Saving Seafood

Coastal mayors join to oppose Obama administration’s ‘marine monuments’ plan

August 24, 2016 — The Obama administration is running afoul of transparency and openness as it prepares to create offshore marine monuments off California and New England, two mayors including Jon Mitchell are telling the administration.

Mitchell was joined by Monterey, California Mayor Clyde Roberson in sending the Obama White House letters expressing “serious concerns” about the potential economic harm to their ports from the use of executive action by the administration to create new federal marine monuments off the coasts.

A chorus of opposition has been rising from fishermen and fishing communities across the country opposing the creation of marine monuments outside of the existing ocean management processes.

New Bedford is the highest-grossing fishing port in the nation; Monterey is one of the most valuable fishing ports in California.

Writing to Council on Environmental Quality Acting Director Christy Goldfuss, Mitchell praised the successes of the current fishing management process, overseen by NOAA, a process that includes the voices of all ocean stakeholders in its deliberations, according to a release from the The National Coalition for Fishing Communities. “The process is far from perfect, but it affords ample opportunity for stakeholders and the public alike to review and comment on policy decisions and for the peer reviewing of the scientific bases of those decisions,” Mitchell wrote.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Mayors of Major East and West Coast Ports Express Concern About Possible Economic Harm from Marine Monument Designations

August 24, 2016 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

WASHINGTON (NCFC) – In letters sent on Friday to the President and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), New Bedford, Massachusetts Mayor Jon Mitchell and Monterey, California Mayor Clyde Roberson expressed “serious concerns” about the potential economic harm to their ports from the use of executive action by the Obama Administration to create new federal marine monuments off the coasts of New England and California. The mayors also emphasized the need for “transparency” and “robust stakeholder input.”

The letters reflect a growing movement from fishermen and fishing communities across the country opposing the creation of marine monuments outside of the existing ocean management processes. New Bedford is the highest-grossing fishing port in the nation, and Monterey is one of the most valuable fishing ports in California.

In his letter to CEQ Acting Director Christy Goldfuss, New Bedford Mayor Mitchell praised the successes of the current fishing-management process, overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – a process that emphasizes including the voices of all ocean stakeholders in its deliberations.

“The process is far from perfect, but it affords ample opportunity for stakeholders and the public alike to review and comment on policy decisions and for the peer reviewing of the scientific bases of those decisions,” he wrote.

The Mayor went on to contrast this with the much more opaque process that has governed the marine monument debate.

“The use of a parallel process, however well-meaning, which has none of the checks and balances employed in the NOAA process, could leave ocean management decisions vulnerable to political considerations in the long run,” he wrote.

 On the other side of the country, Monterey Mayor Roberson’s letter to President Obama was similarly critical of efforts to declare new monuments by executive fiat. Mayor Roberson emphasized the value of the California seamounts to commercial fishermen and the need to strike a balance between environmental protections and fishing concerns. According to Mayor Roberson, reaching this balance requires basing decisions on science, rather than politics.

“[Monterey] supports publically transparent, science-based processes in making ocean management decisions – such as the mandate embodied in the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act,” he wrote. “This proposal was developed without public knowledge or participation, much less scientific or economic review and analysis. Certainly there was no transparency. “

Both Mayors also expressed serious reservations about the potential impact monument declarations would have on their regions’ commercial fishing industries. In New England, a monument declaration would devastate the red crab, swordfish, and tuna fisheries, as well as the processors and shore side businesses that depend on them. In California, the albacore tuna fishery would be deeply impacted, as would that of the rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchins, and white sea bass.

Mayor Mitchell also noted that while the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has provided “coordinates of a line seaward of the canyons that is acceptable to the industry” the Administration has not provided a concrete proposal. He noted, “if a proposal actually exists, it has not been shared with any of the stakeholders.”

Fishing groups on the East and West Coasts, including many NCFC affiliates, whose members collectively produce the majority of the edible finfish and shellfish harvested from U.S. waters, have expressed opposition to the creation of a new monument via executive order. These organizations include:

  • Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers
  • Alaska Scallop Association
  • American Albacore Fisheries Association
  • American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA)
  • American Scallop Association
  • At-Sea Processors Association
  • Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
  • Blue Water Fishermen’s Association
  • California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
  • California Lobster & Trap Fishermen’s Association
  • California Sea Urchin Commission
  • California Wetfish Producers Association
  • Coalition of Coastal Fisheries
  • Coos Bay Trawlers
  • Directed Sustainable Fisheries
  • Fisheries Survival Fund
  • Garden State Seafood Association
  • Golden King Crab Coalition
  • Groundfish Forum
  • Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
  • Midwater Trawlers Cooperative
  • National Fisheries Institute
  • New England Red Crab Harvester’s Association
  • North Carolina Fisheries Association
  • Oregon Trawl Commission
  • Organized Fishermen of Florida
  • Pacific Seafood Processors Association
  • Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative
  • Southeastern Fisheries Association
  • United Catcher Boats
  • Ventura County Commercial Fishermen’s Association
  • Washington Trollers Association
  • West Coast Seafood Processors Association
  • Western Fishboat Owners Association

Read Mayor Mitchell’s letter here

Read Mayor Roberson’s letter here

HAWAII: Papahanaumokuakea: It Is Hawaii’s Business

August 24, 2016 — The people of Hawaii are divided over the expansion of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Papahanaumokuakea encompasses 10 islands and 140,000 square miles filled with seamounts, atolls, coral and rare species indigenous to Hawaii.

Senator Brian Schatz first proposed the plan to increase the monument’s territory from 50 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles off the shores of each of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Supporters say that protecting this region would help maintain the biodiversity that thrives in these waters for future generations. The Antiquities Act gives President Obama has the power to create national monuments to protect important cultural, scientific and natural resources without holding a public hearing. But opponents of the expansion say the plan needs a thorough discussion with Hawaii’s people.

Some argue that the expansion will harm Hawaii’s fishing industry, and potentially make it more expensive to “buy local.” This could cause Hawaii to rely more on mainland imports, says Mike Irish, owner of Diamond Head Seafood, Halm’s Enterprise and Keoki’s Lau Lau.

“All the fishermen of the state of Hawaii will be impacted. All the fish that is caught here, over 80 percent is eaten by us,” explains Irish. “It’s our one sustainable industry we have today and they want to start taking that away from us.”

Read the full story at Hawaii Business

JON WILLIAMS: Monument Area Vital To Fishermen

August 23, 2016 — The following is excerpted from a letter to the editor written by Jon Williams, president of the New England Red Crab Harvesters’ Association. It was published today:

I was disappointed with The Courant’s Aug. 18 editorial “Atlantic Marine Preserve Would Be Victory For Environment” endorsing a plan for President Obama to designate a marine national monument off the New England coast.

Contrary to what the editorial stated, a monument would profoundly impact commercial fishermen. The editorial cited the Natural Resources Defense Council’s claim that the “vast majority of red crab landings” along the Eastern Seaboard are outside the proposed protection area. But take it from a crab fisherman: That area is vital to our livelihoods.

Read the full letter at the Hartford Courant

Marine Preserve Proposal Ignites Debate Over Fishing

August 22, 2016 — Proposals to create a vast national marine preserve off the New England coast are generating a whirlpool of debate that’s sucking in commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, environmentalists, multistate bureaucrats and politicians.

Environmental groups are calling on President Barack Obama to use his executive powers to establish a 6,180-square-mile New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts national monument. They insist it would protect a unique and ecologically critical marine environment lying about 150 miles off New England’s shores.

If Obama heeds those calls, virtually all fishing and commercial operations such as oil and undersea mining would be banned within the new national preserve.

The controversy has exposed deep fault lines between commercial fishermen fiercely opposed to new federal restrictions on their industry and many recreational anglers who argue the preserve would benefit fishing in the region.

Interstate fisheries councils and commissions involved in regulating fishing along the Atlantic coast are also involved in an effort to protect their jurisdiction over the proposed preserve.

The leaders of eight U.S. regional fisheries management councils have written to Obama warning that creation of the proposed marine monument would ignore federal mandates to “achieve optimum yield from the nation’s fishery resources and may negatively impact jobs and recreational opportunities.”

Read the full story at the Hartford Courant

Both Sides in Marine Monument Fight Invoke Hawaiian Culture

August 17, 2016 — This year, a group of Native Hawaiian leaders urged President Barack Obama to expand Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, while keeping the main Hawaiian islands outside the boundaries. The move would make the monument about 582,000 square miles, more than twice the size of Texas.

The White House isn’t indicating when a decision will be made. Obama also has been asked to designate new national monuments in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Maine and elsewhere.

The effort to expand the Pacific monument has supporters and opponents invoking Hawaiian culture to further their agendas. Some believe expansion of one of the world’s largest marine conservation areas will protect a sacred place, while others say making more waters off-limits will harm fishermen for a cause pushed by environmentalists with deep pockets.

Peter Apo opposes adding the massive area to the monument and said doing so contradicts the way ancient Hawaiians managed natural resources.

Apo is a trustee of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which supports expansion as long as the agency gets an official say in management of the area, including advocating for Native Hawaiian access.

It’s difficult to be a Native Hawaiian and an expansion opponent, Apo said.

“We look like we’re bad guys. We’re opposing what seems to be addressing a global problem,” he said of issues like climate change and overfishing that supporters point to.

He cited how Hawaiians utilized periods of kapu, or temporary restrictions in response to overharvesting.

“Food security was critical to Hawaiians,” Apo said.

It’s difficult to estimate the financial effect that expansion would have on the $100 million per year longline industry, which supplies a large portion of the fresh tuna and other fish consumed in Hawaii, said Sean Martin, president of the Hawaii Longline Association.

He estimated about 2 million pounds of fish annually come from the proposed expansion area, where vessels string lines ranging from a mile to 50 miles long in the ocean to catch fish.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at ABC News

Obama’s Environmental Legacy: Some 24 National Monuments

August 15, 2016 — The race is on to win President Barack Obama’s attention as he puts some final touches on his environmental legacy.

Conservation groups, American Indian tribes and federal lawmakers are urging his administration to preserve millions of acres as national monuments. Such a designation often prevents new drilling and mining on public lands, or the construction of new roads and utility lines.

The flurry of activity is creating enthusiasm — and tensions — in several parts of the country.

Efforts are underway in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Maine and elsewhere to get Obama to designate new national monuments. Proponents aren’t just focused on land. They’re also looking to greater protections for vast swaths of ocean bottom off the coasts of New England, California and Hawaii.

Proponents of the various monument proposals know that the next administration will have other immediate priorities. Some presidents, including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, never exercised their powers to designate national monuments through the 1906 Antiquities Act. The proponents recognize the window of opportunity could be closing for several years.

They’re also aware that Obama’s immediate predecessors, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, waited almost exclusively until their final months in office to designate national monuments, so there is a chance Obama will become even more active.

That’s disconcerting for many members in Congress, particularly Republicans, who say the Antiquities Act wasn’t designed to bolster a president’s legacy.

“Presidents are starting to abuse this authority as they leave the office. If they actually tried to do this on the first day so that Congress had some ability to respond to it, and the people did, I’d be more comfortable about what their motives are,” said GOP Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at ABC News

Creation Of World’s Largest Marine Reserve In Hawaii Sparks Water Fight

August 15, 2016 — HONOLULU — The vast ocean surrounding the remote western portion of the Hawaiian archipelago has become the focus of a fierce debate in the state where lawmakers and longline fishers have been pitted against conservationists and Native Hawaiian groups who hope the president will designate it as the world’s largest marine reserve.

Earlier this summer, US Sen. Brian Schatz sent a proposal to President Barack Obama to greatly expand the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM), an existing protected area established 10 years ago by President George W. Bush.

The current monument covers 139,800 square miles in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, an area nearly the size of California, and is home to some of the world’s most extensive coral populations, at least 7,000 marine species, and 22 types of seabirds. When it was established in June 2006, it was the largest protected area in the world, but now ranks 10th.

Under Schatz’s proposal the monument would expand to 582,578 square miles — four times its current size — and would include almost the entire exclusive economic zone of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. While advocates say the expanded protection will better safeguard endangered species, preserve biodiversity, and fight climate change, opponents argue that it would significantly restrict their access to certain fish and hinder the state’s economic well-being.

In May, 30 state lawmakers, including Hawaii House Speaker Joe Souki and Senate President Ron Kouchi, signed a letter asking Obama not to expand the monument and questioning his authority to use the Antiquities Act. The law, passed in 1906, gives the president the power to designate national monuments with the stroke of a pen, and is among the most controversial tools used to set aside land.

“Without sufficient scientific and empirical data and evidence, this arbitrary expansion would be in direct violation of the Antiquities Act,” the letter read.

The lawmakers said an expansion of the preserve would cut Hawaii’s commercial fishing industry by 8% and would mean 2.16 million fewer pounds of fish, resulting in an estimated $6.8 million loss.

Read the full story at Buzzfeed News

CALEB MCMAHAN: Expanding the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument Would Set A Dangerous Precedent

August 12, 2016 — The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently held a public meeting to discuss the proposed expansion of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.

Proponents of the expansion stand behind the request of Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz and a group of seven Native Hawaiians for President Barack Obama to consider invoking the Antiquities Act of 1906 to expand the existing 50 mile monument boundary four-fold. The new monument would include nearly all of the Exclusive Economic Zone surrounding the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and a whopping 60 percent of the greater Hawaiian Islands EEZ.

Proponents argue that the expansion is necessary and justified on a variety of accounts. But the invocation of the Antiquities Act would mean that nearly 1.3 million square kilometers of U.S. waters would be made off-limits to American fishermen without public review or scientific analysis of the impacts or potential benefits.

Given the permanence of such a designation and the ramifications for the affected user groups, it’s no surprise that the recent meeting included a lively debate between those for and against expansion.

Read the full story at the Honolulu Civil Beat

SANDY SMITH: Marine monument plan threatens California fishing industry

August 8, 2016 — The following is an excerpt from an op-ed in the Ventura County Star, written by Sandy Smith. Ms. Smith formerly served as the Mayor of Ventura, California and is the current Chairman of the Ventura County Economic Development Association:

A new proposal being circulated among lawmakers hopes to conve President Obama to use his executive power to designate seamounts — underwater mountains — as marine monuments off the coast of California.

On the surface, that may sound like a good idea, but a deeper review of the proposal reveals that it threatens to curtail commercial fisheries as well — and that’s not good for Ventura County.

Commercial fishing operations based at the Port of Hueneme, Channel Islands Harbor in Oxnard and the Ventura Harbor serve as foundations of our local economy. Our local fishermen and fish processors rely on these extremely productive fishing grounds, including seamounts, to produce millions of pounds of seafood every year, including tuna, mackerel and market squid.

Closure of these areas to fishing would inflict serious harm to the industry and our communities.

As an example of the impacts to Ventura County, the current squid-landing operation at the Port of Hueneme alone supports nearly 1,400 direct and indirect jobs in the local community, and about $11 million in state and local tax revenues annually.

It also provides $56 million of revenue for local businesses dependent upon existing squid operations.

Not only would the proposal cause serious economic harm, but is it really even necessary?

California already has the most strictly regulated fisheries in the world.

Precautionary policies for protecting resources in federal waters exist under the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as well as under many other bipartisan laws, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act.

All of these laws require science-based analysis that is conducted in a fully public and transparent process.

But that’s not what’s happening here. The document “The Case for Protecting California’s Seamounts, Ridges and Banks” was drafted and advanced with no science, no analysis and virtually no public engagement or outreach to the parties who would be most affected by this unilateral action.

Read the full op-ed at the Ventura County Star