Saving Seafood

Feds Propose Deep Cuts In Cod Quotas

March 28, 2016 — The new fishing year begins in May and federal regulators are seeking public comments for proposed catch limits for the region’s groundfish industry. The proposed regulations, particularly for Georges Bank cod, have southern New England fishermen worried.

The proposed rules include catch quotas for 20 groundfish species, including cod, haddock, and flounder. Jennifer Goebel, public affairs officer for the regional office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said quotas are based on stock assessments.

“This year the stock assessment for the Gulf of Maine cod showed a slight increase and so we were able to make some increases on that,” she said.

But the cod from Georges Bank, a popular fishing spot for Rhode Island fishermen, is severely depleted. Goebel said regulators are proposing a 62 percent cut from what fishermen were able to catch last year.

Read the full story at Rhode Island Public Radio

MASSACHUSETTS: NOAA considers major upgrades in Woods Hole

WOODS HOLE, Mass (March 28, 2016) — The old brick buildings, which lack central air conditioning, can be stifling in the summer and drafty in the winter. Most of the offices are cramped, sometimes forcing scientists to work in hallways and beside equipment as loud as circular saws. Their labs, built during the Kennedy administration, offer little space for serious research.

On the edge of Vineyard Sound, the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the federal government’s oldest marine research facility and a pivotal player in the region’s fishing industry, is seeking a major overhaul, through long-deferred renovations or a new center elsewhere in the region.

In the coming weeks, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will decide whether it should spend tens of millions of dollars to modernize the aging research center, a renowned institution that has conducted fisheries research in Woods Hole since 1871.

Read the full story at The Boston Globe

Catch Share Programs Under Fire On Both Coasts

March 23, 2016 — This week, catch share management has come under fire on both the East and West Coasts, as articles in the New Bedford Standard-Times and Seafood News criticize key facets of regional catch share programs.

In New England, Massachusetts State Rep. Bill Straus writes about the side-effects of implementing catch shares in the New England groundfish fishery, calling the subsequent fleet consolidation “a government-created near monopoly.”

In Sacramento, Seafood News details how low quotas for critical “choke species” are preventing some boats from fishing for the entirety of 2016.

For nearly a decade, the Environmental Defense Fund’s ocean policy has been “to ensure that the world’s fisheries are restored back to health through the advancement and implementation of a transformational fisheries management approach known as catch shares.” In May 2009, while serving as Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the vice-chair of EDF’s board of trustees, enacted a national policy encouraging the consideration and use of catch shares.  Regarding its trustees, EDF notes on its website that “Fortune magazine called them one the most influential boards in the country.”

Excerpts from the two articles are provided below:

State Rep. Bill Straus: Impact of the Federal Fisheries Arrests in New Bedford

No one who supported the catch shares idea in 2009 can honestly say this concentration and its results are a surprise. The statements challenging this bad idea back then came locally from Dr. Brian Rothschild at UMass Dartmouth and many others; I added a cautionary word as well on the pages of this newspaper on June 24, 2009. It is frankly depressing to re-read this portion of what I said then about the coming catch shares program:

“Amendment 16 will send many fishermen and smaller ports to the sidelines; in other words, they will lose their jobs. There will be winners and losers, and the advocates of Amendment 16 have done little or nothing to point out that the system that is chosen for allocating catch shares will determine who will thrive in the new world of federal regulation and who will be abandoned.

“Amendment 16 will result in a concentration within the fleets of all ports; to think otherwise would be naive.”

In the coming weeks and months, more information on the way the industry runs will no doubt come to light and whether, as I believe, the catch shares system played a role in allowing the port economy to shift as it has. A discussion needs to start and soon for two reasons. First, the federal government at some point will no doubt have to consider whether serious permit holder violations have occurred such that revocation and some new system of permit availability for groundfish participants should be created. That is a major question, and it’s never too soon to get going on whether catch shares’ day (if there ever should have been one) has come and gone.

West Coast Catch Share Program Failure Keeps Vessel Off Fishing Grounds For 2016

Criticism that the West Coast catch shares program is underperforming came to the forefront recently at the Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting in Sacramento.

West Coast trawlers have been operating in fear of a “disaster tow” or “lightning strike” of a choke species since the beginning of the individual quota program in 2011. And for the F/V Seeker, a disaster tow of 47,000 pounds of canary rockfish – a species at the time listed as overfished — in November 2015 will prevent it from fishing for all of 2016.

The Seeker’s misfortune is an extreme example of the program’s failure, particularly for those fishing in the non-whiting sector.

