Saving Seafood

Federal, state and local agencies express serious concerns over impact of offshore wind on Northeast fishermen

May 4, 2018 — WASHINGTON — In three letters submitted to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), agencies representing New Bedford, Massachusetts, the state of Massachusetts, and the federal government outlined serious concerns over a proposed wind farm off Massachusetts. The Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office of NOAA Fisheries, the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), and the New Bedford Port Authority (NBPA) Fisheries Advisory Committee on Offshore Wind submitted their comments as BOEM begins drafting an environmental impact statement for a plan submitted by Vineyard Wind LLC.

Michael Pentony, the Northeast Regional Administrator for NOAA Fisheries wrote in his comments to BOEM that “commercial and recreational fishing are essential components of the existing landscape that must be preserved in the development of the project.” Mr. Pentony recommended that the Vineyard Wind project include analyses of the environmental impact, economic consequences, and long-term effects of wind energy development on the region’s fisheries.

This includes measuring the impact of wind turbine construction on the area’s essential fish habitats, the effects it will have on local fish populations, and how construction will affect commercial and recreational fishing operations. Mr. Pentony similarly called on Vineyard Wind to study any adverse economic impacts the project may have on regional fishing communities. He also urged developers to consider construction in alternative locations, and to not construct in areas where objections have already been raised.

“It is encouraging that NOAA is making clear the need to use the same type, level, and quality of information to locate, build, and operate offshore wind farms as the Councils and NMFS use in fisheries management decisions,” said David Frulla, an attorney representing the Fisheries Survival Fund. “NOAA emphasizes in great detail these wind energy installations will be ocean-altering, both individually and cumulatively.  These projects raise valid concerns regarding historic livelihoods, essential fish habitat, and fish populations, not to mention endangered and threatened species.”

Dr. David Pierce, director of the Massachusetts DMF, noted in his comments that commercial and recreational fishing in Nantucket Sound “provides tens of millions of dollars in revenue to the local economy, and is an integral, indeed historic, part of life in many Cape Cod and Island towns.” Dr. Pierce wrote that DMF remains concerned that the assumption that the wind energy area will be open to fishing is an “oversimplification.”

He also noted that Vineyard Wind’s plan does not adequately characterize all species potentially affected by the project, nor does it describe effects of oceanographic changes or the resulting impact on larval patterns and settlement of scallops or food patch dynamics for marine mammals. Additionally, for some species in the wind development area, impacts of electromagnetic fields are poorly studied, Dr. Pierce wrote.

The NBPA advisory committee, comprised of fishing interests from Maine to North Carolina, noted in its letter that commercial fishermen have approval from NOAA to fish in Vineyard Wind’s lease area, and that, as part of the lease agreement, the project cannot unreasonably interfere with their fishing activities. The committee wrote that Vineyard Wind’s plan struggled to identify all fisheries that would be impacted, and that there has been little coordination with fishing interests on cable routes or transit lanes. They also expressed concern over the size and scale of the project and lack of a detailed mitigation plan for fisheries financially impacted by the installation of wind turbines. They called for more independent study to measure impacts on individual fisheries, the impact of the diversion of fishing effort outside the lease area, the impact on right whales, and the impact on navigation.

 

New York: How fishermen could thwart Cuomo’s offshore wind master plan

April 16, 2018 — Earlier this month, hundreds of developers, many from the well-developed wind energy industry in Europe, attended the United States’ largest technical wind power conference, which was held in Princeton, New Jersey. Dozens of public officials, including Zinke, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and NYSERDA President and CEO Alicia Barton, expounded on how to best seize the offshore opportunities.

Under Cuomo, New York has played a leading role in selecting the offshore areas for wind development, overseeing 20 research studies, working closely with BOEM and conducting “unprecedented outreach” to stakeholders, Doreen Harris, NYSERDA’s director of large-scale renewables, told City & State. “Obviously, this becomes a federal process at this point,” Harris said. “But we believe New York’s work provides the solid foundation for areas that are the most favorable.”

Indeed, after NYSERDA requested that BOEM open vast tracts of seafloor for leasing, Zinke told attendees at the April wind power conference that BOEM was opening an additional 2,711 square miles for potential wind farm development, more than 20 times larger than the Empire Wind lease area in the New York Bight, a broad expanse of ocean south of Long Island and east of New Jersey. It seemed to be everything NYSERDA asked for and more. The decision opens the possibility of rows and rows of wind turbines the height of skyscrapers plotted out in an area twice the size of Long Island.

