Saving Seafood

Conservation Group Sues NMFS Over West Coast Anchovies For a Second Time

July 8, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In this case, NMFS issued a final rule regarding management of the central subpopulation of anchovy off California, and the conservation group Oceana sued. NMFS applied best available science and approved policy to update the rule using recent biomass estimates, as directed by the Court, and re-filed it last month. Oceana sued again last week.

The lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service was filed over the agency’s “continued failure to prevent overfishing, use the best available science, or account for the food needs of ocean animals in managing anchovy,” Oceana said in a press release.

The rule established a multi-year, unchanging catch limit for anchovy that does not account for the frequent, and sometimes rapid, cycles of booms and busts in the size of this population, Oceana said. The final rule is a near carbon copy of an earlier proposal by the Fisheries Service in 2016 that was struck down in court because it did not use best available science and did not prevent overfishing.

Oceana, represented by Earthjustice, said NMFS continues to manage certain fish populations, including northern anchovy, by setting multi-year catch limits that stay in place regardless of the population’s status. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of California, claims that in failing to actively manage the anchovy population based on current population size, NMFS has again failed to use the best available science, prevent overfishing and ensure adequate forage fish for dependent predators, the press release said.

The recent NMFS final rule employed the same harvest policy as originally approved and updated the reference points based on recent years of anchovy biomass estimates. The new overfishing limit, which represents a long-term average maximum sustainable yield, is close to the original estimate. The acceptable biological catch and annual catch limit also conform with the original harvest policy, which is based on 25% of the OFL. The anchovy population is acknowledged to be close to historic abundance, which is why the numbers are similar, industry members say.

The NMFS acoustic trawl survey method on which the management levels are based is at the heart of the issue. Both the California Wetfish Producers Association and the West Coast Pelagic Conservation Group say the survey does not capture an accurate picture of the anchovy biomass; for example, it misses the nearshore areas that anchovy frequent as well as the upper 10 meters of the water column, the acoustic “dead zone.” The model used to estimate anchovy biomass also is missing critical age information from earlier decades.

“… despite Oceana’s claim that acoustic trawl surveys are ‘state of the art’ science, the 2018 Acoustic Trawl Methods Review down-weighted the AT survey biomass estimates to a ‘relative’ index of abundance because it omits a substantial portion of the biomass inshore of the existing survey tracks, as documented by our collaborative [California] Department of Fish and Wildlife aerial surveys,” CWPA Executive Director Diane Pleschner-Steele said in an email.

Both the CWPA and WCPCG have developed collaborative methods to survey the nearshore areas for forage fish utilizing exempted fishing permits. The groups are working with both state and federal researchers to get a fuller picture of the anchovy — and other pelagic species — stock.

Oceana representatives have said the acoustic trawl survey, with the state-of-the-art technological equipment, does represent the best available science. Industry members argue that the best equipment and a model that relies primarily on that data does not represent the “best science” since it cannot survey many areas where the anchovy spend much of their time.

“We remain frustrated that the Fisheries Service continues to ignore state of the art fish population surveys produced by their own scientists when deciding how many anchovies fishermen can catch on an annual basis,” Geoff Shester, Oceana California Campaign Director and Senior Scientist, said in a statement, noting that predators such as other fish, whales, pelicans, sea lions depend on anchovies and other forage fish species.

“Oceana has dismissed concerns industry has expressed about the survey, such as lack of data on the inshore components of the stock,” WCPCG member Mike Okoniewski said in an email. “While industry is actually working collaboratively with the science centers and state agencies to explore alternative survey methodology … , we wonder why Oceana would rather litigate, than collaborate with ongoing efforts the science staff and industry are undertaking to gain a better knowledge about the population size and behavior of our coastal pelagic stocks?”

Meanwhile, Pleschner-Steele said California fishermen have ben seeing abundant anchovy since 2015. At least now NOAA’s acoustic surveys are beginning to validate fishermen’s observations to a degree, but the still missing nearshore component is a problem that has been recognized as necessary to fully assess the central anchovy stock. The stock historically fluctuated between very high and very low abundance, even absent any fishing activity. The Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS have established a very precautionary management approach by capping the harvest at 25 percent of the estimated OFL. The harvest rule is based on a long-term average biomass, not a single-year stock assessment. Even with a 25,00 mt harvest cap, fishermen have landed far less, averaging only 8,000 mt per year or less.

“Industry will always have more ‘sea’ time than the survey or research ships. Our livelihoods depend on what we observe,” Okoniewski said. “While we are not scientists we do first hand surveillance of these stocks and their environment. This has motivated us to work more closely with the scientific staff, and in most cases this has been reciprocated by the science community. Coastal Pelagic stocks are difficult to survey and fishery observations often differ from scientific observations. We believe it is best to work together to resolve some of these differences in observation.”

This story was originally published on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Hawaii’s Longliners Could Soon Be Allowed To Catch 18 Million Pounds Of Tuna

June 27, 2019 — Hawaii’s longline fishermen will be able to catch nearly 18 million pounds of bigeye tuna next year under a recommendation adopted Wednesday by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

That’s more than double the limit set by the international body that regulates fishing in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, but they skirt that by allocating the additional catch to U.S. Pacific island territories.

Federal and industry scientists said the bigeye stock in the region will remain sustainable, and that their modeling does not suggest the increased quota will lead to overfishing.

That’s good news for poke bowl fans and lovers of fresh ahi sashimi. Wespac members said it could mean more stable prices and better availability in local and national markets.

But an increase in fishing concerns environmental groups who highlight how the longliners accidentally catch endangered turtles, dolphins, albatrosses and sharks while targeting tuna.

David Henkin, Honolulu-based staff attorney for Earthjustice, said the longline tuna fishery’s indiscriminate fishing methods — miles of line and thousands of hooks are strung off each boat — kill and injure countless non-target marine species each year.

Wespac’s science committee recommended last week that the full council should let Hawaii’s longliners allocate up to 2,000 tons (4.4 million pounds) in additional catch to each of the three territories.

The Hawaii Longline Association, which represents most of the fleet, had supported that decision as well. Executive Director Eric Kingma said it would be a “wise choice” that provides more flexibility to the industry and more utilization of a resource that is not being overfished.

He was one of the scientists who produced the paper on which the recommendation was made.

Read the full story at the Honolulu Civil Beat

Congressmen Van Drew and Rutherford Introduce ACEPA

February 11, 2019 — The following was released by the office of Congressman Jefferson Van Drew:

In response to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issuing five Incidental Harassment Authorizations (IHAs) which would advance permit applications for seismic air gun blasting off the Atlantic Coast, Congressmen Jeff Van Drew and John Rutherford have introduced the bipartisan Atlantic Coastal Economies Protection Act to prohibit or stop seismic air gun testing in the Atlantic Ocean. Seismic air gun testing is the first step towards offshore oil and gas exploration and a direct threat to the coastal fishing and tourism economies dependent on healthy ocean ecosystems.

Congressman Jeff Van Drew has a history of working to protect the coastal economy and environment. In 2018 during his time in the New Jersey state legislature, he introduced and passed Senate Bill No. 258 which prohibited offshore oil or natural gas exploration, development, and production in state waters. “Our local economy is dependent on fishing, tourism and wildlife watching – the bottom line is offshore oil and gas drilling isn’t worth the risk,” said Van Drew.

“The waters off the East Coast are home to vulnerable mammal populations, military operations, tourist destinations, and a vibrant maritime economy. Allowing seismic testing in the Atlantic is unnecessary and potentially hazardous to the coastal communities that rely on a healthy ecosystem. The U.S. should not jeopardize our coastal economy by expanding seismic testing and offshore drilling, particularly when our energy needs continue to be met,” said Congressman John Rutherford.

Van Drew and Rutherford were joined in the effort by Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ), Joe Cunningham (D-SC), Brian Mast (R-FL), and Donna Shalala (D-FL). The bill was also endorsed by a variety of stakeholders ranging from local chambers of commerce and fisheries organizations to conservation and environmental groups.

Endorsements: Oceana, League of Conservation Voters, Surfrider Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Environment America, Earthjustice, Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, Hands Across the Sand, American Littoral Society, Ocean Conservation Research, Recreational Fishing Alliance, American Sportfishing Association, International Game Fish Association, Center for Sportfishing Policy

Read the release here

After ruling in anchovy case, future stock assessment method under debate

February 8, 2019 —  The federal government has about 10 weeks before it must establish a new catch limit for an anchovy fishery in northern California, and as time winds down, discussions about the fishery’s future are ramping up.

However, the talk regarding the future of the northern anchovy’s central sub-population isn’t just about a new limit.

“It’s time to bring anchovy management into the 21st century by updating catch limits each year to reflect real-time abundance data rather than a decades-old guesstimate,” Andrea Treece, a lawyer for Earthjustice, said in a release announcing U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh’s decision. Treece represented Oceana, which filed a lawsuit in November 2016 and claimed the government relied on a 25-year-old model that set the annual quota at 25,000 metric tons had become outdated.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

CALIFORNIA: The Battle over Anchovy

January 29, 2019 — A little over a year after a federal judge overturned a catch limit for the central population of north anchovy, nothing has changed.

Now a judge has issued an order that a new federal rule must be made within 90 days, before April 18.

This is the latest development in a battle that began in 2016 when the National Marine Fisheries Service defined the catch level using a study that only included data collected through 1990 instead of a study that included more data extending through 2011.

Read the full story at The Mercury News

Federal court upholds ruling in anchovy catch-limit lawsuit

January 22, 2019 — A federal judge in California on Friday, 22 January, upheld her decision from last year that claimed NOAA Fisheries did not follow the law when it set the catch limit on an anchovy stock in the state.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh means the agency will need to set a new limit on the central population of northern anchovy. Environmental advocates argued federal officials kept that figure stationary since 2000 and used nearly 30-year-old data in setting it.

“This decision holds [NOAA Fisheries] to fundamental standards intended by Congress, which require the government to sustainably manage our nation’s fisheries for the benefit of both fishermen and dependent species,” said Mariel Combs, an Oceana attorney in a press release.

Oceana filed the suit in November 2016, a month after NOAA Fisheries maintained the 25,000 metric ton (MT) limit. The environmental organization, represented by Earthjustice is the suit, argued that the catch limit was based on a 1991 study that reported a biomass of more than 700,000 metric tons.

Diane Pleschner-Steele, executive director for the California Wetfish Producers Association, told SeafoodSource she was disappointed in Koh’s ruling. She added, however, that the judge did not set a catch limit and ruled that the agency needs to use the best scientific data available to set its limits.

“In any case, there is general agreement, even from Oceana, that the anchovy population has exploded and available data now find the biomass at historic levels,” Steele said.

Steele also noted that members of the Pacific Fishery Management Council management team will be meeting soon to discuss the next steps in wake of the ruling.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Lawsuit filed over Trump plans for offshore drilling tests

December 12, 2018 — Environmental groups sued the Trump administration Tuesday over offshore drilling tests, launching a legal fight against a proposal that has drawn bipartisan opposition along the Atlantic Coast.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Charleston, South Carolina, claims the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued five permits for the use of seismic air guns.

“This action is unlawful and we’re going to stop it,” Diane Hoskins, campaign director at OCEANA, said in a news release. “The Trump administration’s rash decision to harm marine mammals hundreds of thousands of times in the hope of finding oil and gas is shortsighted and dangerous.”

The coalition includes OCEANA, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Center for Biological Diversity, Surfrider Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, One Hundred Miles and the Sierra Club, as well as the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and the North Carolina Coastal Federation.

The blasts are conducted in preparation for potential offshore drilling, which the administration has proposed to expand from the Atlantic to the Arctic and Pacific oceans. The five-year plan would open 90 percent of the nation’s offshore reserves to private development.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at ABC News

Bayless, Moonen among 50 US chefs to sign Portland Pact on MSA

November 21, 2018 — American celebrity seafood restauranteurs Rick Bayless and Rick Moonen are among the first 50 chefs who have signed on to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s organized effort to “protect the strong conservation measures of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)”.

Undercurrent News reported earlier how the Monterey Bay Aquarium was planning to start on Nov. 7, the day after the US mid-term election, rallying chefs to sign a document produced at a meeting in Portland, Oregon, on Oct. 24. The so-called “Portland Pact for Sustainable Seafood” calls on “the new Congress to prioritize the long-term health of US fish stocks by protecting the strong conservation measures of the [MSA]”.

Commercial fishing groups that support Alaska Republican representative Don Young’s MSA reauthorization bill, HR 200, earlier expressed concern that the Monterey Bay Aquarium effort was an attack on the bill, which was passed by the US House of Representatives but requires Senate action before the expiration of the 115th Congress in December. The bill makes some of the most significant changes in MSA’s 42-year history, giving fishery regulatory bodies much more needed flexibility, say its champions.

But HR 200, which would have to be re-introduced in the 116th Congress if not successful in the next few weeks, already faces an uphill battle in the new House as it has enjoyed little support from the soon-to-be-in-charge Democrats.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium, which runs the Seafood Watch sustainability initiative, is one of a number of ocean conservation and environmental advocacy groups opposed to Young’s bill. The Environmental Defense Fund, Earthjustice, Oceana North America, the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, Seafood Harvesters of America, Fortune Fish & Gourmet, and Santa Monica Seafood have also expressed opposition. They say it would undermine previously established fishing policies and endanger many valuable species.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

Reps. Bishop, Westerman Probe Earthjustice’s Ties to Japan

October 2, 2018 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) sent a letter to Earthjustice President Abigail Dillen, requesting information regarding Earthjustice’s relationship with the Japanese government.

“Foreign members of the anti-base coalition represented by Earthjustice appear to have already engaged in extensive political activity within the United States, including lobbying government officials and holding media events designed to influence public opinion. During a visit to San Francisco, a foreign delegation met with representatives of a U.S. Senator and a U.S. House Representative. This delegation also traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with lawmakers, as well as, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, the Advisory Council on Historic Foreign members of the anti-base coalition represented by Earthjustice appear to have already engaged in extensive political activity within the United States, including lobbying government officials and holding media events designed to influence public opinion.

“During a visit to San Francisco, a foreign delegation met with representatives of a U.S. Senator and a U.S. House Representative. This delegation also traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet with lawmakers, as well as, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and unspecified “other groups.” Beyond serving as the coalition’s attorney, Earthjustice has directly participated in the publicity campaign condemning the base relocation such as by sending open letters to the President of the United States and Japanese Prime Minister.

“The Committee is concerned that your organization’s political activities within the United States in opposition to the relocation of MCAS Futenma and the continued U.S. military presence in Okinawa may require compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).”

Click here to read the full letter.

ENVIRONMENTALISTS SUE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN TAMPA OVER OFFSHORE DRILLING

June 22, 2018 — Earthjustice, on behalf of three conservation groups, sued the Trump administration Thursday (June 21) alleging that it failed to complete a legally required consultation about offshore drilling’s harms to threatened and endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico.

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are required under the Endangered Species Act to complete a consultation with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on its oversight of oil and gas operations that could impact threatened and endangered species. The last time the agencies completed a consultation, called a biological opinion, was in 2007, three years before the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster which led to the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, according to Earthjustice.

With the lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Tampa, the Gulf Restoration Network, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity are challenging the agencies for unreasonably delaying completion of a new consultation and seeking a court order to compel them to complete it within three months. A new biological opinion likely would result in additional safeguards to prevent further harm to sea turtles, whales, and other threatened and endangered species from oil and gas operations in the Gulf.

Read the full story at the Tampa Bay Reporter