To: Honorable President Barack Obama
Cc: Honorable Secretary Gary Locke
Cc: Honorable Secretary Ken Salazar
Cc: Senator Lisa Murkowski
Cc: Senator Mark Begich
Mr. President,
Thank you for addressing the concerns of our Nation in the State of the Union Address on January 25, 2011.
In Alaska, hundreds of Tribal Citizens, thousands of Indigenous Peoples and millions of Americans depend on fresh, wild Alaska salmon for various cultural, economic, food and health reasons.
I would like to ask a few questions regarding serious Government infrastructure problems on salmon regulations and jurisdictions between fresh water and salt water (Department of Interior-freshwater; Department of Commerce-saltwater.)
"We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV. There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there’s my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they’re in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked."—U.S. President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Address to the Nation on January 25, 2011
1) As the State of Alaska looks toward developing numerous industrial mines in salmon spawning areas in the last wild salmon ecosystems on Earth, how can we be assured that the few mining jobs will not usurp the thousands of jobs and thousands of native peoples that currently exist in sustaining the multiple billion dollar salmon industry?
2) Salmon as one of many sacred cultural foods for indigenous peoples: Due to the pressure by the State of Alaska to please and allow massive increases in foreign mining interests, the local Indigenous Peoples are recognizing major human rights implications of destroying salmon spawning areas; and critical habitat for thousands of other species that the Indigenous Peoples and the World’s people depend on for biodiversity and food production. How can this administration assure that Alaska's indigenous peoples will not be sidelined by the State or Federal agencies for foreign economic interest over the local villages and the sustainable domestic interest of the United States?
3) The current process of excluding indigenous peoples and Tribal Governments by the State of Alaska in the management, policy-making and access to living cultural resources (such as salmon), and exclusionary policies restricting First Nations from healthy traditional foods by hunting, fishing, gathering, and harvesting is a huge concern to traditional indigenous peoples. How can the indigenous peoples and Tribal Governments be assured that the illegal activities by the State of Alaska restricting US trust obligations are dealt with to insure justice and prevent human rights abuses?
4) The education of Alaska's native peoples and rich cultural heritage depend on intact bio-diverse ecosystems, self-sustaining infrastructure, and quality indigenous teachers. In the age of communications and sustainability, Alaska's indigenous peoples have a history of unique resiliency in the northern regions. How can the U.S. Government ensure that our native peoples' history, knowledge and wisdom are passed on to future generations to boost local sustainability, empower children to learn the rich America's heritage, and pass on cultural knowledge for resilient community development beneficial for all Americans?
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Carl Wassilie
Yup’iaq Biologist
Alaska's Big Village Network
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Request for Inclusion of indigenous peoples and Tribes in Federal Ocean Policy
December 10, 2010
Disclaimer: This document is prepared by Center for Water Advocacy and Alaska’s Big Village Network for Alaska’s indigenous peoples, Traditional Councils and Alaska Tribal Governments to be included in the process leading to policy decisions that impacts our future generations.------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Secretaries of the United States Departments of Commerce, Interior, Defense, and Homeland Security:
Request for Inclusion
Ocean Policy funding: Regional Ocean Partnership development.Re: Grant Notice of Federal Funding Opportunity; Number NOAA-NOS-CSC-2011-2002721 posted September 16, 2010; CFDA Number: 11.473; offered by the Department of Commerce
Thank you for your commitment to protect our vital water and ocean resources, ecosystems and peoples.
Alaska's Big Village Network offers this letter to Tribal Governments, indigenous peoples and tribal communities in all coastal regions of the United States; particulary in Alaska and the Arctic; whom have co-existed with all elements of the Earth since time immemorial.
The ocean is critical to all human beings on Earth and is important locally, nationally and internationally for the future freedoms of all peoples, especially Arctic inhabitants. As indigenous stewards of the oceans for tens of thousands of years, traditional and modern Tribal governments and tribal communities must be included in NOAA's Regional Ocean Partnership Funding Programs (ROPFP); particularly, as vital indigenous science and traditional ecological knowledge is critical in the Areas of Special Emphasis as identified in the Ocean Policy Task Force July 2010 final report. The ROPFP must also be directed to support and assist tribal governance and tribal community planning objectives in the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning framework to become active partners in the Alaska Regional Ocean Partnership.
Alaska Tribal Governments and Alaskan tribal communities are necessary and essential to address coordination and collaboration for the profound global matters facing our ocean and to build capacity for the peace and security of mankind. The indigenous peoples of the Arctic have traditional cultural resiliency and adaptation methods that can reduce long-term cost of implementing national climate adaptation strategies; and the Arctic indigenous peoples can perpetuate protection, conservation and management of Large Marine Ecosystems beyond Arctic/Alaska boundaries of the CSMP area. The historic use of cultural resources, inter-disciplinary indigenous science, traditional ecological knowledge, customary and traditional and modern life ways of hunting, fishing, gathering, commerce, and navigation are critical to the interest of the Nation and our maritime heritage.
As witnesses to the significant harm to health of humans and much of the living creatures of Prince William Sound; and ongoing deaths and cascading environmental decline from Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in the Gulf of Alaska in 1989, it is critically important to involve all communities in every process of industrial activities in our oceans. We continue to support implementing the precautionary principle in a comprehensive ocean policy within the CSMP framework. Not only are the communities the first responders to international and local disasters, but they are integral to the stewardship of all resources for future generations. Indigenous Peoples and tribal communities in the Arctic are disproportionately impacted by industrial activities in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea. Please refer to a recent Department of Interior Minerals Management Service OCS study: “Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic Effects Related to Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska.”
Food Security is essential for Arctic/Alaska indigenous peoples, economic sustainability, and national interest. The living resources and biodiversity of the Arctic/Alaska region (fisheries, marine mammals, peoples, flora and fauna) are of paramount to indigenous science, culture, and identity.
Ecosystem Based Management with maximum Tribal participation in planning will break the frontiers of interdisciplinary science and community based participatory research to provide communities with tools to protect our oceans, coasts and inland waters. The indigenous peoples who have inhabited the Arctic since time immemorial carry the wisdom and expertise to maintain, protect and honor the integrity of the ecosystems to provide customary and traditional and commercial resources today. Historically, the indigenous maritime heritage of the Alaska/Arctic area allowed forefathers of the United States to conduct international trade and commerce.
We support indigenous peoples’ Traditional Ecological Knowledge as best available science. Traditional Ecological Knowledge is an important foundational element in the ecosystem-based management principle for all planning efforts. Indigenous Science is an important pillar for resilient coastal communities that can adapt to impacts of hazards in climate change.
We support local, national, and international efforts to improve the structure of the policy coordination of the National Ocean Council. Due to the cultural and economic significance of fisheries, marine mammals, and birds; as well as the geographic size of Alaska’s coastline and oceans, we ask that you increase participation of Alaska's Tribal Governments in the National Ocean Council. We strongly support education and training initiatives for Alaska Tribal Governments and Arctic communities in National Policy.
Coastal Zone Management
Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1482) (CZMA), Federal agencies have a government-to-government responsibility to consult with federally recognized Indian Tribes in areas where the CZMA is in effect. Although, the CZMA facilitates consultation by State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in the exercise of their responsibilities pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) including in matters that are protective of historic properties, it does not include consultation with Tribes and their Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) or, otherwise, provide significant protection to tribes.
Although, in 1992, the NHPA was amended to include tribes, the CZMA does not address the legal rights or concerns of tribes regarding historic properties and the CZMA has not been updated to be compliant with the Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders that mandate federal governmental agencies to conduct meaningful tribal consultation in support of the government to government relationship. Annually, for federal consistency, federal agencies have a duty to examine the implementation of the CZMA. The Task Force should therefore call on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA fisheries) and other federal fisheries agencies to establish meaningful tribal consultation as an integral component of their implementation of the CZMA and become wholly compliant with the consultation process.
Executive Orders:
It is mandatory that standing Executive Orders to be followed by federal agencies to fairly include federally recognized tribes and tribal communities in the Arctic/Alaska region and in all other planning regions when funding Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.
Executive Order--Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (July 19, 2010)
Executive Order 13175-- Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 12898- Environmental Justice
Federal Trust Obligation
The national ocean policy must implement significant and meaningful consultation with tribal governments and tribal communities in the protection of ocean and coastal resources including water rights, sustainable land practices, and management actions, development of watershed management plans and establishment of watershed management councils. Too often federal agencies fail to provide for consultation and partnership with tribes who are impacted by federal and state agency management actions regarding ocean and coastal resources.
The Ocean Policy should be consistent with Section 1B of President Obama’s Directive of June 12, 2009 which created the Task Force and which states that “The framework should also address specific recommendations to improve coordination and collaboration among Federal, State, Tribal, and local authorities, including regional governance structures.”
We support the protection of Arctic Indigenous Peoples cultural and subsistence resources in all oceans. We support international collaborations to maintain the integrity of migratory animal treaties for customary and traditional use. We support development of Arctic cultural and situational policy frameworks to address resiliency and adaptation to major climate change matters facing planet Earth.
The indigenous inhabitants of the Arctic/Alaska region and their traditional and modern governments must be included at every level of planning and management by the National Ocean Commission; and must be included for full funding in Marine Spatial Planning and inclusion in Regional Ocean Partnerships for the Arctic/Alaska planning region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indigenous Peoples and Tribal Communities are essential to Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning efforts.
“Data and model products have no value unless they are used. They can only be used if they can be easily discovered, acquired and understood in a timely manner to those who wish to apply them to practical issues such as flood forecasting, water availability modeling, and ecological flows, as inputs to decision-making. The communication and delivery of data and information to such end users is back-bone to a beneficial integrated system.” Page 190: Integrating Multiscale Observations of U.S. Waters by National Research Council of the National Academies; 2008.
