Archive for the Legislation Category

Sep 15 2016

RELEASE: Ten Years after Magnuson-Stevens Act, U.S. Fisheries are the Best Managed in the World

 

Washington, D.C. — United States fisheries are the most sustainably managed in the world. Critical legislation has governed federal fisheries for the past four decades, and the enactment of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, or MSRA, 10 years ago provided science-based management measures that have maintained the health of the U.S. ocean ecology and economy.

However, it is time to think about what comes next for the U.S. fisheries industry. The Center for American Progress has released a report looking at the successes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and offering science-based recommendations to maintain and improve the health of U.S. fisheries over the next 10 years. The report was released at an event on the legacy of the MSRA featuring former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco; Maria Damanaki, global managing director for oceans at the Nature Conservancy; and Margaret Spring, vice president of conservation and science at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.

“It is no fluke that U.S. fisheries are among the best managed in the world,” said Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at CAP and co-author of the report. “The success of our science-based fishery management regime that has evolved over four decades of legislative oversight has made the resource far more sustainable while sustaining coastal economies. Now in the 21st century, federal fisheries face daunting challenges, including ocean warming and acidification stemming from climate change. The MSRA and its predecessors have made U.S. fisheries the healthiest in the world but it is now time to update these efforts to ensure their sustainability into the next century.”

The paper makes the following recommendations:

  • Regulators should work to account for changes in fishery dynamics that fishermen around the country are already experiencing as a result of climate change, including ocean acidification and warming.
  • Ecosystem-based management should be prioritized as a tool to facilitate a holistic fisheries management.
  • To increase accountability and data collection, NOAA should aggressively pursue the development and deployment of electronic monitoring systems for fishing vessels.
  • Congress should appropriate additional funding for ocean observation and baseline research to facilitate data collection and stock assessment science.
  • Using the MSRA’s strong international provisions, the Obama administration should finalize regulations aimed at curtailing illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing abroad.
  • U.S. leaders and government officials should press the International Maritime Organization to expand application of its vessel monitoring and registration standards to include all fishing vessels operating on the high seas.

Click here to read the report.
Click here to watch the live stream of the event.

Sep 14 2016

Will Obama fence off more of the ocean? US fishermen are fearful

U.S. fishing boats that are crewed by undocumented foreign fishermen are docked at Pier 38 in Honolulu, on May 13, 2016.

U.S. fishing boats that are crewed by undocumented foreign fishermen are docked at Pier 38 in Honolulu, on May 13, 2016. (AP Photo/Caleb Jones)

 

American fishermen are deeply fearful that the Obama White House could cut them off as early as this week from major fishing areas of the U.S. continental shelf on both coasts, further restricting one of the most highly regulated fishing industries in the world.

At stake are millions of dollars in fishing revenue and hundreds of jobs — and in some parts of the country, the survival of an embattled way of life that has persisted for centuries but is facing environmentalist pressures unlike anything before — and without  the chance for hearings and legislative back-and-forth that U.S. laws normally require.

“This totally affects us, but we don’t know what’s going on,” one fishing boat owner, who asked to remain anonymous, told Fox News. “We are just out of the loop. No one even wants to say what effect it will have.”

“They are throwing all fishermen under the bus, along with their supporting industries” declared Marty Scanlon, a fishing boat owner and member of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries advisory panel on highly migratory fish species in the Atlantic. “They’ve done everything they can to put us out of business.”

What the fishermen fear most is the kind of unilateral action by the White House that they have already seen elsewhere. As part of their ongoing environmental ambitions, the Obama administration’s Council on Environmental Quality, and the president himself, are aggressively interested in creating preservation zones that would ban fishing and other activities within large portions of the 200-mile U.S. “exclusive economic zone” of maritime influence, and just as interested in getting other nations to do so, in their own as well as international waters.

That aim, supported by many important environmental groups, is cited as urgently required for protection against diminishing  biodiversity, overfishing and damage to coral and unique underwater geological features — not to mention the fact that with only a few months remaining in his term, the president sees such sweeping gestures as part of his legacy of achievements, and as the boat owner put it, “the window is narrowing” for the administration to act.

As one result, pressure from lobbying campaigns both for and against new declarations of such no-go zones both along the U.S. northeastern Atlantic coast and the coast of California have been mounting.

So has, apparently, behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get influential Democratic legislators to support such new preservation areas publicly — a tough call, since the affected fishermen are also constituents. So far, many of the Democrats are keeping a low profile.

One exception has been U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — whose state does not loom as a major fishing center — who earlier this month vocally nominated  an area he called the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts for preservation status.

Blumenthal was backed by some 40 environmental groups — but not by many of his neighboring Democratic Senate colleagues. Fox News emails to a number of  Democratic Senate offices regarding the issue went unacknowledged prior to this story’s publication.

A more specific  trigger for  the nervousness in fishing communities  is  the upcoming September 15 start of a two-day, State Department  — sponsored Our Ocean conference, which  has among other ambitions the extension of  marine preserves across greater areas of the world’s oceans.

More than 35 foreign ministers of various countries are expected to attend, and according to  a State Department official,  build on previous meetings that garnered international pledges of nearly $4 billion for ocean “conservation activities” globally, and also pledged to “safeguard nearly 6 million square kilometers” — 2.3 million square miles — “of ocean in Marine Protected Areas” — essentially, natural parks for marine life.

As the fishermen are well aware, two years ago President Obama dramatically kick-started the first-ever Our Ocean session by expanding the Remote Islands Marine National Monument by about 600 percent. He created a 140,000 square mile marine protected area northwest of the Hawaiian islands in which all commercial fishing and deep sea mining was banned.

Last month, Obama upped the ante once more. He expanded  the  Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, a protected area west and north of his native state, to the edges of the U.S. 200-mile exclusive economic zone. The latest move created  a 582,578 square mile preserve that is about double the size of Texas and West Virginia combined — and roughly a quarter of all the protected waters that the State Department claims its Our Ocean conference process has so far achieved.

According to Kitty Simonds, executive director of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council — a joint federal, state and private sector agency set up under U.S. law to prevent overfishing and manage fisheries stocks in that region — “someone sent us an embargoed press release” about the latest expansion a day before the announcement was made public.

Simonds, whose agency had previously called for a “public, transparent, deliberative, documented and science-based process” in advance of the proposed monument expansion, called it “unbelievable that the government is kicking U.S. fishermen out of U.S. waters when the fishery is healthy.” Simonds and a coalition of local supporters are willing to live with the expanded preserve so long as it still allowed fishing under the supervision of the existing management authorities.

Otherwise, she says, the restriction would force U.S. fishing vessels — about 145 of them — into international waters to make their catches, where they would compete against fleets from China, South Korea and Indonesia, among others, “that have lower fishing standards.” The move would also, she charged, increase fish imports — currently about 92 percent of consumption — rather than lower demand for seafood.

The fishermen point out that in terms of many larger food fish, such as tuna, the preserve areas are meaningless. The bigger fish roam oceans worldwide, and the long-line equipment used to catch them does not damage coral reefs or the fragile ocean bottom.

The monument designation also over-rode a 40-year-old, federally legislated process of managing fish stocks in all U.S. waters by means of fishery management councils like the Western Pacific agency. Eight councils were established around the country to manage fishing resources under legislation now known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act after its congressional sponsors.

The councils are hardly passive when it comes to conservation issues, and have prohibited a variety of restrictive fishing practices, as well as placing monitors on board fishing vessels to make sure catch rules are enforced.

Nonetheless, they did not speak to the kind of sweeping, surface-to-sea-bottom environmental protections, including for coral formations and deep sea habitats, that the marine preserve supporters, including President Obama had sought — even though opponents argue that fisheries management councils have even taken such issues as coral protection into consideration.

Just as in the administration’s 2014 action, the recent Pacific expansion announcement preceded an international meeting, this time with Pacific island leaders alongside the world congress of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), one of the world’s most prestigious environmental organizations.

Obama attended the Honolulu session and told his audience at the start of the IUCN meeting that “Teddy Roosevelt gets the credit for starting the National Parks system, but when you include a big chunk of the Pacific Ocean, we now have actually done more acreage than any other president.”

What worries the fishermen is Obama’s Big Stick — the American Antiquities Act of 1906, a statute signed into law by Teddy Roosevelt that allows the president by decree to set aside “historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”

George W. Bush first used the act to set aside Pacific marine preserves related to World War II. But Barack Obama has used it at sea to create much more vast environmental sanctuaries, an approach widely advocated at home and internationally by major non-profit organizations like the Pew Charitable Trusts and the National Resources Defense Council.

The point of the upcoming Our Ocean meeting is to push those oceanic priorities even further, not only in terms of marine preservation areas but in expansive measures to combat illegal fishing, clean up pollution — including masses of ocean debris — and create further partnerships, both public and private, to carry on the effort.

CLICK HERE FOR THE MEETING WEBSITE

As the conference website declares:  “The world has agreed [via the United Nations-sponsored Sustainable Development Goals] 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.”

About specific additional maritime preserves, however, a State Department official queried by Fox News on the issue remained closed-mouthed.

