Policy Archives - One Fish Foundation

EPA Should Use Clean Water Act To Kill Zombie…

August 5, 2021October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

More than 65 million sockeye salmon returned to Bristol Bay, Alaska this year, setting an all-time record and proving, yet again, that healthy habitat and sound management lead to productive fisheries. Home to the world’s largest wild sockeye run, the watershed provides the cold, clear salmon-spawning waters that ultimately support more than 16,000 jobs and a $2.2 billion annual economic boost.

Perhaps recognizing the ecological and economic value Bristol Bay provides to the state, the US Army Corps of Engineers denied the federal permit request for the proposed Pebble Mine last November.

So why are we still talking about it?

In a nutshell, greed. Geologists for Canadian-based Northern Dynasty Minerals, which owns the rights to the mine site at the headwaters of two of the bay’s most productive river systems, believe the area is home to a massive ore deposit of copper, gold and other precious metals. The company and its investors see huge profits.

Everyone else, including a majority of folks in the state, sees a humongous threat to the very lifeblood of Bristol Bay and to the state.

Bumpy ride

I’ve talked to many folks directly connected to the bay during the past five years: commercial fish harvesters, recreational fishing lodge owners, processors, economic development directors, scientists, and indigenous leaders whose communities depend on the salmon for their lives. They are determined and fiercely committed to defending the natural resource.

And they’re tired of the seemingly endless battle to safeguard their livelihoods from the zombie mine that won’t die. Standing up to foreign, well funded mining interests for close to two decades has been an emotional, psychological, and at times physical roller coaster.

The long, pitched battle appeared near an end in 2014 when the Obama Administration Environmental Protection Agency released proposed protections that would block certain mining activities in Bristol Bay’s headwaters. Unfortunately, the EPA wasn’t able to finalize that determination due to a legal challenge from the mine’s owners.

The tug of war over this priceless natural resource continued, as the US Army Corps of Engineers appeared close to approving the federal wetlands permit last August. One tweet from Donald Trump, Jr. and a series of scathing under-cover videos showing Pebble’s owners bragging about political strong-arming and lying about the mine’s scale, and the momentum turned on a dime. Suddenly the mine’s inevitability seemed very tenuous. Optimism for Bristol Bay’s future grew, and the US Army Corps denied the permit in November.

These sockeye are happily swimming in 3-4 feet of gin clear water below Brooks Falls near Naknek and Brooks lakes at the headwaters of the Naknek River.

Closing the door

To be sure, the mine’s owners have vowed to keep fighting, and have filed an appeal with the US Army Corps of Engineers requesting a reconsideration of the permit denial.

That’s why everyone should take notice, regardless of geography. This isn’t a NIMBY issue. What happens in Bristol Bay sends tremors throughout the continental US. If a giant mine can be forced upon people who don’t want it in an ecologically and economically crucial watershed in Alaska, what would stop something similar from going in an equally sensitive and important area elsewhere?

You might ask what could go wrong if Pebble were to be built. This week marks the seven-year anniversary of when the Mt. Polley mine in British Columbia failed, dumping 6.6 billion gallons of toxic waste in the Fraser River watershed, once home to millions of returning wild salmon. The Pebble Mine would produce 10.2 billion tons of toxic waste, which if unleashed, could permanently destroy the Bristol Bay salmon fishery.

Several politicians have changed their tune, now voicing support for Bristol Bay and the effort to compel EPA to outright stop the Pebble project via the Clean Water Act. They’ve done so as the people of Bristol Bay have collectively asked the Biden administration to finish the job started in 2014 of putting Clean Water Act protections in place immediately. In fact, August 8 is the one-year anniversary of candidate Biden’s pledge to protect the bay.

Invoking the Clean Water Act is the most direct and immediate path toward ensuring robust sockeye returns. It’s an important first step that should happen soon to ensure the process can be fully completed … prior to the next presidential election when yet another political momentum shift could again change the dynamic.

Following an EPA Clean Water Act determination, the next step to permanently protect Bristol Bay would be a Congressional declaration that safeguards the entire watershed from any harmful mining projects in perpetuity.

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski is exploring what that potential legislative solution could look like, meeting with local Bristol Bay leaders and stakeholders earlier this summer.

Again, Step 1 is to call on the EPA to do its job and protect Bristol Bay and its priceless natural resources.

To learn more or get involved, check out the resources below.

Resources

Stop Pebble Mine Now: Great resource site with direct action links, like telling EPA to do its job.

Brief video from #vetoPebbleMine featuring dear friend and colleague Capt. Kat Carscallen explaining what’s at stake.

Video produced by the United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

Follow these links to hear One Fish Foundation interviews with some of the folks from around Bristol Bay:

Kat Carscallen, commercial fisherwoman and executive director of Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay: Video on Youtube. Audio-only download.
Nanci Morris Lyon, co-owner, Bear Trail Lodge in King Salmon. She’s been fighting Pebble since about the time her daughter, Rylie, now a lodge guide, was born. Video on Youtube. Audio-only download.
Melanie Brown, community organizer with SalmonState and indigenous commercial fish harvester out of Naknek, AK. Video on YouTube. Audio-only download.
Steve Kurian, captain of the F/V Ava Jane driftnetter fishing out of Naknek and co-owner of Wild for Salmon, a retail and wholesale operation based in Pa. Video on Youtube. Audio-only download.
Norm Van Vactor, CEO of Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation and long time Bristol Bay resident, fisherman, and processor. Video on YouTube. Audio-only download.
Gayla Hoseth, director of natural resources with Bristol Bay Native Association, Second Chief of the Curyung Tribal Council, and subsistence fish harvester. Video on YouTube. Audio-only download.

Top Photo: Upper Naknek River, where I watched a steady parade of chrome-colored, pre-spawn sockeye pushing their way upriver in 2019.

All Blog Posts

Faith, Façades, and Futility

December 9, 2020October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Politics can be a complex cocktail of all three.

Too often our faith that politicians will do the right thing falters behind false promises and frustration.

Such is the case with environmental protections. Heavily influenced by giant corporations spending billions in lobbying efforts to extract oil, natural gas, timber, minerals, etc., folks in Congress walk a fine line between their concern for staying in office (which requires funding), and following up on their promises to constituents. They often defend their positions with vows to increase jobs and boost the economy while still expressing concern for the environment. That is, they want constituents to believe all these things can co-exist with extractive industries, when they rarely can. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Witness the roller coaster ride to protect wild salmon habitat throughout Alaska in the past few months.

You may have noticed the US Army Corps of Engineers recently denied the permit for the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay. This is great news, and it’s an astounding turnabout from as recently as July when the Corps had issued its final environmental impact statement (EIS) essentially paving the way for the permit’s approval.

Contact Creek, Bristol Bay. These crystal clear waters invite countless salmon to migrate to their spawning grounds.

The EIS blatantly ignored several glaring environmental threats posed by what would have been North America’s largest open pit copper and gold mine. Chief among those threats is the risk of a failed tailings dam (which holds toxic waste rock from the mining process) because of potential design flaws, earthquakes, and other natural forces. Moreover, because there’s no magic wand that would make several million tons of toxic waste disappear, the threat of a dam failure would be permanent, which the Army Corps failed to address in the EIS.

Changing tides

Then the momentum changed rapidly. First, several prominent Republicans, including Donald Trump, Jr., spoke out against the mine, setting off a chain reaction of other public figures, including President-elect Joe Biden, denouncing the project. The Corps then sent a letter to Pebble’s owners in late August calling for a mitigation plan that would explain how Pebble would mitigate for the wetlands, rivers, and streams its project would permanently destroy. This was the first signal from the Corps that it was willing to acknowledge the science clearly showing the Pebble Mine would cause significant harm to the Bristol Bay watershed and its salmon fishery.

Then a series of damning secret tapes released in September revealed the greed and audacity of the mine’s owners, who bragged about controlling the state’s governor and US Senators. The mine’s owners also boasted on tape that they viewed the mine not as the 20-year project stated in the permit, but as a much larger 200-year mining operation.

The Corps took the next step on Nov. 25 when it announced its denial of Pebble’s permit, stating the project did not meet its mitigation standards and the proposal was contrary to the public interest. The permit denial was a surprising and much welcome gift to the people of Bristol Bay who have been fighting for their homes, livelihoods, and traditions since the Trump Administration re-opened the door for the mine to proceed in 2017.

Sockeye on the move in the Brooks River, Bristol Bay.

Seeking permanence

Again, this is great news. I think of all of the salmon warriors I’ve met in the past several years who continue to dedicate so much of themselves to protect the world’s largest intact wild salmon run. I think of the amazing coalition of different user groups like commercial, recreational, and subsistence fishermen and women, who are often at loggerheads, that continue to stand united against this imminent threat to their salmon and their lives.

However, the Bristol Bay watershed is not fully protected. Pebble is stopped for now. But this salmon-rich region will not be fully safe from such threats until permanent protections are in place. If we have learned anything from the last four years, it’s that Bristol Bay is at risk from changes in political winds. So we need to ensure that it is protected for generations to come.

On December 2nd, the Bristol Bay region released its vision for what these long-term protections should look like and a two-step roadmap for how we might get there. First, the EPA needs to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to veto the Pebble Mine and establish clear, science-based restrictions on mining activity in Bristol Bay’s headwaters. The region has been asking for an EPA veto from the outset.

Second, Congress needs to designate a national fisheries area to provide permanent federal protection for the watersheds of Bristol Bay against any toxic mine waste from any project like Pebble.

Captain Steve Kurian and crew aboard the F/V Ava Jane, fishing for sockeye in the mouth of the Naknek River.

Copper, wood, and oil

All of this comes back to the question of why the administration changed its mind so fast. And it speaks to the façades so prominent in politics. Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy has been quite vocal in his support of the mine, even posing for a photo aboard Air Force One ostensibly during a meeting to promote the mine.

