Alaska – Water Policy Consulting LLC

Get Hal Shepherd’s new book “Return to Ekeunick’s Time – Defending Waters and Tradition in the Arctic”

One of the primary motivations

behind the campaign for Alaska’s statehood was the impact of large canneries on salmon that used fish traps and wheels to drain returning runs. At the same time, due to the lack of the Territory’s regulatory authority and because federal authorities were under the control of corporate interests, these canneries avoided paying taxes and laws to protect the fishery.

Return to Ekunick’s Time looks at how, as the 49th state to enter the union, Alaska had the benefit of observing the mistakes made by other states that were beginning to experience environmental degradation due to industrial extraction. As such, in the early years after statehood, the State was a leader in creating and enforcing environmental policy which, together with the emerging activism of Alaska Native communities, played a part in the birth of the nationwide environmental movement.

Eventually, however, the lure of the riches, particularly from the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay, became too much for Alaska’s political leadership, and over the past 50 years, the extraction industry has dominated state policies. Today, under a series of conservative politicians in power at both the federal and state levels (as championed particularly by the former Trump administration), resource extraction corporations are once again having substantial impacts on water and subsistence resources relied upon by Alaska Native communities.

At the same time, after a campaign led by powerful industrial interests and conservative politicians to discredit the environmental movement, today tribal leaders and everyday citizens in Alaska are hailing a new era of protecting water resources by emphasizing traditional values and management strategies in the face of existential threats from climate change and politics. According to Alaska Native author William Oquilluck, during the time of Ekeunick – the legendary leader of the Inupiat people in ancient times – “the Eskimo’s ancestors did not use their minds like later times when they invented tools, clothes, houses, boats, and weapons. They had no worries about living.”

Could the return to traditional values as a means of addressing the impacts of climate change and mismanagement of natural resources, help to move the needle towards a return to times when Alaska Native people will no longer have to worry about the survival of their traditions and culture?

ORDER HERE

Other Ways to order:

Call: 1- 844-349-9409
Fax: 812-355-4085
E-mail:support@contentdistributorsllc.com
Log on to: https://www.iuniverse.com/en/register. For more information about how to log on to this page, please see the “iUniverse author center” section later in this letter.
Or by mail, please send your order, along with a check or payment information to:Attention: Book OrdersIUniverse1663 Liberty DriveSuite 200
Bloomington, IN 47403

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.

Public Lands Management Under Trump Descends into Chaoss

President Donald Trump’s appointment of William Perry Pendley as Director of the Bureau of Land Management who is openly hostile to environmental regulations, has turned into yet another legal debacle typical of the current administration. Pendley’s inflammatory statements and open opposition to social justice and diversity including for native and African American communities, statements that public lands should be privatized, conflicts of interest, unethical conduct, support of anti-government extremists and efforts to dismantle the BLM, have outraged conservation and tribal organizations throughout the western U.S. It, therefore, quickly became obvious to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt that because of Pendley’s record, there would be no way he would obtain confirmation from congress if the administration did what was legally required and nominate him for that purpose. In fact, in a procedure that the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “critical structural safeguard” of democracy, the Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires that the heads of prominent federal agencies be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate” a standard that is also found in the federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Especially when it comes to dismantling environmental regulatory standards, however, the Trump administration has never been that concerned with federal law or, for that matter the U.S. Constitution and Bernhardt resolved the issue of Pendley’s radical anti-public land views, racism and support of extremists simply by repeatedly extending Pendley’s appointment as Director of the agency for the past 13 months.

As a result, in July 2020, the state of Montana and several conservation organizations filed a lawsuit to enjoin Bernhardt from continuing to extend Pendley’s status as Acting Director of BLM. This prompted Trump to finally put Pendley’s name before congress as required only to almost immediately remove it because of concerns of several republican senators in key states who are up for election about the audacity of the appointment. However, rather than remove Pendley as acting Director in accordance with with the law, Secretary Bernhardt announced that Pendley will “stay on leading BLM” as the bureau’s deputy director of policy and programs, who is also “exercising the authority of director.”

This, once again, got the attention of the Montana U.S. District Court which as part of the lawsuit filed by the state and conservationists a couple months before, promptly enjoined Pendley from exercising such authority and Bernhardt from unlawfully delegating the authority of the BLM director to him. In fact, the Court’s declaration that Pendley served unlawfully as the Acting Director of the BLM for well over a year, also meant that many of the decisions he made during that time were similarly illegal, threatening Trump’s strategy to dismantle protections of public lands and open them up to development.

Chief Judge Brian Morris found that “’any function or duty’ of the BLM Director that has been performed by Pendley would have no force and effect and must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious” and instructed DOI to compile any such acts and provide a full report to the Court. Therefore, any of the official actions Pendley took over the 424 preceding the decision including opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the National Petroleum reserve to oil drilling,” or vast acreages of public lands, including areas relied on by Native village communities for subsistence, to mining, are potentially unauthorized.

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.

Trump Puts the Pause on Pebble Mine

A reprieve in the contentious Pebble Mine project came from an unlikely source, when President Trump paused the permitting process for the gold, copper, and molybdenum mine in Southwestern Alaska after previously backing the project. Located in the headwaters of the lucrative Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery, the project is slated to include the largest earthen dam ever built, despite being located in a seismically active region. The 20 square-mile pit mine would require roads and a gas pipeline through pristine wilderness near Lake Iliamna and Lake Clark. Brown bears, wolves, moose, caribou, waterfowl, and all five species of Pacific salmon, along with some 7,500 people, mostly traditional Natives, live in the region likely to be most impacted by the mine.

Trump is calling for additional information from the Pebble Limited Partnership about environmental mitigation from the degradation caused by the project. In a letter to the Partnership, the Corps listed new requirements that would need to occur in order to mitigate the impacts of Pebble to the Bristol Bay ecosystem including compensation for impacts on 2,825 acres of open water and 129.5 stream miles within the Koktuli River watershed and on 460 acres of wetlands, 231 acres of open water and 55 stream miles along the transportation corridor and port sites. The agency gave the partnership 90 days to update their plan to address these impacts. This sudden about-face appears to have been prompted by statements made by Trumps eldest son, an avid fisherman who has fished in the region, as well as other influential Republicans who have Trumps ear.

Arctic Refuge Oil Leasing Approved, Now Come the Legal Battles

Under the Trump administration, the 1.5 million-acre arctic plain on the northern edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is now open for drilling. Next up, a call for oil lease sale nominations and industry and public comment of at least 30 days, followed by a notice of the lease sale.

Home to imperiled polar bears, the vast and far-ranging Porcupine Caribou herd, countless nesting birds, and the Gwich’in Indian Nation, this is America’s last great wilderness. After a forty-year battle to prevent oil extraction on the refuge, the announcement was a blow, but that may not be the end for this pristine ecosystem.

Opponents believe that the process for approval of drilling was rushed for political reasons resulting in a flawed and inadequate analysis of the environmental impacts in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. In addition, they claim the approval is contrary to prohibitions on killing or harassing of polar bears under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the protection of indigenous subsistence food-gathering rights under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Vast lakes, rivers and wetlands could be affected by drilling in the Coastal Plain through water quality impacts and mining and road building related to needed infrastructure.

Similarly, the Gwich’in Steering Committee which represents members of the Gwich’n Athabascan tribes located on both sides of the Canadian/Alaskan boarder, argues that approval of drilling violates a 1987 treaty that gives the Canadian Government oversight authority into the management of the Porcupine Caribou herd. According to Arctic Today, Steering Committee Executive Director Bernadette Demientieff the “administration has done nothing but disrespect the Indigenous peoples that have occupied these lands. Our ways of life, our food security, and our identity is not up for negotiation. The fight is not over…”^[1]

Due to the impacts of COVID-19 resulting in less transportation, which in-turned caused a drop in oil processes, oil and gas companies’ interest in drilling in remote and difficult conditions of Arctic Plain has been waning. So it remains to be see whether there will be any bids submitted on the leases. Moreover, oil-tax initiative on the ballet in Alaska in November, Ballot Measure 1 would impose a 10 percent base tax on production form large North Slope oil fields and eliminate production tax credits. And finally, major banks, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, have declared that they will not finance any development in the refuge. So the fights to save the Arctic Coastal Plain is not over yet.

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.