The Pebble Blog : Is this ad right? (updated)

The Pebble Blog

The gigantic Pebble copper and gold prospect in Southwest Alaska is one of the touchiest topics in Alaska today.

In this blog, I'll track news that is significant or interesting about the Pebble project. I'll also try to generate discussion and information sharing about some of the claims and counterclaims about the project, and mining in general.

Please keep your comments courteous and on topic. If you violate the ADN comment policy, your posts will be deleted.

------------------------------------------------

About Elizabeth Bluemink ebluemink@adn.com

I've been writing about mining in Alaska since 2004 and without a doubt, it is one of the most interesting topics that I cover at the Daily News. I've been a newspaper reporter for the past 10 years. In the Deep South, I specialized in reporting about environmental conflicts and pollution cleanups. For two years, I covered commercial fishing, mining and logging in Southeast Alaska. In my current job as a Daily News business reporter, I write about mining, tourism, Native corporations and other businesses.

Is this ad right? (updated)

Posted by Elizabeth Bluemink

Posted: August 22, 2008 - 7:38 pm

Murkowski ad

Did Gov. Frank Murkowski really change state law to allow mines to spew toxic pollutants into salmon spawning streams?

If I had to pick a yes or no answer, I'd be inclined to say no ... with caveats. But please, blog readers, feel free to convince me otherwise.

The facts as I've researched them are a bit complex but I'll try to give a simple explanation.

The ad refers to a revision of state water quality regulations that occurred in 2006, during Murkowski's term.

The revision didn't just apply to mines and it has NOT been approved by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Thus far, it cannot be used for mines or any other major projects.

The new regulations pertain to "mixing zones," areas in a water body where regulators have decided that it's OK for a pollution discharge to exceed water-quality standards. Mixing zones have been permitted by EPA and the state for decades. Almost 100 percent of the sewage plants in Alaska have mixing zones. So do many seafood processors and three mines, Red Dog, Pogo and Greens Creek. (Pogo's mixing zone discharge is domestic, not industrial wastewater.)

It may be a shock to some people but as early as 2003 (I couldn't find someone to tell me about how the rules were interpreted before then), state regulators allowed companies, mainly placer mines, to use mixing zones in salmon spawning streams. The regulators didn't allow the placer mines to put those extra pollutants into the stream while salmon were using it.

Was Murkowski responsible for how the rules were interpreted for placer mines?

In 2005, state regulators proposed allowing mixing zones in salmon spawning streams even when salmon were present. This caused an uproar so the regulators backed off.

Here's what they wrote instead in their 2006 regulations:

"In lakes, streams, rivers, or other flowing fresh waters, a mixing zone will not be 1.) authorized in a spawning area of the five species of anadromous Pacific salmon found in the state; or
2.) allowed to adversely affect the present and future capability of an area to support spawning, incubation or rearing of any of the five species of anadromous Pacific salmon found in the state."

But as they did before the rule change, the state intends to allow mixing zone discharges in the streams when salmon or their eggs are not present.

This seems like an odd definition of the words "spawning area," but I'll say it again: it's not something that started with the 2006 revision.

The only new salmon-related change in the 2006 revision is that mixing zones would be authorized in a spawning stream if salmon colonized the stream AFTER the mixing zone was originally approved.

These provisions don't apply to land-locked salmon, trout, grayling and a bunch of other species, by the way. If approved by EPA, the 2006 regulations would allow companies to apply for exemptions to use mixing zones where those fish are present.

In general, the 2006 revision remains controversial (Sunday update: Rep. Paul Seaton of Homer has led several attempts to change it in the Legislature).

That aside, some environmental attorneys I've talked to in recent weeks, including one who works for an advocacy group, say they aren't sure whether Measure 4 will change the state's current rules for mixing zones and salmon.

Sunday update: I've been giving this whole topic a lot of additional thought and it seems to me that there's a lot of wiggle room here for the state to either maintain its limited use of mixing zones in salmon spawning areas to placer mines or expand them to locations and industries that haven't used them before, such as Pebble.

login or register to post comments

9 December 7, 2008 - 2:27pm | charlierotario

Is this ad right? (updated)

This is way too far exaggerated. You need to find something to do about it. It can't be tolerated anymore!
methods to stop smoking

8 October 22, 2008 - 5:38am | ammys

Meanwhille, the rift between

Meanwhille, the rift between humans and mutants had finally reached the boiling point. When humans discovered what causes humans to mutate, they have found a cure for the mutation. The X-Men were appalled at this idea. It was not long at all until the news about the cure came to Magneto. He decides to organize an army of mutants and wage his war against the humans. Then, it became clear that Jean Gray evolved into the Pheonix, her new mutant powers are so strong that she can not control her own body. Then, she kills off Professor X with her new powers. Now, The X-Men must stop Magneto again and put an end to the war against the humans, as well as stop Jean Gray’s Pheonix powers.
download online movies

7 August 24, 2008 - 11:26am | ThorZone

Honest Attempt

Thank you Elizabeth for making an honest attempt to clear this up. I think for a novice, you did a nice job of boiling down a very complicated issue. I too am a novice, but I have spent years watching and learning about this stuff.

Water quality regulations, like air quality regulations are very complex, and most people don’t understand them and worse don’t even think they exist. Making big changes that are very unclear at best like ballot measure 4 will have large and serious unintended consequences that will ripple through our economy for years.

Although I am not in an industry where these regulations come into play, I have studied environmental regulations (mostly water and air quality regs) for decades because they effect our economy here more than most places.

The Alaska economy doesn't have much going for it except resource extraction (fishing, mining, oil, timber etc). Resource extraction is the primary engine that makes Alaska work. In order to have a place to work for us, our kids and our grand kids, we as Alaskans need to become much more informed about the environmental regulatory climate because if we let people like the pro ballot measure 4 folks run things here, our economy will be hammered.

The people promoting ballot measure 4 have been disingenuous at best, at worst, they have been lying to us. By playing the Murkowski card, they hope to get people pissed off at the state regulators by demonizing the processes and the people involved. It is a pathetic attempt at trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Your look at the latest deception from these folks starts to shed a little light on how they work. Thank you for writing an article which is balanced and fair. I am sure you will get plenty of grief for it.

6 August 24, 2008 - 9:58am | jokeener

MDS

Just as Alaska has our own George Soros with Bob Gillam, we have our own Bush Derangement Syndrome (hysterical hatred and projection of one's own failures) with Murkowski Derangement Syndrome.

The Murkowski admin did not weaken water quality standards or the Coastal Zone Management program. The CZMP is even more stringent now. Under Murkowski they developed a far more detailed review and implemented a 60 day public notice and review period, on top of the U.S. Corps of Engineers "404" public notice and review. This is a fact. Go to their website and see. Or choose to be an ignorant, blind fool.

The yes on 4 extremists are fabricators. They make stuff up. They are not to be trusted.

5 August 23, 2008 - 1:13pm | Valley411

From Halcro Blog

Like him or not, everyone has to admit that he is honest and well intentioned. He certainly has nothing to gain personally and is determined to shine light on issues. Read on:
Murkowski did not eliminate (or even loosen) existing water quality standards regulating discharges of toxic substances that could have adverse effects on fish and aquatic life. To the contrary, they are now the same or more stringent than before Murkowski.
Alaska Water Quality Standards, 18 AAC 70, prohibit discharges into a spawning area of anadromous Pacific salmon species found in the State, as well as discharges that will adversely affect “the present and future capability of an area to support spawning, incubation, or rearing of” these salmon species. 18 AAC 70.240(e).
When these existing standards are compared to those in place before Murkowski became governor, they confirm that the protections in place now, are the same or stronger than those in place before Murkowski.
Furthermore, an executive order cannot change state statutes or create new statutes as that must be done by legislative action. In addition, an executive order by one administration can be simply canceled by a new administration.

4 August 23, 2008 - 8:26am | ls4444

Murkowski talk is cheap political move

Alaskans are smarter than this, and we can see right through your shameless efforts to attack our jobs and industry in our state. In a last stitch efforts to associate mining with all things Alaskans don't like, measure 4 promoters are now linking it to Murkowski, come on!

3 August 23, 2008 - 2:53am | Sockeyemark

Sounds like our current water regs are murky at best

some say cleane water 4 would make things murky....looks like the other way around....unfortunately
the Gov didn't see it that way and stumped for the anti clean water crowd.

2 August 22, 2008 - 9:23pm | BD

I looked this up earlier today and the State water quality regs say mixing zones are not allowed in salmon spawning areas.

August 24, 2008 - 3:09pm | pebble_blog

the head of the DEC water division

says that their definition of spawning area is "timing" not "space" related; so, you can discharge when salmon, their eggs, etc are not there.
I haven't seen that explicitly stated in the regs either but it's how DEC has told lots of people they are interpreting them and it's why people see this as a rollback (even though DEC was allowing this before the change).

1 August 22, 2008 - 8:13pm | rfn

My work at the time to which you refer

kept me in close touch with state government and rule-makings. My memory matches yours very closely.

There is a "desperation technique" that works quite well in Alaska. At the moment if one wants to excite fear and loathing, one merely shouts "EXXON" or "Murkowski". Whether or not either has anything to do with the issue at hand.

Though there are laws pertaining to "Hit Pieces", this ploy seems well within legal boundaries. Ethical boundaries? Perhaps not but ethics seem to have very much to do with various support groups in any campaign for office or on behalf of/against any proposition.

This particular effort has set new standards. Unfortunately, defining a new bottom end. I have no doubt it will soon be exceeded. If not now, when the effort to ban commercial fishing in favor of exclusive rights for wealthy outside "sport" fishermen come to the fore.

We must exercise patience.

August 22, 2008 - 9:47pm | Sockeyemark

Murkowski is a prime example why we need cleanwater 4

Any administration can come in and make changes at the stroke of a pen. Not too worried about this one but we could get another Murkowski back in office. Sarah even stumped for the bum...

August 26, 2008 - 9:12am | ThorZone

Not Correct

Your comment is based on the falicy that under the Murkowski the water quality requirements were significantly loosened. They were not.

Tell me Sockeye, what specific regulation(s) was removed or made less restrictive under any state of Alaska governor?

August 24, 2008 - 6:46am | Victor67

Yes on fish, yes on mining, yes on Alaska,

No on 4

August 24, 2008 - 8:17pm | Sockeyemark

Another Pebble Partnership "yes man"

looks like they've got you in firmly in their pocket. You see the Agnason's in there?

August 24, 2008 - 8:54pm | CingRed

Using your same argument...

did ADN sellout to Bob Gillam?

You see how ridiculous and disingenuous the anti-mining (Pro BM4) arguments are!

Bad behavior, writing secret initiatives behind Alaskans back (no public input), language riddled with grammatical errors and vague statements, and with malice toward Alaska mining industry & native corporations does not deserve or warrant a yes vote.

Vote NO on Tuesday!

August 23, 2008 - 10:49am | rfn

Interesting

that Measure 4, the "Keep The Wilderness For The Rich" initiative, defines no new standards; lays down no criteria for measurement of anything. Leaves everything up to the interpertation of un-elected bureaucrats and, ultimately, to a series of court battles.

Why, it doesn't even mention "Pebble"....only facilities lawsuits to shut down mining entirely.

Let's hope that when the wealthy "sport" fishermen take on a commercial fishing shutdown they're more specific so they'll achieve their goal of exclusivity quickly rather than subject innocent fishermen to the death of a thousand cuts.

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

The Pebble Blog

Archive

Is this ad right? (updated)