Federal regulators: Don’t even think about fishing for these forage species
Fishing boats line the dock along Timms Way in San Pedro. West Coast fishery managers banned the take of any forage fish (pelagic squid, herring), in a decision ratified by federal officials with a final rule issued this week, in state waters. The species aren't fished currently, and this is a move to protect them, in the event their numbers increase and become enough to sustain a productive fishery. (Chuck Bennett / Staff Photographer)
Read the original post: http://www.dailybreeze.com/
Environmentalists, fishermen clash over proposed Chumash marine sanctuary
The Chumash marine sanctuary would extend 140 miles from Cambria to Santa Barbara
Proponents say it would protect a diverse Pacific ecosystem
Local fishermen say the sanctuary could lead to over-regulation
A controversial underwater national park proposed off the Central Coast aims to protect and manage the area’s marine life, stop oil drilling and seismic surveys, and encourage scientific research.In October, the nomination for the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary was accepted for consideration, setting the stage for a showdown in coming months and years between environmentalists who strongly support the proposed sanctuary and the fishing community that opposes it.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will decide whether to add the local waters to a list of 14 national marine sanctuaries, including four designations in California and others in locations that include Washington state, the Florida Keys and American Samoa.The Chumash sanctuary would cover an expansive area of the Pacific coastal waters, stretching 140 miles from Cambria to Santa Barbara, with the goal of protecting a diverse ecosystem that includes dolphins, whales, white sea bass, sardines, mackerel, kelp and elephant seals.“Primarily, a sanctuary is about ecosystem-based management, protecting the entire area, not just single species,” said Andrew Christie, director of the local Sierra Club chapter, an advocate for the designation. “Specific regulations and protections can be proposed during the designation process, in which NOAA would basically ask the community: What do you value? What do you want to protect? And how do you want to go about doing so?”The Chumash sanctuary would fill a gap in federally protected waters between the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to the north and the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary to the south. Extending from Gaviota Creek in Santa Barbara to Santa Rosa Creek in Cambria, the Chumash sanctuary’s western boundary would be the submerged Santa Lucia Bank along the Santa Lucia Escarpment and the eastern side would be the mean high tide line. The zone wouldn’t include harbors.Fishing industry leaders, galvanized to oppose the concept, are worried that a sanctuary would lead to more fishing restrictions. They say they believe existing statewide protections, including trawl closure areas, rockfish conservation areas and marine protected areas, are sufficient.They also say they believe adding a new federal regulating agency would hinder local influence over offshore policy.Although the Chumash nomination states no new fishing regulations will be added, Monterey Bay’s sanctuary has played a strong advocacy role in adding fish closures in California, fishing industry leaders say.“They have been very powerful voices in creating new closures,” Monterey Bay Harbormaster Stephen Scheiblauer said. “Some of the nearshore fishermen in particular have experienced severe economic blows because of those closures.”Jeremiah O’Brien, a director of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization, said a promise not to regulate fishing doesn’t mean it won’t happen.“Once you hand things over to the feds, they can and will do whatever they want,” O’Brien said. “It doesn’t matter what you put in the charter. They can revise and revise, and things will change in the future. ”But Bill Douros, NOAA’s western region manager, said that national marine sanctuaries take a comprehensive approach toward seeking advice and guidance from local stakeholders on decisions, and that local decisions wouldn’t be made without collaboration, including the fishing industry.“I’m very impressed by how much balance, effort and care help decide an issue and serve to meet everyone’s goals and objectives,” Douros said. “There is considerable weight put on local perspective with any sanctuary decision, including the fishing industry.”
