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 34 Number 9
June 2007
Essential fish habitat
Potential areas of particular concern trouble fishermen
MYSTIC, CT – When scalloper Eddie Welch heard that the Great South Channel was being considered as a special habitat area for cod, he immediately became nervous.
The channel is one of nine alternatives the New England Fishery Management Council is considering for designation as a “habitat area of particular concern” – or HAPC.
While the council is not proposing any specific management measures for HAPCs at the moment, it plans to begin formulating habitat protection measures this summer.
“One of the things that worries me is that once you guys get an HAPC, it never gets removed,” said Welch. “It takes an act of God to get it back open.”
Welch made those comments on April 11 at one of two public hearings held by the council on Phase 1 of its essential fish habitat (EFH) omnibus amendment. The second hearing was held April 18 in Ocean City, MD.
The council is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to modify its EFH program “at least” every five years for all 27 species under its jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the council must develop a “comprehensive EFH management plan that will successfully minimize adverse effects of fishing on EFH.”
When the task is done, the resulting omnibus amendment will be used to modify all of the council’s existing fishery management plans (FMPs), including those for groundfish, scallops, herring, monkfish, deep-sea red crab, skates, and Atlantic salmon.
EFH is broadly defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”
Phase 1
This undertaking has been so enormous that the council decided early on to split up the task into two phases.
During Phase 1 of the omnibus amendment, the council is identifying fish habitat and highlighting areas that are more important than others in terms of habitat.
Specifically, the council is:
Updating and refining EFH designations for the egg, larval, juvenile, and adult life stages of the 27 managed species under a variety of alternatives;
Proposing nine HAPC alternatives that identify areas “known to be important to species that are in need of additional levels of protection from adverse impacts;”
Describing major prey species for each “fishery management unit” and the location of prey species’ habitat; and
Conducting a detailed evaluation of the potential impacts of nonfishing activities on EFH.
Phase 2
During Phase 2, the council will update the “gear effects” portion of the omnibus amendment and develop management alternatives to minimize “the adverse effects of fishing on EFH across all FMPs.” Phase 2 also will include “potential consideration of management measures for HAPCs designated in Phase 1.”
None of the Phase 1 decisions will be implemented until Phase 2 is completed in 2008, which could lead to implementation of the omnibus EFH amendment sometime in 2009.
Leslie-Ann McGee, the council’s habitat coordinator, told hearing attendees, “All the Phase 1 decisions will be rolled into Phase 2, so you’ll be able to comment again when we develop Phase 2.”
Closures coming?
Two things became clear at the Mystic hearing: fishermen had a difficult time separating Phase 1 from Phase 2; and no one believed the council would do anything with an HAPC except close it to fishing activity.
Several industry members pointed to the HAPC on the “Northern Edge” of Closed Area II on Georges Bank, which was shut down over a decade ago and never reopened.
“You can tell me you’re not going to close these (HAPCs), but how else are you going to protect them?” said Welch. “Now you’re talking about this whole big area in the channel.”
Habitat committee Chairman Sally McGee tried to assure fishermen that the council would look carefully at all available options.
“My opinion is, if we can look at areas in a more refined way, we will,” she said. “Year-round closures are one tool, but I certainly wouldn’t want to limit it to that. Gear modifications, seasonal closures, and other things would be on the table too.”
Ron Smolowitz of the Fisheries Survival Fund argued against selecting any HAPCs at all in Phase I. He considered the choice of an HAPC to be “more of a management decision” better suited for Phase 2.
As for the Northern Edge, Smolowitz said, “We’ve had that HAPC out there for 12 years now. There’s been no evidence whatsoever that that HAPC has done anything for cod. If anything, it’s been negative because it transferred effort.”
In short, Smolowitz said, “The council needs to investigate the negative impacts of having such an important area closed to the scallop and groundfish industries for no good reason. It’s really premature to start defining HAPCs at this time, and we need to look at eliminating the ones we have.”
Environmental view
The council actually put out a request for proposals in December 2004 asking the public to nominate potential HAPC sites. It received nine completed proposals, which were vetted by the council’s habitat plan development team, advisory panel, and habitat committee.
All nine, several of which were submitted by environmental organizations, were included in the Phase 1 public hearing document.
Gib Brogan of Oceana supported the “full range of HAPCs from nearshore to the end of the EEZ” and made a particular point of emphasizing coral protection. He supported all of the deep-sea canyon alternatives.
“The new Magnuson (reauthorization) clearly gave the council authority to protect corals,” he said.
Brogan argued against revoking the current HAPC, saying, “The closure of the Northeast Peak is doing great stuff for larval transport.”
And, while admitting the Great South Channel proposal was “very large,” he called the channel “an important nursery area for juvenile cod.”
John Williamson of The Ocean Conservancy’s Portland, ME office identified several preferences within the HAPC proposals and added, “We agree with all of the preferred EFH designations. We find that they collectively represent a very diverse range of alternatives.”
University of Connecticut faculty member Peter Auster, speaking for himself, was one of the people who responded to the council’s request for proposals.
Between 2001 and 2005, Auster took part in three separate expeditions to seamounts, and his suggestions focused on protecting these undersea structures.
“Many new species of corals are being described across the chain,” he said.
Nonfishing impacts
Vito Calomo, executive director of the Massachusetts Fisheries Recovery Commission, ticked off a list of nonfishing related activities that in his opinion impacted essential fish habitat in significant ways.
“We seem to be concentrating a lot on fishing,” he said. “A major concern I have at this time is the LNG companies that are going to build a pipeline through block 125, which is a major fishing ground. They’ll be discharging very hot water. Between the water and the line, what will happen to the EFH there?”
Calomo also expressed concern about habitat impacts from wind farms and beach renourishment projects.
“I think these other forms of destruction should have a high priority on your list,” he said.
Pragmatic approach
Jim O’Malley, executive director of the East Coast Fisheries Federation, encouraged the council to take a pragmatic three-step approach to selecting HAPCs.
First, he said, an area that’s a good generator of fish or scallops might be fairly easy to designate as an HAPC with little industry opposition because “people would say, ‘Let’s protect this area because it benefits everyone.’”
Second, areas that are too deep to fish or cover grounds that fishermen don’t use anyway “might be easily achieved as well because you’re not impacting people,” O’Malley said.
And third, the very last areas the council should consider are places that are extremely valuable to fishermen right now and would cost people money to forego.
“These are the ones people will shed blood over and will be the most difficult to achieve,” he said.
While recognizing that the approach needed further development, O’Malley concluded, “Thinking along those lines may lead to more productive discussions.”
More info
To obtain copies of any of the omnibus amendment’s associated documents, call the council office at (978) 465-0492 or visit the council’s web site at <www.nefmc.org>.
The council is scheduled to make final decisions on Phase 1 HAPC and EFH designations at its June 19-21 meeting in Portland, ME. In preparation, the habitat committee and industry advisers will be meeting in Mystic June 5 to develop recommendations for the full council.
Janice M. Plante
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