There’s just one scallop-sized problem standing in the way.

The combined 2,836 square miles where BOEM is either leasing or seeking information and nominations for commercial wind leases is worth hundreds of millions – if not billions – of dollars in revenue to the scallop industry over the life of a 25-year wind lease, the scallopers’ lawyers say. The impact on the scallop fisheries would be far worse than they first feared, if those areas are developed.

“It puts an exclamation mark on all our concerns,” said David Frulla, the lead lawyer on the scallopers’ lawsuit. “We’re not trying to stop offshore wind. It is just that this is right at the heart of where the fishing is.”

The Fisheries Survival Fund, an advocacy group that represents the scallopers’ interests in their lawsuit against BOEM, is arguing that the federal offshore wind leasing procedure gave away some of the most productive scallop beds in the world and failed to evaluate alternative options appropriately.

In particular, they are rebelling against the Empire Wind project. The envisioned 194 towers whirling above the waves would make it impossible to safely fish there, they say.

Read the full story at City & State New York   

 

Cape Cod Times: A landmark fisheries plan

January 15, 2018 — For seafood lovers, there’s nothing better than a lightly battered scallop, freshly harvested from the North Atlantic, and dipped in simmering butter. And now that federal regulators have agreed to open an area east of Nantucket, closed since the 1990s, fishermen could catch as much as $218 million worth of scallops this year, and $313 million over three years. Expect those fried scallop plates to cost less this summer.

The reopening of the sea bed is just one of the many beneficial outcomes of a new fisheries management plan that was nearly 15 years in the making. The landmark set of regulations opens a large swath of the region’s waters to fishing while maintaining other closures to protect vulnerable species. The plan uses science and the latest technology to decide which ocean areas are important for the critical life stages of fish and shellfish species and how to protect them.

Two decades ago, habitat closures were decided based on drawing a line around areas where fish were congregating. Now, with a model that compares the sea bed with the impact of fishing, regulators can make decisions that will help restore and protect fish stocks. The new plan also sets aside research areas to investigate the link between habitat and fish productivity.

“We think these are groundbreaking regulations,” said John Bullard, NOAA’s outgoing regional administrator, who issued the regulations as one of his last acts on the job. “It puts the focus on the quality of the habitat protected — not the quantity, or how many square miles were protected.”

Cape fishermen are pleased with at least two elements of the plan. They cheered the closing of a large part of the Great South Channel that runs between the Cape and Georges Bank because it is essential habitat for spawning cod and other fish species. State and federal surveys have found that the region’s cod population has plummeted by about 80 percent over the past decade. Closing this area will now help ensure the continued survival of species like Atlantic cod, haddock, and flounder for years to come.

Read the full opinion piece at the Cape Cod Times

 

‘Groundbreaking’ fish protection plan in place in Northeast

January 5, 2018 — The following is excerpted from an article by Doug Fraser of the Cape Cod Times:

After 14 years of research, negotiations, hearings and two additional years of review, New England has a plan that uses science and the latest technology to decide which areas are important for the critical life stages of fish and shellfish species and how to protect them.

John Bullard, the regional director of NOAA’s Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, informed New England Fishery Management Council Chairman John Quinn in a letter Wednesday that his agency had approved most of their fish habitat protection plan.

“It was a massive undertaking and your staff, especially Michelle Bachman, should be proud of their groundbreaking work that went into supporting this amendment,” Bullard wrote in the letter. The council staff, along with researchers from the National Marine Fisheries Service, state fisheries agencies, and universities, especially the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s School for Marine Science and Technology, put together models that incorporated photographic and other surveys of the ocean bottom with known areas of fish concentration and other research on spawning and other life stages, that helped the council evaluate what should be protected and how.

“The fact that it dragged on so long, people miss how groundbreaking this really is,” said Tom Nies, the New England council’s executive director. Two decades ago, habitat closures were decided based on drawing a line around areas where fish were congregating, Nies said. Now, with a model that compares the sea bed with the impact of fishing, they can make decisions he feels will have greater significance to restoring and protecting fish stocks. Plus, the habitat plan also set aside research areas to investigate the link between habitat and fish productivity, a piece of the puzzle that has seen relatively little conclusive research.

