Saving Seafood

Menhaden catch limit raised along Atlantic coast, slashed in Bay

November 20, 2017 — East Coast fishery managers plan to increase the coastwide menhaden catch by 8 percent next year, while slashing the amount that can be harvested from the Chesapeake Bay.

But despite heavy pressure from environmental groups, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission balked at a proposal that would have required fishery managers to take into account the ecological role of the small, oily fish when setting future harvest levels.

By the end of their two-day meeting in mid-November, commissioners had succeeded in disappointing and pleasing environmentalists and industry officials alike — typically not at the same time — while setting up another big debate two years from now over how to account for the role menhaden play as a food source for other species.

In a statement after the meeting, Robert Ballou, of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and chair of the ASMFC Menhaden Board, acknowledged that many people were left disappointed by the decisions that will guide harvests for the next two years. But he said the commission’s actions demonstrated a “commitment to manage the menhaden resource in a way that balances menhaden’s ecological role with the needs of its stakeholders.”

It was the latest round in a decades-long struggle over how to manage the catch of Atlantic menhaden, a fish almost never eaten by humans that is an important food for a host of marine species. By weight, menhaden make up the largest catch in both the Chesapeake and along the East Coast, but by nearly all accounts their abundance is increasing, especially in New England. In fact, the ASMFC’s science advisers indicated that the current coastal catch limit of 200,000 metric tons could be increased by more than 50 percent with little chance of overfishing the species.

But conservation groups have long argued that such assessments do not fully account for the importance of menhaden as a food source for marine mammals, many birds, and a host of other fish, such as striped bass.

It is part of a larger, long-running debate between conservation groups and the fishing industry over how to treat forage fish, which include menhaden, anchovies and other small species that provide a critical link in the aquatic food chain by converting plankton into nourishment for larger predators.

Historically, conservationists contend that forage species have received less attention — and protection from overfishing — than the larger predators, such as striped bass. Prior to the meeting near Baltimore, conservationists had gathered a record-setting 157,599 comments urging the ASMFC to adopt new harvest guidelines, or reference points, that would take the ecological role of the fish into account when setting catch limits. If adopted, the guidelines would almost certainly have required a reduction in the current coastwide menhaden catch.

But critics — which included ASMFC’s own scientific advisers, as well as the commercial menhaden industry — said the reference points under consideration were based on studies of other species in other places and may not be applicable to menhaden.

Ultimately, the commission — a panel of state fishery managers that regulates catches of migratory fish along the coast — voted 13–5 to delay the adoption of ecological reference points until a panel of scientists it has assembled can make its own ecological recommendations, tailored specifically to menhaden. Those recommendations are not expected to be ready until 2019.

Dozens of activists attended the meeting, many holding bright yellow signs that said, “Little Fish Big Deal,” “Keep it Forage” or “Conserve Menhaden.” Many were surprised not only to be defeated after the huge volume of comments — more than 99 percent in favor of ecological reference points — but also by the lopsided vote.

Read the full story at the Bay Journal

 

New Chesapeake Bay menhaden rules spark praise, criticism

November 15, 2017 — CHESAPEAKE BAY, Va. — New regulations on the harvest of menhaden are proving a mixed bag for local industry and conservationists.

Menhaden is a key part of the Chesapeake Bay’s ecosystem, serving as food for larger fish, mammals and birds. But they are also the key raw material for Omega Protein. Every day Omega turns tons of menhaden into fish oil, fish meal and other products.

As we showed you in our investigation Controversial Catch two years ago, Omega is the last major company of its kind on the Atlantic Coast, and has been operating in Reedville since the mid-1800s. Omega employs about 250 people there.

This week at its meeting near Baltimore, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has raised the total allowable catch of menhaden, from Maine to Florida, by 8 percent.

But Omega is not happy about that, because at the same time, the commission cut the amount the company can catch from the Chesapeake Bay by 40 percent.

Read the full story at WAVY

 

Menhaden vote a mixed bag for Virginia

November 15, 2017 — There was measured praise and disappointment all around this week after a regional fisheries commission voted on a 2018-2019 management plan for Atlantic menhaden, often called the most important fish in the sea.

For Virginia, too, it was a mixed bag.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission decided at an annual meeting in Linthicum, Md., to lower the Chesapeake Bay reduction fishery cap by 41.5 percent, from 87,216 metric tons to 51,000 metric tons. This pleases Virginia conservationists, but not the reduction fishery.

The commission said in a statement that its decision “recognizes the importance of the Chesapeake Bay as nursery grounds” for menhaden and many other species that rely on menhaden as a food source.

It also bumped up the coast-wide catch limit for menhaden by 8 percent to 216,000 metric tons — a net plus for fisheries, and a “modest” increase with a “zero percent chance of subjecting the resource to overfishing or causing it to be overfished,” the commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Board Chairman Robert Ballou of Rhode Island said in a statement.

Read the full story at the Daily Press

 

US regulators boost Atlantic menhaden catch limits by 8%

November 14, 2017 — BALTIMORE — Omega Protein, Daybrook Fisheries, Lund’s Fisheries and several other US big fishing companies that rely heavily on menhaden caught in the Atlantic Ocean got the outcome they hoped for in a hotel meeting room here this week.

By a 15-3 tally, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), meeting as the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board on Tuesday morning, approved a 216,000 metric ton total allowable catch (TAC) on the Atlantic coast of the United States in 2018 and 2019 — an 8% increase. The panel gave itself the flexibility to lower the threshold should its staff come up with new ecological reference points (ERPs) that suggest a reduction is needed.

The day before ASFMC voted down, 13-5, a change favored by environmental advocates that would’ve required the establishment of interim goals aimed at restoring menhaden to 75% of their original biomass and prompted action, possibly even a moratorium, should the biomass ever fell below 40% of that amount. It approved a substitute proposal that requires ASMFC’s staff to develop species-specific ERPS, something that is predicted to get done by the end of 2019.

“We’re in a pretty good place right now where the fishery is concerned. As has been referenced, we’ve got an expanding stock and a stable harvest over the last couple of years and we’re still leaving about 40% of the unfished spawning potential in the water right now,” said Dave Blazer, Maryland’s representative on the panel, in explaining why he was voting for the substitute proposal on Monday.

Read the full story at UndercurrentNews

 

Days Before High-Stakes Menhaden Vote, Questions and Uncertainties Abound

Amendment 3’s new Ecological Reference Points in Center of Controversy

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 10, 2017 — By Marisa Torrieri:

As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission prepares to vote on highly-contested benchmarks for managing menhaden next week, uncertainties about the potential ripple effect of new ecological reference points (ERPs) are fueling heated exchanges between environmental groups and fisheries.

On November 13 and 14, the Commission is expected to meet to vote on Amendment 3, which will establish management benchmarks, and consider ecological reference points for menhaden, a bony and oily forage fish that is a primary food source for bigger fish such as striped bass and humpback whales and is harvested commercially for oil and fertilizer. The Commission also plans to review and potentially update state-by-state quota allocations.

Should the commission vote for “Option E” under Amendment 3 — an approach largely favored by environmental groups — the ASMFC would establish interim ecological reference points that would set a target of 75 percent and a threshold of 40 percent of a theoretical unfished stock. The ASMFC’s Biological Ecological Reference Points Workgroup would continue to develop Menhaden Specific ERP.

Fishermen whose livelihoods depend on the fish say the impact of this option would be catastrophic to their business.

Jeff Kaelin, head of government relations for Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., in Cape May, N.J., said New Jersey would lose a lot of jobs and money, in the event that interim ERPs took effect.

“With Option E, if we fish at the target that the environmental community is advocating, we’ll have a 25 percent cut in the fishery we have today, and that’s significant,” says Kaelin. “In 2013, when the quotas were established … we lost access to 50 percent of the fish. This is worth about $2 million to the state of New Jersey if we take a 25 percent cut. That’s what would happen, and there’s no need for it because the science is so robust.”

Yet environmental groups have countered that Option E, if selected, would not trigger draconian changes — it would simply put new goals in place that would benefit everyone, which could be phased in based on an organization’s own time table.

“The ERP is the goal, what you’re trying to achieve,” said Joseph Gordon, a senior manager for Pew Charitable Trusts, who directs campaigns to conserve forage fish. “Option E doesn’t tell you how fast to get there and how much risk to take. If the Commission decides to move forward Option E, they will be opting to have a very high population [of menhaden] in the ocean. When we talk about Option E, the goal of that is to achieve and maintain a high biomass of fish in the ocean. That should support significant amounts of fishing in the case of menhaden, over time as the population grows. The benefits to everyone, including commercial fisheries, is the goal of management.”

Chris Moore of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation also suggested Option E isn’t as bad as fisheries are making it out to be.

“Option E would say ‘OK, we now have a new target … fisheries would need to make changes to ensure they’re hitting that target,” says Moore. “But it’s not ‘we shall do this, we shall do that.’ If you look at the last stock assessment, the last quota showed we’re increasing. There’s a lot of leeway for the managers to get to the target.”

Omega Protein Corporation, the largest participant in the menhaden fishery, is based in Reedville, Va., a state that is currently allocated 85 percent of the catch. It says comments from environmentalists in support of Option E sugarcoat the potential economic impact of the ERPs.

Omega Protein is in favor of the more conservative Option B, which keeps ERPs at the existing status quo levels, until better mathematical models for menhaden are available.

“To say that the current reference points are inadequate, and we want to change them, and then say, ‘we won’t mandate that the harvest be cut when over the target,’ that’s ludicrous,” says Monty Deihl, Vice President of Operations for Omega Protein. “The environmentalist solution is looking for a problem, and there is no problem! We only take 8 percent of the biomass per year. The current model says you could harvest 300,000 metric tons per year without overfishing. With Option E, there’s a 25 percent cut in the harvest.”

Shaun Gehan, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who represents Omega Protein, said that environmentalists promoting Option E as a “phased approach” — while the language within the Option calls for a clear cut in fishing activities — are hypocritical.

“The real issue is if one believes that menhaden should be at 75 percent un-fished levels and the target [fishing mortality] helps achieve that, then it is hypocritical to advocate for anything but a cut,” he says. “It seems there is a lot of folks that want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, being able to say, ‘ecological reference points’ are being used, while avoiding harvest reductions they entail because no one thinks cuts are warranted in light of menhaden’s abundance.”

THE ROAD TO AMENDMENT 3

One of the biggest arguments for clamping down on menhaden fishing, one which has resonated with the public, is that concerns about menhaden weren’t on anyone’s radar until recently, when reports warned that the supply was in danger.

According to Pew, people started to “wake up” to the menhaden issue after a coast-wide decline in menhaden in the 1990s through the early 2000s that attracted a lot of attention: This decline was noticed on the water up and down the coast by recreational fishermen. The effects of this decline on predator species, especially striped bass, were especially noticed, since striped bass is a prized recreational fish – and the reason the ASMFC was created in the first place.

“Striped bass had been recovering from depletion, and many were interested and invested in this recovery,” Gordon noted. “But anglers were seeing signs of starvation and disease in striped bass, and it didn’t take long to trace many of the problems to the absence of adequate prey (menhaden) for them. That’s what led to the first cap on menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay, in 2005.”

In 2012, with support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University convened the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, a panel of 13 marine and fisheries scientists from around the world, to offer science-based advice for the management of species known as forage fish, because of their crucial role in marine ecosystems. In their report, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” researchers concluded fisheries managers “need to pay more careful attention to the special vulnerabilities of forage fish and the cascading effects of forage fishing on predators.”

Since then, ASMFC staff, scientists, and advisors have been developing and reviewing a range of ecological models and management strategies. In 2012, the ASMFC voted in favor of Amendment 2, which set a new coast-wide catch limit. In May of 2015, the ASMFC began drafting Amendment 3 to the menhaden management plan, with the goal of establishing ecological management, and to review and possibly update state-by-state quota allocations.

“What’s amazing to watch over time, and I’ve worked on this for about a decade, is we’ve gone from a situation where we didn’t have any coast-wide limit at all to a question of when it’s going to happen,” says Gordon.

CONSIDERING SCIENCE

The outcome of the vote on Amendment 3 is expected to have a powerful impact on the future of menhaden, as well as recreational anglers, tourism, conservationists and larger fisheries. Yet with so much on the line, figuring out the right path isn’t so clear cut.

For one, scientists and researchers who study menhaden are at odds with each other, some saying we are at a critical juncture and must make drastic moves to manage and protect menhaden, and others dismissing such reports as hysteria.

In a Q&A with Pew Charitable Trusts, Ellen Pikitch, a marine biology professor and director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University, said the state of menhaden appears to be in decent shape if you examine the population in isolation.

“But when you look at it from an ecosystem perspective—whether there are enough to feed predators—menhaden are much less numerous than they ought to be,” she said. “On the East Coast, menhaden used to range from Nova Scotia to Florida, but we haven’t seen that kind of distribution for probably 50 years.”

Pikitch led a group of more than 100 scientists who commented on the proposed Amendment 3 ERPs, and is pushing for the implementation of Option E.

But at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on October 24, fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”

Dr. Hilborn’s comments came in response to questioning from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) about whether fisheries managers should manage forage fish according to a “rule of thumb” approach, where fisheries are managed according to a set of broad ecological and management principals, or a “case-by-case” approach, where management is guided by more species-specific information.

Hilborn, who was part of a team of fisheries scientists that recently examined the effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species, has expressed concern that the 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.

John Bull, commissioner for Virginia Marine Resources Commission, believes the latter. And while he’s heard environmental groups are trying to make Option E seem more palatable by saying it will result in “phased implementation,” he does not support the establishment of interim ERPs because it “doesn’t make sense, scientifically.”

“The science shows from a benchmark stock assessment a couple years ago that the stock is healthy, robust, and reproduction is good,” said Bull. “And in fact, a 30 percent increase on menhaden could be enacted with a 0 percent chance of overfishing. What Virginia would like to see is an increase in the quota on the East Coast of 5, 6, 7 percent.”

Marisa Torrieri is a freelance writer who lives in Fairfield, Connecticut, with her husband and two young sons. She possesses a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University, and has written and edited for dozens of publications, including the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, and the Village Voice.

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Analysis Finds 92 Percent of Atlantic Menhaden Already Left In Water to Serve Ecological Role

Analysis Challenges Arguments That Interim Ecological Reference Points Are Urgently Needed

An analysis finds that 92 percent of Atlantic menhaden are left in the water to serve their ecological role. A high quality version of this infographic is available by clicking on the image.

WASHINGTON – November 9, 2017 – The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

A new analysis from the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) finds that current management leaves 92 percent of Atlantic menhaden to serve their ecological role as forage for predators. The analysis is based on data from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) 2017 update stock assessment of Atlantic menhaden. The MFC has produced an infographic illustrating this analysis, which is available here.

In recent weeks, numerous ENGOs and recreational fishing groups up and down the Atlantic Coast have published articles and op-eds arguing that menhaden are in dire need of greater protection. These groups include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the American Sportfishing Association, and local activists from coastal states like Rhode Island and New Jersey. However, the MFC’s analysis challenges the assertion that fisheries take too many menhaden, and makes clear that the vast majority of fish are already left in the water to fulfill their ecological role.

The analysis tracks an average menhaden year class through its full life cycle. It finds that two-thirds of juvenile menhaden (younger than age 1) are either consumed by predators or die of natural causes. These juvenile menhaden are the preferred forage for predator species and are not targeted by the fishery, which takes less than 1 percent of these fish.

Over half of the menhaden that survive to age-1 are allocated to the ecosystem to be eaten by predators such as striped bass and marine birds or die of natural causes. Only 8 percent of age-1 menhaden are harvested by the fishery.

The menhaden fishery largely harvests menhaden over the age of 2, but even for this age group, it only harvests about 40 percent of fish. Overall, just 8 percent of a menhaden year class is harvested by the fishery. The overwhelming majority of fish – 92 percent – are not impacted by the fishery.

This MFC analysis is an update of a previous analysis that was based on the ASMFC’s 2015 benchmark stock assessment of Atlantic menhaden. That analysis was reviewed by the ASMFC last fall. Both the 2015 benchmark assessment and the 2017 update assessment found that Atlantic menhaden is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing.

MARYLAND: Oyster sanctuary bill finds support in House of Delegates

March 20, 2017 — The House of Delegates voted 102-39 on Thursday in favor of a bill that would keep intact existing oyster sanctuaries on the Chesapeake Bay, a blow to the commercial fishing industry’s efforts to expand the state’s oyster fisheries.

Supporters and opponents of the bill, named the Oyster Management Plan, are both saying that their solution is best for the long-term health of the bay and its oyster population, which helps clean the Chesapeake by filtering nutrients like excess algae out of the water column.

“(The Oyster Management Plan) protects the fragile progress that has been made to date in recovering oyster populations,” the Chesapeake Bay Foundation said in written testimony to the House Environment and Transportation Committee on Feb. 24. “This bill would in no way impact (the Department of Natural Resource’s) ability to manage the public oyster fishery, including the development of rotational harvest management for public oyster bottom.”

Read the full story at the Washington Post

BEN LANDRY: Menhaden are flourishing

December 28, 2016 — A recent column by Chris Dollar (“Outdoors: The more menhaden the better,” Dec. 3) cites claims from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation that the current management of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay has left the stock running low. The column also echoes the foundation’s position that the menhaden harvest cap should be lowered. The science suggests the opposite to be the case.

In 2012, based on fears of overfishing, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission implemented a menhaden quota. Soon after the quota was implemented, scientists found the concerns of overfishing were misplaced. Further research found that menhaden are prospering coastwide. In fact, the ASMFC declared conclusively that menhaden are neither “overfished nor experiencing overfishing.”

The ASMFC has recently expressed its confidence in the health of menhaden by voting to raise the coastwide quota by 6.45 percent. This decision was backed up by a commission analysis based on nearly 9,000 simulations that found that an increase in the menhaden quota would have an almost zero percent chance of leading to overfishing.

Read the full letter to the editor at The Baltimore Sun

ASMFC Presents William Goldsborough Prestigious Captain David H. Hart Award

October 28th, 2016 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: 

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission presented William “Bill” Goldsborough of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation the Captain David H. Hart Award, its highest annual award, at the Commission’s 75thAnnual Meeting in Bar Harbor, Maine. Bill is the first person to receive all three Commission awards, having previously received an Annual Award of Excellence for Management & Policy Contributions and the Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership (ACFHP) Melissa Laser Fish Habitat Conservation Award.

Throughout his 30 years on the front lines of fisheries management and conservation, Bill has remained a thoughtful and persistent voice of reason in his commitment to science-based decision making.  A senior scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation since 1988, Bill has provided an independent, conservation-oriented voice to the fisheries discussion. Bill joined the Commission in 1995 after having served as a member of the Commission’s Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Transition Team. From 1995 through 2004 he was the Maryland Governor’s Appointee and again from 2007 until this year.

During his career, Bill has made significant contributions to the protection and recovery of several key Chesapeake Bay fishery species. He played a central role in the striped bass recovery, beginning with the implementation of the Maryland moratorium in 1985 and continuing through to the reopening the fishery in 1990, having achieved consensus among diverse stakeholders  to move towards a conservation-based approach to striped bass management.  He also led a public blue crab conservation campaign that resulted in a broad commitment to cap effort in the fishery and led to the adoption of bay-wide fishery management plans under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. 

A passionate advocate for aquatic habitat, Bill made habitat protection and restoration a topic of critical and common concern among fishermen. Regionally, he brought together a diverse group of commercial and recreational fishermen to adopt codes for protecting the Chesapeake Bay.  Coastwide, he has left an indelible mark on the Commission’s Habitat Program as one of the earliest members of the Habitat Committee and its longest serving Chair, having serving in that position for 10 years. Thanks to his leadership and participation, the Committee has developed habitat sections for many of the Commission’s fishery management plans and released numerous publications – all of which have elevated our understanding that healthy aquatic habitats are the foundation of abundant fisheries. As a Steering Committee member, Bill also played an important role in the development and launching of the Atlantic Coastal Fish Habitat Partnership.

Perhaps one of Bill’s most notable and lasting endeavors is his commitment to ecological fisheries management, which the Atlantic Menhaden Board is now pursuing through Amendment 3. In 2005 and 2006, he was instrumental in developing the Chesapeake Bay reduction cap for menhaden and prompting a five-year Chesapeake Bay population research program. Throughout the oftentimes contentious deliberations, Bill’s was the calm voice reminding us to stay the course.

His contributions and composure in the face of challenging decision-making negotiations undoubtedly spring from his concurrent participation in other fisheries management fora, including  his work with the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program where he serves on the Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team, and his tenures as a member of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Fishery Management Workgroup (1987-2001), Aquatic Reef Habitat Workgroup (1993-2000), Fish Passage Workgroup (1987-2000), and the Fishery Management Plan Review Taskforce (1993). From 1996 through 2003, he was a member of NOAA’s Bi-State Blue Crab Advisory Committee. For eight years (2002-2010), he was the NGO representative on NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Fisheries Steering Committee.

 These are only some of the highlights in the remarkable career of an exceptional ecologist who has found ways to bridge gaps between stakeholders and the environment while deftly negotiating the terrain between what could be ideal and what is humanly possible.

 The Commission instituted the Award in 1991 to recognize individuals who have made outstanding efforts to improve Atlantic coast marine fisheries. The Hart Award is named for one of the Commission’s longest serving members, who dedicated himself to the advancement and protection of marine fishery resources.

Fisheries panel, after failed last try, agrees on increase in menhaden harvest

October 28th, 2016 — After failing two months ago to come up with a 2017 quota for commercial harvests of menhaden, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission this week finally settled on a number: 200,000 metric tons, a 6.45 percent increase from this year.

The commission struggled for 3-1/2 hours at its meeting in Alexandria in August to set next year’s quota, with a half-dozen proposals for various limits failing to win enough votes. On Wednesday in Bar Harbor, Maine, the commission’s menhaden management board settled on a number much quicker.

Still, the new limit was criticized by environmental groups, including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Chris Moore, the foundation’s senior scientist in Virginia, said in a prepared statement that the fish – a staple in the diets of numerous marine creatures, from striped bass to whales – are “not abundant throughout their geographic range.”

Moore said that keeping the quota unchanged for the small, bony, oily fish “would have helped ensure a healthier menhaden population for all users.”

In most of the states from Maine to Florida under the commission’s watch, menhaden are harvested for bait.

Virginia is the exception. It’s the center of East Coast harvests, with next year’s quota allotting the state nearly 169,000 of the 200,000-ton limit. The overwhelming majority of Virginia’s catches will go to a plant in Reedville on the Northern Neck, where they’ll be reduced into products ranging from fish oil pills to cattle-feed supplements.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star