Saving Seafood

US senator from Alaska speaks out against Trump tariffs

August 27, 2018 — If the Trump administration is serious about putting “America First,” then it must consider what the proposed 25 percent tariff on Chinese products will do to the Alaskan seafood industry. That was the message U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan delivered last week at a public hearing held by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

The Alaska Republican testified his state is currently caught in the crossfire as the world’s two largest economies consider hiking levies on goods imported from each other.

Sullivan said nearly USD 1 billion (EUR 859.4 million) in U.S. seafood ultimately destined for American consumers is being targeted by these tariffs. That’s because frozen fish, after it’s initially processed in the States, is sent to China to be filleted because it is more cost-effective. Most of that is caught by Alaskan fishermen.

Sullivan likened the fish to an American car made in the U.S. by local workers, only to have the final detailing performed in China before its sent back to dealerships here. The Trump administration wouldn’t consider increasing tariffs on those automobiles, Sullivan said.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

SEN. DAN SULLIVAN: Progress is coming for Southeast Alaska

June 25, 2018 — Whenever I return to Southeast Alaska, I’m always filled with a renewed sense of optimism and awe for our state. Our beautiful landscapes draw tourists from across the world. Our waterways help make our state the “super power” of seafood and the home of the largest Coast Guard presence in the Pacific. Indeed, it’s largely because of the importance of our fisheries and the Coast Guard that I pushed to be the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and the Coast Guard. In this committee, we are making progress on important issues that greatly impact Southeast.

First, throughout Alaska, and particularly in Southeast, our oceans are our lifeblood. It’s imperative that they remain sustainable. That’s why I authored the Save Our Seas (SOS) Act with Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, which unanimously passed the Senate.

Over the course of decades, marine debris, particularly plastics, deposited in the ocean half a world away finds its way to our coastal communities and ecosystems. This is especially detrimental to our state, with its 47,300 miles of shoreline and bountiful fisheries.

Our bill provides the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with funds for ocean debris cleanup, and allows the NOAA Administrator to declare severe marine events which authorizes additional funds for states, like Alaska, for cleanup and response efforts. Importantly, the SOS bill also focuses on the international component of the marine-debris crisis by directing the State Department to work with countries that are the source of such pollution. Our bill has helped spur international awareness of this problem. We’re hopeful it will pass the House soon and become law.

Read the full opinion piece at the Juneau Empire

Alaska requests disaster relief for struggling Gulf cod fishery

March 22, 2018 — Alaska Governor Bill Walker and other state officials sent a letter earlier in the month to the federal government to request a disaster declaration for the Kodiak-based Pacific cod fishery in the Gulf of Alaska.

The declaration would free up federal funds for people affected by low cod numbers in the gulf, where biologists turned up an 83 percent drop in the population from 2015, prompting the National Marine Fisheries Service to slash the fishery’s quota by 80 percent and making it eligible for disaster relief.

The letter, which was also signed by Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallet and U.S. senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, will go to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross for review.

“Due to poor fishery performance and low catch limits, value of the 2018 Pacific cod harvest is expected to be USD 7 to 8 million [EUR 5.7 million to 6.5 million], or an 81 to 83 percent decline in revenues from the most recent five-year average,” the letter read.  “Throughout the Gulf of Alaska, direct impacts will be felt by vessel owners and operators, crew, and fish processors, as well (as) support industries that sell fuel, supplies, and groceries. Local governments will feel the impact to their economic base and the State of Alaska will see a decline in fishery-related tax revenue.”

Biologists believe warmer waters associated with the marine heat wave in the Pacific Ocean have contributed to declining cod stocks. Studies show that warmer water temperatures boost the metabolism of the cod, making it hard for them to reach their energetic demands.

With the warm water mass known as The Blob moving on, some experts are cautiously hopeful that Pacific cod in the Gulf will make a comeback.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

Alaska: Sullivan offers legislators six reasons for optimism

February 27, 2018 — In his final reason for optimism, Sullivan echoed Alaska’s official slogan and said the state can be “a land of the future” with high technology investment.

He said that as a member of the committee in charge of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he has been seeking ways to move NOAA facilities and employees to Alaska.

Currently, many of NOAA’s Alaska offices — including the National Marine Fisheries Service region for the state — are found in Washington and Oregon. The City and Borough of Juneau has long sought to transfer some or all of those offices to the capital city.

