Saving Seafood

Oil leasing in Arctic refuge included in tax deal

December 14, 2017 — A provision to open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development is included in the tax bill agreed upon by Republicans serving on a joint House-Senate conference committee, according to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

The measure would authorize oil leasing within the refuge’s 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, a move Murkowski on Wednesday called “ the single most important step I believe we can (take) to strengthen our long-term energy security and create new wealth.”

The fate of the oil leasing in the refuge is now tied to the overall tax legislation expected to be voted on by the House and Senate in the days ahead.

Read the full story at the Seattle Times

 

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.

 

Cantwell Introduces Solution to Shield WA Fishermen from Unnecessary Costs, Delays

December 7, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the office of Sen. Maria Cantwell:

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the Fishing and Small Vessel Relief Act (S.2194)  to extend protections for fishermen and small vessel owners from adhering to costly requirements that do not tangibly protect or improve water quality for vessels of their size. An EPA study found that incidental discharges from these small vessels do not generate a significant threat to our waters.

The bill will extend a current moratorium that exempts fishing vessels and vessels under 79 feet from incidental discharge permitting requirements mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These vessels have been continuously exempt since 2008 under a temporary moratorium as they do not pose a serious environmental risk.

“Fishermen are key drivers of Washington state’s growing economy. We need their boats out fishing, not bogged down by regulations meant for large vessels like oil tankers,” said Cantwell.

Cantwell’s science-based legislation brings stability to small vessel owners who have been at unease due to an impending December 18th expiration of the current moratorium. More than 115,000 small vessels nation-wide would receive relief under the Cantwell legislation. Commercial fishing boats make up the bulk of the protected vessels, but many research vessels, tour boats, tugboats, towboats, and offshore supply boats would also qualify.The EPA’s vessel incidental discharge permitting requirements are intended to prevent water pollution and the spread of invasive species through release of bilge water, ballast, and other discharges. These regulations are critical to safeguard the environment from large vessels, who are more likely to carry pollutants and run a greater risk of introducing invasive species. Vessel discharge from smaller vessels does not pose a serious environmental risk.

A copy of the bill can be found HERE.

SEEKING HELP: Senators ask for funding to help fishing industry

November 1, 2017 — LINCOLN CITY, Oregon — In a bipartisan push led by Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley, all eight West Coast Senators—Merkley, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) — today called on congressional leaders and the Trump administration to include disaster aid for fisheries in the next 2017 disaster funding package.

As the Senators pointed out in letters to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney and to congressional appropriations leaders, commercial fishing is a bedrock of the economy in many coastal communities, and leaving recent fisheries disasters unaddressed could have negative ripple effects for years to come.

“While the impacts of an extremely low run in a fishery or a complete fishery closure are harder to visualize than the impact of flood or wind damage, a collapsed fishery is indisputably a disaster for local and regional communities,” wrote the Senators. “Fishermen and women can make their yearly living during a single fishing season, and must continue to pay mortgages on their vessels, mooring fees, maintenance and feed their families while their income is almost entirely eliminated during a fishery closure or disaster.”

“It is essential that the Senate treat fishery disasters appropriately, and provide emergency funding that can enable fishermen and communities to recover from lost catches in the form of grants, job retraining, employment, and low-interest loans,” the Senators concluded.

Currently, the Secretary of Commerce has declared nine disasters for fisheries in 2017, and another disaster assistance request is pending in southern Oregon and northern California. As fishery seasons move forward in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, it is likely there will also be fishery disaster declarations in those regions.

Read the full story at the News Guard

Arctic Refuge Drilling Closer as Senate Moves to Open Site

October 23, 2017 — WASHINGTON — Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one step closer to oil and gas drilling.

A budget measure approved by the Republican-controlled Senate late Thursday allows Congress to pursue legislation allowing oil and gas exploration in the remote refuge on a majority vote.

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska said Congress can create jobs and enhance energy security by opening a small section of the 19.6 million-acre site to drilling.

“More energy production means more American jobs, more American economic growth, more American national security … and a more sustainable global environment, because no one in the world produces energy more responsibly than Americans, especially Alaskans,” Sullivan said.

But Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state said drilling was not worth the risks to a fragile ecosytem that serves as important habitat for polar bears, caribou and migratory birds.

 Read the full story by the Associated Press on US News

Cantwell, Huffman, Colleagues to Trump Admin: “Listen to Our Fishermen” and Save Bristol Bay from the Pebble Mine

White House plan to reverse clean water rules paves the way for construction of Pebble Mine, a catastrophic move for Bristol Bay watershed, 60 million salmon, and more than 20,000 jobs

Decision flies in the face of science and basic reason, made with no public input from fishermen or business groups

October 11, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the office of Senator Maria Cantwell:

Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Rep. Jared Huffman (CA-02), and 40 of their colleagues in the House and Senate sent a forceful letter to President Trump urging caution and a careful consideration of the facts before his administration removes the science-based environmental rules that protect Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the fishermen who depend on it.

Removing the existing clean water protections allows for the construction of Pebble Mine, an open-pit copper and gold mine that could have a depth equivalent to as much as two and a half Trump Towers. The mine would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the Bristol Bay watershed and the 40-60 million salmon who return to it every year. A three-year Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study in 2014 found that the proposed mine would, even in the course of normal, safe mine operations, destroy 24 to 94 miles of salmon-producing waterways and pristine environment.

The University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research found that the Bristol Bay fishery supports more than 20,000 jobs and adds $674 million of economic activity to the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The region also supports a prolific outdoor recreation industry; anglers from around the world take roughly 37,000 fishing trips annually to Bristol Bay, generating $60 million in economic activity.

“The EPA’s plan to reverse clean water safeguards is egregious and inconsistent with science, and frankly, inconsistent with basic logic,” wrote the members of Congress. “The Pebble Mine directly threatens our maritime economy and thousands of American jobs that rely on this world class fishery. We ask you to listen to America’s fishermen and businesses and reverse EPA’s decision to undo strong protections and clean water safeguards in Bristol Bay.”

Cantwell, Huffman, and their colleagues note the process that established the current clean water safeguards were the result of rigorous scientific analysis and peer review, over one million public comments, and eight public hearings.

In stark contrast, the Trump Administration’s recent decision to roll back the protections has no scientific basis and has been carefully removed from the public eye. There has been no input from stakeholders such as the fishing, tourism, and outdoor industries. Only two public hearings have been noticed, neither of which are scheduled for Washington, Oregon or California where many Bristol Bay commercial and sports fishermen reside.

In their letter, the members of Congress also called for public hearings, a 90-day extension of the public comment period, and other transparency measures to ensure the public is allowed to make their voices heard. Restrictions on mining have the support of 90% of local Bristol Bay residents.

Senator Cantwell successfully led the fight to save Bristol Bay when Pebble Mine was first proposed. In 2011, she urged the EPA to use authority under the Clean Water Act to block large scale development in Bristol Bay. She continued the drumbeat through 2014, when she rallied supporters at Fisherman’s Terminal in Seattle to urge President Obama and the EPA to continue to prevent mining in the area.

In addition to Sen. Cantwell and Rep. Huffman, 40 additional member of Congress signed the letter including: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representatives Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Barbara Lee (CA-13), Grace Napolitano (CA-32), Jackie Speier (CA-14), Anna Eshoo (CA-18), William Keating (MA-09), Adam Smith (WA-09), Denny Heck (WA-10), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-Del.), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), Dwight Evans (PA-02), Peter DeFazio (OR-04), Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Emanual Cleaver, II (MO-05), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Derek Kilmer (WA-06), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11), Judy Chu (CA-27), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Jerry McNerney (CA-9), John Garamendi (CA-3), Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Jimmy Panetta (CA-20), Donald S. Beyer, Jr. (VA-08), Norma Torres (CA-35), Doris Matsui (CA-06), Ted Lieu (CA-33), Linda Sánchez (CA-38), Julia Brownley (CA-26), and Salud Carbajal (CA-24).

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Sens. Cantwell, Murray, WA Democratic Reps. Urge Immediate Action from Feds to Protect Native Salmon from Fish Farm Fiasco

Members: Agencies must also immediately halt permitting of new and expanding net pens

August 31, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the office of Senator Maria Cantwell:

Today, U.S. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Patty Murray (D-WA), joined by Reps. Adam Smith (WA-09), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Derek Kilmer (WA-06), Denny Heck (WA-10), and Suzan DelBene (WA-01), wrote an urgent letter to the heads of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to press the two agencies to take quick and decisive action to address the impacts of hundreds of thousands of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon in Washington state waters.

Citing the importance of wild salmon fisheries to Tribes, fishermen, and ecosystems in the state, the members of Congress are calling on NOAA and the Army Corps to direct federal resources to mitigate the risks of this incident, including the capture of the escaped farmed salmon. The letter also calls on the Army Corps to work to stop all permitting for new net pens or expansions to existing pens, as well as prioritize requests to update or maintain existing pens.

“Pacific salmon are central to our economy, our culture, and our environment in the Pacific Northwest, and are a critical part of marine and estuarine ecosystems in Washington state,” the members wrote. “The released Atlantic salmon pose a threat to wild Pacific salmon, including multiple endangered and threatened stocks in the region. Tribes, fishermen, and state agencies are working to respond to the escapement but the scale of the release calls for immediate and direct federal response…”

The farmed salmon escaped from a damaged facility owned by Cooke Aquaculture on August 19th and 20th. Since the breach, farmed Atlantic salmon have been found as far afield as Canadian waters on the West side of Vancouver Island, as well as the Skagit and Nooksack Rivers. The released Atlantic salmon pose a threat to wild Pacific salmon, including multiple endangered and threatened stocks in the region. Farmed salmon tend to be larger and could outcompete wild salmon for critical resources such as prey and preferred habitat, which is important for spawning.

Tribes and federal and state agencies have worked tirelessly towards restoration of wild salmon populations in Puget Sound. At a time when stocks of many types of wild Pacific salmon are at historic lows, the escape of thousands of farmed salmon could be a devastating setback.

The members also asked the agency heads to conduct a review of the integrity and operation of all currently operating net pen structures to address concerns of further accidents at existing facilities.

Text of the letter can be found below.

Dear Acting Administrator Friedman and Mr. Lamont,

We write to request the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) immediately act to minimize the impact of the Atlantic salmon net pen failure near Cypress Island in Skagit County, Washington. The released Atlantic salmon pose a threat to wild Pacific salmon, including multiple endangered and threatened stocks in the region. Tribes, along with federal and state agencies have worked tirelessly to restore wild salmon in Puget Sound and the escapement of thousands of farmed salmon could be a devastating setback.

Pacific salmon are central to our economy, our culture, and our environment in the Pacific Northwest, and are a critical part of marine and estuarine ecosystems in Washington state. Pacific salmon support treaty rights for Tribes throughout the region, commercial and recreational fishers, as well as predators like the endangered Southern resident orcas. On August 19th, potentially hundreds of thousands of farmed Atlantic salmon were released into the Puget Sound ecosystem due to the structural failure of a net pen. While the fish farm facility was permitted under Washington state law, the escapement may negatively impact resources under the jurisdiction of NOAA, the Army Corps, and other federal agencies. Most concerning is the threat farmed Atlantic salmon pose to the wild Pacific salmon populations stocks in Puget Sound. Farmed salmon tend to be larger and could outcompete wild salmon for critical resources such as prey and preferred habitat, which is important for spawning.

Tribes, fishermen, and state agencies are working to respond to the escapement but the scale of the release calls for immediate and direct federal response including mitigation, scientific support, and funding to improve response and capture of the released Atlantic salmon. Further, as other net pens remain in our waters, we request the Army Corps halt all permitting for new net pens or expansions to existing net pens, while prioritizing permit requests to upgrade and maintain existing net pens. In addition, we ask NOAA and the Army Corps to review the integrity and operation of all existing net pen structures to determine any additional threats to wild salmon in the area and prevent any further escapement of farmed salmon into our waters.

We appreciate your ongoing work to restore Pacific salmon in Puget Sound and throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Sincerely,

Senate Bill on New National Fisheries Marketing Advisory Panel Moves Through Committee

August 7, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — A bill to create an advisory committee to guide seafood marketing and research projects nationwide was approved by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on Wednesday, August 2, 2017.

Introduced by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), S. 3087, The American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act would create a 25-member national panel to advise the Secretary of Commerce on projects aimed at boosting fisheries research and/or seafood marketing initiatives across the country.

The advisory panel would assist the Secretary of Commerce “in the awarding of fisheries research and development grants.”  It establishes six regions within the AFA Committee:

1. Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Territories of Guam and American Samoa.

2. Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

3. Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Arkansas, Puerto Rico, and territory of the Virgin Islands.

4. California, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.

5. New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

6. Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Membership would include one representative each from the processing, harvesting, and recreational sector, with at-large appointments from the nation’s distribution, retail, and foodservice sectors, plus a seafood marketer and an individual with experience growing seafood.

Efforts to establish national seafood promotional and research boards have had success in the past, most notably the National Fish and Seafood Promotional Council from the late 1980s.

The current plan has been supported by a coalition of fish harvesting groups who want full throated government support to increase marketing of domestic seafood.

