One year ago the BP Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform erupted into a tower of flame. Eleven men were killed. Hundreds of millions of gallons of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico and created the worst environmental disaster in the US since the Great Dust Bowl. What we might have seen in this last year was a national awakening to the myriad threats of our reliance on oil. Instead we’ve seen the predictable denial of responsibility, a full scale media relations blitz and even the astonishing heartfelt apology from a leading Member of Congress to the oil industry.

It gets worse. Last week the  House Natural Resources Committee passed three bills designed to reduce oversight and speed up offshore oil drilling. One bill, HR1231, would actually require oil sale leasing in the North Atlantic and the rest of the east coast. Massachusetts’ Rep. Ed Markey pointed out the obvious and Chairman Doc Hastings said if we don’t drill more in the US then the price of gas will go up. Meanwhile, Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, agreed with the Saudi Arabian oil minister that “There is no shortage of supply in the market.” I only wish I were making this up.

About 25 years ago, after a battle of several years, CLF drove the final stake through the heart of attempts to drill for oil on Georges Bank. We have been through these battles before yet we can’t take any attacks by the oil industry and their allies in Congress lightly.

Tomorrow in Boston CLF, Oceana and Masschusetts State Rep. Frank Smizik will hold a press conference to oppose oil drilling in the Gulf of Maine. Come join us.

Wednesday, April 20th. Noon until 1:00pm. Government Center, City Hall Plaza. Find us near the flagpole outside the Government Center T stop. Rain or shine.

Portland Head Light, marking the southwest entrance to Portland Harbor (Photo Credit: Maine Department of Conservation)

The success of the new sectors approach to groundfish management, in which fishermen fish in community-based cooperatives (“sectors”) allocated a share of the annual catch limit in the fishery, is becoming more and more recognized as politicians such as Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree are speaking out in favor of the new system. Today, Congresswoman Pingree issued a press release declaring that the new sector regulations are working and noting that under the sector system, revenue for Maine fishermen is up over the previous year. The press release, which can be read in full here, also notes that Congresswoman Pingree spoke with Eric Schwaab, the top federal fisheries regulator, to reinforce her support for the current system and ask him to keep the regulations in place. A recent article in the Portland Press Herald also offered evidence of sectors’ success with quotes from a Maine sector fisherman saying that the new program has allowed fishermen to earn more money and reduce bycatch. The article also noted that Maine Senator Olympia Snowe recently asked federal regulators to continue with the sector system. CLF has long been on the record in support of Amendment 16 and the sector management plan it created, and it’s certainly encouraging to hear our local leaders and fishermen agree that sectors are helping to rebuild New England’s groundfish stocks and sustain its coastal communities.

In honor of the 41st anniversary of Earth Day, CLF Board members from across New England have banded together to make an extraordinary $41,000 investment in CLF’s – and our region’s – future. Every new or increased gift you make now through Earth Day – April 22– can be matched, dollar-for-dollar, up to $41,000.

Your gift today will go toward solving the region’s toughest environmental problems, and help us ensure a healthy, thriving New England for generations to come. From Maine to Rhode Island, CLF stands up for your favorite places, for the health of your families and your communities, and for the prosperity of our region. Since the last Earth Day, we:

• Cleaned up the air in Somerset, MA by closing the doors on an old, polluting coal plant
• Won tougher standards for phosphorus pollution in Lake Champlain, VT
• Preserved the fragile ecosystem of Great Salt Pond on Block Island, RI
• Saved Mainers millions of dollars on electricity infrastructure
• Helped NH cities and towns save energy and money by increasing energy efficiency

As Earth Day approaches, we are reminded that around the world and right here in New England, our land, our oceans and our air are in peril. On the heels of the 2010 elections, many in the new Congress are pursuing a clear anti-environment agenda, one that cuts directly to the core of the most fundamental protections for our health, safety and well-being. With leadership in Washington sorely lacking, CLF is uniquely poised to take the reins in protecting New England.

Today, we are asking you to help us continue our progress by taking part in our Earth Day Challenge. Your commitment enables CLF to safeguard our oceans, clean up our lakes, rivers and forests, promote clean energy innovations and build healthy, livable communities. We hope you will take part in our Earth Day Challenge by making a donation today to help CLF protect our small but mighty corner of the world.

The Science and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the New England Fisheries Management Council met yesterday and today in Boston to review the report developed by the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute (MFI) in support of Governor Patrick’s request to the U.S. Department of Commerce for emergency relief for Massachusetts fishermen. The MFI report concluded that recent fishery management actions had produced losses on the order of $21 million dollars for Massachusetts fishermen and that catch limits could be raised without compromising the health of the fish populations or the conservation objectives of the management plan.

The SSC is a distinguished, international panel of scientists, some of whom have been assessing fish populations in New England for decades. Specifically, the SSC was asked to review several positions taken by the MFI report:

1.      Whether the methodologies used to calculate the biological reference points and the catch limits represented the best available science;

2.      Whether the methodology chosen to set catch limits resulted in an overly conservative approach because of “double counting” of scientific uncertainty;

3.      Whether there were other aspects of the fish modeling, such as the presence of so-called “retrospective patterns” in the models,  that resulted in overly cautious adjustments of the catch recommendations;

4.      Whether there were any recommendations for additional information that could be used in the future to improve the assessment process.

The SSC did not agree with any of the science-related assertions in the MFI report. In their discussion, they noted a number of places where the conclusions were based on faulty premises or ignored widely recognized issues that the scientists who had developed the original catch limit recommendations had addressed when they set the limits.

They concluded that the stock assessment and catch specification process was fully consistent with best scientific practices, that there was no “double counting” of uncertainty or risk, and that the annual catch limits could not be increased without increasing, in some cases significantly, the risk of meeting the conservation objectives of the New England Council and the federal statute that controls harvest, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

In their brief economic review, the SSC rejected the analysis and conclusions from the MFI report. Aside from noting that it was questionable to draw economic or social conclusions from a new management plan that had only been in effect for six months, the SSC noted that the report misrepresented $21 million of theoretical losses as actual losses and did not account for the revenues from the numerous other species that groundfishermen pursue in addition to the groundfish species. A number of SSC members also indicated that comparisons to the 2009 fishing year were not proper since the scientists had all concluded that the 2009 catch limits were set significantly too high for many species. The SSC agreed by and large that the economics of the new fishery plan looked positive for the first year, and provided no evidence of an economic crisis.

The SSC did acknowledge that there was always room for improvement in fish stock assessments and that additional research on both the assessment methodologies and a range of social and economic effects should be considered in the future.

The MFI report has now been rejected as a basis for emergency action or even immediate reconsideration of existing harvest levels by the Department of Commerce, a national scientific meeting of fisheries experts, and by the New England SSC.  It is time to move on and focus on continuing to improve the management system in New England so that we can restore healthy fish populations that support thriving and diverse regional fishing communities as quickly as practicable.

As part of the national effort to streamline and improve regulations launched by President Obama in an Executive Order the Environmental Protection Agency is soliciting comments on what regulations should be “modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed” — so tell them what you think! They have a webpage that explains what they are looking for and provides an opportunity to submit comments online.

At a recent “listening session” held in Boston CLF offered these thoughts to EPA.  The deadline for comments is April 4, 2011– let your voice be heard !

Atlantic cod

CLF has been working for twenty years to end overfishing in New England and to rebuild the imperiled fish populations that are the foundation of our regional fishing future. The New England fishing industry was subsidized to grow so big that its capacity to catch fish exceeded the capacity of the ocean to produce fish, and historic lows of fish populations (determined using data that span many generations) were reached in the mid-1990s. Since that time, the struggle to re-balance fishing effort with natural reproduction levels has been economically painful, and with few viable, options many fishermen have been forced out of the business or into other fisheries.

We at CLF see some light at the end of the rebuilding tunnel now. Fish populations are coming back, and in some cases, like haddock, they are fully rebuilt. Others, such as Atlantic cod, won’t be fully rebuilt until 2026, but they are gaining ground. The most recent fishery management plan, Amendment 16, helps ensure the continuation of this rebuilding trend. This plan is being legally challenged by New Bedford and Gloucester and some others. CLF is for the first time intervening in a court action on behalf of the government to defend this management plan, which ends overfishing, establishes enforceable quotas on fishing, and offers new flexibility to fishermen in how and when they fish.

CLF is not alone in our optimism that Amendment 16 finally is creating a future for the fishing industry. For an interesting perspective from one of Congress’s great ocean champions, former Representative Tom Allen, read this op-ed he authored in the Portland Press Herald. In his writing, Tom displays the vision, the compassion, and the judgment that convinced his constituents to send him back to Congress time after time. He offers a different perspective on the doom-and-gloom that occupies much of the slanted reporting that some local papers have been carrying.

In arguments made today before Federal Judge Rya W. Zobel on the federal lawsuit regarding the New England fisheries management system known as Amendment 16, Conservation Law Foundation senior counsel Peter Shelley defended the process in which the new rules were developed and agreed upon at the New England Fishery Management Council and re-affirmed CLF’s support for the Amendment.

Shelley stated, “This lawsuit is not so much about the specific merits of Amendment 16, but more about the integrity of the process by which the new rules were developed and vetted and set into motion. The process, which involved all of the fishing interests, including some who today decry it and the outcome it produced, was fair, rational and legal. New Bedford’s interests were directly represented in those lengthy deliberations and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts participated actively in both the Amendment 16 science decision-making and the policy development. This is the New England Council’s plan, not a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plan.”

“CLF supports the Council’s approval of Amendment 16 not because it is perfect, but because it represents a reasonable decision, reached after an extended transparent public debate that reasonably meets the Magnuson Stevens Act and National Environmental Policy Act requirements while attempting to provide additional flexibility for fishermen in the region to fish more efficiently and profitably if they want to. The related issues of consolidation and fairness in access to fish are on the Council’s plate now and should be carefully analyzed and debated.”

After the hearing, Shelley observed, “What we have learned over the past fifteen years is that strong and effective management of this important public resource, coupled with some degree of luck with Mother Nature, can restore fish populations to high levels and support a vital and stable domestic fishing industry. Amendment 16 is designed to accomplish that objective and is consistent with the Magnuson Act.”

Read the text of Peter’s full argument here.

Photo courtesy of NRCM

At a press conference held yesterday, CLF and our colleagues at the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) shined a spotlight on 50 bad bills that are now working their way through the state Legislature. If passed, these bills could:

• Open up the three million acres of the North Woods to development
• Repeal the ban on BPA and flame retardant chemicals that are hazardous to our health
• Allow big polluters to not be held accountable for cleaning up their own mess

A list of those bills is here, as are some media clips from Maine Public Broadcasting Network, the Portland Press Herald and the Lewiston Sun Journal related to yesterday’s conference.

The assault on Maine’s environmental protections continues, and we will continue to fight back—but we need your help. If you haven’t already, please add your voice to the effort by contacting your local legislator, submitting a letter to the editor to your local paper, or by becoming a member of CLF.

Jordan Basin (circled in red) is about 60 miles south of Bar Harbor in the Gulf of Maine

A Boston Globe article last week reported exciting information about North Atlantic right whales, the most endangered large whale in the North Atlantic and one of the planet’s rarest animals, with an estimated 440 individuals left in the total population. Historically, right whales were targeted by whalers because of various characteristics that made them commercially attractive and easy to kill, and today they face continuing threats from entanglement in fishing nets and collisions with ships. While there are many mysteries surrounding this ocean giant, in recent years, scientists discovered that many right whales spend early winter (November to January) in Jordan Basin, which is approximately 60 miles south of Bar Harbor in the Gulf of Maine and is one of New England’s special ocean places.

A breaching North Atlantic right whale

Scientists were able to conduct further observations of right whale behavior in Jordan Basin this past winter, and they saw indications that the whales were conducting mating rituals. Additional evidence, such as visually observing mating behavior and measuring hormone levels, is necessary in order to draw any definitive conclusions about the whales mating, but scientists sound optimistic that these recent discoveries are helping to fill in the blanks of what we don’t know about right whale behavior.

These discoveries carry additional importance because they can be used to create measures to protect the threatened right whale. Since whales are often harmed in net entanglements or ship strikes, knowledge of where they congregate allows the creation of well-tailored regulations that define shipping routes outside of right whale hotspots and reduce vessel speeds in seasonal right whale waters (this was discussed in a Boston Globe editorial that ran earlier this week). This is a key example of how marine spatial planning can help protect threatened ocean species, such as the North Atlantic right whale, and preserve our ocean legacy.