Fisheries Survival Fund Archives - Page 12 of 12

U.S. dedicates 81,000 acres off Long Island for commercial wind energy

March 16, 2016 — The yearslong process of assessing and approving an expansive wind-farm off the South Shore of Long Island moved another step forward Wednesday when the federal government formally designated the site a “wind-energy area.”

Fishing interests were quick to condemn the move, saying the government could have identified a much smaller segment or avoided the site entirely to protect vital fisheries for squid, monkfish, scallops and other species.

“We’re disappointed to say the least,” said Drew Minkiewicz, an attorney for the Fisheries Survival Fund, which represents 250 scallop fishing permit holders from Massachusetts to North Carolina. They face a combined loss of $5 million annually if the site becomes a wind farm.

Minkiewicz said the group would “use every means available” to stop the effort. The federal government “has to protect existing reasonable uses and they’ve done nothing of the sort so far. They’re clearly violating the law.”

Read the full story at Newsday

Atlantic Scallop Fishery Opposes Location of Long Island Wind Energy Area

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — March 16, 2016 — Earlier today the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior, announced its finalization of the first Wind Energy Area off the coast of New York. The Wind Energy Area is located approximately 11 miles off the coast of Long Island and totals about 81,130 acres. The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), which represents the majority of the full-time Limited Access scallop fleet has issued the following statement opposing the decision:

In 2011, the New York Power Authority, on behalf of the Long Island-New York City Offshore Wind Collaborative, selected a 127 square mile portion of the New York Bight (shown in the figure below) and applied for a commercial wind lease there. In accordance with its “Smart from the Start” policy, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) then issued a request to determine whether there was any competitive interest for the site. Two other companies responded affirmatively. In 2014, BOEM issued a Call for Information for the same area. Responses to the Call revealed that the proposed area is critical to a wide range of maritime activities.

Despite the abundance of uses in the area, BOEM is moving forward with an environmental review of the project. The “Smart from the Start” process allows any company to submit an unsolicited bid for an ocean area of its choosing, without consideration of existing uses. Only far later, after costly site selection and physical suitability analyses have occurred, does the agency even request information from the public. Then, that information is merely presented in environmental impact statements, with no guidelines for how much conflict is too much to proceed. This process makes the burden of showing that a wind farm is not appropriate in a given area almost impossible, and it amounts to adverse possession of ocean lands.

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data showing scallop fishing activity in New York Bight. Values increase from green to yellow to red. Proposed wind area is shaded triangle left of center.

A Sea of Conflicts:

The fishing industry refers to the area in question as the “Mudhole” or “Cholera Bank.” The commercial scallop fishery alone catches several million dollars of scallops per year in the proposed wind energy area, and many more fisheries also operate there, including for squid, monkfish, summer flounder, herring, and quahog. These fish are landed in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut New York, New Jersey, and Virginia. It also hosts recreational angling, and contains designated Essential Fish Habitat for more than 35 federally-managed fish species including Atlantic cod, yellowtail flounder, bluefin tuna, and several skate and shark species.

The Mudhole is sandwiched between the vessel traffic separation lanes for New York Harbor, which require substantial buffer zones for safety. The World Shipping Council and Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have already expressed concerns about the area’s proximity to sea lanes.

A wind energy facility in this location would also interfere with the operation of eleven high frequency radars in NY, NJ, and RI, according to comments from the National Ocean Service and Rutgers University. The radar network provides information critical to search and rescue activities, oil spill response, and beach closures due to high bacterial levels.

Finally, the Mudhole is teeming with wildlife. It is an important migratory area for numerous bird and bat species, and contains several federally-endangered species including North Atlantic right, humpback, and fin whales, Atlantic sturgeon, and several sea turtle species. A wind farm would impact all of these species.

View a PDF of the release

Scallop Industry Fights Early Access To Nantucket Lightship Area

December 22, 2015 – Last week, The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), represented by Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, wrote NOAA Regional Administrator John Bullard, urging him to disapprove a December 3rd vote at the New England Fishery Management Council that would allow certain vessels early entry into the Nantucket Lightship area in violation of the principles of rotational closure system that has made the scallop fishery sustainable and profitable.

The vote would allow General Category scallopers access to the Nantucket Lightship area, and disallow access by Limited Access vessels. FSF says that allowing different access for different types of vessels in the scallop fleet violates laws, regulations, and the Atlantic Scallop Fishery Management Plan. FSF also argues that the vote failed to meet public notice requirements, failed to provide analysis of effects for public comment, and, as an allocation issue, requires an amendment of the Fisheries Management Plan.

Administrator Bullard himself spoke in opposition to the vote, stating “What I’m worried about is a motion like this … [takes] a chink out ofthis rotational closure and allows one group in early. And so next year, what’s the justification for someone to come in early, and the year after, what’s the rationale? And at what point do we not have the system that created the nation’s most profitable, most productive, most sustainable fishery? At what point do we look and say ‘it really isn’t a rotational closure system anymore, it’s a system where we decide who goes where at what time.'”

View the letter as a PDF

Over 1,500 Coastal Residents Join Federal, State, and Congressional Leaders in Opposing Atlantic Marine Monument

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – September 25, 2015 – A letter delivered this week to the President and other top Federal officials has been signed by more than 1,500 fishermen and other residents from coastal communities opposing recent calls to create a marine national monument along America’s Atlantic Coast. The letter’s signers join a growing list of citizens, stakeholders, governors, Senators, Members of Congress, and local leaders speaking out publicly against the monument campaign. The letter’s signers call the measure an unnecessary use of Executive authority that undermines the public management of natural resources, which are being successfully managed through public processes.

READ THE LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT AND TOP FEDERAL OFFICIALS

Saving Seafood has published the letter online today, which was produced jointly by the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) and the Northeast Seafood Coalition (NSC). In addition to President Obama, the letter was also delivered to Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, and NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Eileen Sobeck.

According to the letter, a recent campaign to designate an Atlantic marine national monument, specifically in the Cashes Ledge area of the Gulf of Maine and around the New England Canyons and Seamounts, circumvents and diminishes the public management procedures that currently manage these areas. In the view of the signers, a process that is open and collaborative, and considers the input of scientific experts, fishermen, and other stakeholders, is best way to successfully manage marine resources.

The signers also contend that these proposals do not properly take into account the existing protections already in place in many of these areas. They note that Cashes Ledge has been closed to most forms of commercial fishing for over a decade, and that the New England Fishery Management Council recently took steps to extend these protections into the future with the approval of Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2. The Council is set to further examine additional habitat protections for the region when it considers the Deep Sea Coral Amendment later this year. To the signers of the letter, these are clear signs that the current management process is working.

The letter joins increasingly vocal opposition to a national monument designation. Maine Governor Paul LePage, as well as Maine Senator Susan Collins and Congressman Bruce Poliquin, have all written to the Obama Administration opposing any monument in the Gulf of Maine. Sefatia Romeo Theken, the Mayor of Gloucester, Massachusetts, home to the nation’s oldest fishing port and its historic groundfish fishery, has also written a letter in opposition. Jon Mitchell, the Mayor of New Bedford, Massachusetts, the nation’s most valuable port and home to the Atlantic scallop fishery, is one of the signers of this week’s letter. Legislatively, Congressmen Don Young and Walter Jones recently introduced the Marine Access and State Transparency Act, which would prevent the President from declaring offshore national monuments.

Fishermen Unite In Opposition to Atlantic Marine National Monument

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 15, 2015 — Tonight, at a NOAA town hall meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, representatives from two of the largest fishing industry organizations in New England presented a letter that will be sent to President Obama opposing calls for a new marine National Monument in the waters off the coast of New England.

READ SAVING SEAFOOD’S ANALYSIS OF THE NEW ENGLAND MARINE MONUMENT PROPOSAL

Drew Minkiewicz, of the Fisheries Survival Fund, and Jackie Odell, Executive Director of the Northeast Seafood Coalition, will present the letter. In just 24 hours, over 630 fishermen, seafood industry workers, and members of our nation’s fishing communities have signed the letter. Signatures will continue to be collected, and the letter will be submitted to the White House, with copies to the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The meeting in Providence is being called to discuss the possibility of declaring Cashes Ledge, as well as the New England Canyons and Seamounts, as National Monuments. The signers of the letter strongly oppose the proposal as unnecessary and harmful to current management efforts. The letter notes that Cashes Ledge is currently protected, as has been so for over a decade. It also notes a National Monument designation, which would result from unilateral Presidential action under the Antiquities Act, would remove the areas from the open, democratic regulatory process that is currently responsible for managing them.

The Fisheries Survival Fund represents the majority of the full-time Limited Access scallop fleet. The Northeast Seafood Coalition represents members of the commercial groundfish fishery in New England.

The Northeast Seafood Coalition is a non-profit membership organization representing commercial fishing entities in the northeastern United States on political and policy issues affecting their interests as participants in the multispecies (groundfish) fishery.

The text of the letter is reproduced below:

We, the undersigned, in conjunction with the Fisheries Survival Fund and the Northeast Seafood Coalition, object to any attempt to manage New England’s offshore marine habitats through the use of the Antiquities Act and the designation of National Monuments. Doing so undermines the public and democratic processes that are now in place to manage these areas, shuts out important stakeholders, and prevents meaningful outside input. Considering that the current public process has led to the substantial habitat protections already in place throughout the region, such a designation is both unnecessary and damaging to the long-term management of these areas.

New England’s marine habitats are currently managed through a consultative process that considers the experience and input of expert scientists, fishermen, environmentalists, and regulators. It is where the best available science and analytical approaches are vetted in an open and transparent venue. Large-scale closures, enacted by executive fiat and not based in science, are not only undemocratic but they can have substantial unintended adverse impacts on bycatch composition, region-wide habitat, and the economies of coastal communities.

Recent actions by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), specifically the recently passed Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2 (OHA2) reinforce habitat protections in New England waters into the foreseeable future.

In addition to protecting features such as the kelp forests on Cashes Ledge under OHA2, the regional management councils have gone to great lengths to further safeguard essential habitats such as corals. The NEFMC is considering the Deep-Sea Coral Amendment, which would preserve the coral habitats in the New England Canyons and Seamounts, areas that have also been frequently under discussion for National Monument designation. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) also recently acted to protect over 38,000 square miles of deep-sea coral. These are clear demonstrations that current habitat management is remarkably sensitive to conservation and the need to protect unique habitats.

Replacing this collaborative, open management with top-down Presidential action undermines these successful efforts. It makes it less likely that local voices are heard in the deliberations, narrows the decision-making process from broadly democratic to single-handed, and in consequence disregards crucial stakeholder input and expertise. It ultimately results in a regulatory process that is not responsive to feedback and is not accountable to the people who are most affected by it.

As members of the fishing communities whose livelihoods depend on inclusive, responsive management we recognize that such a fundamental altering of the regulatory process is unacceptable. Any management of public resources needs to preserve public input and involvement, not disregard it. We oppose unilateral Executive Action to declare marine National Monuments in New England.

Click here to add your name to the letter

Frulla & Hawkins of FSF: Doing the Math on Closed Areas

August 17, 2015 — The following is an opinion piece written by David Frulla and Anne Hawkins, of the Fisheries Survival Fund, which appears in the September 2015 issue of National Fisherman magazine:

Old closed areas, like old attitudes, die hard. After 10 years’ work, the New England Fishery Management Council took final votes in June on Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2, addressing essential fish habitat protection in the Gulf of Maine, on Georges Bank and in the Great South Channel.

One last major vote involved Georges Bank. Discussions had proceeded for months about how to work within the existing alternatives to refine a carefully drawn area that closed three areas for habitat protection. The council’s choice for Georges came down to two options: doing nothing or a new alternative based on more than a decade of new scientific data and analyses. Ultimately, the council chose progress.

The argument to do nothing was driven by a false choice that has gained attention as rhetoric began to outpace the facts contained in council decision documents. For two-plus years, environmental NGOs have made the false argument that more than 7,000 square miles of allegedly pristine habitat on Georges Bank will be .thrown open to mobile bottomtending gear, to be replaced by only 2,000 square miles of habitat protections. Lost in the blizzard of misinformation is the fact that the habitat amendment subjects more area on Georges Bank to habitat management than “no action.”

And now, a warning: We’ll mire you in some details. Sound bites are easy. It’s harder to explain change involving complex analyses and choices.

The history: In December 1994, NMFS closed 6,711 square miles of Georges Bank, via the emergency enactment of Closed Areas I and II. The closure’s focus was reducing fishing mortality on cod, yellowtail and haddock to aid rebuilding. Then, in 2006, Scallop Amendment 10 and Groundfish Amendment 13 designated 1,965 square miles within the two closed areas as closures to protect habitat. The council needed to close areas to protect habitat on Georges and it decided to work within the existing groundfish closures rather than closing additional areas. The areas designated as habitat closures have remained permanently closed, while much of the remaining 4,746 square miles (6,711 minus 1, 965) have been used as scallop and/ or groundfish special access areas, among other things.

The changes: In contrast to the 1,965 square miles on Georges Bank specifically managed for habitat now under “no action,” the habitat amendment would specifically manage approximately 2,470 square miles for habitat: about two-thirds of the existing Habitat Area of Particular Concern in Closed Area II, plus some area outside it; a new Georges Shoals area, to the west, currently open to fishing; and a dedicated habitat research area within existing Closed Area I. Almost all these 2,470 square miles will be closed. Less than 10 percent would be open to scallop access area fishing, and about half that to limited groundfishing.

In addition, the habitat amendment closed for habitat approximately 1, 700 additional square miles in the Great South Channel. Most is within a new habitat of concern for juvenile Georges Bank cod. This would replace a somewhat larger closure within the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area. Virtually none of the existing area habitat closure is habitat of concern for juvenile Georges Bank cod, or anything.

When viewed across the entire Georges Bank cod stock area (Georges Bank and the Great South Channel), the habitat amendment would include roughly 4, 170 square miles for habitat management (totally closing more than 90 percent of it) versus 4,050 square miles for “no action,” and it includes far more habitat of concern for juvenile Georges Bank cod than “no action.” The habitat amendment also closes more areas that peer-reviewed analyses identify as vulnerable gravel and cobble substrate.

What of the rest of the “lost” Georges Bank and Great South Channel groundfish closures? The remaining areas include: current access areas, such as the scallop and groundfish special access areas in southern Closed Area II and central Closed Area I, and portions of the closed areas that the habitat amendment’s peer-reviewed metrics show have little to no habitat value whatsoever. The amendment does not, moreover, open these areas without restriction, but rather imposes approximately 5,500 square miles of seasonal spawning closures. Protecting spawning is the remaining conservation consideration now that quotas control groundfish fishing mortality.

The result: More, not less. Altogether, approximately 7,764 square miles of the Georges Bank cod stock area on Georges and in the Great South Channel will either be managed as-a habitat area or seasonal spawning closure. Moreover, the council designed these areas using peer-reviewed models, rather than 2006’s dead reckoning approach limited to existing groundfish closed areas. In total, across Georges Bank, the Great South Channel and the Gulf of Maine, the habitat amendment would close more area for habitat than is currently closed. As the late Paul Harvey might say, ‘.’That’s the rest of the story.”

View a PDF of the opinion piece from National Fisherman magazine here