Saving Seafood

April Showdown Looming for Battle Over Atlantic Ocean Monument

March 28, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Fisherman and lobstermen reeled in a temporary victory after a federal court agreed to lift a 10-month stay on a lawsuit that seeks to reverse Obama-era protections for the first national marine monument in the Atlantic Ocean.

In September 2016, former President Barack Obama used powers under the Antiquities Act to designate the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument.

The 5,000-square-mile monument, rich with deep coral and home to sperm whales, sea turtles and dolphins, is located just off the Georges Bank near Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

The Obama-era order closed off the area to commercial fisherman, except for a handful of crabbers who were grandfathered into the deal and allowed to continue trawling for just seven years more until fishing activity would be completely barred in the region.

The plaintiffs who originally challenged the monument designation in March 2017 include the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Atlantic Offshore Lobsterman’s Association, the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, the Rhode Island Fisherman’s Alliance and the Garden State Seafood Association.

In their original lawsuit, the groups claimed Obama “exceeded his power under the Antiquities Act” when cordoning off the ocean acreage.

They argued the sea is not “land owned or controlled by the Federal government and thus not within the president’s proclaiming authority.”

“Unless a permanent injunction is issued to forbid the implementation of the proclamation’s fishing prohibitions, plaintiffs are and will continue to be irreparably harmed … and will continue to suffer a diminution of income, reduced fishing opportunities and depletion of their investment in their boats and permits,” the March 2017 complaint states.

This March 15, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg finally agreed to allow the fisherman’s lawsuit to continue, effectively turning up  pressure on the Trump administration to act.

Read the full story at the Courthouse News Service

 

National Ocean Policy Coalition U.S. Senate Hearing Recap

December 14, 2017 —  The following was released by the National Ocean Policy Coalition:

The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard yesterday held an oversight hearing on the National Ocean Policy (NOP), featuring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, and Family Farm Alliance, along with minority witness Kathy Metcalf of the Chamber of Shipping of America. An archived video of the hearing is accessible here.

Chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK) presided over the hearing, with Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-MI) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) joining Sullivan in the witness Q&A, with Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) also in attendance during portions of the hearing.

As more fully described below in the detailed hearing notes, Chairman Sullivan and majority witnesses highlighted the negative impacts and risks involved with the NOP, including the mandatory and regulatory nature of it, increased bureaucracy (highlighted in part through a visual poster chart on display in the hearing room), broad scope in terms of impacted industries and geographic areas (including inland areas), increased uncertainty, new regulatory burdens and overlays (including Regional Planning Body efforts to identify special areas), and conflicts with existing statutes. In doing so, it was noted that all such impacts resulted from the Executive Order in the absence of any statutory authority and in contravention of congressional will and intent.

Majority witnesses also highlighted NOP concerns related to litigation risks, deficiencies in data and a lack of science, non-government funding of NOP activities, lack of transparency, and the fact that negative impacts have already resulted.

In addition, the minority witness also relayed questions and concerns about the NOP, including questioning why inland activities were ever contemplated for a policy that was supposed to focus on the ocean, and noted that while good pieces of the policy need to be kept, others need to be addressed (in part highlighting her organization’s previous concerns about what happens with Regional Planning Body decisions and whether they could lead to regulations). They also acknowledged that uncertainty still exists with the NOP, and suggested that vacating the NOP would be acceptable if that is what it takes to be “where we need to be,” but that “we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

During witness questioning, Sen. Blumenthal referred to a visual on display in the hearing room that depicted the complex bureaucracy created by the Executive Order, calling it a “mishmash” of oversight that wouldn’t become any clearer regardless of how close one got to the chart.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Sullivan

In his opening statement, Chairman Sullivan highlighted concerns with the NOP, noting that it significantly departs from ocean policy under the George W. Bush administration, threatens to impose new regulatory burdens and litigation risks, was established with questionable statutory authority and without congressional authorization, has done more harm than good, is a top-down initiative that could negatively impact a range of activities including those on land, creates conflicts with existing laws, and could undermine existing structures like regional ocean partnerships and fishery management councils. He also noted that numerous congressional efforts to establish a similar policy failed under both Republican and Democrat leadership.

Recognizing that the policy’s architects have asserted that the policy’s goal was to unite stakeholders and streamline decision-making, Sullivan also noted that those are shared goals but that this particular policy could have the opposite effect. Sullivan also drew attention to the complex bureaucracy created by the NOP, using a poster chart to highlight the various bodies and councils that were established under the Executive Order, and noted that goals to increase data sharing and promote science-based decision-making have widespread support.

Ranking Member Peters

Ranking Member Peters noted the NOP’s recognition of the Great Lakes and noted the history of ocean policy in recent administrations following passage of the Ocean Act in 2000. In doing so, he noted that the Obama Administration introduced new components through the NOP like coastal and marine spatial planning, and expressed regret that the Subcommittee would not hear from state and federal agency witnesses about the successes and lessons learned following the 2010 Executive Order. Peters also asked for letters of support from the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, and several industries to be read into the record.

Long Island Commercial Fishing Association

In asking for Congress’s help to rein in the NOP, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association Executive Director Bonnie Brady talked about her background and experience with the NOP to date, calling the policy one of the greatest threats the Long Island commercial fishing industry has ever seen. She also provided a firsthand account of her experience in dealing with the Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) established under the Executive Order, and the burdens associated with that engagement.

In doing so, Brady highlighted major concerns regarding the inadequacy and inaccuracy of data being relied upon by the RPBs, the NOP’s attempt to grant various statutory powers to RPBs, the impact that RPB activities including efforts to identify special areas could have on the commercial fishing community, the funding of NOP/RPB activities by groups with anti-development biases, and the lack of transparency surrounding NOP implementation. At the conclusion of her statement, Chairman Sullivan thanked Brady for her “very powerful” testimony.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

In calling for the NOP to be rescinded and Congress to continue to deny funding for its implementation, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute Senior Vice President Christopher Guith emphasized the unnecessary, bureaucratic, and unauthorized nature of the NOP, and the far-reaching impacts that it could have on various activities including those that take place well inland. In doing so, he highlighted concerns about the policy’s coastal and marine spatial planning component and how it could close off areas to human uses and result in plans that exclude uses. He highlighted that the risks are real and already present, with federal agencies directed to implement the policy and plans already developed in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, and with the previous administration citing the policy in part as justification for precluding energy activities in any new areas through 2017. Guith also highlighted the widespread support across various economic groups around the country for reining in the NOP, and noted that the NOP is a step in the wrong direction and was an aggressive regulatory action in search of a problem.

Family Farm Alliance

In voicing support for executive and congressional action to vacate the NOP, Family Farm Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen talked about the potential for the NOP to affect activities well inland, including agriculture, calling the NOP another unhelpful level of federal management and oversight. He specifically voiced concern that Regional Planning Bodies could increase the role of federal agencies in inland areas, and said that the policy’s Ecosystem-Based Management component allows the RPBs to potentially address inland activities in a way that could be leveraged by critics of irrigated agriculture to limit or restrict such activities. Keppen also noted the lack of clarity about the federal resources that have been committed to NOP activities over the years, and said that existing mechanisms should be allowed to work rather than relying on the NOP and the unnecessary duplication and confusion it has created.

Chamber of Shipping of America

In asking the Subcommittee not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Chamber of Shipping of America President and CEO Kathy Metcalf emphasized areas of agreement among the witnesses, such as the importance of coordination and collaboration.  In doing so, she said that the NOP is about good governance, and said that the existing ocean governance structure could use some help. At the same time, Metcalf said that the good pieces need to be left intact while other aspects of the NOP need to be addressed. As to the latter point, she noted previous concerns her organization had about the NOP, including what happens with RPB decisions and whether they could lead to new regulations, adding that her industry cannot afford to have different requirements in different regions of the country.

In expressing support for ocean planning, Metcalf referenced use of regional ocean data portals and the need for accurate data, said that poor planning could reduce navigation safety, and added that the NOP is about helping agencies do a better job under their existing authorities rather than regulations. She closed by expressing hope that the federal government would continue to allow stakeholders and agencies to work with each other either under the current NOP structure or a revised structure, and cited the redrawing of shipping lanes in Boston Harbor as one example of how collaboration can work.

Chairman Sullivan Witness Q&A

Chairman Sullivan noted issues with stakeholders being heard under the NOP, stakeholder costs associated with engaging on it, and the difficulty of navigating through the complex NOP bureaucracy. In response, Brady said her biggest concern is areas being closed off to fishing, the absence of real science in the process, and major deficiencies in data being used by RPBs.

