Habitat Closures an Overreach!

continued from Homepage

NOAA map

Area and seasonal closures are already in place, or on the horizon, under individual fishery management plans. NEFMC is considering broad cod protection closures in the Gulf of Maine for the 2015 fishing year. The status of exempted gear and fisheries under individual plan closures is under review.

At a Jan. 6 hearing, which drew about 20 people, fishermen and others from eastern Maine said proposed measures for their area threatened fishing all together, and therefore the socio-economic health of the entire eastern coastal region.

Downeast communities, said Alden, “are fishery-dependent to a degree that is unlike anywhere else in New England. If, inadvertently, an action now to protect groundfish habitat jeopardized the existence of Stonington, Vinalhaven and the Mount Desert Island and Swan’s Island communities, this would be an unprecedented misstep of federal regulation.”

Alden was talking about NEFMC proposals for eastern Maine, which is one of similarly subdivided regions along the coast that have similar alternatives under discussion.

For the Eastern Gulf of Maine, NEFMC has two closure scenarios under—a Large Eastern Maine Area and the Machias Area; or a Small Eastern Maine Area, Machias Area, and Toothaker Ridge Area.

NEFMC proposes various options for limiting gear. One would ban mobile bottom-tending gear but would allow hydraulic clam dredges. Two options would restrict certain configurations of mobile bottom-tending gear. The most draconian measure would ban all gears capable of catching groundfish.

Eastern Maine speakers expressed two primary concerns.

One had to do with the Machias Area, which abuts the maritime boundary line with Canada and is largely contained within the so-called “gray zone,” waters which are disputed territory between the U.S. and Canada and are fished by harvesters from both nations.

The other had to do with the idea of banning all gear capable of catching groundfish, which could potentially affect the lobster fishery. With regard to the Machias area, speakers said Canadians would continue to fish the gray zone, thus nullifying any ban on fishing on the U.S. side and therefore unfairly penalizing U.S. fishermen.

“Whatever you eliminate only allows Canada to do more of,” said Kristin Porter, a fisherman from Cutler who holds three federal permits to fish lobster, quahogs and scallops. “I battle every day with the Canadians [in the gray zone] and I’d hate like hell to be kicked out of that area. It would do absolutely no good.”

“Approximately 40 percent of the Machias Habitat Management Area is located within the gray zone, a territory disputed between the U.S. and Canada utilized by fishermen from both countries,” said Genevieve Kurilec McDonald, the Downeast region representative on the Department of Marine Resources’ (DMR) Lobster Advisory Council. “If the Machias HMA is implemented, Maine fishermen would be impacted while Canadian fishermen would continue to operate in the area, rendering the management plan ineffective.”

Said Alden, “Canadian fishermen actively fish that area, and would not respect the closure, rendering it both ineffective and inequitable to U.S. fishermen.”

“Should this area be approved as part of the final measures, Maine scallop fishermen will be prohibited from fishing mobile bottom-tending gear in the gray zone while Canadian fishermen would not, resulting in an inequitable outcome and failing to achieve any habitat protection,” said DMR director of internal affairs Terry Stockwell, speaking for DMR commissioner Patrick Keliher. “Furthermore, the portion of the proposed closure west of Machias Seal Rock is an extremely productive and historically important scallop ground.” The area has a considerable amount of high biomass, but scallop fishing was light in 2012-2013. “Low effort may be explained in part by a large presence of lobster gear in the area but should not be used to support a determination that there would be little to no adverse social or economic impact here, or as a justification to restrict future harvest of a regionally important commercial resource.”

The area is also home to productive mahogany quahog bottom, and the proposal would have significant impacts on Downeast fishing communities, said Stockwell.

Others spoke to the importance of the area for quahog fishing. “There are a lot of people employed in that fishery shoreside as well as on the water,” said Porter.

Michael Sansing, general manager at Look’s Gourmet Food Company in Whiting, a major purchaser of quahogs, said a wholesale ban on dragging would severely impact the fishery. D.C. Air and Seafood general manager Dwight Rodgers said that, as a harvester of mahogany quahogs, he was similarly concerned.

With regard to banning all gear capable of catching groundfish in the Large Eastern Area (instead of, as proposed in the other habitat areas, banning just bottom-tending mobile gear), “This is an overreach,” Alden said. Alden said PERC would have otherwise supported the Eastern Maine habitat protections. However, she said, “Recent developments in the discussion around habitat protections, specifically around the regulation of lobster gear in both groundfish and habitat closures, has led us to decide that there are very great downstream economic risks to identifying a habitat closure between Mount Desert Rock and the mouth of Penobscot Bay.

“I recognize the current proposal does not restrict lobster gear in the proposed areas. However, the context has changed in the last six months, and we feel strongly that additional analysis must be done before approving these areas.

“The area encompassed by Eastern Maine Large lies offshore of Maine lobster zones B and C. There are 20 fishing communities in those zones, and 365 federal permit holders. Of those, only seven do not have federal lobster permits. Just 12 hold limited access groundfish permits. Just three hold federal scallop permits.

“The average annual value of Zones B and C lobster landings for 2010-2013 was $128.8 million. If one makes a reasonable assumption that 50 percent of that came from federal waters, that represents a combined value from this area of $64.4 million, or 20 percent of the state’s total annual value for lobster.

“The lobster issue is critical to our evaluation because of two things: fishery dependence of these communities, and the lack of options….The trend is headed to the point where there will be zero entry level [groundfish] permits available for fishermen in this area.

“My point in mentioning this is not to bemoan the lack of access, but to say that these 20 communities…do not have other options.”

A 26-year-old fisherman from Spruce Head said he currently only fishes for lobster, not having access to other fisheries. “My concern,” he said, “is that if lobster gear were ever considered capable of catching groundfish and were eliminated from the Eastern Maine area, it would impact me. Currently, I estimate 60 percent of my landings come from federal waters. And it would greatly affect the economy around the area.”

Porter said he was similarly concerned about the prospect that traps might one day be banned as a gear capable of catching groundfish. “Washington County is one of the poorest counties in the nation,” Porter said. “So it would be a huge economic impact if that area were to be closed.”

“Any restrictions on current or future fishing opportunities in Downeast Maine could be devastating, as our economy depends on the success of our fishing industry,” said Kurilec McDonald. “The Large Eastern Maine Habitat Management Area is exactly that—large—encompassing nearly 1,700 square kilometers of the most productive lobster fishing grounds in New England. While the current proposal does not include a restriction on lobster gear, I’m not willing to gamble on the uncertainty that lobster gear could be restricted in the future [under the proposed measure]. If either the Machias or Large Eastern Maine area were ever closed to lobster fishing, it would be economically and culturally devastating to the state of Maine.”

Dana Rice, who runs D.B. Rice Fisheries in Birch Harbor, called the proposal “too broad a brushstroke.”Stockwell said the DMR considers the proposal “a vast overreach.” Instead, the DMR supports a proposed prohibition on mobile bottom-tending gear in the Small Eastern Area. The DMR also supports certain spawning closures, as “imperative to significantly improve spawning protection areas,” but opposes the creation of an Eastern Maine Dedicated Habitat Research Area, since there is no current proposed research plan.

Lifelong fisherman Bill Anderson, from Trescott, questioned the value of any eastern Maine closure. “You’re proposing to close an area where there’s no fishing going on, in terms of groundfish,” Anderson said. “So if you’re trying to protect habitat, there’s nothing being destroyed because no one’s towing. There’s been some scallop activity by small boats but that’s also been limited….So if you’re looking for fish habitat, you’ve already got it down there. You don’t need to close it.”

At this point, said Anderson, the only offshore fishery remaining Downeast is lobster. Since the area is now plastered with lobster traps from April to November, he said, it would be difficult in any case for mobile gear to operate.

“I question the value of closing that area, if there’s already no mobile gear in that area,” he said. “If you want to study habitat, go down here and look at it.”