Amendment 3’s new Ecological Reference Points in Center of Controversy
WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 10, 2017 — By Marisa Torrieri:
As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission prepares to vote on highly-contested benchmarks for managing menhaden next week, uncertainties about the potential ripple effect of new ecological reference points (ERPs) are fueling heated exchanges between environmental groups and fisheries.
On November 13 and 14, the Commission is expected to meet to vote on Amendment 3, which will establish management benchmarks, and consider ecological reference points for menhaden, a bony and oily forage fish that is a primary food source for bigger fish such as striped bass and humpback whales and is harvested commercially for oil and fertilizer. The Commission also plans to review and potentially update state-by-state quota allocations.
Should the commission vote for “Option E” under Amendment 3 — an approach largely favored by environmental groups — the ASMFC would establish interim ecological reference points that would set a target of 75 percent and a threshold of 40 percent of a theoretical unfished stock. The ASMFC’s Biological Ecological Reference Points Workgroup would continue to develop Menhaden Specific ERP.
Fishermen whose livelihoods depend on the fish say the impact of this option would be catastrophic to their business.
Jeff Kaelin, head of government relations for Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., in Cape May, N.J., said New Jersey would lose a lot of jobs and money, in the event that interim ERPs took effect.
“With Option E, if we fish at the target that the environmental community is advocating, we’ll have a 25 percent cut in the fishery we have today, and that’s significant,” says Kaelin. “In 2013, when the quotas were established … we lost access to 50 percent of the fish. This is worth about $2 million to the state of New Jersey if we take a 25 percent cut. That’s what would happen, and there’s no need for it because the science is so robust.”
Yet environmental groups have countered that Option E, if selected, would not trigger draconian changes — it would simply put new goals in place that would benefit everyone, which could be phased in based on an organization’s own time table.
“The ERP is the goal, what you’re trying to achieve,” said Joseph Gordon, a senior manager for Pew Charitable Trusts, who directs campaigns to conserve forage fish. “Option E doesn’t tell you how fast to get there and how much risk to take. If the Commission decides to move forward Option E, they will be opting to have a very high population [of menhaden] in the ocean. When we talk about Option E, the goal of that is to achieve and maintain a high biomass of fish in the ocean. That should support significant amounts of fishing in the case of menhaden, over time as the population grows. The benefits to everyone, including commercial fisheries, is the goal of management.”
Chris Moore of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation also suggested Option E isn’t as bad as fisheries are making it out to be.
“Option E would say ‘OK, we now have a new target … fisheries would need to make changes to ensure they’re hitting that target,” says Moore. “But it’s not ‘we shall do this, we shall do that.’ If you look at the last stock assessment, the last quota showed we’re increasing. There’s a lot of leeway for the managers to get to the target.”
Omega Protein Corporation, the largest participant in the menhaden fishery, is based in Reedville, Va., a state that is currently allocated 85 percent of the catch. It says comments from environmentalists in support of Option E sugarcoat the potential economic impact of the ERPs.
Omega Protein is in favor of the more conservative Option B, which keeps ERPs at the existing status quo levels, until better mathematical models for menhaden are available.
“To say that the current reference points are inadequate, and we want to change them, and then say, ‘we won’t mandate that the harvest be cut when over the target,’ that’s ludicrous,” says Monty Deihl, Vice President of Operations for Omega Protein. “The environmentalist solution is looking for a problem, and there is no problem! We only take 8 percent of the biomass per year. The current model says you could harvest 300,000 metric tons per year without overfishing. With Option E, there’s a 25 percent cut in the harvest.”
Shaun Gehan, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who represents Omega Protein, said that environmentalists promoting Option E as a “phased approach” — while the language within the Option calls for a clear cut in fishing activities — are hypocritical.
“The real issue is if one believes that menhaden should be at 75 percent un-fished levels and the target [fishing mortality] helps achieve that, then it is hypocritical to advocate for anything but a cut,” he says. “It seems there is a lot of folks that want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, being able to say, ‘ecological reference points’ are being used, while avoiding harvest reductions they entail because no one thinks cuts are warranted in light of menhaden’s abundance.”
