Saving Seafood

Westerman-Golden Bipartisan SPEED Act draws backing from industry groups

October 28, 2025 — A bipartisan proposal to revise federal environmental review procedures is drawing support from technology companies, trade associations, local officials, and utilities, according to statements released by the House Natural Resources Committee.

H.R. 4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, was introduced by Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine). The measure targets the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a procedural statute that set the framework for assessing environmental impacts of major federal actions and created the Council on Environmental Quality. NEPA’s requirements apply broadly to federally linked activities, including construction of roads, bridges, highways, ports, irrigation systems, forest management projects, transmission lines, energy developments, broadband, and water infrastructure.

NEPA was enacted to ensure that federal agencies consider environmental consequences before taking major actions. Over time, the process has become increasingly complex, extending permitting timelines and increasing costs for public and private projects. Critics of the current system argue that it has evolved into a cumbersome process that special interest groups sometimes use to delay or block infrastructure projects through litigation. The SPEED Act seeks to address those concerns by streamlining review procedures and reducing the frequency of lawsuits while maintaining the requirement that environmental impacts be considered.

Supporters from sectors such as advanced computing and data centers point to power and transmission needs; energy producers and public power entities cite grid reliability and long planning horizons; construction and electrical contractors emphasize predictable schedules; and forestry and logging groups link delays to slower forest management and wildfire risk. Commercial space and conservation-policy organizations also register support, citing modernization and clearer processes.

Commercial fisheries are among the sectors affected by NEPA’s procedural requirements. Fishery management actions under the Magnuson–Stevens Act—such as plan amendments, quota specifications, and implementing regulations—are treated as major federal actions and typically require environmental assessments or impact statements. Standardizing timelines and simplifying documentation could reduce uncertainty in the council and agency decision process without altering the substantive conservation standards that govern federal fisheries.

Litigation is another recurring factor in fishery management. NEPA claims are often filed alongside Magnuson–Stevens Act claims when stakeholders challenge plan amendments or annual specifications. Even when agencies prevail, litigation risk can slow implementation and absorb staff resources. The SPEED Act’s provisions to clarify what constitutes a “major federal action,” set limits on judicial review periods, and streamline documentation are presented by supporters as measures that could help agencies move science-based fishery decisions to implementation more predictably.

 The SPEED Act would update NEPA by: 

– Shortening review timelines and reducing litigation frequency.

– Simplifying analyses required in NEPA documents to lessen agency workload.

– Clarifying when NEPA applies by refining the definition of “major federal action.”

– Setting judicial review limits for NEPA claims, including a 150-day filing deadline, a new standard of review, and constraints on procedural maneuvers that can halt projects.

Organizations listed as supporters include Google; OpenAI; the AI Supply Chain Alliance; the American Forest Resource Council; Associated General Contractors of America; Associated Oregon Loggers; the Commercial Space Federation; ConservAmerica; the Huerfano County (Colo.) Board of County Commissioners; the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association; Minnesota Forest Industries; Missouri River Energy Services (which also backs a related bill, H.R. 4503); the National Electrical Contractors Association and several of its regional chapters; and the Utah Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

Press release: https://naturalresources.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=BB6YBW3BL6RVCAERSA4FZWNLFQ

Trump opens swath of pristine Pacific Ocean to commercial fishing

April 18, 2025 — President Donald Trump on Thursday issued a proclamation saying he is easing federal restrictions on commercial fishing in a vast protected area of the central Pacific known as the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument.

Trump said he will allow U.S.-flagged vessels to fish within 50 to 200 nautical miles of the landward boundaries of the monument, which covers some 490,000 square miles of open ocean, coral reef and island habitats. Located south and west of Hawaii, the area is home to seven national wildlife refuges. It includes some of the Earth’s last pristine maritime environments, serving as a sanctuary for species such as endangered sea turtles, sharks and migratory birds, according to marine wildlife experts.

In a separate executive order Thursday, Trump also said he would reduce regulations on commercial fishing more broadly and asked his secretary of commerce to “identify the most heavily overregulated fisheries” and take action to “reduce the regulatory burden on them.”

