The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has said that the Pebble Project is good to go for the next step of permitting.

It won’t be that easy of course. Although the long-awaited environmental impact statement said that if the mining project proceeds according to its plan, there will be no measurable impact on salmon in Bristol Bay or the commercial fishery, the ink is being placed on the lawsuits already.

“Today was really fifteen years in the making. From the beginning, we dedicated the time, resources and technical work to ensure we had a project that could be done responsibly, be done without harm to the Bristol Bay fishery, and provide meaningful contributions to the communities closest to the project,” said Tom Collier, CEO of the Pebble Project. “After an extensive, rigorous, and transparent review process the USACE has concluded the Pebble Project meets that mark.”

The project went through the same federal review process that has brought Alaskans decades of North Slope development and a host of other resource development projects that faced heavy resistance every step of the way but that now provide jobs and economic activity for thousands of Alaskans, he said.

The Natural Resource Defense Council issued its statement on Thursday, a full day before the release of the document:

“The analysis is full of gaps, deficiencies, and legal blunders. The Army Corps conducted a hasty review at breakneck speed and ignored the tribes, cooperating agencies, and other stakeholders who identified serious errors in the agency’s process,” the NRDC said, in part.

But Pebble is used to this type of attack.

“Alaskans, especially the residents of Bristol Bay, have never received the real Pebble story and after a lengthy misinformation campaign many were led to believe a mine at Pebble would harm the fishery,” Collier said.

“Some will criticize the USACE and the process they followed to get to this point. That is unfortunate. The USACE is staffed by some of the most diligent public servants in our government,” he said, advising that he expects groups like the NRDC to challenge the process in court.

“I welcome that challenge because the process is sound and defensible. The process has been thorough. It has been thoughtful. I have worked in federal permitting for most of my career and can say with certainty the USACE has done a very good job. I have been laser focused on making sure that any permit received for the project could withstand a court challenge and I am confident the process followed to produce this thorough EIS will prevail,” Collier said.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy also issued a statement today:

“Today’s release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is only one step in a lengthy and complex regulatory process that will take place before any final determinations are made on the proposed Pebble Project. The Pebble Partnership has not even initiated the state permitting process and is not expected to do so until a Record of Decision is released by the Corps of Engineers later this year. When that happens, the Pebble Project will undergo a thorough, fact based analysis by the appropriate state agencies to determine if it meets Alaska’s high standards for environmental protection.”pebble

The United Fishermen of Alaska announced its endorsement of U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan on Thursday.

The announcement comes as a bit of a body blow to the campaign of his opponent, Al Gross, who presents himself as a commercial fisherman from Petersburg. This is an endorsement that should have come easily for someone with an Alaska gill net permit. Many in the fishing industry are independent voters, and Gross also presents himself as an independent, although he is running on the Democrats’ ticket and with the Democrats’ resources and endorsement.

Sen. Sullivan has demonstrated leadership and effectiveness in advancing the interests of Alaska?s fisheries and fishermen across the state,? said UFA President Matt Alward. ?

“Time and time again, Dan Sullivan has stood up for Alaska fishermen and coastal communities. Whether it was spearheading through Congress a permanent e?emption to the EPA?s overburdensome regulations for incidental discharge from fishing vessels, advancing efforts to reduce and remove tariffs on Alaska seafood, working across the aisle to pass sweeping marine debris and ocean clean-up legislation, or securing critical relief for Alaska fishermen and their families in the face of COVID-19. We look forward to working with the Senator to further improve the Alaskan fishing industry and address issues of importance to our members and the communities in which they live and work,” UFA said.

In 2018, UFA recognized Sullivan for his successful efforts in holding the Canadian government accountable for transboundary? mines that pollute Alaska?s waters and threaten fisheries. He has worked with the Alaska delegation to combat illegal fishing, fought to ensure that illegally caught seafood does not enter the U.S. market, and played a critical role in developing a provision that reduces the cost of a new fishing vessel. Most recently, Sen. Sullivan fought to secure a provision in the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security (or CARES) Act providing $300 million in relief funding for fisheries impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senator Sullivan has also demonstrated his commitment to ensuring the continued success of Alaska?s fisheries. The Senator, through numerous pieces of comprehensive legislation, has championed the issue of addressing the global marine debris crisis, which harms the marine food chain. He included language in the bi-partisan international trade bill, the USMCA (United States?Mexico?Canada Agreement) which ensures that fisheries are a principal point of all future negotiations. Senator Sullivan has worked on barriers that negatively impact entry into the fishing industry and ensured that the next generation of Alaska fishermen have access to resources needed for successful operations. Additionally, Sullivan was instrumental in securing long sought changes to the vessel incidental discharge permit requirements ? which created significant confusion and obstacles for vessel operators and Alaska fishermen.

?Throughout his first term, Senator Sullivan has been approachable, trustworth?, and an effective advocate for commercial fishermen, and we are pleased to continue this partnership in the coming ?ears,? said UFA Executive Director Frances Leach.

A car dealership on Tudor Blvd. near the site of one of the mayor’s chosen locations for vagrant services had five of its vehicles vandalized last night. The manager of the dealership had last week given impassioned testimony about the overwhelming amount of crime and vagrancy near the dealership.

And then the vandalism came, with hundreds of thousands of dollars of merchandise destroyed. A coincidence? Possibly.

Save Anchorage, a new community grassroots group, is a lead group on a protest against lawlessness and the lack of support for police officers in Anchorage. Actually, they’re protesting the general disintegration of the social fabric in Anchorage of late.

Citizens will gather at New Seward Highway at Benson Blvd., near where the new Carrs grocery store is located, from 4-6 pm.

Sources within the group said they’re standing up against the mayor of Anchorage and the municipality’s lack of support for law enforcement, the mayor’s attempt to force vagrants and drug abusers into centers to be located in family neighborhoods, and the new ordinance by Assembly member Meg Zalatel to tie the hands of police officers when it comes to their duties to keep people safe.

“People are just ‘over’ it with this administration,” the source told Must Read Alaska. “They want their community back.”

NO IN-PERSON TESTIMONY ALLOWED ON CONTROVERSIES AT ASSEMBLY

At Tuesday’s Anchorage Assembly meeting, the mayor’s vagrant plan will be up for public testimony.

So will Zalatel’s “use of force” ordinance, referenced above.

The Assembly will also consider Chair Felix Rivera’s proposed ban on counseling for those who have gender confusion issues. Rivera’s ordinance prohibits any sort of “sexuality conversion therapy” for those who want to attempt to overcome homosexuality or other sexual variations.

The Assembly will consider an ordinance prohibiting evictions of people who do not pay their rents, offered by Rivera.

The Assembly will hear Mayor Ethan Berkowitz’ proposal to establish an Office of Equity and Justice in his office.

But curiously, no one will be allowed in the Assembly Chambers to testify on these or myriad other controversial items coming before the Assembly.

The mayor has prohibited gatherings in the city and therefore all testimony will be done telephonically.

The entire agenda is at this link.

Anchorage Assembly member Meg Zalatel offered has offered an ordinance to limit the ability of police to use force.

Under the Zalatel no-deadly-force plan, law enforcement officers would be prohibited from using the following tactics in response to noncompliance or resistance:

1. Warning shots.
2. Shooting at or from moving vehicles.
3. Shooting when innocent bystanders are near the line of fire so as to create a substantial risk of harm.
4. Drawing and pointing weapons, unless deadly force is authorized by police department policy.
5. Use of firearms to destroy animals.
6. Unless deadly force is authorized, necessary, and objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and only used as long as needed to protect others and separate the arrestee from others:

• Any chokeholds, with or without a device, that restricts a person’s airway or flow of air.
• Any vascular neck restraint that restricts the flow of blood by compressing the carotid arteries on each side of the neck.
• Striking a person’s head or neck with an impact weapon or object.

7. Sitting, kneeling, or standing on the chest or back of a person in a manner that compresses the diaphragm for longer than reasonably necessary to restrain the person.

“Under no circumstances shall deadly force be authorized against a person in handcuffs or restrained to similar extent by any device. Non-deadly force may be used to prevent imminent bodily harm to officers or others, prevent escape, or physically remove an arrestee/detainee,” Zalatel’s ordinance reads.

The ordinance was introduced, but the Assembly has since been preoccupied by Mayor Ethan Berkowitz’ plan to house and treat vagrants in hotels and other buildings around Anchorage.

Now, a letter from the Anchorage Police Department Employee Association has expressed concern about the Zalatel plan.

The group says that shooting from a moving vehicle is already prohibited, but the APD policy provides for extenuating circumstances.

“For example, the policy would allow officers to fire at a person driving a vehicle who at the same time was shooting at citizens or officers. APD’s policy allows for officers to bring their training, experience, and critical analysis to bear in such a situation, with the understanding that an extreme amount of scrutiny will be used in determining if the officer placed themselves in a position where the vehicle could be used against them.”

The APD policy also has language prohibiting shooting when it could create a substantial risk of harm to a bystander.

“While our current policy has language similar to this, the policy again allows for extenuating circumstances where the ordinance does not,” APDEA wrote.

Under the current policy, the officer is allowed the discretion to decide, based on the totality of the circumstances, whether discharging his/her firearm would constitute a greater risk to innocent human life than the subjects’ actions would.

“There are any number of ways such a situation could arise. For example, when officers are dealing with an active shooter, or with a suspect who is taking action that threatens the lives of hostages, officers may have to make the difficult decision to use deadly force against the suspect even with bystanders or hostages near the line of fire to save the lives of many.”

The police group also pointed out that if Zalatel’s ordinance is understood literally, it prohibits shooting when innocent bystanders are near the line of fire, even if the officer has no knowledge that a bystander is present.

The drawing and pointing of weapons section of Zalatel’s ordinance is also problematic. The ordinance would change the police department policy, which now says that officers may not point their firearms at or in the direction of a person absent an objectively reasonable determination that the situation may escalate to the point where deadly force would be authorized. The ordinance prohibits drawing and pointing weapons unless there is justification for use of deadly force.

“APD officers are trained to deploy with their weapons in any number of situations where deadly force would not be justified. For example, drawing and pointing weapons is allowed on felony traffic stops, building searches, K9 tracks, etc. When guns are drawn in these circumstances, the result is the potentially hazardous situations never reach the point of becoming appropriate for the use of deadly force.”

The group wrote that science backs up this training, because there is a lag time for the brain to recognize a threat, make a decision based on what an officer is perceiving and then take action. When an officer sees a threat of death or serious injury to themselves or another person, a suspect can fire three to four times before the officer can fire once.

The officers also wonder why use of firearms on animals would be prohibited. The ordinance differs from current policy, which allows use of deadly force against an animal that represents a threat to the public or to the officer. It authorizes police to dispatch an animal that is gravely injured, such as a moose that has been struck by a vehicle, for humanitarian reasons.

As for using deadly force, such as chokeholds, or striking a persons head or neck with an impact weapon or object, the proposed ordinance would be different from current policy Officers are now only allowed to use impact when a subject is actively resisting, such as kicking, biting, punching, pushing, barricading, or pulling away.

“Sometimes officers aim for the leg and hit the hip, aim for an arm and hit a shoulder, all inadvertently. In the ordinance, an officer could be punchiest for using an impact weapon in a situation of active resistance if the weapon strikes the person’s head or neck, even if it was not the officers intent to strike the person in either are.

Finally, the officers say that the ordinance section saying that “under no circumstances shall deadly force be authorized against a person in handcuffs or restrained to a similar extent by any device, is already in current policy. There are extenuating circumstances if it’s objectively reasonable to prevent bodily harm to the officer or another person or persons.

The officers have asked for greater communication with the Assembly to help them understand current policy and to share with them feedback they have received from their association members.