“If you compare where we are with this amendment in terms of how they were developed and analyzed versus the original habitat areas in 2002 and 2003, we are light years ahead of where we were then,” Nies said.

Scallopers from both the big boat and small boat fleets, which are often at odds, traveled to Washington in October to lobby [U.S. Rep. William] Keating and other congressmen on getting NMFS to finish its review of the habitat plan and open the area up to scalloping before that population died off. Their message was that allowing them into scallop-rich, nonessential fish habitat meant they spent far less time towing their heavy dredges through areas fish do use.

“From our perspective, it’s really heartening that they heard our concerns,” said Seth Rolbein, director of the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, speaking for the Cape Cod Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance.

David Frulla, an attorney and lobbyist representing limited access scallop vessels, and Fisheries Survival Fund attorney Andrew Minkiewicz agreed the council and NOAA made the right decision in closing the Great South Channel and opening the scallop grounds in what is known as Closed Area I. But they felt that there was just as much evidence to open up a portion of a second closed area on Georges Bank over 100 miles east of the Cape that had historically produced as much as 50 million pounds of harvested scallops. Bullard said more information would be needed for his agency to do that right now.

“There are only so many highly productive scallop beds, and this is one of them,” Minkiewicz said. Frulla admitted that the bottom there is more complex and may be harder to determine its value to fish, but Minkiewicz said adding another prime scallop area keeps scallopers away from the bottom where fish do congregate.

Assistant Regional Administrator Michael Pentony told Quinn in an email that his agency expected to publish the final rule containing the regulations to implement the plan this spring.

Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times

 

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.

Putting fishermen first: An open letter to Donald Trump

March 23, 2017 — In your campaign, you correctly recognized that many basic industries in the United States — ones that have created stable jobs and communities for generations — have increasingly come under siege. You identified globalization, overzealous regulation, and the past administration’s inclination to advance international policy goals at the expense of domestic jobs, as among the culprits.

Your words struck a chord among many in the commercial fishing industry, where middle class jobs have been hollowed out of the coastal communities. There are many fishing ports around the country that bear witness to this sad fact.

While your policy prescription is general, like advanced cancer treatments, the best cures may be patient-specific.

We’d like in this column to focus on infrastructure, but not infrastructure as it’s generally thought of. There are plenty of fishing vessels available for use. Many issues with fish processing are largely a function of disuse, rather than a lack of capacity. Instead, we respectfully ask you to focus on the intellectual infrastructure of fisheries management.

Among our chief complaints with the administration just past is that it was long on big plans, but short on follow-through. It’s one thing to center fisheries management policy on data-hungry ecosystem management models and complex catch share programs. It’s quite another to implement these regimes effectively.

Maybe worse than being overzealous, fisheries management in the Obama administration became over-ambitious.

A reflexive reaction might be to throw out all regulation, but that’s not the solution, either. Sustainable fisheries do produce more economic benefits. The U.S. Atlantic scallop fishery is but one example of a somewhat flexible management regime producing an ecologically stable fishery. The lean years have become less lean, and the good — even great — years more prevalent. Product quality improved. Scallopers maintained a consistent level of supply when the rest of the world couldn’t or didn’t. Marketplace rewards followed.

Also, and this may be controversial even among our clients, but starving managers of federal funds does not necessarily make them do less. Specifications need to be set each year, and much of fisheries regulation is just keeping up with what’s happening in the ocean. A lack of resources can, however, make them do what they do less well. “Bureaucratic incompetence” can become a self-fulfilling prophesy when there aren’t sufficient funds for data collection and brain power.

Read the full opinion piece at the National Fisherman

Fishing industry looks to Trump to undo marine monument designation

November 21, 2016 — When President Barack Obama announced in September the creation of the first ever marine national monument in U.S. Atlantic waters, 50 environmental organizations claimed victory in the long campaign to protect approximately 4,000 square miles of ocean from fishing and other human activities.

Since then, there has been another kind of victory. Donald Trump, once a long shot presidential candidate, will succeed Obama in January. During his campaign, the president-elect made promises to roll back environmental roadblocks to business and to cancel every “unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order” by the sitting president.

While some in the fishing community took heart that Trump might reverse Obama’s decision on the offshore monument, legal experts believe there is little chance of that happening. Instead, opponents of the designation will likely have to use the more difficult and lengthy routes of congressional legislation or litigation to get it changed.

