Saving Seafood

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

 

U.S. House Republicans – minus Don Young – needle EPA on Pebble mine decision

March 23, 2018 — WASHINGTON — House Republican leaders are weighing in on the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest efforts to restrict the proposed Pebble mine project in Alaska — and they aren’t happy about it.

The chairmen of two committees, which oversee mining and the EPA, and the head of the Western Caucus wrote to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt this month to issue concern and condemnation over a surprise January announcement that left an Obama-era decision standing.

The letter came from Reps. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology; Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, and Paul Gosar, R-Arizona, chairman of the congressional Western Caucus. But there was no signature from Alaska Rep. Don Young, though he is a top member of Bishop’s committee.

A spokeswoman for Young did not answer questions about the letter or the congressman’s position on the matter.

At the start of the year, Pruitt backed off a review of an Obama administration decision to restrict the potential scope of the proposed mining project. (The congressman did not issue a statement at the time of the EPA’s change of heart in January.)

The Pebble Partnership wants to dig a massive deposit of gold, copper and molybdenum in and around the sensitive headwaters of Bristol Bay. Pebble says it can accomplish the feat without damaging the salmon fishery. The company recently applied for an Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News

 

Trident settles with EPA on Clean Water Act violations

March 7, 2018 — Two federal agencies have reached a settlement with Trident Seafoods over Clean Water Act violations at Sand Point and Wrangell involving discharges of fish waste.

The agreement, announced on March 2, calls for Trident to remove nearly three and a half acres of waste from the seafloor near its Sand Point plant and limits on how much seafood waste is discharged from its Wrangell plant.

Trident also will pay a $297,000 civil penalty and do a comprehensive audit of the company’s system for monitoring environmental compliance, under the agreement reached with the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Justice.

The Seattle-based processor has operated a fish meal plant at Sand Point since 1996 to help limit how much fish waste is discharged into marine waters.

Yet after decades of processing, the historic waste pile exceeds the one-acre limit, and continues to impair the health of the seafloor, EPA officials said. Unauthorized discharges of seafood processing waste lead to large seafood waste piles that contain bones, shells and other organic materials that accumulate on the seafloor. Those waste piles create anoxic, or oxygen-depleted conditions that result in unsuitable habitat for fish and other living organisms.

Read the full story at the Cordova Times

 

Trump Administration Wants to Cut Budget for NOAA, But Congress Unlikely to Accept

February 20, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Seafood News Editor’s Note: The story below lays out known facts about the cuts to the federal budget made by the Trump Administration. However, it is unlikely that Congress will accept these cuts.

The Trump Administration’s $4.4 trillion federal budget for next year takes some mean whacks to programs that affect fisheries.

Off the top, the spending plan unveiled on February 12 cuts the budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) by 20 percent to $4.6 billion. Among other things, NOAA manages the nation’s fisheries in waters from three to 200 miles offshore, which produce the bulk of Alaska’s seafood landings.

It’s the cuts within the cuts that reveal the most.

NOAA Fisheries is facing a $110.4 million drop to $837.3 million, a 14 percent budget cut. That includes a $17.7 million decrease in fisheries science and management, a $5 million cut in data collection needed for stock assessments, a $5.1 million reduction in funding for catch share programs and a $2.9 million cut to cooperative research programs.

The proposals for NOAA law enforcement are even more severe – a decline of $17.8 million is a 25 percent budget reduction.

“The entire law enforcement reduction is coming from the agency’s cooperative enforcement program and will eliminate funding for joint enforcement agreements with law enforcement partners from 28 states and U.S. territories,” reported the Gloucester Times.

The National Weather Service, also under NOAA’s umbrella, is facing a $75 million slice off its $1 billion budget. It will axe 355 jobs, more than a quarter of the NWS staff, including 248 forecasters.

Trump also wants to cut $4.8 million from habitat and conservation programs, wiping out funding and grants for NOAA’s fisheries habitat restoration projects.

The Trump plan proposes gutting $40 million from NOAA climate change programs, which would eliminate competitive grants for research and end studies on global warming in the Arctic, including predictions of sea-ice and fisheries in a changing climate.

The national Sea Grant College Program, which conducts research, training and education at more than 30 U.S. universities, is again on the chopping block.

Funding for programs under the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that monitor earthquakes and volcanoes would each drop by 21 percent. The USGS water-resources program, which includes the national stream-gauge network, would be reduced 23 percent.

Trump proposes to cut the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget to $6.1 billion in 2019, its lowest level since the early 1990s and about 25 percent below the current mark.

The EPA budget also eliminates funding for climate-change research while providing $502 million for fossil energy research, an increase of nearly 24 percent.

Seafood sales also could be badly hurt by proposed deep cuts to food stamps, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Instead of shopping at grocery stores, under Trump’s plan recipients would receive boxes of shelf-stable commodity items such as powdered milk, juices, pasta, peanut butter, and canned meats, fruits and vegetables.

“Seafood is the only major food group that is not considered a USDA commodity. If the new food delivery platform is going to put an emphasis on commodity goods, then that will leave out lean, heart-healthy seafood,” said Linda Cornish, president of the Seafood Nutrition Partnership.

Closer to home, Trump also plans to stop federal funding for the Denali Commission, introduced by Congress in 1998 as an independent agency to provide critical utilities, infrastructure and economic support throughout Alaska.  The plan calls for a $10 million cut out of $17 million, with the difference going to an “orderly closure.”

The White House says that any state that can afford to pay its residents an annual dividend doesn’t need a “unique and additional federal subsidy” such as the commission, wrote longtime Alaska journalist Dermot Cole. Trump added that “the commissions’ effectiveness at improving overall economic conditions remains unproven.”

The FY19 budget, which goes into effect on October 1, now goes before Congress.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

 

Proposed changes to food stamps program could take a bite out of seafood sales

February 16, 2018 — U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2019 budget proposal, which includes deep cuts to the U.S. food stamp program, could harm seafood sales at U.S. supermarket chains, organizations told SeafoodSource.

The Trump administration proposes slashing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or “food stamps” program, by USD 17.2 billion (EUR 13.8 billion) in 2019, or around 22 percent compared to last year’s funding.

In addition, the program would shift to a boxed food delivery program. The current system allows SNAP participants to purchase their  groceries at supermarket chains, farmers markets, and other retail locations.

Under the new proposal, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), would deliver packages of U.S.-grown commodities such as shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans, along with canned meat, fruits and vegetables to recipients.

USDA estimates that it could provide the boxed delivery program at half the cost of the current retail program.

“Seafood is the only major food group that is not considered a USDA commodity. If the new food delivery platform is going to put an emphasis on commodity goods, then that will leave out lean, heart-healthy seafood, which is the only significant source of essential nutrients such as omega-3s EPA and DHA, as well as selenium,” Linda Cornish, president of Seafood Nutrition Partnership, told SeafoodSource.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

New Yorkers rally against offshore drilling plan

February 16, 2018 — ALBANY, N.Y. — Wearing fish-shaped caps and armed with a megaphone, New York state’s leading environmental advocates protested President Donald Trump’s plan to open offshore areas to oil and gas drilling on Thursday as federal energy officials held an open house on the proposal near the state Capitol.

The group, wearing caps shaped like sturgeon, salmon and other vulnerable ocean species, included Aaron Mair, past president of the Sierra Club, and Judith Enck, the regional Environmental Protection Agency administrator under former President Barack Obama. They said Trump’s plan could devastate the environment while leaving potential renewable energy sources untouched. They called on Congress to pass a law blocking the proposal.

“We all remember the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe,” Enck said into a megaphone, referring to the 2010 rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico that triggered the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. “We cannot afford that reckless activity in the Atlantic.”

Inside, federal energy officials handed out information packets and briefed members of the public on the president’s decision last month to open most of the nation’s coast to oil and gas drilling as a way of making the U.S. less dependent on foreign energy sources. Several dozen people had trickled through at the midpoint of the four-hour open house. Members of the public were encouraged to submit written comments.

William Brown, chief environmental officer at the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said he welcomed comments from opponents to the plan.

Read the full story from Associated Press at the Seattle Times

 

Trump Budget Would Zero Out Funding For Puget Sound Recovery, Again

February 14, 2018 — Members of Congress who represent Puget Sound are pushing back against the Trump administration’s budget for 2019 in part because it would zero out all federal funding for cleanup and recovery of the iconic ecosystem.

The proposal cuts all funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s geographic program for Puget Sound, as well as for a national estuary program and for Pacific salmon recovery through National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries. The administration says it wants local governments to take on the responsibility and continue recovery efforts.

The missing money totals more than $30 million, says Sheida Sahandy, Executive Director of the state’s Puget Sound Partnership, which coordinates cleanup. Those funds are leveraged with money from other state and local sources to get work done, so she says the cuts would be “crippling.”

“We’re at tipping point for, for example, the Orca,” she said, referring to the dwindling population of southern resident killer whales, which has reached its lowest number in 30 years. Only 76 are left in the wild.

“We are fearing extinction around the corner and stopping our efforts at this point in their tracks would essentially mean that we’re giving up on saving them,” Sahandy said, adding that the orcas are only the most obvious example of what’s at stake.

If there’s any silver lining, it’s that her agency has been through this once before.

Last year, the President’s budget proposed nearly identical cuts. Congress ultimately pushed back, reinstating all $28 million in the geographic program for Puget Sound in the 2018 budget.

But Sahandy says it will take a lot of advocacy once again. She says Washington state is so far away from the capitol that many well-meaning members of Congress need to be reminded why their support is critical.

Read the full story at KNKX

 

Scott Pruitt pushes back on finding that would restrict pesticides’ use to protect fish

February 5, 2018 — For months, chemical companies have waged a campaign to reverse findings by federal fisheries scientists that could curb the use of pesticides based on the threat they pose to endangered species. They scored a major victory this week, when Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced he would press another federal agency to revisit a recent opinion triggering such restrictions.

The struggle over an arcane provision of the Endangered Species Act, in which the EPA must affirm that the pesticides it oversees do not put species’ survival in jeopardy, has become the latest front in the battle over a broad-spectrum insecticide known as chlorpyrifos. Pruitt denied a petition to ban its agricultural use after questioning EPA scientists’ conclusions that exposure impedes brain development in infants and fetuses.

Speaking to the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture on Wednesday, Pruitt said he plans to inform the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Fisheries Service “that there needs to be a consultation because we have usage data, frankly, that wasn’t considered.”

NOAA Fisheries issued a Biological Opinion on Dec. 29, which was publicly released Jan. 9 by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, finding that the current use of chlorpyrifos and malathion “is likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of 38 species of salmon and other fish in the Pacific Northwest and destroy or harm the designated critical habitat of 37 of those species. It found another pesticide, diazinon, could jeopardize the continued existence of 25 listed fish species and could harm critical habitat for 18 of them.

In allowing chlorpyrifos to stay on the market — the product is already prohibited for household products — Pruitt cited concerns raised by the Department of Agriculture, pesticide industry groups and an EPA scientific review panel about studies the agency used to conclude that the pesticide poses a serious enough neurological risk to ban its use on dozens of crops. One study, by researchers at Columbia University, found a connection between higher exposure levels to chlorpyrifos and learning and memory problems among farmworkers and children.

Read the full story at the Washington Post