 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association April 2003 Newsletter)
ASMFC Board Approves Addendum VIII to Summer Flounder FMP For Public Hearing
ASMFC Approves Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Striped Bass
There has been no action on the subway cars from either Governor McGreevey or Commissioner Campbell's office. I was really disappointed by a press release from Clean Ocean Action and the American Littoral Society that contained many inaccuracies and misstated the existing artificial reef plan. In addition, this press release contained much information that has clearly been addressed by EPA, DEP and many agencies from other states. It seems that they are not interested in any information that would contradict their stated position. Below is a letter written to Commissioner Campbell from Gary Caputi and an article by Al Ristori that appeared in the Star Ledger.
Mr. Bradley M. Campbell,
Commissioner
Department of Environmental
Protection
401 East State Street, 7th Floor
East Wing
Trenton, NJ 08625
Dear Commission Campbell,
I felt it was important to provide my personal comments on the draft policy directive from your department concerning future materials to be deposited on designated reef sights off the New Jersey coast, but first let me tell you a little about my background.
I have held the obligatory seat from New Jersey on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) for the past nine years representing the concerns of all fishermen, conservationists and even people from the environmental community in our great state on that federal fishery management body. Six years ago, after the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, I February 10, 2003 was selected by my fellow council members from North Carolina thru New York to establish a new Habitat Committee to aid in the interpretation of the portions of the reauthorization language involving the protection of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and to help guide the council in identifying and trying to find ways to protect EFH. The Mid-Atlantic Council was one of only two of the eight regional councils that WAS NOT sued by environmental groups for failing to address these issues in a timely and conscientious manner.
During that time I have been involved in numerous workshops and seminars sponsored by the MAFMC and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that explored ways to further identify, protect and even create fish habitat to enhance the valuable fisheries off our coast. I am proud to have been a leader in these efforts and other issues that are important to New Jersey. I can honestly say that when my term expires this August I have left the MAFMC and our fisheries in better shape than when I started in 1994 with species like summer flounder, sea bass, porgies and bluefish increasing in stock biomass, the forage species (squids, mackerel and butterfish) in healthy condition and well managed, and the surf clam and quahog stocks, which represent the largest commercial fishery in the state, flourishing as the best managed fishery in the nation.
That said I have been extremely disappointed with the manner in which the New Jersey Artificial Reef Program has been smeared by Clean Ocean Action (COA) and the American Littoral Society (ALS) and equally disappointed at the response to these baseless charges and false assumptions by the last and present administration. I have worked with COA and ALS on issues dating back to the original battles to stop sludge dumping off our coast twenty years ago. I was an active participant in the ALS fish-tagging program dating back to the early 1980s and even helped them obtain their very first computer system for tracking fish tagged and returns. I have known Cindy Zipf and Derry Bennett for a long time and until this debacle began, had nothing but the utmost respect for both.
Unfortunately, thrusting themselves into a roll as overseers of the Artificial Reef Program using the subway car issue as the tool is unconscionable and their efforts to have the state waste valuable resources to add another level of bureaucracy to this program with no justification other than appeasement is simply wrong.
I have been associated with the NJ Artificial Reef Program since before the first ship was sunk. It is the shining star of all the reef programs in the nation. During its development, private individuals and fishing organizations worked hard to make it happen in association with Bill Figley, who the state assigned to oversee the fledgling program. Since the beginning everything has been done by the book. New Jersey not only met all the requirements set forth by the National Marine Fishery Service for establishing and designating reef sights, it has been responsible for setting the standards for the materials to be used on them. To claim there are no protocols or standards for reef materials in the directive is simply incorrect. The EPA and the NMFS have strict standards and everything used on New Jersey sights to date have met or exceeded the standards. When the National Guard offered decommissioned military vehicles for the reef program, we were not sure what was necessary to prepare them to thwart any potential pollution problems. The governor worked with EPA to establish a protocol for vehicles of this type and once again New Jersey lead the nation, setting the standards.
