Saving Seafood

Tool Uses NASA Data to Take Temperature of Rivers from Space

December 3, 2025 — New research uses more than 40 years of data from NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Landsat satellites to help dam operators improve the health of salmon fisheries.

The Columbia and Snake rivers in the Pacific Northwest contain nearly 20 dams, which provide flood control, hydroelectric power, and water for irrigation. But they also change the way the rivers flow. For the study, researchers tracked temperature up and downstream of dams using surface temperature data from Landsat satellites. Data from these satellites support our nation’s agricultural industry, including farmers and food production. Researchers found warm water downstream of dams stressed salmon, making them swim faster. The scientists developed a tool called THORR, or Thermal History of Regulated Rivers, to perform this research.

“NASA’s focus on advancing our understanding of Earth’s freshwater resources is reflected in tools like THORR, which leverage decades of satellite data to improve water management strategies,” said Erin Urquhart, program manager, Earth Action Water Resources Program at the agency’s headquarters in Washington. “By making this information accessible and useful, NASA is ensuring its science directly benefits the communities and industries that depend on these resources.”

The recent study, funded by NASA, provides regularly updated information about river temperature that dam operators can use to fine-tune their operations. Faisal Hossain, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the University of Washington and one of the study authors, explained that when water spills over the dam from the top layer of the reservoir, the water tends to be hotter, as it was warmed by the Sun. That warmer water can stress and even kill salmon, while water that’s discharged through the turbines cools the river downstream. Strategically discharging water from lower levels of the reservoir could help salmon thrive, saving dam operators time and other, costlier interventions, Hossain said.

Read the full article at NASA

Ocean Harvesters Responds to Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s August 7 Press Release

August 8, 2025 — The following was released by Ocean Harvesters:

A press release issued yesterday by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) continues a multi-year pattern of gross dishonesty, as it presented an incomplete and misleading narrative regarding menhaden management in the Chesapeake Bay. CBF’s misleading release includes a statement from Virginia Executive Director Chris Moore that ignores and disparages the established science, and the regulatory framework that ensures the fishery remains sustainable and responsibly managed.

In response, Ocean Harvesters has issued the following:

The CBF release refers to “growing warning signs around the Chesapeake Bay”:

“There are clear signs of peril in the Chesapeake, and menhaden are one of the connecting threads.“

This claim is not supported by any independent, peer-reviewed science, but rather represents the biased opinion of a special interest group. The assertion that “there are clear signs of peril in the Chesapeake, and menhaden are one of the connecting threads” overstates both the available scientific evidence and the known ecological dynamics of the Bay. While ecosystem concerns merit monitoring, attributing broad Chesapeake Bay challenges to already conservative menhaden harvest regulations is not supported by the best available science.

In 2024, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) presented data to the ASMFC on osprey populations which showed osprey reproduction challenges and nest failures occurring on both the Atlantic and Pacific Coast, including many areas with no menhaden fishery at all. In a letter to Congress earlier this year, USGS said it found no direct link between regulated menhaden harvests and declining osprey populations. The federal agency emphasized that multiple, complex factors, including weather, predation and prey access, contribute to ecological trends in the Bay.

 

Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey present a slide to the ASMFC showing that the recent leveling-off in Maryland and Virginia osprey populations, after years of explosive growth, is a phenomenon also being seen in states across the nation, on both the East and West Coast.

Ocean Harvesters menhaden fishermen.

 

The statement includes: “This new timing of intense fishing pressure may be contributing to the problems facing the Chesapeake Bay.”

Any adjustment in the timing of Bay fishing is minor and reflects natural shifts in the seasonal population dynamics of menhaden, not a quantifiable increase in harvest pressure or ecological harm. No scientific evidence has established any link between this timing shift and the broad ecological challenges described in the release.

While the press release references anecdotal concerns from Maryland fishers, it omits mention of well-documented water quality issues in Maryland that may also explain the localized fishery observations cited.

Another claim in the statement reads: “One foreign-owned company consistently prevents progress in Virginia, and now coastwide at the ASMFC.”

This statement is inaccurate. Omega Protein is a Virginia-based processing company, and the menhaden are harvested by Ocean Harvesters, a separate American-owned and operated company whose crews are overwhelmingly local, unionized, and multi-generational, represented by UFCW Local 400, AFL-CIO. This domestic fleet works in full compliance with harvest controls, vessel reporting, and ecosystem-based management thresholds set by the ASMFC. CBF is clearly attempting to mislead the audience with distorted information and is crossing a very serious ethical line of misinformation that merits further scrutiny.

CBF’s repeated implication that the industry has obstructed scientific research misrepresents the actual facts. Ocean Harvesters supported a comprehensive ecosystem study of the menhaden fishery developed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in 2021. However, the proposal that later emerged in the Virginia General Assembly used a lower cost, novel methodology that had not undergone scientific peer review. The industry raised legitimate concerns-not about research itself, but about relying on an untested approach for such a politically charged issue. CBF has repeatedly and inaccurately characterized this as blanket opposition to science. In fact, the industry continues to support the original, science-based study design developed by ASMFC, and no menhaden research could be conducted without longstanding industry cooperation.

The statement concludes: “The Chesapeake’s fisheries and predators can’t wait. Menhaden are key to a thriving Chesapeake Bay, and a healthy, productive Chesapeake is vital to the entire Atlantic coast.”

There is simply no Chesapeake Bay crisis that would threaten fisheries or predators. The menhaden fishery is already one of the most scientifically scrutinized in the United States.

The menhaden fishery is currently:

  • Not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring, as confirmed by repeated stock assessments.
  • Certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)
  • Governed by ecosystem reference points that account for predator-prey relationships
  • Subject to real-time reporting, seasonal harvest caps, and rigorous monitoring under ASMFC’s management plan

Here is the true threat: CBF’s statements add up to nothing more than scare tactics that threatens the livelihood of hundreds of blue collar, multi-generational employees, many of whom are minority and UFCW Local 400 union workers, in Virginia’s Northern Neck.

About Ocean Harvesters
Ocean Harvesters owns and operates a fleet of more than 30 fishing vessels in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The company’s purse-seine fishing operation is exclusively engaged in the harvest of menhaden, a small, nutrient-dense fish used to produce fish meal, fish oil, and fish solubles. Both its Atlantic and Gulf Menhaden fisheries are certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. Committed to responsible fishing operations, Ocean Harvesters is proud to be heir to a fishing legacy that extends nearly 150 years.

New Autonomous Vehicle Helps Advance Understanding of the Deep Ocean and its Critical Minerals

July 8, 2025 — During a recent expedition led by the Ocean Exploration Cooperative Institute  (OECI), with support from NOAA Ocean Exploration, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), testing of a new autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) resulted in advancement to uncrewed systems technologies and the collection of images of manganese nodule-covered seafloor in ultra-deep waters near the Mariana Trench.

Built by New England-based startup Orpheus Ocean  , the small-footprint “Orpheus AUV” is advancing our understanding of some of the planet’s least explored regions at water depths up to 11,000 meters (6.8 miles). These areas include geological settings that may contain marine critical minerals such as polymetallic nodules, which are of interest to marine scientists, resource managers, and industry.

Field-testing of the new AUV took place during an expedition on Ocean Exploration Trust’s Exploration Vessel Nautilus  east of the Mariana Trench. The vehicle successfully completed several dives to depths exceeding meters (3.5 miles), imaging polymetallic nodules on the seafloor during two dives. These are the first direct observations of these sites and help NOAA, USGS, and BOEM refine their understanding of the resources that they are tasked with characterizing and managing.

A predecessor to Orpheus Ocean’s AUV was originally developed at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), and its evolution from prototype to operational vehicle has been supported over several years by NOAA Ocean Exploration and OECI. Orpheus Ocean, a startup company founded in 2024, aims to expand access to these unique, small-footprint robots to supercharge our ability to collect meaningful data that can ensure sound policy decisions about these unique environments.

Read the full article at NOAA Ocean Exploration

USGS faces big cuts, endangering Chesapeake science

June 26, 2025 — Vital research into threats to the Chesapeake Bay from invasive blue catfish, PFAS contamination, climate change and land use is on the chopping block as the Trump administration aims to decimate if not eliminate ecological studies done by the U.S. Geological Survey.

In its proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 released May 30, the White House has called for a 90% cut in funding for ecological research, laboratories and personnel at the USGS, which is the science arm of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

“It’s the most important mission area in USGS that they’re cutting,” said Scott Phillips, who retired from the agency in 2023 after more than 25 years as its Chesapeake Bay science coordinator. Beyond water quality, he noted, fish and wildlife are “what people care about.”

Read the full article at the Bay Journal

USGS Challenges Simple Narrative Linking Menhaden to Osprey Decline

May 5, 2025 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

A letter from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sent last week to the House Natural Resources Committee indicates multiple environmental stressors—not just prey availability—are responsible for recent osprey reproduction issues in the Chesapeake Bay. The USGS’ conclusions challenge narratives pushed by menhaden fishery opponents, including a widely publicized study by Dr. Bryan Watts of the Center for Conservation Biology, which linked a decline in osprey reproduction in Virginia’s Mobjack Bay to reduced availability of menhaden.

Menhaden increase in osprey diets is statistically insignificant

Specifically, the USGS finds that the Watts et al. (2024) study did not demonstrate a biologically significant change in the proportion of menhaden in the osprey diet over time. The agency also noted that menhaden made up a slightly higher portion of the diet in 2021 compared to 2006–07, although the difference is statistically insignificant. “Although the proportion of Menhaden as a percentage of total diet in 2021 is numerically larger than the 2006–07 value, the two values are bounded by overlapping error bars, and are thus not different in a biologically meaningful way,” the letter stated.

“The amount of food delivered to young in a nest can be influenced by many factors, including prey abundance, access to prey, … increased predation risk, parental condition, brood size, and adverse weather conditions,” said the USGS letter, which was delivered on May 2. “Ecological systems such as this are complex and occur at large scales that make it difficult and sometimes not possible to measure and accurately estimate the influence of all contributing factors.”

Chesapeake osprey trends also seen around the country

Following bird conservation measures including the banning of DDT, the Atlantic Coast osprey population increased by nearly 600% between 1966 and 2022. In the Chesapeake Bay, it has increased by about 1800% since 1960. While scientists have observed a leveling off of osprey populations between 2012 and 2022, populations remain high by historical standards. Furthermore, the USGS reports that this trend has been observed in numerous other locations including Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Delaware, as well as the Pacific Coast, raising serious questions about any impact from the menhaden fishery since there is no menhaden fishery in those locations.

Overfished Striped Bass also an important food source for osprey

The USGS also identifies striped bass as an important food source for osprey in parts of the Chesapeake Bay and notes that the status of this stock may influence osprey reproduction. “Preliminary observations made by USGS scientists during a 2024 Osprey nesting study in the vicinity of the Choptank River suggest Menhaden and Striped Bass may be the primary prey type there,” the letter states. It further explains that “the principal contributing factor to poor breeding performance was loss of young due to starvation,” likely caused by “limited prey capture and/or prey delivery to nests.” Additionally, the letter notes that “the USGS has included Striped Bass among the list of prey species captured and consumed by Osprey at some Chesapeake study sites,” and concludes that “many of the factors that affect the status of the Striped Bass stock in the Chesapeake could also have direct or indirect effects on Osprey reproduction.”

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has found that Atlantic striped bass are currently overfished, with spawning stock biomass below the sustainable threshold as of the most recent assessment. Over the past decade, recreational fishing—particularly in the Chesapeake Bay—has been the primary driver of striped bass mortality, accounting for the vast majority of total removals, including substantial losses from catch-and-release mortality¹. The ASMFC has repeatedly cited recreational release mortality as a major factor in the species’ decline² and has responded with new management measures aimed at rebuilding the stock by 2029³.Conversely, the Atlantic menhaden fishery has repeatedly been found to be healthy and sustainably managed. The most recent stock assessment by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in 2022 found menhaden is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. The fishery has been certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, the gold standard for seafood sustainability, since 2019.

Osprey nesting sites in the Chesapeake are now at a surplus

The USGS scientists reported that the number of breeding pairs in the Chesapeake Bay increased from approximately 1,450 pairs in 1973 to around 10,000 pairs in 2020—an increase of nearly 600 percent. “All estimates indicate that the density of breeding pairs of Osprey in the Chesapeake has grown substantially since the 1970s,” the letter states. It also notes that “there are many natural structures, duck blinds, and manmade platforms suitable for nesting Osprey in the Chesapeake,” and that “Osprey nesting sites in the Chesapeake are now at a surplus and unused platforms are frequently being taken over by Canada Geese.” While the letter does not conclude that the population has exceeded environmental limits, it acknowledges that “as a natural population regulation process,” higher osprey densities increase competition for limited resources such as food and nesting sites, and that “growth usually continues until the population reaches the maximum population size the environment can support.”

VIMS also found no clear relationship with menhaden

Last fall, scientists from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) also found that the Watts study did not “establish a clear relationship with menhaden abundance and availability.” Both the original Watts study⁴ and the VIMS rebuttal⁵ were published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science.

The USGS findings make clear that osprey reproduction is shaped by a wide array of environmental factors—and that no single fishery can shoulder the blame. The letter shows that blaming the menhaden fishery for complex ecological trends in osprey populations oversimplifies the science and misleads the public. Moreover, the overfished status of striped bass—driven largely by recreational fishing—may also be a contributing factor.

Footnotes

¹ Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Atlantic Striped Bass Stock Assessment Update. October 2022.

² Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Amendment 7 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan. May 2022.

³ Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Addendum II to Amendment 7. January 2024.

⁴ Watts Bryan D. , Stinson Christine H. , McLean Peter K. , Glass K. Andrew , Academia Michael H. , Byrd Mitchell A. (2023). Prey provisioning and diet of Osprey in lower Chesapeake Bay: A comparative study. Frontiers in Marine Science.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1284462/full

⁵ Latour Robert J. , Gartland James , Ralph Gina M. (2024). Commentary: Prey provisioning and diet of Osprey in lower Chesapeake Bay: A comparative study. Frontiers in Marine Science.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2024.1416687/full

U.S. Geological Survey Presentation Raises Questions About Osprey-Menhaden Link Allegations

August 6, 2024 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

Today at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) summer meeting, the Menhaden Management Board heard a presentation on osprey populations from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists; considered but did not agree to a motion to start an addendum on additional commercial menhaden fishing restrictions in the Chesapeake Bay; and ultimately agreed, as a compromise, to create a working group to “consider and evaluate options for further precautionary management of Chesapeake Bay menhaden fisheries.”

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) has issued a stunningly deceptive press release, mischaracterizing the tone of today’s ASMFC meeting and the action taken there. The CBF release suggests that the material presented by USGS overwhelmingly indicated a problem with osprey in the Chesapeake Bay, and that there was overwhelming support by ASMFC commissioners for additional regulation of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. Neither is true. The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition is issuing this release, together with the full audio of the meeting, to clarify the record. The full audio is available here.

Dr. Barnett Rattner and David Ziolkowski of the U.S. Geological Survey gave a presentation on the health of osprey populations from coast to coast. Mr. Ziolkowski noted that “in North America in the 1950s and 60s, osprey population started declining rapidly due to the effects of volcanic chlorine, pesticides like DDT, and it’s estimated that the Chesapeake Bay probably lost about half or more of its population.”

However, Mr. Ziolkowski explained that after measures were taken, including banning DDT, between 1966 and 2022, the eastern population of osprey increased by about 300%, and the Atlantic Coast population increased by about 587%. In the Chesapeake Bay it’s increased by about 1800% since 1960. He continued, “…what these numbers bear out is that osprey have made an astounding recovery by all accounts. The numbers are now in excess of historical numbers and in part that’s because they’ve returned to a world that’s very different than the world was before they started declining. There’s more suitable nesting structures. Water may be cleaner, et cetera.”

Mr. Ziolkowski did note that during the period from 2012 to 2022, “something’s going on,” as there has been a leveling off in the growth of the osprey populations in the mid-Atlantic. But he explained, “Care must be used when you’re interpreting these kinds of results and to understand what I mean, it’s helpful to look at osprey trends across the country. So here I’ll point out three things that I hope you take notice of in these graphs. On the left-hand side here, for example, California and Washington, opposite coast, you can see that there’s something going on in the same time period as there is here in Maryland, Virginia.”

Dr. Barnett Rattner and David Ziolkowski of the U.S. Geological Survey present a slide to the Menhaden Management Board showing that the recent leveling-off in Maryland and Virginia osprey populations, after years of explosive growth, is a phenomenon also being seen in states across the nation, on both the East and West Coast.

During the Q&A following the presentation, Commissioner Patrick Geer of Virginia, Chief of Fisheries Management at the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, noted that “Dr. [Bryan] Watts has done a survey in Virginia, for a number of years, going back to I believe 1993, which has shown the double crested cormorant population has increased 1416% in 25 years and brown pelicans have been about 882%. Now those species that are primarily piscivores…they’re competing for the same food source…Maybe the [osprey] nests aren’t surviving, maybe they’re moving out and these two species are moving in? Is that possible?” To which Dr. Rattner replied “Yes, it’s possible, certainly.”

After the presentation by the USGS scientists, Commissioner Lynn Waller Fegley of Maryland, Director of Fishing and Boating Services at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, made a motion to initiate an addendum to the Atlantic Menhaden Interstate Fishery Management Plan to consider Chesapeake Bay-specific management options for menhaden purse seine vessels larger than 300 gross tons in order to support the need of piscivorous birds and fish during critical points of their life cycle, and include options for seasonal closures of Chesapeake Bay waters, but not consider changes to the current Bay cap of 51,000 metric tons.

It became immediately apparent that the board was divided on this proposal.

The provision targeting purse seine vessels over 300 tons was obviously included to target the commercial menhaden reduction fishery, which in Virginia is operated by Ocean Harvesters and supplies menhaden to Reedville-based processer Omega Protein. This was questioned by Commissioner Proxy Eric Reid of Rhode Island, who asked if the motion wasn’t inherently flawed, since although there are carrier vessels over 300 tons, those vessels get their fish from pairs of small purse seine boats, meaning that the motion accomplished nothing. Mr. Reid’s conjecture was confirmed by a member of the delegation from Virginia.

Commissioner Proxy Nichola Meserve of Massachusetts, Fishery Policy Analyst at the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, raised concerns about “diving immediately into an addendum process,” noting that other addenda in the past began “with a work group, a board work group that discussed the issues and the concerns that developed potential strategies.

After much procedural wrangling, there were two votes to postpone action on the motion, one until the October meeting and another indefinitely. Both of those votes tied 9-9. When it became apparent that the motion to initiate an addendum had reached a stalemate, Commissioner Proxy Dr. Allison Colden, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Maryland Executive Director, offered a substitute motion “to establish a board work group to consider and evaluate options for further precautionary management of Chesapeake Bay menhaden fisheries, including time and area closures, to be protective of piscivorous birds and fish during critical points of their life cycle.

The board members accepted this compromise unanimously by acclamation, without a roll call, and the working group is expected to report the results of their discussion to the Menhaden Management Board at its October 2024 meeting.

“Those attending the ASMFC’s Menhaden Management Board meeting in person or listening online could only come away with one clear message from the respected researchers at USGS, and that is the osprey’s numbers have dramatically increased and any challenges that the seabirds face are complex and multi-faceted, occurring in numerous locations on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and cannot be blamed on the menhaden harvest in the Chesapeake Bay,” stated Ben Landry, Vice President of Public Affairs for Ocean Fleet Services and spokesperson for Ocean Harvesters. “To state otherwise is wholly dishonest, but that is commonplace for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and its decades-long history of false and hyperbolic statements on menhaden fisheries.”

The menhaden fishery has long been attacked by those who refuse to accept the science-based conclusions of respected government agencies and independent assessment bodies. However, it is important to remember that since 2020, after a three-year, peer-reviewed effort, with input from both industry and environmental conservation groups, menhaden has been managed using ecological reference points that account for menhaden’s role as a forage fish throughout its range.

When the ecological reference points were adopted, Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William C. Baker stated in a release: “This is a historic day for fisheries management. Menhaden have been called the most important fish in the sea for good reason. Menhaden are an essential part of the diet of numerous fish species including striped bass, along with dolphins, whales, osprey and other seabirds.”

In 2020, Chris Moore, Senior Regional Ecosystem Scientist for CBF, wrote in the Bay Journal, “Striped bass, of all the predators studied, were shown to be the most sensitive to changes in the menhaden population. Therefore, adopting ecological reference points that protect striped bass will also protect other predator species that rely less on menhaden.”

Additionally:

  • In 2022, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission concluded there was no evidence that menhaden were being overfished along the Atlantic coast.
  • The Marine Stewardship Council in 2019 certified the Atlantic menhaden fishery as sustainable.

About the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition
The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) is a collective of menhaden fishermen, related businesses, and supporting industries. Comprised of businesses along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition conducts media and public outreach on behalf of the menhaden industry to ensure that members of the public, media, and government are informed of important issues, events, and facts about the fishery.

Pacific salmon can now reproduce in Alaska’s Arctic, researchers find

April 7, 2022 — Waist-deep in the waters of Jago Lagoon off Alaska’s North Slope, biologist Vanessa von Biela and her research partners got a big surprise in the summer of 2017 when they were sorting through Arctic fish that had been captured in a test net.  Among the hundreds of Arctic cisco in the net was a juvenile chum salmon — the first direct proof of successful salmon reproduction that far north in North America.

The young chum salmon, with its rounded nose, stood out among the masses of pointy-nosed Arctic cisco was quickly noticed by colleague Sean Burril, said von Biela, a research biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.

“He happened to hold this one in his hand and he said, ‘Hey, this one feels different,’ and, ‘This one is a salmon,’” she said.

That one juvenile salmon found near the Inupiat village of Kaktovik during fieldwork to study Beaufort Sea fisheries represented a breakthrough — the product of an egg laid in the Arctic waters that survived the winter.

Read the full story at Arctic Today

 

Horseshoe Crab Board Accepts ARM Framework Revision and Peer Review for Management Use and Initiates Draft Addendum to Consider Changes to Delaware Bay Management

January 27, 2022 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Horseshoe Crab Management Board reviewed and accepted for management use the 2021 Revision of the Adaptive Resource Management (ARM) Framework and the independent peer review of the Revision. The ARM Revision addresses previous peer review critiques, includes new sources of data, and adopts new modeling software to set harvest levels for Delaware Bay-origin horseshoe crabs that account for the forage needs of migratory shorebirds. The independent peer review panel endorsed the ARM Revision as the best and most current scientific information for the management of horseshoe crabs in the Delaware Bay Region.

“On behalf of the Board, I want to applaud the members of the ARM Subcommittee for their exceptional work on the 2021 ARM Revision,” stated Board Chair Joe Cimino from New Jersey. “This revision made a notable advancement in considering more sources of data and providing a thorough picture of the population dynamics in the Delaware Bay Region. The Board recognizes that there is considerable public concern about the potential impact of the ARM Revision on the status of the endangered red knot and is committed to fully vetting its possible use in setting harvest levels for horseshoe crabs of Delaware Bay-origin through our public comment process.”

Since 2013, horseshoe crabs in the Delaware Bay Region (New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) have been managed under the ARM Framework to set harvest levels with consideration of the needs of migratory shorebirds. The ARM was developed jointly by the Commission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey in recognition of the importance of horseshoe crab eggs to migratory shorebirds stopping over in the Delaware Bay region. In particular, horseshoe crab eggs are a critical food source for the rufa red knot, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In the past decade, more data has been collected on red knots and horseshoe crabs and modeling software has advanced. Thus, the ARM Subcommittee was tasked with revising the ARM Framework to address critiques from the previous peer review panel, include newly available data, and transition to new modeling software since the old software is obsolete.

