Saving Seafood

Lawsuit targets Alaska salmon management to protect southern killer whales

January 27, 2020 — A conservation organization based in Washington state is threatening to sue the federal government over the management of Alaska’s chinook salmon fisheries.

The Wild Fish Conservancy claims that management strategies in Alaska approved by the government pose a threat to the survival of several salmon runs in Washington, and the killer whales who depend on them.

The Wild Fish Conservancy filed notice on January 9, stating its intentions to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service for violating the Endangered Species Act, and jeopardizing the existence of southern resident killer whales.

The Conservancy argues that an important food supply of the whales — endangered stocks of chinook salmon originating in Puget Sound, the lower Columbia River, the Willamette River, and Snake River — is being depleted by the commercial troll and sport harvest in Southeast Alaska.

Kurt Beardslee is the director of the Wild Fish Conservancy. Chinook — or king salmon — are managed under treaty between the United States and Canada, overseen by the Pacific Salmon Commission.

Read the full story at KNBA

Judge sides with Olema environmental group on sea turtle protections

January 3, 2020 — A federal judge has sided with an Olema-based conservation group in finding the federal government violated environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act by allowing longline fishing in West Coast waters without assessing threats to endangered sea turtles.

Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court of Northern California wrote in her ruling late last month that the National Marine Fisheries Service’s issuance of two longline fishing permits earlier this year would “reverse protections in place for leatherback sea turtles despite continuing population declines and the agency’s admission that the extinction of Pacific leatherbacks ‘is almost certain in the immediate future.’”

As part of her Dec. 20 order, Westmore set aside the two fishing permits that were issued in May as well as the agency’s finding that the fishing would have no significant environmental impacts.

Todd Steiner, executive director of the Olema-based Turtle Island Restoration Network, which co-led the lawsuit with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the fishing permits were essentially a back-door attempt by the Trump administration to reopen longline fishing despite a 2004 federal ban. The lawsuit was filed in June.

“We have closed the back door and leatherback sea turtles are safe from drowning on the ends of longline fishing hooks,” Steiner said.

Read the full story at The Marin Independent Journal

New Puget Sound Steelhead Plan Charts Course for Recovery

December 31, 2019 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Some 8,000 aging culverts under roads and driveways around Puget Sound block threatened Puget Sound steelhead from reaching high headwaters streams where they historically spawned, forming a major obstacle to the species’ recovery.

A new recovery plan developed under the Endangered Species Act for Puget Sound steelhead addresses these impassable culverts and other threats. It provides a roadmap to help the native fish recover into self-sustaining populations and resume their prominence in Puget Sound. NOAA Fisheries developed the plan with help and support from many partners.

Nearly 1 million wild adult steelhead historically returned to Puget Sound rivers but fewer than 5 to 10 percent of that return today. Puget Sound steelhead were designated as threatened in 2007, bringing them under the protection of the Endangered Species Act.

“Puget Sound steelhead are remarkably resilient, but they have been pushed to the limit by decades of habitat loss, and adverse marine conditions,” said Elizabeth Babcock, North Puget Sound Branch Chief in NOAA Fisheries’ West Coast Region. “Based on the best available science, this plan is a solid and comprehensive blueprint for recovery.”

Recovering the steelhead that are highly valued by Northwest tribes, prized by fishermen, and preyed upon by endangered killer whales would provide ecological, cultural, and economic benefits.

Read the full release here

Putting Endangered Species on the Map

December 19, 2019 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

In November, we launched Version 2.0 of the Section 7 Mapper, a new mapping tool that shows where threatened and endangered species are in New England and Mid-Atlantic waters. This tool helps people planning activities in our waters to understand where endangered marine species are and at what times of year.

Why did we build this tool?

Busy Oceans and Coasts

Coastal areas are humming with action. Ports, docks, piers, moorings, and marinas dot our shores and bays. Bridges span our rivers, barges sail up rivers to inland ports, and undersea cables criss-cross the ocean bottom. Vessels—ranging from enormous container ships and cruise ships to small recreational fishing boats and jet-skis—traverse our coastal and offshore waters daily.

People are constantly building structures, dredging shallow areas, restoring rivers and coastal habitats, replenishing beaches, and researching new sources of energy.

Underneath, around, and in between all these activities swim threatened and endangered fish, sea turtles, and marine mammals that live, feed, and grow there.

Projects Change Habitat

Human activities add noise, sediment, pollutants, and pressure to ocean habitats. They also displace these animals from spaces they use for breeding, egg-laying, nurseries, feeding, and other activities.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies, like the Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, the Navy, and even other parts of NOAA, to consult with NOAA Fisheries on projects or activities they are planning, funding, or permitting that may affect a threatened or endangered marine species or its critical habitat. This is called a “Section 7 Consultation.”

Read the full release here

Gillnet Fishing: Closed Area I and Nantucket Lightship Closure Areas

November 4, 2019 — On October 28, 2019, Federal District Court Judge James E. Boasberg issued an Order and Opinion on a lawsuit challenging a portion of the New England Fishery Management Council’s Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2.

The Order prohibits NOAA Fisheries from allowing gillnet fishing in the former Nantucket Lightship Groundfish and the Closed Area I Groundfish Closure Areas, until such time as NOAA Fisheries has fully complied with requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, consistent with the Opinion.

NOAA Fisheries is studying the Opinion and will put regulations in place as soon as possible to comply with the Order to close the areas to gillnet fishing until further notice.

Read the full story at NOAA Fisheries

In Court Ruling on Right Whales, Good News for Scallop Fishery

October 30, 2019 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

A federal district court has ruled this week that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violated both the Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act in allowing gillnet fishing in areas frequented by right whales. While the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) was a Defendant-Intervenor in the case, the ruling contains good news for the scallop fishery.

At issue are provisions in Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2), which updated the network of closed areas and habitat protections off the coast of New England. The suit, filed by the Conservation Law Foundation and Earthjustice, alleges that OHA2 put right whales at risk by opening offshore areas near Nantucket to commercial fishing.

While the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that allowing gillnet fishing in these areas did have the potential to harm right whales, and thus violated the Endangered Species Act, the Court’s ruling does not affect the scallop fishery, which will continue to be allowed to operate in these areas.

Specifically, the Court noted, “because Plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion does not contest the Habitat Amendment’s changes to the Scallop [Fishery Management Plan], Defendant-Intervenor Fisheries Survival Fund’s arguments, which relate only to that fishery, are rendered moot.”

This means that while the Court acted to prevent gillnet fishing in the newly opened areas, it did not overturn OHA2, nor did it stop scallop fishing in these areas. This is consistent with FSF’s long-standing position in the case, which is that the scallop fishery is not a threat to right whales, and that scallop fishing is not impacting right whale conservation.

Read the full opinion here.

Read the full order here.

Federal judge renews ban on gillnet fishing in Nantucket area to protect whales

October 30, 2019 — A federal judge in Washington, DC, on Monday ruled that the US’ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violated the Endangered Species Act, Magnuson Stevens Act, and other federal laws when it removed a roughly 20-year-old ban last year on gillnet fishing within a 3,000 square mile area south and east of the Massachusetts island Nantucket.

US District Court judge James Boasberg has renewed the ban in order to protect North Atlantic right whales, the Boston Globe reports. He said, in his 32-page ruling, that his decision was “not a close call” and quoted Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick”.

“Demonstrating that ‘there is no folly of the beasts of the earth which is not infinitely outdone by the madness of men’ … humans have brought the North Atlantic right whale to the brink of extinction,” he wrote.

Boasberg’s ruling does not apply to the scallop industry, which will be allowed to continue using its dredging equipment in the area, as it has not been found to harm the marine mammals.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Court Battle Underway Over Revamped Endangered Species Rules

October 8, 2019 — A major fight is shaping up in federal court over the Trump administration’s recently issued rules that rewrite how the government implements the Endangered Species Act.

The battle was broadened on Sept. 25 when attorneys general from 17 states, the District of Columbia and New York City filed a challenge to the regulations in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, contend that the set of three new final rules—published in the Federal Register on Aug. 27 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service— “fundamentally undermine and contradict” Endangered Species Act requirements.

Two of the regulations took effect on Sept. 26. The effective date for the third, which aims to expedite “interagency cooperation”  procedures in listing species as endangered, was extended to Oct. 28.  [View 8/12/19 ENR story on regulations here.]

