The Middle River Group, LLC

fly fishing, conservation and politics.

tenkara, conservation, communications, politics

Key grip and trout wrangler at the Middle River Group, LLC. Playing Doc Holliday to the Wyatt Earps of the fish and wildlife conservation world. Deputy Director, Marine Fish Conservation Network. Guide and instructor, Mossy Creek Fly Fishing. Freelance outdoor writer.

Bristol Bay/Pebble Mine – Mitigation Plan Filed.

By

My friends at SalmonState put out an update last week. The mitigation plan has not been released to the public yet and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can take their time about making a decision. Some folks think the current administration will still do the right thing. I’m skeptical, but will be delighted to be proven wrong.

SalmonState: Pebble’s mitigation plan inherently flawed; veto only way to defend Bristol Bay

Anchorage, AK—Northern Dynasty Minerals, the parent company of the Pebble Limited Partnership, announced today [Nov. 16] that it has submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the mitigation plan it hopes will allow its proposed open pit mine and toxic dump at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska to move forward. Bristol Bay is the planet’s greatest sockeye salmon run and has provided more than half the world’s sockeye salmon catch in recent years. Despite that, the area remains unprotected from destructive mining impacts. 

“You cannot ‘mitigate’ your way out of a toxic 200-year megamine at the headwaters of the world’s most important wild salmon habitat, which is pristine. This ‘plan’ is a continuation of a crooked process full of off-the-record, back-room deal conversations between the Pebble Limited Partnership, the Alaska District of the Army Corps of Engineers, politicians and political appointees,” said SalmonState executive director Tim Bristol. “The only way to defend the incomparable salmon resource of Bristol Bay — and to ensure fishermen, Tribes and Alaskans aren’t dragged through this rubber stamp ‘process’ all over again — is for the EPA to immediately veto the permit application through the Clean Water Act.” 

The Alaska District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a history of rubber stamping “mitigation” measures inconsistently and, at times, going against its own guidelines. It does not plan to make Pebble’s mitigation plan public until it has reviewed it and deemed it “compliant.”

Numerous independent mining experts and scientists have also identified the Final Environmental Impact Statement on which the mitigation plan is based as fatally flawed, which means the plan Pebble submitted would be grossly inadequate were mitigation even possible. 

Vote Public Lands and Waters

By

With any luck this will be my last political post of this election. I hope that you will vote and take advantage of the opportunity we have in this country to make our preference for elected leaders known.

As has been my practice, I’ve written a letter to the editor of my local paper.

The land, water and wild things that inhabit it don’t get to vote, but you do. There is a clear choice with Joe Biden. If you enjoy the great outdoors, especially hunting and fishing on public lands, vote on their behalf and show an understanding and appreciation for the bounty of our public lands.

Read the full letter: https://www.newsleader.com/story/opinion/readers/2020/10/30/our-public-lands-deserve-our-vote/5980029002/

Politics has been a vocation and advocation of mine for more than 40 years. Never has an election in that span of time been more important for the future our country. I’ve made my choice.

To those I angered or annoyed, with my opinions or preferences, I apologize, I hope politics doesn’t define our friendship.

And know this, I will always support the chance for you to make yours.

Elementary

By

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” 

– Arthur Conan Doyle – “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes”

The Navigable Waters Rule

By

The saying goes something like this, “whiskey’s for drinking and water’s for fighting.” It is typically associated with ownership rights in the west. Still, for many years it has resonated with those of us who deal with the changing legal landscape and battlegrounds surrounding the Clean Water Act.

I’ve been working on or following the Clean Water Act jurisdictional issues for most of my conservation career. In 2003, I was the conservation director for the Izaak Walton League of America. We released a study titled “Jurisdiction Under the Clean Water Act: Implications of the SWANCC Decision” (copy available upon request.) Since then, there have been many twists and turns, making this one of the most contentious and complicated issues I’ve ever dealt with.

Where are we today?

In April 2020, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States,” aka the “Navigable Waters Rule.” undoing the Obama administration’s work. As Trout Unlimited noted, “This rule replaces a 2015 Rule, which clarified the extent of Clean Water Act protections for small streams and wetlands.  This new 2020 rule not only reverses the clarifications made in 2015 but further reverses protections that have been in place dating back to the 1970s.”

My friend Sam Lungren, MeatEater’s fishing editor, wrote a terrific article, Patagonia Will Sue Trump Admin. Over Clean Water Act, which not only explains the state of play today but gives a solid review of the history of how we came to the Navigable Waters Rule. As Lungren notes, Patagonia, a company I greatly admire, stepped into the arena and joined with Earthjustice in their lawsuit on behalf of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Quinault Indian Nation, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Tohono O’odham Nation, and Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit challenges and seeks to vacate two final rules promulgated by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. The first, “Definition of Waters of the U.S.: Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules,” repealed the 2015 “Clean Water Rule” which defined the term “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act. The second, “The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States,” replaced the Clean Water Rule and its predecessor rules with a definition of “waters of the United States” that, according to the filing, “substantially narrows the waters protected by the Act.”

The filing states; “The Navigable Waters Rule exceeds the Agencies’ statutory authority and is contrary to the Clean Water Act’s text, structure, objectives, and legislative history requiring broad protection of all the Nation’s waters, because its provisions exclude waters from the protections required and afforded by the Act.

“The Tribes also challenge the Repeal Rule and the Navigable Waters Rule as arbitrary and capricious because both rules are contrary to the evidence before the Agencies, including vast volumes of science and technical evidence in the administrative record and the uncontroverted findings made by the EPA and its own Science Advisory Board. The Agencies also failed to explain their decision to reverse prior regulations and failed to consider important aspects of the problem, including the effects on water quality and aquatic ecosystems of stripping protections for large numbers of waters, the ecological importance of protecting the excluded waters, and the effects of the reversal on the objectives of the Clean Water Act.

“These decisions are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

Threats to our water

Since my early days, I have relied on my friends at Trout Unlimited for their analysis, leadership and advocacy. It is no different in this case.

“The E.P.A.’s new policy comes with a price tag,” Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited, wrote in a recent op-ed in the New York Times with National Wildlife Federation CEO Collin O’Mara and former U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service director Dale Hall.

“When the E.P.A. stops protecting these streams and wetlands, states will have to foot the bill for regulatory oversight; many states may decide not to step in at all. When developers fill in wetlands, local communities will be on the hook for cleaning up more frequent flood damage. When headwaters are polluted, cities downstream will pay to treat their drinking water.”

Check out TU’s Clean Water Rule Update: April 2020 for more details. Read, Changes to the Clean Water Rule have big impacts on the ground for a look at why the rule is bad news for those of us who love our small stream fishing.