Alaska and Climate Change – Water Policy Consulting LLC

Reversing Trump’s Environmental Policies Under a Biden Administration will be a Tall Order

This year’s presidential election was a close race in a handful of states. When the Associated Press announced that, for just the second time in 70 years, with the help from the Native vote, announced a decisive win for Democrat Joe Biden announced an ambitious Indian Policy as part of his campaign, over President Trump on November 7, 2020. This was partly due to record turnout throughout the country, including pivotal votes from Native Americans in key states. As of 2018, the state of Arizona alone which turned from red to blue this election cycle, members of federally recognized tribes made almost 6% of the population and the Navajo Nation alone contains around 67,000 eligible voters.

The question on everyone’s mind is whether a Biden win will end Trump’s war on the environment. If the democrats do not become the majority party in the senate, in order to stay on track with his environmental agenda, Biden will need to rely primarily on executive actions and essential legislative measures like tax reform, the federal budget and the Farm Bill. Just hours after the United States officially withdrew from the Paris accord, on the day after the election, for example, Biden announced that he would reverse that decision on the first day of his term in office.

During his candidacy, Biden also pledged to reverse several of Trump’s Alaska initiatives including drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and issuing a permit to develop the Pebble Mine. Also, in relation to Alaska Native Tribes Biden plans to create a new division of the Justice Department that will focus on environmental and climate justice and to incorporate environmental justice throughout EPA programs.

The key will be how hard will the Trump administration push for completion of it’s resource extraction agenda before he leaves office on January 20. Although, The Trump administration recently issued a request to energy companies to identify what specific land areas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be offered for sale, this will be difficult due to the remaining environmental analysis, leasing logistics and the fact that global banks continue to adopt policies stating that they will not fund drilling in the Arctic due to climate change. And there’s also the fact that many of the Trump administrations decisions affecting BLM lands, including ANWR and the NPRA leasing were made by Scott Pendly who has been serving illegally as the Director of the Bureau of Land Management for the past 14 months.

Never one to let a small thing like the law get in the way of opening lands up to resource extraction activity however, Trump could simple move to put leases in ANWR and open up areas to mining, despite federal laws or even court orders to the contrary before leaving office. And then there’s the fact that Trump has not conceded the elections results to Biden and may not leave the Whitehouse at all.

Last Stand for the Tongass

The Tongass National Forest, the largest national forest in the United States, is a landscape comprised of old-growth Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and red and yellow cedar. These mighty trees, along with innumerable glacially-fed streams and lakes, give rise to all five species of Pacific salmon, humpback whales, healthy black and brown bear populations, wolves, and omnipresent bald eagles. Located in southeastern Alaska, the 17 million acre Tongass is the size of West Virginia and home to 70,000 people, including the First Nation people of the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian, and the city of Juneau, Alaska’s state capital. It is also the largest expanse of roadless wilderness in the national forest system, at least for now.

Protected by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (signed into effect by President Bill Clinton), 55% of the Tongass, or 9.2 million acres, is off limits to road construction and timber sales. But, in January 2018, under Governor Bill Walker’s administration and with the backing of the Trump Administration, the State of Alaska petitioned the Secretary of Agriculture to consider exempting the Tongass from the Roadless Rule.

Under the federal National Environmental Policy Act, any consideration to exempt the Tongass from the Roadless Rule requires a 60-day public comment period and a scientific analysis of environmental impacts to the Tongas. The 60-day public comment period, conducted this summer, fell well short of its obligation according to tribal members who received last-minute notice of public meetings. In their opinion, the comment period “exemplifies the federal government’s long-running failure to adequately work with tribes.” In response, eleven southeast Alaskan tribes vested in the outcome of the upcoming ruling, filed a petition in July, requesting the USDA consult with tribes “on a government-to-government basis.” Earlier attempts by area tribes to engage in the two-year process were derailed because “the USDA repeatedly ignored their input and requests for in-person meetings; fast-traced seemingly arbitrary deadlines; and proceeded as usual despite a pandemic that has disproportionally hurt Native communities.”

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), was released on September 24, 2020 and analyzes six alternatives, including a no-action alternative. Trump-appointed USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue prefers Alternative 6 which “provides maximum additional timber harvest opportunities,” removing “all 9.37 million inventoried roadless acres on the Tongass from roadless designation.” Moreover, “Alternative 6 would revert a net total of 168,000 old growth-acres and 20,000 young-growth acres, previously identified as unsuitable timber lands, to suitable timber lands”. The Tongas will “continue to be managed by the Forest Plan and in accordance with applicable statutory instructions.” There is a 30-day waiting period following the release of the EIS prior to implementation to allow for review.

If you want to weigh in against opening up the Tongas, please see the following websites.

https://addup.sierraclub.org/campaigns/keep-alaskas-tongass-national-forest-roadless

https://act.nrdc.org/letter/tongass-forest-181004

Your voice matters.

Unflagging Opposition to Business-as-Usual Extraction Practices

With Present Trump rolling back one environmental policy after another, ongoing efforts to slow global warming, safeguard wilderness, and provide clean water and air can seem futile. But never doubt that a handful of thoughtful, committed lawsuits can change the world. Indeed, it may be the only recourse that can.

We need look no farther than the Gwich’in Native community for inspiration when it comes to fighting to protect the environment. For more than thirty years they have resisted attempts to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. Under Trump’s plan to open lease sales across the entire coastal plain, that fight has kicked into high gear. For the Gwich’in, the coastal plain, birthing grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd which numbers approximately 200,000, is sacred ground. Their culture, history and way of life revolve around the caribou and the 1.5 million-acre expanse of coastal lands. Sarah James, Gwich’in elder, explains, “We have a special connection in that we are a part of the caribou and the caribou are part of us. It is our language, our songs, our dance…. We take care of the caribou, and in return, they take care of us, and that’s really important to my people here.”

The Gwich’in Sterring Committee, along with several other plaintives including Canada’s Yukon chapter of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, filed a lawsuit in late August, seeking to overturn Trump’s approval for oil leasing, and siting violations of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and likely impacts to the Porcupine Caribou Herd.

A second lawsuit to halt oil leasing on the Refuge filed by The National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Biological Diversity sight insufficient concern over increased greenhouse gas emissions and melting permafrost, poor air quality, and negative impacts to the region’s wildlife.

And most recently, a third lawsuit to overturn drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was filed on September 9th with the U.S. District Court in Anchorage by attorneys general for 15 states and led by Washington and Massachusetts. The lawsuit states that drilling will contribute to global climate change and its effects such as sea level rise and extreme weather events.

A number of other environmental legal battles continue in Alaska and Siberia. In North-western Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, Trump seeks to overthrow Obama-era safeguards by expanding development into regions of the Reserve long slated for protection. Two recent lawsuits are pushing back against expanded development in NPR-A oil leasing. The lawsuits are in response to the final environmental impact statement released by the Bureau of Land Management in June allowing oil leasing on 18.7 million acres in the 23-million-acre reserve, including drilling in Teshekpuk Lake. Teshekpuk is the largest lake on the North Slope and provides critical habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds.

And while a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reversal of restrictions on Pebble Mine was dismissed in US District Court, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan has joined a growing rank of conservatives who are openly opposed to the Pebble mine project. The proposed gold, molybdenum and cooper mine, in South-central Alaska’s Lake and Peninsula region, is recognized as a threat to the nationally-significant Bristol Bay salmon fisheries. Following the release of secret recordings by Pebble executives, Sullivan stated in a tweet on September 24^th, “Let me be even more clear: I oppose Pebble Mine. No Pebble Mine.” This follows a surprise stipulation issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late August to Dynasty Minerals Ltd requiring the mine owners to outline how they will offset damage to wetlands and any impacts to the Bristol Bay salmon fishery. Other conservatives who oppose the mine, at least as it is currently proposed, including Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Donald Trump Junior and Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

In the southern part of the state, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, and other conservation groups including the Chilkat Indian Village of Klukwan, lost lawsuits in federal district court and the Ninth Circuit court which sought to challenge federal permits issued to the Palmer mine project near Haines. The Constantine Metal Resources Ltd. obtained permits to build 2.5 miles of roads across U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to access zinc, copper, gold and silver deposits. The lawsuit argued that BLM did not factor in future mining development at the Palmer mine and impacts on the 3,000 bald eagles and spawning salmon along the nearby Chilkat River.

In southeastern Alaska, the Trump administration is zeroing in on the Tongass National Forest, seeking to exclude this, the nation’s largest national forest, from the Clinton-era roadless rule. A much-disputed study by the U.S. Forest Service states that lifting protections “will not significantly harm the environment.” By year’s end, the Trump administration hopes to open vast tracts of pristine old growth forest to road construction and timber sales. Recent lawsuits blocking timber sales that failed to identify impacted areas, and for deficiencies in the review process have stalled the sales process several times. That pushback resulted in the Trump administration implementing the new roadless rule exemption.

Meanwhile, in the Russian far north, a lawsuit has been filed against Norilsk Nickle seeking 1.96 billion dollars in damages for a May 29^th fuel spill. The spill, blamed on melting permafrost, dumped 21,000 tons of diesel into the Ambarnaya and Daldykan rivers which feed into Lake Pyasino before emptying into the Arctic Ocean. The spill is one of the largest ever recorded in the Arctic and has been compared with Alaska’s 1989 ExxonValdez spill, in part because both spills coincided with the spring migration — just as birds and fish are returning to their natal grounds.

The one take-away the Gwich’in can offer in this legal playing field is don’t give up. The fights for the Coastal Plains, the Tongas, and the headwaters of Bristol Bay continue, one lawsuit at a time. For Gwich’in elder Sarah James it’s straight forward. “We’re not a nonprofit. We’re not a movement. We’re not a corporation. We’re a neets’aii Gwich’in tribal government, and that’s how we’re now taking on this issue, government-to-government, and we’re standing our ground.”

There are alternatives to sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain

The Trump administration recently gave the final go-ahead to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which by the end of 2020 would authorize the sale of two separate 400,000-acre oil and gas leases, encompassing a major portion of the refuge’s coastal plain and 8 percent of the 19.3 million-acre Refuge.

Opponents who have filed multiple lawsuits to stop the leasing, believe that the approval process was rushed for political reasons resulting in a flawed and inadequate analysis of the environmental impacts, violating prohibitions on killing or harassing of polar bears and laws requiring the protection of indigenous subsistence resources as well as exacerbate sea level rise, extreme weather events, the spread of diseases like and other impacts of climate change.

Alaska’s political leadership, on the other hand, seems unfazed by yet another botched Trump administration environmental analysis and the fact that more drilling in the Arctic will contribute to Alaska’s carbon footprint. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for example, said “[t]his is a capstone moment in our decades-long push to allow for the responsible development of a small part of Alaska’s 1002 Area. … I’m confident the ROD has been developed carefully and comprehensively and look forward to the lease sales mandated by law…”

Why are our political leaders still stepping in line with President Trump’s insatiable thirst for oil no matter what the environmental cost, when economists have been warning for decades that the state is too dependent on the oil and gas industry to bail it out from spending at an unsustainable rate year after year?

It should have been obvious in the mid-1980s when global oil prices crashed sending the state into a full recession, that not only were the days of the oil and gas fueling fiscal growth over, but continuing to put all the state’s eggs in one basket would actually harm the economy. That the ongoing sugar-daddy delusion was still alive and well by 2003, however, is illustrated by then-Gov. Frank Murkowski’s announcement regarding the solution to the state’s economic crises: “Ladies and gentlemen, in a single word, it’s oil.”

Today the state’s addiction to oil is partly illustrated by the millions it provides via annual tax write-offs to oil and gas corporations who drill in Alaska but do not provide much in the way of return on this investment. in 2014, for example, the state’s largest producer, ConocoPhillips, made 68 percent of its global profits from Alaska but invested only 15 percent of its global capital in the state.

Despite the delusion of some politicians that drilling in places like ANWR could take Alaska back to the days of economic Nirvana of Prudhoe Bay, one thing that could prevent development in ANWR would be if presidential candidate Joe Biden who, if elected, has promised to “permanently protect” the refuge.

But in the end, rather than politics or litigation, it is simple economics that could stop drilling in the coastal plain. Ever sense COVID-19 — which came at a time when oil prices were already down — drove those prices to historic lows, the industry as a whole has been bleeding money, shedding jobs, and interest in drilling in the remote sites with difficult conditions, such as the Arctic refuge, may be waning.

More importantly, while oil companies are making cutbacks in drilling programs, banks
are less inclined to front them capital on future investments resulting in a vicious cycle of less funding available for future drilling. This situation has been further exacerbated by the
declaration from several global banks that they will stop financing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic due to the need to move away from fossil fuels and invest in alternative energy sources because of the rapidly increasing impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems in the Arctic.

The good news is that with the banks turning away from fossil fuel investments while they decide what kind of energy programs could benefit from COVID-19 stimulus funding, there may not be a better chance than right now to move towards green energy. Fossils fuels have become no more than an economic dinosaur and a carbon-producing disaster, especially for the Arctic.

So, rather than sacrificing the coastal plain and Alaska’s fiscal future, why not investigate the potential local and global economic impact of renewable energy in the Arctic, including solar, and hydro and wind power as part of Alaska’s financial recovery?

This Op-ed also appeared in the September 24, 2020 edition of Arctic Today.

Trump Would Like You to Think He’s Gone Environmental

Just weeks away from the Presidential election, Trump is pandering for votes by suggesting that he is our man when it comes to preserving the environment. Describing himself as “the number one environmental president since Teddy Roosevelt,” in recent weeks he has backtracked on his administration’s move to grant a permit for Pebble Mine in Alaska which has to potential to devastate Bristol Bay salmon runs, and extended a federal moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico which is largely supported by residents of Florida, Georgia and South Carolina where he is trying to solidify his base. Moreover, he rescinded his nomination of William Perry Pendley, the controversial candidate chosen to run the Bureau of Land Management. This smokescreen does little to obscure the dozens of deregulatory actions undertaken by the Trump administration, including rolling back fuel economy standards, opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plains to oil leasing, and tougher air-quality standards to name but a few.

Winners and Losers Among Northern Fish as Climates Change

A recent Canadian study, undertaken by York University and the University of Saskatchewan, studied climate resilience among northern fish species with some surprising results. Northern fish are, by nature, remarkably resilient, adjusting to a range of conditions including short summers with 24-hours of daylight and abundant food followed by long dark winters with little or no food availability. But as streams warm, prompting an increase in the invertebrates on which salmon feed, salmon species are tending to grow faster and have greater reproductive success. That’s the surprise, and could be a boon to indigenous communities, especially as salmon expand their ranges further north. But for some fish, mainly dolly Varden and Arctic grayling, which are specialized to thrive in cold Arctic waters, there may be no adaption or migration option at hand as rivers warm and summers grow longer.

Is Federal Disaster & Hazard Mitigation Aid Getting to Those Communities Most in Need?

In August 2020, National Public Radio’s Ted Talk broadcast an episode entitled “Our Relationship with Water” in which Colette Pichon Battle who is an attorney turned climate activist who grew up in Bayou Liberty just north of New Orleans.[1] She says she was thrown into her new role because rising sea levels, flooding and other climate factors are threatening the land that has been in her family for generations. Pichon-Battle says “’I work at the community level to make sure that black folks, poor folks and native folks are part of thia climate conversation’” including to communicate the policy and science of climate change to her neighbors and that the scientific community and policy makers listen to the traditional knowledge that the community can provide about the area.[2]

After Hurrican Katrina caused a tidal surge from the Gulf that swept her entire community into Lake Pontchartrain, she found that the surge was caused by sea level rise and the absence of barrier islands, now gone because of oil and gas drilling, which use to block such surges. Once she realized that hurricans like Katrina and likely worse are her to stay and in looking at flood maps of Lousiana she realized that her community along with other African American, Native American and impoverished communities would likely simply disappear before the end of the century. Quechon-Battle, notes that she was invited to the Whitehouse during the Obama administration to talk with the Federal Emergency Management Service, the agency primarily responsible for assisting communities with disaster and hazard mitigation preparedness in relation to flooding and other natural events, about how her community could obtain assistance to prepare for future flooding events. She says that during this conversation “the FEMA administrator said ‘I understand what your saying, but the FEMA regulations are’nt ment for the most vulnerable communities.’ The disaster assistance process for this country are ment for the middle class.” Despite the double take she made when she heard this statement she firmly believes that “This was an honest comment from FEMA. This is what you realize when you recognize that you recognize that the structures that are in place right now are absolutely not meant for me.”[3]

Arctic Native communities which have been experiencing increased permafrost melt, loss of sea ice, extreme weather events, flooding and erosion that may make current residences and settlements uninhabitable in the near future, no all to well about competition for limited federal disaster and hazard mitigation funding to defend against the inevitable march of climate change. In addition to what communities like Quechon-Battle’s experienced when approaching FEMA for help, in many cases, agencies require cost-benefit analysis, plans, environmental analysis, or other measures above and beyond analysis or strategies contained in Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMPs) or other plans before such communities qualify to apply for funds. Similarly, because standard arctic community HMPs do not contain a detailed cost-benefit analysis of natural hazards affecting water resources, such communities cannot obtain high rankings that larger cities can to qualify for competitive funding or other federal or state assistance needed to address such impacts. Finally, the villages cannot afford to hire consultants or even staff to conduct climate adaption planning on behalf of such communities to include more meaningful consideration of economic impacts and risks associated with coastal water resource management resiliency strategies, in order to move beyond the planning phase and into on the ground project implementation.

There is a need, therefore, to conduct economic risk-benefit and environmental analysis and otherwise close the gap between Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other governmental funding and technical assistance programs such so that North Bering Sea communities can implement on-the-ground projects that will address the Villages’ climate-related coastal water resources management challenges.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/899845219/our-relationship-with-water.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Share Your Drought-Related Projects and Activities on the New Drought.gov

In order to provide opportunities for increasing knowledge through networking and information sharing to better predict drought events, the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) established the Pacific North West Drought Early Warning System (PNW DEWS). To this end, the NIDIS is requesting in-put on drought-related projects and activities that are going on throughout the Pacific North West and in Southern Alaska regions. This information will be displayed on the Drought.gov website (to be re-launched in late Spring 2020).

For more information about the types of activities NIDIS wants to feature on the website and to submit activities, click here. (The form takes about 10 minutes to complete).

In light of experience the first drought experienced in the Southern region of Alaska and likely to continue in years to come, WPC’s asked about whether the NIDIS is planning to establish an Alaska DEWS. In response Britt Parker – the Coordinator of the Pacific Northwest DEWS stated “[w]e are working with partners to identify ways to provide more support for Alaska! While I do not think it will result in setting up a DEWS immediately, we are looking at options for the long term while identifying research and efforts to better understand drought in Alaska in the short term.

For questions contact Britt.Parker@noaa.gov

Another great resource that can assist in forecasting drought and stream flows in Alaska is the Community Collaborative Rain, Hail & Snow Network (CoCoRahs). The contact information for the CoCoRahs Alaska Coordinator is:

Martin Stuefer
Alaska State Climatologist
Alaska Climate Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
2156 Koyukuk Drive
P.O. Box 757320
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7320
907-474-6477
mstuefer@alaska.edu

WPC Developing Panel on Impacts of Rising Stream Temperatures and Development at American Water Resources Association Annual Meeting

Salmon Die-Off Tubutulik River in Western Region, Alaska

WPC is convening a session topic entitled “The Impacts of Mining and Climate Change on Rising Stream Temperatures in Alaska” for the American Water Resources Association’s Annual Meeting taking place in Orlando, Florida from November 3-6.

In the summer of 2019, due to dramatic temperatures increases, thousands of salmon died throughout Alaska as they migrated to spawning grounds, because the water exceeded lethal temperature limits. These climate related stressors are further exacerbated by state and federal lands that are being opened to mining and related development on fish and wildlife populations.

The Session will address the impacts of increasing water temperatures in watersheds affected by land releases and therefore, the combined impacts of climate change and mining development on subsistence resources in Alaska including: 1) Application of models starting with global emission scenarios that will ultimately detect instream flows for specific subbasins and collection of instream flow, temperature and dissolved oxygen data; 2) Identify lands that include critical fish habitat and potential locate able minerals that have been opened for mining; and 3) A process for applying the modeling and data collected to assist policy makers and land managers to mitigate land uses that potentially exacerbate climate related impacts to watersheds.

Please contact us if you are interested in being a presenter on this topic and traveling to Orlando in the fall!

Tentative Presentation Topics include : 1) Forcasting drought and temperature increases and modeling stream flows in Alaska; 2) Use of Traditional Knowledge in Protecting Rivers in the Arctic; 3) Bureau of Land Management FLPMA Land Withdrawal Revocations; Overview of 2019 Water Year in Alaska; 4) Pacific Northwest Drought Early Warning System.

Federal Subsistence Management Program Continues Temperature Monitoring Project for Subsistence Rivers

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Federal Subsistence Management Program will continue conducting a water temperature monitoring project for the next two summers at rivers and streams throughout Alaska. This effort is associated with fisheries monitoring projects funded through the Fisheries Resource Monitoring Program (Program), and has been ongoing since 2008. According to the Program, temperature can impact fish through changes in metabolic rate, primary production, respiration, growth, decomposition, water chemistry, migration timing and susceptibility to disease. At the same time “[d]evelopment adjacent to stream habitats…as well as changes in climate can potentially cause fluctuations in water temperature beyond the behavioral and physiological tolerance of aquatic organisms, including fish, that could have a deleterious effect on their productivity and availability to subsistence users.”

Federal, State, and Tribal organizations in Alaska are currently collecting water temperature data for such subsistence streams. The Program is looking to highlight the importance of uniform data collection, standardization, and reporting, to ensure that such data is reliable for monitoring climate change and supporting conservation actions.

The Alaska Online Aquatic Temperature Site (AKOATS) platform, hosted by the University of Alaska Anchorage’s Alaska Center for Conservation Science, is currently used to make this data available to the public. The platform was developed with the idea that it would serve as a centralized location to access stream temperature monitoring data collection across Alaska.