Saving Seafood

Important Fish Habitat Formed by Slow-growing Corals may Recover More Slowly in Warming Climate

January 13, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Managing fisheries means more than managing fish. To keep fisheries sustainable, managers need to make sure the ecosystems that support fish production stay healthy. An important part of Alaska’s marine ecosystems is the corals that create habitat for fish and their prey.

Coral gardens provide refuge for fish, but may be vulnerable to fishing gear and warmer temperatures. How long it takes for coral habitat to recover from injury depends on how fast corals grow and reproduce.

A new study led by Bob Stone of NOAA Fisheries’ Alaska Fisheries Science Center reveals just how slowly some corals grow, and provides insight on how they might respond to seafloor disturbance and ocean warming.

How the garden grows

Watching coral grow may sound like restful work. Not the way Stone does it.

Every year for five years, Stone’s team travelled to remote areas of Southeast Alaska and dove into frigid waters to observe corals in their natural environment.

“Several of the dive sites were very remote, so just getting there was quite a challenge,” says Stone. “Sometimes we enjoyed the comfort of the NOAA ship John N. Cobb, but other times we had to take a small (26 foot) boat over 80 miles to the sites. Occasionally we had to use float planes.”

Often the last 25 meters of the trip was the biggest challenge.

“Diving conditions were quite unpredictable,” Stone explains. “We needed to work during the same time every year, but you never know what you are going to get for weather or dive visibility.”

Once they made it to the seafloor, the most exciting part of the work began: “finding the coral colonies from year to year. Just think, small coral colonies with little tags at the bottom of the ocean in a remote place. You find one and your heart starts beating fast.”

To monitor the environmental conditions experienced by the corals, the team deployed temperature loggers and current meters at each study site.

They tagged a total of 93 healthy coral colonies at three locations. Each year they video recorded each of these colonies against a centimeter measuring grid. Later, in the laboratory, they analyzed the video using computer image analysis to measure the length of colony branches to the millimeter.

Coral growth hits a new slow

Stone’s team found that the corals grew an average of 6 millimeters, less than a quarter of an inch, a year. At that rate it would take 60 years to grow to maximum size. That’s important, because fully grown coral makes the best habitat for fish.

“We were surprised that these particular corals grow so slowly — slower than any other species we have looked at in the north Pacific Ocean,” Stone says.

Injured colonies, especially those chronically injured in areas of frequent disturbance, grew more slowly. Those in warmer ocean conditions also had reduced growth. That double whammy could affect the ability of corals to recover from disturbance if ocean warming continues.

The shallow water populations that Stone observed are not at risk from disturbance by commercial fisheries, but deeper (greater than 80 meters) colonies of the same species are periodically disturbed in some regions. Most Alaska corals are found only in very deep waters. The species Stone studied lives at depths of 15-512 meters in Alaska and Canadian waters. Because its shallower depth range is accessible to scuba divers, it provides a rare opportunity to learn about coral growth rates.

Right now, damage to this species from trawls is low (3 percent) and there is no evidence of damage from long line fishing. Stone’s study gives fisheries managers information they need to protect this important resource in the future. Stone explains:

“We know that corals provide important habitat for some species of managed fish and crabs, and we know that in some places in Alaska there are interactions between fishing gears and coral habitat. Better management of both resources is possible by knowing the recovery rates of the coral habitat. This study demonstrated that not all corals in Alaska grow at the same rates, and we need to consider this in our management strategies.”

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

MAINE: Are halibut headed for trouble?

January 11, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine — Go to Scales, an elegant waterfront restaurant on a Portland pier, and a plate of pan-roasted halibut with hazelnuts, brown butter and new potatoes will cost you $38, tax and tip extra.

Go down to the dock in Lubec or Stonington during May and June, when Maine fishermen are allowed to harvest halibut from state waters inside the three-mile limit, and $38 would buy you about 5 pounds of halibut, if you could buy less than a whole fish directly off the boat.

And that’s the problem.

Over the decade between 2006 and 2015, the last year for which the Department of Marine Resources has figures, the boat price for halibut increased some 44 percent and landings increased from just 30,018 pounds worth about $139,000 to more than 93,000 pounds that brought fishermen some $623,000.

Now federal fisheries regulators are saying that halibut may be in trouble.

Of course, it isn’t just that Maine fishermen are landing more halibut. It’s fishermen from all over New England who are pulling in plenty of the pricy and delicious flatfish from federal waters.

In 2006, only Maine recorded halibut landings. In 2015, according to NOAA Fisheries, halibut landings throughout New England reached almost 216,000 pounds – worth about $1.4 million. Of that, about 123,000 pounds were landed outside Maine.

That may not be a lot of money compared to the nearly $511 million that Maine’s lobster fishermen reaped in 2015, but it is enough to attract more boats into the fishery and to have regulators and fisheries scientists worried. Early in December, the New England Fishery Management Council announced that a review of the rules governing the halibut fishery would be a priority during 2017.

Read the full story at the Mount Desert Islander

National Fisheries Institute Sues NOAA Over New Seafood Fraud Import Rules Claiming Regulatory Overreach

January 10, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The National Fisheries Institute, six major seafood companies, and two West Coast Associations sued the Obama Administration over the final US Rule regarding seafood import regulations in federal district court on Friday, Jan 6th.

The six company plaintiffs are Alfa International, Fortune Fish & Gourmet, Handy Seafood, Pacific Seafood Group, Trident Seafoods, and Libby Hill Seafood Restaurants.  Also the Pacific Seafood Processors Association and the West Coast Seafood Processors Association joined the lawsuit.

The Final rule was announced on December 9, 2016, and was the culmination of the regulations that were developed at the urging of the Presidential Task Force on Seafood Fraud.

The suit is unusual in that NFI was the leading advocate for action against seafood fraud over the past decade. However, NFI claims that the new rule is not based on a risk assessment with data about seafood fraud, but without evidence will impose enormous and unjustified costs on the American public and the seafood industry.

In a statement, John Connelly, President of NFI, said “The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) and our members have led industry efforts to combat both Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud for the last decade.  NFI has supported most U.S. government efforts to eliminate illegal fishing and urged the government to do more to ensure accurate labeling.”

NFI began publicizing and working against seafood fraud more than a decade ago, focusing on the lack of any enforcement over seafood labeling regarding net weights and product integrity.  At the time, US buyers were being flooded with offers for seafood with glaze (protective ice coatings) of 20% to 40% of the total weight of the product, leading to a hugely misleading price per lb.

Also NFI worked with the FDA and NOAA on better enforcement of seafood labeling, including attacking mislabeling of species in commerce.  As a result of this pressure a number of states increased their enforcement of state labeling requirements on seafood.

Finally, NFI aggressively supported NOAA action against IUU fishing, including traceability requirements on species like toothfish, the signing of the UN Port State Measures Agreement, and the authority of NOAA to blacklist products from IUU vessels from entering the United States.

So why, after a decade of work, would NFI feel compelled to sue over the implementation of the Presidential Task Force rule, through NOAA, to combat seafood fraud.

The simple answer is that the Task Force refused to recognize the major ways in which fraud was already reduced, and would not accept a data driven approach to defining risk.

Instead, the Task force defined 13 species ‘at risk’ that were the target of enforcement under the act, without any verifiable documentation that seafood fraud was a significant problem with these species.

Connelly says in the rush to publish the rule, NOAA and the Obama administration refused to disclose the data used to craft it, and grossly miscalculated compliance costs.  The Office of Management and Budget made a back of the envelope calculation under the Paperwork Reduction Act that the cost to the industry would be $6.475 million, based on about 30 minutes additional work on each container.

The industry thinks costs could exceed $100 million per year, with a total economic impact on the seafood sector of as much as $1 billion.

The reason is that there is a total mismatch between the requirements in the rule and the way in which seafood is actually harvested, collected, processed and imported.

Connelly says NOAA “grossly underestimates the cost and impact of the regulation on those companies doing the right thing, and will not solve the problem. NOAA’s fundamental shift from targeted investigation of the suspected guilty to arbitrary and massive data collection from the innocent creates an enormous economic burden on American companies.”

One of the most glaring examples of the overreach is that in the Task Force, there was wide praise for the EU rule on traceability that requires exporters to the EU to certify the vessels from which the products originated.  But at the same time, the EU provides a wide exemption to countries that have sufficient internal fisheries management controls.  So for example, neither Norway, Iceland, the US, or New Zealand, for example, are subject to this requirement.

But NOAA’s rule makes no exemptions for the lower risk of fraud from countries where enforcement and management is at the highest standard.

The rule would apply to ten species of fish and the five species of tuna, or 15 commodities altogether.  The agency has deferred rule-making on shrimp and abalone.

The ten species are:  Atlantic Cod, Pacific Cod, Blue Crab, Red King Crab, Mahi Mahi, Grouper, Red Snapper, Sea Cucumber, Shark, and Swordfish.

In addition, Albacore, Bigeye, Skipjack, Yellowfin and Bluefin tuna are included.

The complaint filed by NFI says:

“According to the Government’s own studies, most mislabeling occurs after seafood has entered the United States and even though many U.S. importers subject imported seafood to DNA testing to preclude fraud at the border. The Rule would accomplish its goals by requiring that fish imported into the United States be traceable to the boat or to a single collection point, time, and place that the fish was caught, and that this information be entered into a master computer program operated by the Government.

“The Rule, were it to go into effect, would remake the way in which seafood is caught, processed and imported around the World. These changes to food processing practices in every nation would reduce exports into the United States and would dramatically increase the cost of catching, processing and importing seafood. Fishermen, many of whom are subsistence workers operating in Third World Nations, would have to keep track of each fish harvested, as would the brokers who purchase the seafood from the fisherman, and processors who handle catches from hundreds of fishermen would have to be able to trace each piece of fish to a specific vessel and specific fishing events or to a single collection point. This would require significant changes in the way fish are processed overseas. It would also affect the way in which fish are processed in the United States, because these requirements would also apply to all domestically caught or farmed seafood covered by the Rule that are shipped outside the U.S. for processing and re-imported back into the United States.”

If implemented the rule will drive up seafood prices and reduce consumption, the exact opposite of the advice to consumers from government health agencies.

Alfa Seafood says “The Rule would require processors in Ecuador and Peru, where most of Alfa’s seafood originates, to change the way in which fishermen or brokers document their catches and the way in which processors actually process these catches, so that fish imported into the United States can be traced to a particular fishing event or to a single collection point. This will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to Alfa Seafood’s cost of importing fish, assuming that the processors abroad are willing to modify the way in which they process fish.

Handy says they already use DNA testing for all their imports to ensure accuracy.  “If Handy’s processors modified their processing methods to segregate product by Aggregate Harvest Report and gathered the information required by the Rule, both the price of Blue Crab to Handy, as well as at retail, would increase by approximately 28%. The price of Grouper would increase by about 8% with a similar impact at retail.

Libby Hill restaurants says  “The Department’s Rule would force Libby Hill to charge more for many popular seafood menu items, thus hurting its business and driving customers to less healthy fast-food options. Further, because of the very real possibility that certain species under the Rule may become less available in the U.S. market, Libby Hill may have to contend with supply interruption that will make it more difficult to attract return customers expecting to be able to rely on the same menu from visit to visit. Because return customers are essential in the fast-casual category of the restaurant industry, such uncertainty could have a debilitating impact on Libby Hill’s business.”

The rule would require the following to be entered for each seafood entry subject to the regulations:

a. Name of harvesting vessel(s).
b. Flag state of harvesting vessel(s).
c. Evidence of authorization of harvesting vessel(s).
d. Unique vessel identification(s) of harvesting vessel(s) (if available).
e. Type(s) of fishing gear used in harvesting product.
f. Names(s) of farm or aquaculture facility.
g. Species of fish (scientific name, acceptable name, AND an AFSIS number.
h. Product description(s).
i. Name of product(s).
j. Quantity and/or weight of the product(s).
k. Area(s) of wild-capture or aquaculture location.
l. Date(s) of harvest or trip(s).
m. Location of aquaculture facility [Not relevant to wild caught seafood].
n. Point(s) of first landing.
o. Date(s) of first landing.
p. Name of entity(ies) (processor, dealer, vessel) of first landing.
q. NMFS-issued IFTP number.
It would be a violation of Magnuson-Stevens to import any at-risk seafood without a valid IFTP number.

The rule would also reach into the US domestic industry, where currently no such reporting requirements exist, because any seafood exported from the US overseas for processing and re-imported into the US would be subject to the rule.  So for example, this would change the entire reporting system for cod and salmon in Alaska.

The suit is being filed now, although the actual date of implementation is January, 2018.

The arguments are there are multiple ways in which this rule has violated the administrative procedures act:

  1. There was no public sharing of the data on which the agency identified species at risk.
  2. There is not a sufficient agency record to support the rule.
  3. The final rule was rushed into being by a junior official, the Assistant Administrator For Fisheries, who is an employee of the Dept. of Commerce, not an ‘officer.’  There was no formal designation of authority to make the rule, and such designations are required to only go to “officers of the united states ” of the executive branch.
  4. The agency does not have the legislative authority to ‘regulate seafood fraud’.  That authority was given to the FDA, not NOAA.
  5. The agency failed to do a regulatory flexibility analysis to see if the desired results could be achieved in a less costly and burdensome manner.
  6. The agency failed to do an adequate cost benefits analysis.

The plaintiffs ask for a ruling that enjoins the effective date of the rule until the agency remedies the deficiencies that have been cited.

The plaintiffs ask the rule be declared invalid.

