Saving Seafood

Barry Myers, Trump’s pick to run NOAA, declares humans are main cause of climate change

November 29, 2017 — In his Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday morning, Barry Myers, President Trump’s choice to run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said he agrees humans are the primary driver of recent climate change.

Myers’s unambiguous acceptance of the human role in climate change marks a clean break from other members of the Trump administration, including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and Trump himself — all of whom have questioned the extent of human contributions.

Myers, the chief executive of the private weather forecasting company AccuWeather, was first questioned about human contributions to climate change by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass). Markey asked Myers if he agreed with the climate science report released by 13 federal agencies earlier this month which stated it is “extremely likely” human activities are the dominant cause of recent climate warming. “I have no reason to disagree with the reports,” Myers said.

Markey pressed Myers further. “So you agree humans are the main cause of climate change?” he asked. Myers responded, “Yes.”

In a written response to questioning from Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Myers also said he accepted the federal report and a supportive statement from the American Meteorological Society “as the current state of the articulated science.”

Despite these authoritative reports, efforts to publicize climate change science research findings have been undermined at a number of federal agencies, probably reflecting the dismissive stance of their leadership. The EPA, for example, took down its climate change website and blocked researchers from presenting scientific results at a recent conference.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

 

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.

Activists say proposed EPA cuts threaten Maine

August 16, 2017 — SCARBOROUGH, Maine — Officials and experts spoke out against President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, saying they could hurt beaches, air quality, and tourism, and contribute to sea level rise and damage the health of Maine residents.

The remarks came at a press conference Aug. 10 at Scarborough Beach State Park, hosted by the Natural Resources Council of Maine.

“President Trump’s EPA budget could spoil Maine coastal towns, beaches, water, and air,” Emmie Theberge, federal project director for the NRCM, said. “The Trump Administration and its allies in Congress are endangering our children and communities by pushing to gut environmental protections that are critical to Maine people and our economy.

“These cuts would affect every corner of Maine, but today we are focused on coastal impacts in particular,” Theberge said. “Sea-level rise could cause widespread economic impacts and costly property damage in Maine communities up and down the coast. Maine can’t afford to have EPA turn its back on climate science and the resources needed to help states prepare. These cuts mean more asthma attacks for our kids, more health problems for Maine’s elderly, and more ‘Code Red’ bad air days when vulnerable people must stay indoors.”

During the event it was announced a letter, signed by more than 70 organizations, is being sent to Maine’s U.S. senators and representatives, urging them to do “everything possible” to maintain the EPA’s budget “at no less than current funding levels. The health of our air, water, people, and economy is at stake.”  

Read the full story at The Forecaster

Climate change: 5 signs it’s already begun in New Jersey

August 11, 2017 — By now, most are aware of the dire warnings: Climate change is coming and its effects are going to be especially painful for residents of the Jersey Shore.

While the timing of the truly catastrophic predictions remains fuzzy — Will the barrier islands be lost in 2050? 2100? Later? Sooner? — there are signs that irreversible change has already begun.

From economic and public health challenges to the more obvious outcomes of heat waves and rising seas, climate change has a foothold in New Jersey.

1. Migrating fish

There are about 3,000 commercial fishermen in New Jersey and thousands more who work at processing plants, wholesalers or in shellfishing.

“Fishermen knew about climate change a long time ago,” said Tom Fote, an officer with the Jersey Coast Anglers Association. “We started seeing stocks of fish moving farther north.”

As water temperatures rise, fish move northward, seeking deeper, cooler waters. Higher acidity in the ocean damages crabs, scallops, clams and other shellfish, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Read the full story at the Asbury Park Press

Use the whole fish: Japanese restaurant in New York limits waste

July 7, 2017 — Chef Yuji Haraguchi serves and stands by “Mottainai” – the Japanese concept of avoiding waste – and makes it known at his restaurant in New York by throwing away as little as possible.

Haraguchi, who emigrated from Japan to the United States in 2007, purchases his fish locally and uses the meat at his walk-in only restaurant, Okonomi, for breakfast and lunch.

“After working in the fish industry for so many years, I just realized that there are so many parts of fish that are not being utilized, which is the heads and the bones, mostly,” said Haraguchi, who opened the 12-seat restaurant in New York City’s borough of Brooklyn in May 2014.

“I was seeing it every day, and I wanted to find a way to utilize those underutilized parts of the fish and also the underutilized species of fish.”

At Okonomi, chefs simmer the head and bones of the fish for ramen stock, which they serve at dinner when the eatery transforms into Yuji Ramen with an a la carte menu of seafood-rich ramen.

After serving 69 breakfast meals and 59 bowls of ramen to roughly 130 people on a recent day, a staffer tossed out a single garbage bag when he closed the restaurant, according to Haraguchi.

Less than one-tenth of the food at Okonomi/Yuji Ramen is thrown away, according to Haraguchi.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says more food fills incinerators and landfills than any other material. Food makes up a fifth of the waste stream in the United States.

