Saving Seafood

Trump administration considering National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Services merger

June 29, 2018 — The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is looking to make changes to the U.S. government, and one of the recommendations it is considering would impact the seafood industry.

Earlier this month, the White House released a 128-page report, “Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century,” detailing steps it’s considering to streamline governmental functions. The report was written by the Office of Management and Budget after Trump issued an order to the agency in March 2017 to devise a plan to revise organizations within the executive branch.

“This plan will serve as a cornerstone for a productive, bipartisan dialogue around making the Federal Government work for the 21st century,” the administration said in a statement.

One of the recommendations in the report proposes to merge the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is part of the Commerce Department, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which falls under the Department of Interior. It’s not the first time the two agencies have been targeted for consolidation as the report mentions Congressional proposals and similar recommendations dating back to the administration of former president Jimmy Carter.

NMFS – sometimes referred to as NOAA Fisheries – and FWS hold similar responsibilities in protecting endangered species and marine mammals, and the report indicates the split can lead to confusion. Earlier this year, a committee in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would eliminate redundancies in the Endangered Species Act and put FWS in charge of protecting fish that migrate between fresh and ocean waters.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

ALASKA: Jellyfish Numbers Rising in Bering Sea; Scientists Studying Potential Impacts

June 29, 2018 –Jellyfish have been a natural part of the Bering Sea ecosystem for decades, but in recent years, their population numbers in the region have dramatically increased. Now, a research team funded by the National Science Foundation is in Nome to find out what the cause and implications might be.

“There are certainly fish that do feed on jellyfish: some of the salmon do, some other fish. But in this part of the world, not this many fish feed on jellyfish.”

That’s Mary Beth Decker, a research scientist from Yale University who is part of a three-person research team sailing to Slime Bank in the southern Bering Sea this week, north of the Alaska Peninsula. As she noted, there are minimal benefits from having jellyfish around. Not only do few types of fish eat them, but these species aren’t exactly edible for humans, either.

When it comes to potential consequences of having more jellyfish, though, Decker says that’s a different story.

“And we know that they have impacts on the ecosystem, because they feed on things that fish eat. For example, they’ll eat small crustaceans, zoo plankton, that are prey for other seabirds and marine mammals. And also fish, both young fish and some older fish, like herring, as well.”

According to Decker, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been recording jellyfish numbers in the Bering Sea for the last 40 years using their trawls. The populations have fluctuated up and down throughout that period for multiple species of jellies, including larger ones like Pacific Sea Nettle, but Decker also points out there are smaller types that are harder to see or even catch in trawl nets.

That’s why Joanna Chierici, a teacher from New Jersey, is onboard this research voyage, to educate and reach out to groups about the types and numbers of jellyfish present in the Bering Sea.

Read the full story at KNOM

NOAA Says Seafood for Reprocessing Exempt from Chinese Tariffs, but Rebate System May Impose Costs

June 28, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — NOAA has confirmed via email to people in the Alaska seafood industry that the 25% Chinese retaliatory tariff will not apply to re-processed products for export.

John Henderschedt, NMFS director of the Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, wrote  “In consultation with Embassy Beijing, NOAA Fisheries has confirmed that the following products are not subject to the additional 25% tariff recently announced by the Chinese government:

-Imports of U.S. seafood that is processed in China for re-export and some fishmeal products.”

“Affected U.S. seafood exports arriving at Chinese ports on July 6 or later will be subject to the new tariff rate,” he said in an email dated Tuesday, June 26th.

There was some uncertainty following China’s June 15 announcement at the beginning of a long holiday weekend for the Dragon Boat Festival that prevented clarification until government offices re-opened last Tuesday, June 19th, according to Jim Gilmore, Director of Public Affairs for the At-Sea Processors Association.

“Really, no one knew at that time, so the news coverage was of an issue with a lot of confusion and not much time for the U.S. government to get clarification.  The holiday didn’t help matters, but it might also have been that the Chinese government language wasn’t clear.  Not sure what factors were all at play,” Gilmore said.

One unresolved issue is that China has two types of import exemptions for re-processing for export.  One involves no tariff, for products that are exempt, and the other collects the tariff, but then rebates the value back to the company when the product is exported.

One sentence in the Chinese announcement suggests that the 25% tariff will be applied to everything, but then rebated for products that are exported.  When asked about this, Henderschedt had no comment.

If this is the final interpretation, the tariffs will add significant costs for exporters, even though they will ultimately get the 25% tariff refunded.  For example, a Chinese plant that purchases 1000 tons of cod for re-processing and pays $3.6 million, would have to pay an additional $900,000 to bring the product into the country, but then get this money back when the product was exported.  This adds costs to the process, even if the tariffs are ultimately not applied.

Ultimately, the answer will come after July 6th, when importers of record have to deal with Chinese customs officers.

Jim Gilmore says not much of offshore Alaska’s pollock is re-processed.  His group, the At-Sea Processors Association,  represents the Bering Sea pollock factory trawlers. He said that’s more common with salmon and cod.

But shore plants, especially in the Gulf of Alaska, export a lot of H&G pollock for reprocessing.  In fact, Trident recently spent millions of dollars in the last several years to upgrade its plant in Kodiak to efficiently produce a frozen H&G product.

Also the Bering Sea Amendment 80 factory trawler flatfish fleet’s catch goes to China for reprocessing, especially yellowfin sole, according to Chris Woodley, executive director of the group’s trade association, the Groundfish Forum.

The vast majority of the U.S. exports of frozen seafood to China are reprocessed in China and then re-exported, Woodley said.  Such U.S. exports to China that are then re-exported from China are not subject to Chinese duties or the Value Added Tax (VAT).  However, U.S. seafood exports that are imported for consumption in China face high tariff rates.  For example, frozen flatfish species, and other Alaska seafood exports to China that are consumed in China currently face a duty of 10 percent and are also subject to a 13 percent  VAT.

The Dragon Boat Festival is held annually in honor of poet Qu Yuan, who drowned himself in a river in 278 BC, as a political protest. Villagers tried to save the beloved figure in their little boats, but when they couldn’t find him, they threw rice in the water in the hopes that the fish would eat the rice, and not the poet and activist, during the Warring States period of Chinese history.

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

May Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Landings Largest Since May 2009

June 26, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The National Marine Fisheries Service is reporting May 2018 Gulf of Mexico shrimp landings (all species, headless) of 16.281 million pounds compared to 14.585 million pounds in May 2017. This is the largest May total since 16.288 million pounds were landed in May 2009.

The Louisiana fishery led all Gulf states in May with landings totaling 10.369 million pounds. This is considerable since there hasn’t been a single production month in excess of 10 million pounds in that state since June 2014.

The cumulative total for the entire Gulf now stands at 28.14 million pounds; 2.1 million pounds or seven percent below the Jan-May 2017 total of 30.25 million pounds. The trend is still notable as landings in each of the last two months have exceeded the prior five-year average and the 2018 cumulative total stands 5.2 million pounds or 23 percent above the cumulative total of the prior five-year average.

As you would expect, ex-vessel prices are lower, especially for 21/25 and smaller count shrimp; and the Urner Barry markets have come under considerable pressure in recent sessions as seasonal production expands and where carryover inventory exists. Weakness is evident throughout the complex, but especially on 16/20 and smaller headless shell-on shrimp, and all-size PUD’s and P&D’s.

This story was originally published in Seafood News, it is republished here with permission.

 

Years later, Alaska receives $56 million for salmon fishery disaster

June 22, 2018 — Almost two years after Gov. Bill Walker requested federal funding to counterbalance a devastating blow to Alaska salmon, the government answered, to the tune of over $56 million in disaster relief money.

As to who will actually be on the receiving end of that money, however, is not yet known.

That disaster was the 2016 Southest Alaska Pink Salmon Fishery, which came under average of more than 4 million salmon, racking up losses of an estimated threshold of 35 to 80 percent.

Back in 2016, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said that due to the salmon tanking and a 36 percent loss in total revenue, it allowed the National Marine Fisheries Service to consider disaster relief funding.

The full amount, $56,361,332 in disaster funding, will go to the affected fishermen and stakeholders. The money is taken from a $200 million pool in the budget nine fisheries disasters declared across the country and neighboring areas partially as a result of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria.

The last time Alaska got money for such disasters was back in 2014, when it took $20.8 million damaged by low Chinook salmon runs in the Yukon and other areas during 2012.

There still remains the question of who among those affected by the fishing disaster will actually get a share in the $56 million, and just how big that share will be.

Wednesday, Alaska’s delegation celebrated the news of that relief payout in a news release, saying, “These dollars are vital to Alaskans and their families who were hit hard by the 2016 pink salmon fishery disaster.”

Read the full story at KTUU

SAVE Act gets boost

June 22, 2018 — A statewide association of commercial lobstermen has thrown its weight behind a $50 million federal bill to protect North Atlantic right whales with targeted research that emphasizes collaboration.

The group intends to work with the International Fund for Animal Welfare to develop a pilot program to test buoyless gear this summer, according to Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association Executive Director Beth Casoni.

“Massachusetts lobstermen are currently the leaders in the world for the conservation of right whales, and the association proudly supports the SAVE Right Whale Act of 2018,” Casoni wrote in an email.

Filed in Congress on June 7, the legislation would allocate $5 million annually in grants through 2028 for conservation programs, and the development of new technology or other methods to reduce harm to right whales from fishing gear entanglements and ship collisions. Grants could promote cooperation with foreign governments, affected local communities, small businesses, others in the private sector or nongovernment groups.

A grant program that is specific for right whale conservation and research will allow “the continued collaborative research needed for safe, realistic and viable outcomes for all that depend on the stocks’ success,” Casoni said.

Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times

Trump’s plan to overhaul government would give Interior and EPA more power

June 22, 2018 — The White House on Thursday unveiled a radical overhaul of the federal bureaucracy, including many of the agencies managing energy and natural resources.

The Trump administration’s ideas for revamping which agencies are tasked with certain energy and environmental responsibilities — such as managing the nation’s fisheries and flood infrastructure — are part of a broader reorganization plan that calls for sweeping changes such as merging the Labor and Education departments.

But the reorganization effort calls for a level of consolidation that Congress, which would need to approve the plan, is unlikely to sign off on.

It has long been the goal of many conservatives to streamline federal work on energy and environmental issues. Many Republican candidates for president have even promised to eliminate entire departments, such as when Rick Perry suggested during the 2012 race to shutter the Energy Department, which he now runs, and when Donald Trump in 2016 once called for closing the Environmental Protection Agency.

But President Trump’s latest plan is much smaller in scale than any of those campaign-trail promises.

In fact, instead of asking for the eradication of the EPA, the president’s proposal calls upon the agency to take on even more work. Under the plan, the EPA’s Superfund program would absorb portions of hazardous site cleanup programs run by the Interior and Agriculture departments. However, at the same time the EPA would also reduce or otherwise “recalibrate” its oversight of state-run pollution-control programs.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

What’s next in the offshore drilling debate? Hint: It involves fish.

June 22, 2018 — Environmental groups are keeping a close eye on the National Marine Fisheries Service to see whether the federal agency will grant permits that would likely pave the way for seismic testing off the Atlantic coast, including North Carolina.

“Seismic airgun blasting is the first step toward oil and gas drilling and could lead to catastrophic consequences. … (If approved), this is an investment in offshore drilling,” said Diane Hoskins, Oceana’s campaign director for offshore drilling.

The steps to seismic testing in the South Atlantic include approval of the incidental harassment authorizations by the National Marine Fisheries Service, which could then be followed by approval of the permits from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).

According to NOAA’s website, the public comment period for proposed seismic permits in the Atlantic closed last July. The comment review and final determination process typically takes, according to the site, one to three months.

“We are working through about 17,000 public comments as expeditiously as possible, but will take the time necessary to ensure that they are all appropriately addressed and that our final decision is based on the best available science,” Kate Brogan, a National Marine Fisheries Service spokeswoman, wrote in an email.

Read the full story at Star News

ENVIRONMENTALISTS SUE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IN TAMPA OVER OFFSHORE DRILLING

June 22, 2018 — Earthjustice, on behalf of three conservation groups, sued the Trump administration Thursday (June 21) alleging that it failed to complete a legally required consultation about offshore drilling’s harms to threatened and endangered species in the Gulf of Mexico.

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are required under the Endangered Species Act to complete a consultation with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on its oversight of oil and gas operations that could impact threatened and endangered species. The last time the agencies completed a consultation, called a biological opinion, was in 2007, three years before the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster which led to the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, according to Earthjustice.

With the lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Tampa, the Gulf Restoration Network, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity are challenging the agencies for unreasonably delaying completion of a new consultation and seeking a court order to compel them to complete it within three months. A new biological opinion likely would result in additional safeguards to prevent further harm to sea turtles, whales, and other threatened and endangered species from oil and gas operations in the Gulf.

Read the full story at the Tampa Bay Reporter

Suit: Offshore drilling done in absence of required report

June 22, 2018 — Three conservation groups said in a lawsuit filed Thursday that federal wildlife agencies have failed for years to complete required consultations and reporting on the effects that oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico could have on endangered species.

The suit comes more than a decade since the last such report was done, and more than eight years since the huge 2010 BP oil spill, the groups said.

The Gulf Restoration Network, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity released a copy of their lawsuit as it was being filed in U.S. District Court in Florida. Defendants named are the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The suit says the Endangered Species Act requires those agencies since 2007 to consult with the agencies overseeing Gulf drilling and to publish an opinion on the possible effects of such drilling on endangered species, including various species of whales and sea turtles.

Such consultations and reporting haven’t been conducted since well before the 2010 explosion of the BP-operated Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, a disaster that spilled millions of gallons into the Gulf, the lawsuit says. It added that the result is that hundreds of offshore oil and gas projects have been approved based on outdated information.

The lawsuit seeks an order requiring completion of a consultation in 90 days.

After the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which also killed 11 rig workers, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement decided a new consultation was needed and asked the two agencies to begin work on one in 2010, the suit says.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the New Jersey Herald