updated map below:

June 2015 Cashes Ledge final

 

Saving Seafood Analysis: Campaign for New England Marine Monument a “Solution in Search of a Problem”

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 1, 2015 — An analysis released today by Saving Seafood examines a proposal from several environmental organizations to extend “permanent” protections to the Cashes Ledge region of the Gulf of Maine and the New England Canyons and Seamounts, by asking President Obama to declare the area a National Monument. The analysis notes that these efforts are largely duplicative of area closures already in place in this region, none of which are poised for opening. Saving Seafood further concludes that such a unilateral move would undermine the democratic and collaborative processes that to date have been highly effective in preserving and protecting the area.

Read the analysis from Saving Seafood here

The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and partners including the National Geographic Society, Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council intend to ask that these areas be declared the eastern seaboard’s first Marine National Monument, according to emails sent by CLF to State House News Service. A sold out event scheduled for Wednesday, September 2 at the New England Aquarium, featuring National Geographic and the CLF, is expected to discuss this proposal. Last Friday, Maine Governor Paul LePage wrote to President Obama opposing the designation of areas within the Gulf of Maine as a national maritime monument, as reported by the Portland Press Herald.

Such a designation would be both duplicative of, and possibly damaging to, the current management of Cashes Ledge, according to the Saving Seafood analysis. Closures already in place, developed through an open, democratic and collaborative process under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, already prohibit fishing of federally managed species in the area. These prohibitions have been in place for over a decade, the analysis notes, and have been extended into the foreseeable future with the recent passage of Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2. The Council is actively working on extending similar protections to the New England Canyons through the Deep-Sea Coral Amendment.

A petition being circulated by CLF and promoted by National Geographic notes that a “trawl could strip clear the kelp forest on Ammen Rock,” but as noted in the Saving Seafood analysis, current protections for these areas – including regulations passed as recently as June of this year – already protect areas such as Ammen Rock and the kelp forests. Saving Seafood notes that none of these areas are being considered for opening to fishing.

The Saving Seafood report also cautions against proposals to create “permanent” protections for these areas that would circumvent the process already in place to manage New England’s marine habitats. It notes that the New England Fishery Management Council has responsibility for managing Cashes Ledge and other habitat areas. Through a deliberative, consultative effort involving input from scientists, public officials, regulators, and other stakeholders, the Council has consistently protected the unique habitats on both Cashes Ledge and other areas in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank.

According to the analysis, efforts to circumvent these procedures in pursuit of ostensibly “permanent” protections, such as a National Monument designation via the Antiquities Act, would undermine the open and democratic management process that has already resulted in the long-term protection of Cashes Ledge. Upending the regulatory process that has worked so well for so long is likely to do more harm than good, the report concludes.

June 2015 Cashes Ledge final

 

Read the analysis from Saving Seafood here

 

Congressman William Keating: Wrong to Bankrupt Fishermen Over Monitors

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — August 31, 2015 — The following op-ed was written by Congressman William R. Keating (D – MA), and originally appeared in the Boston Globe. Congressman Keating wrote to the Globe to denounce plans to shift the costs of at-sea monitoring entirely onto New England fishermen :

For centuries, Massachusetts’ fishermen have played a vital role in our coastal economy, providing our families with food and our communities with revenue. The last decade, in particular, has again demonstrated the grit and perseverance of this historic industry, with changes in regulations, decreasing stocks, and rising fuel costs.

A comprehensive monitoring program is an important tool for collecting essential catch information for managing fisheries. At the end of the day, it is the fishermen who will benefit most from robust and thriving fisheries. However, the majority of the industry is simply unable to cover the costs.

I have worked with my colleagues in Congress and Governor Baker to urge the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to continue to fund the observer program and not shift the burden onto the industry. In the meantime, as discussion continues over the use of Bin 3 groundfish disaster money as an interim solution, this option should not absolve NOAA of its responsibility to deal with this issue both in the short- and long-term.

There are long-term solutions to this problem, including investing in cost-effective alternatives such as the wide-scale adoption of the use of cutting-edge technologies that allow for electronic monitoring. In the meantime, NOAA must find a way to support this historic industry and not bankrupt it with bills that they cannot afford.

Read the opinion piece from Congressman William Keating online at the Boston Globe

Mass. Governor, Congressional Delegation to Obama Administration: Fund At-Sea Monitoring for New England Fishermen

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — August 20, 2015 — Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, and all nine Members of Congress from Massachusetts have called upon the Obama Administration to reverse recent policy decisions and continue the funding of at-sea monitoring for Northeastern fishermen. While the agency currently funds at-sea monitors, fishermen will have to assume the full cost of the program beginning this year, which the industry contends they will be unable to afford.

