Saving Seafood

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.

 

First MSA Reauthorization Hearing Acknowledged Successes, Identified Needed Changes

August 2, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — At the first of a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act held yesterday at the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, senators from both sides of the aisle voiced support for the regional management council system, NOAA Fisheries, and the science that supports fisheries management, despite the deep cuts proposed in the President’s budget.

“With regard to the budget, I think some of these cuts may not survive the [reauthorization] process,” said Chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK). “I think we’re going to be adding a lot back to the projects that we think are vital.”

Sullivan was responding in part to a series of questions from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries, about the current administration’s proposed budget for the agency.

“My question concerns the budget submitted by the president of the United States. The budget slashes funding for programs like Sea Grant and the Milford Lab at the University of Connecticut [Northeast Fisheries Science Center],” Blumenthal said.

“These federal research efforts to help grow and expand certain aspects of aquaculture are very promising. As a representative of this administration, how can you justify these cuts to the agency that you are responsible for administering? Are you going to commit to me that you’re going to [find funding] for Sea Grant and the Milford Lab?”

Oliver responded, “Senator, I don’t know that I’m in a position to comment very extensively on the President’s budget. I do know that they’ve placed a revised emphasis on the Department of Defense and national security.”

Blumenthal: “I’m on the Armed Services Committee sir, and I very much support that emphasis … but this kind of slashing and trashing of programs that are essential to the kinds of programs you administer, that are vital to our economic future in aquaculture I consider a mockery of the mission of your agency. And if you’re not in a position to justify it, who would be?”

Oliver: “All I can say sir is we’re going to do our best to operate within the budget that we have, and I know that a lot of the programs that were slated to be cut involve cooperative agreements or past grants of funding through the Sea Grant program, for example, and grants to the coastal states. We’re going to do our best to make that up internally…”

Blumenthal: “Are you going to commit to me that you can make up those cuts to the Sea Grant program and the Milford Lab and the University of Connecticut that are essential to those programs?”

Oliver: “I can’t commit that we’re specifically going to be able to make those up from our baseline budget. I think that we’re facing some tough decisions too. I’ve said on many occasions that I feel that this agency may be in a position to refocus on some of its very core mission – science mission…”

Blumenthal: “You’d agree with me that those are valid and important programs?”

Oliver: “Of course sir, I really do.”

Blumenthal: “If you agree these programs are valid, then your agency has a responsibility to fight for them and to make sure they are fully funded.”

The exchange was toward the end of an otherwise non-confrontational hearing on the “long overdue” reauthorization of the MSA with Oliver and Dr. John Quinn, Chair of the New England Fisheries Management Council. Both men lauded the successes brought about by the original 1976 law and the amendments to it, most recently in 2007.

“As a group, we are strong believers in the Magnuson-Stevens Act – and not just because it established the Councils,” said Quinn, who spoke on behalf of the Council Coordination Committee (CCC), which is made up of the chairs, vice chairs, and executive directors of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils.

“The outcome of our management success is clear: commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries are key contributors to our coastal communities and the nation’s economy. In large measure, this is because the Act structured a very successful approach to sustainable fisheries management. Central to the Act are the 10 National Standards that guide our management process.”

“Under the standards set in the Magnuson-Stevens Act the nation has made great strides in maintaining more stocks at biologically sustainable levels, ending overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, building a sustainable future for our fishing-dependent communities, and providing more domestic options for U.S. seafood consumers in a market dominated by imports,” echoed Oliver.

Both agreed, however, that changes should be made. Oliver noted in particular ways in which overall production could be increased, particularly in areas where catch limits have not been updated to changes in stock sizes.

“For example, while our West Coast groundfish fisheries have rebuilt several important stocks, in recent years fishermen are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints. We must find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species in all of our fisheries,” explained Oliver.

Stakeholders in the West Coast groundfish fishery were enthusiastic about Oliver’s references to the plight of those working in the non-whiting trawl catch shares program. The program has realized far less than full utilization of the resource, with less than one-third of the available fish being harvested annually.

