Saving Seafood

Fishery officials to consider 2017 red snapper season

August 16, 2017 — Federal fishery managers will vote on an emergency order next month to create an open season later this year for red snapper, which are protected by strict regulations designed to help the species recover from overfishing.

The surprise move, which would create the first open season since 2014, will likely be welcomed by many local anglers who believe red snapper are thriving and mismanaged by overbearing federal officials.

Others were caught off guard by the news and concerned about the repercussions of loosening the regulations and whether fishery managers were legally allowed to make that decision on such short notice.

“The question is, what’s the emergency? Where’s the fire?,” said Leda Cunningham, who works for a campaign to end overfishing run by an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts. “If there’s new information that indicates the status of the population has changed for the better or worse, we’ll need to see it.”

Red snapper have been protected by strict regulations since 2010, a result of the federal government ruling the species was overfished to dangerously low numbers. Anglers can still catch red snapper, but they’ve had just a few opportunities to keep the fish since the rules took effect.

Read the full story at the Florida Times-Union

Healthy status of Atlantic menhaden confirmed

August 10, 2017 — The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) on August 2 received an updated stock assessment that shows Atlantic menhaden is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing. These positive conclusions mirror the results of the ASMFC’s 2015 benchmark assessment of Atlantic menhaden, which showed a healthy and sustainable stock, as reported by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition.

The 2017 Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Update, prepared by the ASMFC’s Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee using data through the 2016 fishing year, shows that fishing mortality remains well below the ASMFC’s target levels.

Read the full story at the Rappahannock Record

Dr. Brian Rothschild: Congress Must Make Magnuson Recognize Existence, Content of National Standards in Fishery Plans

Dr. Brian Rothschild

August 9, 2017 — The following was written by Dr. Brian Rothschild, and was published in the June/July issue of Fishery News:

Four years and counting, the stalled reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) is impeding the progress of U.S. fishery management.

In December 2013, a reauthorization draft was distributed to the 113th Congress. Since that time various versions of the bill have been shuffled between the House and the Senate. The most recent version—”Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act”—was introduced to the 115th Congress on January 3, 2017 by Congressman Young as H.R. 200. On February 10, it was referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans.

H.R. 200 is a step in the right direction. It builds flexibility into fisheries stock-rebuilding schedules by replacing the current law’s formulaic and impracticable rebuilding strictures. It recognizes, at least implicitly, that stocks that are at a historically low level of abundance should be designated as “depleted”, not as “overfished” and addresses, albeit weakly, improvements in research planning.

However, H.R. 200 only scratches the surface of needed reform. It falls short in failing to recognize the operational quartet that fundamentally shapes fisheries- policy implementation. This quartet consists of the interactions among 1) the “plain language of the law”, 2) the record of “legislative history”, 3) guidelines issued by the agency (NOAA), and 4) day-to-day implementation actions by NMFS.

Given this framework, it is crucial to realize that even the slightest ambiguity or equivocation in the reauthorized law will propagate uncertainty and substantial costs to the over-all economic and social performance of our fisheries.

Let’s look at an example. To begin, it is necessary to recognize that the MSFMCA is based upon 10 National Standards. So, it is only logical that reauthorization language should use the National Standards as a point of departure.

But, in H.R. 200 the National Standards are virtually ignored. This is problematic because reference to, and possible revision of, the National Standards is necessary to improve fishery policy. Not doing so creates substantial opportunity for ambiguity and equivocation.

To further exemplify, two key concepts in National Standard 1 involve: (1) overfishing and (2) optimum yield.

(1) There are many different types and shades of overfishing, so what kind and how much overfishing are we preventing?

Arriving at a determination of overfishing depends on the choice of model (there are several). The magnitude of a overfishing “value” generally differs among “models”. For example, overfishing can be defined in the context of production models, age-structured production models, or yield-per-recruit models, each of which gives a different view of stock status. It is also often the case, amidst this profusion/confusion, that all of these definitions are just simply ignored and replaced by arbitrary “proxies” that rely upon highly uncertain age-structured production models.

Consider also that two different forms of overfishing are well-known: “stock overfishing” and “recruitment overfishing”. Each is determined on the basis of different information requirements. Each has different conservation content.

Stock overfishing can be determined on the basis of data at hand e.g. landings and fishing effort, and has— despite its wide use in managing fish stocks—very little conservation importance. Alternately, determining whether recruitment overfishing exists requires several years of data—and despite its conservation importance— it is seldom done.

So, when we change “overfished” to “depleted”, how do we interpret the status of all the fish stocks previously designated as overfished or at risk to overfishing, definitions that would no longer be relevant? How do we manage stocks that are at a low level of abundance because they are truly depleted by fishing, in contrast to stocks that are depleted by environmental change? Also, there does not appear to be a universally acceptable way to distinguish fishing-depleted from environment- depleted.

(2) Optimum has a specific technical meaning. It refers to something that we want to maximize. The question arises as to what we are maximizing and over what time frame. On one hand, the extant version of the law gives some clues, but following these clues only leads to deeper uncertainty and ambiguity. First, it is clear that the intent of the extant law is to somehow maximize “a quantity of fish”. But it could be “a quantity of fish” that provides the “greatest overall benefit to the nation”, or it could be “maximum sustainable yield as reduced by economic, social, or ecological factors”, or it could be “rebuilding the fishery to an MSY level”.

And, in any event, a little thought might indicate that maximizing a quantity of fish may not be a good idea in general. For example, there are many other measures of performance that are better measures than a quantity of fish and yet optimizing these other measures seems to be virtually ignored.

A relevant example is that optimization, as it is practiced under the current law, is taken to mean that biological productivity is maximized, subject to economic and social constraints. Yet, perhaps a better and different approach would be to maximize economic and social productivity, subject to biological constraints!

So, the reauthorization of the MSFCMA gathers dust. During four decades since its original authorization in 1976, fisheries management has had its bright spots and dark patches. Future dark patches can be considerably reduced by making sure that the elements underpinning the operational quartet in the reauthorization are, at the very least, well-defined and feasible to attain. The consonance among the plain language of the law, the intent of Congress, the regulations and the actual implementation of the Act needs careful scrutiny. “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?” The time is right for fishery policy to come out of hibernation.

About Dr. Brian Rothschild: Dr. Rothschild is the Montgomery Charter Professor of Marine Science and former Dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Prior to joining the University of Massachusetts, Professor Rothschild held professorships at the University of Maryland and the University of Washington. He has had faculty or visiting scientist affiliations with the University of Hawaii; Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami; Institut fur Meereskunde, University of Kiel; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; and Harvard University.

 

Red snapper proposal attracts allies and foes

August 7, 2017 — Environmental and fishing groups continue to line up for and against Louisiana lawmakers’ proposal to give states more control over red snapper fishing in the Gulf of Mexico.

Among other provisions, the companion measures awaiting action in Congress would give states authority to set seasons up to 25 miles off their coasts or to where waters reach 150 feet in depth, whichever is the greater distance. States already have the authority to manage the red snapper fishery up to nine miles off their coasts.

Companion bills introduced about a week ago are the latest in a years-long battle over how the popular fish is managed. Louisiana’s two Republican senators, Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy, are sponsoring the Red Snapper Act of 2017 in the Senate. Reps. Garret Graves, R-Baton Rouge; Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans; and Clay Higgins, R-Port Barre; are among a bipartisan group of Gulf Coast lawmakers who have introduced a companion bill in the House.

Recreational fishermen have for years complained that federal authorities have set overly restrictive catch limits and unnecessarily short seasons for red snapper despite a rebound in the species’ numbers. Environmental and conservation groups have already gone on record opposing the measure, saying it will hamper efforts to help the fish rebound from years of severe overfishing.

Read the full story at the Daily Comet

Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Update Finds Resource Not Overfished and Overfishing Not Occurring

August 3, 2017 — ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board reviewed the results of the 2017 Atlantic Menhaden Stock Assessment Update, which indicates the resource remains healthy; it is not overfished nor experiencing overfishing relative to the current biological reference points. In 2016, population fecundity, a measure of reproductive capacity, is estimated to be 83,486 billion eggs which is well above the threshold (57,295 billion eggs) but below the target (99,467 billion eggs). Additionally, total fishing mortality is estimated to be 0.51, below both the fishing mortality threshold (1.85) and target (0.80).  The stock assessment update uses the same modeling approach as the 2015 Atlantic Menhaden Benchmark Stock Assessment but added additional years of data from 2014-2016.

While the stock status was assessed in the same way as the 2015 benchmark report, the reference point values have changed. Adding additional years of data to the model resulted in generally higher fishing mortality values throughout the times series which changed the scale of the reference points. While the scale is different and the trend differs in some years, the stock status for both fishing mortality rate and fecundity has been similar over the past decade.

Atlantic menhaden is harvested by both commercial reduction and bait fisheries. In 2013, Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan implemented a total allowable catch (TAC) of 170,800 metric tons (mt). The coastwide TAC was increased by 10% to 187,880 mt for the 2015-2016 fishing years and by another 6.45% to 200,000 mt for the 2017 fishing year. In 2016, reduction landings were 137,400 mt and accounted for approximately 76% of coastwide landings and bait landings were 43,100 mt and comprised 24% of coastwide landings.

For a more detailed description of the stock assessment results, go here –http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/59822ab4MenhadenAssessmentOverview_Aug2017.pdf. To obtain the Stock Assessment Update go here –http://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/59832ee0MenhadenStockAssessmentUpdate_Aug2017.pdf. For more information, please contact Megan Ware, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at 703.842.0740 or mware@asmfc.org.

Regulators: Menhaden fish population in good shape

August 3, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine — One of the most important little fish in the sea is in good shape.

That’s the analysis of the regulatory Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which reviewed the Atlantic menhaden population and found it remains healthy. The commission says the fish is not experiencing overfishing.

Atlantic menhaden are harvested by fishermen for use as bait and to make fish oil.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at ABC News

First MSA Reauthorization Hearing Acknowledged Successes, Identified Needed Changes

August 2, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — At the first of a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act held yesterday at the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, senators from both sides of the aisle voiced support for the regional management council system, NOAA Fisheries, and the science that supports fisheries management, despite the deep cuts proposed in the President’s budget.

“With regard to the budget, I think some of these cuts may not survive the [reauthorization] process,” said Chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK). “I think we’re going to be adding a lot back to the projects that we think are vital.”

Sullivan was responding in part to a series of questions from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, about the current administration’s proposed budget for the agency.

“My question concerns the budget submitted by the president of the United States. The budget slashes funding for programs like Sea Grant and the Milford Lab at the University of Connecticut [Northeast Fisheries Science Center],” Blumenthal said.

“These federal research efforts to help grow and expand certain aspects of aquaculture are very promising. As a representative of this administration, how can you justify these cuts to the agency that you are responsible for administering? Are you going to commit to me that you’re going to [find funding] for Sea Grant and the Milford Lab?”

Oliver responded, “Senator, I don’t know that I’m in a position to comment very extensively on the President’s budget. I do know that they’ve placed a revised emphasis on the Department of Defense and national security.”

Blumenthal: “I’m on the Armed Services Committee sir, and I very much support that emphasis … but this kind of slashing and trashing of programs that are essential to the kinds of programs you administer, that are vital to our economic future in aquaculture I consider a mockery of the mission of your agency. And if you’re not in a position to justify it, who would be?”

Oliver: “All I can say sir is we’re going to do our best to operate within the budget that we have, and I know that a lot of the programs that were slated to be cut involve cooperative agreements or past grants of funding through the Sea Grant program, for example, and grants to the coastal states. We’re going to do our best to make that up internally…”

Blumenthal: “Are you going to commit to me that you can make up those cuts to the Sea Grant program and the Milford Lab and the University of Connecticut that are essential to those programs?”

Oliver: “I can’t commit that we’re specifically going to be able to make those up from our baseline budget. I think that we’re facing some tough decisions too. I’ve said on many occasions that I feel that this agency may be in a position to refocus on some of its very core mission – science mission…”

Blumenthal: “You’d agree with me that those are valid and important programs?”

Oliver: “Of course sir, I really do.”

Blumenthal: “If you agree these programs are valid, then your agency has a responsibility to fight for them and to make sure they are fully funded.”

The exchange was toward the end of an otherwise non-confrontational hearing on the “long overdue” reauthorization of the MSA with Oliver and Dr. John Quinn, Chair of the New England Fisheries Management Council. Both men lauded the successes brought about by the original 1976 law and the amendments to it, most recently in 2007.

“As a group, we are strong believers in the Magnuson-Stevens Act – and not just because it established the Councils,” said Quinn, who spoke on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC), which is made up of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils.

“The outcome of our management success is clear: commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries are key contributors to our coastal communities and the nation’s economy. In large measure, this is because the Act structured a very successful approach to sustainable fisheries management. Central to the Act are the 10 National Standards that guide our management process.”

“Under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act the nation has made great strides in maintaining more stocks at biologically sustainable levels, ending overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, building a sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities, and providing more domestic options for U.S. seafood consumers in a market dominated by imports,” echoed Oliver.

Both agreed, however, that changes should be made. Oliver noted in particular ways in which overall production could be increased, particularly in areas where catch limits have not been updated to changes in stock sizes.

“For example, while our West Coast groundfish fisheries have rebuilt several important stocks, in recent years fishermen are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints. We must find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species in all of our fisheries,” explained Oliver.

Stakeholders in the West Coast groundfish fishery were enthusiastic about Oliver’s references to the plight of those working in the non-whiting trawl catch shares program. The program has realized far less than full utilization of the resource, with less than one-third of the available fish being harvested annually.

“We applaud Chris Oliver’s recent testimony to the Senate on the state of the West Coast IFQ non-whiting trawl fishery,” Pacific Seafood’s Mike Okoniewski said.

“Members of industry have been testifying for years that while the conservation benefits of the program have passed all expectations, but the economics are performing at abysmal levels,” Okoniewski said.

Oliver’s testimony drilled to the heart of the matter: if you cannot get the fish out of the water you cannot realize the economic benefits outlined in the program’s goals and objectives. Targets such as increasing economic benefits, providing full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, increasing operational flexibility and providing measurable economic and employment benefits throughout the processing and distribution chain have not been met for the non-whiting sector.

“Chris Oliver’s testimony is a huge step forward to reverse the present trajectory we are on. Again we thank him and look forward his leadership of NMFS. His focus on balance and economic output, as well as conservation and sustainability, is long overdue,” Okoniewski said.

“Much like Pacific groundfish (to quote AA Oliver), New England groundfish fishermen ‘are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints’”, noted Maggie Raymond, Executive Director of Associated Fisheries of Maine.

Both Quinn and Oliver referenced a need for “flexibility”, Raymond observed.

“Quinn’s testimony is specific to a need for flexibility in rebuilding timelines.  But flexibility in rebuilding timelines is not necessarily the fix, at least not for New England,” she added.

“As long as an otherwise healthy mixed stock fishery remains constrained by a weak stock in the complex, the problem of leaving available harvest in the water cannot be addressed.  We look forward to working with AA Oliver to ‘find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species.’

“Let’s start with windowpane flounder. A species with no economic value that puts a significant burden on the NE groundfish and scallop fisheries,” said Raymond.

Oliver acknowledged his testimony from last year on no need for further flexibility on MSA. But, he said, “I’m in a new role now and as I look at the issue more broadly, I’d heard from constituents across the country, listened to the dialog about issues with the Act, and I’ve come to believe that there is a possibility that additional flexibilities should be considered, accountability measures that are used to enforced annual catch limits (ACLs), particularly in fisheries where we don’t have the robust and accurate accounting.

“Many of our recreational fisheries are of a nature that don’t lend themselves well to those monitoring methods.

“The administration has not taken positions on these specific issues,” Oliver said. “But in my personal view, in fisheries that don’t have robust systems of accountability, in particular the recreational fisheries that have different goals, there’s room for flexibility.”

Quinn agreed. “We’re here to reauthorize [the MSA], not repeal it. Data availability and stock assessment, particularly in the recreational side, I think we’ve got a lot of work to do. Data needs are really important. ACLs and AMs work for the commercial, not necessarily for the recreational fisheries.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the nation’s bycatch quantity “unacceptable” and asked Quinn for an assessment on catch shares.

“In some parts of the country, catch shares have worked,” Quinn responded. “In my part of the country, it hasn’t worked as well. But the CCC’s position is to keep catch shares as a part of our management tool box.”

Sullivan brought up the issue of electronic monitoring as a less expensive alternative to onboard observers and asked, “What can we do to help the councils use EM more efficiently?”

“Like catch shares, the authority for EM is in the Act now,” said Quinn, “but individual regions may have specific fisheries that may or may not use EM. There are a lot of pilot programs using EM now. Decisions should be made region by region.”

“I want to compliment you both on your emphasis on data and science,” Sullivan said in closing comments. “We’re going to back you up on that.”

The next hearing will be August 23, 2017 in Kenai, Alaska.

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

Final Rule for Hogfish Management in South Atlantic Federal Waters

July 27, 2017 — The following was released by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

KEY MESSAGE:

NOAA Fisheries announces a final rule for Amendment 37 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 37).  Hogfish in the South Atlantic will be managed as two populations: Georgia through North Carolina and Florida Keys/East Florida.  A population assessment determined that the Florida Keys/East Florida population is undergoing overfishing (rate of removal is too high) and is overfished (population abundance is too low) and, therefore, in need of a rebuilding plan.  The overfishing and overfished status of the Georgia/North Carolina population is unknown.

WHEN RULE WILL TAKE EFFECT:

  • Regulations will be effective August 24, 2017.

WHAT THIS MEANS:

The final rule for Amendment 37 will implement the following management measures in addition to specifying commercial and recreational annual catch limits and accountability measures:

Management Measures Georgia-North Carolina Florida Keys/East Florida
Minimum size limit

(for both commercial and recreational sectors)

 17 inches fork length 16 inches fork length
Commercial trip limit 500 pounds whole weight 25 pounds whole weight
Recreational bag limit 2 fish per person per day 1 fish per person per day
Recreational fishing season Open year-round Open – May through October

Closed- January through April; November through December

FORMAL FEDERAL REGISTER NAME/NUMBER:

82 FR 34584, published July 25, 2017.

This bulletin serves as a Small Entity Compliance Guide, complying with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

How Using Light Could Help Reduce Bycatch

July 20, 2017 — British startup SafetyNet Technologies is using light to develop a potential new solution to one of the fishing industry’s biggest problems: bycatch. Bycatch—the fish, turtles, seabirds, dolphins, and other types of marine life that end up caught in fishing nets and then discarded—has both environmental and economic consequences. It damages marine ecosystems and adds cost to the fishing industry. According to Oceana, around 20 percent of the catch in United States fisheries is thought to be of unintended species. Worldwide, it could be as much as 40 percent.

SafetyNet recently developed PISCES, a light-emitting device that fits existing nets and helps fishermen target certain species. It is based on the theory that fish vary in their reactions to light, with different types of light attracting some species and repulsing others. It is designed to be flexible and comes in different shapes and sizes to accommodate a variety of equipment. PISCES is also programmable, allowing the user to choose specifications such as the type of light, its intensity, and the flash rate.

