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.

Last Thursday, I testified before the House Committee on Natural Resources on a topic that I have worked on for years: restoring New England’s fisheries and commercial fish populations.

The topic is as important today as it was when I started working on it in 1989, if not more: our fish species continue to face immense pressure with a number of stocks still in terrible condition after a decade of concerted effort and the region’s fishing communities and fishermen continue to face unacceptable levels of business uncertainty and volatility. At the same time, there are some positive signs in the fishing industry that are critical to build on rather than  continuing to focus on the past.

There were not any commercial fishermen on the panel before the Natural Resources Committee, which was a lost opportunity for the panel to hear what’s working and what’s not working for the working fleets.  In any event,  I appreciated the opportunity to voice CLF’s support for rebuilding a vibrant New England fishery.

Below find the full text of my testimony. Or, if you like, you can find a .pdf here.

****

Chairman Hastings, and Ranking Member Markey, thank you for inviting me to testify today.

My name is Peter Shelley. I am a senior attorney with New England’s Conservation Law Foundation, the oldest regional conservation advocacy group in the nation. I have worked on federal fishery management issues in New England since 1989.

Next to my computer at work, I have a post-it note with formula on it:

31 billion (dollars more in fish product sales) + 500,000 (new jobs) +

2.2 billion (more dollars flowing to America’s fishermen and their communities).

Those are the results that rebuilt fisheries in this country could produce. Even if the country could only reach half those numbers, rebuilding fisheries would be an important national strategic objective.

Those were the goals Congress had when it overwhelmingly passed the Magnuson Reauthorization Act in the Bush Administration in 2006.

To get to those goals, I believe, Congress needs to do three things:

1. Allow the current law to work and allow the regional councils and the agencies to implement it — it’s only just begun to take effect.
2. Fund the Act so it can work, perhaps on the order of three times the current appropriation for the essential tasks of stock assessments, monitoring, and data collection, and
3. Invest in our working waterfronts and coastal communities so they will be there to benefit from a healthy, restored ocean.

In my view, three of the bills before the Committee today are aligned with those actions. The other five bills, notwithstanding the good intentions of their sponsors, are not.

The Coastal Jobs Creation Act, sponsored by Representatives Pallone and Pingree, is a great piece of legislation with broad public support. The infrastructure and capacity investments the bill identifies are essential to our maritime and fishery future and will be repaid many times over. H.R. 594 should be supported by the Committee.

Rep. Frank’s Asset Forfeiture Fund bill and Rep. Keating’s Strengthen Fisheries bill also have merit.  These two bills are the only ones before the Committee today that make an effort to identify new funding streams for the fisheries science and data collection that is critically needed in the regions. HR 2753 also has merit but no new funding source.

In my opinion, the other four major bills before the Committee, H.R. 1646, 2304, 2772, and 3061, would move this country farther from our common goals, perhaps out of reach.

Without exception, they

–impose new costs and mandates for marginal benefits and without new funding
–create more business uncertainty and volatility for fishermen
–require substantial new regulations and guidelines
–cause more procedural delay in the management process
–mandate that councils take higher risks than they might deem advisable
–and eliminate one of the only market-driven and de-regulatory tools in the management toolbox—the LAPPs.

Finally, by providing the least protection to the weakest fish populations, these four bills actually increase the probabilities of future stock failures and job losses in my opinion.

I think that they could put New England’s groundfisheries right back in the 20-year deep ditch they have just now started to climb out of.

The first New England groundfishing season using a management plan in full compliance with the new Reauthorization Act requirements ended April 2011.

The net profits to the small business boat owners that year are reported to have increased $10.8 million—in a year when quotas were significantly cut, the Council started an entirely new management program, and diesel prices went up 30%.

If the New England Council had not shifted to the “sector” catch share program they now use, the economic estimates were that the fleet might lose 15 million dollars.

As stated in a letter sent to the New England Congressional delegation on Nov. 14, 109 fishing captains –- some of N.E.’s best small business owners in the groundfishery –- want to retain the current catch share program and management program.

By my count, these folks have seen rules changes on average every four months from March 1994 to May 2010. They think that’s enough and I tend to agree with them. They believe they can make the Magnuson Act work and I agree with them there as well.

These four bills do not directly address one of the three specific things those knowledgeable fishermen have asked for in their letter to the delegation.

1) Management stability
2) New opportunities to target rebuilt fish stocks and reduce operations costs
3) Funding to improve and increase frequency of stock assessments to support effective management

Despite the often heated rhetoric, it is clear to me that more New England fishermen are starting to have some hope based on the success of the sectors program. These fishermen now need regulatory stability so they can continue to grow their businesses.

Moreover, there are strong signs that the Magnuson Act Reauthorization is working around the country. Overfishing is finally stopping and many fish stocks are growing, sometimes rapidly.

I am confident that  conditions will continue to improve if the course is continued and not weakened. Decades of overfishing can’t be turned around overnight. Full recovery will take time and patience and there will be some very rough spots ahead. we can get through them without new law and when statutory changes are needed, such as with the Canadian trans-boundary issue last year in New England, precise and surgical changes can be made that minimize the ever present risk of unintended consequences.

In 1976, Congress created a fishery management council system, which is unique in the country and one that many skeptics thought couldn’t work. But the system brings regional and local values and local political accountability to these complex and multi-faceted fishery decisions and management actions and risks get adjusted for local conditions.  In New England, the Council system is starting to work for more and more fisheries and fishermen.

I urge the Committee to continue to trust the council system and the agencies with these tough management decisions without statutory micromanagement. I also urge the Committee to fund the agencies and programs so they can succeed.

Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.

This was a big week for TalkingFish.org! We launched a re-designed website as well as a new Special Features section, making it easier than ever for you to get the information you’re looking for about the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s a weekly recap of this week on TalkingFish.org:

• 

  Alex Hay outside Mac's Seafood - read an exclusive interview with him at www.TalkingFish.org

  November 1: “Fishermen to Council: Sectors are working; don’t make any drastic changes” – A recap of the New England Fishery Management Council’s workshop to discuss lessons learned from the first year of sector management. The main message fishermen shared at the event? Sectors are working, and we need to stay the course with this system. Fishermen also stressed the importance of stability to their business operations.

• November 2: “Know where your fish comes from” – The first piece in TalkingFish.org’s new “Ask an Expert” series – this week: an interview with Alex Hay of Mac’s Seafood in Wellfleet. Alex talks about his company’s commitment to local and sustainable seafood and provides a great recipe for pan-seared hake with wild mushrooms.
• November 3: “Overfishing 101: A Small Fish With Big Problems” – This is the latest piece in Lee Crockett of the Pew Environment Group’s “Overfishing 101″ series, and it deals with Atlantic menhaden, a small fish that is “a pillar of the East Coast marine food web.” Sadly, Atlantic menhaden populations have declined to record lows. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission will consider options to protect menhaden when it meets next week in Boston.
• November 4: “Fish Talk in the News – November 4, 2011″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest TalkingFish.org readers. This week: reactions to the Boston Globe’s seafood fraud investigation, more opinions on the groundfish sector system, and NOAA will consider listing river herring under the Endangered Species Act.
• November 4: “Peter Shelley: Call to oust chief of NOAA is bad for a fishing industry in flux” – CLF’s Peter Shelley’s Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe in response to Senator Scott Brown’s call for NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco to resign.

Catch up with the latest news from TalkingFish.org, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. TalkingFish.org aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• October 3: “Senate Field Hearing on Groundfish Management this Morning” – A post in advance of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation field hearing on the first year of implementation of Amendment 16 to the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery Management Plan that occurred in Boston on Monday. There are also links to articles that appeared in the news leading up to the event.
• October 5: “Focus going forward should be on making the New England Council and sector management work – not on repeating unsubstantiated arguments” – CLF’s Peter Shelley writes about his thoughts on the Senate Committee hearing and delves into the numbers behind the claim that revenues have become increasingly concentrated among the top earners in the groundfish fishery, finding that this may not actually be the case.
• October 5: “New England Council Makes a Move on Herring” – Lately, TalkingFish.org has been blogging about actions to protect river herring, an important little fish that is often caught as bycatch in the industrial midwater trawl Atlantic herring fishery. At the New England Fishery Management Council meeting last week, the Council voted to send new rules to protect river herring out for public comment.
• October 6: “Fish Talk in the News – Thursday, October 6″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest TalkingFish.org readers. This week: more on the Senate Committee field hearing on fishery management, the lowdown on tainted seafood imports, fish on the menu at Portland’s Harvest on the Harbor festival, and catch share infographics.

Catch up with the latest news from TalkingFish.org, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. TalkingFish.org aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• 

  Read about river herring this week on TalkingFish.org! (Photo credit: Mike Laptew)

  September 26: “Care about river herring? Then pay attention this week!” – This week was a big week for river herring at the New England Fishery Management Council meeting. TalkingFish.org tells you what was on the agenda and how you can make your voice heard to support options help save river herring. Next week we’ll have some recaps of the Council meeting, so be sure to check back!

• September 30: “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, September 30″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest TalkingFish.org readers. This week: NOAA released the first National Bycatch Report, the trend in seafood traceability continues, and Environmental Defense Fund wrote an opinion piece about making improvements to ensure that the sector management system works effectively for as many groundfishermen as possible.

Catch up with the latest news on Talking Fish, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come. Talking Fish aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• August 23: “Breaking a System That Isn’t Broken?” – Ken Stump, Policy Director of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, writes about how those who demonize the New England fishery management system and call for it to be dismantled have ignored the significant progress the system has made towards ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks in the region.
• August 24: “Fishermen and Conservationists Forced to Federal Courts for River Herring Help” – Earthjustice attorney Roger Fleming updates readers on three federal lawsuits currently underway to force government officials to sustainably manage river herring.
• August 25: “Fish Talk in the News – Thursday, August 25″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest Talking Fish readers.

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.