Saving Seafood

Fishing industry fears Obama’s power over coastal waters

August 25, 2016 — The prospect that President Barack Obama could designate as marine monuments areas off the Massachusetts and California coasts is being met with resistance from various fishing groups and port-town mayors. If Obama uses his authority under the Antiquities Act to name as federal monuments the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts, and many of the seamounts, ridges and banks off California’s coast, commercial fishing would be significantly restricted and the viability of two of the country’s most important fishing ports would be threatened — Monterey, Calif., and New Bedford, Mass., (the nation’s highest-grossing fishing port), the mayors of those ports argued in letters to the White House on Wednesday.

The mayors — Jon Mitchell of New Bedford and Clyde Roberson of Monterey — and industry groups, like the National Coalition for Fishing Communities, also argue such actions would sidestep the fishery management system overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which makes decisions based on scientific analysis and public input to ensure the sustainability of seafood stocks.

Read the full story at POLITICO

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

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.