Image Copyright USFWS

An engineer, a politician, and a fish walk into a dam. The engineer says, “We could have built it bigger.” The politician says, “We should have built it cheaper.” Fish don’t talk, but if they did, they probably would have asked for a ladder.

Dams were built in the 18^th century to power mills, and in the 1940s to provide cheap electricity and irrigation opportunities – when they were considered great achievements of engineering that would benefit generations to come. Across the nation, dams have been utilized for energy production, flood control, irrigation, and water storage. But, if they are not appropriately planned, sited, and maintained  dams can have devastating impacts on fish populations.

In the early 1900s rainbow smelt supported a robust recreational and commercial fishery in the Northeast, but today NOAA Fisheries Service has listed them as a species of concern in this region. One of the problems in the Northeast has been the loss of suitable spawning habitat due to development like dams, which can prevent fish from moving upstream. But now there may be light at the end of the tunnel for rainbow smelt in southern Maine.

At the end of July, the Great Works Regional Land Trust (GWRLT) announced the removal of Shorey’s Brook dam and the restoration of the Shorey’s Brook on Raymond and Simone Savage Wildlife Preserve in Eliot and South Berwick, Maine.  Fish surveys are already showing rainbow smelt as far upriver as the former location of the dam and further upstream will be suitable for spawning habitat. If other dam restoration projects across the U.S. can be taken as indicators, rainbow smelt may soon be taking advantage of upstream habitats.

Larger scaled restoration efforts are also progressing in Maine. Earlier this summer, Talking Fish reported the demolition of the Great Works Dam on the Penobscot River in Maine – a restoration effort that will open thousands of miles of upstream habitat to Atlantic salmon and other fish for the first time in almost two hundred years. And, here at CLF we have been working to restore native alewives – an important prey species in both marine and fresh waters for many fish, mammals, and birds – to the St. Croix River in Maine. Read more about that work here.

The pressures on our fisheries are enormous, with overfishing, bycatch, pollution, ocean acidification, and habitat destruction all playing a part. We need a better way to plan in the face of all these different stressors. Partnering among local, regional, state, and federal stakeholders in the Northeast alone has culminated in 299 projects to improve and restore fish habitat in rivers, marshes, and estuaries.

New England’s need for habitat conservation and restoration is great, and other regions have similar challenges. Restoring damaged ecosystems to ecological and economic productivity is a fundamental component of the National Ocean Policy, and one more reason why the National Ocean Policy is right for New England.

This post was originally published on CLF’s fisheries blog, TalkingFish.org.

This post refers to an oral argument held in the First Circuit Court of Appeals on September 5, 2012.  To listen to an audio recording of the argument, click here.

On Wednesday, a panel of three Federal Circuit Court judges heard arguments from various parties regarding why the 2010 amendment to the New England Groundfish Management Plan, Amendment 16 as it is known, should either be thrown out or upheld. Among the folks asking the court to throw out the amendment were the cities of New Bedford and Gloucester, whose mayors sat prominently in the room. I was representing Conservation Law Foundation’s interests to the panel and advancing our view that Amendment 16 was both crucial at the time because of the looming catch limit reductions as well as being well within the law.  A decision is expected shortly.

The judges were clearly puzzled during the argument by the same question that has puzzled many of us repeatedly over the course of this two-plus year legal fight: what were the appellants’ motives in bringing this challenge and what did they hope to get from the court even if they were successful?

And why New Bedford and Gloucester? Their Council representatives all voted for the Amendment 16 package even though—like most everyone involved—they strongly objected to parts of Amendment 16. What do those two cities gain by throwing the management system into chaos by their judicial challenges? Gross revenues of most New Bedford-based boats and from all New Bedford groundfish have climbed dramatically under Amendment 16. To a lesser extent, Gloucester is also better off in gross revenues. The Port of Portland certainly has suffered in recent years, but they did not challenge Amendment 16.  The Court clearly wanted to understand the larger context of the challenge.

