New England Fishery Management Council Archives - Page 100 of 101

NEFMC Approves Framework 9 Monkfish Fishery Management Plan

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

The NEFMC took final action on Framework 9 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan. It is developed jointly with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Council, with New England in the lead. While this framework addresses monkfish issues, it also would modify the region’s groundfish regulations. If approved by NOAA Fisheries, it would:

Allow limited access monkfish category C and D sector vessels only to declare, and use, while at sea, a groundfish (or Northeast Multispecies) day-at-sea while fishing in the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA).
Eliminate the monkfish trip limit when on a groundfish/monkfish day-at-sea in the NFMA.
Reduce the minimum mesh size of standup gillnet gear in the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA). Vessels fishing on a monkfish day-at-sea with a stand-up gillnet in the Mid-Atlantic Exemption Area could use mesh a minimum mesh of 5- inches, fish with no more than 50 standup gillnets, and retain dogfish and monkfish.
Allow vessels fishing on a monkfish day-at-sea in the Southern New England (SNE) Dogfish Exemption Area to use a minimum standup gillnet mesh size of 6-inches, fish no more than 50 standup gillnets from May 1 through October 31, and retain both dogfish and monkfish. Vessels fishing on a monkfish day-at-sea in the SNE Monkfish and Skate Exemption Area could use a minimum mesh size of 10-inches year round and retain both dogfish and monkfish on the same trip.
Allow a 6.5-inch minimum mesh size for standup gillnet gear while fishing on a monkfish and groundfish day-at-sea in the SFMA.

The Council opted for No Action on three alternatives that would have: a.) allowed vessels in the SFMA to declare a monkfish day-at-sea while at sea; b.) increased the daily day-at-sea/ trip limit allocation for Category F (offshore) vessels; and c.) allowed vessels to re-declare or use a monkfish research set-aside day-atsea while already at sea using a monkfish dayat-sea. The decisions were made largely on the basis of concerns effort shifts from north to south.

Both Councils, voting at their respective June Council meetings, agreed on the management measures proposed in Framework 9. It will be submitted to NOAA Fisheries later this summer. The Monkfish Committee is scheduled to consider next Amendment 6, an action that will address among other issues, options for catch shares in this fishery.

View a PDF of the Newsletter

Enviros Push for “National Monuments” Off Northeast Coast that Could Ban Recreational Fishing

November, 2015 — A coalition of environmental groups including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the National Resources Defense Council, is pushing hard to create a half-dozen “marine national monuments” in the Atlantic Ocean that would prohibit commercial fishing and could ban recreational fishing as well.

The coalition is encouraging President Obama to use his authority to designate the monuments through the Antiquities Act of 1906, which was created to “protect the objects of historic and scientific interest” and is supposed to be limited to “the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” Through the Act, a president can unilaterally create these areas without any public or congressional oversight or input. A number of presidents have exercised this privilege in the past, yet most monuments have been designated on land or in the Western Pacific Ocean.

At the time of this writing the areas under consideration are not completely clear, but appear to include at least three canyons – Lydonia, Gilbert, and Oceanographer – along with four seamounts to the south, as well as Cashes Ledge some 50 miles offshore in the Gulf of Maine. Other canyons and seamounts are also reportedly under consideration.

It is clear to many of us, however, that the coalition’s intent in creating these monuments has little to do with historical or cultural preservation. As Maine’s Gov. Paul LePage put it, the monuments designations “would serve only one purpose – excluding commercial fishing from certain segments of the ocean.”

The recreational sector, however, needs to be very careful – and skeptical as well. At least one attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has suggested that recreational fishing would likely be allowed in the monuments, in order to garner support from sport fishermen, and indicated that it would be a real “win” for the recreational sector if just the commercials were prohibited in these areas.

But the rec sector isn’t taking the bait. “Just because a couple of environmental groups claim they wouldn’t oppose recreational fishing in the monuments doesn’t mean that sport fishing would be allowed once the final regulations are drafted in D.C.,” explained Frank Blount, chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council’s (NEFMC) Groundfish Committee and a party boat fleet owner in RI. “There’s no way to predict what the language in any monument designation will entail. We need to oppose the whole idea, right from the get-go.”

One of the biggest problems with the Antiquities Act of 1906 is that it strips away the open, democratic processes that protect these areas yet can allow sustainable and appropriate fishing activity. The open federal Fishery Management Council system is the vehicle by which this is best accomplished, and in fact the NEFMC has already implemented strong protections for Cashes Ledge, where most commercial fishing is already now prohibited. And in June, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted to protect 38,000 square miles of marine habitat in order to protect deep-sea corals.

A marine monuments designation, in contrast, would nullify these existing management actions, and deny the public any input into what new restrictions might, or should, be enacted. “Instead, it all becomes purely political,” says Jim Donofrio, the RFA’s Executive Director. “Whoever has the most influence on the administration and the president will get what they want in the way of restrictions in these areas. This is no way to manage our publicly-owned marine resources. We already have a transparent process via the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It’s certainly not perfect, to be sure, but it at least allows for public participation.”

Read the full story at Making Waves, the official publication of the Recreational Fishing Alliance

Fishing industry, environmental groups spar over protected areas in Atlantic waters

November 21, 2015 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — A growing effort to permanently protect deep-sea canyons, mountains and ledges in waters off New England has the local fishing industry on edge.

“It would be a big hit for the company,” Jon Williams, president of Atlantic Red Crab Co. on Herman Melville Boulevard, said about the potential for the first marine protected areas on the Eastern seaboard. “We’re going to lose an area that we fish regularly, and we’re going to lose it forever.”

There’s a big “if” behind Williams’ statement. Environmental groups and marine scientists have intensified their calls in recent months for President Barack Obama to declare “national monument” status for three ocean areas, which would permanently protect them from an array of commercial and industrial uses. No decision has been reached, though, and the timetable for action could extend over Obama’s last year in office.

That could make 2016 a nervous year for fishing industry leaders and advocates in New Bedford and elsewhere on the New England coast.

“I am strongly opposed to the national monument,” Stephanie Rafael-DeMello, co-owner of Bela Flor Seafood Brokerage Co. and manager of Northeast Fishery Sector 9, said in an email. “I believe it takes away from the public, science-driven process that goes into such considerations.”

After a flurry of activity this fall, the issue is stirring broad debate about how to balance preservation of marine life, ocean health and sustainable fisheries with potential oil and gas exploration, unsustainable fisheries, mineral mining, fishing-reliant regional economies and more.

Also at issue is how the protected national monument areas could be established. Backers of the effort are urging Obama to use the Antiquities Act, which dates to 1906 and allows the president to act unilaterally to preserve endangered areas. People opposing or questioning the monument effort, though, say use of that act could circumvent public input.

“The problem is it doesn’t use the normal process, which is the New England Fishery Management Council, to open or close (ocean) areas,” said Ed Anthes-Washburn, executive director of the Harbor Development Commission.

Mayor Jon Mitchell expressed similar concerns.

“National monuments are declared by the White House without the same kind of vetting that NOAA applies to new regulations,” Mitchell said last week. “We’ve been making the case that the federal government needs to put the brakes on the declaration of a national monument over an area that has extensive sea canyons and sea mountains, which is a place that’s fished primarily for ocean crabs.”

Priscilla Brooks, vice president and director of ocean conservation for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), a Boston environmental advocacy group, said about 800,000 square miles in the Pacific Ocean already have been protected as marine national monuments.

Obama established three of those Pacific monuments by presidential proclamation in January 2009, and a fourth was established in 2006, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

“We don’t have a single mile in the Atlantic. Not one,” Brooks said. “We think it’s time.”

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard – Times

New England Fishery Management Council seeks candidates

November 5, 2015 — The New England Fishery Management Council announced in a news release that it is seeking qualified candidates to serve on its Scientific and Statistical Committee.

Individuals may nominate themselves or be nominated by other individuals or organizations. Nominees must submit a resume or curriculum vitae. A summary of qualifications, including length and type of relevant experience must also be included. Appointments are for three years, with the term beginning January 1, 2016 and ending December 31, 2018.

Read the full report by Penobscot Bay Press

NEFMC: Response to Study on Rising Water Temps in the Gulf of Maine

October 29, 2015 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

The Gulf of Maine, located off northern New England and Canada, has hosted important commercial and recreational marine fisheries for centuries. In addition to existing threats from land-based pollution, marine discharges, energy development, and disturbances to habitat, a more recent problem, temperature rise, has emerged. The just-published paper in Science —Slow Adaptation in the Face of Rapid Warming Leads to the Collapse of Atlantic Cod in the Gulf of Maine — adds to the increasing body of work on this topic.

As an organization responsible for the management of fisheries in federal waters that encompass the Gulf of Maine, the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), along with partners, NOAA Fisheries and the New England states, offers comments on this paper.

Most importantly, climate change is a very real issue that affects fisheries in ways we are just beginning to understand and is one the Council and others must confront.

This particular paper presents interesting research, but as is generally the case, it is rare that any one scientific study provides “The Answer.” This one will almost certainly generate more discussion and further consideration of how fisheries management bodies might respond.

NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center is actively investigating climate change that could help develop possible responses. The Science paper will likely become part of the larger discussion on how to adapt and respond to climate change. During that process, it will be the subject of careful review, including testing of its assumptions and conclusions. Should they stand up to this scrutiny, the work may influence future quota-setting

Work is underway by the Council to look more broadly at fisheries through ecosystem-based fisheries management; those efforts may illuminate the way in which we consider this pressing threat to the productivity of fisheries in the Gulf of Maine and elsewhere.

More critically, the Science paper appears to presume that the Council should have anticipated the unusual temperature rise in 2012, without any explanation of how that could have been done. The current quota for Gulf of Maine cod is the lowest on record, and will almost certainly remain so in the foreseeable future. The goal at this time is to allow sustainable levels of fishing on healthy stocks, such as haddock, redfish, and pollock to continue, while creating the opportunity for cod to recover.

After reviewing the paper, Council Executive Director Tom Nies summarized his reaction to the challenges raised in the Science paper. “Fishery managers will need to adapt to the host of significant changes caused by the rapid rise in water temperatures in the Gulf of Maine; specifically, the New England Council will continue its close partnership with the scientific community in order to mount an effective response to this circumstance.”

View a PDF of the release here

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

2016/2017 Monkfish RSA Federal Funding Opportunity

October 5, 2015 — The following was released by NOAA:

Dear Interested Parties:

For those who may not have heard, NOAA Fisheries is soliciting monkfish research proposals to use 500 Monkfish Days-at-Sea per year that have been set-aside by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils to fund monkfish research through the 2016 Monkfish Research Set-Aside (RSA) Program. Proceeds generated from the sale of monkfish harvested during a “set-aside day-at-sea” will be used to fund research activities and compensate vessels that participate in research activities and/or harvest monkfish while fishing under an RSA day-at-sea.

The deadline for receipt of the proposals is November 16, 2015. Please read the attachment for more detailed information or, if you have questions, contact Cheryl A. Corbett, Cooperative Programs Specialist at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543 or at 508-495-2070, or cheryl.corbett@noaa.gov. Her fax number is 508-495-2004.

Read the full announcement from NOAA here

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