In a letter to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Governor Baker and the Massachusetts Congressional delegation expressed “serious concern over recent actions taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” The signatories are especially critical of the agency’s current at-sea monitoring policy, specifically its plan to shift funding of the program from NOAA onto fishermen, noting that such a move could potentially bankrupt the industry.

The Republican Governor and the all-Democratic Congressional delegation have joined forces to criticize the Administration decision and the heavy costs that individual fishermen are likely to incur as a result of this policy, especially in light of the fact that fishermen are still recovering from the federal economic disaster declared by the Commerce Department in 2012.

Citing a NOAA analysis of the transfer, the letter notes that monitors will cost the fishery $2.64 million in the first year alone, and would lead to an estimated 60 percent of the vessels in the fishery operating at a loss. According to the Governor and legislators, this amounts to an “unfunded mandate that could lead to the end of the Northeast Groundfishery as we know it.”

At its June meeting, the New England Fishery Management Council requested that NOAA take administrative actions to “improve the efficiency of the program,” as well as “reduce costs of the [at-sea monitoring program] without compromising compliance” with current laws. In its response to the Council, NOAA rejected these requests, stating that they were not “consistent with current regulatory requirements and statistical standards.”

The Gloucester, Massachusetts-based Northeast Seafood Coalition, which represents a significant percentage of the groundfish fleet, criticized NOAA’s decisions, while coming out in support of efforts by Gov. Baker and Congress to force a change in agency policy.

“The Council has questioned the benefits and the costs to the groundfish fishery of the at-sea monitoring program, and has given their clear directive to the Agency to either suspend or make the existing program more cost effective,” said Jackie Odell, Executive Director of the Northeast Seafood Coalition. “All requests made to date have received an astounding ‘no’ from NOAA. The Northeast Seafood Coalition strongly supports the requests made by the Council, Governor Baker and Members of Congress. When is enough, enough?”

In addition to Secretary Pritzker, the letter was sent to Sens. Thad Cochran and Barbara Mikulski, and Reps. Hal Rogers and Nita Lowey. Gov. Baker and Sens. Warren and Markey are joined by Reps. Richard Neal, Jim McGovern, Michael Capuano, Stephen Lynch, Niki Tsongas, William Keating, Joseph Kennedy, Katherine Clark, and Seth Moulton as signatories of the letter.

Read the letter from Gov. Baker and the Massachusetts Congressional delegation

Read the NEFMC’s request to NOAA on at-sea monitoring

Read NOAA’s rejection of the NEMFC’s at-sea monitoring request

 

Frulla & Hawkins of FSF: Doing the Math on Closed Areas

August 17, 2015 — The following is an opinion piece written by David Frulla and Anne Hawkins, of the Fisheries Survival Fund, which appears in the September 2015 issue of National Fisherman magazine:

Old closed areas, like old attitudes, die hard. After 10 years’ work, the New England Fishery Management Council took final votes in June on Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2, addressing essential fish habitat protection in the Gulf of Maine, on Georges Bank and in the Great South Channel.

One last major vote involved Georges Bank. Discussions had proceeded for months about how to work within the existing alternatives to refine a carefully drawn area that closed three areas for habitat protection. The council’s choice for Georges came down to two options: doing nothing or a new alternative based on more than a decade of new scientific data and analyses. Ultimately, the council chose progress.

The argument to do nothing was driven by a false choice that has gained attention as rhetoric began to outpace the facts contained in council decision documents. For two-plus years, environmental NGOs have made the false argument that more than 7,000 square miles of allegedly pristine habitat on Georges Bank will be .thrown open to mobile bottom­tending gear, to be replaced by only 2,000 square miles of habitat protections. Lost in the blizzard of misinformation is the fact that the habitat amendment subjects more area on Georges Bank to habitat management than “no action.”

And now, a warning: We’ll mire you in some details. Sound bites are easy. It’s harder to explain change involving complex analyses and choices.

The history: In December 1994, NMFS closed 6,711 square miles of Georges Bank, via the emergency enactment of Closed Areas I and II. The closure’s focus was reducing fishing mortality on cod, yellowtail and haddock to aid rebuilding. Then, in 2006, Scallop Amendment 10 and Groundfish Amendment 13 designated 1,965 square miles within the two closed areas as closures to protect habitat. The council needed to close areas to protect habitat on Georges and it decided to work within the existing groundfish closures rather than closing additional areas. The areas designated as habitat closures have remained permanently closed, while much of the remaining 4,746 square miles (6,711 minus 1, 965) have been used as scallop and/ or groundfish special access areas, among other things.