The cities argued that they were in court to stop consolidation but, wait a minute, haven’t fishing operations based in Gloucester and New Bedford accounted for a lot of the consolidation? Were they there protecting the interests of the small boat coastal fleet?  No one has ever seriously accused New Bedford of being a champion of the regional small boat fleet in the past although it would be welcome now.

And why go to court when it is patently obvious to many of us that some components of the coastal day boat fleet remain at serious risk until near-shore groundfish populations fully recover, which may not happen soon enough, if ever. There are any number of immediate management actions that New Bedford and Gloucester could be championing at the Council to support survival of day boats; their silence on such matters is striking in that forum.

To me, it didn’t seem like the panel members ever got a convincing answer from New Bedford or Gloucester’s lawyer. I suspect there are a variety of motives behind this effort: fishermen who can show that Amendment 16 irreparably hurt their businesses and ways of life, political ideologues advancing some romantic, largely inaccurate notion of the business of fishing , and business interests who are somehow economically advantaged by keeping the groundfishery in chaos. The political motives may be as simple as press ink: a fish fight almost always makes the front pages, even if it is … well, a fish story.

The court is going to do what it does; as one of the judges observed dryly: “statutory construction issues are not without interest….” A judicial setback of Amendment 16 is unlikely but even if that should happen, no one has seriously proposed a better alternative. What really troubles me about all of this activity is the distraction of it all. Some fishermen are really suffering for circumstances they did not bring down on themselves and strategic infrastructure like the Portland Fish Exchange are hanging on by a thread.

I have been doing this sort of legal work for more than thirty years and I can promise one thing: nothing, let me repeat, nothing that comes from the First Circuit Court of Appeals will make any sort of a difference to those troubles.

The only thing that will make a difference is commitment to a process that abandons slogans and propaganda and focuses on solutions. There is a lot of talent and interest throughout the region in solving some of these problems and there is no question that the region is at some sort of tipping point.

With New Bedford and Gloucester on board, it now seems that there is broad consensus that the small scale, mostly coastal boat fleet may be at a structural disadvantage that needs to be corrected and that time is of the essence. Rather than fund lawyers, why couldn’t New Bedford and Gloucester lead some problem-solving workshops that would tackle these questions for which they profess so much passion.  We don’t even have to wait for the Council to guide the process.

A New Bedford trawler leaves port.

“Groundfish resources off New England have experienced significant changes in abundance during the past 30 years and have now fallen to all time record lows.” 

-  Ronald Brown, Secretary of Commerce. Declaration of Disaster Affecting the New England Fishing Industry – March 18, 1994

“…I don’t hear so much in New England that ‘there are plenty of fish, our scientists got it wrong’…right now what I hear  – and what I see in the eyes of fishermen  – is people are saying ‘we can’t find codfish’ and they are really worried about their ability to stay in business…”

-  John Bullard, NOAA Northeast Administrator. MPBN Radio Interview – August 29, 2012

Why does this current groundfish crisis seem so familiar? As the populations of New England’s cod, haddock and flounder have continued to decline, it’s not surprising that the number of fishing boats chasing them have declined. The business of consolidation within any industry is often a fact of doing business and we know that consolidation has been happening in the New England groundfish fleet for decades. So far, the New England Fishery Management Council has avoided any serious approach to addressing fleet diversity and consolidation as it kicks the can down the road on the development of Amendment 18, and the National Marine Fisheries Service has been willing to watch from the sidelines. Some members of the New England Congressional delegation are trying to reduce the potentially devastating economic blow to fishing families and coastal communities by seeking federal disaster assistance, and for their good intentions and hard work, are getting a bizarre and negative counter reaction. And, NOAA appears to look for grossly wrong-headed short-term fixes, such as the concept of an accelerated effort to open some of the best remaining habitat areas in the Gulf of Maine to increased trawling and dredging.

Consolidation, fleet diversity, maintaining our region’s fishing heritage, federal assistance and creating new economic opportunities for fishing families are all important and serious issues, but they continue to avoid the core problem. The bottom line is that when there are no fish, there will not be a fishing industry.

