In declaring the currently-under-consideration Omnibus Habitat Amendment "a squandered opportunity," the Conservation Law Foundation presents an overly restrictive view of current fisheries science and law.
WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 4, 2013 — In declaring the currently-under-consideration Omnibus Habitat Amendment "a squandered opportunity" ("A Squandered Opportunity for Habitat Protection," 10/9), the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) presents an overly restrictive view of current fisheries science and law. In effect, CLF narrows the terms of acceptable debate by treating its own position on the Amendment — dealing with the management of closed areas in Georges Bank — as the only acceptable choice. But in fact, there are many scientifically acceptable outcomes of the Omnibus Amendment process that CLF does not mention in its report.
CLF claims that the Amendment in its current form "contains provisions that are blatantly contrary to law and good science," but misrepresents both the law and the science. CLF is correct to cite federal law that mandates "the protection of essential fish habitat from the damage caused by fishing gear like bottom trawls." But it fails to note that the same law requires that this be done "to the extent practicable." This wording ensures that economic and social factors are given consideration along with scientific factors when developing habitat protections. While CLF may not approve of the resulting proposals, it is inaccurate to argue that they do not fall within the scope of the law.
CLF errs when they depict the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) as ignoring "the advice of its own technical experts" in crafting the Omnibus Amendment. This claim relies on a selective interpretation of the scientific advice and options presented to the Council. The majority of plans that were eventually included in the Omnibus Amendment were first recommended to the Council by their Habitat Plan Development Team (PDT) over the course of several years. The PDT gave the Council a variety of options, with the habitat closures in most options comparable in size to the existing closures. Other options, such as one that would completely open Georges Bank, were included to present a complete range of options for the Council's consideration.
In order for any of these proposals to be included in the Amendment, they must first gain approval from the majority of the Council. While CLF makes much of the fact that one of the proposals supported by CLF was rejected by most of the Council, they do not mention that many other PDT proposals were included in the Amendment after achieving broad Council support.
Despite CLF's claims that proposals to allow fishing in the current closures are simply "elevating the short-term desires of industry above the need to protect habitat," there are several scientific arguments supporting the idea that the Georges Bank closures should be at least partially opened. For one, the area is home to some of the densest concentrations of scallops in New England. As a general rule, allowing scallopers or fishermen into areas with a high concentration of the stocks they're targeting allows them to fish more efficiently. Increasing efficiency decreases overall fishing effort, and allows fishermen to meet their quotas faster. As such, much less of the ocean bottom is disturbed by fishing activity, providing a net gain in habitat conservation.
The closed areas as currently structured also provide questionable benefits for the groundfish they are ostensibly designed to protect. The Council's Closed Area Technical Team (CATT) recently conducted an analysis of survey tows in Georges Bank, looking for cod "hotspots," — areas where the tows found a relatively high number of cod. None of the identified cod hotspots were located in the Northern Edge of Georges Bank, despite it being labeled a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC), and thereby designated as an important habitat for juvenile cod. This is a possible indication that the closed area may not be as important to cod as previously thought, or that the existing closure boundaries need to be redrawn. If that is the case, opening the area to allow access to its abundant scallop resource may be a net positive.
CLF also misrepresents the Amendment process as a whole. They conflate habitat closures with mortality closures, using this blurred distinction as the source of their misleading claim that the Omnibus Amendment "would result in a massive 96% reduction in protected habitat." In reality, most of that area was not originally set aside for habitat protection. The original closures in 1994, which are still in effect, were designed to control fishing mortality, and were never intended for habitat preservation. In the two decades since they were first implemented, fisheries management has moved away from this method of controlling the overall catch, making these closures mostly redundant.
CLF uses its own subjective standards and bias toward preferred outcomes to redefine which Omnibus Amendment proposals are scientifically acceptable and legally permissible. In the process, they attempt to delegitimize differing, yet legitimate, opinions that are based on reasonable interpretations of the relevant science and laws. And they discount options that may actually improve habitat management. This is detrimental to what should be the ultimate goal of the Amendment process, and is in fact the law of the land: to balance a requirement for conservation measures with the economic needs of fishing communities.
Read the story from the Conservation Law Foundation
Works Cited
New England Fishery Management Council, "Draft Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2," September 2013
New England Fishery Management Council, "Memorandum: Synopsis of Closed Area Technical Team (CATT) analysis of juvenile groundfish habitat and groundfish spawning," May 10, 2013
New England Fishery Management Council, "Memorandum: Gridded hotspot weights with revised substrate classifications and corrections," May 14, 2013
Public Law 104-297, The Sustainable Fisheries Act, Section 108, October 11, 1996, Reauthorized with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2006