Saving Seafood

Lawsuit alleges government colluded with sportfishing sector on red snapper

October 19, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Three additional documents have emerged as part of the lawsuit filed against the US Commerce Department that appear to show an intent to end-run normal channels of public comment and regulated processes for regional council activities, only to serve the needs of the sportfishing industry.

The lawsuit, filed by Ocean Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Fund last July, focused on mismanagement of the Gulf Red Snapper fishery, but documents released last week show the recreational industry expects a level of allowance that flies in the face of the legal requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act, and the processes for managing fisheries that is contained within it.

The documents are part of a 70-page package submitted by the government in response to the plaintiff’s lawsuit. They show clear intent to receive special treatment when it comes to taking more of the annual catch, and broader influence on choosing who sits on the regional management councils, a process specified by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) which is poised for reauthorization in 2018.

Moreover, in at least three instances, Department of Commerce employees, after briefing sports industry stakeholders on the requirements of MSA, go on to suggest various legislative — not regulatory — “fixes” for breaking the rules with the red snapper action.

Indeed, the documents point to a blurred state of authorities and influence wielding between the Commerce Department and the US Congress. Whether it is a beleaguered agency’s attempts to protect its standing among Gulf states or an intentional violation of the law remains unclear, but no one is disputing that the regulations within MSA are clear, and have, in the case of red snapper, been ignored.

A letter to commerce secretary Wilbur Ross from Ben Speciale, president of Yamaha Marine Group, was sent on April 3, less than a week after Ross met with Speciale, Mike Nussman, Scott Deal and Pat Murray to discuss the need for a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fisheries administrator who had experience with the recreational sector. Chris Oliver was hired as head of NOAA Fisheries two and a half months later.

Nussman is the president of the American Sportfishing Association, Deal is from Maverick Boats and Murray is from the Coastal Conservation Association.

Ross posed questions to the group and asked them to respond later. One topic that may have been brought up — Ross certainly raised it frequently during his confirmation hearing and in separate interviews following his confirmation — was ways to reverse the seafood imbalance of trade.

It was a topic Speciale responded to in his April 3 letter to Ross.

“We support imposing assessments on imported seafood based on the country of origin’s management program,” wrote Speciale. “We believe this will help level the playing field and allow our domestic commercial fishermen to increase revenue without increasing their landings. We also support efforts to promote aquaculture….and we must not forget that all recreational landed fish are consumed in the US,” Speciale pointed out.

“Promoting recreational fishing is a conservation-minded way of increasing the consumption of US-caught fish,” he wrote.

Speciale did not elaborate on the ramifications of increased per capita consumption coming from sports landings and the impact on sustainably managed populations of fish.

Speciale’s first request was about more red snapper for Gulf of Mexico anglers.

“…we must return to a recreational red snapper season of no less [than] the 60 days for the 2017 and 2018 seasons,” he wrote.

“I understand that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries in the southeast region will present obstacles to this initiative, but they must be overcome so that we may restore a sense of fairness for recreational anglers.”

Speciale continued: “Excessive precaution and fear of frivolous litigation from the environmental industry has created a massive bureaucrat roadblock that has been unfair to anglers and stifled our industry.

“We ask that you overcome these obstacles at the regional fishery management councils and Regional Administrators’ Offices.”

Speciale’s second request was to appoint a person within the Office of Policy and Strategic Planning (currently headed up by Earl Comstock) to have direct oversight on all regional fishery management council appointments. Further, that every appointment should be made only after coordinated consulting with the recreational industry.

Finally, Speciale asked for NOAA Fisheries to adopt a long-term strategy to increase public access to state and federal waters and “eliminate any management effort or technique that attempts to privatize federal fisheries, which are and should remain a public resource.”

Almost two months later, as the red snapper season caught its quota in a matter of days, Shannon Cass-Calay, Chief of the Gulf and Caribbean Branch of the Sustainable Fisheries Division at NOAA Fisheries’ Southeast Fisheries Science Center ran the numbers on what the impact a 45-day extension would have on the red snapper stock in the gulf.

She sent a summary of the research to five of her colleagues, asking them to consider it, emphasizing the uncertainties in the data, and warning that an extended season “…will very likely cause catches to exceed OFL (Over Fishing Limit) and delay recovery by 4-6 years. Each additional overage will degrade the condition of the stock further.”

The final dissemination of that memo is not known, but it must have reached Earl Comstock, because he referenced it in one of two memos to Secretary Ross in early June.

After consulting with all five gulf state fisheries managers, Comstock asked Ross if he could move ahead on crafting an extension to the red snapper season. At the bottom of his first memo to Ross, dated June 1, Comstock hand wrote “Secretary said go with two days plus holidays. OK to proceed.”

On June 7, Comstock sent a memo to Ross preparing him for a hearing on appropriations where Senator Shelby (R-AL) may ask Ross about the gulf snapper issue. He also presented two options for the extension and asked Ross to pick one.

“As discussed, under either option the increased angler catch will result in the overall catch limit for this year being exceeded by 30% and 50%,” Comstock explained to Ross. “Either option would mean that, absent Congressional action to modify the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for the gulf, the recreational season next year would be significantly reduced.  All the state fishery managers know this, but agree the coordinated action has the greater long-term benefit,” Comstock wrote.

He acknowledged that either option will be opposed by commercial fishermen and charter operators, and “it will almost certainly draw a lawsuit.”

Comstock noted that any plaintiffs in a suit “cannot get a temporary restraining order because the Magnuson-Stevens Act prohibits them. However, they might be able to get an injunction based on the argument we are violating a recent court order that stopped a 2% reallocation from commercial to recreational that the Gulf Council had adopted,” he wrote.

A third new document appears to depict a National Marine Fisheries Service administrator suggesting work arounds for an action that would be in direct violation of MSA. It’s a memo from Harry Blanchet, Biologist Administrator of the Fisheries Division, Louisiana Department of Wildlife, to John Searle, the Congressional staffer to Louisiana Representative Steve Scalise. Searle had been in discussions with the state fisheries department regarding the red snapper situation.

Blanchet, who also sits on the Gulf Council’s Science and Statistical panel, warned Scalise that “recreational red snapper harvest for 2017 may well overrun the recreational allocation by a substantial amount, and as a result, overall harvest may overrun the total allowable catch.”

Blanchet, like those before him, warned Searle that, “historically, and required by Magnuson, those over-runs would have to be paid back in following years, resulting in even lower recreational quota and thus federal seasons,” he told Seale.

Blanchet’s solution was a waiver.

“My thought was that a simple waiver of those Magnuson requirements in another bill in the current Congress could help a lot in terms of allowing there to be a federal waters recreational red snapper season in 2018. I understand that you may want to do a lot more, but just want to be sure that those payback provisions to not come back to bite next year,” he wrote.

This story originally appeared on Seafood News, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

NOAA defends U.S. Fisheries

October 17, 2017 — This week, NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator, Chris Oliver, sent a letter to the editor of Marine Policy that does not mince words. In response to a new report on IUU fishing, Mr. Oliver asks the editor, “to publish a retraction, and to ensure future articles undergo adequate review to avoid publication of misleading information.”

The article in question, “Estimates of illegal and unreported seafood imports to Japan,” claims a portion of IUU seafood coming to Japan include salmon, crab, and Alaska pollock from the United States. However, these three species in particular are considered among the best managed and most closely monitored in the world. (Not to mention, they’re healthy).

A flawed methodology

Mr. Oliver calls the allegations absent of any transparency regarding the data sources and methodology used by the authors to come up with these claims. The letter goes into more detail about data and methodology concerns and then provides ample information about the robust management of U.S. Alaska pollock, salmon, and crab fisheries.

Read the full story at the National Fisheries Institute

Read the letter from Chris Oliver to Marine Policy at NOAA

Walton Foundation Flops As NOAA Demands an Outrageous Paper They Funded on IUU Fishing be Retracted

October 17, 2017 — Seafood News — The Head of NOAA Fisheries, Chris Oliver, has called for a major paper on IUU fishing published in Marine Policy to be retracted in its entirety due to egregious factual errors and misreporting as regards US fisheries.

The paper, Estimates of Illegal and Unreported Seafood Imports to Japan,  was funded by the Walton Family Foundation (WFF).The lead author, Ganapathiraju Pramod conceived the design, conducted the study, analyzed information and drafted the paper. He has made a career out of constructing a model of trade in illegal fisheries, and has previously published a paper claiming up to 32% of US Fisheries Imports are from IUU fish.

He used the same basic methodology in both papers.  First, he develops estimates for trade flows, including fish processed in 3rd countries.  Then he searches for all possible indications of IUU fishing from news accounts, literature citations, government and fisheries association reports, consultants reports, NGO reports, Oral or Written interviews, and finally, peer reviewed academic papers.

He takes the mishmash of sources and assigns a weight to IUU fishing in each major sourcing area.

In the Marine Policy paper, he concluded that 24% to 36% by weight of seafood imported into Japan in 2015 came from IUU fishing.

The reasons NOAA called for the complete retraction of the paper can be seen in his estimates of IUU catches of Alaska Pollock, Crab, and Salmon.

He estimates that out of the 122,280 tons of US Alaska pollock products exported to Japan in 2015, from 15% to 22% (26,901 tons) came from IUU fisheries.

To put this in perspective, his estimate would mean about 20% of surimi destined for Japan is produced from IUU fish.  Since US surimi is produced by vessels with 100% onboard observer coverage, or in plants that are meticulously inspected and required to pay tax on all fish landed in Alaska, it seems that the authors are living in some alternate universe where their own perspective replaces hard facts.

So how does the paper get from the fact that the US Alaska pollock fishery is one of the cleanest, most transparent, industrialized, and most highly regulated fisheries in the world, to a claim that 20% of their exports are illegal fish.

He does so through the murky process of conflating all his sources where ever any source has mentioned a fisheries problem.  So for example, if a source wrote about high grading Alaska pollock, or roe stripping (both activities which would be impossible to hide from the 100% observer coverage), he then applies this to the export numbers and assumes a certain percentage of the charge must be true.

Writing to Marine Policy, Chris Oliver said “the Bering Sea pollock industry has long-established and contractually binding requirements among all vessels to share all catch data with an independent third-party. Discard of pollock is prohibited. Were it to occur, discard and high-grading of pollock would be detected by the numerous monitoring and enforcements provisions in place, and would result in a significant enforcement action.”

On Salmon, Oliver says “The authors’ suggestion that sockeye and coho salmon taken as bycatch in trawl fisheries makes its way to Japan as IUU product is a particularly egregious example of inadequate research and flawed conclusions. Easily accessible and publically available reports indicate that Chinook salmon in Alaska and along the West Coast of the U.S. and chum salmon in Alaska are the predominant species taken incidentally in trawl fisheries. Bycatch of sockeye and coho across all trawl (and for that matter, most other gear types) is de minimis, and occurs primarily in the highly-monitored pollock fishery.”

The paper claims that between 2200 and 4400 tons of Illegal salmon are caught in Alaska and exported to Japan.  The authors likely don’t realize that monitoring of salmon bycatch by trawl fisheries is highly developed in Alaska, with vessels reporting bycatch down to the individual fish.  These fish cannot be legally sold.

It is quite likely that the authors have confused US practices where bycatch is highly regulated with those in Russia, where the pollock fleet is allowed to keep whatever salmon they catch, and that salmon is subsequently sold in the commercial market.  The Russian system does not require that pollock vessels identify the species of salmon; and it assumes all pollock vessel bycatch of salmon is legal.

The authors make a similar mistake with US crab fisheries, once again assuming that because they have heard people talk about IUU crab in some instance, therefore up to 18*% of the US crab exports to Japan represent illegal fishing.  As anyone in the crab industry will tell you, this is simply laughable, given the regulatory oversight and close inspection of the Bering Sea snow crab and king crab fisheries.

Furthermore, most of the crab exports to Japan are made by very large exporting companies.  None of these major companies would allow their business or their markets to be jeopardized by engaging in illegal behavior.  The fact that the authors accept their model output without thinking twice about the real-world implications is the key reason they should withdraw their paper.

In short, this paper has sullied the reputation of all associated with it, because it is such an egregious example of constructing a fantasy world and then justifying it with a numeric model.

There has been a problem of IUU fish imports to Japan, especially in the crab and tuna fisheries.

if the authors had looked at the real world instead of just models, they would have seen that since the Russia-Japanese agreement on documentation for crab vessels, illegal live crab landings in Japan have dwindled to nearly zero.  In fact, plants closed, the supply chain shifted, and the market felt a huge impact in the collapse of IUU crab fishing to Japan.  But none of this makes it into the paper.

The problem here is that papers such as this one are based on fantasy but they become the basis for NGO claims about generalized IUU fishing, and they take away resources, attention and commitments from actions that actually address some of the problems.  These include the Port State Measures agreement, universal vessel registration in the tuna fisheries, US, Japanese, and EU import traceability requirements, all of which have served to dramatically reduce the marketability of IUU fish products.

NOAA is right to demand Marine Policy retract this paper and submit it to additional peer review,  if it is ever to be published again.

The Walton Family Foundation also needs to think about its own reputation.  Although they do fund many important fishery projects, allowing a paper as misguided as this to result from their funding actually undermines their efforts to promote sustainable seafood, because it sows doubts about their competence and understanding of fisheries issues.

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

Nominations Sought for Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee

October 17, 2017 — The following was released by the NOAA Fisheries 

Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee nominations accepted through November 27, 2017.