Jeff Lackey, who manages the vessel, testified to the PFMC the vessel is in a bind and already has made plans to fish in Alaska for most of 2016 and return to fishing off the West Coast in 2017. The Seeker fishes in both the non-whiting shoreside sector and in the whiting mothership sector.

The Seeker is a victim of several features of the current regulatory system in the West Coast individual quota program.

First, current vessel limits prohibit the Seeker from acquiring enough quota to solve its deficit.

Second, canary rockfish was listed as overfished for more than a decade but an assessment accepted by the council in 2015 shows canary rockfish has been rebuilt.

And third, the PFMC’s management process operates on a two-year cycle, with no way to change annual catch limits (ACLs) mid-cycle.

“[The F/V Seeker] is not the only one,” Pete Leipzig, director of the Fishermen’s Marketing Association, told the Council. Other trawlers have come up against vessel limits for other species that have prevented them from fishing for some time, but none have been confronted with the extremity of the Seeker’s situation.

The vessel limits were designed to prevent consolidation of the fleet. Bycatch of choke species have prevented many vessels from capturing target fish. Fear of a disaster tow — one so extreme that a quota pound deficit cannot be covered in the existing fishing year — has limited trading of quota as fishermen hoard these species to cover their fishing operations for the year.

The Seeker is a member of the Newport, OR based Midwater Trawlers Cooperative. The organization proposed a solution to the Seeker’s problem: use an alternative compliance option that was eliminated during the development of the catch shares program. It would have been available for overly restrictive events, such as the Seeker’s, but still hold fishermen accountable. The council opted not to move forward with examining that option at this time.

This is the new reality of the West Coast individual quota program: rebuilding species will be encountered more frequently and fishermen could be held to conservative annual catch limits for a year or more if they experience an infrequent disaster tow and have insufficient quota to cover their deficit.

“As the regulations are currently written, any vessel that experiences the same situation would likely have to sit out of the shoreside trawl program for several years … This seems overly punitive and raises equity concerns,” Heather Mann, executive director of the MTC, wrote in a public comment letter to the council.

NOAA Deputy Assistant Administrator Lauds US Fishery Management Councils

Turtle_TrendFigure-1

Honolulu, HI — The following was released by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council:

Samuel D. Rauch III, NOAA Fisheries Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, praised the U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils as the “key for the success” of both “environmental and economic progress” in the nation’s fisheries. “That’s a difficult thing to accomplish,” Rauch said, “but we have the statistics to prove it.”

Rauch made these remarks today during the start of the three-day meeting of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council at Fuller Hall, YWCA, 1040 Richards St., Honolulu. The Council’s fishery decision-making includes input from state, federal and interested stakeholders in an open, scientific process. There are ample opportunities for public comment as well as recommendations from various Council advisory groups.

Rauch noted that a recent peer-reviewed study showed that U.S. fisheries managed under the Council process scored extremely high when compared against the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) guidance on seafood sustainability certification (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa). Speaking about President Obama’s Task Force on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, Rauch said there are requirements to collect more information from U.S. fleets than foreign fleets, some of which import fish into the United States. He hoped that the outcomes of the Task Force would lead to better traceability of both foreign and domestic fisheries.

Kitty Simonds, executive director of the Western Pacific Council, noted that both the Hawaii and American Samoa longline fisheries, managed under the Council, rated more than 90 percent compliant with the UN FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

In a presentation on NOAA Fisheries’ standardized bycatch reporting methodology proposed rule, Rauch said, “We often heard that we don’t give credit to the Councils for all the bycatch work they have done.” Public comments on the proposed rule are being accepted until June 3. Email nmfs.bycatch@noaa.gov or go to www.fisheries.noaa.gov/sfa/bycatch.

Simonds said the Western Pacific Council completed its bycatch policy in 2003. She also said that protected species bycatch in the Western Pacific Region has been reduced by more than 90 percent for turtles and seabirds. As for non-regulatory bycatch, which fishermen are not required to release, only lancet fish is not being marketed for human consumption.

The Council reconvenes tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. For more on the meeting and a complete agenda, go to www.wpcouncil.org, email info@wpcouncil.org or phone (808) 522-8220. The Council was established by Congress under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 to manage domestic fisheries operating seaward of State waters around Hawai’i, American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI and the US Pacific Island Remote Island Areas. Recommendations by the Council that are regulatory in nature are transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce for final approval.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council: Appointees by the Secretary of Commerce from nominees selected by American Samoa, CNMI, Guam and Hawai`i governors: Michael Duenas, Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative Association (Guam) (vice chair); Edwin Ebisui (Hawai`i) (chair); Michael Goto, United Fishing Agency Ltd. (Hawai`i); John Gourley, Micronesian Environmental Services (CNMI) (vice chair); Julie Leialoha, biologist (Hawai`i); Dr. Claire Tuia Poumele, Port Administration (American Samoa); McGrew Rice, commercial and charter fisherman (Hawai`i) (vice chair); and William Sword, recreational fisherman (American Samoa) (vice chair). Designated state officials: Suzanne Case, Hawai`i Department of Land and Natural Resources; Dr. Ruth Matagi-Tofiga, American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources; Richard Seman, CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources; and Matt Sablan, Guam Department of Agriculture. Designated federal officials: Matthew Brown, USFWS Pacific Islands Refuges and Monuments Office; Michael Brakke, US Department of State; RADM Vincent B. Atkins, US Coast Guard 14th District; and Michael Tosatto, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office.

Working Together to Protect Endangered Species

March 14, 2016 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

To preserve and protect species that are threatened or endangered, federal agencies are required to work together under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Titled “Interagency Cooperation,” section 7 is an important part of the ESA as it ensures that the actions authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies do not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. This also applies to the habitat of listed species to make sure that actions do not impact areas where they live and spawn. Under the ESA, species are listed as endangered or threatened according to a process that examines their population status as well as five factors that may affect their continued survival (see section 4 of the ESA for a description of the five ESA factors for listing).

Section 7 requires consultation between the federal “action agency” (the agency authorizing, funding, or undertaking an action) and the appropriate “expert agency.” In the case of marine and several anadromous species, such as sturgeon and Atlantic salmon, NOAA Fisheries is the consulting agency while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts consultations for terrestrial and freshwater species.

Getting Recommedations Early On Is Key

The section 7 team at the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) works on a variety of projects including dredging of navigation channels, offshore wind projects, and fisheries management plans. We consult with other federal agencies to ensure that their activities are in compliance with section 7 of the ESA. In some cases, a federal agency (or a state, private party, or consultant) may seek technical assistance in the early planning stages of a project. This is the best time for us to provide information on species life history, best management practices, and measures to reduce the extent of potential effects. The federal action agency can then include our recommendations in their project proposal before initiating the consultation process with us. During the technical assistance phase, a federal agency may determine that there is no effect of the activity on listed species (i.e., there are no listed species present during the activity and no effects to habitat). In this case, there is no need for further ESA section 7 consultation.

In situations where an activity may affect a listed species, the action agency needs to begin the consultation process. First, the action agency makes one of two determinations: the activity is “not likely to adversely affect” listed species or the activity is “likely to adversely affect” listed species. Activities are “not likely to adversely affect” species if all effects are “insignificant” (so small that they cannot be detected) or “discountable” (extremely unlikely to occur). If the action agency makes this determination, we review their analysis, and if we agree with their finding, we respond with a letter of concurrence. This is the “informal” consultation process.

Read the full story online

How In Trouble Are Bluefin Tuna, Really? Controversial Study Makes Waves

March 9, 2016 — Bluefin tuna have been severely depleted by fishermen, and the fish have become a globally recognized poster child for the impacts of overfishing. Many chefs refuse to serve its rich, buttery flesh; many retailers no longer carry it; and consumers have become increasingly aware of the environmental costs associated with the bluefin fishery.

But a group of scientists is now making the case that Atlantic bluefin may be more resilient to fishing than commonly thought — and perhaps better able to rebound from the species’ depleted state. In a paper published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers suggest that fishery managers reassess the western Atlantic bluefin’s population, which could ultimately allow more of the fish to be caught.

The 10 co-authors, most of whom are scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, say they’ve all but confirmed that bluefin tuna spawn in an area of the Atlantic Ocean previously suspected but not known to be a breeding ground. Not only that; the tuna spawning in this area off the Atlantic Coast are much younger and smaller than the age and size at which it was previously believed the fish become sexually mature, according to the scientists.

This, their paper claims, would make the western Atlantic bluefin tuna “less vulnerable to overexploitation and extinction than is currently estimated.”

But the study is controversial. Several tuna researchers we spoke with warned that the results are preliminary, and it’s much too soon to use them to guide how fisheries are managed

Read the full story from NPR

Scientists Find Possible New Spawning Area for Western Atlantic Bluefin

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [SeafoodNews]  By Peggy Parker — March 8, 2016 — Scientists from NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and the University of Massachusetts Boston have found evidence of Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning activity off the northeastern United States in an area of open ocean south of New England and east of the Mid-Atlantic states called the Slope Sea.

The findings suggest that the current life-history model for western Atlantic bluefin may overestimate age-at-maturity. If so, the authors conclude that western Atlantic bluefin may be less vulnerable to fishing and other stressors than previously thought.

Prior to this research, the only known spawning grounds for Atlantic bluefin tuna were in the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean Sea. The evidence for a new western Atlantic spawning ground came from a pair of Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) research cruises in the Slope Sea during the summer of 2013.

“We collected 67 larval bluefin tuna during these two cruises, and the catch rates were comparable to the number collected during the annual bluefin tuna larval survey in the Gulf of Mexico,” said David Richardson of NEFSC, lead author of this study. “Most of these larvae were small, less than 5 millimeters, and were estimated to be less than one week old. Drifting buoy data confirmed that these small larvae could not possibly have been transported into this area from the Gulf of Mexico spawning ground.”

Larvae collected during the cruises were identified as bluefin tuna through visual examination and genetic sequencing. To confirm the identification, larvae were sent to the Alaska Fisheries Science Center laboratory in Juneau, where DNA sequences verified that the larvae were Atlantic bluefin tuna.

A single bluefin tuna can spawn millions of eggs, each of which is just over a millimeter in diameter, or the size of a poppy seed. Within a couple of days these eggs hatch into larvae that are poorly developed and bear little resemblance to the adults. Larval bluefin tuna can be collected in plankton nets and identified based on their shape, pigment patterns and body structures.

High-value Atlantic bluefin tuna has a unique physiology that allows it to range from the tropics to the sub-arctic. As a highly migratory species, Atlantic bluefin tuna is assessed by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) as distinct eastern and western stocks separated by the 45 degree west meridian (or 45 w longitude). The U.S. fishery harvest from the western Atlantic stock is managed through NOAA Fisheries’ Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan.

For many years, global overfishing on this species was prevalent, resulting in substantial population declines. Recent international cooperation in managing catches has contributed to increasing trends in the abundance of both the eastern and western management stocks. The western stock, targeted by U.S. fishermen, is harvested at levels within the range of the SCRS’ scientific advice.

This research may change the long-held assumption that bluefin tuna start spawning at age 4 in the Mediterranean Sea and age 9 in the Gulf of Mexico. Electronic tagging studies begun in the late 1990s showed that many bluefin tunad, did not visit either spawning ground during the spawning season, despite being large enough to be of spawning age. This led some to say that these larger fish were not yet spawning, and that the age-at-maturity for western Atlantic bluefin tuna was 12-16 years, rather than 9 years, as was assumed in the stock assessment.

A consistent supporter of an alternate hypothesis was Molly Lutcavage at the Large Pelagics Research Center of the University of Massachusetts Boston. She believed tuna that did not visit the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea were spawning elsewhere. Her research team used electronic tagging data from the Lutcavage lab to present an alternate model of western Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning migrations.

Only the largest bluefin tuna, those over about 500 pounds, migrate to the Gulf of Mexico spawning area. After these fish exit the Gulf of Mexico, they swim through the Slope Sea rapidly, on their way to northern feeding grounds. On the other hand, smaller bluefin tuna, ranging in size from 80 to 500 pounds, generally spend more than 20 days in the Slope Sea during the spawning season, a duration consistent with spawning. Lutcavage is a co-author on the study.

“Last year, we demonstrated using endocrine measurements that bluefin tuna in the western Atlantic mature at around 5 years of age. That study, and ones before it, predicted that these smaller fish would spawn in a more northerly area closer to the summertime foraging grounds in the Gulf of Maine and Canadian waters,” Lutcavage said. “The evidence of spawning in the Slope Sea, and the analysis of the tagging data, suggests that western Atlantic bluefin tuna are partitioning spawning areas by size, and that a younger age at maturity should be used in the stock assessment.”

Researchers also found that individual tuna occupy both the Slope Sea and Mediterranean Sea in separate years, contrary to the prevailing view that individuals exhibit complete fidelity to a spawning site. Reproductive mixing between the eastern and western stocks may occur in the Slope Sea and the authors contend that population structure of bluefin tuna may be more complex than is currently thought.

“Past analyses of Atlantic bluefin tuna population structure and mixing between the western and eastern Atlantic stocks may need to be revisited because they do not account for the full spatial extent of western Atlantic spawning,” Richardson said. “So much of the science and sampling for Atlantic bluefin tuna has been built around the assumption that the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea are the only spawning grounds. This new research underscores the complexity of stock structure for this species and identifies important areas for future research.”

The authors expect these findings could potentially lead to a lower estimated age-at-maturity, a critical component of the stock assessment, and could reopen consideration of the nature and level of mixing between the western and eastern Atlantic populations. This new information will be considered along with other pertinent research as part of the regular ICCAT SCRS stock assessment process.

The findings were published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The scientific team for this study comprises researchers from NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) and Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC), the Large Pelagics Research Center at the University of Massachusetts Boston, the School of Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO). The sampling for this study was supported by NOAA, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the US Navy through interagency agreements for the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS).

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission

Southern California Fisheries Hit Hard By Warming Water

March 2, 2016 — Squid have pretty much disappeared from Southern California in the last several months.

“Squid’s kind of our bread and butter. That’s what a lot of us make our payments and survive on,” said Corbin Hanson who fishes off the coast of Southern California.

“It’s extremely frustrating. It’s demoralizing to go out and not be able to catch anything,” Hanson said.

Hanson has not caught any squid for more than four months. Squid is one of California’s largest commercial fisheries, and much of it is exported to countries in Asia and the Mediterranean.

Oceanographer Andrew Leising with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries said unusually warm water is causing squid and other fish to move farther north. At a meeting at the Aquarium of the Pacific, scientists explained one cause of the warming waters is what they call “the blob.”

“During the, say, 30-year record, this event “the blob” stands out far beyond anything we’ve seen in that 30 years. And in terms of that total warmth of the water, it’s pretty much the warmest we’ve ever measured and over an extremely large volume of water,” Leising said.

Read the full story and watch the video from Voice of America

GSI Responds to Impact of Federal Fisheries on Small Businesses Hearing

March 4, 2016 — The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Chaired by Louisiana Senator David Vitter, recently held a hearing on “The Impacts of Federal Fisheries Management on Small Businesses”. In a letter to Chairman Vitter and Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the Gulf Seafood Institute urged committee members to keep in mind the myriad benefits this landmark legislation has had on Gulf coast fisheries.

Witness at the hearing included; Ms. Pam Anderson, Operations Manager at Capt. Anderson’s Marina in Panama City, FL, Mr. Hughes Andry, Regional Manager of Sportco Marketing, Mr. Brad Gentner, President of Gentner Group Consulting, Mr. James Hayward, President ofXI Northeast Fisheries Sector and Dr. Joshua Wiersma, Managerof  Northeast Fisheries for the Environmental Defense Fund.

“Thousands of fishermen and millions of consumers nationwide depend on robust, sustainably‐managed Gulf of Mexico U.S. fisheries,” said Harlon Pearce, GSI’s President and NOAA Marine Advisory Committee member. “Commercial, charter-for-hire and recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico are a regional economic powerhouse; protecting the public’s access to these resources for every American must be paramount.”

Read the full story from the Gulf Seafood Institute

Monitor Costs Shift to Fishermen March 1

February 29, 2016 — Cape Ann lawmakers Bruce Tarr and Ann-Margaret Ferrante walked a thin line last week when they sat down and penned a letter to state Attorney General Maura Healey on the issue of at-sea monitoring.

The state Senate minority leader and state representative, respectively, wanted to enlist Healey’s support in the legal campaign to block NOAA Fisheries’ plan to shift the cost of mandated at-sea monitoring (ASM) to groundfish permit holders on March 1 and they knew they were racing the clock.

They also didn’t want to overplay their hand by pressuring Healey to follow a specific course of remedy, such as having Massachusetts become an intervening plaintiff in the ongoing federal lawsuit filed by New Hampshire fisherman David Goethel seeking to block NOAA Fisheries’ plan to transfer the responsibility of funding ASM to the fishermen as of Tuesday.

“We didn’t want to pre-suppose any method of support,” Tarr said. “We just believe that this plan represents such an injustice that it would be a serious mistake not to look at every option and we wanted to make sure the commercial fishing industry is represented.”

So, Tarr and Ferrante carefully worded their letter, asking the state’s senior law enforcement official to explore any available legal avenue for supporting the industry effort that Goethel’s lawsuit has emerged to most poignantly represent.

“We request that your office explore all appropriate legal means to support our fishing families and ports through vehicles such as the current pending case,” they wrote, referring to the Goethel lawsuit that was filed in U.S. District Court in Concord, New Hampshire. “We are interested in Mr. Goethel’s plight because his situation is comparable to that of fishermen in Gloucester and the statewide fishing industry.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times