Saving Seafood

D.B. PLESCHNER: Monument proposal would devastate California’s fishing industry

August 15, 2016 — The following is excerpted from an opinion piece written by D.B. Pleschner, executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association. It was published today in the Sacramento Bee:

California’s fisheries provide healthy, sustainable food, but that could change under a dangerous new proposal being circulated, until recently, behind closed doors at the Legislature.

California’s fishing community – more than 40 harbors, chambers of commerce, seafood processors and recreational and commercial fishing groups – has united to oppose the proposal to declare virtually all offshore seamounts, ridges and banks off the coast as monuments under the Antiquities Act and permanently close these areas to commercial fishing.

After pursuing rumors, fisheries groups discovered the proposal, along with a sign-on letter encouraging legislative support. But no one bothered to seek any input from recreational and commercial fishermen. Even worse, there has been no scientific review or economic analysis, no public participation and no transparency.

The areas identified in the proposal are indeed special places, rich in marine life and valuable corals, sponges and structures. The seamounts and banks are also very important for fisheries.

Tuna, swordfish, rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchins, white sea bass and species including mackerels, bonito and market squid are all sustainably fished in Southern and Central California. And in Northern California, albacore tuna and other species provide opportunities to fishermen who, for the past few seasons, have been unable to rely on Chinook salmon and Dungeness crab.

These areas do deserve protection. But policies for protecting resources in federal waters exist under the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other bipartisan laws, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered Species Act, which require science-based, peer-reviewed analysis conducted in a fully public and transparent process.

Read the full opinion piece at the Sacramento Bee

U.S. appeals court upholds Pacific whiting fishing quotas

August 8, 2016 — A federal appeals court upheld the government’s annual fishing quotas Thursday for the Pacific whiting, which dwells near the ocean floor off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

A vessel owner and a fish processor, both from Washington state, filed suit in San Francisco challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service’s limits on harvesting the whiting, which took effect in 2011. The rules, aimed at preserving the fish supply and discouraging frenzied activity at the outset of the fishing season, assigned each permit-holder a share of the overall catch based on their shares in past years — 2003 for fish harvesters, and 2004 for processors. Those years coincided with the start of the government’s rule-making process.

Other fishing companies and the Environmental Defense Fund supported the quotas. Their opponents argued that the selection of past years was arbitrary and violated a law requiring federal officials to take into account “present participation in the fishery” and “dependence on the fishery” when setting limits.

Read the full story at the San Francisco Chronicle

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

Activists Push for Hawaii National Monument Expansion After Public Meetings

August 5, 2016 — Native Hawaiians, marine scientists, conservationists, and the commercial longline fishing industry have been speaking out about U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz’s (D-HI) proposal to expand the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Public hearings conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Hawaiian islands of Oahu and Kauai concluded Tuesday.

“It’s really important for people to have an opportunity to be heard,” Schatz said in a statement. “I am grateful to President Obama and his Administration for accepting my invitation to hear directly from Hawai’i residents before making any decisions.”

President George W. Bush created Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument 10 years ago by executive order. The 139,797 square-mile protected area is almost the size of California and is home to 7,000 species of birds, fish, and marine mammals, at least a quarter of which are found only in Hawaii, according to the NOAA.

Read the full story at NBC News

Sea turtles introduced to ocean will be tracked to help save species

August 3, 2016 — Sea turtles that hatched at SeaWorld in 2009 were introduced to the ocean on Monday.

The sea turtles were placed into the ocean 10-12 miles off the coast of San Diego. It is anticipated that the sea turtles will migrate south to normal feeding areas along the coast of Mexico and Central America.

Two of the turtles were fitted with satellite transmitters that will allow scientists from the National Marine Fisheries Service and Hubbs-Seaworld Research Institute to monitor their movement for at least a month.

Read the full story at CW6 San Diego

Consider the Crab: The year California’s Dungeness crab industry almost cracked apart (but didn’t)

July 28, 2016 — Lori French, the daughter-in-law of a crab fisherman, the wife of another, and the mother of a third, placed two large bowls on a table. The one labeled “California” sat empty. The other, reading “Oregon,” was filled to the brim with bright-lavender-and-orange Dungeness crabs. It was early February, the night before the annual hearing of the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture at the state capitol, and French, who’s the president of a nonprofit called Central Coast Women for Fisheries, had organized a banquet that was part festive crab feed, part bare-knuckled lobbying effort.

For the benefit of her attendees, who included elected officials, bureaucrats, scientists, and fishermen and their families, she had shipped hundreds of pounds of Dungeness down from Oregon, where, unlike in California, the annual crab season was already under way. She believed that state officials were being too cautious in prohibiting commercial crabbing due to an outbreak of toxic domoic acid, an embargo that had decimated the fortunes of some 1,800 crab-fishing captains and crews in California. Domoic acid, she pointed out, had neither killed nor caused a reported sickening of anyone so far this year. Washington State had let commercial fishermen on the water. Why not reopen the waters in California?

It wouldn’t be that easy. The California Department of Public Health requires scientists to confirm two consecutive clean tests for potentially harmful toxins in locally caught crabs. Since the fall, at least one of every two tests had reported unacceptably high levels of domoic acid, which can poison all kinds of sea life and can sicken and potentially kill humans. By the time I caught up with French again in mid-March, several weeks after the banquet, the state’s crabbers were still out of luck. One recent test had come back clear, French told me over the phone. With one more clean bill of health, her husband and hundreds of other fishermen working the coastline from Santa Barbara up to Crescent City would have been able to drop pots and catch crabs. But when the subsequent test results came back, they weren’t good: A crab had been found with domoic acid levels in its organs at 38 parts per million, 8 above the cutoff level. French was devastated: “Our last bit of hope was just jerked away,” she said.

Read the full story at the San Francisco Chronicle

NOAA Recommends $9 Million in Funding for Community-based Habitat Restoration

July 25, 2016 — The following was released by NOAA:

NOAA is recommending $9 million in funding for 17 coastal and marine habitat restoration projects for its 2016 Community-based Restoration Program, as part of agency efforts to support healthy ecosystems and resilient coastal communities.

The recommended projects, in 10 states and territories, range from coral reef restoration in Florida to fish passage improvements in California. In the Greater Atlantic region, there are four recommended projects in Massachusetts, one in Maine, and one in Maryland.

This year’s projects will restore habitat for a variety of coastal and marine species, including three of NOAA Fisheries’ highly at-risk “Species in the Spotlight” – Atlantic salmon, Central California Coast coho, and Sacramento River winter-run Chinook. Projects will also concentrate on habitat improvement in two of NOAA’s Habitat Focus Areas – Puerto Rico’s Culebra Island, and West Hawaii – where agency and partner efforts can come together to yield community and environmental benefits.

“These restoration projects are a win-win for the environment and surrounding communities,” said Pat Montanio, director of the NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation. “When we make smart investments in habitat restoration, we not only help sustain fisheries and recover protected resources, we also use these projects to provide additional benefits, like protecting coastal communities from flooding and erosion, and boosting local economies through increased recreational opportunities.”

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Community-based Restoration Program, which was established in 1996 and authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. Since the program’s beginning, NOAA has provided more than $140 million to implement more than 2,000 habitat restoration projects, all through strong partnerships with more than 2,500 organizations. Through the program and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA and its partners are helping to create healthy habitats and resilient fish populations in the United States.

At this point in the selection process, the application approval and obligation of funds is not final. Each of the 17 applications is being “recommended” and is not a guarantee of funding. Final approval is subject to funding availability as well as final review and approval by both the NOAA Grants Management Division and Department of Commerce Federal Assistance Law Division. Applicants should expect to receive formal notification of award approval by October 1.

Details about the 17 projects recommended for funding are available on the NOAA Fisheries Office of Habitat Conservation website.

Navy’s submarine hunts are too disturbing for marine life, California court rules

July 20, 2016 — They came as a wave, some 150 to 200 melon-headed whales churning into Hawaii’s Hanalei Bay like a single mass. It was a strange sight for the Kauai islanders to behold. Melon-headed whales live in the deep ocean, feasting on squid. But here they were, swimming in the shallows no more than 100 feet from shore.

Over the course of July 3 and 4, 2004, volunteers and rescuers shepherded the animals back to sea, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s account of the mass stranding. The Washington Post reported at the time that it was the largest event of its kind in 150 years of Hawaiian history. Almost all the whales made it back out into the open water. But not the entire pod.

A young calf, split off from the rest of the herd, perished the next day.

A year later, 34 whales died when they were stranded at North Carolina’s Outer Banks. Three years after that and half the world away, 100 melon-headed whales were again stranded en masse, this time on the shores of Madagascar. The reasons why whales beach themselves are not always clear — strandings have been likened to car crashes in that the causes are myriad but the conclusion is never good. With the melon-headed whales, however, something was different. The events were unusual enough, and involved such large numbers, to prompt scrutiny. In both cases, a prime suspect emerged: sonar.

Controversy over these sound waves continues today. And in the latest skirmish over oceanic noise pollution, a victory went to the whales. On Friday, a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the Navy violated marine mammal protection laws, reversing a lower court’s decision that allowed military vessels to use a type of loud, low-frequency sonar approved in 2012.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

Ocean monument: Growing momentum for Obama to establish new Pacific marine preserves before leaving office

July 15, 2016 — A new effort to convince President Barack Obama to establish a huge new national monument in the Pacific Ocean off California before he leaves office six months from now is gaining momentum.

More than 100 scientists — including some of the top marine biologists in the world — and two dozen environmental groups are pushing a proposal that would ban offshore oil drilling, undersea mining and potentially some types of fishing in nine areas between San Diego and the Oregon border.

The areas singled out are a collection of underwater mountains, known as seamounts, along with several dormant underwater volcanoes, deep-sea ridges and concentrations of natural vents that spew hot water. Ranging from 45 to 186 miles off the California coast, and plunging more than 1 mile under the ocean’s surface, the remote locations are rich with sharks, whales, sea turtles and exotic sea life, including forests of coral, sponges and sea urchins. Many of the species have been discovered only in recent years as deep-sea exploration technology has improved.

Read the full story at The Mercury News

Opposition to California Offshore Monuments Mounts After Draft Proposal Leaked

July 14, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — What do creation of national monuments have in common? A lack of transparency when it comes to discussing the potential access restrictions with stakeholders. That same closed-door effort is happening off of California, as effort mounts to create offshore monuments on both west and east coasts.

California sport and commercial interests first became aware of the proposal to establish monuments around nine seamounts, ridges and banks (SRBs) as rumors a few months ago. In June, the industry got a look at the first proposal draft. Washington State Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island, was urging California state lawmakers and West Coast members of congress in Washington, D.C., to support the proposal that could make the nine areas off-limits to commercial fishing but remain open to all recreational fishing, including charter boats.

Diane Pleschner-Steele, one of the signatories to an opposition letter, noted the proponents argue the nine areas are not significant commercial fishing areas.

“However, the fishermen I’ve spoken with hotly contest that,” Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, said in an email. “Those are productive fishing grounds and to lose them forever would be a huge economic blow to many fishermen, processors and local communities.”

Ranker is no stranger to proposed monuments. As a co-chair of the president’s National Ocean Council’s Governance Coordinating Committee, he is one of the advisers to the NOC that provide guidance on the development of strategic action plans, policy and research priorities. In 2013, he worked with Washington leaders to create a national monument in the San Juan Islands.

Nearly 40 people representing sport and commercial fisheries signed on to a letter opposing the designation of monuments that could include Gorda Ridges and Mendocino Ridge off of northern California; Gumdrop and Pioneer seamounts, Guide Seamount and Taney Seamounts off of central California; and Rodriguez Seamount, San Juan Seamount, Northeast Bank and Tanner and Cortes Banks off of southern California.

“We oppose the designation of California offshore marine monuments that prohibit fishing under the Antiquities Act because monument status is irreversible and the Antiquities Act process involves no public peer-reviewed scientific analysis, no NEPA analysis, no public involvement or outreach to parties most impacted – no transparency,” the opponents wrote in the July 6 letter to President Obama, the Council on Environmental Quality, the secretaries of Commerce and Interior and a number of senators and congressmen.

A joint letter from the American Albacore Fishing Association and Western Fishboat Owners Association further note that some of the proponents’ data about the economic importance of the seamounts, ridges and banks is old and outdated. Some fisheries expanded their use of the offshore areas when California imposed marine protected areas in southern California in 2012.

The groups also note the Council Coordination Committee that includes members of the eight regional fishery management councils recently made a resolution that says, “therefore be it resolved, the CCC recommends that if any designations are made in the marine environment under authorities such as the Antiquities Act of 1906 that fisheries management in the U.S. EEZ waters continue to be developed, analyzed and implemented through the public process of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.”

“in the even this proposal moves forward, we strongly support maintaining management of fisheries under the MSA, through the [Pacific Fishery Management Council],” AAFA and WFOA wrote.

The proponents state the sites are “for discussion purposes only; specific sites, boundaries and regulations will be determined through a robust public consultation process that includes tribes, fishermen and stakeholders. There is a full commitment to working with these interests to better understand the activities occurring in these areas and mitigate potential concern.”

Meanwhile, other groups also are preparing written comments in an effort to fend off the threat of limited access to the nine offshore areas as the opposition grows. It’s unlikely anyone from the seafood industry is fooled by some of the behind-the-scenes political maneuvering that is taking place to create the monuments.

“In our opinion, which is informed by the lack of any attempt at collaboration with industry, this proposal is no more than legacy, political ambition and preservation being prioritized over the best available science and a multi-lateral, collaborative political process in the design of marine conservation measures,” AAFA and WFOA said in their letter.

Click here to read the letter sent to Congressman Huffman.

Click here to read the letter by Sandy Smith of the Ventura County Economic Development Association.

Click here to read the oppositon letter from the National Coalition for Fishing Communities.

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