Salmon Habitat – Water Policy Consulting LLC

Kachemak Bay Watershed Collaborative

The Chugach Regional Resource Commission (CRRC) is an Alaska Native Tribal consortium in south-central Alaska whose Dena’ina, Alutiiq, and Sugpiaq villages and association members have stewarded of the Kachemak Bay watershed for over 10,000 years. CRRC’s mission is to promote Tribal sovereignty and protect subsistence lifestyles through the development and implementation of Tribal natural resource management programs to assure conservation and sustainable economic development in the traditional use area of the Chugach Region.

CRRC serves the greater Chugach region of Southcentral Alaska, including Lower Cook Inlet, Resurrection Bay, and Prince William Sound. Within Lower Cook Inlet CRRC will work with area member tribes to establish the Kachemak Bay Watershed Collaborative (Collaborative or KBWC) to protect salmon streams located within the Kachemak Bay Watershed (Watershed). The Athabascan and Sugpiaq communities located within the Watershed rely on a subsistence economy, as they have since time immemorial.

CRRC will engage a diverse group of stakeholders with land ownership or authority within the Watershed, including Federally recognized Tribal entities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Game, the municipalities of Homer, Kachemak Selo, Voznesenka and Razdolna, Seldovia and the unincorporated Native village communities of Nanwalek and Port Graham, and conservation organizations.

Many changes related to warming fresh and marine water temperatures impact the subsistence resources. Increasingly common drought conditions and spruce beetle outbreaks in the region threaten the health of the plants and animals rural communities rely upon for subsistence. These changes are happening at a rate no one thought possible even a decade ago. Land management activity within the Watershed can exacerbate such impacts. The Collaborative will work to be more inclusive of tribal and other local communities along with local, state, and federal stakeholders in monitoring, planning, and decision-making within the Watershed. The implementation of risk assessments and planning documents, along with preserving connectivity and non-climate stressor mitigation actions, will ensure better protection and management of salmon habitat in the Watershed.

Project location

The 4,926,794-acre Watershed is made up of five small watersheds located in the Kenai Peninsula Borough within the state of Alaska and encompasses the municipalities of Homer, Kachemak Selo, Voznesenka, Razdolna, Seldovia, and the unincorporated Alaska Native village communities of Nanwalek and Port Graham. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) in which the group will work are: Cook Inlet, Stariski Creek-Frontal Cook Inlet, Fox River, Sheep Creek and Quiet Creek-Frontal Kachemak Bay Watershed HUC ID #s: 1902080000, 1902030108, 1902030110, 1902030109 and 1902030111 respectively.

Technical project description

There is currently is no group focused specifically on this Watershed, although a diverse array of stakeholders, including livestock grazers, tourist and recreation groups, industry, environmental organizations, recreation advocates, universities, land use, tribal, state and federal entities, municipalities and the general public utilize the area. This Watershed group will also help fill a planning gap left by the elimination of Alaska’s Coastal Zone Management program.

There are several ongoing or previous watershed planning activities, projects, or efforts related to the Watershed that the Collaborative will build upon, including:

The Kachemak Bay Fox-River Climate Risk Assessment analyzes current threats to salmon habitat within a portion of the Watershed, addresses salmon habitat connectivity and climate resiliency for the entire Watershed, and works with federal and state resource agencies to enter into cooperative agreements for management of salmon habitat on a watershed basis;
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area (FRFCHA) management plan addresses regulatory management goals for the FRFCHA and includes managing the area to 1) maintain and enhance fish and wildlife populations and their habitat; 2) minimize the degradation and loss of habitat values due to fragmentation, and; 3) recognize cumulative impacts when considering effects of small incremental developments and action affecting critical habitat resources.
The Kachemak Heritage Land Trust’s (KHLT) Krishna Venta Conservation Management Plan addresses working collaboratively with state, federal, and local entities as KHLT purchases and negotiates conservation easements on private lands for the purposes of management and protection of fish and wildlife habitat of KHLT’s 160 acres in the FRFCHA;
The Kenai Mountains To Sea – Land Conservation Strategy to Sustain Our Way of Life on the Kenai Peninsula calls for the creation of contiguous “green” corridors along 20 inter-jurisdictional anadromous streams, most of which originate on the Kenai Refuge. Such protection will increase the resiliency of these streams and the marine habitat into which they feed from the effects of a rapidly warming climate while ensuring that large piscivores such as brown bears and wolves persist to transport marine derived nutrients onto the landscape;
The Department of Natural Resources’ Kachemak Bay State Park and Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park Management Plan addresses management of the 371,000- acre Kachemak Bay State Park and Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park (State Park);
The Cook Inlet Keeper State of the Inlet watershed restoration plan within the Watershed captures threats and community-specific concerns and ideas to help direct CIK’s watershed-based organization as the plan future projects.

Join the Collaborative:

If you are a federal, state, or tribal entity, conservation group, or anyone else interested in the welfare and sustainability of Kachemak Bay, please join our Collaborative. If you have any questions please contact Hal Shepherd halshepherdwpc@gmail.com

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.

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.

EPA Should Veto Pebble Permit

In 2017, the US Army Corps of Engineers released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to develop the world’s largest copper mine in the Bristol Bay watershed, located in the sensitive headwaters of Bristol Bay in Southwestern Alaska. The Mine which is proposed by the foreign-based Pebble Limited Partnership would destroy several miles of streams which are critical the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world and upon which twenty-five federally recognized tribal governments depend for subsistence. In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Corp was chartered with drafting the EIS to analyze in detail, the environmental impacts of proposed projects.

Next to the Project Chariot when, in the 1950s, the United States Atomic Energy Commission proposed to detonate an atomic bomb off the coast of the Chukchi Sea in order to create harbor there, the Pebble Mine could be the most contentious industrial development activity ever proposed in Alaska. Due to its potential impact on water and salmon resources, it risks the economic and cultural lifeblood of the region. As a result, the mine is opposed not only by 80 percent of Bristol Bay’s residents but also by a broad spectrum of entities that include commercial fishermen, businesses, sportsmen, and conservation groups.

Yet, despite the fact that public citizens, commercial interests, tribes, conservation organizations, and even an international mining corporation oppose this environmentally and economically disastrous Mine, the Corps under the Trump Administration, established a flawed NEPA analysis in its rush to permit it. As a result, the Pebble Mine has been referred to by the conservation community as “quite simply one of the most reckless Projects anywhere in the world today.” Last year, when opening the Oversight Committee hearings regarding the mine, Congressman Peter DeFazio, Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, called it “an abomination” and stated that “the Pebble Mine proposal is a bad idea made even worse by the sham review process currently underway.”

Under the current proposal and future development plans, the mine would be so destructive to the environment and the Alaska economy that there has been a consistent pattern of major investors walking away from the project once they understand the overwhelming opposition and unavoidable environmental and economic risks. The fourth major firm to abandon the project since 2011, First Quantum Minerals Ltd., which had provided $37.5 million upfront and pledged $150 million over the following three years to fund the permitting process in exchange for a 50 percent share, pulled out in late May of 2018.

When the Final EIS for the project was released last month, a string of politicians, and other public figures came out in opposition to Pebble. For the first time cracks in the Trump Administration’s relentless anti-environmental regulatory strategy arose when Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted “As a sportsman who has spent plenty of time in the area I agree [that] the headwaters of Bristol Bay and surrounding fishery are too unique and fragile to take any chances with…Pebble Mine.” Similarly, long time extraction industry supporter, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, who after reviewing the Final EIS stated:

“… I am increasingly concerned that the final EIS may not adequately address the issues identified in the draft EIS regarding the full risks of the project as proposed to the Bristol Bay watershed and fishery… These processes should also not be rushed or fast-tracked, especially given the size and complexity of this particular project.”

While Sen. Sullivan, however, has expressed concern for the obviously flawed EIS process, so far, he is not off the fence yet as indicated by his statement that “While it is a major step in the permitting process, it must be emphasized that the Final EIS is not a decision document. The final EIS for the Pebble Mine is the first step in a long, demanding permitting process….”

In 30 years of working in the area of environmental law and policy, however, unless stopped by a lawsuit or legislation, I can’t remember a single project that was not given the go-ahead after it was recommended in a Final EIS.

When the FEIS was released on July 24, there are now, less than a couple of weeks remaining before the final decision on the permit and for the Environmental Protection Agency to veto the project. Dan Sullivan and other politicians need to take a firm stand and pressure the agency to do just that.

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.

Emergency Recovery Plan for Global Freshwater Biodiversity Loss

Covering approximately 1% of the Earth’s surface, the world’s freshwater rivers, lakes and wetlands are home to 10% of all species and more fish species than in all the oceans combined. Posing a threat to global communities who rely on rivers, lakes, and tributaries for food, water, and economic well-being, however, 83% of freshwater species and 30% of freshwater ecosystems have been lost since 1970. In response to the alarming rate of loss of freshwater ecosystems, a recently released study developed by scientists from across a spectrum of environmental and academic institutions outlines a framework for protecting such ecosystems.

Calling it an “Emergency Recovery Plan”, the study proposes six scientifically based strategies to preserve freshwater biodiversity, that have proved successful in certain locations. These solutions include: Returning rivers and streams back to their natural flows; Protecting freshwater from toxic effluents, overfishing, invasive species and mining activity; Protecting critical habitat; and Restoring river connectivity through regulation of land uses and water infrastructure. James Dalton, Director of the International Union for Conservation of Nature Global Water Program says, “all the solutions in the Emergency Recovery Plan have been tried and tested somewhere in the world: they are realistic, pragmatic and they work. We are calling on governments, investors, companies and communities to prioritize freshwater biodiversity – often neglected by the conservation and water management worlds. Now is the time to implement these solutions, before it is too late.”

For more information see press releases for Conservation International and WWF.

Radical transformation of the Pacific Arctic Includes Impacts to Freshwater

Scientists from multiple agencies, working collaboratively to supply data to the Arctic Integrated Ecosystem Research Program, are detecting rapid changes in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. These changes are driven by abnormally high water temperatures and rapid loss of sea ice (on par with climate predictions for 2040), and include high numbers of Pacific cod and pollock expanding into Arctic waters, higher concentrations of harmful algal blooms, and a sea bird die-off that began in 2014 impacting puffins, common murre and, most recently, short-tailed shearwaters. At the base of the food web, larger, high-fat copepods are declining while smaller, copepods with a lower-fat content are flourishing. This means less nutrition for Arctic cod, while, at the same time, more competition for these resources as pollock expand their range northward.

But these troubling changes are not limited to northern ocean waters. Inland, freshwater rivers in the Arctic are overheating. Record-warm temperatures in July, 2019 caused heat stress and a mass die-off in returning, pre-spawned salmon. Read more.

Indigenous Communities are Essential Part of Climate Discussion

Native Village of Elim Staff Collecting Flow Data – Tubutulik River, Western Region, Alaska

A new report released by the People’s Climate Network (PCN)— an alliance of activists, scholars and citizens from around the world, suggests that the role indigenous communities can play in mitigating the climate crisis is being overlooked. While global climate change movements make headlines and ”highly-educated people in far-off cities make policy” the People’s Climate Report, attempts to “amplifying voices from the grassroots.”

The report also highlights coexistence of forests, wildlife and local communities is highlighted to provide the perspective of local communities of the impacts of climate change and extraction industries especially mining. Such development leads to loss of forest cover, depletion of groundwater, increase in net-carbon emissions, changes in local weather patterns, loss of traditional tribal livelihoods and a collapse of various plant and animal species—all in the name of ‘development’.

The report show cases the case of Devi, India in which twenty year earlier, locals took the lead in returning health back to forest ecosystem after mining activity devastated the area. This included groups of mostly women who get up early in the morning to patrol forests in groups and digging pools and making mud dams to conserve water. Now a fully recovered forest with abundant resources including a steady supply of food and water, which has resulted in the return of the animals.

According to the report, “[t]hese natural resource dependent communities are among the poorest of the poor.” “They have not had a single day of formal education. And yet they have been the ones protecting this 200-hectare forest for the past twenty years or so.”

Similarly, Last month Hannah Panci from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission spoke at Lawrence University as part of the Spoerl Lecture Series, about climate impact and preparedness. Specifically, Panci discussed working with almost a dozen local Native American tribes, to develop a climate vulnerability assessment which combines both scientific research and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in order to create a vulnerability score for different species on tribal lands.

The organization gathers TEK by visiting the various communities, which include members that still make their living off hunting, gathering and fishing, and interviewing community these members about changes they are noticing about fish and wildlife they use for subsistence. Through this process, important information about traditions that have been passed down for generations and which species are the most important to the tribes. According to Panci, two of the main ones are wild rice and walleye, but there are 11 primary species that tribal members are concerned about.

The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission then applies this information to determine what impacts climate change is having on these species and apply current scientific data to create maps of the region where such impacts are occurring and apply protection measures. By combining conventional science and local knowledge of locals is the best possible means for assisting tribal communities in the Great Lakes to prepare for climate change.

Finally, during a recent event at UC Davis in March 12, professor Beth Rose Middleton who is chair of the Native American Studies Department and Fellow at the John Muir Institute of the Environment, discussed “Tribal Leadership in Climate Change Adaptation.” Professor Middleton discussed the leadership in environmental policy and planning provided by California Indian nations in traditional including land stewardship and interventions in state, national and international policy. Middleton’s research includes Native land trusts, Native-led conservation land acquisitions, tribal participation in the carbon credit market and the importance of re-introducing traditional fire management.

Five-Year University of Alaska Study Measures Climate-Related Impacts to Coastal Streams and Forest Fire Risks.

An ambitious effort to quantify climate-driven impacts on both glacially-fed coastal ecosystems and Alaska’s fire-prone boreal forest is under way. A new round of funding through the National Science Foundation’s Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was awarded in October 2018 to collaborating faculty at UAF, UAA and UAS. The 5-year, $20-million-dollar project, entitled Fire and Ice: Navigating Variability in Boreal Wildfire Regimes and Subarctic Coastal Ecosystems, is now prepping for a second summer of field work.

In Kachemak Bay (south-central Alaska) and Lynn Canal (south-eastern Alaska) researchers are evaluating changes in ocean temperature and chemistry in both glacial and non-glacial coastal ecosystems. Stream monitoring, including temperature, sedimentation, and flow measurements began in the spring of 2019 and will continue throughout the granting period. Additionally, researchers are collecting isotope measurements to help identify the sources of water in a given stream (e.g., glacial, snow-melt, groundwater or rainfall). The data will contribute to a greater understanding of the freshwater input into Alaska’s estuarine systems and the effects of continued climate change on these highly-productive ecosystems.

Throughout Alaska’s extensive boreal forest, Fire and Ice researchers are investigating fire activity and associated climate-related impacts. Data will contribute to improved community risk-assessments through modeling to predict lightning probabilities, assess available fuels, and evaluate seasonal climate forecasting in order to better predict fire risks and severity.

EPSCoR’s Fire and Ice project also includes a rigorous education and communications component. To learn more, visit: https://www.alaska.edu/epscor/fire-and-ice/