Management & Regulation

(Saving Seafood) July 1, 2013 — During a June 18 conference call of the Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team (TRT), NOAA informed the Take Reduction Team that they were working to remove the scheduled consequence closure in the Gulf of Maine that was scheduled for Fall 2013.

This removal of the closure is based upon the recommendation and vote taken by the TRT during their meeting held in Providence RI in May. To do so, NOAA will be utilizing the "Special Measures" provision of the Take Reduction Plan, and are in the process of going through rule making.  During fishing year 2012, this Special Measures provision, as identified by the Northeast Seafood Coalition, was utilized to modify the timing of the consequence closure.

NOAA’s consequence strategy triggers protective closures in areas that harbor porpoise bycatch exceeds an established threshold. NOAA is removing the closure because marine mammal “takes” in the area are currently below Potential Biological Removal (PBR) standards and are approaching levels below the five-year average. Also, the trigger used to initiative the closure had proven to be flawed, not a direct link to PBR. Aside from the closure already triggered in the Gulf of Maine, preliminary reports indicated that this trigger, if applied, would have likely enacted the closure for Southern New England this coming winter / spring.

Although NOAA Fisheries is scheduled to lift the consequence closure in the Gulf of Maine (October / November), they will be closely monitoring and enforcing pinger regulations, gear modifications and seasonal closure requirements. TRT members will be working with NMFS in the coming months to enhance monitoring and enforcement. NMFS will also be continuing to work with the TRT to amend the Take Reduction Plan for the coming years.

Read a summary of the June 18 conference released by NOAA Fisheries

 

 

June 25, 2013 — NOAA Fisheries regional administrator John Bullard conducted a conference call Monday to drum up interest in a collection of initiatives he hopes will help pull the groundfishery through its current crisis.

But there was little discussion of the 20 items he had already placed on the list, and more about some frustrations about what is not on the list.

Bullard, a former New Bedford mayor, said he wants the document to be a work in progress as people make suggestions and add things to the "to do" list, which includes such things as cooperative research, fishing alternative species and working with the Small Business Administration to see how it can help.

Some of the ideas seemed to miss the mark. Low-interest loans, for example, drew criticism from seafood consultant Jim Kendall of New Bedford. "If a man is dying of thirst, you don't offer him a loan. You give him a glass of water and a sandwich," he said.

What is needed, said Kendall, is direct assistance. "When you're making offers for loans for fishermen how do you make a loan to someone who can't pay it back and who's out of work, basically?" Kendall asked.

Maine fisherman Jimmy Odlin pleaded for some quick science about yellowtail flounder populations, which may be exploding, judging by the evidence. Odlin said that four boats have had to stop fishing for haddock because they couldn't avoid yellowtail bycatch and reached their limit and stopped fishing after catching only 5 percent of their haddock quotas.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

 

June 21, 2013 — National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) periodically review existing regulations that have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, such as small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. This plan describes how NMFS will perform this review and describes the regulations that are being proposed for review during the current review-cycle.

DATES: Written comments must be received by NMFS by July 22, 2013.

Read the document from NMFS

June 19, 2013 –On Monday, June 24th, from 3:00 – 5:00 PM, NOAA Fisheries Northeast Regional Administrator John Bullard will be hosting a public conference call to solicit feedback from fishermen and other stakeholders on the draft Working Document on Resources to Support the Northeast Groundfish Industry.

Click here for details on the Telephone Townhall. 

Click here to link to a copy of the Draft Resource document.

 

June 14, 2013 — The New England Fisheries Management Council will be voting on a proposed closed area on Stellwagen Bank known as SERA to recreational fisherman and is 55 square miles in size. Closing this area will provide no benefit to rebuilding stocks and only hurt recreational anglers and charter boats along with tackle shops, tuna and shark fisherman.

I am asking anyone who fishes no matter where to send a letter into the New England Fisheries Management Council opposing this proposal. Letters can be sent to joleary@nefmc.org and must be received by Monday. Please make the subject line Habitat Protection Proposal Comments and here is a sample letter which you can edit to your needs. This will only be the beginning in shutting down additional waters in the northeast to fisherman. Please we need your help. Thank you.

Read the full story at Walsh’s Deep Sea Fishing

 

 

June 12, 2013 — In February 2012, NOAA Fisheries listed five distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Gulf of Maine population was listed as threatened and the New York Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina and South Atlantic populations were listed as endangered. Listing determinations under the ESA must be made based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time.

The Atlantic sturgeon listing determination was based primarily on an analysis of the ongoing and future threats to the species because there were no overall population estimates available. In the listing determination, we used estimates of spawning adults in the Hudson and Altamaha Rivers, which indicated that these populations were quite low (867 total adults in the Hudson and 343 spawning adults per year in the Altamaha). The primary threats to the species identified in the listing determination were incidental catch in fisheries, vessel strikes, water quality and quantity, and dredging.

Since the listing, we have been working on obtaining more comprehensive population estimates for the species. These population estimates are useful for recovery planning and to complete required consultations under the ESA. Whenever a federal or state agency conducts an activity that could potentially impact a species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA that is managed by NOAA Fisheries, they are required to consult with our agency so we can provide recommendations to help mitigate impacts on the species.

New Population Estimates

At our request, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center developed a new population estimate for the Atlantic sturgeon that are mostly living in the ocean, rather than rivers, using a new model. The resulting population estimate for oceanic Atlantic sturgeon was between about 165,400 and  744,600 fish. This does not include young fish that have not yet left the rivers in which they were born or Atlantic sturgeon that occur outside of the sampled area (e.g., in Canadian waters or south of Cape Hatteras).  

Given time sensitivities and the uncertainty associated with the new estimates, we used another estimate that the Center generated from Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP) data to complete a “batch” biological opinion for 7 Northeast Fisheries. Using these NEAMAP data, the Center calculated ocean population estimates, which entail fewer assumptions about Atlantic sturgeon than the ASPI model.   The minimum biomass estimate from this approach is approximately 67,800 oceanic Atlantic sturgeon. This is a conservative estimate of fish in the majority of the area affected by the seven Northeast Fisheries.

Read the full story from NOAA Fisheries 

 

June 11, 2013 — The following was released by NOAA:

Social scientists at NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center are encouraging crew members to take advantage of the time remaining to respond to a new survey aimed at gathering data on broad social and economic conditions in the Northeast’s commercial fisheries.

Tammy Murphy of NOAA’s Social Sciences Branch at the NEFSC is the point person on several of the center’s ongoing economic and social survey efforts.  “We know next to nothing about crew, this critical part of the fishing community, which also includes hired captains.  This survey collects basic demographic data that we do not have and that we need to understand what’s going on in fishing communities,” she said, emphasizing how essential crew cooperation is to the effort.

The socio-economic survey focuses on information such as availability of work, perceptions of fisheries management, the effectiveness and fairness of fisheries regulations, and fishermen’s day-to-day experiences in their fishing communities.  To help design the survey, and to train and deploy interviewers, the science center contracted with QuanTech, a professional survey research firm that specializes in fishery and environmental subject areas and based in Arlington, Va.

Interviewers have been working to survey crew in fifteen ports in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic since last October and plan to finish in August.  So far, about 300 crew interviews have been collected. In June, interviewers are focusing on Rockland and Portland, Maine; Portsmouth, N.H.; New Bedford, Mass.; and Newport News, Va.

Fishing ports were selected in a way intended to capture a representative sample of crew proportional to participation in the fisheries. That means collecting data in different seasons and from crew that work in different fisheries, on vessels that vary length and in gear type.

The crew surveys are being conducted face-to-face and take about half an hour to complete. Interviewers come to the water front, and are trying to time their efforts with when crew are most likely to be available and not busy working.  It isn’t easy to get that timing right, and sometimes people are just reluctant to participate.

However, Murphy stresses, the data are extremely valuable and she hopes number of crew responses will increase significantly as expected activity in many ports increases over the summer months.

“To communicate to decision makers how regulatory actions have affected the people in the fisheries-the fishermen and their families–to tell that story and have it be heard, we need that data,” Murphy said.