“Whatever comes in, we try to serve it,” Haraguchi said, adding that he avoids stockpiling food and mixes up the menu regularly to keep customers satisfied.

Read the full story at Reuters

Trump budget guts NOAA, slashes marine science and conservation efforts

May 26, 2017 — U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget, released on Tuesday, 23 May, includes drastic reductions in the budgets of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Those cuts could harm fisheries, ocean conservation efforts, and domestic seafood consumption, according to seafood and food policy groups.

Trump’s budget for the Commerce Department calls for cuts of USD 1.5 billion (EUR 1.3 billion) – the majority targeted at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The budget for NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service operations, research and facilities would be slashed by nearly USD 43 million (EUR 38 million), and the Trump budget cuts would also eliminate USD 250 million (EUR 223 million) in NOAA’s coastal research programs, including the Sea Grant program, which works with universities to support sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, as well as healthy coastal ecosystems.

Gavin Gibbons, a spokesman for the National Fisheries Institute, told SeafoodSource his organization has not yet conducted a thorough review of the budget cuts, but said the group supports full funding for NOAA.

“NOAA is a platinum-level sustainability oversight agency. Its work managing U.S. fisheries is recognized the world over as exceptional,” NFI spokesman Gavin Gibbons said. “Fully funding the essential services that NOAA provides U.S. fisheries is important to not just the future of the resource, but jobs associated with the stocks it helps maintain.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Trump wants to end grants that support Maine fishing jobs

March 20, 2017 — The national $73 million Sea Grant program, which includes about a dozen researchers affiliated with the University of Maine, could be eliminated if Congress approves drastic budget cuts proposed for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by President Trump.

Funding for the state’s Department of Marine Resources and for collecting weather and climate data in the Gulf of Maine also could be put at risk by the president’s proposal.

Paul Anderson, director of the Sea Grant program at University of Maine, said Tuesday that the money NOAA has funded for the program has been “money well spent” because it has helped draw additional funding to Maine and has helped spur economic development.

“I think [Trump] has just got a fundamentally different attitude about government,” Anderson said Tuesday, without going into further detail. “What [people can do to try to protect the program] is write to our congressmen and senators.”

Trump’s administration already is considering slashing funding for the U.S. Coast Guard, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, and for the Environmental Protection Agency, which provides about 20 percent of Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection annual funding. Now, according to the Washington Post, the federal Office of Management and Budget is looking to cut funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by 17 percent.

Read the full story at the Bangor Daily News

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Skeptical Of Federal Agency Power

March 17, 2017 — At most Supreme Court confirmation hearings, questions focus on hot-button social issues — abortion, affirmative action, same-sex marriage — and the hearings next week on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch will be no exception.

But senators are also likely to spend a lot of time examining the nominee’s views on federal regulations — of the environment, health and safety laws for workers, and laws on consumer rights and business.

In question is a doctrine that Gorsuch has criticized but that also once helped his mother.

The Chevron doctrine

The Chevron decision is perhaps the most cited case in American law. Decided unanimously in 1984, it established a general rule of deferring to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute.

The idea is that in passing a law, Congress sets out broad provisions and tells agencies that have considerable expertise to establish rules for carrying out the law’s mandates. In short, the agency is to fill in the details.

The Chevron case stems from the Reagan administration. When President Ronald Reagan took office in the early 1980s, the White House adopted more permissive rules for air pollution caused by manufacturing plants. The Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Environmental Protection Agency, then under the leadership of Anne Gorsuch, contending the agency had exceeded its authority.

Read the full story at NPR

Trump budget plan would slam Bay

March 7, 2016 — The Chesapeake Bay Program and other federal initiatives that could impact the Bay have been targeted for steep cuts in preliminary Trump administration budget plans sent to federal agencies, prompting alarm from conservation groups and lawmakers alike.

According to a report in The Washington Post, a budget blueprint for the 2018 federal fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, would cut the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by nearly a quarter, from $8.2 billion to $6.1 billion, and slash its workforce from 15,000 to 12,000.

Included was a massive 93 percent cut — from $73 million to $5 million — to its Bay Program Office, which coordinates the state-federal partnership. The funding supports research, monitoring and modeling efforts, but the lion’s share — 72 percent — goes to states and local governments to support cleanup efforts.

“The proposed reduction in federal investment in Chesapeake Bay would reverse restoration successes,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation President Will Baker. “The EPA role in the cleanup of the Chesapeake is nothing less than fundamental. It’s not just important, it’s critical.”

He noted that a bipartisan group of 17 House members from the Bay watershed last month called on the Trump administration to preserve full funding for the EPA’s Bay efforts, and said he hoped the agency’s new administrator, Scott Pruitt, would support the program.

The budget proposal was developed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, without input from agencies.

During his confirmation hearing, Pruitt said the Bay effort was something that should be a “model” for the nation, and that “EPA plays a leadership role in mediating cross-state air and water pollution.”

Besides the Chesapeake Bay, funding for the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico and Puget Sound were also slated for similarly massive cuts of 90 percent or more.

Read the full story at The Bay Journal