Saving Seafood

Eagle-Tribune: Outdated Antiquities Act needs revisions

August 28, 2017 — The announcement last week that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke had wrapped up his review of 27 recently established national monuments did little to lessen the controversy surrounding their status. Zinke’s unwillingness to be transparent about his review and its results all but guarantees a legal quagmire.

While most of the attention has been focused on Utah and the newly created Bears Ears National Monument, there are also high stakes in New England, where fishermen, boaters and environmentalists are waiting to see how the Trump administration views the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine Monument.

All sides are already threatening lawsuits, so no matter the outcome, the issue will likely not be settled for years.

“The fate of these treasures shouldn’t be left hanging in the balance,” Peter Shelley, senior counsel for the Conservation Law Foundation, said in a statement last week. “Some 3 million people — more than 98 percent of the commenters — voiced their support for keeping our national monuments intact. Submitting recommendations that defy the will of the American people and then withholding these recommendations from the public is utterly unacceptable. The president has no legal authority to alter national monuments, and we will take him to court if he tries.”

If anything, the debate over Canyons and Seamounts shows the need for Congress to update the outdated Antiquities Act, which allows presidential administrations to designate and reshape national monuments with little or no oversight.

Read the full editorial at the Eagle-Tribune

Monuments Review Spurs Call to Overhaul Antiquities Act

Interior Department does not recommend overturning any designations

August 28, 2017 — The Interior Department’s conclusion of a contentious review of national monuments might give Congress some impetus to revisit the Antiquities Act of 1906, which presidents of both parties have used to designate monuments through executive action.

House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop on Thursday called for Congress to overhaul the Antiquities Act to place “reasonable limits” on the way presidents use the statute. Bishop’s statements came shortly before the Interior Department submitted recommendations to the White House after an executive-ordered review of monument designations made over the last two decades.

Bishop, a Utah Republican and forceful critic of federal control of public lands in the West, said in a call with reporters that the Obama administration had abused the statute that allows presidents to designate national monuments without congressional action. The Interior review, he said, was necessary because some of the designations were a result of abuse of the statute and did not allow for adequate input by local communities.

“If we don’t reform the Antiquities Act, we will have a replication of failures,” Bishop said. “If the procedure is flawed, the product is going to be flawed.”

Former President Barack Obama’s most contentious designation, the creation of the 1.3 million-acre Bears Ears monument, drew much opposition from Bishop and other Utah lawmakers, who lobbied the Trump administration for its reversal. Another of the more contentious ones is Maine’s Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument, which marked its first anniversary Thursday.

Read the full story at Roll Call

Few Answers on Marine Monument as review ends

August 25, 2017 — BOSTON — The future of a national monument off the coast of Massachusetts is unclear Thursday after Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke wrapped up a review of 27 monuments, but did not publicly disclose his recommendations.

The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine Monument, a roughly 4,900 square-mile area south of Cape Cod designated as a monument by President Barack Obama in 2016, was among those targeted for review by the Trump Administration.

While environmental advocates applauded Obama’s decision, made under powers granted through the Antiquities Act, the commercial fishing industry, port communities and some elected officials pushed back against its strict limits on fishing.

Gov. Charlie Baker’s administration had knocked what they described as a lack of public process and conflicts with existing marine planning processes. Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew Beaton said in May that he hoped the review would yield modifications “recognizing the work that went into the ocean management plan and the public process around this issue.”

Zinke announced Thursday that he had sent his recommendations and findings to President Donald Trump. The announcement named the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts as among eight monuments Zinke visited during his 120-day review, but did not specify if he was suggesting any changes to that area or others.

Read the full story from State House News Service at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Chairman Bishop Statement on Secretary Zinke’s National Monument Review

August 24, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement in reaction to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s final review of national monument designations under the Antiquities Act (Act):

“I am encouraged by the recommendations to revise previous designations that were inconsistent with the law and outside the Act’s size limitations. It is my hope that President Trump takes this opportunity to begin realigning uses of the law with its intended purpose. It’s also incumbent on Congress to pursue reforms to the Act that ensure it is being used to protect antiquities while providing meaningful local input in the designation process and reasonable continued public access to these iconic areas. Ultimately, only Congress can restore integrity to this law and prevent future abuses.”

Additionally, Chairman Bishop hosted a press call this morning to discuss the Trump Administration’s review of national monuments and reforms to the Antiquities Act:

Listen to Chairman Bishop’s statement here

Listen to a Q&A with Chairman Bishop here

Marine Monument Economics: The Atlantic Red Crab Fishery

August 15, 2017 (Saving Seafood) — A July 25, 2017, article published by the Center for American Progress [“Big Oil Could Benefit Most from Review of Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument” by Michael Conathan and Avery Siciliano] made the accusation that “commercial fishing interests have spouted inflated numbers about what the economic impact of the [Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National] monument designation would be.”

Accordingly, today, Saving Seafood begins a series on “Marine Monument Economics.” In the coming weeks, we will publish commentrom the fishing industry submitted to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. We start with the Atlantic Red Crab fishery. Red crab is recommended by both the Monterrey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch and the New England Aquarium.

Today’s comments were submitted to Secretary Zinke by Mr. Michael Carroll. Mr. Carroll is a fishery economist specializing in seafood markets and economic impacts. He is both a Statistical and Scientific Committee member and an Advisory Panel member to the Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery governed under the New England Fishery Management Council. Mr. Carroll is founder and CEO of BackTracker Inc. and VP of Fisheries and Aquaculture Vertex, both in Boston. From 2008-2012, he was the business development manager of the New England Aquarium. He is lead author of “An Analysis of the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on the Gulf of Mexico Seafood Industry” published in March 2016 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Mr. Carroll holds a bachelor’s degree in business and economics from Saint Michael’s College, and a master’s degree in environmental and natural resource economics from the University of Rhode Island.

Mr. Carroll observes that in the Atlantic red crab fishery, there “has never been any indication that overfishing has occurred or even that the stock has declined.” And that a review of the current academic literature indicates that the actual market economic values produced by the fishery have been understated, while the types of non-market values ascribed to elements of the ecosystem such as deep-sea corals, have not been included in calculating the value of the fishery.

In his comments he observes that, “An Economic Impact (or cost to the fishery) … if done properly this figure will represent value lost throughout the entire supply chain (vessel to consumer) as well as other associated losses incurred by shore side infrastructure, such as fuel, bait, ice, marine service, etc.”  But to date, the publicly-available data from NOAA “has only presented impact figures in vessel landing dollars, which is approximately understating impacts by seven times the true economic damages to the economy.”

He urges the secretary to “consider only the facts that can be demonstrated through sound peer reviewed science and proven quantifiable economic valuation methods.”

Today is the last day to submit comments to inform NOAA’s review of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. If you have not already submitted comments, Saving Seafood encourages you to do so here.

Mr. Carroll’s comments are below:

Dear Secretary Zinke,

My name is Mike Carroll. I am a fishery economist that specializes in seafood markets and economic impacts. I am both a Statistical and Scientific Committee member and an AP member to the Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery governed under the New England Fishery Management Council. We met in Boston on June 16 at the fishery industry meeting you had at Legal Seafood.

I have deep concerns in regards to the lack of valid economic impact evidence supporting the closure of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts to protect deep sea coral and other sea life, in effect creating economic hardship on various fisheries in the North-East Region. Specifically, I am commenting to note that the magnitude of potential impacts associated with this action on the Deep Sea Red Crab fishery are concerning and not based on peer reviewed economic valuation science.

For anyone reading my comments that are not familiar with economic impacts and economic valuation methods I will summarize some key points to remember when making decisions. For more information on this topic you can refer to the NOAA website or for more detailed input on deep sea coral please go here.

