The chief pathologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game says there is concern over reports that exposure to infectious salmon anemia virus was detected in sockeye salmon in British Columbia, but that people should not overreact.
There’s a good chance of false positives in those test results reported by researchers from Simon Fraser University from two of 48 sockeye salmon smolts in central British Columbia, said ADF&G’s Ted Meyers. Now those initial results are being analyzed through additional testing in a second laboratory to rule out any false positives and Alaska fishery scientists are awaiting results of those tests, he said.
“At this point we are concerned, but do not want to overreact as we await more definitive information from Canada,” he said.
There is some concern that the source of the salmon anemia virus, if indeed the additional tests confirm its presence, same from Atlantic salmon farms in British Columbia, which have imported millions of salmon eggs since the mid-1980s.
Meyers noted that regulations in place in Alaska do not allow importation of any fish for aquaculture purposes. The only root of infection could be from strays from British Columbia fish farms and the British Columbia farms have been examined for the past eight years for ISA virus and have been found to be negative, he said.
Still, if the virus is confirmed present in British Columbia migratory Pacific salmon or the Atlantic salmon stocks prevalent in British Columbia fish farms, there is concern over potential impacts to Alaska salmon stocks.
Senators Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., have introduced legislation directing government scientists to determine the scope and cause of the outbreak of infectious salmon anemia that has devastated salmon farms in Chile and elsewhere, and to recommend steps to protect the health of salmon stocks along the West Coast, Canada and Alaska. The scientists would have six months to complete their report.
Tim Bristol, director of Trout Unlimited’s Alaska Program, said it was fortunate that fish farms are outlawed in Alaska, but urged Alaska officials to take steps to protect Alaska’s wild salmon stocks and the critical habitat necessary for their sustained production.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Open Doors Were Culprit In Sinking F/V Katmai
Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board say watertight doors left open during a storm likely caused the 93-foot fishing vessel Katmai to sink off the coast of the Aleutian Islands in late October 2008. Only four of the crew survived. Five men died and two others were never found.
The official report notes the watertight doors from the main deck to the processing space and the lazarette (the aft most compartment in the ship’s hull) were left open by the crew at a time when the vessel was overloaded and navigating in severe weather, which allowed water to enter the vessel, causing progressive flooding and sinking. Investigators said a contributing factor to the accident was the master’s decision to continue fishing operations during the approach of severe weather rather than seeking shelter and to load twice the amount of cargo addressed in the ship’s stability report. Another contributing factor was the owner’s failure to insure that stability information provided to the master was current and that the master understood it and operated the vessel accordingly, the report said.
Investigators also noted issues with the life rafts on board. Requirements for post-1997-manufactured life rafts are more stringent for ballast and stability than previously manufactured life rafts and are manufactured with ballast pockets to resist overturning due to wind and waves. Pre-1997 life rafts remain acceptable if maintained in serviceable condition, including periodic inflation testing. The 15-person life raft, manufactured in 1980, and the 10-person life raft, manufactured in 1994, were last serviced and inspected in 2007.
The detailed narrative of the last hours of the F/V Katmai notes that at the time of the accident winds were from the east at 60-70 knots, air temperatures about 38F, water temperature 43F, and wave height at 20-30 feet, with prevailing rain with no icing.
The Katmai, constructed of welded steel, was built as a shrimp trawler in 1987 in Pensacola, Florida. Originally named the Queen of the Universe, it was sold in 1992 and renamed the Amy S, then sold in 1993 to Katmai Fisheries Inc, which renamed it the Katmai. The NTSB said that the company is no longer in business.
The complete NTSB report on the accident is online at http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/fulltext/MAB1103.html
The official report notes the watertight doors from the main deck to the processing space and the lazarette (the aft most compartment in the ship’s hull) were left open by the crew at a time when the vessel was overloaded and navigating in severe weather, which allowed water to enter the vessel, causing progressive flooding and sinking. Investigators said a contributing factor to the accident was the master’s decision to continue fishing operations during the approach of severe weather rather than seeking shelter and to load twice the amount of cargo addressed in the ship’s stability report. Another contributing factor was the owner’s failure to insure that stability information provided to the master was current and that the master understood it and operated the vessel accordingly, the report said.
Investigators also noted issues with the life rafts on board. Requirements for post-1997-manufactured life rafts are more stringent for ballast and stability than previously manufactured life rafts and are manufactured with ballast pockets to resist overturning due to wind and waves. Pre-1997 life rafts remain acceptable if maintained in serviceable condition, including periodic inflation testing. The 15-person life raft, manufactured in 1980, and the 10-person life raft, manufactured in 1994, were last serviced and inspected in 2007.
The detailed narrative of the last hours of the F/V Katmai notes that at the time of the accident winds were from the east at 60-70 knots, air temperatures about 38F, water temperature 43F, and wave height at 20-30 feet, with prevailing rain with no icing.
The Katmai, constructed of welded steel, was built as a shrimp trawler in 1987 in Pensacola, Florida. Originally named the Queen of the Universe, it was sold in 1992 and renamed the Amy S, then sold in 1993 to Katmai Fisheries Inc, which renamed it the Katmai. The NTSB said that the company is no longer in business.
The complete NTSB report on the accident is online at http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/fulltext/MAB1103.html
Exxon Valdez update
There’s a new twist in the latest multi-million dollar Exxon Valdez disaster litigation, now set for oral arguments in federal court in Anchorage on Nov. 15.
Federal Judge H. Russel Holland has denied an amicus brief from marine biologist Rick Steiner, who asked the court to order Exxon to pay an additional $92 million for environmental damages still not cleaned up more than 22 years after the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound.
In 1991, Exxon agreed to pay $900 million in damages over the next decade for cleanup costs. Then in 2006, the Justice Department and the state of Alaska filed a claim seeking to have Exxon pay an additional $92 million, given evidence that habitat and species were still impacted by the spill.
Anchorage attorney Doug Serdahely, who is representing Exxon, said he felt Holland denied Steiner’s motion for an amicus brief because he wants to hear only from attorneys for Exxon, the state and federal governments during oral arguments, and feels the government’s position is adequately represented by the government’s lawyers.
Exxon wants the $92 million claim dismissed because it is not appropriate under the consent decree, Serdahely said. Under that decree, the only additional money would be for restoration work, rather than cleanup, he said.
While government attorneys have not pushed for payment, Steiner, who spent 14 years working in Prince William Sound, contends that the court should enforce that 2006 demand for payment.
“The fact is, none of the official parties to the Exxon Valdez case have ever genuinely understood what happened here, or really cared,” Steiner said. “Not Exxon, not the state of Alaska, not the US (federal government), not the court. It’s all been a game to them.
“But the people of Prince Wiliam Sound certainly understood this disaster, and so did the sea otters and harlequin ducks and herring and scoters at Knight Island.”
In the end, said Steiner, the injured environment will continue struggling to recover, without any assistance whatsoever from the very humans who caused the damage in the first place.”
Federal Judge H. Russel Holland has denied an amicus brief from marine biologist Rick Steiner, who asked the court to order Exxon to pay an additional $92 million for environmental damages still not cleaned up more than 22 years after the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William Sound.
In 1991, Exxon agreed to pay $900 million in damages over the next decade for cleanup costs. Then in 2006, the Justice Department and the state of Alaska filed a claim seeking to have Exxon pay an additional $92 million, given evidence that habitat and species were still impacted by the spill.
Anchorage attorney Doug Serdahely, who is representing Exxon, said he felt Holland denied Steiner’s motion for an amicus brief because he wants to hear only from attorneys for Exxon, the state and federal governments during oral arguments, and feels the government’s position is adequately represented by the government’s lawyers.
Exxon wants the $92 million claim dismissed because it is not appropriate under the consent decree, Serdahely said. Under that decree, the only additional money would be for restoration work, rather than cleanup, he said.
While government attorneys have not pushed for payment, Steiner, who spent 14 years working in Prince William Sound, contends that the court should enforce that 2006 demand for payment.
“The fact is, none of the official parties to the Exxon Valdez case have ever genuinely understood what happened here, or really cared,” Steiner said. “Not Exxon, not the state of Alaska, not the US (federal government), not the court. It’s all been a game to them.
“But the people of Prince Wiliam Sound certainly understood this disaster, and so did the sea otters and harlequin ducks and herring and scoters at Knight Island.”
In the end, said Steiner, the injured environment will continue struggling to recover, without any assistance whatsoever from the very humans who caused the damage in the first place.”
King Cove Marks 100th Anniversary of Salmon Cannery
The commercial fishing community of King Cove, on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula, is celebrating on Oct. 28 and Oct. 29 the 100th anniversary of a salmon cannery around which the community was built. Visiting dignitaries and other out-of-town guests will take a tour of the Peter Pan Seafoods plant, to see king crab processed, meet with many of the community’s more than 900 residents and attend a banquet where they will hear a narrative and see a photo review of King Cove’s first 100 years. A boat exhibit, basketball tournament, community barbeque and fireworks display are also on the agenda.
King Cove was founded back in 1911 when Pacific American Fisheries built a salmon cannery there. A steamship loaded with lumber, cannery equipment and 50 men to build and operate the plant left Bellingham, Wash., for King Cove on April 9 of that year and arrived in King Cove on April 21. After unloading men and cargo, the ship went south and returned again to King Cove in late May with more men and supplies. The cannery building was completed by June 1, 1911.
Photographs, letters and logbooks of those first years of the King Cove Cannery, by cannery superintendent Harold H. Smith, are now entrusted to the University of Washington Library.
During the first year alone, the King Cove cannery put up 45,000 cases of canned salmon. The city was incorporated in 1949. The cannery operated continuously between 1911 and 1976, when it was partially destroyed by fire. Adoption of the 200-mile fisheries limit spurred rebuilding and King Cove’s economy today is rooted in year-round fish harvesting and processing.
King Cove was founded back in 1911 when Pacific American Fisheries built a salmon cannery there. A steamship loaded with lumber, cannery equipment and 50 men to build and operate the plant left Bellingham, Wash., for King Cove on April 9 of that year and arrived in King Cove on April 21. After unloading men and cargo, the ship went south and returned again to King Cove in late May with more men and supplies. The cannery building was completed by June 1, 1911.
Photographs, letters and logbooks of those first years of the King Cove Cannery, by cannery superintendent Harold H. Smith, are now entrusted to the University of Washington Library.
During the first year alone, the King Cove cannery put up 45,000 cases of canned salmon. The city was incorporated in 1949. The cannery operated continuously between 1911 and 1976, when it was partially destroyed by fire. Adoption of the 200-mile fisheries limit spurred rebuilding and King Cove’s economy today is rooted in year-round fish harvesting and processing.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
NOAA Extends Comment Period on Halibut Catch Share Plan to Sept. 21
By Margaret Bauman
Federal officials have extended through Sept. 21 the comment period on the proposed halibut catch sharing plan, which was to have ended Sept. 6, to assure that everyone has their say in the public process.
The extension was announced Sept. 1, in the wake of a visit to Alaska in August by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Administrator Jane Lubchenco, who spent time in Homer with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, listening to comments about the draft plan from both charter and setline halibut harvesters.
Lubchenco said she wanted to make sure that everyone has a chance to give their input in this public process of shaping the final halibut catch sharing plan.”
“While many fishermen have already submitted comments, this extension will allow additional time for fishermen still out on the water to make sure they are heard,” Begich said.
Halibut stocks in Southeast Alaska and the Central Gulf of Alaska have seen a steep decline in the past several years. NOAA officials said the proposed catch share plan is designed to foster a sustainable fishery by preventing overharvesting of halibut, and would introduce provisions that provide flexibility for charter and setline commercial fishermen. At present, both of these commercial fisheries are managed under different programs. The proposed catch-sharing plan was shaped through the public process at the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which recommended the rule to establish a clear allocation between the setline and charter sectors that fish in Southeast Alaska and the Central Gulf of Alaska.
The announcement extending the comment period through Sept. 21 came on the same day as the Alaska House special Committee on Fisheries met for several hours in Anchorage, to hear from all sides on the halibut catch sharing plan.
Among the presenters were Glenn Merrill and Rachel Baker of the National Marine Fisheries Service and David Witherell of the NPFMC staff. Witherell told the legislators that the council had recommended the new catch sharing management approach for southeast Alaska and Southcentral Alaska for three reasons.
First, said Witherell, to establish allocations of halibut for the charter and setline fishing sectors. Second, to annually implement harvest restrictions for charter anglers that are intended to limit charter harvests to the annual charter catch limit, and third, to authorize annual transfers of commercial halibut individual fishing quota to charter halibut operators to provide charter anglers additional harvest opportunities.
The catch-sharing plan, they noted, was needed for several reasons.
For one, under present regulations there is no mechanism for transfer between sectors, causing continuing conflict. For another, the halibut charter guideline harvest level has been exceeded in Area 2C in Southeast Alaska every year despite restrictions.
While the charter industry has maintained that it is a sport fishery, the setline sector maintains that charter industry is in fact another form the of commercial fishing and that the burden of conservation should be shared by all who fish for halibut.
The Halibut Coalition represents a number of commercial fishing groups, from the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association and Cordova District fishermen to the Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, Sea Food Producers Cooperative and United Fishermen’s Marketing Association.
The Halibut Coalition maintains that the catch-sharing plan establishes clear percentage-based sector allocations that allow harvests to rise and fall with resource abundance. “The catch sharing plan is an approved and agreed upon solution to the halibut conservation and allocation issues,” the coalition states in documents presented to the legislators in Anchorage. “The catch sharing plan must be implemented as soon as possible, the coalition said in its documents. “In the interim, NMFS must effectively enforce the guideline harvest level to keep the charter industry within its GHL quota,” the coalition said in written testimony.
“To me the allocation was fair and equitable,” said Kathy Hansen, speaking for the Halibut Coalition. “The council wanted everyone to share the burden of the resource. The catch sharing plan requires both sectors to share that burden.”
The coalition’s testimony notes that more than 95 percent of all Area 2C commercial halibut fishermen operate family businesses working from vessels less than 60 feet. In 2010, about 60 percent of them were permitted to harvest 3,300 pounds or less of halibut and 90 percent less than 9,000 pounds. The average 2C commercial halibut fisherman grosses about $9,000 from halibut fishing in this area, the coalition said.
In 2009, the charter fleet sued to prevent NMFS from enforcing the GHL in a way that would limit their harvest.
“Annual revenue from the smallest of the plaintiffs was $100,000, they said. Two plaintiffs reported annual revenues of $1.6 million and $1.89 million, according to the coalition’ testimony. One charter plaintiff operated a corporate fleet of 27 vessels catching between 460,000 pounds and 763,000 pounds of halibut. Another charter plaintiff was catching between 93,000 pounds and 148,000 pounds annually. By contrast in 2010, less than 1 percent of the 2C commercial fishermen harvested 20,000 or more pounds of halibut in this area.
Over the past six years, reductions in the allowable catch for the setline fleet have totaled 78 percent, the coalition said.
Presenters for the Southeast Alaska Guides association testified that due to a lack of current economic analysis that ”the devastating impact of the catch sharing plan to the sectors or coastal communities has not been properly understood. “The loss of jobs and charter fishing related revenue should be projected prior to the implementation of this rule, SEAGO maintained.
SEAGO also said the catch sharing plan circumvents the public process by placing the authority of settlement annual management measures with the International Pacific Halibut Commission, rather than with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
“The IPHC is not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, which mandates public involvement in the rule-making process, SEAGO said. “In essence, this change removes United States citizens from management decisions over domestic allocation. Convenience and expediency should never justify preventing public involvement in significant policy decisions.”
“Somebody has to make a decision,” said Richard Yamada of the Alaska Charter Association, in his presentation to legislators, “how does the fish generate the most revenue for the state. The IFQ fishery has declining participants. In the charter industry there is all kinds of room for growth,” he said.
While the House Special Committee on Fisheries is unlikely to take much, if any action on this matter, that didn’t stop legislators from asking a lot of questions and voicing opinions on the setline and charter sectors.
Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Haines, a commercial fisherman, noted that he has seen his individual allocation of halibut fall without a compensating rise in price. Thomas said he has constituents who can’t afford to go fishing anymore. While the commercial fishermen have been willing to stand down from fishing to protect the resource, “I’m not hearing that from the other side,” he said.
Rep. Craig Johnson, R-Anchorage, another member of the fisheries committee, said he felt allocation of the halibut resource had to be based on good information, both economic and biological. “I don’t think we have either to make the kind of decisions that this group is planning on making, that’s going to affect the lives of Alaskans, and possibly the fish,” he said.
Comments should be identified by RIN 0648-BA37, and may be submitted electronically, by regular mail, by fax or hand delivered to the Juneau Federal Building. Submit comments electronically via the federal eRulemaking Portal via http://www.regulations.gov.
For more information, go to http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/halibut/sport.htm.
Margaret Bauman can be reached at margieb42@mtaonline.net.
Federal officials have extended through Sept. 21 the comment period on the proposed halibut catch sharing plan, which was to have ended Sept. 6, to assure that everyone has their say in the public process.
The extension was announced Sept. 1, in the wake of a visit to Alaska in August by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Administrator Jane Lubchenco, who spent time in Homer with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, listening to comments about the draft plan from both charter and setline halibut harvesters.
Lubchenco said she wanted to make sure that everyone has a chance to give their input in this public process of shaping the final halibut catch sharing plan.”
“While many fishermen have already submitted comments, this extension will allow additional time for fishermen still out on the water to make sure they are heard,” Begich said.
Halibut stocks in Southeast Alaska and the Central Gulf of Alaska have seen a steep decline in the past several years. NOAA officials said the proposed catch share plan is designed to foster a sustainable fishery by preventing overharvesting of halibut, and would introduce provisions that provide flexibility for charter and setline commercial fishermen. At present, both of these commercial fisheries are managed under different programs. The proposed catch-sharing plan was shaped through the public process at the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which recommended the rule to establish a clear allocation between the setline and charter sectors that fish in Southeast Alaska and the Central Gulf of Alaska.
The announcement extending the comment period through Sept. 21 came on the same day as the Alaska House special Committee on Fisheries met for several hours in Anchorage, to hear from all sides on the halibut catch sharing plan.
Among the presenters were Glenn Merrill and Rachel Baker of the National Marine Fisheries Service and David Witherell of the NPFMC staff. Witherell told the legislators that the council had recommended the new catch sharing management approach for southeast Alaska and Southcentral Alaska for three reasons.
First, said Witherell, to establish allocations of halibut for the charter and setline fishing sectors. Second, to annually implement harvest restrictions for charter anglers that are intended to limit charter harvests to the annual charter catch limit, and third, to authorize annual transfers of commercial halibut individual fishing quota to charter halibut operators to provide charter anglers additional harvest opportunities.
The catch-sharing plan, they noted, was needed for several reasons.
For one, under present regulations there is no mechanism for transfer between sectors, causing continuing conflict. For another, the halibut charter guideline harvest level has been exceeded in Area 2C in Southeast Alaska every year despite restrictions.
While the charter industry has maintained that it is a sport fishery, the setline sector maintains that charter industry is in fact another form the of commercial fishing and that the burden of conservation should be shared by all who fish for halibut.
The Halibut Coalition represents a number of commercial fishing groups, from the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association and Cordova District fishermen to the Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, Sea Food Producers Cooperative and United Fishermen’s Marketing Association.
The Halibut Coalition maintains that the catch-sharing plan establishes clear percentage-based sector allocations that allow harvests to rise and fall with resource abundance. “The catch sharing plan is an approved and agreed upon solution to the halibut conservation and allocation issues,” the coalition states in documents presented to the legislators in Anchorage. “The catch sharing plan must be implemented as soon as possible, the coalition said in its documents. “In the interim, NMFS must effectively enforce the guideline harvest level to keep the charter industry within its GHL quota,” the coalition said in written testimony.
“To me the allocation was fair and equitable,” said Kathy Hansen, speaking for the Halibut Coalition. “The council wanted everyone to share the burden of the resource. The catch sharing plan requires both sectors to share that burden.”
The coalition’s testimony notes that more than 95 percent of all Area 2C commercial halibut fishermen operate family businesses working from vessels less than 60 feet. In 2010, about 60 percent of them were permitted to harvest 3,300 pounds or less of halibut and 90 percent less than 9,000 pounds. The average 2C commercial halibut fisherman grosses about $9,000 from halibut fishing in this area, the coalition said.
In 2009, the charter fleet sued to prevent NMFS from enforcing the GHL in a way that would limit their harvest.
“Annual revenue from the smallest of the plaintiffs was $100,000, they said. Two plaintiffs reported annual revenues of $1.6 million and $1.89 million, according to the coalition’ testimony. One charter plaintiff operated a corporate fleet of 27 vessels catching between 460,000 pounds and 763,000 pounds of halibut. Another charter plaintiff was catching between 93,000 pounds and 148,000 pounds annually. By contrast in 2010, less than 1 percent of the 2C commercial fishermen harvested 20,000 or more pounds of halibut in this area.
Over the past six years, reductions in the allowable catch for the setline fleet have totaled 78 percent, the coalition said.
Presenters for the Southeast Alaska Guides association testified that due to a lack of current economic analysis that ”the devastating impact of the catch sharing plan to the sectors or coastal communities has not been properly understood. “The loss of jobs and charter fishing related revenue should be projected prior to the implementation of this rule, SEAGO maintained.
SEAGO also said the catch sharing plan circumvents the public process by placing the authority of settlement annual management measures with the International Pacific Halibut Commission, rather than with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
“The IPHC is not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, which mandates public involvement in the rule-making process, SEAGO said. “In essence, this change removes United States citizens from management decisions over domestic allocation. Convenience and expediency should never justify preventing public involvement in significant policy decisions.”
“Somebody has to make a decision,” said Richard Yamada of the Alaska Charter Association, in his presentation to legislators, “how does the fish generate the most revenue for the state. The IFQ fishery has declining participants. In the charter industry there is all kinds of room for growth,” he said.
While the House Special Committee on Fisheries is unlikely to take much, if any action on this matter, that didn’t stop legislators from asking a lot of questions and voicing opinions on the setline and charter sectors.
Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Haines, a commercial fisherman, noted that he has seen his individual allocation of halibut fall without a compensating rise in price. Thomas said he has constituents who can’t afford to go fishing anymore. While the commercial fishermen have been willing to stand down from fishing to protect the resource, “I’m not hearing that from the other side,” he said.
Rep. Craig Johnson, R-Anchorage, another member of the fisheries committee, said he felt allocation of the halibut resource had to be based on good information, both economic and biological. “I don’t think we have either to make the kind of decisions that this group is planning on making, that’s going to affect the lives of Alaskans, and possibly the fish,” he said.
Comments should be identified by RIN 0648-BA37, and may be submitted electronically, by regular mail, by fax or hand delivered to the Juneau Federal Building. Submit comments electronically via the federal eRulemaking Portal via http://www.regulations.gov.
For more information, go to http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/halibut/sport.htm.
Margaret Bauman can be reached at margieb42@mtaonline.net.
Initiative to Bar Permitting of Large-Scale Mining Passes
Voters in Southwest Alaska’s Lake and Peninsula Borough have approved by a vote of 280-246 an initiative that could bar permitting for large-scale mines that would have a significant adverse impact on existing salmon streams.
The initiative, aimed at halting development of the Pebble mine at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed had been the subject of extensive campaigning on both sides.
Borough manager Lamar Cotten said this was the largest number of votes ever cast in a borough election.
Proposed development of the Pebble copper, gold and molybdenum mine has been a hot topic in Southwest Alaska for several years.
Mining firms like London-based Anglo-American, which has invested millions in mine exploration along with Canada’s Northern Dynasty Minerals, have maintained that they can operate the mine in harmony with the salmon fisheries.
Mine opponents contend that the project threatens spawning streams critical to the diverse salmon populations whose combined strength return millions of salmon to Bristol Bay annually.
Now that the election is completed, Alaska Superior Court Judge John Suddock is expected to again review on Nov. 7 motions for summary judgment on whether the initiative should have been placed on the ballot in the first place.
Lake and Peninsula Borough Manager Lamar Cotten said that if Suddock comes down in favor of the Pebble Limited Partnership that the borough will take the case to the Alaska Supreme Court.
“We held the election. The people voted and that was the outcome,” and the borough intends to defend the vote of its residents,” Cotten said.
Of at least equal importance to the future of this battle over mining are a scientific assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed now in progress by the Environmental Protection Agency, and a case before the Alaska Supreme Court challenging the legality of the state’s 2005 Bristol Bay area plan.
The EPA’s study will determine how large-scale development would affect water quality and habitat in the Bristol Bay watershed. The EPA is focusing its study primarily on the Kvichak and Nushagak river drainages, the primary areas in the watershed open to large-scale development. Once the study is completed and independently reviewed, the EPA has the option of imposing Section 404© of the Clean Water Act, which would prohibit or restrict certain mining activities.
The Alaska Supreme Court, meanwhile, is expected to decide soon whether litigation over the 2005 Bristol Bay Area Plan may be heard in the Alaska Superior Court. In that case six federally recognized tribes are seeking to throw out the plan by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and declare it unlawful. The suit alleges that the 2005 plan, which replaced a 1984 version, drastically altered, without legal justification, the land-use designations, classifications and acreages assigned in the 1984 plan. The suit alleges that the new plan fails to adequately protect subsistence, sport hunting and fishing, wildlife habitat and other renewable resources it purports to manage for public benefit.
The initiative, aimed at halting development of the Pebble mine at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed had been the subject of extensive campaigning on both sides.
Borough manager Lamar Cotten said this was the largest number of votes ever cast in a borough election.
Proposed development of the Pebble copper, gold and molybdenum mine has been a hot topic in Southwest Alaska for several years.
Mining firms like London-based Anglo-American, which has invested millions in mine exploration along with Canada’s Northern Dynasty Minerals, have maintained that they can operate the mine in harmony with the salmon fisheries.
Mine opponents contend that the project threatens spawning streams critical to the diverse salmon populations whose combined strength return millions of salmon to Bristol Bay annually.
Now that the election is completed, Alaska Superior Court Judge John Suddock is expected to again review on Nov. 7 motions for summary judgment on whether the initiative should have been placed on the ballot in the first place.
Lake and Peninsula Borough Manager Lamar Cotten said that if Suddock comes down in favor of the Pebble Limited Partnership that the borough will take the case to the Alaska Supreme Court.
“We held the election. The people voted and that was the outcome,” and the borough intends to defend the vote of its residents,” Cotten said.
Of at least equal importance to the future of this battle over mining are a scientific assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed now in progress by the Environmental Protection Agency, and a case before the Alaska Supreme Court challenging the legality of the state’s 2005 Bristol Bay area plan.
The EPA’s study will determine how large-scale development would affect water quality and habitat in the Bristol Bay watershed. The EPA is focusing its study primarily on the Kvichak and Nushagak river drainages, the primary areas in the watershed open to large-scale development. Once the study is completed and independently reviewed, the EPA has the option of imposing Section 404© of the Clean Water Act, which would prohibit or restrict certain mining activities.
The Alaska Supreme Court, meanwhile, is expected to decide soon whether litigation over the 2005 Bristol Bay Area Plan may be heard in the Alaska Superior Court. In that case six federally recognized tribes are seeking to throw out the plan by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and declare it unlawful. The suit alleges that the 2005 plan, which replaced a 1984 version, drastically altered, without legal justification, the land-use designations, classifications and acreages assigned in the 1984 plan. The suit alleges that the new plan fails to adequately protect subsistence, sport hunting and fishing, wildlife habitat and other renewable resources it purports to manage for public benefit.
Frankenfish Watch
Senators Mark Begich, D-Alaska, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have introduced two new pieces of legislation aimed by stopping production of genetically engineered fish. Each senator co-sponsored the other’s measure.
Begich introduced the Prevention of Escapement of Genetically Altered Salmon in the Unites States (PEGASUS) Act to ban the interstate commerce of genetically modified fish. PEGASUS would make it unlawful to ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, or purchase genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, or a product containing genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, in interstate or foreign commerce, or to have the same in custody, control or possession of for those purposes.
Violations would be subject to penalties under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Murkowski filed an amendment to the 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that would prohibit funds from being used by the federal Food and Drug Administration to approve the application for genetically modified fish.
The controversy stems from efforts of AquaBounty, developer of the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon, to get FDA approval of the fish. AquaBounty wants the FDA to analyze whether their salmon are safe to eat, safe for the environment and nutritionally the equivalent of other salmon.
Murkowski said that the genetically engineered fish, which the senators have dubbed “Frankenfish,” could pose serious risks to wild populations of many fish. “While these modified fish are supposed to be sterile, 5 percent of the fish could remain fertile, and escaped stock could breed with wild stocks, introducing hazardous mutations to a currently health and hygienic wild stock,” Murkowski said.
“What’s more, an estimated 100,000 farmed fish escape their pens every year. Escaped genetically engineered fish could out-compete wild stocks, turn on other species, and wreak havoc on the ecosystem,” she said.
Begich noted that damaging impacts of other invasive species released into the environment are well known.
Begich said that despite the manufacturer’s contention that the fish will be raised in closed rearing facilities, opportunities for escape exist through water circulation, handling accidents or unauthorized releases.
Begich chairs the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard. Murkowski chairs the Oceans Caucus and is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Begich introduced the Prevention of Escapement of Genetically Altered Salmon in the Unites States (PEGASUS) Act to ban the interstate commerce of genetically modified fish. PEGASUS would make it unlawful to ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, or purchase genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, or a product containing genetically altered salmon or other marine fish, in interstate or foreign commerce, or to have the same in custody, control or possession of for those purposes.
Violations would be subject to penalties under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Murkowski filed an amendment to the 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Bill that would prohibit funds from being used by the federal Food and Drug Administration to approve the application for genetically modified fish.
The controversy stems from efforts of AquaBounty, developer of the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon, to get FDA approval of the fish. AquaBounty wants the FDA to analyze whether their salmon are safe to eat, safe for the environment and nutritionally the equivalent of other salmon.
Murkowski said that the genetically engineered fish, which the senators have dubbed “Frankenfish,” could pose serious risks to wild populations of many fish. “While these modified fish are supposed to be sterile, 5 percent of the fish could remain fertile, and escaped stock could breed with wild stocks, introducing hazardous mutations to a currently health and hygienic wild stock,” Murkowski said.
“What’s more, an estimated 100,000 farmed fish escape their pens every year. Escaped genetically engineered fish could out-compete wild stocks, turn on other species, and wreak havoc on the ecosystem,” she said.
Begich noted that damaging impacts of other invasive species released into the environment are well known.
Begich said that despite the manufacturer’s contention that the fish will be raised in closed rearing facilities, opportunities for escape exist through water circulation, handling accidents or unauthorized releases.
Begich chairs the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard. Murkowski chairs the Oceans Caucus and is a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FN Online Advertising
.gif)