Saving Seafood

Scientists Recommend Removing Catch Limits, Increasing Allocation Limits for US Pacific Territory Longline-Caught Bigeye Tuna

June 21, 2019 — The following was released by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council:

The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council concluded a three-day meeting today in Honolulu recommending bigeye tuna catch limits and allocation amounts for the US Participating Territories for the fishing years 2020 to 2023. This and other recommendations by the Council’s SSC will be considered by the Council at its 178th meeting in Honolulu on June 25-27. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the Council has authority over fisheries seaward of state waters in Hawaiʻi and other US Pacific Islands.

Bigeye Tuna: The SSC recommended that no catch limit be set for long-line caught bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area from 2020 to 2023 for any US Pacific territory. It also recommended that each US Pacific territory be allowed to allocate up to 2,000 metric tons (mt) to federally permitted Hawai’i longline vessels.

The WCPFC is an international regional fishery management organization that develops quotas and other management measures for tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Under WCPFC, Small Island Developing States and Participating Territories (such as the three US territories in the Pacific) do not have longline-caught bigeye quotas. However, under an amendment to the Council’s Pelagic Fishery Ecosystem Plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has the authority to specify annual catch and allocation limits for the US Participating Territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). In recent years, each US territory had a 2,000 mt limit and authority to allocate up to 1,000 mt.

Prior to making its decision, the SSC reviewed stock projections through 2045, which showed that catch limit and allocation scenarios of up to 3,000 mt per Territory were not significant enough to cause the stock to go over any limit reference points adopted by the WCPFC.

Other outcomes of the SSC meeting include the following, among others:

Hawaiʻi Kona Crab: Based on updated information from a 2018 benchmark stock assessment and other reports, the SSC set the acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the main Hawaiian Islands Kona crab commercial fishery at 30,802 pounds for 2020 to 2023. This decision accounted for the scientific uncertainties with an estimated risk of overfishing of 38 percent. The Council will utilize the ABC to specify the annual catch limit for the stock.

Shifting Distributions and Changing Productivity: A NMFS Office of Science and Technology representative reported on the major challenges and potential solutions in addressing both shifts in stock distributions as well as changing stock and ecosystem productivity. The presentation identified six steps to account for and respond to climate impacts on fisheries and recommended ways to account or prepare for distribution and productivity shifts. These recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for each region in the development of fishery management actions.

Ray Hilborn, SSC member, noted, “… where you close [fisheries] now is not where the species are going to be in 20 years.” He also pointed out that non-governmental organizations strongly push for permanently closed areas rather than considering adaptive spatial management.

Spatial Management: A working group of the SSC reported on its efforts to define benefits and limitations to spatial management actions relative to pertinent regional fishery issues and management objectives. The working group discussed the development of a workshop on “Spatial Management of Blue Water Ecosystems” with a broad spectrum of participants to be held in 2019 or 2020. The SSC recommended that the Council endorse the workshop with the themes of 1) spatial management objectives and performance metrics, 2) alternative approaches to spatial management, 3) evaluation and monitoring, and 4) policy and outreach approaches to spatial management.

The Council will consider these and other SSC recommendations when it meets next week in Honolulu. Action items on the Council agenda include the US Territory bigeye tuna catch and allocation limits, catch limits and options for specifying annual catch limits for main Hawaiian Islands Kona crab, managing loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle interactions in the Hawai’i-based shallow-set longline fishery, and a Hawai’i Archipelago Fishery Ecosystem Plan amendment to precious coral essential fish habitat. The Council will also have a presentation from Global Fishing Watch, an organization that uses technology to visualize, track and share data about global fishing activity.

The Council Standing Committees meet June 24 at the Council office, 1164 Bishop St., Suite 1400, and the full Council meets June 25-27 at the YWCA Fuller Hall at 1040 Richards St. A Fishers Forum on Emerging Technologies in Fisheries will be held on June 25 from 6 to 9 p.m.at the Ala Moana Hotel’s Hibiscus Ballroom, 410 Atkinson Dr., as part of the Council meeting. The public is invited to all of these meetings. For more information on the SSC and Council meetings, go to www.wpcouncil.org; email info@wpcouncil.org or phone (808) 522-8220.