“We certainly hope that the new administration will look at commercial fishermen as working men and women that are in historic family businesses,” said David Frulla, an attorney based in Washington, D.C., who represents the Fisheries Survival Fund, a coalition that includes the majority of scallop vessels from Maine to Virginia.

The Trump transition team did not respond to an emailed request for comment for this story.

“There’s nothing in there (the Antiquities Act of 1906) that says they can’t rescind or modify,” Frulla said.

Some, including fishermen, the New England and Mid-Atlantic fishery management councils, and Gov. Charlie Baker, complained that Obama’s use of the Antiquities Act was an end run around fishery management. Both councils are developing protections for deep-sea corals and the New England council is getting close to completing a plan to protect fish habitat that it has been laboring on for over a decade.

Read the full story at the Cape Cod Times

New England Fishing Groups Oppose Use of Antiquities Act for Atlantic Marine Monument as Requested by Connecticut Lawmakers

August 4, 2016 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

WASHINGTON (NCFC) – August 4, 2016 – Led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Congressional Delegation today asked President Obama to use executive authority under the Antiquities Act to designate the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts as a Marine National Monument. The Connecticut Congressional Delegation is comprised of Sen. Blumenthal, Sen. Chris Murphy, Rep. John Larson, Rep. Joe Courtney, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. Jim Himes, and Rep. Elizabeth Esty.

Members of the National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) have previously expressed opposition to the misuse of the Antiquities Act to designate an Atlantic Marine Monument. A monument designation would subvert the open and transparent process for fisheries management currently in place under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and threatens the jobs and livelihoods of hardworking fishermen.

Below are statements from NCFC members on their opposition to an Atlantic Marine Monument designation.

David Frulla and Andrew Minkiewicz, Fisheries Survival Fund (Atlantic Scallops):

“A monument designation, with its unilateral implementation and opaque process, is the exact opposite of the fisheries management process in which we participate. Public areas and public resources should be managed in an open and transparent manner, not an imperial stroke of the pen.”

Jon Williams, New England Red Crab Harvesters’ Association:

“The red crab fishing business I’ve been operating for twenty years is active in some of the areas under the proposal. Not only has our fishery complied with every regulation, but we have expended significant resources and time to ensure the health of the resource we fish. These efforts to both understand and minimize our impact on the environment have been so successful that after forty years of red crab fishing, our fishing grounds are described as ‘pristine’ by the same environmental groups who seek the monument designation. If these habitats are still ‘pristine’ after forty years of fishing, how can a serious argument be made that the area is in imminent danger and in need of immediate, unilateral protection by presidential fiat?”

Greg DiDomenico, Garden State Seafood Association:

“The Antiquities Act was perhaps a necessary tool to protect sensitive areas in 1906, but with our increased technological capabilities, knowledge, and an all-encompassing regulatory system, it is an unnecessary and blunt tool for 2016. It is time that the years of on-the-water experience possessed by the commercial fishing industry be acknowledged, especially in the context of this issue.”

Richard P. Ruais, American Bluefin Tuna Association:

“Given that our fishing gear has no negative impact on deep sea coral, a proposed prohibition on the fishing methods we employ would be arbitrary, completely unnecessary and would result in significant negative economic consequences.”

Statements from more NCFC members on their opposition to an Atlantic Marine Monument are available here.

DAVE FRULLA & ANNE HAWKINS: Whither the Lenfest report?

May 20, 2016 — The following is an op-ed by Dave Frulla and Anne Hawkins, published in the June 2016 issue of National Fisherman:

In 2012, the Lenfest Ocean Program commissioned a report entitled “Little Fish, Big Impact,” regarding management of lower trophic level fisheries. Lenfest and other environmental groups followed the report’s publication with a major domestic and international media campaign. If Lenfest wanted to spark scientific debate and inquiry regarding forage fish management, it did a good job. If, however, its plan was to drive a “one- size-fits-all” solution to a complex problem, the results are far less constructive.

The report consisted of a literature review and basic computer modeling to “quantify” the value of forage fish to their predators. It concluded these fish were twice as valuable to other animals as for human nutritional, agricultural and aquaculture uses. The report thus recommended cutting forage fish catch rates between 50 and 80 percent across the board, to double the amount of forage fish left for fish, seabirds and other predators. It also recommended closures for spawning and around seabirds that rely on forage fish, and instructed no additional forage fish fisheries be authorized.

At release, the Lenfest report was received relatively uncritically, despite its far-reaching conclusions and recommendations. Since then, globally preeminent fishery scientists, including some of the Lenfest report’s own authors, have begun to examine the report’s assumptions and conclusions. Despite the report’s confident tone, there is no consensus on whether special management measures will provide any benefit to forage stocks.

Criticism of the Lenfest report can be divided into two main categories: its application to specific forage species, and its general methodology. Regarding application to specific species, it is important first to highlight there is no common definition of “forage fish.” It is, rather, a loosely formed concept, given how many marine organisms (and not just finfish) can be labeled important prey species for a given ecosystem or even for just one species.

Further, not all low trophic species fit the Lenfest report’s biological archetype. For instance, in April 2015, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Biological Ecological Reference Points Workgroup presented a Memorandum to the Commission’s Menhaden Management Board stating that, “Ultimately, the BERP WG does not feel that the management actions recommended in [the Lenfest report]… are appropriate for Atlantic menhaden specific management,” in part because menhaden do not exhibit the stock-recruit relationship assumed in the Lenfest paradigm. (That is, menhaden recruitment is driven by environmental factors, rather than spawning stock size.)

As to methodology, the Lenfest report largely drew conclusions from ecosystem models that were not designed to evaluate management strategy impacts on low trophic level fisheries. The Lenfest report admits this shortcoming. Indeed, after its publication, Lenfest report authors Tim Essington and Eva Plaganyi co-authored their own follow-up paper showing that among the most common features absent from most of these ecosystem models were natural variability of forage fish stocks, important aspects of spatial structure, and the extent of overlap in size of predator and prey stocks. Regarding the last factor, a predator may eat smaller-sized year classes of prey fish than a fishery targets. Accordingly, humans and the predator fish aren’t competing; the forage species ran the predation gauntlet before being subject to fishing. Overall, Essington and Plaganyi concluded that “most of [the existing] models were not developed to specifically address questions about forage fish fisheries and the evaluation of fishing management.” Model suitability is but one element of the post-Lenfest report work on the scientific agenda for further consideration.

The ultimate question is whether the public, press and fisheries managers will pay attention as fisheries scientists pursue the important questions the Lenfest report raised, but did not resolve. The situation is reminiscent of the debate that occurred following publication by Dr. Boris Worm and other scientists of a 2006 report in Science suggesting all fisheries could collapse by 2048. That report received the same sort of PR roll-out as the Lenfest forage fish report. (We understand Dr. Worm’s work also received Pew Charitable Trusts/Lenfest funding.)

In 2009, Drs. Worm, Ray Hilborn (not a co-author of the initial report), and 19 other scientists collaborated on a subsequent report in Science concluding that existing fishery management tools were reversing the claimed global trend of depletion for individual stocks, and the situation was not so dire as Dr. Worm originally forecast. To this day, though, Dr. Worm’s original report is presented in press and policy debates without mention of his even more significant subsequent collaborative work. We hope the Lenfest report on forage fish management represents one early element — but not the final word — in consideration of the important topic it addresses.

Read the op-ed at National Fisherman

Scallopers to White House: Marine monument a bad idea

May 6, 2016 — A fishing trade group that represents scallopers from Maine to Virginia has joined Northeast groundfishermen in opposing the designation of any marine national monuments in New England waters.

The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) penned a May 4 letter to Obama administration officials stating its opposition to the establishment of the monuments while also criticizing the unilateral process — presidential decree through the Antiquities Act — being considered for designating them.

“A monument designation, with its unilateral implementation and opaque process, is the exact opposite of the fisheries management process in which we participate,” FSF legal counsels David Frulla and Andrew Minkiewicz wrote to Christy Goldfuss and Whitley Saumwebber, executives in the White House Council on Environmental Quality. “Public areas and public resources should be managed in an open and transparent manner, not an imperial stroke of the pen.”

The FSF letter comes almost two months after Goldfuss, the managing director of the White House environmental council, told fishing stakeholders at a March 24 meeting in Boston the White House has shelved the proposal pushed by environmental and conservation groups to establish a marine national monument about 80 miles east of Cape Ann in the area around Cashes Ledge.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times