January 8, 2018 — HYANNIS, Mass. — NOAA Fisheries has increased the commercial quota and recreational harvest limit for scup for 2018.
The commercial quota has been increased by 38 percent with a 41 percent jump in harvest limit for recreational fishermen.
The limits were raised due to an increase in stock size.
Read the full story at CapeCod.com
January 5, 2018 — The following is excerpted from an article by Doug Fraser of the Cape Cod Times:
After 14 years of research, negotiations, hearings and two additional years of review, New England has a plan that uses science and the latest technology to decide which areas are important for the critical life stages of fish and shellfish species and how to protect them.
John Bullard, the regional director of NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, informed New England Fishery Management Council Chairman John Quinn in a letter Wednesday that his agency had approved most of their fish habitat protection plan.
“It was a massive undertaking and your staff, especially Michelle Bachman, should be proud of their groundbreaking work that went into supporting this amendment,” Bullard wrote in the letter. The council staff, along with researchers from the National Marine Fisheries Service, state fisheries agencies, and universities, especially the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s School for Marine Science and Technology, put together models that incorporated photographic and other surveys of the ocean bottom with known areas of fish concentration and other research on spawning and other life stages, that helped the council evaluate what should be protected and how.
“The fact that it dragged on so long, people miss how groundbreaking this really is,” said Tom Nies, the New England council’s executive director. Two decades ago, habitat closures were decided based on drawing a line around areas where fish were congregating, Nies said. Now, with a model that compares the sea bed with the impact of fishing, they can make decisions he feels will have greater significance to restoring and protecting fish stocks. Plus, the habitat plan also set aside research areas to investigate the link between habitat and fish productivity, a piece of the puzzle that has seen relatively little conclusive research.
“If you compare where we are with this amendment in terms of how they were developed and analyzed versus the original habitat areas in 2002 and 2003, we are light years ahead of where we were then,” Nies said.
Scallopers from both the big boat and small boat fleets, which are often at odds, traveled to Washington in October to lobby [U.S. Rep. William] Keating and other congressmen on getting NMFS to finish its review of the habitat plan and open the area up to scalloping before that population died off. Their message was that allowing them into scallop-rich, nonessential fish habitat meant they spent far less time towing their heavy dredges through areas fish do use.
“From our perspective, it’s really heartening that they heard our concerns,” said Seth Rolbein, director of the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, speaking for the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance.
David Frulla, an attorney and lobbyist representing limited access scallop vessels, and Fisheries Survival Fund attorney Andrew Minkiewicz agreed the council and NOAA made the right decision in closing the Great South Channel and opening the scallop grounds in what is known as Closed Area I. But they felt that there was just as much evidence to open up a portion of a second closed area on Georges Bank over 100 miles east of the Cape that had historically produced as much as 50 million pounds of harvested scallops. Bullard said more information would be needed for his agency to do that right now.
“There are only so many highly productive scallop beds, and this is one of them,” Minkiewicz said. Frulla admitted that the bottom there is more complex and may be harder to determine its value to fish, but Minkiewicz said adding another prime scallop area keeps scallopers away from the bottom where fish do congregate.
Assistant Regional Administrator Michael Pentony told Quinn in an email that his agency expected to publish the final rule containing the regulations to implement the plan this spring.
Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times
January 4, 2018 — Frigid temperatures may have transformed the waters off Cape Cod to ice, but it turns out the recent cold snap is not literally just freezing sharks to death.
It may, however, be contributing to the ocean predators getting trapped in Cape Cod Bay.
Greg Skomal, the senior fisheries scientist for the state Department of Fish and Game who leads the Massachusetts Shark Research program, said the thresher sharks — like the four that have been found dead in Wellfleet and Orleans in recent days — are dying as they attempt to swim to warmer southern waters but are getting stranded in shallow waters in Cape Cod Bay.
“The rapid cooling associated with this cold snap and water temps is forcing the sharks to move south at a faster pace, and the landmass of Cape Cod is contributing to them getting stranded in shallow water,” said Skomal, adding that the exact cause of the sharks’ deaths remains hypothetical at this time.
Cape Cod, with its shape of an outstretched human arm that hooks at Provincetown, can act as a natural trap for animals trying to move south quickly, and most shark species need to be continually moving in order to breathe effectively, he said.
