Saving Seafood

After Trump administration moves to pull plug, Vineyard Wind looks to Biden

December 16, 2020 — Vineyard Wind’s request for “a temporary pause” in the federal review of its 800-megawatt offshore wind energy project triggered an announcement from the Department of Interior that it must restart its entire permit application process.

In a flurry of activity by the outgoing Trump administration, the head of the Interior Department’s legal staff, solicitor Daniel H. Jorjani on Tuesday issued new guidance stressing that if Interior Secretary David Bernhardt “determines that either fishing or vessel transit constitute ‘reasonable uses…of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas and the territorial sea,’ the Secretary has a duty to prevent interference with that use.”

The 16-page memo asserts the secretary of Interior should determine “what is unreasonable” interference from offshore wind turbines “based on the perspective of the fishing user.” It’s a victory for commercial fishing advocates including the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance and Fisheries Survival Fund, who went directly to Bernhardt in July with complaints their concerns are not adequately addressed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy.

The agency had been poised to issue a record of decision Jan. 15 that would allow Vineyard Wind to proceed toward construction – a timeline that now could stretch out another 18 months, unless a Biden administration very supportive of wind energy steps in.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

Fisheries Survival Fund Questions NOAA Over Decision to Reinstate Observers, But Cancel Surveys

August 17, 2020 — Why are fishery surveys being canceled but at-sea-observers being reinstated? That’s the tough question that the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) is asking. FSF submitted a letter to NOAA Fisheries Assistant Administrator Chris Oliver on August 13, just one day before the resumption of observer programs in the Northeast region.

“As you know, FSF represents the significant majority of full-time Limited Access permit holders in the Atlantic scallop fishery,” the letter reads. “Our members are home-ported along the Atlantic Coast from Massachusetts through North Carolina. The scallop industry recognizes the value of observers, as well as the difficulty of decisions NMFS is confronting during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, FSF still does not understand why NMFS cancelled unique fishery-independent surveys critical to resource management yet is reinstating less critical fishery-dependent data collected by observers when other options (VTRs, vessel tracking, and electronic monitoring) are available.”

Read the full story at Seafood News

Fisheries Survival Fund ‘Alarmed’ by Current Protocols for Resumption of At-Sea Monitoring

June 29, 2020 — The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) has written to NOAA Fisheries, voicing concerns over the agency’s decision to resume at-sea monitoring beginning in July. Specifically, FSF, which represents limited access scallop fishermen in the area covered by the order, is “alarmed” at the protocols the agency currently has in place.

According to the letter, the quarantine protocols for observers are unclear, at best. It notes that, after a required initial 14-day quarantine period, “it is unclear whether that observer will be required to quarantine for an additional 14 days before boarding another vessel.”

“Our country continues to grapple with the impacts and uncertainties of COVID-19’s spread,” the letter states. “Resuming the observer program too quickly and without appropriate protocols in place would put our crewmembers at a heightened and unnecessary risk of exposure to the virus.”

FSF also highlights uncertainty over how vessel captains and owners should respond to an observer displaying symptoms of COVID-19 at the start of a trip. FSF requests that NOAA extend the current waiver on observer coverage, which was implemented in March at the start of the COVID-19 crisis, until it addresses these issues.

The letter to NOAA follows letters from both the New England Fishery Management Council and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, which expressed similar concerns about the safety of resuming at-sea monitoring.

The full letter is available here

FSF Statement on Proclamation on Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument

June 5, 2020 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) applauds the proclamation signed today by President Trump that will once again allow sustainable fishing in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. Fishermen had long been able to sustainably harvest fish from these areas without affecting the surrounding habitats, and this order ensures that they will continue to be able to do so in the future.

FSF has always held that designating marine monuments by executive order is not an appropriate way to regulate fishing. Fisheries management is best conducted through the collaborative process established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and not through executive fiat. The Magnuson-Stevens Act has led to the best-managed and most conservation-minded fisheries in the world, and today’s order is a reaffirmation of that management.

FSF looks forward to continuing to work with fisheries managers to promote sustainable fisheries management for our Northeast fisheries.

Fisheries Survival Fund Applauds White House for Executive Order Supporting Domestic Seafood

May 8, 2020 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

Yesterday, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at promoting domestic seafood production and the U.S. seafood industry amid the current COVID-19 crisis. The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) is grateful to the Administration for its support of our nation’s fishing communities, and looks forward to working with the Administration in lifting unnecessary burdens to American fishermen.

“We appreciate that the President recognizes how important the seafood industry is in supplying our nation with essential products, especially during the current crisis,” said Drew Minkiewicz, an attorney for the Fisheries Survival Fund. “These measures will go a long way to ensure that our industry is able to meet the country’s needs, and will be able to recover once the crisis is over.”

One of the key measures in the order is to sustainably increase domestic seafood production through regulatory reform. FSF has long supported efforts to revise and streamline unnecessary regulations, an effort that is more important now than ever. FSF looks forward to working with NOAA and the Department of Commerce on implementing this directive, especially in opening up fishing grounds on the northern edge of Georges Bank. These grounds have been closed for nearly 30 years, at the cost of billions of dollars in lost revenue. The closures have long been unnecessary for the conservation of the species in the area, making them a prime candidate for reform under this order.

FSF also urges the Administration to reconsider current policies in place for offshore wind development, specifically the policy of accepting unsolicited bids for wind farms. This policy is poorly thought out, and is an unnecessary threat to the seafood industry. Eliminating it and similar policies will help meet the Administration’s goal of promoting local seafood and securing our food supply chain.

 

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

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