April 8, 2013 — The following is an excerpt from the Conservation Law Foundation's article, "On Cod, Climate, and Closed Areas," originally published on March 29.
New England’s fish are already feeling the heat from global warming. Record high water temperatures are having an impact on our coastal ecosystem, and carbon pollution’s acidifying effect on seawater is a big concern. Both are likely to compound the problems from past overfishing and habitat degradation.
But beyond trying to limit greenhouse gas emissions, what can we do about it? It turns out, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently offered some answers.
…
It’s good to know NOAA has a solid plan for helping fish adapt to climate change. Now, if only someone would tell NOAA.
You see, while NOAA’s right hand says protect habitat to help fish adapt to climate change, the left hand has proposed to end protection for about 5,000 sq. miles of seabed habitat.
Read the full story at the Conservation Law Foundation
Analysis: In an analysis of the impact of climate change on cod stocks, (“On Cod, Climate, and Closed Areas,” 3/29) the Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF) Peter Shelley argues that NOAA’s proposed modifications to areas closed to fishing in Georges Bank put the species at risk. But these updates are designed to better align the areas with the most current data and management goals. Maintaining the status quo, as CLF advocates, could actually work to the detriment of habitat protection.
The planned updates to the closed areas recommended by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), in both their upcoming Omnibus Habitat Amendment and Framework 48, are based on data showing that the current closed area boundaries are not in the best places for habitat protection. Much of the seafloor habitat inside the closed areas is composed of sand and gravel. These areas are exposed to tidal forces, and are naturally subject to frequent disturbances. As a result, they are not likely to support unique habitats, and quickly recover from the effects of trawling. Keeping these areas closed for an extended period of time produces little long-term conservation benefits.
In addition to readjusting closed area boundaries to better reflect the locations of essential habitats, the NEFMC’s recommendations are also aimed at minimizing the amount of trawling, and therefore habitat disruption, that occurs. Permitting limited access into closed areas, as would happen under Framework 48, allows fishermen to access areas where fish are relatively abundant. Working in these areas, instead of areas where fish are less abundant, results in less time trawling, and less interaction between fishermen and habitat.
The Council, in analyzing the available information on the area closures, concluded that “allowing fishing in almost any portion of the area closures on Georges Bank is estimated to substantially decrease total adverse effects from fishing.” The Council’s recommendations do not ignore the threat climate change poses to cod. Instead, these proposals update existing protections according to the most current scientific information in a way that both protects the resource while preserving one of our nation’s oldest fisheries.