Fishermen Question Acadia’s Marine Protection Authority

by Laurie Schreiber

About two dozen people attended an April 13 public information meeting to discuss the nomination of Acadia National Park into a National System of Marine Protected Areas of the United States.

The meeting was requested by the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission and hosted by the National Park Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Traveling to the meeting from Washington, D.C., were National Marine Protected Areas (NMPA) Center director Joseph Uravitch and natural resource specialist Cliff McCreedy. Also on hand were Acadia National Park superintendent Sheridan Steele and chief of resource management David Manski, and Department of Marine Resources Commissioner George Lapointe, who serves on the NMPA advisory panel.

Although the comment period for Acadia’s nomination officially closed on Feb. 22, Uravitch said that, because the nomination provoked so many questions from local residents, the center decided to continue to take comments.

Those apprehensive about the nomination were mostly fishermen, whose discussions centered on two main concerns. Some said that inclusion of Acadia in the national system could be a foot in the door toward extending the park’s boundaries, and therefore its authority, into commercial fishing waters. Others said they were concerned about the status of clam and worm harvesting on the mud flats, both present and future, given Acadia’s existing status as a marine protected area and the specter of any expanded authority the park might have as part of a national system.

“I think people’s concerns about impacts on commercial fishing are legitimate,” said Lapointe.

“I think those are things we have to watch whether this happens or not.”

Still, he said, he didn’t believe the park’s inclusion in the national system merited too much concern.

One of the difficulties of the proposal, said Lapointe, is that, because it appears to do little, people suspect there is some back-door maneuvering. On the contrary, he said, inclusion in the national system is a small step toward helping marine protected areas across the country to network, work on common issues, and seek joint funding opportunities.

The perception, agreed Steele, is that there’s something going on that the federal government is trying to hide.

“I can assure you there’s not,” Steele said. “There’s no increase of our authority. I do understand the skepticism. People question everything today.”

Islesford fisherman Bruce Fernald wanted to know what is to prevent, in the future, the extension of Acadia’s existing marine protected area further into the bays.

Steele said that less than 1 percent of Acadia National Park is marine. That’s enough to qualify Acadia as a marine protected area, and therefore as a nominee for the national system, he said. But, he said, the protected portion of Acadia’s marine area extends, at most, to the mean low tide, and in some cases only to the mean high tide, depending on the nature of a variety of conservation easements held by the park. Extending the boundary any further would require an act of Congress, Steele said.

“It’s not something that could be sprung upon an unsuspecting public,” said Katona.
There are about 1,600 to 1,700 marine protected areas around the U.S., said Uravitch. There are 170 marine protected areas in the Gulf of Maine.

The national system allows marine protected areas of all types to work together on common issues and use common resources, said Uravitch. The Marine Protected Area Center has no regulatory authority, said Uravitch.

“It’s important to us to use the national system as a network and as a vehicle to cooperate,” said McCreedy. “This is just us trying to do a better job.”

Bill Clark of Isle au Haut spoke to a sense of mistrust that fishermen in his area have toward federal regulators. The mistrust, he said, stems from interactions with fishery regulators.
“Now you’re dragging this way of thinking to the shore,” Clark said. “And anyone who fishes, I think that’s their biggest concern.”

Frank Donnelly of Lamoine said his concern is that inclusion in the national system is the federal government’s first step in the door toward fishery restrictions beyond the shore.
Other local fishermen said they were concerned the park might prohibit clamming and worming within the boundary.

The issues of mud flat harvesting is confusing, said Acadia Advisory Commission chairman Steve Katona. On the one hand, he said, harvesting on the flats within the park’s boundaries is technically prohibited but, to date, the park has left clam flat management to the municipalities.
Southwest Harbor Shellfish Committee chairman Jim Colquhoun said this open-ended arrangement is precisely the point of concern, given that the park could come in anytime and prohibit harvesting.

Maine Sea Grant director Paul Anderson, who moderated the meeting, suggested that park and municipal personnel might want to meet to clarify the arrangement.

“Every time we turn around, we have different things thrown at us,” said Zone B Lobster Council chairman Jon Carter. Zone B includes all of the Acadia marine area in question except that around Isle au Haut, which is in Zone C. “We’re very leery of anything that’s going to take place.”

Under a 2000 Presidential Executive Order (#13158), Acadia National Park’s intertidal zone and estuaries are considered to be a Marine Protected Area (MPA). The executive order defines a marine protected area as any area of the marine environment that have been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural and cultural resources therein. The Executive Order required NOAA and the Department of the Interior to establish a National System of Marine Protected Areas to share science information and technologies and to strengthen management of the areas within the National System.

The DOI and NOAA proposes to include Acadia National Park’s intertidal zone and estuaries with other currently protected federal, state, and territorial MPAs as members of the National System of Marine Protected Areas (NSMPA). Benefits of joining this national system, according to information from the two agencies, are a facilitated means to work with other existing marine protected areas on issues of common conservation concern and an opportunity to compete for grant funds that are available to members of the national system.

The inclusion of Acadia National Park’s intertidal zone and estuaries into the NSMPA will not convey any additional authorities to the NPS or NOAA to regulate or restrict uses, activities or access within the park, according to published agency information. Membership in this national system will not extend the boundary of Acadia National Park beyond what Congress established in 1982 and 1986. The park boundary extends to mean low water. This situation will not change if Acadia National Park joins the NSMPA.

In March, officials from several towns notified NOAA’s NMPAC that they opposed the nomination.

The board of selectmen for the town of Tremont said they were mainly concerned about the potential ramifications for fishing rights.

“Tremont is a fishing community; the economy of our town is based on fishing and boat building,” a letter from the town of Tremont said. “We believe that another layer of bureaucracy, however benignly intended, amounts to another nail in the coffin of commercial fishing. The current philosophy of the National Park System, which promotes non-interference in natural events, is contrary to the interests of commercial fishing.”

The Swans Island Board of Selectmen also sent in a comment opposing the nomination.
(“We believe that another layer of bureaucracy, however benignly intended, amounts to another nail in the coffin of commercial fishing,” wrote the Swans select board.)

In a Feb. 19 letter opposing the nomination, the town of Southwest Harbor’s Shellfish Conservation Committee expressed concern that clam harvesting would be prohibited under the MPA designation. In Southwest Harbor, the letter said, 43 percent of open clam flats are contiguous to Acadia, and therefore included in the nomination.

“Clearly, any future attempt to limit shellfish harvest opportunities would use this designation as partial support,” the letter said. “Obviously that would greatly concern us given the importance to the Town’s shellfish program of harvest from the proposed sites.”

The committee also expressed concern regarding lack of communication between the NPS and the public.

“Our committee has not experienced good cooperation from local NPS staff in managing this important local resource,” their letter read. “We were even prohibited from posting our local shellfish regulations on park service land last November, an ironic coincidence given that this nomination was being submitted at about that time. That prohibition was accompanied by the statement that local NPS resource management staff were not interested in local shellfish management. That kind of attitude does not bode well for future cooperation, and does not give us faith that this nomination will not be used to support restrictive park policies.”

Stonington’s board of selectmen also sent in a letter of opposition. Forty percent of fishing declarations in Zone C, which includes Stonington, are in proximity to Acadia, both at Bar Harbor and Isle au Haut.

For more on marine protected areas, visit www.mpa.gov.