Saving Seafood

ALASKA: Corps corrects end date for Pebble project comment period

May 22, 2019 — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has corrected the closing date for the extended comment period for a draft environmental review of a proposed copper and gold mine in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region.

The corps earlier this month said it was extending the comment period from 90 days to 120 days and said it would end June 29.

However, John Budnik, a spokesman for the corps, said by email Monday that a formal comment period cannot close on a weekend. He says the new close date is July 1.

Read the full story at the Associated Press

ALASKA: Patagonia, Whole Foods, and others speak out against Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay

April 26, 2019 — A coalition of more than 200 businesses that includes Patagonia, Hy-Vee, Whole Foods, and PCC Markets drafted a letter this week to speak out against Pebble Mine, a proposed open-pit copper, gold, and molybdenum mine at the headwaters of the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery in Bristol Bay, Alaska.

The letter from the group, known as Businesses for Bristol Bay, was addressed to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Anchorage and requested that the Corps suspend its review of the permit application from the mining group, the Canada-based Pebble Limited Partnership.

Echoing the concerns of many, the Businesses for Bristol Bay said the process is incomplete and that officials are trying to rush the permit through.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

ALASKA: Sullivan restates concern that Pebble comment period may be too short

April 19, 2019 — As a series of public hearings on the controversial Pebble mine came to a close in Anchorage on Tuesday, Sen. Dan Sullivan reiterated support for extending the period during which Alaskans can comment on the federal government’s draft report of the mine’s impacts.

Sullivan met with senior officials with the U.S. Army Corps recently, his staff said Tuesday.

“At that meeting, Senator Sullivan reiterated his view that the Corps should extend the comment period if necessary to ensure that the viewpoints of all Alaskans are taken into consideration on a project of this size and complexity. This is a general legal requirement of the federal permitting process,” Michael Soukup, an aide, said in a statement.

Sullivan raised the same concern in February, telling reporters the agency’s 90-day comment period is inadequate.

Read the full story at Anchorage Daily News

ALASKA: Pushing back on Pebble: Scientific community and Bristol Bay leaders offer testimony

April 3, 2019 — Nobody was fooling at the Alaska State House Resources Committee hearing on Monday, April 1, to address concerns about the proposed plan for Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay.

“If Pebble goes in, the Bristol Bay Sockeye brand and the entire Alaska Seafood brand will be tarnished,” said Norm Van Vactor, CEO of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation. “The state of Alaska has invested millions into building these brands and establishing Alaska as a premium brand in the marketplace. That brand is based on pristine habitat, sustainability, and high quality, not open-pit mining districts and acid mine drainage.”

Bristol Bay residents, fisheries leaders and scientific experts offered testimony about a range of inadequacies in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers draft Environmental Impact Statement, as well as the economic, social and environmental value of Bristol Bay’s salmon watersheds that would be at risk under the proposed plan.

“They did not assess the risk appropriately. The draft Environmental Impact Statement is misleading about the probability of a [catastrophic tailings dam]failure,” said Dr. Cameron Wobus, a senior scientist at Lynker Technologies who authored a report on tailings dam failure scenarios.

The draft’s 20-year time line, scientists say, is too short to evaluate the long-term risks. A 100-year analysis would have been more transparent, because the tailings dam has a 1 in 5 chance of failing over a century.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

 

New Tech Makes Scientific Data Cheaper And Easier To Secure

September 18, 2018 — To understand what climate change is doing to the Pacific Ocean scientists need data.

Lots of it.

Traditionally, data has been expensive to secure because it involves large equipment and ocean voyages. But the miniaturization of technology and some clever new machines mean scientists are now getting lots of data — sometimes delivered via phone to the comfort of an office chair.

A good example can be found on the deck of the Forerunner, a small Clatsop Community College research vessel that sails out of Astoria.

A deck hand lowers a detector the size of a suitcase into the crystal blue waters of the Pacific. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries biologist Curtis Roegner is using it to look for a scanner on the sea floor.

“There. Found it,” he said. “OK, so here it’s recognizing that I’ve found one of our scanners and here’s its code number. It’s out there and we could talk to it. And now we could tell it to release from the bottom, pop-it-up and retrieve it.”

Read the full story at OPB

ALASKA: Groups claim feds glossed over public concerns in Pebble mine report

September 4, 2018 — Groups fighting the Pebble gold and copper prospect on Friday swiftly condemned a new federal report summarizing public concerns about the project after a three-month comment period, asserting that the report glosses over key issues.

Supporters of the project shot back, saying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has undertaken painstaking efforts to gather information before it prepares an environmental review of potential development scenarios.

The Corps released the report on Friday.

Deantha Crockett, executive director of Alaska Miners Association, said the Corps has shown its willingness to listen, allowing a 90-day period to take public input on the Southwest Alaska project, instead of the original 30.

“We’re happy we’re seeing progress (on the project),” she said.

Read the full story at Anchorage Daily News

Whose Fish Is It? Who’s in Charge Here?

August 6, 2018 — Restaurant owners may know that open-faced sandwiches are regulated by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), part of the Department of Health and Human Services. But if a second piece of bread is added on top, it is regulated by the Department of Agriculture (USDA). That’s because the USDA has a very specific definition of a sandwich: two slices of bread with the meat in the middle. So, is a hot dog a sandwich? The National Hot Dog and Sausage Council says no, but the State of California says yes. How about a burrito? Massachusetts ruled that a burrito is not a sandwich, but New York says it is. A cheese pizza is regulated by the FDA, but add pepperoni and it becomes a USDA matter. When you make an omelet, FDA regulates the eggs you crack, but if you pour liquid eggs from a carton, it’s USDA.

Regulations can be confusing, sometimes because of vague wording, but often because of overlapping jurisdictions. It is not always obvious who is in charge. Clean water rules are under the jurisdiction of the EPA, but projects that might affect stream water require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A salmon or sturgeon swimming in the ocean is under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce. But if the same fish swims upstream into a river, it becomes province of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, part of the Interior Department.

Pundits have made fun of such regulatory silliness for years. Hillary Clinton joked about the sandwich rules when running for the Senate 18 years ago. At least two presidents have cited the weird pizza rules, yet nobody did anything about the regulatory mess.

Read the full story at The American Spectator

Alaska’s Pebble Mine Project Review Proceeds Over Governor Walker’s Doubts

July 30, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS, JUNEAU, Alaska — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is proceeding with an environmental review of a proposed copper and gold mine located near a major salmon fishery in Alaska, despite a request from the state’s governor that the review be halted.

Gov. Bill Walker, in a letter co-signed by Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott last month, said the company behind the proposed Pebble Mine had yet to show that the project is feasible or realistic. They argued that, at a minimum, a preliminary economic assessment should be conducted to help inform the corps’ work.

But Shane McCoy, the corps’ program manager for the Pebble review, told reporters Thursday that an economic analysis is not required for the corps to do its work.

There are limited situations in which a review would be halted, including cases in which an applicant itself asks to stop, or if an applicant fails to provide the corps requested information, McCoy said. Walker’s request was not one that the corps could grant under its rules, he said.

The Pebble Limited Partnership, which wants to develop the Pebble Mine, has given no indication that it wants to suspend the process, McCoy said.

The corps’ position was explained to Walker directly by the commander of the Alaska district, Col. Michael Brooks, he said. Austin Baird, a spokesman for Walker, confirmed that Brooks and Walker spoke and Brooks indicated that he “would not honor the governor’s request.”

Tom Collier, CEO of the Pebble partnership, last month said the company believes it can “successfully and responsibly” operate the mine. “This is what the Corps will evaluate and we can either meet this expectation or we cannot,” he said in a statement.

Collier called Walker’s request to suspend the review a stall tactic.

The Pebble project is located in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region. Bristol Bay produces about half of the world’s sockeye salmon.

Debate over the project has been politically charged, with critics contending it is the wrong place for a mine and supporters urging the project be vetted through the permitting and review process.

In a statement earlier this year, Walker, an independent, said the Bristol Bay region “has sustained generations and must continue to do so in perpetuity.”

Baird said Thursday that Walker “continues to believe that the Bristol Bay watershed is unique” and that the proposed mine “must be held to an extraordinarily high standard.”

Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the Senate energy committee, has said she expects “a fair, rigorous and transparent process” that will help Alaskans understand “the impacts and risks, as well as the potential benefits associated with this project.”

The Pebble partnership is owned by Canada-based Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd., which has been looking for a partner since Anglo American PLC announced it was pulling out in 2013.

First Quantum Minerals Ltd. was courted as a potential investor but backed away from the project in May.

The corps has no opinion on the financial status of the Pebble partnership, McCoy said.

This story is by the Associated Press and published by Seafood News. The full story is published here with permission.

 

Alaskans, not Outsiders, oppose Pebble mine

July 19, 2018 — The scoping period for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ review of the proposed Pebble mine permit application concluded on June 29, around the same time that Bristol Bay’s robust commercial salmon fishery was in full swing. Although the purpose of the scoping period is to provide the public with an opportunity to identify the issues the Corps should address in the review process, the period ended with many unanswered questions about the project proposal itself.

The Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP) has yet to answer or is unable to answer some very basic questions about the proposed project, and its permit application lacked the type of information and documentation that would normally accompany an application for a project as complex and controversial as Pebble. It is therefore no surprise that many Alaskans — including all of the undersigned and the governor — asked the Corps of Engineers to suspend its review.

A major reason a suspension is justified is that PLP’s proposed mine plans fundamentally changed during the scoping process. After the Corps’ public scoping meetings had concluded, the Pebble partnership substantially revised its mine plans to increase the quantity of mined materials during the first 20 years by 25 percent, increase the size and change the contours of the proposed open pit, change the layout of the tailings storage facility and increase the power plant capacity, among other changes. It would seem that the project plans are yet still a moving target.

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