Dan Sullivan Archives - Page 8 of 11

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.

SEEKING HELP: Senators ask for funding to help fishing industry

November 1, 2017 — LINCOLN CITY, Oregon — In a bipartisan push led by Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley, all eight West Coast Senators—Merkley, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) — today called on congressional leaders and the Trump administration to include disaster aid for fisheries in the next 2017 disaster funding package.

As the Senators pointed out in letters to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and to congressional appropriations leaders, commercial fishing is a bedrock of the economy in many coastal communities, and leaving recent fisheries disasters unaddressed could have negative ripple effects for years to come.

“While the impacts of an extremely low run in a fishery or a complete fishery closure are harder to visualize than the impact of flood or wind damage, a collapsed fishery is indisputably a disaster for local and regional communities,” wrote the Senators. “Fishermen and women can make their yearly living during a single fishing season, and must continue to pay mortgages on their vessels, mooring fees, maintenance and feed their families while their income is almost entirely eliminated during a fishery closure or disaster.”

“It is essential that the Senate treat fishery disasters appropriately, and provide emergency funding that can enable fishermen and communities to recover from lost catches in the form of grants, job retraining, employment, and low-interest loans,” the Senators concluded.

Currently, the Secretary of Commerce has declared nine disasters for fisheries in 2017, and another disaster assistance request is pending in southern Oregon and northern California. As fishery seasons move forward in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, it is likely there will also be fishery disaster declarations in those regions.

Read the full story at the News Guard

U.S. Senate Focuses on Science behind America’s Fisheries

October 26, 2017 — WASHINGTON — Tuesday, the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, chaired by Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), convened a hearing entitled “Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): Fisheries Science.” This is the fourth MSA hearing held by the Subcommittee this year. A video of the hearing and witness testimony can be found here.

Witnesses:

Dr. Ray Hilborn, professor at University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
Dr. Larry McKinney, director of Texas A&M University Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies
Karl Haflinger, founder and president of Sea State, Inc.
Dr. Michael Jones, professor at Michigan State University Quantitative Fisheries Center

Dr. Hilborn reported to the committee that, “Overfishing remains a concern for a limited number of stocks but should not continue to be the most important concern for U.S. fisheries policy.” And while he pointed to some positive outcomes brought by implementing total allowable catch for “individually targeted, large scale industrial fisheries,” he argued it is “totally inappropriate for recreational” fisheries.

Read the full story at The Fishing Wire

Arctic Refuge Drilling Closer as Senate Moves to Open Site

October 23, 2017 — WASHINGTON — Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one step closer to oil and gas drilling.

A budget measure approved by the Republican-controlled Senate late Thursday allows Congress to pursue legislation allowing oil and gas exploration in the remote refuge on a majority vote.

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska said Congress can create jobs and enhance energy security by opening a small section of the 19.6 million-acre site to drilling.

“More energy production means more American jobs, more American economic growth, more American national security … and a more sustainable global environment, because no one in the world produces energy more responsibly than Americans, especially Alaskans,” Sullivan said.

But Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state said drilling was not worth the risks to a fragile ecosytem that serves as important habitat for polar bears, caribou and migratory birds.

Read the full story by the Associated Press on US News

Senate Subcommittee to Continue Hearing Series on Magnuson-Stevens Act

October 20, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation:

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, will convene the hearing titled “Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Fisheries Science,” at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24, 2017. The hearing is the fourth of the series and will focus on the state of our nation’s fisheries and the science that supports sustainable management.

Witnesses:

– Mr. Karl Haflinger, Founder and President, Sea State, Inc
– Dr. Ray Hilborn, Professor, University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
– Dr. Michael Jones, Professor, Michigan State University Quantitative Fisheries Center
– Dr. Larry McKinney, Director, Texas A&M University Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies

Hearing Details:

Tuesday, October 24, 2017
2:30 p.m.
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard

This hearing will take place in Russell Senate Office Building, Room 253. Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on www.commerce.senate.gov.

East and West Coast NCFC Members Testify on Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization at Senate Hearing

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 12, 2017 — Two members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) testified before a key Senate Subcommittee today on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The hearing was convened by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, and was the third in a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Lori Steele, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association

Lori Steele, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association based out of Oregon, and Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association based out of New Jersey, discussed the state of U.S. fishery laws and the needs of commercial fishermen.

In written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee, Ms. Steele said in part:

“Based on my prior experience with the New England Council and currently with the seafood industry on the West Coast, I feel confident the next MSA reauthorization can build on lessons learned from our past experiences in order to truly fulfill one of the fundamental and original goals of the MSA, emphasized in National Standard 1, the Act’s guiding principle – to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery. From its beginning, the MSA has conserved, protected, rebuilt, and sustained marine resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). As we move forward with this next reauthorization, we have an opportunity to better conserve, protect, and sustain the people, the economies, the culture, and the communities that rely upon healthy and abundant fisheries.”