The changes: In contrast to the 1,965 square miles on Georges Bank specifically managed for habitat now under “no action,” the habitat amendment would specifically manage approximately 2,470 square miles for habitat: about two-thirds of the existing Habitat Area of Particular Concern in Closed Area II, plus some area outside it; a new Georges Shoals area, to the west, currently open to fishing; and a dedicated habitat research area within existing Closed Area I. Almost all these 2,470 square miles will be closed. Less than 10 percent would be open to scallop access area fishing, and about half that to limited groundfishing.

In addition, the habitat amendment closed for habitat approximately 1, 700 additional square miles in the Great South Channel. Most is within a new habitat of concern for juvenile Georges Bank cod. This would replace a somewhat larger closure within the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area. Virtually none of the existing area habitat closure is habitat of concern for juvenile Georges Bank cod, or anything.

When viewed across the entire Georges Bank cod stock area (Georges Bank and the Great South Channel), the habitat amendment would include roughly 4, 170 square miles for habitat management (totally closing more than 90 percent of it) versus 4,050 square miles for “no action,” and it includes far more habitat of concern for juvenile Georges Bank cod than “no action.” The habitat amendment also closes more areas that peer-reviewed analyses identify as vulnerable gravel and cobble substrate.

What of the rest of the “lost” Georges Bank and Great South Channel ground­fish closures? The remaining areas in­clude: current access areas, such as the scallop and groundfish special access areas in southern Closed Area II and central Closed Area I, and portions of the closed areas that the habitat amendment’s peer-reviewed metrics show have little to no habitat value whatsoever. The amend­ment does not, moreover, open these areas without restriction, but rather im­poses approximately 5,500 square miles of seasonal spawning closures. Protecting spawning is the remaining conservation consideration now that quotas control groundfish fishing mortality.

The result: More, not less. Altogether, approximately 7,764 square miles of the Georges Bank cod stock area on Georges and in the Great South Channel will ei­ther be managed as-a habitat area or sea­sonal spawning closure. Moreover, the council designed these areas using peer-­reviewed models, rather than 2006’s dead reckoning approach limited to existing groundfish closed areas. In total, across Georges Bank, the Great South Channel and the Gulf of Maine, the habitat amendment would close more area for habitat than is currently closed. As the late Paul Harvey might say, ‘.’That’s the rest of the story.”

View a PDF of the opinion piece from National Fisherman magazine here

Maine elver fishermen to have same quota next season

August 14, 2015 — The following is an excerpt from a story published yesterday by the Associated Press, appearing in the Portland Press Herald:

Maine’s elver fishermen will have the same quota next spring when they fish for the valuable baby eels.

The fishermen are dealing with fluctuating volume and value in a fishery that exploded in interest early this decade. Elvers are sold to Asian aquaculture companies that raise them to maturity and use them as food, including sushi. Maine’s fishery for elvers is by far the biggest in the country, and the eels have become more valuable in recent years largely because of a sharp decline in their population across Europe in the 1990s.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which manages elver fishing, met earlier this month to discuss the fishery. There was no discussion of the possibility of changing the quota, which will remain in effect through 2017, when it will be re-evaluated, a spokeswoman said.

The quota system and Maine’s swipe card tracking system have been valuable tools to manage the fishery, said David Allen, a member of the commission’s American Eel Advisory Panel.

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald

 

NOAA Releases Interactive Atlantic Scallop Fishery Areas Map

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — August 7, 2015 — A new “story map” created by NOAA Fisheries’ Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) overviews the 2015 Atlantic sea scallop fishery regulations based on Framework 26 from as far north as Georges Bank in New England down to the Mid-Atlantic Coast. Implemented as of May 2015, these scallop fishery areas include open access areas, rotational closed areas, seasonal areas reserved for turtle conservation, transit declarations for ports, and gear modifications.

The story map gives viewers, “a quick tour of the regulations for the Scallop fishery as of May 2015,” and interactive features allow users to zoom in on areas of the map for more details on specific area closures. The map and accompanying website also provide information about gear restrictions, information for vessels operating Days-at-Sea trips, and the protocol fishermen need to follow after crossing Vessel Monitoring System Demarcation Lines. The map is color-coded and includes downloadable GIS shapefiles from all Greater Atlantic Region regulated areas, as well as links to specific management measures through an Electronic Code of Federal Regulations website.

View the interactive story map from NOAA Fisheries

Learn more about Atlantic Sea Scallops on NOAA Fisheries’ webpage