November 9, 2021 — NOAA announced on 9 November it is seeking public comment on the “first steps” of designating a new national marine sanctuary in a 7,000-square-mile area off the coast of the U.S. state of California.
The new area would be adjacent to California’s San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties, according to NOAA.
Read the full story at SeafoodSource
October 14, 2021 — From a bird’s eye view, the ocean appears to be an endless expanse of blue. Though, if you peek below the surface, the water column and seafloor reveal an active place made up of varying ecosystems that consist of a myriad of organisms and habitats.
Understanding how these different habitats are connected to each other and how fishes, marine mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles use them is the focus of three newly funded projects in Florida Keys, Flower Garden Banks, and Stellwagen Bank national marine sanctuaries. This month, NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science is announcing $1.7 million of an anticipated $5.9 million in funding for research to support the management of national marine sanctuaries.
This newly funded research will focus on how different species are using habitats within marine protected areas (MPAs) by tagging and tracking key species using telemetry in each sanctuary. Scientists and resource managers will use this information to determine if the protected area is working well to support that particular species, and inform future management decisions.
Read the full story at ECO Magazine
October 5, 2021 — When it comes to meeting its aggressive conservation pledge, the Biden administration appears to have a head start on protecting the United States’ oceans — after all, on paper, the nation is already more than two-thirds of the way to the goal.
But as the administration puts together a tracking mechanism for its pledge to conserve 30 percent of the nation’s lands and waters by 2030, environmental activists warn that frequently cited statistics provide a misleading picture of ocean conservation.
At the same time, advocates for the fishing industry question counter the nation is much closer to the final objective — if not already there. They argue that conservation shouldn’t always mean activities like fishing are banned and say their industry has shown itself willing to help protect vulnerable species.
Managed waters
Opponents of new marine monuments, however, argue that managed waters are sufficient to meet the conservation goals.
“If it’s not conserved unless it’s in a marine sanctuary that excludes fishing — which is a fairly radical and extreme point of view — then I think you get into a very different set of calculations about how you get to 30 percent,” said Roger Mann, a marine sciences professor at the College of William & Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Mann pointed to language in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the nation’s primary fisheries law, that calls for “conservation and management” of the oceans.
“If you’re conserving sustainable resources … then all of the area that is managed under Magnuson is already a conservation area,” argued Mann, who previously served on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
“The councils can all sit there and scratch their heads and say, ‘We’re not 30×30. We’re 100 percent by 2021. What’s the problem?’” he said.
Former Garden State Seafood Association Executive Director Greg DiDomenico said he is optimistic that the Biden administration will adhere to its vow for scientific integrity, but remains staunchly opposed to the idea of new monuments.
“What we expect from 30×30, ultimately, is that it be conducted under rigorous science and an open, transparent policy,” said DiDomenico, who is now with Lund’s Fisheries.
DiDomenico pointed to the creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument during former President Obama’s tenure, which closed the area to commercial fishing.
Former President Trump reversed that closure in 2020, and the New England Fishery Management Council subsequently implemented protections for deep-sea corals in more than 80 percent of the monument (E&E News PM, June 5, 2020).
“The proof is in the pudding,” DiDomenico said, pointing to what is formally known as the Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment.
He added that: “No one is running from this. We’ve been here before.”
Read the full story at E&E News
September 29, 2021 — A new “MPA Guide,” resulting from a collaboration of 42 authors led by Kirsten Grorud-Colvert of Oregon State University, aims to facilitate communication and common understanding about marine protected areas.
The guide was introduced in a paper in the 10 September issue of Science magazine, “The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean.” In it, the authors review the consistency, of MPAs and propose a framework by which levels of protection can be evaluated and improved.
Read the full story at SeafoodSource
September 23, 2021 — The following is an excerpt from an article published in National Fisherman by Dr. Roger Mann, professor of Marine Science at the College of William and Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science. It is based on an article published by the Journal of Shellfish Research. That paper, “An Ecosystem is Not a Monument, and Other Challenges to Fishing in the 21st Century,” is based on a talk given by Dr. Mann at the annual meeting of the National Shellfisheries Association.
Managing fisheries is no longer simply about [the Magnuson Stevens Act’s] directives to “conserve and manage” a sustainable resource to serve the “social and economic needs of the States.” It is about managing fisheries in a changing landscape of competition for ocean resources, where the environment is changing faster than in living history, and species footprints are on the move.
Part of this changing landscape is the creation of large, no-take MPAs, like the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument off the coast of Cape Cod. Designated by President Obama with the sweep of a pen using the Antiquities Act of 1906, the 4,913 square miles of the monument are now managed by multiple federal agencies under a bewildering patchwork of legislation, including Magnuson, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Refuge Recreation Act, Public Law 98-532, and Executive Order 6166. Then there is the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, through which the government can designate and protect marine areas of national significance.
This plethora of confusing legislation lacks uniform definitions. It is not clear on how — or even if — MPA designations are required to be revisited, even when species move. In addition, it does not state who has precedent over whom in the management hierarchy.
Even as questions remain over existing MPAs, activists are pushing for more with a “30×30” campaign to protect 30 percent of our nation’s land, inland waters and oceans as conservation areas by 2030. But what is “protected” in this context? Is a region protected only by excluding fishermen through a no-take MPA? Or does the Magnuson Act directive to “conserve and manage the fishery resources” and “exercise sound judgment in [their] stewardship” rise to the level of protection? If so, then is not the entire exclusive economic zone already protected?
MPAs are far from the only competition fishermen are facing in the ocean. Environmental advocacy, communications corridors, mining, national defense, and shipping all threaten fishermen’s access to ocean resources. Perhaps the biggest incursion of all is offshore wind development: the U.S. East Coast continental shelf already has 1.7 million acres of federal bottom under lease for offshore wind, with the Biden administration seemingly poised to expand such efforts along the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. Offshore wind projects have a projected lifespan of 50 years, with turbine spacing restricting access for both commercial fishing vessels towing mobile gear and federal survey vessels. Stock assessment surveys will be compromised, resulting in reduced quotas for fishermen.
With so many competitors muscling their way into the ocean, who will be the winners and losers? Over what time frames will winners emerge? Where does preservation of the fishing industry sit in the pecking order? At the bottom?
The “space” for fisheries is shrinking. Commercial fishing won’t be the largest economic player as development of our oceans continues, but it is historically an important part of the economic and social structure of coastal communities. Fisheries are based on moving species distributions that do not function well within fixed boundaries, like those being zoned for MPAs and offshore wind.
June 1, 2021 — A global movement to create additional marine protected areas (MPAs) has been steadily gaining traction in recent years, with the initiative picking up milestone victories in the past few months.
In January, newly inaugurated U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order committing to a “30 by 30” goal, whereby the United States would designated 30 percent of its land and territorial waters to conservation by the year 2030. The move heightened the potential that MPAs will be used as a tool to tackle climate change.
April 12, 2019 — The following was released by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council:
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council is currently soliciting applicants for open advisory panel seats as well as fishing representatives to serve on the System Management Plan Workgroup. The Workgroup will address future needs of managed areas in federal waters in the South Atlantic. The Council currently has system management plans in place for Deepwater Marine Protected Areas, Spawning Special Management Zones, and the Oculina Experimental Closed Area. Additional areas will be added, with the goal to eventually have a single System Management Plan in place for all managed areas. The System Management Plan Workgroup will be responsible for drafting reports on the recommendations for size, configuration, and regulations for managed areas; discussing research, outreach, and enforcement efforts; and commenting on research priorities. Travel and per diem expenses will be covered if in-person meetings are held.
The Council’s advisory panel members provide information and guidance in the development and implementation of federal fishery management plans. Members include recreational and commercial fishermen, seafood dealers and processors, scientists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as environmental groups, fishing organizations, etc., and concerned citizens. Advisory panel members are appointed by the Council and serve for a three-year period, based on the frequency of meetings. The Council’s advisory panels generally meet no more than once or twice each year and are compensated for travel and per diem expenses for all meetings.
Applications are now being solicited for the following positions:
Habitat Advisory Panel
(1) NC Commercial Seat
(1) FL Commercial Seat
(1) At-large Research/Geologist
System Management Plan Workgroup
(1) GA Commercial Seat
How to Apply
Application forms for individual advisory panels and the SMP Workgroup are available online from the Council’s website at: http://safmc.net/about-safmc/advisory-panels/. For questions about the advisory panel seats please contact Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, at Kim.Iverson@safmc.net or call the Council office at 843/571-4366. Questions regarding the SMP Workgroup should be directed to Dr. Chip Collier at chip.collier@safmc.net or by calling the Council office.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact area Council representatives to discuss their interest in serving. Contact information for all Council members is available from the “About Us” section of the Council’s website at www.safmc.net or through the Council office.
Applications must be received by May 10, 2019 for consideration by the Council during its June 10-14 meeting in Hutchinson Island, Florida.
March 25, 2019 — How can we save the oceans? They cover two-thirds of the planet, but none are safe from fishing fleets, minerals prospectors, or the insidious influences of global warming and ocean acidification.
In the past decade, there has been a push to create giant new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). They now cover nearly 9.7 million square miles, equivalent to more than the land area of North America. Cristiana Pașca Palmer, executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, says the world is on course reach the convention’s target of having a tenth of the oceans protected by next year.
But questions are being raised. The growth has been driven by the formation of giant MPAs bigger than many countries, often in remote regions where the threat to biodiversity is lower. So, critics are asking, are countries creating big distant MPAs to distract attention from the harder task of protecting trashed coastal ecosystems closer to home? And is there a geopolitical game afoot, a stealth rush to control the oceans for political ends? And does that explain why half of the ocean waters covered by MPAs are in the hands of the United States and two former European colonial powers, Britain and France?
Most ocean scientists see the rush to create vast MPAs as a boon to marine conservation. They are cost-effective, connect different marine ecosystems, and encompass larger parts of the ranges of migrating species such as whales and tuna, protecting “corridors of connectivity among habitats in ways not afforded by smaller MPAs,” says Bethan O’Leary, a marine scientist at the University of York in England.
December 27, 2018 — Destructive trawling is more intense inside official marine sanctuaries, while endangered fish are more common outside them, a startling analysis of Europe’s seas has revealed.
It shows that far from conserving sealife, many legal marine protected areas (MPAs) are being damaged by industrial fishing. The work has exposed “the big lie” behind European marine conservation, experts say, with most MPAs completely open to trawling.
The researchers were able to assess the activity of fishing vessels in great detail thanks to satellite tracking equipment that is now compulsory on ships. They compared this with scientific data on the health of sea areas and looked at more than 700 MPAs, covering 16% of Europe’s territorial waters. In total, MPAs cover 29% of Europe’s waters.
This revealed that commercial trawling activity was on average almost 40% higher inside MPAs than in unprotected areas. Furthermore, endangered and critically endangered fish species such as sharks and rays were five times more abundant outside the MPAs.
“It should be the reverse,” said Prof Boris Worm, at Dalhousie University in Canada, who led the research. “When something is called a protected area, it actually needs to be protected. We know that when areas are actually protected they deliver: species recover, biodiversity increases and fisheries benefit as well, as fish become more abundant and spill outside these areas.
August 29, 2018 — On New Year’s Day 2015, as celebratory fireworks erupted around the world, a quieter but no less explosive change was happening in Kiribati. After years of planning, the central-Pacific nation finally instigated a complete ban on all fishing within a 157,000-square-mile area of ocean, equivalent in size to California. This area—the Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA)—had enjoyed limited (and controversial) protections since 2008. But the upgrade of 2015 turned it into one of the biggest protected areas on the planet, and arguably one of the most lauded. Here was a place where some 500 fish species could swim untroubled. Here was a sign of humanity’s growing commitment to protecting the oceans.
But the lead-up to this upgrade was a long one, full of the usual gauntlet of debates, public meeting, and blue-ribbon panels. Those discussions had been going on since at least the fall of 2013—and that gave fishers time to react. By analyzing ship movements, Grant McDermott from the University of Oregon and Kyle Meng from the University of California at Santa Barbara have shown that fishing intensity more than doubled in the site of the future reserve in the run-up to 2015. The damage was equivalent to fishing continuing for another year and a half after the ban took effect. The path to fully protecting PIPA triggered a preemptive race to yank as many fish from its waters as possible before the opportunity to do so closed for good.