What’s being proposed
The 69-page nomination submission from the Northern Chumash Tribal Council was filed with NOAA in July, and has the backing of several environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity.The nomination seeks to preserve large areas of kelp and seagrass to enhance the habitat of a wide variety of marine species, including commercial fisheries. Other proposed measures include conserving sea otter populations.The bid also seeks to maintain Chumash archaeological sites, where the tribe’s villages once existed 3 to 6 miles to the west of the current tidal lines, “until the ocean submerged the homes of our ancestors.”“The Chumash Peoples have awakened to the smells, sounds and the view of this sacred western horizon for over 15,000 years,” the nomination reads.The proposal states “the designation document should not contain sanctuary authorization to regulate fishing,” a sticking point for fishing industry leaders who say sanctuaries have contributed to fishing limitations in Monterey Bay through lobbying efforts. In the Channel Islands sanctuary, fishing regulations have been implemented, though no promise initially was made not to, according to fishing leaders.The Chumash nomination cites recent threats to marine life that include airgun seismic testing, attempted disposals of agricultural waste and proposals for slant oil drilling from onshore facilities.Fred Collins, the administrator for the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, said, “the last thing I want to see is tar on local beaches from oil drilling,” such as the leakage in Gaviota or seismic testing he says would harm fish and marine mammals.“There’s tremendous potential for a marine sanctuary to be a leader in gathering data and public awareness about the local ecosystem,” Collins said. “We can make a change together in how we can preserve resources.”
Economic interests
A sanctuary also could open the door for new grants and funding for research by local universities and colleges, including Cal Poly’s Center for Coastal Marine Sciences, the Marine Science Institute at UC Santa Barbara and the oceanography program at Cuesta College.UCSB recently received a $4 million grant from the California Ocean Protection Council to study ecological systems off its coast; the project involves Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary scientists.A study commissioned by the Sierra Club projects the Chumash sanctuary would generate $23 million and 600 new jobs — and estimates the local fishing industry claims are exaggerated.The figures are based on projected administrative expenditures, new research funding, increased coastal tourism, and increased property values and tax revenues associated with a new sanctuary.“In most of the 14 current National Marine Sanctuaries, tourism is one of the largest sectors of the local economy,” the study states. “Millions of visitors are drawn to these areas for their beaches, recreational fishing, diving, snorkeling, surfing, fishing, wildlife viewing, and museums and aquariums.”Bruce Gibson, the county’s 2nd District supervisor, has endorsed the sanctuary.“A national marine sanctuary would provide new opportunities for locals and visitors to explore, learn and recreate off our coast,” Gibson said. “Such a designation would be a win for our communities and our economy.”
The opposing response
Groups including the Morro Bay Community Quota Fund, a fishing advocacy organization, as well as the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization and the city’s Harbor Advisory Board, have opposed a sanctuary, citing possible prohibitions on wave and wind energy projects proposed off the coast of Morro Bay; suspected future restrictions on fishing and dredging; and their contention that sufficient fishing regulations are already in place.At a Sept. 22 Morro Bay City Council meeting, fishing industry supporters were among those who spoke out against the idea of a sanctuary.“The whole concept of a local government or state government is compromised when you automatically give it to NOAA or Washington, D.C. to take control,” said Jesse Barrios, a commercial fisherman.Previous Morro Bay City Councils passed two resolutions opposing earlier attempts at sanctuaries, the latest in 2012. The current City Council hasn’t yet taken an official stance on the Chumash initiative.Mayor Jamie Irons said he believes Monterey Bay’s sanctuary hasn’t served local interests well since it formed in 1992, and he won’t endorse the Chumash sanctuary proposal without significant modifications to how the program would operate.