Until recently, Alaska’s US Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Suillivan have said they opposed the mine, but they’ve been fairly non-committal about actually stopping Pebble … even after a majority of Alaskans had said they oppose the mine. Neither senator called for a clear, outright rejection of the project until after the release of the Pebble Tapes claiming they were in the pockets of Pebble’s owners and sitting quietly in the corner while the permitting process played out. Strange timing.

Bristol Bay is just one example of the pitched battles to protect vital natural resources across Alaska and throughout the US. During all of the publicity around the mounting political opposition to Pebble, the administration began to redouble efforts to green light other extraction projects it had advocated for in the past couple of years.

Brown bear on the prowl below Brooks Falls near Naknek and Brooks lakes.

The administration accelerated a push to remove the so-called “roadless rule” protection from the Tongass National Forest, the largest intact temperate rainforest in the world. Removing this protection literally paves the way for clear-cut logging in this pristine, 9 million acre forest, which has been described as the lungs of North America because of its oxygen output and carbon sequestration. It also contains thousands of streams that are home to myriad species, including many anadromous fish like wild salmon and trout.

At the same time, the administration opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (in Northern Alaska) to oil drilling, having posted the auction for permits on Dec. 7.

Is it a coincidence that these two environmental threats were more actively pushed forward while Pebble was retracted?

Ironically, Murkowski, Sullivan, and Congressman Don Young released a joint statement on Oct. 25 supporting logging in Tongass as creating jobs. The same delegation released another joint statement on Dec. 3 praising the administration’s decision to formally open ANWR to oil drilling by selling leases.

The timing of all of this raises questions considering the Army Corps called for the mitigation plan in late August and denied the permit on Nov. 25. Some observers who closely watch environmental politics suspect a deal was made. Save Bristol Bay, but sweep aside the roadless rule and open up drilling in ANWR.

Perseverance

Enter the futility of politics. If in fact a deal was made to save Bristol Bay at the expense of the others, the frustration is maddening. The notion of trading precious natural resources like poker chips is appalling. Especially when the pristine ecosystems in question support myriad species as well as Alaska citizens and tens of thousands of jobs in industries that carry a multi-billion dollar economic impact to the state … without the ecological threat of rampant logging and mining.

Sadly, backroom deals happen all the time.

Here’s what we know:

It would be folly to assume that Bristol Bay got the reprieve at the expense of Tongass and ANWR simply because of a backroom deal. There are too many mitigating factors for these decisions to be made solely based on one such deal. The issues are just too complex.
We may never know for sure if any deal may have at least played some role in the overall outcome. Even if so, that doesn’t change the reality that all three regions absolutely need permanent protections.
Bristol Bay’s reprieve remains temporary until protections become permanent.

Melanie Brown, salmon warrior. She fishes commercially on the site her great grandfather established on the Naknek River.

The sheer will and collective unity to protect the resource, the people, and the Native cultures that depend on the annual return of Bristol Bay salmon is at the heart of why the Pebble Mine is not now operating. Even when the mine seemed inevitable back in July and countless folks on the frontlines felt burned out from standing up to the mine for as long as 15 years, the fight continued. More people from diverse backgrounds rallied to the cause. This powerful coalition will continue to fight until Bristol Bay gains permanent protection.

Perhaps we should view the collective efforts that put the Pebble Mine on its deathbed as a blueprint for how to address similar threats to important natural resources. It’s a testament of how standing up to heavily funded corporations and confounding politics to protect priceless resources is not only possible, but definitely achievable.

There are already long-standing, dedicated movements to safeguard both Tongass and ANWR (see calls to action below). The success of this opposition, as with every other effort to protect critical habitat, again hinges on the continued persistence, time, energy, and faith of a broad coalition willing to persevere against what seems like long odds. In the end, our voices matter, whether we live in the region, state, or even time zone where these ecological challenges exist.

For if we don’t unite to navigate the political waters to protect our most precious resources wherever they are, the resulting cocktail will prove toxic.

Calls to action

Here are ways to learn more and engage:

Stop Pebble Mine Now: Direct calls to action to ask EPA to veto Pebble Mine and ask Congress to permanently protect Bristol Bay.

Salmonstate Tongass Action Page: Direct appeal to the incoming Biden administration to protect Tongass.

Defend the sacred: Here is a specific month-long targeted call to action.

All Blog Posts

Pebble Permit Paused: Politics at Play

August 26, 2020October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

The salmon arrived in Bristol Bay, Alaska in big numbers again this year, following a trend over the past few years that highlights what ensuring clean habitat and science-based management can provide.

Driven by millennia of evolution and genetic imprint, wild salmon do what they do because pure instinct makes their lives fairly straightforward. Survive or die trying. Propagate the species. Standing in their way are forces largely beyond their control: bears, seals, whales, other predators, changing habitat, and of course, man.

They arrived this summer blissfully unaware that greed and politics threaten their genetic promise and the generational contract they keep with the future.

Northern Dynasty Minerals, a Canadian-owned mining interest, has been pushing for nearly two decades to excavate one of the world’s largest open pit mines in Bristol Bay, at the headwaters of the world’s largest intact wild salmon run to extract gold, copper, and molybdenum. In the process, the mine would create, and must permanently and securely store, billions of cubic feet of toxic cyanide, arsenic, and other materials forever.

The past few weeks have seen dramatic shifts in the saga of the proposed Pebble mine.

To recap,

On July 24: The US Army Corps of Engineers released an environmental impact statement claiming that the mine would not cause undue harm to salmon habitat. Scientists from around the world have roundly criticized this statement and the science behind it;
Congress has taken note: The US House of Representatives voted in late July to prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from using federal funds to issue the permit (the spending amendment has not reached the Senate); and, the House Oversight and Reform Committee requested the Department of Defense’s Inspector General and the EPA launch formal investigations into the Pebble permitting process.
Since then, a series of high-profile Republicans have spoken out against the mine, including those close to and inside the current administration;
On Aug. 24, the Army Corps of Engineers did an about-face and said that because the mine would damage “aquatic resources,” the permit process is on hold until Pebble’s owners can produce an adequate plan to mitigate these adverse impacts;

To be sure, a pause is great news. It means the administration has not issued the federal permit the mine’s owners need to proceed.

That the mine has not yet been built after nearly two decades of trying is a testament to the incredible, unfailing drive of hundreds of people on the front lines of this opposition. Imagine the emotional, spiritual, and psychological toll of enduring the ebb and flow of a pitched battle for what many in the region feel like is the fight for their lives.

I can imagine this. I’ve interviewed several people who have been standard-bearers for Bristol Bay’s natural resources and the people who depend on these resources. They have stood up for the fish. I’ve worked with many others on the campaign to stop the mine. Their passion and energy are an inspiration to me.

Follow these links to hear some of the voices from around Bristol Bay.

Nanci Morris Lyon, co-owner, Bear Trail Lodge in King Salmon. She’s been fighting Pebble since about the time her daughter, Rylie, now a lodge guide, was born. Video on Youtube. Audio-only download.
Melanie Brown, community organizer with SalmonState and indigenous commercial fish harvester out of Naknek, AK. Video on YouTube. Audio-only download.
Steve Kurian, captain of the F/V Ava Jane driftnetter fishing out of Naknek and co-owner of Wild for Salmon, a retail and wholesale operation based in Pa. Video on Youtube. Audio-only download.
Norm Van Vactor, CEO of Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation and long time Bristol Bay resident, fisherman, and processor. Video on YouTube. Audio-only download.
Gayla Hoseth, director of natural resources with Bristol Bay Native Association, Second Chief of the Curyung Tribal Council, and subsistence fish harvester. Video on YouTube. Audio-only download.

This is why I view the permitting pause with some degree of caution. In 2014, the mine was essentially left for dead when the previous administration had used the Clean Water Act to effectively preempt the permit process, stating that the mine as proposed should not be built because it would threaten the salmon habitat. But the mine’s owners sued and held off the final signing of that EPA decision until the new administration arrived. It took just a few months to undo most of those safety precautions put in place under the Clean Water Act.

So here we are. Pebble’s owners have 90 days from Aug. 20 to submit their mitigation plans. That 90-day window unsurprisingly comes after the Nov. election. And given what has happened in recent weeks, who knows what will happen before the end of the year.

What I do know is that the vigilance and united front that has staved off the mine thus far and resulted in this permitting pause (what otherwise looked like a freight train headed straight toward the permit), is now more critical than ever before in the history of this battle.

This pause is indeed a good thing. We should all take a moment to celebrate, and even put some Bristol Bay sockeye on the grill to toast all the hard work that led us to this point.

And then we should prepare to keep up the resistance. Of all of the remaining options, an all-out veto of the permit from the EPA is the best, most effective way to stop the mine. And that is where we must put our energies, even if it feels like we’re swimming upstream.

For now, here are a couple of things you can do to learn more and stand with those from around the continent who continue to oppose the mine.

“The Wild” Salmon Rising livestream event 29 at 6:30 EDT. Check out friend and colleague Mark Titus’ powerful documentary film about the incredible life force that is the annual wild salmon return to Bristol Bay. He spotlights the fish, the people, and what’s at stake in the face of the Pebble mine. Also, there will be live music and a cooking class with celebrity chefs like Tom Douglas and Renee Erickson. Full disclosure: 50% of ticket sales from this link go to One Fish Foundation.
Tell the EPA to veto the mine: Stop Pebble Mine Now. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT! This is the most effective way at this time to stop the mine.

Additional Resources

Rolling Stone article discussing the administration’s push to extract resources from Bristol Bay and the Tongass National Forest. Thorough discussion of what’s at stake in both regions.
New York Times article about the US ACE release of the environmental impact statement. Great visuals of the land, the people, and some of the impact.

Top Photo: The Bristol Bay fleet, by Chris Miller. Photo courtesy Eva’s Wild.

