Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

Antiquities Act Wrong Tool For Marine Monuments, Say Dozens of Industry Sectors in Letter to Biden

December 21, 2021 — From fishermen to miners, including the American Petroleum Institute and the National Fisheries Institute, 91 individuals signed a letter to President Biden last week urging him to not use the Antiquities Act when designating marine monuments.

The group, representing more than two dozen businesses and communities across the country, cited Biden’s “calls for the administration to establish “fully and highly protected areas” in 30% of the U.S. ocean by 2030, including through marine monuments designated under the Antiquities Act.”

They said concern was heightened by recent decisions to restore a commercial fishing ban in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument and “… join the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, which commits the United States to actions that could lead to further prohibitions,” according to the letter.

“In furtherance of your efforts to unleash the full potential of the nation’s economy and address the impact of rising prices on the American people, and in recognition of your acknowledgement of the essential role that the ocean plays in our economy and livelihoods, … [we]… urge your support for using science-based and transparent processes when considering actions to manage the ocean for current and future generations,” the December 15 letter stated.

Read the full story at Seafood News

Trump has proposed offshore drilling in the Atlantic. Here’s what it means for N.J.

January 24, 2018 — When President Trump’s administration announced plans earlier this month to reconsider drilling off the Atlantic coast, officials and community leaders up and down the Jersey Shore began digging in for a fight they thought they’d won in 2016. Here are the basic facts behind the plan and the reasons why so many groups are against the proposal.

Trump’s plan: Drill baby drill

Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke proposed opening nearly all federal waters to offshore drilling. The federal waters would be divided into sections and then the leases to those sections would be auctioned off to oil companies. Under the proposal, 25 of the government’s 26 planning areas would be opened up for 47 potential lease sales.

New Jersey would be part of the North Atlantic section, and leases for areas off the Jersey Shore would be auctioned off in 2021 and 2023.

“Responsibly developing our energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in a safe and well-regulated way is important to our economy and energy security, and it provides billions of dollars to fund the conservation of our coastlines, public lands and parks,” Zinke said in a press release announcing the plan.

Who supports this plan?

Only one governor on the Atlantic Coast — Paul LePage of Maine, pictured above — has expressed approval of the plan. The Maine governor has said that he supports the plan because he believes it will bring jobs to his state and lower energy costs for Maine residents.

In a December 2013 report, the American Petroleum Institute — a group that advocates for the expansion of oil and natural development nationwide — estimated that offshore drilling could bring more than 8,000 jobs to New Jersey and bring in $515 million in revenue for the state government.

Uncertain potential for profit

Oil and gas companies could stand to profit from drilling off the Jersey Shore, but only if they find enough oil out there.

The last offshore exploration near the Garden State was in the 1970s and 1980s, when companies like Texaco and Tenneco drilled wells near the Hudson Canyon, a little less than 100 miles east of Atlantic City.

According to reports filed with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the exploration found no significant oil deposits and small amounts of natural gas reserves.

Has there been drilling off of the shore before?

Technically yes, but the exploratory drilling of the 1970s and 1980s was the farthest that the process has ever gotten. No lease sales have occurred in the Atlantic since 1983.

In 2017, a BOEM assessment estimated that the Atlantic contained an between 1.15 billion and 9.19 billion barrels of oil, a fraction of the estimated 76.69 billion to 105.59 billions barrels throughout all federal waters. According to the same assessment, the North Atlantic is estimated to hold between 0.06 billion and 5.11 billion barrels.

Read the full story at the NJ.com

 

Supreme Court says bearded seal still threatened, despite legal battle

January 23, 2018 — While the federal government was shut down on Monday, the federal courts were still making decisions.

The U.S Supreme Court decided to keep the bearded seal as threatened under the Endangered Species Act — rejecting an oil and gas industry challenge to the animal’s protection status.

The marine mammal was listed in 2012, due to melting sea ice. But the Alaska Oil and Gas Association or AOGA and the American Petroleum Institute thought the listing was premature.