Read the full story at the Boston Globe
January 4, 2018 — NOAA Northeast Regional Administrator John Bullard, in a letter to New England Fishery Management Council (NEMFC) Chairman Dr. John Quinn, has stated that NOAA has partially approved Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2. This follows over 15 years of work on OHA2 by the NEFMC and regional stakeholders. The details of the decision, as well as the text of the letter, are included below.
Dear Dr. Quinn,
I am writing to inform you that we have approved the majority of the New England Fishery Management Council’s Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2.
We approved, as recommended, the essential fish habitat (EFH) designations, the habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) designations, the dedicated habitat research areas (DHRA), the groundfish spawning recommendations, the framework and monitoring measures, and most of the habitat management area (HMA) recommendations. We have determined that the approved measures comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requirements to identify and describe EFH and to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on such habitat.
We have disapproved two of the HMA recommendations — the recommendations for eastern Georges Bank and Cox Ledge.
Approved Measures
We approved the following Council recommendations, as proposed:
Disapproved Measures
Cox Ledge
On Cox Ledge, the Council recommended establishing an HMA that would have prohibited the use of ground cables on trawl vessels and prohibited hydraulic clam dredging in the area. Based on the analysis submitted, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service determined there was insufficient information to implement the ground cable measure at this time. While there have been studies in other regions supporting the prohibition of ground cables as a method to minimize area swept, there was not enough information to determine how successful this approach would be in this region. Because it is unclear how inefficient this measure would make the gear, it is also unclear if this measure would reduce habitat impacts or actually increase them.
Further, there is insufficient information to determine the potential costs to the industry from the potential increased fishing time. As a result, the recommendation to establish the Cox Ledge HMA with these measures is disapproved because there is little rationale and evidence to demonstrate how it complies with the requirements ofthe Magnuson-Stevens Act to minimize the adverse effects of fishing if the measure would actually increase fishing time due to a reduction in fishing efficiency.
Eastern Georges Bank
On eastern Georges Bank, the Council recommended removing Closed Areas I and II and implementing the Georges Shoal and Northern Edge Mobile Bottom-Tending Gear Habitat Management Areas, both closed to mobile bottom-tending gears, and Northern Edge Reduced Impact Habitat Management Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gears, except scallop dredges in a rotational management program and trawls west of 67° 20′ W longitude. We have partially approved this recommendation. We approved the removal ofthe Closed Area I Groundfish and Habitat Closures, but disapproved the recommendation to remove Closed Area II.
This action approves the Council’s recommendation to remove the Closed Area I EFH and Groundfish Closure Area designations and replace them with a DHRA and seasonal spawning closure. NMFS determined that the removal of the Closed Area I designations and proposed new designations do not compromise the ability ofthe Council’s fishery management plans to comply with the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
We determined that there was insufficient information to support the Closed Area II recommendation. The Council’s recommended HMAs on Georges Bank do not sufficiently address the impact of limited access scallop dredging on the highly vulnerable habitat within the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area. Overall, the Council’s recommended changes to Closed Area II and eastern Georges Bank would prevent achieving the Amendment’s goals and objectives, notably to improve juvenile groundfish habitat protection, and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to minimize the adverse effects of fishing to the extent practicable. Furthermore, the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area has the same footprint as the Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC. The area has been closed to mobile bottom-tending gear since 1995 and was designated as an HAPC in 1998. The rationale for the designation ofthe HAPC was that this is important habitat for juvenile cod that is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of fishing. The Council reaffirmed the HAPC designation in this Amendment, but the Council’s recommendation does not avoid, mitigate, or compensate for the adverse effects of the proposed action on this HAPC.
The Amendment’s focus of minimizing the total area closed to fishing, while maximizing the amount of vulnerable habitat protected, sought in part to provide more habitat for juvenile groundfish and enhance the productivity of groundfish resources. The proposed habitat management measures on eastern Georges Bank do not support these goals and objectives, however. Removing protections from, and allowing scallop dredging in, the most vulnerable portion of Closed Area II without adopting comparable protections that reasonably balance the long- and short-terms costs and benefits to EFH, associated fisheries, and the nation does not minimize the adverse effects of fishing in this area to the extent practicable. It also prevents the Council from achieving this action’s goals and objectives to improve protections of ground fish, and juvenile cod specifically. The potential benefits to habitat from the proposed closed areas do · not outweigh the potential adverse effects on highly valuable EFH and vulnerable ground fish stocks that would result from the proposed opening of the current Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area to limited access scallop dredging. The no action alternative that remains on Georges Bank, and the HMAs in other sub-regions as approved, provide a reasonable balance of EFH protection and long- and short-term costs and benefits as well as meet the Amendment’s goals and objectives to improve groundfish protection.