All Blog Posts

Keeping Salmon Wild

June 16, 2020October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Top photo: Spawning sockeye salmon

From the book, The Salmon Way: An Alaska State of Mind, by Amy Gulick

©Amy Gulick/amygulick.com

To buy the book: www.thesalmonway.org

If we humans were to be judged by how we treat natural resources, we’d be up a creek … likely a toxic creek.

We don’t need to look far for evidence. Oceanic and atmospheric pollution, polluted groundwater, dammed rivers, etc. Bad policies, bad habits, and slow reaction to warning signs have compounded the problem.

I’ve focused on the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska for several years. This would be a massive open pit copper and gold mine at the headwaters of the world’s largest wild sockeye salmon run. It would jeopardize the runs of several salmon species and the water supply and food source for thousands in and around the bay as well as the livelihoods of thousands of fish harvesters and those working at processors. Not to mention the impact on millions of Americans who eat wild Alaska salmon.

These types of mines generate billions of tons of highly toxic waste like cyanide, arsenic, and copper that are deadly to fish and their habitat. And they have a long and incontrovertible history of failure.

The Pebble mine’s Canadian owner, Northern Dynasty Minerals, has spent millions of dollars on lobbying Alaska’s governor and the Trump Administration to steamroll its scientifically flawed, questionably ethical permit application through the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has already said it will NOT take into account the worst-case scenario of a tailings (toxic waste) dam failure because it does not consider it likely … despite the fact the site is in a very seismically active area and tailings dam failures have happened elsewhere around the world.

Elizabeth Herendeen of SalmonState providing some good perspective on opposition to the Pebble Mine during the Slow Fish Crew Together Webinar.

As Elizabeth Herendeen of SalmonState mentioned during the last Slow Fish Crew Together Webinar on June 5, a majority of folks in Bristol Bay and throughout Alaska have consistently opposed the mine. And yet, Pebble sits on the precipice of gaining the federal permit it needs to move forward. The Corps of Engineers could make an announcement some time in June or early July.

Others we heard from during the webinar about the perils of the mine and what we can do now include dear friends Captain Katherine Carscallen, “The Wild” film director Mark Titus, Melanie Brown of SalmonState, and Jon Broderick, who launched the amazing Fisher Poet Gathering in Astoria, Oregon and sang a lament about the loss of the wild salmon in Bristol Bay if the Pebble Mine were to ever be approved.

Captain Katherine Carscallen aboard her F/V Sea Hawk.

Born and raised in Dillingham, Alaska, Katherine is a drift netter who shared a heartfelt and compelling viewpoint about her deep personal connection to the bay, the fish and the community, and why she has been fighting this mine for more than a decade. “Our concern is that it would be a permanent, and irreversible and hugely damaging change to our entire region. It’s salmon country. That’s what Bristol Bay is about, and this [mine] is proposing to change that entirely,” she said.

“The only reason we don’t have a mine and a mine hasn’t been built in the past 16 years since it’s been threatened is because not just Bristol Bay residents and Alaskans, but really people all over the nation have come together to help us on this issue and speak out about it,” Katherine said. “It really makes my heart swell that so many people who’ve never even been to Bristol Bay care so much about this issue.”

Mark Titus shared an equally personal story about starting to film “The Wild” shortly after leaving rehab for addiction in 2016. He returned to the bay to tell this story in part as a way to reconnect to the bay, the land, the salmon, and the community that he’d fallen in love with decades before.

“The Wild” Film Director Mark Titus reconnecting with Bristol Bay.

“I was really called back from this place that I was in by this love for these wild salmon which are the ultimate symbol to me of sacrifice and of giving of themselves so that life itself can continue,” he said. “This film is about that journey and using the metaphor of my own recovery from addiction to paint the picture about where we are as a people and as a species and how we treat this planet.”

Melanie Brown began the webinar with a spiritual tone, telling the story of her great grandparents who were orphaned by the Spanish flu in 1918, and who had to make their way into adulthood on their own. Her great grandfather transferred his setnet lease to her. Last summer, Melanie taught me how to pick sockeye out of the net from the same spot.

“I truly believe it was the salmon who gave the people who were in despair hope and taught them a path forward, and were their guides literally,” she said. “I’m here because of the salmon and because of the strength of my great grandparents. My people ended up here in Bristol Bay because they followed the salmon. I’m so blessed to be of this land.”

Melanie exudes good cheer and hope, even during the fourth set of the day heading toward midnight.

Speaking of the mine, she said, “It instills in me great fear. But that fear is overridden by the hope that salmon give me. I hope that you find hope in the salmon stories that you hear today.”

And it was that hope and a general call to get involved that resonated from everyone’s words.

As I said at the outset of the webinar, “In many ways, the story of salmon and how we treat them and their environment reflects the story of ourselves.”

We need to get this right. We want our children and successive generations to be able to experience wild places like Bristol Bay, where crystal clear waters call the wild salmon home every year to keep sustaining this magical life force.

Elizabeth, who’s spent more than a decade at the forefront of the opposition to the mine, encapsulated the urgency of the situation: “I think this is a really critical moment for anyone who cares about wild fish and wild salmon. This is our last chance to do it right the first time. We all need to share responsibility and take the time to be engaged.”

I’ve included some links below on how to learn more and get involved. These next few months for Bristol Bay will be important, and every voice matters.

Resources

Defend Bristol Bay Take Action page (to contact your elected officials in Washington, D.C.)
Information about “The Wild” film and upcoming screenings by Mark Titus. Here’s a link to the official trailer.
Save Bristol Bay website
United Tribes of Bristol Bay video update on current status of the mine
Slow Fish Crew Together Webinar: The Story of Salmon Youtube recording

All Blog Posts

Frankenmine: Pebble’s Worst-Case Scenario

February 10, 2020October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Let me know if this makes sense to you.

The US Army Corps of Engineers is the federal agency responsible for ensuring that large civil engineering projects dealing with wetlands and other natural resources meet exacting specifications to ensure minimal impact on those resources.

This same agency announced on Jan. 23 that it would NOT consider a worst-case scenario tailings dam failure for the proposed Pebble Mine at the headwaters of the world’s largest wild sockeye salmon run in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Dam tailings are the highly toxic waste byproduct of open pit mining that must, in theory, be stored forever to preserve surrounding habitat. Any release of this material, which may contain arsenic, sulfur acid and other highly toxic material, could do irreparable harm to the natal streams and rivers that support the $1.5 billion economic engine driven by healthy wild salmon stocks.

Three days after this stunning announcement, Bristol Bay residents near King Salmon woke to an earthquake measuring 3.6 on the Richter scale.

So let’s do the math here. The USACE, which is supposed to ensure all of the nasty mining byproduct doesn’t leach into the landscape, ever, still feels confident nothing could go wrong.

Aftermath of Mt. Polley tailings dam failure in 2014. This dam was initially engineered by the same firm slated to engineer Pebble’s tailings impoundment. What could possibly go wrong? Photo from Mining Watch/Chris Blake.

I guess it’s just a minor inconvenience that the damn tailings dam would be strategically located in a seismically active area along a geologic zone called the Ring of Fire due to constantly grating tectonic plates that force magma up through the earth’s crust and create volcanoes.

How active is it? According to the Alaska Earthquake Center, 2018 and 2019 ranked first and second respectively in the number of earthquakes tracked in Alaska, with only 50,289 reported earthquakes in 2019 ranging in depth between 0 and 165 miles. There were two quakes measuring 6.4 along the Aleutian Islands.

This would be great fodder for a Saturday Night Live skit if it weren’t so staggeringly unconscionable.

Contact Creek just south and a bit west of King Salmon in Bristol Bay. Pristine water like this is essential to salmon spawning. It could be irreversibly damaged by a tailings dam failure. USACE doesn’t seem to think that’s a possiiblity.

Frankenmine is alive…again

Credit goes to the fierce determination of the mine’s opponents that Pebble has not been permitted in the past nearly two decades since it was first proposed.

The twists and turns in the Pebble saga are dizzying. Consider:

Three of the world’s largest four mining corporations walked away from the project, citing massive opposition and gigantic economic risks;
A fourth, smaller potential financial backer also stepped away for the same reason in 2019;
The Obama administration had the mine on its deathbed, concluding after years of scientific review that as initially proposed, the mine would violate the Clean Water Act and threaten precious salmon habitat;
A 30-minute conversation between the Pebble Limited Partnership’s CEO and former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt just a few months after the current administration took office in 2017 reversed course and put the mine back on track;
Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy is a Pebble Limited Partnership puppet who has publicly courted potential backers while working with President Trump to streamline and accelerate approval. In fact, you may have seen this photo of Dunleavy and Trump on Air Force One, planning more “development” that would destroy Alaska’s precious natural resources despite widespread opposition;
Dunleavy appointed a former mining industry executive to head the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation;
The regional EPA office publicly decried the highly questionable conclusions in the USACE draft environmental impact statement, only to be forced by the administration to walk those comments back a few days later.
Most Alaskans don’t want the mine. Annual polls show that opposition has never dropped below 50%, and support has never risen above 40%. This despite all the money giant pro-mining corporations pour into changing opinions.

So the shaker near King Salmon had impeccable timing. It’s as if Mother Nature is rattling a warning.

Melanie Brown on the Naknek River, doing what she loves best on the set net fishing site her great-grandfather established several decades ago.

Here’s the real worst-case scenario writ in big bold lettering so that even pro-mine “executives” in their big white offices should be able to understand. No matter how much you attempt to “store” all that toxic crap piled 500 feet high in a giant 1,000-acre “facility,” you cannot guarantee that an earthquake won’t shake it loose.

And if it does happen, and it likely would, the contamination would have an excellent chance of being near total, and potentially permanent. Thousands of people living downstream would be in danger. Wild salmon would lose their spawning grounds and the ability to ensure the longevity of the species.

I wonder what the Army Corps of Engineers would say then.

The fishing fleet in the Naknek River. The processing plants are visible along the shore. The population swells by a factor of 10 during the fishing season.

Defend Bristol Bay

For those of us in the lower 48 continuing to endure wave after wave of senseless rollbacks of environmental protections for precious natural resources across the country, the Pebble issue may seem like just another chapter in a painful narrative.

But this issue affects us all. If you eat wild salmon, you’re eating salmon that depends on crisp, clean, clear water in virtually undisturbed wilderness. Even if you don’t eat salmon, the battle to protect wild spaces is one you should care about.

I’ve met several people who have been fighting this fight for years. I’ve seen their land, their water, and their salmon. To those folks in Bristol Bay, this is a battle for their way of life – and their lives. They have no option but to continue to stand up to the blind greed, political bullying, and outright sham of the process.

We would do well to stand with them and set an example of how to change the narrative.

If you want to make your voice heard, contact your congressional representatives here. If you’d like to do more than that, check out the Defend Bristol Bay action page.

If you’d like to see what life is like in Bristol Bay for those who live and fish there, check out The Wild, the award-winning film directed by friend and colleague Mark Titus. Follow this link to see screenings near you.

Eighty-eight-year-old Al Aspelund, an Aleut native, working his smoke shack magic as he has done for some six decades. Indigenous subsistence traditions like this are at stake.

Resources

Here are a couple of ways to get more info and get involved:

One Fish Foundation Fish Tales Podcasts:
- Gayla Hoseth: Natural Resources Program Director and Second Chief of the Curyung Tribal Council
  - Audio only (downloadable)
  - Video (with photos)
- Norm Van Vactor: President and CEO of Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation
  - Audio only (downloadable)
  - Video (with photos)
Salmon State: Good resource for history of project and ways to get involved.
Pebblewatch, which also has some cool maps
National Park Service in-depth analysis of the long-term effects of tailings impoundment failures.
Bristol Bay Native Corporation: Good background on some of the indigenous opposition to the mine.
Bristol Bay Native Association: Another organization supporting the tribes of Bristol Bay.
Informative Anchorage Daily News Op-Ed about how the Trump and Dunleavy administrations have worked to gut the clean water act and its protections in Alaska.
Businesses of Bristol Bay
Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation
July 1 EPA Region 10 letter from Administrator Chris Hladick, voicing concerns over Army Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Impact Statement

All Blog Posts

Administration Forces EPA About-Face, Revokes Bristol Bay Protections

July 31, 2019October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Boy, was my Alaska trip’s timing impeccable. I got to see the pulse and vibrance of the fishery and the economy it supports. I got to see the deep connections people of all stripes have to the salmon, the water, the land. I arrived during the heart of the world’s largest sockeye run.

I also arrived just as the Environmental Protection Agency District 10 in Seattle issued a blistering statement castigating the US Army Corps of Engineers’ draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Pebble Mine. The letter claimed the EIS had some serious flaws, and “…may result in substantial impacts to waters of the United States within the Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet watersheds.”

Folks I spoke with about the EPA statement felt bolstered by the statement after fighting the mine for over a decade, particularly given the administration’s push to approve the mine in the past two years.

But as I said before, this is a chess match, and the administration yesterday pulled what I’m sure they consider a “trump” move by rolling back federal Clean Water Act protections for Bristol Bay established during the Obama administration.

Make no mistake. This is outright politics at the expense of natural resources and the 15,000 people who depend directly and indirectly on those resources, whose total economic impact is now valued at over $1.5 billion. At stake is a truly priceless, irreplaceable resource that can continue to fuel the region’s economic engine … or billions in profits for a small group of investors. Do corporate interests really outweigh the rights of citizens?

Think of the colossal irony. Think of Chris Hladick, the EPA Region 10 Administrator who penned the July 1 letter slamming the EIS, only to be forced to publicly backtrack. Several entities supporting the mine claimed they wanted to see the science that this mine could harm the natural resource. Hladick pointed out some of the flaws in the EIS in his July 1 letter. The EIS itself essentially skated over the original finding from the EPA under the Clean Water Act in 2014, declaiming the potential devastating harm of such a mine on the salmon and its habitat.

Yesterday’s announcement demonstrates the folly that mine supporters call “due process,” but is more a proof point of power politics, influence, potential collusion and graft. It screams, “JUST JOKING! We mean to railroad this mine through and strip the very protections we said would preserve the resource in the region.”

I’ve just talked to a couple of people fighting the fight. They are angry and sadly unsurprised at the political arm-twisting from the administrations of both governor and president. Particularly as this arm-twisting is in support of a mining company based in Canada, not the U.S.

A deckhand on a tender weighs part of Melanie Brown’s set net sockeye harvest during the heart of the season.

But the folks I spoke to are still resolved.

They have to be. In their view, their lives and livelihoods are essentially at stake. As for the mine’s investors, their bank account profits are at stake.

This issue forces people to check their moral compass. If we can’t protect the salmon, their habitat, and the thousands who depend on them, where are we headed? What does this mean for other priceless public spaces?

If this issue has struck a cord, follow this link for more information on how to speak out and get involved. Contact your representatives and senators in Washington, D.C., regardless of where you live. Every voice counts.

Also, stay tuned for the Fish Tales Podcast, which will feature the voices of those on the front lines of the battle to save Bristol Bay from such wanton development. You’ll hear what life is like in Bristol Bay, and why preserving it matters so much to those who live and work there.

Other resources:

Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay Press Release regarding EPA’s reversal

United Tribes of Bristol Bay Press Release

July 1 EPA Region 10 letter from Administrator Chris Hladick, voicing concerns over Army Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Impact Statement

All Blog Posts

Bristol Bay Beckoning

July 17, 2019October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Plan for them all you want, but rich experiences often require overcoming some challenges, adapting to surprises and simply making do.

In the past two weeks in Bristol Bay, Alaska, I’ve watched massive brown bears stroll along the banks of the rivers I was fishing as they searched for their own meals, passively taking notice of us humans. Breathtaking.

I’ve picked fish out of set nets by hand, learning from a master how to extricate gill plates, untangle fins and bleed the fish quickly and efficiently as we practiced a centuries-old ritual. Working three sets in a 15-hour period gave me a glimpse at just how demanding a full four-week season must be.

I’ve toured one of the eight or so big processing facilities that represent half of the commercial fishing economic equation in Naknek. One million fish a day are vacuumed up a large pipe from the waterfront to a huge warehouse with hundreds of hairnetted seasonal workers that head, tail, gut and fillet the fresh fish. The salmon are then either frozen and packed, or smoked, frozen and packed, each fixed with the private label of one of the fishermen who contract with the plant. It is a very smooth operation.

I’ve hitchhiked (for the first time, feeling at once a tad uneasy and adventurous) along the Alaska Peninsula Highway between Naknek and King Salmon, shortening the 15-mile distance, saving the $40 cab fare (and the $255 per day to rent a Kia) and meeting some really interesting people along the way. Hippie Doug may be a transplant from the 80s, but he sure seems to have carved out a creative, if off-color niche for himself smoking salmon in Bristol Bay.

The flora and fauna

I’ve checked off a significant, life-long bucket list item: fly fishing Alaska’s wild rivers and streams, catching a variety of stunning salmonids with different flies and approaches. The red flame of the rainbow trout and the iridescent pink spots of the Dolly Varden or Arctic Char are seared in memory, recalled at will. Same with the small chrome blue thumbprint marks along the sides of the 30 or so 2-8 inch king salmon smolts I caught while fishing King Salmon Creek alone.

We stood still and watched, being sure to keep a low profile. Click to watch a clip and turn up the volume!

Finding relatively fresh bear, moose and caribou tracks in the same vicinity along one of the creek’s banks spoke to the remarkable stable of wildlife in this place. I found a new sense of awareness following well-worn bear trails along the creek, mindfully following the advice I learned at “Bear Camp” at Brooks Creek by keeping a running conversation with myself. Ironically, I recounted a story I made up for my toddler daughter called “Esty and the Bear Cub.”

Mouse Ear Chickweed? Could be. Or it could be something else. Whatever it is, I sure did appreciate it at King Salmon Creek.

I drank in everything Nature had to offer. The colors of the fireweed, Toadflax (aka, butter and eggs), some form of lupine, something possibly called Mouse Ear Chickweed and countless other flowers I couldn’t identify. On one trek back from Contact Creek, I took in the cool shape and color of not-quite-ripe cloudberries, and the plethora of blueberry bushes along the trail, promising yet another ample food supply for bears, people and other critters in the next few weeks.

Bald eagles were fairly common, as were magpies, chickadees and some type of thrush providing the soundtrack for the wondrous ecosystem. On the flight from King Salmon to Dillingham, I watched beluga whales swimming in formation, chasing down a school of sockeye.

The people

I’ve also met some wonderful people who are corporeally and spiritually rooted to the land, the water and the resource. I was struck by their generosity, their openness and the power of their convictions. I spoke with both transplants and those whose roots to Bristol Bay extend for generations.

Al Aspelund and his wife Lou were my endearing hosts at Al-Lous B&B in Naknek. At 88, he is a consummate putterer, always fixing something and tinkering with his smoke shack to get the right temperature, air flow, and humidity for the sockeye and king salmon he hangs. A lifelong resident of the area, he practices the craft passed down from the Aleut traditions of his heritage.

Lodge owner, fishing guide, master fish filleter and outdoors woman, Nanci Morris Lyon carefully cutting a king salmon I’d just landed.

Nanci Morris Lyon is a woman of the wilderness. She grew up on a subsistence farm in eastern Washington state, and has carried that wilderness spirit with her in her journey to become a commercial fisherman, a fishing guide and finally, a sport fishing lodge owner in King Salmon.

Gayla Hoseth advocates for indigenous rights and preservation of the wondrous natural resources of Bristol Bay.

Gayla Hoseth is a force of nature, striving to protect indigenous rights with a focus on preservation and access to Bristol Bay’s natural resources as director of natural resources at Bristol Bay Native Association in Dillingham, and second chief of the Curyung Tribal Council. Born and raised in the area, she clings to the traditions she fights to preserve for indigenous tribes, such as learning to use an ulu (traditional knife) to fillet salmon from her grandmother.

Years of adaptation on boat decks, in processing plants and running the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation have helped Norm Van Vactor put things in perspective.

Norm Van Vactor moved to Dillingham after graduating high school in the Philippines and soon became a deckhand on a tender (a boat which takes the catch from smaller boats to processors on shore). He’s spent much of his life on deck or in processing plants, eventually becoming president and CEO of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation, charged with ensuring the rights of fishermen and others who want to earn a decent living in the area.

Melanie exudes good cheer, even during the fourth set of the day heading toward midnight.

Melanie Brown radiates love. She almost always has a smile on her face. She set net fishes with her son and daughter on the same sight her great grandfather established at the mouth of the Naknek River in the early 1900s, where thousands of sockeye funnel past heading many miles upriver to spawn. The one time I saw her really lose her smile was when she spoke about the impending threat of the Pebble Mine, showing her passion for protecting her rights, and those of everyone else who depend on the resource.

She wasn’t alone.

Unity in opposition

Everyone I spoke to let their raw emotions show on this topic. And every one of them echoed one clear sentiment. The proposed mine threatens something more valuable than the gold, copper and molybdenum couched in the earth at the headwaters of the world’s largest wild sockeye salmon run: the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people, natives, transplants and transient workers who depend on the health of that resource. And the economic impact of that resource cannot be overstated. The salmon fishery (both commercial and recreational) employs close to 15,000 people and generates a $1.5 billion economic impact.

A scar on the tundra near Lake Illiamna, the watershed for much of the world’s largest wild salmon run. Wrong place. Wrong mine. Repeat.

My mission to Alaska was twofold. First and foremost, I wanted to connect with these people and capture their stories for podcasts and blogs that I will share for broad distribution. This pitched battle has national significance, beyond what’s happening in Bristol Bay. These human stories will shed light on what’s at stake when huge multinational interests driven by profit and greed paint a rosy veneer over the devastating impacts of their operations. They want everyone in the lower 48 to assume this mine will bring jobs and boost local economies, ignoring the imminent ecological destruction of when (not if) the mine fails and leaks toxic chemicals into a priceless and fragile ecosystem. Flying over the pristine, water-veined tundra near Lake Illiamna, I wondered how anyone who saw the ugly outcropping of buildings dumped on this wondrous terrain could possibly think this mine was a good idea.

Second, I wanted to experience Bristol Bay firsthand, picking fish in set nets, walking across the tundra to remote rivers and streams to fly fish, seeing life in Naknek and King Salmon, touring a processor, and meeting new people. I visited at a time when the sockeye run is again above projections, showing the resilience and bounty of the resource, especially when it’s properly managed and allowed to thrive in healthy ecosystems.

I’ve done that. And there’s still much more to do. Stay tuned for the upcoming Fish Tales Podcasts featuring Nanci, Melanie, Norm, Gayla, Al and others to hear them tell their stories, and why preserving the resource matters to them, everyone in Bristol Bay, and to all of us who stand witness to the fierce battle to protect a priceless, irreplaceable resource.

All Blog Posts

Something There Is That Doesn’t Love A Mine

April 1, 2019October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Nanci Morris Lyon’s daughter was born the year the Pebble Mine project was first proposed in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Rylie Lyon is now a sophomore in college. She is a guide at her family’s recreational fishing operation, Bear Trail Lodge, in King Salmon, Alaska. Nanci spoke out against the mine then, and she’s still doing it today.

Talk about a telling timeline.

Why is it that this mining project, purported to be resting on one of the world’s largest copper, gold and molybdenum deposits, has neither begun operation nor been abandoned as a bad job in nearly 20 years? Only recently did the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers just release its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS, which would form the basis for considering possible impacts of allowing the mine to operate) for public comment.

Ponder this the next time you use your cell phone, hop online or drive to the store: Those minerals are in more everyday items than most people know. Their claimed abundance in the geologic veins hiding in the Earth’s crust near Bristol Bay has sparked much controversy during the past two decades, sometimes, pitting neighbor against neighbor in Alaska.

Why have Lyon, her family, staff, friends and most everyone else in and around the recreational, commercial and indigenous fishing industries in the Bristol Bay region continued fighting this mine for this long? That such a unified and vocal coalition of very diverse groups and cultures directly tied to the resource continues to stand united says something.

With apologies to Robert Frost, something there is that doesn’t love a mine. Particularly this mine in this spot.

Rylie Lyon with a spring rainbow trout, just a few weeks ago. Photo courtesy Nanci Lyon

In perpetuity

The biggest concern is that minerals mining produces highly toxic chemicals that permeate much of the rock and other sedimentary layers exhumed from the earth in the process to extract the desired gold, copper and molybdenum. All of that nasty stuff must be stored safely somewhere forever. Whatever happens in that watershed now has generational impacts on everything, from salmon to water to land.

Mines aren’t supposed to let that crap loose in Nature. Sadly, time and again they do. Look no further than what happened in Brumadinho, Brazil in January, or what happened at the Mt. Polley Mine in 2014.

Aftermath of Mt. Polley tailings impoundment failure. This dam was initially engineered by the same firm engineering Pebble’s dam. National Park Service Photo

People like Lyon, and my friend and colleague Melanie Brown, who fishes for sockeye salmon with her mom and other family members near Naknek, have been fighting Pebble from the beginning. Melanie’s connection to Bristol Bay traces back over generations as her family has fished those waters commercially and for subsistence with the natural rhythms of returning salmon.

Opposition to the mine stems from its proposed location just north of Lake Iliamna, in the watershed of the world’s largest wild sockeye run … and the rivers that Brown, Lyon and thousands of others depend on for their livelihoods.

They don’t view the Pebble Mine as a potential resource for their phones and computers. They view it as a ticking bomb. In their minds, the question isn’t whether something is going to go wrong. It’s when, at what scale, and whether the damage is permanent. What they fear most is the salmon won’t return.

Melanie Brown doing what she loves near Naknek. Photo courtesy Melanie Brown

Political tide change

Less than three years ago, the mine was left for dead, sentenced to purgatory by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, which in 2014 declared the mine would violate the Clean Water Act because of its imminent threat to the wild salmon watershed. This was good news for everyone supporting the natural resource that provides a nearly $2 billion economic boost to the Alaska economy and supports over 14,000 jobs for commercial and recreational fishing businesses as well as countless related operations. Those numbers dwarf any realistic economic impact the mine would have on the state.

Then two elections happened (in 2016 and 2018), dramatically turning the political tides at both the federal and state levels and breathing life back into the project.

A 30-minute conversation between Pebble Limited Partnership CEO Tom Collier and former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in 2017 undid all of the work that Lyon, Brown, and many, many others amassed over decades to fight the project.

I wonder if someone uttered, “Good mines make good neighbors” in that meeting.

And now the mine’s permitting process, once estimated at decades if it ever got off the ground, is on a fast track. The Corps of Engineers on Feb. 20 released its draft EIS in “record time” by many accounts. Several critics claim the EIS glazes over if not outright ignores the ample scientific, economic and straightforward concerns voiced by recreational, commercial and indigenous fishermen, business owners, residents, scientists and countless voices from outside the state.

One chief concern is that the EIS does not account for the inevitable expansion the mine would have to undergo just to try and make a profit. Read this scathing economic review by a former permitting expert with one of the world’s largest mining operations (Rio Tinto, which previously pulled away from a financial deal with Pebble Limited Partnership). According to his analysis, the mine as proposed would have a big negative net present value of -$3 billion.

And despite loud protestations to extend the comment period sufficiently to allow thorough examination of the EIS and appropriate response, the Corps seems unwilling to do so. The comment period currently ends May 30, 2019.

Passion to safeguard Nature and livelihoods. Photo: Seafood News

Worse still, the last election produced a new pro-mine governor, who has appointed pro-mine commissioners (including a former employee of Anglo American, one of the world’s largest mining operations, which also pulled away from a financial deal with Pebble) of the departments of Environmental Conservation and Fish and Game. This move essentially sets the stage to fast-track state permits (of which there are nearly 60 to secure).

Follow the money

So why the rush? If the mine is as much a fait accomplis as its backers would have you think, why are they pushing state and federal agencies, which are supposed to have the state’s best interests (read natural resources and citizens) in mind, to approve everything now?

Perhaps it’s that Pebble’s owners want the appearance of momentum to continue so they might attract yet a fifth financial backer to the altar. The previous four, including three of the four largest mining interests in the world, bailed out citing massive opposition and the risk of economic disaster.

Maybe it’s the nifty clause that promises Collier more than $12.5 million in bonus money if he secures a positive Record of Decision from the Corps of Engineers within 4 years of submission of the permit (in Dec. of 2017). That’s on top of his $2+ million salary.

Talk about scale and incentive. The tailings impoundment to hold the toxic waste produced to extract these minerals would be up to 700 feet deep and extend for several miles. *And it must be secured “in perpetuity.”*

This is the same Collier recently quoted railing against the mine’s opposition: “I believe that a lot of these environmental organizations choose issues in Alaska. They make them cause celebs so they can raise money around them. And they choose Alaska primarily because they don’t have to suffer the backlash from the economic impact of the project being killed because no one gives a rat’s ass what happens in Alaska.”

Is that so? Within the Bristol Bay region, opposition to the project remains at over 75 percent, with the latest state-wide poll showing 61 percent opposed across Alaska. In 2014, 65% of Alaskans voted in favor of a measure that would require approval by the state legislature (rather than simply the state Department of Environmental Services) of any mine project that would threaten salmon habitat.

But then again, politics and money can make a difference. A ballot measure was defeated last November that would have added enforcement teeth to existing state laws that would have made permitting a mine in crucial salmon habitat harder to do. How did this happen so soon after the 2014 vote?

Because Ballot measure 1’s proponents, which included many of the same collective of fishermen, business owners and residents opposing the mine, were out-spent by several out-of-state companies. Supporters raised close to $2 million. Opponents raised close to $12 million, with the top five cash donors being such “neighbors” as Conoco Phillips ($1.4 million), BP Exploration (Remember Deepwater Horizon! $1.05 million), Donlin gold ($976,000), Hecla Mining Company, (just shy of $1 million), Coeur Alaska, (just shy of $1 million).

Oh, and let’s not forget other outside influences, such as the Koch brothers, who funded the Alaska Policy Forum, Power the Future, and Americans for Prosperity- Alaska Chapter, which operated an influence campaign to defeat Ballot Measure 1.

Profits over living natural resources, anyone?

Rolling boulders, not pebbles up hill

Certainly the mine’s operation would most significantly benefit its owners, managers and shareholders, maybe a few dozen.

On the other side of the fence are tens of thousands currently working in harmony with the salmon resource. This has been a grueling uphill battle for Lyon, Brown and everyone else standing up to outside influence. Years of persistent, grinding effort and emotion, speaking out publicly, holding signs, singing songs and writing letters take an emotional, spiritual and physical toll.

Why keep at it?

Because it’s their way of life. A connection to the land and water and salmon deeply intertwined with who they are.

Perhaps that’s a reminder of what should be important, whether we live in Bristol Bay or not. Yes, we depend on our cell phones and stuff like that. But there’s something else at work here.

Perhaps mining interests/investors/manufacturers should find the raw materials somewhere else, where there isn’t an imminent threat to a priceless resource that may not be able to recover should when something bad happens.

Can the forces working to topple a fabled stone wall in northern New England woods serve as a proxy for what’s really at risk in Bristol Bay?

Would that we could ask the salmon.

Resources

Speak out: Your voice matters, whether you live in Alaska or not. Here’s a link to comment on the US Army Corps of Engineers draft EIS.
Let Sen. Lisa Murkowski R-Alaska, know what you think. She needs to hear from everyone, in and out of the state. Follow the link and add additional comments if you are out of state but concerned.
Good resource for timeline, facts and ways to engage: Save Bristol Bay
Pebblewatch, which also has some cool maps
National Park Service in-depth analysis of the long-term effects of tailings impoundment failures.
A Bristol Bay fisherman speaks out in Juneau Empire op-ed against the mine.
Op-ed by Ron Thiessen, CEO of Northern Dynasty Minerals, which owns Pebble Limited Partnership. Funny how this “neighbor” tells people not to buy into “the alarmism” about the mine, but doesn’t mention his salary is over $2 million. Even more ironic is that he encourages people to read the Army Corps of Engineers’ EIS, but fails to mention that it is incomplete and virtually ignores most of the more damning issues raised in the first phase of public comment.
Finally, if you love wild Pacific salmon, and would like to do something beyond commenting, check out this offer from Wild for Salmon.

Top photo: Alaska Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service/Flickr

All Blog Posts

Slow Fish 201: Building Accountability in Seafood

January 31, 2019October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Sometimes it’s tough to see the forest through the trees. Or in this case, effective fisheries enforcement through the quagmire of domestic fishing regulations.

Consider that laws established to ensure responsible harvest, proper trade/market practices and truth in advertising throughout the supply chain are enforced by at least four different federal agencies with different agendas, priorities, authority, funding and resources. Factor in state and local agencies involved in the process, and you’ve got layer upon layer of bureaucracy. And yet, there are still gaps.

This is why we conducted the Slow Fish 201 webinar: Building Accountability in Seafood Weds. Jan. 23. We wanted to shed light on this complexity and the challenges it presents as well as some innovative thinking on how to create markets that organically root out fraud (more on that later).

Alphabet soup: NOAA, FDA, CBP, USDA

In broad terms, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement has jurisdiction over seafood entering the U.S., and can conduct warrantless inspections on vessels as they enter US waters. But it does not have the same broad authority once the seafood has crossed the border. The Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection also has some authority to inspect and ensure proper labeling of seafood entering the U.S.

Once seafood has passed beyond US borders, the responsibility to enforce labeling, country of origin, food safety and related laws generally belongs to the Food and Drug Administration and to a lesser degree, the US Department of Agriculture (primarily for farm-raised seafood). There are of course, exceptions to these rules where, for example, NOAA does have some jurisdiction on product within US borders (which makes the situation all the more confusing to those in and outside the supply chain.

With all of these layers of protection, intelligence and resources, you’d think we’d have a good handle on fraud.

And still, less than 1% of the seafood we import in this country, representing some 90% of domestic consumption, is inspected. That doesn’t even account for what happens within the domestic seafood supply chain, such as the co-optation of core trusted values, as happened with the Sea To Table news last summer.

No wonder consumers, fish harvesters, retailers and everyone else in the supply chain is confused and likely frustrated. How do you keep tabs on all of that?

A label’s cautionary tale

Patty Lovera, food and water policy director for Food & Water Watch, has spent decades navigating the domestic food policy system. She began the webinar with a high-level view of the matrix of federal agencies and laws responsible for safeguarding the stream of seafood in the supply chain. In short, the very Jenga-like structure leaves many gaps in enforcement, too much room for interpretation and hence, exploitation, and some confusion among supply chain players about how to honestly comply with the law.

As Patty Lovera mentioned and others echoed, consumer education is critical in the seafood supply chain.

She presented the Certified Organic label as a cautionary tale when laws and values don’t gibe. Established to distinguish farmers who adhere to a set of standards that prohibits hormones, antibiotics, certain pesticides and other additives and destructive practices, the label became a battle cry in the conflict with huge multinational corporations seeking to own the food system.

Millions of dollars, countless hours, political wrangling, lawsuits, arm-twisting, scheming and in some cases, outright capitulation have led to a severely diluted label bearing no resemblance to the original mission. More than three decades of haggling, and products either owned or supported by the likes of industrial agriculture giants Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Tyson foods bear the Certified Organic seal.

The message? Labeling schemes and the values they promote can be co-opted if not rooted in strong values backed by stronger laws.

Congressional commitment

We were fortunate to have Congressman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) join the conversation. He’s quite busy as he’s just taken the gavel for the powerful House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife, which is responsible for reauthorizing the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), otherwise known as the Fish Bill.

“I believe we’ve got to be supporting U.S. fishermen in an increasingly competitive international market.”
Congressman Jared Huffman

In outlining some of his priorities for the subcommittee, he said we need to preserve the health of the oceans, fix some of the environmental rollbacks established by the current administration and do what is necessary to help U.S. fishermen make a good living. “I believe we’ve got to be supporting U.S. fishermen in an increasingly competitive international market,” said Huffman.

He also mentioned “…ways to improve traceability throughout the supply chain. There may be new technology that could be utilized, examples from businesses that are doing some of this work. It’s clear to me that we need to better enforce, maybe even strengthen, existing policies to ensure accurate labeling, increased transparency and consumer trust.”

Marketing, education and leveling the playing field

Noah Oppenheim, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and the Institute for Fisheries Resources, followed on that theme, saying that fraud has a significant impact on community-based fish harvesters who are trying to abide by the law.

“It’s only fair that the accountability that fishermen have been holding themselves to is rewarded in the marketplace.”
Noah Oppenheim

“Fraud can occur at any place in the market,” Oppenheim said. “It’s a huge problem, and we have to find comprehensive solutions that make it harder for anybody on the end of the chain of custody to mislabel or fraudulently market their product.”

He also spoke of the need to enhance education and marketing to help consumers better understand the value of domestic fisheries. “It’s only fair that the accountability that fishermen have been holding themselves to is rewarded in the marketplace.”

Jes Hathaway, editor in chief of National Fisherman, a national trade publication, echoed Oppenheim’s call for better education and more funding for marketing programs.

She zeroed in on increased funding to boost the infrastructure at our ports to level the playing field between domestic seafood standards and standards for imports. “As long as it’s easier to bring seafood into port in a container than to bring it in your fish holds, we are doing our seafood industry, our fishermen and our citizens a disservice.”

“As long as it’s easier to bring seafood into port in a container than to bring it in your fish holds, we are doing our seafood industry, our fishermen and our citizens a disservice.”
Jes Hathaway

Hathaway also proposed “encouraging region- and fisheries-specific solutions to the problem beyond Magnuson.” One such approach, in her view, would be to provide funding for test programs to track seafood from boat to plate in different regions. While some programs exist, she would like to see more cooperation and investment in such programs, rooted in common values across different supply chains and geographies.

Pier to peer community accountability

One of the webinar’s recurring themes hinged on supplementing better, more comprehensive enforcement of stronger laws with cultural changes within the fishing community. As Hathaway suggested, “Federal legislation is rarely a panacea for every issue in fisheries.” However, one possible path toward ensuring stakeholder buy-in while potentially reducing fraud involves a community accountability model.

Kevin Scribner, owner/operator of Forever Wild Seafood and one of Slow Fish national’s team leaders, described the notion of creating a seafood community accountability program, in effect, a cooperative rooted in a shared set of values. If you agree to uphold the values, you become part of the community that will support those values, identify and address any violation of those values (fraud), and offer support to those who need it.

This type of community accountability promotes a self-policing model that discourages any missteps while promoting the values that engender public trust. Scribner described it as a system in which “We take care of and manage our own.” But it would also be a system that is open to anyone willing to embrace the core values, which may be similar to the Slow Fish values of good, clean, fair, and/or the Local Catch Core Values embracing community-based fishermen.

“…a reliable trusted knowledge-based system of accountability can be developed and maintained by a seafood community that is committed to and guided by core values.”
Kevin Scribner

“We have confidence that with the proliferation of direct and immediate communication tools plus refined methods of traceability and a commitment to transparency, that a reliable trusted knowledge-based system of accountability can be developed and maintained by a seafood community that is committed to and guided by core values,” Scribner said.

A seafood community accountability framework would not seek to rebel against nor replace existing federal, state and local laws in place. Rather, it would operate under the umbrella of existing fisheries laws, augmenting the overall effort to minimize fraud while uplifting the values that support responsibly managed fisheries.

There’s much more to discuss on this topic, including different values and traceability and transparency technologies to support those values, all of which we’ll revisit in the third webinar in the Slow Fish 201 Webinar Series on Feb. 27. Stay tuned for more information regarding time, panelists and questions to be asked and answered.

The webinar closed out with some insightful questions from the audience regarding fair pay for seafood processing employees, economic justice to ensure fair pricing and access to quality seafood for all demographics and ways to measure success in the mission to uphold values and minimize fraud.

We will revisit all of these topics in some form in one of the following webinars.

Resources

If you’d like to watch the video recording of this webinar, follow this link.

If you’d like to watch the video recording of the first webinar, follow this link.

If you’d like to continue the discussion, visit the Local Catch Forum here.

If you’d like to communicate directly with one of the panelists, send an e-mail to colles@onefishfoundation.org.

Want a more in-depth understanding of the federal agencies at work against seafood fraud? Follow these links:

Congressional Research Foundation report on Seafood Fraud

University of Minnesota Food Policy Center Report

All Blog Posts

What It Means To Be Local

June 16, 2018October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Update as of 4:45 p.m. 6-17-18:

Adding a link to the latest response from Sea To Table Founder Sean Dimmin to the AP story. In the response, he goes on the defensive, calling out “numerous misstatements and false allegations,” alluding to shoddy or incomplete reporting. Dimin points out instances where the reporting does seem to leave a bit of detail and process open to question. He also admits Sea To Table could have better communicated with its suppliers (in particular, Gosman’s) and with its customers.

That’s all fine. He’s saying the right things for someone in his predicament. But I don’t think the conversation should end there. Those in the domestic seafood industry, and those who promote it, face a steep challenge. Trust is absolutely essential to trying to convince even small percentages of US consumers to get seafood smart and buy domestically. The original premise behind Sea To Table or any similar minded operation is to promote local seafood, fishermen and waterfronts, often regardless of customer geography. So even if lapses in communication to customers or partners that led to mislabeling, etc., are the only truly valid mistakes made, we need to be having this conversation. As we’re trying to limit the more than 1.5 million tons of cheap, imported farmed shrimp (among other unsustainably harvested species) flooding markets in this country every year, we need to be honest and forthright.

I do not agree with some who claim the negative attention and likely serious sales hit to Sea To Table is just desserts and the company should go away. I think these communications issues don’t rest with Sea To Table alone in the industry. It’s a tough, and generally laudable mission these companies try to accomplish. But I also don’t think we can make excuses for those whose lapses could set the entire movement back by calling trust in domestic seafood systems into question. We need to have these conversations, find solutions and move forward to turn that 90% domestic import figure around.

It all comes down to trust … and relationships.

This week’s news that one of the rising stars of the locally sourced, sustainable seafood movement may have been selling seafood that wasn’t local, may have been mislabeled and was possibly linked to slave labor in other countries sent shock waves through the industry.

Brooklyn-based Sea To Table has built quite a following with its promise of sustainable, traceable, domestically harvested wild seafood delivered to your doorstep. Clients included celebrity chefs like Rick Bayless national food chains such as Chopt Creative Salad, a bunch of universities like Yale, eateries at the Empire State Building and Chicago O’Hare airport and the home meal kit provider Hello Fresh. It can be found in almost every state.

But an Associated Press report issued earlier this week shed light on some of the issues that can arise with this boat-to-table model and the temptation of entrepreneurs to co-opt, then sweep aside the spirit and intent of terms such as “sustainable seafood” and “local.”

The colossal irony being that they may be knowingly or unknowingly violating the principles they promote, all in an attempt to bring clarity and trust to what Sea to Table Founder Sean Dimin calls “the historically opaque seafood industry.” The Sea To Table business model is to work with some 60 “local” fishermen and fishing operations/distributors to source “traceable” seafood from around the country.

The AP report outlines a lengthy investigation uncovering a slew of allegations that run headlong into the company’s mission statement. For example, promoting fresh, locally caught yellow fin tuna in the winter off New York, when the migration south occurred several months beforehand and no local fishermen had been out. Or charges that some of the seafood Sea to Table sold was in fact imported and linked to Indonesian operations with a history of labor abuse. Other charges included selling farm-raised seafood despite the wild-only claim.

So yes, this was big news in that it surprised many in the industry. It will also raise lots of questions, piss some people off and confuse the hell out of consumers. What are they supposed to do to be sure they are buying local, sustainable seafood?

Dimin is correct in that the seafood industry is indeed opaque. There are few places that have completely transparent supply chains. Consider that seafood travels more than 5,000 miles on average from boat to plate in this country, often changing hands at least seven times.

The AP report is informative and sad, but it isn’t really broaching any new allegations about industry practices. Check out this exhaustive AP report on slave labor linked to imported seafood. The fact we import 90% of the seafood we eat just means more of the seafood consumed in the U.S. may be linked to brutal labor practices.

But the issue of trust and misrepresentation goes beyond just the seafood industry. The whole concept of questionable food sourcing and marketing practices isn’t new. For example, the Tampa Bay Times ran a series in 2016 about the farm-to-table movement, and how many restaurants and purveyors were glazing over, and sometimes outright lying about the provenance of their food.

What is local?

All of this goes back to a discussion I had this week with Josh Stoll, a research professor at the University of Maine and a co-founder of Local Catch, an organization that promotes community-supported fisheries and other direct-to-consumer operations aimed at bringing people closer to their seafood.

We discussed how the Sea to Table news raises the very valid question of how to define “local” and how to re-build consumer trust. Josh spends much of his time working to streamline and improve community-based fisheries governance for the benefit of fishermen, their communities and consumers.

“The definition of ‘local’ is evolving,” he said. “It’s less about geography and more about relationships.”

He’s exactly right. Just as the terms “organic” and “sustainable” have been stripped of their original intents by overuse and bastardization of meaning, “local” without valid context has become vapid marketing speak. It could mean so many things and nothing at all if there is no valid context to support its use.

Case in point: Sea To Table uses “local” in the first sentence of its mission statement to showcase the quality of the seafood it sources. Now, regardless of whether the company knowingly misled customers, it has much work to do to re-establish credibility. Dimin and his crew can’t just plead that they are still offering “local” seafood. They have to earn back that trust.

How? By going back to the basic mission and working to repair the relationships that the company was built on. Not an easy task.

When I host KNOW FISH Dinners^® and invite people to talk to the fish harvester who caught the fish they are eating, I’m creating a direct link to the food producer that more often than not remains a mystery in this “opaque” industry. I tell people I want them to think about their next seafood purchase the same way they think about buying eggs or produce from a farmer at a farmer’s market.

Those are the kinds of relationships that define “local” for me.

Know your seafood, know your provider

So, say you live in Kansas. You probably don’t live next door to a commercial fish harvester. This is where enterprises like Sea To Table have begun to fill the void. The problem arises when customers take the “local” claim on faith without establishing some kind of relationship with the provider. If they get to know the provider, even if the provider is a distributor with direct links to the fish harvester, they get a better sense of the values and ethics used by the provider to promote their product. They should also be able to get the story of the fish harvester as well. Same goes for distributors like Sea To Table. They need to build solid relationships with the fish harvesters and docks providing the seafood to ensure they hew closely to strict guidelines.

That’s how you build trust. The AP story calls the latter point about Sea To Table’s supplier relationships into question.

Sure there are situations when establishing that level of trust isn’t possible. But one of the key points I make with folks is that knowledge really is power. Consumers fare much better ensuring the quality and provenance of the seafood they purchase when they get smart about what is locally and seasonally available, who has the best product, and who is trustworthy. This all takes time.

But it’s worth it.

Owning the relationship

Can things still go awry? Absolutely. Sea To Table is the proof. I’m not sure I believe this was a wholesale willful violation of trust. Read Sean Dimin’s first letter in response to the AP story. As I said, there are no new revelations in the news story about what happens in the industry. And Sea To Table has much work to do to repair its reputation. More so now that Sen. Edward Markey has asked NOAA and the Federal Trade Commission in a letter to investigate the claims against Sea To Table.

The situation underscores the fact there are many gray areas in domestic food systems. But it also reinforces the notion that people should take more ownership of their seafood purchases. Again, it’s all about relationships. We talk about the relationship people have to the seafood they eat during these hosted KNOW FISH Dinners. Their (our) choices have an impact on the resource, the fish harvester and the community. Getting closer to the source, even if that closeness is more relational than geographic, will minimize the risk of being misled.

That 90% import statistic won’t change unless we build, strengthen and multiply these very important relationships.

Check out the Local Catch website as it is a good resource for finding responsibly harvested seafood throughout the country. I believe there are several operations who are delivering on their promise of responsibly harvested product. You can find some of them listed on the Local Catch website.

Also, stay tuned for more discussion about this topic. It is a fundamental reason for why we should care where, when, how and by whom our seafood was harvested.

If you’d like additional perspective, read Paul Greenberg’s take on the situation here.

Photo courtesy of New England Fishmongers

All Blog Posts

A College Student Walks into a Webinar…

November 23, 2017October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

One Fish Foundation Intern Jennifer Halstead is a senior at the University of New Hampshire. She has been instrumental with several One Fish projects, including the coordination of the recent Webinar co-hosted by One Fish Foundation and Local Catch, Fisheries Management: Best Available Science May Not Be Good Enough. Below is her take on the Webinar from the perspective of a college student, and why we should include college students in these discussions more frequently. And she’s right. Why wouldn’t we want to empower future leading researchers, fishermen and policy makers with a broader perspective and a voice?

By Jennifer Halstead

I had to drive to a neighboring town to run some errands immediately following the webinar, and I had a million thoughts swimming around in my head. So, I did what any millennial would do, and I used my smart phone to take notes for me, setting it to record as I drove.

Listening to the recording later, I realized some critical points. First, I was extremely fired up and passionate about the issues, and even a little angry about some of them. Second, I recognized through this webinar that the scientists, fishermen, and others taking part in the conversation represented a broad range of backgrounds and viewpoints, but were united on one theme: that the current fisheries management model doesn’t work for this extremely dynamic, and rapidly changing ecosystem.

Being a college student in marine sciences is exhilarating and intimidating. We’re presented with myriad challenges and questions, and rarely presented with solutions. We’re kind of left in limbo: We have a strong knowledge base, but a wide-open area to apply it, and we’re walking into a field of open-ended questions that have been asked for decades.

The curriculum of marine sciences now has a large portion of time allocated to climate change-related topics and challenges. As students, we’re presented with climate related disasters in all our classes. Not only is this depressing, but the lack of tangible solutions can take away our hope for our future in minutes. Being able to be part of an active discussion about how to change that as part of this Webinar put the last four years of me hearing about these unsolvable problems into a different perspective. I know we need change, because that’s what I’ve paid tuition to learn. An entirely different story starts when I hear other people talking about change, however. Suddenly, there’s a light ahead, collaboration forms, and solutions start to appear to all of those previously unsolvable problems.

Determining lobster sex aboard the F/V Vivian Mae this summer.

I was emboldened by hearing fishermen and scientists talk about how different, fast-changing dynamics throughout the Gulf of Maine necessitate a different data approach: one that is more localized. Hearing them talk about a solution motivated me to keep moving forward and not feel as overwhelmed by the issues. We as college students will listen and take heart when authoritative voices such as fishermen, council members and scientists uniformly agree on the need for change and discuss possible solutions. Hopefully, these credible voices will resonate with the larger community.

To move forward, we need to analyze the current model and determine what the problems are that are highest in priority to address. In addition to this, we need to keep the conversation going, and keep working toward common goals.

The current data collection model is a One-Size-Fits-All model, but the consensus of the discussion was that one size does not fit all. Therefore, the current model is not doing its job and needs to change. The Gulf of Maine is an extremely dynamic region, with highly productive areas, multiple spawning areas and freshwater inputs. Unfortunately, it is feeling climate change impacts at an alarming rate. In a system with this many moving parts, we should not be employing a model that is rigid. Instead of adjusting this model, however, it may be easier to start with new ideas. Relying on data from random trawl surveys that occurred three years ago is not a solid foundation to build a management plan on.

So, let’s change the way we collect data. Fishermen are out on the water every day in different areas, looking for different target species and making different observations. Why not make their observations available for scientists to use, creating an up-to-date, usable set of data? Up-to-date data means that the moving and fluctuating parts of the system can be more accurately accounted for, and we can develop more accurate and successful management plans more quickly. Collaboration between fishermen and scientists when it comes to collection of data and observations is important. It helps refine the current model and bring the sides together while doing it.

A large part of creating change and addressing these problems exists in the need to have active discussions. Everyone sitting at the table, simply discussing the challenges, could lead to change. Different perspectives bring different ideas, and then solutions can start to form. College students taking part in such discussions and offering their perspectives could be integral to the formation of such solutions. That involvement would also likely encourage them (as it has with me) to dive deeper into the issues and help find solutions, rather than be overwhelmed with fear and gloom.

Along with this, it is imperative that all stakeholders be involved in these discussions. If we want to use data that fishermen collect, for example, we need to make sure they’re on board with the idea, and we need to see how much they’re willing to do to create a better system. If too much is put on the fishermen’s plates, or on the plates of any other group for that matter, the new method will work as effectively as the current one. It won’t.

Jennifer Halstead is a senior at University of New Hampshire studying marine biology, and intern for One Fish Foundation.

Top Photo: Jennifer extracts the otoliths (ear bones) of a bluefin tuna to determine its age.

All Blog Posts

A scientist, a fisherman and a healthcare rep enter…

November 14, 2017November 15, 2017
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Back in January as everyone was adjusting to a new political landscape, I was on a call with Brett Tolley of the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance and Bob Steneck, Professor of Oceanography, Marine Biology and Marine Policy at University of Maine. We were talking about a recent report on climate change impacts in the Gulf of Maine, and what fisheries policy may look like in the context of climate impact and the shifting political landscape.

Needless to say there were many unanswered questions. At the time, the administration threatened to cut crucial funding for Sea Grant, climate science and even some fisheries management programs. Our discussion centered on how to adapt more nimbly to climate change impacts on fisheries, and how to make fisheries management more efficient and effective. We also wondered how significantly US fisheries management could shift in a year or two.

That conversation was the seed for last Friday’s (Nov. 3) Webinar: Fisheries Management: Best Available Science May Not Be Good Enough. The discussion was a frank look at the issues with current fisheries policy based on specific examples and some speculation on what management would look like if it were more localized and relied on a different data modeling system.

Joining me on the call were David Goethel, commercial fishermen from Hampton, NH and former three-term member of the New England Fisheries Management Council; John Stoddard, New England Regional Coordinator for Health Care Without Harm’s Healthy Food in Health Care program; and Steneck.

This was a diverse panel with deep knowledge from broad perspectives. Steneck has been at the forefront of research on coral, lobsters, urchins, kelp, forage fish and species interrelationships in coastal ecosystems. Goethel has the unique experience of a commercial fishermen who has had to shift his harvest target and method because of changes in the Gulf of Maine, and who has spent several years either as an advisor to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council or NEFMC. John Stoddard brought an institutional buyer’s perspective to the panel. He knows what healthcare representatives want from the seafood they serve their patients. They do have some concerns about sustainability, and when policy creates market forces that may limit access to locally harvested seafood, they may want to know what can be done to change the dynamic.

How’d we get here?

Steneck methodically walked us through some of the core issues with the current management system. Chief among those is the fact the Gulf of Maine, as well as other US coastal ecosystems, are changing faster than we can manage them. We have been a couple of steps behind climate change because our current data assessment system takes several years between collection and analysis and policy action. In essence, by the time policy has been set, the seascape has changed because of rising temperatures, current shifts, increased ocean acidification, etc. All of these changes have forced commercially valuable species to shift their patterns and adapt.

Overfishing of cod resulted in a sea urchin boom in the Gulf of Maine that collapsed in a decade. Interspecies relationships are critical to understanding dynamically changing ecosystems, and are often overlooked with current data management tools.

He pointed to the cod collapse in particular as a bellwether for how we missed the warning signs because of static data analysis, and how that type of “miss” happens frequently due to the data-intensive approach to stock assessment. He showed a brief video featuring a Canadian fisherman who said he had the trip reports to show cod stocks persistently dropping in key areas … data the government ignored because of its current management system.

Genetically distinct cod inhabit different ocean ecosystems and should be managed accordingly, not as one, all-inclusive species.

Steneck concluded that we need to “reinvent fisheries management to include multiple, independent indicators”, rather than drill down into details of one species without taking into account other critical factors such as complex interspecies relationships. Taking into account the dynamic changes within spatially appropriate areas of observation will give a more accurate view of fisheries and how quickly they change. Equally importantly, he stressed the need to expand collaboration with fishermen, mining their knowledge base to enhance data collection and analysis.

A unique point of view

David Goethel echoed those concerns. From both perspectives as fisherman and NEFMC member, he saw how current modeling methods’ stagnation meant policy did not match actual stock health and ability to withstand fishing pressure. He pointed to the impact the recent collapse of capelin in Newfoundland had on cod, seals and northern shrimp. Like Steneck, he called for managing fisheries based on the correct spatial scale and with a better understanding of changing predator-prey relationships.

Getting his point across at a management council meeting.

He also urged continued public/fishermen input at council meetings. The system breaks down when fishermen who feel disenfranchised by restrictive policies don’t participate in the process. He decried a lack of transparency in the policy process that frustrates fishermen to the point where many don’t believe it’s worth their time to speak out.

Goethel agreed with Steneck that data poor methods based on local, spatially appropriate areas of survey would provide the local detail current “big solution” modeling misses. He also agreed that involving more fishermen in the process would play a significant role in collecting more accurate data in a timely fashion, and restoring more fishermen’s faith in the process.

A healthcare approach

Stoddard emphasized Health Care Without Harm’s mission to provide locally sourced, sustainable seafood, with a goal toward supporting community based fishermen. This is a critical issue healthcare industry staff are finding with many patients, especially in coastal New England. Some of these patients have had family or friends who fished commercially, so the some of these issues matter to them.

An example of a successful program providing locally harvested seafood to patients.

He said Health Care Without Harm has steadily moved away from big ecolabels such as MSC to support more locally focused programs. Stoddard highlighted a successful program by which Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary sources locally harvested seafood from Gloucester via the Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association. Such programs address patient demand for locally sourced seafood while strengthening healthcare institutions’ support of surrounding communities … and specifically fishermen.

Continuing the dialogue

It was a good discussion, with some engaged back and forth on next steps. For example, one of the parting questions focused on what a successful, cooperative data-poor, localized management program might look like. Steneck suggested a demonstration project within an already existing sample area (under the current management system), using a data poor assessment approach. Goethel suggested using echo system modeling that incorporates multiple species relationships, that he believes would yield a more realistic view of stock health.

The next step in the community discussion about these issues is to begin planning the next conversation. At the outset, I said we weren’t going to solve all of the issues we discussed in one conversation. But the goal is to follow up the conversation with another Webinar that explores a bit deeper what a demonstration project might look like, the type of data to study, and the hoped-for outcomes.

We will aim to set up another Webinar in the first quarter of 2018 tapping the collective knowledge of a well-informed panel, willing to explore the possibilities and elevate the discussion. Ultimately, we hope to build a foundation of knowledge that may lead to a roadmap for change.

Stay tuned.

If you’d like to view the Webinar, click on this link and then the tab that says Watch Now: Fisheries Management: Best Available Science May Not Be Good Enough.