What NOAA can do now is to exhibit leadership: stop looking towards actions which would heave the decades-long saga of the New England groundfishery into the next episode and, instead, focus on restoring the fish populations which are the basis for the jobs, resources and tremendous benefits which we all need and enjoy. Don’t wait for the elections and for Congress to sort itself out. Don’t seek to cheat on “inaccessible” fish stocks by opening closed areas. Catch limits which are not based on scientific data may be more politically palatable, but will only continue to mask the simple fact that the region’s best fishing captains aren’t finding fish because the fish are not there.

Here’s a proposal to NOAA: Follow the law. Tell the truth. Do the right thing.

Realistic catch limits are based on scientific data and incorporate a responsible amount of precaution. NOAA can establish rebuilding timelines which create a much higher likelihood of restoring fish populations. Ending overfishing is not just a legal requirement but a best management practice.

In addition to strict scientifically set catch limits, the most basic component for healthy fish populations and ocean wildlife is to protect and maintain quality habitat. This is an area of management which NOAA can effectively control. NOAA needs to come to grips with the reality that better protection and restoration of degraded habitat is not only integral to the recovery of fish populations, but serves to create the long term resilience that fish populations need when the more unpredictable effects of climate change hit. Existing habitat areas and areas already closed to bottom trawling and dredging, juvenile groundfish in nursery areas and essential fish habitat are building blocks for restoring the fishery. This is a Basic 101 Management issue.

Fishing families and coastal communities deserve any help they can get in an economic crisis. Over a year ago the Department of Commerce deployed Economic Development and Assistance Teams to assess economic impacts to New England communities. Those reports are gathering dust. High-level interagency coordination helped develop solutions in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and they can do that on a respectable scale in New England. Support communities with the available programs of the Departments of Labor, Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business Administration and community grants.

August 29 – Fisheries Scientists across the Yellow Line? – In discussions about how to set catch limits for yellowtail flounder, some scientists may have crossed the line separating pure science from policy making.

August 31 – Fish Talk in the News – Friday, August 31 – In this week’s Fish Talk in the News, a draft disaster relief package for the Northeast groundfishery; the mayor of New Bedford asks NEFMC not to reduce the catch limit for yellowtail flounder; dogfish receives MSC certification; NMFS adopts a new scallop stock assessment technique; warmer waters may be changing the distribution of New England fish stocks; the Ocean Health Index gives US oceans a low score for food production; and Coast Guard safety inspections for fishing vessels become mandatory this fall.

August 31 – A Proposal for NOAA – Why does this current crisis seem so familiar? As the populations of New England’s cod, haddock and flounder have continued to decline, it’s not surprising that the number of fishing boats chasing them have declined.

August 24 – Court Order Sets Clock Ticking for Action on River Herring – In a few weeks the New England Fishery Management Council will get a letter, probably a long one, explaining why the coming year will bring big changes to the way the council handles severely depleted river herring and shad.

August 24 – Fish Talk in the News – Friday, August 24 – In this week’s Fish Talk in the News: NOAA asks Congress to keep NERO in Gloucester; the Boston Globe supports John Bullard; New England fishing is the deadliest profession in the country; the South Shore Seafood Exchange grows; rising seal numbers cause concern; a gold rush for New England conch; river herring return to Upper Mystic Lake; and a cooking competition raises awareness of local, sustainable seafood.

How’s the weather? That question is much easier to answer than it used to be. Back in the old days farmers didn’t have the Weather Channel or iPhone forecasts and could only rely on their own knowledge.

Photo by W.S. Walker via Sandy McClearn

Early forecasts of the weather improved because of balloons that were sent up into the atmosphere to gather information – today similar devices are sent up every 12 hours around the world. Combined with satellite and other data, accurate weather forecasts are now at our fingertips. A hundred years ago, it took months to produce inaccurate forecasts.

For farmers, the ability to make plans on accurate weather predictions came down to dollars and sense – a torrential rain or early frost could destroy crops and carry a heavy economic cost. A big storm event could even affect regional and global food prices. The art of weather forecasting took leaps forward when regional monitoring was networked together in the early 1900s.

