Saving Seafood

Fisheries Survival Fund Corrects the Record on Gulf of Maine Scallops

WASHINGTON — March 22, 2017 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

Atlantic sea scallops remain one of the most sustainably harvested stocks in the United States. With recent media attention on scallops in the northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM), the Fisheries Survival Fund, which represents the majority of the full-time Limited Access scallop fleet, has produced a fact sheet clarifying the true status of scallops in the region.

Recent data from the New England Fishery Management Council, which is responsible for sustainably managing the region’s scallop population, shows that Atlantic sea scallops in the NGOM are not overfished, nor are they experiencing overfishing. The Limited Access fleet is operating within its allocated federal quota, and the Atlantic sea scallop fishery remains certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. It also shows that most fishing in the area does not actually take place in the geographical NGOM, but rather in southwestern Stellwagen Bank, off the coast of Massachusetts. There are currently 36 active NGOM scallop fishing vessels in the NGOM, only 18 of which are home-ported in Maine.

We have provided a fact sheet below using the official documents in order to clarify these claims.

Fact Sheet on Scallops in the Northern Gulf of Maine

  • There is no overfishing of the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) scallop stock, nor is it rebuilding, as scallops in the NGOM are not considered a separate, unique stock. There are not separate reference points for NGOM scallops, nor are there separate Annual Catch Limits. For all management and scientific purposes, NGOM scallops are part of the overall scallop stock, and are included in the full scallop assessment. According to that assessment, scallops are not overfished and are not experiencing overfishing.
  • The catch limit for the general category scallop boats in NGOM, currently set at 70,000 pounds, is based upon historical catch. The NGOM scallopers were given these allocations because they did not qualify for the limited access scallop fleet. More information can be found in Amendment 11 to the scallop Fishery Management Plan on the NEFMC website: http://www.nefmc.org/library/amendment-11
  • There are 81 NGOM permits and only 36 active NGOM scallop vessels fishing in NGOM. Out of those, only 18 are home-ported in Maine. This can be verified in Table 4 below, which was obtained from the New England Fishery Management Council website, from the March 1 meeting of the Scallop Plan Development Team. The table can also be found in section 3.2.1 of Draft Discussions Document on NGOM management.
  • Most of the scallop fishing activity in the NGOM does not occur near Maine, but offshore Massachusetts, in the southwest corner of Stellwagen Bank. Some of this activity is outside the actual NGOM management area. A table illustrating this can be found below, and can also be found in the Draft Discussions Document on NGOM management in section 3.1.
  • The fishing activity of the limited access scallop fleet in the NGOM does not count towards the quota of the NGOM. The limited access fleet operates on a federal quota, in federal waters, under an entirely separate management system. This is not new: the limited access scallop fleet has been fishing in this area under this management program for many years.
  • The Atlantic Sea Scallop fishery is certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council. The scallop fishery’s commitment to sustainability is also reflected in their participation in the Research Set Aside program. Every year, a portion of revenue from the scallop catch is redirected towards research, which allows the scallop fishery to be managed by the most up-to-date science.
  • All points made have been confirmed with the most up to date NEFMC findings. These links are provided below:
  • http://www.nefmc.org/calendar/mar-1-2017-scallop-plan-development-team-meeting
  • http://www.nefmc.org/library/amendment-11
  • http://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/Doc4-170224_NGOM-Discussion-Draftv.2.pdf
  • http://s3.amazonaws.com/nefmc.org/Doc4a-NGOM-PDT_DataRequest_Feb2017_V2.pdf

 

 

Read the release here 

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell Voices Coalition Concern Over Marine Monuments at House Hearing

WASHINGTON – March 15, 2017 – The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

Today, New Bedford, Mass. Mayor Jon Mitchell delivered written testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee on behalf of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities. His testimony expressed serious concerns about the impacts of marine monuments, designated using executive authority under the Antiquities Act, on fishermen and coastal communities.

Mayor Mitchell had planned to testify in person before the Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans as a representative of the NCFC, but was unable to attend the hearing in Washington due to snow and severe weather conditions in the Northeast.

In his testimony, Mayor Mitchell questioned both the “poorly conceived terms of particular monument designations,” as well as “more fundamental concerns with the process itself.” Mayor Mitchell also delivered a letter to the committee signed by eleven NCFC member organizations further detailing their concerns with the monument process and how fishing communities across the country are affected by monument designations.

The letter was signed by the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, the California Wetfish Producers Association, the Fisheries Survival Fund, the Garden State Seafood Association, the Hawaii Longline Association, the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition, the North Carolina Fisheries Association, the Southeastern Fisheries Association, the West Coast Seafood Processors Association, and the Western Fishboat Owners Association.

In addition, three NCFC member organizations, the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association, the Hawaii Longline Association, and the North Carolina Fisheries Association submitted individual letters outlining in further detail their opposition to marine monuments.

Mayor Mitchell was also critical of the monument designation process, by which a president can close off any federal lands or waters on a permanent basis using executive authority under the Antiquities Act. He instead praised the Fishery Management Council process created by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which he said affords greater opportunities for input from stakeholders, scientists, and the public.

“The monument designation process has evolved effectively into a parallel, much less robust fishery management apparatus that has been conducted entirely independent of the tried and true Fishery Management Council process,” Mayor Mitchell said. “It lacks sufficient amounts of all the ingredients that good policy-making requires: Scientific rigor, direct industry input, transparency, and a deliberate pace that allows adequate time and space for review.”

Mayor Mitchell used his testimony to call attention to issues affecting fishing communities across the country, including New England fishermen harmed by the recently designated Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, and Hawaii fishermen harmed by the expansion of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. He also expressed the concerns of fishermen in Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Pacific waters in dealing with the monument process.

Mayor Mitchell concluded by calling on Congress to integrate the executive branch’s monument authority with the established processes of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ensuring that the long-term interests of all stakeholders are accounted for.

“This Congress has an important opportunity to restore the centrality of Magnuson’s Fishery Management Councils to their rightful place as the critical arbiters of fisheries management matters,” Mayor Mitchell said. “Doing so would give fishing communities much more confidence in the way our nation approaches fisheries management. And it could give the marine monument designation process the credibility and acceptance that it regrettably lacks today.”

The mayor spoke at the hearing on behalf of the NCFC. The city of New Bedford, as Mayor Mitchell stated in his testimony, was instrumental in the founding of the Coalition, providing an initial seed grant for its creation.

Read Mayor Mitchell’s full testimony here

Read the NCFC letter here

Read the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association letter here

Read the Hawaii Longline Association letter here

Read the North Carolina Fisheries Association letter here

Executive order may miss fishing regulations

March 2, 2017 — An executive order by President Donald Trump designed to radically cut back on federal regulations has spurred disagreement among fishermen about how it will affect them – and lawmakers and regulators aren’t sure what the answer is.

Groups that represent both commercial and recreational fishermen are divided over whether President Trump’s “one in, two out” approach to federal regulations will benefit their industry, harm it or not affect it at all.

In North Carolina, Jerry Schill, executive director of the N.C. Fisheries Association, an industry advocacy group dedicated to promoting the state’s seafood industry, said he’s been exchanging emails with fishing interests from all around the country about the matter.

“The consensus seems to be that it doesn’t affect the commercial fishing regulations, although I wish it did,” Mr. Schill said. “If the administration or others in (Washington) D.C. don’t know if it affects the fishing regulations, and the attorneys that represent commercial fishing suggest that it doesn’t, then it more than likely won’t. Specifically, we’ve been watching the dialogue with the Fisheries Survival Fund.”

The FSF is a fund established in 1998 to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. The fund works with academic institutions and independent scientific experts to foster cooperative research and help sustain the fishery.

Read the full story at the Carteret County News-Times

Fishermen at odds over impact of Trump executive order

February 23, 2017 — An executive order by President Donald Trump designed to radically cut back on federal regulations has spurred disagreement among fishermen about how it will affect them — and lawmakers and regulators aren’t sure what the answer is.

Groups that represent both commercial and recreational fishermen are divided over whether Trump’s “one in, two out” approach to federal regulations will benefit their industry, harm it or not affect it at all.

Meanwhile, the arm of the federal government that regulates fishing, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is still trying to figure out exactly what the executive order means for fisheries management.

Other industry interests, including the Fisheries Survival Fund, said the order will likely leave fisheries unaffected. The order would apply only to financially significant regulations, and that would not include things like opening fishing seasons and enforcing catch limits, said Drew Minkiewicz, an attorney for the fund.

“All this talk about how you’re not going to be able to manage fisheries — not true, doesn’t apply, not going to happen,” he said.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Boston Herald

New York wind energy challenge stalls in federal court

February 16, 2017 — A federal judge has denied a bid by commercial fishermen to stop the lease of the nearly 80,000-acre New York Wind Energy Area to Statoil, ruling the fishermen failed to prove imminent harm, and that the project is still subject to years of review before construction.

“The court maintains its authority to ultimately enjoin the lease in this litigation if necessary,” U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan wrote in her opinion. The fishing industry argument that Statoil Wind US LLC will have made significant investments in the project – establishing property rights – during the Bureau of Offshore Energy review is not compelling enough to justify a preliminary injunction against granting the lease, Chutkan found.

Statoil’s investment – including a record-setting $42.5 million bid for the lease – is being made with full knowledge that it may not get approvals or ever build the project, Chutkan wrote. Fishermen said they will continue to pursue the case on merits.

“Getting a preliminary injunction granted is difficult, given the high standards that the court applies,” said Mayor Kirk Larson of Barnegat Light, N.J., one of the port towns that joined the Fisheries Survival Fund and other industry advocates in the case. “But our case will continue, and we are confident that we will succeed on the merits.”

Read the full story at WorkBoat.com

Legal Fight in New York Offshore Wind Farm Case Continues on Merits; Request for Preliminary Injunction Denied

WASHINGTON — February 16, 2017 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided late Wednesday not to grant a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit brought by a host of fishing communities, associations and businesses—led by scallop industry trade group the Fisheries Survival Fund—against the impending leasing of the New York Wind Energy Area to Statoil Wind of Norway. The suit alleges the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) leasing process did not adequately consider the impact of wind power development in the waters off Long Island, New York on the region’s fishermen.

The fishing industry asked that the court temporarily halt BOEM from proceeding with the final ratification of a lease on the area, which was preliminarily awarded to Statoil, Norway’s state oil company, for $42.5 million.

“Getting a preliminary injunction granted is difficult, given the high standards that the court applies,” said Mayor Kirk Larson of Barnegat Light, N.J., one of the plaintiffs in the case. “But our case will continue, and we are confident that we will succeed on the merits.”

The ruling explained that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, that the standard for proving irreparable harm is “particularly high” in the D.C. Circuit, and that plaintiffs must prove that their injuries are “certain, great, actual and imminent.”

However, the court remarked that it “maintains its authority to ultimately enjoin the lease in this litigation if necessary,” and noted that Statoil is aware that its proposals for the wind farm may be rejected and that it may never construct or operate such a facility.

“While the court didn’t find that the issuance of this lease would cause immediate and irreparable harm to fishermen, it remains true that the ultimate construction and operation of a wind farm will have devastating effects on our industry, the environment, and marine resources,” said Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in Montauk, N.Y., another plaintiff in the case. “We have made it clear to the government and Statoil that fishermen will not be ignored in this debate.”

The ruling stated that the fishing industry offered numerous arguments for why the environmental analyses prepared by BOEM were defective, and in violation of the agency’s statutory and regulatory requirements, including that it failed to analyze the actual construction and operation of a wind facility and further failed to consider other potential locations for the wind facility.

The court also noted that when the draft environmental assessment was published in the Federal Register for public comment in June 2016, many members of the fishing industry submitted comments about how a wind facility in the proposed lease location would harm their fishing interests and the marine habitat in that area.

BOEM had argued that the proper time to assess environmental impacts of construction is years from now, after a Construction and Operations Plan is approved, but the court cited precedent in the D.C. circuit that suggests the proper time for the agency to consider these environmental impacts may be “at the present stage.”

The ruling also looked at the balance between the interests of each side.  The government argued that the public interest supported its wind energy leasing program, and the financial interest in the lease, while the fishing industry argued that the public interest is best served by allowing the industry to continuing commercial fishing activity. The court found that the balance did not favor either side.

“The fishing industry and the public already have a vested interest in these areas,” said Meghan Lapp, Fisheries Liaison for Seafreeze Ltd. in Point Judith, R.I., which is also a plaintiff in the case. “This will have a significant negative impact on the squid industry and the state of Rhode Island, which lands more calamari than all other East Coast states combined. BOEM can not be allowed to ignore American small businesses and the American people.”

Read the court’s decision at Saving Seafood

Attorneys for Fishing Industry in Wind Farm Lawsuit Discuss Case on New Bedford Radio

February 14, 2017 (Saving Seafood)– On Monday, attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against a proposed wind farm off the coast of Long Island discussed the case with WBSM New Bedford host Phil Paleologos. The attorneys, David Frulla and Andrew Minkiewicz, represent a group of fishing businesses, associations, and municipalities, led by the Fisheries Survival Fund, a scallop industry trade group.

The lawsuit alleges that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) did not properly consider the impact the proposed wind far would have on area fisheries when they awarded a multi-million dollar wind energy lease to Statoil, a Norwegian oil company. The proposed wind farm would occupy some of the most important fishing grounds in the Atlantic, potentially causing serious harm to local fisheries.

Listen to the full interview here

Read more about the lawsuit here

FISHING GROUPS, TOWNS SUE TO BLOCK OFFSHORE WINDFARM

February 10, 2017 — Commercial fishing companies, trade groups, and seaport communities in four states are fighting against the development of a massive offshore windfarm planned to be built in the Atlantic Ocean.

The group is requesting courts block the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) from auctioning the rights to develop the project. The coalition, which includes the cities of Narragansett, Rhode Island and New Bedford, Massachusetts, filed a petition to block the lease in federal court in Washington, DC in early December 2016, arguing BOEM offered the lease without adequately considering the harm to the fishermen who have traditionally worked the area for scallops and squid.

On December 16, the court provisionally allowed the auction to proceed. Norwegian state-owned oil company Statoil won, paying approximately $42.5 million for the right to build a wind farm with as many as 194 turbines across nearly 80,000 acres in the ocean off the coasts of New Jersey and New York.

The group amended its lawsuit, asking the court to provide a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent BOEM taking the necessary next step with the provisional lease. The court agreed to consider the motion, setting February 8, 2017, as the date to hear the plaintiffs’ arguments.

Read the full story at The Heartland Institute  

Commercial Fishing Interests Fight New York Offshore Wind Project In U.S. District Court

Heat map of scallop fishing effort in the area around the proposed New York wind energy area. The proposed wind energy area is in blue.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – February 9, 2017 – Lawyers representing a host of fishing communities, associations, and businesses, led by scallop industry trade group the Fisheries Survival Fund, argued in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., yesterday against the lease sale of 127 square miles of ocean off the coast of Long Island for wind energy development. A ruling is expected in the coming days.

The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction against the wind farm lease, which the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) preliminarily awarded to Norwegian oil and gas company Statoil for $42.5 million at auction in December, arguing that the site of the project is in the middle of important fishing grounds, particularly for the valuable scallop and squid fisheries. They claim that allowing the lease sale to go through would cause irreparable harm to commercial fishermen and is unlawful.

The plaintiffs argued that the lease sale would have an immediate impact on fishing interests by giving the government and Statoil free rein to conduct a number of harmful actions, including installing a meteorological tower that could damage scallop beds, and performing sonic testing that studies suggest hurts fish populations. The plaintiffs also said that, should the lease proceed, additional investments make it nearly certain that a wind farm will be constructed, permanently restricting fishermen who make their livelihoods in the area.

Lawyers representing BOEM and Statoil countered that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm to their livelihoods, saying that any impact on fishermen would not happen for years, and that there would be time to address fishing concerns in future environmental assessments.

Federal law requires a balanced process that considers all stakeholders when developing wind energy projects, but the plaintiffs said that fishing concerns have not been properly addressed in the siting of the New York wind energy area.

BOEM estimates the value of fishing grounds in the proposed wind energy area at $90 million, a figure that the plaintiffs argued is too low because the government used less precise vessel trip reports instead of more accurate satellite-based vessel monitoring systems. The defendants argued that the lease siting process was transparent, including meetings with fishermen and multiple requests for information.

The plaintiffs responded that their more accurate information was ignored, the location of the wind farm was chosen in private, and fishermen never had a chance to advocate for alternative sites.

The plaintiffs maintained that their complaint was not against wind energy as a whole, pointing out that Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Mass., a plaintiff in the case, has been an outspoken proponent of wind energy development. Specifically, they are challenging the use of the unsolicited bid process that allows private entities to claim part of the ocean for wind energy development.

The plaintiffs in the case are the Fisheries Survival Fund, the Garden State Seafood Association, the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, the Narragansett Chamber of Commerce, the Fishermen’s Dock Cooperative, the Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance, the City of New Bedford, Mass., the Borough of Barnegat Light, N.J., the Town of Narragansett, R.I., SeaFreeze Shoreside, Sea Fresh USA, and the Town Dock. The case was heard by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.

Read more about the lawsuit here

Fishermen: not so fast with wind farm

December 30, 2016 — Could sea scallops and longfin squid be reason enough to stop an offshore wind farm on the coast of New York and New Jersey?

The Fisheries Survival Fund, which represents the majority of the U.S. Atlantic scallop industry, claims the site picked for the farm is on documented fishing grounds for both commercially important species. It claims the wind turbines would shut fishermen out.

The group is the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed against the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Sally Jewell, the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior.  The BOEM has jurisdiction over the sea floor.

Other plaintiffs include the Garden State Seafood Association, the Fishermen’s Dock Co-Operative in Point Pleasant Beach and the Borough of Barnegat Light.

“We’re looking to stop the construction in it’s proposed location. If they want to build it somewhere else, that’s fine,” said Andrew E. Minkiewicz, attorney for the group.

Last year, the co-op handled close to $15 million worth of seafood, of which roughly two-thirds were scallops, according to the lawsuit.

Read the full story at the Asbury Park Press