Summary: Meeting of the Restoration Working Group, May 29th at the URI Bay Campus

A group of nearly 20 researchers, state managers, and fishermen met on May 29th to discuss shellfish restoration efforts in the state. This was the first meeting since April 2012 and the group took this opportunity to share latest research and findings from their restoration projects. Dave Beutel from CRMC facilitated the event but this is a rotating role that will be assumed by DEM at the next Working Group meeting.

Boze Hancock with The Nature Conservancy opened the discussion with updates from their national oyster goal-setting work, now that the science is clear on the environmental benefits of restoration. This project involves documenting the level of 3 major ecosystem services that are provided per unit of restored oyster reef, water filtration, production of fish and nitrogen removed from the system.  This is designed to allow consideration  of how much oyster restoration is “enough” based on how much of any service is desired.. He discussed the research on de-nitrification work being done in Ninigret pond, a collaborative effort between TNC, Boston University, and the Environmental Protection Agency. For more information on TNC’s restoration activities, click here.

Azure Cygler from the Coastal Resources Center gave brief updates on the Shellfish Management Plan, including the summer seminar schedule (including a June 13 use maps discussion, “Learn How to Dig Clams” classes, and tours of aquaculture and shellfish processing operations), developing a Table of Contents for the SMP, and discussing the idea of having Technical Advisory Committees who can help draft management recommendations. For more info, visit www.rismp.org.

Jeff Mercer, shellfish biologist at RI DEM spoke briefly about the importance of this group and DEM’s role as largely supporting and facilitating restoration efforts being done by the various groups in RI. He encouraged recommendations for how DEM can improve their support so this important work continues.

Robbie Hudson from Save the Bay discussed their work in the Bay and coastal ponds, with the main focus on bay scallop restoration in Ninigret pond. Since 2007, Save the Bay has used 80,000 scallops as broodstock to help enhance the bay scallop populations where the sanctuaries have been set up. The scallop harvest season does not start until November. Their work relies on volunteers and includes setting spat lines, dive surveys, and a benthic survey. For more info and to volunteer, check out http://www.savebay.org/page.aspx?pid=486. Just this month, another 9,000 broodstock scallops were released.

Matt Griffin from the Roger Williams Oyster Gardening project (OGRE) outlined population structure and disease prevalence through OGRE and the North Cape restoration sites. There have been over 7 million oysters seeded over 4 acres since 2003, with highest survival last year at the OGRE sites. Issues include seed suffocation on mud bottom, Dermo presence, and desire to seed and restore in closed waters which is currently a prohibited activity. There is also a need to out-pace mortality by seeding frequently, which needs to be discussed. The quickness of land use changes on our coast also makes using historical baselines difficult in terms of oyster populations, and other species as well. Continued discussion about setting new baselines for habitat, species populations, water quality, etc. is necessary.

Steve Brown from The Nature Conservancy discussed research in Ninigret pond, determining baselines and surveying EQIP sites. TNC has developed a Habitat Suitability Model which requires some feedback from the Working Group. Overall, oysters seem to prefer low salinity water which often means higher fecal coliform counts, which closes the area to harvesting and restoration efforts. TNC also relies on volunteers to bag shells for restoration efforts and constructing shell reefs in the summer, so contact Steve at dsbrown@tnc.org for more info.

Time did not allow for a full discussion of a Vision and Goals for the group, however this was stressed as a need. The intention will be for a smaller working group to meet and develop a draft Vision/Goals, which will be given to the SMP team to be incorporated stand-alone into the SMP document. For more info or to become involved in this Vision/Goal setting, contact Robbie at rhudson@savebay.org.

RI DEM 2013 Management Plan for the Shellfish Fishery Sector & How it Differs from the RISMP

There has been some discussion after the March 20 SMP meeting around the RI DEM 2013 Management Plan for the Shellfish Fishery Sector. The sentiment was, “This looks like an SMP – is it? If so, why are we here today?”

In case others are wondering, here are some answers.

