A HUDSON CANYON MARINE SANCTUARY: HOW WOULD IT IMPACT ANGLERS?

 

Last week, President Biden announced that he was considering designating Hudson Canyon as a National Marine Sanctuary.  That announcement undoubtedly worried many blue water fishermen, who reasonably wondered, “What does that mean for us?”

Right now, the only answer to such question is, “It’s hard to say.”

Hudson Canyon is the largest submarine canyon on the East Coast.  It is essentially the mouth of the Hudson River, as it flowed at the end of the Ice Age, when much of the Earth’s water was tied up in glaciers, and the sea’s level was more than 300 feet lower than it is today.  As the last—the Wisconsian—glacier retreated, roughly 15,000 years ago, the torrent of meltwater flowing down the newly freed river carved a deep cut in the edge of the continental shelf.  

As melting glaciers throughout the world poured more water into the ocean, the sea level rose and created the coastline that we see today.  The Hudson River’s submerged channel remains etched into the bottom; places offshore fishermen know as the “Mud Hole,” “Glory Hole,” “Chicken Canyon,” and the Hudson Canyon itself are merely waypoints that the ancient river passed on its way to an older sea.

Today, Hudson Canyon is a place where nutrient-rich deep-ocean waters collide with the continental shelf, mix with warm surface waters, and create prime feeding conditions for baitfish and, in turn, for pelagic predators such as marlin, tuna, swordfish, and sharks.  It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that Hudson Canyon may be the best-known, and most heavily fished, offshore destination in North America, given its proximity to New York City and to ports from southern New Jersey to eastern Long Island, Connecticut, and even Rhode Island.

Thus, fishermen are right to worry whether a National Marine Sanctuary designation might affect their ability to access Hudson Canyon, and deny them access to that traditional fishing ground.

The good news is that current law permits fishing, including commercial fishing, in national marine sanctuaries.  The bad news is that the same law also allows all fishing to be banned, and permits regulations to prohibit some kinds of fishing while countenancing others.  

Whether and how fishing is regulated in any future Hudson Canyon Marine Sanctuary will depend, in large part, on what such sanctuary is created to protect, and in the comments made and political pressures applied during the designation process.

The Wildlife Conservation Society—the organization that operates the New York Aquarium and the Bronx Zoo, among other enterprises—is the primary advocate for the creation of a Hudson Canyon Marine Sanctuary.  On its webpage, the Society explains,’

“By designating the Hudson Canyon a National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA would be advancing community-led conservation of nationally significant marine wildlife and their habitat, while also providing research and STEM education opportunities.  Sanctuary designation has an opportunity to provide a wide range of benefits for New York and New Jersey residents and for the diversity of marine wildlife in Atlantic waters.  To help protect this ecological treasure, WCS recommends that a Sanctuary Designation

·        Permanently preclude offshore oil, gas, and mineral exploration and development in the canyon

·        Maintain healthy populations of fish and other wildlife

·        Ensure a future for sustainable fisheries under existing regulatory authorities

·        Support the tourism industries that depend on healthy ocean ecosystems

·        Increase federal investment in biological and ecological research and monitoring—including the impacts of climate change on ocean life and resources, and collaborative research with fishing, shipping, and offshore wind industries

·        Identify and protect cultural resources and history

·        Expand opportunities for STEM education, community management, and workforce development, especially for historically under-represented communities

There’s nothing in that list of purposes/benefits that would suggest that angling, or for that matter, any sort of fishing, would be threatened by a marine sanctuary designation.  In fact, the language about maintaining sustainable fisheries “under existing regulatory authorities,” as well as that supporting “tourism industries that depend on healthy ocean ecosystems,” suggest that recreational fishing would continue in the Hudson Canyon National Marine Sanctuary, should such sanctuary ultimately be created.

However, even though the Wildlife Conservation Society kickstarted the designation process, it does not control the process’ outcome.  Just because the Wildlife Conservation Society does not wish to prohibit fishing doesn’t mean that such prohibitions can’t be put in place.  In fact, NOAA’s Office of Marine Sanctuaries describes the “primary goals” of the proposed Hudson Canyon sanctuary somewhat differently than the WCS does, saying

“The primary goals of the proposed national marine sanctuary designation are to 1) support conservation of the area’s marine wildlife, habitats, and maritime cultural resources, 2) work closely with Indigenous Tribes and Nations to identify and raise awareness of Indigenous connections to the area, 3) highlight and promote sustainable uses of the area, 4) expand ocean science and monitoring in, and education and awareness of the area, and 5) provide a platform for collaborative and diverse that support effective and inclusive long-term management of the area.”

One might note that the Wildlife Conservation Society’s references to “sustainable fisheries under existing regulatory authorities” and “tourism industries that depend on healthy ocean ecosystems” do not appear anywhere among the agencies “primary goals,” although optimists can argue that the intent to “highlight and promote sustainable uses of the area” embraces similar themes.

Realists might observe that no-take marine protected areas have long been embraced by elements of academia and the marine conservation community, and that the creation of a Hudson Canyon National Marine Reserve will offer such individuals an opportunity to advocate for a prohibition on any sort of fishing.  While, under certain circumstances, closed areas may provide quantifiable fishery benefits, no one has yet adequately explained how closing a discrete area such as Hudson Canyon to fishing for highly migratory pelagic species, which can and do travel for miles in a single day, following preferred bait and favorable ocean conditions, would provide meaningful benefits to either the fish or to fishermen. 

Even so, a recently published paper recommends that the government

“Establish new highly and fully protected, networked MPAs with better representation of U.S. marine biodiversity, regions, and habitats…Fully and highly protected MPAs are overwhelmingly concentrated in the Central Pacific.  These large MPAs have immense value and should be celebrated.  However, the disproportionate share of MPA stewardship by Pacific Islanders in the U.S. and associated territories should be recognized and rectified by increasing the share of highly and fully protected MPAs in diverse ecosystems elsewhere in the U.S.  This action is imperative, not only to achieve effective protection for biodiversity but to bring the benefits of MPAs within reach of diverse communities.  [emphasis added]”

It’s not difficult to imagine those holding such an opinion viewing the creation of a Hudson Canyon National Marine Sanctuary as the perfect opportunity to create one of their favored “highly and fully protected MPAs”—a place where fishing is very strictly restricted if not fully outlawed--and to “bring the benefits of MPAs within reach of diverse communities,” whether such communities want an MPA or not.

So, again, fishermen need to be wary.

At the same time, fishermen ought to look at other East Coast marine sanctuaries, to get an idea of the range of restrictions that might be imposed. 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, which lies off the coast of Massachusetts, sits at one end of the spectrum.  Commercial and recreational fishing are both permitted there, although a revised management plan for the sanctuary, now under development, notes that

“Data suggest measurable degradation of habitat quality over the past ten years, primarily due to direct impacts of commercial fishing…In addition to adverse impacts on whales and other important focal species, incidental contact with fishing gear has impacted nearly every maritime heritage resource in SBNMS, reducing their historical, archaeological, scientific, or educational value.”

Such language suggests that additional restrictions on commercial fishing activities might eventually be put in place.  However, nothing in the proposed, revised management plan suggests that recreational fishing activity will be curtailed.  Current recreational fishing activity within the sanctuary is substantial, accounting for about 25% of all recreationally-caught cod in the Gulf of Maine; private boats fishing within its boundaries account for about 117,000 angler-days of fishing activity, and about $6 million in related spending, each season.

If the proposed Hudson Canyon National Marine Sanctuary was managed like Stellwagen Bank, anglers would have nothing to fear.  However, it’s worth noting that the same scientific paper mentioned earlier describes the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary as a “minimally protected” area, and notes with apparent disapproval that it allows

“large impacts from human activities like fishing.”

Thus, any attempt to adopt Stellwagen-like management measures for the proposed Hudson Canyon National Marine Sanctuary would probably meet with some degree of opposition from the preservationist wing of the conservation community.

At the other end of the marine sanctuaries spectrum lies the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.  Although the Keys Sanctuary allows angling in some of its waters, it also includes areas where all fishing is prohibited, and other areas where angling is limited to catch-and-release trolling, in order to protect coral reef communities.

Whether fishing is prohibited, and how fishing is regulated, depends on the designations given to specific areas within the Marine Sanctuary, which features five different kinds of “Marine Zones.”  The most exclusive of those zones are the “Ecological Reserves” and “Special Use Areas,” where no fishing of any kind is allowed.  Slightly less restrictive are the “Sanctuary Preservation Areas.”  Fishing is generally prohibited in those areas, too, although four of them do permit catch-and-release trolling; surprisingly, fishing for bait, provided that the fisherman holds the appropriate Sanctuary Permit, is allowed in all of the Preservation Areas.  Finally, there are the “Wildlife Management Areas” and “Existing Management Areas,” all of which allow angling, and often commercial fishing, in some form, although there may be restrictions on the gear used, on vessel speeds and propulsion modes, etc.

Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary-like regulations, if applied to the Hudson Canyon, might or might not be problematic.  Few sport fishermen would care if commercial fishing was restricted, or if certain gear, such as longlines or trawls, were prohibited in order to better protect turtles, marine mammals, or sensitive bottom habitat, although some General Category HMS Permit holders, who claim to be anglers but end up selling their catch, might end up a bit perturbed if commercial harvest was outlawed.

But if all, or even a section, of Hudson Canyon was put off-limits to anglers, either because it was declared a research area (a “Special Use Area,” in the parlance of the Florida Keys Sanctuary) or an Ecological Reserve, recreational fishermen could experience real harm.  Even mandatory catch-and-release in all or part of Hudson Canyon, as in the Florida Keys’ “Sanctuary Preservation Areas,” would be a very tough sell to just about everyone in the canyon tuna fleet.

Right now, it’s impossible to predict what a Hudson Canyon National Marine Sanctuary might look like.

It might look like Stellwagen Bank.  It might look like the Florida Keys.  Given the pressure to create “highly or fully protected” marine protected areas on the East Coast, it might look even worse.

However, given that five years has passed since Hudson Canyon was first nominated as a National Marine Sanctuary, and given that neither the Trump nor the Biden administration has yet derailed the designation effort, there is a very good chance that a Hudson Canyon National Marine Sanctuary will eventually be created.  The offshore angling community is thus well advised to get involved in the designation process now, to best assure that when and if such sanctuary is created, its creation will not do material harm to recreational fishermen.

On June 8, the Office of Marine Sanctuaries announced the beginning of a two-month public scoping period, which is intended to give interested parties an opportunity to provide comment on the proposed marine sanctuary.  As such Office states,

“This is a critical step in NOAA’s consideration to move forward with the process. Should designation proceed, scoping comments also assist NOAA in its future development of sanctuary designation documents, including a draft environmental impact statement, draft management plan, and proposed rulemaking.”

Scoping comments will be accepted through August 8.  They may be submitted in writing, electronically, or at any of the four online and in-person meetings that will be held before the close of the comment period.

More information can be found at https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/hudson-canyon/.

Anyone who fishes blue water, and leaves from any port between Cape May and Pt. Judith, would be foolish not to make their thoughts known.