“As for science, we have so much potential to be a vibrant hub of research, but the federal government needs to be a better partner,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan concluded his remarks by urging the Legislature to act on its opportunity.

Read the full story at the Juneau Empire

 

Seafood group wants next Magnuson-Stevens Act to do away with “overfishing”

February 16, 2018 — A consortium of groups with ties to the seafood industry is calling for the U.S. Congress to pass a Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization bill that gives the Regional Fishery Management Councils greater flexibility to achieve their objectives, but they also looking for federal officials to change how a couple of items are termed.

Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities is asking Congress to do away with the term “overfishing,” claiming it’s not accurate to base a stock’s condition on just its fishing mortality. In its place, the 24-member group wants to new MSA law to call fishstocks “depleted.” They made their recommendation in a letter to U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska).

“The term ‘overfished’ is perceived negatively and can unfairly implicate the industry for stock conditions resulting from other factors,” the group wrote.

Gib Brogan, a campaign manager with Oceana, said the effort behind depleted is an attempt by commercial fishing interests to escape a “negative perception and culpability for the state” of stocks.

“Modern fisheries science already accounts for the ‘other factors’ that may decrease the abundance of fish in the oceans,” Brogan said.  “When these ‘other factors’ have been accounted for in the underlying science, fishing remains as the source of mortality and it is entirely appropriate to keep the focus on fishing by using ‘overfished.’  If these other factors are not being appropriately considered, that should be resolved through the assessment for affected fish stocks, not a blanket change in terminology.”

Along with several other commercial fishing groups, the coalition is also calling for the new act to do away with the 10-year rebuilding requirement and giving the regional councils more flexibility in determining the timeframe needed to bolster stocks. The group also suggests moving from “possible” to “practicable” when it comes to those rebuilding periods.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

Murkowski, Sullivan Applaud Emergency Relief for Communities Affected by Fisheries Disasters

February 12, 2018 — WASHINGTON — U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Dan Sullivan (R-AK) Friday applauded the inclusion of funding for fisheries disasters in the Bipartisan Budget Act, which established funding levels through the end of Fiscal Year 2019. The bill passed the Senate in a vote of 71-28.

Last month Senators Murkowski and Sullivan called on their colleagues to include disaster funding for coastal communities affected by longstanding and ongoing fisheries disasters, as Congress considered a relief package for U.S. communities impacted by hurricanes and wildfires.

“The dollars contained in this bill are truly vital to communities in the Gulf of Alaska who were hit hard by the pink salmon fishery in 2016. From commercial fisherman and processors to local governments who saw less revenue, this hit everyone hard,” said Senator Murkowski. “I’d like to thank my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee, especially Senators Cochran and Shelby, for working with me over the months to secure this aid for Alaska and other states impacted by these disasters.”

“The 2016 pink salmon season was a disaster for our coastal communities, fishing families, and other fisheries related businesses,” said Senator Sullivan. “This emergency aid was a long time coming, and I thank my Senate colleagues for working with Senator Murkowski and I to address this pressing issue. Going forward we’ll work with NOAA and the affected communities to make sure the dollars are put to good use.”

Read the full story at Alaska Native News

 

Fishing Groups from Around the Nation Call for Magnuson-Stevens Act Reforms

25 Groups Express Support for HR 200

February 12, 2018 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

Twenty-five members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) are calling on Congress to enact broad reforms to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), including allowing for greater flexibility in how stocks are rebuilt and changes to how new management programs are implemented.

The proposals, delivered in a letter to Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, would, according to the signers, lead to a reauthorization that “allows for both sustainable fisheries management, and the long-term preservation of our nation’s fishing communities.”

The primary proposal is the elimination of the strict requirement that all fish stocks be rebuilt within 10 years, a timeline that the letter notes “has long been considered arbitrary.” Instead, the letter calls for allowing stocks to be rebuilt according to a “biologically-based time frame,” an option that it notes has broad scientific support.

“The National Academy of Science in their 2013 report titled ‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the U.S.’ concluded that ten years is indeed arbitrary given the vast differences in habitat, life history, and environmental conditions for fish stocks around the nation,” the letter states. “It is therefore time to replace this requirement with a more scientifically valid life-history based metric.”

