Saving Seafood

MARK PHILLIPS: Who will pay for electronic monitoring?

April 21, 2016 — The Nature Conservancy a 6.5 BILLION dollar ENGO (2014 IRS 990) has put forward a paper seeking Electronic Monitoring on groundfish boats by May 1, 2017. If people recall The Nature Conservancy said very little about the BP oil spill.

NOAA and it’s environmental partners are bound and determined to force paid monitoring and eventually EMS on the fishermen. The last EMS study was delayed and delayed so that NOAA’s partners could put out misinformation about costs. And when the report did come out it substantially underestimates costs by assuming the average groundfish trip is 1.5 days when in reality my sector’s average trip is 6-10 days which is 4 to 7 times greater in duration.

The report also underestimates the number of hauls, claiming the average trip has five haul backs when in fact we are looking at between 40 to 60 hauls per trip, an underestimation by a factor of 10.

Read the full opinion piece at the Center for Sustainable Fisheries

Populations of salmon, flounder added to overfishing list

April 21, 2016 — PORTLAND, Maine — The federal government has added several populations of economically important food fish, including stocks of salmon and flounder, to its list of fish stocks that are being subjected to overfishing.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Wednesday that three regional populations of Chinook salmon and one regional population each of Coho salmon, summer flounder, yellowtail flounder and winter flounder are suffering from overfishing.

NOAA produces an annual update of its list of fish that are either subject to overfishing or have been overfished to the point where populations are too low. The report informs conservation and management efforts.

Overall, the number of fish on the “overfishing” list climbed from 26 to 28, and the number on the “overfished” list rose from 37 to 38.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Warmer Bering Sea will Reduce Future Pollock Harvests but Raise Prices

April 19, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Economic losses from a diminished catch will be partially offset by rising prices for the fish species that supports the nation’s single biggest seafood harvest, according to an analysis by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center.

The report, by economist Chang Seung and biologist Jim Ianelli and published in the journal Natural Resource Modeling, estimates that the total Alaska pollock harvest in 2050 will be 22.2 percent smaller than it was in 2004. But the dollar value of the harvest – total revenue from sales of raw pollock – will decline by only 9 percent, according to the report’s projections.

Pollock harvests in waters off Alaska generally range between 1 million and 1.4 million metric tons a year, with nearly all of that pulled out of the eastern Bering Sea. The 2012 catch of pollock from waters off Alaska totaled 1.31 million metric tons and brought in nearly $500 million to the harvesting fishermen, according to the report. The total value of the fishery is much greater than that when multiplier effects are considered; it mounts to billions of dollars as the economic activity expands along each step from the fishing vessel to consumers’ meals.

Future consumers will be willing to pay more for pollock  for a variety of reasons, Seung said.

“There is a decrease in supply of pollock. That will increase the price a little bit,” he said.

In addition, the analysis assumes growth in the global population and economy, meaning expanded markets of fish-eaters and a positive shift in the demand curve, he said.

The analysis considers a range of scenarios that are averaged over the long term.

In the short term, Alaska pollock stocks and harvests fluctuate year to year. The gradual warming that is happening and is expected to continue will have effects in coming decades.

Effects of warmer waters on pollock are complicated, according to analysis by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Higher summer temperatures tend to spur growth of more young fish, but those conditions leave much less high-oil prey for them to eat. Though they are more abundant than their cold-summer counterparts, the warm-summer young pollock are low on the fat reserves they need to survive the winter. Since juvenile pollock are a major source of food for a variety of fish and marine mammals, winter survival is critical to stock sizes. Pollock populations can be plentiful if warm and cold years alternate, according to NOAA analysis, but there is concern about several sequential warm years causing big stock declines.

Do the future supply and demand changes mean the lowly pollock might become a more premium whitefish? Could pollock be the new cod?

Don’t count on it, advises Gunnar Knapp, a University of Alaska Anchorage economist with fisheries expertise.

“I don’t see it happening any time soon,” said Knapp, director of UAA’s Institute of Social and Economic Research.

Though groundfish is not his specialty, he said, his “gut instinct” is that pollock faces too many obstacles to become a prized fish like halibut, now considered a delicacy, or even cod, which has niche appeal as food with centuries-old traditions.

Those include competition from other whitefish, like farmed catfish and tilapia, along with the emerging farmed species from Vietnam, Pangasius hypophthalmus, which goes by the newly coined name “swai,” Knapp said. Swai was not even eaten in the United States until about 10 years ago but it is now a strong contender in the whitefish market, he said.

Future marketing of pollock could make a pitch for the product as wild and sustainably managed, Knapp added. Pollock also feeds spinoff markets for roe – generally a Japanese market subject to the changing value of the yen – and the paste known as surimi, making pollock economics a bit more complex than those applicable to other fish, he said.

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

Cook Inlet Salmon is a Prime Example of a Fishery Magnuson Has Not Been Able to Help

April 20, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Magnuson Act 40 Years Later – Promises not kept for all fisheries

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act turned 40 last week and Federal and State fishery managers marked that event with an opinion piece (ADN, April 12) extolling the successes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its implementation in Alaska as a “global model of sustainability.”  As the authors point out, the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets up a “transparent governing process” intended to ensure that “science is behind every fishery management decision” in Alaska.  Indeed, the Magnuson-Stevens Act sets up national standards ensuring that all fisheries are managed to achieve “optimum yield from each fishery” with management decisions “based on the best scientific information available,” and guided by carefully considered fishery management plans.

We can all find common ground in recognizing the benefits associated with management under the Act, as well as many of the successes of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (the Council) and NOAA Fisheries in ensuring the long-term stewardship of Alaska’s fisheries.

The problem is that many important fisheries have been left out of the fold of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  The Cook Inlet salmon fishery is a prime example.  Every year, some 10 to 30 million salmon pass through Federal waters in Cook Inlet, in route to their native streams.  These are some of the largest wild salmon runs in the world, and they go largely unharvested.

But the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries plainly don’t want anything to do with Cook Inlet salmon fisheries, despite their obligation under federal law.  The Council never took an active role in managing the fishery, and in 2012, with approval from NOAA Fisheries, removed Cook Inlet from the Council’s Fishery Management Plan, despite the objections of the commercial fishing industry.

The result is that the benefits of Magnuson-Stevens Act have never come to pass in Cook Inlet.  Cook Inlet does not get the benefit of “drawing on NOAA’s environmental intelligence to improve stock assessments and assess the impact of climate change on fish population.”  Cook Inlet does not get to draw upon the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s “transparent governing process” or the robust “public-private management process founded under MSA.”  Cook Inlet does not get to draw on the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s promises of optimum yield for each fishery, or the promise that “science is behind every fishery management decision” in Alaska.

Instead, Cook Inlet is left with the Board of Fisheries.  Regardless of whether you believe those who claim the Board of Fish “isn’t broken” (ADN commentary March 16, 2016) or others who believe it certainly is broken (ADN commentary March 30, 2016), no one can reasonably argue that the Board of Fish process can match the transparency of the Council, or claim that “science is behind every fishery management decision” made by the Board of Fish.

There should not be any real doubt, of course, why the Council doesn’t want to deal with salmon management in Cook Inlet.  The resource disputes between user groups are contentious and longstanding.  But the need for the scientific rigor and transparency that the Council can provide has never been greater.  The Board of Fish has made no real effort to find solutions to managing Cook Inlet salmon fisheries in light of poor returns of some stocks, the identification of several “stocks of concern,” impacts from invasive species, and growing habitat problems from both urbanization and climate change.  The result in recent years has been sport and commercial fishery closures and restrictions, the loss of millions of un-harvested salmon, the loss of tens of millions of dollars to the regional economy and the loss of millions of dollars to the State treasury.

All Cook Inlet salmon fisheries would plainly benefit from coordinating the State’s long-standing salmon management experience with the Council’s transparent, science-based process.  This is precisely what the Magnuson-Stevens Act contemplates.  Hopefully, the sport and commercial fishermen and the coastal communities in Cook Inlet won’t have to wait another 40 years for the promises of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to be fulfilled.

