Saving Seafood

Chairman Bishop Statement on Secretary Zinke’s National Monument Review

August 24, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement in reaction to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s final review of national monument designations under the Antiquities Act (Act):

“I am encouraged by the recommendations to revise previous designations that were inconsistent with the law and outside the Act’s size limitations. It is my hope that President Trump takes this opportunity to begin realigning uses of the law with its intended purpose. It’s also incumbent on Congress to pursue reforms to the Act that ensure it is being used to protect antiquities while providing meaningful local input in the designation process and reasonable continued public access to these iconic areas. Ultimately, only Congress can restore integrity to this law and prevent future abuses.”

Additionally, Chairman Bishop hosted a press call this morning to discuss the Trump Administration’s review of national monuments and reforms to the Antiquities Act:

Listen to Chairman Bishop’s statement here

Listen to a Q&A with Chairman Bishop here

Zinke to AP: Boundary adjustments, restoration of uses to be included in national monument recommendations

August 24, 2017 — BILLINGS, Mont. — The following is excerpted from an Associated Press story published today:

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he’s recommending that none of 27 national monuments carved from wilderness and ocean and under review by the Trump administration be eliminated.

But there would be changes to a “handful,” he said.

Zinke told The Associated Press that unspecified boundary adjustments for some monuments designated over the past four decades will be included in the recommendations he planned to give President Donald Trump on Thursday. None of the sites would revert to new ownership, he said, while public access for uses such as hunting, fishing or grazing would be maintained or restored.

“There’s an expectation we need to look out 100 years from now to keep the public land experience alive in this country,” Zinke said. “You can protect the monument by keeping public access to traditional uses.”

Read the full story at the Associated Press

Trump team nears decision on national monuments

August 21, 2017 — As Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke approaches the 24 August deadline for his recommendations to President Donald Trump on whether to alter dozens of national monuments, conservation proponents say it remains all but impossible to predict which sites the administration could target for reductions or even wholesale elimination.

In recent months, Zinke has traveled from coast to coast as he conducted the review, which included 27 national monuments created since 1996, the majority of which are larger than 100,000 acres.

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, Atlantic Ocean

Obama created the first Atlantic marine monument in 2016 when he designated nearly 5,000 square miles for preservation off the coast of Massachusetts.

But the decision — which barred oil and gas exploration in the area and restricted commercial fishing — drew a lawsuit from Northeastern fishermen, including the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance and Garden State Seafood Association.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, but a judge stayed action in the case in May to await the outcome of the Trump administration’s reviews (E&E News PM, May 12).

During his visit to the East Coast in June, Zinke stopped in Boston to meet with both fishermen’s groups and scientists about the monument.

The Boston Globe reported that Zinke appeared sympathetic while meeting with about 20 representatives of New England’s seafood industry.

“When your area of access continues to be reduced and reduced … it just makes us noncompetitive,” Zinke said at the time. “The president’s priority is jobs, and we need to make it clear that we have a long-term approach to make sure that fishing fleets are healthy.”

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, Hawaii

This site near Hawaii is the world’s largest marine protected area at nearly 600,000 square miles.

Bush first designated the site — originally named the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument — in 2006, then renamed it to Papahānaumokuākea in early 2007 in honor of Hawaiian gods Papahānaumoku and Wākea, whose mythology includes the creation of the Hawaiian archipelago and its people.

In 2016, Obama opted to quadruple the site’s size to protect the 7,000 species that live in the monument’s boundaries, as well as to extend prohibitions on commercial fishing and extractive activities (E&E Daily, Aug. 26, 2016).

The Trump administration could opt to try to roll back those prohibitions as well as the monument’s size.

Read the full story from E&E News at Science Magazine

Marine Monument Economics: The Atlantic Red Crab Fishery

August 15, 2017 (Saving Seafood) — A July 25, 2017, article published by the Center for American Progress [“Big Oil Could Benefit Most from Review of Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument” by Michael Conathan and Avery Siciliano] made the accusation that “commercial fishing interests have spouted inflated numbers about what the economic impact of the [Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National] monument designation would be.”

Accordingly, today, Saving Seafood begins a series on “Marine Monument Economics.” In the coming weeks, we will publish commentrom the fishing industry submitted to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. We start with the Atlantic Red Crab fishery. Red crab is recommended by both the Monterrey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch and the New England Aquarium.

Today’s comments were submitted to Secretary Zinke by Mr. Michael Carroll. Mr. Carroll is a fishery economist specializing in seafood markets and economic impacts. He is both a Statistical and Scientific Committee member and an Advisory Panel member to the Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery governed under the New England Fishery Management Council. Mr. Carroll is founder and CEO of BackTracker Inc. and VP of Fisheries and Aquaculture Vertex, both in Boston. From 2008-2012, he was the business development manager of the New England Aquarium. He is lead author of “An Analysis of the Impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on the Gulf of Mexico Seafood Industry” published in March 2016 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Mr. Carroll holds a bachelor’s degree in business and economics from Saint Michael’s College, and a master’s degree in environmental and natural resource economics from the University of Rhode Island.

Mr. Carroll observes that in the Atlantic red crab fishery, there “has never been any indication that overfishing has occurred or even that the stock has declined.” And that a review of the current academic literature indicates that the actual market economic values produced by the fishery have been understated, while the types of non-market values ascribed to elements of the ecosystem such as deep-sea corals, have not been included in calculating the value of the fishery.

In his comments he observes that, “An Economic Impact (or cost to the fishery) … if done properly this figure will represent value lost throughout the entire supply chain (vessel to consumer) as well as other associated losses incurred by shore side infrastructure, such as fuel, bait, ice, marine service, etc.”  But to date, the publicly-available data from NOAA “has only presented impact figures in vessel landing dollars, which is approximately understating impacts by seven times the true economic damages to the economy.”

He urges the secretary to “consider only the facts that can be demonstrated through sound peer reviewed science and proven quantifiable economic valuation methods.”

Today is the last day to submit comments to inform NOAA’s review of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. If you have not already submitted comments, Saving Seafood encourages you to do so here.

Mr. Carroll’s comments are below:

Dear Secretary Zinke,

My name is Mike Carroll. I am a fishery economist that specializes in seafood markets and economic impacts. I am both a Statistical and Scientific Committee member and an AP member to the Deep Sea Red Crab Fishery governed under the New England Fishery Management Council. We met in Boston on June 16 at the fishery industry meeting you had at Legal Seafood.

I have deep concerns in regards to the lack of valid economic impact evidence supporting the closure of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts to protect deep sea coral and other sea life, in effect creating economic hardship on various fisheries in the North-East Region. Specifically, I am commenting to note that the magnitude of potential impacts associated with this action on the Deep Sea Red Crab fishery are concerning and not based on peer reviewed economic valuation science.

For anyone reading my comments that are not familiar with economic impacts and economic valuation methods I will summarize some key points to remember when making decisions. For more information on this topic you can refer to the NOAA website or for more detailed input on deep sea coral please go here.

An Economic Impact (or cost to the fishery) is basically the effect of an event, policy change, in this case closure of a fishery area, on the associated economy. This is often stated in a stagnant figure that represents a yearly impact value to the business; if done properly this figure will represent value lost throughout the entire supply chain (vessel to consumer) as well as other associated losses incurred by shore side infrastructure, such as fuel, bait, ice, marine service etc… If any, NOAA has only presented cursory impact figures in vessel landing dollars, which is approximately understating impacts by 7 times the true economic damages to the economy. These figures can vary by fishery depending on the level of value added to the product as it travels down the supply chain but 7x is a good bell weather figure for now until NOAA provides us with the real figures. The important piece to note is these are real tangible values of loss to fisherman and our shore side community that are very measurable.

Often there is confusion by fishery managers about how to interpret economic impacts. All too often they think the decision should be made based on the relative impact to the industry but in reality, the decision should be made according to the net economic value the policy change will provide. Economic value is based on a basic calculation of how much benefit does the policy decision generate vs how much does the policy decision cost or the Economic Impact to the industry, therefore simply stated:

Economic Value = Benefit (value of corals) – Cost (value lost is the fishery or Economic Impact)

If the policy change produces a net positive economic value, then it should be perceived as good for our nation as a whole, whereas if it is negative, not good for our nation as a whole.

Now let’s look at how we value the benefit of the deep-sea coral. In the literature, there is mention of market values and values to the ecosystem which could someday be measurable but as it is today neither of these values are relevant to economic value or should be referenced without peer reviewed research that shows relative quantitative figures. True market values for corals are basically irrelevant considering it is not legal to harvest and sell corals for any purpose. The ecosystem value is something we all want to understand more about but arguably no true linkages have been proven where we can estimate the economic value they represent. Current studies indicate that deep sea coral is considered “Facultative Habitat” and not “Essential Fish Habitat,” therefore the absence of this habitat does not result in extinction of the species in question.

There has been considerable mention of market values, such as the value associated with people viewing deep sea coral on the Discovery Channel, and the revenue generated from this represents a true market value for preservation of the coral. Well, I agree completely, that is a true market value but what about the market value associated with the preservation of the fisherman. How much money do you think the Deadliest Catch or other commercial fishing shows on the Discovery Channel generate? I am not sure, but it definitely generates more than deep sea coral viewing shows. If this value is being represented on one side of the value equation (coral value) why is it not represented on the other side (fishery value)?

The value or benefits associated with deep sea coral for all intents and purposes are considered non-market values which are calculated based on value derived by people’s desire for them to exist. Non-market values are soft values based on what people say they are willing to pay or prefer given a set of choices. These values are often criticized because they frequently overstate true values of what people will actually pay in a real market environment. The use of the term existence value, which you see throughout the literature presented, often refers to these non-market valuation methods which may be useful to determine people’s preference but is grossly inadequate in determining value.

Everyone you met in Boston on June 16 cares about setting up a certain level of protections for these deep-sea corals. I would even go to the extent that we may be able to come to mutual agreement on certain zones that would optimize protection of coral while causing minimal impact to the fishery. As a US regulator, I would urge you to consider only the facts that can be demonstrated through sound peer reviewed science and proven quantifiable economic valuation methods. The impacts of these offshore closures on the deep sea red crab fishery and other offshore fisheries are substantially greater than benefits generated by the coral conservation measure being carried out. Even if you were to consider down the road that there could be increased ecosystem values, a decision to close this area to the deep sea red crab fishery is not a fair and equitable decision. It makes no reasonable sense to implement measures that would create impacts that would affect such a large portion of this fishery. This is a small fishery that has been harvested responsibly and made every effort to participate in discussions and share information. It is an exceptional fishery in the United States in that it is very environmentally sound and has gone through the MSC certification process. I would argue if these National Monument protections must go into place for political or legal reasons, regardless of the unsubstantiated economic valuation equation, the deep sea red crab fishery should be exempt from this rule based on sheer economic hardship.

Best Regards,
Michael Carroll

Review renews debate over first Atlantic marine national monument

August 7, 2017 — BOSTON — During his eight years in office, former President Obama protected more than 550 million acres of public land and water as national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act. Unlike creating a national park, which requires an act of Congress, a president can declare a national monument to protect “objects of historic or scientific interest” with a proclamation.

Critics of the monument say President Obama overstepped the powers set forth by the Antiquities Act and did not provide enough opportunity for public comment. In April, President Donald Trump signed an executive order asking his Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, to conduct a review of 27 monuments created since 1996. The purpose of the review is to determine if these monument areas qualify under the terms of the act and to address concerns from the community.

Two days later, Trump signed another executive order outlining his “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy.” The plan demonstrates Trump’s vision for the exploration and production of energy on federal lands and waters to decrease America’s dependence on foreign energy.

Fishing industry’s concerns

Captain Fred Penney, a lobsterman out of Boston Harbor, believes that the monument will hurt the future of fishing in New England because the new restrictions were implemented without much input from the fishermen themselves.

“To have no regulations and have it be a free-for-all, that’s completely unacceptable, I understand that,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to see that. But what they’re doing now doesn’t seem to be it.”

Many in the industry felt fishing in the area should have been regulated under the Magnuson- Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, which created eight regional fishery management councils to maintain sustainable fisheries and habitats in the U.S.

The councils are divided up by region, including the New England, Mid-Atlantic and South- Atlantic councils on the East Coast. Each council sets regulations for certain fisheries such as limiting catch size, issuing permits and monitoring fishing equipment.

Fishermen argue the council’s lengthy public process is more transparent than a proclamation from the president and allows for more input from the community.

Jon Williams of the Atlantic Red Crab Company said the fishermen were not given much notice about meetings and the scope of the monument. He argued the area was thriving under the council’s management before the monument designation.

“We’d been in there for 40 years and if it’s… pristine now, after our presence for 40 years, why is there an emergency for the president to use an act to protect this thing?” Williams said. “Why not give it to the council and let the council do its job?”

Before the Obama administration announced the monument, the New England Fishery Management Council was working on a coral amendment that would protect deep sea corals, one of the goals of the monument. The South and Mid Atlantic Councils passed similar regulations years earlier.

 

Read the full story at The Groundtruth Project

Ryan Zinke, Trump’s Cowboy Enforcer, Is Ready for His Closeup

July 31, 2017 — He raised eyebrows for his threats against Senator Lisa Murkowski after she voted to block the Republican health care bill; he raised ire for slashing Obama-era environmental protections. And all the while, Ryan Zinke—a former Navy SEAL Commander tapped by Trump as Secretary of the Interior—has been raising his own profile. Is there room for another star in Trump’s Washington?

It was almost parody, the way he rolled in, Ryan Zinke’s six-foot-four frame hunched in the bucket seat of a black SUV. The tires sent up dust as they stopped, and out stepped the secretary of the interior, his gold “MONTANA” belt buckle glinting in the sun. He palmed his cowboy hat onto his head slowly, deliberately, and beheld the horse before him. “Hello, Tonto,” Zinke said, his voice as deep as you might expect from a former SEAL commander who fancies himself a kind of latter-day Teddy Roosevelt. Tonto blinked.

Though Zinke may have looked the part of the Western cowboy, he is in fact a big player in Donald Trump’s Washington. That much was made clear last week when—despite the many chores that keep him busy at the Interior Department—Zinke decided he wanted a piece of the healthcare debate, too. He rang up Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, urging her to fall in line on the White House-backed effort to repeal Obamacare, and threatening to compromise energy projects important to her state if she didn’t. The move no doubt endeared him to Trump, but it sparked the ire of House Democrats, who now want the incident investigated. (“The call was professional and the media stories are totally sensationalized,” Zinke’s spokeswoman tells me.)

Moments like these can make Trump’s D.C. feel like a stressful place—a hive of murky gamesmanship and scrambled moral calculating. And a horse can help soothe some of that. I found Zinke and his mount, that Saturday morning not long ago, near the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool, where the U.S. Park Police houses its horses. As interior secretary, Zinke administers almost all of America’s public lands, including Washington’s various monuments and the National Mall, where he’d invited me to join him for a ride. (He’s also the boss of the Park Police officers, which means that when he refuses to wear a helmet, they have no choice but to indulge him.) So we set off down the Mall, the secretary wearing a blue checked shirt and white-stitched cowboy boots, like a wannabe Wayne for our hero-less times.

The 55-year-old likes to ride here every few weeks, to “get out in the field, like a commander should,” as he puts it. It’s also a fine way for a politician like him to glad-hand with sightseers—though none has any idea who Ryan Zinke is.

“You must be here from Texas!” one man shouts to the secretary.

Read the full story at GQ Magazine

ALASKA: Former DNR commissioner tapped for high Interior post

July 20, 2017 — Another Alaskan has found a spot in President Donald Trump’s administration.

The president nominated former Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Joe Balash to serve as assistant Interior Department secretary for land and minerals management on Wednesday.

A native of North Pole, Balash is currently chief of staff to Sen. Dan Sullivan, who preceded him as Natural Resources commissioner under former Gov. Sean Parnell. Balash was a deputy DNR commissioner from 2010 to 2013 prior to leading the department until late 2014.

“It’s been a long time since the (Interior) Department had an assistant secretary from Alaska, and the president’s nomination of Joe Balash further proves his commitment to Alaska and rural America as a whole,” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said in a department release. “Joe is no stranger to the Department of the Interior having worked alongside the department on a number of projects in Alaska. He brings an incredible combination of state and federal experience to the table, and he will be very effective in helping the department work with Congress to do the work of the American people. I look forward to his speedy confirmation in the Senate.”

Zinke visited Alaska over Memorial Day weekend this year, repeatedly emphasizing that the state plays a primary role in the nation’s energy production.

Read the full story at the Alaska Journal of Commerce

American Samoa Biologist Says Marine Monument Designation Not Based On Science

July 18, 2017 — Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources (DMWR) Chief Fisheries Biologist, Domingo Ochavillo has shared concerns with US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, over the designation of Rose Atoll as a marine monument; and also argues that expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands National Marine Monument was not based on science “but more on political legacy considerations.”

The biologist’s comment was in response to Zinke’s request for public comments on DOI’s review of all land and marine monuments in the nation including Rose Atoll and Pacific Remote Islands following President Trump’s executive order in April.

“There is a need to review these national monument designations so that they are based on the best available science, and adequate cultural and economic considerations,”  said Ochavillo who wrote the comment-letter in her capacity as DMWR acting director at the time.

“The recent consideration of the American Samoa Deeds of Cession as a relevant document for federal decisions makes it more imperative now to review these marine monument designations,” said Ochavillo, referring to the Honolulu federal court decision this year that voids a US National Marine Fisheries Service rule which reduced last year the Large Vessel Prohibited Area in territorial waters from 50 to 12 miles.

Read the full story at Pacific Islands Report

Feds extend comment period on seismic testing in the Atlantic

July 5, 2017 — The public is being given 15 more days to comment on applications by five companies to do seismic airgun surveys for oil and natural gas deposits in the Atlantic Ocean.

The National Marine Fisheries Service on Wednesday announced the extension of the comment period to July 21.

Five Houston-based survey companies are seeking “incidental harassment authorizations” that allow them to disturb or harm marine mammals during the course of their airgun surveys.

The applications had been denied by President Barack Obama’s administration, but were revived under President Donald Trump, who has said he favors oil and gas exploration along the Atlantic Coast.

Last week, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced that federal officials have begun the process of developing a new five-year offshore oil and gas leasing program. Initial public comments on the 2019-2024 plan also are being taken.

Read the full story at The Virginian-Pilot

Review of Northeast marine monument underway as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke visits Boston

June 20, 2017 — Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke completed a trip to the U.S. Northeast as part of a review of recently created U.S. national monuments, including the controversial Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.

Zinke is in the process of reviewing all national monuments designated in the past 21 years as part of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in April.

“Right now, I’m in the information collection stage, so everything is on the table,” Zinke told the Boston Globe during his visit.

On Friday, 16 June, Zinke met with representatives of the commercial fishing industry affected by former president Barack Obama’s designation of the 4,000-square-mile marine monument located more than 100 miles off the coast of Cape Cod, in September 2016. The designation immediately outlawed most commercial fishing in the monument, with the exception of lobster and crab fishing, which will be phased out over the next six years.

Meghan Lapp of Seafreeze, Ltd., which previously fished for squid, mackerel, and butterfish in the area where the monument now exists, told Zinke her company had already lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to the Globe. She, as well as Beth Casoni, the executive director of the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, and others present at the meeting, said there was a lack of communication by the federal government in making the designation that had hurt their businesses.

“No one person should have the authority to sign Americans out of work,” Casoni said, according to the Globe.

The fishermen present were hoping to persuade Zinke to shrink or eliminate the monument, and Zink appeared sympathetic, the newspaper reported.

“When your area of access continues to be reduced and reduced … it just makes us noncompetitive,” Zinke said. “The president’s priority is jobs, and we need to make it clear that we have a long-term approach to make sure that fishing fleets are healthy.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source