Saving Seafood

NOAA Partially Approves Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2

January 4, 2018 — NOAA Northeast Regional Administrator John Bullard, in a letter to New England Fishery Management Council (NEMFC) Chairman Dr. John Quinn, has stated that NOAA has partially approved Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2. This follows over 15 years of work on OHA2 by the NEFMC and regional stakeholders. The details of the decision, as well as the text of the letter, are included below.

Dear Dr. Quinn,

I am writing to inform you that we have approved the majority of the New England Fishery Management Council’s Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2.

We approved, as recommended, the essential fish habitat (EFH) designations, the habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) designations, the dedicated habitat research areas (DHRA), the groundfish spawning recommendations, the framework and monitoring measures, and most of the habitat management area (HMA) recommendations. We have determined that the approved measures comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requirements to identify and describe EFH and to minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on such habitat.

We have disapproved two of the HMA recommendations — the recommendations for eastern Georges Bank and Cox Ledge.

Approved Measures

We approved the following Council recommendations, as proposed:

  • All of the Council’s essential fish habitat designation updates.
  • All HAPC designations–
    • Two status quo HAPCs (Atlantic Salmon and Northern Edge Juvenile Cod); o Four additional HAPCs (Inshore Juvenile Cod, Great South Channel Juvenile Cod, Cashes Ledge, and Jeffreys Ledge/Stellwagen Bank);
    • Eleven canyons or canyon assemblages (Heezan Canyon; Lydonia, Gilbert, and Oceanographer Canyons; Hydrographer Canyon; Veatch Canyon; Alvin and Atlantis Canyons; Hudson Canyon; Toms, Middle Tom, and Hendrickson Canyon; Wilmington Canyon; Baltimore Canyon; Washington Canyon; and Norfolk Canyon); and
    • Two seamounts (Bear and Retriever).
  • Most proposed Habitat Management Area measures–
    • Establish the (Small) Eastern Maine HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear;
    • Maintain Cashes Ledge (Groundfish) Closure Area, with current restrictions and exemptions;
    • Modify the Cashes Ledge Habitat Closure Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear;
    • Modify the Jeffreys Ledge Habitat Closure Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear;
    • Establish the Fippennies Ledge HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear; o Maintain the Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear;
    • Modify the Western Gulf of Maine Groundfish Closure Area to align with the Western Gulf of Maine Habitat Closure Area, with current restrictions and exemptions;
    • Exempt shrimp trawling from the designated portion of the northwest corner of the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Areas;
    • Add the Gulf of Maine Roller Gear restriction as a habitat protection measure; o Remove the Closed Area I Habitat and Groundfish Closure Area designations; o Remove the Nantucket Lightship Habitat and Groundfish Closure Area designations; and
    • Establish the Great South Channel HMA, closed to mobile bottom-tending gear throughout and clam dredge gear in the defined northeast section. Clam dredge gear would be permitted throughout the rest of the HMA for 1 year while the Council considers restrictions that are more refined.
  • Both proposed DHRA designations, with a 3-year sunset provision–
    • Stellwagen Bank (within the Western Gulf of Maine Closure Area); and
    • Georges Bank (i.e., the current Closed Area I South Habitat Closure Area).
  • All proposed groundfish spawning measures–
    • Gulf of Maine: Establish the Winter Massachusetts Bay Spawning Closure from November I-January 31 of each year; and close block 125 from April 15-April 30 of each year;
    • Georges Bank: Establish Closed Area I North and Closed Area II Groundfish Closure Area as spawning closures from February 1-April 15 of each year, closed to commercial and recreational gears capable of catching groundfish except scallop dredges; and remove the May Georges Bank Spawning Closure.
  • Both proposed framework adjustment and monitoring measures–
    • 10-year review requirement; and
    • Modifications to habitat management areas are frameworkable.

Disapproved Measures

Cox Ledge
On Cox Ledge, the Council recommended establishing an HMA that would have prohibited the use of ground cables on trawl vessels and prohibited hydraulic clam dredging in the area. Based on the analysis submitted, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service determined there was insufficient information to implement the ground cable measure at this time. While there have been studies in other regions supporting the prohibition of ground cables as a method to minimize area swept, there was not enough information to determine how successful this approach would be in this region. Because it is unclear how inefficient this measure would make the gear, it is also unclear if this measure would reduce habitat impacts or actually increase them.

Further, there is insufficient information to determine the potential costs to the industry from the potential increased fishing time. As a result, the recommendation to establish the Cox Ledge HMA with these measures is disapproved because there is little rationale and evidence to demonstrate how it complies with the requirements ofthe Magnuson-Stevens Act to minimize the adverse effects of fishing if the measure would actually increase fishing time due to a reduction in fishing efficiency.

Eastern Georges Bank
On eastern Georges Bank, the Council recommended removing Closed Areas I and II and implementing the Georges Shoal and Northern Edge Mobile Bottom-Tending Gear Habitat Management Areas, both closed to mobile bottom-tending gears, and Northern Edge Reduced Impact Habitat Management Area, closed to mobile bottom-tending gears, except scallop dredges in a rotational management program and trawls west of 67° 20′ W longitude. We have partially approved this recommendation. We approved the removal ofthe Closed Area I Groundfish and Habitat Closures, but disapproved the recommendation to remove Closed Area II.

This action approves the Council’s recommendation to remove the Closed Area I EFH and Groundfish Closure Area designations and replace them with a DHRA and seasonal spawning closure. NMFS determined that the removal of the Closed Area I designations and proposed new designations do not compromise the ability ofthe Council’s fishery management plans to comply with the EFH requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

We determined that there was insufficient information to support the Closed Area II recommendation. The Council’s recommended HMAs on Georges Bank do not sufficiently address the impact of limited access scallop dredging on the highly vulnerable habitat within the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area. Overall, the Council’s recommended changes to Closed Area II and eastern Georges Bank would prevent achieving the Amendment’s goals and objectives, notably to improve juvenile groundfish habitat protection, and the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to minimize the adverse effects of fishing to the extent practicable. Furthermore, the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area has the same footprint as the Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC. The area has been closed to mobile bottom-tending gear since 1995 and was designated as an HAPC in 1998. The rationale for the designation ofthe HAPC was that this is important habitat for juvenile cod that is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of fishing. The Council reaffirmed the HAPC designation in this Amendment, but the Council’s recommendation does not avoid, mitigate, or compensate for the adverse effects of the proposed action on this HAPC.

The Amendment’s focus of minimizing the total area closed to fishing, while maximizing the amount of vulnerable habitat protected, sought in part to provide more habitat for juvenile groundfish and enhance the productivity of groundfish resources. The proposed habitat management measures on eastern Georges Bank do not support these goals and objectives, however. Removing protections from, and allowing scallop dredging in, the most vulnerable portion of Closed Area II without adopting comparable protections that reasonably balance the long- and short-terms costs and benefits to EFH, associated fisheries, and the nation does not minimize the adverse effects of fishing in this area to the extent practicable. It also prevents the Council from achieving this action’s goals and objectives to improve protections of ground fish, and juvenile cod specifically. The potential benefits to habitat from the proposed closed areas do · not outweigh the potential adverse effects on highly valuable EFH and vulnerable ground fish stocks that would result from the proposed opening of the current Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area to limited access scallop dredging. The no action alternative that remains on Georges Bank, and the HMAs in other sub-regions as approved, provide a reasonable balance of EFH protection and long- and short-term costs and benefits as well as meet the Amendment’s goals and objectives to improve groundfish protection.

Further supporting the determination that the proposed areas and measures do not sufficiently offset the quality and importance of the habitat on eastern Georges Bank against the adverse impacts of fishing in this area is the lack of consideration of allowing fishing in the Northern Edge Juvenile Cod HAPC in the Closed Area II Habitat Closure Area. As noted above, the Council initially made this HAPC designation in 1998 and reaffirmed the importance of the area in this Amendment. One of the four considerations for HAPC designation is sensitivity to anthropogenic stress. The Council concluded that there are “no known anthropogenic threats to this area beyond those associated with fishing activity.” While there are no fishery restrictions automatically associated with HAPC designations themselves, the designation should result in the Council taking a more precautionary approach to management of those areas, particularly when the only noted human-induced stressor is fishing. The 2002 final rule for the EFH regulations notes, “designation of HAPCs is a valuable way to highlight priority areas within EFH for conservation and management … Proposed fishing activities that might threaten HAPCs may likewise receive a higher level of scrutiny.” This guidance suggests that councils should prioritize the protection of HAPCs where fishing is a primary or significant threat to the habitat.

The designation of an area as an HAPC does not inherently require a fishing closure in the area. However, the Council provided insufficient information to understand which aspects of the area are critical to juvenile cod survival, how those aspects of the habitat are affected by scallop dredges, the recovery time for such impacts, and the anticipated rotation periods for scallop fishing. Without more consideration and analyses of these critical components, it is not possible to determine under what conditions rotational scallop fishing should be permitted in the Northern Edge HAPC and the full nature and extent of how such access would affect juvenile cod. The Council’s recommendations in this Amendment would open the most vulnerable portions of the HAPC and do not adequately mitigate or compensate for those impacts by restricting them or closing any other comparable habitat. The Council’s recommendation to allow even rotational fishing in this sensitive habitat appears to be inconsistent with its own rationale for the designation that the habitat in this area warrants particular concern and consideration.

For these reasons, we have disapproved this recommendation. Ifthis issue were revisited in the future, a more thorough discussion ofthese critical issues would be required. We will continue to provide support for reconsidering reasonably balanced approaches to providing limited fishing opportunities in this area, while protecting this valuable habitat and better minimizing the adverse impacts offishing.
Thank you for the Council’s work on this action. It was a massive undertaking and your staff, especially Michelle Bachman, should be proud of their groundbreaking work that went into supporting this Amendment. As always, our staff are available to answer any questions you may have on this decision.

View the letter in its entirety here.

For more information on some of the proposed changes in OHA2, as well as the perspective of the fishing industry on these changes, view this video.

 

Lori Steele: Flexibility with Choke Species Key Issue for Magnuson, Seafood News Missed the Mark

January 3, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The following is a letter form Lori Steele, the Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association, responding to the Seafood News story, “MSA Reauthorization Veers From Core Principles After House Committee Vote; Would Allow Overfishing,” originally published on December 19, 2017: 

Your story on Dec. 19, 2017, “MSA Reauthorization Veers From Core Principles After House Committee Vote; Would Allow Overfishing,” contains some questionable statements, particularly the suggestion that core principles of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) are being eroded by the changes proposed in the House bill, H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

The assertion that, “changing words like ‘to the extent possible’ to ‘to the extent [practicable]’ when rebuilding stocks” will make the MSA weaker and less precise is incorrect and disingenuous. The West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA), along with the majority of the U.S. seafood industry, has supported this change through several MSA reauthorization bills over the last few years. The inclusion of this in H.R. 200 should be viewed as a success. This change will not compromise or weaken the effectiveness of the MSA; rather, it will help to truly fulfill one of the fundamental and original goals of the MSA, emphasized in National Standard 1, the Act’s guiding principle – to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis the optimum yield from each fishery. From its beginning, the MSA has conserved, protected, rebuilt, and sustained our nation’s marine resources. As we move forward with this reauthorization, we have an opportunity to better conserve, protect, and sustain the people, the economies, the culture, and the communities that rely upon healthy and abundant fisheries.

Case in Point: The Pacific Fishery Management Council faced a situation like this in 2013 with rebuilding plans for two rockfish stocks. At that time, allowing 30-mt increase in the ACL of a single rockfish species while achieving rebuilt status in December of that year – vs. January of that same year – would have provided for another few hundred tons of associated rockfish landings. While the dockside landed value of those fish may not have been viewed as significant, the indirect value was enormous: Having more incidental species available would have provided additional opportunity for commercial, sport, and tribal harvesters to access abundant stocks of fish that currently go unharvested due to the choke species effect. In turn, local vessels would have had another few weeks on the water, processors would have had longer seasons, consumers would have had more healthy domestic seafood – all without any risk to the status of the rebuilding rockfish species. Yet, the interpretation of the law required selection of a rebuilding time that would be as short as possible, not as short as practicable.

Simply changing the terminology from “possible” to “practicable” in the rebuilding requirements of the MSA would provide Councils much needed flexibility and the option to choose between several rebuilding scenarios to achieve specified conservation and management objectives, not just the shortest and most harmful to fishing communities. This change could benefit coastal communities without undermining any conservation and stock rebuilding objectives. The Councils would be able to exercise some reasonable judgment so they could, for example, allow a fish stock to be rebuilt in December rather than January, which were the choices available for canary rockfish in the above example.

We certainly agree that there is a need to work towards a more bipartisan bill, but just as Rep. Huffman stated, the one sticking point is “how the bill dealt with annual catch limits and the rebuilding framework under Magnuson.” This is indeed a “big deal,” and it’s exactly why the industry must stand behind the elements of H.R. 200 that provide much-needed flexibility to the Councils to better meet the standards set forth in the Act while also better meeting the socioeconomic needs of regional fisheries and fishing communities.

I hope that seafoodnews.com will support the U.S. fishing industry with this effort. Thank you for your consideration of my perspective.

Sincerely,

Lori Steele

This letter originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

 

NFI seeks to reach administration on seafood trade in 2018

January 2, 2018 — Pressing the importance of all trade on the Donald Trump administration, including imported seafood, will be one of the top priorities of the National Fisheries Institute (NFI) in 2018.

The US seafood industry’s biggest trade association, representing close to 300 companies, is still smarting from several of the moves made by the White House and its Cabinet in their first year, including its formal withdrawal from a trade deal with Pacific countries, a lack of progress on a trade deal with Europe and implementation of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (Simp).

But NFI president John Connelly said trade will remain a top focal point for the group in the New Year.

“We just need to spend more time on the Hill and in the administration to help them appreciate that not all trade is negative for the US,” Connelly told Undercurrent News in an December interview at his office in McLean, Virginia. “Seafood is not like steel or autos or something else. We cannot now produce enough seafood in the US, whether it be from wild capture or aquaculture, to feed all Americans.”

The US exports 40% to 60% of the seafood it produces, depending on the value of the dollar and some other factors, and imports about 85% of the seafood it consumes. Seafood is responsible for 1,270,141 jobs in the U.S. and imports account for 525,291 of those, according to Department of Commerce data noted by the association.

“Gladys, down in Brownsville, Texas, is cutting imported tilapia right now, and that job is extraordinarily important to her family. Why is that job any less important than a job involving domestic codfish?” Connelly said.

High points and low points in 2017

But in looking back at 2017, Connelly can point to at least one major trade-related victory: The removal of the prospective border adjustment tax from the legislative tax overhaul passed by Congress and signed by the president before leaving on its winter break. The provision, which was supported by several Republican leaders, would have forced some seafood dealers to raise their prices 30% to 40%, said Connelly, quoting a Wall Street Journal article.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

Reduction in Golden Tilefish Catch Limits in Federal Waters of the South Atlantic Region

January 1, 2018 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

KEY MESSAGE:

In response to a request from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, NOAA Fisheries will publish a final interim rule on January 2, 2018, which will temporarily reduce golden tilefish catch limits for 2018 based on the most recent population assessment. The purpose of the action is to reduce overfishing (rate of removal is too high) of golden tilefish while management measures are being developed to end overfishing. The reductions in the catch limits are effective beginning January 2, 2018.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES:

  • The final interim rule will temporarily reduce the total catch limit for golden tilefish from 558,036 to 323,000 pounds gutted weight. Using the existing allocations, the temporary catch limits will be 313,310 pounds gutted weight for the commercial sector and 2,187 fish for the recreational sector. For commercial fishermen, the hook-and-line catch limit will be 78,328 pounds gutted weight and the long-line catch limit will be 234,982 pounds gutted weight.
  • The interim measures will be effective for 180 days after the date of publication and may be extended for an additional 186 days while the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council develops Regulatory Amendment 28 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery in the South Atlantic Region (Regulatory Amendment 28).

This bulletin serves as a Small Entity Compliance Guide, complying with section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Why is the temporary reduction in the catch limit needed? 

  • In April 2016, a population assessment update for golden tilefish was completed using data through 2014 (SEDAR 25 Update 2016). The updated assessment indicated that the golden tilefish population is undergoing overfishing but is not overfished (population abundance is too low).
  • As mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NOAA Fisheries must end overfishing of golden tilefish.
  • These temporary regulations reduce overfishing of golden tilefish while long term management measures are developed in Regulatory Amendment 28 to end overfishing.

What are the actions in the interim rule? 

  • Temporarily revise the commercial and recreational catch limits for golden tilefish for 2018 (See Table 1 below).Table 1. Commercial and recreational catch limits for golden tilefish.
Total catch 

limit

 Commercial 

catch limit

 Commercial Hook-and-Line catch limit Commercial

 Longline catch limit

 Recreational catch limit
(pounds gutted weight) (pounds gutted weight) (pounds gutted weight) (pounds gutted weight) (numbers of fish)**
323,000 313,310 78,328 234,982 2,187**

**An average weight conversion factor of 4.43 pounds gutted weight was used for converting

the recreational catch limit into numbers of fish.

Where can I find more information on the environmental assessment and the interim rule? 

  • Contact NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Regional Office

 

Access this and other Fishery Bulletins from NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office by clicking here.

 

Fishing leaders: Has the Monterey Bay sanctuary kept its promise?

December 22, 2017 — The answer is no, not to fishermen; please let us explain.

Reflect back to 1992 when the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was proposed. While fishermen and most others agreed that it could help prevent offshore oil development, we had concerns about how sanctuary authority might affect those of us who provide food from ocean resources.

There was also public discussion about how stakeholders would have a say in the new federal bureaucracy. Commercial fishermen and recreational anglers had killed two earlier sanctuary proposals over these concerns.

In response, fishermen heard that the new sanctuary would not threaten our livelihoods or create fishing regulations. It was a broad assurance, and repeated often by both elected and NOAA officials. Based on this, fishing leaders weren’t neutral, they supported it, even traveling to Washington, D.C.

This promise was never a free-pass from fishing regulations. Rather, it acknowledged that fishery laws, such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, already provided science-based management. Under that law, overfishing has ended on the West Coast, and several thousands of square miles of quality habitat are protected. It also acknowledged that sanctuaries are not intended to manage fisheries.

The promise is written into the sanctuary’s designation document. If any problem arose, the sanctuary would work with us for a solution.

Read the full editorial at the Santa Cruz Sentinel

 

Magnuson Stevens fight to resume early in 2018

December 22, 2017 — There won’t likely be a long wait in 2018 for the battle to reignite over efforts to change the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), the key statute that oversees fishing regulations in the US.

Possibly as soon as January, just after Congress returns from its winter break, Alaska Republican senator Dan Sullivan will introduce his own version of an MSA reauthorization bill, sources tell Undercurrent News. Additionally, the MSA-related legislation just approved by the House of Representative’s Committee on Natural Resources could advance to the House floor.

“The House Floor schedule hasn’t been set for 2018 yet but we are optimistic that we will move forward with the bill early next year,” said Murphy McCullough, the press secretary for Alaska representative Don Young, about HR 200, the bill he introduced to change MSA. It’s one of Natural Resource Committee chairman Rob Bishop’s “top priorities”.

“As far as finding a Senate champion, we are working closely with senator Sullivan and his staff on this reauthorization,” she confirmed.

Young’s bill, formerly named the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, dashed through a one-hour markup last week, during which 13 amendments were discussed, six of which were adopted, before it was passed by a 23-17 vote along party lines.

HR 200 closely resembles HR 1335, legislation sponsored by Young that sailed through the House in 2015 but stalled out, in part, because President Barack Obama threatened to veto it over concerns that it would reduce the influence scientists have over the preservation of fish species. It’s the same concern that has ocean conservation groups rallying against Young’s latest bill now.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

Ocean perch stock rebuilt, could lead to more commercial fishing opportunities in 2019

December 21, 2017 — Federal restrictions designed to protect Pacific ocean perch from overfishing have worked well enough for the Pacific Fishery Management Council to consider the fishery “rebuilt,” meaning it will relax restrictions. Once the new rules take effect in 2019 it should have significant economic value to the coast, experts say.

“It’s a big deal for fisheries along the coast,” said Phil Anderson, who works with Ocean Gold Seafood in Westport and serves as chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council. “It’s another one in the line of species that were determined to be overfished here about a decade ago that has since been rebuilt.”

Pacific ocean perch have been overfished since the mid-1960s when foreign fleets targeted groundfish stocks, in particular Pacific ocean perch, off the U.S. West Coast. The mandates of the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Act, the primary law governing U.S. fisheries management, eventually ended foreign fishing within 200 miles of the coast. The first Federal trip limits to discourage targeting and to conserve a U.S. West Coast groundfish stock were implemented for Pacific ocean perch in 1979. Rebuilding plans for Pacific ocean perch were adopted in 2000 and 2003.

Pacific ocean perch is one of many species of groundfish, managed and regulated by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The fish, which live near the bottom of the ocean, mingle and protection of the perch has constrained the West Coast trawl fishery for decades.

Read the full story at The Daily World 

 

Opinion: Conservation and training vital to keep Alaska fisheries strong

December 20, 2017 — I wasn’t ready to have kids until my husband and I started hand trolling together. Watching the other families on deck running gear or anchored in the evening and playing on a beach broke something loose inside of me. This is what I wanted. I wanted a boat, kids, a life out on the water. So that winter we bought a fixer-upper steel boat and a power troll permit. We jumped.

We jumped knowing the basics of trolling and seamanship. There was so much to learn, especially as someone who didn’t grow up fishing — supervising crew, keeping up with technological updates, and running the business end of things. Putting hooks in the water was the easy part.

Fishing has always required knowledge that’s tough to get as a newcomer, but getting started now is a lot more complicated than it was even a few decades ago. Fishing permits are tens of thousands of dollars at the least, and enough fishing quota to get started now costs more than a college education. Fishing regulations are increasingly complicated, and keeping up with policy decisions can be daunting.

But help is on the way. This fall, Alaska’s congressional delegation introduced the Young Fishermen’s Development Act to the House and the Senate. This act would establish a Young Fishermen’s Development Fund to support education and training opportunities for young fishermen throughout the country. The program is modeled after the Department of Agriculture’s successful Beginning Farmer and Rancher program, which has helped hundreds of young people start their own businesses. Currently no comparable program exists for young fishermen. If passed, funding will come from NOAA’s asset forfeiture fund: Fines paid for breaking fishing regulations will assist new operations with getting started on the right foot. I applaud our delegation for providing this essential support to our young fishermen’s future.

Of course, the most important ingredient to a healthy fishing business is access to productive fish stocks. We depend on those managing our fisheries to commit to conservation first. The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is the primary law governing fisheries around the country, is currently undergoing reauthorization by Congress. Unfortunately, a very vocal segment of the recreational fishing sector is pushing for exemptions to conservation requirements.

Read the full editorial at the Anchorage Daily News

 

Trump team may have broken law to score red snapper win

December 19, 2017 — The Trump administration scored last week when a House panel voted to give Gulf of Mexico states more power in managing the popular red snapper, but court records suggest it may be a tainted victory.

Internal memos show that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and a top adviser may have knowingly violated federal fisheries law in June when they extended the Gulf red snapper season, hoping the move would pressure Congress to act.

In a June 1 memo, Earl Comstock, the Commerce Department’s director of policy and strategic planning, told Ross that a longer season “would result in overfishing” of the stock by as much as 40 percent and possibly prompt a lawsuit.

But Comstock urged Ross to extend the season anyway, saying it could lead to “a significant achievement” by forcing Congress to liberalize the federal law and transfer more authority to Gulf states.

“It would allow a reset in the acrimonious relationship and set the stage for Congress to adopt a long-term fix,” Comstock told Ross.

Comstock followed up with a second memo on June 7, reminding his boss that both the White House and a dozen congressmen from Gulf states had asked Ross to explore the possibility of a longer fishing season.

The next week, Ross decided to extend the season from three to 42 days, much to the joy of recreational anglers in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama (Greenwire, Sept. 20).

Critics say the memos offer proof that Commerce and NOAA Fisheries plotted to bypass the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a 1976 law that sets quotas as a way to rebuild overfished stocks, including the red snapper.

“I appreciate it when people are transparent about their intentions,” said Janis Searles Jones, the CEO of Ocean Conservancy, a nonprofit environmental group.

Commerce made the memos public as part of its response to a lawsuit filed in July in U.S. District Court in Washington by Ocean Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund. The complaint accuses Ross, NOAA and NOAA Fisheries of mismanagement by allowing overfishing.

Read the full story at E&E News

 

US seafood industry, ocean groups in unison against red snapper bill

December 19, 2017 — The National Fisheries Institute and ocean conservation groups don’t always see eye to eye on legislation, but they do with regard to HR 3588, the Red Snapper Act, which has been advanced by the US House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources.

They are both against it.

The bill, which the panel approved by a 22-16 vote following a brief markup hearing on Wednesday, along with two amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, would transfer management of the red snapper recreational fishery in the Gulf of Mexico from a federal fisheries management council to several gulf states, including Louisiana. Representative Garrett Graves, who introduced the bill, represents the Republican districts of northern Terrebonne and Lafourche, in Louisiana.

Graves’ bill must still get to the House floor for a vote. And its companion bill, S. 1686, introduced in August by Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, also a Republican, in the upper chamber’s Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, has just two co-sponsors (Republicans John Kennedy, also from Louisiana, and Luther Strange, from Alabama).

But the recreational fishing industry is excited.

“The need to update our nation’s fisheries management system to ensure the conservation of our public marine resources and reasonable public access to those resources is abundantly clear. We look forward to the full House consideration of the bill,” said Patrick Murray, president of Coastal Conservation Association, one of the nation’s largest sport fishing groups, in a written statement following the vote.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News