Saving Seafood

Alaska gears up for new round of Pebble Mine fight

October 12, 2017 — As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers removing limitations against a proposed mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region, opponents of the measure are making their stances known.

With less than a week before the EPA’s 17 October deadline for public comment, more than 40 Democratic House and Senate members sent a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to maintain Clean Water Act restrictions against the proposed copper and gold mine in the southeastern part of the state. In addition, a group of business leaders formed a coalition that pledges to defend the fishing industry it says would be harmed by the mine.

“Bristol Bay’s sustainable salmon resource is the foundation of our region’s economy, food security, and culture,” said Norm Van Vactor, president of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation in a statement released by Businesses for Bristol Bay. “The proposed Pebble Mine threatens all of this and would only provide a limited number of jobs for a limited number of years.  It’s not worth the risk to the people, fishermen, and businesses of Bristol Bay.  Our region has said it before and we’ll keep saying it – the Pebble Mine is the wrong mine in the wrong place.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Cantwell, Huffman, Colleagues to Trump Admin: “Listen to Our Fishermen” and Save Bristol Bay from the Pebble Mine

White House plan to reverse clean water rules paves the way for construction of Pebble Mine, a catastrophic move for Bristol Bay watershed, 60 million salmon, and more than 20,000 jobs

Decision flies in the face of science and basic reason, made with no public input from fishermen or business groups

October 11, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the office of Senator Maria Cantwell:

Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Rep. Jared Huffman (CA-02), and 40 of their colleagues in the House and Senate sent a forceful letter to President Trump urging caution and a careful consideration of the facts before his administration removes the science-based environmental rules that protect Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the fishermen who depend on it.

Removing the existing clean water protections allows for the construction of Pebble Mine, an open-pit copper and gold mine that could have a depth equivalent to as much as two and a half Trump Towers. The mine would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the Bristol Bay watershed and the 40-60 million salmon who return to it every year. A three-year Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study in 2014 found that the proposed mine would, even in the course of normal, safe mine operations, destroy 24 to 94 miles of salmon-producing waterways and pristine environment.

The University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research found that the Bristol Bay fishery supports more than 20,000 jobs and adds $674 million of economic activity to the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The region also supports a prolific outdoor recreation industry; anglers from around the world take roughly 37,000 fishing trips annually to Bristol Bay, generating $60 million in economic activity.

“The EPA’s plan to reverse clean water safeguards is egregious and inconsistent with science, and frankly, inconsistent with basic logic,” wrote the members of Congress. “The Pebble Mine directly threatens our maritime economy and thousands of American jobs that rely on this world class fishery. We ask you to listen to America’s fishermen and businesses and reverse EPA’s decision to undo strong protections and clean water safeguards in Bristol Bay.”

Cantwell, Huffman, and their colleagues note the process that established the current clean water safeguards were the result of rigorous scientific analysis and peer review, over one million public comments, and eight public hearings.

In stark contrast, the Trump Administration’s recent decision to roll back the protections has no scientific basis and has been carefully removed from the public eye. There has been no input from stakeholders such as the fishing, tourism, and outdoor industries. Only two public hearings have been noticed, neither of which are scheduled for Washington, Oregon or California where many Bristol Bay commercial and sports fishermen reside.

In their letter, the members of Congress also called for public hearings, a 90-day extension of the public comment period, and other transparency measures to ensure the public is allowed to make their voices heard. Restrictions on mining have the support of 90% of local Bristol Bay residents.

Senator Cantwell successfully led the fight to save Bristol Bay when Pebble Mine was first proposed. In 2011, she urged the EPA to use authority under the Clean Water Act to block large scale development in Bristol Bay. She continued the drumbeat through 2014, when she rallied supporters at Fisherman’s Terminal in Seattle to urge President Obama and the EPA to continue to prevent mining in the area.

In addition to Sen. Cantwell and Rep. Huffman, 40 additional member of Congress signed the letter including: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representatives Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Barbara Lee (CA-13), Grace Napolitano (CA-32), Jackie Speier (CA-14), Anna Eshoo (CA-18), William Keating (MA-09), Adam Smith (WA-09), Denny Heck (WA-10), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-Del.), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), Dwight Evans (PA-02), Peter DeFazio (OR-04), Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Emanual Cleaver, II (MO-05), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Derek Kilmer (WA-06), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11), Judy Chu (CA-27), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Jerry McNerney (CA-9), John Garamendi (CA-3), Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Jimmy Panetta (CA-20), Donald S. Beyer, Jr. (VA-08), Norma Torres (CA-35), Doris Matsui (CA-06), Ted Lieu (CA-33), Linda Sánchez (CA-38), Julia Brownley (CA-26), and Salud Carbajal (CA-24).

