Saving Seafood

Jim Lovgren: A hard look at NOAA’s observer program

February 21, 2018 — With the Trump administration looking to reduce burdensome regulations and slash unnecessary bureaucratic jobs, it’s time for them to take a hard look at NOAA’s fishery observer program. This program has grown from a handful of employees just two decades ago, now to hundreds of them who swarm fishing docks each day looking for a ride. And if you dare refuse, you face possible fines, or NMFS enforcement will not allow you to go fishing.

I’m the owner of a 75-foot fishing vessel out of Point Pleasant, N.J. And in the last two years, I have seen my observer coverage double, despite my best efforts to avoid them. The coverage in the Mid-Atlantic has substantially increased because NMFS has put most New England fishermen out of business, so instead of reducing the workforce, they in true bureaucratic tradition increase coverage on those left — this despite the fact that the Mid-Atlantic fisheries have already had extensive coverage for more than 20 years. There is no new data to be gathered. It is simply an effort to enrich the observer provider companies and increase the workforce in the Northeast Fishery Science Center, which has to collate and analyze the data.

Since we have had such extensive fishery coverage over the years, why do we need to increase it? What exactly do they expect to find? In the summer flounder fishery in New Jersey, thousands of observed trips have been taken over the years. Do they expect to find something different?

The data will be the same. The coverage is redundant and a waste of taxpayer dollars. And soon it will be the death knell of the independent fisherman, as NMFS expects them to pay the $750 a day to the observer companies, which in many cases is more than the boat makes on a trip. Also the more data that gets gathered, the more employees at the science center need to analyze it. The pathetic performance of the science center in regard to stock assessments is legendary and documented by the National Academy of Sciences study of fishery management plans. More data will not help them until they fire the incompetent people who still are doing the same stock assessments.

Recently the newest boat at our dock, totally refurbished less than a year ago, was informed that an observer had gotten bed bugs from it. The problem here is that it was an observer who brought the bedbugs onto the boat in the first place. The boat in question had new mattresses and bedding, with the same crew since its arrival. What they also had was an army of observers rotating on their boat, observing scallop and other fisheries. These observers hop from boat to boat, carrying their bags and bedding with them. Many of them are stationed in a group home near large fishing ports, where they live with up to nine other observers in the same small rental, sharing beds and furniture. They have become modern-day Typhoid Marys with the ability to contaminate multiple boats and houses with bedbugs, lice, crabs and fleas, among other unsanitary conditions. Observers and their belongings and group homes should be required to undergo weekly health examinations, just as fishermen are required to have their safety equipment checked.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

 

Trump Administration Wants to Cut Budget for NOAA, But Congress Unlikely to Accept

February 20, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Seafood News Editor’s Note: The story below lays out known facts about the cuts to the federal budget made by the Trump Administration. However, it is unlikely that Congress will accept these cuts.

The Trump Administration’s $4.4 trillion federal budget for next year takes some mean whacks to programs that affect fisheries.

Off the top, the spending plan unveiled on February 12 cuts the budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by 20 percent to $4.6 billion. Among other things, NOAA manages the nation’s fisheries in waters from three to 200 miles offshore, which produce the bulk of Alaska’s seafood landings.

It’s the cuts within the cuts that reveal the most.

NOAA Fisheries is facing a $110.4 million drop to $837.3 million, a 14 percent budget cut. That includes a $17.7 million decrease in fisheries science and management, a $5 million cut in data collection needed for stock assessments, a $5.1 million reduction in funding for catch share programs and a $2.9 million cut to cooperative research programs.

The proposals for NOAA law enforcement are even more severe – a decline of $17.8 million is a 25 percent budget reduction.

“The entire law enforcement reduction is coming from the agency’s cooperative enforcement program and will eliminate funding for joint enforcement agreements with law enforcement partners from 28 states and U.S. territories,” reported the Gloucester Times.

The National Weather Service, also under NOAA’s umbrella, is facing a $75 million slice off its $1 billion budget. It will axe 355 jobs, more than a quarter of the NWS staff, including 248 forecasters.

Trump also wants to cut $4.8 million from habitat and conservation programs, wiping out funding and grants for NOAA’s fisheries habitat restoration projects.

The Trump plan proposes gutting $40 million from NOAA climate change programs, which would eliminate competitive grants for research and end studies on global warming in the Arctic, including predictions of sea-ice and fisheries in a changing climate.

The national Sea Grant College Program, which conducts research, training and education at more than 30 U.S. universities, is again on the chopping block.

Funding for programs under the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that monitor earthquakes and volcanoes would each drop by 21 percent. The USGS water-resources program, which includes the national stream-gauge network, would be reduced 23 percent.

Trump proposes to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget to $6.1 billion in 2019, its lowest level since the early 1990s and about 25 percent below the current mark.

The EPA budget also eliminates funding for climate-change research while providing $502 million for fossil energy research, an increase of nearly 24 percent.

Seafood sales also could be badly hurt by proposed deep cuts to food stamps, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Instead of shopping at grocery stores, under Trump’s plan recipients would receive boxes of shelf-stable commodity items such as powdered milk, juices, pasta, peanut butter, and canned meats, fruits and vegetables.

“Seafood is the only major food group that is not considered a USDA commodity. If the new food delivery platform is going to put an emphasis on commodity goods, then that will leave out lean, heart-healthy seafood,” said Linda Cornish, president of the Seafood Nutrition Partnership.

Closer to home, Trump also plans to stop federal funding for the Denali Commission, introduced by Congress in 1998 as an independent agency to provide critical utilities, infrastructure and economic support throughout Alaska.  The plan calls for a $10 million cut out of $17 million, with the difference going to an “orderly closure.”

The White House says that any state that can afford to pay its residents an annual dividend doesn’t need a “unique and additional federal subsidy” such as the commission, wrote longtime Alaska journalist Dermot Cole. Trump added that “the commissions’ effectiveness at improving overall economic conditions remains unproven.”

The FY19 budget, which goes into effect on October 1, now goes before Congress.

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

 

Fish stakeholders to protest drilling plan

February 20, 2018 — Well, the boys of spring are heaving the ol’ horsehide around in the warmer climes of Florida and Arizona and that’s always a good thing, knowing that the calendar is about to flip over to baseball any minute.

Quick thought: What if baseball had been invented in, well, Norway or Iceland? Well, then the ball probably would be covered with fish skin rather than horsehide or the cowhide baseball switched to in 1974.

Be way better with fish skin. That way, any wild pitch truly would be the one that got away.

Meeting and greetin’

As we mentioned in last week’s column, things should be hopping in Boston on Feb. 27 when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management hosts a public hearing on the Trump administration’s proposal to open the ocean floor off New England to potential drilling and exploration for gas, oil and whatever else is down there that can make a buck for somebody.

The meeting is expected to be packed with fishing stakeholders, conservationists and public officials — all of whom seem to be against any systematic mechanical intrusion into the marine ecosystem off the coast of New England.

One programming note: The venue for the event has been changed to the Omni Parker House hotel from the Hyatt Regency Boston. The time remains the same — 3 to 7 p.m.

We also were remiss last week in our discussion of the issue not to mention that the New England Fishery Management Council has submitted comments setting out its concerns about the possibility of gas and oil drilling off the Eastern Seaboard.

The council has recommended BOEM exclude the North and Mid-Atlantic areas because “oil and gas exploration and extraction activities in the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf involve inappropriate risks that may harm living marine resources and communities that depend on them.”

Last summer, the council listed five general concerns: direct displacement of fishing activities due to survey or extraction activities; harm to sensitive deepwater habitats, such as corals; negative impacts on living marine resources from the high-decibel sounds produced during surveys and drilling; negative impacts to near-shore fish habitats from infrastructure necessary to support oil and gas industries; and risks associated with leaks and spills resulting from extraction and transport.

That’s a lot of concerns.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

 

Proposed changes to food stamps program could take a bite out of seafood sales

February 16, 2018 — U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2019 budget proposal, which includes deep cuts to the U.S. food stamp program, could harm seafood sales at U.S. supermarket chains, organizations told SeafoodSource.

The Trump administration proposes slashing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or “food stamps” program, by USD 17.2 billion (EUR 13.8 billion) in 2019, or around 22 percent compared to last year’s funding.

In addition, the program would shift to a boxed food delivery program. The current system allows SNAP participants to purchase their  groceries at supermarket chains, farmers markets, and other retail locations.

Under the new proposal, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), would deliver packages of U.S.-grown commodities such as shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, along with canned meat, fruits and vegetables to recipients.

USDA estimates that it could provide the boxed delivery program at half the cost of the current retail program.

“Seafood is the only major food group that is not considered a USDA commodity. If the new food delivery platform is going to put an emphasis on commodity goods, then that will leave out lean, heart-healthy seafood, which is the only significant source of essential nutrients such as omega-3s EPA and DHA, as well as selenium,” Linda Cornish, president of Seafood Nutrition Partnership, told SeafoodSource.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

New Yorkers rally against offshore drilling plan

February 16, 2018 — ALBANY, N.Y. — Wearing fish-shaped caps and armed with a megaphone, New York state’s leading environmental advocates protested President Donald Trump’s plan to open offshore areas to oil and gas drilling on Thursday as federal energy officials held an open house on the proposal near the state Capitol.

The group, wearing caps shaped like sturgeon, salmon and other vulnerable ocean species, included Aaron Mair, past president of the Sierra Club, and Judith Enck, the regional Environmental Protection Agency administrator under former President Barack Obama. They said Trump’s plan could devastate the environment while leaving potential renewable energy sources untouched. They called on Congress to pass a law blocking the proposal.

“We all remember the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe,” Enck said into a megaphone, referring to the 2010 rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that triggered the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. “We cannot afford that reckless activity in the Atlantic.”

Inside, federal energy officials handed out information packets and briefed members of the public on the president’s decision last month to open most of the nation’s coast to oil and gas drilling as a way of making the U.S. less dependent on foreign energy sources. Several dozen people had trickled through at the midpoint of the four-hour open house. Members of the public were encouraged to submit written comments.

William Brown, chief environmental officer at the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said he welcomed comments from opponents to the plan.

Read the full story from Associated Press at the Seattle Times

 

Rep. Moulton: NOAA cuts ‘recipe for disaster’

February 16, 2018 — President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration cuts more than $1 billion from the agency that manages the nation’s fisheries and coastal ecosystems, explores space and forecasts weather and changing environmental conditions.

On Thursday, U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton of Salem criticized the proposed cuts, saying the proposed 14 percent decline reflects the administration’s shallow understanding of the importance of NOAA’s programs to coastal communities, maritime industries and the national resources the agency is tasked to protect.

“It’s a recipe for disaster,” Moulton said of the withering budget cuts.

A spokeswoman at NOAA’s Gloucester-based Greater Atlantic Region Fisheries Office said the agency would have no comment on the budget proposal.

Still, the numbers remain unnerving — and the opposition more unified among a disparate band of conservationists, fishing stakeholders and political forces — when the cuts within the cuts are explored.

Local groundfishermen, already buffeted by heightened regulation, shrinking quotas and climactic changes, fear the cuts will kill any possibility that NOAA will continue reimbursements for portions of their at-sea monitoring costs in 2018.

Conservationists, such as Oceana, have railed against the deep cuts in ocean-funded research, such as the 33 percent cut in the National Ocean Service.

“The president’s proposal would cripple NOAA, the nation’s premier agency for ocean management and research,” Oceana said in its statement responding to the Trump budget proposals. “Major NOAA programs would suffer massive cuts.”

Read the full story at Salem News

 

In New Jersey, opponents of offshore drilling gear up for a fight

February 15, 2018 — Jim Lovgren is a third-generation fisherman and captains the Shadowfax. At the Fisherman’s Coop in Point Pleasant New Jersey recently, he watched as about a half-dozen men sorted freshly caught scup — or porgies — into bins.

“These fish they’ll be put in a cooler by tonight,” he said. “There could be 30,000 to 40,000 pounds of fish on the docks today. They will all be on their way to New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. We ship anywhere from Canada down past North Carolina.”

Lovgren grew up trawling the waters off Sandy Hook. He says the fishery is already stressed from rising ocean temperatures. While there used to be dozens of fishing boats here, Lovgren said today there’s only a handful. He worries that if oil and gas companies drill offshore, he’ll be put out of business.

“Blackback flounders are just about extinct in this area here,” he said. “That was a major fishery. yellowtail flounders, codfish, lobsters are disappearing off the Jersey coast and it’s all because the water’s getting too warm.”

Lovgren knows that burning fossil fuels is connected to climate change, warming oceans and his disappearing fish. Still, he said, he needs fossil fuel to trawl the ocean floor.

“Look, a fishing boat, it runs on diesel fuel. You have to have energy. We have to have energy.”

But President Trump’s offshore drilling proposal is an immediate threat to his livelihood, and he’s gearing up to fight it.

Lovgren, along with other fishermen, environmentalists, realtors, and local business owners, descended on a hotel near Trenton Thursday voicing their unified opposition to drilling for oil and natural gas off the coast of New Jersey.

The public meeting,hosted by federal officials from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, comes as the Trump Administration has proposed opening up the entire East Coast to offshore exploration.

But the proposal has little support along the Jersey coast.

“You start putting a bunch of oil rigs out there and it takes away places that we can tow, where we can fish,” Lovgren said. “The main concern is an oil spill.”

Talk to anyone who makes their living along the Jersey shore, whether it’s selling salt water taffy or renting shore houses, and they’ll tell you they don’t want another Deepwater Horizon along the East Coast. The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion off the coast of Louisiana in 2010 spilled an estimated 171 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, decimating the fisheries and driving away tourists.

“You know if we had a Deepwater Horizon spill down in Delaware,” Lovgren said, “it’s going to come right up off the Jersey shore. It’s going to wash right into Long Island onto the beach. It could be hitting Cape Cod and Nantucket. Now that could be devastating.”

Lovgren voted for President Trump, and still supports him. But not his proposal. He worries seismic testing, which is used to find the oil and gas reserves, would hurt whales and dolphins.

He’s also concerned about potential smaller leaks that don’t make headlines.

And he’s not alone.

Read the full story at NPR’s StateImpact Pennsylvania

 

Trump Budget Would Zero Out Funding For Puget Sound Recovery, Again

February 14, 2018 — Members of Congress who represent Puget Sound are pushing back against the Trump administration’s budget for 2019 in part because it would zero out all federal funding for cleanup and recovery of the iconic ecosystem.

The proposal cuts all funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s geographic program for Puget Sound, as well as for a national estuary program and for Pacific salmon recovery through National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries. The administration says it wants local governments to take on the responsibility and continue recovery efforts.

The missing money totals more than $30 million, says Sheida Sahandy, Executive Director of the state’s Puget Sound Partnership, which coordinates cleanup. Those funds are leveraged with money from other state and local sources to get work done, so she says the cuts would be “crippling.”

“We’re at tipping point for, for example, the Orca,” she said, referring to the dwindling population of southern resident killer whales, which has reached its lowest number in 30 years. Only 76 are left in the wild.

“We are fearing extinction around the corner and stopping our efforts at this point in their tracks would essentially mean that we’re giving up on saving them,” Sahandy said, adding that the orcas are only the most obvious example of what’s at stake.

If there’s any silver lining, it’s that her agency has been through this once before.

Last year, the President’s budget proposed nearly identical cuts. Congress ultimately pushed back, reinstating all $28 million in the geographic program for Puget Sound in the 2018 budget.

But Sahandy says it will take a lot of advocacy once again. She says Washington state is so far away from the capitol that many well-meaning members of Congress need to be reminded why their support is critical.

Read the full story at KNKX

 

After turbulent 2017, states want to control snapper fishery

February 14, 2018 — A year after the Trump administration likely broke the law by allowing overfishing of red snapper, five Gulf of Mexico states now want special power to manage the species in federal waters in 2018 and 2019.

They’re likely to get their way, too.

Unlike last year, the new plan would not allow sports anglers in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to exceed federal quotas, but the states would get the authority to call the shots in setting their own fishing seasons in federal waters.

Daryl Carpenter, the owner of Reel Screamers Guide Service in Grand Isle, La., and president of the Louisiana Charter Boat Association, can’t wait, saying the federal management system is broken and “has failed to come up with any type of fix.”

“It’s too dominated by non-interested groups, by your green groups who want to hug and cherish the fish,” he said. “You can get nothing done in the federal system. … I’m 100 percent in favor. The states need to take control of this and get the federal government out of our damn life.”

Critics say that ceding control to the states would be a mistake, arguing that federal officials long have led the way in rebuilding the red snapper population and remain the most qualified to do the job.

“The federal management process is the most open and transparent, no matter how frustrating,” said Shane Cantrell, executive director of the Charter Fisherman’s Association and the owner of Galveston Sea Ventures in Galveston, Texas.

All five states are pushing the idea as an experiment that would be allowed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the nation’s premier fishing law.

They want NOAA Fisheries to give them “exempted fishing permits.” Those permits allow fishing that would normally be banned under federal law, usually as pilot projects done in the name of research.

“It allows us to exempt certain fishing activities from the regulations,” said Roy Crabtree, administrator for the NOAA Fisheries Southeast Region in St. Petersburg, Fla.

“How well will it work? Well, time will tell,” Crabtree said. “But I think a lot of people will argue that we’ve had some quota overruns in the past and we’ve had a lot of dissatisfied customers, so I think we do need to try something different.”

Many state officials say that NOAA is all but certain to sign off on the exempted fishing permits, after Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby got Congress to include language in a fiscal 2017 appropriations bill that directed the agency to come up with a pilot program to give states more control.

After the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council voted on Feb. 1 to approve the plans, Alabama officials said they were one step closer to taking over management of the red snapper.

Read the full story at E&E News

 

Rhode Island: Ocean State Officials Pledge to Halt Offshore Drilling

February 13, 2018 — NARRAGANSETT, R.I. — Rhode Island’s governor and members of Congress are calling for an all-out effort to oppose President Trump’s plan for offshore drilling along the Eastern seaboard. They warned of the environmental and economic risks to the state’s fishing and tourism industries. They urged the public to submit comments on the proposal to the Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) and to show their opposition at a scheduled Feb. 28 public workshop in Providence.

Referencing the six commercial fishermen in the audience at at Feb. 12 press event, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said he planned to advance a bill signed by all New England senators to ban offshore drilling off the New England coast. Whitehouse called the offshore drilling proposal a “dumb idea” and blamed the fossil-fuel industry for directing the Trump administration to enact it.

“This will not happen. Whatever it takes to prevent it, we will see takes place,” Whitehouse said.

Gov. Gina Raimondo promised to lobby governors of coastal states to pass resolutions opposing the offshore drilling plan.

“This is backwards. We ought to be moving forward for offshore wind farms, not backwards for offshore oil drilling,” she said.

Raimondo also restated her intent to have Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke follow through on his promise to meet her in Rhode Island and discuss the fossil-fuel project. Several East Coast governors called Zinke after he met with Florida Gov. Rick Scott. Scott apparently convinced Zinke to exempt his state from the offshore drilling plan. Although there is skepticism of the agreement after Zinke’s office backtracked somewhat on that promise and legal questions of such an exemption surfaced.

Whitehouse and Raimondo were asked whether a state or regional carbon tax would put economic pressure on Trump and the fossil-fuel industry. Both said they favor a national or multi-state fee on fossil fuels. However, Whitehouse said his carbon tax bill in the Senate won’t advance until the head of the Senate is a Democrat.

“The Republicans are keenly interested in trying to shovel this issue under the rug as much as they can to keep the fossil-fuel money flowing into their party. It’s a sad state of affairs,” Whitehouse said.

Raimondo said she favors advancing a carbon tax along with public pushback to offshore drilling.

Read the full story at ECORI