“The Monterey fishermen embraced that sanctuary in the beginning,” Irons said, “but there was a loss of trust when the sanctuary management changed. I want to see if we can correct it. Let’s work on gaining the trust of our commercial fishermen before we move forward.”Irons said he wants any sanctuary designation document, which sets administrative guidelines, to stipulate that it can only be changed with direct, binding local input. Irons said an advisory council should be selected through a local process, and not through appointments by the sanctuary’s administration, which occurs in Monterey Bay.Irons said the state’s Department of Fish and Game or the National Marine Fisheries Services, housed within NOAA, should continue to regulate fishing off the Central Coast and not sanctuary administration.In a letter to NOAA, Morro Bay’s Community Quota Fund cited permitting limitations on dredging in Monterey, imposed by that sanctuary’s administration, because of disturbances to the seabed. Dredging is needed for safe boat trafficking in Morro Bay, the letter argued.Scheiblauer, the Monterey Bay harbormaster, said the Monterey Bay sanctuary’s administration chooses about two-thirds of the advisory council that represents business, agriculture, commercial fishing, tourism, industry and other interests. The Monterey Bay sanctuary also sets the agenda for meetings and controls communications, such as letters to Congress and media talking points, leading to criticism that the agency has hampered local input, Scheiblauer added.Scheiblauer said he was present when NOAA officals promised, before the designation, not to affect the livelihoods of fishermen, winning the support of fishermen for the sanctuary in the early 1990s.But he has observed the sanctuary take an active lobbying role in shaping new closure areas, including California’s marine protected areas that block large sections of fishing waters to commercial catches.“The city of Monterey and other groups such as the Marine Interest Group don’t believe the sanctuary should be involved in fishing,” Scheiblauer said.O’Brien said he disputes the accuracy of the Sierra Club’s estimates on economic impacts.“I don’t see how they’re getting those numbers, especially relating to tourism,” O’Brien said. “Most people wouldn’t know a sanctuary even exists. People don’t go to Monterey Bay for the sanctuary. They go to see the (nonprofit) aquarium. But they’re two different things.”O’Brien added that he doesn’t envision any oil drilling off the Central Coast, which would require the permission from the Bureau of Ocean Management and agencies such as the California Coastal Commission.“I just don’t see that happening,” O’Brien said. “There’s no need for extra layers of regulation.”
NOAA perspective
Douros, representing NOAA, said a public information meeting will be held in Morro Bay on Jan. 6. Another will be organized at the request of San Luis Obispo County on a date yet to be determined.NOAA initially denied the Chumash proposal submitted in February, citing a need for more specific information about how a sanctuary would provide unique management and conservation value. A second, more detailed submission, was successful.Douros said sanctuaries can help prevent low-flying aircraft from colliding with birds, cruise ships from crashing into whales, and urban runoff discharges, to name a few of the benefits.He added, “The presence of sanctuaries has not led to declines in fish catches in any way,” noting trawlers can still fish in sanctuary areas where seagrasses are protected, for example.According to NOAA’s estimates, Monterey Bay’s national marine sanctuary yielded an average of $26 million in commercial fishing catch revenue per year over a three-year period from 2010-12, indicating the fish-related economy there is healthy.Douros noted that research in California sanctuaries led to a ban on harvesting krill in California, implemented by the National Marine Fisheries statewide, helping to nourish whale, rockfish and seabird populations that directly benefit from krill. Douros said that policy relating to wind and wave energy would have to be assessed in the creation of a sanctuary.Douros said he believes the study commissioned by the Sierra Club on the projected economic impacts of a Chumash sanctuary is reasonable and even “conservative.”“UCSB just received a multimillion-dollar grant to study the long-term ecosystem of the Channel Islands sanctuary,” Douros said. “Whale watching boats are selling out, partly because of a show the BBC produced called Big Blue Live showing the marine life on California’s West Coast. And the fishermen have a marketing benefit by saying their catches come from a sanctuary. Federal staff live and pay housing and sales taxes in the community. There are many new ways money gets spent in the community because of a sanctuary.”
NOAA officials will answer questions about the process for considering a Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary at a public meeting set for 6 p.m. Jan. 6 at the Veterans Memorial Building, 209 Surf St., in Morro Bay.