The reef program has cost the state of New Jersey little while the benefits have been beyond everyone’s wildest expectations. When I attend fishery habitat meetings around the country, representatives from other states frequently assail me with questions about how New Jersey accomplished so much with so little. They are envious of our accomplishment. They are envious of the habitat enhancement program we have developed in a partnership between the state, the federal government and the private sector. They are envious of the success of this program that has been generating valuable habitat and economic benefits for the state. Today, the program is being made to appear an embarrassment and that is simply unacceptable.
The reef program has a mere 25 square miles designated for development, less than one percent of the continental shelf area off the coast of our state. Of the designated area about 2% have materials in place. The overwhelming majority of the designated areas lie in federal waters, outside New Jersey jurisdiction, which is why it has been a cooperative program from the beginning and a leader in cooperative programs of this type with the federal government, again setting the standard for other states.
Today, as a result of the subway car fiasco, this program has been sullied and unnecessarily so. When first proposed there were questions about the applicability of the cars due to their projected life span on the reefs. Those questions were satisfactorily answered by examining the test cars acquired from Philadelphia already on the reefs. They were of lighter construction than the ones currently being offered, yet they have already outlived their expected lifespan and are in good condition. I know because I have seen the most recent photos from divers who enjoy them as much as fishermen. Then the red herring issue was discovered, asbestos. Asbestos is certainly a health hazard when airborne microscopic filaments are inhaled. Asbestos is definitely NOT a health hazard when ingested into the digestive system. The standards for asbestos in drinking water prove that without any further examination. Further, there has never been a link established between asbestos in the water and health risks to sea life. However, the issue of subway cars as a form of “ocean dumping” got new legs once the “A” word was introduced and even though any question about potential health risks and affects on sea life were answered, the facts became secondary to the goal of COA and ALS, which is to limit subway car use by any means and at any cost. I am deeply disappointed in their unwillingness to admit their concerns were unfounded and simply drop the issue. Tens of thousands of fishermen in this state who held these organizations in high esteem, supported them with donations and who joined them feel the same way.
The policy directive DEP is trying to develop, while well meaning, is unnecessary and it has raised the ire of recreational fishermen across the state. It has done so because it places the groups and individuals who worked so hard to develop this wonderful program in league with those who would promote ocean dumping and that is simply wrong. Ocean dumping is something that every concerned recreational fisherman in the state has fought against. At no time have those involved in the program asked for inappropriate materials to be considered for reef use. If there was any question about the applicability of a proposed material it was delayed until the questions were satisfactorily answered by the NMFS and EPA. If there was a hint of a problem the materials were withdrawn from consideration.
This policy directive points a questioning finger at the program and its proponents. It does nothing more than prohibit them from doing something that they have not done in the past and would not considered doing in the future. It adds a level of bureaucratic oversight to a program that doesn’t need it while setting up a monitoring program that funding strapped agencies cannot afford to undertake. It sullies the most successful reef program in the country, a program that is the envy of every other coastal state, at a time when it should be held up as a guiding example of what state government can achieve in partnership with the private sector in a cooperative effort with federal government. The DEP and the administration would be better served to do just that and make public all the information that will assure the people of this state that the reef program, as it exists today, is providing a valuable service to the marine ecosystem, to fishermen and divers and it is doing so in an environmentally safe manner. That would put the entire issue to rest with the complete support and loud cheers from the recreational fishing community.
Sincerely,
Gary Caputi
Sunday, March 09, 2003
BY AL RISTORI:
Yet another 50 New York City Transit Authority subway cars were sunk on reefs 30 miles off South Carolina's Grand Strand last month as that state enjoyed a fourth addition of subway cars to its artificial reefs since last summer. Meanwhile, New Jersey fishermen and divers are still waiting for the first subway car to be placed on one of our reefs only a few miles from their source. Star-Ledger Staff
Jennie Davis, spokeswoman for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, noted the cars will add hard surface to the otherwise sandy plain of the ocean floor, providing valuable habitat for fish and other sea creatures. It would be refreshing to hear similar words from our officials, but all there has been so far is inaction as 400 of the original 650 subway cars reserved for New Jersey have gone elsewhere. Delaware doesn't have a very long coastline, but it now enjoys a superb artificial reef system as over 500 subway cars have been placed there since 2001 at no cost to the state which has also obtained federal matching funds for the project.
Though Assemblyman Robert Smith (D-Turnersville) held a hearing in Ocean City last year that brought out all the facts, and followed up with a letter to Governor James E. McGreevey urging him to take action before other states utilize all the cars, the administration has continued to procrastinate about obtaining the last 250 cars that are being held for New Jersey. Furthermore, the public has been kept in the dark while officials scramble to satisfy objections by Cyndy Zipf of Clean Ocean Action and Derry Bennett of the American Littoral Society -- insisting on an eight-year moratorium in return for doing the right thing.
During the election, McGreevey answered anglers asking his opinion on the subway cars by stating the only criteria for their deployment was whether they are "safe." The cleanliness issue isn't disputed by anyone since there's a protocol that must be observed for such sinkings, and the subway cars have been cleared by the Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All cleaning and preparation is at the Transit Agency's expense, as is transportation to the sites.
The only remaining question of safety involves the asbestos content. That was thoroughly investigated by Delaware and their Environmental Commissioner, Nicholas Di Pasquale, who covered every aspect of the study in a letter to Zipf and Bennett on July 10, 2001. He first noted that EPA oceanographer William Muir put the asbestos issue in perspective with the scientific fact that asbestos is a human health hazard only in the friable form. Furthermore, "In an aquatic medium, like drinking water, asbestos is harmless to humans. The EPA standard for acceptable asbestos levels in municipal water supplies is 7 million particles per liter, indicating it is not a concern in the digestive systems of humans."
Di Pasquale further noted, "Likewise, Mr. Muir indicated there is no compelling information to indicate that asbestos in the marine environment is harmful to fish or shellfish at concentrations likely to be encountered in the ocean, nor is there an indication of bioaccumulation in the food chain in nature. Problems in fish and shellfish have not been noted near any of the vessels sunk during World War II, which contained huge amounts of friable asbestos."
To top it off, the asbestos in the subway cars is non-friable and so well bound in the matrix that Lew Morrison of the Delaware Division of Air and Waste Management stated matrix breakdown will occur at a "considerably slow rate" and that asbestos fiber concentrations would be negligible.
Di Pasquale concluded there are no technical problems with the use of subway cars as reef material and emphasized they have been endorsed by all the federal regulatory agencies. "Delaware has rationally and independently evaluated the asbestos issue and has sought expert opinions from the federal agencies," he said. "The result has been an independent decision that this is a technically sound proposal."
Gov. McGreevey must get personally involved before the state completely loses the best no-cost reef addition it's ever likely to have. Write to Governor Jim McGreevey at P.O. Box 001, State House, Trenton, N.J. 08625-0001. His fax number is (609) 292-3454.
As you can see from the ASMFC press release below, Amendment 6 to the Striped Bass FMP was passed by a vote of the full commission. New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maine voted against this amendment. Representatives from some other states had left the meeting prior to the vote. The 43% increase in the coastal commercial catch was passed. This amendment will allow some states to significantly increase their catch. The only states that may see a reduction in the recreational catch are Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey. The reason is that the words "producing areas" were deleted from most of Amendment 6. This leads to the interpretation that all the special restrictions and allowances for the producing areas no longer exist. There are two major problems with this change. First, there was no specific discussion at public hearings about changing the status of producing areas. Second, due to the lack of specific discussion about this change, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware were unaware of the likelihood that the change would be interpreted to delete any existing practices about the producing areas. Many of the states did not realize the impact of this change until the last minute. At that time, the motions made by New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware were ruled out of order and the vote on the full amendment was held. Producing areas have always had special status because the season is closed during the spawning runs to protect the larger fish. Also, since the producing areas don't fish on the larger fish, there has always been an opportunity to catch some smaller fish. For years, this has been the way the Striped Bass Management Plan operated.
New Jersey has always supported one size limit for the producing areas and the coast. It would be accurate to suggest that this change is what we have always asked for. However, under Amendment 6 as passed at this meeting, Chesapeake Bay, Albemarle Sound, and Delaware's commercial fishery in Delaware Bay are all exempted. This means they continue to fish at status quo (like a producing area) while the recreational anglers from New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Delaware are left to contend with this change. Many states realized this was a problem when Amendment 6 was voted on and said that they would address this at the June meeting. We are hoping that this will be rectified at the June meeting. If this is not rectified, the only people who suffer any reduction with Amendment 6 are the recreational anglers from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware.
Amendment 6 also includes a recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce to reopen the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to striped bass fishing after a 13-year closure. People remembered that it was Jersey Coast Anglers and its member clubs that was largely responsible for keeping the EEZ closed the last go-around and asked if we were going to be leading a campaign against it this time. I told them that JCAA has never voted to change its position that the EEZ should remain closed and when this question was discussed at the Amendment 6 public hearings there was no support for it. Congressman Saxton and Pallone have already written letters stating the objections and concerns to the opening of the EEZ at this time. The letters are at the bottom of this report. We will have a discussion at the JCAA meeting on this subject to review our position.
Presently, the same regulations that were in place in 2002 are in effect. The earliest we will feel the impact of these decisions is 2004.
Dr. William
Hogarth
Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Department of Commerce
1315 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear. Dr. Hogarth:
I am writing to express my deep concern with the recent vote of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to reopen the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to fishing for Striped Bass. It does not sit well that a majority of the states that voted did vote against this proposal and the deciding votes were the two federal agencies. This fishery has been in the process of rebuilding and while the stock is much healthier than in previous years, this action could very well jeopardize the progress made from the rebuilding plan.
Ensuring this stock remains healthy and viable is an issue I have been working on for many years, after it was first brought to my attention that the fishing of this species in the EEZ could cause serious problems. This led me to introduce the Striped Bass Act. By reopening the EEZ, those fish that were previously protected will now be vulnerable.
The passage of Amendment 6 to the Striped Bass Management plan is an additional management tool that increased the coastal commercial fishery and created more bycatch and discard situations. The results of the implementation of Amendment 6 will not be known for a couple of years. No drastic measure ought to be taken until 2005, when the effectiveness and consequences of this amendment will be known. I believe that NMFS is sending the wrong message by voting to reopen this area.
Remember only four states voted in favor while five voted against and the rest could not decide on this action at this time. I believe that the decision to move forward on the opening of the EEZ should not be made until a majority of those states that are most affected by this decision vote for it. New Jersey voted against the reopening. I urge you to consider not moving forward at this time to reopen the EEZ. If the stocks do suffer adverse affects in the next couple of years because of Amendment 6 I would see that the opening of the EEZ received the blame. I strongly encourage you to think about the potential consequences of this action. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jim Saxton
Member of Congress
Mr. John V. O'Shea
Executive Director
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Policy Board
1444 Eye Street, N.W., Sixth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. O'Shea,
I am writing to express my opposition to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Plan, as offered by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
I alerted the ASMFC of my opposition to this amendment last week, based upon my opinion that the commercial quota for striped bass should not be increased. However, today's meeting of the ASMFC brought up several additional issues that strengthen my opposition to the new amendment. Today the board clarified that the 28" minimum size limit for the commercial fishery would not apply to the Delaware Bay, in addition to the Chesapeake Bay and Albermarle Sound. Those areas have a 20" minimum size limit, while the remainder of the fishermen under ASMFC's jurisdiction would be limited to the larger fish. Amendment 6 would also increase the recreational minimum size limit to 28" from the previous 20" limit in all of the producing areas except Chesapeake Bay and Albermarle Sound. This decision makes the plan's size limits arbitrary, and it is my understanding that there is not a clear delineation of boundaries for these areas that would enjoy the smaller size limits. I urge you not to adopt an amendment that clearly discriminates against New Jersey's producing areas, among others.