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

On the Move: Repairing Aging Infrastructure and Protecting Migratory Fish Pathways

April 19, 2016 — The following was released by NOAA:

Aging Infrastructure and Vulnerable Habitat

The Penobscot River Bridge in Howland and Enfield, Maine was built in 1946 and now needs to be replaced. The Penobscot River supports many types of sea-run fish including alewife, American shad, Atlantic salmon, and blueback herring. However, in the past, the river supported much higher numbers of these fish. The Penobscot River watershed is one of two Habitat Focus Areas in the Greater Atlantic Region. Through NOAA’s Habitat Blueprint Initiative, efforts are underway to improve fish passage and restore important fish habitats in the Penobscot River watershed. Bridge replacement can damage fish habitat or get in the way of fish trying to move past the bridge. The construction could threaten efforts to restore fish populations.

What do we do to protect habitat?

Bridge replacements can impact fish habitats both during and after construction. To protect important fish habitats including spawning and feeding areas, the Habitat Conservation Division reviews bridge plans and provides recommendations. We make sure that the construction and design of the bridge is done in a way that has the least amount of impact on fish habitats. During review of the Penobscot River Bridge replacement, we raised concerns about impacts to fish passing through the area. Due to our involvement, the amount of fill in the river was reduced, allowing more space for the fish to pass through during construction. Having enough space to swim through is important so that fish can travel to areas beyond the bridge where they spawn.

We work hard to make sure road and bridge projects avoid and reduce negative impacts to important fish habitats- both during and after construction. We recognize the need to balance the importance of maintaining our roads with the need to protect important aquatic habitats.

How will we address these types of projects in the future?

Besides reviewing bridge replacements like the Penobscot River project, we are working on techniques to improve the review process. Together with the Federal Highway Administration, we will improve coordination, increase our mutual understanding of issues and concerns, and reduce review and construction timeframes, while minimizing impacts to the environment.

We are creating guidance which describes each other’s roles and responsibilities during transportation project review. It includes a list of project information that transportation agencies need to provide to us and describes the steps taken during the review process. We are also working on a manual of best management practices for transportation agencies to use during their project planning. The manual explains the negative effects of certain actions on fish and their habitats and recommends ways to lessen those effects. The guidance and manual will benefit the transportation agencies and us, as well as the fish and the habitats we care about.

Gulf Council Meets in Austin on Eve of 40th Anniversary of Magnuson Stevens

April 19, 2016 — As the eve of 40th anniversary of the signing of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act approached, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council met in Austin to discuss numerous fishery issues. Included on the Council’s busy agenda were changes in king mackerel allocation, stock boundaries, and sale provisions; hogfish annual catch limits, minimum size and stock definition; red grouper catch limit increases; and charter and headboat reporting requirements. However, as usual, it was Gulf red snapper that once again stole the show as well as a majority of the Council’s time and energy.

Forty years have passed since Congress passed the sweeping legislation changed the landscape of the American seafood industry and established a comprehensive framework for governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. The Act created eight regional fishery management councils – including the Gulf Council – designed to address the unique, regional differences in marine fisheries across the country.

For years, red snapper has consumed a majority of the Councils time, and the Austin session proved no exception. Red snapper management for federally permitted charter vessels, the 2016 recreational red snapper season and the extension or elimination of the red snapper sector separation sunset provision all topped the agenda, as well as federal reef fish headboat management.

The Council received an update from the NOAA Fisheries Service (NMFS) on red snapper season projections for the coming year. Both the private recreational season and federal charter for-hire season will open on June 1. NMFS predicts a private recreational season of just six to nine days, and a federal charter for-hire season of between 38-56 days. The final 2016 recreational red snapper season closing dates will be announced in May prior to the start of the season.

Read the full story at the Gulf Seafood Institute

 

New Bedford Standard Times: Bring more electronic monitoring to fishery

April 19, 2016 — In the sustainable fisheries conference held at Rhode Island College last week, audience members were asked various demographic and opinion questions about the ocean, fisheries, and management that were tabulated and presented on the spot. Unscientific, yes, but very interesting. The question of whether the groundfish fishery is sustainable was asked of the audience before and after, and the results suggest that some opinions were changed — for the positive — by the two hours of discussion.

When asked who would be best to regulate the fishery, the answer showed the thoughts of those in the audience based on biases and attitudes, but there is only one answer to that question. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, passed by Congress and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is the fishery’s manager, and that won’t change.

One very important part of that manager’s charge is ensuring both conservation and economic goals are considered in its management.

One policy tool for those goals is at-sea monitoring, which aims to provide accurate data on what is caught and what is thrown back. Accurate assessments support effective management and more successful fishing. It has been a point of contention for several years, as the cost of monitoring is to be borne by the industry, not the regulator. Cost aside, monitoring can help fishermen.

Hauling up less abundant species like Gulf of Maine cod or yellowtail flounder creates a dilemma for the fisherman. His options are to throw legally landed fish back into the ocean to avoid the choke species mechanism that limits the harvest of abundant stocks, or to take the fish back to port to be counted against the quotas, and hasten the day the fishing season comes to an end.

Read the full editorial at the New Bedford Standard-Times

MASSACHUSETTS: Hull aims at luring NOAA fisheries center from Woods Hole

April 18, 2016 — HULL, Mass. — Few people around the state paid much attention recently, when officials with the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said they may consider moving the agency’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center from its original site at Woods Hole.

But elected officials in Hull took notice – and they’ve gone into action to lure the research facility and its 275 employees to their town.

“It would be a real coup,” Selectmen Chairman John Brannan said. “We have the water, we have the marine life right here. The bay and the beach are within a half mile of each other. There’s a lot of opportunity for them to do what they need to do.”

Brannan and Hull Redevelopment Authority member Robert DeCoste said the boards have already contacted Congress members and others in Washington, where the ultimate decision will be made – among them, Congressman Stephen Lynch – whose 8th District includes Hull – and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Lynch and Warren’s spokesmen couldn’t be reached for comment.

Read the full story at the Patriot Ledger 

More than 3 million pounds of fishing gear removed from United States waterways and coastlines

April 15, 2016 — The Fishing for Energy partnership announced that more than three million pounds of old fishing gear and marine debris have been removed from United States waterways and coastlines since 2008 and converted into clean, renewable energy. Fishing for Energy, a partnership between the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), Washington, D.C., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program, Washington D.C., Covanta, Morristown, New Jersey and Schnitzer Steel Industries, Portland, Oregon, has successfully worked with local commercial fishermen and ports to collect and responsibly dispose of thousands of abandoned fishing traps and other unwanted gear.

“Together, with the help of fishermen in over 49 communities across the nation, we are ensuring retired gear is disposed of properly and not ‘fishing’ longer than intended. Proper disposal of fishing gear can help minimize impacts that lost or abandoned nets, lines and traps can have on our natural resources and our economy,” says Nancy Wallace, director of the NOAA Marine Debris Program.

Read the full story at Recycling Today

Massachusetts State Legislators Write to NOAA on SMAST Funding

April 14, 2016 –Members of the Massachusetts state legislature have written to Dr. William Karp, the head of Science and Research at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), in response to a recent rejection of a scallop research set-aside proposal from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science & Technology (SMAST).

In their letter, the legislators asked Dr. Karp to renew the funding, which they contend has been critical in producing accurate, independent estimates of the scallop resource.  They state that past SMAST studies “have stood the test of time,” and have “positively helped the [New England Fishery Management] Council in its regulatory functions under Magnuson [Stevens Act].”

They conclude that “cutting out the independent approach provided by the University of Massachusetts is not only scientifically questionable, but undercuts the ability of the Federal government to make sound assessments, formulate plans and explain those actions in the very complicated areas of fisheries management.”

Read the letter here