May 8, 2013 — The following is in response to the Conservation Law Foundation's blog post, "Top Ten Reasons to Protect New England’s Closed Areas," originally published on April 12.
ANALYSIS: The Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF) blog post, “Top Ten Reasons to Protect New England’s Closed Areas,” argues that Framework Adjustment 48, a recently approved proposal to amend some New England areas closed to fishing and provide economic support to fishing communities, will endanger “protected waters.” Instead of an alternative, CLF argues that NOAA should have rejected the proposal and maintained the closures in their present condition. But extensive analysis from the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) shows that the status quo would ultimately be more harmful to the ocean environment.
The Conservation Law Foundation overlooks three important facts:
1. The NEFMC is legally mandated to minimize the long-term adverse impacts of fishing. Backing Framework 48 is analysis from the NEFMC Habitat Plan Development Team demonstrating that these changes would benefit the overall ocean environment.
2. Many fishing gear types — including dredge gear, longlines, gill nets and mid-level trawls — are already permitted in the closed areas being reviewed. Framework 48 will only allow limited access to these already fished areas for groundfish fishermen though a strict and heavily monitored process.
3. The areas that will be updated by Framework 48 are not habitat closures — they are mortality closures, part of a replaced system of fisheries management. NOAA has acknowledged that in light of current management, these closures are now outmoded.
Habitat Will Remain Protected
CLF conflates the mortality closures under review with the ecosystem benefits of habitat closures, areas designated because of their value or unique habitat features. In doing so, CLF suggests an alarming clash of conservation vs. destruction that does not actually exist.
The middle of their list, reasons five and four, argue that habitat “helps fish adapt to warming waters” and protects “places spawning and juvenile fish were known to depend on.” But, in terms of Framework 48, those points are moot. These ecosystem benefits are not under threat, as no closures protecting important habitat (including spawning grounds) will be altered. The kelp forest in Cashes Ledge that is depicted in their post, for example, will remain closed to fishing.
Furthermore, managers remain cognizant of conservationists’ concerns for potential adverse environmental impacts. The NEFMC and NOAA are cognizant of the need to continue to protect habitat whenever any approval of an application to fish in these areas is granted.
The suggestion that once modified, these areas would become entirely “open” is an exaggeration. These mortality closed areas already experience fishing. To mitigate any unforeseen environmental harms from groundfishermen, NOAA will require sectors to apply for access and will then assess all environmental impacts before granting entry to any of the closures. Additionally, seasonal closures will remain intact, and NOAA will retain the right to revoke access to these areas should unforeseen environmental harm occur. NOAA is also considering mandatory monitoring on all fishing vessels inside of the mortality closures.
Managers Are Taking Precautions To Protect Marine Mammals
While CLF is understandably worried about the status of the critically endangered right whale, it is unlikely that the proposed modifications to the mortality closures will negatively impact that species or other marine mammals.
When sectors apply for access, NOAA will assess any potential harm to marine mammals and endangered species. Access will not be granted if NOAA scientists think the changes will harm protected species.
Marine mammals, including right whales, are most susceptible to mid-level trawls and fixed gear fishing equipment such as drift nets and gill nets. These gear types already have access to the mortality closure areas.
CLF also presents a misleading map of “concentrated” right whale sightings inside of the closures. The map does not differentiate between mortality closures and habitat closures — leading readers to believe that the areas being considered for modification are places endangered whales frequent. But many of the areas that are dense with whale sightings are within the protected habitat closed areas. In fact, very few whale sightings have been reported in the largest of the areas being considered for updating.
Better For Fish, Better For Fishermen
The current mortality closures were enacted nearly 20 years ago with limited scientific information and under vastly different management strategies. The proposals in Framework 48 incorporate the most up-to-date science and management techniques.
By decreasing fishing effort, Framework 48 creates a win-win scenario for fishermen and ocean habitat. In its analysis, the Council wrote: “We find that for nearly all area and gear type combinations, opening existing closed areas to fishing is predicted to decrease aggregate adverse effects.” Access to mortality closures would allow groundfishermen to catch their quotas while affecting less habitat.
Most New England groundfish fishermen (from large to small operations) run family businesses with self-owned and self-operated vessels. For many, assistance from proposals such as those included in Framework 48 is their only chance at staying in business.