NOAA Fisheries is seeking nominations to fill current and pending vacancies on the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) due to term limits. MAFAC advises the Secretary of Commerce on all living marine resource matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. The Committee draws on its members’ expertise and other sources to evaluate and make recommendations to the Secretary and NOAA on the development and implementation of agency regulations, policies, and programs critical to the mission and goals of NOAA Fisheries.

MAFAC members represent the wide spectrum of commercial, recreational, subsistence, and aquaculture fisheries interests; tribes; seafood industry; protected resources and habitat interests; environmental organizations; academic institutions; consumer groups; and other living marine resource interest groups.

Nominees should possess demonstrable expertise in one of these fields and be able to fulfill the time commitments required for two in-person annual meetings and between-meeting subcommittee work. Membership is balanced geographically across states and territories, ethnically, and on the basis of gender, in addition to the range of expertise and interests listed. Individuals serve for a term of three years. Members may serve a second consecutive term, if re-appointed.

A MAFAC member cannot be a federal employee, a member of a Regional Fishery Management Council, a registered federal lobbyist, or a state employee.  Membership is voluntary, and except for reimbursable travel and related expenses, service is without pay. The committee functions solely as an advisory body (complying fully with the Federal Advisory Committee Act) that reports to the Secretary.

Full nomination instructions and guidelines are described in this Federal Register notice.

For questions or more information, please contact Jennifer Lukens, Executive Director of MAFAC, jennifer.lukens@noaa.gov or Heidi Lovett, heidi.lovett@noaa.gov.

ASMFC Spiny Dogfish Board Approves 2018 Fishery Specifications

October 17, 2017 — NORFOLK, Virginia — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

The Commission’s Spiny Dogfish Management Board approved a spiny dogfish commercial quota of 38,195,822 pounds for the 2018 fishing season (May 1, 2018 – April 30, 2019). The Board maintained a 6,000 pound commercial trip limit in state waters (0-3 miles from shore) in the northern region (Maine through Connecticut). The quota and northern region trip limit are consistent with the measures recommended to NOAA Fisheries by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. States in the southern region (New York to North Carolina) have the ability to set state-specific trip limits based on the needs of their fisheries.

2018 marks the third year of the current federal 3-year specifications cycle. It is anticipated the stock assessment will be updated in 2018 to inform development of fishery specification recommendations, including the commercial quota, for 2019 and beyond. Additionally, the Board intends to discuss issues raised by the Advisory Panel (and other fishery participants) in more detail prior to setting 2019 specifications. The timing of the next benchmark stock assessment for spiny dogfish is less certain, however, the Board supported the Council’s recommendations to conduct a benchmark stock assessment in 2019, or soon after.

The 2018 spiny dogfish commercial quota allocations (in pounds) for the northern region and the states of New York through North Carolina are provided below. Any overages from the 2017 season will be deducted from that region’s or state’s 2018 quota allocation. Similarly, any eligible roll overs from the 2017 season will be applied to that region’s or state’s 2018 quota allocation.
For more information, please contact Kirby Rootes-Murdy, Senior Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at krootes-murdy@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740

David Goethel: NOAA Fisheries rule should alarm taxpayers

October 16, 2017 — NOAA Fisheries has discovered a devious way to increase their budget without the checks and balances guaranteed by our forefathers, and the courts have let it stand.

I have been involved in a lawsuit with NOAA Fisheries over who pays for at-sea monitors (ASM) for the last three years. These are basically our own personal state police men who ride along on the boat and watch and record everything fishermen do at sea. Fishermen have been forced to sign contracts with for-profit third-party companies that provide this service for $710 per day. Recently, the Supreme Court refused to hear our case, effectively ending our pursuit of justice. Readers should be concerned, not only because this job-killing regulation effects their ability to obtain local seafood, but also because the loss leaves in place a precedent that will allow regulatory agencies to tax citizens by passing regulations while bypassing Congress.

Readers should forget most of what they learned in civics class and anything they see on courtroom television. You do have equal access to justice but it comes at a very high price. Taking this case through the legal system probably cost in excess of half a million dollars. Regulatory agencies make shrewd calculations about who can afford to sue over an action. They assume large corporations and environmental non-government organizations (NGOs) will sue and regulations are tailored accordingly. Absent a group like Cause of Action (COA) providing pro-bono counsel to someone like me, I and by extension ordinary citizens, are effectively blocked from seeking justice by the cost.

Read the full op-ed at Foster’s Daily Democrat

After criminal case, Carlos Rafael faces more losses

NOAA has yet to determine fines and penalties in civil case involving Carlos Rafael

October 16, 2017 — So far, New Bedford fishing mogul Carlos Rafael has lost a fraction of his fishing empire after pleading guilty to 23 counts of false labeling and identification of fish, as well as cash smuggling, conspiracy, falsifying federal records and tax evasion. He was found guilty and sentenced to nearly four years in jail last month.

But there could be millions more in fines and penalties as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration decides what civil measures to impose on Rafael. Fishermen and environmental groups have been lobbying for that money to go toward restoring the fishery, and many would like to see it pay for better monitoring of what fishermen catch at sea and land on shore.

“We’re looking ahead to the civil phase and hope there will be some visibility (public input),” said Johanna Thomas, a senior director for the Environmental Defense Fund. “We agree that the money from (criminal) and civil cases go to funding the monitoring system.”

But how that happens is still a bit of a mystery.

At the time of his sentencing, U.S. District Court Judge William Young required that Rafael pay a $200,000 fine and $108,929 in restitution to the U.S. Treasury for the smuggled money and tax evasion. This past week, Young also determined that Rafael would forfeit four fishing vessels that participated in Rafael’s scheme to get around a lack of quota in certain species. Rafael also forfeited 34 of what Young termed “permits.”

Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times

Groundfishermen: ‘It feels like we’re just forgotten’

October 16, 2017 — HAMPTON, New Hampshire — New Hampshire fishermen say temporary federal aid for at-sea monitor coverage is barely holding their industry afloat now that a court battle over the cost appears to have ended.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is currently covering 60 percent of the cost for third-party at-sea monitors to observe commercial groundfishermen’s compliance with federal regulations. That coverage is projected to end May 1, 2018, when fishermen will be expected to cover the entire cost, according to NOAA spokeswoman Allison Ferreira. Groundfish include New England seafood staples like cod and haddock.

Hampton fisherman David Goethel said he would probably sell his boat and stop fishing if NOAA stops funding its portion of the cost. He and other fishermen filed a federal suit arguing it was unfair for fishermen to pay for monitors required by NOAA. Judges at the district and circuit court levels ruled the fishermen filed the suit too late to be considered on its merits, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition to have the case heard this month.

Read the full story at Fosters’s Daily Democrat

American Samoa Demand Answers From Fisheries Management Council Conference

October 16, 2017 — PAGO PAGO, American Samoa — Due to the many concerns from members of the House Agriculture, Marine & Wildlife and Forestry Committee, on the issues of Federal regulations that affect fisheries in American Samoa, the director of the Department of Marine Wildlife Resource, Va’amua Henry Sesepasara, asked House members to make sure they voice all questions and frustrations to members of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC) when their annual conference convenes next week.

Va’amua and Christine Lutu-Sanchez, who is president of the Tautai Longline Fishing Association and also one of the two American Samoa representatives on the WPFMC, appeared before the Committee last Friday, to discuss issues pertaining to fishing in American Samoa, and how federal regulations affect fishing in the territory.

However, one of the main issues discussed during the hearing, had to do with money that American Samoa fishing boats are paying for fishing licenses, and money that fishing boats pay in fines if they are caught fishing illegally inside the territory’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Rep. Vesi Talalelei Fautanu Jr. believes all these monies should come straight to American Samoa, instead of going to federal agencies that work together to enforce regulations on the seas; and other reps reminded Va’amua that all new revenues must be sent to the Fono for appropriation before DMWR can use them.

Va’amua confirmed that all monies from fishing vessel fines and licenses go straight to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — and American Samoa through DMWR must send them a proposal to notify them what project they want to use the funds on, before the territory can access the funds.

Read the full story at the Pacific Islands Report

Civil penalities from NOAA could be next for Carlos Rafael

October 13, 2017 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — Judge William Young’s judgment filed Wednesday appeared to be the finish line to Carlos Rafael’s case. Young, though, by ordering the forfeiture of four vessels and every permit associated with the Bull Dog, the Olivia and Rafaela, the Lady Patricia and the Southern Crusader II began a new ripple effect throughout the commercial fishing industry revealing some questions but very little answers.

It’s likely NOAA will take center stage now that the Department of Justice has closed its case. NOAA can bring civil penalties to Rafael.

The Environmental Defense Fund released a statement after Young’s ruling calling for NOAA to “pursue civil remedies to further aid the victims of Carlos Rafael’s crimes.”

They can range from fines to indefinite bans within commercial fishing.

NOAA issued indefinite bans to James G. Spalt and Peter Spalt, former Cape Cod scallopers, in 1996 to go with a more than $4 million fine. More than 20 years later, they remain outside the industry with no way to return.

The allegations levied toward the Spalt brothers included some of the same offenses Rafael pleaded guilty to, but also expanded beyond falsifying fishing quotas.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times