Further supporting the determination that the proposed areas and measures do not sufficiently offset the quality and importance of the habitat on eastern Georges Bank against the adverse impacts of fishing in this area is the lack of consideration of allowing fishing in the Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC in the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area. As noted above, the Council initially made this HAPC designation in 1998 and reaffirmed the importance of the area in this Amendment. One of the four considerations for HAPC designation is sensitivity to anthropogenic stress. The Council concluded that there are “no known anthropogenic threats to this area beyond those associated with fishing activity.” While there are no fishery restrictions automatically associated with HAPC designations themselves, the designation should result in the Council taking a more precautionary approach to management of those areas, particularly when the only noted human-induced stressor is fishing. The 2002 final rule for the EFH regulations notes, “designation of HAPCs is a valuable way to highlight priority areas within EFH for conservation and management … Proposed fishing activities that might threaten HAPCs may likewise receive a higher level of scrutiny.” This guidance suggests that councils should prioritize the protection of HAPCs where fishing is a primary or significant threat to the habitat.
The designation of an area as an HAPC does not inherently require a fishing closure in the area. However, the Council provided insufficient information to understand which aspects of the area are critical to juvenile cod survival, how those aspects of the habitat are affected by scallop dredges, the recovery time for such impacts, and the anticipated rotation periods for scallop fishing. Without more consideration and analyses of these critical components, it is not possible to determine under what conditions rotational scallop fishing should be permitted in the Northern Edge HAPC and the full nature and extent of how such access would affect juvenile cod. The Council’s recommendations in this Amendment would open the most vulnerable portions of the HAPC and do not adequately mitigate or compensate for those impacts by restricting them or closing any other comparable habitat. The Council’s recommendation to allow even rotational fishing in this sensitive habitat appears to be inconsistent with its own rationale for the designation that the habitat in this area warrants particular concern and consideration.
For these reasons, we have disapproved this recommendation. Ifthis issue were revisited in the future, a more thorough discussion ofthese critical issues would be required. We will continue to provide support for reconsidering reasonably balanced approaches to providing limited fishing opportunities in this area, while protecting this valuable habitat and better minimizing the adverse impacts offishing.
Thank you for the Council’s work on this action. It was a massive undertaking and your staff, especially Michelle Bachman, should be proud of their groundbreaking work that went into supporting this Amendment. As always, our staff are available to answer any questions you may have on this decision.
View the letter in its entirety here.
For more information on some of the proposed changes in OHA2, as well as the perspective of the fishing industry on these changes, view this video.
January 4, 2019 — It staged a rolling tour of a dozen port meetings at the end of 2017 that would have made the Grateful Dead proud and now the New England Fishery Management Council continues to urge fishing stakeholders to weigh in on what the council does well and where it needs to improve.
The council embarked on its external review in November, visiting port cities up and down the northern Atlantic coast — with two port meetings remaining next week in New York and New Jersey — and continues to conduct a webinar that allows stakeholders to make their cases online.
The website address for the online survey is http://bit.ly/2AiZkMn.
This week, the council selected the six individuals — three fishery managers and three scientists — to serve on the independent review panel. The panel, according to the council, is set to meet March 13 to 16 at the Hilton Garden Inn at Boston’s Logan Airport. The meetings will be open to the public.
Read the full story at the Gloucester Times
January 2, 2018 — Pressing the importance of all trade on the Donald Trump administration, including imported seafood, will be one of the top priorities of the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) in 2018.
The US seafood industry’s biggest trade association, representing close to 300 companies, is still smarting from several of the moves made by the White House and its Cabinet in their first year, including its formal withdrawal from a trade deal with Pacific countries, a lack of progress on a trade deal with Europe and implementation of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (Simp).
But NFI president John Connelly said trade will remain a top focal point for the group in the New Year.