Among other changes, the rules set a stricter definition of “critical habitat” needed for an endangered species to survive; end a practice of giving threatened species the same protections as endangered species; allow economic factors to be aired—though not as a decisive factor—when agencies determine whether to list a species as endangered.

Read the full story at The Engineering-News Record

Ninth Circuit Orders Feds to Reexamine Army Corps’ Harm to Native Fish

October 8, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The National Marine Fisheries Service owes an explanation for why it decided that two dams on the Yuba River do not adversely affect threatened Chinook salmon, steelhead and green sturgeon, three Ninth Circuit judges ruled Thursday.

“The Ninth Circuit said you’re entitled to change your mind, but you’ve got to explain yourself and you haven’t,” said Christopher Sproul, an attorney with San Francisco-based Environmental Advocates. “We think this is an excellent win vindicating good government. If agencies are going to have environmental rollbacks, they can’t do it without good reasoning.”

The case marks the latest turn in a long-running dispute over the Army Corps of Engineers’ maintenance of the aging Daguerre Point and Englebright dams, both built before the passage of the Endangered Species Act.

According to environmental groups, the dams have long posed an impediment to migrating salmon. The over 100 year-old Daguerre Point has fish ladders, albeit crude and aging, over which salmon struggle to swim to reach their spawning grounds. But the 260-foot-high Englebright Dam, built in 1941, has no fish ladders at all and completely blocks fish passage to the upper Yuba River.

Since 2002, the service has considered the Corps’ maintenance of the dams an “agency action” that requires the Corps to comply with federal environmental law that protect threatened species.

As late as 2012, the service found the Corps’ activities were likely to harm salmon populations, but it suddenly reversed course in 2014 when it issued a biological opinion and a separate letter concurring with the Corps’ biological assessment for the Englebright Dam and adjoining powerhouses.

The service basically stopped treating the Corps’ activities as an “agency action,” effectively letting the Corps off the hook for its effect on the environment.

The Corps began consulting with the service in 2000 to improve passage, but salmon populations have continued to decline from their failure to mitigate the dams’ impacts.

In 2012, the service found the Corps’ activities were likely to harm the salmon species, but it suddenly reversed course in 2014 when it issued a biological opinion and a separate letter concurring with the Corps’ biological assessment for Englebright and its abutting hydroelectric facilities.

In 2018, the environmental non-profit Friends of the River lost a federal lawsuit over the service’s opinions on summary judgment.

On Thursday, the appellate court panel of Judge J. Clifford Wallace, Carlos Bea and Michelle Friedland ordered the federal court to take another look at the case.

“FOR argues that the Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in changing its approach to analyzing the dams’ impact on threatened fish because the service did not provide a reasoned explanation for the change. We agree,” the judges wrote.

They found the service offered no explanation for why it changed its position.

“Given the Service’s failure to provide a reasoned explanation for why it changed positions on whether the continued existence of the dams and the hydroelectric facilities abutting Englebright constitute agency action, the district court erred in finding that the Service’s 2014 BiOp and LOC were not arbitrary and capricious,” their ruling says.

The judges also ordered the lower court to revisit Friends of the River’s claim that the Corps improperly granted licenses and easements to third parties to operate the hydroelectric facilities.

“The Ninth Circuit ruling underscores the principle that still exists in this country – that facts and law matter,” Sproul said.

The National Marine Fisheries Service was unavailable for comment late Thursday.

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

The next big California vs. Trump fight is over water and endangered species

October 7, 2019 — Just how far will California Gov. Gavin Newsom go in his high-profile fight with the Trump administration over environmental protections?

The next few months will provide an answer, as Newsom is forced to take a stand on Trump rollbacks in a long-contested battleground—the Northern California  that helps supply more than half the state’s population with drinking  and fills irrigation canals on millions of acres of farmland.

The battle lines are not nearly as clearly drawn as they are on climate change or air pollution, where the state is presenting a fairly unified front against Washington. When it comes to California water, there is no unity.

Some of the state’s biggest and most powerful water agencies are eager for the  to weaken endangered species protections that have cut their delta deliveries. And they want the Newsom administration to go along.

Read the full story at PHYS.org