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Request for Comments: Application for Incidental Take of Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River, Virginia.

August 15, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

We recently received an application from Dominion for an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit for activities associated with their Chesterfield Power Station along the James River in Chesterfield, Virginia.

We are considering issuing a 10-year permit to the applicant that would authorize take of endangered Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) from the Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segment (DPS) incidental to the withdrawal of cooling water from the James River and sampling required by the Clean Water Act.

Dominion’s application for an Incidental Take Permit, their draft habitat conservation plan, and our draft environmental assessment are all available at Regulations.gov for public review and comment.

Comments are due on September 13, 2017.

Legislators Consider Changes to Ballast Water Regulations

July 6, 2016 — The following is excerpted from the television program Chicago Tonight, which is hosted by Elizabeth Brackett and aired on WTTW in Chicago:

Elizabeth Brackett: Ocean-going ships that bring their cargo into Great Lakes ports, like the Federal Biscay, unloading foreign steel at the port of Indiana’s Burns Harbor, are regulated by both the U.S. Coast Guard and the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Act.

In 2006, the Coast Guard began requiring those ships to dump the ballast water they picked up in foreign ports and pick up sea water.

That ballast water exchange must be made at least 200 nautical miles from land, in water that is 2,000 meters deep to prevent invasive species from being brought in with the new ballast water.

Shippers say those Coast Guard regulations have kept invasive species out of the Great Lakes.

James Weakley, Lake Carriers’ Association: The door was closed in 2006 when the Coast Guard stopped allowing vessels from the ocean to come in with ballast water that wasn’t managed. Not coincidentally, in 2007 the last invasive species was discovered, the bloody red shrimp, in the Great Lakes.

Brackett: Ocean-going vessels that sail the Great Lakes, called Salties, have worked on developing ballast water treatment systems. The Federal Biscay is the first ship on the Great Lakes to bring a ballast water treatment system online. Located in the bowels of the ship over the ballast water tanks, these pumps will push out the old ballast water and bring in the ocean water when the ship is at sea.

Ships, like the 678-foot Wilfred Sykes, that never sail beyond the Great Lakes, are called Lakers.

The Lakers have always been a bit concerned that they’ve gotten blamed for bringing in these invasive species, when you say primarily it’s been the Salties.

Weakley: Actually it’s exclusively been the Salties. We never leave the Great Lakes. Our ships are physically too big to get beyond the Welland Canal so we’ve been in the forefront of calling attention to the problem.

Brackett: Both the Salties and the Lakers agree that the proposed legislation called the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, which would exempt ballast water from the Clean Water Act and put the Coast Guard in charge, is needed.

Weakley: Currently we have a patchwork quilt of regulations, more than two dozen states have requirements on top of the two federal agencies, and what we’re looking to do is have a piece of legislation that has a single national standard with a single federal agency in charge.

Read the full transcript at WTTW

US Judge OKs $20B Settlement From 2010 BP Oil Spill

April 6, 2016 — A federal judge in New Orleans granted final approval Monday to an estimated $20 billion settlement over the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, resolving years of litigation over the worst offshore spill in the nation’s history.

The settlement, first announced in July, includes $5.5 billion in civil Clean Water Act penalties and billions more to cover environmental damage and other claims by the five Gulf states and local governments. The money is to be paid out over roughly 16 years. The U.S. Justice Department has estimated that the settlement will cost the oil giant as much as $20.8 billion, the largest environmental settlement in U.S. history as well as the largest-ever civil settlement with a single entity.

U.S District Judge Carl Barbier, who approved the settlement, had set the stage with an earlier ruling that BP had been “grossly negligent” in the offshore rig explosion that killed 11 workers and caused a 134-million-gallon spill.

In 2012, BP reached a similar settlement agreement with private attorneys for businesses and residents who claim the spill cost them money. That deal, which didn’t have a cap, led to a protracted court battle over subsequent payouts to businesses. A court-supervised claims administrator is still processing many of these claims.

BP has estimated its costs related to the spill, including its initial cleanup work and the various settlements and criminal and civil penalties, will exceed $53 billion.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at ABC News