“We just need to spend more time on the Hill and in the administration to help them appreciate that not all trade is negative for the US,” Connelly told Undercurrent News in an December interview at his office in McLean, Virginia. “Seafood is not like steel or autos or something else. We cannot now produce enough seafood in the US, whether it be from wild capture or aquaculture, to feed all Americans.”
The US exports 40% to 60% of the seafood it produces, depending on the value of the dollar and some other factors, and imports about 85% of the seafood it consumes. Seafood is responsible for 1,270,141 jobs in the U.S. and imports account for 525,291 of those, according to Department of Commerce data noted by the association.
“Gladys, down in Brownsville, Texas, is cutting imported tilapia right now, and that job is extraordinarily important to her family. Why is that job any less important than a job involving domestic codfish?” Connelly said.
But in looking back at 2017, Connelly can point to at least one major trade-related victory: The removal of the prospective border adjustment tax from the legislative tax overhaul passed by Congress and signed by the president before leaving on its winter break. The provision, which was supported by several Republican leaders, would have forced some seafood dealers to raise their prices 30% to 40%, said Connelly, quoting a Wall Street Journal article.
Read the full story at Undercurrent News
January 1, 2018 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:
KEY MESSAGE:
In response to a request from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, NOAA Fisheries will publish a final interim rule on January 2, 2018, which will temporarily reduce golden tilefish catch limits for 2018 based on the most recent population assessment. The purpose of the action is to reduce overfishing (rate of removal is too high) of golden tilefish while management measures are being developed to end overfishing. The reductions in the catch limits are effective beginning January 2, 2018.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES:
This bulletin serves as a Small Entity Compliance Guide, complying with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
Why is the temporary reduction in the catch limit needed?
What are the actions in the interim rule?
| Total catch
limit |
Commercial
catch limit |
Commercial Hook-and-Line catch limit | Commercial
Longline catch limit |
Recreational catch limit |
| (pounds gutted weight) | (pounds gutted weight) | (pounds gutted weight) | (pounds gutted weight) | (numbers of fish)** |
| 323,000 | 313,310 | 78,328 | 234,982 | 2,187** |
**An average weight conversion factor of 4.43 pounds gutted weight was used for converting
the recreational catch limit into numbers of fish.
Where can I find more information on the environmental assessment and the interim rule?
Access this and other Fishery Bulletins from NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office by clicking here.
December 29, 2017 — John Bullard is a likable guy. I know him to be an attentive listener and someone who must be applauded for his revitalization efforts through local historic preservation. But over the past five years, as one of five regional fisheries administrators of NOAA, John Bullard has made some wayward decisions, from imposing a moratorium on fishing cod to responding to the Carlos Rafael scam.
With little signaling, he sent shock waves through the fishing community when he announced he was prohibiting 60 permit holders connected with Rafael from going out to sea until next May and perhaps beyond that! Bullard was not willing to listen to all the parties who are losing millions and millions of dollars in our local economy. He told the Boston Globe, “That’s something the sector should have thought about when they were failing to do their job.” So much for his so-called inspirational essay in the Boston Globe appealing to our better angels.
John Bullard is more concerned with the debt that must be paid by our local sector for the unknown number of species overfished rather than the job-killing measures he approved!
Read the full opinion piece at WBSM
December 29, 2017 — HONOLULU — Federal agencies were wrong to allow Hawaii’s longline swordfish industry to expand fishing efforts while allowing the hooking or entangling of more endangered sea turtles, a U.S. appeals court ruled.
The panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to consider scientific data that showed the loggerhead turtle population would significantly decline when it set limits for the industry. The judges also said the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service illegally allowed the industry to kill protected migratory birds.
Swordfish longline fishing involves hundreds of baited hooks on miles of line. The practice can ensnare birds, turtles and other marine life.
Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Hawaii Tribune-Herald
December 29, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:
NOAA Fisheries is celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program! Today we announce the availability of approximately $2.4 million for projects that increase collaborative research and partnerships for innovation in bycatch reduction. The 2018 federal funding opportunity is now open. Pre-proposals are due by January 31, 2018, and full proposals due March 30, 2018.
Through BREP, we support the development of technological solutions and changes in fishing practices designed to minimize bycatch. Our mission is to find creative approaches and strategies for reducing bycatch, seabird interactions, and post-release mortality in federally managed fisheries.
There are four high-priority areas for the Fiscal Year 2018:
Learn more about NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region here.