1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Narragansett Bay is a large and complex ecosystem intimately connected with Rhode Island’s commercial and recreational fishing industries. The federal structures in place to manage these fisheries is layered and nuanced with ongoing political and cultural conflicts that need to be resolved in order to most effectively and sustainably ensure the health and productivity of the bay’s ecosystem and maintain its importance to the state economy. A number of improvements to the status quo that will benefit from strong advocacy by Save the Bay include updates to the current systems of data collection, scientific methods, and management proceedings, particularly increased consideration of ecosystem-based management plans, funding for collaborative research, and stronger capacity to model the impacts of cli-mate change and stock management decisions. Additionally, there is sub-stantial need for improved communication and educational opportunity for fishermen and federal-level scientists and management.

UNDERSTANDING NARRAGANSETT BAY AS HOME TO FISHERIES

The Health of the Narragansett Bay EcosystemEffective fisheries management strate-gies are essential to healthy ecosystem function. It is important that natural re-sources are managed in such a way that future generations will be afforded the same access as the current generation, and be able to enjoy Narragansett Bay for years to come.

Ensuring Fishery Longevity of Narragansett Bay Overfishing is defined as any rate of fishing that is greater than the rate that would present the maximum sustainable yield.1 Long-term patterns of overfish-ing lead to stocks that have too low a population to be able to repopulate

Fissues of Narragansett Bay: Collaborative Strategies for Fisheries Management & Regulation In Rhode Island

WILLIAMS-MYSTICRESEARCHERS

Chloé-Rose Colombero, Harvard University

Isabella Latta, Colby College

Alex Wilcenski, SUNY Maritime College

Lily Wilson, Colby College

PREPARED FOR

Mike Jarbeau, Narragansett Bay Keeper, Save The Bay

2

to effectively recover.2 Overfished stocks can have resounding impacts on their ecosystems. By disrupt-ing the balance of its natural food chain, overfishing of one species has adverse effects on all levels of the ecosystem, and can lead to the collapse of marine communities. Additionally, decreased stocks lead to less productive commercial and recreational yields.3

Rhode Island’s Vital FisheriesFederal fisheries are regulated by eight regional fisheries management councils.4 Councils set reg-ulations such as quotas, closed areas, and fishing seasons for federal waters 3-200 miles offshore.5 RI has a seat on the New England Fisheries Manage-ment Council (NEFMC), though the Rhode Island Congressional delegation has been introducing bills to get a seat on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Mange-ment Council (MAFMC) as well since 2005.6 Some of the top species landed in Rhode Island include mackerel, butterfish, lobster, summer flounder, scup, black sea bass, monkfish, scallop, skate, and herring.7 Many of these top Rhode Island fisheries, however, are managed by the MAFMC, as species traditionally harvested in the mid-Atlantic region are moving northward (Figure 1). For example, Rhode Island fishermen account for nearly 56% of

total summer scup landings and 54% of total Atlan-tic squid landings, though both stocks are managed by the MAFMC.8

Figure 2: 2017 COMMERCIAL LANDINGS FOR RHODE ISLAND 9

Commercial landing data of twelve of Rhode Island’s most valuable fisheries. Black boxes indicate fisheries managed by the MAFMC, meaning that Rhode Island has no say in the regulation of these stocks.

Changing Habitat, Static Management:

Over the course of the past several decades, species traditionally found in mid-Atlantic region, managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (MAFMC) are migrating to Rhode Island waters. Squid, butterfish, scup, black sea bass, and summer flounder are exam-ples of species that have migrated north and are now occupying an increasing portion of landings in Rhode Island.

Despite the tremendous importance of these mid-Atlantic species to the Rhode Island fishing community and state economy, Rhode Island has no voting representation on the MAFMC. Senators Reed and Whitehouse have repeatedly proposed to add Rhode Island to the MAFMC since 2005, but without success.

3

Climate Change as an Economic and Ecological ThreatThe rate of global surface temperature increase since 1901 was predicted to be 1.3º- 1.6ºF per century. In the period since 1975, however, that projected rate has nearly doubled, predicting a 2.7º- 3.2ºF increase in global surface temperature by 2075.10 New England ocean waters are partic-ularly at risk; over the past decade, Gulf of Maine has been found to be warming at a rate 99% faster than the rest of the global oceans.11 This is of concern to Rhode Island fisheries. Marine species have a specific temperature range in which they can live comfortably. If the temperature rises or falls too dramatically, populations will alter their range to a more suitable habitat. Recently, marine species have been moving northward in search of cooler waters.12 This phenomena has been called the “Caribbean Creep,” as traditionally Caribbean species are invading southern U.S. and mid-Atlan-tic coastal waters. The range expansion of these invasive species disrupts and often times domi-nates marine ecosystems, resulting in decreased biodiversity.13