Read the original post: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/
Bill to Make Tri-State West Coast Dungeness Fishery Management Permanent Clears House
— Posted with permission of SEAFOODNEWS.COM. Please do not republish without their permission. —
Copyright © 2015 Seafoodnews.com
A bill that will permanently allow Washington, Oregon and California state fishery managers to jointly manage the West Coast Dungeness crab fishery cleared its first hurdle in Congress this week.HR 2168, the West Coast Dungeness Crab Management Act, proposed by US Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) and backed by state Senator Maria Cantwell, passed the US House this week and will now go up for Senate approval.If approved, the law will allow Washington, Oregon and California to continue their work-- at a state level--to manage the West Coast Dungeness Crab Fishery.The bill actually extends a measure approved in 1996 that allowed the three states to work with the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission to manage the stocks and conduct fishery science. It represented a unique marriage of state and federal fishery management.The 1996 accord is set to expire in 2016, but Beutler's proposal would make the state and federal pact permanent."The successful, two decades-old tri-state Dungeness crab management agreement will expire the on September 30, 2016. This bill simply makes that working management authority between Washington, Oregon, and California permanent," said Beutler.This bill will now go before Congress where some industry sources say it has a 68 percent chance of approval.
Subscribe to SEAFOODNEWS.COM
California Approves Law for Commercial Fishermen to Set Up Public Seafood Markets
— Posted with permission of SEAFOODNEWS.COM. Please do not republish without their permission. —
Copyright © 2015 Seafoodnews.com
Seafood markets will be allowed to operate in the public square just like farmers markets, now that Gov. Jerry Brown has signed Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins’ Pacific to Plate Act. AB 226 removes red tape, making it easier for shoppers to purchase local seafood.“The massive growth of farmers markets across the state shows us the benefits of allowing direct sales between farmers and consumers,” said Atkins (D-San Diego). “Coastal communities and small-business owners throughout California deserve the same opportunities.”Pacific to Plate streamlines the permitting process so that commercial fishermen can organize under a single permit—just like certified farmers markets—allowing public seafood markets to operate as food facilities and fresh fish to be cleaned for direct sale.“By making it easier to establish and open these markets, we hope to create more jobs for local fishermen and give San Diegans more fish caught fresh off our waters,” said County Supervisor Greg Cox. “My thanks to Speaker Toni Atkins and our local fishermen for working together to make this law happen.”Pacific to Plate also establishes guidelines such as compliance with the California Retail Food Code and food-safety requirements.San Diego’s Tuna Harbor Dockside Fish Market celebrated its anniversary in August. It has expanded to include 17 vendors selling their catch, comprising 22 species caught in local waters, including swordfish, yellowtail, squid, and white sea bass.“The changes to the law will have environmental, economic, and societal benefits as fishermen get a fair price for their product and the consumer gets high-quality local fish, also at a fair price. This will restore the fishermen’s place in San Diego fishing culture,” said Peter Halmay, one of the founders of Tuna Harbor.
Copyright © 2015 Seafoodnews.com
Massive Fish Farm Proposed Off San Diego’s Coast
“There are some big guys in there. There they come,” he said. “That’s a big fish right there.”I ask if he has names for them.“I try not to have names for things I eat,” he said.Kent won’t be eating these fish, but he hopes we’ll all be chowing down on their offspring in a few years.Kent is president and CEO of the Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute, a research nonprofit partially funded by SeaWorld. Hubbs-SeaWorld is partnering with a private investment firm to create the largest fish farm in America.The proposed Rose Canyon Fisheries aquaculture project would be built 4 miles off San Diego's coast. It could have a footprint on the ocean floor that’s slightly smaller than Balboa Park, and could produce 11 million pounds of yellowtail and sea bass each year.Kent said this country needs the project because 91 percent of its seafood is imported, and countries like China that produce a lot of fish are now keeping more for themselves.“The price of seafood is going up higher and higher for people like us who have to import it,” he said. “So the big advantage we have over those other supplies is from the fact that we can grow it locally.”But some environmentalists equate it to a large industrial farm.
How big is it?
Rose Canyon Fisheries would consist of 48 cages, each about 11,000 cubic meters, or 4.4 olympic swimming pools.
The cages would be divided into two grids that together cover an area about the same size as the parking lot around Qualcomm stadium.Anchor lines would run from the cages to the bottom of the ocean. Those lines extend out, so the project’s footprint on the ocean floor would cover about 1.3 square miles.The project would span the waters from Sunset Cliffs to Pacific Beach. Its cages could have poles that extend 16 feet above the water, but Kent said we won’t see them from shore. He has computer modeling that shows the cages will be below the horizon.To test that out, I did some trigonometry. My calculations showed if you’re lying on the ground at the ocean’s edge, you’d see the top third of a 16-foot pole. If you’re standing up, you could see more.Environmental group San Diego Coastkeeper is concerned about the scale of the project. They took out their boat 4 miles off of Ocean Beach and held up a pole. I went to Sunset Cliffs and looked for it.The boat was visible, but looked like a small dot on the horizon. So passersby could maybe see a grid of 42 poles, but they also might not notice them.
Environmental concerns
Matt O’Malley, a lawyer with San Diego Coastkeeper, also took me out on the boat to the spot where Rose Canyon Fisheries would go. After 45 minutes of riding through very choppy waters, he cut the engine.“You come out to a place like this, you can see how quiet, how pristine, how beautiful it is,” he said. Then he looked at the houses on shore.“You just know that some of these people are going to be out here looking at this,” he said.But O’Malley’s problems don’t end with beach homes’ views.“We're talking about putting a floating factory farm right off the coast of San Diego,” he said.
O’Malley points out 11 million pounds of fish would create a lot of, well, fish poop, and said that waste could change the chemistry in the water below the farm and on the ocean floor, and could lead to algae blooms.He also worries fish could escape the cages and spread diseases or breed with wild populations, hurting genetic diversity. Plus, he worries seals and sea lions would be attracted to all of those caged fish and get entangled in nets and ropes, and that the farm could change whale migrations and wild fish behavior.Kent with the Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute doesn’t dispute calling the project an industrial farm, but doesn’t see that as a negative.“If people were to sit down to their breakfast and say, I'm not going to eat anything farmed, then it's going to be a pretty light breakfast,” he said.He said Rose Canyon Fisheries won’t hurt the environment. The project would use thick rope lines and plastic nets that won’t entangle marine mammals, he said. He also described computer modeling that shows the farm is in deep enough water to dilute the fish poop. The cages are designed so the fish won’t escape, he said, and even if they did they won’t have diseases to spread.As for the inbreeding concern, he said the farm’s fish would be offspring of wild fish and that the farmed fish would be harvested before they breed with each other.“You can create a brood stock bred for faster growth, but before we go down that road, we want to make sure escapement isn’t a problem,” he said. “We want to be sure inbred fish isn’t a threat to wild population.”
New ground for federal agencies
Kent said he’d scale up Rose Canyon Fisheries slowly over eight years and monitor its environmental impacts along the way.But the project’s permits are for its full size. So if it’s approved, it could begin churning out more fish before the impacts are fully known.While there are other fish farms in the United States, this is the first on this scale that will be built in federal waters, said Diane Windham, the 3rd Regional Aquaculture Coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That means federal agencies, not California, will have ultimate authority over it.
Document
Rose Canyon EPA Permit
The application for an EPA permit from Rose Canyon Fisheries.
But because Rose Canyon Fisheries is the first of its kind, there is not an established system for which agency will review its permits.“There was a fairly lengthy, I don’t want to say debate, but thoughtful discussion about who should lead this,” Windham said.It was recently decided that the Environmental Protection Agency will review whether the project follows the National Environmental Policy Act, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) adding input. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Coastal Commission will also likely review portions of the project.“A lot of people would assume NOAA has permitting authority because aquaculture is one of our national priorities and have a lot of expertise,” Windham said. “Everyone is learning as they go. This project definitely brought the issue to light as to why doesn’t NOAA have permitting authority and how could that be achieved.”She said federal legislation could give her agency control over aquaculture projects. Right now the only proposed legislation regarding aquaculture is a bill from an Alaska congressman to ban fish farming entirely from federal waters.NOAA has long been pushing for aquaculture projects in federal waters because state regulations are generally stricter, said food journalist Paul Greenberg.The idea is to “go around state regulatory processes and speed up the process,” he said.O’Malley with Coastkeeper called the permitting system a “regulatory black hole” and said Coastkeeper will do whatever it can to ensure the project is vetted, including suing if necessary.“This is our backyard and this is a project that's massive, and has a lot of potential impact,” he said. “We think as a community, if we're going to be embarking on a project like this, we want to make damn sure the environment is protected in the process.”
Seafood swap
Kent hopes the project is approved soon to correct what he calls America’s seafood imbalance: exports to the U.S. are dwindling as the global population grows and more people eat fish.But the United States does produce some fish. It’s just that Americans don’t always want to eat it. While 91 percent of this country’s seafood is imported, about one-third of the seafood Americans catch is sold to other countries.
That’s because imported seafood is often cheaper, and Americans tend to prefer the taste of foreign fish to the fish native to our coasts, journalist Greenberg said. His book American Catch describes a seafood swap.“We tend to export stronger tasting things like mackerel, black cod, a lot of squid, and then we import shrimp, tilapia, neutral tasting things we can kind of deep fry and use in the American-palate-friendly sandwich,” he said.Aquaculture can help correct this imbalance, but “rather than trying to start up new and complicated ventures, first off let’s try to eat the fish we’ve already got,” Greenberg said.But aquaculture solves more global problems than Americans not liking fishy fish, Kent said.“There's 7 billion people on earth now and there's going to be 9 billion people in your lifetime, very soon,” he said. “How are we going to feed those extra 2 billion people?”One way to do that is through aquaculture, he said.
Read the original article: www.kpbs.org
West Coast sardine fishery being shut down
Sardine commercial fishery shutdown: Story and video — www.kionrightnow.com
Includes interviews with CWPA Board members Anthony Russo and David Crabbe.
State and Federal Agencies Halt Commercial Sardine Fishing off California
Media Contacts:Kirk Lynn, CDFW Marine Region, (858) 546-7167Chelsea Protasio, CDFW Marine Region, (831) 649-2994Carrie Wilson, CDFW Communications, (831) 649-7191
State and Federal Agencies HaltCommercial Sardine Fishing off California
All large-volume commercial sardine fishing in state and federal waters off California has been prohibited as of Tuesday, April 28, 2015. The closing will remain in effect until at least July 2016.
"This may be an end of an era, but fortunately, the tough management decisions were made several years ago," noted Marci Yaremko, CDFW's representative to the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), and fishery manager for coastal pelagic species, including sardines.At its April 12 meeting, the Council recommended regulations that prohibit directed commercial fishing for Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) in California, Oregon and Washington for the upcoming fishing season, which would have begun July 1, 2015, and run through June 30, 2016. In light of revised stock biomass information and landings data for the current season, the Council also requested the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) close the fishery in the current season as quickly as possible. This closure takes effect today."The stock is in a state of decline, and now is too low to support large-scale fishing," Yaremko explained. "Industry, government agencies and those looking out for non-consumptive interests have all worked together over the years to develop the harvest control rule we are using today, which defines when enough is enough."The Pacific sardine fishery in California was actively managed by the CDFW until 2000, when it was incorporated into the Council's Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Since then, the fishery has been actively co-managed by the Council, NMFS, CDFW and Oregon and Washington's Fish and Wildlife agencies.California's historic sardine fishery began in the early 1900s, peaked in the late 1930s and then declined rapidly in the 1940s. A 20-year moratorium on the directed fishery was implemented in the late 1960s. In the 1990s, increased landings signaled the population's recovery. Numbers have since dropped again, significantly.The Pacific sardine fishery continues to be a significant part of California's economy at times. At the recent fishery's peak in 2007, 80,000 metric tons (mt) of Pacific sardine was landed resulting in an export value of more than $40 million. The majority of California commercial sardine landings occur in the ports of San Pedro/Terminal Island and Monterey/Moss Landing.The Pacific sardine resource is assessed annually, and the status information is used by the Council during its annual management and quota setting process. The Council adopted the 2015 stock assessment, including the biomass projection of 96,688 mt, as the best available science. Current harvest control rules prohibit large-volume sardine fishing when the biomass falls below 150,000 mt. The Council recommended a seasonal catch limit that allows for only incidental commercial landings and fish caught as live bait or recreationally during the 2015-16 season.The decrease in biomass has been attributed, in part, to changes in ocean temperatures, which has been negatively impacting the species' production. While the estimated population size is relatively low, the stock is not considered to be overfished. The early closure of