State, MLA weigh in on habitat amendment

First published in Landings, February, 2015.

The 90-day public comment period for the New England Fishery Management Council’s (NEFMC) Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) closed on January 8. The Council held public meetings throughout the Mid-Atlantic and New England states over the three months to get public comment on the six-volume amendment whose provisions, once implemented, will apply to all fishery management plans within those regions.

The most significant part of the amendment deals with proposed changes to the network of year-round and seasonal closed areas in New England waters. Various areas have been closed to fishing for the past 20 years. The amendment reconsiders those closures based on impacts of fishing activity, location of high densities of juvenile groundfish, and the spawning behavior of targeted species such as cod. Changes to the different areas, known as Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Management Areas, are presented in the amendment as “alternative actions.”

The Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) met in January with fishermen along the coast to hear their thoughts about the amendment. Their concerns focused primarily on the effect the proposed closed areas would have on a variety of commercial fisheries and the meaning of the term “fishing gear capable of catching groundfish.”

In DMR’s official comments submitted to the NEFMC, Commissioner Patrick Keliher states, “The Machias Habitat Management Area (HMA), as currently configured and included in both alternatives, abuts the maritime boundary line with Canada and is largely contained within the ‘grey zone’ [The “grey zone” is an area around Machias Seal Island, the ownership of which is disputed by the United States and Canada.]…. Should this area be approved as part of final measures, Maine scallop fishermen will be prohibited from fishing mobile bottom-tending gear in the ‘grey zone’ while Canadian fishermen would not, resulting in an inequitable outcome and failing to achieve any habitat protection.”

Keliher also expressed concern about scalloping grounds that have only recently come back into production. “Furthermore, the portion of the proposed closure west of Machias Seal Rock is an extremely productive and historically important scallop ground … The adverse socio-economic impact of the current Machias HMA proposal, or any changes to it, would be significant for Downeast Maine fishing communities.”

Commercial fisheries other than scallop harvesting would also be affected by certain of the alternative closures proposed in the amendment, among them Maine’s small but lucrative halibut fishery. “DMR opposes the expanded area encompassed by the Large Eastern Gulf of Maine HMA, and considers the NEFMC ‘s preferred alternative of overlaying a prohibition on all gear capable of harvesting groundfish to be a vast overreach of OHA2’s goals and objectives. Final measures including this preferred alternative would devastate the halibut fishery in this area, as well as existing groundfish, scallop and other mobile gear fisheries for a large number of Downeast coastal communities whose economies are largely or solely dependent on commercial fishing.”

The Maine Lobstermen’s Association (MLA) also weighed in on the proposed amendment. A primary issue for lobstermen, according to the the Association’s formal comments to the NEFMC, is the meaning of “fishing gear capable of catching groundfish.” As noted in the MLA’s comments, “We recognize that the amendment as written does not exclude lobster gear, but it is unclear whether or not lobster fishing could fall under these restrictions in the future.”

For that reason, the MLA “strongly opposes the inclusion of Option 5 [complete restriction on use of gear capable of catching groundfish in any closed area] under any of the alternatives. In fact, the MLA urges the Council to consider explicitly allowing lobster gear to continue to be fished in habitat and spawning closed areas in the future. At a minimum, we need some assurance that lobster gear will not be re-categorized and excluded from any closure without adequate research, peer review and broad stakeholder input.”

The effect that new or expanded closures would have along the coast, particularly in the Downeast area, raised concerns among the MLA’s membership. During the past twenty years, more coastal fishermen moved into the lobster fishery as other fisheries became more restricted. Today just a few fisheries, such as halibut and scallops, are available for established fishermen or new entrants to access. Closures instituted through the amendment could hamper those fisheries in the future. As the MLA stated in its letter, “the MLA is very leery of the size, scope and location of many of the new or reconfigured closures put forward in the amendment. Maintaining Maine’s existing fisheries is critical to the economic survival of our coastal communities, and maintaining opportunities for future emerging fisheries is critical. Maine is highly dependent upon the lobster fishery, for good or for ill. We must nurture what little diversity in the fisheries we have left along our coast. And we must not take away future opportunities for Maine fishermen to access fisheries as they emerge.”

The association echoed DMR’s opposition to closures, going so far as to state, “The MLA opposes all of the options proposed for eastern Maine (Machias, Large Eastern Maine and Small Eastern Maine habitat closures). As mentioned above, any threat of lobster trap gear being excluded from these areas is an unacceptable risk for Maine…. The MLA also strongly opposes restricting the herring purse seine fishery from these eastern Maine areas.” In addition, the MLA weighed in on the proposed western Gulf of Maine closure, stating “The MLA opposes any changes to the existing Western Gulf of Maine closures. This area has developed into an important lobster fishery for many Maine lobstermen. Removing or reconfiguring this area would lead to significant gear conflict and losing access to it would pose significant economic hardship to Maine lobstermen.”

“The impacts of the proposed habitat amendment reach far beyond the species it seeks to protect,” Patrice McCarron, executive director of the MLA noted. “We must speak out about the effect some of the proposed closures could have on lobstermen as well as on other Maine fishermen struggling to make a living from increasingly limited fisheries. I don’t think anyone truly understands how these proposals will impact access to our fisheries over time.”

Public comments will be analyzed by the NEFMC staff, summarized, and then reviewed by the Council’s Habitat Committee. The Habitat Committee will then make recommendations to the full NEFMC on final preferred alternatives, most likely at the Council’s April meeting. The Council will vote on those alternatives then send the document to the National Marine Fisheries Service for review (NMFS). NMFS will promulgate the final rules that will turn the amendment into law, perhaps as early as next year.