Other proposed reforms to increase flexibility include regular reviews of rebuilding targets, allowing for consideration of alternative rebuilding strategies, and allowing the Regional Fishery Management Councils to consider changes in ecosystems when setting Annual Catch Limits.

The letter also calls for changes in how catch share programs are introduced to fisheries across the country, with the letter “supporting the requirement for a transparent referendum process before any new catch share program can be implemented.”

The signers of the letter note that the nation’s fishermen are invested in the long-term success and sustainability of its marine resources, and that these proposals will lead to a more effective fishery management system.

“There is no group that depends on the future of our living marine resources more than those who make their livelihoods from the ocean,” the letter concludes. “Our recommendations to the already effective MSA framework will allow us to better protect the people and communities that rely upon healthy and abundant fisheries.”

The letter was signed by a diverse group of associations and businesses from across the country, ranging from New England and the Mid-Atlantic to the Gulf Coast, California, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska and Hawaii. A full list of signers is included below.

  • American Fishermen’s Research Foundation
  • California Wetfish Producers Association
  • Delmarva Fisheries Association
  • Dock to Dish Montauk
  • Directed Sustainable Fisheries
  • Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen’s Association
  • Garden State Seafood Association
  • Gosmans Fish Market
  • Hawaii Longline Association
  • Inlet Seafood Restaurant and Pack House
  • Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
  • Montauk Fish Dock
  • New Bedford Port Authority
  • North Carolina Fisheries Association
  • Rhode Island Commercial Fisherman’s Alliance
  • Seafreeze Ltd.
  • Silver Dollar Fisheries
  • Gabby G Fisheries
  • Blue Water Fisheries
  • Offshore Fishery
  • Southeastern Fisheries Association
  • Sustainable Shark Alliance
  • Town Dock
  • West Coast Seafood Processors Association
  • Western Fishboat Owners Association

Read the letter here

 

Magnuson Stevens fight to resume early in 2018

December 22, 2017 — There won’t likely be a long wait in 2018 for the battle to reignite over efforts to change the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), the key statute that oversees fishing regulations in the US.

Possibly as soon as January, just after Congress returns from its winter break, Alaska Republican senator Dan Sullivan will introduce his own version of an MSA reauthorization bill, sources tell Undercurrent News. Additionally, the MSA-related legislation just approved by the House of Representative’s Committee on Natural Resources could advance to the House floor.

“The House Floor schedule hasn’t been set for 2018 yet but we are optimistic that we will move forward with the bill early next year,” said Murphy McCullough, the press secretary for Alaska representative Don Young, about HR 200, the bill he introduced to change MSA. It’s one of Natural Resource Committee chairman Rob Bishop’s “top priorities”.

“As far as finding a Senate champion, we are working closely with senator Sullivan and his staff on this reauthorization,” she confirmed.

Young’s bill, formerly named the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, dashed through a one-hour markup last week, during which 13 amendments were discussed, six of which were adopted, before it was passed by a 23-17 vote along party lines.

HR 200 closely resembles HR 1335, legislation sponsored by Young that sailed through the House in 2015 but stalled out, in part, because President Barack Obama threatened to veto it over concerns that it would reduce the influence scientists have over the preservation of fish species. It’s the same concern that has ocean conservation groups rallying against Young’s latest bill now.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

National Ocean Policy Coalition U.S. Senate Hearing Recap

December 14, 2017 —  The following was released by the National Ocean Policy Coalition:

The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard yesterday held an oversight hearing on the National Ocean Policy (NOP), featuring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, and Family Farm Alliance, along with minority witness Kathy Metcalf of the Chamber of Shipping of America. An archived video of the hearing is accessible here.

Chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK) presided over the hearing, with Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-MI) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) joining Sullivan in the witness Q&A, with Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) also in attendance during portions of the hearing.

As more fully described below in the detailed hearing notes, Chairman Sullivan and majority witnesses highlighted the negative impacts and risks involved with the NOP, including the mandatory and regulatory nature of it, increased bureaucracy (highlighted in part through a visual poster chart on display in the hearing room), broad scope in terms of impacted industries and geographic areas (including inland areas), increased uncertainty, new regulatory burdens and overlays (including Regional Planning Body efforts to identify special areas), and conflicts with existing statutes. In doing so, it was noted that all such impacts resulted from the Executive Order in the absence of any statutory authority and in contravention of congressional will and intent.