An Economic Impact (or cost to the fishery) is basically the effect of an event, policy change, in this case closure of a fishery area, on the associated economy. This is often stated in a stagnant figure that represents a yearly impact value to the business; if done properly this figure will represent value lost throughout the entire supply chain (vessel to consumer) as well as other associated losses incurred by shore side infrastructure, such as fuel, bait, ice, marine service etc… If any, NOAA has only presented cursory impact figures in vessel landing dollars, which is approximately understating impacts by 7 times the true economic damages to the economy. These figures can vary by fishery depending on the level of value added to the product as it travels down the supply chain but 7x is a good bell weather figure for now until NOAA provides us with the real figures. The important piece to note is these are real tangible values of loss to fisherman and our shore side community that are very measurable.

Often there is confusion by fishery managers about how to interpret economic impacts. All too often they think the decision should be made based on the relative impact to the industry but in reality, the decision should be made according to the net economic value the policy change will provide. Economic value is based on a basic calculation of how much benefit does the policy decision generate vs how much does the policy decision cost or the Economic Impact to the industry, therefore simply stated:

Economic Value = Benefit (value of corals) – Cost (value lost is the fishery or Economic Impact)

If the policy change produces a net positive economic value, then it should be perceived as good for our nation as a whole, whereas if it is negative, not good for our nation as a whole.

Now let’s look at how we value the benefit of the deep-sea coral. In the literature, there is mention of market values and values to the ecosystem which could someday be measurable but as it is today neither of these values are relevant to economic value or should be referenced without peer reviewed research that shows relative quantitative figures. True market values for corals are basically irrelevant considering it is not legal to harvest and sell corals for any purpose. The ecosystem value is something we all want to understand more about but arguably no true linkages have been proven where we can estimate the economic value they represent. Current studies indicate that deep sea coral is considered “Facultative Habitat” and not “Essential Fish Habitat,” therefore the absence of this habitat does not result in extinction of the species in question.

There has been considerable mention of market values, such as the value associated with people viewing deep sea coral on the Discovery Channel, and the revenue generated from this represents a true market value for preservation of the coral. Well, I agree completely, that is a true market value but what about the market value associated with the preservation of the fisherman. How much money do you think the Deadliest Catch or other commercial fishing shows on the Discovery Channel generate? I am not sure, but it definitely generates more than deep sea coral viewing shows. If this value is being represented on one side of the value equation (coral value) why is it not represented on the other side (fishery value)?

The value or benefits associated with deep sea coral for all intents and purposes are considered non-market values which are calculated based on value derived by people’s desire for them to exist. Non-market values are soft values based on what people say they are willing to pay or prefer given a set of choices. These values are often criticized because they frequently overstate true values of what people will actually pay in a real market environment. The use of the term existence value, which you see throughout the literature presented, often refers to these non-market valuation methods which may be useful to determine people’s preference but is grossly inadequate in determining value.

Everyone you met in Boston on June 16 cares about setting up a certain level of protections for these deep-sea corals. I would even go to the extent that we may be able to come to mutual agreement on certain zones that would optimize protection of coral while causing minimal impact to the fishery. As a US regulator, I would urge you to consider only the facts that can be demonstrated through sound peer reviewed science and proven quantifiable economic valuation methods. The impacts of these offshore closures on the deep sea red crab fishery and other offshore fisheries are substantially greater than benefits generated by the coral conservation measure being carried out. Even if you were to consider down the road that there could be increased ecosystem values, a decision to close this area to the deep sea red crab fishery is not a fair and equitable decision. It makes no reasonable sense to implement measures that would create impacts that would affect such a large portion of this fishery. This is a small fishery that has been harvested responsibly and made every effort to participate in discussions and share information. It is an exceptional fishery in the United States in that it is very environmentally sound and has gone through the MSC certification process. I would argue if these National Monument protections must go into place for political or legal reasons, regardless of the unsubstantiated economic valuation equation, the deep sea red crab fishery should be exempt from this rule based on sheer economic hardship.

Best Regards,
Michael Carroll

Review renews debate over first Atlantic marine national monument

August 7, 2017 — BOSTON — During his eight years in office, former President Obama protected more than 550 million acres of public land and water as national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act. Unlike creating a national park, which requires an act of Congress, a president can declare a national monument to protect “objects of historic or scientific interest” with a proclamation.

Critics of the monument say President Obama overstepped the powers set forth by the Antiquities Act and did not provide enough opportunity for public comment. In April, President Donald Trump signed an executive order asking his Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, to conduct a review of 27 monuments created since 1996. The purpose of the review is to determine if these monument areas qualify under the terms of the act and to address concerns from the community.

Two days later, Trump signed another executive order outlining his “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy.” The plan demonstrates Trump’s vision for the exploration and production of energy on federal lands and waters to decrease America’s dependence on foreign energy.

Fishing industry’s concerns

Captain Fred Penney, a lobsterman out of Boston Harbor, believes that the monument will hurt the future of fishing in New England because the new restrictions were implemented without much input from the fishermen themselves.

“To have no regulations and have it be a free-for-all, that’s completely unacceptable, I understand that,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to see that. But what they’re doing now doesn’t seem to be it.”

Many in the industry felt fishing in the area should have been regulated under the Magnuson- Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, which created eight regional fishery management councils to maintain sustainable fisheries and habitats in the U.S.

The councils are divided up by region, including the New England, Mid-Atlantic and South- Atlantic councils on the East Coast. Each council sets regulations for certain fisheries such as limiting catch size, issuing permits and monitoring fishing equipment.

Fishermen argue the council’s lengthy public process is more transparent than a proclamation from the president and allows for more input from the community.

Jon Williams of the Atlantic Red Crab Company said the fishermen were not given much notice about meetings and the scope of the monument. He argued the area was thriving under the council’s management before the monument designation.

“We’d been in there for 40 years and if it’s… pristine now, after our presence for 40 years, why is there an emergency for the president to use an act to protect this thing?” Williams said. “Why not give it to the council and let the council do its job?”

Before the Obama administration announced the monument, the New England Fishery Management Council was working on a coral amendment that would protect deep sea corals, one of the goals of the monument. The South and Mid Atlantic Councils passed similar regulations years earlier.

 

Read the full story at The Groundtruth Project

Hawaii Longline Leader Testifies on Ways to Strengthen the MSA

July 27, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — A Hawaii fishing industry leader made three suggestions to the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans during a hearing last week on “Exploring the Successes and Challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.” The hearing was designed to continue discussions relevant to MSA reform and consider current draft legislation.

Hawaii Longline Association President Sean Martin, one of four invited witnesses, said overall the MSA is working well, but the Hawaii seafood industry is facing problems related to national monuments created under the Antiquities Act, Endangered Species Act issues and more.

“The MSA is a success and should be the principal source of authority for management of U.S. fisheries,” Martin said in his testimony. “Overfished stocks have been rebuilt, and few stocks are now overfished. Management measures are precautionary and based on the best scientific information available. The regional fishery management councils provide regional fishing expertise and utilize an effective bottom-up decision making process that includes the fishing industry. The MSA also requires the evaluation of impacts on fish stocks as well as fishermen and fishing communities.”

However, the 140 active vessels in the longline fleet, which lands roughly $100 million worth of tuna and other highly migratory fish annually, is struggling with access to fishing grounds.

“We operate in a very competitive arena, both for fishing grounds in international waters and for the U.S. domestic market. The recent marine monument designations established under the Antiquities Act prohibits us from fishing in 51 percent of the US Exclusive Economic Zone in the Western Pacific region,” Martin said. “Access to the high seas is also being challenged by recent United Nations initiatives. Closure of US waters and the high seas hurts us, reducing our ability to compete and increasing the vulnerability of our markets to foreign takeover.”

Martin said the longliners have worked with NMFS and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council for more than 25 years to ensure sound fishery data would be used in stock assessments and regulations. They have collaborated on research such as gear modifications to protect sea turtles, seabirds and marine mammals.

“We are proud of our efforts and the Hawaii longline fishery is an iconic, internationally recognized model fishery. It is the most highly monitored, strictly regulated longline fishery in the Pacific,” he said.

With that, Martin suggested three things to help make the MSA stronger:

  1. Manage U.S. ocean fisheries through the MSA process;
  2. Strengthen support for U.S. fisheries in the international arena; and
  3. Simplify the MSA regulatory process.

“In recent years, the management of fisheries covered by the MSA has been circumvented by other statutes and authorities,” Martin said regarding using the MSA process for managing ocean fisheries. “This includes the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Antiquities Act. These acts do not require the same level of public consultation and transparency as compared to the MSA.

“For our fishery, the biggest gains in protection have been achieved through the Council process. For example, sea turtle and seabird interactions were reduced by 90 percent as a result of industry cooperative research and Council developed regulations. In HLA’s view, fisheries should be managed primarily through the fishery management councils under the MSA. This ensures a transparent, public, and science-based process which allows the fishing industry and stakeholders to be consulted. It provides that analyses of impacts to fishery dependent communities are considered, and prevents regulations that might otherwise be duplicative, unenforceable, or contradictory.

“Past administrations have established huge national marine monuments in the Pacific totaling more than 760 million acres of U.S. waters under the Antiquities Act of 1906. In our view, marine monument designations were politically motivated and addressed non-existing problems. Fisheries operating in these areas were sustainably managed for several decades under the MSA and the Western Pacific Council. There was no serious attempt to work with the fishing industry in the designations of these marine monuments. Public input was minimal.”

Regarding support for U.S. fisheries in the international arena, Martin said, “In 2016, Congress enacted ‘Amendments to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act’ (16U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The amendments direct the Secretaries of Commerce and State to seek to minimize any disadvantage to U.S. fisheries relative to other fisheries of the region and to maximize U.S. fisheries’ harvest of fish in the Convention Area.

“The amendments are intended to level the playing field between
U.S. and foreign fisheries. U.S. fisheries managed under the MSA are sustainable, yet they are often disadvantaged within international fisheries commissions. U.S. fishing interests require strong U.S. government negotiators to advocate and support U.S. fisheries.

“For example, the Hawaii longline bigeye quota has been reduced to 3,345 metric tonnes (mt), while quotas for other countries have not been reduced (e.g. Indonesia). The WCPFC-imposed quotas are based on historical catch and do not match current fishing capacity. For example, Japan has a bigeye quota of nearly 17,000 mt, but only catches around 11,000 mt. China has been expanding its longline fleet from about 100 vessels in 2001 to over 430 vessels in 2015, and has a bigeye quota of around 7,000 mt. Our fleet has been limited to 164 permits since 1991. China is continuing to expand its longline fisheries and supplying US markets with poorly monitored seafood.”

Lastly, Martin hit on another problem faced by several industry groups around the country, not just in Hawaii: Simplifying the MSA regulatory process. The National Environmental Policy Act has caused delays and duplications in several regions.

“HLA supports the regional councils’ efforts to achieve a more streamlined process for approval of regulatory actions,” Martin testified. “A fishery management plan document from a regional council typically contains a full discussion of impacts on the fisheries, on the fish stocks, and on associated species (e.g., endangered species, marine mammals, seabirds, etc.).

“The National Environmental Policy Act requires duplicative evaluation and incongruent public comment periods. The analytical duplication between the MSA and NEPA is unnecessary, delays needed actions, has a high cost, and provides more avenues for legal challenges and delays on non-MSA grounds. Also, it is often very confusing to the industry with regard to timing and where we should apply our input in the process.”

Martin said the longline association recommends amending the MSA to authorize a single analytical document for any proposed regulatory action that will streamline the process, eliminate duplication and allow for more meaningful industry input.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

SEAN HORGAN: Interior Secretary visits, talks lobsters, monuments

June 18, 2017 — It certainly was a happening time in Boston this past weekend, what with the Sail Boston 2017 spectacle out in the harbor and beyond, as well as Dead & Company doing two nights at Fenway Park, Father’s Day and the royal visit by new Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke on Friday.

The visit by Zinke, who was on a four-day New England jaunt that included a tour of the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument in Maine, merely ratcheted up the already incendiary debate over the means used to designate the monuments and the value of the monuments themselves.

The Obama administration earlier removed Cashes Ledge, which sits about 80 miles off of Gloucester, from consideration as a possible site for the new national marine monument, so the local debate now centers on the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.

The monument, which encompasses roughly 4,900 square miles in an area south of Cape Cod, was designated last year by the Obama administration through the use of the Antiquities Act.

Now the Trump administration is reviewing all of the national monument designations since 1996 that cover more than 100,000 acres with an eye toward potentially reversing some or all.

On Friday, Zinke met with U.S Fish and Wildlife Service officials and officials from the New England Aquarium about marine wildlife around the monument. He then held a listening session with lobstermen and fishermen about the impact of the monument designation on their industry.

Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental groups held a rally at the Statehouse supporting the monument designations and urging the current administration to retain the protected areas.

This has evolved into an absolute zero-sum game and the divisions in this debate seem almost insurmountable. It’s hard to imagine anyone on either side willing to drop their swords in the name of compromise. They’re just too dug in.

Read the full opinion piece at the Gloucester Times

Interior secretary visits Mass. to review marine monument

June 19, 2017 — Editor’s Note: At the request of the Department of the Interior, Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities helped facilitate a meeting between Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and over 20 representatives of the commercial fishing industry. The meeting also included staff members from the offices of Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI):

Capping off a four-day New England tour, US Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke visited Boston Friday to meet with local scientists and fishermen in his review of the East Coast’s only — and highly controversial — marine monument.

The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, located approximately 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod, covers more than 4,000 square miles. It includes three underwater canyons and four seamounts — mountains rising from the ocean floor —housing dozens of deep-sea corals and several species of endangered whales.

Former president Barack Obama proclaimed the area the country’s first marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean in September 2016. The Antiquities Act, signed into law in 1906 by national parks champion Theodore Roosevelt, grants presidents unilateral authority to establish national monuments on federal land.

But now, under President Trump, the fate of the underwater zone is in doubt.

Trump signed an executive order in April directing Zinke to review all national monuments designated over the past 21 years, calling the practice of using executive authority to designate such monuments an “abusive practice.”

Zinke met with scientists from the New England Aquarium and the Massachusetts marine monument’s superintendent from the US Fish and Wildlife Service in the morning, before heading to a roundtable with local fishermen.

“Right now, I’m in the information collection stage, so everything is on the table,” Zinke said.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

WESTPAC Calls For End To Monument, Sanctuary Fishing Restrictions

June 14, 2017 — The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council has requested that the federal government consider reviewing the continued need for existing monument and sanctuary fishing restrictions, given the availability of federal regulations which manage fisheries in the US Pacific Islands.

The request was made in a recent letter signed by Council Chairman Edwin A. Ebisui Jr., and Council Executive Director Kitty M. Simonds to US Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur L. Ross, with copies of the letter sent to President Trump, leaders of two federal departments, and Governors of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

The letter claims that the establishment of National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments (MNM), under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and the Antiquities Act, “are being hard-pressed by environmental activist groups to displace processes” under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) “that provide for the sustainable use of fishery resources while conserving vital marine resources.”

Read the full story at the Pacific Islands Report