Saving Seafood

NY ratepayers will pay for $2.1B offshore wind plan, but won’t get the energy

August 8, 2018 — New York state ratepayers will pick up the tab for the Cuomo Administration’s multi-billion dollar plan to jump-start the offshore wind industry, but most won’t benefit from the energy produced.

Only consumers in Long Island and New York City will be able to access the wind-powered energy that’s going to be generated in the waters off the state’s Atlantic coast in the years to come.

As soon as 2020, typical residential ratepayers could see an increase of up to 76 cents a month in their electric bills as the state goes all-in on offshore wind as a critical piece of the state’s renewable energy future, The Journal News/Poughkeepsie Journal has learned.

That’s in addition to the average $2 per month charge state ratepayers are already paying for the bailout of three struggling upstate nuclear power plants for the next ten years.

The New York State Public Service Commission announced last week that it had agreed to procure some 800 megawatts of offshore wind energy over the next two years, the first phase in an effort to develop 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, enough to power 1.2 million households in New York City and Long Island.

“Robust offshore wind development is not only critical to meeting our clean energy and carbon reduction goals, this investment has the potential to create thousands of jobs and fuel a $6 billion industry for New York as it combats climate change,” Cuomo said.

The Long Island Commercial Fishing Association (LICFA), based in Montauk, have joined a lawsuit challenging the decision by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to allow thousands of acres off the Atlantic coast of Long Island to be leased to offshore wind companies.

The six areas available for lease could hold up to 200 wind turbines.

“The historical, traditional commercial fishing communities of Long Island, which include hundreds of small business owners, the very tax and rate-payers whose businesses help to support other small businesses throughout Long Island, are ground zero for having their very livelihoods and businesses destroyed,” Bonnie Brady, the executive director of LICFA wrote in April.

Read the full story from the Poughkeepsie Journal at the Ithaca Journal

Bay State Wind alters layout for offshore wind farm, but fisheries call foul

August 8, 2018 — Bay State Wind LLC is changing the turbine layout of its 800-MW Bay State Offshore Wind Project to accommodate the U.S. commercial fishing industry’s ability to work between turbines. But fisheries say the changes are too little, too late and underscore their growing frustration with the offshore wind sector.

Bay State Wind, a partnership between Danish energy developer Ørsted A/S and New England utility Eversource Energy, announced on Aug. 6 that the new plan reorganizes wind turbines in rows running east-to-west and incorporates one nautical mile between rows to allow fishing vessels more space to travel through, “keeping in mind the need to balance safe navigation, fishing concerns and clean energy production.” The updated turbine layout will be included in Bay State Wind’s construction and operations plan that it intends to submit to the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management by early 2019.

However, the commercial fishing industry is not satisfied with Bay State Wind’s changed layout. Meghan Lapp, fisheries liaison for Rhode Island-based frozen seafood producer Seafreeze Ltd., said one-mile-wide transit lanes can make it dangerous for trawl vessels to fish with their nets without hitting other boats or project infrastructure. Buffer zones for each side of a transit lane are also needed due to potential radar interference from the turbines.

“Unfortunately, developers only seem to do what is convenient for them at a low cost in response to fishing issues and concerns,” Lapp said. “The right step for a long-term working relationship between the fishing and wind industries is to address these and other commercial fishing concerns before we reach the stage of construction plans. Which is not being done in any meaningful way.”

Bonnie Brady, director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, said the frustration with Bay State Wind’s project is not unfamiliar. She recalled similar issues with Deepwater Wind‘s Deepwater Offshore Wind Energy Center (South Fork Wind Farm) proposed off of Rhode Island, which has a turbine layout that would require fisheries to make detours that would add hours and costs to fishing trips.

Read the full story at S&P Global Market Intelligence

Fishermen Vent About Fears on Offshore Wind

July 19, 2018 — Three staffers from the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) faced a tidal wave of resentment when they met with commercial fishermen on July 11 at the Montauk Playhouse.

The federal employees were there to obtain comments about the federal government’s plan to lease sections of the continental shelf south of Long Island and east of New Jersey for wind farm development.

The highly structured event was supposed to have included a slide presentation and question-and-answer session that was billed “New York Bight Call and Area Identification” in the four-hour event schedule. “Call” areas are those identified by BOEM as suitable for leasing.

Instead a group of about 15 fishermen spent the time peppering BOEM fisheries biologist Brian Hooker with questions, complaints and a few rants, including that of fisherman Chuck Morici, who told the officials they made him sick.

Read the full story at the Sag Harbor Express

Deepwater Wind Offers Offshore Information, Fishermen Want Compensation

July 17, 2018 — Deepwater Wind is trying to keep fishermen happy while it builds more offshore wind facilities. The latest effort aims to protect commercial fishing gear, but fishermen and their advocacy groups want broader protections for fishing grounds and their livelihood.

The Providence-based company recently announced a program to inform fishermen of where and when construction and other work occurs at the site of three wind facilities and their electric cables. The offshore wind developer hired liaisons to offer dockside information to fishermen at main fishing ports such as New Bedford, Mass., Point Judith, and Montauk, N.Y. Daily activity will be posted online about surveys, construction, and maintenance work. The updates will also be broadcast twice daily on boating radio channels, according to Deepwater Wind.

Deepwater Wind has three primary offshore wind projects that will be covered by the new program: the nation’s first offshore wind facility, the Block Island Wind Farm; the Skipjack Wind Farm off the coast of Delaware and Maryland; and the South Fork Wind Farm, which is proposed for federal water between Rhode Island and Massachusetts and would deliver electricity to eastern Long Island via a 30-mile undersea cable.

Bonnie Brady, president of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, said the outreach by Deepwater Wind is window dressing. Deepwater Wind is “not doing anything at all. it’s a big, giant schmooze,” she said.

Read the full story at ecoRI

NEW YORK: ‘Choose Long Island’ Campaign Promotes Buying Local Produce, Seafood

July 13, 2018 — There’s a push to stimulate the economy while stimulating your taste buds in Suffolk County.

CBS2’s Vanessa Murdock visited Lenny Bruno Farms in Manorville, where she and fourth-generation farmer Dominick Bruno discussed buying local.

“For some people, local is 250 miles away. Here, local means it’s coming from this field and it’s being sold at our farm stand,” he said.

Bruno said he’s thrilled to be part of a new initiative launched by Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone, called Choose LI.

“Buying locally grown and harvested food is better for overall health and it is better for our region,” said Bellone.

The goal is to get Long Island families to take the pledge to spend 10 percent of their weekly grocery budget on buying local produce and fish.

New Yorkers spend an average of $176 a week on food, Murdock reported. If each Suffolk County household pledges 10 percent to buying local, $19 million would be fed into the county’s economy each year and, in turn, help create 1,000 jobs.

Julieann Hughes, a mother of four, said she makes an effort to buy local.

Read the full story at WLNY

East and West Coast NCFC Members: ‘H.R. 200 Will Create Flexibility Without Compromising Conservation’

June 25, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Today, East and West Coast members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) submitted a letter to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in support of H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, which would update the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The letter, which was also sent to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Emeritus Don Young, and other top Congressional officials, states that H.R. 200 will “create flexibility without compromising conservation.”

“We want a Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) that allows for both sustainable fisheries management, and the long-term preservation of our nation’s fishing communities,” the groups wrote. “We firmly believe that Congress can meet these goals by allowing for more flexibility in management, eliminating arbitrary rebuilding timelines, and adding other reforms that better take into account the complex challenges facing commercial fishermen.”

The letter does not include support from the NCFC’s Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic members, which supported the legislation from the beginning, but withdrew their support due to a late change to the Manager’s Amendment that would negatively impact their region. The NCFC’s East and West Coast members continue to support the bill on its overall merits, but share the concerns of Gulf and South Atlantic fishermen over this late alteration.

Organizations affiliated with the NCFC do not accept money from ENGOs, and represent the authentic views of the U.S. commercial fishing industry.

The letter signers represent the American Scallop Association, Atlantic Red Crab Company, Atlantic Capes Fisheries, BASE Seafood, California Wetfish Producers Association, Cape Seafood, Garden State Seafood Association, Inlet Seafood, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Lund’s Fisheries, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, Seafreeze Ltd., Town Dock, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, and Western Fishboat Owners Association.

Read the full letter here

 

New film dives into issues, concerns with Deepwater Wind’s proposed wind farm

May 14, 2018 — The following was released by the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association:

Dell Cullum of East Hampton, NY, owner of Hampton Wildlife Removal and Rescue, is a master of many trades. In addition to rescuing wildlife, he also is a well-known local children’s book author, nature photographer, filmmaker, producer of the ImaginationNature.com television series, and an East Hampton Town Trustee. His roots also run deep to Montauk, New York’s largest commercial fishing port, through the Pitts and Burke families. So it seemed a natural fit for him to marry his love of nature with his concern for his roots when he decided to create the recently released two-part film, “Deepwater Dilemma.”

As a Trustee, Cullum is quite familiar with the South Fork Wind Farm being proposed by Deepwater Wind (DWW), the subject of his film. He said his impetus for doing it was born out of a desire to give voice to those who he felt were not being heard by DWW, the offshore wind energy company owned by hedgefund giant D.E. Shaw, in multiple public meetings over the last year with both the Town Board and the Town Trustees.

“After hearing the same old automated rebuttal, lacking fact and transparency, from Deepwater Wind’s representatives about real concerns from the East Hampton community, I felt it necessary to give those who oppose Deepwater’s method of operation a loud and clear opportunity to be heard, regarding environmental impact, industrializing our ocean, utility rate increases, wind power necessity, and the possible end, yet certainly danger to the local commercial fishing community and so much more,” Cullum said last week in an interview.

The resulting film in its entirety weighs in at slightly over an hour. Part one offers several perspectives from local concerned residents, including input from an energy consultant, an environmental planner, the former head of the Town of East Hampton’s Natural Resources division, an avid recreational fisherman who is also a Trustee, a former candidate for East Hampton Town Supervisor, and a former environmental liaison to a local citizens advisory committee.

Part two captures the voices of fishermen, both from Rhode Island where the first offshore wind mill was built in 2016, and from Montauk.

Cullum’s film can be watched in its entirety either by going to the Deepwater Dilemma Facebook page here https://www.facebook.com/OceanSave1/ or directly to his YouTube Page here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe-2-hk96kW4eM2v-ioPuLQ/videos

A joint public hearing of the East Hampton Town Board and East Hampton Town Trustees to discuss the community benefits package being offered by DWW if the Town allows them access through Beach Lane in Wainscott for the South Fork Wind Farm will be held this Thursday, May 17th, at 6:30 p.m. at LTV Studios, 75 Industrial Road, in East Hampton.

 

New York: Plans For Offshore Wind Energy Draw Criticism At Hearing In Southampton On Monday

May 8, 2018 — The difference between what the federal government and New York State have carved out for renewable wind energy projects destined to be built off the south shore of Long Island is about 2.7 miles.

That’s a big difference, especially for the commercial fishermen, environmentalists and South Fork residents who voiced their concerns Monday about wind farms proposed in their backyards.

“We know the moment [the federal government] gets a taste of wind farms in the Atlantic, we are going to be playing whack-a-mole with energy and oil companies creeping up on our fishing grounds,” Bonnie Brady said at a presentation by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or NYSERDA, on Monday night at the Southampton Inn.

Ms. Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association in Montauk, said that, like other commercial fishermen in the audience, she worries that the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, or BOEM, which has jurisdiction over the Atlantic, will lease more ocean for wind energy development and wind up hurting the industry.

In October 2017, NYSERDA recommended two leasing areas to BOEM after various studies. The state’s master plan was praised by some residents, like Gordian Raacke, executive director of Renewable Energy Long Island, for its speedy analysis.

Read the full story at 27 East

 

April Showdown Looming for Battle Over Atlantic Ocean Monument

March 28, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Fisherman and lobstermen reeled in a temporary victory after a federal court agreed to lift a 10-month stay on a lawsuit that seeks to reverse Obama-era protections for the first national marine monument in the Atlantic Ocean.

In September 2016, former President Barack Obama used powers under the Antiquities Act to designate the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Monument.

The 5,000-square-mile monument, rich with deep coral and home to sperm whales, sea turtles and dolphins, is located just off the Georges Bank near Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

The Obama-era order closed off the area to commercial fisherman, except for a handful of crabbers who were grandfathered into the deal and allowed to continue trawling for just seven years more until fishing activity would be completely barred in the region.

The plaintiffs who originally challenged the monument designation in March 2017 include the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Atlantic Offshore Lobsterman’s Association, the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, the Rhode Island Fisherman’s Alliance and the Garden State Seafood Association.

In their original lawsuit, the groups claimed Obama “exceeded his power under the Antiquities Act” when cordoning off the ocean acreage.

They argued the sea is not “land owned or controlled by the Federal government and thus not within the president’s proclaiming authority.”

“Unless a permanent injunction is issued to forbid the implementation of the proclamation’s fishing prohibitions, plaintiffs are and will continue to be irreparably harmed … and will continue to suffer a diminution of income, reduced fishing opportunities and depletion of their investment in their boats and permits,” the March 2017 complaint states.

This March 15, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg finally agreed to allow the fisherman’s lawsuit to continue, effectively turning up  pressure on the Trump administration to act.

Read the full story at the Courthouse News Service

 

National Ocean Policy Coalition U.S. Senate Hearing Recap

December 14, 2017 —  The following was released by the National Ocean Policy Coalition:

The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard yesterday held an oversight hearing on the National Ocean Policy (NOP), featuring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, and Family Farm Alliance, along with minority witness Kathy Metcalf of the Chamber of Shipping of America. An archived video of the hearing is accessible here.

Chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK) presided over the hearing, with Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-MI) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) joining Sullivan in the witness Q&A, with Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) also in attendance during portions of the hearing.

As more fully described below in the detailed hearing notes, Chairman Sullivan and majority witnesses highlighted the negative impacts and risks involved with the NOP, including the mandatory and regulatory nature of it, increased bureaucracy (highlighted in part through a visual poster chart on display in the hearing room), broad scope in terms of impacted industries and geographic areas (including inland areas), increased uncertainty, new regulatory burdens and overlays (including Regional Planning Body efforts to identify special areas), and conflicts with existing statutes. In doing so, it was noted that all such impacts resulted from the Executive Order in the absence of any statutory authority and in contravention of congressional will and intent.

Majority witnesses also highlighted NOP concerns related to litigation risks, deficiencies in data and a lack of science, non-government funding of NOP activities, lack of transparency, and the fact that negative impacts have already resulted.

In addition, the minority witness also relayed questions and concerns about the NOP, including questioning why inland activities were ever contemplated for a policy that was supposed to focus on the ocean, and noted that while good pieces of the policy need to be kept, others need to be addressed (in part highlighting her organization’s previous concerns about what happens with Regional Planning Body decisions and whether they could lead to regulations). They also acknowledged that uncertainty still exists with the NOP, and suggested that vacating the NOP would be acceptable if that is what it takes to be “where we need to be,” but that “we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

During witness questioning, Sen. Blumenthal referred to a visual on display in the hearing room that depicted the complex bureaucracy created by the Executive Order, calling it a “mishmash” of oversight that wouldn’t become any clearer regardless of how close one got to the chart.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Sullivan

In his opening statement, Chairman Sullivan highlighted concerns with the NOP, noting that it significantly departs from ocean policy under the George W. Bush administration, threatens to impose new regulatory burdens and litigation risks, was established with questionable statutory authority and without congressional authorization, has done more harm than good, is a top-down initiative that could negatively impact a range of activities including those on land, creates conflicts with existing laws, and could undermine existing structures like regional ocean partnerships and fishery management councils. He also noted that numerous congressional efforts to establish a similar policy failed under both Republican and Democrat leadership.

Recognizing that the policy’s architects have asserted that the policy’s goal was to unite stakeholders and streamline decision-making, Sullivan also noted that those are shared goals but that this particular policy could have the opposite effect. Sullivan also drew attention to the complex bureaucracy created by the NOP, using a poster chart to highlight the various bodies and councils that were established under the Executive Order, and noted that goals to increase data sharing and promote science-based decision-making have widespread support.

Ranking Member Peters

Ranking Member Peters noted the NOP’s recognition of the Great Lakes and noted the history of ocean policy in recent administrations following passage of the Ocean Act in 2000. In doing so, he noted that the Obama Administration introduced new components through the NOP like coastal and marine spatial planning, and expressed regret that the Subcommittee would not hear from state and federal agency witnesses about the successes and lessons learned following the 2010 Executive Order. Peters also asked for letters of support from the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, and several industries to be read into the record.

Long Island Commercial Fishing Association

In asking for Congress’s help to rein in the NOP, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association Executive Director Bonnie Brady talked about her background and experience with the NOP to date, calling the policy one of the greatest threats the Long Island commercial fishing industry has ever seen. She also provided a firsthand account of her experience in dealing with the Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) established under the Executive Order, and the burdens associated with that engagement.

In doing so, Brady highlighted major concerns regarding the inadequacy and inaccuracy of data being relied upon by the RPBs, the NOP’s attempt to grant various statutory powers to RPBs, the impact that RPB activities including efforts to identify special areas could have on the commercial fishing community, the funding of NOP/RPB activities by groups with anti-development biases, and the lack of transparency surrounding NOP implementation. At the conclusion of her statement, Chairman Sullivan thanked Brady for her “very powerful” testimony.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

In calling for the NOP to be rescinded and Congress to continue to deny funding for its implementation, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute Senior Vice President Christopher Guith emphasized the unnecessary, bureaucratic, and unauthorized nature of the NOP, and the far-reaching impacts that it could have on various activities including those that take place well inland. In doing so, he highlighted concerns about the policy’s coastal and marine spatial planning component and how it could close off areas to human uses and result in plans that exclude uses. He highlighted that the risks are real and already present, with federal agencies directed to implement the policy and plans already developed in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, and with the previous administration citing the policy in part as justification for precluding energy activities in any new areas through 2017. Guith also highlighted the widespread support across various economic groups around the country for reining in the NOP, and noted that the NOP is a step in the wrong direction and was an aggressive regulatory action in search of a problem.

Family Farm Alliance

In voicing support for executive and congressional action to vacate the NOP, Family Farm Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen talked about the potential for the NOP to affect activities well inland, including agriculture, calling the NOP another unhelpful level of federal management and oversight. He specifically voiced concern that Regional Planning Bodies could increase the role of federal agencies in inland areas, and said that the policy’s Ecosystem-Based Management component allows the RPBs to potentially address inland activities in a way that could be leveraged by critics of irrigated agriculture to limit or restrict such activities. Keppen also noted the lack of clarity about the federal resources that have been committed to NOP activities over the years, and said that existing mechanisms should be allowed to work rather than relying on the NOP and the unnecessary duplication and confusion it has created.

Chamber of Shipping of America

In asking the Subcommittee not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Chamber of Shipping of America President and CEO Kathy Metcalf emphasized areas of agreement among the witnesses, such as the importance of coordination and collaboration.  In doing so, she said that the NOP is about good governance, and said that the existing ocean governance structure could use some help. At the same time, Metcalf said that the good pieces need to be left intact while other aspects of the NOP need to be addressed. As to the latter point, she noted previous concerns her organization had about the NOP, including what happens with RPB decisions and whether they could lead to new regulations, adding that her industry cannot afford to have different requirements in different regions of the country.

In expressing support for ocean planning, Metcalf referenced use of regional ocean data portals and the need for accurate data, said that poor planning could reduce navigation safety, and added that the NOP is about helping agencies do a better job under their existing authorities rather than regulations. She closed by expressing hope that the federal government would continue to allow stakeholders and agencies to work with each other either under the current NOP structure or a revised structure, and cited the redrawing of shipping lanes in Boston Harbor as one example of how collaboration can work.

Chairman Sullivan Witness Q&A

Chairman Sullivan noted issues with stakeholders being heard under the NOP, stakeholder costs associated with engaging on it, and the difficulty of navigating through the complex NOP bureaucracy. In response, Brady said her biggest concern is areas being closed off to fishing, the absence of real science in the process, and major deficiencies in data being used by RPBs.

