Saving Seafood

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

 

Susan Murray: Crude plan puts Alaska’s fisheries at risk

January 15, 2018 — Last week, the Trump administration unveiled an extreme proposal to open nearly all United States federal waters off Alaska to offshore oil and gas leasing. Under the Draft Proposed Program for the 2019-2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, only the North Aleutian Basin (which contains Bristol Bay) would be safe from potential oil and gas leasing activity. Areas such as the Gulf of Alaska that have not seen a lease sale since the early 1980s, and regions that have never been considered for exploration like the Aleutians, Bering Sea and Kodiak have suddenly been put at risk.

The Gulf of Alaska faced oil and gas lease sales when the first federal offshore leases were offered in Alaska as part of the 1976-1981 program. At that time, 600,000 acres of the seafloor, starting 10 miles off Cape Suckling and stretching to Yakutat, were leased and twelve exploratory wells were drilled. None yielded commercially significant quantities of oil or gas, and thankfully there were no catastrophes from this misguided effort. Further sales were scheduled between 1997 and 2002, but were canceled due to a lack of interest from industry. It was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) now estimates the recoverable oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Alaska at around 600 million barrels of oil. Current U.S. consumption is about 20 million barrels per day. In other words, burning through the estimated Gulf of Alaska oil reserves might fuel our country for a mere month. BOEM’s low estimate of environmental and social costs of exploration activities and “small” spills (up to 4 million gallons!) is a staggering $100 million. That doesn’t even include the costs of a catastrophic oil spill, like BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster, which they claim they will analyze later.

The Gulf of Alaska ecosystem is already stressed, and many fishermen will tell you that things do not look good. Halibut are smaller, Chinook salmon are disappearing, and the Pacific cod stock is collapsing. To add the stress of offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling to the mix is both thoughtless and irresponsible.

Read the full story at the Cordova Times

 

Massachusetts: Three companies submit bids for offshore wind power

December 21, 2017 — Three offshore wind energy developers bid Wednesday on contracts to sell electricity to Massachusetts power companies, taking the next big step in a process that could set turbines spinning south of Martha’s Vineyard within the next five years.

“It’s in the hands of the utilities,” Vineyard Wind Chief Development Officer Erich Stephens said.

By April, Vineyard Wind, Bay State Wind and Revolution Wind will hear whether their bids have been selected for negotiation by the handful of electric distribution companies that will buy the wind energy. By the end of July, the utilities and offshore wind energy companies are expected to finalize long-term contracts and hand them over to the state Department of Public Utilities for review and approval.

Depending on the wind energy company, construction of anywhere from 50 to 100 turbines in federally leased, submerged areas could begin within two to five years. In addition to securing contracts to sell their energy, the companies face federal and state permitting requirements, including through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

“The critical path is the federal permit,” said Bay State Wind representative Michael Ausere, who is also vice president of business development for Eversource, which distributes electricity on Cape Cod and the Vineyard and is one of the utilities that would buy power from the wind farms. “This will be the first large-scale offshore wind farm.”

Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times

 

East Coast Fishing Coalition Continues Legal Challenge to Planned Wind Farm Off New York

WASHINGTON — December 1, 2017 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

A coalition of East Coast fishing businesses, organizations, and communities, led by the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), has taken the next step in its legal challenge to a planned wind farm off the coast of New York. FSF and its co-plaintiffs argue that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) awarded the lease for the New York Wind Energy Area (NY WEA) to Norwegian energy company Statoil without fully considering the impact on fishermen and other stakeholders, in neglect of its responsibilities as stewards of ocean resources.

The plaintiffs outlined their arguments in a brief filed Tuesday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In the brief, FSF criticizes BOEM’s claim that it is not the agency’s job to resolve conflicts among new and pre-existing ocean users in the NY WEA. In an October filing, BOEM wrote that it is “not the ‘government steward of the ‘ocean commons,’’” a claim that FSF calls “unbecoming.” In fact, BOEM’s own website states: “The bureau is responsible for stewardship of U.S. [Outer Continental Shelf] energy and mineral resources, as well as protecting the environment that development of those resources may impact.”

FSF also writes that the NY WEA, an expanse of ocean nearly twice the size of Washington, D.C., is a poor location for a wind farm, and that BOEM and Statoil have alternately claimed that it is both too early and too late to raise objections to the lease. Statoil previously stated that vacating the lease would “squander the resources and the five years that BOEM has expended to date in the leasing process,” even as BOEM promises it will consider measures to mitigate the impacts of a wind farm later in the process. By then, after more time and resources have been expended, a wind farm “will be all but a foregone conclusion,” FSF writes.

