STRIPED BASS AMENDMENT 7: ASMFC SHOULD TAKE THE TIME TO GET IT RIGHT

 

On Wednesday, February 3, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board will review the draft Public Information Document For Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass.  It is very likely, although not absolutely certain, that after such review, the Management Board will approve the Public Information Document for public comment, thus formally kicking off the process that will eventually lead to changes—perhaps very significant changes—in the way striped bass will be managed.

Those changes could have a very serious impact on the future health of the striped bass stock.

Right now, it’s very hard to predict what that impact will be, as there are two competing factions on the Management Board, and the future of the striped bass stock, and the striped bass fishery, will depend on which of those factions prevails.

One faction is composed of Management Board members who want to better assure the long-term health of the striped bass fishery.  They recognize that the current management approach failed to prevent the striped bass stock from becoming overfished, and experiencing overfishing, once again, after being rebuilt following its collapse in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  In general, they support science-based management, more effective regulation of striped bass fisheries, and ending some of the current abuses that exist in the management process.

The other faction, which is centered in the three states of New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware, is less concerned with the long-term health of the striped bass stock, and far more concerned with the short-term economic well-being of their fishing industries.  It generally seeks laxer regulations and higher landings, while shunning any accountability for excessive recreational harvest.  Members of the faction have expressed a willingness to change the reference points used to gauge stock health, even though doing so would permanently reduce striped bass abundance and increase the risk that the stock could decline to dangerously low levels.

So far, it seems like the wrong folks are winning.

Late last July, a “work group” created by the Management Board issued a report suggesting what the new amendment ought to address.  The work group was reasonably balanced, with three members from the usually conservation-minded New England states and three from New Jersey, Maryland, and the Potomac River fisheries commissions, jurisdictions that have historically prioritized harvest over the health of the stock.  

Given that the striped bass stock is overfished, and that the recent management action taken to reduce landings had only a 41 percent probability of reducing fishing mortality to the target level, it would have been reasonable to expect that the work group would have prioritized rebuilding the stock, and adopting measures to prevent overfishing and prevent the stock from being overfished once again (assuming that the stock is successfully rebuilt this time).

But that’s not what happened.

Instead, the work group emphasized three factors—management stability, flexibility, and regulatory consistency—as “themes” that should guide the Amendment 7 drafting process.

“Management stability” would promote maintaining consistent regulations over a period of years, which sounds nice on its face.  However, the Management Board’s history shows that it is already far too willing to promote such stability at the cost of the striped bass stock; perhaps the best example of that is when it sat on its hands in 2011, maintaining “management stability” even after a stock assessment update warned that, under any foreseeable recruitment scenario, the stock would become overfished by 2017 if fishing mortality wasn’t reduced.  As it turned out, the stock became overfished even more quickly than the assessment update predicted, as fishing mortality had been higher than managers believed at the time.

It’s hard to imagine building even more opportunity for inaction into Amendment 7, but that’s where the work group would seem to be headed.

A similar comment could be made about “flexibility” which, in the fisheries management context, is merely a euphemism for taking no action, even when the management plan requires that something be done. 

But the Management Board is already experienced at doing that, too.

Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass explicitly states that

“If the Management Board determines that the female spawning stock biomass falls below target for two consecutive years and the fishing mortality rate exceeds the target in either of those years, the Management Board must adjust the striped bass management program to rebuild the biomass to a level that is at or above the target within [no more than 10 years]. [emphasis added]”

Amendment 6 also states that

“If the Management Board determines that the biomass has fallen below the threshold in any given year, the Board must adjust the striped bass management program to rebuild the biomass to a level that is at or above the target within [no more than 10 years]. [emphasis added]”

Both of those passages are pretty clear about what the Management Board “must” do if the specified triggers are tripped.  Yet, when the 2013 benchmark stock assessment revealed that the biomass had fallen below target for two consecutive years, and that the fishing mortality had risen above target as well, the Management Board did absolutely nothing to rebuild the stock within the specified time.

Instead, it took comfort in the advice of Michael Waine, then the Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, who advised

“Management Trigger 2 [sic] in Amendment 6 says that you need to rebuild the SSB back to its target over a specified timeframe that should not exceed 10 years.  I think that there is sort of a combination of things happening.  The board is acting to reduce F.  Through that action we see the projection showing that SSB will start increasing toward its target, but we’re uncomfortable with projecting out far enough to tell you when it will reach its target because the further on the projections we go the more uncertainty is involved.  Therefore, I think the trend is to go back towards the target, but we can’t tell you that exactly how quickly that’s going to happen.”

As a practical matter, Waine advised the Management Board to ignore an explicit requirement of the management plan, advice that the Board was happy to follow.

Five years later, after the latest stock assessment found that the striped bass stock was overfished, the second provision kicked in.  This time, Max Appelman, who had replaced Waine as Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, did what he was supposed to do and reminded the Management Board of its rebuilding obligation, saying that

“the ten year clock began in May when the information [that the stock was overfished] was presented to the Board.”

But the Management Board roundly ignored him, deciding to move forward with Amendment 7 instead of a rebuilding plan.

Given that the Management Board knowingly flouted two supposedly mandatory provisions of the management plan over the course of only five years, it’s frightening to think that the work group believes that giving the Board even more “flexibility” to do nothing is a good idea.

Fortunately, the work group only advises the Management Board, which will make the final decisions on Amendment 7.  ‘

And perhaps the first, and one of the most important, decisions that the Management Board ought to make is to slow down.

If the Public Information Document is approved for public comment next week, the odds are that the public comment period will end sometime before the Management Board’s May meeting.  That means  either that public hearings will have to be held, putting people at risk of contracting COVID-19 before they have a reasonable expectation of being vaccinated against the disease, or comments will have to be taken in webinars that, given the number of responses striped bass amendments normally generate, will probably severely limit the opportunities for anglers to be heard.

Neither of those is a good alternative.

Delay will also provide time for some very important information to be provided to the Management Board, which would inform the Amendment 7 process.

One of those would be an update to the stock assessment.  Such an update was originally scheduled for 2021, so that managers could get some idea of how the striped bass stock has reacted to the regulations imposed, for the first time, in 2020.  But because of COVID-19, and its impacts on the Marine Recreational Information Program’s in-person angler intercepts, there are still no estimates of recreational landings and discards for 2020, and the stock assessment update has been delayed until 2022, when 2021 data will hopefully be available.

In addition, there are two studies currently being conducted by Massachusetts which are very relevant to Amendment 7.  One is probably going to provide a lot of important new information about striped bass release mortality.  The other is a genetic study that will help managers understand where the bass that migrate into New England are spawned.

Drafting a document that is as important to the striped bass’ future as Amendment 7, in a time when COVID-19 has not yet abated, with no recent recreational catch data, no updated assessment, and without the results of the two Massachusetts studies, seems foolish.

Better to wait a year or so, and so have the information needed to get everything right.

Dr. Michael Armstrong, a top fisheries manager for the state of Massachusetts, supported delay at last August’s Management Board meeting.  He said

“We have a lot to talk about, particularly reference points and rebuilding, and all that.  We need an enormous amount of public input.  I’m looking at us having two or three Board meeting, one or two public hearings, through this kind of [webinar] venue.

“Having recently gone through it at home, here for the public hearing, I wouldn’t call it a success.  It is very, very difficult to present a serious subject and get feedback.  I do think this Amendment needs to be postponed…

“Boy, I think it is irresponsible for us to try and get public input while under this [pandemic] condition.  We’re looking at maybe next May meeting in person, maybe.  I would say the better bet is a year from now.  I would vote to postpone this indefinitely, and not do any serious work, in terms of public hearing…

“I think we ought to get a look at what is going on with the assessment next year, before we really move forward with an amendment.  We’re flying blind at this point, and we’re flying without appropriate public input…  [emphasis added]” 

It was a very rational argument.  Dr. Justin Davis, Connecticut’s fishery manager, concurred, as did John McMurray, New York’s legislative proxy, Dennis Abbott, the legislative proxy from New Hampshire, and even Tom Fote, New Jersey’s governor’s appointee.  But it failed to convince a majority of the Management Board, so the Amendment process moved forward.

Thus, on Wednesday, the Management Board will review the Public Information Document for a second time.  And then it needs to make a choice.

Does it send the Public Information Document out for public hearing, knowing full well that, in the age of COVID-19, the public response will likely be muted and haphazard, and also knowing that it lacks current information on the state of the stock, recreational landings, and discard mortality?

Does it decide, as Dr. Armstrong characterized things, to fly blind?

Or does it act responsibly, recognize that it is better to do things right than to do things quickly, and delay work on Amendment 7 until the pandemic abates and needed information is finally available?

Given the ASMFC’s penchant for doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, I suspect it will choose a quick shot in the dark over waiting to be enlightened by new information.

I hope that I’m wrong.