Joshua Kindred, an environmental counselor at AOGA, said he was “disappointed” in the supreme court’s decision.

He said the National Marine Fisheries Service didn’t provide enough evidence to warrant a listing.

“They didn’t ever really show from a scientific point of view why the seasonal sea ice was so critical to their long-term health of the species,” he said.

Kindred said there also wasn’t sufficient guidance for a plan moving forward. He said excessive critical habitat designations can slow oil and gas development.

The Center for Biological Diversity has fought to keep the bearded seal’s protection status.

Read the full story at KTOO Public Media

 

Tom Davis to Congress: ‘Oil and water should not mix’

January 17, 2018 — Below is the text of testimony state Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, plans to deliver Friday, Jan. 19, before the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

The hearing is titled “Deficiencies in the Permitting Process for Offshore Seismic Research.”

Davis provided the text to The Island Packet and The Beaufort Gazette on Wednesday.

1. Impact of seismic testing:

Seismic testing involves firing loud sonic guns into the ocean floor every 16 seconds to read echoes from the bottom geology, with the tests taking place over miles of ocean for months at a time. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirms that the sound from the sonic guns can be recorded from sites more than 1,860 miles away.

Scientists disagree on whether these underwater noises are lethal, but most do agree the blasts could alter sea mammals’ behavior, affecting their migration patterns, mating habits and how they communicate with each other. Most animals in the ocean use sound the way animals on land use eyesight; saturating their environment with noise will have an impact. ExxonMobil had to suspend seismic-blasts near Madagascar after more than 100 whales beached themselves. NOAA estimates that 138,000 marine animals could be injured, and 13.6 million could have their migration, feeding, or other behavioral patterns disrupted.

Seismic testing also affects commercial and recreational fishing — sonic blasts can decrease catch rates of commercial fish species by an average of 50 percent over thousands of square miles. Seismic blasting will affect fish that spawn in the rivers and estuaries all along the East Coast. A 2014 study cited by Congressmen John Rutherford (R-FL) and Don Beyer (D-VA) that found reef fish off North Carolina declined by 78 percent during seismic testing compared with peak hours when tests weren’t being conducted.

2. Results of seismic tests would be proprietary to private companies.

Proponents for testing and drilling often argue that seismic tests are necessary in order to provide coastal communities with data about oil and gas deposits off their shores that is necessary in order to assess whether it makes economic sense to move forward with drilling for those resources. But that information is considered proprietary by the private companies conducting them. Local decision makers won’t have access to it, nor will the public. Not even members of Congress can get their hands on it.

3. Damages associated with drilling.

Accidents happen in a world where human error, mechanical imperfections and coastal hurricanes all play unexpected roles. When you drill, you spill. It is inevitable. The oil industry touts a 99 percent safety record, but that 1 percent is pretty horrific for people living in the vicinity of a spill when it occurs. The federal Mineral Management Service predicts at least one oil spill a year for every 1,000 barrels in the Gulf of Mexico over the next 40 years — a spill of 10,000 barrels or more every three to four years.

We saw what happened in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 when the BP Deepwater Horizon rig spilled millions of barrels of oil into the gulf. It was a disaster, but thankfully the Gulf’s bowl-like shape contained the spill in that region. A similar spill off the Atlantic Coast would be a disaster of epic proportions. If oil entered the Gulf Stream it would be forced up into the Chesapeake Bay, the Hudson River Valley, the Gulf of Maine, the Grand Banks (some of the richest fishing grounds in the world).

The Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon blowout showed that oil cannot be removed from salt marshes and other wetland systems. It can remain in the sediments for decades, as was seen in marshes in Massachusetts. Coastal salt marshes in South Carolina are among the most productive ecosystems in the world, and nursery grounds for many estuarine and marine species. Toxic substances from oil spills, both chronic and acute, will put all of these organisms at risk.

Even if a spill never occurs — and both the oil industry and the federal government admit that spills are inevitable – there’s still an adverse impact to South Carolina’s coast in that the land-based infrastructure necessary to support offshore drilling is dirty and highly industrial. Also, the infrastructure required to transport offshore oil is devastating, e.g., a series of canals built across Louisiana wetlands to transport oil has led to vast destruction of marshlands. Healthy marshlands are a critical component of our ecosystem.

Read the rest of Davis’ future testimony at the Island Packet

 

Senators from 12 states seek offshore drilling exemptions like Florida’s

January 12, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Twenty-two Democratic U.S. senators from 12 states on Thursday joined the chorus of local representatives seeking exemptions from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s newly proposed offshore drilling plan, after his surprise move on Tuesday to shield Florida.

Zinke surprised lawmakers, governors, and industry groups on Tuesday night by announcing that Florida would be removed from the Interior Department’s proposal to open up over 90 percent of federal waters to oil and gas leasing.

Zinke had met in Tallahasee, Florida’s capital, with Republican Governor Rick Scott, who told the Interior chief that drilling puts his state’s coastal tourism economy at risk. Scott is widely expected to challenge Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, who is up for re-election this year.

The White House dismissed suggestions that Florida’s exemption was a political favor to Scott. “I am not aware of any political favor that that would have been part of,” spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters.

“Just like Florida, our states are unique with vibrant coastal economies,” wrote the 22 senators, who include Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California. “Providing all of our states with the same exemption from dangerous offshore oil and gas drilling would ensure that vital industries from tourism to recreation to fishing are not needlessly placed in harm’s way,” they wrote.

Interior Department spokeswoman Heather Swift said Zinke intends to meet with every coastal governor affected by the agency’s proposed offshore drilling plan, a process that could take a year.

Democrats are not alone in pressuring Zinke to exempt their states from drilling. South Carolina’s Republican Governor Henry McMaster asked Zinke for an exemption, citing the value of his state’s coastal tourist economy.

Read the full story at Reuters

 

Ed Markey: Plan will spur ‘huge fight’ over offshore energy drilling

January 9, 2018 — BOSTON — The state’s environment, tourism and fishing industry could be threatened by President Donald Trump’s plan to open up more coastal areas to offshore drilling, according to U.S. Sen. Ed Markey, who said the proposal puts “nearly every single mile of coastline in the United States in the crosshairs of an oil spill.”

“Nothing is sacred,” Markey told reporters from the Kennedy Federal Building. “All of the United States is going to be open for the oil industry to be able to drill. That is something that the American people will want to have resolved on the floor of the House and Senate, and that is something that I am going to guarantee him that he will see. This is going to be a huge fight across our country.”

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke on Thursday announced a proposal that would make more than 90 percent of the national outer continental shelf available for oil and gas exploration. Currently, 94 percent of federal offshore acreage is off-limits, according to the American Petroleum Institute.

The 380-page draft plan includes a note that Gov. Charlie Baker does not “support inclusion of areas adjacent to Massachusetts,” and Attorney General Maura Healey “strongly opposes opening up any of the Atlantic or any other new areas to oil and gas leasing.”

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimates there are 89.9 billion barrels of oil and 327.5 trillion cubic feet of gas that have yet to be discovered on the outer continental shelf, including 4.6 billion barrels of oil and 38.2 cubic feet in the Atlantic portion of the shelf.

According to the American Petroleum Institute, Atlantic oil and natural gas development could deliver $51 billion in new government revenue, nearly 280,000 jobs and 1.3 billion barrels of oil equivalent per day for domestic energy production by 2035.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

 

Recent Headlines

  • Scientists did not recommend a 54 percent cut to the menhaden TAC
  • Broad coalition promotes Senate aquaculture bill
  • Chesapeake Bay region leaders approve revised agreement, commit to cleanup through 2040
  • ALASKA: Contamination safeguards of transboundary mining questioned
  • Federal government decides it won’t list American eel as species at risk
  • US Congress holds hearing on sea lion removals and salmon predation
  • MASSACHUSETTS: Seventeen months on, Vineyard Wind blade break investigation isn’t done
  • Sea lions keep gorging on endangered salmon despite 2018 law

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Virginia Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2025 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions