Saving Seafood

Fishermen at odds over impact of Trump executive order

February 23, 2017 — An executive order by President Donald Trump designed to radically cut back on federal regulations has spurred disagreement among fishermen about how it will affect them — and lawmakers and regulators aren’t sure what the answer is.

Groups that represent both commercial and recreational fishermen are divided over whether Trump’s “one in, two out” approach to federal regulations will benefit their industry, harm it or not affect it at all.

Meanwhile, the arm of the federal government that regulates fishing, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is still trying to figure out exactly what the executive order means for fisheries management.

Other industry interests, including the Fisheries Survival Fund, said the order will likely leave fisheries unaffected. The order would apply only to financially significant regulations, and that would not include things like opening fishing seasons and enforcing catch limits, said Drew Minkiewicz, an attorney for the fund.

“All this talk about how you’re not going to be able to manage fisheries — not true, doesn’t apply, not going to happen,” he said.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Boston Herald

Linda Bean once hoped to be to lobster what Perdue is to chicken. What happened?

February 21, 2017 — Linda Lorraine Bean, the other L.L. Bean, has spent the last decade promoting her lobster empire, one that merged the cachet of her family name with the popularity of the state’s top crustacean.

But last month, she took to the national spotlight for a different reason: to defend bankrolling a political action committee supporting Donald Trump, a move that sparked a boycott of L.L. Bean, where she sits on the board. Trump later tweeted his support for L.L. Bean, even giving Linda Bean’s business a shout-out.

Yet when the L.L. Bean heiress appeared on Fox News to defend both companies and the jobs they generate, what went unsaid was that Bean has largely stepped away from the lobster business. In the last two years, she has shifted her interests, selling off her Rockland lobster distributorship to her employees, unloading a controversial lobster processing facility, and shuttering some of her lobster roll eateries.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

For fisheries regulations, a Trump edict signals uncertainty

February 21, 2017 — New England fishermen and conservationists fear one of President Trump’s executive orders will have disruptive effects on fisheries management, although it will not affect routine seasonal fisheries regulation, as some had initially feared.

The ambiguously worded Jan. 30 order requires that two regulations be effectively eliminated for each new one promulgated by most federal agencies. The order prompted a fiery letter three days later from two prominent Democratic congressmen pointing out it could have “devastating impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries and the businesses and communities they support.”

However, on Feb. 2 the acting head of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs issued an advisory memo that clarified that the president’s order applied only to “significant regulatory actions” as defined under a 1993 executive order issued by President Bill Clinton. The memo is posted at the White House’s website, suggesting it has presidential approval.

The good news for fishermen: The vast majority of federal fisheries regulations do not meet this standard, meaning routine closures and assessments should proceed as they always have.

However, NOAA Fisheries has several regulations currently under consideration that OMB does consider “significant regulatory actions” and therefore are expected to run afoul of Trump’s order, according to OMB’s official “reginfo” database. These include a proposed update to ensure consistent application of rules at federal marine sanctuaries and an effort to combat the spread of illegally caught or fraudulently identified seafood in U.S. markets.

In recent years, numerous fisheries regulations were also treated as “significant” actions by the OMB, including the 2013 overhaul of the framework for managing 16 commercial groundfish off New England and the mid-Atlantic states; a 2013 rule to better protect the endangered North Atlantic right whale from ship strikes; and a 2016 regulation that protected critical spawning habitat for Atlantic sturgeon in the Gulf of Maine and New York Bight.

Drew Minkiewicz, a Washington, D.C., lawyer representing larger Eastern Seaboard scallop fishermen, says fishermen need not be concerned about most regulations. “This executive order has zero impact on 99.9 percent of the fishing regulations going out, so people who are wondering if the fishing season will be delayed don’t need to,” he says. “It’s much ado about nothing.”

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald

As seas rise, city mulls a massive sea barrier across Boston Harbor

February 21, 2017 — It would be a massive, highly controversial wall sure to cost billions of dollars. But this barrier would be much closer to home — and potentially more expensive — than the one President Trump has proposed along the Mexican border.

As rising sea levels pose a growing threat to Boston’s future, city officials are exploring the feasibility of building a vast sea barrier from Hull to Deer Island, forming a protective arc around Boston Harbor.

The idea, raised in a recent city report on the local risks of climate change, sounds like a pipe dream, a project that could rival the Big Dig in complexity and cost. It’s just one of several options, but the sea wall proposal is now under serious study by a team of some of the region’s top scientists and engineers, who recently received a major grant to pursue their research.

With forecasts indicating that Boston could experience routine flooding in the coming decades, threatening some 90,000 residents and $80 billion worth of real estate, city officials say it would be foolish not to consider aggressive action, no matter how daunting.

Read the full story at the Boston Globe

Senate holds hearing to modernize the Endangered Species Act

February 16, 2017 — A Senate hearing to “modernize the Endangered Species Act” unfolded Wednesday just as supporters of the law had feared, with round after round of criticism from Republican lawmakers who said the federal effort to keep species from going extinct encroaches on states’ rights, is unfair to landowners and stymies efforts by mining companies to extract resources and create jobs.

The two-hour meeting of the Environment and Public Works Committee was led by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who said last month that his focus in a bid to change the act would be “eliminating a lot of the red tape and the bureaucratic burdens that have been impacting our ability to create jobs,” according to a report in Energy and Environment News.

In his opening remarks, Barrasso declared that the act “is not working today,” adding that “states, counties, wildlife managers, home builders, construction companies, farmers, ranchers and other stakeholders” have made that clear in complaints about how it impedes land management plans, housing development and cattle grazing, particularly in western states, such as Wyoming.

At least one Republican has vowed to wage an effort to repeal the Endangered Species Act. “It has never been used for the rehabilitation of species,” House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said, according to an Associated Press report. “It’s been used to control the land. We’ve missed the entire purpose of the Endangered Species Act. It has been hijacked.”

But members of the hearing said its regulations prevented people from doing business and making a living. In a comment to a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director who testified at the hearing, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), repeated a point made by Barrasso that of more than 1,600 species listed as threatened or endangered since the act’s inception, fewer than 50 have been removed.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

Read more at CNN

NMFS fisheries regulation potentially affected by Trump executive order

February 8, 2017 — President Donald Trump’s executive order directing all federal agencies to repeal two existing regulations for each new one is affecting the ability of the National Marine Fisheries Service to regulate the U.S. fishing industry, according to industry groups and two Democratic U.S. representatives.

According to a letter sent to President Trump by House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva and Water, Power, and Oceans Subcommittee Ranking Member Jared Huffman, the executive order will prevent NMFS from opening or closing commercial and recreational fishing seasons in federal waters; making in-season adjustments to conservation and management measures; or implementing new or revised fishery management plans without first seeking a waiver from the Trump administration.

“All fisheries that take place in federal waters require regulatory action to open and close season, set catch limits, modify conservation and management measures, or adjust participation eligibility requirements,” the letter said. “In many cases, multiple regulations must be enacted each year for a single fishery and that is a good thing – American fishermen depend on active, science-based management to ensure that their individual operations and their industry are economically and environmentally sustainable.”

Read the full story at SeafoodSource.com

Unintended Consequences of the “One In, Two Out” Executive Order: Will America’s Fishermen be the Victims?

January 31, 2017 — Yesterday, President Trump signed an Executive Order that intends to reduce government regulations and associated costs to businesses and the federal government. The President claims this will help small businesses, but for the men and women making their living off the ocean, the order could pose some serious problems.

Known as “one in two out,” the order states that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination.”

How does this relate to fisheries? America’s fishermen are constantly adapting—to new science, to changing conditions on the water and to fishing seasons. They rely on fishery managers to make decisions that weigh environmental conditions, the best available science and fishermen input. Armed with this information, managers develop solutions that not only protect our environment, but support commercial and recreational fishing and coastal communities across America. And the method for implementing these day-to-day management decisions? Regulations.

Fishery regulations open seasons, establish catch quotas and test new management concepts. When a disaster happens, like an oil spill, a toxic algal bloom or a sudden decline in fish populations, regulations are the way the government protects fishermen and consumers.

Read the full story at the Ocean Conservancy

‘Chevron Deference,’ Key Issue in Fisheries Management, Questioned by Supreme Court Nominee

February 2, 2017 (SAVING SEAFOOD) — On January 31, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, the Court may potentially reexamine the legal principle of Chevron deference, a principle that has heavily impacted fisheries management.

Chevron deference is a legal principle established in 1984, in the Supreme Court case of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. It states that in cases when the meaning of federal laws is unclear, courts should prioritize the interpretations of the regulatory agencies, such as NOAA. Practically, this has the effect of bolstering the influence of the federal bureaucracy at the expense of judicial review. In the case of fishery management, this has resulted in several instances where courts have upheld agency decisions whose legality has been disputed by the fishing community.

Most notably, in Lovgren v. Locke the plaintiffs (including fishermen and several municipalities in New England) challenged the establishment of catch shares management in New England in 2010 as being in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act. The First Circuit Court of Appeals relied on Chevron in ruling in favor of the Commerce Department. This principle also was cited last year by District Court for the District of New Hampshire as a reason why the lawsuit against NOAA’s at-sea monitoring industry funding requirements failed.

While the Supreme Court – including Justice Scalia – has previously applied Chevron deference on several occasions, Judge Gorsuch has expressed trepidation about its merits. In his concurring opinion for Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Gorsuch wrote:

“What would happen in a world without Chevron? […] Surely Congress could and would continue to pass statutes for executive agencies to enforce. And just as surely agencies could and would continue to offer guidance on how they intend to enforce those statutes. The only difference would be that courts would then fulfill their duty to exercise their independent judgment about what the law is.”

While Judge Gorsuch has only been nominated recently, should he ascend to the High Court, look for a reexamination of the principle of Chevron deference in the coming years.

Resolution Urges President Trump and U.S. Congress to Mitigate Harm to Alaska’s Fishing Industry Resulting from TPP Withdrawal

February 2, 2017 — Today, Senator Bill Wielechowski (D-Anchorage) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 3 (SJR3) urging President Donald Trump, and the U.S. Congress to take action to mitigate the harm caused to Alaska’s fishing industry as a result of the President’s announcement last week that the United States would withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

The TPP was a sweeping agreement which contained several provisions that could have been problematic to United States manufacture. The agriculture industry, however, including Alaskan seafood production, stood to benefit dramatically. According to a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) report, the U.S. would have seen a 33% increase in intraregional exports, and a 5% increase in U.S. exports among TPP members.

The TPP contained mandates for proper labeling of seafood products like wild Alaska salmon and Pollock, and eliminated a 4% Japanese tariff, leveling the playing field for Alaska in the global market. It would have also required all parties to follow international law to prevent over-fishing and illegal fishing; recognized the importance of conservation and sustainable use; and respected, preserved, and maintained knowledge and practices of indigenous and local communities.

Read the full story at Alaska Native News

Halibut season in jeopardy even as catch limit rises

January 31, 2017 — Despite a 5 percent hike in the total halibut catch limits, the start of the 2017 season will likely be delayed because of a 60-day freeze on federal regulations in the United States.

On 27 February, the International Pacific Halibut Commission increased the total allowable catch (TAC) to 31.4 million pounds. It marks the first time in around 10 years that there were no cuts in any region’s quotas.

While the IPHC approved the halibut season to start on 11 March, that date is expected to be pushed back because of President Donald Trump’s freeze on new and pending regulations – which would include regulations on the federally-managed fishery. The freeze went into effect on 20 January, so the earliest starting date for the Pacific halibut fishery would likely be 27 March, according to Alaska Dispatch News.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource