Newsletter -- Volume V, No. 1 -- 07 August 2007

Chairman Wise opened the meeting at 7:10 pm.  He indicated that the Board at the present meeting would be discussing a single topic - - changes proposed by DEC in the draft Long Island Sound Surfclam Management Plan that derive from the extensive environmental assessment that accompanied the formulation of the draft plan.  These changes to the proposed plan are designed to address key environmental concerns about the prosecution of the surfclam fishery in the Sound. 

Minutes, 10 July 2007 Board Meeting

There was not a quorum of members present at the start of the meeting.  The draft minutes of the Board's 10 July 2007 meeting will be dealt with at the next Board meeting.

Proposed Changes to the Draft Long Island Sound Surfclam Management Plan

Ms. Maureen Davidson distributed the latest version of the Draft Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Surfclam in New York State Waters of Long Island Sound.  She gave a PowerPoint presentation on the draft plan:

Original Plan Provisions

1. DEC will, within reasonable limits, maintain scientific data on the surfclam fishery.  
2. The initial annual harvest limit by mechanical means will be 50,000 bushels.  The weekly harvest limit is 21 cages.  The daily harvest limit is 7 cages.
3. Access to the surfclam fishery in Long Island Sound will remain open and unrestricted.  There will be no minimum catch requirements to remain in the fishery.
4. The owner of a vessel must possess a valid permit allowing that vessel to take surfclams by mechanical means from Long Island Sound.  No vessel may harvest surfclams from Long Island Sound unless there is someone on board with a captain’s (operator’s) permit to take surfclams by mechanical means from Long Island Sound. The crew permit to take surfclams by mechanical means will be eliminated.   All persons participating in harvest operations on board a vessel harvesting surfclams must possess a valid shellfish diggers permit.
5. Vessel owners must continue to file weekly fishing trip reports with the DEC.
6. All individuals participating in the surfclam fishery must comply with the laws and regulations that control surfclam fishing activities.

Goals & Objectives

Ms. Davidson stated that the environmental assessment produced substantial documentation on the negative environmental impacts of mechanical and/or hydraulic dredging, both to bottom habitat and non-target organisms.  Also, the nearshore shoals on which the Long Island Sound surfclam fishery is conducted are areas of high biodiversity.  The goals and objectives section of the plan that follows is a revision of the original section of the draft plan and reflects the heightened concern about these environmental impacts and the need to minimize them. 

Goal I. To assure protection and sound management of surfclams in New York state LIS waters and set up a framework for the sustainable harvest of surfclams for many years.  This goal is the primary target of this management plan.  All other goals and objectives must be consistent with and subordinate to this fundamental goal.

Objectives

Set sustainable harvest limits.

Protect surfclam habitat from avoidable damages due to harvesting activities.

Goal II. To be attentive to the economic viability of participants in the fishery.

Objective

Maintain an open access fishery by using an effort control strategy to keep the catch within the annual harvest limit.

Goal III. To the extent possible, and consistent with the other goals, conflicts with other marine users (i.e. other commercial fishermen and recreational users) are kept to a minimum.

Goal IV. To the extent possible, and consistent with the other goals, minimize the impacts from the fishery and its associated gear on marine and benthic habitats.

Objectives

Limit size of hydraulic dredges.

Protect sensitive and essential fish habitat.

Reduce impact of harvesting during peak spawning times of endangered or sensitive marine organisms. 

Goal V. To use the best available scientific data and accurate assessment information in making management decisions.

Objectives

Population assessment surveys will be conducted at specific intervals to ensure that population data are up-to-date and available for review.

Current harvest data will be readily available for the department to review and use in surfclam management decisions.  

Goal VI. To allow flexibility in the management of surfclams, especially in the face of unanticipated events. 

An essential element of this plan is to be able to respond to unforeseen circumstances promptly to protect New York’s surfclam resources and the economic viability of its participants.

Goal VII. To ensure that regulations implementing the provisions of the management plan are easily enforceable.  To maintain or decrease the paperwork burden on participants in the fishery and the Department. 

Ms. Davidson stated that the Department is planning to add three specific additional provisions to the plan:

1. limiting the overall size of the dredge that can be used in the Sound surfclam fishery
2. setting a specific open season(s) during which surfclam fishing by mechanical dredges would be allowed
3. possibly changing the location of the line (presently at Northville) west of which smaller dredges only are allowed.

The Department has looked at the range of dredge sizes currently in use in the Sound surfclam fishery and the maximum size that they are considering would encompass most but not all of these dredges.  The largest dredges in use in the Sound fishery are approximately 5' wide.  The dredges used are of different styles, e.g. chain bag dredges vs. box dredges.  She asked the Board for suggestions on what a reasonable maximum overall dredge size might be.  

Board Member Paul Farnham asked whether the Department was considering the fact that there were natural forces affecting the shoals on which these clams are located that disturbed the bottom environment as much as mechanical and hand harvest of surfclams, for example, a severe storm.  Ms. Davidson recognized such factors and it is assumed that the flora and fauna that are found in these shoal areas are adapted to that type of periodic disturbance.  It is not likely that they are adapted to the much more frequent disturbance associated with dredging.

Board member Jim Reilly questioned the off-repeated negative environmental consequences of mechanical dredging.  He felt that most of these concerns were theoretical and unproven.  He feels the industry is being slammed in an unfair and scientifically unsupportable way.  Chairman Wise asked whether the Department had done a rough calculation of how frequently a given patch of shoal was dredged, given the size of the area involved and the intensity of the dredging activity.  Ms. Davidson said this had been done but she did not have that precise information with her.  Once retrieved, it appears that less than 10% of the most favored fishing area (Roanoke Shoal) is dredged in a given year.

Mr. Wise asked if, along with limiting the overall size of the dredge, the Department was also considering limiting the amount of time a dredge could be fished.  Presumably, more frequent or longer tows of a smaller dredge could be as environmentally damaging as fewer/shorter tows of larger gear.  Ms. Davidson responded in the negative on the basis that, as long as the 20" maximum blade width limit remains, the catch rate of the dredge should be unaffected.

Board members Phil Karlin and Mark King suggested that it appeared that bag dredges may catch more efficiently than box-type dredges and with less unwanted material in the dredge.  Several Board members noted that surfclam beds in the Sound are often comprised of clams of approximately the same size.  Catching substantial seed at the same time as legal-size clams is not that common in the Sound and can be readily avoided.

The Board did not have a significant problem with a possible maximum dredge width of 5 feet.

With regard to seasons, the current regulations provide that the fishery in the Sound opens on January 1st at a limit of 21 cages per week.  From June 15 - September 15, the limit is 100 bushels per week; it reverts to 21 cages per week from September 16 through the end of the year.  The fishery is, of course, closed whenever the 50,000 bushel annual harvest limit is reached.  

The Board discussed the possibility of opening the fishery in the Sound before January so as to avoid possible impacts on winter flounder spawning, which occurs primarily from January through March.  Mr. Karlin warned against an early fall opening, a time of year when the recreational fishery in the Sound is very active.  This is not an issue in the early spring.  Mr. Farnham stated that, in his experience, winter flounder in Montauk, along the South Shore and in the Peconics are full of spawn as late as May.   Mr. King agreed.  DEC staff and Mr. Wise observed that this was not consistent with reams of published scientific literature on the timing of winter flounder spawning.

Ms. Davidson asked whether starting the season earlier (e.g., October 15th) might result in any problem in marketing these clams.  The Board responded that it would not.  The market and the price would be unaffected by the start date of the season.   Mr. Karlin suggested a start date of November 1st.  Historically, the dredge fishery for surfclams in the Sound takes about 3-4 months to catch the annual harvest limit of 50,000 bushels.  Most Board members felt that beginning the season on September 15th would provide a significant opportunity to catch a majority of the quota during good weather.

The Board discussed whether there should be a closed season for a period to protect spawning winter flounder.  It was felt that a closure from February 15 - June 15 would be acceptable.  From June 15 - September 15, the season would be open at a 100-bushel weekly limit. 

Ms. Davidson stated that she wanted to discuss the issue of dredge volume/capacity with the Board at the next meeting.

Ocean Surfclam Management Plan

Board member Bob Doxsee asked whether the Board was allowed to discuss issues raised in the current lawsuit pending against the department involving the ocean surfclam management plan.  DEC staff responded that they could not discuss anything associated with that suit, but the Board itself was at liberty to do so.  Mr. Doxsee then made a motion that the Board recommend the following to DEC: "That IQ (individual quota) holders must harvest their own quota with their own vessel."  The motion was seconded by Ms. Smith.

Mr. Wise noted that the Board had previously recommended to the DEC that it institute IQ's in the ocean surfclam fishery.  Mr. Farnham asked whether Mr. Doxsee's motion would require an IQ holder to be physically present when his/her clams were harvested?  Mr. Doxsee responded not necessarily but that his motion would disallow someone else catching them on their own boat.  Mr. Reilly asked how, if Mr. Doxsee's motion was adopted, the process of vessel consolidation, previously recommended to DEC by the Board, would work?

Mr. Doxsee's motion carried by a vote of 5 in favor; 1 opposed; 0 abstentions.

The Board's next meeting will be on 02 October 2007.

Mr. Wise adjourned the meeting at 9:10 pm.