Fishing Industry Alerts

Listen to an audio recording of Dr. Stokesbury's testimy

Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, associate professor and chair of the Department of Fisheries Oceanography at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth's School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) testified on fisheries data collection before a House subcommittee on Capitol Hill today.

Dr. Stokesbury's testimony addressed alternative acoustic and video survey techniques  developed by SMAST which have been used to conduct sea scallop surveys. The House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs took interest in whether or not similar video survey techniques, currently being investigated by Dr. Stokesbury, could be applied to other fisheries.  Dr. Stokesbury testified that preliminary results from a recent test of such as system look promising.

Dr. Stokesbury told the committed he believes "fisheries research should return to the fundamental principal of field ecology, seeking absolute measures."  He discussed how his team of researchers worked together with fishermen using "donated food, fuel and fishermen's time" to seek absolute measures of scallop abundance.  This led to a doubling of the measures of scallop abundance worth approximately $2.4 billion.  This system of measurement has been accepted by the National Marine Fishing Service, and has been published in 25 peer-reviewed scientific papers..

"To me the way forward is to get out there, and work with the fishermen measuring what's going on.  If we can use new technologies to look at these populations clearly and simply, perhaps we can start grasping their underlying dynamics," Dr. Stokesbury said.

The House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs heard testimony from two panels of witnesses at today's Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Oversight Hearing. The Subcommittee and witnesses at the hearing addressed fisheries data collection issues related to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Listen to Dr. Kevin Stokesbury's testimony at today's Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Oversight Hearing.

 

The meeting was held May 7-8 at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology.

May 17, 2013 — The following is a summary of the finding of the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute Workshop, "Incorporating Environmental Change in Assessments and Management", held May 7-8 at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology.

Scientists and fishermen from throughout New England contributed to a workshop aimed at identifying ways to account for environmental change in fishery science and management of New England groundfish. The workshop was hosted by The Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute as the first in a series that forms an end-to-end review of groundfish stock assessments and management. The workshop identified changes in the ocean environment that have occurred in the New England region, with consideration of future changes and effects on fish stocks. Considering case studies from New England and other regions, methods to account for environmental effects were reviewed as well as the information needed to apply such methods to New England groundfish assessments.

Profound changes in the regional marine environment were documented including:
 
– atmospheric patterns (e.g., recent reversal of the North Atlantic Oscillation),

– oceanography (e.g., extremely warm temperatures in 2012, recent indices of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation are near record high, increased winter heat budget in the Gulf of Maine, acidification, fresher water on Georges Bank and saltier water in the deep basins of the Gulf of Maine, increasing stratification of the water column in the Gulf of Maine and on the Scotian Shelf),

– and ecology (e.g., increased productivity of phytoplankton, declining zooplankton biomass, shifts in zooplankton species composition and smaller size distribution, habitat degradation and increases in many important predator populations).

Many of the recently observed changes in the marine ecosystem are expected to continue.

Fish populations and their productivity are influenced by these environmental changes from the top-down (i.e., the effect of predators that eat fish) and bottom-up (i.e., physical habitat and production of species eaten by fish). The fish community has been shifting toward more warm-water species and a smaller size distribution. Spatial distributions of species are also changing, generally northward and deeper. Growth patterns of many groundfish species have changed so that size-at-age and condition of individuals is declining. Reproductive dynamics are also changing for some species and are influenced by ecosystem factors. Behavior is also affected by thermal habitats, increasing swimming speed and endurance and possibly catchability by mobile fishing gear. Complex changes in the marine environment affect the productivity of many important groundfish stocks, and such changes should be accounted for in the science and management system.

Application of several general approaches to fishery science and management as well as specific stock methods for stock assessment of New England groundfish were recommended:

1. Alternative stock assessment modeling approaches should be evaluated, specifically multispecies models, simpler index-based methods that have fewer assumptions of constant environmental conditions, as well as biomass dynamics and stock-recruitment models with environmental covariates.

2. Formal model selection should be used to evaluate information from multiple modeling approaches, and when several alternatives are likely, multi-model inference should be applied.

3. Assumptions or estimates of natural mortality should be informed with estimates of consumption, analysis of tagging data and patterns in weight-at-age.

4. The effect of changing spatial distributions should be considered in the development of more informative survey indices (e.g., informing changes in catchability, standardizing surveys to account for variations, post-stratification of surveys to account for changing habitats).

