Conservation & Environment

NEW ORLEANS—BP's practice of burning off spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico is probably killing endangered sea turtles, several wildlife protection groups claim in a federal lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday by the Animal Welfare Institute and other groups asks U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to restrict BP's controlled burns of oil. The crude started gushing after the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that killed 11 workers.

William Eubanks, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said it is a "virtual certainty" that turtles have been caught and burned alive in the corrals that BP PLC is using to capture and burn oil.

The groups filed a sworn statement by a charter boat captain who says he has observed BP's controlled burns and is "almost certain" that turtles were stuck in the "burn boxes."

Read the complete story at The Boston Globe.

 

 

 

 

Like David against Goliath, the Martha’s Vineyard/Dukes County Fishermen’s Association and a well-known Menemsha draggerman last week filed a lawsuit in federal court against the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, claiming that the giant wind farm planned by Cape Wind Associates for Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound threatens to put Island fishermen who work the shoal, including squidders and conchers, out of business for good.

“The lease . . . to [Cape Wind Associates for 130 turbines] will effectively end all commercial fishing in the project area.

“Horseshoe Shoal . . . [has] the best grounds for the conch fishery, which is the largest fishery on Martha’s Vineyard in terms of landed tonnage and economic value,” the lawsuit declares in part.

Written by David E. Frulla, a partner at Kelley Drye & Warren in Washington, D.C., the 14-page complaint was filed in U.S. District Court last Friday. Plaintiffs in the case are the association, which represents about 100 commercial fishermen, and Jonathan Mayhew of Chilmark, who operates the Quitsa Strider out of Menemsha and trawls Horseshoe Shoal for squid.

Mr. Doty and Mr. Mayhew admitted they have no way to pay for the lawsuit, but they hope to attract donations to their cause. “We have no money. We are working on a plan,” Mr. Doty said.

Concluded Mr. Frulla: “These are people facing the loss of their livelihood. With the trend by the administration toward quota-based management, which is yielding further concentration of boats in the industry, they are already facing a tough headwind. The small family-owned fishing boats are in trouble.”

Read the complete story from The Vineyard Gazette Online.

 

 

 

 

 

NOAA has used modeling of historical wind and ocean currents to project the likelihood that surface oil from the Deepwater Horizon/BP oil spill will impact additional U.S. coastline. This modeling, part of NOAA’s comprehensive response to the unprecedented Gulf oil disaster, can help guide the ongoing preparedness, response and cleanup efforts.

“This NOAA model shows where oil may be likely to travel, thereby giving coastal states and communities information about potential threats of shoreline impacts. This kind of information should assist in the preparation of adequate preparedness measures,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “NOAA is strongly committed to providing reliable information to the public and to responders at all levels.”

In the technical report being released today, the model’s results aggregate information from 500 distinct scenarios (model outcomes). Each assumes a 90-day oil flow rate of 33,000 barrels per day – the net amount from the flow rate ceiling of 60,000 barrels per day (the lower bound is 35,000 barrels/day) minus the daily estimated amount being skimmed, burned, and/or collected by the Top Hat mechanism. The model also accounts for the natural process of oil “weathering” or breaking down, and considers oil a threat to the shoreline if there is enough to cause a dull sheen within 20 miles of the coast. If, for example, 250 of the 500 scenarios indicated a shoreline threat for a particular area, the overall threat for that area would be a 50 percent probability.

Read the complete story from NOAA.

 

 

 

 

 

The official purpose of the October 2002 gathering of the Pew Charitable Trusts marine fellows was to train the scientists in the ways of the media, the better to market their message.

"Learn how to navigate the stormy waters of the media," read the description of one Bonaire workshop. "Packaging your message is a key to success — whether talking to the media, submitting a paper to Science or Nature (magazine), writing a grant proposal, or writing an op-ed for your local paper."

But it wasn't all business.

The workshops were followed by "barside discussions" as the sun-soaked setting blurred the line that usually separates reporters and those they cover. So, too, did it blur the line between trainers and trainees.

The scientists being trained on Bonaire had a ready pool of journalists on which to practice what they were learning about working the media. The list of reporters invited to Bonaire was a who's who of science journalism: Cornelia Dean of the New York Times, Natasha Loder of the Economist, Charles Alexander of Time magazine and Tom Hayden of U.S. News and World Report, among others.

Dean told the Gloucester Daily Times her trip to Bonaire was paid for by Pew, the powerful nonprofit that uses its multi-billion-dollar endowment to steer public policy on the environment and other issues.

While the New York Times has strict standards against junkets, Dean said, an exception is made for "teaching," and that's what she was doing in Bonaire.

"My goal was to help scientists to speak more clearly to the public," she said.

Read the complete story at The Gloucester Daily Times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How big-money enviro groups control America's fisheries

Two fishermen were hanged in effigy at a protest by a crowd of 300 outside the regional office of the federal fisheries service last October in Gloucester.

The mannequins clad in foul weather gear weren't the object of the protesters' anger. The target was the black-hooded figure presiding over the hanging.

That figure represented Jane Lubchenco, the scientist and environmental activist who runs the fisheries service as administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Read the complete story at The Gloucester Daily Times.

 

 

 

 

 

When fishermen sued the federal government last month over the new catch share rules for groundfish, they charged that The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association had received preferential treatment. The 'hookers' as they call themselves test piloted the catch share system and became the model of what a fishing fleet should be in the eyes of the government and environmental activists.

The Hookers Association was founded a decade ago with the mission of saving the jobs of local fishermen by saving fish. Its leaders were later named "environmental heroes" by the fishing regulators of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. At the same time, the Hookers aroused suspicion in the fishing industry by allying themselves with the environmental groups that the rest of the New England fishery has been fighting.

Where traditional trade groups such as the Gloucester-based Northeast Seafood Coalition are primarily funded by membership, the Hook Association made two-thirds of its $2.1 million, 2008 operating budget from grants and donations, according to financial statements. The association's donors are an eclectic mix — including small local contributors on the Cape, the federal government, the Pew Charitable Trusts and Wal-Mart's Walton Family Foundation. While the number of fishermen still working commercially on the Cape is small — around 30 boats — the Hook Association itself has a working staff of 11, with five of them making more than $50,000 a year, according to 2008 filings.

The Hookers' media operation is formidable. When the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration launched the push for catch shares, Hook Association fishermen were quoted in most news reports on the issue, including the New York Times and Boston Globe. Earlier this month, when the New England Fishery Management Council was sending signals that NOAA was considering reversing its strict limits on the pollock catch, the Hookers put out a press release saying it was a done deal. Three hours later came the announcement from the Fishery Management Council of the pending action.

The chairman of the council, John Pappalardo, is a member of the Hookers' paid staff.

Read the complete story at The Gloucester Daily Times.

 

 

 

 

 

In her June 19 guest editorial, "Setting the record straight about oil and fish," Holly Binns of the Pew Environment Group attempted to demonstrate that "the notion that Pew is somehow protecting oil interests" doesn't hold water, by writing "Pew divested from the oil company's stock more than 15 years ago."

I imagine what she meant to write was that the Pew Charitable Trusts divested themselves of Sun Oil stock back then, which is accurate as far as it goes. If I remember correctly, the trusts divested themselves of all oil/energy holdings at that time.

But is that the whole story? A quick trip to the Pew Charitable Trusts website shows that seven of the 14 members of the trusts' board of directors are Pews, direct descendants of Joseph Pew, founder of Sun Oil (now Sunoco).

Read the complete editorial at The Daytona Beach News Journal.

 

SAN FRANCISCO—(ENEWSPF)–June 24 – The Center for Biological Diversity filed a legal petition today urging the Bureau of Ocean Energy (formerly the Minerals Management Service) and National Marine Fisheries Service to increase conservation measures for essential fish habitat in the Gulf of Mexico. The agencies have failed to adequately analyze oil and gas activities that hurt habitat for fish and therefore the health of crucial fisheries – a violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

"Efforts to streamline oil-drilling approvals have resulted in important fish conservation requirements falling through the cracks," said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center. "Now fisheries and Gulf fishing communities are paying a terrible price."

Congress passed a law in 1996 designed to protect both fish and fishermen, yet the Minerals Management Service approved oil drilling in the Gulf with only superficial attention to this law, with disastrous consequences. Recognizing that habitat destruction is one of the greatest threats to fisheries, the law requires federal agencies to consult with the Fisheries Service before authorizing actions that hurt essential fish habitat – waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding and growth to maturity.

"Most federal agencies treat fish habitat consultations as a paper exercise rather than using the process to actually protect fish habitat," said Sakashita. "The Gulf of Mexico is a tragic example of that failure."

Offshore drilling has proceeded with very little attention to its impacts on fish and fisheries despite the Fisheries Service's 2009 recommendation that "[t]he impacts of all exploratory and development activities on the fisheries resources should be determined prior to MMS approval of any applications for permits to drill, including effects of seismic survey signals on fish behavior, eggs and larvae." The Minerals Management Service concluded that a subsurface blowout would have negligible effect on the Gulf's fish resources. The Center's petition seeks replacement of false and misleading statements like this with meaningful analysis of, and protections from, the adverse effects of oil and gas activities on essential fish habitat.

Fishing is one of the most important industries in the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishers in the Gulf take more than 20 million fishing trips annually, and in 2008 commercial fishermen harvested 1.27 million pounds of finfish and shellfish, earning $659 million in revenue. The Gulf of Mexico provides important spawning ground and year-round habitat for many fish species, including sharks, shrimp and coral. It is one of the only known spawning grounds for Atlantic bluefin tuna, which the Center petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act last month. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill's effects on these fish and the Gulf's fisheries will last for many years or decades.

Get the latest on the Gulf oil spill on the Center's Gulf Disaster website, updated daily.

Read the complete story at eNews Park Forest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A boat captain working to rescue sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico says he has seen BP ships burning sea turtles and other wildlife alive.

Captain Mike Ellis said in an interview posted on You Tube that the boats are conducting controlled burns to get rid of the oil.

"They drag a boom between two shrimp boats and whatever gets caught between the two boats, they circle it up and catch it on fire. Once the turtles are in there, they can’t get out," Ellis said.

Read the complete story at My FOX Tampa Bay.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oceana, the world’s largest ocean conservation organization, applauded the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) today for approving a plan to protect more than 23,000 square miles of known deep sea coral from North Carolina to Florida from destructive fishing gear. The plan, proposed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council in September 2009, will ban the use of bottom-damaging fishing gear in the largest known area of healthy deep sea coral ecosystems in the world, helping to ensure the productivity of commercial fisheries that depend on them.

“An entire ocean ecosystem was lent a helping hand today,” said Dave Allison, senior campaign director at Oceana. “Bottom trawling consumes more fuel than most other kinds of fishing and is capable of destroying these ancient coral reefs in a single pass.”

As the oil spill continues in the Gulf of Mexico, Oceana is urging the Obama administration to follow-through on protection of these vulnerable deep sea ecosystems by banning new offshore drilling immediately and permanently. Today’s actions are a brilliant example of the kind of leadership we need to protect deep sea corals along the southeast coast of the United States, at the same time as the ongoing Deepwater Horizon oil spill brings light to another extremely dangerous threat – oil.

Read the complete story at Oceana.