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the Agency failed to do the required analysis under the regulatory flexibility act, and to enjoin the rule until such time as that is done.

The suit was filed on Friday in the federal district court in Washington, DC.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Effort continues to replace humans with cameras on fishing boats

January 9, 2017 — Several years into the controversial effort to bolster Alaska’s fisheries observer program, a top federal fisheries official defended the work at a Seattle gathering of fishermen.

Eileen Sobeck, the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, took the stage this past Nov. 18 to talk to fishermen gathered for the annual Fish Expo event to recap the program.

Observers are the eyes and ears on boats, collecting a range of data, she explained.

“We have been monitoring fisheries for decades, and we do it in a lot of different ways,” Sobeck said.

But the details of the program have been under fire over the past few years. Federal efforts to put a human on smaller boats was met with concerns about safety and efficiency, and fishermen’s requests to use cameras have had logistical difficulties.

Over the past few years, the effort to use cameras has increased nationwide, and the National Marine Fisheries Service has been tasked with sorting out how to make that work, both logistically and cost-wise.

Over 10 years, the National Marine Fisheries Service has helped fund more than 30 electronic monitoring, or EM, pilot programs. Expenses include the cost of cameras, the cost to install them, and the cost of going through the immense amount of data they can collect.

“We have, collectively, an interest in being as cost-effective as we can possibly be,” Sobeck said.

That effort has translated into regional electronic monitoring plans that were finished more than a year ago, and are now being implemented with plans for regular reviews, said George LaPointe, one of the point people on the project.

Although monitoring in some fisheries has developed successfully, like in the groundfish fisheries, LaPointe said, the agency is still working toward certain implementation, such as in Alaska’s small boat fixed gear and pot fisheries, where the target date is 2018.

Read the full story at the Alaska Journal of Commerce

NOAA plans to open federal waters in Pacific to fish farming

January 6, 2017 — HONOLULU — As traditional commercial fishing is threatening fish populations worldwide, U.S. officials are working on a plan to expand fish farming into federal waters around the Pacific Ocean.

The government sees the move toward aquaculture as a promising solution to overfishing and feeding a hungry planet. But some environmentalists say the industrial-scale farms could do more harm than good to overall fish stocks and ocean health.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is creating a plan to manage commercial fish farms in federal waters, the area of ocean from three to 200 miles offshore, around Hawaii and other Pacific islands.

The program is similar to one recently implemented by NOAA in the Gulf of Mexico. The farms in the Gulf and the Pacific would be the only aquaculture operations in U.S. federal waters, though there are smaller operations in state waters close to shore.

Fish farming has been practiced for centuries in Hawaii and around the world. But modern aquaculture, some environmentalists say, carries pollution risks and the potential for non-native farmed fish to escape and enter the natural ecosystem.

Most shellfish consumed in America comes from farms, and their methods are widely considered sustainable. However, some farms that grow carnivorous fish such as salmon have raised concerns about sustainability because they use wild-caught fish to feed the captive species.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Seattle Times

Request for Comments: Proposed Actions to Implement Special Management Zones in Federal Waters of the South Atlantic Region

January 6, 2017 — The following was released by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

KEY MESSAGE:

NOAA Fisheries requests your comments on an amendment that considers implementation of spawning special management zones (SMZ) in federal waters of the South Atlantic region. The actions outlined in Amendment 36 to the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan of the South Atlantic region (Amendment 36) are intended to protect spawning, or reproducing, fish and their habitat. Comments are due by March 6, 2017.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS:

  • Implement five spawning SMZs in federal waters of the South Atlantic region off North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.
  • Inside of the spawning SMZs, fishing for, retention, and possession of fish species in the snapper-grouper complex would be prohibited year-round by all fishers.
  • Anchoring inside most of the spawning SMZs would not be allowed; however, transit with snapper-grouper species onboard would be allowed if gear is properly stowed in most spawning SMZs.
  • Most spawning SMZs would automatically go away in 10 years unless they are reauthorized.
  • Move the existing Charleston Deep Artificial Reef Marine Protected Area to match the boundaries of the permitted site.
  • Modify the SMZ procedure in the fishery management plan to allow for the designation of spawning SMZs and the framework procedure to allow spawning SMZs to be established or modified through the framework process, rather than through plan amendments.

HOW TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ACTIONS:

The comment period on the amendment is open now through March 6, 2017.

You may submit comments by electronic submission or by postal mail. Comments sent by any other method (such as e-mail), to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NOAA Fisheries.

The comment period on the amendment will be followed by a comment period on the proposed rule. Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted through the same method as used for the amendment as specified below.

FORMAL FEDERAL REGISTER NAME/NUMBER: 2016-31896, published Jan. 4, 2017

Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

  1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0153.
  2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields.
  3. Enter or attach your comments.

Mail: Submit written comments to Frank Helies, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

NOTE: Read the complete Fishery Bulletin with Frequently Asked Questions and Proposed SMZ Coordinates available from the NOAA Fisheries Website.

NOAA expands ways to get fishing information

January 5, 2016 — NOAA Fisheries is entering 2017 with the goal of offering more ways for fishermen, seafood dealers and the general public to get the federal fishing news they need.

The federal fisheries regulator is providing a slew of avenues for information, from password-protected websites to smartphone text alerts and fishery information all designed to provide updated information on a continuous schedule.

“We really want to make it easier for fishermen, seafood dealers and the public to be able to do a number of different things,” said Olivia Rugo, a staffer in NOAA Fisheries’ stakeholder engagement division and the managing editor of NOAA Navigator, a bi-monthly insert generated by NOAA Fisheries that appears in the Commercial Fisheries News publication.

For commercial fishermen, the information platforms include the Fish OnLine website, regulatory text alerts, NOAA Navigator, vessel monitoring systems, fishery bulletins and information sheets.

The password-protected Fish OnLine website is available to all vessel permit holders and allows them to access vessel and vessel trip reports data, dealer landing reports, observer data, as well as lease additional multi-species days at sea and collect the most recent regulatory information.

“It’s someplace they can go to check their landings data, providing a way to cross-check for accuracy,” Rugo said. “It’s also a place where we will post news and notices related to changes in regulations. They can also use it to check with their sector managers, trade some quota and even pay bills.”

Information on specific regulatory information is available to commercial fishermen in the fishery bulletins and information sheets.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

A high-tech battle for the future of the fishing industry

January 3, 2017 — OFF THE COAST OF SCITUATE, Mass. — The high-tech battle for the future of the Massachusetts fishing industry is being waged aboard a western-rigged stern trawler named the Miss Emily.

Onboard the commercial groundfish vessel, in addition to the satellite positioning system and other sophisticated tools that have become standard in the industry, are at least five computer monitors and a $14,000 fish-measuring board that has halved the time it takes to gauge the catch.

State officials say it’s money well spent.

Federal catch limits — caps on how many fish each boat can catch — have devastated the state’s most iconic commercial sector, fishermen say. In response to an outcry from the struggling local groundfishing industry, environmental officials are now using the Miss Emily to try to come up with a new — and, they say, more accurate — estimate of codfish in the Gulf of Maine.

Under a survey launched last April, local fishermen hope new technology and an aggressive timetable will yield what they have concluded based on their own anecdotal evidence: There are more fish in the sea.

“That’ll give the federal scientists something to think about,” says David Pierce, director of the state’s Division of Marine Fisheries. “It’s going to be eye-opening, I suspect. It’s going to force them to do some soul-searching.”

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration estimates put the Gulf of Maine groundfish stock at historically low levels, dictating a corresponding reduction in catch limits. Between 1982 and 2013, the number of metric tons of cod landed aboard commercial vessels plunged from more than 13,000 to 951, according to federal estimates. That, predictably, has drastically undercut the industry.

“The fleet has been decreasing in size, and we’re seeing less effort due to these catch limits,” says Bill Hoffman, a senior biologist with the state who oversees the survey. “Guys have gotten out.”

The 55-foot Miss Emily, skippered out of Scituate by captain Kevin Norton, has been equipped to approximate a smaller version of the Henry B. Bigelow, a 209-foot floating research vessel operated by NOAA, that is used to count fish for the federal government. Using a small portion of $21 million in federal fisheries disaster relief, the state launched a series of random “tows” to counter what some think is the less accurate federal vessel.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

US issuing new rules to curb illegal fishing, seafood fraud

January 3, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine — The Obama administration is issuing new rules it says will crack down on illegal fishing and seafood fraud by preventing unverifiable fish products from entering the U.S. market.

The new protections are called the Seafood Import Monitoring Program, and they are designed to stop illegally fished and intentionally misidentified seafood from getting into stores and restaurants by way of imported fish.

The rules will require seafood importers to report information and maintain records about the harvest and chain of custody of fish, officials with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

The program will start by focusing on “priority species” that are especially vulnerable to illegal fishing, such as popular food fish like tuna, swordfish, Atlantic cod and grouper. The government hopes eventually to broaden the program out to include all fish species, NOAA officials said.

“It sends an important message to the international seafood community that if you are open and transparent about the seafood you catch and sell across the supply chain, then the U.S. markets are open for your business,” said Catherine Novelli, a State Department undersecretary.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Seattle Times