August 23, 2013 — Several environmental groups are demanding that NOAA reverse a recent proposal designed to provide economic relief to a struggling groundfish fleet.
WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — The 2013 fishing year ushered in a series of steep cuts in the allowable catch for key New England groundfish species. These cuts, including a 61 percent reduction for Georges Bank cod and a 78 percent reduction for Gulf of Maine cod, have proven devastating to the region’s remaining groundfish boats. Now, several environmental groups are demanding that NOAA reverse a recent proposal designed to provide economic relief to the struggling fleet.
The proposal, recommended to the agency by the New England Fishery Management Council in its Framework Adjustment 48, awaits final approval from NOAA. It grants groundfish boats limited access to areas off the New England coast that are currently closed to the fishery. Over the past several decades, large sections of New England’s waters have been closed to the groundfishery. There are generally two different types of closures: mortality closures, which were established to control fishing mortality, and habitat closures, designed to preserve fish habitats. NOAA’s proposed action would allow groups of fishermen to apply for access on a case-by-case basis to the mortality closures, while leaving the habitat closures intact.
Citing stocks at “desperately low levels from chronic overfishing” and the need for habitat preservation, petitions circulating from the Conservation Law Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity are insisting that all of the existing mortality closures be maintained. But their demands are based on flawed assumptions that the mortality closures are still necessary to prevent overfishing in New England, and that the closures affected by the proposal provide meaningful habitat protections.
These mortality closures used to be a key method to limit overfishing, back when fisheries managers controlled the catch indirectly through measures like area closures and trip limits. Since 2010, and the introduction of sector management, the functions of these closures have been taken over by an allocation-based system, and overfishing is controlled directly through the setting of a Total Allowable Catch (TAC). A TAC prevents fishermen from exceeding biologically acceptable fishing limits, and when one is in place, effort controls like areas closures are not needed and unnecessarily impede fishing.
NOAA recognizes that these closures are obsolete, which is why they are proposing to allow fishermen limited access to parts of the areas (Closed Areas I and II and Nantucket Lightship) that are not also designated as essential fish habitats. The agency stated in a filing in the Federal Register that the TAC in place in the New England groundfishery makes “certain other mortality or effort controls redundant,” and that allowing access to the closures “would provide operational flexibility and efficiency” for groundfishermen.
While the petitions also allege that partially opening the areas “will eliminate some of the best intact habitat in New England’s waters,” and that “trawling threatens to severely damage this habitat and diminish its benefits for fish and other marine species,” the areas under consideration actually provide little in the way of habitat benefits, regardless of the level of trawling.
Habitats in the mortality closures are mostly made up of sand and gravel. They do not retain many long-term changes from trawling, and are also subject to frequent natural disruptions from tidal forces. Because of the naturally dynamic nature of these habitats, they support few unique habitat features like those found in designated habitat closures. In its examination of the potential environmental impact of its proposal, NOAA found that opening parts of Closed Area II “would likely have minimal impact on benthic habitats,” and that the proposed openings in Nantucket Lightship similarly are “not expected to have any significant adverse habitat impacts.”
Several sections of the proposed openings are already accessible to certain fisheries, and are not “intact,” as claimed by CLF. For example, since 2004, scallopers have been able to enter parts of Closed Area I, Closed Area II, and Nantucket Lightship. The proposal from NOAA simply affords groundfishermen opportunities similar to those enjoyed by scallopers for the past decade.
NOAA’s proposal contains measures intended to limit any potential environmental impacts. The only areas affected are ones that the agency has determined would not be negatively impacted by trawling or have recently been accessed by scallopers. Important habitat areas, like the habitat closures in Cashes Ledge, are not included or affected by the proposal. For fishing within the closures, the agency has also restricted the type of gear that can be used, so that accidental bycatch does not lead to overfishing.
Perhaps most importantly, the proposal includes measures to protect fish spawning in these areas. The need to protect these spawners was cited by both CLF and the Center for Biological Diversity as reason to permanently maintain these closures. But year-round closures are not necessary to effectively protect spawning. Under NOAA’s proposal, the areas would not be open past December 31 in the fishing year in order to ensure that any allowed fishing does not interfere with spawning activity in these areas.
Permitting fishing in the mortality closures would not hurt fish populations or fish habitats. Fishing would only be allowed in areas resistant to trawling that provide few habitat benefits, and would be timed to avoid interference with spawning. The only thing protected by these petitions is an outdated management system that unnecessarily denies fishermen economic relief during already-tough times.
Read the petition from the Conservation Law Foundation
Read the petition from the Center for Biological Diversity
Read the public and scientific documents cited in this story:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Framework Adjustment 48", Federal Register
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Proposed Rule to Allow Northeast Multispecies Sector Vessels Access to Year-Round Closed Areas", Federal Register
Harris, Bradley; Stokesbury, Kevin, "The spatial structure of local surficial sediment characteristics on Georges Bank, USA", Continental Shelf Research, Volume 30, Issue 17, October 15, 2010, p. 1840-1853
Harris, Bradley; Cowles, Geoffrey; Stokesbury, Kevin, "Surficial sediment stability on Georges Bank, in the Great South Channel and on eastern Nantucket Shoals", Continental Shelf Research, Volume 49, September 23, 2012, p. 65-72
Saving Seafood has extensively covered the debate surrounding areas closed to fishing in New England. Links to some of our previous coverage are below.
ANALYSIS: Conservation Law Foundation Misleads Public on Habitat Closed Area Changes
CLF Incorrectly Accuses NOAA of "Risky" Fisheries Management
Inaccuracies Abound in Joint Press Release from the Conservation Law Foundation & Earthjustice