American Sportfishing Association Center for Coastal Conservation ...
American Sportfishing Association Center for Coastal Conservation Coastal Conservation Association Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation International Game Fish Association National Marine Manufacturers Association The Billfish Foundation February 27, 2012 The Honorable Nancy Sutley Chair, Council on Environmental Quality Co‐Chair, National Ocean Council Executive Office of the President Washington, DC 20500 Dr. John P. Holdren Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy Co‐Chair, National Ocean Council Executive Office of the President 725 17th Street Room 5228 Washington, DC 20502 Re: Comments on the Draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan Dear Ms. Sutley and Dr. Holdren, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan. As the largest user group of the oceans, the recreational fishing and boating community is very much interested in the future planning and coordinating components of the National Ocean Policy. Our organizations represent the overwhelming majority of recreational boating and angling interests in the United States, collectively a $200+ billion industry in the United States that supports over 1.5 million jobs. It is unfortunate that many of the questions and concerns we have raised since the initial release of the work of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, and which we have reiterated in subsequent communications regarding the development of the National Ocean Policy (NOP), still remain unanswered. An overarching concern of our community with the NOP, particularly as it pertains to Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP), is the treatment of recreational uses as one of numerous ocean “sectors” for which planning activities will occur, along with oil, gas, mining, commercial fishing, transportation and defense. We firmly believe that there is a distinct and inherent difference between recreational and industrial ocean uses, and their respective impact on the ocean environment. Members of the public who choose to spend leisure time on
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 2
the water fishing with family and friends are fundamentally different than commercial activities in which a public resource is extracted for the purpose of selling that resource. Recreational use of our public waters is not only compatible with, but in fact is essential to, sound conservation and natural resource stewardship, as highlighted by contributions made to successful conservation programs such as the Sport Fish Restoration Program. Because recreational angling and boating contribute directly to funding the conservation of our nation’s aquatic resources and provide other significant social and economic benefits, these activities warrant special and elevated consideration as a national priority as NOP development moves forward. In addition, saltwater recreational activities are compatible with the America’s Great Outdoors initiative and play an important role in providing outdoor recreation, exercise and life skills. 1. Priority Consideration for Recreational Fishing and Boating The saltwater recreational fishing community presently faces an unprecedented number of new regulations and management approaches as a result of changes being made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) in an effort to improve federal fisheries management. From new annual catch limits to saltwater angler registries to entire fisheries closures, all across the nation anglers are being required to change where and how they fish, and in many cases are facing fewer or diminished fishing opportunities as our nation strives to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. Unfortunately, the rollout of the NOP has created even greater uncertainty as anglers and recreational-fishing dependent businesses struggle to understand how recreational access will be treated in CMSP. While efforts have been made by the Administration to alleviate some of these concerns, such as listing a national goal of CMSP to “provide for and maintain public access to the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes,”1 other language in the draft Implementation Plan and previous NOP documents fuels the concern that areas of our nation’s coastal and marine waters will ultimately be closed to recreational fishing under the CMSP process. For example, the National Objective 2 of CMSP, to “(r)educe cumulative impacts on environmentally sensitive resources and habitats in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters,”2 can be interpreted to mean identifying areas in which certain oceans uses, such as recreational fishing, will ultimately be restricted. The recreational fishing community is not opposed to limiting fishing activities to conserve vulnerable habitats or to stop overfishing when other management options have been ineffective, so long as these decisions are scientifically sound. We firmly believe that these decisions should be left to existing fisheries management agencies, given their wealth of expertise in these matters, not the new regional planning bodies.
1 2
Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (July 19, 2010), pg. 63. Draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan (January 12, 2012), pg. 88.
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 3
As defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, fishing activities in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone are managed by NOAA Fisheries and the Regional Fishery Management Councils. In state waters these activities are managed by individual state fish and wildlife agencies and through the multi-state marine fisheries commissions. The final Implementation Plan and upcoming CMSP Handbook should clearly state that the authority to manage fishing activities will remain solely with these existing fisheries management bodies, which have decades of experience in fisheries management and through which our community is adequately represented. In several states that have undertaken coastal and marine spatial planning processes, the existing authority of fisheries management agencies was expressed from the outset. For example, the enabling legislation for the Massachusetts CMSP process, the Massachusetts Oceans Act of 2008, states: “In the geographic area subject to the ocean management plan, as described in paragraph (b), commercial and recreational fishing shall be allowable uses, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the division of marine fisheries. Any component of a plan which regulates commercial or recreational fishing shall be developed, promulgated and enforced by the division of marine fisheries pursuant to its authority under chapter 130.”3 The Massachusetts act also includes the following language further reinforcing the authority of the state marine fisheries agency: “The director of marine fisheries, subject to the approval of the marine fisheries advisory commission, shall have sole authority for the opening and closing of areas within the geographic area described in subsection (b) for the taking of any and all types of fish.”4 In Washington State, recent legislation to initiate a CMSP process, the Washington Marine Waters Planning and Management Law of 2010, includes similar language providing the state fish and wildlife agency with the sole authority to manage fishing activities as part of the CMSP process: “If the director of the department of fish and wildlife determines that a fisheries management element is appropriate for inclusion in the marine management plan, this element may include the incorporation of existing management plans and procedures and standards for consideration in adopting and revising fisheries management plans in cooperation with the appropriate federal agencies and tribal governments.”5
3
M.G.L. ch.21A §4C(k)(1) M.G.L. ch.21A §4C(k)(3) 5 R.C.W. ch.43.372.040(5) 4
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 4
In the cases of Massachusetts, Washington and Rhode Island – which also undertook a CMSP process – recreational fishing and boating received priority consideration in the development of the plans. Importantly, these processes also required that potential impacts on recreational fishing and boating be taken into account and minimized while planning for other future or existing activities.6, 7, 8 Recommendation: We strongly urge you to review the enabling legislation for the state CMSP processes described above and incorporate similar language reserving management of recreational fishing under existing authorities into the Final Implementation Plan and CMSP Handbook. In Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Washington, elevating the status of the recreational fishing and boating community in CMSP was critical to generating support from our community and ultimately leading to a successful outcome. 2. No Private Funding for CMSP Given the numerous references to protecting areas and habitats in the draft Implementation Plan, we and our members cannot help but view CMSP under the NOP as potentially following a similar path to another marine spatial planning process to which our community has had strong objections – the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process. While the MLPA was conducted for the specific purpose of closing areas to fishing, as compared to CMSP planning for all ocean uses, our concern that CMSP will follow a similar track of unnecessarily closing areas is heightened by the listing of the MLPA as an example of a CMSP process on NOAA’s website9 as well as the numerous references throughout the draft Implementation Plan of protecting ocean ecosystems, habitats and resources. Perhaps at the root of the problems with the MLPA was that the process was funded almost entirely through a public-private partnership by organizations that support closures. As we have noted in previous comments on NOP, to ensure that CMSP is developed through a fair and balanced approach, it is essential that the federal government not seek or collect private funding to aid in the development of the regional plans. Recommendation: Given the potential for privately-funded CMSP to follow a similar path as the MLPA, it is critical to avoid engaging in a public‐private funding partnership, and we strongly encourage you to provide this assurance in the final Implementation Plan and the CMSP Handbook.
6
M.G.L. ch.21A §4C(k)(2) R.C.W. ch.43.372.040(6) 8 Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) Goals and Principles for the Ocean SAMP (November 16, 2009), pg. 2 9 http://cmsp.noaa.gov/examples/california.html 7
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 5
3. Adequate Representation from the Regional Fishery Management Councils We are grateful that the National Ocean Council recently decided to formally include Regional Fishery Management Councils in the regional planning bodies.10 It is vitally important that the fisheries resource expertise of the councils be represented on the regional planning bodies given the implications of CMSP to the fishing community and fisheries resources. However, the current policy precludes executive directors of the respective councils and private members of the fishing community itself who have seats on the councils from serving on regional planning bodies. Therefore, many of those with the greatest knowledge, familiarity and experience with issues important to the fishing community are excluded from regional planning body membership. Recommendation: We request that any Regional Fishery Management Council representative – not just government or tribal representatives – may be selected for representation on regional planning bodies. 4. Participation of the States in CMSP We are deeply concerned that the development of the NOP thus far is not adequately acknowledging the difficult financial limitations states in general – and their natural resource management agencies in particular – are now facing. CMSP will clearly rely heavily on state agencies and if this is carried out in a “top‐down” manner that is insensitive to the harsh economic burdens state agencies are carrying, the endeavor will be crippled before it has truly started at the regional level. This problem is compounded by inadequate outreach thus far in approaching states as partners in this effort. If CMSP is to succeed at any level, it must be carried out in a collaborative manner with the states, which have done a much better job historically of managing marine resources than has the Federal government. If states are unable or unwilling to participate in the regional planning process due to financial limitations or other reasons, they should not be held to the timelines described in the draft Implementation Plan. Recommendation: The final Implementation Plan should clarify that the timelines pertaining to the establishment of regional planning bodies and development of regional plans are advisory in nature, dependent upon the availability of resources to adequately conduct the process, and are not intended to interfere with the right of applicable regions to establish such bodies and subsequent plans at a time and pace of their choosing.
10
Another Step Toward Ocean Stewardship (February 1, 2012), available at: www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/01/another-step-toward-ocean-stewardship
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 6
5. Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Handbook We look forward to the release of the forthcoming Handbook for Regional Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, which is expected to include guidance in significant areas, including stakeholder and public engagement, consultation with scientists and technical and other experts, how Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans will be reviewed for national consistency, and how Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans will be incorporated into decision-making processes. However, the draft Implementation Plan does not clarify whether the Handbook will be released as a draft that will subsequently open for public review and comment, or if it will be released in its final form only. Recommendation: Because the information contained in the Handbook is expected to be highly significant to those who may be impacted by Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, ample opportunity for public review and comment on the Handbook should be provided before it is finalized. 6. Conclusion We again thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Implementation Plan, and hope that our recommendations will receive strong consideration during the development of the final Implementation Plan and CMSP Handbook. While we have seen some progress made since the initial rollout of the NOP toward addressing previous comments we have submitted, we must note that our organizations are hearing ever-increasing questions and concerns from our members about the lack of adequate consideration of our overriding issues with the NOP. It is our genuine hope that this letter provides reasonable and workable solutions that will be incorporated into the final Implementation Plan to ensure that the recreational fishing and boating community can actively and productively engage in CMSP with the assurance that it will be a truly beneficial process for our community and the resources we care about. We stand ready to provide input and ideas and thank you for this opportunity to reinforce our ideas. Sincerely, Mike Nussman, President and CEO American Sportfishing Association
Rob Kramer, President International Game Fish Association
Jeff Angers, President Center for Coastal Conservation
Thom Dammrich, President National Marine Manufacturers Association
Pat Murray, President Coastal Conservation Association
Ellen Peel, President The Billfish Foundation
Jeff Crane, President Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 2
the water fishing with family and friends are fundamentally different than commercial activities in which a public resource is extracted for the purpose of selling that resource. Recreational use of our public waters is not only compatible with, but in fact is essential to, sound conservation and natural resource stewardship, as highlighted by contributions made to successful conservation programs such as the Sport Fish Restoration Program. Because recreational angling and boating contribute directly to funding the conservation of our nation’s aquatic resources and provide other significant social and economic benefits, these activities warrant special and elevated consideration as a national priority as NOP development moves forward. In addition, saltwater recreational activities are compatible with the America’s Great Outdoors initiative and play an important role in providing outdoor recreation, exercise and life skills. 1. Priority Consideration for Recreational Fishing and Boating The saltwater recreational fishing community presently faces an unprecedented number of new regulations and management approaches as a result of changes being made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) in an effort to improve federal fisheries management. From new annual catch limits to saltwater angler registries to entire fisheries closures, all across the nation anglers are being required to change where and how they fish, and in many cases are facing fewer or diminished fishing opportunities as our nation strives to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. Unfortunately, the rollout of the NOP has created even greater uncertainty as anglers and recreational-fishing dependent businesses struggle to understand how recreational access will be treated in CMSP. While efforts have been made by the Administration to alleviate some of these concerns, such as listing a national goal of CMSP to “provide for and maintain public access to the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes,”1 other language in the draft Implementation Plan and previous NOP documents fuels the concern that areas of our nation’s coastal and marine waters will ultimately be closed to recreational fishing under the CMSP process. For example, the National Objective 2 of CMSP, to “(r)educe cumulative impacts on environmentally sensitive resources and habitats in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters,”2 can be interpreted to mean identifying areas in which certain oceans uses, such as recreational fishing, will ultimately be restricted. The recreational fishing community is not opposed to limiting fishing activities to conserve vulnerable habitats or to stop overfishing when other management options have been ineffective, so long as these decisions are scientifically sound. We firmly believe that these decisions should be left to existing fisheries management agencies, given their wealth of expertise in these matters, not the new regional planning bodies.
1 2
Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (July 19, 2010), pg. 63. Draft National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan (January 12, 2012), pg. 88.
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 3
As defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, fishing activities in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone are managed by NOAA Fisheries and the Regional Fishery Management Councils. In state waters these activities are managed by individual state fish and wildlife agencies and through the multi-state marine fisheries commissions. The final Implementation Plan and upcoming CMSP Handbook should clearly state that the authority to manage fishing activities will remain solely with these existing fisheries management bodies, which have decades of experience in fisheries management and through which our community is adequately represented. In several states that have undertaken coastal and marine spatial planning processes, the existing authority of fisheries management agencies was expressed from the outset. For example, the enabling legislation for the Massachusetts CMSP process, the Massachusetts Oceans Act of 2008, states: “In the geographic area subject to the ocean management plan, as described in paragraph (b), commercial and recreational fishing shall be allowable uses, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the division of marine fisheries. Any component of a plan which regulates commercial or recreational fishing shall be developed, promulgated and enforced by the division of marine fisheries pursuant to its authority under chapter 130.”3 The Massachusetts act also includes the following language further reinforcing the authority of the state marine fisheries agency: “The director of marine fisheries, subject to the approval of the marine fisheries advisory commission, shall have sole authority for the opening and closing of areas within the geographic area described in subsection (b) for the taking of any and all types of fish.”4 In Washington State, recent legislation to initiate a CMSP process, the Washington Marine Waters Planning and Management Law of 2010, includes similar language providing the state fish and wildlife agency with the sole authority to manage fishing activities as part of the CMSP process: “If the director of the department of fish and wildlife determines that a fisheries management element is appropriate for inclusion in the marine management plan, this element may include the incorporation of existing management plans and procedures and standards for consideration in adopting and revising fisheries management plans in cooperation with the appropriate federal agencies and tribal governments.”5
3
M.G.L. ch.21A §4C(k)(1) M.G.L. ch.21A §4C(k)(3) 5 R.C.W. ch.43.372.040(5) 4
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 4
In the cases of Massachusetts, Washington and Rhode Island – which also undertook a CMSP process – recreational fishing and boating received priority consideration in the development of the plans. Importantly, these processes also required that potential impacts on recreational fishing and boating be taken into account and minimized while planning for other future or existing activities.6, 7, 8 Recommendation: We strongly urge you to review the enabling legislation for the state CMSP processes described above and incorporate similar language reserving management of recreational fishing under existing authorities into the Final Implementation Plan and CMSP Handbook. In Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Washington, elevating the status of the recreational fishing and boating community in CMSP was critical to generating support from our community and ultimately leading to a successful outcome. 2. No Private Funding for CMSP Given the numerous references to protecting areas and habitats in the draft Implementation Plan, we and our members cannot help but view CMSP under the NOP as potentially following a similar path to another marine spatial planning process to which our community has had strong objections – the California Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process. While the MLPA was conducted for the specific purpose of closing areas to fishing, as compared to CMSP planning for all ocean uses, our concern that CMSP will follow a similar track of unnecessarily closing areas is heightened by the listing of the MLPA as an example of a CMSP process on NOAA’s website9 as well as the numerous references throughout the draft Implementation Plan of protecting ocean ecosystems, habitats and resources. Perhaps at the root of the problems with the MLPA was that the process was funded almost entirely through a public-private partnership by organizations that support closures. As we have noted in previous comments on NOP, to ensure that CMSP is developed through a fair and balanced approach, it is essential that the federal government not seek or collect private funding to aid in the development of the regional plans. Recommendation: Given the potential for privately-funded CMSP to follow a similar path as the MLPA, it is critical to avoid engaging in a public‐private funding partnership, and we strongly encourage you to provide this assurance in the final Implementation Plan and the CMSP Handbook.
6
M.G.L. ch.21A §4C(k)(2) R.C.W. ch.43.372.040(6) 8 Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) Goals and Principles for the Ocean SAMP (November 16, 2009), pg. 2 9 http://cmsp.noaa.gov/examples/california.html 7
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 5
3. Adequate Representation from the Regional Fishery Management Councils We are grateful that the National Ocean Council recently decided to formally include Regional Fishery Management Councils in the regional planning bodies.10 It is vitally important that the fisheries resource expertise of the councils be represented on the regional planning bodies given the implications of CMSP to the fishing community and fisheries resources. However, the current policy precludes executive directors of the respective councils and private members of the fishing community itself who have seats on the councils from serving on regional planning bodies. Therefore, many of those with the greatest knowledge, familiarity and experience with issues important to the fishing community are excluded from regional planning body membership. Recommendation: We request that any Regional Fishery Management Council representative – not just government or tribal representatives – may be selected for representation on regional planning bodies. 4. Participation of the States in CMSP We are deeply concerned that the development of the NOP thus far is not adequately acknowledging the difficult financial limitations states in general – and their natural resource management agencies in particular – are now facing. CMSP will clearly rely heavily on state agencies and if this is carried out in a “top‐down” manner that is insensitive to the harsh economic burdens state agencies are carrying, the endeavor will be crippled before it has truly started at the regional level. This problem is compounded by inadequate outreach thus far in approaching states as partners in this effort. If CMSP is to succeed at any level, it must be carried out in a collaborative manner with the states, which have done a much better job historically of managing marine resources than has the Federal government. If states are unable or unwilling to participate in the regional planning process due to financial limitations or other reasons, they should not be held to the timelines described in the draft Implementation Plan. Recommendation: The final Implementation Plan should clarify that the timelines pertaining to the establishment of regional planning bodies and development of regional plans are advisory in nature, dependent upon the availability of resources to adequately conduct the process, and are not intended to interfere with the right of applicable regions to establish such bodies and subsequent plans at a time and pace of their choosing.
10
Another Step Toward Ocean Stewardship (February 1, 2012), available at: www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/02/01/another-step-toward-ocean-stewardship
The Honorable Nancy Sutley and Dr. John Holdren February 27, 2012 Page 6
5. Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Handbook We look forward to the release of the forthcoming Handbook for Regional Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, which is expected to include guidance in significant areas, including stakeholder and public engagement, consultation with scientists and technical and other experts, how Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans will be reviewed for national consistency, and how Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans will be incorporated into decision-making processes. However, the draft Implementation Plan does not clarify whether the Handbook will be released as a draft that will subsequently open for public review and comment, or if it will be released in its final form only. Recommendation: Because the information contained in the Handbook is expected to be highly significant to those who may be impacted by Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, ample opportunity for public review and comment on the Handbook should be provided before it is finalized. 6. Conclusion We again thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Implementation Plan, and hope that our recommendations will receive strong consideration during the development of the final Implementation Plan and CMSP Handbook. While we have seen some progress made since the initial rollout of the NOP toward addressing previous comments we have submitted, we must note that our organizations are hearing ever-increasing questions and concerns from our members about the lack of adequate consideration of our overriding issues with the NOP. It is our genuine hope that this letter provides reasonable and workable solutions that will be incorporated into the final Implementation Plan to ensure that the recreational fishing and boating community can actively and productively engage in CMSP with the assurance that it will be a truly beneficial process for our community and the resources we care about. We stand ready to provide input and ideas and thank you for this opportunity to reinforce our ideas. Sincerely, Mike Nussman, President and CEO American Sportfishing Association
Rob Kramer, President International Game Fish Association
Jeff Angers, President Center for Coastal Conservation
Thom Dammrich, President National Marine Manufacturers Association
Pat Murray, President Coastal Conservation Association
Ellen Peel, President The Billfish Foundation
Jeff Crane, President Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation
