|
Web posted
"The conclusion that current fishing activities are having no effect on essential fish habitat is premature at best, and potentially dangerous for the long-term sustainability of Alaskan fisheries," said Paul Snelgrove, one of six members of the Center for Independent Experts, which conducted the review.
The Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires the designation of essential fish habitat. The act also requires that any adverse effects of commercial fisheries to that habitat be identified and mitigated. NMFS voluntarily asked for the review by the independent scientists, federal officials said.
This is the first time NMFS has done a complete analysis of adverse effects on essential fish habitat, said Ben Enticknap of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council. The Anchorage-based organization of fishermen, conservationists, small-business owners and others has as its goal the preservation of the health and diversity of Alaska marine ecosystems.
Snelgrove and his peers concluded that the NMFS analysis failed to adequately address localized fishing impacts on habitat, failed to incorporate the best available science (including its own research in Alaska), and failed to address fishing effects on the marine ecosystem.
The Marine Conservation Alliance, organized in 2001 by a group of commercial fishing companies, associations and ports, has said it agreed with the original findings of the NMFS. The alliance promotes sustainable, science-based management of North Pacific seafood resources.
"We commented that what the agency concluded was what we had said all along ... They concluded that fisheries activity was not having a more than minimal, more than temporary effect on fish habitat," said Ron Clarke, executive director of the Marine Conservation Alliance in Juneau.
Clarke said the alliance also supports gaining as much scientific information as possible.
"We're always going to need more scientific information on what's going on out there. No matter how much we know, there's always going to be more to know," he said. "The council asked for the independent study. The council felt it needed more information. They are using all the tools available to them. I think we need to let these guys (the independent study group) present their findings in front of the (North Pacific Fishery Management) Council and have a full discussion. The council needs to consider it and ask questions and clarify anything they think needs to be clarified. That's their prerogative at this point."
Conservationists have welcomed the review.
"It's a huge relief that the independent experts clearly articulated the major flaws in the agency's (NMFS) analysis, and that they warn that the agency's approach allows for destruction of even the most sensitive and productive marine habitats, such as cold water corals and slow growing sponge beds," said Enticknap of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council. "NMFS needs to reevaluate the effects of fishing on habitat. We're certain that by using the best available science, they will find that bottom trawling is harming sensitive habitats such as corals in the Aleutian Islands and crab habitat in the Bering Sea. The next step is to implement habitat conservation measures that keep bottom trawls out of these sensitive places."
Bottom trawls are expansive nets, spanning a width of 150 feet to 650 feet, which are dragged across the sea floor to catch groundfish species, including Pacific cod, Atka mackerel and rockfish.
In the waters off Alaska, bottom trawls are used extensively in groundfish fisheries, said spokesmen for the marine conservation council. The base of the net is weighted with "rockhopper" gear made from airplane tires or rolling disks. Large steel doors weighing up to 6,000 pounds each are used to keep the mouth of the net open.
NMFS estimates that close to 1 million pounds of sponges and corals are taken incidentally each year by the trawl fleet in the North Pacific. In 2002, the National Research Council concluded that bottom trawls damage seafloor habitats and can reduce the productivity of these habitats. The council is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science policy advice under a congressional charter.
The analysis of the productivity of the fisheries is the basis of the NMFS conclusion that no fishery in the North Pacific, including fisheries using bottom trawls, are having a significant effect on fish habitats. "That is how it is defined in Magnuson-Stevens. I think some of the critics have more of a dispute with how essential fish habitat is defined," Clarke said.
After the draft version of the essential fish habitat environmental impact statement was released in January, NMFS received over 33,000 public comments in response. Many of the comments criticized the agency's approach and requested that sensitive marine habitat be protected from bottom trawling.
Jon Kurland, assistant regional administrator for habitat conservation for NMFS, in Juneau, said the bulk of the comments were precipitated by environmental interest groups. "They thought the environmental impact statement should endorse a new alternative, new management measures to reduce the effects of fishing," he said.
Ken Drinkwater, chairman of the independent review panel, said much of the best available science was not used in the NMFS analysis, and, in fact, that papers supplied to the panel "neglected a surprising number of key studies and reviews."
Drinkwater is to present the findings of the independent review at the October meeting of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in Sitka.
Kurland said that NMFS would look at the additional recommendations and decide what further analysis can be done in advance of the meeting.
|