This bill differs from the old national marketing council effort in a few important ways, however. The AFA Committee is not restricted to national promotional initiatives as it will be considering regional projects as well as those that focus on research.

Funding sources were not explicitly mentioned in the bill, but similar marketing and promotional efforts have been supported through Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, industry assessments, and other revenues.  Supporters feel once a vehicle is in place, funding will follow.

The bill was reported to the Senate for a floor vote.

A related House Bill, HR 214, also called the American Fisheries Advisory Committee Act, was introduced by Don Young (R-AK) earlier this year. It was referred to the House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on February 10, 2017.

S. 3087 is nearly identical to a bill introduced by Sullivan and Cantwell last year, with the notable addition of a recreational representative on the advisory panel in this year’s version. Last year’s bill was easily passed by the Committee but was never brought to the floor for a Senate vote.

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

Sen. Cantwell Secures Major Win for Washington Crab Fishermen

Legislation makes cooperative management of Dungeness fisheries permanent

August 4, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the office of Senator Maria Cantwell:

A bill led by U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) strengthening Washington’s crab fishery has passed the United States Senate and will now head to the president’s desk for signature into law. The bill permanently extends a decades-long fishery management agreement that has been vital to Washington state’s Dungeness crab fishery.

Without Cantwell’s legislation, crab fisheries in the Pacific Northwest faced an uncertain future without an approved fishery management plan.

“The Dungeness crab fishery is an economic pillar of our coastal communities, supporting thousands of fishing and processing jobs,” Cantwell said. “By preserving the Tri-State Agreement, we can sustainably manage our crab fisheries for many years.”

The states of Washington, Oregon, and California cooperatively manage the West Coast crab fishery in federal waters under a tri-state agreement that Congress first authorized in 1998. The act would make that authority permanent. The agreement expired without a replacement in 2016. The Cantwell bill will help reintroduce much-needed stability to the industry, and preserve a sustainable, science-based fishery management program that keeps fishermen fishing and crab stocks thriving.

“The future of West Coast Commercial Fishing is anchored by Dungeness crab, which has added stability and vitality to coastal fish-dependent communities in the face of other struggling fisheries.  The crab fleet was happy to work with Senator Maria Cantwell and Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler on this legislation making the Tri-State Agreement permanent,” said Dale Beasley, president of the Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association.

Crab populations vary greatly by year, depending on food availability and ocean conditions. The Dungeness crab catch tends to peak every 10 years and can fluctuate by tens of millions of pounds between years. In order to manage the fishery appropriately, managers must coordinate between states to ensure management and conservation goals are achieved. 

Washington state’s Dungeness crab industry brings $61 million into the state’s economy annually. Crab fishermen in the state harvest an average of 9.5 million pounds of crab per year, supporting more than 60,000 maritime jobs. 

“Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission applauds the success of Senator Cantwell and Rep. Hererra-Beutler in preserving this valuable conservation and management program.  Our West Coast states have a long history of successfully managing the West Coast’s most valuable fishery,”said Randy Fisher, Executive Director of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Diane Feinstein (D-CA) are cosponsors of the bill. Representatives Jamie Herrera-Beutler (R-WA-3) and Derek Kilmer (D-WA-6) co-sponsored companion legislation in the House.

Sen. Cantwell Statement on House Budget Proposal to Open Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to Oil Drilling

July 19, 2017 — The following was released by the Office of Senator Marie Cantwell (D-WA):

Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) responded to the House Republicans’ inclusion of provisions in their budget proposal for the coming year that would allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Cantwell released the following statement:

“I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the House Republican budget includes a proposal to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  We have seen this story before — every Republican Administration and every Republican-majority Congress has tried to turn over this iconic national wildlife refuge to the oil and gas industry. Fortunately, all previous proposals to destroy this pristine arctic ecosystem for the benefit of oil and gas companies have failed.  We need to protect the Arctic Refuge, not raid it for oil.

“If House Republicans insist on passing a partisan budget that includes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I will do everything I can to ensure it meets the same fate in the Senate as their failed health care bill.”

Throughout her career in the Senate, Cantwell has been a leader in protecting the refuge from oil exploration and drilling. Since entering the Senate in 2001, she has cosponsored legislation multiple times to permanently protect the Arctic Refuge coastal plain as a wilderness area. In December of 2005, Cantwell led a historic filibuster that reversed a backdoor maneuver in the Senate to allow Wildlife Refuge drilling. In 2013, Cantwell and Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) introduced legislation that would have designated 1.56 million acres of land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness.