September 17 – Booming New England Seal Population Creates a Management Challenge – Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 1972, forty years ago. Intended to slow the precipitous decline of marine mammal populations due to human activities, the act prohibited the killing, harassment, or excessive disturbance of marine mammals in United States waters. For seals in New England—mainly harbor seals and gray seals—the MMPA’s protections effected a massive boom in population.

September 21 – Illegal and Wrong – Wednesday’s New England Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Committee meeting was … depressing. As the expression goes, just when I think I am seeing light at the end of the tunnel I realize that it is the headlights of the on-coming bus. Once again, current events—bad as they are—seem about to be exploited to produce an even more dismal future. The topic was throwing open the decades-long fishery closed areas to exploitation again.

September 21 - Fish Talk in the News – Friday, September 21 – In this week’s Fish Talk in the News, the NEFMC Groundfish Committee proposes opening closed areas; blanket shark fin bans may hurt the sustainable dogfish industry; Gloucester fishing personalities comment on warm waters this summer; a NOAA report ranks New Bedford first in the country in fishing revenues; cod stocks move north in response to record-setting warm water temperatures; the scallop quota could take a heavy cut over the next two years due to poor recruitment.

July 31 – Local Summer Fisheries – Sea Scallops – In the last post of the Local Summer Fisheries series, read about sea scallops: one of the most valuable fisheries in the United States and a great success story in fisheries management.

August 1 – Bangor Daily News supports returning alewives to the St. Croix – In June, CLF attorney Sean Mahoney blogged about CLF’s lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an effort to overturn a Maine law that has prevented the alewife, a forage fish crucial to marine and freshwater ecosystems, from accessing its native habitat in Maine’s St. Croix River. This week, the Bangor Daily News published an editorial expressing support for opening up the St. Croix River to alewives.

August 3 – Fish Talk in the News – Friday, August 3 – This week in Fish Talk in the News: expected reductions in catch limits for New England’s groundfish stocks have fishermen and congressmen up in arms; public support for opening the St. Croix River to alewives; an update on the December, 2011 removal of Shorey’s Brook dam in Maine; NOAA fisheries plans to conduct a survey to better understand the social and economic impacts of fishing regulations on the east coast; a new piece of legislation to prevent seafood fraud; the Maine lobster crisis continues, even as the Maine Lobster Festival kicks off in Rockland; Sport Fishing Magazine interviews Obama about his administration’s plans for and achievements in fisheries management; the Gulf of Maine Research Institute releases a study on changing zooplankton abundances in the Gulf of Maine; and the New England Ocean Odyssey blog posts about the Atlantic wolffish.

July 17 – Local Summer Fisheries – Summer Flounder - Summer flounder, also known as fluke, can be found in New England’s shallow coastal waters in the summer months, when they migrate inshore from their deeper, offshore winter habitats. They have historically composed one of the most popular and important commercial and recreational fisheries on the east coast.

July 18 – A Tale of Two Cod - The almighty cod – the most legendary fish in our New England waters. Atlantic cod is greyish-green, and a renowned dweller of the Gulf of Maine. It is a staple of our traditional cuisine and a historic driver of our economy. You’ve seen an Atlantic cod, right? But have you ever seen a red Atlantic cod?

July 20 – Fish Talk in the News – Friday, July 20 – This week’s fish news includes: More news about the Maine lobster surplus; congressional delegates from New England states urge the House Committee on Natural Resources to use caution in determining 2013 groundfish quotas; innovative technology decreases environmental impact of sea scallop surveys; underutilized species may be key to sustainable seafood; Stellwagen Bank celebrates its 20th anniversary as a national marine sanctuary, New England Ocean Odyssey posts about red cod; marine mammal protection may play a role in perpetually low groundfish populations; controversy over the latest Georges Bank yellowtail flounder stock assessment; and a showing of the documentary Ocean Frontiers in Nahant, MA.

A recent scientific article from four Maine ocean scientists reminded me of a not-very-good environmental joke. An archangel was reporting to God all the terrible things that humans had done to the earth’s environment. God listened patiently as the list expanded, interjecting regularly that the archangel was not to worry; these events had all been anticipated. But when the angel reported that there was now a hole in the ozone layer, God bolted upright in shock: “I told them not to mess with the ozone layer!”

The article I was reading was not about ozone holes. Obscurely titled Step-changes in the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the Gulf of Maine, as documented by the GNATS times series, four researchers, led by Dr. William M. Balch from the prestigious Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, reported on work they had done looking at a number of data bases of various physical, chemical, and biological markers in the Gulf of Maine. They focused on a series of ship-based sampling data collected between 1998 and 2010.

The researchers reported a startling fact: “[t]he standing stock of phytoplankton … generally decreased since 2005” and there had been a “dramatic” decrease in carbon fixation by phytoplankton across the Gulf of Maine in recent years.

The paper explained this dramatic decrease by pointing to increased precipitation in the Gulf of Maine watersheds in recent years. Four of the eight highest annual precipitation years in the last century in Maine occurred between 1998 and 2010. The data led them to conclude that this increased and atypical precipitation—a commonly predicted phenomenon associated with climate change –interfered with phytoplankton production by discharging increased amounts of colored dissolved organic matter from the watersheds into the Gulf that outcompeted marine plankton for available light.

This is no small matter. Phytoplankton is the base of virtually all marine life in the ocean. Moreover, marine phytoplankton around the world has been estimated to draw more carbon dioxide—a primary climate change gas—from the atmosphere and the oceans than all land plants combined. The punch line to the joke might just as well have been: “I told them not to mess with the phytoplankton!”

While it will take some time before a decline in phytoplankton production in the Gulf of Maine would manifest itself higher up in the marine food web by fewer numbers of high level fishes, the Bigelow researchers were correct to point out that historic high fish productivity in the Gulf of Maine marine system is directly linked to its high productivity of plankton. The health of the marine food web depends on the strength of its planktonic base.

This report’s startling analysis aligns in a troubling way with anecdotal information from fishermen and from fisheries science data that has been surfacing recently. Fish don’t seem to be as large at the different ages as they used to be and a number of predicted strong larval year classes of fish like Atlantic cod have “disappeared” before they became big enough to enter the fishery. Are Gulf of Maine fish failing to thrive like they once did as a consequence of declines in plankton production?

Climate change is happening and its impacts are already being registered in New England. The consequences of our profligate carbon consumption patterns will continue to challenge our ecosystem, our economy, and our way of life through both dramatic and random events that devastate coastal areas as well as chronic ecosystem changes that can be seen at the level of a single-celled phytoplankton. Sadly, it’s no joke.

Here they are! Some of Brian’s first ever pictures of Cashes Ledge. Every picture tells a story – but we are lucky enough to have some real stories to tell about these awesome pictures. We caught up with Brian shortly after he visited Cashes Ledge and asked him about the dive. Brian filled us in on some of the exciting details of this bona fide ocean odyssey:

Robin: You’ve never dived Cashes Ledge before, what were your first impressions?

Brian: As always when I am diving in a new place for the first time, all I see is chaos when I first get on the bottom, but over time I begin to zero in on specific behaviors to start making order and begin to put the puzzle together.

The kelp is beautiful, the stalks are 6-8 feet high, then they have fronds that lay horizontally for probably 10-15 more feet. They create this sea of kelp, literally a bed of kelp that you see when you first come down from the surface that looks like the bottom but isn’t. The descent line we sent down just disappeared through it. You’d follow it down to the kelp bed then you’d have to go another 6 or 8 feet to get to the bottom. It’s a false bottom of kelp fronds. It’s a lovely golden amber color, and there’s another species of kelp that’s sort of reddish, growing on the amber ones. It all looked good and lush and thick – very colorful and healthy looking.

There were lots of fish circling around. We saw quite a few red cod. There are a lot of pollock and quite a number of cod mixed in, and some of the cod are more traditionally colored, but some have the distinctive red/orange iridescent coloration.

Robin: What other kinds of wildlife did you see?

Brian: Besides pollock and cod, there were a lot of juvenile fish. We found out later they were cunner. They are bright orange when they are small, quite stunning, like the garibaldi in California. We saw quite a few whales on the surface, minke whales porpoising and coming up for air, but not close enough to photograph. There were invertebrates on the bottom, on ledges below the kelp. It’s definitely worth a lot more exploration. This is clearly a unique habitat.

Robin: Was this dive different from your expectations?

Brian: I’d heard about the Cashes Ledge kelp forest for years. People always say it’s not like California, so I expected an area that was covered in kelp on the bottom, but the brown kind that I usually see inshore, just a lot more of it – low-lying, a foot off the bottom. I didn’t expect anything like this. Stalks of kelp that were 8 feet high and long strands at the top that made this golden bed. It was very unique. The fish stayed localized, always in the area. They weren’t passing schools; they sort of hung out there. The kelp forest is probably a square mile or so – it’s a big area. But the fish were always there – in the background, silhouetted. It was very different from what I expected.

Robin: Did you see evidence of human activity in the area?

Brian: There was a tremendous amount of fishing gear out there. We tried to dive away from gear. But everybody on the trip remarked that there were a lot of fishing buoys on the surface. I think they were lobster traps, but I’m not sure. They were everywhere. This was surprising. Nobody expected this. A friend of mine remembers diving Cashes in the 80s, and said the fish used to be so thick that you couldn’t see your dive buddies. It’s not like that today, so the biomass must be down. But there was a good population of fish. I think a place like this with proper protection could come back to those levels that my friend observed 20-30 years ago.

Robin: Were there any unexpected difficulties?

Brian: No, but the currents got quite strong on Sunday and we had trouble getting to the dive-line buoy. Wearing a dry suit and 120 pounds of equipment you have to swim really hard against the current. We couldn’t get to the buoy, so the boat picked us up and we tried again and made it.

Robin: What was the water temperature?

Brian: Pretty warm for New England, probably 50 degrees.

Robin: Did the weather cause any problems?

Brian: No, the weather was really good. It progressively improved. Early Saturday it was fine, small waves, a little bumpy, but it got better and by Sunday was really calm. If the waves are big it’s hard to get back in the boat after the dive.

Robin: Was visibility low from the recent northeaster?

Brian: I don’t know why visibility was low. It was very typical of New England conditions. Turbid, but not terrible. Visibility was 20-25 feet, but hazy, not crystal clear. I tried to work close in and make some pictures that would still come out well.

Robin: Will you do anything differently next time you go to Cashes?

Brian: Not necessarily. I would like to have more time. To produce pictures in these conditions takes a lot of repeatability and serendipity. My M.O. is to dive a place over and over and keep working it, if I can. I could spend hours and hours working those fish. I’m very intrigued by the red cod. They are highly unique and beautiful with the golden kelp backdrop and green water. I would just like to do more of it.

Are you intrigued by the red cod, too? We will give you a look at those fascinating fish soon. In the meantime, enjoy some of these other sublime pictures Brian made in this vibrant special place in the Gulf of Maine!

This post was originally published on New England Ocean Odyssey.

This piece was originally published on TalkingFish.org.

Federal fishery managers rolled the dice on the New England cod fishery on Monday, once again. It is hard to escape the premonition that they fell well short of their responsibility. We think catch levels were set too high, too little was done to reduce the growing cod catches of recreational fishermen, and nothing was done to balance fishermen’s economic and social pain by directing the small allocation of Gulf of Maine cod toward coastal fishing boats.

The decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to accept the New England Fishery Management Council’s quota recommendation had little to do with precautionary principles and much to do with politics.

Atlantic cod (photo credit: NOAA).

The 2011 Gulf of Maine cod assessment, which has a broad consensus in the science community, concluded that the fishing levels for the last three years had been set perhaps five times as high as they should have been. A large percentage, sometimes bordering on almost 90% of the spawning cod, has been caught each year in recent times. With few adults older than ten years old in a population that should include significant numbers of highly-reproductive twenty-something-year old fish, the spawning populations are buoyed by little more than the individual year-classes of new maturing fish, year-by-year. The risks of a Gulf of Maine cod train wreck may well be much higher than this decision assumes.

The one thing that is known with certainty about past cod assessments is that they have consistently overestimated the spawning biomass and underestimated the amount of human and natural mortality that is happening in the real world. The scientists are not counting all the fish that are actually being killed each year. In the fisheries modeling world, this sort of systematic model error is called a retrospective pattern. The new assessment, just like prior assessments, is still based on a model exhibiting a retrospective pattern.

What this means in simple language is that while the managers think their new catch levels pose a 30% risk of bringing spawning fish populations down to new historic lows, the real risk is almost guaranteed to be higher – and only time will tell how much higher.  The scientists’ best estimate is that Gulf of Maine cod spawning stock biomass (the amount of the stock that is capable of reproducing) is roughly 11,868 metric tons (mt). By setting new 2012 catch limits at 6,700mt, NMFS and the Council expect that 56% of this spawning population will be caught in the fishing year. But this 11,868mt estimate is just one in a range of estimates; the actual spawning stock biomass could be lower or higher. In fact, the approved 6,700mt catch level could remove anywhere from 41% and 71% of the entire spawning population with equal confidence. Killing two-thirds of the spawners in a population that is already decimated is not rational.

And it is critical to remember that these are just best scientific estimates. The unforeseen cod collapse in Atlantic Canada in the 1990s that has lasted many decades now produced one irrefutable fact: even the smartest people in the room can’t fully understand or predict, let alone control, the biology of a situation. We should be mindful of that if we are to avoid our own cod collapse.

On the brighter side of the NMFS interim cod action, the managers didn’t open up any of the areas that are currently closed to fishing in order to protect important fish habitat and help species rebuild. That would have done little to help Gulf of Maine cod fishermen and much to undermine other rebuilding stocks that likely benefit from these closed areas. Significantly more analysis is needed before that action should be considered.

We are also encouraged to see that additional cod assessments and analysis will be done later this year. There may also be new assessment tools—specifically, the new low frequency sonar technologies developed by MIT and Northeastern—that might finally allow scientists to “see” the fish under the water and get a better real-time estimate of what the total populations of cod might be. All this work is of the highest priority. It would be a great relief if the latest assessment turned out to be overly pessimistic.

The power of denial and the risk of significant bias in these efforts, however, cannot be overstated.  The new analysis must be done right. With so much political pressure, so many fishermen in serious economic straits already, and so many scientists heading into the effort hopeful that a new look at the cod populations might produce a better result, the tendency to skew the inquiry will be practically unavoidable. With the long-term health of Atlantic cod in New England in the balance, however, the integrity of the scientific process must be protected.

There is no way to completely reduce the risks in a fishery, no perfect fishery. Nonetheless, we had started to hope that the New England managers were getting more risk-averse and more focused on realizing the important goal of managing this pivotal fishery out of its persistent crisis state. We hoped that they were becoming more mindful of the bad distributional effects of some of their management rules on the smaller coastal day boats. This latest cod decision negates optimism. It treated that long-term better and fairer future like some game of chance with such long odds that it wasn’t even worth playing.

Photo courtesy of Derek Keats @ flickr. Creative Commons.

Gulf of Maine cod, the lifeline of our inshore fishing fleet up and down the coast of New England, is in a biological crisis. That is why I wrote today to the Honorable John Bryson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, calling for federal fisheries disaster relief and interim emergency action. You can read a copy of the letter here, or scroll down to read it below this post.

My letter follows the latest scientific data – data that shows that cod stocks are much more heavily depleted than earlier assessments had indicated. According to the 2011 assessment, based on an improved scientific model, three additional years of survey data and more accurate weights-at-age estimates, Gulf of Maine the spawning cod estimates fell to 12,561 metric tons from 33,877 metric tons in 2008.

In the case of Gulf of Maine cod, the numbers are so close to the bone that a couple thousand metric tons of cod landed either way could spell the difference between a rebounding fishery and a total collapse. Given the economic importance of Gulf of Maine cod to coastal fishermen, what would the appropriate risk be?

Indications are that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will set a quota of 6,700 metric tons (mt) for the 2012 fishing year that begins May 1. At this level the risk of the spawning population dropping below critical thresholds is greater than 31%. Drop the catch levels to 4,000mt and the risk drops to less than 10%. Still a risk but a safer bet. That is why as I said in my letter, “Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) recommends a one year 4,000mt catch level for the fishing year which starts May 1, 2012. While that level of catch is  2,700mt less than the lowest level proposed by the New England Fishery Management Council, it still presents a significant risk of further stock declines.”

Setting the catch levels too high on May 1, 2012 creates substantial risk that the whole fishery may have to be closed in the future. This isn’t sheer speculation; when Newfoundland’s northern cod fishery – a close cousin of our Gulf of Maine cod – collapsed in the early nineties, the fishery has had to be closed for decades to allow the cod stocks to rebuild.

As I said in my letter, at 4,000mt, “the estimated gross revenue losses at that catch level are $4,677,000. Importantly, an estimated sixty-six percent of those losses will fall on the smaller, inshore fleet (see attachment), a group that is already operating close to or below the economic break-even point and won’t have alternative fishing options in many cases.” Given this, I asked Secretary Bryson to “set up a disaster relief fund available to all active groundfish companies that would provide some relief for any demonstrated losses that they experience until GOM cod stocks can be rebuilt.”

The livelihoods of New England’s coastal fishermen hang in the balance with the Gulf of Maine cod. A three-part solution is required to protect these fishermen and the fish they depend upon.

• First, NMFS should limit the risk of further long-term damage to the fishery by setting the quota at no higher than 4,000 metric tons for the 2012 fishing year. That will buy some time to do further analysis to inform catch limits for 2013 as the nature and extent of the crisis becomes better understood.
• Second, NMFS should allocate those fish to the boats most economically dependent on Gulf of Maine cod, and restrict large trip boats from fishing for them.
• Third, federal and state authorities should declare an economic fishery disaster and make funds available to assist the coastal fishermen who will suffer significant financial losses under any proposed scenario and look towards broader economic assistance for affected coastal communities.

Failing to take the right action for Gulf of Maine cod at this critical junction may well be failing the region’s fishing future. Fast and effective management steps have to be taken to head off that possibility.

—

A copy of the letter I sent to Secretary Bryson can be found below or as a .pdf here.

February 21, 2012
The Honorable John Bryson
Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20230

RE: Gulf of Maine Cod Federal Fisheries Disaster Relief & Interim Emergency Action

Dear Secretary Bryson:

We are writing to you now to support the earlier requests by Governor Deval Patrick for federal fisheries disaster relief pursuant to section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The new scientific assessments for Gulf of Maine cod (GOM cod) stocks document that the economic situation in the region is significantly more dire than previously thought. Immediate and aggressive action is needed to avoid any risk of creating a long-lasting biological crisis with GOM cod with widespread, crippling economic implications.

As a result of the recent science assessment, GOM cod catch levels will have to be drastically cut back on May 1, 2012. Even at low catch levels, there still will be a significant risk that the spawning stock levels could decline below the lowest level ever observed. In the words of one of the New England Council’s scientists who has extensively studied the complete commercial collapse of the northern cod stocks in the early 1990’s off Newfoundland, “the similarities [between the two situations] are a bit frightening.” Dr. J.-J. Maguire (email to SSC members and others 1/25/12). Following that collapse, Newfoundland’s cod stock has been largely closed to fishing for decades.

The recent GOM cod reassessment was a unique and highly unusual set of events that was beyond anyone’s control. The scientists exercised their best professional judgment in performing the original assessment in 2008, the managers strictly followed the scientific harvest level advice, and the fishermen appear to have stayed within their prescribed quota limits. And yet, the future of GOM cod is now at an unforeseen but significant risk. These circumstances meet all the criteria in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s disaster relief policy guidance: there is a fishery resource disaster as defined by the MSA; it was caused by events beyond human control; and there will be significant economic impacts stemming from this disaster.

Economic analysis indicates that single-year gross revenue losses for the commercial fleet from current revenue levels could range from  $1,354,000 to $14,620,000, depending on the catch level that is set. Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) recommends a one year 4,000mt catch level for the fishing year which starts May 1, 2012. While that level of catch is 2,700 metric tons less than the lowest level proposed by the New England Fishery Management Council, it still presents a significant 10% probability of further spawning stock declines.

The estimated gross revenue losses at that catch level are $4,677,000. Importantly, an estimated sixty-six percent of those losses will fall on the smaller, inshore fleet (see attachment), a group that is already operating close to or below the economic break-even point and won’t have alternative fishing options in many cases. We ask that you set up a disaster relief fund available to all active groundfish companies that would provide some relief for any demonstrated losses of net revenues that they experience until GOM cod stocks can be rebuilt.

Without relief from the crushing economic circumstances many coastal boat owners are facing, , managers are being tempted to take risks in setting the short-term quotas too high, potentially imperiling the fishery for decades. A further commercial collapse of GOM cod stocks would cripple many of New England’s fishing communities that are wholly dependent on cod. The indirect losses in the maritime support industries multiply those potential direct costs many times. Economic disaster assistance can greatly reduce the pressure on managers to allow short-term overharvesting as the region transitions to a sustainable fishery. Moreover, in addition to direct disaster relief, we encourage you to implement the suggestions of the Commerce Department Economic Development Administration’s recent evaluation of certain New England ports and provide necessary aid and technical assistance for the economic transition of these communities.

CLF supports the New England Council’s emergency action request and the general approach that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has proposed in taking interim emergency action to respond to this unexpected and troubling new development. As mentioned above, however, we feel strongly that the quota should be set no higher than 4,000mt. And we have called for the imposition of a series of management measures that would direct the majority of the limited cod quota to the boats that are most dependent on cod. In support of this, we have provided NMFS with a position paper on this issue, which we are also attaching to this letter. Thank you for your careful consideration of the management and economic assistance measures we propose. We look forward to your response and your agency’s further efforts to work towards solutions that help all of New England’s coastal communities weather this tough economic crisis and to thrive in the future.

Sincerely,
Peter Shelley
Vice President

Another tipping point has arrived for New England fisheries.

Maybe the science assessment will change, maybe disaster relief will come from Congress, maybe our analysis (click here) of the government data is wrong, maybe cod will change their recent low productivity characteristics. But should fisheries managers bet the inshore fleet and large segments of the recreational fleet on it?

Given the risks of further potential declines of spawning stock biomass below the lowest levels ever observed, we think it would be just plain wrong and irresponsible to dodge this biological crisis and try to push it off to 2013. There aren’t any good choices but there may be choices that are less irreversible or harmful than others.

What is the New England Council thinking?

• “An Inconvenient Truth About Gulf of Maine Cod” – Jud Crawford of the Pew Environment Group discusses Gulf of Maine cod and fisheries science.
• “Local Oysters Deliver a Taste of Place” – We’ve rounded up some recent oyster-related items readers might enjoy. Learn about oyster culture in several regions around the U.S. and how oystermen keep oysters alive in root cellars over the winter.