Taking any of the surveys is entirely voluntary and responses are strictly confidential.  The completed surveys do not include information on the crew member’s name, or names of the vessels, captains or vessel owners that crew work with.  

Most of the responses are being collected on the docks, but interviews can also be arranged for other places or times by calling Coleby Wilt at 805-233-4128 or Tammy Murphy, 508-495-2137.

Read the release from NOAA

 

 

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — June 10, 2013 — The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) recently criticized as a “flat-out falsehood” Saving Seafood’s description of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force’s report as lacking peer review. Subsequently, the Pew Charitable Trusts made the same argument in a letter to the editor of Seafood News. Saving Seafood would like to clarify our statement referencing the “unproven assumptions, as well as a lack of peer-review of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force.”

When we labeled the Task Force’s report, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” as absent peer review, we were referring to the report’s recommendations, specifically that “forage fish” harvests should be severely restricted. Neither those recommendations, nor the analysis supporting them, have been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  

Both CLF and Pew stated that the report’s acknowledgements “clearly” indicate that it was peer-reviewed by three independent reviewers. But the report only discloses that “three anonymous reviewers lent their time and expertise to shaping the final form” of the report. “Shaping the final form” and “peer review” are not synonymous.

When contacted for this article, a Task Force member stated that some of those involved in the Task Force considered this anonymous, in-house review to be the equivalent of a formal peer review process. We were also told that the report's anonymous reviewers were in fact selected by Pew, which manages the Lenfest Ocean Program that convened the Task Force.

According to the Pew Charitable Trust’s website, the Lenfest Ocean Program “was established in 2004 by the Lenfest Foundation and is managed by Pew.” A Pew press release earlier this year referred to the “forage fish task force, convened by the Pew-managed Lenfest ocean program…”. The Policy Advisor of the Task Force, Chris Mann, is a "senior officer" with the Pew Environment Group, where he works on “forage” fisheries, among other responsibilities. Christine Santora, the Task Force Project Director, previously worked as a Senior Research Associate with the Pew Institute for Ocean Science.

When a paper is submitted to a journal for conventional peer review, the journal’s editorial staff selects independent anonymous reviewers, who can accept, reject, or offer suggestions regarding the paper. The American Fisheries Society, in a 2006 document “Defining and Implementing Best Available Science for Fisheries and Environmental Science, Policy, and Management,” lists five goals for a peer review process: “the peer review covers (1) the validity of the methods used, (2) whether the methods and study design adequately address the objectives, (3) whether the results that are reported are adequate for interpretation, (4) whether the results support the conclusions, and (5) whether the findings represent a significant advance in scientific knowledge.”

In the case of the report of the Lenfest Task Force, it is not clear how extensive the process of “shaping the final form” was, whether this review was consistent with the best practices of an independent review, or whether the reviewers had the right to reject the report’s findings and recommendations. But even if the review met industry-standard practices, the reviewers themselves were selected by the same organization that convened the Task Force, which is clearly not reflective of an independent selection process.

While we do not question the intentions of those who worked on “shaping the final form” of the report, we stand by our assessment that the report’s recommendations and non-economic analyses, which have not been published in any scientific journal, were not submitted for an independent peer review. Given the circumstances surrounding the management of the Lenfest Task Force, and the role of the Task Force’s managing organization in selecting reviewers, we find CLF’s characterization of our statement as a “flat-out falsehood” to be a flat-out falsehood. The circumstances surrounding the Task Force report review process are not black and white, but grey at best.

However, we want to be clear. One aspect of the Task Force’s work has undergone peer review. Specifically, the Task Force members drafted a paper, “The global contribution of forage fish to marine fisheries and ecosystems,” published in the journal Fish and Fisheries. This paper dealt with the relative economic value of “forage fish” as direct catch vis-à-vis their “supportive value” for predator species. But it did not include the Task Force’s recommendations for species management.

Saving Seafood’s primary point remains focused on the Task Force report, which has not undergone any outside review by objective third parties. Because its reviewers were selected by the report’s funder, the Pew Environment Group, the report has not faced the standards for objective third-party peer review generally provided by independent scientific journals. If the Task Force's recommendations on "forage fish" are to become the national standard, extensive review by regulators and third party experts should be required.

We stand by our position.

 

 

June 5, 2013 — The following was released by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council:

Earlier this year, NOAA Fisheries published an emergency rule giving the agency the authority to adjust seasons off each Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) state based on whether their state-water seasons and bag limits were consistent with federal regulations. On May 31, 2013, the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas, set aside that emergency rule.

As a result of this Court decision, the federal recreational red snapper season must be the same in federal waters off all five Gulf states. Considering the catches expected later in the year during the extended state-water seasons off Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, NOAA Fisheries projects the Gulf-wide federal recreational red snapper season can be 28 days long. Federal waters of the Gulf will close to recreational red snapper harvest at 12:01 a.m., June 29, 2013.

NOAA Fisheries reminds all federally permitted for-hire vessels that they must abide by the stricter federal regulations, and after the federal water closure, they will not be allowed to harvest and retain recreationally caught red snapper in open state waters.

For more information about how the season was calculated, please see the NOAA Fisheries 2013 Red Snapper Recreational Season Length Report.

About Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is one of eight regional Fishery Management Councils established by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The Council prepares fishery management plans, which are designed to manage fishery resources within the 200-mile limit of the Gulf of Mexico.

May 30, 2013 — The following was released by the Northeast Seafood Coalition:

The Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC) is grateful to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and her Office for their continued support for the Northeast commercial groundfish fishery and the small businesses that make up this industry. Particularly today, we are thankful for their staunch effort to fight for a balance between rebuilding fish stocks and preserving historic fishing communities.

Framework Adjustment 48 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan implemented unprecedented, across-the-board reductions of up to 78 percent in the amount of fish northeast commercial groundfish fishermen are able to harvest to feed the world. This doomsday scenario is a far cry from previous scientific reports that indicated key fish stocks would be rebuilt in 2014. Northeast groundfish fishermen are committed to conservation, and as such have and continue to comply with stringent scientific and management measures to protect fish populations. Despite doing their part, these small businesses have had the rug pulled out from under them and are now in the midst of a federally declared fishery disaster due to factors far beyond their control.

These crippling reductions in catch limits simply will not support today’s groundfish fishery and have placed our historic groundfish fleet in jeopardy like never before. And, the impact on our fishermen is only the tip of the iceberg. There will not be enough fish landed in our ports to sustain shore-side infrastructure or the demands of American seafood consumers. The global seafood market will simply replace New England groundfish with substitutes from other regions and countries. Once lost, our stake in the world’s seafood market may be lost forever. Fishery management is completely out of balance when it cannot sustain both fish populations and the fishing industry.

The request to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration to implement Interim Measures for Gulf of Maine cod and haddock—as allowed by the law—has been the centerpiece of NSC’s bridge for the fishing industry. Interim Measures would prevent the decimation of the inshore fleet and allow time for Congress to secure aid for the fishery, all while continuing to help stocks grow and rebuild.Analysis shows that GOM cod would rebuild by 14 percent under a second year of an Interim catch level. Rebuilding our fish stocks while sustaining our fisheries and communities is precisely the balance Congress intended to strike in its policies for the conservation and management of U.S. fisheries.

Prior to the implementation of Framework 48 and the draconian reductions, Attorney General Coakley joined the Northeast Seafood Coalition at the Groundfish Industry Rally held April 29 at the Boston Fish Pier to voice her office’s concern for the fishermen and small, fishery-dependent businesses. There the attorney general said, “We need to do this for your livelihood. We need to do this for this industry. As we know from so many boats we’ve lost, they’re not coming back. And if we do not stop this now, [this industry is] not coming back.”

We thank Attorney General Coakley for recognizing and acknowledging that a balance between rebuilding fish stocks and sustaining a fishing industry is not currently being achieved. We have to work toward preserving both fish and fishing dependent communities.

Read the release from the Northeast Seafood Coalition