MSA reauthorization still stalled with 2018 House bill expired

June 19, 2019 — More than a decade has passed since the last reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act was signed into law, but the latest effort has stalled in Congress.

The act, originally passed in 1974, is the nation’s landmark legislation on federal fisheries policy. In the intervening years, Congress has passed a number of reauthorizations, most recently in 2006, tweaking language and adding provisions. The House passed HR 200, sponsored by Rep. Don Young, in July 2018. However, it never progressed through the Senate and thus expired at the end of the 115th Congress.

Young’s bill included a number of new provisions — most notably, changing the word “overfished” throughout the bill to “depleted” — and allowing regional fishery management councils consider economic impacts to communities when determining catch limits.

One of the reasons Young decided to include changing the word “overfished” to “depleted” was to recognize non-fishing impacts on stock abundance, said Zack Brown, Young’s press secretary.

“The term ‘overfish’ implies that our commercial fishing industry alone has the potential to impact fish stocks and the overall health of our marine ecosystems,” Brown wrote in an email. “’Depleted’ is a far more comprehensive term that takes a broader and more evidence-based assessment of the risks to marine life.”

Read the full story at the Alaska Journal of Commerce

JOHN SACKTON: We Need a New Magnuson Act to Deal with Climate Change Impacts on Fisheries

June 14, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — 50 years ago fisheries were in crisis.  The prevailing international law allowed no national control of ocean activities beyond 12 miles.  In New England, this meant giant Soviet factory trawlers practicing pulse fishing came in to devastate the abundant haddock stock, leaving US fishermen crumbs after they left.

Similar fishing situations were occurring around other coastal nations.  Chile and Peru were the first countries to declare a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.  Other countries such as the US and Iceland followed and by 1982, the UN recognized the right of countries to establish a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

The implementing legislation in the US was the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Passed in 1976, the act not only restricted foreign fishing but much to the surprise of East Coast fishermen, it also implemented a system of fisheries management to set quotas and control overfishing.

The key features of Magnuson were to establish regional councils so as to promote local control over fisheries, to require management decisions be based on the best available science, and to involve all stakeholders in the council and decision-making process.

The results have been a fisheries management system that has preserved healthy stocks, as in Alaska, rebuilt overfished stocks (on the West Coast), and became the model for global sustainable fisheries management.  It is fair to say that the prosperity we see in the US seafood industry today would not exist without Magnuson.

But we are facing a new crisis every bit as profound as the lack of EEZ’s in the 1970s.  That is the crisis of global warming and ocean acidification, caused by the use of fossil fuels that have built up CO2in the atmosphere to dangerous levels.

CO2 induced warming is leading to movement of fish to different areas, increased acidification that is interfering with the use of calcium for shells, including for zooplankton, changes in ocean currents, loss of sea ice, and sea level rise that is reducing the area of coastal marshes.  Taken together, these changes challenge the very basis of our fisheries management system, which depends on predicting the changes in stocks in a stable environment.

Several recent reports have provided eye-opening data.  One is an excellent report produced by the Canadian DFO on the state of the North Atlantic Ocean.  Finally, the DFO is spending money on transparent science and providing a real public service by documenting in one place all aspects of the North Atlantic ecosystem.

The most significant factors in the report are the change in the quality of zooplankton due to mistiming of plankton blooms.   This impacts the entire marine food chain.  A second is the movement of fish to new habitats, exemplified by the lobster fishery which is currently booming off of Nova Scotia, but which is likely to crash as waters exceed a certain summer temperature.  We published a summary of this report this week.

Another recent report, issued in May,  was the UN report on the loss of biodiversity.  This report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), was approved and adopted by the UN, and says that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.