Sullivan also focused on the non-voluntary nature of the NOP, including the requirement that federal agencies participate regardless of whether all states in a given region decide not to engage. Guith agreed, and noted that while everyone agrees on the importance of sustainable uses, the NOP lacks the requisite statutory authority, adding that lawsuits should be expected if final regulatory actions are taken pursuant to the NOP, and further agreeing with Sullivan that the lack of congressional authorization and congressional action to stop its implementation further demonstrates that the NOP is on shaky legal ground.

In noting that some elements discussed in the NOP are important, Sullivan also asked the minority witness what she had challenges with, noting opposition and concerns expressed by other maritime labor and transportation groups over the years. In response, Metcalf said they look at the NOP as a tool to help agencies do their jobs better under existing authority and ensure coordination, while adding that uncertainty does exist about the NOP and questioning why references to activities occurring well inland were included in a policy focused on the ocean.

Sullivan concluded his questions by noting that the NOP was an end-run around Congress and asked the witnesses about the NOP’s most egregious element and whether there were any positive elements that could be pursued. Brady was clear in stating that the NOP should be discarded, with her worst fears being that it results in closed areas under a process that has ulterior motives, and that agencies should already be doing the jobs that they are supposed to be doing. Guith added that his greatest concerns were the NOP’s breadth and the uncertainty it has created, noting that mechanisms like the planning process under the OCS Lands Act already exist for coordination among stakeholders and government agencies. Keppen agreed that the NOP’s breadth and uncertainty were his greatest concerns, also adding that the NOP excludes non-government parties from direct participation and that the NOP needs to be vacated.

Metcalf said that if vacating the NOP is necessary to achieve shared goals and “where we need to be,” then that would be fine, but that “we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” She said some kind of federal coordinating mechanism is needed, and suggested that efforts to reduce ambiguities, clarify that the NOP won’t have impacts on inland activities, remove overreach, and ensure that the NOP won’t be a tool for mischief could be helpful.

Ranking Member Peters Witness Q&A

Ranking Member Peters asked Metcalf to talk about the importance of marine planning to the Coast Guard. In response, Metcalf said that locating and siting activities and increasing understanding of what is happening in the ocean is important to shipping from a navigation perspective as well as to the Coast Guard from a safety perspective, adding that it allows for an evaluation of threats. Asked how strategic marine planning can help meet infrastructure needs, Metcalf said it can ensure safety, effectiveness of port operations, and efficiencies that result in jobs and economic growth.

Peters also asked Brady about a statement she made to POLITICO in March 2017 in which she voiced concerns about offshore renewable energy projects in the Atlantic. After Brady verified the accuracy of the quote, Blumenthal said he agreed about the need to be careful with project decisions, and asked Brady how planning could be accomplished and whether Regional Planning Bodies could play a role. Brady said she did not see a role for Regional Planning Bodies, adding that they have placed priority on certain uses over others like fishing, and voiced support for giving NOAA a greater role in decision-making (saying NOAA’s ability to influence project proposals is currently limited to Endangered Species Act processes).

Sen. Blumenthal Witness Q&A

Sen. Blumenthal asked Metcalf how the NOP has affected shipping in medium-sized ports and whether the NOP does enough to support shipping. In response, Metcalf said that “we can always get better,” and that the more enclosed the space, the more important it is to identify user conflicts. Referring to concerns raised in Brady’s opening statement, she added that this “should never be about choosing one use over another” but instead about coordinating all uses, which she said would help ports.

In directing a question to Brady, Blumenthal referred to the “mishmash” of oversight reflected in the NOP bureaucracy chart on display in the hearing room, adding that seeing the poster any closer wouldn’t make it any more helpful to understand. He followed up by noting that an imperative of ocean policy is translating policy to action, and asked Brady what changes she would like to see in the NOP. Brady said she would like to see the NOP discarded, that she would like to see NOAA provided with a greater opportunity to deny project approvals when important fishing grounds are threatened, and conveyed support for creating an offshore wind-related compensation fund for fishermen similar to a conventional energy-related one included under the OCS Lands Act. She also noted that the fishing industry is highly regulated, to the point that the U.S. now imports 92% of seafood, compared to 52% in 1996, due to higher costs associated with stringent regulations.  She added that the NOP and associated lack of science compounds the problem.

View the entire release here.

 

New York: Possible wind farm sites 17 miles off Hamptons identified

December 11, 2017 — A federal agency has identified a swath of the South Shore 17 miles off the coast of the Hamptons as a potential area for new offshore wind farms.

If selected, the site would encompass 211,839 acres of ocean waters 15 nautical miles from land, from Center Moriches to Montauk.

After a decade of slow progress in U.S. offshore wind, interest in the waters around Long Island and the Northeast has been heating up in recent years.

LIPA has approved a 90-megawatt project off the coast of Rhode Island, New York State has a plan to inject 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind into the state grid, and Norwegian energy giant Statoil has a lease for more than 70,000 acres 15 miles from Long Beach for an offshore wind farm that could be completed by 2024.

A Dec. 4 presentation by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management says a “call for information and nominations” is about to begin for several large areas off the South Shore for wind farms.

The agency will accept information and site nominations before a 45-day public comment period about the sites. Once the agency formally identifies areas for wind farms, it could be months before a bidding process begins for all, some or possibly none of the sites.

Stephen Boutwell, a spokesman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said the East End site and three others listed on a map with the presentation were not yet “formal” call areas. The process of identifying those will begin early next year, Boutwell said. No cost estimates have been made.

The agency held an online conference earlier this month to “help inform what will be included in the draft call for information and nominations,” Boutwell said, an “early step in the process to solicit input from stakeholders” to “identify future potential wind-energy areas.”

Read the full story at Newsday

 

Fishermen Fear Damage From Wind Farms Along The Eastern Seaboard

December 4, 2017 — Fishermen are worried about an offshore wind farm proposed 30 miles out in the Atlantic from Montauk, N.Y., the largest fishing port in the state. They say those wind turbines — and many others that have been proposed — will impact the livelihood of fishermen in New York and New England.

Scallop fisherman Chris Scola fishes in an area 14 miles off of Montauk. He and his two-man crew spend 2 ½ hours motoring there, then 10 more dredging the sea floor for scallops before heading back to port.

“We have this little patch that’s sustained by myself and a few other boats out of Montauk, and a couple of guys from Connecticut also fish down here,” Scola says.

Scola — like many fishermen — is concerned about state and federal regulations. But his big concern is the prospect of hundreds, and perhaps even thousands, of giant wind turbines spread out in the New York Bight, an area along the Atlantic Coast that extends from southern New Jersey to Montauk Point. It’s one of the most productive fishing grounds on the Eastern Seaboard.

“To me, building wind farms here, it’s like building them on the cornfields or the soy fields in the Midwest,” he says.

Scola belongs to the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, which is run by Bonnie Brady, the wife of a longtime Montauk fisherman. She’s an outspoken critic of the wind farms.

Read the full story at NPR

 

East Coast Fishing Coalition Continues Legal Challenge to Planned Wind Farm Off New York

WASHINGTON — December 1, 2017 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

A coalition of East Coast fishing businesses, organizations, and communities, led by the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), has taken the next step in its legal challenge to a planned wind farm off the coast of New York. FSF and its co-plaintiffs argue that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) awarded the lease for the New York Wind Energy Area (NY WEA) to Norwegian energy company Statoil without fully considering the impact on fishermen and other stakeholders, in neglect of its responsibilities as stewards of ocean resources.

The plaintiffs outlined their arguments in a brief filed Tuesday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In the brief, FSF criticizes BOEM’s claim that it is not the agency’s job to resolve conflicts among new and pre-existing ocean users in the NY WEA. In an October filing, BOEM wrote that it is “not the ‘government steward of the ‘ocean commons,’’” a claim that FSF calls “unbecoming.” In fact, BOEM’s own website states: “The bureau is responsible for stewardship of U.S. [Outer Continental Shelf] energy and mineral resources, as well as protecting the environment that development of those resources may impact.”

FSF also writes that the NY WEA, an expanse of ocean nearly twice the size of Washington, D.C., is a poor location for a wind farm, and that BOEM and Statoil have alternately claimed that it is both too early and too late to raise objections to the lease. Statoil previously stated that vacating the lease would “squander the resources and the five years that BOEM has expended to date in the leasing process,” even as BOEM promises it will consider measures to mitigate the impacts of a wind farm later in the process. By then, after more time and resources have been expended, a wind farm “will be all but a foregone conclusion,” FSF writes.

Additionally, FSF argues that evaluating alternatives and considering conflicting ocean uses from the start would ultimately benefit BOEM and energy developers, ensuring they do not expend vast resources developing poorly located wind farms. The brief cites the ongoing debacle over the Cape Wind energy project, an approved wind farm off Cape Cod, Massachusetts, as an example of what can go wrong when BOEM and a developer ram through an agreement and become too invested to turn back. After the project “slogged through state and federal courts and agencies for more than a decade,” delays and uncertainty have jeopardized, if not eliminated, Cape Wind’s financing and power purchase agreements, according to the brief.

The plaintiffs in this case are the Fisheries Survival Fund; the Borough of Barnegat Light, New Jersey; The Town Dock; Seafreeze Shoreside; Sea Fresh USA; Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance; Garden State Seafood Association; Long Island Commercial Fishing Association; the Town of Narragansett, Rhode Island; the Narragansett Chamber of Commerce; the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts; and the Fishermen’s Dock Co-Operative of Point Pleasant, New Jersey.

While the fishing groups hold wide-ranging views about offshore wind energy development, they all agree that the siting process for massive wind energy projects “should not be a land rush, but rather reasoned, fully informed, intelligent, and cognizant of the human environment,” according to the brief.

About the Fisheries Survival Fund
The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) was established in 1998 to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. FSF participants include the vast majority of full-time Atlantic scallop fishermen from Maine to Virginia. FSF works with academic institutions and independent scientific experts to foster cooperative research and to help sustain this fully rebuilt fishery. FSF also works with the federal government to ensure that the fishery is responsibly managed.

Fishermen Worry Wind Farms Could Damage Business

November 17, 2017 — Fishermen are worried about an offshore wind farm proposed 30 miles out in the Atlantic from Montauk, NY, the largest fishing port in the state. They say those wind turbines – and many others that have been proposed – will impact the livelihood of fishermen in New York and New England.

Scallop fisherman Chris Scola fishes in an area 14 miles off of Montauk. He and his two-man crew spend 2 ½ hours motoring there, then 10 more dredging the sea floor for scallops before heading back to port.

“We have this little patch that’s sustained by myself and a few other boats out of Montauk and a couple of guys from Connecticut also fish down here,” Scola said.

Scola – like many fishermen – is concerned about state and federal regulations. But his big concern is the prospect of hundreds, and perhaps even thousands, of giant wind turbines spread out in the New York Bight, an area along the Atlantic Coast that extends from southern New Jersey to Montauk Point. It’s one of the most productive fishing grounds on the Eastern Seaboard.

“To me, building windfarms here, it’s like building them on the cornfields or the soyfields in the Midwest,” he said.

Scola belongs to the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, which is run by Bonnie Brady, the wife of a longtime Montauk fisherman. She’s an outspoken critic of the windfarms.

Brady sums up plans by New York authorities to site 240 turbines in the Atlantic like this: “A really bad idea that’s going to make some hedge funders a nice big chunk of change and then they can move on to their next prey.”

Read the full story at New England Public Radio

 

State official: NY commercial fishermen ‘getting a raw deal’

November 13, 2017 — New York commercial fishermen are “getting a raw deal” in federal fisheries quotas, and the state will follow through on a lawsuit early next year if meetings in December don’t fix the problem, the state’s top fisheries official said last week.

At a meeting at the East Hampton Public Library on Thursday, Basil Seggos, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Conservation, listened to two full hours of complaints about state and federal regulations and management of fisheries, including restrictive quotas, inaccurate fish-population data, difficulty in getting and transferring permits, and “Gestapo”-like tactics of federal observers on local fishing vessels.

Seggos in an interview after the meeting said the state would base its response to federal regulators “on the numbers we get” in the federal quota following a meeting of an interstate commission in December to divvy up the quota for fluke and other species.

Read the full story at NEWSDAY

 

The Future Of Offshore Wind Farms In The Atlantic

November 13, 2017 — Fishermen are worried about an offshore wind farm proposed 30 miles out in the Atlantic from Montauk, New York, the largest fishing port in the state. They say those wind turbines – and many others that have been proposed – will impact the livelihood of fishermen in New York and New England.

Scallop fisherman Chris Scola pulls out of a Montauk marina at 2 a.m. and spends the next two-and-a-half hours motoring to an area about 14 miles out into the Atlantic. Then, with the help of his two-man crew, spends about 10 hours dredging the sea floor for scallops before heading back to port.

“We have this little patch that’s sustained by myself and a few other boats out of Montauk and a couple of guys from Connecticut also fish down here.”

Scola gives me an earful about state and federal regulations, but the thing that really has his dander up these days is the prospect of hundreds, and perhaps even thousands, of giant wind turbines spread out in the New York Bight, an area along the Atlantic Coast that extends from southern New Jersey to Montauk Point. It’s one of the most productive fishing grounds on the Eastern Seaboard.

“To me, building windfarms here, it’s like building them on the cornfields or the soyfields in the Midwest.”

Scola belongs to the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, which is run by Bonnie Brady, the wife of a longtime Montauk fisherman. She’s an outspoken critic of the windfarms.

Read the full story at WSHU

 

NCFC Members Support Interior Department’s Reported Marine Monument Recommendations

WASHINGTON — September 18, 2017 — The following was released by Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities support Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s reported recommendations to alter three marine national monuments. Coalition members are hesitant to comment on leaked recommendations that may not be final, but are offering comment due to the significant media attention this report has already received. The reported revisions to marine monuments will lessen the economic burden on America’s fishing communities while still providing environmental protections for our ocean resources.

According to reports, Secretary Zinke’s recommendations to President Donald Trump would allow commercial fishing managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in the recently designated Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. He also reportedly recommended revising the boundaries or allowing commercial fishing under the MSA in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument. NCFC members in the Pacific hope that the White House will extend these recommendations to the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, and appreciate the open and transparent process by which Secretary Zinke reviewed these designations.

Marine monument expansions and designations have been widely criticized by commercial fishing interests as well as by the nation’s eight regional fishery management councils, which in a May 16 letter told Secretary Zinke and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that marine monument designations “have disrupted the ability of the Councils to manage fisheries throughout their range.” Fishing industry members believe these monuments were created with insufficient local input from stakeholders affected by the designations, and fishing communities felt largely ignored by previous administrations.

“The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was designated after behind-closed-door campaigns led by large, multinational, environmental lobbying firms, despite vocal opposition from local and federal officials, fisheries managers, and the fishing industry,” said Eric Reid, general manager of Seafreeze Shoreside in Narragansett, R.I., who has been critical of the Obama Administration’s process in designating the monument. “But the reported recommendations from the Interior Department make us hopeful that we can recover the areas we have fished sustainably for decades. We are grateful that the voices of fishermen and shore side businesses have finally been heard,” Mr. Reid concluded.

“There seems to be a huge misconception that there are limitless areas where displaced fishermen can go,” said Grant Moore, president of the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association. “Basically with the stroke of a pen, President Obama put fishermen and their crews out of work and harmed all the shore-side businesses that support the fishing industry.”

“The fisheries management process under the existing Magnuson Act is far from perfect, but its great strength is that it has afforded ample opportunities for all stakeholders to study and comment on policy decisions, and for peer review of the scientific basis for those decisions,” stated Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Massachusetts, the nation’s top-grossing commercial fishing port. In March, Mayor Mitchell submitted testimony to Congress expressing concern over marine monuments. “The marine monument designation process may have been well intended, but it has simply lacked a comparable level of industry input, scientific rigor, and deliberation. That is why I think hitting the reset button ought to be welcomed no matter where one stands in the current fisheries debates, because the end result will be better policy and better outcomes,” Mayor Mitchell concluded.

Fishermen in the Pacific are also supportive of the Interior Department’s review, but remain concerned about the effects of the Papahānaumokuākea Monument, which was omitted from the version of the recommendations being reported. “We are appreciative of Secretary Zinke’s review, and his reported recommendations to support commercial fishing in the Pacific Remote Islands Monument,” said Sean Martin, president of the Hawaii Longline Association. Hawaii’s longline fishing fleet supplies a large portion of the fresh tuna and other fish consumed in Hawaii. “However, we hope that the White House will extend these recommendations to the Papahānaumokuākea Monument, where President Obama closed an area nearly the size of Alaska without a substantive public process. The longline fleet caught about 2 million pounds of fish annually from the expanded area before it was closed to our American fishermen. That was a high price to pay for a presidential legacy,” Mr. Martin continued.

The reported recommended changes come after an extensive and open public comment period in which the Interior Department solicited opinions from scientists, environmentalists, industry stakeholders, and members of the public. As part of the Interior Department’s review process, Secretary Zinke engaged with communities around the country affected by monument designations. This included a meeting with local fishermen in Boston who explained how the designation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument has negatively impacted their livelihoods.

Critics of the monument designation include the regional fishery management councils; numerous fishing groups on the East Coast; and mayors from fishing communities on both coasts.

Additionally, fishery managers in Hawaii have been critical of expansions of both the Papahānaumokuākea Monument and the Pacific Remote Islands Monument. In an April 26 letter to Secretary Zinke, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council stated that marine monuments around Hawaii “impose a disproportionate burden on our fishermen and indigenous communities,” and noted that they have closed regulated domestic commercial fishing in 51 percent of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in the region.

Florida charter fishermen applauded the review, and a return to the process of established law that guides fishery management. “Destin, Florida was founded by commercial fishermen before the turn of the 20th century, and continues to be a major port for commercial and charter fishing fleets,” said Captain Gary Jarvis, president of the Destin Charter Boat Association. “To our fishing community, it’s extremely important to address closures of historical fishing grounds through the Magnuson-Stevens mandated regional council process.”

Curiously, although President Obama’s September 2016 monument designation prohibited sustainable low-impact commercial fishing, it allowed other extractive activities including recreational fishing, and even far more destructive activities such as the digging of trenches for international communications cables.

NCFC members supporting the Interior Department’s reported recommendations include:

  • Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
  • Destin Charter Boat Association
  • Fisheries Survival Fund
  • Garden State Seafood Association
  • Hawaii Longline Association
  • Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
  • North Carolina Fisheries Association
  • Seafreeze Shoreside
  • Southeastern Fisheries Association
  • Western Fishboat Owners Association
  • West Coast Seafood Processors Association

 

NCFC Members View Interior Department Review of National Monuments As Step In the Right Direction

Responsibly and sustainably caught Atlantic red crab, harvested from the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument region, and landed in New Bedford, Massachusetts, being served at Luke’s Lobster in Washington, D.C.

August 24, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC):

This afternoon, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke delivered his recommendations to President Trump on changes to existing national monuments. While the details of the Secretary’s recommendations have not been made public, the AP reported today that they pertain to a “handful” of monuments, and include boundary adjustments and restoration of public access for uses such as fishing.

In March, Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Massachusetts, the nation’s top-grossing commercial fishing port, submitted testimony to Congress on behalf of the NCFC expressing concern over marine monuments. The mayor released the following statement in light of Secretary Zinke’s findings and recommendations today on national monuments:

“The fisheries management process under the existing Magnuson Act is far from perfect but its great strength is that it has afforded ample structured opportunities for all stakeholders to study and comment on policy decisions and for peer review of the scientific basis for those decisions. The marine monument designation process may have been well intended, but it has simply lacked a comparable level of industry input, scientific rigor, and deliberation. That is why I think the decision to step back and reassess how best to proceed on marine monument designations ought to be welcomed no matter where one stands in the current fisheries debates. We are now presented with an opportunity to integrate the monument designation process with the proven processes established under Magnuson, and that will lead to better policy and better outcomes for all stakeholders.”

Robert Vanasse, Executive Director of Saving Seafood and the NCFC, released the following statement:

“We appreciate Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s comments to the Associated Press regarding his report to the President on the review of national monuments created by prior administrations. We are encouraged by his statement that in certain national monuments, public access for uses including fishing would be maintained or restored. We agree with the Secretary that regions inside monuments can be protected ‘by keeping public access to traditional uses.’ The Secretary’s review has been professional, open, and transparent. The Secretary and his staff have been respectful and courteous. They have listened and paid attention to the concerns of our members whose interests were damaged by actions of previous administrations. The vitriol aimed at the Secretary and his staff, and the inaccurate mass e-mail campaigns from numerous groups who oppose a thoughtful review of these monuments has been unfortunate. We look forward to seeing the Secretary’s recommendations in full after they are reviewed by the White House, and we are hopeful for a return to the management of fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the regions contained in these marine monuments.”

The following members of our National Coalition for Fishing Communities will comment upon the release of the Secretary’s full recommendations:

  • Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
  • Destin Charter Boat Association
  • Fisheries Survival Fund
  • Garden State Seafood Association
  • Hawaii Longline Association
  • Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
  • North Carolina Fisheries Association
  • Seafreeze Shoreside
  • Southeastern Fisheries Association
  • Western Fishboat Owners Association
  • West Coast Seafood Processors Association