Saving Seafood

NOAA Fisheries Announces Final Rule to Expand Boundaries of Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and to Modify Transit Provisions

July 17, 2015 — The following was released by NOAA:

On July 17, 2015, NOAA Fisheries published a final rule (80 FR 42423) to implement Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hardbottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region (Coral Amendment 8). Regulations will be effective on August 17, 2015.

The amendment extends protections for deepwater coral ecosystems by expanding the boundaries of the Oculina Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern, and the Stetson-Miami Terrace and Cape Lookout Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.

Within Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, the use of bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot or trap is prohibited. If aboard a fishing vessel, anchor, use of anchor and chain, and grapple and chain is prohibited. Mid-water trawls are also prohibited in Stetson-Miami Terrace and Cape Lookout Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern.

Coral Amendment 8 also implements a transit provision through Oculina Bank Habitat Area of Particular Concern for fishing vessels with rock shrimp onboard. When traveling through the area, vessels are required to have gear appropriately stowed and maintain a minimum speed of five knots. Vessel speed is determined by a vessel monitoring system registering a ping (signal) at a rate of 1 ping per 5 minutes.

More Information

For more information on Coral Amendment 8, please click on this link to the Frequently Asked Questions found at:

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/s_atl/coral/2014/am8/index.html.

Maps of the revised Coral Habitat Areas of Particular Concern can be found on our website at:

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/maps_gis_data/fisheries/s_atlantic/index.html. 

This bulletin serves as a Small Entity Compliance Guide, complying with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

This bulletin provides only a summary of the information regarding the existing regulations. Any discrepancies between this bulletin and the regulations as published in the Federal Register will be resolved in favor of the Federal Register.

Consider signing up for fishery bulletins via email.

To receive fishery bulletins electronically, via email, you must sign up through Constant Contact. Constant Contact is an internet-based distribution service. This service allows you to subscribe or unsubscribe at any time. The electronic copy of the bulletin will be delivered to you faster than the paper copy, is in color, features informational links, and reduces paper use.

To receive fishery bulletins via email using Constant Contact, please sign up at http://bit.ly/HQDUEU. You may also sign up for Constant Contact by visiting our Web site http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov (sign-up option is located on the left side of the page).

 

GIB BROGAN: A Knockout Blow for American Fish Stocks

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — July 7, 2015 — Today the New York Times published an op-ed written by Oceana fisheries campaign manager Gib Brogan that is critical of both the recent Omnibus Habitat Amendment proposals approved by the New England Fishery Management Council and the members of the fishing industry who advocated for them. The op-ed is the latest attack by an environmental organization against the Council-approved version of the Omnibus Habitat Amendment, and is aimed at convincing the National Marine Fisheries Service to reject the Amendment.

Calling the measures a “knockout blow” to the region’s groundfish stocks, Mr. Brogan accuses the Council of “gutting” habitat protections. He is similarly critical of the Fisheries Survival Fund, which he describes as a “well-funded industry group” that “spends more than a quarter of a million dollars a year advocating for their interests, often at the expense of other fisheries.”

An excerpt of the op-ed is reproduced below: 

First, the council is preparing to drastically reduce the amount of protected habitat in New England waters, including by nearly 80 percent around the Georges Bank. The plan would allow for expansion of bottom trawling and dredging, two of the most destructive fishing methods, into protected habitats.

In addition to gutting habitat protections, the council wants to suspend a program that places observers on fishing vessels to monitor compliance. But without monitoring the numbers of fish being taken out of the ocean, there is no way to accurately determine the health of their populations or ensure that quotas are respected.

The fishing industry had agreed to eventually pay for the monitoring. But as federal funds near expiration, later this year, the industry is trying to renege on its responsibilities by pressuring the council to eliminate the program. When the bank balance is low, it isn’t time to fire the accountant.

Pressure for even more change looms. Atlantic scallops are one of the most lucrative parts of the American fishing industry, responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of shellfish every year. Scallop companies have a well-funded industry group, paradoxically named the Fisheries Survival Fund, which spends more than a quarter of a million dollars a year advocating for their interests, often at the expense of other fisheries. Dissatisfied with its current profits, the scallop industry is pushing the council to reopen portions of the most important New England cod habitat on Georges Bank, where the bottom-scraping scallop dredges would destroy any hope of rebuilding cod populations.

Similar pressure is coming from the cod, haddock and flounder industries, which are in a perpetual state of crisis as fishermen work with small catch limits that were set by managers trying to rebuild the populations. In the last two years, the New England fishery was declared a disaster and received more than $30 million in relief funding from the federal government to help with the losses. To stay viable for another year, the industries claim that they need additional access to closed areas.

Read the full opinion piece at the New York Times

Georges Bank vote sparks more debate between fishermen, environmentalists

June 21, 2015 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — The world of Northeast American fisheries may have felt a seismic shift in the wake of the three-day meeting last week of the New England Fisheries Management Council. But it is much too soon for either side in the endless fishery management debate to claim a victory.

Major non-profit environmental organizations are lamenting the decision by the council to recommend reopening 5,000 square miles of Georges Bank, an area known as the Northern Edge, to fishing after a closure of two decades.

Peter Shelley, senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, charged that the council ignored years of scientific data and analysis and “caved to industry pressures” regarding Georges Bank. (The council did approve four other areas of habitat protection.)

“The council hammered the final nail into the coffin of what could have been a landmark victory for ocean habitats protection in New England,” Shelley wrote on his organization’s web site.

Dr. Sarah Smith, a member of the Fisheries Solutions Center at the Environmental Defense Fund, wrote The Standard-Times in an e-mail, “We are disappointed that the council chose short-term economic gains for a few over the long-term health of the fishery, particularly struggling stocks such as Georges Bank cod and yellowtail flounder.

“The Council’s preferred alternative overlooks our best scientific information, and perhaps most troubling, would virtually eliminate protection for sensitive areas that serve as critical habitats for juvenile cod and other groundfish.”

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times