the 2014-15 fishing season and the prohibition of directed fishing during the 2015-16 season are intended to help prevent the stock from entering an overfished state."Hard-working fishermen take pride in the precautionary fishery management that's been in place for more than a decade," said Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director of the California Wetfish Producers Association. "Thankfully the Pacific Fishery Management Council recognized the need to maintain a small harvest of sardines caught incidentally in other coastal pelagic fisheries. A total prohibition on sardine fishing would curtail California's wetfish industry and seriously harm numerous harbors as well as the state's fishing economy."Pacific sardine is considered to be an important forage fish in the Pacific Ocean ecosystem and is also utilized recreationally and for live bait in small volumes. CDFW protects this resource by being an active participant in this co-management process. CDFW has representatives on the Council's advisory bodies, works closely with the industry to track Pacific sardine landings in California and runs a sampling program that collects biological information, such as size, sex and age of Pacific sardine and other coastal pelagic species that are landed in California's ports. These landings and biological data are used by CDFW in monitoring efforts and are also used by NMFS in annual stock assessments.For more information about Pacific sardine history, research and management in California, please visit CDFW's Pacific sardine webpage at www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/cpshms/.
School of sardines, Channel Islands CDFW file photo
# # #
Humpback Whales: An Endangered Species Act Success Story?
A humpback breaches, catapulting nearly its entire body out of the water. Credit: Amy Kennedy/NOAA
Are humpback whales still endangered, or have their populations recovered enough since whaling ended that they can now be taken off the Endangered Species List?NOAA Fisheries scientists have spent several years researching this question, and their answer is not a simple yes or no. Instead, the Agency identified 14 distinct population segments of humpback whales, 10 of which we identified as not warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The other four still appear vulnerable to extinction currently or within the foreseeable future and require the continued protection of the ESA.Humpback Whales Make a ComebackNOAA Fisheries believes humpback whales have rebounded in many areas, with high abundance and steady rates of population growth. This determination is based on a recent review of the best available scientific and commercial information by an expert group of scientists.We also identified 14 distinct population segments of humpback whales. A distinct population segment is a term coined in the 1978 amendments to the Endangered Species Act that allows species to be divided into distinct subgroups or populations based on a number of characteristics.Of the distinct population segments identified, 10 appear to no longer be in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future. For instance, the West Indies population is growing at a modest 2 percent a year and the East Australia population is growing at an average rate of almost 11 percent a year.Changing Status, But Not ProtectionWe determined the abundance and growth rates are high enough and threats low enough for 10 distinct population segments that they are no longer threatened or endangered. This prompted us to propose changing the status of these humpback whale populations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the proposed rule, we recommend not including these populations on the ESA list.This doesn’t mean humpback whales are left unprotected. The other four distinct population segments that still appear vulnerable to extinction will remain under ESA protections as a result of our proposal to extend the protections that automatically apply to the endangered populations to the threatened populations also. In addition, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) provides substantial protections to all marine mammals in U.S. waters, including humpback whales. This protection exists regardless of whether each distinct population segment is listed under the ESA. And for those populations outside of U.S. waters, the International Whaling Commission provides protection from whaling.Humpback whales still have blankets of protection.Adding Management FlexibilityThe changes we propose are significant because they are recognition that the species is doing well and most populations are growing as a result of the Endangered Species Act protections. And moving forward, having identified these distinct population segments, we now have the flexibility to focus our efforts where they are needed the most, on those specific populations that are in danger of extinction or likely to become so.
Humpback Whale. (Megaptera novaeangliae) Credit: NOAA NEFSC.
Read the original post here. The proposed rule is open for public comment through July 20, 2015.