The fishing industry is of great importance to the state of Rhode Island. In 2015, the state’s recre-ational fishing industry recorded $332 million in sales, while the commercial fishing industry re-corded $290 million.15 The jobs and livelihoods of many are also dependent on functioning fisheries. Many Rhode Islanders are employed under the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting indus-tries, with an average annual income of $35,778.16

Rhode Island marine ecosystems will continue to change as oceans warm. New species will be introduced, and traditional species will leave, disrupting the ecosystem and showing detrimen-tal effects on the health of the bay. These threats illustrate the need for climate resilience in fisher-ies management plans.17

Figure 3: SHIFT IN DISTRIBUTION OF NEW ENGLAND SPECIES FROM 1968 TO 201514

Climate Resilience: the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and respond to hazardous events, trends, or disturbances related to climate. Climate resilience in fisheries management initiatives will ensure the longevity of fisheries.

4

UNDERSTANDING THE REGULATORY REGIME OF FISHERIES

WHAT REGULATES FISHERIES?

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management ActCurrently, the federal legislation governing federal fisheries regulation is the the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation & Management Act (MSA), first passed in 1976 to protect and expand American fishing interests in U.S. federal waters.18 The MSA created eight regional management councils, with Rhode Island sitting on the New England Fishery Management Council. The Act was initially passed to address heavy foreign fishing, promote the devel-opment of a domestic fleet and link fishing commu-nities more directly to the management process.19 In 1996 Congress passed the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) creating new requirements to prevent overfishing and rebuild depleted stocks. The SFA required that each fishery management plan specify objective and measurable criteria for determining when a stock is overfished or when overfishing is occurring, and to establish measures for rebuilding the stock. The SFA also added definitions for “over-fishing” and “overfished.” In 2006, Congress revised and reauthorized the MSA again. This revision made a number of changes related to establishment of an-nual catch limits and function of the Scientific and Statistical Committee. 20 The last time the MSA was up for reauthorization was in 2013.

What do the Councils do? Regional councils develop and amend fishery man-agement plans for approval and implementation by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce. Councils set annual catch limits and accountability measures based on the best available science for managed fish-eries while developing research priorities with scien-tists and stakeholder/industry partners. They adhere to the MSA’s mandate and ten National Standards, prevent overfishing and balance resource conser-vation with achieving optimum yield for domestic fisheries.21

Who serves on the Councils?Councils have two types of Voting Members: Appointed Members who are private citizens knowledgeable about the region’s fisheries, such as commercial and recreational fishermen, industry leaders, environmentalists, academics, and tribal representatives. These individuals are nominated by each state’s Governor and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce for three-year terms. Designated State and Federal Members include marine fishery man-agement officials from each state and the NMFS re-gional administrator. Non-Voting Members include representatives from the Coast Guard, State Depart-ment, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Interstate Commissions.

How do the Councils operate?Management of federal fisheries occurs in a public forum, with regular meetings and consistent online updates about committee tasks, proceedings, and accomplishments. Stakeholders have opportunities for involvement at all stages of decision-making. Councils receive input from Oversight Committees, Advisory Panels, Plan Development Teams, Scientif-ic and Statistical Committee, and the general public. Council decisions are based on best available science that is reviewed in public meetings, which allows fish-ermen to monitor stock assessments. Fishermen also participate in cooperative research with scientists.

5

Bill Description Voting RecordH.R. 200 Seeks to decrease mandatory stock-rebuilding timelines, as

well as allow for equal consideration of economic, not just ecological, concerns in the management process

Cicilline: NayLangevin: NayPassed House

H.R. 4726 Seating Rhode Island on the MAFMC Introduced in House

S. 2264 Seating Rhode Island on the MAFMC Introduced in SenateS. 1520 Seeks to update reporting and management structures

for recreational fisheries, may allow for conference with House bill similar to H.R. 200, removing the Senate from MSA reauthorization debate

Introduced in Senate

WHO IS BEING REGULATED?

