Saving Seafood

Trump shrinks two huge national monuments in Utah, drawing praise and protests

December 4, 2017 — SALT LAKE CITY — President Trump on Monday drastically scaled back two national monuments established in Utah by his Democratic predecessors, the largest reduction of public lands protection in U.S. history.

Trump’s move to shrink the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments by more than 1.1 million acres and more than 800,000 acres, respectively, immediately sparked an outpouring of praise from conservative lawmakers as well as activists’ protests outside the White House and in Utah. It also plunges the Trump administration into uncharted legal territory since no president has sought to modify monuments established under the 1906 Antiquities Act in more than half a century.

His decision removes about 85 percent of the designation of Bears Ears and nearly 46 percent of that for Grand Staircase-Escalante, land that potentially could now be leased for energy exploration or opened for specific activities such as motorized vehicle use.

Trump told a rally in Salt Lake City that he came to “reverse federal overreach” and took dramatic action “because some people think that the natural resources of Utah should be controlled by a small handful of very distant bureaucrats located in Washington. And guess what? They’re wrong.”

“They don’t know your land, and truly, they don’t care for your land like you do,” he added. “But from now on, that won’t matter.”

Conservatives have long sought to curb a president’s unilateral power to safeguard federal lands and waters under the law, a practice that both Democrats and Republicans have pursued since it was enacted under Theodore Roosevelt. The issue has been a particular flash point in the West, where some local residents feel the federal government already imposes too many restrictions on development and others, including tribal officials, feel greater protections of ancient sites are needed.

Even before Trump made the announcement as part of a day trip to the state, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Craig Uden was hailing the resized designations. While grazing has continued on both monuments, as well as on others, Uden said ranchers could not have greater input into how they are managed.

“We are grateful that today’s action will allow ranchers to resume their role as responsible stewards of the land and drivers of rural economies,” he said.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

President Trump’s Monument Rightsizing: Myth vs. Fact

December 4, 2017 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop:

Panic is gripping the Left. The President of the United States apparently has the audacity to enforce the Antiquities Act as it is written: he dares to confine monuments “to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”

President Trump has rightsized Bears Ears (BENM) and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, and now special interest groups will again attempt to lie, distort and, misrepresent their way to another ill-gotten political victory at the expense of local communities.

Here’s what they’ll say, and here’s why they’re wrong.

MYTH:  The President’s actions are illegal.

  • FACT: False. Propagators of this particular myth put themselves in the absurd position of claiming that one unilateral presidential action can bind every successor in perpetuity. If this seems more reminiscent of an autocracy than a constitutional democracy responsive to the demands of the people, that’s because it is. Not only canpresidents scale back monuments, they have done so on at least 18 other occasions. Two examples: President Taft reduced his own monument by 89% and Woodrow Wilson shrank Teddy Roosevelt’s by 50%.

MYTH: The President’s actions are unpopular.

  • FACT: Mischaracterization. Unpopular with whom? While many people, separated from the consequences, may support the monuments, the affected communities have been staunchly opposed to excessively large designations. For example in BENM, the San Juan County Commission, the state legislature, the local chapter of the Navajo Nation, the Governor, and every member of the state’s congressional delegation fought the original designation tooth and nail.

MYTH: The President’s actions represent another broken promise to tribes.

  • FACT: Wrong. It’s important to note that tribal support for the monument was not unanimous. Regardless, the original BENM proclamation did not bestow legal co-management, nor did it ever have the authority to do so. The council created by Obama’s designation had only an advisory role and no official decision-making power. Congress will act to provide legally enforceable tribal co-management.

MYTH: The President’s actions are an attack on our country’s treasured national parks.

  • FACT: Not true. Attempts to blur the distinctions between national monuments and national parks are fear-mongering lies. No national parks were under review and no national parks were reduced. National monuments and parks are unrelated classifications.

MYTH: The President’s actions will hurt local economies.

  • FACT: Incorrect. Most monuments, which are created without congressional consultation, lack the infrastructure to support public access and a robust tourism economy, while simultaneously stifling traditional economic uses. The Grand Staircase national monument designation, for example, resulted in a $9M loss to the local economy, according to a study conducted by Utah State University.

MYTH: The President’s actions are a boondoggle for the oil and gas industry.

  • FACT: Wrong. The land in question remains in federal ownership and subject to the same rigorous environmental reviews all such land undergoes. In any case, there really aren’t economically recoverable oil and gas resources in BENM. Framing this debate as energy vs. protection may be a useful cudgel for litigation activists, but that doesn’t make it accurate.

MYTH: The President’s actions will harm conservation in the area.

  • FACT: Way off. The Antiquities Act was never meant to be a landscape conservation tool. It was designed to protect antiquities. President Trump’s proclamation maintains protections for bona fide antiquities while respecting traditional land uses. These communities, more attached to the land than anyone, have been maintaining the land for generations.

MYTH: The President’s actions will leave antiquities and resources without any protections.

FACT: Nope. Everyone is concerned about looting and desecration of antiquities or sensitive areas. Here’s a novel idea: rather than focusing exclusively on these particular lands, what if we protected all antiquities on federal lands? Great idea, right? In fact, Congress has already done just that. In 1979 Congress passed the Archaeological Resources Protection of Act (ARPA). ARPA gave the federal government the power to impose severe fines and even imprisonment for looting. It protects ALL federal lands, with or without monument designation.

Learn more about the House Committee on Natural Resources by visiting their site here.

 

Fight Over New England Marine Monument Continues

November 27, 2017 — On April 26, President Donald Trump ordered a review of two dozen national monuments created or expanded since 1996, which includes the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts that was created in the last days of the Obama administration. The monument, the first of its kind in the Atlantic Ocean, bans fishing, and oil, gas and mineral exploration within its boundaries.

In September, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recommended to Trump that the monument, located about 130 miles southeast of Cape Cod, be opened to commercial fishing. Zinke’s memo stated that instead of prohibiting commercial fishing, the government should allow it in the area under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which is the primary law governing the United States’ marine fisheries and meant to prevent overfishing and guarantee a safe source of seafood.

Conservationists opposed Zinke’s recommendation, while fishing groups supported it.

“They act like this area is all pristine and never touched,” said Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association President Arthur “Sooky” Sawyer of the current protections. “Lobstermen have been fishing in those areas for the last 50-plus years with no negative effect on the marine species.”

The association is one of a handful of commercial fishing groups in an ongoing lawsuit that claims the Antiquities Act of 1906 only allows the president to create or expand monuments on land, not in the marine environment as Obama did.

Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times

Maine Lobster, The Most Valuable Species In US Seas, Hit By Trump’s Trade Stance

November 22, 2017 — Maine lobster has become more valuable than any other single species commercially fished in the United States, but trade policies pursued by President Donald Trump could reduce its annual worth for the first time in nearly a decade.

Of the more than $600 million worth of North Atlantic lobster caught in the U.S. in 2016, nearly 90 percent, or $538 million, was harvested and brought ashore in Maine, according to a report on nationwide fisheries released this month by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

No other single commercially fished species, even those harvested in multiple states, exceeded $500 million in landings in 2016 or in 2015, according to the report. Maine lobster first earned the most-valuable distinction in 2015, when $501 million worth of American lobster was harvested in the state, according to the Maine Department of Marine Resources.

The value of Maine’s lobster catch has risen every year since 2009. But it’s on track to drop for 2017, in part because of U.S. trade policies that put Maine’s lobster industry at a disadvantage to Canada in selling abroad.

Trump is pursuing efforts to renegotiate trade deals with Mexico, Canada, and South Korea, the fifth-largest importer of Maine lobster. He also pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation free-trade agreement, and has talked tough on trade with Europe.

Read the full story at the Bangor Daily News

Should Papahanaumokuakea Be Open For Business?

November 22, 2017 — Republican House members are urging President Trump to “think big” in his ongoing review of 27 national monuments, including opening up the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument not just to commercial fishing — but to oil, gas and mineral exploration.

The Trump administration has been pondering the future of the monuments for months, with a final announcement expected in December.

The proposal to open Papahanaumokuakea to commercial uses came in a Nov. 9 letter from a group of 24 Republicans who are active in the western caucus.

The letter writers want the boundaries of three of the four Pacific reserves —  Pacific Remote Islands, Rose Atoll and Papahanaumokuakea — to be reduced in size and fishing restrictions to be lifted in all of the reserves.

But they only mentioned the possibility of energy extraction for Papahanaumokuakea and the Pacific Remote Islands reserve.

Problem is, there is no oil and gas development potential at Papahanamokuakea. The fight in Hawaii has been over whether to loosen commercial fishing restrictions in the monument

“It’s not applicable,” said William Aila Jr., former chairman of the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources who’s now deputy director of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. “There is no oil or gas at Papahanaumokuakea.”

He said the only possible resource of that kind is something known as “manganese nodules,” metallic minerals found in rock-like formations in deep water on the seabed. But Aila said that it is so costly and difficult to obtain minerals in such remote locations that it is more “futuristic” than a viable economic opportunity.

Read the full story at the Honolulu Civil Beat

 

Trump Administration Dives Into Fish Fight

November 21, 2017 — WASHINGTON — An unprecedented Trump administration decision over the summer that overruled an interstate fishing commission has drawn the ire of critics who worry that keeping a healthy and viable supply of flounder in the Atlantic Ocean is being sacrificed to commercial profits.

While the fight over fish largely has been out of the public eye, it has implications for Maryland and other coastal states. Critics charge the controversy further underscores environmental backsliding by a White House beholden to business interests seeking fewer restrictions on the potentially harmful exploitation of natural resources.

In July, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross overruled a recommendation by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission finding New Jersey out of compliance with proposed 2017 harvest limits of summer flounder along the Atlantic coast.

The reversal marked the first time since passage of the Atlantic Coastal Act in 1993 that the Department of Commerce overruled the commission’s finding of noncompliance, said commission spokeswoman Tina Berger.

“It was a big surprise that the commission’s authority would essentially be disregarded by the Commerce Department,” said Maryland Del. Dana Stein, D-Baltimore, one of the fisheries commissioners. “I was very disappointed upon hearing about this.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press at U.S. News and World Report

NOAA Fisheries head: Trump administration values regulatory flexibility, regional approach

November 21, 2017 — SEATTLE — The head of the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) fisheries management arm, Chris Oliver, offered a crowd of Alaska fishermen some insight into the Donald Trump administration’s approach toward fisheries management.

Generally speaking, the assistant administrator for NOAA Fisheries said at Seattle’s Pacific Marine Expo on Nov. 17, the administration values flexibility and a regional approach toward regulating commercial fishing of federally managed stocks, an approach that meshes with his own background and views.

“You’re looking at an administration that recognizes that fisheries by nature require a lot of regulation, but I also think they’re looking at councils to take a step back and look at ways to not have a tendency toward micromanagement but to look at the big picture,” Oliver, who took up the job in June, said.

Learning curve

Prior to that, Oliver served as executive director of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council during at a 16-year run that also included stints as a fisheries biologist and its deputy director. That council, one of eight regional bodies created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), which regulates US commercial and recreational fishing, is arguably the country’s busiest, as it covers Alaska, home to half of all US seafood production.

His experience, he said, left him as a supporter of the council system. His new national-level job — he’s received over 200 briefings to date on the issues facing NOAA Fisheries — affords him a wider perspective.

“It’s been an incredible learning experience and an incredible learning curve. It’s been hectic at times, frenetic at times, and a bit overwhelming at times, but it’s been extremely exciting all the time and never boring,” he said.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Why Does Barry Myers Make Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz Nervous?

Barry Myers is Trump’s nominee to head NOAA but the Hawaii senator says he is a “questionable choice.”

October 19, 2017 — WASHINGTON — Hawaii relies heavily on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — in some ways, for its very safety.

NOAA, which oversees the National Weather Service, is the agency that helps predict and anticipate hurricanes, tsunamis and dangerous floods, issuing warnings that help people prepare or get out of the way.

But in this case, it’s President Donald Trump’s nominee to run the agency, a business executive from Pennsylvania, who is causing a political storm.

Barry Myers, chief executive officer of AccuWeather, a private weather and data services company based in State College, Pennyslvania, has been named by Trump to serve as U.S. Commerce Department Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, a job traditionally held by biologists and climate scientists. This position is usually also called the Administrator of NOAA.

Brian Schatz, Hawaii’s senior senator, has been one of the most vocal critics of the nominee, calling Myers a “questionable choice.”

Myers, the brother of the meteorologist who started the family-owned firm, has a background in business and law. He is definitely not a scientist, as he made clear at a congressional hearing last year.

Read the full story at the Honolulu Civil Beat

In Congress, an effort to curtail national monuments

October 18, 2017 — WASHINGTON — On Oct. 11, the House Natural Resources Committee approved a proposal from its chairman, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, to overhaul the Antiquities Act. Bishop’s “National Monument Creation and Protection Act” would severely constrain the power of the president to designate national monuments. It would limit the size of monuments a president could designate as well as the kinds of places protected.

The 1906 Antiquities Act allows a president to act swiftly to protect federal lands facing imminent threats without legislation getting bogged down in Congress. Many popular areas, including Zion, Bryce and Arches national parks in Bishop’s home state, were first protected this way.

Under Bishop’s legislation, any proposal for a monument larger than 640 acres — one square mile — would be subject to a review process: Areas up to 10,000 acres would be subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act, while those between 10,000 and 85,000 acres would require approval from state and local government. The bill would allow emergency declarations, but they would expire after a year without Congress approval. It would also codify the president’s power to modify monuments — a power that has been contested in light of the Interior Department’s recent recommendations that President Donald Trump reduce the size of several monuments, including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah.

Read the full story at High Country News

Fight over national monuments intensifies

October 16, 2017 — WASHINGTON — Conservatives have opened a new front in the fight over the future of America’s national monuments.

House Republicans are moving forward with a bill to reform a century-old conservation law, raising the stakes in their ongoing effort to curtail the president’s’ ability to set aside wide swaths of federal land as national monuments and protect them from future development.

The new legislation, from Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), comes as the White House mulls reductions to several previously declared monuments. That’s an effort environmentalists consider an affront to the Antiquities Act, a law signed by conservation champion Theodore Roosevelt in 1906.

Conservatives, industry groups and Westerners have long pushed for changes to the Antiquities Act, saying presidents of both parties have abused the law, handcuffing local communities who could look to create jobs on public land. President Trump is an ally in that effort.

Environmentalists and most Democrats consider the Antiquities Act a bedrock American conservation law and have vowed to fight any effort to water it down.

The reform effort has its impetus in what conservatives consider an abuse of federal monument designation powers.

Sixteen presidents have used the Antiquities Act to lock up federal land over the last century. But President Obama used it the most often, and protected by far the most acreage — 553.6 million acres of land and sea monuments — inspiring a fresh round of legislative proposals.

Read the full story at The Hill