THE ROAD TO AMENDMENT 3
One of the biggest arguments for clamping down on menhaden fishing, one which has resonated with the public, is that concerns about menhaden weren’t on anyone’s radar until recently, when reports warned that the supply was in danger.
According to Pew, people started to “wake up” to the menhaden issue after a coast-wide decline in menhaden in the 1990s through the early 2000s that attracted a lot of attention: This decline was noticed on the water up and down the coast by recreational fishermen. The effects of this decline on predator species, especially striped bass, were especially noticed, since striped bass is a prized recreational fish – and the reason the ASMFC was created in the first place.
“Striped bass had been recovering from depletion, and many were interested and invested in this recovery,” Gordon noted. “But anglers were seeing signs of starvation and disease in striped bass, and it didn’t take long to trace many of the problems to the absence of adequate prey (menhaden) for them. That’s what led to the first cap on menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay, in 2005.”
In 2012, with support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University convened the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, a panel of 13 marine and fisheries scientists from around the world, to offer science-based advice for the management of species known as forage fish, because of their crucial role in marine ecosystems. In their report, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” researchers concluded fisheries managers “need to pay more careful attention to the special vulnerabilities of forage fish and the cascading effects of forage fishing on predators.”
Since then, ASMFC staff, scientists, and advisors have been developing and reviewing a range of ecological models and management strategies. In 2012, the ASMFC voted in favor of Amendment 2, which set a new coast-wide catch limit. In May of 2015, the ASMFC began drafting Amendment 3 to the menhaden management plan, with the goal of establishing ecological management, and to review and possibly update state-by-state quota allocations.
“What’s amazing to watch over time, and I’ve worked on this for about a decade, is we’ve gone from a situation where we didn’t have any coast-wide limit at all to a question of when it’s going to happen,” says Gordon.
CONSIDERING SCIENCE
The outcome of the vote on Amendment 3 is expected to have a powerful impact on the future of menhaden, as well as recreational anglers, tourism, conservationists and larger fisheries. Yet with so much on the line, figuring out the right path isn’t so clear cut.
For one, scientists and researchers who study menhaden are at odds with each other, some saying we are at a critical juncture and must make drastic moves to manage and protect menhaden, and others dismissing such reports as hysteria.
In a Q&A with Pew Charitable Trusts, Ellen Pikitch, a marine biology professor and director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University, said the state of menhaden appears to be in decent shape if you examine the population in isolation.
“But when you look at it from an ecosystem perspective—whether there are enough to feed predators—menhaden are much less numerous than they ought to be,” she said. “On the East Coast, menhaden used to range from Nova Scotia to Florida, but we haven’t seen that kind of distribution for probably 50 years.”
Pikitch led a group of more than 100 scientists who commented on the proposed Amendment 3 ERPs, and is pushing for the implementation of Option E.
But at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on October 24, fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”
Dr. Hilborn’s comments came in response to questioning from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) about whether fisheries managers should manage forage fish according to a “rule of thumb” approach, where fisheries are managed according to a set of broad ecological and management principals, or a “case-by-case” approach, where management is guided by more species-specific information.
Hilborn, who was part of a team of fisheries scientists that recently examined the effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species, has expressed concern that the 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.
John Bull, commissioner for Virginia Marine Resources Commission, believes the latter. And while he’s heard environmental groups are trying to make Option E seem more palatable by saying it will result in “phased implementation,” he does not support the establishment of interim ERPs because it “doesn’t make sense, scientifically.”
“The science shows from a benchmark stock assessment a couple years ago that the stock is healthy, robust, and reproduction is good,” said Bull. “And in fact, a 30 percent increase on menhaden could be enacted with a 0 percent chance of overfishing. What Virginia would like to see is an increase in the quota on the East Coast of 5, 6, 7 percent.”
Marisa Torrieri is a freelance writer who lives in Fairfield, Connecticut, with her husband and two young sons. She possesses a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University, and has written and edited for dozens of publications, including the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, and the Village Voice.