“Many nations will be making announcements at the conference related to MPAs,” he said. “I do not have specific information about those at this time.”

The hush-hush also covers the past. An interactive map on the Our Ocean conference website promises to show “the impact of prior commitments,” on the world’s oceans, but revealed nothing at the time this story was published.


Read the original story: http://www.foxnews.com/

Sep 12 2016

U.S. Seafood Producers to White House: Don’t Harm Fisheries for Ocean Monuments

ncfc

WASHINGTON (NCFC) – September 12, 2016 – Today, in advance of the “Our Oceans” conference being held later this week at the State Department, the National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) delivered a letter to the White House calling on the President to refrain from designating new marine monuments under the Antiquities Act. Copies of the letter were also delivered to the offices of Senators representing the states of the signers.

The letter, with over 900 fishing industry signers and supported by 35 fishing organizations that represent the majority of domestic seafood harvesters, instead urges the President to conserve marine resources through the federal fisheries management process established by the bipartisan Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act (MSA).

“The federal fisheries management process is among the most effective systems for managing living marine resources in the world,” the letter states. “The misuse of the Antiquities Act to create a marine monument is a repudiation of the past and ongoing efforts of almost everyone involved to continue to make Magnuson-Stevens management even more effective.”

The NCFC members join an ever-growing list of fishing organizations and individuals opposing new ocean monuments via use of the Antiquities Act. TheAtlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Council Coordination Committee, and over two dozen individual fish and seafood industry trade organizations have previously written to the White House asking for the MSA continue to guide fisheries management.

Mayors from major East and West coast ports have previously expressed their concerns with monument designations in letters to the White House. NCFC members have also spoke out in opposition to designating a monument off the coast of New England, which would hurt the valuable red crab, swordfish, tuna, and offshore lobster fisheries.

Today’s letter was signed by the following fishing organizations:

  • Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers
  • American Scallop Association
  • American Albacore Fisheries Association
  • At-Sea Processors Association
  • Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Association
  • Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
  • California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
  • California Lobster & Trap Fishermen’s Association
  • California Sea Urchin Commission
  • California Wetfish Producers Association
  • Coalition of Coastal Fisheries
  • Coos Bay Trawlers
  • Directed Sustainable Fisheries
  • Fisheries Survival Fund
  • Fishermen’s Dock Co-Op
  • Garden State Seafood Association
  • Golden King Crab Coalition
  • Groundfish Forum
  • Hawaii Longline Association
  • Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
  • Midwater Trawlers Cooperative
  • National Fisheries Institute
  • North Carolina Fisheries Association
  • Oregon Trawl Commission
  • Organized Fishermen of Florida
  • Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
  • Pacific Seafood Processors Association
  • Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative
  • Southeastern Fisheries Association
  • Sustainable Fisheries Coalition
  • United Catcher Boats
  • Ventura County Commercial Fishermen’s Association
  • Washington Trollers Association
  • West Coast Seafood Processors Association
  • Western Fishboat Owners Association

Download/read the letter here [PDF]


 

Sep 8 2016

Pacific Council outlines offshore monument concerns in letter to White House

saving-seafood-logo

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 7, 2016 — Last Thursday, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) sent a letter to President Barack Obama expressing concern over the impact of proposed offshore marine monument designations on sustainable West Coast fisheries.

In the letter, Pacific Council executive director Charles A. Tracy emphasized the transparent and public fisheries management process already in place under the Pacific Council, one of the eight regional management councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

Through the Pacific Council’s essential fish habitat (EFH) process, nine of the eleven areas proposed for monument designation are already closed to bottom trawl fishing, Mr. Tracy wrote. In total, over 130,000 square miles of seafloor off the U.S. West Coast are closed to groundfish bottom trawling due to EFH provisions. Additionally, the two other areas proposed for monument designation are within the Cowcod Conservation Area West, and are therefore closed to all groundfish fishing in areas deeper than 20 fathoms.

“The fishing industry has sacrificed much to achieve [fish stock] rebuilding goals, to minimize impacts with protected or non-target species, and to ensure sustainable fisheries,” Mr. Tracy noted.

The Council also pointed out the potential unintended consequences of closing U.S. fisheries, including loss of American jobs and greater dependence on seafood imported from countries with illegal fishing.

“Displacing domestic fisheries costs U.S. jobs and increases reliance on foreign fisheries, which in many cases are less sustainably managed than U.S. fisheries, and many of which contribute to illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, a point of emphasis for your Administration,” Mr. Tracy wrote.

Attached to the Pacific Council’s letter was a letter from the Council Coordination Committee, comprised of senior leaders from all eight regional fishery management councils, voicing concern over the use of the Antiquities Act to designate marine monuments.

“We are concerned that authorities such as the Antiquities Act of 1906 do not explicitly require a robust public process or science-based environmental analyses,” the Councils wrote. “We believe fisheries management decisions should be made using the robust process established by the MSA and successfully used for over forty years.”

Download to read the letter and attachments here – [PDF]

 

 

Aug 29 2016

Letters: Why Does President Obama Want to Eliminate Sustainable Commercial Fisheries?

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [Letters] August 29, 2016

 

Dear Seafood News Editor,

“Help us identify Champions who are helping the ongoing recovery of America’s fishing industry and fishing communities,” Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and Council of Environmental Quality Director Christy Goldfuss posted on the White House Blog on August 10.   They were appealing for nominees for this year’s White House Champion of Change for Sustainable Seafood.”

The blogpost had many complimentary things to say about our U.S. commercial fisheries:

“America’s fishers, and our seafood industry, have fed Americans and their families since our nation’s beginning. What’s more, this industry remains critical to the economic health and well-being of communities across the country.

“After decades of decline, we are witnessing the economic and ecological recovery of America’s fishing industry.  Overfishing has hit an all-time low, and many stocks are returning to sustainable levels. The U.S. fishing industry contributed nearly $200 billion annually to the American economy in 2014 and supports 1.7 million jobs.

“This shift did not come easy.  It took hard work, collaboration, and sacrifice by many across the country. Although there’s still more to do, America’s fisherman have led the way to the United States becoming a global leader in sustainable seafood management.

“This turnaround is a story about innovative ways to catch fish and other seafood sustainably, and connect fishers with their customers. It is a story about the value of science and management working together, and a willingness to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow. And it is a story about sustaining a proud livelihood that is the backbone of so many coastal communities nationwide.

“President Obama and his Administration want to honor America’s fishers and our coastal communities for their efforts.”

We agree with everything Secretary Pritzker and Director Golfuss said.

Yet on Friday, August 26, President Obama announced he was expanding the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument off the coast of Hawaii, creating the world’s largest marine protected area. The fact sheet stated:  “Building on the United States’ global leadership in marine conservation, today’s designation will more than quadruple the size of the existing marine monument, permanently protecting pristine coral reefs, deep sea marine habitats, and important ecological resources in the waters of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.”

But President Obama’s executive order, authorized under the Antiquities Act, also prohibited commercial fishing in an area increased by 442,781 square miles, bringing the total protected area of the expanded monument to 582,578 square miles.   This unilateral action happened without the transparency, science-based decision-making and robust public process trumpeted in the President’s own National Ocean Policy, nor the bipartisan Congressionally mandated Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which requires fisheries to be managed under a transparent, science-based process administered by regional fishery management councils.

The announcement precipitated extreme disappointment from commercial fishermen and Council members alike, who decried the lack of science and economic pain inflicted on sustainable fisheries and fishing communities. “Closing 60 percent of Hawaii’s waters to commercial fishing, when science is telling us that it will not lead to more productive local fisheries, makes no sense,” said Edwin Ebiusi Jr., chair of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council.  “Today is a sad day in the history of Hawaii’s fisheries and a negative blow to our local food security.”

“It serves a political legacy rather than any conservation benefits …” said Council Executive Director Kitty Simonds.  “The campaign to expand the monument was organized by a multibillion dollar, agenda-driven environmental organization…  The President obviously chose not to balance the interests of Hawaii’s community, which has been divided on this issue,” she added.  Fisheries are the state’s top food producer, according the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

“Our party’s over,” wrote Sean Martin, president of the Hawaii Longline Association, but the monument lobbying effort continues on the east coast and off California, where well-heeled environmental advocates are lobbying to close productive sea mounts in New England, as well as most of the offshore seamounts, banks and ridges off the California coast, all of which are critically important to the long-term sustainability of commercial fisheries in those regions.

On both the east and west coast, fishermen, allied seafood companies and business interests as well as the regional fishery management councils have mounted vigorous opposition to the use of unilateral executive order under the Antiquities Act to manage fisheries.   They point to existing National Ocean Policy promises and the Magnuson Act, which require science-based decision-making and robust stakeholder involvement.  A transparent process that includes scientific and economic analysis and public involvement already exists through the MSA and fishery management councils.    Why not use it?

This Administration’s disrespect for Congressional mandate and its own ocean policies begs the question:  Why does this President want to curtail sustainable fisheries?

D.B. Pleschner
Executive Director
California Wetfish Producers Association


Michael Ramsingh
SeafoodNews.com 1-732-240-5330
Editorial Email: Editor@seafood.com
Reporter’s Email: michaelramsingh@seafood.com

Copyright © 2016 Seafoodnews.com

D.B. Pleschner is executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, a nonprofit dedicated to research and to promote sustainable Wetfish resources. More info at www.californiawetfish.org

Aug 26 2016

Our View: Stakeholders deserve open process in monument designation

Posted Aug. 26, 2016 at 2:01 AM

Editor’s Note: The letters by the mayors of New Bedford and Monterey, California, referred to in this editorial are printed elsewhere on this page. New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell wrote to the White House Council on Environmental Quality and Monterey Mayor Clyde Roberson wrote to President Obama.

The National Park Service was established 100 years ago when President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Park Service Organic Act.

“The service thus established,” the act reads, “shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

This brilliant action — called America’s Best Idea by the Park Service — has enriched our nation, even the world, in ways perhaps never imagined by President Wilson or Congress, for the population is 3½ times today what it was in 1916, and the environmental impact of that growth could scarcely have been predicted.

The 84 million acres under the NPS is a treasure that belongs to all of us, and we applaud efforts to expand the protection of our natural resources, but we also recognize some such efforts go too far, including in the push to establish a national monument off the New England coast.

The Canyons and Seamounts are indeed precious resources, but the scope and the current process being advanced by environmental organizations lack checks and balances that would deliver a better policy.

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell last week sent a letter to the acting director of the Council for Environmental Quality, a White House agency that advises the president on such issues, noting the push for the seamounts monument has kept stakeholders from participating in the process.

Indeed, we have previously reported on efforts by environmentalists to keep their advocacy for the monument designation a secret in order to gain an advantage over industry and other stakeholders.

Mayor Mitchell’s argument in last Friday’s letter to CEQ is that the public processes ensconced in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provide a robust framework with both the scientific rigor and stakeholder access needed to create good public policy. He also noted that a virtuous alternative to the proposed designation and the potentially devastating impact this opaque process would have on commercial fisheries has been advanced by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Both economic and conservation goals are achieved by the plan proposed by ASMFC, a congressionally authorized coalition comprising “the director of the state’s marine fisheries management agency, a state legislator, and an individual appointed by the state’s governor to represent stakeholder interests” in each of the 15 coastal states from Maine to Florida. The species sought and the methods used show sensitivity to the preservation of the resources, and the ASMFC proposal is “acceptable to the industry,” the mayor wrote.

Also last Friday, the mayor of Monterey, California, Clyde Roberson, sent a letter to President Obama, because he is fighting off a monument designation off of his coast that similarly threatens the commercial fishing industry there.

He argues that laws such as Magnuson-Stevens, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act are more than adequate to ensure protection of the natural resources with full transparency and access to stakeholders. He says the closed process being urged by environmentalist under the Antiquities Act is inadequate to the task.

The president did not go along with the environmentalists last fall, and it is our fervent hope that if he isn’t advised by CEQ to pursue the more open process, the duty to represent and hear all stakeholders will prevail.

Read the full editorial at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Read Mayor Jon Mitchell’s full letter here

Read Mayor Clyde Roberson’s full letter here

paper


Originally posted by Saving Seafood

Aug 25 2016

Coastal mayors join to oppose Obama administration’s ‘marine monuments’ plan

By Steve Urbon

The Obama administration is running afoul of transparency and openness as it prepares to create offshore marine monuments off California and New England, two mayors including Jon Mitchell are telling the administration.

Mitchell was joined by Monterey, California Mayor Clyde Roberson in sending the Obama White House letters expressing “serious concerns” about the potential economic harm to their ports from the use of executive action by the administration to create new federal marine monuments off the coasts.

A chorus of opposition has been rising from fishermen and fishing communities across the country opposing the creation of marine monuments outside of the existing ocean management processes.

New Bedford is the highest-grossing fishing port in the nation; Monterey is one of the most valuable fishing ports in California.

Writing to Council on Environmental Quality Acting Director Christy Goldfuss, Mitchell praised the successes of the current fishing management process, overseen by NOAA, a process that includes the voices of all ocean stakeholders in its deliberations, according to a release from the The National Coalition for Fishing Communities. “The process is far from perfect, but it affords ample opportunity for stakeholders and the public alike to review and comment on policy decisions and for the peer reviewing of the scientific bases of those decisions,” Mitchell wrote.

By contrast, “The use of a parallel process, however well meaning, which has none of the checks and balances employed in the NOAA process, could leave ocean management decisions vulnerable to political considerations in the long run,” said Mitchell.

Roberson’s letter to President Obama was similarly critical of efforts to declare new monuments by executive fiat. Mayor Roberson emphasized the value of the California seamounts to commercial fishermen and the need to strike a balance between environmental protections and fishing concerns. Reaching this balance requires basing decisions on science rather than politics, he wrote.

“Monterey supports publicly transparent, science-based processes in making ocean management decisions such as the mandate embodied in the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act,” Roberson wrote. “This proposal was developed without public knowledge or participation, much less scientific or economic review and analysis. Certainly there was no transparency. “

Both mayors also expressed serious reservations about the potential impact monument declarations would have on their regions’ commercial fishing industries. “In New England, a monument declaration would devastate the red crab, swordfish, and tuna fisheries, as well as the processors and shore side businesses that depend on them. In California, the albacore tuna fishery would be deeply impacted, as would that of the rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchins, and white sea bass,” said the release.


Read the original post: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/

Aug 25 2016

MAYORS OF MAJOR EAST AND WEST COAST PORTS EXPRESS CONCERN ABOUT POSSIBLE ECONOMIC HARM FROM MARINE MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS

August 24, 2016 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

WASHINGTON (NCFC) – In letters sent on Friday to the President and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), New Bedford, Massachusetts Mayor Jon Mitchell and Monterey, California Mayor Clyde Roberson expressed “serious concerns” about the potential economic harm to their ports from the use of executive action by the Obama Administration to create new federal marine monuments off the coasts of New England and California. The mayors also emphasized the need for “transparency” and “robust stakeholder input.”

The letters reflect a growing movement from fishermen and fishing communities across the country opposing the creation of marine monuments outside of the existing ocean management processes. New Bedford is the highest-grossing fishing port in the nation, and Monterey is one of the most valuable fishing ports in California.

In his letter to CEQ Acting Director Christy Goldfuss, New Bedford Mayor Mitchell praised the successes of the current fishing-management process, overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – a process that emphasizes including the voices of all ocean stakeholders in its deliberations.

“The process is far from perfect, but it affords ample opportunity for stakeholders and the public alike to review and comment on policy decisions and for the peer reviewing of the scientific bases of those decisions,” he wrote.

The Mayor went on to contrast this with the much more opaque process that has governed the marine monument debate.

“The use of a parallel process, however well-meaning, which has none of the checks and balances employed in the NOAA process, could leave ocean management decisions vulnerable to political considerations in the long run,” he wrote.

 On the other side of the country, Monterey Mayor Roberson’s letter to President Obama was similarly critical of efforts to declare new monuments by executive fiat. Mayor Roberson emphasized the value of the California seamounts to commercial fishermen and the need to strike a balance between environmental protections and fishing concerns. According to Mayor Roberson, reaching this balance requires basing decisions on science, rather than politics.

“[Monterey] supports publically transparent, science-based processes in making ocean management decisions – such as the mandate embodied in the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act,” he wrote. “This proposal was developed without public knowledge or participation, much less scientific or economic review and analysis. Certainly there was no transparency. “

Both Mayors also expressed serious reservations about the potential impact monument declarations would have on their regions’ commercial fishing industries. In New England, a monument declaration would devastate the red crab, swordfish, and tuna fisheries, as well as the processors and shore side businesses that depend on them. In California, the albacore tuna fishery would be deeply impacted, as would that of the rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchins, and white sea bass.

Mayor Mitchell also noted that while the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has provided “coordinates of a line seaward of the canyons that is acceptable to the industry” the Administration has not provided a concrete proposal. He noted, “if a proposal actually exists, it has not been shared with any of the stakeholders.”

Fishing groups on the East and West Coasts, including many NCFC affiliates, whose members collectively produce the majority of the edible finfish and shellfish harvested from U.S. waters, have expressed opposition to the creation of a new monument via executive order. These organizations include:

  • Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers
  • Alaska Scallop Association
  • American Albacore Fisheries Association
  • American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA)
  • American Scallop Association
  • At-Sea Processors Association
  • Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
  • Blue Water Fishermen’s Association
  • California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
  • California Lobster & Trap Fishermen’s Association
  • California Sea Urchin Commission
  • California Wetfish Producers Association
  • Coalition of Coastal Fisheries
  • Coos Bay Trawlers
  • Directed Sustainable Fisheries
  • Fisheries Survival Fund
  • Garden State Seafood Association
  • Golden King Crab Coalition
  • Groundfish Forum
  • Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
  • Midwater Trawlers Cooperative
  • National Fisheries Institute
  • New England Red Crab Harvester’s Association
  • North Carolina Fisheries Association
  • Oregon Trawl Commission
  • Organized Fishermen of Florida
  • Pacific Seafood Processors Association
  • Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative
  • Southeastern Fisheries Association
  • United Catcher Boats
  • Ventura County Commercial Fishermen’s Association
  • Washington Trollers Association
  • West Coast Seafood Processors Association
  • Western Fishboat Owners Association

Read Mayor Mitchell’s letter here

Read Mayor Roberson’s letter here

Jul 15 2016

Ocean monument: Growing momentum for Obama to establish new Pacific marine preserves before leaving office

A new effort to convince President Barack Obama to establish a huge new national monument in the Pacific Ocean off California before he leaves office six months from now is gaining momentum.

More than 100 scientists — including some of the top marine biologists in the world — and two dozen environmental groups are pushing a proposal that would ban offshore oil drilling, undersea mining and potentially some types of fishing in nine areas between San Diego and the Oregon border.

File photo: Future Pacific Ocean preserve? More than 100 scientists -- including some of the top marine biologists in the world -- and two dozenFile photo: Future Pacific Ocean preserve? More than 100 scientists — including some of the top marine biologists in the world — and two dozen environmental groups are pushing a proposal that would ban offshore oil drilling, undersea mining and potentially some types of fishing in nine areas between San Diego and the Oregon border. (Don Ryan/Associated Press archives)

 

The areas singled out are a collection of underwater mountains, known as seamounts, along with several dormant underwater volcanoes, deep-sea ridges and concentrations of natural vents that spew hot water. Ranging from 45 to 186 miles off the California coast, and plunging more than 1 mile under the ocean’s surface, the remote locations are rich with sharks, whales, sea turtles and exotic sea life, including forests of coral, sponges and sea urchins. Many of the species have been discovered only in recent years as deep-sea exploration technology has improved.

“There are a lot of people who recognize the importance of this,” said Lance Morgan, president of the Marine Conservation Institute, a Sonoma County environmental group that has been spearheading the plans. “It’s moving forward; people are interested.”

Roughly 5 to 10 percent of ocean waters from 3 miles offshore to 200 miles offshore would be affected, Morgan said. Some types of fishing, such as bottom trawling and drift gill net fishing, would be banned, he added, although recreational fishing and hook-and-line commercial fishing would likely not be affected.

The concept, however, has been drawing suspicion and concern from some fishing groups who say it has largely been drafted in secret.

“If you are trying to protect these truly iconic places — and there’s no doubt they really need protection — from things like oil drilling and mining, you have to wonder in what way does fishing adversely affect those areas,” said Dan Wolford, president of the Coastside Fishing Club, a recreational fishing organization. “The fishing community says it doesn’t.”

On Thursday, the campaign received a boost when Rep. Sam Farr, D-Carmel, and Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Los Angeles, introduced a bill to establish a new “California Seamounts and Ridges National Marine Conservation Area,” which would include most of the areas the supporters have highlighted. The measure would require the U.S. interior and commerce secretaries to draw the precise boundaries after consulting with fishing groups and other interested parties.

The measure would ban oil drilling, dredging, mining and undersea cables in the areas but would not restrict military activities, scientific research, recreational fishing or commercial tuna fishing.

“These are extraordinary places,” said Jane Lubchenco, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who sits on the board of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in Palo Alto. She called the areas “a vital frontier for scientific discovery.”

The bill, however, has virtually no chance of passage in the Republican-led Congress.

Such bills are commonly introduced when environmental groups and the lawmakers supporting them are pushing a president to declare a national monument without congressional approval, using his authority under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

When conservatives protest, the supporters often say that they tried through the normal legislative process, but their bills were not given a hearing, leaving them no chance but to go to the White House.

Nearly every president has used the law, since it was first signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, to establish new national monuments on land. Roosevelt used it to set aside the Grand Canyon, Bill Clinton used it to protect California’s Giant Sequoias, and in 2006, President George W. Bush used it to establish the Northern Hawaiian Islands National Monument, a vast section of ocean that includes 10 remote islands and atolls, including Midway, over 140,000 square miles.

The Obama administration hasn’t said much about the proposal. Kaelan Richards, a White House spokeswoman, on Thursday did not comment when asked if the president was considering using his executive authority to establish a new monument.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed an amendment by Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-New York, to ban funding for the designation of any new marine monuments by Obama. The language, attached to the fiscal year 2017 Interior Department budget bill, passed by a vote of 225-202. It came in response to controversy from the fishing industry over several proposals to establish new marine monuments on the East Coast.

The bill goes now to the U.S. Senate. If the amendment survives, it would not ban Obama from establishing new marine monuments but would ban federal funds from being spent to draw up and enforce rules in them.

Paul Rogers covers resources and environmental issues. Contact him at 408-920-5045. Follow him at Twitter.com/PaulRogersSJMN.


Read the original post: http://www.mercurynews.com/

Jul 14 2016

Ninth Circuit revives fishermen’s lawsuit for abalone protection

plf

SAN FRANCISCO, CA;  July 13, 2016: Overruling a trial court, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday reinstated Pacific Legal Foundation’s lawsuit to protect abalone and other shellfish resources — and the industries dependent on them — from being ravaged by sea otters in the waters off the Southern California coast.

The lawsuit — California Sea Urchin Commission et al. v. Jacobson et. al. — targets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for illegally eliminating a “sea otter management zone” (i.e., a zone of protection for shellfish off the Southern California coast) which Congress established under a 1986 statute.

PLF attorneys represent fishermen, a California state commission, and several nonprofit organizations with a direct interest in maintaining healthy populations of shellfish.

A trial court had ruled that the lawsuit, filed in 2013, came too late, and should have been filed two decades earlier, when regulators first claimed they had authority to set aside the sea otter management zone — not when they actually took that step four years ago.

But the Ninth Circuit has now reversed that decision, holding that “an agency should not be able to sidestep a legal challenge to one of its actions by backdating the action” to an earlier time when it merely published an assertion that it could take such an action.

“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is a victory for the California fishermen who want to protect California abalone and other shellfish, and it is also a victory for everyone who values the rule of law,” said PLF attorney Jonathan Wood.  “The Ninth Circuit struck a blow for the rule of law and agency accountability.  The decision makes clear that every final agency action may receive judicial review.  Scofflaw bureaucrats cannot avoid scrutiny by citing times they got away with violating the law in the past.”

Background:  regulators disobey Congress, putting shellfish — and fishing families — at risk

At issue is the Service’s violation of the terms of Public Law 99-625, the 1986 statute that authorized regulators to set up an experimental population of the California sea otter on San Nicolas Island, approximately 65 miles southwest of Point Mugu in Ventura County.  It included requirements that sea otters be restricted from spreading to surrounding waters, and that fishermen be exempted from Endangered Species Act (ESA) liability for accidentally catching or harming an otter during their work.

The Service accepted this compromise in the late 1980s, by moving otters to San Nicolas Island and adopting a regulation to implement the protections for the surrounding fishery.

However, the Service included in its regulation an assertion that it has authority to terminate these protections (even though Congress said it “must” adopt and “shall implement” them).

Nearly 20 years later, in 2012, the Service did precisely that — unilaterally reneging on the deal and repealing all of the protections for shellfish and the fishing industry.

In challenging the Service’s violation of its legal mandate to contain the sea otter population, PLF attorneys represent:

  • The California Sea Urchin Commission, a state panel, created by the Legislature, to promote sustainable sea urchin harvests, balance sea urchin harvests with environmental protection, and foster education about the high nutritional value of sea urchin.
  • The California Abalone Association, a nonprofit corporation with a mission to restore and steward a market abalone fishery in California that utilizes modern management concepts, protects and enhances the resource, and guarantees a sustainable resource for the future.
  • The California Lobster and Trap Fishermen’s Association, a nonprofit association that advocates for a sustainable lobster resource, and for the fishermen and communities that depend on the resource.  The organization is gravely concerned about unregulated otter expansion that threatens the lobster population, and the loss of fishermen’s exemption from “incidental take” liability under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), because of the risks that fishermen’s traps will unintentionally “take” otters.
  • Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara, a nonprofit corporation organized to integrate regional efforts of fishing communities with the aim of improving the economic and biological sustainability of fisheries.  The organization is seriously concerned about unregulated otter expansion, due to the threat to shellfish and other species.  The organization is also concerned about fishing operations being exposed to ESA liability in the event of unintentional harm to sea otters.

Responding to this week’s Ninth Circuit ruling, David Goldenberg, Executive Director of the California Sea Urchin Commission, said, “This victory is an important step toward defending Southern California’s fishermen pursuing their livelihoods.  The decision recognizes that we have a right to have our day in court, and agency bureaucrats are not above the law.”

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the lawsuit is entitled, California Sea Urchin Commission et al. v. Jacobson et. al.  More information, including the complaint, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, a video, and podcast, may be found at PLF’s website:  www.pacificlegal.org.

About Pacific Legal Foundation
Donor-supported PLF is a watchdog organization that litigates for limited government, property rights, and a balanced approach to environmental regulations, in courts nationwide.  PLF represents all clients without charge.


Read the original release: https://www.pacificlegal.org/