The DEM 2013 Management Plan for the Shellfish Fishery Sector is done on an annual basis and is narrowly focused on supporting commercial licensing as required by state law. DEM looks at fishery and stock performance as best they can to make recommendations on issuance of licenses and endorsements. Our SMP effort is much bigger and broader. DEM plans have been focused on supporting commercial licensing (and, accordingly, have been updated annually at the same time as commercial licensing regulations are updated). However, these have been expanded over the years to be a bit broader and to include issues beyond those directly associated with licensing. The latest updated plan includes information on shellfish, beyond that relating to licensing only.  However, the plans – there’s one for finfish, one for crustaceans, and one for shellfish — only focus on commercial (wild harvest) fishing, and therefore can’t be considered as appropriate substitutes or proxies for the type of broad focus envisioned for the SMP. The DEM 2013 Shellfish Fishery Sector Plan can be incorporated into the reference materials and discussions associated with the SMP, and consider potential ways in which the plan can/should be modified to address relevant issues.

The DEM plan emanates from Chapter 20-2.1 governing Commercial Fishing Licenses which was enacted in 2002. This states:

§ 20-2.1-9 Powers and duties of the director. – It shall be the duty of the director to adopt, implement effective January 1, 2003, and maintain a commercial fisheries licensing system that shall incorporate and be consistent with the purposes of this chapter; in performance of this duty the director shall follow the guidelines and procedures set forth below: (5) The director shall by rule, with the advice of the marine fisheries council, develop conservation and management plans for the fishery resources of the state, which conservation and management plans shall be adopted prior to and at the same time as adoption of any license restrictions on effort or catch. In the development of the fishery conservation and management plans, priority shall be given to those resources with the highest value to the state, either for commercial or recreational purposes.”

DEM then carries that statutory requirement into their commercial fishing licensing regulations per the following regulatory provisions:

(6.2) Management Plans

(6.2-1) Required – The management controls set forth in section 6.1 must be based on fishery management plans that have been adopted by the Department or by a federal agency or regional body of competent jurisdiction. Such plans may be species – or fisheries-specific or apply to whole endorsement categories.

(6.2-2) Purpose and Content – (a) The central objectives of all fishery management plans shall be (i) to prevent overfishing, while achieving on a continuous basis the maximum sustainable yield from each fishery; and (ii) to restore overfished or depleted stocks to sustainable levels. (b) Management plans shall be responsive to, and reflective of, changing stock and fishery conditions, and thereby support an adaptive management process. (c) Management plans shall seek to achieve the objectives set forth in subsection (a) above by establishing management measures that may include a mix of input and output controls, such as limitations or restrictions on effort, gear, catch, areas, times, and/or seasons. (d) Management plans shall specifically address, and make annual determinations on, the number and availability of licenses and endorsements, and the harvest and gear levels associated therewith. Such determinations shall be made in accordance with the objectives set forth in subsection (a) above, and with due regard to: (i) the social and economic well-being of fishers and fishing-dependent communities, particularly the interests of licensed residents who wish to continue fishing commercially in a manner that is economically viable; and (ii) the interests of residents who wish to fish commercially. (e) In considering the economic and social impacts of licensing and other management measures on fishers and fishing-dependent communities, as well as on the general public, management plans shall to the maximum extent feasible employ methodologies that are consistent with those employed by the National Marine Fisheries Service. (f) Management plans shall be based on the best scientific information available. (g) Management plans shall consider the effectiveness of management measures in reducing by-catch, by-catch mortality, and discards. (h) Management plans shall complement federal and regional management plans and programs and the reciprocal arrangements with other states. (i) Management plans shall be consistent with the national standards for fishery conservation and management set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC, section 1851) and further delineated in RIGL §20-2.1-9(2)(iv). (j) Management plans may take into consideration other factors that the Director deems appropriate.

(6.2-3) Procedure for Adopting – (a) Management plans shall be adopted by rule consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and as herein described on an annual basis no later than December 1 for the following year, provided that said plans may continue in effect for longer periods if it is determined that management conditions permit or may be adjusted more frequently if it is determined that management conditions require. (b) Plans shall be submitted to the Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council [RIMFC] for review and advice at least sixty (60) days prior to any Department hearing on said plans. (c) RIMFC may recommend to the Director that a proposed plan be adopted, modified or withdrawn, and the Director may proceed to hearing on the plan as originally proposed or as revised by RIMFC, or both, provided that in all instances both the plan as originally proposed and as recommended by RIMFC shall be entered into the hearing record. (d) In adopting a proposed plan, the Director shall include a concise explanation of the principal reasons for its adoption and his or her response to positions entered into the hearing record.

Hope this helps to clarify.

If you have any questions, feel free to let us know in the comments section!

1 2 3 4