Shellfish harvesters, like farmers, depend on a crop that grows in waters where other creatures live – some of which, like harmful algae, can have a devastating impact. Generally, algae are essential for shellfish crops – they bloom in the spring and summer and provide food for clams, scallops, oysters, mussels, and other shellfish. But under some conditions, algae can contain toxins that accumulate in shellfish and make them dangerous when humans or other animals eat them. Just as weather predictions about severe storms help farmers on land, forecasting systems that can predict harmful algae could help prevent millions of dollars in damage for shellfish harvesters and farmers. In the Gulf of Maine 23 million dollars was lost as the result of a harmful algae bloom event in 2005.

New research in the North Atlantic Ocean is helping scientists understand why and when blooms of algae occur. Robots that glide to depths of 1,000 meters underwater or hover near the surface collect information on a regional basis. These devices are now being deployed in the Gulf of Maine.  In the Great lakes region, NOAA recently issued its first ever harmful algal bloom forecast. In the Northeast, networks of stationary buoys currently track data and provide forecasts about a variety of physical conditions.  Someday, ocean gliders may be as common as weather balloons, and harmful algae blooms might be as predictable as the weather.

Using the best available data to help make decisions is one of the cornerstones of Regional Ocean Planning. Investing in new technologies and research is essential for developing accurate forecasting systems that can help shellfish harvesters and distributers avoid costly pollution runoff from big storm events. This type of planning and coordination can help us find better ways to manage our valuable ocean resources in the face of the many changes that are already happening to them.

New England is as famous for its coastline as for its fish – but what lies beneath New England’s waves goes largely unseen and unremembered. One of these unknown treasures is Cashes Ledge, a 25-mile long underwater mountain range which lies 80 miles off the coasts of Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire and shelters one of the most distinctive marine ecosystems in the Atlantic. But Cashes Ledge is as sensitive to human interference as it is important to ecological diversity. With limited protection against increasingly destructive fishing techniques, Cashes Ledge remains vulnerable.

Atlantic Riches

Cashes Ledge hosts a remarkable diversity of marine life, from the Atlantic wolffish and rare blue sponge to the unusual red cod. The reason for such diversity lies in the mountain range itself, whose pinnacles interrupt the primary Gulf of Maine current and create a stunning oceanographic phenomenon known as internal waves, which carry high levels of nutrients and oxygen from the sea surface to the sea floor. This unusual circulation pattern results in an incredibly productive and diverse ecosystem. Cashes Ledge boasts the deepest cold water kelp forest in the Gulf of Maine and possibly the North Atlantic and has a rich array of invertebrates including sea anemones; bright orange, red, yellow and blue sponges; horse mussels; sea stars; brittle and feather stars; sea squirts; worms and northern shrimp. Atlantic bluefin tuna can be found pursuing herring on Cashes Ledge and blue sharks are common during the warm summer months. Humpback and Northern right whales often stop off to feed on the abundant supply of plankton. Cashes Ledge is also rich in a variety of groundfish including Atlantic cod, white hake, monkfish, haddock and redfish. A variety of offshore sea birds can be found dining at Cashes, such as sooty shearwaters and Wilson’s storm-petrels.

Cashes Ledge is also a rarity in New England waters. Though the ledge’s jagged, rocky formation has protected this particular habitat from significant human interference, other areas in the Gulf of Maine have not been so lucky. Cashes Ledge is unique in the greater Gulf of Maine system because its mountains shield one of the few remaining examples of what an undisturbed and thriving ecosystem in this region could look like. It’s no wonder that scientists have used Cashes Ledge as an oceanographic research lab for decades.

Under Attack

Up until the late 1900s, the rocky seafloor surrounding the Cashes Ledge mountain range prevented fishermen from trawling the ocean floor for their catch. Today, modern fishing gear equipped with “rock-hoppers” is more effective and more destructive, and poses a serious threat to this ecological treasure beneath the waves. Certain species are especially at risk. Bottom trawling could easily wipe out certain populations of sea anemones, and scientists estimate that it would take over 200 years for the population to recover and return to the area. The kelp forests are also prone to shredding from simple fishing gear like lines, hooks, and traps, and bottom trawling could remove entire sections of the kelp forests – requiring years to recover. Any sustained damage to this delicately balanced ecosystem could last for decades or more.

