Saving Seafood

MASSACHUSETTS: People are eating fish caught in New Bedford Harbor, survey shows

August 6, 2018 –People are eating fish they catch in New Bedford Harbor despite a public awareness campaign against it.

In a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency survey of people seen fishing in 2017, 56 people said they catch and eat fish from the inner or outer harbor, known as Areas 1 and 2. That’s 81 percent of people who were willing to answer.

For the last few years, the New England EPA office has hired local people, some bilingual or trilingual, to visit fishing spots in spring, summer and fall. They talk to people fishing from shore in New Bedford and Fairhaven, both inside and outside the hurricane barrier.

In 2017, survey workers recorded making 111 visits to 18 locations. They observed 252 people fishing and spoke with 218 people, not all of whom were fishing at the time.

Fishers reported catching a variety of species in the harbor, including scup, tautog, bluefish, striped bass and sea bass.

While not much has changed since 2016, EPA spokeswoman Kelsey Dumville said the good news is that not many people reported frequently eating fish from the most contaminated portion of the harbor, Area 1, which includes everything north of the hurricane barrier.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Pruitt resigns from EPA: What is next for Pebble?

July 10, 2018 — Fireworks rippled across dark horizons around the nation on the Fourth of July in celebration of Independence Day. The following afternoon, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s first foray into federal government leadership came to an end with no sparks, no bang, not even a dull thud. Rather, it came as a Tweet from the president.

Pruitt’s short term at the helm of the EPA was belabored by ongoing and mounting investigations into his spending on travel and security, and his use of the position to strike personal deals, including a job for his wife.

“The unrelenting attacks on me personally, my family, are unprecedented and have taken a sizable toll on all of us,” Pruitt reportedly wrote in his resignation letter.

The long list of potential violations also led close aides and EPA staffers to resign, and Pruitt was beginning to lose support from Republicans in Congress who had approved his nomination.

A whistleblower — who was fired from EPA in February for raising questions about Pruitt’s spending and management — reported that the agency kept a secret calendar to hide industry-related meetings.

The discovery of just such a meeting with representatives from Pebble Mine owner Northern Dynasty resulted in an immediate flip-flop of EPA’s decision to forestall the mine under the Clean Water Act.

After Pruitt’s May 1 meeting with Pebble Partnership CEO Tom Collier, Northern Dynasty published a press release on May 12 declaring that EPA had settled the lawsuit in exchange for a reversal of the agency’s 2014 decision that the mine would violate the Clean Water Act and threaten Bristol Bay’s wild salmon population.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

Mining power: EPA’s Pruitt aims to short-circuit Clean Water Act

June 29, 2018 — Three days before the deadline for public comments on the proposed Pebble Mine project  in Alaska’s Bristol Bay, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt directed his staff to create a rule limiting the agency’s ability to regulate projects under Clean Water Act guidelines.

These are the exact guidelines that commercial fishermen and local tribes urged Obama-administration EPA officials to invoke to protect Bristol Bay, Alaska’s salmon gold mine.

In a memo dated Tuesday, June 26, Pruitt directed the EPA’s Office of Water to submit the following changes, at minimum, to the Office of Management and Budget within the next six months:

• Eliminating the authority to initiate the section 404(c) process before a section 404 permit application has been filed with the Corps or a state, otherwise known as the “preemptive veto.”

• Eliminating the authority to initiate the section 404(c) process after a permit has been issued by the Corps or a state, otherwise known as the “retroactive veto.”

• Requiring a regional administrator to obtain approval from EPA Headquarters before initiating the section 404(c) process.

• Requiring a regional administrator to review and consider the findings of a final Environmental Assessment or environmental impact statement by the Corps or a state before preparing and publishing notice of a proposed determination.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

Pointing at Pebble, EPA leader looks to rein in agency’s veto power

June 28, 2018 — In a sweeping memo released today, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt asked the agency to propose changes to how it uses the Clean Water Act.

In the memo, Pruitt wrote that the action would fit in with his larger aim to “ensure predictability and regulatory certainty and take actions based upon a comprehensive understanding of the facts.”

The proposal would eliminate EPA’s ability to preemptively or retroactively veto permits for waste discharge in waterways, restricting the agency’s ability to step in and regulate large projects. However, the proposal is far from final.

Under the Obama administration, EPA used its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to propose restrictions on the Pebble Mine before the developer applied for a permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

That essentially halted the controversial project until last year, when EPA reached a settlement with Pebble under the Trump administration. Then in January, Pruitt suspended the agency’s move to reconsider the Obama-era proposal, saying Pebble may pose an “unacceptable” risk to Bristol Bay, home to one of the most valuable salmon fisheries in the world.

Read the full story at Alaska Public Media

Trump’s plan to overhaul government would give Interior and EPA more power

June 22, 2018 — The White House on Thursday unveiled a radical overhaul of the federal bureaucracy, including many of the agencies managing energy and natural resources.

The Trump administration’s ideas for revamping which agencies are tasked with certain energy and environmental responsibilities — such as managing the nation’s fisheries and flood infrastructure — are part of a broader reorganization plan that calls for sweeping changes such as merging the Labor and Education departments.

But the reorganization effort calls for a level of consolidation that Congress, which would need to approve the plan, is unlikely to sign off on.

It has long been the goal of many conservatives to streamline federal work on energy and environmental issues. Many Republican candidates for president have even promised to eliminate entire departments, such as when Rick Perry suggested during the 2012 race to shutter the Energy Department, which he now runs, and when Donald Trump in 2016 once called for closing the Environmental Protection Agency.

But President Trump’s latest plan is much smaller in scale than any of those campaign-trail promises.

In fact, instead of asking for the eradication of the EPA, the president’s proposal calls upon the agency to take on even more work. Under the plan, the EPA’s Superfund program would absorb portions of hazardous site cleanup programs run by the Interior and Agriculture departments. However, at the same time the EPA would also reduce or otherwise “recalibrate” its oversight of state-run pollution-control programs.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

Muddled communications on mercury causing consumer confusion

June 6, 2018 — It’s a rare occasion when representatives of industry, academia, and government all agree.

The fact that the U.S. seafood industry, an army of health experts, and the U.S. government all want to see the country’s population consume more seafood is a sign of how universal the agreement is surrounding the health benefits of seafood consumption.

But in seeking to achieve that objective, consensus often breaks down over the best way to communicate the benefits to consumers. One of the biggest points of division is the issue of mercury contamination in fish, since scientific studies on the potential harm of mercury in seafood are often conflicting and a source of frustration to consumers.

Jay Shimshack, an asssociate professor of public policy and economics at the University of Virginia and an expert in environmental and health policy, told SeafoodSource the problem lies with the way policymakers frame the message when issuing health advisories.

“Fish consumption advice is often complex and confusing. Message-framing matters a lot, and real-world constraints like affordability are as important as the true risks and benefits,” Shimshack said.

Consumers are told eating a variety of fish can be good for them, Shimshack said.

“But [they are told], ‘Do not consume some species [and be] careful not to consume too much of other species,’” Shimshack said. “Current U.S. commercial fish advisories list more than 60 species, and species names are not always consistent from one time and place to the next.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

MASSACHUSETTS: New England EPA chief makes first visit to New Bedford

June 6, 2018 — The New England regional administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency talked climate change, Superfund and harbor economics on Tuesday during her first visit to New Bedford.

Appointed in November by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Alexandra “Alex” Dunn spent the day in the city with Erin Chancellor, counsel to Pruitt, and New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell. They visited sites related to the Superfund work in New Bedford Harbor and met with waterfront business people at the New Bedford Whaling Museum.

“It is really exciting to be here today,” Dunn said, speaking at Riverside Park.

She said New Bedford Harbor is one of only two sites in New England on Pruitt’s list of redevelopment priorities, along with Raymark Industries in Stratford, Connecticut, “and that makes it a very special site to us.”

“This one of those sites that has that incredible redevelopment potential,” she said.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

U.S. Senator Cantwell Calls for Public Meetings in Washington State, Increased Transparency for Bristol Bay Mine Permitting

June 1, 2018 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the Office of Senator Maria Cantwell: 

As the Army Corps of Engineers considers the environmental impact of the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) today called on the Army Corps to hold public meetings in Washington state and to expand the public comment period to give Washington state fishermen, shipbuilders, sportsmen, small businesses, and other stakeholders the opportunity to weigh in on the impact of the proposed mine.

“Due to the importance of Bristol Bay fisheries to our economy, Washington fishermen, suppliers and businesses have an enormous interest in ensuring that Bristol Bay salmon continue to thrive for generations,” Cantwell wrote. “Washington state fishermen, sportsmen, and small business owners deserve to have a seat at the table as the Army Corps considers the proposed Pebble Mine…. The stakes are too high to leave out these important voices.”

The Pebble Mine, a proposed open-pit copper and gold mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed, would threaten millions of wild salmon that return to the area every year. More than 51 million sockeye salmon are expected to migrate back to Bristol Bay this year, making it the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery. In a letter to Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works R.D. James, Cantwell emphasized the economic and environmental importance of Bristol Bay to the livelihoods of thousands of Washingtonians.

“Pacific Northwest fishermen, shipbuilders, suppliers, sportsmen and restaurants have built an economy around this one-of-a-kind sustainable fishery,” Senator Cantwell continued. “The commercial sockeye fishery is valued at $1.5 billion in annual economic output, including $500 million in direct income. Bristol Bay supports 12,000 commercial fishing jobs and another 10,000 salmon-related industry jobs across the United States, including thousands of jobs in Washington state. In addition to commercial fisheries, private anglers take an estimated 37,000 fishing trips every year to Bristol Bay, generating $60 million in economic activity and supporting another 850 full and part time jobs.”

The Pebble Mine threatens to irreparably harm the Bristol Bay watershed, the 40-60 million salmon that return to it every year, and the fishermen and industries that rely on these salmon. A three-year study by the Environmental Protection Agency released in 2014 found that the mine as proposed would, even in the course of normal, safe mine operations, destroy 24 to 94 miles of pristine waterways and salmon habitat and contaminate an additional 48-62 miles of streams with toxic mine waste.

Senator Cantwell has long fought to protect the Bristol Bay watershed and its important environmental and economic place in the Pacific Northwest. In 2011, Cantwell announced that she would oppose the Pebble Mine if it threatened wild salmon and the fishing industry. In January of 2014, she called on the Obama Administration to protect Bristol Bay from mining after a report showed the proposed mine would threaten salmon runs and damage the commercial fishing industry. In July of 2014, Cantwell praised proposed science-based protections for the Bristol Bay watershed. And in October of 2017, Cantwell and other members of the Washington state congressional delegation urged President Trump to listen to Washington fishermen and businesses before removing protections from Bristol Bay.

A copy of the letter is available HERE and below.

May 31, 2018

Dear Assistant Secretary James,

I write to call on the Army Corps of Engineers to expand opportunities for public comment and testimony during the public scoping period and subsequent public comment periods in the Corps Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska. It is critical that the Army Corps is as rigorous, transparent and thorough as possible to ensure that Bristol Bay salmon and the jobs that rely on them are protected from the potentially devastating impacts of the proposed Pebble Mine. Your agency’s process must include stakeholders impacted by this decision, which includes Washington state fishermen and small businesses who rely on Bristol Bay and Bristol Bay salmon for their livelihood.

This year, more than 51 million sockeye salmon are expected to return to Bristol Bay, the world’s largest sockeye fishery and one of the world’s largest Chinook fisheries. Pacific Northwest fishermen, shipbuilders, suppliers, sportsmen and restaurants have built an economy around this one-of-a-kind sustainable fishery. The commercial sockeye fishery is valued at $1.5 billion in annual economic output, including $500 million in direct income. Bristol Bay supports 12,000 commercial fishing jobs and another 10,000 salmon-related industry jobs across the United States, including thousands of jobs in Washington state. In addition to commercial fisheries, private anglers take an estimated 37,000 fishing trips every year to Bristol Bay, generating $60 million in economic activity and supporting another 850 full and part time jobs.

The Corps estimates the final Pebble Mine EIS will be completed as early as 2019, with a decision on the project expected in early 2020. I am extremely concerned about this expedited timeline, especially considering the magnitude of the proposed Pebble Mine. Comparatively, the proposed Donlin Gold Project in Western Alaska is in the midst of a six year permitting process. Public Scoping for Donlin Gold began in March of 2013 and the Preliminary Draft EIS was completed in June of 2015—a full two years later. The Draft EIS was then published in November of 2015 and was followed by a full six month comment period until May of 2016, allowing for thorough and repeated opportunities for public participation and technical comments on the project. This thorough environmental review is critical to ensuring best available science is used in public policy decision making, and to make certain all voices are heard.

In addition to the ongoing 90-day public comment period for the scoping process, the Corps had announced only nine public scoping meetings, all in the state of Alaska. There are no public meetings scheduled in Washington state. This expedited process is grossly insufficient, and does not allow my constituents the opportunity to participate in the permitting process in person. As Washington state residents are directly impacted by the permitting decision for the proposed Pebble Mine, I urge to the Corps hold public meetings in Washington state.

Due to the importance of Bristol Bay fisheries to our economy, Washington fishermen, suppliers and businesses have an enormous interest in ensuring that Bristol Bay salmon continue to thrive for generations. Washington state fishermen, sportsmen, and small business owners deserve to have a seat at the table as the Army Corps considers the proposed Pebble Mine. If permitted, the Pebble Mine would be one of the largest mines in our nation’s history—located in the headwaters of one of the greatest salmon runs on earth. The stakes are too high to leave out these important voices.

 

Bristol Bay advocates argue against Pebble in D.C.

April 20, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Anti-mine advocates with the Bristol Bay Native Corp. made the rounds in Washington, D.C., this week to get a word in with regulators and lawmakers about the ongoing permit process for the proposed Pebble Mine.

The visit came as the a round of public events wrapped up in Anchorage Thursday.

The group’s members said that they aren’t happy with the way the Army Corps of Engineers is running the show, but that they have confidence that the Environmental Protection Agency and Alaska’s congressional delegation will help them stand in the way of the potential gold, copper and molybdenum mine that they worry will poison headwaters of the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries.

The will-they-or-won’t-they saga of the Pebble prospect has run on for more than a decade, with no sign of a permit application until December. Now the anti-Pebble advocates, including Bristol Bay salmon fishermen and a slew of environmental groups, are arguing that the process is going to fast.

The Trump administration’s EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, initially balked at a watershed assessment crafted under the Obama administration, but put the decision-making document back on the table earlier this year.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News

 

Public comment period on Pebble Mine starting soon amidst controversy

March 29, 2018 — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is opening a public comment period on the scope of the planned Pebble Mine in southwestern Alaska, and some lawmakers want the Environmental Protection Agency to pay attention.

The proposed copper and gold mine in Bristol Bay has been the source of controversy for several years as the fishing industry and other groups have fought against it, claiming such an operation could impact their operations and the environment.

The Corps plans eight meetings, scheduled from 9 to 19 April, to gather public comments and will also accept them online for 30 days starting on Sunday, 1 April. At the meetings, Corps officials will also give the public additional information about its process in developing the environmental impact statement. The draft statement is scheduled to be released in January, after which another public comment period will begin.

Bristol Bay is home to more than 50 million salmon, which produced an annual economic impact of USD 1.5 billion (EUR 1.21 billion). Mine proponents say the area holds about 80 billion pounds of copper and that it would help alleviate America’s need to import the mineral used for electrical wiring and other everyday needs.

In January, the EPA released a statement upholding a ruling made by the administration of then-U.S. President Barack Obama in 2014 that placed restrictions on the proposed mine, saying it would significantly impact the bay’s sockeye salmon fishery. Scott Pruitt, the agency’s current administrator under the administration of President Donald Trump, said in January the order didn’t block the proposed mine outright. However, it would give the agency time to get information and determine the mine’s potential environmental impact.

Earlier this month, three Republican congressional leaders wrote to Pruitt with concerns over that decision, saying the 2014 ruling was unprecedented under the Clean Water Act. U.S. Representatives Lamar Smith, Rob Bishop, and Paul Gosar claim agency officials involved in assessing the proposal unduly influenced the decision.

Read the full story at Seafood Source