Commercial FishingCommercial fishermen are offered permits for different species or species groups, and there may be several categories per fish stock. These permits are based on the size of the vessel and may have a number of limitations, such as catch areas, daily catch limits, allowing specific incidental catch, or whether full time or part time fishing. Limitations may also exist in what gear can be used at what time of the year and at what area, often to protect certain species and ecosystems.22 To fish a managed species in waters between three and 200 miles offshore, a federal permit is required, and within three miles a licence is required. In Rhode Island, the Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) is respon-sible for licensing fishing and fishing vessels transit-ing for landing in state waters.23

Changes in regulations for commercial fishermen can significantly affect their income. Altering quo-tas, closed areas, or season times can dramatically disrupt a fisherman’s ability to make a sufficient in-come. If the science informing catch limits is uncer-tain or uses out of date data, what fishermen see on the water is not reflected in the regulations, causing distrust between fishermen and those who make the regulations.

Recreational FishingRecreational fishermen must have one of several

permits to fish, with some exemptions. Recreational fishing limitations are usually based upon individual fish size, season lengths, and possession limits. Some commercially important species such as sea scallops or surfclams can only be harvested with a permit and cannot be fished recreationally in federal waters. Recreational fishing is not as heavily regulated as commercial fishing simply due to the vastly fewer fish caught. Overfished species are often subject to stricter limits or may be prohibited from catching.

CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO

Making Amends: Serving the broader ecosystem within the confines of a species-based management structure without making amendments to the MSA Section 302 of the MSA requires that plans be species-specific.25 This requirement has ramifica-tions both within the practices of the fishery and all the way to market, where only species with stock assessment plans can be sold.26 However, due to climate change shifting whole ecological regimes, altering species ranges, warming waters, and altering the abundance and makeup of fish stock popula-tions, historical data is no longer going to produce

PENDING FISHERIES LEGISLATION

Precedence in Gaining Representation for RI as a “Border State”

For over a decade, RI’s delegation has proposed an amendment to the MSA that would expand the Mid-Atlantic Council by two seats, to be granted to voting representatives from RI. Although gaining representation has proved politically challenging, there is a legislative precedent for ecological “border states” to have representation on two regional councils: North Carolina sits on both the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Councils, despite the MSA initially placing it only on the South Atlantic Council.24

6

a comprehensive picture of what the future of the fish stocks will look like.27 Changing climate has as much of an impact on the ecosystem as fishing pressure does, if not more so, and the paradigm of fisheries management if shifting.28 29 As stipulated by the MSA, species-specific management plans are currently unable to be responsive to climate change as they are selective and not aimed at evaluating whole ecosystems, interspecific interactions, and the shifting ranges of species under the jurisdiction of various regional councils under the present MSA management council structure.

“Not Seeing the Ecosystem for the Species”: Retro-fitting specifies-specific management structures to build climate resilience into whole ecosystems MSEs to Look Forward Currently in use in the Pacific Fishery Management Council and being piloted by the RIDEM, Man-agement Strategy Evaluation (MSE) processes are a method for retrofitting species-specific management structures to shift towards ecosystem-based ones.30 A large group of stakeholders in the environment give input on their ecosystem priorities and desired environmental outcomes, and then large and com-prehensive sets of resulting species-specific plans for the all the stocks of that environment are run through a simulation of the ecosystem created using the most current data available.31 The simulation then models the outcomes of various management strategies by using the data to project stock estima-tions forward, rather than relying on historical catch data. The final product is a method of creating plans for individual stocks that prioritize ecosystem-wide health and changes, enhancing the climate resilience of the ecosystem by creating a climate-resilience focused management system.

Fishing Flexibility as Climate Resilience Another program being piloted by RIDEM is envi-ronmental opportunity fishing.32 This state-level per-mitting flexibility allows for both responsive redi-rection of fishing efforts by management councils to different stocks and a sustained source of income for fishing communities, while also encouraging a more diverse fishing fleet. Communities with multiple types of boats and sets of gear are poised to adapt with the changing ecosystem as different stocks migrate into the Rhode Island’s’ fishable waters, and

encourage opportunistic and diffuse fishing pressure that does not pursue a dwindling stock due to gear restraints in a way that communities invested in a single species are not.33

Redundancy as Resilience in Gear, Ecosystems, and Stock PlansGear flexibility is a critical driver of fishing commu-nity adaptation, and it exists parallel to the function-al redundancy within ecosystems that gives them resilience to bounce back from extreme climate events.34 Successful harvesting shifts within fisheries of Rhode Island have been demonstrated in the mi-gration of the lobster fishery to Jonah crab; this was possible both by the gear being able to harvest both species, and those species occupying similar niches within the ecosystem.35 Ecosystem function of har-vested species has also been shown to be a cause for creating collective management plans, such as the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) which manages groundfish.36 The groundfish FMP is a composite plan informed by the landings catch data of all the species it governs, giving it a wider basis of data to form next iterations of stock plans rather than single species plans. It fulfills the MSA requirement of every species having its own stock plan while still considering the groundfish as an ecological unit. Ending the Reign of the “Data Lag”

Creating a Collaborative Fisheries Culture Through Enhancing Scientific Practices Section 302 of the MSA requires that plans be made annually.37 When plans are created annually, the science informing them is two to three years old at minimum, due to the current systems through which catch data is collected, reported, and reviewed by the scientific teams that provide data for the regional councils’ management plans.38 This “data lag” is a product of regulation requirements set forth by the MSA, and generates a widely acknowledged mismatch between what data that scientists are incorporating into management plans and what fish-ermen are seeing everyday out on the water.39 Out of this comes a perception held by some members of the fishing industry that plans are not up to date scientifically.40 Points of distrust arise due to the data lag, and this system of regulation and data collec-

7

tion pit the fishermen and the scientists that inform management against each other, resulting in dis-connection, miscommunication, defensiveness, and misunderstanding. Our research has revealed two crucial ways in which this status quo can be altered and improved.

Collaborative Research: Shifting Fishery Culture An expansion on collaborative data collection and interpretation initiatives already in place will aid tremendously in building trust while also gathering data that is more accurate than that which scien-tists alone can collect.41 Fishermen join scientists on NOAA research vessels, and scientists carry out surveys on board fishing boats.42 Fishermen get to aid in collecting that data that regulates their fishing, and both groups of people are able to see the abil-ities, limitations, and processes of the other. Once data is collected, researchers inviting fishermen to the table for interpretation of that data is informa-tive to their understanding what goes into creating management plans. This is particularly impactful when interpretation is low-stakes with no regula-tory outcomes or end-products; the interpretation process can exist for building trust by enhancing transparency.43 Studies have shown that collabora-tive research increases fishermen’s rates of compli-ance with regulation standards and higher “buy in,” on account of feeling more recognized and involved in the regulatory process, particularly when the data they collect is incorporated into regulatory decision making.44

Making Up For Lost Time: Extending Plan Implementation and Evaluation TimelinesLonger timelines are more logistically feasible.45 The volume of work for scientists and managers would be significantly more manageable with longer plan and assessment timelines for the same amount of accuracy, if not more by virtue of having more data to look at within each plan’s lifespan. Additional support comes from fishermen who have communi-cated to management that it would be more man-ageable to understand and keep up with regulations they are subject to when the plans are implemented for longer durations.46 Combined with collaborative research, longer timelines of use would heighten regulatory transparency. Notably, extended time-lines are not yet in practice, as it would require an amendment to the MSA, although it was the only component to H.R. 200 that had support from both management and members of the fishing industry.

Looking ahead: Eyes towards conversations about ecosystems, economies, and the fish stocks that con-nect them in the next Congress

Opportunities in the Six-Year Late MSA Reauthorization Reauthorization of the MSA begins anew, and the House will need to begin again with the reauthoriza-tion process.47 Opportunities to amend the MSA will arise during the process of reauthorization, and such issues as Rhode Island having a seat on the MAFMC and extended stock timelines first brought up by the unsuccessful reauthorization bill H.R. 200 will be renewed in the new Congress.

Restructuring the Councils: Examining Atlantic Ecosystems and Management A broader, more ambitious conversation about restructuring the councils is also in the wings. There are ideas being introduced regarding the entire Atlantic coast being managed by one council, or having the eastern seaboard split into two Atlantic councils.48 This is primarily due to the economic repercussions of shifting ecology and species ranges, and many members of Congress, management, and fishing communities being united on the opinion that climate change is the greatest challenge facing fisheries today.49 50 51

8

Seeking Accountability Through Innovation and Electronic MonitoringAn issue for the next Congress will be catch report-ing and how that data is collected.52 There is an em-phasis on electronic data collection technologies for real-time monitoring onboard vessels, and signifi-cant funding is being allocated by grants such as the National Fisheries and Wildlife Foundation’s Fisher-ies Innovation Fund and NOAA’s Electronic Moni-toring and Reporting Grant Program focus on giv-ing money to groups looking to revolutionize catch reporting.53 54 Efficiency of catch reporting is anoth-er way that management and scientists are seeking to minimize the data lag the develops under the cur-rent MSA regulations.55 The conversation is in the preliminary stages and no ideas or technologies have yet been considered off the table. It is a very conten-tious topic with heated ongoing debate in the fishing and management communities, though yet to be addressed by Congress.56 Tension enters particularly where fishermen are being expected to take on the burden of financing new equipment; this is especial-ly an issue for smaller scale commercial fishermen who can be pushed out of the business. Additionally, fishermen are being asked to be 100% transparent to a system they do not feel is equally transparent, and this also introduces points of tension and distrust.

The Next Generation: Formal Pathways for Edu-cation to Enhance Communication, Transparency, and Trust Between Fishermen and Management

Educating Communities on Management Through Marine Resource Education Programming: Expand Ongoing Education Through our research, it has been revealed to us that there is a critical gap in formal education of communities built around the fishing industry in Rhode Island. Marine Resource Education Pro-grams (MREPs) are fishermen-founded education programs facilitated by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) that have served about 600 people in New England.57 58 They are funded by the Na-tional Fisheries and Wildlife Foundation to provide funding for all expenses associated with taking the course, including stipends to partially compensate for missing a day’s work.59 Many people believe they have reached everyone they can reach; other people believe there still exists a crucial need to continue

fisheries education.60 61 GMRI updates the content of the courses as new policies come out of the councils, but they are a one-time class that focuses on only understanding basics of management and science operations that go into regulating the fishermen’s activity and business. With the rapidly changing environment and fisheries migrating due to cli-mate change, there exists a need for all fishermen to have access to ongoing educational updates that are shorter, more localized, and more fishery-specific in nature. GMRI has begun to pilot these intensives, though they are currently limited in the nature of their specificity due to the diversity of the audience they currently serve.62

Young Blood in an Aging Industry: Adaptation of Fisheries Through Young Fishermen The Rhode Island Department of Labor and Train-ing Real Jobs program put $150,000 into training twenty-eight young fishermen’s apprentices in the summers of 2017 and 2018.63 The Alaskan Longline Fishermen’s Association initiated and operates the Young Fishermen’s Program in partnership with the Fishing Communities Coalition in efforts to ensure their young fishermen get training and meet the high entry level costs to fish.64 Programs such as these are new ways to challenge the demographic shift occur-ring in the industry and to make fishing a viable in-dustry to enter into. Getting young blood into fisher-ies is on the minds of the community: both fishermen and management have noted that the younger fisher-men are more flexible and responsive to management systems, are open to collaboration, and open to the innovating catch reporting technologies. Young peo-ple have the opportunity to enter the fishery educated and have continued updated educational modules throughout their careers of collaboration with man-agement and the fishing communities.

9

SOLUTIONS: ADVOCACY AT THE STATE HOUSE

Save the Bay has the opportunity to advocate on behalf of emerging fisheries management policies and practices that will enhance the understanding, conservation, and economic and ecologic vitality of Narragansett Bay through challenging the status quo of fisheries management.

Continued support of programs that engage scientists and fishermen -together- in the data collection process. Collaborative research is fundamental to successful fisheries data collection and subsequent decision making. Excellent examples of collaborative research in Rhode Island are happening at the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation and the URI Fish-eries extension Squid Trawl Network.65 These pro-grams are funded largely through federal grants like the NOAA Fisheries Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant.66 and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Fisheries Innovation Fund.67 These funding sources both seek to enhance the quantity, quality, and efficiency of fisheries research, while also including and engaging local needs and interests. Promoting ongoing funding for these programs is critical to the continuation of successful fisheries research, a mission deeply connected with the health of Narragansett Bay as an ecosystem, and as an economic driver in the state.

Increased utilization of ecosystem science to assess stock health and set catch limits of managed species.68

The NEFMC has begun to incorporate ecosystem science in its species management plans, something that most regional councils have already begun to strategically incorporate. One particularly promi-nent tool for effective incorporation of ecosystem considerations in management plan creation are Management Strategy Evaluations (MSEs), which should be promoted and funded through NOAA. The development and implementation of MSEs will be critical to better comprehending the complexities of changing ecosystems and model successful catch limits, closed areas, and rebuilding timelines in places like Narragansett Bay.69

Extending the timeline of fishery management plan creation from one year to three years. One component of the recent H.R. 200 that both regulatory officials and fishermen found favorable was extending the lifespan of management plans from one year to three years. This longer plan timeline fits better with the practical and logistical constraints of administrative offices, as well as the inescapable “science lag” of data always being about one to two years old once reported. Longer install-ments could provide a similar degree of scientific accuracy while also enabling more time to observe fisheries response to a given plan, potentially allow-ing for more realistic and effective successive plans.70 This is a potentially strong aspect of H.R. 200 that could be carried into future reauthorizations.

SOLUTIONS: COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION

These recommendations, emphasizing active en-gagement with the fishing community, are posed with the hope that they might strengthen advocacy efforts at the state house. By more directly plac-ing Save the Bay in conversation with fishermen, a larger, more diverse, and united group of stakehold-ers will be invested in seeing successful changes to fisheries science and management that will improve the health of Narragansett Bay.

Initiating and Facilitating Ongoing Conversations with Fishermen

One of the most prominent issues in the New England fishing industry is that communication, un-derstanding, and trust in the management process is, currently, inadequate. Many stakeholders, espe-cially commercial and recreational fishermen, are eager to share their perspectives on the management process, data collection and accuracy, and how to improve the economic and ecological well-being of the waters they fish, while also maintaining the cul-tural and economic importance of recreational and commercial fishing. Save the Bay has the potential to develop stronger relationships with these groups, and engage them more closely and continuously in conversations that establish common ground be-tween Save the Bay and Rhode Island fishermen: issues like plastic pollution, ecosystem science, water quality in the bay, and critical legislative issues like MSA reauthorization. Many groups may be willing

10

to partner in sponsoring, promoting, and running these conversations, like the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation, Rhode Island Saltwater An-glers Association, and the Rhode Island Fishermen’s Association.

Sponsoring extensive, fishermen-focused program-ming that clarifies the Scientific and Federal Man-agement Process Marine Resource Education Programs (MREPs) are highly respected and thorough programming that would provide a more comprehensive degree of education and engagement than the aforementioned “conversations.” Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) has been deeply engaged in this program nearly since its inception, and helps develop curric-ulum for regional councils in coordination with fed-eral fisheries scientists and fishermen.71 The length and precise content of these classes can change depending on the region and on the issues cited by fishermen, but in Rhode Island, Save the Bay helping facilitate an MREP could create a much needed neu-tral space for fishermen and management to engage one another on common-ground issues affecting Narragansett Bay.

Endnotes1. A Quick Explanation of “Overfished,” “Fully fished” and “Over-fishing”, Sustainable Fisheries UW (2017), https://sustainablefish-eries-uw.org/a-quick-explanation-of-overfished-fully-fished-and-overfishing/ (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

2. Overfishing: The oceans’ most serious environmental problem, Environmental Defense Fund (2018), https://www.edf.org/oceans/oceans-most-serious-problem (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

3. Impact of Overfishing On Human Lives, Marine Science Today (2014), http://marinesciencetoday.com/2014/04/09/impact-of-overfishing-on-human-lives/ (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

4. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation & Management Act of 1976, H.R. 200, 115th Congress of the United States. (2017)

5. U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils, U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils (2018), http://www.fisherycoun-cils.org/ (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

6. Floor Statement to Add Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Jack Reed (2006), https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/speeches/floor-statement-to-add-rhode-is-land-to-the-mid-atlantic-fishery-managenent-council (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

7. Point Judith, RI, NOAA Fisheries (2014), https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/educational_resources/seafood/ports/10_point_j.html (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

8. 115 Cong. Rec. 164 (2018) (statement of Sen. John Reed)

9. The Atlantic Cooperative Coastal Statistics Program, Data Warehouse: Non-Confidential Commercial Landings (2017) http://www.accsp.org/

11

10. R. J. H. Dunn, D. M. Stanitski, N. Gobron, and K. M. Willett, Eds., 2018: Global Climate [in “State of the Climate in 2017”]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 99 (8), S5–68, doi:10.1175/2018BAMS-StateoftheClimate.1.

11. Emily Greenhalg, Climate & Lobsters NOAA Climate.gov (2016), https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-and/cli-mate-lobsters (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

12. James W. Morley et al., Projecting shifts in thermal habitat for 686 species on the North American continental shelf, 13 Plos One (2018).

13. João Canning-Clode et al., ‘Caribbean Creep’ Chills Out: Cli-mate Change and Marine Invasive Species, 6 PLoS ONE (2011).

14. EPA, Climate Change Indicators: Marine Species Distribution, Environmental Protection Agency (2016), https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-marine-species-dis-tribution (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

15. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Eco-nomics of the United States 67, 93-98 (2017), https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/economics/publications/FEUS/FEUS-2015/Re-port-Chapters/FEUS%202015%20All%20Chapters_Final4_508.pdf (last visited 28 Sep. 2018)

16. Labor Market Information Unit, Rhode Island Employment Trends and Workforce Issues 1–44 (2017).

17. Climate Resilience Portal, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (2018), https://www.c2es.org/content/climate-resil-ience-overview/ (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

18. Magnuson Fisheries Conservation & Management Act of 1976, 94th Congress of the United States. (1976)

19. New England Fishery Management Council, History and Organizational Structure (2018) https://www.nefmc.org/about/history

20. Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Magnuson-Ste-vens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (2018) http://www.mafmc.org/magnuson-stevens-act/

21. New England Fishery Management Council, U.S. Regional Fish-ery Management Council Overview (2018) https://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/2017-09-26_RFMC-Overview-FINAL.PDF

22. Sustainable Fisheries Division: Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, Greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov (2018), https://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/sustainable/ (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

23. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Marine Fisheries Section http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/fish-wildlife/marine-fisheries/index.php

24. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 302, 303 (2018).

25. Magnuson Fisheries Conservation & Management Act of 1976, 94th Congress of the United States. (1976)

26. Telephone interview with Jonathan Labaree, Chief Commu-nity Officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME. (December 6, 2018).

27. Shijie Zhou, Anthony D. M. Smith, André E. Punt, Anthony J. Richardson, Mark Gibbs, Elizabeth A. Fulton, Sean Pascoe, Catherine Bulman, Peter Bayliss, and Keith Sainsbury. “Ecosys-tem-based Fisheries Management Requires a Change to the Selec-

tive Fishing Philosophy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no. 21 (2010): 9485-9489.

28. Telephone interview with Jonathan Labaree, Chief Commu-nity Officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME. (December 6, 2018).

29. Shijie Zhou, Anthony D. M. Smith, André E. Punt, Anthony J. Richardson, Mark Gibbs, Elizabeth A. Fulton, Sean Pascoe, Catherine Bulman, Peter Bayliss, and Keith Sainsbury. “Ecosys-tem-based Fisheries Management Requires a Change to the Selec-tive Fishing Philosophy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no. 21 (2010): 9485-9489.

30. Daniel Holland, Management Strategy Evaluation and Man-agement Procedures (2018), doi:10.1787/5kmd77jhvkjf-en

31. Telephone Interview with Anonymous, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Providence, RI. (November 1, 2018).

32. Telephone Interview with Anonymous, Rhode Island Depart-ment of Environmental Management, Providence, RI. (October 31, 2018).

33. Telephone interview with Jonathan Labaree, Chief Commu-nity Officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME. (December 6, 2018).

34. Sanders, Dirk, Elisa Thébault, Rachel Kehoe, and F J Frank Van Veen. “Trophic Redundancy Reduces Vulnerability to Extinc-tion Cascades.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, no. 10 (2018): 2419-2424.

35. Behringer, Donald C., and Hart, John E. “Competition with Stone Crabs Drives Juvenile Spiny Lobster Abundance and Distri-bution.” Oecologia 184, no. 1 (2017): 205-218.

36. New England Fishery Management Council, Northeast Multi-species Fishery Management Plan, (2018) https://www.nefmc.org/management-plans/northeast-multispecies/ (last visited 6 Dec. 2018)

37. Magnuson Fisheries Conservation & Management Act of 1976, 94th Congress of the United States. (1976)

38. Telephone Interview with Anonymous, Rhode Island Depart-ment of Environmental Management, Providence, RI. (November 1, 2018).

39. Telephone Interview with Anonymous, Rhode Island Depart-ment of Environmental Management, Providence, RI. (November 1, 2018).

40. Meghan Lapp, Arbitrary regulation brutalizes the fishing industry providencejournal.com (2014), http://www.providence-journal.com/opinion/commentary/20140513-meghan-lapp-arbi-trary-regulation-brutalizes-the-fishing-industry.ece/ (last visited 27 Sep 2018).

41. Telephone Interview with Anonymous, Rhode Island Depart-ment of Environmental Management, Providence, RI. (November 1, 2018).

42. NOAA Office of Science and Technology, National Cooper-ative Research Program, (2018) https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/cooperative-research/ (last visited 18 Nov. 2018)

43. Telephone interview with Jonathan Labaree, Chief Commu-nity Officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME. (December 6, 2018).

12

44. NOAA Office of Science and Technology, National Cooper-ative Research Program, (2018) https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/cooperative-research/ (last visited 18 Nov. 2018)

45. Telephone Interview with Anonymous, Rhode Island Depart-ment of Environmental Management, Providence, RI. (November 1, 2018).

46. Telephone Interview with Anonymous, Rhode Island Depart-ment of Environmental Management, Providence, RI. (November 1, 2018).

47. Steven Bittenbender, House flips in US elections, impact likely on MSA reauthorization (2018), https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/supply-trade/house-flips-in-us-elections-impact-likely-on-msa-reauthorization (last visited 18 Nov. 2018).

48. Telephone Interview with Anonymous Congressional Staffer, Washington D.C. (December 3, 2018).

49. Telephone Interview with Anonymous, Rhode Island Depart-ment of Environmental Management, Providence, RI. (November 1, 2018).

50. Telephone Interview with Anonymous Congressional Staffer, Washington D.C. (December 3, 2018).

51. Telephone Interview with Capt. Rick Bellavance, Owner and Operator of Priority Fishing Charters, Point Judith, RI; Steering Committee Member of Recreational MREP Module with Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME; Rhode Island Delegate on New England Fishery Management Council. (November 27, 2018).

52. Telephone Interview with Anonymous Congressional Staffer, Washington D.C. (December 3, 2018).

53. National Fisheries and Wildlife Foundation, Fisheries Inno-vation Fund (2018), https://www.nfwf.org/fisheriesfund/Pages/home.aspx/ (last visited 6 December 2018).

54. NOAA Fisheries, Electronic Monitoring (2018), https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/electronic-moni-toring/ (last visited December 7, 2018).

55. NOAA Fisheries, Electronic Monitoring (2018), https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/fisheries-observers/electronic-moni-toring/ (last visited December 7, 2018).

56. Plet-Hansen, Eliasen, Mortensen, Bergsson, Olesen, and Ul-rich. “Remote Electronic Monitoring and the Landing Obligation – Some Insights into Fishers’ and Fishery Inspectors’ Opinions.” Marine Policy 76, no. C (2017): 98-106.

57. Telephone interview with Jonathan Labaree, Chief Commu-nity Officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME. (December 6, 2018).

58. Gulf of Maine Research Institute, MREP Greater Atlantic (2018), https://www.gmri.org/our-work/fisheries-convening/mrep-northeast/ (last visited December 8, 2018).

59. Telephone Interview with Capt. Rick Bellavance, Owner and Operator of Priority Fishing Charters, Point Judith, RI; Steering Committee Member of Recreational MREP Module with Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME; Rhode Island Delegate on New England Fishery Management Council. (November 27, 2018).

60. Telephone interview with Jonathan Labaree, Chief Commu-nity Officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME.

(December 6, 2018).

61. Telephone Interview with Capt. Rick Bellavance, Owner and Operator of Priority Fishing Charters, Point Judith, RI; Steering Committee Member of Recreational MREP Module with Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME; Rhode Island Delegate on New England Fishery Management Council. (November 27, 2018).

62. Telephone interview with Jonathan Labaree, Chief Commu-nity Officer at the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME. (December 6, 2018).

63. Rhode Islands Department of Labor and Training, Real Jobs Rhode Island (2018), http://www.dlt.ri.gov/realjobs/ (last visited December 8 2018)

64. Alaskan Longline Fishermen’s Association, Young Fishermen’s Initiative (2018) http://www.alfafish.org/youngfishermen/ (last visited December 7, 2018).

65. URI Fisheries Center, Cels.uri.edu (2018), http://cels.uri.edu/fisheries/Extension.aspx (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

66. The Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program | NOAA Fisheries, Fisheries.noaa.gov (2018), https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/grant/saltonstall-kennedy-grant-program (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

67. Fisheries Innovation Fund, Nfwf.org (2018), https://www.nfwf.org/fisheriesfund/Pages/home.aspx (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

68. Daniel Holland, Management Strategy Evaluation and Man-agement Procedures (2018), doi:10.1787/5kmd77jhvkjf-en (last visited Dec 8, 2018).

69. Telephone Interview with Rich Hittinger, RI Saltwater Anglers Assoc. Board of Directors, 2018.

70. 115th Congress of the United States, 2017; Telephone Inter-view with Anonymous, Rhode Island Department of Environ-mental Management, 201871. Telephone Interview with Jonathan Labaree, Chief Com-munity Officer, Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Portland, ME. (December 6, 2018). Additional ReferencesTelephone Interview with Chris Brown, President Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association, RI. (November 28, 2018).

Telephone Interview with Charlie Donilon, Owner Snappa Charters, Narragansett, RI. (December 5, 2018).

Telephone Interview with Dennis Nixon, Professor at University of Rhode Island, Director, Rhode Island Sea Grant, Kingston, RI. (October 15, 2018).

Telephone Interview with Eric Thunberg, Chief of the Social Sciences Branch at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. (October 15, 2018).

Telephone Interview with Melissa Errand, NOAA Fisheries Economist, Woods Hole, MA. (October 25, 2018).

Telephone Interview with Richard Fuka, President RI Fishermen’s Alliance, East Greenwich, RI. (October 11, 2018).

Telephone Interview with Rosemary Powers, Deputy Chief of Staff at Gov. Raimondo’s office, Providence, RI. (October 22, 2018).