Other solutions for bycatch, such as turtle excluder devices or the Nordmore grate, tend to involve gear adapted to particular fishing environments. These devices either physically prevent certain non-target species from entering nets or allow them to easily escape. Unlike these solutions, PISCES does not focus on a specific species. Light has been shown to affect a range of fish and crustaceans, as well as turtles and birds, and the planned trials for PISCES are spread across diverse fishing environments.

SafetyNet conducted an initial trial of PISCES in 2016 in partnership with Young’s Seafood and Cefas. The tests were based in the North Sea and showed that light could reduce bycatch by up to 60 percent. Recent trials in shrimp by scientists with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife have shown that light can reduce bycatch by as much as 90 percent.

Read the full story at Foodtank

ASMFC Reacts to Commerce Secretary Decision to Reject Commission Advice on Summer Flounder

July 14, 2017 — ARLINGTON, Va. — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

On July 11th, Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, notified the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that he has found the State of New Jersey to be in compliance with Addendum XXVII to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan. According to the letter sent to the Commission, Secretary Ross’s decision was based on the assertion that “New Jersey makes a compelling argument that the measures it implemented this year, despite increasing catch above the harvest target, will likely reduce total summer flounder mortality in New Jersey waters to a level consistent with the overall conservation objective for the recreational fishery.” This is the first time since passage of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act) in 1993 and the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984 that the Secretary of Commerce failed to uphold a noncompliance recommendation by the Commission.

“The Commission is deeply concerned about the near-term impact on our ability to end overfishing on the summer flounder stock as well as the longer-term ability for the Commission to effectively conserve numerous other Atlantic coastal shared resources,” stated Commission Chair Douglas Grout of New Hampshire. “The Commission’s finding of noncompliance was not an easy one. It included hours of Board deliberation and rigorous Technical Committee review, and represented, with the exception of New Jersey, a unanimous position of the Commission’s state members. Our decision was based on Technical Committee’s findings that New Jersey’s measures were not conservationally-equivalent to those measures in Addendum XXVIII and are projected to result in an additional 93,800 fish being harvested. Additionally, we had an obligation as a partner in the joint management of summer flounder with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to implement measures to end overfishing immediately or face the possibility of summer flounder becoming an overfished stock.”

Based on the latest stock assessment information, summer flounder is currently experiencing overfishing. Spawning stock biomass has been declining since 2010 and is just 16% above the threshold.  The vast majority of fishery-independent surveys show rapidly declining abundance. Any increase in overall mortality puts the stock at risk for further declines and increases the probability of the stock becoming overfished. If the stock falls below the biomass threshold, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires the Council to initiate a rebuilding program, which could require more restrictive management measures.

New Jersey was not the only state to be concerned about the impact of the approved measures to its recreational fishing community. Two other states submitted alternative proposals that were rejected in favor of the states equally sharing the burden of needed reductions. Those states, as well as other coastal states, implemented the approved measures in order to end overfishing and support the long-term conservation of the resource.

“The states have a 75-year track record of working together to successfully manage their shared marine resources,” continued Chairman Grout. “We are very much concerned about the short and long-term implications of the Secretary’s decision on interstate fisheries management. Our focus moving forward will be to preserve the integrity of the Commission’s process, as established by the Atlantic Coastal Act, whereby, the states comply with the management measures we collectively agree upon. It is my fervent hope that three-quarters of a century of cooperative management will provide a solid foundation for us to collectively move forward in achieving our vision of sustainably managing Atlantic coastal fisheries.”

The Commission is currently reviewing its options in light of Secretary Ross’s action, and the member states will meet during the Commission’s Summer Meeting in early August to discuss the implications of the Secretary’s determination on the summer flounder resource and on state/federal cooperation in fisheries management under the Atlantic Coastal Act.

For more information, please contact Toni Kerns, Director, Interstate Fisheries Management Program, at tkerns@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.