Disclaimer: This document is prepared by Center for Water Advocacy and Alaska’s Big Village Network for Alaska’s indigenous peoples, Traditional Councils and Alaska Tribal Governments to be included in the process leading to policy decisions that impacts our future generations.------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Secretaries of the United States Departments of Commerce, Interior, Defense, and Homeland Security:
Request for Inclusion
Ocean Policy funding: Regional Ocean Partnership development.Re: Grant Notice of Federal Funding Opportunity; Number NOAA-NOS-CSC-2011-2002721 posted September 16, 2010; CFDA Number: 11.473; offered by the Department of Commerce
Thank you for your commitment to protect our vital water and ocean resources, ecosystems and peoples.
Alaska's Big Village Network offers this letter to Tribal Governments, indigenous peoples and tribal communities in all coastal regions of the United States; particulary in Alaska and the Arctic; whom have co-existed with all elements of the Earth since time immemorial.
The ocean is critical to all human beings on Earth and is important locally, nationally and internationally for the future freedoms of all peoples, especially Arctic inhabitants. As indigenous stewards of the oceans for tens of thousands of years, traditional and modern Tribal governments and tribal communities must be included in NOAA's Regional Ocean Partnership Funding Programs (ROPFP); particularly, as vital indigenous science and traditional ecological knowledge is critical in the Areas of Special Emphasis as identified in the Ocean Policy Task Force July 2010 final report. The ROPFP must also be directed to support and assist tribal governance and tribal community planning objectives in the Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning framework to become active partners in the Alaska Regional Ocean Partnership.
Alaska Tribal Governments and Alaskan tribal communities are necessary and essential to address coordination and collaboration for the profound global matters facing our ocean and to build capacity for the peace and security of mankind. The indigenous peoples of the Arctic have traditional cultural resiliency and adaptation methods that can reduce long-term cost of implementing national climate adaptation strategies; and the Arctic indigenous peoples can perpetuate protection, conservation and management of Large Marine Ecosystems beyond Arctic/Alaska boundaries of the CSMP area. The historic use of cultural resources, inter-disciplinary indigenous science, traditional ecological knowledge, customary and traditional and modern life ways of hunting, fishing, gathering, commerce, and navigation are critical to the interest of the Nation and our maritime heritage.
As witnesses to the significant harm to health of humans and much of the living creatures of Prince William Sound; and ongoing deaths and cascading environmental decline from Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in the Gulf of Alaska in 1989, it is critically important to involve all communities in every process of industrial activities in our oceans. We continue to support implementing the precautionary principle in a comprehensive ocean policy within the CSMP framework. Not only are the communities the first responders to international and local disasters, but they are integral to the stewardship of all resources for future generations. Indigenous Peoples and tribal communities in the Arctic are disproportionately impacted by industrial activities in the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea. Please refer to a recent Department of Interior Minerals Management Service OCS study: “Three Decades of Research on Socioeconomic Effects Related to Offshore Petroleum Development in Coastal Alaska.”
Food Security is essential for Arctic/Alaska indigenous peoples, economic sustainability, and national interest. The living resources and biodiversity of the Arctic/Alaska region (fisheries, marine mammals, peoples, flora and fauna) are of paramount to indigenous science, culture, and identity.
Ecosystem Based Management with maximum Tribal participation in planning will break the frontiers of interdisciplinary science and community based participatory research to provide communities with tools to protect our oceans, coasts and inland waters. The indigenous peoples who have inhabited the Arctic since time immemorial carry the wisdom and expertise to maintain, protect and honor the integrity of the ecosystems to provide customary and traditional and commercial resources today. Historically, the indigenous maritime heritage of the Alaska/Arctic area allowed forefathers of the United States to conduct international trade and commerce.
We support indigenous peoples’ Traditional Ecological Knowledge as best available science. Traditional Ecological Knowledge is an important foundational element in the ecosystem-based management principle for all planning efforts. Indigenous Science is an important pillar for resilient coastal communities that can adapt to impacts of hazards in climate change.
We support local, national, and international efforts to improve the structure of the policy coordination of the National Ocean Council. Due to the cultural and economic significance of fisheries, marine mammals, and birds; as well as the geographic size of Alaska’s coastline and oceans, we ask that you increase participation of Alaska's Tribal Governments in the National Ocean Council. We strongly support education and training initiatives for Alaska Tribal Governments and Arctic communities in National Policy.
Coastal Zone Management
Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1482) (CZMA), Federal agencies have a government-to-government responsibility to consult with federally recognized Indian Tribes in areas where the CZMA is in effect. Although, the CZMA facilitates consultation by State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in the exercise of their responsibilities pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) including in matters that are protective of historic properties, it does not include consultation with Tribes and their Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) or, otherwise, provide significant protection to tribes.
Although, in 1992, the NHPA was amended to include tribes, the CZMA does not address the legal rights or concerns of tribes regarding historic properties and the CZMA has not been updated to be compliant with the Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders that mandate federal governmental agencies to conduct meaningful tribal consultation in support of the government to government relationship. Annually, for federal consistency, federal agencies have a duty to examine the implementation of the CZMA. The Task Force should therefore call on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA fisheries) and other federal fisheries agencies to establish meaningful tribal consultation as an integral component of their implementation of the CZMA and become wholly compliant with the consultation process.
Executive Orders:
It is mandatory that standing Executive Orders to be followed by federal agencies to fairly include federally recognized tribes and tribal communities in the Arctic/Alaska region and in all other planning regions when funding Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.
Executive Order--Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (July 19, 2010)
Executive Order 13175-- Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 12898- Environmental Justice
Federal Trust Obligation
The national ocean policy must implement significant and meaningful consultation with tribal governments and tribal communities in the protection of ocean and coastal resources including water rights, sustainable land practices, and management actions, development of watershed management plans and establishment of watershed management councils. Too often federal agencies fail to provide for consultation and partnership with tribes who are impacted by federal and state agency management actions regarding ocean and coastal resources.
The Ocean Policy should be consistent with Section 1B of President Obama’s Directive of June 12, 2009 which created the Task Force and which states that “The framework should also address specific recommendations to improve coordination and collaboration among Federal, State, Tribal, and local authorities, including regional governance structures.”
We support the protection of Arctic Indigenous Peoples cultural and subsistence resources in all oceans. We support international collaborations to maintain the integrity of migratory animal treaties for customary and traditional use. We support development of Arctic cultural and situational policy frameworks to address resiliency and adaptation to major climate change matters facing planet Earth.
The indigenous inhabitants of the Arctic/Alaska region and their traditional and modern governments must be included at every level of planning and management by the National Ocean Commission; and must be included for full funding in Marine Spatial Planning and inclusion in Regional Ocean Partnerships for the Arctic/Alaska planning region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indigenous Peoples and Tribal Communities are essential to Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning efforts.
“Data and model products have no value unless they are used. They can only be used if they can be easily discovered, acquired and understood in a timely manner to those who wish to apply them to practical issues such as flood forecasting, water availability modeling, and ecological flows, as inputs to decision-making. The communication and delivery of data and information to such end users is back-bone to a beneficial integrated system.” Page 190: Integrating Multiscale Observations of U.S. Waters by National Research Council of the National Academies; 2008.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Environmental Justice in Alaska- Health Risks of Permitted Pollution Ignored:
Alaska- Health Risks of Permitted Pollution Ignored:
Indigenous Peoples left behind
To: National Environmental Justice Advisory Commission
From: Nikos Pastos & Carl Wassilie
Alaska's Big Village Network
Environmental Justice principles as outlined in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s strategic goals must be formally included in all permitting processes in Alaska. The United States of America has a federal trust obligation to Tribal governments and their peoples. The indigenous peoples of Alaska are citizens with a distinct historical and political relationship with the United States of America. EPA has a mission that can equitably protect and enhance environmental justice concerns in tribal communities that have suffered so many tangible adverse impacts from fast track, hasty environmental permitting. A good place to start would be observing proper notification protocols and consultation including language and cultural accommodation based on EPA’s environmental justice policy, and the Executive Order on environmental justice (EO 12898).
In order for any permit application to move forward in which the ecosystem, environment and (subsistence) living cultural resources of Tribal Governments and indigenous peoples could be impacted; there must be a formal review in a democratic process (tribal governments). Communication is a matter of utmost significance when permitted activities have potential impacts to local food security; and the potential to disrupt and destroy customary and traditional cultural life ways of hunting, gathering, fishing, harvesting, commerce and navigation.
Given the historic cultural degradation of America's First Peoples from permitted and unpermitted industrial development activities; a hard look from the articulated goals of EPA Environmental Justice policies must be enacted in real and tangible practices to have any credibility with indigenous peoples in modernity. Furthermore, resources must be allocated to Tribal Governments for building capacity to address the technical, legal and general communications to Tribal populations regarding all environmental permitting processes.
The transfer of permitting primacy by the United States of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to the proposed State of Alaska Pollution Discharge Elimination System (APDES) is legally questionable due to a Memorandum of Understanding signed by Region 10 EPA and the State of Alaska Department of Conservation. The State of Alaska does not have regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials in development of State policy that has profound tribal implications to the environment and health of indigenous peoples and tribal citizens. The State of Alaska has not substantively demonstrated the capacity to actually exercise oversight and compliance of simple reporting requirements of the Clean Water Drinking Act in villages of Alaska. How could tribal peoples and all other citizens have confidence or assurance that minimal federal standards for waste water discharges from mineral extraction, (oil, gas, mining) , timber industries, seafood processing industries, municipalities are properly monitored by a quasi-permitting program of the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation?
No consultation process has yet been developed to adequately address the adverse, disproportionate, cumulative impacts of thousands of permitted and pending industrial developments in Alaska that impact indigenous peoples human rights. Language translations are needed in areas and populations where significant percentages of the people speak indigenous language first and very limited English second. All health risks of permitted pollution are miscalculated; disproportionately impacting indigenous peoples and tribal citizens in Alaska when disregarding bioaccumulation, cumulative toxic risks and fish and wild food consumption rates and patterns.
Indigenous Peoples left behind
To: National Environmental Justice Advisory Commission
From: Nikos Pastos & Carl Wassilie
Alaska's Big Village Network
Environmental Justice principles as outlined in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s strategic goals must be formally included in all permitting processes in Alaska. The United States of America has a federal trust obligation to Tribal governments and their peoples. The indigenous peoples of Alaska are citizens with a distinct historical and political relationship with the United States of America. EPA has a mission that can equitably protect and enhance environmental justice concerns in tribal communities that have suffered so many tangible adverse impacts from fast track, hasty environmental permitting. A good place to start would be observing proper notification protocols and consultation including language and cultural accommodation based on EPA’s environmental justice policy, and the Executive Order on environmental justice (EO 12898).
In order for any permit application to move forward in which the ecosystem, environment and (subsistence) living cultural resources of Tribal Governments and indigenous peoples could be impacted; there must be a formal review in a democratic process (tribal governments). Communication is a matter of utmost significance when permitted activities have potential impacts to local food security; and the potential to disrupt and destroy customary and traditional cultural life ways of hunting, gathering, fishing, harvesting, commerce and navigation.
Given the historic cultural degradation of America's First Peoples from permitted and unpermitted industrial development activities; a hard look from the articulated goals of EPA Environmental Justice policies must be enacted in real and tangible practices to have any credibility with indigenous peoples in modernity. Furthermore, resources must be allocated to Tribal Governments for building capacity to address the technical, legal and general communications to Tribal populations regarding all environmental permitting processes.
The transfer of permitting primacy by the United States of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to the proposed State of Alaska Pollution Discharge Elimination System (APDES) is legally questionable due to a Memorandum of Understanding signed by Region 10 EPA and the State of Alaska Department of Conservation. The State of Alaska does not have regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal officials in development of State policy that has profound tribal implications to the environment and health of indigenous peoples and tribal citizens. The State of Alaska has not substantively demonstrated the capacity to actually exercise oversight and compliance of simple reporting requirements of the Clean Water Drinking Act in villages of Alaska. How could tribal peoples and all other citizens have confidence or assurance that minimal federal standards for waste water discharges from mineral extraction, (oil, gas, mining) , timber industries, seafood processing industries, municipalities are properly monitored by a quasi-permitting program of the State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation?
No consultation process has yet been developed to adequately address the adverse, disproportionate, cumulative impacts of thousands of permitted and pending industrial developments in Alaska that impact indigenous peoples human rights. Language translations are needed in areas and populations where significant percentages of the people speak indigenous language first and very limited English second. All health risks of permitted pollution are miscalculated; disproportionately impacting indigenous peoples and tribal citizens in Alaska when disregarding bioaccumulation, cumulative toxic risks and fish and wild food consumption rates and patterns.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Three Month Memorial of Oil Addiction
America's Addiction to Oil
July 20, 2010
Anchorage, AK
Alaska BP Headquarters
Oil Addicts Anonymous and Alaska's Big Village Network gathered with Alaska citizens at Alaska's BP Headquarters to protest the US Congress's addiction to oil-lobbying money by Big Oil. The action was in solidarity with a broad coalition of Gulf of Mexico residents, public interest, faith, environmental and human rights groups in Washington, DC. Three months after British Petroleum's Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon's toxic gusher, hundreds of citizens gathered in Washington, DC, to tell Congress to recognize; and to end their dirty oil addiction in order to move toward a just renewable energy future.
BP spent $1.72 million lobbying in the second quarter from April to June of 2010, while Shell Oil increased lobbying spending by almost 75% from the first quarter of 2010 to fuel Congress's oil addiction at $4.05 million in the second quarter. [ www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bp-oil-spill ]
As with all major addictions, it will take local, national and international community efforts to end Congress's oil addiction. We are asking energy legislation that protects peoples, fisheries, communities and the planet Earth.
Josh of Oil Addicts Anonymous says, "BP is one of the most obvious oil addicts around, and their addiction is hurting everyone. Especially, with the oil spill from Deepwater Horizon rig. Oil Addicts Anonymous supports BP's efforts to end their addiction by capping more wells. We would like to congratulate BP on attempting to cap the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico. It's a step in the right direction for an oil addict, but there are many more wells in Alaska and around the world that could threaten to do more community damage and harm, so we are asking BP to cap more of their wells and end their oil addiction."
Alaska's Big Village Network is concerned about the massive increase in Shell Oil's lobbying efforts to drill in the Arctic Ocean, where the interest of the nation should be focused on protecting and enhancing Alaska's fisheries and local indigenous peoples in the interest of regional, national, global and local food security. Particularly, with the huge chemical poisoning of nearly half of America's fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Carl, Yup'iaq biologist, explains, "western scientist are only beginning to understand the significance of the Arctic to biological production in Northern regions and planet Earth. The last of the great wild salmon fisheries on planet Earth depend on the Arctic and sub-arctic ocean nutrient cycles. As America's fishery habitat dwindles, why should Alaskans let Big Oil threaten our fish, people, indigenous cultures, and national security for foriegn markets and a few short term jobs?"
July 20, 2010
Anchorage, AK
Alaska BP Headquarters
Oil Addicts Anonymous and Alaska's Big Village Network gathered with Alaska citizens at Alaska's BP Headquarters to protest the US Congress's addiction to oil-lobbying money by Big Oil. The action was in solidarity with a broad coalition of Gulf of Mexico residents, public interest, faith, environmental and human rights groups in Washington, DC. Three months after British Petroleum's Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon's toxic gusher, hundreds of citizens gathered in Washington, DC, to tell Congress to recognize; and to end their dirty oil addiction in order to move toward a just renewable energy future.
BP spent $1.72 million lobbying in the second quarter from April to June of 2010, while Shell Oil increased lobbying spending by almost 75% from the first quarter of 2010 to fuel Congress's oil addiction at $4.05 million in the second quarter. [ www.huffingtonpost.com/news/bp-oil-spill ]
As with all major addictions, it will take local, national and international community efforts to end Congress's oil addiction. We are asking energy legislation that protects peoples, fisheries, communities and the planet Earth.
Josh of Oil Addicts Anonymous says, "BP is one of the most obvious oil addicts around, and their addiction is hurting everyone. Especially, with the oil spill from Deepwater Horizon rig. Oil Addicts Anonymous supports BP's efforts to end their addiction by capping more wells. We would like to congratulate BP on attempting to cap the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico. It's a step in the right direction for an oil addict, but there are many more wells in Alaska and around the world that could threaten to do more community damage and harm, so we are asking BP to cap more of their wells and end their oil addiction."
Alaska's Big Village Network is concerned about the massive increase in Shell Oil's lobbying efforts to drill in the Arctic Ocean, where the interest of the nation should be focused on protecting and enhancing Alaska's fisheries and local indigenous peoples in the interest of regional, national, global and local food security. Particularly, with the huge chemical poisoning of nearly half of America's fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. Carl, Yup'iaq biologist, explains, "western scientist are only beginning to understand the significance of the Arctic to biological production in Northern regions and planet Earth. The last of the great wild salmon fisheries on planet Earth depend on the Arctic and sub-arctic ocean nutrient cycles. As America's fishery habitat dwindles, why should Alaskans let Big Oil threaten our fish, people, indigenous cultures, and national security for foriegn markets and a few short term jobs?"
Thursday, July 15, 2010
EPA RULE LIMITING MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM GOLD MINES FALLS SHORT ON PROTECTING ALASKA'S PEOPLE AND ECOSYSTEMS
EPA RULE LIMITING MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM GOLD MINES FALLS SHORT ON PROTECTING ALASKA'S PEOPLE AND ECOSYSTEMS
By Carl Wassilie and Nikos Pastos
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed a rule under the Clean Air Act to limit mercury air emissions from gold mines. While EPA is taking a positive step in moving to regulate mercury, the proposed rule does not go far enough to protect all Alaskans, including indigenous peoples’ customary and traditional lifeways, and Alaska’s water, wildlife, cultural resources and ecosystems from mercury.
This rulemaking is important to Alaska and Alaskans because of the Donlin Creek Mine Project. There is mercury associated with the gold ore at the proposed Donlin Creek Mine. This means that mining and milling can release significant amounts of mercury. Based on conservative estimates of how much mercury is in the ore at Donlin Creek, if uncontrolled, the mine will process each year ore that will contain over 20 tons of mercury. Some of this will end up in tailings, some will be captured in pollution control devices and some will be emitted to the atmosphere. Under the proposed EPA rule the mine could be permitted to emit over 3200 pounds of mercury per year just from ore pre-treatment processes, and more from other parts of the milling operation.
This is significant, especially given that 2008 Toxic Release Inventory data from the EPA indicates that only 71 pounds of mercury was emitted in Alaska that year. That means that under the proposed rule, the Donlin Creek Mine would be permitted to increase mercury air emissions in Alaska by a whopping 4,500%.
Is the EPA’s proposed limit, which is supposed to protect people and the environment from this hazardous pollutant, really protective when it allows 4,500% more mercury to enter the environment from this single source? The clear answer is “no”; the rule needs to be stronger.
Additionally, the EPA rule does not impose limits on mercury emitted from “fugitive sources” at mines, which include tailings ponds and waste rock piles. These fugitive emissions of mercury can be taken up into the atmosphere and travel for many miles. A recent study done at two Nevada gold mines indicate that nearly 20% of the total mercury may come from fugitive sources, depending on conditions.
The state and EPA are already concerned about mercury in Alaska; agencies are planning a conference in October to try to get a handle on mercury deposition and risk in the state—the Quicksilver Conference. Donlin represents the first major industrial mercury source in Alaska, and regulation of how mercury is managed at this mine is critical for assessing the associated risk.
The Donlin Creek LLC is well aware of the potential impacts to the region and Alaska from mercury emissions from its mining operations. The company has publically stated that it can capture 98% of the point source mercury emissions. However, even with emissions controls that capture 98% of mercury emissions, the mine could still emit nearly 1,000 pounds of mercury per year, over 1,000 % increase above current mercury air emissions in Alaska.
This brings up more questions: what will the mine will do with the mercury that is captured—an incredible 20-40 tons per year? How can it be stored safely on the shores of the Kuskokwim River and safely transported off-site? What are the cummulative health impacts of historic mercury and gold mines along with the current global fallout from foreign industrial resources? Who will be left with the mess? These are just a few questions that the EPA rule does not touch.
The implications of such a weak rule are clear: the EPA has failed in its duty to craft a rule that limits emissions and protects people and the environment. And unfortunately, those of us with families and friends living in the Kuskokwim River watershed will again be faced with mercury in our lakes, rivers, fish, birds and lands.
Please write to the EPA and ask them to make a rule that is protective of people and the environment. You can submit comments to a-and-rDocket@epa.gov, Attend Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0239. For more information on the proposed rule, visit: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/
Nikos Pastos is a social scientist from Anchorage. He conducts research on technological disasters.
Carl Wassilie is a Yupiaq biologist. He is based in Anchorage.
By Carl Wassilie and Nikos Pastos
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed a rule under the Clean Air Act to limit mercury air emissions from gold mines. While EPA is taking a positive step in moving to regulate mercury, the proposed rule does not go far enough to protect all Alaskans, including indigenous peoples’ customary and traditional lifeways, and Alaska’s water, wildlife, cultural resources and ecosystems from mercury.
This rulemaking is important to Alaska and Alaskans because of the Donlin Creek Mine Project. There is mercury associated with the gold ore at the proposed Donlin Creek Mine. This means that mining and milling can release significant amounts of mercury. Based on conservative estimates of how much mercury is in the ore at Donlin Creek, if uncontrolled, the mine will process each year ore that will contain over 20 tons of mercury. Some of this will end up in tailings, some will be captured in pollution control devices and some will be emitted to the atmosphere. Under the proposed EPA rule the mine could be permitted to emit over 3200 pounds of mercury per year just from ore pre-treatment processes, and more from other parts of the milling operation.
This is significant, especially given that 2008 Toxic Release Inventory data from the EPA indicates that only 71 pounds of mercury was emitted in Alaska that year. That means that under the proposed rule, the Donlin Creek Mine would be permitted to increase mercury air emissions in Alaska by a whopping 4,500%.
Is the EPA’s proposed limit, which is supposed to protect people and the environment from this hazardous pollutant, really protective when it allows 4,500% more mercury to enter the environment from this single source? The clear answer is “no”; the rule needs to be stronger.
Additionally, the EPA rule does not impose limits on mercury emitted from “fugitive sources” at mines, which include tailings ponds and waste rock piles. These fugitive emissions of mercury can be taken up into the atmosphere and travel for many miles. A recent study done at two Nevada gold mines indicate that nearly 20% of the total mercury may come from fugitive sources, depending on conditions.
The state and EPA are already concerned about mercury in Alaska; agencies are planning a conference in October to try to get a handle on mercury deposition and risk in the state—the Quicksilver Conference. Donlin represents the first major industrial mercury source in Alaska, and regulation of how mercury is managed at this mine is critical for assessing the associated risk.
The Donlin Creek LLC is well aware of the potential impacts to the region and Alaska from mercury emissions from its mining operations. The company has publically stated that it can capture 98% of the point source mercury emissions. However, even with emissions controls that capture 98% of mercury emissions, the mine could still emit nearly 1,000 pounds of mercury per year, over 1,000 % increase above current mercury air emissions in Alaska.
This brings up more questions: what will the mine will do with the mercury that is captured—an incredible 20-40 tons per year? How can it be stored safely on the shores of the Kuskokwim River and safely transported off-site? What are the cummulative health impacts of historic mercury and gold mines along with the current global fallout from foreign industrial resources? Who will be left with the mess? These are just a few questions that the EPA rule does not touch.
The implications of such a weak rule are clear: the EPA has failed in its duty to craft a rule that limits emissions and protects people and the environment. And unfortunately, those of us with families and friends living in the Kuskokwim River watershed will again be faced with mercury in our lakes, rivers, fish, birds and lands.
Please write to the EPA and ask them to make a rule that is protective of people and the environment. You can submit comments to a-and-rDocket@epa.gov, Attend Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0239. For more information on the proposed rule, visit: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/
Nikos Pastos is a social scientist from Anchorage. He conducts research on technological disasters.
Carl Wassilie is a Yupiaq biologist. He is based in Anchorage.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
From the Ground: BP Censoring Media, Destroying Evidence
Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riki-ott/from-the-ground-bp-censor_b_608724.html?ir=Daily%20Brief
Written by Riki Ott, Marine toxicologist and Exxon Valdez survivor
Posted: June 11, 2010 09:18 AM
From the Ground: BP Censoring Media, Destroying Evidence
Orange Beach, Alabama -- While President Obama insists that the federal government is firmly in control of the response to BP's spill in the Gulf, people in coastal communities where I visited last week in Louisiana and Alabama know an inconvenient truth: BP -- not our president -- controls the response. In fact, people on the ground say things are out of control in the gulf.
Even worse, as my latest week of adventures illustrate, BP is using federal agencies to shield itself from public accountability.
For example, while flying on a small plane from New Orleans to Orange Beach, the pilot suddenly exclaimed, "Look at that!" The thin red line marking the federal flight restrictions of 3,000 feet over the oiled Gulf region had just jumped to include the coastal barrier islands off Alabama.
"There's only one reason for that," the pilot said. "BP doesn't want the media taking pictures of oil on the beaches. You should see the oil that's about six miles off the coast," he said grimly. We looked down at the wavy orange boom surrounding the islands below us. The pilot shook his head. "There's no way those booms are going to stop what's offshore from hitting those beaches."
BP knows this as well -- boom can only deflect oil under the calmest of sea conditions, not barricade it -- so they have stepped up their already aggressive effort to control what the public sees.
At the same time I was en route to Orange Beach, Clint Guidry with the Louisiana Shrimp Association and Dean Blanchard, who owns the largest shrimp processor in Louisiana, were in Grand Isle taking Anderson Cooper out in a small boat to see the oiled beaches. The U.S. Coast Guard held up the boat for 20 minutes - an intimidation tactic intended to stop the cameras from recording BP's damage. Luckily for Cooper and the viewing public, Dean Blanchard is not easily intimidated.
A few days later, the jig was up with the booms. Oil was making landfall in four states and even BP can't be everywhere at once. CBS 60 Minutes Australia found entire sections of boom hung up in marsh grasses two feet above the water off Venice. On the same day on the other side of Barataria Bay, Louisiana Bayoukeeper documented pools of oil and oiled pelicans inside the boom - on the supposedly protected landward side - of Queen Bess Island off Grand Isle.
With oil undisputedly hitting the beaches and the number of dead wildlife mounting, BP is switching tactics. In Orange Beach, people told me BP wouldn't let them collect carcasses. Instead, the company was raking up carcasses of oiled seabirds. "The heads separate from the bodies," one upset resident told me. "There's no way those birds are going to be autopsied. BP is destroying evidence!"
The body count of affected wildlife is crucial to prove the harm caused by the spill, and also serves as an invaluable tool to evaluate damages to public property - the dolphins, sea turtles, whales, sea birds, fish, and more, that are owned by the American public. Disappeared body counts means disappeared damages - and disappeared liability for BP. BP should not be collecting carcasses. The job should be given to NOAA, a federal agency, and volunteers, as was done during the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.
NOAA should also be conducting carcass drift studies. Only one percent of the dead sea birds made landfall in the Gulf of Alaska, for example. That means for every one bird that was found, another 99 were carried out to sea by currents. Further, NOAA should be conducting aerial surveys to look for carcasses in the offshore rips where the currents converge. That's where the carcasses will pile up--a fact we learned during the Exxon Valdez spill. Maybe that's another reason for BP's "no camera" policy and the flight restrictions.
On Saturday June _ people across America will stand up and speak out with one voice to protest BP's treatment of the Gulf, neglect for the response workers, and their response to government authority. President Obama needs to hear and see the people waving cameras and respirators. Until the media is allowed unrestricted access to the Gulf and impacted beaches, BP - not the President of United States - will remain in charge of the Gulf response.
For more information on community rallies, please visit HERE.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Proposed Resolution to the United Nations on Banning Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling
Take Action: Support a Proposed Resolution to the United Nations on Banning Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling
Hello, friends!
I hope this message finds you doing well.
I am sending you a draft of a resolution I wrote that I would like to send to the United Nations seeking a ban on offshore oil and gas drilling. The current situation in the Gulf of Mexico presents a possible teachable moment. I realize that UN resolutions are non-binding, but it is a start and may someday become a treaty. Please note that I drafted this on my own and was not called upon to write a resolution. Thus, it may take many of us to get something to the floor of the UN.
You are in receipt of this draft resolution for three reasons: (1) you are like-minded and support protecting the environment; (2) I would like your input, ideas, expertise, and comments; and (3) I would like your help in getting the draft resolution to the UN visa vie the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea or any other outlet you may think might work.
If you support it, I encourage you to replace my name with your entity’s name and re-word it to your liking . . . and submit it to anyone you feel might be able to help guide it into adoption. I put my name on it so people wouldn't be confused into thinking there was an existing resolution . . . please replace my name with your group's name if you would like to submit it to the UN.
I kept it short and sweet and tried to incorporate the requisite preambulatory and operative phrases required by the UN. If you have more knowledge or experience in drafting these types of resolutions, please take liberty in making any necessary changes.
I appreciate your assistance.
Peace,
Karlin
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/calendar_of_meetings.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/new_developments_and_recent_adds.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
