Saving Seafood

Warren releases ‘Blue New Deal,’ a plan to help ailing oceans

December 10, 2019 — Senator Elizabeth Warren on Tuesday released an addendum to her vision for a Green New Deal: the Blue New Deal.

The new plan seeks to address how climate change is affecting oceans and other waters, while ensuring a vibrant marine economy, she said.

“While the ocean is severely threatened, it can also be a major part of the climate solution,” she wrote in a nine-page summary of the plan. “That is why I believe that a Blue New Deal must be an essential part of any Green New Deal.”

“Not being consulted on this isn’t a good start to the relationship,” said Drew Minkiewicz, an attorney for the Fisheries Survival Fund in Washington, D.C., which represents the scallop industry. “We expected something more well-thought-out from her.”

Annie Hawkins, executive director of the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, a coalition of fishing industry associations and companies, said that “any large industrial project in the ocean will have significant impacts to the sustainability of established activities and the marine environment.”

“To me, it seems like it was written by staff, and they did a lot of Googling,” said Robert Vanasse, executive director of Saving Seafood, a Washington-based group that represents commercial fishermen. “It’s disappointing, because we know Senator Warren has a more sophisticated understanding of fisheries.”

Read the full story at The Boston Globe

Jones Act changes would ‘jeopardise countless US jobs’ in offshore wind

December 3, 2019 — US fisheries advocacy body the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) has claimed proposed changes to the Jones Act – requiring that cargo, including wind turbines, shipped between US ports be transported on American-flagged vessels – could cost ‘countless of job opportunities’ to local companies in the rapidly emerging Northeast Atlantic offshore wind sector.

Writing to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to voice it opposition to the “new interpretations” of the law – which would flex the legislation to allow offshore wind developers to shuttle components to a project site on non-US-owned vessels, FSF said such a move would “allow foreign developers to use foreign vessels for the rapid build-out of offshore wind farms [and would] jeopardise” the economic development potential to local contractors.

“These proposed modifications would place foreign-owned offshore wind energy companies at a unique advantage not afforded to the thousands of US-owned maritime industries, including commercial fisheries,” said FSF counsel David Frulla.

“FSF is not submitting this letter to oppose offshore wind energy development in its entirety. If there is a need for some form of modification to these requirements, those modifications should be narrowly tailored to meet those needs … and they should consider the impacts on our domestic maritime industries and coastal communities in so doing.”

Read the full story at Recharge News

Fisheries Survival Fund warns changes to Jones Act interpretation give foreign offshore wind companies advantage over U.S. maritime industries

December 2, 2019 (Saving Seafood) — WASHINGTON — The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) submitted a letter to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) late last month warning against a proposed new interpretation of the Jones Act that would allow foreign wind energy developers to use foreign vessels for the rapid build-out of offshore wind farms. For nearly a century, commercial fishermen have been required to use domestic manufacturing for construction of their scallop vessels due to Jones Act requirements, FSF wrote.

FSF, which represents the vast majority of full-time Limited Access permit holders in the Atlantic scallop fishery, wrote that the proposed modifications “would place foreign-owned offshore wind energy companies at a unique advantage not afforded to the thousands of U.S.-owned maritime industries” and “would jeopardize the countless job opportunities for domestic laborers who would otherwise benefit from the build-out of offshore wind facilities.”

In its letter, FSF emphasized that is has been actively engaged in the public input process for the planning and development of offshore wind leases, and has worked with both government agencies and offshore wind developers to better understand and reduce the potential impacts of offshore wind development.

The Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) also wrote to CBP expressing “serious concern” over the proposed modifications.

Read FSF’s full letter here

US harvesters cold on wind farm industry’s proposed turbine standards

November 20, 2019 — A group of wind farming companies with hopes of building soon off the North Atlantic coast of the United States released on Tuesday their proposal to the US Coast Guard (USCG) for how to consistently position turbines across the region in a way that they believe will satisfy safety concerns raised by commercial fish and shellfish harvesters.

The proposal includes requiring a minimum of one nautical mile (1.2 miles) between each turbine and an east to west configuration, just as harvesters earlier asked.

However, the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA), a group of 160 commercial harvesters and processors with vessels spread across nine states and operating in about 30 different fisheries, said on Tuesday morning that it would rather wait on the results of a scientific study from the USCG — expected soon — before accepting the wind industry’s plan.

And the Fisheries Survival fund, a group that represents Atlantic scallop harvesters, has flat out rejected the wind industry’s proposal, saying it doesn’t meet their needs.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

In Court Ruling on Right Whales, Good News for Scallop Fishery

October 30, 2019 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

A federal district court has ruled this week that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) violated both the Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act in allowing gillnet fishing in areas frequented by right whales. While the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) was a Defendant-Intervenor in the case, the ruling contains good news for the scallop fishery.

At issue are provisions in Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2), which updated the network of closed areas and habitat protections off the coast of New England. The suit, filed by the Conservation Law Foundation and Earthjustice, alleges that OHA2 put right whales at risk by opening offshore areas near Nantucket to commercial fishing.

While the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that allowing gillnet fishing in these areas did have the potential to harm right whales, and thus violated the Endangered Species Act, the Court’s ruling does not affect the scallop fishery, which will continue to be allowed to operate in these areas.

Specifically, the Court noted, “because Plaintiff’s summary-judgment motion does not contest the Habitat Amendment’s changes to the Scallop [Fishery Management Plan], Defendant-Intervenor Fisheries Survival Fund’s arguments, which relate only to that fishery, are rendered moot.”

This means that while the Court acted to prevent gillnet fishing in the newly opened areas, it did not overturn OHA2, nor did it stop scallop fishing in these areas. This is consistent with FSF’s long-standing position in the case, which is that the scallop fishery is not a threat to right whales, and that scallop fishing is not impacting right whale conservation.

Read the full opinion here.

Read the full order here.

Federal judge requires fishing areas off Nantucket closed to protect right whales

October 29, 2019 — In a ruling that could create greater protections for North Atlantic right whales, a federal judge ruled Monday that the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Endangered Species Act and other federal laws when it made the controversial decision last year to reopen long-closed fishing grounds off Nantucket.

The ruling, which was a major victory for conservation groups, requires the agency to renew the ban on gillnet fishing in about 3,000 square miles of water south and east of Nantucket. Gillnets, walls of netting that rise vertically in the ocean to catch many fish at a time, present a major risk to right whales, whose numbers have plummeted by about 20 percent since 2010. Scientists say there are fewer than 400 left, and the main threat to their survival has been entanglements in fishing gear.

Boasberg’s ruling, however, does not apply to the scallop industry, which has been allowed to fish in the area. The lawsuit did not contest the right of scallopers to use their dredging equipment in the area, as they have not been found to harm the marine mammals.

“It reaffirms that the scallop industry is not at issue with regards to right whale conservation,” said Drew Minkiewicz, an attorney at the Fisheries Survival Fund in Washington, D.C., which represents the scallop industry.

Read the full story at The Boston Globe

Federal agency accused of misrepresenting views of its scientists in opening fishing grounds off Cape

October 4, 2019 — Without citing its sources, the group told the inspector general of the Commerce Department, which oversees the Fisheries Service, that it has “reason to believe” that there are e-mails, memos, and other internal communications that support their allegations that the agency’s officials were responsible for “blatantly mischaracterizing” the recommendations of its scientists on whether to open 3,000 square miles of popular feeding grounds for right whales to fishermen. The move, made under pressure from the fishing industry, outraged environmental advocates.

“An internal review process would likely reveal a disagreement within the agency, or a failure to take into account the advice of … its own right whale scientists, or true ‘agency expertise,’” Whitehouse wrote.

Officials at the Fisheries Service and the Commerce Department declined to comment on the complaint. An official at the inspector general’s office said he had yet to review the complaint.

Representatives of the scallop industry, which has been allowed to access the newly opened areas and has earned millions of dollars from their catch, said they were operating safely.

“Scallopers have been fishing for years, and there’s not a single known interaction with a right whale,” said Drew Minkiewicz, an attorney at the Fisheries Survival Fund in Washington D.C., which represents the scallop industry. “If we’re not impacting them, then why should we be restricted from the area?”

But scientists say that other fisheries, such as those that use fixed gear like lobster traps, pose a grave threat to right whales. That threat has increased in the waters off Nantucket, where more right whales have been spotted in recent years.

Read the full story at The Boston Globe

Why It’s So Hard to Build Offshore Wind Power in the U.S.

October 1, 2019 — For years, the mighty wind blowing off the Massachusetts coast has beckoned developers with visions of clean, emission-free electricity. The latest to be seduced, Vineyard Wind LLC, aims to install 84 Statute of Liberty-size turbines about 15 miles off the state’s shoreline, which would together generate enough electricity to power 400,000 homes as soon as 2022.

The project hit a snag in August, when the U.S. Department of the Interior ordered additional analysis of how the wind farm—and potentially 14 others that have been granted leases across almost 1.7 million acres of Atlantic waters—would affect the $1.4 billion fishing industry along the Eastern seaboard. U.S. regulators had sought to fast-track Vineyard Wind and could still sign off on the project by their self-imposed deadline in March, but the additional review is a blow to the companies behind Vineyard Wind, Avangrid Inc. and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, which had hoped to begin construction this year.

Analysts predict the U.S. will swiftly catch up with foreign competitors. According to BloombergNEF, even with additional Vineyard Wind scrutiny, the U.S. is on track to become fourth in offshore wind capacity by 2030. The rapid buildout is beyond what anyone expected when Cape Wind was struggling earlier this decade. “There is a gold rush mentality in this right now,” says Drew Minkiewicz, an attorney with the Fisheries Survival Fund, which has battled Equinor’s Empire Wind project. “We’re not saying no. We’re just saying, can we please be wise and realistic in what we are going to develop?”

The Interior Department’s additional environmental scrutiny is critical, Minkiewicz says. Had the government approved Vineyard Wind without deeper analysis of fishing impacts, its opponents would have won an easy victory against it in court. “I get that it’s a renewable energy project, and I get that people are excited about it,” he says, “but would you allow a nuclear reactor or a coal plant to write its own environmental impact statement?”

Read the full story at Bloomberg

Fisheries Survival Fund Supports Department of Interior Commitment to Scientific Review of Wind Farm Projects

August 16, 2019 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) supports recent efforts by the Department of the Interior to ensure that planned offshore wind developments receive a thorough environmental review, as required by law. We appreciate that President Trump and his Administration, and specifically Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt, have chosen to require that major offshore renewable energy development is based on sound science and takes the needs and interests of existing, historic coastal communities into account. Recognizing that major offshore wind development projects — especially when so many are being planned all at once— fundamentally alter the ocean environment is sound policy and the right thing to do.

FSF has consistently stated that any offshore wind development needs to properly consider how new development affects exiting ocean users. This includes scallopers and all other fishermen, who rely on key fishing grounds that will be disrupted by new wind farms, as well as other ocean users who rely on these areas for transit.

Any prospective wind farm needs to properly account for the environmental impacts it would have on marine life and marine habitats, and the economic impacts it would have on fishermen and others relying on the areas. Only then can the benefits of any project be accurately assessed against the costs, and possible damages successfully mitigated.

Recent steps by the Department of the Interior closely follow our advice. In requiring a proper environmental review of existing wind farm proposals, the Department is holding the wind power industry to the same standards the fishing industry is whenever it implements a fishery management plan. To be clear, the Department is not imposing new or unique burdens. Rather, it is assuring that existing standards are met and proper procedures are followed. We are a nation governed by laws that apply to all, including renewable energy projects.

FSF still believes that it is possible for wind power and fisheries to coexist. But this coexistence can’t happen without an honest and complete understanding of how this new industry will change our environment. We thank Secretary Bernhardt for his active engagement and thoughtful deliberation on this issue.

Fishermen face uphill battle in lawsuit over New York wind site

July 1, 2019 — Fishermen and the city of New Bedford are facing an uphill battle in their fight against a New York offshore wind location after losing a lawsuit in September.

Attorney David Frulla, who represents the Fisheries Survival Fund and other plaintiffs in the case, said he was disappointed at the court decision but has not given up.

“I just don’t think the judge understood that these leases aren’t theoretical, that they actually confer rights,” he said.

The Fisheries Survival Fund is leading a dozen plaintiffs. They sued the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in 2016, saying the agency had not done enough to seek alternatives to important fishing grounds.

United States District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in September granted the federal government’s motion for summary judgment, meaning she believed they made their case as a matter of law, without a trial.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the decision, which is still pending.

Mayor Jon Mitchell said Friday that the city shares the disappointment of the other plaintiffs but believes there are strong grounds for the judge to reconsider.

“The decisions made by federal agencies about what happens in New York waters have major implications for New Bedford fishermen, so we have no choice but to fight when we believe our interests are not being taken into account,” he said.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times