The federal government has various programs that ENCOURAGE development along our coasts–development that has negative impacts on the environment.  The Coastal Barriers Resources Act is designed to remove these federal incentives.  According to www.fws.gov/CBRA/:

In the early 1980s, Congress recognized that certain actions and programs of the Federal Government have historically subsidized and encouraged development on coastal barriers, resulting in the loss of natural resources; threats to human life, health, and property; and the expenditure of millions of tax dollars each year.  To remove the federal incentive to develop these areas, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 and subsequent amendments designated relatively undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts as part of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS), and made these areas ineligible for most new federal expenditures and financial assistance. CBRA encourages the conservation of hurricane prone, biologically rich coastal barriers by restricting federal expenditures that encourage development, such as federal flood insurance. Areas within the CBRS can be developed provided that private developers or other non-federal parties bear the full cost.

Changes are being proposed.  You can voice your opinion until July 10, 2018.  See below for details.  You can register to participate in a “conference call” public meeting on May 9, 2018 (preregistration required.)

“ US Department of the Interior to propose changes to the CBRS”

The US Department of the Interior, Division of Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing changes to boundaries of 148 units located in Delaware, New Jersey, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. These changes are an effort to modernize maps of the CBRS ( Coastal Barrier Resources Act) for nine states affected by Hurricane Sandy. The proposed boundaries are accesible via the CBRS Projects Mapper at https://www.fws.gov/cbra/maps/Mapper.html

Additional information related to the proposed changes and instructions for providing comments and particpating in virtual public meetings are available at https://www.fws.gov/cbra/maps/Hurricane-Sandy-Project.html

The review period for the public will close on July 10, 2018. Individuals can comment either electronically by going to http://www.regulations.gov and searching for FSW-HQ0-ES-2018-0004 or by submitting a written response to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0004; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs; US Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS; BPHC; Falls Chuirch, VA 22041-3808.

Public meetings will be held for MA and NH on May 9^th at 10 a.m. So that enough call in lines are available, you must register by e-mailing cbra@fws.gov by close of business May 1, 2018.

What does this all mean? The CBRS was established to minimize the loss of human life, reduce wasteful Federal expenditures and minimize damage to natural resources associated with natural barriers. The CBRS does not allow for federal funding of development projects but it does not discourage or prohibit development by private and non federal parties as long as these parties bear the full cost. It would be prudent, especially for those who live in coastal areas to go online and be familiar with these proposed changes and to give your feedback.

Public comment will be accepted until Oct. 24th (next Tuesday).  Please submit comments to comments@asmfc.org.  It is important to protect this species from overfishing.

There are two important meetings coming up soon (early next week) about Atlantic Menhaden fishing regulations.  It would great if some club members can attend and represent the sport fishermen’s interests.  There are strong commercial interests in menhaden fishing, which stress the population and have severely reduced levels of this important bait fish that sustains populations of sport fish, including striped bass and bluefish.

We had a lot of pogies around this year.  Let’s keep it that way!

This picture is from club member Mark Gilday–a pogie caught in our area (Salisbury, MA) this summer.  We only see pogies in the Gulf of Maine when the stocks are protected to allow fish to live up to six years (old for a menhaden.) Older fish are bigger and migrate farther.  We saw menhaden this year because catch limits were imposed in 2012 to protect the fish.  Don’t let them catch all the young fish down south!

Public hearings on Menhaden (pogie) management

Public input requested on Draft Amendment 3 to the Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. Public comment will be accepted until 5 p.m. Oct. 20^th and should be e-mailed to comments@asmfc.org with the subject line Draft Amd. 3.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 7 p.m.
45 Elwyn Road
Portsmouth, NH

Monday, Oct. 2, 2017  at 6 p.m. (note earlier start time)
Thayer Public Library Auditorium
Braintree, MA

Do not feel that you need to know all the information shown below to attend these meetings.  The important thing is to be present and to identify yourself as a sport fisherman and member of Plum Island Surfcasters.  This will encourage the ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission) to take the recreational fishing interests into account.  We want healthy stocks of menhaden to support the striped bass population.

Background information:

Information below comes from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:  Atlantic Menhaden

The menhaden fishery has two components:

• Bait Harvesting (for crab, lobster, and hook & line commercial fishing)
• Reduction Harvesting (for processing menhaden into fish oil supplements and fish meal for animal feed)

Those are the uses for commercial fishermen.  Harvesting live menhaden for sport fishing is not included in the above uses.

Commercial Harvests of Menhaden over the Years

The “Reduction Fishery” for menhaden began in New England in the 1800s.  Menhaden were plentiful in the Gulf of Maine up until the 1960s, at which time reduction factories in New England closed.  Menhaden stocks increased in the 1970s, but fell again in the 1990s. By 2006 only one “reduction plant” in Virginia (owned by Omega Protein) was still processing menhaden into fish oil and other byproducts.   As use of menhaden for “reduction” has declined, use as commercial bait has increased.

The menhaden population has improved in recent years (but not by a lot from my reading of the graphs below.)  In the first graph, the green area represents the total mass (weight) of fish in the population while the orange line represents the number of young fish that hatched and entered the population.  The second graph shows the total amount of eggs produced by menhaden that year.

• Menhaden fisheries were not regulated until 2012, when a 20% catch reduction was imposed (see this article from National Geographic).
• At that time (2012) the population was only 10% of what it had been in previous years.
• In 2015, catch limits were increased by 10% (giving back half of the original reduction from 2012.)

Is it really time to let commercial fleets increase harvests when the population is still well below historical levels?

Here is a news article that nicely summarizes the politics involved.  Most of the “Reduction Fishery” catch goes to one company (Omega Protein) in Virginia that makes fish oil.  In 2012 catch limits were reduced (and jobs at Omega Protein were lost), which were followed by an increase in the menhaden population.  With that, there are more “old fish” (six years for menhaden) and old fish migrate farther north, coming up to the Gulf of Maine.  So Maine fishermen (and lobstermen) want to start harvesting the fish and using them for lobster bait.  But Omega Protein down in Virginia wants any increases in the allowable catch to go to them before any can go to new users–like commercial fishing in the Gulf of Maine.

While those interests fight it out, we need to emphasize that a healthy population must be maintained to support other species dependent on menhaden for food.

Here is an article from National Geographic in 2015, describing the results of the previous round of decisions on Menhaden catch limits.  It gives good background on the issues from a conservation perspective.

If you can attend either meeting, please do.  It is important to have recreational fishing interests represented to the commission.