Trump’s directives, which are likely to attract legal challenges, seek to weaken protections initially set up by his predecessors. President George W. Bush in 2009 established the monument and restricted oil exploration and commercial fishing within it. In 2014, his successor Barack Obama, expanded the protected area to more than 490,000 square miles.

Trump, in the proclamation, said existing environmental laws provide sufficient protection for marine wildlife in the area and that many of the fish species in the monument are migratory.

“I find that appropriately managed commercial fishing would not put objects of scientific and historic interest [within the monument] at risk,” he said.

Bob Vanasse, executive director of the commercial fishing trade group Saving Seafood, said in an email that the shift in policy “does not create a commercial fishing free-for-all in the monuments.”

“Commercial fishing in the monuments will be allowed only under fishery management plans that manage the fisheries sustainably under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” Vanasse said, referring to the law that governs fishing in federal waters.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

New ‘Salmon Wars’ Book Is Full of Fictions. Here Are the Facts.

July 28, 2022 — Earlier this month, Macmillan Publishers released Salmon Wars, by Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins, which the publisher describes as a “deep dive” into the farm-raised salmon industry. After extensively reviewing the book, Saving Seafood has identified numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Aquaculture farming of finfish, shellfish, and seaweed is a key industry in many U.S. states that operates within strict regulations to provide good jobs locally and healthy, sustainable protein for the world. Maine, for example, has active ocean salmon farming operations, with Atlantic salmon raised in coastal net pens since the 1970s. Maine farms comply with clean water and pollution discharge regulations, do not use antibiotics or hormones as growth promoters, conduct and report environmental effects, and have not experienced an escape of fish since 2003. All farms are monitored by multiple regulatory and management agencies and are certified by third-party environmental programs that establish standards above those required by law. The industry has been represented by the Maine Aquaculture Association since 1978.

Farm-raised salmon operations off Black Island, Maine.

Governor Janet Mills has expressed strong support for Maine’s growing aquaculture sector. “Aquaculture represents a promising opportunity to create new jobs, strengthen and diversify our economy, and expand Maine’s reputation as a premier destination for seafood,” Governor Mills said at a roundtable in May. “I have been proud to support Maine sea farmers as they overcome the pandemic, and my Administration will continue to support the responsible growth of this industry as it creates new jobs and builds on the strong foundation of our marine economy.”

Consumers have the right to choose what foods they eat. They also have the right to make informed decisions based on unbiased facts. Here are 10 fictions spread by Salmon Wars and the real facts behind them.

FICTION: Farmed salmon are crammed into cages.

FACT: Salmon occupy less than 4 percent of a typical marine cage. Farmers intentionally keep stocking densities low so fish have room to swim, grow, and mimic natural schooling patterns.

Farmers take great care to ensure the well-being of their salmon. Fish are vaccinated against several diseases, and pristine marine cage conditions are ensured with proper siting, regular fallowing (leaving sites unused), underwater cameras, and diver inspections.

FICTION: Farmed salmon are doused with pesticides and antibiotics.

FACT: Antibiotic use on salmon farms is far lower than that of any other agricultural animal producing industry in the world. In the rare instances when treatment is necessary, it is prescribed and overseen by licensed veterinarians under the oversight of government regulators.

FICTION: Farmed salmon contain dangerous levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other contaminants.

FACT: Farm-raised salmon contain lower PCB levels than other common foods like beef, chicken, eggs, and butter, as well as most species of wild salmon. The trace amounts of PCBs in farm-raised salmon do not pose a threat to human health, and meet or exceed standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the World Health Organization. A 2007 study concluded that “regular consumption of these fish would not cause tolerable [PCB] daily intakes to be exceeded.”

The 2004 study cited repeatedly in the book has been heavily criticized for errors including flawed sampling, improper application of EPA guidelines, and failing to compare contaminant levels in salmon of the same species. But even that flawed study showed PCB levels well-below regulated levels. Citing that study also ignores nearly 20 years of progress as PCB levels — already low — have only continued to decline with the introduction of new feed ingredients.

Because farm-raised salmon is a fast-growing fish, there is little accumulation of other contaminants like mercury that can affect some types of seafood.

FICTION: Farms create toxic stews underneath them that drive away marine life.

FACT: Farmers know that pristine marine conditions are essential for high-quality salmon. When salmon farms are properly sited in deep, fast-moving waters, the massive ocean space quickly assimilates organic fish waste. Natural assimilation of organic waste is known to be a best solution from an environmental perspective. Lobsters thrive around salmon farms and catch landings remain strong in Canada and the U.S.

Farmers also use underwater cameras to properly disperse feed, carefully monitor the ocean bottom, and fallow sites (leave them unused) — all best practices that help ensure pristine marine conditions. Regulations do not allow salmon farms to continue operating if the space beneath them has been significantly impacted.

FICTION: Farmers pillage wild fisheries to create marine ingredients used in salmon feeds. For example, “overfishing” from the Gulf of Mexico to the Chesapeake Bay endangers a forage fish called menhaden.

FACT: Wild marine ingredients in salmon feed are critical to delivering high quality protein and indispensable nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids. However, marine ingredients comprise as low as 20 percent of salmon feed, and that number continues to drop. Today, a pound of wild marine ingredients produces more than a pound of farm-raised salmon, ensuring the sector is a net producer of fish.

The wild marine ingredients that are used are sourced from reputable fisheries certified by third-party organizations and/or actively participating in Fishery Improvement Projects. For example, contrary to the book’s claims, U.S. menhaden is “not overfished or experiencing overfishing,” according to fishery managers, and is certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.

FICTION: Between 15 and 20 percent of all farmed salmon die each year before being harvested, while the average mortality rate of chickens is 5 percent.

FACT: This data ignores the return rate of Atlantic salmon in the wild, which is as low as 5 percent. That means farm-raised salmon have a survival rate 17 times higher than wild salmon over the two-year period in which they are raised. Broiler chickens typically live for less than 2 months, making this an apples to oranges comparison at best.

FICTION: Farmed salmon spread sea lice to wild salmon, killing young wild salmon in large numbers.

FACT: Salmon farms were not found to influence levels of sea lice on wild fish, according to a 2021 report. Farmers are required, under regulation, to manage sea lice to low levels. They employ a strategic approach to combatting sea lice, combining preventative farming practices like fallowing and low stocking densities with approved treatments when necessary. They are also investing millions into research and development of “green” sea lice treatment technologies, including freshwater well boats, warm water and water pressure systems, broodstock development, and “cleaner” fish.

FICTION: Farmed salmon introduced Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) and Piscine Orthoreovirus (PRV) to wild sockeye salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

FACT: Neither ISA nor PRV were introduced to the Pacific Northwest by farm-raised salmon. In 2011, tests conducted by government researchers concluded there were no cases of ISA in Pacific Northwest salmon. Cases of PRV in wild salmon predate the arrival of farm-raised salmon, with a 2015 study finding PRV in Pacific Northwest salmon as far back as the 1970s. PRV and ISA do not affect human health in any way.

FICTION: Farmed salmon and wild salmon frequently interbreed, producing hybrids that weaken wild salmon populations.

FACT: Farmers are highly motivated to prevent their stock from escaping, and today escape events are rare. There are many reasons that farm-raised salmon are unlikely to interbreed with wild salmon, or generally compete with them for resources should they escape their enclosures. Farm-raised salmon, being domestic animals, are poorly suited to a wild environment and generally do not survive long enough in the wild to breed or learn to seek prey. On the west coast of the U.S. and Canada, farm-raised Atlantic salmon are genetically distinct from wild Pacific salmon, making them extremely unlikely to interbreed.

For context, over 5 billion salmon are purposely released from aquaculture facilities around the world — a practice known as “enhancement” or “ocean ranching” — and do share ocean space with wild salmon.

FICTION: Like “Big Tobacco” and “Big Agribusiness,” “Big Fish” employs counter-science and public relations campaigns to undermine challenges.

FACT: Farmers participate in studies because it is their salmon and nutritional data that help power them, and because they are committed to adhering to best science in their practices. Cherry picking science to support a narrative is not a best practice. Farmers consider all reputable scientific findings to guide their operations.

Biden pitches Atlantic coast ‘Grand Canyon’ as marine sanctuary

June 8, 2022 — The White House today endorsed designating the Atlantic coast’s largest undersea canyon as one of the nation’s next underwater parks, but stopped short of enacting immediate protections that could guard the “ecological hotspot” from commercial fishing, energy development or other threats.

The Biden administration announced it will begin the process for safeguarding the Hudson Canyon — which sits 100 miles off the coasts of New York and New Jersey and rivals the Grand Canyon in scale — in a series of actions to mark today’s World Oceans Day.

In addition to kicking off the designation of a new national marine sanctuary, the White House vowed to develop a “whole-of-government Ocean Climate Action Plan” on ocean-based climate mitigation and adaptation strategies.

NOAA will oversee the designation process for the Hudson Canyon, which would become part of an existing group of 15 underwater parks that includes both freshwater and ocean sites.

But that process, which includes public comment, the drafting of environmental impact statements and management plans, and potential rulemaking, is not a swift one, with a final decision taking two to three years.

Bob Vanasse, executive director of industry group Saving Seafood, praised the decision to utilize the sanctuaries act rather than take executive action.

“I appreciate that they are using the Marine Sanctuaries Act to do this, which allows input from affected ocean users and will allow for actual science to be considered, which is exactly why we objected to and continue to object to the marine monument designation,” Vanasse said, referring to the ongoing legal battle over the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts site (E&E News PM, Oct. 8, 2021).

Last fall, Biden restored commercial fishing prohibitions to the Atlantic Ocean monument that former President Donald Trump had struck down in 2020.

Read the full story at E&E News

 

Local Fishing Industry Upset Over Biden Restoring Marine National Monument

October 12, 2021 — President Biden re-established an area off of the coast of Cape Cod as a marine national monument Friday, a move that has the local fishing industry angry.

The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was originally created during the Obama administration to preserve the sea life in that region. During the Trump administration, restrictions in the area were scaled back, which allowed for commercial fishing.

Under the new executive action from President Biden, commercial fishing in the area is banned but recreational fishing is allowed. The monument is more than 100 miles southeast off the shore of Cape Cod.

Bob Vanasse of Saving Seafood told WBZ’s Karyn Regal (@karynregal) the trip to the area is one only a chartered fishing boat or mega yacht could make.

“The privileged few are going to allowed to go out and spearfish on the same species that working families in the swordfish and tuna industry will not be able to do,” Vanasse said.

Read the full story at WBZ News

 

Biden expands Bears Ears and other national monuments, reversing Trump cuts

October 8, 2021 — President Biden on Friday restored full protections to three national monuments that had been slashed in size by former president Donald Trump, including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah — known for their stunning desert landscapes and historical treasures of Native American art and settlements, as well as a rich fossil record.

Biden used an executive order to protect 1.36 million acres in Bears Ears —slightly larger than the original boundary that President Barack Obama established in 2016 — while also restoring the 1.78 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante monument. Biden also reimposed fishing restrictions in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New England that Trump had opened to commercial fishing.

Biden signed the proclamations in a ceremony outside the White House, in front of tribal leaders and others. He used his authority under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

Bob Vanasse, of Saving Seafood, a seafood industry advocacy group, called Biden’s designation an “unfortunate decision.”

“Anyone who likes fresh local swordfish, tuna, lobster and crabmeat should be very angry with the Harris-Biden administration today,” he said. “And I know some environmental advocates will claim that the statistics show that no harm has been done to the fisheries from this closure. They think that because they don’t understand fisheries and misunderstand the statistics.”

Read the full story at the Washington Post

Protect species? Curb warming? Save money? Biden’s big conservation goal means trade-offs

February 3, 2021 — President Joe Biden last week unveiled an ambitious conservation goal, unprecedented for the United States: conserving 30% of the country’s lands and waters by 2030, which would require more than doubling the area of public and private holdings under heightened protections.

Conservation scientists welcomed the so-called 30-by-30 goal, announced in an executive order on climate released 27 January. “The ambition is fantastic,” says ecologist Joshua Tewksbury, interim executive director of the nonprofit Future Earth.

But Biden’s order also raises a thorny practical question: Which swaths of land and sea should be the top targets for enhanced protection or management? The order says the effort should aim for a number of outcomes, including preserving biodiversity, curbing climate change, and even creating jobs and reducing social inequality. But researchers warn that difficult trade-offs lie ahead, because few chunks of territory are likely to provide all of the desired benefits. “The balancing act [will be] the hardest part of this work,” Tewksbury says.

Observers say the Biden administration could make rapid progress and contain costs by enhancing protections for territory already owned by the federal government. “We can make really huge gains on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands,” says Jacob Malcom, a conservation biologist with Defenders of Wildlife. That could mean reducing logging, mining, drilling, and grazing. “There will be vested interests who are not happy about that,” Malcom notes. “So I don’t want to make it seem like it’s going to be easy.” Fishing associations, for example, have already reacted with concern to proposals to ban commercial fishing in 30% of U.S. waters. “Thirty-by-thirty is a campaign slogan, not a scientific proposal,” Robert Vanasse, executive director of Saving Seafood, wrote last year.

Read the full story at Science Magazine

Biden’s “30 by 30” order could close-off 30 percent of US ocean to fishing

January 27, 2021 — The administration of U.S. President Joe Biden announced on 27 January that the president plans to sign an executive order that commits to a “30 by 30” goal first envisioned in the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act that was introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020.

The “30 by 30” plan aims to commit 30 percent of lands and oceans to conservation by 2030, which in the House version of the bill entails a complete ban on “commercial extractive use” in areas of the ocean conserved. The planned executive order, according to a White House statement, is intended to “tackle the climate crisis at home and abroad.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Over 800 Seafood Industry Members Write to Oppose the Fisheries Provisions of the House Democrats’ Climate Bill

November 16, 2020 — Over 800 participants in our nation’s seafood economy wrote today to Chairman Raúl Grijalva of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources to express deep concern regarding Title II of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act, recently introduced by the committee Democrats. The signers of the letter argue that the bill would undermine our nation’s world-class system of fisheries management, harming fishermen and the coastal communities they sustain. They urged the chairman to fundamentally rethink Title II’s provisions.

Of particular concern is the bill’s mandate that would compel the Executive Branch to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that prohibit all commercial fishing activity across at least 30 percent of the nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) by 2030.  The proposal is known by the slogan “30 by 30”.

The House Natural Resources Committee plans a hearing tomorrow to cover this bill, among several others.

The letter was organized by the At-sea Processors Association, the National Fisheries Institute, Saving Seafood, and the Seafood Harvesters of America.

“United States fisheries management is the envy of the world. Science-based management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is a remarkable example of bipartisan policy success. It is achieving exceptional environmental outcomes, preserving vital cultural traditions, creating jobs in communities across the United States, and delivering food with one of the lowest carbon footprints of any protein on Earth. Title II of the Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act will jeopardize that remarkable record of success.”
— Matt Tinning, Director of Sustainability and Public Affairs at the At-sea Processors Association

“The over 800 signers of this letter hail from different regions and participate in different parts of the seafood supply chain. However, we are all united in our commitment to using defensible, quality science to ensure that our nation’s fisheries are harvested sustainably for the benefit of this and future generations. ‘30 by 30’ is a campaign slogan, not a scientific proposal. The legislation would undermine the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its fundamental principle of using the best available scientific information to inform our fisheries management decisions.”
— Robert B. Vanasse, Executive Director of Saving Seafood

“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is among the world’s very best fishery managers.  This bill appears to ignore that expertise and process and just walls off parts of the ocean to fishing. It disregards generations of science-based work and community consensus. Drawing arbitrary lines on a map is not science, it’s politics. Lines on a map don’t actually promote sustainability but they can harm livelihoods that depend on real sustainability work.”
— John Connelly, President of the National Fisheries Institute

“High-value benthic habitat, such as deep-sea corals, are important parts of the marine ecosystem and worthy of science-based protection.  The current system is working to deliver exactly those protections to hundreds of thousands of square miles of sensitive habitat through the Regional Fishery Management Council process. We should build on what is working, not create a new, parallel process.”
— Leigh Habegger, Executive Director of Seafood Harvesters of America

Read the full letter here

Saving Seafood Coalition Members Applaud Proclamation Restoring Commercial Fishing to Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument

June 5, 2020 — WASHINGTON — Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities thank President Trump for the presidential proclamation signed today restoring sustainable commercial fishing activities in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. Our members are grateful to elected officials from both parties, White House staff, and fisheries managers who have pushed for our fisheries to be managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and who have advocated for commercial fishermen to be fully included in the regulatory processes that shape their livelihoods.

Under the proclamation, a revision to President Barack Obama’s executive order designating the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument, the contours of the monument remain unchanged, and potentially destructive oil drilling and exploration remains banned. But commercial fishermen are now allowed to resume fishing in waters they had fished for decades before the monument was created, in areas that President Obama and others called “pristine” even before commercial fishermen were banned from them. It also restores parity with recreational fishermen, who were never prohibited from fishing in the monument area.

Our members believe in robust debate among industry, scientists, regulators and environmentalists to produce the best decisions regarding fisheries management. While it is not perfect, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the primary law governing U.S. federal fisheries, has been championed by both industry and environmental advocates for helping to make U.S. fisheries a sustainable model for the world. Today’s revision restores management of fisheries within the monument area to the regional management councils created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, once again allowing for the robust debate such impactful policy decisions demand.

In April 2010, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum establishing the “America’s Great Outdoors Initiative” to “promote and support innovative community-level efforts to conserve outdoor spaces and to reconnect Americans to the outdoors.” In the ensuing report the administration pledged to implement “a transparent and open approach to new national monument designations tailored to engaging local, state, and national interests.” Unfortunately, the Obama Administration did not uphold President Obama’s pledge in the creation of the Atlantic marine monument, or in the expansion of Pacific marine monuments.

In a 2017 letter to President Trump asking him to restore fishing in marine national monuments, then-Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Representative Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-AS) wrote, “Removal of the fishing prohibitions in the monument proclamations and the return of U.S. fisheries management to the Regional Fishery Management Councils would continue to prevent overfishing and protect the marine environment as required by the MSA and other applicable laws, while allowing our fishing fleet to compete with their foreign competitors. Using the Antiquities Act to close U.S. waters to domestic fisheries is a clear example of federal overreach and regulatory duplication and obstructs well managed, sustainable U.S. fishing industries in favor of their foreign counterparts.”

The nation’s eight regional councils have also repeatedly pushed for management of fishing in marine national monuments to be returned to the council process. Just last week in a letter to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, they wrote, “The ban on commercial fishing within Marine National Monument waters is a regulatory burden on domestic fisheries, requiring many of the affected American fishermen to travel outside U.S. waters with increased operational expenses and higher safety-at-sea risks.” They further stated, “marine National Monument designations in their present form hinder the Councils’ ability to sustainably manage fisheries throughout their range, and they restrict the Councils and the National Marine Fisheries Service from acquiring invaluable knowledge about the stocks and the marine ecosystem made available through catch-and-effort and observer data.”

Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Massachusetts, the nation’s top fishing port by value, a Democrat, expressed deep concern about the lack of broad stakeholder consensus in the monument designation, and expressed his preference for the council process. In testimony before Congress in 2017, he said, “The monument designation process has evolved effectively into a parallel, much less robust fishery management apparatus that has been conducted entirely independent of the tried and true fishery management council process. It lacks sufficient amounts of all the ingredients that good policy-making requires: Scientific rigor, direct industry input, transparency, and a deliberate pace that allows adequate time and space for review.”

The council process has led to many conservation successes, such as efforts to preserve coral habitats in the Mid-Atlantic. Most importantly, these conservation successes were achieved through robust debate among all stakeholders. Saving Seafood Coalition members are pleased that today’s proclamation will allow this robust debate to once again guide fisheries management in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument.

Coalition members also continue to believe that there is no difference in principle between the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument and other U.S. marine national monuments in the Pacific, and that the council process is the appropriate method for managing fisheries in all U.S. federal waters. The U.S. has the largest exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the world, and the U.S. Pacific is the largest part of the U.S. EEZ, with our Pacific fishermen working hard to provide economic vitality to their communities, and food security to our nation.

Our members look forward to working with the White House to restore the proper regulation of commercial fishing under the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument.