Close

Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member?

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

olander blog header new2
Articles, posts and more...
Posted on Apr 12, 2012 in Top Shots
Urgent Message to Gulf Council Members
by Doug Olander

One of the goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), our primary federal fisheries law, is the identification and protection of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The goal is laudable enough since sufficient habitat is key to the health of all our fisheries.

What exactly is EFH? According to the MSA, it is “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.”

The act further defines “substrate” to include “structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities.”

MSA gives to fishery management councils the responsibility of listing EFH.

Given all that, it stands to reason that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council must have long ago declared the hundreds of older, non-producing oil-rig structures in the Gulf as EFH.

After all, one need only see these rigs to be aware of how vital they are, their metal legs and parts having long since disappeared beneath the living, building corals that now provide protection for scores of small finfish and invertebrates and offer a home and food to a constant population of larger resident and migratory predators.

I’ve been there/done that many, many times, always marveling at the amount of sealife on these old structures. Drop a baited hook to the depths alongside one and it’s easy to understand that these are indeed also unique vertical reefs, extending up from deep waters.

Even if you’ve never been on the Gulf at all, plenty of photos reveal these coral-reef communities.

Also, these reefs occur where there isn’t a whole lot of structure or relief over a generally smooth bottom. That would seem to move them from the “important” column into the “critical” column.  Or, one might say, essential.

So, to repeat my comment from above: It stands to reason that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council must have long ago declared coral-covered non-producing rigs as EFH. Right?

Wrong.

Astoundingly, the council has never listed these Gulf treasures as essential habitat.

Right now, that glaring deficiency could be at least part of the reason the Department of the Interior has, in some perverted logic resulting from the 2010 oil catastrophe, decided to declare that 650 or so “idle iron” structures — along with tons of living coral and all the biomass associated with that — be destroyed and removed.

But the Gulf council has the opportunity next week, at their meeting that starts on April 16, to finally right a grevious wrong, or at least a major oversight, and formally declare oil-rig structures in the Gulf as Essential Fish Habitat.

A proposal to do just that is on the docket. I can only hope that council members will vote (unanimously, one would think) to declare these structures — once lifeless metal skeletons and now thriving ecosystems — to be essential habitat.

To do so can only help protect these reefs (though an EFH designation has no binding impact on a federal agency like Interior, it would certainly send a strong message about the ecological value of these rigs).

Failing to do so would be irresponsible and truly disgraceful.

Memo to Gulf Fishery Management Council: Please don’t waste this opportunity to do the right thing for the resource you manage.

Comments (6) Post A Comment

I find it amazing that knowledgeable NOAA NMFS fisheries biologists (within the DOI) would even allow this type of proposal to go forward.

Given the habitat that these rigs create for "overfished species" like red snapper and grouper, as well as bait holding structure for migratory pelagics, it would almost be scientific blasphemy not to acknowledge these rigs as essential fish habitat.

A recent sudy also indicated that abundance of snapper and grouper improved significantly with removal of predators.

Maybe we also need to re-evaluate the status of the "endangered" goliath grouper and allow selective harvest via a tag program much like bears or elk are harvested.

This could also be a revenue generator. Many people would pay several hundred dollars for a tag to harvest a large goliath grouper. Restricting the tag numbers, the geographic locations of the harvest and the size of the fish would also further control the risk of overfishing. Further contol could be gained be only aelling to reputable charter captains,with reporting requirements as part of te deal. Part of the revenue generated (maybe 50%) could go back to fisheries research. The key would be to start out small with a pilot program, maybe 100 tags, with input on fishing locations from scientists and charter captains who have information on goliath grouper abundance.

I believe selective harvest of a small percentage of large goliath grouper would have a beneficial effect on snapper and grouper numbers, without impacting the overall health of the goliath grouper as a species.

0 Good Comment?

I find it amazing that knowledgeable NOAA NMFS fisheries biologists (within the DOI) would even allow this type of proposal to go forward.

Given the habitat that these rigs create for "overfished species" like red snapper and grouper, as well as bait holding structure for migratory pelagics, it would almost be scientific blasphemy not to acknowledge these rigs as essential fish habitat.

A recent sudy also indicated that abundance of snapper and grouper improved significantly with removal of predators.

Maybe we also need to re-evaluate the status of the "endangered" goliath grouper and allow selective harvest via a tag program much like bears or elk are harvested.

This could also be a revenue generator. Many people would pay several hundred dollars for a tag to harvest a large goliath grouper. Restricting the tag numbers, the geographic locations of the harvest and the size of the fish would also further control the risk of overfishing. Further contol could be gained be only aelling to reputable charter captains,with reporting requirements as part of te deal. Part of the revenue generated (maybe 50%) could go back to fisheries research. The key would be to start out small with a pilot program, maybe 100 tags, with input on fishing locations from scientists and charter captains who have information on goliath grouper abundance.

I believe selective harvest of a small percentage of large goliath grouper would have a beneficial effect on snapper and grouper numbers, without impacting the overall health of the goliath grouper as a species.

0 Good Comment?

See "what's wrong with this picture". My comment was misplaced and should more appropriately been directed to the removal of the Florida Gulf oil rigs article and their irresponsible removal.

+1 Good Comment?

So much for human intrusion into the "natural" environment ALWAYS being a negative.
Just chalk it up to another instance of (perhaps) well meaning, but misguided, political correctness.

0 Good Comment?

It seems that humanity goes out of its way to degrade, or destroy, our environment. Removal of these fish magnets,demonstrates not only irresponsibility but total loss of common sense and competence!
ceitedt Let

0 Good Comment?

Dear GFMC:

I have been fishing in the Gulf of Mexico since 1972 from Gulf Shores, Al to St. Marks, Fl. The charter boat operators in Gulf Shores dumped loads of concrete construction debri, washing machines, car bodies, etc. to make habitat for bait fish for the snapper, king mackeral, spanish mackeral, etc as the bottom of the gulf of Mexico is flat. Hurricanes often scatter this debri. A Liberty ship sunk by the State of Alabama was rolled 3/4 of a mile by a gulf hurricane. My point is, there is very litte fish habitat in the gulf of Mexico. My questions are:
1. How would the removal of these rigs affect the fish population?
2. How does the GFMC propose to replace this habitat?
3. Are these oil rigs leaking oil? Have they been inspected for leaks?
4. Many rigs that were damaged by Hurricane Kritina were not allowed to be repaired by the US Government. Why?
5. Is coral a protected marine life?
6. Have any of you fished in the Gulf recently?

Thank you.

0 Good Comment?
post a comment
  • Anonymous comments will appear after it has been approved by a moderator.
  • Login or Register Now for your comment to appear immediately.
Please note: your comment will appear after it has been approved by a moderator. If you login or register your comment will appear immediately
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use