Additionally, FSF argues that evaluating alternatives and considering conflicting ocean uses from the start would ultimately benefit BOEM and energy developers, ensuring they do not expend vast resources developing poorly located wind farms. The brief cites the ongoing debacle over the Cape Wind energy project, an approved wind farm off Cape Cod, Massachusetts, as an example of what can go wrong when BOEM and a developer ram through an agreement and become too invested to turn back. After the project “slogged through state and federal courts and agencies for more than a decade,” delays and uncertainty have jeopardized, if not eliminated, Cape Wind’s financing and power purchase agreements, according to the brief.

The plaintiffs in this case are the Fisheries Survival Fund; the Borough of Barnegat Light, New Jersey; The Town Dock; Seafreeze Shoreside; Sea Fresh USA; Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance; Garden State Seafood Association; Long Island Commercial Fishing Association; the Town of Narragansett, Rhode Island; the Narragansett Chamber of Commerce; the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts; and the Fishermen’s Dock Co-Operative of Point Pleasant, New Jersey.

While the fishing groups hold wide-ranging views about offshore wind energy development, they all agree that the siting process for massive wind energy projects “should not be a land rush, but rather reasoned, fully informed, intelligent, and cognizant of the human environment,” according to the brief.

About the Fisheries Survival Fund
The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) was established in 1998 to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. FSF participants include the vast majority of full-time Atlantic scallop fishermen from Maine to Virginia. FSF works with academic institutions and independent scientific experts to foster cooperative research and to help sustain this fully rebuilt fishery. FSF also works with the federal government to ensure that the fishery is responsibly managed.

New England Council: Massachusetts Offshore Wind Public Open Houses – November 27-30, 2017

November 22, 2017 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

The following public open houses may be of interest to the New England Fishery Management Council’s stakeholders who are following offshore wind developments.  Four events are scheduled for the week following Thanksgiving, all in Massachusetts.  Here are the details.

WHAT’S GOING ON:  Bay State Wind LLC is proposing to develop a new offshore wind farm 15-to-25 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard in the area known as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Lease OCS-A 0500.

WHO’S INVOLVED:  The project is being developed as a 50/50 joint venture between Orstead (formerly DONG Energy) and Eversource Energy, which together make up Bay State Wind.

WHEN AND WHERE ARE THE OPEN HOUSES:  The four public open houses will be held on the following dates in the following locations:

  • Monday, November 27 – Somerset Berkley Regional High School, 625 County Street, Somerset, MA, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
  • Tuesday, November 28 – The New Bedford Whaling Museum, 18 Johnny Cake Hill, New Bedford, MA, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
  • Wednesday, November 29 – The Barn Bowl & Bistro, 13 Uncas Avenue, Oak Bluffs, MA, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
  • Thursday, November 30 – The Sea Crest Beach Hotel, 350 Quaker Road, Falmouth, MA, 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.

PROJECT DETAILS:  The developers stated, “In December 2017, Bay State Wind will participate in the first state-led procurement of offshore wind power in the United States in response to a solicitation led by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and the Electric Distribution Companies.” More information about the initiative is available at http://baystatewind.com/About-bay-state-wind#0.

QUESTIONS:  For more information contact Bay State Wind Fishery Liaison Officer John Williamson at (207) 939-7055, john@seakeeper.net.

Fishing Groups and Communities Move Forward with Suit Against NY Wind Farm

WASHINGTON — September 19, 2017 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

A group of fishing organizations, businesses, and communities, led by the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), has moved forward with its lawsuit to halt the leasing of a planned wind farm off the coast of New York. The suit, filed against the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), is seeking summary judgment and requesting the court to invalidate the lease, which was awarded to the Norwegian firm Statoil to develop the New York Wind Energy Area (NY WEA).

BOEM’s process for awarding the lease failed to properly consider the planned wind farm’s impact on area fish populations and habitats, shoreside communities, safety, and navigation. This violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires an assessment of these impacts before issuing the lease, in conjunction with a full Environmental Impact Statement and an evaluation of alternative locations for any proposal.

BOEM’s failure to consider the impacts to fisheries, safety, navigation and other natural resources in the NY WEA prior to moving forward with the leasing process also violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which charges BOEM with considering and providing for existing ocean users. And BOEM’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which prohibits agencies from acting in ways that are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.

The site for the proposed wind farm includes key scallop, squid, and other Atlantic fishing grounds, as well as ocean habitats that are crucial for species such as loggerhead sea turtles, right whales, black sea bass and summer flounder. Because of how BOEM’s leasing process unfolds, the wind farm’s expected impacts on natural resources and those who rely on them will not be examined until the project is nearing completion.

“The plaintiffs in this case believe sensible wind energy development and fishing can co-exist,” said David Frulla, who is representing FSF and the other plaintiffs in the case. “But any offshore energy project must first meaningfully consider the impact on the habitats, marine species, and economic interests that may be harmed before selecting a wind farm site and issuing a lease to a private developer.”

FSF and the other plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against the $42.5 million lease before it was awarded in December 2016. While the judge presiding over the case stated that “the proper time for the agency to consider these environmental impacts may be at the present stage,” the request for a preliminary injunction was denied, as the judge did not believe it met the high standard of causing immediate harm that could not later be undone by a subsequent decision on the lease.

Following the plaintiffs’ filing last week, the federal government and Statoil are due to file their own cross-motions for summary judgment, and responses to the plaintiffs’ brief, in the coming months. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will then make a decision on the merits.

The Fisheries Survival Fund is the lead plaintiff in the case. The organizations and businesses that have joined the suit are the Garden State Seafood Association and the Fishermen’s Dock Co-Operative in New Jersey; the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in New York; and the Narragansett Chamber of Commerce, Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance, SeaFreeze Shoreside, Sea Fresh USA, and The Town Dock in Rhode Island.

Municipalities that have joined the suit are the City of New Bedford, Mass.; the Borough of Barnegat Light, N.J.; and the Town of Narragansett, R.I.

North Carolina submits formal comments in opposition to offshore drilling

August 21, 2017 — Gov. Roy Cooper and the Department of Environmental Quality submitted formal comments yesterday to the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to convey North Carolina’s opposition to oil and gas leasing for offshore drilling on North Carolina’s coast.

“Because offshore drilling threatens North Carolina’s critical coastal industries and unique coastal environment with limited benefits for our citizens, it is a bad deal for North Carolina,” Cooper wrote in the letter. “Accordingly, I ask that you respect the wishes of our state and maintain in the new OCS Leasing Plan the current prohibition of oil and gas drilling off North Carolina’s coast.”

Coastal tourism generates $3 billion annually in North Carolina and supports more than 30,000 jobs in the eastern part of the state. Commercial fishing also brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to the state every year.

Read the full story at Island Free Press

Cape May County Chamber Applauds Governor’s Opposition to Offshore Oil Drilling Plan

August 17, 2017 — CAPE MAY, N.J. — The Cape May County Chamber of Commerce applauds the Christie Administration for its statement opposing offshore exploration and development of oil and natural gas resources off the coast of New Jersey or any area of the Atlantic that could adversely affect our pristine coastal communities, fishing estuaries and vibrant tourism economy.

The Cape May County Chamber of Commerce in partnership with Clean Ocean Action and the Jersey Shore Partnership, along with other concerned organizations, encouraged Governor Christie to issue this statement before the Aug. 17 deadline to submit comments to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).

Read the full story at the Cape May County Herald

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Wind Energy Project

August 7, 2017 — On Friday, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued its final supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) on the 468-megawatt Cape Wind project. In July of last year, an appeals court held that the agency should have used better data to determine the conditions of the seafloor for the project before issuing a lease. The final EIS states that the additional data it gathered does not change its prior finding that drilling foundations for the project in the seabed would only temporarily disturb sedimentation, and the overall impacts to water quality would be minor. The Cape Wind project is on hold after it missed a financing deadline, which led National Grid and NStar (now Eversource) to cancel contracts to buy power from it:

BOEM is announcing the availability of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Cape Wind Energy Project. This supplement to the 2009 Final EIS has been prepared in response to a 2016 remand order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Hopper, 827 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

The Final SEIS is available for review on the BOEM website at: https://www.boem.gov/Massachusetts-Cape-Wind/.

In the Final SEIS for the Cape Wind Energy Project, BOEM examines the available geological survey data, including the geotechnical data and reports submitted to BOEM since the 2009 Final EIS, and any other relevant material that relate to the adequacy of the seafloor to support wind turbines in the lease area.

The Final SEIS also includes a summary of all the comments received on the Draft SEIS and BOEM’s responses to those comments.

Fisheries Service Hears Pros, Cons on Atlantic Seismic Surveys

July 27, 2017 — Five oil and gas service companies are awaiting decisions by the National Marine Fisheries Service on their proposals for Atlantic offshore seismic surveys that could harm whales and other marine life.

The service, which can issue authorizations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, is reviewing a high volume of opposing and supporting public comments that were filed by the July 21 deadline.

The five companies are TGS NOPEC Geophysical Co. ASA, Spectrum ASA, ION Geophysical Corp., CGG S.A. and WesternGeco Ltd., a subsidiary of Schlumberger Ltd. A sixth company, TDI-Brooks International Inc., recently expressed an interest in restarting the application for an authorization after an earlier application was returned to the company as incomplete.

The fisheries service proposed authorizations with a variety of mitigation measures to reduce risks to marine mammals. If the authorizations are granted—with or without additional mitigation steps—the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will be able to make final decisions on whether to issue one-year permits for the work.

The fisheries service has no deadline for its decisions. BOEM is expected to be able to act quickly if the service gives the green light.

Read the full story at Bloomberg BNA