Read Ms. Steele’s full testimony here

In written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee, Mr. DiDomenico said in part:

“We believe there are four main threats to the domestic fishing industry that are consistent with the concerns of this Subcommittee. They are as follows: (1) the status of the implementation of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), specifically the 2006 Amendments which were interpreted to be overly precautionary and limit management flexibility; (2) the growing efforts of the environmental industry to curtail commercial fishing access via use of the Antiquities Act, National Marine Sanctuary designations, and marine planning created pursuant to the National Ocean Policy; (3) the chronic inability to estimate and manage recreational fishing mortality; and (4) the potential for unfair implementation of catch shares.”

Read Mr. DiDomenico’s full testimony here

Alaska Sen. Sullivan Schedules Next Magnuson-Stevens Hearing for Sept. 12

September 11, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, is continuing his series of hearings regarding reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with another one scheduled for next week in Washington, D.C.

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation member Sullivan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, will convene the hearing, “Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Oversight of Fisheries Management Successes and Challenges” at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 12, in Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is the third of the series and will focus on the perspectives of commercial, charter, and recreational fishermen on the state of our nation’s fishery laws.

The first panel of witnesses include: Phil Faulkner, President, Nautic Star Boats; Jim Donofrio, Executive Director, Recreational Fishing Alliance; and Chris Horton, Senior Director, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.

The second panel of witnesses includes: Lori Steele, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association; Capt. Robert F. Zales, II, President, National Association of Charterboat Operators; and Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association.

The hearing coincides with the National Fisheries Institute’s Annual Political Conference, when many seafood company representatives will be in Washington, D.C.

Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on www.commerce.senate.gov.

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

Sen Sullivan to NOAA: ‘Meaningful Changes’ Needed for Marine Sanctuaries and Monuments

September 6, 2017 (Saving Seafood) — In a letter last month to NOAA Acting Administrator Benjamin Friedman, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) called for “meaningful changes” to marine sanctuary and marine national monument designations, particularly in the form of greater stakeholder engagement.

In his letter, Sen. Sullivan, who serves as Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, called the concept of marine sanctuaries and monuments “well-intentioned” but wrote that they had caused challenges for coastal communities across the country, including Alaska’s “robust commercial fishing industry.”

“Fisheries restrictions imposed outside of the process utilized by Regional Fishery Management Councils on these areas are problematic for the communities who rely on access to commercial fisheries,” Sen. Sullivan wrote.

Sen. Sullivan expressed concern that the National Marine Sanctuary Act, while requiring stakeholder engagement, does not require that this engagement be taken into consideration when designating a sanctuary. “This can lead to communities feeling betrayed by the agency when the established sanctuaries are unrecognizable to the localities who spent years working with NOAA to form a mutually beneficial designation and management structure,” he wrote.

Sen. Sullivan also called into question the process by which the president can unilaterally establish national monuments with no stakeholder consultation under the Antiquities Act. He criticized recent presidents for using the national monument process as a “political tool” to “limit access to economically viable resources.”

“This action is often taken at the request of non-affected parties such as environmental groups,” he wrote. “This is problematic when monuments are established without the use of best-available science, absent stakeholder engagement, and inattentive to the economic consequences for local communities.”

On August 24, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke completed a review of national monuments ordered by President Donald Trump. While Secretary Zinke’s full recommendations have not been made public, the AP reported that they include changes to a “handful” of monuments.

Read the full letter here

ALASKA: Science and accountability urged in fisheries management

Behnken: no one wins if the resource loses

September 1, 2017 — Fisheries and conservation advocates for coastal communities are urging that greater accountability and conservation measures be included in reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

“Both fishermen and managers understand that in the long run no one wins if the resource loses,” veteran harvester Linda Behnken told Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, during a field hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard on Aug. 23 in Soldotna. “As Congress works to strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act to support community based fishermen, we firmly believe that maintaining productive fisheries through resource conservation is step one in that process … The heightened emphasis on resource rebuilding that was central to the last reauthorization is still essential to long term resource health and we ask that Congress recommit to conservation goals,” she said.

Behnken, a harvester for more than 30 years, longlines for halibut and black cod and trolls for salmon with her family out of Sitka, which ranks 15th of all domestic fishing ports in the value of commercial landings. She is the president of the Halibut Coalition and executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association.

Behnken also asked the committee to address challenges faced by young fishermen and the growing impact to rural communities of lost fishing access.

Read the full story at the Cordova Times