5. Environmental change should be more carefully considered in stock projections and reference points such as overfishing definitions and rebuilding targets.

6. Both empirical and mechanistic approaches should be developed for projecting future recruitment or stock trends.
 
7. A process and more effective methods for including information from fishermen (e.g., catch rates, study-fleets, industry-based surveys, tagging studies, ecological knowledge) into stock assessment modeling should be developed.
 
8. In the context of rapidly changing environments and fish productivity, the fishery science and management process should be more flexible and responsive. For example, more frequent assessments, possibly with simpler models or a more streamlined process would be more responsive to changing conditions.

9. A transition to Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management would explicitly incorporate environmental change into fishery science and management.

10. Management strategy evaluation with broad stakeholder input should be used to develop alternative stock assessment methods and management procedures.

Much of the information required for these recommended methods are currently collected and available for application, but more information may be needed. Recognizing that the marine environment is rapidly changing, a greater commitment to ecosystem monitoring is needed. Rather than layering additional sampling onto current sampling programs, an environmental monitoring system should be developed to meet the needs of the science and management process. The development of an environmental monitoring system should review all available information (including underutilized resources), identify the information needed to support stock assessments and management, and promote data sharing, access, availability and communication among scientific disciplines. The monitoring system should include broader ocean observations, alternative survey methods, fishermen-collected data, representative diet data from fish predators, information necessary to estimate consumption of important fish species by marine mammals, tagging studies to estimate natural mortality, monitoring of pathology for epidemiological studies, and data to inform the National Environmental Policy Act process for evaluating environmental impact from fishing and non-fishing activities. Unless increased funding is available, the development of an environmental monitoring program and the transition to Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management will require prioritization, increased efficiencies and possibly reallocation of budgets or more extensive reprogramming.

Read a PDF of the summary

 

The ultimate goal of the plan is to preserve the fleet and "retool the industry through investments in sustainable, innovative businesses and practices going forward."

May 16, 2013 — Gloucester Mayor Carolyn Kirk, responding to economic hardship in the New England groundfishery resulting from severe cuts in allowable catch levels, has released the Gloucester "Bridge Plan", a collaborative effort between the city and industry stakeholders aimed at providing fishermen and fishery-related businesses economic relief from the current crisis. The plan calls for providing transitional assistance for fishermen and shoreside businesses, expanding the use of fishing boats as research vessels, investing in transitioning to higher-value fisheries, and reviewing current fisheries management practices. The ultimate goal of the plan is to preserve the fleet and "retool the industry through investments in sustainable, innovative businesses and practices going forward."

The project compliments efforts made by the Massachusetts Congressional delegation to both obtain immediate economic relief for fishing communities and create long-term sustainable solutions for the fishery.

The full release is reproduced below.

The Gloucester “Bridge Plan”:  A Response to the New England Groundfisheries Crisis

On May 1st, the federal government imposed drastic reductions in allowable catch for several key groundfish stocks, including a 77% cut in high value Cod landings from the Gulf of Maine. These cuts threaten the economic viability and survival of not only the fishing fleets, but also of the processors, shoreside services, and fresh fish markets of the region as well. Multiple stakeholders in Gloucester have come together, under the leadership of Mayor Carolyn Kirk, to formulate a comprehensive transition or “bridge” plan to navigate through this crisis. 

The goals of the plan are both to preserve the core assets of the fleets and the ports during the groundfish recovery period and to use this crisis as an opportunity to retool the industry through investments in sustainable, innovative businesses and practices going forward.  The New England groundfisheries was declared a federal disaster area in the fall of 2012. Proposed federal and state contributions to implementation of the “bridge plan” include the following:

Transition Assistance to Fishermen and Crew
Transition assistance is needed for fishermen to meet immediate financial demands while their boats are idled at the docks, including unemployment insurance, mortgage protection, SBA programs to restructure debt, dockage and fuel relief, and other measures available to declared disaster areas.

Transition Assistance to Shoreside Businesses
Fishing fleets rely on support services of the region’s ports, including marine railways, engine repair, ice production, and marine supplies. Transition assistance is needed to stabilize these companies during the recovery period.

Redeployment of Fishing Boats as Research Vessels
Chartering of fishing boats as research vessels will accomplish three goals: a dramatic enhancement in the quality and amount of data used in running stock assessment models; a redeployment source of income for fishermen during the recovery period; and the opportunity to enhance geographically-dispersed data collection for numerous other ocean research programs.  

Investment in a Sustainable, Innovative Fishery
New England fleets and ports, with a long history of adaptation and innovation, have the opportunity to invest in a shift from a high-volume, low-value fisheries to a high-value, low-volume fisheries with a lighter ecosystem footprint. Examples of current proposals include retrofitting of fishing boats for high-quality and flexible, multiple-species harvesting and fuel-efficiency; partnerships of fishermen and processors in live-fish markets, freeze-dried and other value-added products; expansion of local fresh catch programs to include institutional customers; processing of chitin and other products from lobster, crab, and clamshell waste and invasive green crabs; poly-culture of shellfish, kelp, seaweed and fish habitat restoration; hatchery stock enhancements; green chemistry solutions from the ocean biomass; and others.

Collaborative Review of Fisheries Management
Fishing fleets and ports are buffeted by short-term shifts in allowable catches and other management measures. A multiple-stakeholder, collaborative effort to propose better management approaches is needed to support sustainable fisheries and ecosystems, fishing fleets, ports, and access by consumers to healthy local fish and other seafood products.

About the City of Gloucester
America's oldest seaport, the City of Gloucester is known throughout the world as an authentic, working waterfront community, a place of spectacular natural beauty, and home to a diverse population of about 30,000 residents. An important center for the fishing industry, Gloucester also is proud of its rich art heritage as one of the premier art colonies in the United States. The City is a destination for thousands of visitors who visit the harbor and its beaches during the summertime. In recent years, Gloucester has diversified its traditional maritime economy, adding leading small research institutions such as the UMass Amherst Large Pelagics Research Laboratory and the Ocean Alliance to the array of state and federal agencies working in the city, and with investments in robotics and new product development from the fishery.

Contact: Office of Mayor Carolyn Kirk, 978-281-9700 

Read the press release here

Read a release from the Office of the Mayor here

 

Two events this week addressed the current fishing crisis in New England and the future of the fishery.

May 16, 2013 — On Monday, Massachusetts Congressman William Keating and New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell hosted a forum addressing the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the federal law governing fisheries management. And this morning, the Northeast Seafood Coalition's Policy Director Vito Giacalone appeared on New England Cable News (NECN).

The forum, a joint meeting of the Federal Fishing Advisory Board and the New Bedford Mayor's Ocean and Fishery Council, discussed potential changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as the state of fisheries science in the Northeast. It was attended by members of the fishing industry, scientific community, and NOAA Northeast Regional Administrator John Bullard.

On NECN, Mr. Giacalone discussed the most recent quota cuts to Northeast groundfish stocks like cod, expressing concerns that the cuts are too severe. Mr. Giacalone also discussed the uncertainty surrounding the scientific assessments on which the cuts are based.

Watch a video of the forum hosted by Congressman William Keating and Mayor John Mitchell

Watch the interview of Vito Giacalone on NECN

 

 

The hearing will be on Tuesday, May 21st on data collection issues in relation to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

WASHINGTON — May 15, 2013 –- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs will hold an oversight hearing on Tuesday, May 21st on data collection issues in relation to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

WHAT:
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs oversight hearing on data collection issues in relation to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

WHEN:
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
10:30AM

WHERE:
1334 Hearing Room in the Longworth House Office Building

Visit the Committee Calendar for additional information, once it is made available. The meeting is open to the public and a live video stream will be broadcast here.

CLF's blog post, "Top Ten Reasons to Protect New England's Closed Areas," argues that Framework Adjustment 48 will endanger "protected waters."

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — May 13, 2013 — The Conservation Law Foundation's (CLF) blog post, "Top Ten Reasons to Protect New England's Closed Areas," argues that Framework Adjustment 48, a recently approved proposal to amend some New England areas closed to fishing and provide economic support to fishing communities, will endanger "protected waters." Instead of an alternative, CLF argues that NOAA should have rejected the proposal and maintained the closures in their present condition. But extensive analysis from the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) shows that the status quo would ultimately be more harmful to the ocean environment.

This blog post overlooks three important facts:

1. The NEFMC is legally mandated to minimize the long-term adverse impacts of fishing. Backing Framework 48 is analysis from the NEFMC Habitat Plan Development Team demonstrating that these changes would benefit the overall ocean environment.
2. Many fishing gear types — including dredge gear, longlines, gill nets and mid-level trawls — are already permitted in the closed areas being reviewed. Framework 48 will only allow limited access to these already fished areas for groundfish fishermen though a strict and heavily monitored process.
3. The areas that will be updated by Framework 48 are not habitat closures — they are mortality closures, part of a replaced system of fisheries management. NOAA has acknowledged that in light of current management, these closures are now outmoded.

Habitat Will Remain Protected
 
CLF conflates the mortality closures under review with the ecosystem benefits of habitat closures, areas designated because of their value or unique habitat features. In doing so, CLF suggests an alarming clash of conservation vs. destruction that does not actually exist.
 
The middle of their list, reasons five and four, argue that habitat "helps fish adapt to warming waters" and protects "places spawning and juvenile fish were known to depend on." But, in terms of Framework 48, those points are moot. These ecosystem benefits are not under threat, as no closures protecting important habitat (including spawning grounds) will be altered. The kelp forest in Cashes Ledge that is depicted in their post, for example, will remain closed to fishing.
 
Furthermore, managers remain cognizant of conservationists' concerns for potential adverse environmental impacts. The NEFMC and NOAA are cautious to continue to protect habitat whenever any approval of an application to fish in these areas is granted.
 
The suggestion that once modified, these areas would become entirely "open" is an exaggeration. These mortality closed areas already experience fishing. To mitigate any unforeseen environmental harms from groundfishermen, NOAA will require sectors to apply for access and will then assess all environmental impacts before granting entry to any of the closures. Additionally, seasonal closures will remain intact, and NOAA will retain the right to revoke access to these areas should unforeseen environmental harm occur. NOAA is also considering mandatory monitoring on all fishing vessels inside of the mortality closures.
 
Managers Are Taking Precautions To Protect Marine Mammals
 
While CLF is understandably worried about the status of the critically endangered right whale, it is unlikely that the proposed modifications to the mortality closures will negatively impact that species or other marine mammals.
 
When sectors apply for access, NOAA will assess any potential harm to marine mammals and endangered species. Access will not be granted if NOAA scientists think the changes will harm protected species.
 
Marine mammals, including right whales, are most susceptible to mid-level trawls and fixed gear fishing equipment such as drift nets and gill nets. These gear types already have access to the mortality closure areas.
 
CLF also presents a misleading map of "concentrated" right whale sightings inside of the closures. The map does not differentiate between mortality closures and habitat closures — leading readers to believe that the areas being considered for modification are places endangered whales frequent. But many of the areas that are dense with whale sightings are within the protected habitat closed areas. In fact, very few whale sightings have been reported in the largest of the areas being considered for updating.
 
Better For Fish, Better For Fishermen
 
The current mortality closures were enacted nearly 20 years ago with limited scientific information and under vastly different management strategies. The proposals in Framework 48 incorporate the most up-to-date science and management techniques.   
 
By decreasing fishing effort, Framework 48 creates a win-win scenario for fishermen and ocean habitat. In its analysis, the Council wrote: "We find that for nearly all area and gear type combinations, opening existing closed areas to fishing is predicted to decrease aggregate adverse effects." Access to mortality closures would allow groundfishermen to catch their quotas while affecting less habitat.
 
Most New England groundfish fishermen (from large to small operations) run family businesses with self-owned and self-operated vessels. For many, assistance from proposals such as those included in Framework 48 is their only chance at staying in business. 
 
Read the Conservation Law Foundation's blog post here
 
Read the Saving Seafood analysis here 

Work Cited

Department of Commerce "Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery; Framework Adjustment 48; Proposed Rule," Federal Register, March 25, 2013
 
Johnson, Amanda; Salvador, Glenn; Kenney, John; et al.,"Fishing Gear Involved in Entanglements of Right and Humpback Whales," Society for Marine Mammalogy, 2005
 
New England Fishery Management Council, "The Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) Model: A Tool For Analyzing The Effects of Fishing On Essential Fish Habitat," January 21, 2011
 
NOAA NERO, "NOAA Fisheries announces catch limits for 2013-2014 Northeast groundfish stocks; remains committed to mitigating effects on New England fishermen," April 30, 2013
 
For More Information
 
Saving Seafood has analyzed similar claims in recent days. For more information on this topic see:
 
Analysis of the Blue Ocean Institute's article "Reopening New England's Closed Fishing Areas Would Be Bad For Mammals, Too"
 
Analysis of the Conservation Law Foundation's blog post "Wrong Move For Right Whales" 
 

 

At the request of Dr. Brian Rothschild Saving Seafood is distributing the following invitation to a fisheries meeting at the New Bedford Whaling Museum on Monday, May 13th

 Congressman Bill Keating (D-MA) and New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell are sponsoring the meeting and welcome members of the industry to participate.

The meeting will address, among other things, the September 2013 expiration of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, potential improvements, and innovative solutions.  It is important to the Congressman and Mayor that the fishery stakeholders have the opportunity to provide input into this process.

Dear Friend,
 
We look forward to seeing you at the joint meeting of the Federal Fishing Advisory Board and the Mayor's Ocean and Fisheries Council in the New Bedford Whaling Museum on Monday, May 13, 1:00-3:00 p.m.
 
This will provide notes on the agenda, which will be distributed before the meeting.
 
The meeting will open with remarks from Congressman Keating and Mayor Mitchell, who are sponsoring the meeting. Spokespersons from various industry groups and others who have been active in the fishery debates will give short presentations on the current state of the fishery and where they see we should be headed. 
 
We will then have a presentation by Emily Keiley on progress that we have been making in our end-to-end review (led by Steve Cadrin) of stock assessments. As you know, Congressman Keating is an early sponsor of the workshops. As part of the review, we have planned three workshops. The first workshop, on the effect of climate on stock assessments, is now complete. Because of the success of the first workshop, we anticipate developing a continuing series of workshops.
 
Next, Kevin Stokesbury will present industry/SMAST's results on its first industry-cooperative cruise to develop alternative techniques for sampling fish (also supported by Congressman Keating). Videos will be shown of the fish as they pass through a standard industry trawl so that they can be counted.
 
The next part of the meeting will be devoted to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As you know, it might take a while for the actual reauthorization to take place, but it is not too early to establish our viewpoints, especially inasmuch as the first reauthorization hearing has already taken place.
 
There are many issues that might arise. Some deal directly with the wording of the act, others have to do with past or future implementation of the act inasmuch as, in the final outcome, it is difficult to separate implementation from the language of the legislation.
 
Here are three of many examples to demonstrate the idea as you focus on reauthorization issues.
 
National Standard 1 attempts to strike a balance between preventing overfishing and achieving optimal yield.  There are two problems. The first is that there is no scientifically unique definition of overfishing that can be used to test National Standard 1. The second is that NE fisheries have not been achieving optimum yield for years. The TACs far exceed the actual landings.
 
National Standard 2 says that fisheries management shall be based upon the "best scientific information available." There are a number of problems with this standard. First, there are no checks and balances in the management system that ensures that all alternative are considered and that the best alternative is selected on a rational basis. Second, whenever "best science available" is brought before a court of law, the courts always deny the plaintiffs complaint because the courts believe that the government is always right according to their adopted doctrine of deference to the agency.
 
As a final example, consider National Standard 8 …consistent with not overfishing and rebuilding stocks, take into account the importance of fisheries resources… to provide sustained participation of communities and minimize adverse economic impacts on communities.  The problem here relates to not having a unique definition of overfishing, nor a rational buffer to prevent overfishing. The problem also relates to having a thorough economic analysis to even determine if the standards are met.
 
As I said, there are many examples. We have to think of mechanisms that can be codified that can resolve the problems of either the language of the law or ways that the law is implemented such that the intent of Congress does not seem to be addressed.
 
It is important to realize, regarding the reauthorization, that finalized results will probably take some time despite their importance. At the same time, continued debate leading up to the reauthorization can only help shape the final results.
 
At the same time, important implementation issues need to be attended to.  For example, there appears to be a consensus that there is a need for annual (rather than multiannual) stock assessments. There is a feeling that these stock assessments should be simpler than the present assessments. In addition, where possible, the councils should be presented with the results of different stock assessment models (for the same stock) so that council members can evaluate the range of variability and uncertainty in the different assessments.
 
In our meeting on Monday, it will be difficult to hear from everyone because of limited time. Yet it is essential that we do hear from you. If you do not have satisfactory input, could I suggest that you e-mail us with your ideas and approaches? We will then consolidate these into a single document that can be used as talking points for a discussion with the relevant committee(s). We will of course share this document with you.
 
All the best,
Brian