Saving Seafood

Shaheen Presses Federal Agency Leader Not to Shift Burdensome Fees to NH Fishermen

WASHINGTON — September 17, 2015 — The following was released by the office of U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH):

U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) today advocated for New Hampshire fishermen in a phone call with Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Shaheen specifically urged the Administrator not to force New Hampshire fishermen to pay expensive new fees – more than $700 per trip – to cover the cost of the agency’s at-sea observer program, which monitors catch sizes and collects data in the region. NOAA announced last month that fishermen will be responsible for these fees starting October 31 of this year.

“New England’s fishing industry is in crisis, with many of New Hampshire’s remaining fishermen fighting for survival,” said Shaheen. “These fees will cut into incredibly thin margins and could be the tipping point for many of our fishermen. I’ve made it crystal clear to Administrator Sullivan that these fees threaten the very existence of New Hampshire’s fishing industry.”

As a Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Shaheen included provisions in Fiscal Year 2016 legislation directing NOAA to alleviate this problem and to develop new technology that would be more efficient and cost-effective. In the call with NOAA’s administrator today, Shaheen was asking for NOAA to continue funding the program while that work proceeds.

Today Shaheen also sent a letter with U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) to the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, calling for an investigation into the costs and operation of NOAA’s at-sea monitoring program.

Sens. Shaheen, Ayotte Dispute Fees for NH Fishermen

September 17, 2015 — The following was released by the office of Sen. Kelly Ayotte:

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) sent a letter to the Department of Commerce Acting Inspector General David Smith calling for a full investigation into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) at-sea monitoring program for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery, which includes New Hampshire’s coastal region. On August 4, 2015, NOAA announced it would end its funding the program on October 31, and will require individual fishermen to fund the ASM program instead.

“As you may know, the New England fishing industry has been devastated in recent years by severe cuts to catch quotas,” wrote the Senators. “In this moment when the fishery can least afford it, NOAA announced on August 4, 2015, that it would end its funding for the ASM program on October 31, 2015. This move will cost individual fishermen an estimated more than $700 per trip and will force many out of business entirely.”

Earlier this year, Senators Shaheen and Ayotte pushed for prompt action by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to deliver on New Hampshire’s request for federal fishery disaster funds. In April, OMB announced that NOAA had released $2.3 million in disaster relief funds to New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine. The Senators have also led bipartisan efforts to obtain similar funds for New Hampshire fishermen who had been negatively impacted by rigorous catch limit requirements.

The full text of the letter is below.

The Hon. David Smith
Acting Inspector General
Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20230

Dear Acting Inspector General Smith:

We write to request an investigation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) at-sea monitoring (ASM) program in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery.

As you may know, the New England fishing industry has been devastated in recent years by severe cuts to the fishery’s catch quotas. In this moment when the fishery can least afford it, NOAA announced on August 4, 2015, that it would end its funding for the ASM program on October 31, 2015.

This decision will cost individual fishermen an estimated $700 per trip and could force many out of business entirely. We have also heard disturbing reports of fishing sectors being told by NOAA that they are required to sign specific contracts by arbitrary deadlines, or they will lose their access to the fishery.
With New Hampshire’s commercial fishing industry already suffering due to onerous federal regulations, we are deeply concerned about the destructive impact that this new and sudden fee will have in our state. Based on concerns raised by our constituents, we are requesting an investigation into the ASM program that answers the following questions:

• How does NOAA determine with which companies to contract for fishery observers? Does the agency have to disclose potential conflicts of interest in this process?
• How are the costs of these fees and contracts determined? What percentage of the contract is a profit for observer companies?
• What legal basis enables NOAA to require fishing sectors to sign specific observer contracts and to set specific deadlines by which observer contracts must be signed?
• What options do fishermen have to negotiate the details of contracts they are required to sign?
• How do the ASM costs in the Northeast fishery compare with similar programs in other regions of the country?
• How do observer fees compare to per-trip revenue, particularly for fishermen with smaller vessels? How do these ratios in the Northeast compare with those for similar-sized vessels in other regions of the country?
• What is the estimated state-by-state economic impact of these new fees on the region’s fishing industry? How does this impact differ across vessel sizes?

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. The survival of New Hampshire’s 400-year-old fishing industry is at stake. We look forward to your timely response.

Read the legislation to terminate at-sea monitoring program

 

Massachusetts: Rep Koczera Joins Fishermen’s Call for Better Science and Better Funding for Groundfish Monitoring

September 17, 2015 — The following was released by Massachusetts State Representative Robert Koczera:

State Representative Robert Koczera (D-New Bedford) has joined Massachusetts officials and fishermen in calling for a reassessment of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)’s recent decision to shift the costs of federally-mandated At-Sea Monitoring expenses onto the shoulders of the struggling Massachusetts fishing fleet.