“We applaud Chris Oliver’s recent testimony to the Senate on the state of the West Coast IFQ non-whiting trawl fishery,” Pacific Seafood’s Mike Okoniewski said.

“Members of industry have been testifying for years that while the conservation benefits of the program have passed all expectations, but the economics are performing at abysmal levels,” Okoniewski said.

Oliver’s testimony drilled to the heart of the matter: if you cannot get the fish out of the water you cannot realize the economic benefits outlined in the program’s goals and objectives. Targets such as increasing economic benefits, providing full utilization of the trawl sector allocation, increasing operational flexibility and providing measurable economic and employment benefits throughout the processing and distribution chain have not been met for the non-whiting sector.

“Chris Oliver’s testimony is a huge step forward to reverse the present trajectory we are on. Again we thank him and look forward his leadership of NMFS. His focus on balance and economic output, as well as conservation and sustainability, is long overdue,” Okoniewski said.

“Much like Pacific groundfish (to quote AA Oliver), New England groundfish fishermen ‘are leaving a substantial amount of the available harvest of some groundfish species in the water, due to regulatory or bycatch species constraints’”, noted Maggie Raymond, Executive Director of Associated Fisheries of Maine.

Both Quinn and Oliver referenced a need for “flexibility”, Raymond observed.

“Quinn’s testimony is specific to a need for flexibility in rebuilding timelines.  But flexibility in rebuilding timelines is not necessarily the fix, at least not for New England,” she added.

“As long as an otherwise healthy mixed stock fishery remains constrained by a weak stock in the complex, the problem of leaving available harvest in the water cannot be addressed.  We look forward to working with AA Oliver to ‘find ways to maximize allowable harvests that are still protective of non-target species.’

“Let’s start with windowpane flounder. A species with no economic value that puts a significant burden on the NE groundfish and scallop fisheries,” said Raymond.

Oliver acknowledged his testimony from last year on no need for further flexibility on MSA. But, he said, “I’m in a new role now and as I look at the issue more broadly, I’d heard from constituents across the country, listened to the dialog about issues with the Act, and I’ve come to believe that there is a possibility that additional flexibilities should be considered, accountability measures that are used to enforced annual catch limits (ACLs), particularly in fisheries where we don’t have the robust and accurate accounting.

“Many of our recreational fisheries are of a nature that don’t lend themselves well to those monitoring methods.

“The administration has not taken positions on these specific issues,” Oliver said. “But in my personal view, in fisheries that don’t have robust systems of accountability, in particular the recreational fisheries that have different goals, there’s room for flexibility.”

Quinn agreed. “We’re here to reauthorize [the MSA], not repeal it. Data availability and stock assessment, particularly in the recreational side, I think we’ve got a lot of work to do. Data needs are really important. ACLs and AMs work for the commercial, not necessarily for the recreational fisheries.”

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) called the nation’s bycatch quantity “unacceptable” and asked Quinn for an assessment on catch shares.

“In some parts of the country, catch shares have worked,” Quinn responded. “In my part of the country, it hasn’t worked as well. But the CCC’s position is to keep catch shares as a part of our management tool box.”

Sullivan brought up the issue of electronic monitoring as a less expensive alternative to onboard observers and asked, “What can we do to help the councils use EM more efficiently?”

“Like catch shares, the authority for EM is in the Act now,” said Quinn, “but individual regions may have specific fisheries that may or may not use EM. There are a lot of pilot programs using EM now. Decisions should be made region by region.”

“I want to compliment you both on your emphasis on data and science,” Sullivan said in closing comments. “We’re going to back you up on that.”

The next hearing will be August 23, 2017 in Kenai, Alaska.

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

Senate Subcommittee Holds First Hearing to Guide Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization

August 2, 2017 — The Magnuson-Stevens Act, the primary law regulating fisheries in federal waters, is in need of reauthorization, and Senate Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on Tuesday held the first in a series of hearings to guide that process. And, unsurprisingly, the issue of climate change made waves.

Chris Oliver, assistant administrator of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, and John Quinn, chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council, pushed for a variety of changes, ranging from management of mixed stocks to more flexibility in how the Council Coordination Committee can monitor and collect data. But it was Sen. Richard Blumenthal who made the strongest case for change by criticizing the current system for failing New England’s fishing fleet and leaving the region’s fishermen “angry and frustrated beyond words.”

Because of climate change, Blumenthal said, fish that New England fishermen have traditionally sought were pushed north and fish from southern waters moved into New England. But catch limits for certain fish haven’t been adjusted to meet the reality facing New England fishermen, forcing them to return quota-exceeding fish to the ocean. Billions of dollars in profits are being lost, Blumenthal said, while fishermen from southern states come to New England waters to catch their migrating fish. “There is something profoundly unfair and intolerable about the situation,” he added. “In my view, it violates the present law.”

Quinn responded by pointing out that parts of the New England fishing industry are booming but agreed that groundfish fishermen are struggling. While the CCC’s process is to collect as much data as needed to produce accurate stock assessments, Quinn said they didn’t have “a simple solution for rising water temperatures or the ocean acidification,” which are the roots of the shifting fish populations.

Read the full story at Politico

CONNECTICUT: State’s fishing fleet facing potentially ‘disastrous’ quota cuts for fluke

January 19, 2017 — Reductions that took effect Jan. 1 in federal quotas for the commercial fluke catch could have a “disastrous” effect on the Connecticut’s small remaining fishing fleet, unless action being advocated to undo the cut is taken, the state’s congressional delegation wrote in a letter to the U.S. secretary of commerce.

“It’s going to put us out of business,” Stonington fisherman Robert Guzzo, vice president of the Southern New England Fishermen and Lobstermen’s Association, said Wednesday. “I’ve never seen so many fish in the ocean. The fish are out there, but the science and the regulators haven’t caught up with what’s actually out there.”

On Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., pressed commerce secretary nominee Wilbur Ross to use his authority to change how quotas for fish species including fluke — also called summer flounder — are allocated among states from the mid-Atlantic to New England.

Species such as fluke have been migrating into New England waters in greater numbers in recent years, Blumenthal and fishermen contend. But the regulatory system used by the National Marine Fisheries Service uses an outdated system that favors the mid-Atlantic states at New England’s expense, they say.

“The system is broken … from an environmental and economic standpoint, and it’s costing jobs, and it is preventing the United States from using its fish stocks and instead has resulted in importing, which destroys livelihoods and economic well-being in the New England states,” Blumenthal told Ross during the confirmation hearing. He urged Ross to use his emergency powers to reform the system.

In response, Ross said he is interested in helping the fisheries and ensuring quotas are allocated properly. The Department of Commerce includes the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Read the full story at The Day

JOHN SACKTON: Are the Big NGO’s Winning the Marine Monument Battle, But Losing the War

September 15, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Coinciding with the opening of the Our Oceans conference in Washington, DC today, President Obama announced a new 5000 square mile marine monument on the southeast corner of George’s Bank, encompassing three submarine canyons and some seamounts further off the continental shelf.

The map of the monument closely hews to the proposed map put out by Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal in a letter to Obama in July.  It follows a letter at the end of June from the six senators representing Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, along with a host of environmental NGOs.

The argument is simple:  America has created a series of national parks on land.  It should offer the same protections in the marine environment.

NGOs have been urging Obama to use executive authority to create marine monuments under the antiquities act, which are designated as areas with no human economic activity except recreational fishing. (click image for larger version)

The Oceans Conference hosted by Secretary of State John Kerry has the same goal:  to put aside large areas  of the global marine ecosystem in a series of reserves or marine protected areas.

This is not a goal opposed by fishery managers or the industry.

You might be surprised to learn that currently 32% of US marine waters are in marine protected areas.  3% of US waters are in fully protected no-take reserves, such as the monument just created today.

The State Dept. says that at the inaugural 2014 Our Ocean conference, President Obama announced our intent to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument.  This expansion – to over 1.2 million sq km, or about three times the size of California – was finalized September 26, 2014, creating the world’s largest MPA that is off limits to commercial extractive uses, including commercial fishing.

Last month, the US expanded this monument by five times, to an area the size of the Gulf of Mexico.

“In total, governments attending the 2014 and 2015 Our Ocean conferences announced new commitments to protect nearly 6 million square kilometers of the ocean – an area more than twice the size of India.  NGOs and philanthropies attending the conferences also announced significant commitments to help establish and implement these and other MPAs.”

“The world has agreed to a target of conserving at least 10 percent of coastal and marine areas, including through effectively managed protected areas, by 2020.  Through the Our Ocean conferences, we seek to help achieve and even surpass this goal. ”

The reason that all of the fishery management councils, most state fishery managers, and a majority of the US seafood industry recently wrote Obama pleading to stop the expansion of protected areas without scientific review is that these managers and the industry already work with large areas that are protected, and yet also allow for non-destructive economic activity.

Furthermore, the people involved in creating the protected areas often know nothing about them.  For example, the Boston Globe this morning reports “Administration officials said that a study from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration showed waters in the Northeast are projected to rise three times faster than the global average.  In addition, officials said, climate change is threatening fish stocks in the region — such as salmon, lobster, and scallops — and the monument will provide a refuge for at-risk species.”

Lets unpack this absurdity.  Global warming is causing species to move, so they will move out of the protected areas and into non-protected areas.   Second, the examples given are so uninformed.  Lobster populations are the highest in a hundred years; scallop populations have rebounded under one of the most successful fisheries management initiatives on the East Coast.  And Salmon?  Why salmon have not been fished in quantity in New England for hundreds of years, and the designation of part of the continental shelf for protection has nothing to do whatsoever with salmon habitat.  They are not there, and never have been.   It is this level of ignorance that makes the fishery councils throw up their hands in despair.

Given the ease with which the NGOs can communicate the desire for no-take reserves, they demonize the alternative, which is managed areas for protection.  This is the way most of the US protected areas have been created: through a review and nomination process that is scientifically vetted, and through use of the essential habitat laws that are part of Magnuson.  In fact, in the examples above, it is precisely managed protection that has led to a huge abundance of scallops, lobsters, and preserved salmon runs.

NGOs are winning the battle on creating no-take marine monuments.  But to do this, they have to deny the validity of the scientific and public review that has led to the dramatic changes in global fisheries sustainability over the past twenty years.  It is no mystery why many wild fish stocks are rebounding.  It is because managers imposed the correct science of harvest control and protection of spawning areas.

It is precisely when they abandon arguments based on science-driven actions to protect areas where the NGOs may lose us the war.

By encouraging their supporters to devalue the existing protections (32% of US waters) because only 10% are full no-take zones, the NGOs also deny the validity of the scientific review process which fishery managers have used to bring back global fish stocks.

Protecting marine environments should be a joint goal our entire country, including the seafood industry, environmental activists, and the public at large.  The most effective way to do that is to constantly support the application of science driven decision making to questions about marine habitats and resources.

By undermining that approach, NGOs risk advancing those who will claim their uses of the marine environment don’t have to be analyzed for impacts.

Today, the political powers broadly support more marine protection.  In the future, political powers may broadly support increased jobs in the arctic or wherever needed, without regard to the impact on marine ecosystems.

It was the North Pacific Council, who put in place a moratorium on fishing in the arctic ocean, that took one of the most dramatic steps for marine protection in a changing environment.  They did this in the context of making the best scientific decisions possible, and they set up a review process that would curtail any reckless or damaging approaches to that marine environment.

The NGO’s, by failing to recognize the strong advancement of protections already in place, may end up weakening these protections in a future of warmer waters and fisheries crisis.  That will be precisely when we may need them the most.

Abandoning a public process of scientific review is a dangerous game because we do not know what the future will bring.  Yet the NGO’s are arguing that their emotional approach leads to the strongest long-term protection.

The actual results may be the opposite.

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

Undersea monument plan advocates hear fishermen’s concerns

August 31, 2016 — MYSTIC, Conn. — One hundred and fifty miles east of Cape Cod, a unique undersea landscape of deep canyons and high mountains supports a diverse ecosystem, abundant with colorful corals, fragile sponges, beaked whales, dragonfish and mussels adapted to living in methane hydrate seeps, that is being considered for protection as a National Monument.

Two leading advocates for the designation, which would be given by President Barack Obama under the American Antiquities Act before he leaves office in January, explained why they are lobbying for the designation Tuesday to an audience of both conservation advocates and commercial fishing representatives concerned about losing valuable fishing grounds.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Peter Auster, retired University of Connecticut marine science professor and currently the senior research scientist at the Mystic Aquarium, made their case for declaring the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts as a Marine National Monument during a program Tuesday evening at the aquarium.

But commercial fishing groups say the designation would cut off their access to productive areas for red crab, swordfish, tuna and offshore lobster harvests, among other species.

“Those areas have been used for hundreds of years,” said Joe Gilbert, owner of Empire Fisheries, which has operations in southeastern Connecticut and elsewhere along Long Island Sound.

He and other fishing representatives argued that if Obama uses the executive authority afforded him in the Antiquities Act to designate the area a monument, the federal and regional fisheries regulatory processes that require public input would be circumvented.

“We feel disenfranchised at this point,” Gilbert said.

Eric Reid of North Kingstown, R.I., who represents commercial fishing interests on the New England Fishery Management Council, said creating the monument would cause “localized economic damage” to the already stressed fishing industry, and advocated for a compromise being recommended by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Read the full story at The Day

 

Environmentalists push for Atlantic Marine Monument

August 30, 2016 — President Obama made history last week when he more than quadrupled the size of a protected marine area off the coast of Hawaii, safeguarding fragile coral reefs and thousands of species that depend on the Pacific Ocean habitat.

Now conservationists hope the administration will protect the Atlantic Ocean’s deep-sea treasures.

Conservationists have called on the president to use his executive power to designate 6,180 square miles encompassing eight canyons and four seamounts as the New England Coral and Seamounts National Monument.

If the president heeds their advice, fishing groups warn the move would shut down portions of a productive $15 million lobster and crab fishery along the edges of the offshore canyons—and unnecessarily outlaw fishing within the zone’s borders for tuna and other open-ocean species that pass through the water column but don’t dwell on the seabed.

“What’s at issue is the lack of transparency in establishing a national monument,” said Robert Beal, executive director of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which is in charge of managing near-shore fishery resources for 15 coastal states. “If these large boxes are drawn and large areas of the ocean are deemed off-limits, than there is going to be a lot of fishing opportunities displaced or stopped altogether.”

Typically, state and interstate fishing councils are part of the public debate on determining fishery closures and habitat protection zones. That’s how the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council moved to ban bottom trawling in 2015 along more than 35,000 square miles of seafloor from Long Island to North Carolina, just south of the proposed national monument area.

But with the Antiquities Act—a law presidents since Theodore Roosevelt have used to protect iconic landscapes such as Mount Olympus in Washington, the Grand Canyon in Arizona, and Muir Woods in California—Obama could decide to fully protect the region without input from the fishing industry.

Past presidents have mostly used the authority to preserve land from development. The first president to use the power offshore was George W. Bush, who established the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in 2006.

“It’s frustrating because that power is meant to close off the smallest amount of area as possible that needs protecting, and that’s not the case here,” said Robert Vanasse, executive director of Saving Seafood, a fishing industry advocacy group.

He said the proposed national monument boundaries outlined by Connecticut’s congressional delegation and led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., bans fishing far away from the most sensitive coral habitat and could unnecessarily hinder fishing industries that don’t target bottom-dwelling species. Vanasse’s group, along with the fisheries commission, is asking that if the regions are declared a national monument, fishing be allowed up to depths of 3,000 feet.

“If they really just want to protect the seamounts and the canyons, why would you want to stop fishing over them?” Vanasse said. “You don’t tell planes to stop flying over Yosemite.”

Read the full story at Take Part

New England Fishing Groups Oppose Use of Antiquities Act for Atlantic Marine Monument as Requested by Connecticut Lawmakers

August 4, 2016 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

WASHINGTON (NCFC) – August 4, 2016 – Led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Congressional Delegation today asked President Obama to use executive authority under the Antiquities Act to designate the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts as a Marine National Monument. The Connecticut Congressional Delegation is comprised of Sen. Blumenthal, Sen. Chris Murphy, Rep. John Larson, Rep. Joe Courtney, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. Jim Himes, and Rep. Elizabeth Esty.

Members of the National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) have previously expressed opposition to the misuse of the Antiquities Act to designate an Atlantic Marine Monument. A monument designation would subvert the open and transparent process for fisheries management currently in place under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and threatens the jobs and livelihoods of hardworking fishermen.

Below are statements from NCFC members on their opposition to an Atlantic Marine Monument designation.

David Frulla and Andrew Minkiewicz, Fisheries Survival Fund (Atlantic Scallops):

“A monument designation, with its unilateral implementation and opaque process, is the exact opposite of the fisheries management process in which we participate. Public areas and public resources should be managed in an open and transparent manner, not an imperial stroke of the pen.”

Jon Williams, New England Red Crab Harvesters’ Association:

“The red crab fishing business I’ve been operating for twenty years is active in some of the areas under the proposal. Not only has our fishery complied with every regulation, but we have expended significant resources and time to ensure the health of the resource we fish. These efforts to both understand and minimize our impact on the environment have been so successful that after forty years of red crab fishing, our fishing grounds are described as ‘pristine’ by the same environmental groups who seek the monument designation. If these habitats are still ‘pristine’ after forty years of fishing, how can a serious argument be made that the area is in imminent danger and in need of immediate, unilateral protection by presidential fiat?”

Greg DiDomenico, Garden State Seafood Association:

“The Antiquities Act was perhaps a necessary tool to protect sensitive areas in 1906, but with our increased technological capabilities, knowledge, and an all-encompassing regulatory system, it is an unnecessary and blunt tool for 2016. It is time that the years of on-the-water experience possessed by the commercial fishing industry be acknowledged, especially in the context of this issue.”

Richard P. Ruais, American Bluefin Tuna Association:

“Given that our fishing gear has no negative impact on deep sea coral, a proposed prohibition on the fishing methods we employ would be arbitrary, completely unnecessary and would result in significant negative economic consequences.”

Statements from more NCFC members on their opposition to an Atlantic Marine Monument are available here.

Connecticut Congressional Members Call For Federal Probe Into “Unfair” Commercial Fishing Quotas

June 15, 2016 — Members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation are stepping up the pressure to reform federal rules for this state’s commercial fishermen, calling Tuesday for a U.S. Commerce Department investigation into “unfair quotas.”

U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy and U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2, demanded that the department’s inspector general investigate a quota system they said disadvantages Connecticut fishing operators and is putting them under “extreme economic hardship.”

Connecticut’s delegation and those from other New England states have frequently criticized the existing federal quota system.

Read the full story at the Hartford Courant

Connecticut & Massachusetts Congressional Delegations Advocate for Changes in Fisheries Management to Level the Playing Field for New England Fishermen

May 24, 2016 — The following was released by the office of Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT):

WASHINGTON, D.C. —Today, U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), along with Representatives Joe Courtney (CT-02), John B. Larson (CT-1) Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), Jim Himes (CT-4), and Elizabeth Esty (CT-5) sent a letter along with nine Massachusetts delegation members to the U.S. Department of Commerce asking for changes to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), which sets fishing quotas for many fish species caught by New England fishermen. Specifically, the letter asks that MAFMC to work in coordination with the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC)on a joint management plan for black sea bass, summer flounder, and scup fisheries. Under current laws, mid-Atlantic fishermen harvesting fish off the coast of New England can at times legally take more than ten times that of New England vessels.

“As Members of Congress from states with rich fishing heritage and storied maritime industries, we write today to voice our concerns about the current fishery management structure for the black sea bass, summer flounder, and scup fish stocks,” wrote the delegation members.  “As fluctuations in ocean temperatures shift fish populations northward, New England fishermen are unfairly shortchanged when bountiful stocks managed by a Fishery Management Council outside of their region allocates local states low catch quotas.

“Looking at the current trend of northward movement of fish stocks, we urge the Department of Commerce to direct the MAFMC to work in coordination with the NEFMC on a joint management plan for the black sea bass, summer flounder, and scup fisheries. Until NEFMC member states’ interests are officially considered when negotiating fishery management plans through joint management, our fishing communities will continue to suffer from the existing out-of-date allocation formula.”

Warming ocean temperatures are causing some fish stocks that had formerly been more prevalent in the mid-Atlantic to migrate further north than they had before, including popular targets for fishermen such as summer flounder, black seabass and scup. The changing migration patterns of fish stocks mean that many fishermen from mid-Atlantic states, such as North Carolina, are now regularly venturing further north from their traditional fishing grounds, bringing them into direct competition with New England vessels operating off the coasts of Connecticut and Rhode Island.

Fishing regulations for different fish stocks in U.S. waters are managed by a series of Regional Fishery Management Councils. Among the specific items that these councils regulate are the fishing quotas, or amount of a specific fish species that a fishing boat may catch. The mid-Atlantic fishermen, under the jurisdiction of MAFMC, are allowed to harvest substantially more summer flounder, black seabass, and scup than the northeast fisherman who are a part of NEFMC. While New England fishermen are catching more and more of these species in their nets, they are forced to continually throw many of these fish back into the water. The mid-Atlantic fishermen operating in the same area can at times legally take more than ten times the catch of the New England vessels.

Full letter below

May 23, 2016

The Honorable Penny Pritzker
Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dear Secretary Pritzker:

As Members of Congress from states with rich fishing heritage and storied maritime industries, we write today to voice our concerns about the current fishery management structure for the black sea bass, summer flounder, and scup fish stocks. As fluctuations in ocean temperatures shift fish populations northward, New England fishermen are unfairly shortchanged when bountiful stocks managed by a Fishery Management Council outside of their region allocates local states low catch quotas.

It has long been acknowledged that changes in our oceans’ ecosystems would require greater coordination among Regional Fishery Management Councils established through the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). In fact, in a 2007 report to Congress on council management coordination required by the 2006 MSA reauthorization, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) stated that “issues arise when overlapping species are managed exclusively by one Council.” However, there are several overlapping species that we believe would be most prudently managed jointly by the MAFMC and the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) rather than exclusively through the MAFMC.

Since the aforementioned 2007 report, New England fishermen have consistently voiced their concerns regarding black sea bass, summer flounder, and scup quotas set by the MAFMC. New England states are noticing these fish stocks moving northward into traditional New England fishing grounds, yet state-by-state commercial allocations remain so low that our fishermen continue to throw catch overboard as fishermen coming from as far away as North Carolina can legally take sometimes more than ten times that of New England vessels in the same waters. Using summer flounder as an example, the MAFMC June 2015 summer flounder assessment state-by-state allocations provided New England states a combined quota of less than 25 percent share, while North Carolina had a share of over 27 percent. Furthermore, that same assessment noted that 24 percent of all commercial summer flounder caught in 2014 were in Statistical Area 537—a zone just to the east of Long Island Sound and south of Cape Cod.

Looking at the current trend of northward movement of fish stocks, we urge the Department of Commerce to direct the MAFMC to work in coordination with the NEFMC on a joint management plan for the black sea bass, summer flounder, and scup fisheries. Until NEFMC member states’ interests are officially considered when negotiating fishery management plans through joint management, our fishing communities will continue to suffer from the existing out-of-date allocation formula. We sincerely request that you take these considerations into account look forward to greater coordination among the coastal Atlantic states. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

REP. JOE COURTNEY
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL
SEN. CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY
SEN. EDWARD J. MARKEY
REP. ROSA L. DeLAURO
REP. JOHN B. LARSON
REP. RICHARD E. NEAL
REP. WILLIAM R. KEATING
REP. MICHAEL E. CAPUANO
REP. STEPHEN F. LYNCH
REP. NIKI TSONGAS
REP. JAMES A. HIMES
REP. ELIZABETH H. ESTY
REP. KATHERINE M. CLARK
REP. JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III
REP. SETH MOULTON