Majority witnesses also highlighted NOP concerns related to litigation risks, deficiencies in data and a lack of science, non-government funding of NOP activities, lack of transparency, and the fact that negative impacts have already resulted.

In addition, the minority witness also relayed questions and concerns about the NOP, including questioning why inland activities were ever contemplated for a policy that was supposed to focus on the ocean, and noted that while good pieces of the policy need to be kept, others need to be addressed (in part highlighting her organization’s previous concerns about what happens with Regional Planning Body decisions and whether they could lead to regulations). They also acknowledged that uncertainty still exists with the NOP, and suggested that vacating the NOP would be acceptable if that is what it takes to be “where we need to be,” but that “we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

During witness questioning, Sen. Blumenthal referred to a visual on display in the hearing room that depicted the complex bureaucracy created by the Executive Order, calling it a “mishmash” of oversight that wouldn’t become any clearer regardless of how close one got to the chart.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Sullivan

In his opening statement, Chairman Sullivan highlighted concerns with the NOP, noting that it significantly departs from ocean policy under the George W. Bush administration, threatens to impose new regulatory burdens and litigation risks, was established with questionable statutory authority and without congressional authorization, has done more harm than good, is a top-down initiative that could negatively impact a range of activities including those on land, creates conflicts with existing laws, and could undermine existing structures like regional ocean partnerships and fishery management councils. He also noted that numerous congressional efforts to establish a similar policy failed under both Republican and Democrat leadership.

Recognizing that the policy’s architects have asserted that the policy’s goal was to unite stakeholders and streamline decision-making, Sullivan also noted that those are shared goals but that this particular policy could have the opposite effect. Sullivan also drew attention to the complex bureaucracy created by the NOP, using a poster chart to highlight the various bodies and councils that were established under the Executive Order, and noted that goals to increase data sharing and promote science-based decision-making have widespread support.

Ranking Member Peters

Ranking Member Peters noted the NOP’s recognition of the Great Lakes and noted the history of ocean policy in recent administrations following passage of the Ocean Act in 2000. In doing so, he noted that the Obama Administration introduced new components through the NOP like coastal and marine spatial planning, and expressed regret that the Subcommittee would not hear from state and federal agency witnesses about the successes and lessons learned following the 2010 Executive Order. Peters also asked for letters of support from the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, and several industries to be read into the record.

Long Island Commercial Fishing Association

In asking for Congress’s help to rein in the NOP, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association Executive Director Bonnie Brady talked about her background and experience with the NOP to date, calling the policy one of the greatest threats the Long Island commercial fishing industry has ever seen. She also provided a firsthand account of her experience in dealing with the Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) established under the Executive Order, and the burdens associated with that engagement.

In doing so, Brady highlighted major concerns regarding the inadequacy and inaccuracy of data being relied upon by the RPBs, the NOP’s attempt to grant various statutory powers to RPBs, the impact that RPB activities including efforts to identify special areas could have on the commercial fishing community, the funding of NOP/RPB activities by groups with anti-development biases, and the lack of transparency surrounding NOP implementation. At the conclusion of her statement, Chairman Sullivan thanked Brady for her “very powerful” testimony.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

In calling for the NOP to be rescinded and Congress to continue to deny funding for its implementation, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute Senior Vice President Christopher Guith emphasized the unnecessary, bureaucratic, and unauthorized nature of the NOP, and the far-reaching impacts that it could have on various activities including those that take place well inland. In doing so, he highlighted concerns about the policy’s coastal and marine spatial planning component and how it could close off areas to human uses and result in plans that exclude uses. He highlighted that the risks are real and already present, with federal agencies directed to implement the policy and plans already developed in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, and with the previous administration citing the policy in part as justification for precluding energy activities in any new areas through 2017. Guith also highlighted the widespread support across various economic groups around the country for reining in the NOP, and noted that the NOP is a step in the wrong direction and was an aggressive regulatory action in search of a problem.

Family Farm Alliance

In voicing support for executive and congressional action to vacate the NOP, Family Farm Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen talked about the potential for the NOP to affect activities well inland, including agriculture, calling the NOP another unhelpful level of federal management and oversight. He specifically voiced concern that Regional Planning Bodies could increase the role of federal agencies in inland areas, and said that the policy’s Ecosystem-Based Management component allows the RPBs to potentially address inland activities in a way that could be leveraged by critics of irrigated agriculture to limit or restrict such activities. Keppen also noted the lack of clarity about the federal resources that have been committed to NOP activities over the years, and said that existing mechanisms should be allowed to work rather than relying on the NOP and the unnecessary duplication and confusion it has created.

Chamber of Shipping of America

In asking the Subcommittee not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Chamber of Shipping of America President and CEO Kathy Metcalf emphasized areas of agreement among the witnesses, such as the importance of coordination and collaboration.  In doing so, she said that the NOP is about good governance, and said that the existing ocean governance structure could use some help. At the same time, Metcalf said that the good pieces need to be left intact while other aspects of the NOP need to be addressed. As to the latter point, she noted previous concerns her organization had about the NOP, including what happens with RPB decisions and whether they could lead to new regulations, adding that her industry cannot afford to have different requirements in different regions of the country.

In expressing support for ocean planning, Metcalf referenced use of regional ocean data portals and the need for accurate data, said that poor planning could reduce navigation safety, and added that the NOP is about helping agencies do a better job under their existing authorities rather than regulations. She closed by expressing hope that the federal government would continue to allow stakeholders and agencies to work with each other either under the current NOP structure or a revised structure, and cited the redrawing of shipping lanes in Boston Harbor as one example of how collaboration can work.

Chairman Sullivan Witness Q&A

Chairman Sullivan noted issues with stakeholders being heard under the NOP, stakeholder costs associated with engaging on it, and the difficulty of navigating through the complex NOP bureaucracy. In response, Brady said her biggest concern is areas being closed off to fishing, the absence of real science in the process, and major deficiencies in data being used by RPBs.

Sullivan also focused on the non-voluntary nature of the NOP, including the requirement that federal agencies participate regardless of whether all states in a given region decide not to engage. Guith agreed, and noted that while everyone agrees on the importance of sustainable uses, the NOP lacks the requisite statutory authority, adding that lawsuits should be expected if final regulatory actions are taken pursuant to the NOP, and further agreeing with Sullivan that the lack of congressional authorization and congressional action to stop its implementation further demonstrates that the NOP is on shaky legal ground.

In noting that some elements discussed in the NOP are important, Sullivan also asked the minority witness what she had challenges with, noting opposition and concerns expressed by other maritime labor and transportation groups over the years. In response, Metcalf said they look at the NOP as a tool to help agencies do their jobs better under existing authority and ensure coordination, while adding that uncertainty does exist about the NOP and questioning why references to activities occurring well inland were included in a policy focused on the ocean.

Sullivan concluded his questions by noting that the NOP was an end-run around Congress and asked the witnesses about the NOP’s most egregious element and whether there were any positive elements that could be pursued. Brady was clear in stating that the NOP should be discarded, with her worst fears being that it results in closed areas under a process that has ulterior motives, and that agencies should already be doing the jobs that they are supposed to be doing. Guith added that his greatest concerns were the NOP’s breadth and the uncertainty it has created, noting that mechanisms like the planning process under the OCS Lands Act already exist for coordination among stakeholders and government agencies. Keppen agreed that the NOP’s breadth and uncertainty were his greatest concerns, also adding that the NOP excludes non-government parties from direct participation and that the NOP needs to be vacated.

Metcalf said that if vacating the NOP is necessary to achieve shared goals and “where we need to be,” then that would be fine, but that “we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” She said some kind of federal coordinating mechanism is needed, and suggested that efforts to reduce ambiguities, clarify that the NOP won’t have impacts on inland activities, remove overreach, and ensure that the NOP won’t be a tool for mischief could be helpful.

Ranking Member Peters Witness Q&A

Ranking Member Peters asked Metcalf to talk about the importance of marine planning to the Coast Guard. In response, Metcalf said that locating and siting activities and increasing understanding of what is happening in the ocean is important to shipping from a navigation perspective as well as to the Coast Guard from a safety perspective, adding that it allows for an evaluation of threats. Asked how strategic marine planning can help meet infrastructure needs, Metcalf said it can ensure safety, effectiveness of port operations, and efficiencies that result in jobs and economic growth.

Peters also asked Brady about a statement she made to POLITICO in March 2017 in which she voiced concerns about offshore renewable energy projects in the Atlantic. After Brady verified the accuracy of the quote, Blumenthal said he agreed about the need to be careful with project decisions, and asked Brady how planning could be accomplished and whether Regional Planning Bodies could play a role. Brady said she did not see a role for Regional Planning Bodies, adding that they have placed priority on certain uses over others like fishing, and voiced support for giving NOAA a greater role in decision-making (saying NOAA’s ability to influence project proposals is currently limited to Endangered Species Act processes).

Sen. Blumenthal Witness Q&A

Sen. Blumenthal asked Metcalf how the NOP has affected shipping in medium-sized ports and whether the NOP does enough to support shipping. In response, Metcalf said that “we can always get better,” and that the more enclosed the space, the more important it is to identify user conflicts. Referring to concerns raised in Brady’s opening statement, she added that this “should never be about choosing one use over another” but instead about coordinating all uses, which she said would help ports.

In directing a question to Brady, Blumenthal referred to the “mishmash” of oversight reflected in the NOP bureaucracy chart on display in the hearing room, adding that seeing the poster any closer wouldn’t make it any more helpful to understand. He followed up by noting that an imperative of ocean policy is translating policy to action, and asked Brady what changes she would like to see in the NOP. Brady said she would like to see the NOP discarded, that she would like to see NOAA provided with a greater opportunity to deny project approvals when important fishing grounds are threatened, and conveyed support for creating an offshore wind-related compensation fund for fishermen similar to a conventional energy-related one included under the OCS Lands Act. She also noted that the fishing industry is highly regulated, to the point that the U.S. now imports 92% of seafood, compared to 52% in 1996, due to higher costs associated with stringent regulations.  She added that the NOP and associated lack of science compounds the problem.

View the entire release here.

 

North Pacific Council Weighs in on MSA Reauthorization Bills

November 8, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — In response to a request from Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council reviewed three bills related to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, comparing them to the current law and practices used to manage the nation’s largest fisheries.

“The North Pacific Council believes that the current MSA already provides a very successful framework for sustainable fisheries management, and major changes are not necessary at this time,” wrote NPFMC chair Dan Hull.

“Nevertheless, we also recognize the potential benefits of increased flexibility in some circumstances, and amending the Act to provide for such flexibility could provide all the regional councils additional opportunities to optimize their fishery management programs, with appropriate cautionary notes and limitations.

“In order for the Council to provide for the continued conservation of our resources, any changes to the law providing additional flexibility must continue to ensure that fundamental conservation and management tenets based on sound science are upheld, and should not create incentives or justifications to overlook them,” Hull wrote.

Allowing more flexibility in fisheries management, particularly when stocks in a rebuilding phase, is a hot-button issue with many stakeholders, not just in the North Pacific but nationwide. Proponents of adding more flexibility to any new legislation say the current law is too protective of the resource at a cost to the fishery. They urge more flexibility so that each management council can optimize yield without jeopardizing the resource.

“Regarding potential changes and increased flexibility for stock rebuilding plans, the NPFMC believes that further flexibility, would appropriately increase the ability to maximize harvest opportunities while still effecting rebuilding of fish stocks,” noted Hull, referring to HR 200, the bill introduced by Alaska Congressman Don Young.

“The arbitrary 10-year requirement may constrain the Councils management flexibility with overly restrictive management measures, with unnecessary, negative economic impacts, with little or no conservation gain,” Hull wrote.

Another controversal issue is using annual catch limits (ACLs) to manage stocks, something opponents have said needlessly restricts a fishery. Hull defended the importance of ACLs as a foundational part of fisheries management.

“Annual catch limits (ACLs) have been used in the North Pacific for over 30 years, and such limits are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. We also believe there are situations where some flexibility in the establishment of ACLs is warranted, particularly in the case of data poor stocks.

“Consideration of the economic needs of fishing communities is critical in the ACL setting process, and while the current MSA allows for such consideration, we recognize the desire for a more explicit allowance for these considerations.

“We must be careful however, not to jeopardize long term fisheries sustainability, and associated community vitality and resiliency, for the sake of short term preservation of all economic activity associated with a fishery,” he wrote.

“Accounting for uncertainty, articulating policies for acceptable risk, and establishing the necessary precautionary buffers, are all explicit outcomes of the ACL process, and we believe that the [Scientific and Statistical Committees] SSCs are the appropriate gatekeepers to establish the upper limits of ‘safe’ fishing mortality. This limit, which is established as the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) level, appears to be consistent with the provisions of H.R.200,” Hull added.

Speaking to Rep. Garrett Grave’s (R-LA) S. 1520 Modernizing Recreational Fishing Management Act of 2017, Hull noted that “alternative measures” may not meet the standard in the current MSA.

“The bill provides the councils authority to use alternative measures in recreational fisheries including extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices.

“The NPFMC notes that it is unclear if alternative fishery management measures replace the requirement for ACLs. Nevertheless, fisheries managed under alternative measures should be accountable to the conservation and management provisions of the MSA, including prevention of overfishing. ACL’s serve as the primary conservation measure for fish stocks in the North Pacific, and have effectively prevented overharvesting in our fisheries. The NPFMC also notes that traditional or cultural practices are not normally considered as recreational fisheries,” Hull wrote.

Hull also addressed the section in the bill related to rebuilding overfished stocks that would mandate a rebuilding term to be “as short as possible” but in any case not to exceed ten years.

“The NPFMC believes that the arbitrary 10-year time period can be harmful to resource users and fishing communities if it prohibits even limited fishing activity under a scientifically sound rebuilding plan. Replacing the term ‘possible’ with ‘practicable’ provides the councils with more flexibility to incorporate the needs of fishing communities in maintaining economic stability during a rebuilding period,” Hull wrote.

The NPFMC took issue with sections of Rep. Jared Huffman’s Discussion Draft (also called “Strengthening Fishing Communities Through Improving Science, Increasing Flexibility, and Modernizing Fisheries Management Act”) in certain areas, while agreeing with others.

But a section requiring an assessment of conflict of interest of council members, triggered a lengthy comment on problems the NPFMC have faced and a solution they’ve offered to NMFS.

The current MSA conflict of interest language leaves a standard for recusal of a council member up for interpretation. The recusal provision in the current law requires full economic disclosure but also that an affected individual not be allowed to vote on council decisions that would have a significant and predictable effect on a member’s financial interest.

“The MSA language left the issues of significant and predictable effect open for interpretation, so NMFS developed a regulation that set a 10% threshold for a significant effect, which is the basis for determining whether a recusal is required,” explained Hull.

“The primary problem is the way in which NOAA calculates a member’s financial interests in determining whether the 10% thresholds are exceeded. The NOAA and NMFS policy is to attribute all fishing activities of a company — even partially owned by an associated company — in calculating an individual Council member’s interests. The North Pacific Council believes that this attribution policy is inconsistent with the intent of the conflict of interest statute and regulations.

“The following example helps to explain this issue: Joe Councilman works for Fishing Company A, which owns 50% of Fishing Company B, which in turn owns 3% of Fishing Company C. NOAA uses ALL harvesting and processing activity by ALL three of these companies in determining whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the 10% thresholds,” Hull explained.

“The North Pacific Council believes that this is an unfair and illogical interpretation of the recusal regulations, and results in unintended recusals of Council members. The North Pacific Council believes that NOAA should use only the amount of harvesting or processing activity equivalent to the Council member’s percentage of ownership,” Hull continued.

“Using this proportional share approach, NOAA GC would use 100% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company A, 50% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company B, and 1.5% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company C to determine whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the thresholds.

“At our request, NOAA and NMFS revisited the attribution policy, but to date, have declined to make changes,” Hull wrote.

Finally, on behalf of the NPFMC, Hull asked that any new legislation:

• Avoids across the board mandates which could negatively affect one region in order to address a problem in another region.

• Allows flexibility in achieving conservation objectives, but be specific enough to avoid lengthy, complex implementing regulations or ‘guidelines’.

• Is in the form of intended outcomes, rather than prescriptive management or scientific parameters.

• Avoids unrealistic/expensive analytical mandates relative to implementing fishery closures or other management actions.

• Avoids constraints that limit the flexibility of Councils and NMFS to respond to changing climates and shifting ecosystems.

• Avoids unfunded mandates.

• Prioritizes the reservation and enhancement of stock assessments and surveys among the highest when considering any changes to the Act.

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