Saving Seafood

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.

Americans Need to Know U.S. Fisheries are Sustainable: Former Senior NOAA Official

July 24, 2017 — Earlier this month, Saving Seafood unveiled our campaign to tell the public that American Seafood is Sustainable Seafood™. A recent paper by Mark Helvey, former NOAA Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries for the Pacific Region, confirms that purchasing U.S.-caught seafood is one of the most sustainable choices consumers can make, and notes that, “Most Americans remain unaware of the high environmental standards by which U.S. federal marine fisheries – and many state fisheries – are managed, in compliance with multiple state and federal laws.”

According to the paper, the standards under which U.S. fishermen operate “conform to or exceed internationally accepted guidelines for sustainable fisheries adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.”

The first recommendation made in the peer-reviewed paper is to “increase awareness…of the high environmental standards by which U.S. federal marine fisheries – and many state fisheries – are managed.”

The paper makes the case that, “Sea Grant Extension Programs in U.S. coastal states and territories have conducted education and out-reach, with NOAA Fishwatch and a number of nongovernmental organizations also helping to bridge this gap. However, further efforts to address this lack of understanding are needed.”

This is precisely the goal of our American Seafood is Sustainable Seafood™ campaign.

Mr. Helvey provided the following summary of his paper to Saving Seafood:

  • The United States is recognized for its robust seafood appetite and strong commitment to environmental conservation. However, efforts to close or restrict its own domestic fisheries in pursuit of environmental protection are often not considered within the context of seafood consumption.
  • Restricting U.S. fisheries comes at the cost of displaced negative environmental impacts associated with the fishing activities of less-regulated, foreign fisheries.
  • The authors provide six solutions for addressing this issue beginning with the need for U.S. consumers becoming more aware of the exceedingly high environmental standards by which U.S. marine fisheries are managed relative to many foreign ones.
  • While efforts by NOAA’s Sea Grant Extension Program, FishWatch, and a number of nongovernmental organizations are bridging the information gap, the authors stress that more is required for increasing awareness that U.S fisheries are sustainable fisheries.

The paper, “Can the United States have its fish and eat it too?,” was published in the January 2017 volume of Marine Policy and is co-authored by Caroline Pomeroy, Naresh C. Pradhan, Dale Squires, and Stephen Stohs.

Read the full paper at ScienceDirect

DENNIS NIXON: Cuts in grants, programs would hurt oceans

June 17, 2017 — On May 31, President Donald Trump proclaimed June 2017 “National Oceans Month,” in recognition of “the mighty oceans and their extraordinary resources.”

His declaration calls U.S. fisheries resources “among the most valuable in the world,” and calls for more fully exploring the ocean and developing its economy. He cites the importance of expanding offshore energy resources — traditional as well as renewable — and increasing seafood exports to reduce America’s $13 billion seafood trade deficit.

This announcement is stunning to those of us involved in marine research and education, coming as it does a week after the administration’s budget proposal to slash the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by 16 percent, or nearly $1 billion. NOAA, as its name implies, is responsible for the research, management, and support for the ocean exploration and economic development that the president calls for, and many of the areas specifically targeted for cuts would reduce U.S. capacity in offshore energy and seafood production.

Speaking from personal experience as the director of Rhode Island Sea Grant — which, as part of the NOAA budget, would be “terminated” along with the $73 million National Sea Grant College Program that encompasses 33 state programs — I can say that one such example is the development of the nation’s first offshore wind farm in the waters off Block Island.

At the behest of the state, and with partners at the Coastal Resources Management Council and with research and outreach efforts at the University of Rhode Island, Roger Williams University and beyond, Rhode Island Sea Grant and the URI Coastal Resources Center helped lead a team that amassed seafloor mapping, scientific and engineering studies and stakeholder input to determine the best location for the turbines.

Without programs like Sea Grant and the coastal council — also targeted for cuts — the nation’s ambitious proposals for offshore wind farms would still be in the blueprint stage, marred by controversies over siting and user conflicts.

In a recent House Appropriations Committee hearing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross echoed the president’s concern regarding the seafood trade deficit. “The whole fishing scene is very intriguing to me in that I’m obsessed with the problem that we have a $13 billion trade deficit in fish and fish products. … With all the water surrounding us and all the lakes and rivers, it seems weird that we should have a deficit, so that’s one of the areas we’re going to be focusing very much on,” Ross said, according to a report in E&E News.

Read the full story at the Providence Journal

Maine senators say Congress should save Sea Grant program

June 8, 2017 — Maine’s U.S. senators are signing on to a request to keep the National Sea Grant College Program funded at least at its current level.

President Trump has proposed to eliminate the program, which funds science that’s beneficial to commercial fisheries, conservation and coastal businesses. It has existed for about a half-century.

Maine Sens. Susan Collins, a Republican, and Angus King, an independent, are joining an effort led by Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy to save the program. The group is sending a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the commerce appropriations subcommittee to stress the importance of Sea Grant.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Portland Press Herald

OREGON: Tour shows value of commercial fisheries

June 5, 2017 — Positive news about successful local efforts to build and maintain a strong fishing community in Clatsop County jostled with concerns about attracting workers at the first ever Clatsop Commercial Fisheries Tour Wednesday.

The tour, conceived of and hosted by Oregon State University’s Oregon Sea Grant, drew approximately 100 people, introducing them to fishermen working in the county’s Dungeness crab and groundfish fisheries and taking them through seafood plants and boat yards in Astoria.

The overall message was positive. Fishermen, seafood processors and boat builders talked about the sustainability of Oregon’s fisheries, the economic benefit the industry provides to the community as a whole, and the well-paying jobs that still exist on boats and in fish processing plants. “It’s organic, it’s free-range … it’s diet-free, whatever,” joked Scott McMullen, of the Oregon Fishermen’s Cable Committee, about rockfish and how certain stocks like canary rockfish have recently been delisted.

Some troubles

But concerns crept in, too.

For example, a species like canary rockfish has been off-limits and off the market for so long on the West Coast that fishermen are “fighting to get back into the shelf space,” McMullen said. While they were absent, other markets and countries filled the void.

Managers at Da Yang Seafood and processing giant Pacific Coast Seafood talked about the difficulty of recruiting labor to the area. People don’t seem to understand that processing jobs can be well-paid, they said. Pacific Coast Seafood has started to recruit farther afield and made do with fewer employees, while Da Yang has looked into automation. The lack of affordable, short-term rental housing options for seasonal workers complicates hiring, too, they say.

Read the full story at The Daily Astorian

Trump budget delivers body blows to Alaska fisheries

May 27, 2017 — The 2018 budget unveiled May 23 by the Trump administration is bad news for anything that swims in or near U.S. waters.

The Trump budget will cut $1.5 billion from the U.S. Commerce Department, with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration taking the hardest hit.

The NOAA budget for its National Marine Fisheries Service operations, research and facilities would be slashed by about $43 million, eliminating NOAA’s coastal research efforts as well as its Sea Grant program.

The Trump dump also includes pulling the budget from NOAA’s Coastal Zone Management Program and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, which targets recovery of West Coast and Alaska salmon runs.

Funding for management and enforcement of U.S. catch share programs, such as halibut, sablefish and Bering Sea crab, would be cut by $5 million.

Budgets for Coastal Ecosystem Resiliency Grants, Interjurisdictional Fisheries Grants, the Chesapeake Bay project, the Great Lakes Restoration Project and the National Estuary Program also would be eliminated.

Another $193 billion would be cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program over 10 years. SNAP is a program used by more than 42 million needy Americans to supplement food purchases and often includes government-purchased seafood.

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told McClatchy News that the Trump administration “looked at the budget process through the eyes of the people who were actually paying the bills.”

Read the full story at Alaska Dispatch News

Maine environmental advocates warn of ‘crippling’ cuts in Trump budget

May 26, 2017 — President Donald Trump has not backed off on a wide range of federal budget cuts and program eliminations that critics have for months warned would devastate Maine’s economy and environment.

The cuts to discretionary programs would disrupt scientific research and social services, hack funding to public broadcasting and Maine universities and scientific research institutions, and disrupt the economic prospects of fishing, forestry and former mill communities.

“It’s pretty much a full-on attack on environmental protection in America and would have a crippling impact here in Maine, because we depend so heavily on clean air, clean water, and a brand identity that is defined by our environment,” says Pete Didisheim, advocacy director at the Natural Resources Council of Maine. “There hasn’t been any positive motion with this final budget, if anything it’s gotten slightly worse.”

If the White House has its way, it would mean the end of the University of Maine’s Sea Grant program – which provides research and technical expertise to fishermen and other marine trades – the likely closure of the Wells Reserve at Laudholm Farm, the end of a successful partnership program to clean-up Casco Bay and beach water quality testing statewide.

Pine Tree Legal Assistance, which provides legal aid to indigent citizens to pursuit civil suits and whose volunteers helped uncover the national “robo-signing” mortgage scandal, would lose its funding from the federal Legal Services Corporation, which is also slated for elimination.

Read the full story at CentralMaine.com

Proposed Federal Budget Would Eliminate Sea Grant Program

May 12, 2017 — In late March, President Trump proposed a budget that would slash the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s funding by 17 percent and eliminate several educational and research programs, if Congress approves. One of the proposed cuts would eliminate NOAA’s $73 million National Sea Grant College Program, which supports coastal research conducted through 33 university programs across the country, including every coastal and Great Lakes state, Puerto Rico, Lake Champlain and Guam.

The Sea Grant program, according to Trump’s budget plan, is a low priority that primarily has a state and local impact. “Mr. Trump is trying to eliminate us, but we are one of the solutions,” says Paul Anderson, director of Maine Sea Grant. “It’s pretty evident the process the administration has gone through to identify these cuts was not articulate. It was just line-item mathematics.”

Anderson says he is “mystified” by the Trump administration and feels its decision to cut the program puts the nation’s health and safety at risk. “The things we have created in this nation are through lessons learned — from creativity and mistakes,” he says. “You create electrical safety standards because someone was electrocuted. There’s a role government has. Trump’s approach is so naive to any of those structures that it puts our nation at risk for all kinds of things. Health, well-being and good, safe, clean domestic food and water are important.”

Read the full story at Soundings

Three Contenders Emerge to Lead Fisheries Service

May 5, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS [E&E News] — A former Louisiana official, an Alaskan fishery manager and a Sea Grant program director are reportedly in the running to head the National Marine Fisheries Service.

NMFS — an agency within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — oversees fishing regulations, endangered species listings and fisheries research. It is headed by an assistant administrator for fisheries, a position that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross can fill without Senate confirmation.

It’s unclear when Ross — or the White House — will make that decision. But three names have popped up as contenders, according to several sources inside and outside the agency: Robert Barham, Chris Oliver and LaDon Swann.

Barham was once Louisiana’s wildlife and fisheries secretary, Oliver heads the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and Swann is the director of the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium.

Fishermen are split in their support.

Robert Barham

Barham served as wildlife and fisheries secretary under former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). Some recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico — as well as the shrimp and menhaden industry — recently sent letters to Ross emphasizing Barham’s Louisiana experience and his identity as a hunter and fisherman.

“We have had the opportunity to work with Mr. Barham over the years and … it is evident that he possesses the management ability and understanding of the nuances of maintaining sustainable fish populations, while maximizing their economic value,” wrote officials from Omega Protein Corp. and other companies that harvest menhaden, a tiny forage fish used in fish oil.

Some Gulf of Mexico anglers have also tried to propel Barham to the NMFS spot, with the hope that he will come down on their side in the controversy over red snapper quotas. The debate has made its way to Capitol Hill, with some Republicans newly enraged by this year’s three-day recreational fishing season.

In a Facebook post shared among anglers, fisherman Steve Hoyland Jr. provided a form letter to send to Ross that praised Barham’s ability to “manage the public’s fish and wildlife resources in a manner that balances conservation and access.”

“If Robert Barham could get this position, it would totally change how our fishery is managed,” Hoyland wrote in one post. “THIS MAN IS ON OUR SIDE!!! We need him in this seat.”

Barnum’s tenure at the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries was marred after auditors found questionable spending between 2010 and 2015. A report from the state legislative auditor found, among other things, that the department spent some Gulf oil spill recovery money on boats, cameras, iPads, clothing and “an abundance of fishing and water sports equipment.”

The money was part of $10.5 million BP PLC provided for a seafood safety program to test fish. According to the Associated Press, Barnum has said the program came in under budget and properly tested fish. He has also emphasized that it wasn’t a taxpayer-funded program.

Chris Oliver

Oliver is the longtime executive director of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which is based in Anchorage, Alaska. Commercial and charter boat fishermen have endorsed him as an experienced leader, with groups from New England, the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico sending letters of support to the Commerce Department.

Most recently, the Gulf Seafood Institute, the Louisiana Restaurant Association, the Charter Fisherman’s Association and similar groups wrote in an April letter to Ross that Oliver “has proven to be a motivated and talented leader with a passion for bridging divides among diverse fishing interest in the Pacific Northwest and beyond.”

Oliver has helmed the fishery council for 16 years. In an interview with the Alaska Journal of Commerce earlier this year, he said he would be “inclined” to take the NMFS job if asked.

“There’s no guarantee … that I would say yes if they offered it to me,” he told the newspaper. “But I’ve got a lot of people who’ve expended a lot of effort, and my understanding is I’ve got a pretty strong backing from our congressional delegation.”

Oliver began at the council in 1990 as a plan coordinator. He is from Texas and worked on Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery management issues, according to his biography on the council’s website. He has advocated for a more regional approach to fishery management.

Several council decisions in recent years have been reversed by the courts. Last year, for example, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a 2011 decision to remove an Alaskan salmon fishery from federal oversight. Fishing groups won a lawsuit in 2012 to overturn the council’s fishing closures to protect Steller sea lions.

LaDon Swann

Swann directs one of 33 Sea Grant programs President Trump has proposed eliminating, citing its primary benefit to “industry and state and local stakeholders.”

Congress appears unlikely to follow through with that suggestion; an omnibus spending package slated to pass this week preserves the popular program. And Swann — who has also worked at the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College Program — is reportedly the pick of some Alabama lawmakers who see him as a good fit for NMFS.

In his position at Sea Grant, Swann must help coastal communities become resilient without stirring up debate about climate change. He recently told ProPublica that the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium is “a neutral broker of science information” that is there to give communities the data — not persuade them of the link between climate change and coastal hazards.

Swann is also a recreational fisherman. A 2015 al.com article detailed his record-breaking catch of a 94-pound cubera snapper.

Swann, who has a master’s in fisheries biology and a Ph.D. in curriculum, is also former president of the United States Aquaculture Society. In recent years, NMFS has attempted to promote sustainable aquaculture as a way forward for the increasing demands for seafood.

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

MASSACHUSETTS: Rep. Moulton bill looks to inject youth into fishing industry

April 10, 2017 — Looking to the future of commercial fishing as well as its troubling present, U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton is sponsoring legislation that will attempt to inject more innovation, entrepreneurship and youth into the aging industry.

The Salem congresman is scheduled to travel to Gloucester on Saturday morning to announce his filing of the “Young Fishermen’s Development Act of 2017” at an event at Fisherman’s Wharf with fishing stakeholders and local and state officials.

“The fishing economy certainly is critical to our district and state, but it’s also critical to our country,” Moulton said Thursday. “More and more people are eating more and more seafood and it’s in our national interest to protect this food source and do everything we can to rebuild the industry.”

The tenets of the legislation, which is modeled after a similar and successful program run by the Department of Agriculture, include training, education and outreach to attract younger fishermen to the waterfront to help reverse the trend of an aging industry.

The legislation calls for Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, acting through the National Sea Grant office, to establish the program and “make competitive grants to support new and established local and regional training, education, outreach and technical assistance initiative for young fishermen.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times