The Center for Biological Diversity has filed a formal notice of intent to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service for failure to develop a recovery plan for the endangered North Pacific right whale.
The 60-day notice of intent to sue is required before such a lawsuit is filed under the Endangered Species Act. These whales have been listed as endangered since 1973.
The announcement on March 20 came from Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for the national conservation group devoted to protecting endangered species and wild places. Noblin said that what with the increased shipping activity there is growing urgency to protect the northern right whales, who are very slow moving and for some reason don’t get out of the way of ships. Noblin said the best thing to prevent ship strikes of the whales would be to slow ships and have established shipping lanes.
The right whales got their name because they were considered “the right whale to hunt,” and back in the days before the advent of commercial whaling they numbered as many as 20,000 whales. Noblin said that the few remaining individual whales today are extremely vulnerable to ship strikes, oil development and oil spills, and entanglement in fishing gear. Even the loss of one whale could threaten the entire population, she said.
Noblin said there are an estimated 30 such whales in the North Pacific and stocks in Russia are estimated at about a few hundred.
Under the Endangered Species Act, NPFS is required to issue and implement a plan for conservation and recovery of these whales.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Halibut Workshop Slated for April 24-25 in Seattle
A workshop on the methodology and accuracy of the estimation of halibut bycatch is set for April 24-25 in Seattle, to gather more information in advance of final action by federal fisheries managers in June at Kodiak on Gulf of Alaska halibut prohibited species catch.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is expected to take action at that meeting to reduce the prohibited species catch limit.
The workshop is a collaborative effort of the council and the International Pacific Halibut Commission. It will broadcast over an Internet website, with presentations for viewing and audio of the entire session, said Bruce Leaman, executive director of the IPHC.
The workshop was prompted by testimony taken by the NPFMC at its June 2011 meeting in Nome from six people who identified themselves as the “halibut workgroup.”
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council is expected to take action at that meeting to reduce the prohibited species catch limit.
The workshop is a collaborative effort of the council and the International Pacific Halibut Commission. It will broadcast over an Internet website, with presentations for viewing and audio of the entire session, said Bruce Leaman, executive director of the IPHC.
The workshop was prompted by testimony taken by the NPFMC at its June 2011 meeting in Nome from six people who identified themselves as the “halibut workgroup.”
They included Lori Swanson, executive director of the Groundfish Forum; John Gruver, intercoop manager, United Catcher Boats; Stephanie Madsen, executive director, At-Sea Processors Association; Heather McCarty, a fisheries consultant whose clients include the Central Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association; Paul MacGregor, an attorney whose clients include the At-Sea Processors Association, and Julie Bonney, owner of the Groundfish Data Bank. McCarty is the wife of Jim Balsiger, an IPHC commissioner and regional administrator for Alaska fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
At the conclusion of that meeting, the council directed staff to send a letter to the IPHC requesting cooperation and assistance with a halibut migration and stock assessment review workshop.
The workshop is to include short summary presentations from agency science staffs and invited industry science representatives, with a scientific panel to be charged with providing a review of the discussion and its findings.
The council is evaluating proposed reductions to the halibut prohibited species catch limits for trawl/longline fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska.
Linda Behnken, executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, said she is looking forward to a productive review of IPHC stock assessment and migration processes and data. “There is an idea in the trawl industry that if they review the IPHC models they will find something inappropriate,” she said. “All of us want to make sure we have the best possible science. If new ways come to light to view, the IPHC and commissioners will be open to that.”
Background information on the workshop and more details on topics to be discussed are on the NPFMC website at www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/HalibutBycWkshop0412.pdf
At the conclusion of that meeting, the council directed staff to send a letter to the IPHC requesting cooperation and assistance with a halibut migration and stock assessment review workshop.
The workshop is to include short summary presentations from agency science staffs and invited industry science representatives, with a scientific panel to be charged with providing a review of the discussion and its findings.
The council is evaluating proposed reductions to the halibut prohibited species catch limits for trawl/longline fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska.
Linda Behnken, executive director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association, said she is looking forward to a productive review of IPHC stock assessment and migration processes and data. “There is an idea in the trawl industry that if they review the IPHC models they will find something inappropriate,” she said. “All of us want to make sure we have the best possible science. If new ways come to light to view, the IPHC and commissioners will be open to that.”
