Small Menhaden Quota Increase Considered a Workable Compromise

by Laurie Schreiber

Jennie Bichrest, Purseline Bait. “In Maine, we have, you might as well say, no quota,” she said. “In the past, we’ve had incredible amounts of fish. If we’re not going to get a redistribution of the coastwide quota, we might need to look at the possibility of limited entry in the future, with a control date.”

BAR HARBOR—At its Oct. 26 meeting, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) voted to set a total allowable catch (TAC) for the 2017 menhaden fishing season of 200,000 metric tons (mt).

The ASMFC also approved a public information document for draft Amendment 3 to its menhaden management plan.

The TAC represents a 6.45 percent increase from the 2016 TAC. According to an analysis by the ASMFC’s Technical Committee, the increase won’t result in overfishing. The TAC will be allocated on a state-by-state basis.

“Given the healthy condition of the resource, this modest increase provides additional fishing opportunities” while development of Amendment 3 is underway, according to an ASMFC press release.

Amendment 3 is intended to provide a suite of tools to manage menhaden in an ecosystem-based approach, rather than a single-species approach. Ecosystem-based management conforms with new thinking among fishery managers.

Maine will receive a small part of the TAC—77.96 mt, which is 171,882 pounds. That compares with other states, such as Virginia, receiving an 85 percent share of close to 170,000 mt, and New Jersey, receiving over 22,000 mt. Of the New England states, Massachusetts will receive the highest allocation, of 1,660 mt.

The ASMFC considered other TAC figures, including 255,456 mt, which would have been a 20 percent increase; and 187,880 mt, which would have been the status quo.

William Goldsborough, from Maryland, proposed keeping the 2017 TAC at its current level, of 187,880 mt.

“We should not be at this point,” said Goldsborough. “It was not our intent. The current science is the benchmark assesssment reported to this board a year ago. At that time, we deliberated and took action. We took two primary actions.” The first, he said, was to increase the quota for 2015 and 2016, by 10 percent. The second was to develop Amendment 3, to take effect in 2017. “That was the sequence in mind. That had two major elements that addressed the major problems we knew we had.” The first issue was a commitment the menhaden board made, year ago, to account for menhaden’s ecological role, he said. The second was to revisit allocations, “because as we’ve experienced since the quota was put in place, we either chose the wrong baseline period or didn’t have enough data in some states. For whatever the reason, we know some states were shortchanged and that caused a lot of problems. Many states want to address that problem however we can.”

However, Goldsborough continued, the timeline was put off by a year, due to a socioeconomic study the ASFMC undertook to help inform the decision-making process for Amendment 3.

“We realized at our annual meeting a year ago that would take us a year, and we decided it would be better to have that in hand when decided on allocation,” said Goldsborough. “So we pushed back the timeline by a year, to 2018. That, by chance,” left fishing year 2017 without fishing specifications. But the intention, he said, was to keep the quota level the same as that set for 2015 and 2016. Therefore, he said, “I think we should stay the course. I know that we do want to address the shortfalls in the bait industry. That’s one of our highest priorities, especially in the small-scale states, and that’s most of us. I don’t think, by increasing current allocation framework, that will make much difference. Instead, I think that will preempt what progress we really could make under a more fair and balanced allocation framework in Amendment 3. So I would urge us to keep that in mind and wait.”

The recommendation of the ASMFC’s Technical Committee for an increase was based on compelling projections, Goldsborough said, but the projections were not based on new science.

“It’s the same assessment we’ve already made a judgment on,” Goldsborough said. “And those are single-species reference points. They don’t take into account all the needs of the ecosystem….So that this point, this is an accidental circumstance we find ourselves in. There’s a lot of talk about how there are more fish out there. And it seems like there are. But that’s not science. It’s anecdote. And with respect to the needs of certain states, we’ve been trying to accommodate those over the last few years with some sharing of quota with the episodic event option. And I would hope we could just go one more year getting by doing that, and have a real, thorough resolution of these issues.”

Andy Shiels, a proxy from Pennsylvania, agreed with Goldsborough.

“This is an investment in the environment, in the communities along the coast, in the people who have never seen menhaden at the extreme end of the range,” said Shiels.

“When it you make an investment, you do not spend your dividends the first year you get them. You take your time and reinvest those dividends. All that’s being asked is to reinvest the dividends of what looks to be a year of some increase in abundance….You’ll have a bigger pie when the reallocation discussion happens in a year. And you won’t have lost the ground you gained in the past year or two.”

Another commissioner advocated for the status quo. “We’re not just talking about menhaden. We’re talking about the entire ecosystem,” he said. “And while we don’t have all the insights about the forage needs of the rest of the ecosystem for menhaden, I think we can all acknowledge menhaden is one of the principle prey species that’s used by other management species such as striped bass, which is sort of our flagship species, as well as weakfish and bluefish….So I think the prudent course of action is to maintain the status quo until we get results of socioeconomic study and have generated ecological reference points, before we issue any increase in the TAC.”

Robert Boyles, from South Carolina, also supported the status quo.

“This is extraordinary difficult,” said Boyles. “Clearly, there’s a lot of people interested in this fishery, a lot of communities dependent upon this resource. My support for the status quo for 2017 really stems from a hopeful vision, that with Amendment 3 we can have a fishery that satisfies bait needs, satisfies the important reduction fishery, satisfies the important ecosystem components of this fishery and has spillover effects of satisfying other species that are important to this commission. I’m a little risk-averse, in my interest in maintaining the status quo, because I’m concerned that, with a long view toward a final adoption of Amendment 3, we might potentially find ourselves, inadvertently, in a game of regulatory whiplash. That’s a phrase used around this table more than once. Status quo is a precautionary approach. It leads us to the ability to smooth out the bumps long-term in the future of this fishery.”

But Malcolm Rhodes, from ASMFC South Carolina, said the 200,000 mt TAC seemed to be a good compromise.

“At our last meeting, we had a very good discussion about the pros and cons of remaining at the status quo or raising the TAC,” said Rhodes. “This small fish creates a lot of emotion in people.” The 6.5 percent increase “seems to be an area that most of the states could work at. It’s not going to be what some states want. But of necessity we must create a TAC for this species….If we don’t create a TAC, it means unlimited fishing.”

Terry Stockwell, from Maine, agreed.

“My sense is 6.5 percent is a workable compromise to move ahead in 2017,” said Stockwell. “This percentage, or any other increase, while it does absolutely nothing for the state of Maine, modestly acknowledges the current status of the stock.”

William Adler, from Massachusetts, also advocated for the increase.

“The science basically has said there’s no risk,” said Adler. “The stock is in good shape. Sometime I find it difficult that we can deal with…cutting things down, then we have a success and we don’t know what to do with it. I agree Amendment 3 is needed, but not until 2018. Meanwhile, what’s being proposed is a small increase. I don’t see the problem with bumping it up 6.45 percent. I wouldn’t go hog-wild. I wouldn’t go to 20 percent, but 6.45 shows the stock is okay, we have success. It won’t help Massachusetts very much, but still, in fairness to the entire menhaden system, it deserves to be bumped up a little. And then when Amendment 3 comes through, we can do other types of changes. But waiting until 2018 to do anything isn’t necessary.”

Adam Nowalsky, a proxy from New Jersey, disputed the idea that the ASMFC bases decisions on anecdote.

“We respond based on science,” said Nowalsky. “And 6.45 percent is a very small number.”

Kyle Schick, a proxy from Virginia, said menhaden is not overfished.

“No other stock we’ve ever talked about have we had the luxury of complaining about trying to reduce mortality on a fish that’s not overfished,” Schick said. “We’re arguing about something that doesn’t occur here….The TAC has to do with the information we have today, which is the best informaton we have on mehanahden in the history of tracking it. Six-point-four-five is a miniscule increase. Hopefully, we can compromise and with a 6.45 increase help some folks out.”

Zack Klyver, a naturalist with the Bar Harbor Whale Watch Company, comlimented the ASMFC in its role of protecting menhaden.

“It’s appropriate that we’re talking about menhaden in the context of Bar Harbor,” Klyver said. “Historically, there were many fish shacks on these islands offshore, with pogie presses to squeeze menhaden down for oil….I congratulate you on increasing the stock of menhaden in the Atlantic. The fact that we had menhaden coming to Portland this summer was exciting. We hope the menhaden stock will continue to expand and eventually make its way back to Frenchmans Bay. In the 1990s, there were menhaden here. It was an incredible thing—tremendous runs of fish.”

One Maine fisherman urged the ASMFC to consider establishing a control date for the menhaden fishery.

“In Maine, we have, you might as well say, no quota,” she said. “In the past, we’ve had incredible amounts of fish. If we’re not going to get a redistribution of the coastwide quota, we might need to look at the possibility of limited entry in the future, with a control date. The more boats there are in this, nobody can make money if they’re closed out of everything else.”

Robert Ballou, chairman of the ASMFC’s Atlantic Menhaden Board, said the suggestion could be included as part of the Amendment 3 process.

ASFMC member states from Maine through Florida have scheduled hearings to gather public comment on the Public Information Document (PID) for Draft Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. In Maine, the hearing will be hosted by the Maine Department of Marine Resources on Dec. 13, 6:15 p.m., at the Casco Bay Lines Conference Room, 56 Commercial St. Portland; contact is Terry Stockwell at (207) 624- 6553.

Quota allocation is another issue on the table in Amendment 3. Amendment 2 established a first ever commercial TAC for menhaden and divided it into quotas from Maine through Florida. For 2013 and 2014, the TAC was 170,800 mt, a 20 percent reduction from average 2009-2011 coastwide landings.

The 2015 benchmark stock assessment found the menhaden stock was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring.

Alternative allocation methods in the PID include:

• State-Specific Quotas with Fixed Minimum

• Coastwide Quota

• Seasonal Quotas

• Regional Quotas

• Disposition Quotas

• Allocation Strategy Based on TAC Level