“NOAA’s insistence on at-sea monitoring as the only means to reach observational requirements is symptomatic of a bureaucracy wedded to one approach, especially when science has demonstrated there are other alternatives of fishery management and data collection that can possibly better meet the short-term and long-term needs of the fishing industry and the monitoring program,” stated Rep. Koczera.

“I would like to see NOAA reach out to local research organizations — like UMD’s School for Marine Science & Technology (SMAST) or the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – – to bring together unbiased scientific research and local knowledge for alternative monitoring ideas,” added Rep. Koczera.

“Our fishermen are seasoned professionals with years of expertise which is being disregarded in current discussions,” added Rep. Koczera. “The ongoing disagreement between policy-makers and hands-on practitioners on the best approach underscores the need for a better understanding of current stock conditions and more research before a scientifically and statistically-sound monitoring program can be developed and implemented successfully.”

In a recent letter to Secretary of Commerce Penny Prizker which highlighted his concern with the structure and rationale of the current at-sea monitoring program, Rep. Koczera also decried the anticipated effects of the cost-shift on the fishing fleet.

According to NOAA’s recent assessment, each fishing vessel would have to absorb a $710/day expense for an at-sea monitor. Collectively, this would lead to an industry cost $2.6 million annually, with the dire prediction that 60% of the fishing fleet would have negative returns in the first year of implementation.

“For an industry that has been through a federally-recognized commercial failure, these actions equate to an ill-advised and insurmountable unfunded mandate that would cripple any progress towards sustainable recovery,” said Rep. Koczera.

NOAA recently suggested that remaining “Bin 3” federal disaster funding be specifically allocated towards at-sea monitoring expenses. Governor Charlie Baker and the entire Massachusetts Congressional delegation are strongly opposed to this proposal.

“It is disingenuous to suggest this proposal is for the relief of the fishing industry, while, in truth, it would undercut the support system put in place to assist in their long-term viability,” added Rep. Koczera. “I join with my colleagues in insisting that this would be an inappropriate use of the “Bin 3” allocation of disaster funding.”

“The history of contention between the New England fishing fleet and NOAA is well known, but both have incentives for maintaining a healthy fishing industry and both agree that better information is needed to achieve that objective,” said Rep. Koczera.

“However, shifting the cost of an unfunded mandate onto the backs of the fishing industry – an indispensable partner in the federal government’s efforts to ensure a thriving fishery – is NOT how we will reach that objective,” added Rep. Koczera. “If NOAA is serious in this commitment, it should address the cost-effectiveness concerns of the at-sea monitoring program, be open to alternative strategies of meeting monitoring goals, and commit appropriate federal funding to prevent this unjust costshift to the fishing fleet,” concluded Rep. Koczera.

Read the press release from Rep. Koczera here

Read the letter from Rep. Koczera to the Secretary of Commerce Penny Prizker

NOAA issues report on at-sea monitors  

September 12, 2015 — The issue of at-sea monitoring seems to pervade almost every current discussion of the future viability of the Northeast groundfish industry, including the distribution of federal fishing disaster money and the ongoing battles over who will  pay for the monitoring program going forward.

NOAA Fisheries this week stepped further into that maelstrom with a largely internally generated report that focuses on cost comparisons between the current manual system of at-sea monitoring and electronic monitoring. It also released an independent review of the NOAA report.

The conclusions?

Electronic monitoring might be a more cost-effective option. Maybe. In some cases. Depending on the fishery and the goals and design of whatever electronic monitoring program ultimately is utilized.

The NOAA report, generated with the assistance of the Gulf of Maine Research Institute and other non-governmental organizations, concedes a wide array of assumptions — it is based on hypothetical Northeast multi-species and Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries — and accepts that it is merely “a starting point for developing future [electronic monitoring] program designs.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times

 

 

CARLOS RAPHAEL: White House should heed call on at-sea monitors

September 10, 2015 — In a show of bipartisan cooperation that’s all too rare in today’s politics, Massachusetts’ Republican governor and all-Democratic congressional delegation united late last month to call upon the Obama administration to reverse a particularly egregious federal policy: the current plan by NOAA to require the fishing industry to pay the full cost for at-sea monitors for the groundfish fishery. Fishermen will now be required to hire monitors from an approved short list of for-profit companies. This policy will impose a significant burden on area fishermen, and poses a threat to the future of a fishery that is already reeling from a string of onerous federal regulations.