The other new point of contention in this amendment is the inclusion of a decision to open the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to striped bass fishing. This would allow fishing by all sectors (commercial, recreational, party boats) in a zone that had been previously off limits to all striped bass fishing interests. I am concerned that the Atlantic striped bass fishery would suffer under the compounded pressures of an increase in the commercial quota and the opening of the EEZ.
Striped bass constitutes an enormously important recreational fishery not only within New Jersey, but also within the entire northern range of the ASMFC's jurisdiction and it is in our best interest to ensure the continued success of the population. I urge you to retain the status quo by voting against Amendment 6. We do not know what the consequences of an increased commercial fishing quota will be. The combined effects of increased commercial quotas and an expanded fishing area could undermine the great progress that has been made in restoring these stocks since the passage of Amendment 5.
Sincerely,
Frank Pallone, Jr.
Member of Congress
I recently received an inquiry about the striped bass regulations during the base years. All I needed was The Complete Book of the Striped Bass by Nicholas Karas. It was one of the first books I read that was more than a "how to" book. Nick really discussed the politics and the science. The introduction gives you the point of view of a striped bass and allows you to understand the life of a female striped bass through her eyes. I have bought all three editions of this book over the years.
As you read the regulations below, you will see that the recreational community had size limits ranging from 12 - 18 inches and few other restrictions. When people insist that recreational anglers are fishing above the base years or at the same level, they are clearly ignorant of the history of striped bass regulations. All they have to do is read this table to know recreational anglers are not allowed to fish anywhere near their catch of the base years. I would never suggest we return to the era of the base years. But you can understand why we never supported allowing the commercial fishery to fish at 100% of the base years. Yes, the recreational fishery has grown since 1992. However, we are nowhere near what we were harvesting during the base years. For commercial harvesters, the Chesapeake Bay harvest is above the average of the base years, the Delaware Bay commercial harvest by Delaware is above the average of the base years and now the coast is at the 100 percent average of the base years. We have succeeded in restricting the recreational catch sufficiently to allow the commercial catch to reach or exceed the base years. This is typical fisheries management.
These regulations were taken from the Complete Book Of The Striped Bass by Nick Karas first edition. Printed 1974
Maine Striped Bass cannot be taken commercially in Maine Waters, but fish taken on rod and reel can be sold. No license is needed to take bass from marine waters, nor is there a creel limit or minimum size.
New Hampshire Striped bass cannot be taken commercially but can be sold when taken on rod and reel. No license is required. There is no other restriction in New Hampshire except for a 16-inch fork length limit
Massachusetts Striped bass can be taken commercially but only by rod and reel. Fish can be sold. No license is needed in marine waters. There are no season dates and creel limits. However, the minimum size is 16-inch fork length.
Rhode Island Striped bass can be taken both commercially and sport fishing and sold commercially. A license is needed to bass fish commercially. The only other restriction in Rhode Island waters is a minimum size of 16 inches fork length.
Connecticut Striped Bass cannot be taken commercially nor sold when taken on rod and reel. There are no season dates nor creel limits on striped bass taken from Connecticut waters. However, there is a 16-inch forked length minimum size.
New York Fish May be taken Commercially and sold at any time from the waters of New York State. There are no season dates or possession restrictions. The only restriction is size, 16 inches fork length. No license is needed in marine waters for either commercial or sport fishing
New Jersey Striped bass cannot be taken commercially, but bass taken by rod and reel can be sold and no license is required. The season extends from March to December 31and there is a 10 per-day possession limit. The fish must be 18 inches in total length and the maximum size limit of 20 pounds for fish taken from the Delaware River.
Pennsylvania. Striped bass cannot be fished commercially, nor can they be sold when taken by rod and reel. There is no creel limit for fish taken from marine waters. There is a minimum size of 12 inches total length. Season dates are from March 1 to December 31 with a daily limit of three fish and possession limit of six fish
Delaware Striped bass can be commercial fished in marine waters and no license is required. Fish can be sold commercially. Netting bass is restricted to dates from November 2 to April 30. There are no sport-fishing season restrictions. Minimum lengths are 12 inches measured overall and maximum size of 20 pounds with no creel limits.
Maryland Striped bass can be taken commercially from marine waters and no license is required. There are no seasons or creel limits. However, fish must be a minimum of 12 inches in total length and not larger than 15 pounds. Maryland has a trophy fish and season dates that allow freer taking of striped bass by sport anglers: regulations should be consulted for details.
Virginia A license is required to take striped bass with nets and to sell them commercially. No license is required to sell bass when taken by rod and reel. There is no creel limit except for trophy fish: two per day over 40 inches. The minimum size is 12 inches total length. The fresh water restrictions vary greatly with each body of water and state regulations should be consulted before fishing.
North Carolina Striped bass can be taken commercially and sold, a license is required. The only restriction in marine waters is a minimum size of 12 inches total length. In fresh water, there is a daily creel limit of eight fish for inland waters and 25 fish for coastal waters.
As you can see from the press release below, there will be public hearings on an amendment to pay back overages in the recreational fishery in succeeding years. New Jersey has consistently voted against this motion since the data will be based on the Marine Recreational Survey. This survey was never designed for quota management and leaves us with no reliable data for this purpose. No one will attest to the fact that this survey will provide accurate data. It takes only a couple of intercepts to skew the data so completely that there is no way to get an accurate count. This was clear during the discussion later about the scup fishery. No one at the meeting thought the Marine Recreational Survey information from Connecticut was accurate and they were willing to interpret the data rather than just accept the numbers. If this is true of scup, it is true for all species.
The downside of the use of the inaccurate data is that the recreational community cannot trust any of the current data. We passed summer flounder regulations that were more restrictive than the data would have suggested because the party boat and charter boat representatives and state representatives were afraid that we would go over in 2003. These regulations unfairly impacted the surf anglers and the anglers who fish primarily in the late fall because the fishery was shut down before they had an opportunity to fish. This is truly a crapshoot. Even though we were so conservative according to the tables, the inaccurate data from the Marine Recreational Survey may still put us over quota. Or, we may be way under quota like we were this year. It simply makes no sense. It put us in the position of pitting one area of the recreational community against another.
JCAA needs to reactivate the summer flounder committee to develop a position for the upcoming hearings. If any of your clubs want to be represented on this committee, please contact Tom Siciliano.
ASMFC Board Approves Draft Addendum VIII to the Summer Flounder FMP for Public Comment: States to Hold Hearings in Early Spring
Arlington, VA – The Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Management Board has approved Draft Addendum VIII to the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for public review and comment. The Addendum was developed to address the problem of recreational landings consistently exceeding the harvest limit since 1996. Specifically, it presents the public with a suite of management options for the 2003 recreational summer flounder fishery, including strategies that allow for the repayment of harvest overages in the subsequent year(s), the carry-over of unused recreational harvest from one year to the next, and the allocation of commercial quota based on a total allowable landings (TAL) limits calculated without recreational overages. It also includes the option to maintain the status quo.
“The Board fully recognizes that the problem of overages rests with the management program and in no way assigns blame to the recreational fishing industry for the harvest overages,” stated Board Chair, Bruce Freeman of New Jersey. “However, given the persistent issue of recreational harvest overages and the impact of these overages on the resource, other users and our ability to effectively manage the fishery, it is incumbent for the Board to present these issues and possible management options to the public for their review and comment.”
Recreational harvest limits have been exceeded since 1996. From 1996 to 1999, overages in the recreational landings ranged from 13 to 67 percent. In 2000, recreational landings were more than double the harvest limit, while 2001 landings were 60 percent in excess of the harvest limit. The impacts of these overages on the fishery are significant and extend beyond the recreational sector. The annual TAL is calculated assuming the preceding year’s TAL and discard level are not exceeded. When regulations fail to constrain landings effectively the resulting exploitation rate is higher than the target, which leads to a state of overfishing and thus slower stock recovery.
The recreational fishery is allocated 40 percent of the annual TAL. Though regulations have historically applied to the entire coast, geographic variations in the fishery contributed to interest in allowing states to develop regulations on an individual basis. First implemented in 1999, conservation equivalency requires states to develop and implement measures that can reasonably be expected to constrain the recreational fishery to its harvest limit. The 2003 recreational harvest limit has been set at 9.32 million pounds.
While summer flounder is managed jointly by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Board’s actions regarding Draft Addendum VIII will be taken exclusively under the states’ management authority.
It is anticipated that most states from Massachusetts through North Carolina will be conducting public hearings throughout the early spring. A subsequent press release will provide the details of those hearings once they become available. Copies of the Draft Addendum will be available by mid-March and can be obtained by contacting the Commission at (202)289-6400 or via the Commission’s website at www.asmfc.org For more information, please contact Michael Lewis, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202)289-6400 or mlewis@asmfc.org.
Arlington, VA – The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has approved Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Striped Bass. Four years in the making, the new Amendment charts the course for management of a healthy and viable striped bass resource. After years of constrained effort, recreational and commercial fishermen will begin to realize the benefits of a restored resource. The recreational harvest has the potential to increase by 10 to 15 percent starting in 2004 (if all coastal states increase to a two fish bag limit). The quota for the coastal commercial fishery will increase by 43 percent in 2003; this increase represents four percent of total striped bass landings from recent years.
To ensure that these increases do not jeopardize the recovery gains of the last two decades, the Amendment implements a control rule that establishes target and threshold levels for the fishing mortality rate and female spawning stock biomass. Essentially, the fishing mortality rate target and threshold mirror that contained in Amendment 5. The female spawning stock biomass target and threshold are new, however, and provide another important indicator of the health of the resource. Currently, the female spawning stock biomass is about 57 million pounds, well above the target of 38.6 million pounds established by Amendment 6. The Amendment has triggers to initiate Management Board action if biomass falls below the target and/or fishing mortality exceeds the target.
Amendment 6 Control Rule
The Target Fishing Mortality (TFM) rate is F=0.30, (TFM) Exploitation Rate is 31 percent and the (TFM) Female Spawning Stock Biomass is 38.6 million pounds
The Threshold Fishing Mortality Rate is F=0.41, Threshold Fishing Mortality Exploitation Rate is 24 percent and the Threshold Fishing Mortality Female Spawning Stock Biomass is 30.9 million pounds
*The target fishing mortality rate for the Chesapeake Bay & Albemarle-Roanoke stock is
F=0.27 (22% exploitation rate)
The Amendment also includes a recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce to reopen the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to striped bass fishing after a 13-year closure. This recommendation will initiate a lengthy review and decision-making process by NOAA Fisheries. If reopened, the Management Board committed to annually evaluating the fishery impacts of the harvest within the EEZ so that more conservative measures could be implemented if needed.
Copies of the Amendment will be available by the end of March and can be obtained by contacting the Commission at (202) 289-6400 or via the website at www.asmfc.org. For more information, please contact Megan Gamble, Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400 or mgamble@asmfc.org.