COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 33 Number 8
April 2006
Pollution’s effects worry New England council, industry
PORTLAND, ME – Those who make their living on the water intuitively know that pollution is bad for fish.
But that message really hit home on Feb. 2 after the New England Fishery Management Council heard a presentation on the impacts of coastal pollution and what chemical contaminants and nutrient over-enrichment can do to fish, especially larval fish.
Following this sobering overview, the council stated that “pollution is a serious problem” and voted to “elevate” pollution studies on its research priority list, recognizing that “inter-agency cooperation” would be needed.
“It’s something we cannot ignore anymore,” said Sally McGee of Connecticut, chair of the council’s joint habitat/MPA/ecosystem committee.
“Direct fishing mortality is important, but if we’re not addressing coastal pollution, we’re really not seeing the forest through the trees,” she said.
Council staffer Chad Demarest presented the findings of a report he and Yale University graduate student Christopher Meaney prepared that summed up information from some 42 studies and technical papers documenting the impacts of pollution on the marine environment.
Based on the papers, Demarest and Meaney concluded, among other things, that:
“Nearshore coastal systems are subjected to a variety of pollution from runoff, industrial effluents, water pollution control facilities, as well as atmospheric deposition;
“Past and present coastal hazardous waste sites input harmful chemicals and metals into areas that are utilized by marine species for forage, reproduction, and nursing;
“Combined sewer systems are sources of toxic wastes, metals, and nutrients, which negatively affect the coastal environment;
“Chemical contaminants appear to increase larval fish mortality, affect reproduction, and impair development. They are associated with increased occurrences of disease, lesions, and parasites.” And
“Nutrient over-enrichment may result in fish mortality, adversely impact benthic habitats, and accelerate or cause changes in aquatic communities.”
More work needed
Ron Smolowitz of the Fisheries Survival Fund has long believed pollution is a fundamental problem in the success of fish reproduction and sustainability.
“I read the report and it’s excellent,” he said. “I think the council has to take a much stronger, proactive position on pollution right now.”
New Hampshire council member David Goethel also considered the issue to be extremely important.
“My goal is to have the council take a more proactive stand on things that impact fisheries but aren’t directly related to fishing,” he said.
Demarest said he and Meaney found a “lack of comprehensive studies on ways in which coastal pollution affects species integral to New England fisheries.” He also said there was “sufficient evidence” to warrant more work.
Stakeholders concerned
In its evolving attempt to move toward ecosystem management, the council held 10 workshops in October and November to solicit “stakeholder” input about topics critical to this new approach to fishery management.
A total of 135 people attended the workshops from Maine to Rhode Island, and 116 people – 85 of which were workshop attendees and 31 of which were industry advisers – filled out surveys.
Demarest said, “The pollution thing was heavily emphasized at both the workshops and in the surveys.”
Although many workshop participants found the concept of ecosystem management to be nebulous, many supported a change in general from the current species-by-species management approach, and some suggested moving toward area-based management. Many supported a simpler regulatory structure, more flexibility for fishermen, and an overall greater emphasis on nonfishing impacts, especially pollution.
Scientists support change
The council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and Social Sciences Advisory Committee (SSAC) met jointly in late January to discuss the council’s ongoing ecosystem pilot project. The pilot project was initiated in October 2004 to improve fisheries management in New England on the whole and to consider broader impacts of the total ecosystem on fisheries, including potential impacts from wind power, LNGs, coastal pollution, aquaculture, and other things.
In the end, the two committees agreed to recommend that the council “proceed with the development of a fishery ecosystem plan.”
SSAC member John Gates of the University of Rhode Island summarized the joint committee meeting for the council. He said the group also recommended that:
The council “recognize that nonfishing activities have the potential to impact fisheries and that fisheries have the potential to impact nonfishing activities;” and
The council “more thoroughly incorporate ecosystem approaches principles into the council’s fisheries management activities.”
Gates said the development of a fishery ecosystem plan was “the right thing to do.” He also added, “NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is expected to insist on an ecosystems approach in all its programs, including fishery management plans.”
Following Gates’ presentation, the council voted to send the SSC/SSAC finding to its habitat/MPA/ecosystems committee “to be used as a starting point for the development of an ecosystem plan in 2007.”
Janice M. Plante
back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