Inadequate Protection

Though a portion of Cashes Ledge is currently protected by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), this protection is very limited. A part of Cashes Ledge has been designated as a habitat protection area and much of it is currently closed to fishing for cod, haddock and other groundfish. However, Cashes Ledge remains open to fishing with certain kinds of gear such as “mid-water” trawlers, large offshore lobster pots and seine nets that can seriously impact this sensitive ecosystem. Furthermore, the NEFMC is now considering modifications or elimination of these already limited protections – threatening the diversity of ocean wildlife and the unique habitat found on Cashes Ledge and the long-term health of this important and vulnerable ecosystem.

CLF Action

CLF has taken the lead in campaigning for the permanent protection of Cashes Ledge from damaging fishing gear. It is clear to us that the real value of this special place lies in preserving this treasure for ocean wildlife and as an open sea laboratory for the world’s scientists.

CLF is also committed to raising public awareness for Cashes Ledge and other ocean habitats through the recent launch of the New England Ocean Odyssey, featured earlier in this issue. This five-year program is just one of many ways CLF remains dedicated to conserving New England’s oceans.

Protecting Cashes Ledge is more than an environmental obligation – it is an opportunity. Preserving this area of natural beauty offers the chance to create another legacy for New England – one that recognizes its biodiversity and provides a thriving environment for generations to come.

Note: This article was originally pulished in Conservation Matters, CLF’s quarterly publication. Find a copy of this issues, as well as archives, here.

August 17 – Fish Talk in the News – Friday, August 17th – This week in Fish Talk in the News: Canadian lobster fishermen reach a deal with processors; a New Bedford scalloper sues the federal government over harsh fines; infections grow in Massachusetts striped bass; the “rust tide” strikes Buzzards Bay; New Hampshire promotes new oyster farms; the Bigelow Laboratory receives $1 million in grants; and fishermen are concerned with poor data on monkfish.

“I love diving with makos, but they have a very different behavior than other sharks. They come in appearing to be more agitated. They’re much more hyper and jacked up.” - Brian Skerry

Mako sharks are built to move. They are very acrobatic – sometimes leaping high into the air –and are also extremely fast. Some scientists think they are the fastest fish, possibly going over 50 mph at times. (Fun fact – makos are one of the only “warm-blooded” fish, which helps explain why they can move so fast, even in colder water.) Makos need wide open spaces and healthy places to eat and reproduce. The health of our oceans depends on healthy top predator populations, and healthy top predators depend on healthy oceans.

Our nation has taken a major step forward in protecting the health of our oceans with the National Ocean Policy – which calls better management through agency coordination, science-based decisions and robust public and stakeholder involvement.  One important priority of the National Ocean Policy is to protect ocean habitat and wildlife while supporting sustainable new and traditional uses of our ocean.

Regional ocean planning and ecosystem-based management are two other key components of the National Ocean Policy that can go a long way in protecting our top predators. Regional ocean planning is a process that brings together all our ocean stakeholders – from fishermen to whale watchers, from beachgoers to renewable energy developers – to help us figure out how to share the ocean sustainably. This process helps all New Englanders use and enjoy our ocean and coasts while making sure we protect ocean wildlife and habitats and maintain the benefits these resources provide for us all.

For an example of how regional ocean planning can protect marine wildlife, check out this blog about endangered North Atlantic right whales and shipping lanes.

Collecting and sharing good data, and using it to help make ocean management decisions, are some of the keys to succesful regional ocean planning. If you are wondering how this might apply to mako sharks, check out this app from NOAA that allows fishermen to share information about caught and released makos – to literally put that shark on the map. NOAA says “Overfishing is occurring on the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark population. By releasing shortfin mako sharks that are unintentionally caught or caught for sport, fishermen can lead the way for conserving this shark species.” Now that sounds like some good planning.