Background information on the workshop and more details on topics to be discussed are on the NPFMC website at www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/PDFdocuments/halibut/HalibutBycWkshop0412.pdf
Supermarket, Asset Management Industries Support Bristol Bay Watershed Study
Investors in the supermarket and multi-million dollar asset management industries have come out in support of a federal study to determine what protective measures the federal government should take to protect the Bristol Bay watershed.
The Food Marketing Institute, which represents 26,000 retail food stores and $680 billion in annual revenues, and from Trillium Asset Management, whose investors represent $170 billion in assets, made their position public this past week.
Erik Leiberman, regulatory counsel for FMI, said in a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the Bristol Bay wild sockeye salmon fishery plays an important role in the supply chains of a number of its wholesale and retail members.
Leiberman said his industry’s customers demand wild Alaska salmon and they want to continue to provide it to them. “It is a very important product,” he said.
Jonas Kron, vice president of Trillium Asset Management, said the investment community has a unique perspective to share, “and we think that expressing our opinions to companies and policy makers is a productive use of our position as shareholders.” Trillium, a major independent investment management firm, is devoted to sustainable and responsible investing.
The EPA study now underway will determine whether the agency may use its authority under section 404c of the Clean Water Act to restrict the disposal of mine waste into the waters of Bristol Bay.
Concern over proposed development of the Pebble Mine at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed prompted the commercial fishing industry and Bristol Bay Native Corp. to request the EPA study, to determine whether protective action could be taken under section 404 (C) of the Clean Water Act.
The Pebble Limited Partnership maintains that it can develop the mine in a way that would allow mining activity and the fisheries to co-exist. Commercial, sport and subsistence fish harvesters, as well as several prominent fisheries researchers and biologists, have said the mine would adversely affect spawning streams vital to the world renown Bristol Bay wild salmon fisheries.
The Food Marketing Institute, which represents 26,000 retail food stores and $680 billion in annual revenues, and from Trillium Asset Management, whose investors represent $170 billion in assets, made their position public this past week.
Erik Leiberman, regulatory counsel for FMI, said in a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the Bristol Bay wild sockeye salmon fishery plays an important role in the supply chains of a number of its wholesale and retail members.
Leiberman said his industry’s customers demand wild Alaska salmon and they want to continue to provide it to them. “It is a very important product,” he said.
Jonas Kron, vice president of Trillium Asset Management, said the investment community has a unique perspective to share, “and we think that expressing our opinions to companies and policy makers is a productive use of our position as shareholders.” Trillium, a major independent investment management firm, is devoted to sustainable and responsible investing.
The EPA study now underway will determine whether the agency may use its authority under section 404c of the Clean Water Act to restrict the disposal of mine waste into the waters of Bristol Bay.
Concern over proposed development of the Pebble Mine at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed prompted the commercial fishing industry and Bristol Bay Native Corp. to request the EPA study, to determine whether protective action could be taken under section 404 (C) of the Clean Water Act.
The Pebble Limited Partnership maintains that it can develop the mine in a way that would allow mining activity and the fisheries to co-exist. Commercial, sport and subsistence fish harvesters, as well as several prominent fisheries researchers and biologists, have said the mine would adversely affect spawning streams vital to the world renown Bristol Bay wild salmon fisheries.
Alaska Processors Still Uncertain About J-1 Work Visa Program
With hiring underway for summer seafood processing jobs, the processors are waiting to hear the State Department’s decision on an interim final rule to exclude seafood processing from a summer work visa program that fills many jobs in Alaska.
Alaska’s congressional delegation has asked the federal Office of Management and Budget to reject the proposal for interim final rulemaking which excludes seafood processing facilities from the J-1 Visa Summer Work Travel program. There’s no word yet, however, on what OMB’s decision will be.
Such an exclusion would likely have a more severe impact on smaller processing firms, said Joe Plesha, legal counsel for Trident Seafoods. Plesha said such an exclusion would likely have a more severe impact on smaller processing firms.
Leader Creek Fisheries is proceeding under the assumption that the J-1 students will be denied reentry into the program and is advertising on the Internet and elsewhere for workers, according to spokesman Norm Van Vactor.
Copper River Seafoods also is not relying on the J-1 program.
"Copper River Seafoods has and continues to recruit for a total of 300 seasonal seafood processors, posted on the state of Alaska ALEXsys system,” said Robin Richardson, chief business development officer for CRS.
“To date, 175 have been successfully recruited,” she said. “While CRS has successfully used the Travel and Cultural Exchange Program (J1) for the past 10 years, it has been anticipated that this would not be a long-term solution. As a result of the concerns by the US State Department, it was apparent that it would not be prudent to depend on the program for summer 2012.
“Therefore, CRS has adopted the US Department of Labor, Certified Apprenticeship model to fortify a year-round, Alaska-based, skilled workforce to support an increasingly automated manufacturing process.”
The bottom line, Richardson added, is that CRS has always clearly understood that this (J-1) was not a work permit visa. It was a travel/cultural exchange program for our college juniors and seniors that came to visit and work. The company’s experience with students from the Czech Republic in particular has been outstanding, she said.
Alaska’s congressional delegation meanwhile is trying to keep the program intact for processors who do depend on it. They sent a letter to Jeffrey Zients, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, in early March asking that the proposal be rejected and that his department be directed to proceed with a formal process of proposed rulemaking which includes notice and comments from the affected seafood sector and coastal communities hosting students under the program.
“The use of interim final rule making to exclude seafood processing facilities from the J-1 program is not appropriate,” they said.
Alaska’s congressional delegation has asked the federal Office of Management and Budget to reject the proposal for interim final rulemaking which excludes seafood processing facilities from the J-1 Visa Summer Work Travel program. There’s no word yet, however, on what OMB’s decision will be.
Such an exclusion would likely have a more severe impact on smaller processing firms, said Joe Plesha, legal counsel for Trident Seafoods. Plesha said such an exclusion would likely have a more severe impact on smaller processing firms.
Leader Creek Fisheries is proceeding under the assumption that the J-1 students will be denied reentry into the program and is advertising on the Internet and elsewhere for workers, according to spokesman Norm Van Vactor.
Copper River Seafoods also is not relying on the J-1 program.
"Copper River Seafoods has and continues to recruit for a total of 300 seasonal seafood processors, posted on the state of Alaska ALEXsys system,” said Robin Richardson, chief business development officer for CRS.
“To date, 175 have been successfully recruited,” she said. “While CRS has successfully used the Travel and Cultural Exchange Program (J1) for the past 10 years, it has been anticipated that this would not be a long-term solution. As a result of the concerns by the US State Department, it was apparent that it would not be prudent to depend on the program for summer 2012.
“Therefore, CRS has adopted the US Department of Labor, Certified Apprenticeship model to fortify a year-round, Alaska-based, skilled workforce to support an increasingly automated manufacturing process.”
The bottom line, Richardson added, is that CRS has always clearly understood that this (J-1) was not a work permit visa. It was a travel/cultural exchange program for our college juniors and seniors that came to visit and work. The company’s experience with students from the Czech Republic in particular has been outstanding, she said.
Alaska’s congressional delegation meanwhile is trying to keep the program intact for processors who do depend on it. They sent a letter to Jeffrey Zients, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, in early March asking that the proposal be rejected and that his department be directed to proceed with a formal process of proposed rulemaking which includes notice and comments from the affected seafood sector and coastal communities hosting students under the program.
“The use of interim final rule making to exclude seafood processing facilities from the J-1 program is not appropriate,” they said.
Kerry Bill Would Return Saltonstall-Kennedy Funds to Fishermen
Legislation introduced in the US Senate by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass and Olympia Snow, R-Maine, would restore use of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds to fishermen for fisheries research and development.
Similar legislation would be introduced in the US House in March.
Kerry wrote in a recent op-ed article published in the Gloucester Times in Massachusetts that the purpose of the legislation is to return the use of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds to fishermen. For research and development. That was the original intent of the fund, created by Massachusetts Senators Leverett Saltonstall and John F. Kennedy in 1954.
Under their law, Kerry noted, 30 percent of the duties on imported fish products were to be transferred to a grant program to benefit the US fishing industry. “It was meant to be a permanent appropriation to promote science, research and the development of American fisheries,” he said. As years passed, use of those funds was side tracked to fund other priorities, and the money was not going where it was originally intended, he said.
For 2010 alone, estimated total duties collected on imports of fish products were $3767.6 million. Thirty percent of that total, some $113 million, should have gone toward improving science and helping fisheries, but in 2011, only $8.4 million of that $113 million was used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for grants for fisheries research and development projects. The rest was used for other operations in NOAA.
The Kerry-Snowe legislation to provide exclusive funding to support fisheries and the communities that rely on them, would be known as the Fisheries Investment and Regulatory Relief Act of 2012.
It would direct implementation of regional fishery investment plans, which would be developed by the regional fishery management councils, released in the Federal Register for public comment and need approval by the Secretary of Commerce.
Priorities would include everything from more frequent stock assessments and better recreational data to crucial habitat restoration.
The legislation also contains specific guidelines for selection of members of the fishery investment committees, including conflict of interest issues.
A copy of the legislation is at http://www.savingseafood.org/images/documents/washington/03-08-12%20firra%20final.pdf.
Similar legislation would be introduced in the US House in March.
Kerry wrote in a recent op-ed article published in the Gloucester Times in Massachusetts that the purpose of the legislation is to return the use of Saltonstall-Kennedy funds to fishermen. For research and development. That was the original intent of the fund, created by Massachusetts Senators Leverett Saltonstall and John F. Kennedy in 1954.
Under their law, Kerry noted, 30 percent of the duties on imported fish products were to be transferred to a grant program to benefit the US fishing industry. “It was meant to be a permanent appropriation to promote science, research and the development of American fisheries,” he said. As years passed, use of those funds was side tracked to fund other priorities, and the money was not going where it was originally intended, he said.
For 2010 alone, estimated total duties collected on imports of fish products were $3767.6 million. Thirty percent of that total, some $113 million, should have gone toward improving science and helping fisheries, but in 2011, only $8.4 million of that $113 million was used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for grants for fisheries research and development projects. The rest was used for other operations in NOAA.
The Kerry-Snowe legislation to provide exclusive funding to support fisheries and the communities that rely on them, would be known as the Fisheries Investment and Regulatory Relief Act of 2012.
It would direct implementation of regional fishery investment plans, which would be developed by the regional fishery management councils, released in the Federal Register for public comment and need approval by the Secretary of Commerce.
Priorities would include everything from more frequent stock assessments and better recreational data to crucial habitat restoration.
The legislation also contains specific guidelines for selection of members of the fishery investment committees, including conflict of interest issues.
A copy of the legislation is at http://www.savingseafood.org/images/documents/washington/03-08-12%20firra%20final.pdf.
Long Beach Port HQ Move May Come By Year’s End
The Port of Long Beach, which for years has tried to find a new location to replace its crumbling headquarters, but saw it’s the momentum stalled last year by a board stalemate, could move its administrative offices to an interim location by the end of 2011, according to officials.
The current seven-story headquarters is located on the outskirts of the port’s confines, but the new offices could be located outside the port.
“We’re looking primarily in downtown Long Beach, but we’re not limiting the field,” Doug Thiessen, the port’s managing director of engineering, revealed during the harbor commission’s March 12 business meeting.
“We’d prefer to keep all the employees in one building, but if we had to break them in different locations, what would be the drive time to and from the port facilities,” is something under consideration, he said.
Also among the criteria port staff is looking at, he said, is drive time to the port from the headquarters building, the building’s size, security and whether there’s a need for a real estate appraisal.
The port had originally planned to internally fund and build a $220 million state-of-the-art headquarters within the harbor; however the idea was eventually shot down by Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster as too expensive. Since then, the port’s been looking to lease or purchase a nearby office building to house the port’s 400-member staff.
Last fall, the harbor commission twice deadlocked on a 2-2 vote whether to purchase the Long Beach World Trade Center. Vice President Thomas Fields and commissioner Nick Sramek voted for the extension and commissioners Rich Dines and Doug Drummond against. The fifth member, President Susan Wise has recused herself from the issue because she and her husband both have office space in the building.
Fields and Sramek argued the purchase was needed to expedite the exodus of the port’s 450-person staff from the current building, which was built in the 1950s and has been declared seismically deficient.
But Dines and Drummond argued that the purchase price – $130 million – was too steep for the 27-story downtown building. The purchase plan was eventually dropped.
The current seven-story headquarters is located on the outskirts of the port’s confines, but the new offices could be located outside the port.
“We’re looking primarily in downtown Long Beach, but we’re not limiting the field,” Doug Thiessen, the port’s managing director of engineering, revealed during the harbor commission’s March 12 business meeting.
“We’d prefer to keep all the employees in one building, but if we had to break them in different locations, what would be the drive time to and from the port facilities,” is something under consideration, he said.
Also among the criteria port staff is looking at, he said, is drive time to the port from the headquarters building, the building’s size, security and whether there’s a need for a real estate appraisal.
The port had originally planned to internally fund and build a $220 million state-of-the-art headquarters within the harbor; however the idea was eventually shot down by Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster as too expensive. Since then, the port’s been looking to lease or purchase a nearby office building to house the port’s 400-member staff.
Last fall, the harbor commission twice deadlocked on a 2-2 vote whether to purchase the Long Beach World Trade Center. Vice President Thomas Fields and commissioner Nick Sramek voted for the extension and commissioners Rich Dines and Doug Drummond against. The fifth member, President Susan Wise has recused herself from the issue because she and her husband both have office space in the building.
Fields and Sramek argued the purchase was needed to expedite the exodus of the port’s 450-person staff from the current building, which was built in the 1950s and has been declared seismically deficient.
But Dines and Drummond argued that the purchase price – $130 million – was too steep for the 27-story downtown building. The purchase plan was eventually dropped.
APM Wins Terminal Safety Awards
For the fifth straight year, APM Terminals’ Pier 400 facility at the Port of Los Angeles has won the Pacific Maritime Association’s Category A Southern California Area Container Terminal Safety Award, and the PMA’s Coast Award for the safest terminal on the Pacific Coast.
The awards were announced March 1 at the PMA’s 63rd annual West Coast Safety Southern California Area Awards in Los Angeles.
“It is gratifying that the hard work of our men and women in ensuring the safe operation of our terminals is recognized by our peers in the industry,” APM Terminals’ Americas Region President Eric Sisco said.
The awards, which are based on reported injury rates per man-hours worked, are divided by geographic area and by size and are presented for the Southern California, Washington and Oregon ports.
Facilities are separated into three categories according to size; in Category A are terminals totaling more than one million man hours worked per year. Category B is for terminals with more than 500,000, but less than one million man hours worked, and Category C are those terminal operators with fewer than 500,000 thousand man hours worked per year.
Local area awards are presented in each of the terminal categories based on injury rates. The Coast awards are given in each terminal category for the best safety performance on the West Coast.
Pier 400, the largest container terminal in the US, saw its lost-time injury frequency (LTIF) rate drop 22 percent from 2010 to 6.01 per million man-hours worked for the year. The facility handled 1.91 million TEUs in 2011.
On Feb. 29, the PMA held its State of Washington Area Safety Awards and APM Terminals Tacoma was the winner of the Category C Container Terminal Safety Award and the Coast Award for Category C for the safest terminal on the Pacific Coast.
APM Tacoma, which handled 264,397 TEUs in 2011, improved its LTIF rate by 64 percent to 8.39 per million man-hours worked for the year, also won the award for the “Greatest reduction in injury rates for the Washington Area,” which is given irrespective of terminal size.
The awards were announced March 1 at the PMA’s 63rd annual West Coast Safety Southern California Area Awards in Los Angeles.
“It is gratifying that the hard work of our men and women in ensuring the safe operation of our terminals is recognized by our peers in the industry,” APM Terminals’ Americas Region President Eric Sisco said.
The awards, which are based on reported injury rates per man-hours worked, are divided by geographic area and by size and are presented for the Southern California, Washington and Oregon ports.
Facilities are separated into three categories according to size; in Category A are terminals totaling more than one million man hours worked per year. Category B is for terminals with more than 500,000, but less than one million man hours worked, and Category C are those terminal operators with fewer than 500,000 thousand man hours worked per year.
Local area awards are presented in each of the terminal categories based on injury rates. The Coast awards are given in each terminal category for the best safety performance on the West Coast.
Pier 400, the largest container terminal in the US, saw its lost-time injury frequency (LTIF) rate drop 22 percent from 2010 to 6.01 per million man-hours worked for the year. The facility handled 1.91 million TEUs in 2011.
On Feb. 29, the PMA held its State of Washington Area Safety Awards and APM Terminals Tacoma was the winner of the Category C Container Terminal Safety Award and the Coast Award for Category C for the safest terminal on the Pacific Coast.
APM Tacoma, which handled 264,397 TEUs in 2011, improved its LTIF rate by 64 percent to 8.39 per million man-hours worked for the year, also won the award for the “Greatest reduction in injury rates for the Washington Area,” which is given irrespective of terminal size.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FN Online Advertising
.gif)