Thanks goes to Gov. Charlie Baker, Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, and all nine of our Massachusetts representatives in Congress for giving voice to what fishermen have been saying for years: Forcing fishermen to pay for the observers who monitor their catch will be a financially disastrous outcome for the fishery. As their joint letter notes, ther National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s own analysis of shifting the cost of monitors onto the industry finds that 60 percent of the fleet would be operating at a loss if required to pay for monitoring. In just the first year, the program would cost fishermen an estimated $2.64 million.

Yet NOAA does not seem to fully realize how seriously this policy puts the fishery at risk. The $2.64 million that NOAA expects the fishery to pay in monitoring costs is $2.64 million that fishermen simply don’t have. The fishery still has not recovered from years of declining quotas and a federally declared economic disaster in 2012. Imposing another unfunded mandate on the fishery will force many remaining fishermen to exit the industry altogether.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times 

 

MASSACHUSETTS: Criteria for fishing aid likely to be relaxed

September 11, 2015 — WESTON, Mass. — It probably isn’t going to be the so-called Gloucester Plan that dictates which Massachusetts-based fishermen receive shares of the approximately $6 million in the final installment of federal fishing disaster aid, according to state fisheries officials.

Massachusetts Fish & Game Commissioner George Peterson said Thursday he anticipates the final spending plan, which the state expects to submit to NOAA Fisheries for approval by Oct. 1, will be much closer to the plan put forward by a cadre of Cape Cod fishermen, legislators and stakeholders at last Friday’s contentious meeting of the disaster aid working group in New Bedford.

That plan, with a lower standard of qualifying criteria needed to share in the assistance than the initial recommendations by the city of Gloucester and the Gloucester-based Northeast Seafood Coalition, would provide assistance to any fisherman who landed at least 10,000 pounds of groundfish in any of the fishing years from 2010 to 2014 or who had one vessel trip with an at-sea monitor aboard in 2014.

“After the public hearing and a lot of comment, we think it’s a better plan, a more inclusive plan,” Peterson said.

Peterson said he expects the state Division of Marine Fisheries, which he oversees, will provide him, Secretary of Environmental Affairs Matthew Beaton and Gov. Charlie Baker with the final draft proposal of the distribution plan sometime at “the beginning of next week.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times 

 

New Analysis Compares Costs of Electronic Monitoring and At-Sea Observers

September 9, 2015 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Earlier this year, NOAA Fisheries issued regional electronic technology implementation plans that lay out our vision for the implementation of electronic technology in U.S. fisheries. One key element missing from those plans and ongoing Fishery Management Council discussions was cost information. 

Today, NOAA Fisheries is releasing two reports comparing costs of actual at-sea monitors and observers against a proposed electronic monitoring system in hypothetical Northeast groundfish and Atlantic herring/mackerel fisheries.

We found that electronic technologies can be a cost-efficient monitoring option in some cases, but not always. Our findings suggest technology, such as on-board camera systems, may be most cost-effective for monitoring compliance, such as in the midwater trawl herring and mackerel fisheries. Our reports also show that human observers proved more cost-efficient than electronic technologies at catch accounting, such as required for groundfish sectors.

Any monitoring program must weigh many factors including data quality, feasibility, and cost. This analysis of relative costs fills an important information gap, and is a first step that will help inform the broader discussion taking place at the Fishery Management Councils about the most effective way to monitor fisheries.  

You can find the full reports, including details about factors driving program costs and our assumptions, as well as an independent peer review pf the report, online.

STEVE URBON: Groundfish Industry Taking Another Hit With Addition of At-Sea-Monitors

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — September 6, 2015 — So this is how it looks. The gradual collapse of the New England groundfish industry continued last week as about two dozen people jammed into a meeting room of the state’s Division of Marine Fisheries office in the former voc-tech school on Purchase Street to argue about the distribution of disaster relief money allocated by Congress.

The discussion was about the so-called “Bin 3” money, the third piece allocated in the disaster relief bill that Congress approved to mitigate the effects of the collapse of the groundfish industry in New England.

Richie Canastra, president of the BASE seafood auction, pleaded with the fishermen and cooperative managers from New Bedford, Chatham and Scituate for civility and derided NOAA Fisheries for “throwing them under the bus” in the wake of failed regulatory policies that continue to heap regulatory costs on the back of the fishing industry.

Canastra, late in the two-hour meeting, pleaded with his colleagues in the industry to think about where the industry will go from here once it decides how to allocate the remaining $6 million of federal disaster relief money approved by Congress three years ago.

Read the full opinion piece from the New Bedford Standard-Times

No changes to monitors, Bullard says

August 18, 2015 — Who says no one writes letters anymore? The battle over at-sea monitoring and other issues within the Northeast multispecies groundfish fishery is just full of them.

On Tuesday, NOAA Regional Administrator John K. Bullard sent a letter to the New England Fishery Management Council declining two more requests the council made in June to modify the at-sea monitoring program, while saying the request for analyzing ways for streamlining the at-sea monitoring (ASM) program is underway.

On Monday, Gov. Charlie Baker, following up on his pledge made last Thursday during a trip to Gloucester, waded further into the at-sea monitoring fray with his own letter to U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, whose department oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Baker’s letter, signed by members of the state’s congressional delegation, sought Pritzker’s support for NOAA’s continued funding of ASM rather than following through with the federal agency’s plan to shift the cost of at-sea monitoring — estimated at $600 to $800 per observer trip — to the already-beleaguered permit holders when federal funds run out, projected now to be at end of October.

Baker’s letter also questioned the necessity of NOAA’s expansion of other forms of monitoring within the Massachusetts and New England lobster fleets.

Bullard’s letter on Tuesday to NEFMC Executive Director Tom Nies followed the same rejective tone as his letter about two weeks ago that rejected the council request — also made at its June meeting — for NOAA to use its administrative authority to suspend all groundfish at-sea monitoring for the remainder of the 2015 season.

 

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times

 

 

Mass. Governor, Congressional Delegation to Obama Administration: Fund At-Sea Monitoring for New England Fishermen

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — August 20, 2015 — Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, and all nine Members of Congress from Massachusetts have called upon the Obama Administration to reverse recent policy decisions and continue the funding of at-sea monitoring for Northeastern fishermen. While the agency currently funds at-sea monitors, fishermen will have to assume the full cost of the program beginning this year, which the industry contends they will be unable to afford.

In a letter to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and the Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Governor Baker and the Massachusetts Congressional delegation expressed “serious concern over recent actions taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” The signatories are especially critical of the agency’s current at-sea monitoring policy, specifically its plan to shift funding of the program from NOAA onto fishermen, noting that such a move could potentially bankrupt the industry.

The Republican Governor and the all-Democratic Congressional delegation have joined forces to criticize the Administration decision and the heavy costs that individual fishermen are likely to incur as a result of this policy, especially in light of the fact that fishermen are still recovering from the federal economic disaster declared by the Commerce Department in 2012.

Citing a NOAA analysis of the transfer, the letter notes that monitors will cost the fishery $2.64 million in the first year alone, and would lead to an estimated 60 percent of the vessels in the fishery operating at a loss. According to the Governor and legislators, this amounts to an “unfunded mandate that could lead to the end of the Northeast Groundfishery as we know it.”

At its June meeting, the New England Fishery Management Council requested that NOAA take administrative actions to “improve the efficiency of the program,” as well as “reduce costs of the [at-sea monitoring program] without compromising compliance” with current laws. In its response to the Council, NOAA rejected these requests, stating that they were not “consistent with current regulatory requirements and statistical standards.”

The Gloucester, Massachusetts-based Northeast Seafood Coalition, which represents a significant percentage of the groundfish fleet, criticized NOAA’s decisions, while coming out in support of efforts by Gov. Baker and Congress to force a change in agency policy.

“The Council has questioned the benefits and the costs to the groundfish fishery of the at-sea monitoring program, and has given their clear directive to the Agency to either suspend or make the existing program more cost effective,” said Jackie Odell, Executive Director of the Northeast Seafood Coalition. “All requests made to date have received an astounding ‘no’ from NOAA. The Northeast Seafood Coalition strongly supports the requests made by the Council, Governor Baker and Members of Congress. When is enough, enough?”

In addition to Secretary Pritzker, the letter was sent to Sens. Thad Cochran and Barbara Mikulski, and Reps. Hal Rogers and Nita Lowey. Gov. Baker and Sens. Warren and Markey are joined by Reps. Richard Neal, Jim McGovern, Michael Capuano, Stephen Lynch, Niki Tsongas, William Keating, Joseph Kennedy, Katherine Clark, and Seth Moulton as signatories of the letter.

Read the letter from Gov. Baker and the Massachusetts Congressional delegation

Read the NEFMC’s request to NOAA on at-sea monitoring

Read NOAA’s rejection of the NEMFC’s at-sea monitoring request