NEFMC Urged to Engage in Ocean Planning Process

by Laurie Schreiber

The RPB is responsible for developing New England’s ocean plan as part of the National Ocean Policy. “As you know, interest in alternative uses of lands and waters of the outer continental shelf is rapidly gaining pace.” – Ocean Conservancy Fishermen’s Voice file photo

PORTLAND, ME—Several fishing industry and environmental organization representatives urged the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) to become more fully engaged in the Northeast Regional Planning Body’s (RPB) development of a draft ocean plan.

It’s expected the draft plan will be released in March. NEFMC has had representatives on the RPB. But “the thoughtful input of the council’s entire membership is paramount at this juncture to ensure that the ocean plan is compatible with fisheries the council conserves and manages,” wrote David Frulla, Drew Minkiewicz, and Anne Hawkins, counsel for the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF)—which includes over 250 full-time scallop fishermen—in a Nov. 20 letter to NEFMC.

“The council is late to the game on a lot of it,” Drew Minkiewicz told NEFMC at its December meeting. “Your input is critical.”

“The next few months will be the culmination of the ocean planning process, said John Williamson, speaking for the Ocean Conservancy. “This is where you will now be setting a foundation for improving on consultation with agencies such as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [BOEM]. Hopefully, this process will have mapped out better ways to do business, and the council will have a much higher profile in the regulatory processes going forward in the ocean environment.”

“It’s highly important that the council engage with BOEM,” said Cape May, N.J.-based Atlantic Capes Fisheries’ corporate director of sustainability, Peter Hughes. “They run a somewhat opaque process in that they’re really not transparent to individual stakeholders. It’s as though anybody can go delineate an area on a map, present it to BOEM, and BOEM, can move forward with it and possibly have a public hearing on it. I hope this council would be part of creating more transparency in that process.”

The RPB is responsible for developing New England’s ocean plan as part of the National Ocean Policy, established by Presidential Executive Order in 2010. The order created nine regionally focused RPBs to manage the nation’s oceans and coasts. New England was the first region in the nation to respond to the call, launching the Northeast RPB in November 2012.

The Northeast RPB includes representatives from the six New England states, 10 federally recognized tribes, 10 federal agencies, and NEFMC. The RPB has no authority to create new regulations. Its mandate is to create a plan and oversee its implementation, with many opportunities for public participation.

In a separate latter, Ocean Conservancy said NEFMC must engage in consultations regarding non-fishing ocean activities.

“As you know, interest in alternative uses of lands and waters of the outer continental shelf is rapidly gaining pace,” the letter says. Projects include multiple wind farms, an LNG import facility, seismic surveys for oil and gas prospecting and academic studies, sand extraction for beach replenishment, and artificial reefs, among others. “The potential for conflict between user groups and uses is obvious.

Both private companies and government agencies are regularly submitting development applications for offshore New England. Some of these projects can and will have major impacts to fisheries.”

In one example, the letter says, BOEM estimates that a wind energy area it is developing for auction in the New York Bight would displace over $4 million in annual scallop revenue, nearly a million dollars in monkfish revenue, and another several hundred thousand dollars in whiting and skate revenue.

Broad-scale regional efforts to plan for competing ocean uses are well underway, Ocean Conservancy wrote.

“Fishery uses are protected as a matter of law,” the letter says. “However, at present, despite the strong legal protections afforded to existing fisheries, the primary driver of communication between fisheries managers and the action agencies for offshore projects is the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation. For many reasons, the EFH consultation is a weak tool and must be both supplemented by other actions and improved by revised practices and/or regulations.”

The letter continues, “There is no other body that can effectively identify and defend the rights of fishing interests in the face of other agencies’ permitting processes that are too often stacked against those fisheries. Moreover, a failure to engage could have devastating and compounding consequences on every aspect of the council’s management regime, leading to losses in individual fisheries, fragmented or poorly designed habitat protection, and the frustration of ecosystem-based management.”

The RPB expects to release a draft ocean plan in March, with a 45-day comment period.