Several improvements to the ARM Framework were made during this revision. In the original ARM Framework, the population models for horseshoe crabs and red knots were largely based on life history information taken from the literature that was not always specific to Delaware Bay. The ARM Revision improves the models for both species by incorporating region-specific data collected over the past few decades. Additionally, the ARM Revision incorporates more sources of horseshoe crab removals than the previous version, including mortality due to the biomedical industry and commercial discards from other fisheries.

In the original ARM Framework, the Virginia Tech Trawl Survey was used annually to estimate the Delaware Bay horseshoe crab population. The revised ARM Framework still relies heavily on the Virginia Tech Trawl Survey, but also includes additional abundance indices from the region. The population model in the ARM Revision indicated that adult abundance in the Delaware Bay was stable from 2003‐2013 and then began increasing in the past few years for both sexes. This finding is consistent with stock rebuilding due to a period of significantly reduced commercial landings and tight management controls on the fishery beginning in the 2000s in this Region. In 2019, the ARM Revision estimates there were 21.9 million male and 9.4 million female horseshoe crabs in the Delaware Bay Region. Mark-resight and count data from New Jersey and Delaware were used to estimate the population of red knots passing through the Delaware Bay. The passage population estimates were fairly stable between 2011 and 2020 at approximately 45,000 birds and their annual survival estimates were consistently high.  A more detailed overview of the 2021 ARM Revision can be found here.

Using estimated numbers of horseshoe crabs and red knots, the ARM Framework recommends the level of horseshoe crab harvest for the next fishing season. The maximum number of male and female horseshoe crabs the ARM Revision can recommend remains the same at 210,000 females and 500,000 males. While additional data and model improvements are used in the ARM Revision, the conceptual model of horseshoe crab abundance influencing red knot survival and reproduction remains intact with the intent of ensuring the abundance of horseshoe crabs does not become a limiting factor in the population growth of red knots.

After accepting the ARM Revision and Peer Review for management use, the Board initiated a Draft Addendum to consider allowing its use in setting annual specifications for horseshoe crabs of Delaware Bay-origin. The Horseshoe Crab Plan Development Team, composed of representatives from the states and federal agencies, will draft management options for Board review prior to the Board considering approving the document for public comment. If approved, the draft addendum will be released for public comment with opportunities to submit comment through public hearings and written comments. Following the public comment period, the Board will meet to review submitted comment and consider final action on the addendum.

A more detailed overview of the 2021 ARM Revision can be found athttp://www.asmfc.org/uploads/file/61f2f18aHSC_ARM_RevisionOverview_Jan2022.pdf. The final ARM Revision and Peer Review Report will be available on the Commission website, www.asmfc.org, on the Horseshoe Crab webpage under stock assessment reports in early February. For more information, please contact Caitlin Starks, Fishery Management Coordinator, at cstarks@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.

 

Do River Channels Always Change When Dams Are Removed? It Depends

September 8, 2020 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Dams are constructed for many purposes, including energy generation, water supply, flood control, and recreation. Dams can also impact the environment, both when they’re built and again when they’re removed. Researchers from the University of Maine, U.S. Geological Survey, and NOAA collaborated to determine what happens to the shape of rivers when a dam is removed. They found that the changes can be minimal under specific geologic and site conditions.

For more information about this study read our web story or the online journal article.

Federal Shutdown Halts Some Environmental Conservation Efforts, Slows Others

January 9, 2019 — Federal researchers in western Massachusetts study ways to protect migrating fish, backyard birds and urban trees. The government shutdown is keeping them home and away from their research.

The researchers work for agencies like the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Curt Griffin heads the UMass Amherst Department of Environmental Conservation, where some of the scientists are based.

“It’s a very, very unfortunate event that our federal colleagues are caught up in this mess,” Griffin said. “And it’s not fair to them. It’s not fair to the public that they provide important services to. So it’s just a very broken system, and they’re caught in the middle.”

Read the full story at New England Public Radio