Sullivan also focused on the non-voluntary nature of the NOP, including the requirement that federal agencies participate regardless of whether all states in a given region decide not to engage. Guith agreed, and noted that while everyone agrees on the importance of sustainable uses, the NOP lacks the requisite statutory authority, adding that lawsuits should be expected if final regulatory actions are taken pursuant to the NOP, and further agreeing with Sullivan that the lack of congressional authorization and congressional action to stop its implementation further demonstrates that the NOP is on shaky legal ground.

In noting that some elements discussed in the NOP are important, Sullivan also asked the minority witness what she had challenges with, noting opposition and concerns expressed by other maritime labor and transportation groups over the years. In response, Metcalf said they look at the NOP as a tool to help agencies do their jobs better under existing authority and ensure coordination, while adding that uncertainty does exist about the NOP and questioning why references to activities occurring well inland were included in a policy focused on the ocean.

Sullivan concluded his questions by noting that the NOP was an end-run around Congress and asked the witnesses about the NOP’s most egregious element and whether there were any positive elements that could be pursued. Brady was clear in stating that the NOP should be discarded, with her worst fears being that it results in closed areas under a process that has ulterior motives, and that agencies should already be doing the jobs that they are supposed to be doing. Guith added that his greatest concerns were the NOP’s breadth and the uncertainty it has created, noting that mechanisms like the planning process under the OCS Lands Act already exist for coordination among stakeholders and government agencies. Keppen agreed that the NOP’s breadth and uncertainty were his greatest concerns, also adding that the NOP excludes non-government parties from direct participation and that the NOP needs to be vacated.

Metcalf said that if vacating the NOP is necessary to achieve shared goals and “where we need to be,” then that would be fine, but that “we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” She said some kind of federal coordinating mechanism is needed, and suggested that efforts to reduce ambiguities, clarify that the NOP won’t have impacts on inland activities, remove overreach, and ensure that the NOP won’t be a tool for mischief could be helpful.

Ranking Member Peters Witness Q&A

Ranking Member Peters asked Metcalf to talk about the importance of marine planning to the Coast Guard. In response, Metcalf said that locating and siting activities and increasing understanding of what is happening in the ocean is important to shipping from a navigation perspective as well as to the Coast Guard from a safety perspective, adding that it allows for an evaluation of threats. Asked how strategic marine planning can help meet infrastructure needs, Metcalf said it can ensure safety, effectiveness of port operations, and efficiencies that result in jobs and economic growth.

Peters also asked Brady about a statement she made to POLITICO in March 2017 in which she voiced concerns about offshore renewable energy projects in the Atlantic. After Brady verified the accuracy of the quote, Blumenthal said he agreed about the need to be careful with project decisions, and asked Brady how planning could be accomplished and whether Regional Planning Bodies could play a role. Brady said she did not see a role for Regional Planning Bodies, adding that they have placed priority on certain uses over others like fishing, and voiced support for giving NOAA a greater role in decision-making (saying NOAA’s ability to influence project proposals is currently limited to Endangered Species Act processes).

Sen. Blumenthal Witness Q&A

Sen. Blumenthal asked Metcalf how the NOP has affected shipping in medium-sized ports and whether the NOP does enough to support shipping. In response, Metcalf said that “we can always get better,” and that the more enclosed the space, the more important it is to identify user conflicts. Referring to concerns raised in Brady’s opening statement, she added that this “should never be about choosing one use over another” but instead about coordinating all uses, which she said would help ports.

In directing a question to Brady, Blumenthal referred to the “mishmash” of oversight reflected in the NOP bureaucracy chart on display in the hearing room, adding that seeing the poster any closer wouldn’t make it any more helpful to understand. He followed up by noting that an imperative of ocean policy is translating policy to action, and asked Brady what changes she would like to see in the NOP. Brady said she would like to see the NOP discarded, that she would like to see NOAA provided with a greater opportunity to deny project approvals when important fishing grounds are threatened, and conveyed support for creating an offshore wind-related compensation fund for fishermen similar to a conventional energy-related one included under the OCS Lands Act. She also noted that the fishing industry is highly regulated, to the point that the U.S. now imports 92% of seafood, compared to 52% in 1996, due to higher costs associated with stringent regulations.  She added that the NOP and associated lack of science compounds the problem.

View the entire release here.