NEFMC Archives - Page 96 of 99

NEFMC Seeking Scientific and Statistical Committee Members

October 23, 2015 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

The NEFMC seeks applicants who are interested in serving on its Scientific and Statistical Committee for the upcoming three-year term, beginning in January 2016. The Council may potentially fill more than one vacancy. Qualified individuals should have demonstrated expertise in one of the following: as an economist, fisheries scientist with expertise in population biology, or in marine ecosystems. The deadline for applications is November 18.

If you are having trouble opening the attachment which contains more complete details, please go to the Council’s website – RequestforSSCApplicants_3-yr-term.pdf. If you have questions about the SSC, the work it does and the time commitment required, please contact Chris Kellogg at ckellogg@nefmc.org or 978 465 0492, ext. 112.

View a PDF of the Notice

NILS STOLPE: So how’s that “catch shares” revolution working out for groundfish?

FishNet USA/October 22, 2015 — NILS E. STOLPE — Most of you probably remember when newly appointed NOAA head Jane Lubchenco went to New England and announced that she was going to save our nation’s oldest fishery. But if it didn’t make a lasting impact on you, quoting from the Environmental Defense blog, EDFish by Tesia Love on April 8, 2009, “Sally McGee, Emilie Litsinger and I got to witness something pretty wonderful today. Jane Lubchenco came to the New England Fishery Management Council meeting to announce the immediate release of $16 million to the groundfish fishery to help move the fishery to ‘sector” catch share management by providing funding for cooperative research to help fishermen get through a tough fishing year with very strict limits on fishing effort.” She went on to quote Dr. Lubchenco “we need a rapid transition to sectors and catch shares. Catch shares are a powerful tool to getting to sustainable fisheries and profitability. I challenge you to deliver on this in Amendment 16, to include measures to end overfishing. I will commit the resources to my staff to do their part to ensure Amendment 16 is passed in June. We are shining a light on your efforts and we will track your progress. There is too much at stake to allow delay and self-interest to prevent sectors and ultimately catch shares from being implemented.”

I’m sure that you were there with the rest of us, heaving a huge sigh of relief with visions of Dr. Lubchenco on her shiny white steed, first riding to the rescue of the New England fishery, and then on to all of the rest of our struggling fisheries. “Hyo Silver! Away!”

So how did she do? A couple of years back NOAA/NMFS released the 2012 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2012 – April 2013). It’s available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1401/. The report included a table – available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1401/tables.pdf – included a table titled Summary of major trends (May through April, includes all vessels with a valid limited access multispecies permit) for the fishing years 2009 to 2012. The table only takes up a single page, is pretty easily understood and is well worth your consideration in its entirety but I’ll take the liberty of synopsizing what I think are the major points it illustrates. In each of the four years the groundfish revenues, landed weight, number of active vessels that took a groundfish trip, the total number of groundfish trips, and the total crew days on groundfish trips decreased. The non-groundfish revenues and landed weight increased. The days absent on a non-groundfish trip increased slightly then decreased.

And then we come to 2013 (it seems that according to NOAA/NMFS, 2014 hasn’t gotten here yet). Had the myriad benefits of Dr. Lubchenco’s and her ENGO/foundation cronies’ Catch Share Revolution finally arrived? Apparently, not quite yet. According to the 2013 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2013 – April 2014), just about everything that was falling in FY 2009 to 2012 continued to fall in FY 2014. I won’t go over any of the details, but the corresponding Table 1 for that year is available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/pdf/groundfish_report_fy2013.pdf.

Oh well, I guess she deserves a few points for trying – and we shouldn’t forget that before she could really focus on fixing groundfish she was distracted by having to dump a couple of millions of gallons of Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico.

Thirteen species are included in the New England Fishery Management Council’s multi-species fishery management plan, the “groundfish” FMP. Four of those species support no or minimal directed fisheries. The landings of those that support a significant commercial fishery are in the table below (from the NOAA/NMFS commercial landings database). Looking at these data, it’s impossible to suggest that after years of intensive management this management regime is anything that could be considered a success – unless your idea of success is putting a whole bunch of people out of work. In fact only the most charitable among us could term it anything other than disaster – and it’s a disaster that has been in the making since long before Dr. Lubchenco so fatuously announced that she was going to fix it.

(I’ll add here that catch share management is not a cure-all for all that’s wrong with fishery management nor is it the reason for management failures – though at the time Dr. Lubchenco and her “team” apparently believed it was. It is nothing more than an option for dividing the catch among users. As such it can have profound socioeconomic impacts on participants in the fishery and on fishing communities that depend on it, but not on the fishery resources themselves.)

Species	Year	Metric Tons	Value	Species	Year	Metric Tons	Value

Atlantic	2009	8946	$25,223,364	Haddock	2009	5,818	$13,655,842
Cod	2010	8039	$28,142,681		2010	9,811	$21,715,488
	2011	7981	$32,596,942		2011	5,709	$16,316,219
	2012	4766	$22,200,043		2012	1,959	$7,833,001
	2013	2261	$10,455,352		2013	1,869	$6,002,480
Plaice	2009	1395	$3,886,809	White	2009	1,696	$3,556,719
	2010	1413	$4,498,591	Hake	2010	1,807	$4,116,221
	2011	1387	$4,274,757		2011	2,907	$5,849,790
	2012	1480	$5,048,688		2012	2,772	$6,933,743
	2013	1318	$4,688,995		2013	2,238	$6,484,444
Winter	2009	2209	$8,094,381	Pollock	2009	7,492	$10,010,039
Flounder	2010	1587	$6,959,547		2010	5,158	$9,529,022
	2011	2124	$8,002,376		2011	7,193	$12,292,573
	2012	2395	$10,331,500		2012	6,743	$13,185,509
	2013	2746	$9,899,924		2013	5,058	$11,395,943
Yellowtail	2009	1605	$4,759,536	Acadian	2009	1,440	$1,572,292
Flounder	2010	1318	$4,193,981	Redfish	2010	1,646	$1,959,681
	2011	1827	$4,762,969		2011	2,014	$2,754,692
	2012	1808	$5,396,502		2012	4,035	$5,891,429
	2013	1278	$4,199,927		2013	3,577	$4,337,163
Witch	2009	949	$4,036,115
Flounder	2010	759	$3,773,526
	2011	870	$3,955,053
	2012	1037	$4,247,528
	2013	686	$3,735,330

How might it be fixed? In the original FishNet article I quoted a couple of paragraphs from a National Academy of Sciences study Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States (available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18488/evaluating-the-effectiveness-of-fish-stock-rebuilding-plans-in-the-united-states). I can’t think of anything more valuable than repeating those words here. On page 178 of the report the authors concluded “the tradeoff between flexibility and prescriptiveness within the current legal framework and MFSCMA (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) guidelines for rebuilding underlies many of the issues discussed in this chapter. The present approach may not be flexible or adaptive enough in the face of complex ecosystem and fishery dynamics when data and knowledge are limiting. The high degree of prescriptiveness (and concomitant low flexibility) may create incompatibilities between single species rebuilding plans and EBFM (Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management). Fixed rules for rebuilding times can result in inefficiencies and discontinuities of harvest-control rules, put unrealistic demands on models and data for stock assessment and forecasting, cause reduction in yield, especially in mixed-stock situations, and de-emphasize socio-economic factors in the formulation of rebuilding plans. The current approach specifies success of individual rebuilding plans in biological terms. It does not address evaluation of the success in socio-economic terms and at broader regional and national scales, and also does not ensure effective flow of information (communication) across regions.”

In other words, the fishery managers need more informed flexibility to adequately manage our fisheries. It has been the goal of the fishing industry’s friends in Congress to provide this necessary flexibility (with adequate safeguards, of course). Conversely it has been the goal of a handful of foundations and the ENGOs they support and a smaller handful of so-called fishermen’s organizations to prevent this, and it seems that they have been willing to resort to just about any tactics to do it. As they have been successful in their efforts the fishing industry has continued to lose infrastructure that will never be replaced and markets that will be next to impossible to recover – and the percentage of imported seafood that we consume will continue to increase in spite of the fact that our fisheries are among the richest in the world.

View a PDF of the opinion piece

September/October 2015 NEFMC Newsletter

October 22, 2015 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

The Council Report summarizes major actions approved at NEFMC meetings or highlights items of interest to interested parties.

At its September 29-Oct 1, 2015 meeting in Plymouth, MA, the Council:

Approved Amendment 18 to the Groundfish Plan
Refined elements of Framework 55 (annual groundfish specs)
Approved the 2016- 2018 Atlantic herring specifications
Selected preferred alternatives for Scallop Amendment 19 and reviewed information related to Framework 27
Modified the red hake specifications
Initiated frameworks for the Skate Complex FMP and Habitat Amendment

If you would like to receive notices for committee meetings and other types of Council information via email, please click on Subscribe at the top of the homepage and receive e-notices.

View a PDF of the NEFMC Newsletter

MAFMC Recommends Spiny Dogfish Quota Reduction for 2016

October 15, 2015 — The following was released by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

Mid-Atlantic Council Votes to Reduce Spiny Dogfish Quota for 2016

At last week’s meeting in Philadelphia, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council recommended a substantial cut in the spiny dogfish commercial quota for next year. Following a review of the most recent scientific information, public comments, and advice from the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Spiny Dogfish Advisory Panel, the Council voted to set the 2016 commercial quota at 25.3 million pounds, a 50% reduction from the 2015 quota of 50.6 million pounds. If approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the new measure will go into effect May 1, 2016.

The Council’s decision was driven by the recent spiny dogfish stock assessment update, which estimated the stock’s biomass to be at 87% of the rebuilt target in 2015. Although the stock was found to be neither overfished nor subject to overfishing, the new estimate of stock biomass was a marked decrease from the 2013 update, which indicated that the stock’s biomass was at 135% of the target.

The Council received a considerable number of comments from the fishing industry, with the majority in opposition to the proposed cuts. Several commenters expressed concern about the accuracy of the trawl survey data used in the assessment update and requested that the Council maintain status quo regulations until a benchmark assessment for the stock has been completed.

After extensive discussion, the Council approved the SSC’s recommended acceptable biological catch (ABC) limit of 37.0 million pounds. After accounting for management uncertainty, projected discards, Canadian landings, and recreational landings, this ABC translates into a commercial quota of 25.3 million pounds for 2016. However, because the fishery has not taken the full quota in recent years, the recommended quota for 2016 would still be 11% above the landings in the most recent fishing year.

Given that the survey data from 2014 was not included in the 2015 update due to a mechanical breakdown in the NEFSC trawl survey, the Council also requested that the SSC determine an overfishing limit (OFL) and ABC for 2016 using averaged data to fill in the missing 2014 data point. The SSC will meet later this year to consider this request.

Finally, because the spiny dogfish fishery is managed jointly, the New England Fishery Management Council must also make recommendations for spiny dogfish specifications at its upcoming meeting in December.

Providence Journal: Balance of Interests Needed on Proposed Atlantic Monument

October 12, 2015 — There is no escaping the tension that exists between protecting our environment and using our natural resources for the benefit of humankind.

Sometimes, the right steps are obvious, such as when we protect endangered species, or designate a stretch of majestic mountains as national forest or parklands. At other times, there can be strong opinions and interests on both sides, with some favoring protections and others favoring a hands-off approach.

Always, it is important to strike a balance — one that protects and preserves our resources without overlooking the need for humans to use those resources and provide for themselves. Indeed, establishing wise protections can improve our quality of life while preserving the resources that provide so many benefits.

Read the full editorial at Providence Journal

RON SMOLOWITZ: Marine Monument Plan Subverts Public Input

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — October 8, 2015 — The following letter from Ron Smolowitz, of the Coonamessett Farm Foundation, was published today in the Cape Cod Times.

Your recent editorial endorsing a new Atlantic marine national monument (“A fitting tribute,” Sept. 27) misses the main reason a large and growing number of fishermen, coastal residents and public officials are so opposed to the proposal: It undermines the democratic process and threatens the future of public input in the management of public resources.

For many fishermen, this is not primarily an economic issue. Parts of the areas under consideration, particularly Cashes Ledge in the Gulf of Maine, have been closed to most forms of fishing for over a decade, and will remain closed under Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2, recently approved by the New England Fishery Management Council. Fishermen recognize the value of reasonable protections for these areas.

Rather, there is broad opposition to a marine monument because this proposal – and the precedent it sets – threatens the open and public process that has so far successfully preserved these areas. A national monument designation would mean that unilateral, one-time executive action will replace public input from a diverse variety of interests – including scientists, fishermen, regulators, and environmentalists – that has played an essential role in promoting conservation and successful management. This process works and needs to be respected.

Read the letter from Ron Smolowitz to the Cape Cod Times here

Fishermen walk out of Fisheries Management Council meeting

PLYMOUTH, Mass. — October 6, 2015 — They called it a “fisheries policy action,” but in the Radisson Hotel Plymouth Harbor lobby, where they gathered, it was clearly a cry for help.

Dozens of local fisherman, from Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and even New Orleans – most wearing bright orange “Who Fishes Matters” shirts – joined voices to produce a wail of dismay over regional fishing policies that they believe are eradicating both the fish and community-based fishing. “Who Fishes Matters” is a slogan of the North Atlantic Marine Alliance.

Fishermen like Ed Barrett, skipper of the Plymouth-based fishing vessel (F/V) Phoenix, whose voice cracked as he spoke outside the conference room after a large group of fisherman had walked out of a meeting of the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC).

“A stock that was almost fully recovered in 2009 was a disaster in 2012. It took two years to turn 15 years of hard sacrifices to rebuild stocks to put them in the toilet,” Barrett said, stammering with emotion.

Barrett said that when he began fishing out of Plymouth, 36 years ago, the harbor was filled with fishing vessels, including many federally permitted ships. But today, after more than 15 years of management the harbor is very different.

Read the full story from Wicked Local Plymouth

SHAUN GEHAN: No ‘localized depletion’ of Atlantic herring

October 6, 2015 – This week, the Sustainable Fisheries Coalition – a trade group representing herring fishermen and processors – submitted comments in response to the New England Fisheries Management Council’s supplemental scoping process on the issue of “localized depletion in near shore waters.” “Localized depletion” is a theory that intensive localized harvest, in this case of Atlantic herring, can cause adverse impacts on various other marine species.

No such impacts or impacted species were identified by the New England Council, yet it has made a goal of Amendment 8 to Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan to “address” localized depletion. SFC stated that “it puts the cart before the horse” to develop management measures to address a problem that likely does not exist. The group also called for basing any actions taken in the amendment on scientific evidence, noting that none of the scientists advising the Council had identified any such problems.

As SFC noted in its letter, the real issue involves conflicts between various users of inshore waters, particularly around Cape Cod and the islands—a view shared by several Council members when this goal was debated at its June meeting. In its letter, SFC urged the Council to address any spatial conflicts among various users groups – including herring vessels, recreational anglers, whale watching companies, environmentalists, and other fishermen – directly in a separate action.

In response to public pressure, the New England Council had long made defining and measuring localized depletion a research priority. Previously it approved a project to define and measure localized depletion, funded through the herring research set-aside program. Working with industry vessels, Gulf of Maine Research Institute researchers undertook a project to define and assess whether or not localized depletion was occurring. Funding constraints allowed only for development of a technique to assess the issue. To date, however, no follow-up research has been funded.

Amendment 8 is designed to develop management reference points to address herring’s role in the ecosystem and will take several years to complete. The Atlantic herring resource is in strong shape, with populations more than twice long-term targets.

Read the letter from the Sustainable Fisheries Coalition submitted to the NEFMC

NOAA to pay for at-sea monitors through November

October 1, 2015 — NOAA Fisheries will continue bearing the cost for at-sea monitoring of Northeast multispecies groundfish vessels at least through the end of November, three months past the target date the agency initially set for the expense to shift to permit holders.

This extension — the second in as many months — is based on the same rationale as the first: with fishermen producing fewer fishing days because of slashed quotas and area closures, the money the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budgeted for at-sea monitoring for at least 24 percent of total fishing days is lasting longer than the agency expected.

NOAA initially said the money for at-sea monitoring — which runs to about $710 per vessel per day — would run out around Aug. 31 and then the responsibility for paying for the legally mandated at-sea monitoring would have to be borne by the fishermen.

In early August, NOAA said decreased effort by the fleet had reduced monitoring expenditures enough for the money to last through Oct. 31. Now that same reduction in fishing effort has given the fleet another month-long reprieve, but it has not solved the long-term dilemma of how to pay for the at-sea monitoring.

The issue certainly is not going away.

NOAA is adamant that it expects permit holders to ultimately assume the cost of monitoring, while fishermen flatly state that the additional expense — heaped upon already miniscule, if non-existent, profit margins — simply will sink the fleet.

In late July, NOAA flatly rejected the request of the New England Fishery Management Council to use its emergency powers to remove all at-sea monitors from groundfish boats for the remainder of the 2015 fishing season.

Instead, NOAA, as well as the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, advanced the idea that the cost of monitoring be covered by some portion of the $6.9 million remaining in the Bay State’s third phase, or Bin 3, of the federal fishing disaster assistance.

Read the full story at Gloucester Daily Times

Fisheries observer program spawns more questions

September 29, 2015 — PLYMOUTH, Mass. — The fisheries observer program that looms over the industry in the Northeast won’t go out for public comment until at least December, the New England Fisheries Management Council decided Tuesday.

Years in the making, the preliminary draft of the measure numbers about 500 pages, testimony to the complexity of the effort.

Then there is the cost, which the council staff researched and broke down. It detailed the costs of what the industry will have to pay, and what it will cost the government.

Monitoring estimates by at-sea monitors, who will record bycatch, or fish that are thrown back, stands at $710 per day from the boat and $530 in costs to the government.

But a distinction has crept into the discussion, the difference between the observer program and the monitoring program. Observers are better educated, do more, and will cost boats $818 a day and the government $479.

Read the full story at New Bedford Standard -Times