Sir Robert Watson, chair of the panel, said   “The overwhelming evidence of the IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture.  The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”

The seafood industry is complex because it is so varied, and regional differences abound.  This is partly why those of us in the industry love it so much. There is just nothing comparable to the interplay of natural productivity, human knowledge and skill, and highly diverse conditions and ecosystems.  Seafood distributors routinely carry over 100 items, even though most sales are from a smaller cluster of major species.

The commercial experience of the oyster farmer, a lobster fisherman in Nova Scotia, a salmon grower, a pollock captain in the Bering Sea, or a Dungeness fisherman out of Newport, Oregon are totally different, with each adapted to their particular resource and environment.

This complexity and localization make it very hard for people in particular fisheries to see the big picture.  Local communities can get dependent on a fishery that appears to be stable, and then have that stability pulled out from under them in an instant.

The common denominator for a new “Magnuson Act” should be the economic vitality and resilience of coastal communities.  This may not always come from fishing.

Wind power, tourism, marine protected areas, as well as fishing all can serve as an economic foundation as communities adapt to climate change and sea level rise.  Today proponents of most of these are in their own silos, in a war of all against all.

So fishermen oppose wind power developments, even though reducing fossil fuel emissions is the only possible path to prevent catastrophic increases in ocean temperatures. The temperature rise upends the productivity of most of the species on which they fish.

Fishermen also, by and large, oppose a massive increase in marine protected areas.  Yet a rethinking of habitat protection may be the only approach that would avoid a catastrophic loss of biodiversity.    We thrive on complex ocean ecosystems that offer changing opportunities.  If the price of maintaining that complexity means changing the way some ocean areas used for fishing, that is a price well worth paying.

Tourism is a bit more compatible with traditional fisheries.  In Astoria, Oregon, the Bornstein’s built their seafood processing plant in a way they could accommodate cruise ship visitors.  In our story about Nova Scotia lobstering, Lucien LeBlanc says he outfitted his new 50-foot lobster boat, the John Harold, to double as a tourist vessel and rely less on the fishery.  “Financially, I treat [every year]  like it’s my last year,” he says.

New Bedford, which on the one hand is the center of scallopers opposition to offshore wind power in New England, is, on the other hand, experiencing a dock and marine construction boom as the hub of offshore wind power.

The point is that these activities: fishing, power generation, tourism, and protecting biodiversity do not need to be in conflict with each other but could all contribute to the economic vitality needed to keep coastal communities intact.

This is where a new “Magnuson” type vision is needed.  We need a way to put forward an overarching vision of how to protect coastal communities in an era of climate crisis, not by watching individual ocean industries get destroyed but by developing a framework where they can all thrive together.

This not a Pollyanna puff piece about everyone working together.  The fact is that all these industries need support.  The fishing industry has benefitted massively from having the Magnuson Act as the foundation on which to build.  A new framework that focused on making coastal communities economically resilient around all ocean uses is not a zero-sum game.

By broadening our idea of what is necessary to keep fishing healthy for another 50 years, and by focusing on what will keep fishing communities healthy, we may find we get more support and better results if we look at the total picture of what we are facing, rather than just fighting over which 10 sq. mile grid to assign to wind, fishing, or protected areas.

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

ALASKA: Rep. Young fights fish farms

May 21, 2019 — In his 46 years as Alaska’s lone representative in Congress, Don Young helped toss out foreign fishing fleets from Alaska waters with the onset of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976, and today he is intent on doing the same with offshore fish farms.

The MSA established an ‘exclusive economic zone’  for US fleets fishing from three to 200 miles from shore. Now, a bill introduced by Young aims to stop the Trump Administration’s push to use those waters for industrialized fish farming operations. The fish farms are being touted as a silver bullet to boost seafood production, provide jobs and reduce the $15 billion seafood trade deficit that comes from the nation importing over 85 percent of its seafood.

Earlier this month, Young filed the Keep Fin Fish Free Act which would stop officials from allowing fish farms in US offshore waters unless specifically authorized by Congress.

“The biggest selling power we have in Alaska is wild caught salmon and other fish products, and I don’t want that hurt,” Young said in a phone interview. “If we put in a commercial operation offshore, outside of state jurisdiction, we’d have a big problem in selling our wild Alaskan salmon.”

Young’s effort follows a push that began a year ago by over 120 aquaculture and food-related industries to have lawmakers introduce an Advancing the Quality and Understanding of American Aquaculture (AQUAA) Act, which failed to get any traction. The campaign is organized under a new trade group called  Stronger America Through Seafood and includes Cargill, Red Lobster, Pacific Seafoods and Seattle Fish Company.

Read the full story at The News Miner

Congressman Jeff Van Drew Advocates for South Jersey Fishermen

May 3, 2019 — The following was released by The Office of Congressmen Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ):

At the Natural Resources Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee hearing on the State of Fisheries Congressman Jeff Van Drew advocated for the fishermen in South Jersey and throughout the country.

The 2006 Magnuson Stevens Act Amendments dramatically changed the way domestic fishery resources are managed. Since the implementation of these policies, it has been widely acknowledged that the resulting requirements have been troublesome.

The National Marine Fisheries Service began revisiting these policies since 2012 after receiving concerns from managers and stakeholders. In addition, Oversight Hearings on this topic began in October of 2009 with hearings conducted periodically over the past ten years. The result of these lengthy deliberations highlighted the concept of flexibility, which is generally supported by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Council Coordinating Committee and was a reoccurring topic of the Managing Our Nations Fisheries 3 Conference.

“No one understands the impacts of shifting fish stocks more than commercial and recreational fishermen in my district. Summer flounder and Atlantic croaker were historically fished off the coast of North Carolina in the late ’90s and now are being fished 250 miles north, off the coast of New Jersey,” said Rep. Van Drew. “Perhaps it’s time that Congress makes “flexibility” a requirement of the Magnuson Stevens Act by enacting bipartisan reform that is science-based and achieves fishery management objectives.”

Highlight video of the “State of Fisheries” hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPsjLVPp-0o&feature=youtu.be

Read the full release here

Trump administration opts not to pursue appeal of driftnet ruling

April 23, 2019 — The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has decided against appealing a federal judge’s ruling that NOAA Fisheries illegally withdrew a proposal that would have placed hard caps on the bycatch of protected species caught in California’s swordfish drift gillnet fishery.

On Monday, 15 April, when its brief was due to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the administration instead filed a notice to dismiss its appeal voluntarily. As a result, NOAA Fisheries will begin talks with the Pacific Fishery Management Council to determine the limits that should be placed on such species as humpback whales, loggerhead turtles, and leatherback turtles.

The PFMC initially worked with key stakeholders to establish caps on nine species, and NOAA Fisheries published the draft review for implementation in October 2016. However, eight months later, after Trump was elected president, the agency reversed its course.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

ALASKA: Council committee struggles with federal Cook Inlet salmon plan

April 18, 2019 — Two-and-a-half years after a federal court directed the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to develop a fishery management plan for the Cook Inlet salmon fishery, there is still a lot of work to do.

The commercial salmon fisheries of Alaska are primarily managed by the state, including in Cook Inlet, where part of the fishery takes place in federal waters. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council for years deferred management of the salmon fishery there to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, finally removing Cook Inlet completely from its FMP in 2012.

The United Cook Inlet Drift Association and the Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund sued, saying the federal government had a responsibility to manage that fishery to ensure it complies with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and the council reluctantly turned back to developing a management plan.

Many of the commercial fishermen there have a longstanding dissatisfaction with the Alaska Fish and Game and the Board of Fisheries, stemming from a belief that the department’s allocation decisions governed by the board are politically rather than scientifically motivated and that the escapement goals for sockeye salmon on the Kenai River are too high.

They sought to exercise federal influence over state management through the lawsuit, and now are running into roadblocks on federal authority to do so.

Read the full story at the Alaska Journal of Commerce

Federal appellate court upholds NOAA Fisheries’ definition of bycatch

April 18, 2019 — A panel of federal appellate judges has upheld a lower court’s decision that ruled on NOAA Fisheries’ method for assessing bycatch in New England fisheries.

The ruling, which was announced on Friday, 12 April, in the District of Columbia chambers of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, allows NOAA Fisheries to use statistical sampling to determine the amount of bycatch. It stems from a 2011 court case where judges ruled the agency did not establish methodology standards to assess the number of other species caught and discarded when harvesting selected fish.

In both instances, environmental group Oceana pursued the lawsuit.

After that decision, NOAA Fisheries decided to utilize human observers on vessels. In most cases, the observers were trained biologists who reported on a vessel’s harvest. However, since it was too expensive to place an observer on every vessel, the agency created a statistical formula that allocated the observers in a fashion that reduced bias. This enabled NOAA Fisheries officials to build fishery-wide assessments based the observers’ findings.

Oceana filed the subsequent suit in July 2015 and argued that the sampling method implemented violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In addition, it claimed that observers were only counting the bycatch of species under management plans within the agency.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

SEN. DAN SULLIVAN: Northern Lights: A global seafood superpower

March 26, 2019 — The seafood industry is the lifeblood of many of Alaska’s communities. The industry is the third largest economic driver in Alaska and the top employer. Alaska accounts for more than 50 percent of total U.S. commercial fishery harvest in volume and contributes more than 78,000 jobs to the Alaska economy. We are also the top exporter in the country of fish and seafood products.

Enhancing Alaska’s seafood powerhouse is one of the primary reasons I have fought to sit on the Senate Commerce Committee — which has fishing under its jurisdiction. As a member of that committee, I have worked relentlessly to continue the important work of my predecessor, Sen. Ted Stevens, who co-authored the Magnuson-Stevens Act. But there is a whole host of fisheries issues that also come before me, including ensuring that our fisheries remain healthy and vital, fighting burdensome regulations that would needlessly restrict access to our fishing resources, and, importantly, expanding the markets for our fisheries.

In my time as a senator, I’ve been working diligently on all of these priorities, and we’ve had some important successes. For instance, the Save Our Seas Act, a bill that I coauthored with Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to help keep plastics out of our seas, was signed into law by the president in October. I recently negotiated a provision, known as the Vessel Incident Discharge Act, to provide Alaska fishing vessel owners and operators relief from a patchwork of overly burdensome and confusing federal and state regulations for vessel ballast water and incidental discharges.
We’ve also had important successes in Congress to expand markets for Alaska fisheries.

When I arrived in the Senate, I was surprised to learn that while the national school lunch program requires school districts to buy American-made food, fish had been largely excluded from those requirements in practice. It was a major loophole that allowed, for example, Russian-caught pollock, processed in China and injected with phosphates, to be sent back to the United States for purchase in the National School Lunch Program. And it qualified for a Product of USA label because it’s battered and breaded here.

Not only was this bad for Alaska’s fishing industry, the chemical-laden, twice-frozen fish that was served to students just didn’t taste good. It literally turned a generation of kids in America off of seafood.

Read the full opinion piece at National Fisherman

US judge rules cod quota set-asides for Alaskan cities are unlawful

March 25, 2019 — Washington, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Timothy Kelly ruled March 21 that the North Pacific Council’s Amendment 113 (A113) to the Bering Sea Groundfish Fisheries Management Plan does not comply with Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) requirements.

The amendment, adopted in 2016, provided 5,000 metric tons of Pacific cod as a set-aside for processing facilities located west of 170 degrees longitude. It named the specific cities of Adak and Atka in the US state of Alaska and the plants located there as the plants that would benefit from this set-aside.

Shortly after the amendment was adopted in late 2016, the Groundfish Forum, United Catcher Boats and other groups who rely on cod, flatfish, and other groundfish in the Bering Sea, filed a complaint challenging the rule, based on five separate claims for relief.

They contended first, that the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) didn’t have the authority to “allocate shore-based processing privileges” and overstepped its authority with this amendment.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News