September 2022 - Alaska District Army Corp of Engineers Officially Denies IPOP, LLC Mining permit application, after several years of back and forth, new applications, public comment periods and withdrawn applications. Article to the right provides information.
September 2022 - Typhoon Merbok slams into the Seward Peninsula of Alaska, hitting the Nome-Council Hwy, wiping out access to Solomon, Alaska completely. Article below provides information.
In September, Western Alaska experienced a storm like no other. Typhoon Merbok, which originated east of Japan and gained strength due to unusually warm Pacific Ocean water, tore through the region, leaving devastation in its wake.
Destruction of protective berms resulted in eroded shorelines and roads; hurricane-force winds pushed houses off their foundation, tossed around boats and vehicles, and blew excessive debris across communities.
Once the storm passed, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, or DOT&PF, statewide contractors, and local suppliers immediately launched efforts to expedite repairs.
https://alaskacontractor.akbizmag.com/issue/winter-2023/road-to-recovery/
December 2022 - Village of Solomon and Alaska District Army Corp of Engineers Biologist, Christopher Hoffman complete and finalize the Environmental Baseline Habitat Study with focal study sites using physical and scientific data collection.
July 2023 - IPOP, LLC & Appeals Review officer/committee from the Army Corp of Engineers hold confidential appeal meetings in Nome, Alaska
August 2023- Nome Nugget News Reporter reaches out to the Village of Solomon Environmental Dept with this information, "The Division Engineer, BG Kirk Gibbs, made the decision to terminate the appeal process and vacate the Alaska District’s initial permit decision following an independent analysis of the administrative record for the Alaska District’s September 2022 permit application denial. The Review Officer, who was appointed by the Division Engineer to conduct the appeal process, assisted the Division Engineer in reaching and documenting his decision to elevate the initial permit decision to the Division. A Regulatory Project Manager has been assigned to the elevated review of the permit application and will determine the anticipated review and decision timeline.”
By August 31, 2023 the Village of Solomon reaches out to the Pacific Ocean Division for a Freedom of Information Act request and a Tribal consultation between the Tribal Government and the Federal Government to discuss how these events occurred and why they were not immediately notified.
March 2024 - B.G Kirk Gibbs of the Pacific Ocean Division Army Corps of Engineers approves the permitting application, due to the scope decreasing by ~30 acres. The same mining outfit that was denied by the AK District commander, approved by the Pacific Ocean Division. The former AK District Commander considered all of the statements provided by; Environmental Protection Agency, US Fish & Wildlife, National Ocean Atmospheric Administration. Please see language & images below from each federal agency in regard to the same project.
Conclusions - In a letter to DNR Commissioner
Our review of the proposed project indicates that information necessary to review the proposed project remains incomplete. Water quality is a component of EFH and it’s important to maintain good water quality to support aquatic resources. We recommend the certification for the proposed project be denied until reasonable assurances are made that the project will not result in more than minimal degradation of water quality. We are concerned about permitting a mine of this scale without adequate analysis of the impacts of the proposed mining activities on the aquatic and marine resources in the action area. We are eager to review both a completed EFH assessment and a NEPA analysis for this project to assess the cumulative impacts of the exploratory drilling, case study mining, full-scale mining, and reclamation activities.
IN ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE IN REGARD TO THE APPLICATION AGAIN- FROM NOAA
In a letter to ACOE AK District Commander
Assessment of Effects to EFH
Your agency has concluded that the project as proposed would have adverse effects on EFH, especially for Chum salmon and its prey. The EFH final rule (67 FR 2343, January 17, 2002) defines an adverse effect as “any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH” (50 CFR 600.810(a)). Based on our review of the proposed action and designated EFH for several federally managed species within the project area, we have determined that this project is likely to have substantial adverse impacts to EFH in the Bonanza Channel. Substantial adverse effects are effects that may pose a relatively serious threat to EFH and typically could not be alleviated through minor modifications to a proposed action.
Conclusion: The proposed discharge will likely result in substantial degradation of the aquatic ecosystem under §230.10(c). The project proponent has not provided the necessary information to evaluate impacts, and the methods used to gather some information presented may not be appropriate. The project proponent has not thoroughly investigated alternatives to reduce or minimize impacts, in fact the project footprint has increased since coordination began in 2018. The proposed project results in replacing fully functioning wetlands (much of which are special aquatic sites) with created wetlands that, at best will have a temporal delay before becoming functional, and at worst may fail to replace the functions and values they were intended to replace. Therefore, we recommend the USACE invoke its authority under 33 U.S.C. §1344(c) to deny the permit for the proposed project based on the potentially substantial adverse effects to the special aquatic sites and the lack of proven mitigation and reclamation measures. If you have any questions, please contact Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ms. Amal Ajmi at amal_ajmi@fws.gov, or Branch Chief, Conservation Planning Assistance, Dr. Bob Henszey at bob_henszey@fws.gov.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has rejected an application from a Nevada-based company that was seeking to operate a controversial mining project near Nome.
The Corps said on Friday it denied IPOP LLC’s application for a wetlands-fill permit for a gold-dredging operation that would have affected about 195 acres at Safety Sound and Bonanza Channel, an important subsistence harvesting area about 30 miles east of Nome.
“Today’s action is reflective of an exhaustive permit review process,” Col. Damon Delarosa, commander of the Alaska District, said in a statement released on Friday. “On top of extensive consultations with our sister agencies and tribal partners as well as collecting the public’s input, the applicant failed to adequately show that their proposal is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.”
Denial of such permit applications is rare, the Corps said in its statement. Nationally, less than 1% of applications for Corps permits are denied, the statement said. Rejected applicants usually fail to change their proposed activities, the statement said.
The IPOP project was originally pitched as a setting for a reality TV show. A California company called Rivers of Gold in 2017 sought investors for a project it said could generate $25 million in revenues, according to a 2017 report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Ed Epstein, general partner and operator of Rivers of Gold, described the project in a 2017 video as a multifaceted moneymaker.
A skiff rests on the grassy tundra at Safety Sound on Sept. 30, 2020, with several cabins in the background. Safety Sound is an important site for fish, migratory birds, seal and other animals, and it is a key subsistence food-gathering area for residents of Nome and outlying communities. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has denied a permit sought by a Nevada-based companie that planned to conduct a large gold-dredging operation in Safety Sound. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
“We now have 540 acres of mining claims in virgin inland waters to fully exploit for the partnership, in addition to making a television show and creating our own gold luxury brand,” he said in the video. He also pledged to start mining in June of 2018 and said the company’s dredge would be able to process enough material to fill the Rose Bowl “to the top row” within 120 days – which he compared to what he characterized as small-scale operators who are featured on other reality TV shows.
Nome is the setting for a long-running Discovery Channel reality TV show called Bering Sea Gold, which follows the exploits of offshore miners who dredge from boats in Norton Sound.
The IPOP project was widely opposed in the region. Among the opponents was Kawerak Inc., a nonprofit Native organization; the Bering Straits Native Corp., the Nome-based regional Native corporation; and the Norton Sound Economic Development Corp., a non-profit fishery organization that represents 15 Bering Strait-area communities.
In comments submitted last year, Kawerak called the proposed development area an “extremely sensitive and pristine ecosystem which, once altered, may never return to its natural state.”
The area, with waters that are sheltered from the rougher seas of Norton Sound, is a haven for migratory birds, seals and other animals, and also critically important to people who gather wild foods, Kawerak said in its 2021 comments.
“The entire Bonanza area is a subsistence use area throughout the year. People from Nome use this area year-round to gather eggs, hunt birds, fish for all species throughout the year, hunt for seals, and also for moose and bear hunting in the spring and fall as well as for berry picking and gathering greens in the summer,” Kawerak said in the comments.
The IPOP project did receive a state permit in 2019 allowing the company to conduct some exploratory dredging in the area.
IPOP officials did not respond to an email inquiry on Monday about the Corps’ permit denial, and a spokesperson at the Juneau law firm that is listed as IPOP’s registered agent declined to comment. https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/corps-denies-permit-for-company-seeking-to-dredge-for-gold-in-sensitive-area-near-nome/
Between 2021 & 2024, IPOP, LLC conducts multiple Freedom of Information Act requests on all federal agencies in partnership with the Village of Solomon tribe. All emails, meeting minutes, agendas, phone call notes, calendars, etc. Within these FOIA requests, IPOP utilizes the ongoing habitat study through another ACOE Alaska District division, as an allegation in their 2023 Granted appeal to state that the Alaska District Commander was BIAS for Alaska Native Corporations.
May 2022 & again in 2023 - IPOP, LLC investors SUE (two times!) the US Army Corp of Engineers. Two civil lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Read some of their colorful language below, in which they filed in their lawsuit.
Not a single partner or investor involved with the mining operation lives within the State of Alaska—the $18,000,000 already invested in this project has all come from outside of Alaska; Many of the Alaska Natives opposing the project live in Nome, Alaska, more than thirty miles away from the project, and many do not even live in Alaska. Some members of the Village of Solomon are long-time residents of Palm Springs, California.
Certain Alaska Native interests have at all relevant times falsely asserted that Plaintiffs’ project would interfere with Alaska Native subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. These include certain Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) which are among the most wealthy and powerful in Alaska. 9. In a 1979 settlement, the State of Alaska abandoned its legal position that the “Village of Solomon” failed to qualify as a sovereign entity under ANSCA, and the Village of Solomon was thereafter recognized as a “Native Village,” and later as an “Indian tribe”. Upon information and belief, (a) Village of Solomon did not in 1979 and would not today qualify for recognition under current federal standards for recognition as a federally recognized Indian tribe (see 25 C.F.R. § 83.11); (b) The Village of Solomon consists of members who live nowhere near the historic site of the former Village of Solomon east of Nome, Alaska (roughly five miles from Plaintiffs’ proposed mining site), and the site continues to be almost entirely uninhabited (recent census populations are zero); (c) One leader of the Village of Solomon, Deilah Johnson, lives in Florence, Oregon; another leader most active in opposing Plaintiffs’ application, lives primarily in Anchorage, Alaska, more than five hundred air miles away from the former Village; and (d) Those in control of the Village of Solomon are shareholders in the associated Solomon Native Corporation (an ANC), and are part of a long-term conspiracy with the larger, region-encompassing Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC), which plaintiffs have documented through Freedom of Information Act materials, seeking to drive Plaintiffs from Alaska and expropriate their gold and equipment.
11. The Corps has an ongoing relationship with the ANC opponents of the project and has paid them more than $222 million in the last five years pursuant to contracts between these ANCs (or their subsidiaries) and the Corps. 12. Plaintiffs first applied to the Corps for a permit on or about March 16, 2018, and ultimately filed suit in this Court on May 20, 2022 (Case No. 6:22-cv-01353) to force the Corps to make a decision on the permit application after years of bad faith delay, exacerbated by outright collusion between the Corps project managers and project opponents. The Corps denied the permit on September 8, 2022, mooting Case No. 6:22cv-01353.
18. The Division Engineer also declared that given an appearance of bias in favor of the ANCs, the Alaska District’s permit denial “is vacated”. 19. Rather than using any of the personnel outside of Alaska involved in the administrative appeal process, who were familiar with the application and the administrative record associated with it, the Corps brought in a new Senior Regulatory Project Manager, Michael W. Langley, from the Los Angeles District, to assist the Division Engineer in making a decision. 20. On or about August 21, 2023, Mr. Langley advised Plaintiffs that he would be devoting 100% of his time to review of the application, and that he would be preparing a recommendation for the Division Engineer, who would make the decision whether or not to issue the permit. Plaintiffs advised Mr. Langley that they stood ready to assist him in his review and highlighted the critical documents for his review. 21. On or about September 1, 2023, Plaintiffs learned from an attorney representing the Pacific Ocean Division that the Corps had received a request for “tribal consultation” from an Alaska Native entity. A FOIA request to the Pacific Division later confirmed that the consultation request had been made by the “Village of Solomon” on or before August 25, 2023.
To Date. Permits. Agencies. Entities. Public comments
Public Comments during Dept of Conservation review of drafted permit announced.
7/29/2024 Buchal James, IPOP LLC
Looking over the public comment posted online to date on the DEC website, we thought it worth noting for the record that the opposition continues to be the product of an Alaska Native elite; particular families that were also involved in opposition to the federal permit. Their position is to be contrasted to the position of the local community as a whole, as demonstrated in the two attached Nome Nugget polls.
Despite years of consistent slander against the project from the Alaska Native elites, 87% of the Nome community supported the Corps’ decision to issue a permit to IPOP as evidenced by the Nome Nugget poll, and would support DNR, DEC, and DFG decisions to issue permits as well.
As the Nome Nugget appears to be under the control of the same elite group, we note that the Nome Nugget editor consistently omits any references to these polling results in the paper’s stories about alleged local opposition to the project. Baseless concerns about impacts to fish dominate the comments to date. I am therefore enclosing a copy of IPOP’s November 19, 2021 Essential Fish Habitat analysis which assembles scientific evidence to demonstrate the lack of any effects of regulatory significance.
I am also retransmitting a letter on which you were previously copied back on September 8, 2021, noting the extensive conflict of interest possessed by project opponent Norton Sound Economic Development Corporation (NSEDC), which is wiping out for commercial gain the very fish it falsely claims to be protecting for subsistence use through its opposition to the project.
We request that you immediately provide us through electronic means with copies of all public comments received as soon as the public comment period closes (this need not include the public comments that may be viewed through the DEC website). We stand ready to assist you in addressing any comments you deem relevant but would like to make our own review of the comments to see what, if any, supplementary information may be supplied to complete the record.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Approves IPOP Project Permit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pacific Ocean Division
https://www.pod.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/3712748/us-army-corps-of-engineers-approves-ipop-project-permit/
Published March 20, 2024
Fort Shafter, Hawaii --
Today, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pacific Ocean Division offered a permit to IPOP, LLC to dredge and dispose of material in U.S. waters near Nome, Alaska.
IPOP's revised plan, which constitutes the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), reduces impacts by approximately 33 acres compared to their previous proposal. The permit includes a special condition requiring IPOP to monitor environmental resources throughout the project and for two years post-completion. Additionally, adaptive management measures must be implemented to ensure rapid regrowth of aquatic vegetation.
This decision overturns the permit denial made by the Alaska District on September 8, 2022.
During the application review, Brig. Gen. Kirk Gibbs, Division Engineer, considered input from stakeholders and laws governing the Clean Water Act Regulatory Program.
"The Corps is committed to protecting the Nation’s aquatic resources while allowing reasonable development," said Gibbs. "Given the facts and information available, I determined that the revised project is permittable and not contrary to the public interest.”
Gibbs concluded that while the estuary would likely recover from most impacts, monitoring and mitigation measures are necessary to safeguard fish, wildlife, and water quality and ensure estuary recovery.
The project site is located approximately 25 miles east of Nome, Alaska, within the Bonanza Channel estuary. The permitted activities include dredging, reclamation of dredged materials, and disposal of excess materials within jurisdictional waters.
The USACE Regulatory Program balances favorable impacts against detrimental ones, reflecting national concerns for resource protection and utilization.
POD evaluated the proposed project under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. USACE's jurisdiction includes regulating the discharge of dredge and fill materials (Section 404) and protecting navigable waterways (Section 10).
Alaska District will administer the permit.
For information about the USACE regulatory process, visit https://www.pod.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.
Queries regarding the permit decision may be directed to POD Public Affairs Office at pod-pao@usace.army.mil.
Contact
POD PAO
808-835-4715
pod-pao@usace.army.mil
Release no. 24-001
The Federal Agency - with authority to approve over the jurisdiction - the Army Corp of Engineers- has approved their jurisdiction oversight through their messy Regulatory decision making. Once through the Ak District, IPOP was not satisfied with the decision so they executed other routes and the initial denial was vacated and onto the desk of a B. General in Hawaii, who chose to approve in March 2024.
Near the end of June 2024, the State of Alaska publicly announced the drafted permit for their authoritative jurisdiction overseeing the same proposed project, after another messy permitting process with lack of communication and denial of a public hearing - the State of Alaska approved the permit to dredge within the proposed area.
At this time, IPOP seeks a land use permit from the Dept. of Natural Resources
Public Comments during Dept of Conservation review of drafted permit announced.
7/31/2024 Bahnke, Melanie, Kawarak, Inc.
I. The Project Violates State and Federal Law with Respect to Subsistence Priority. The Bonanza Channel and its surrounding environs serve as a subsistence use area throughout the year. The Corps has acknowledged the same. 3 In addition to fishing and foraging, subsistence users hunt mammals, marine mammals, and birds, gather eggs and greens, gather salt for processing meats, and herd reindeer, often as a means of food security and to insulate community members from the grocery markups in the fly-in City of Nome, Alaska. Moreover, Kawerak has explained, subsistence is part of the cultural identity of local Native communities. In previous comments, Kawerak and other affected parties have raised concerns that the presence, noise, and visual disturbance of IPOP;s Project would negatively impact subsistence resources- specifically including saffron cod or tomcod, eiders, swans and other birds, ringed subadult bearded seals which utilize the area to hone their foraging skills as it is an inshore estuary; both of which are on the ESA list as Threatened and are known to frequent the area - and therefore these year-round local subsistence users. Additionally, the Safety Sound/Bonanza Channel is host to the farthest north eelgrass bed in Alaska. Eelgrass plays an important role in the marine environment, and the federal government designated eelgrass as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and a Habitat of Particular Concern under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of l 996 ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ feature-story importance eelgrass).
Rather than address these concerns, !POP has simply taken the position that no subsistence permits have been issued for the Project area. Numerous subsistence salmon pen11its have been issued by the State Of Alaska; Alaska Department of Fish & Game for decades. With respect to local concerns regarding the effect of Project on fish migration, seal presence, and other subsistence resources of the area, !POP simply declined to respond.4 When commenters explained that IPOPs proposed operations would limit the use of subsistence vessels to navigate the channel, IPOP argued that there would be other places in the vicinity from which to view wildlife and engage in recreational activities. But yielding to subsistence priority is not discretionary. Rather, entitlement to subsistence priority is enshrined in both State and Federal law. Federal law requires that rural residents of Alaska be given a priority for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife. 6 At the State level, AS 16.05.258 SUBSISTENCE PRIORITY, mandates that subsistence use is prioritized above all else. AS 16.05.790 protects against HUNTER
HARASSMENT. T he Corps deferred any such analysis to the State, noting that [a]s both are state laws, their implementation and enforcement are outside of the Corps' purview . . . ;7 With respect to its own subsistence analysis, the Corps simply concluded that [t]he mining operation would likely prevent subsistence-related activities in the area being actively mined and the immediately surrounding areas, but this involves a relatively small area compared to the 25-mile regional estuary system and the terrestrial areas to the no11h of estuary. Although the general project vicinity supports various subsistence activities, no unique subsistence opportunities are known to exist at Bonanza Channel that would be adversely affected.
8 The Corps further acknowledged that [p]otential adverse impacts related to subsistence activities, aesthetics, noise, and increased activity levels in the project area had been identified. For purposes of ADECs analysis, the Corps; findings- which expressly acknowledge the Projects likely adverse impacts to subsistence use in the area- are insufficient to overcome Alaska;s statutory requirements. Specifically, AS 16.05.258 directs the Alaska Board of Fisheries and Alaska Board of Game to provide a reasonable opportunity for subsistence uses first, before providing for other uses of any harvestable surplus of a fish and game population. A reasonable oppo1tunity"" under the statute means an opportunity, as determined by the appropriate board, ;that allows a subsistence user to participate in a subsistence hunt or fishery that provides a normally diligent participant with a reasonable expectation of success of taking offish or game.10 IPOP Application denies subsistence users this reasonable opportunity, as IPOP has declined altogether to address the community members concerns related to the Projects effects on fish migration, seal presence, and other subsistence resources of the area. Moreover, IPOP;s response to concerns regarding access for subsistence activities has been to point to the existence of other subsistence areas (rather than accommodating the requisite reasonable subsistence use of the area at issue).
Nor does IPOP;s Application adequately address the prohibition on harassing activities towards those conducting lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or viewing of fish and game under AS 16.05.790 . That statute prohibits the intentional obstruction or hindrance of another person;s lawful hunting, fi shing, trapping or viewing of fish and game. [!legal activities include positioning one;s self in a location where human presence may alter the behavior of fish or game another person is pursuing. [t is also illegal to create a sight, sound, smell, or physical stimulus to alter the behavior of fish and game another person is attempting to take. Yet IPOPs Application proposes to do just that, without regard for the consequences.
II. IPOP Has Not Established That its Project Will Not Degrade Alaskan Waters. Alaskas commitment to protecting its pristine waters drives ADEC's water quality standards. Pursuant to the ADEC;s antidegradation pol icy, ""if the quality of a water exceeds levels necessary to suppo1i propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality must be maintained and protected; unless the ADEC provides a short-term variance.
Moreover,;[a]n applicant for a permit, certification, or approval who seeks to reduce water quality as described in ... this section shall provide to the department all information reasonably necessary for a decision on the application. To Kawerak;s knowledge-and with the limited documentation and data available---IPOP has altogether failed to establish that the resultant changes to the Project area ;s water quality will not curtail the propagation of fish, wildlife, and recreation in the area. Indeed, IPOP concedes that its activities will impact water quality &; within the curtained area…; And in response to concerns that [t]here was a lack of water quality characterization (e.g., pH, salinity, dissolved organics, metals) and little analysis regarding changes from pre-project to post-project conditions for SAV, ….. Likewise, in response to NMFS concerns regarding the adverse effects dredging and disposal operation would have on the water column and quality, IPOP simply declined to respond.; The ADEC mandate to ensure water level quality sufficient to support fish and wildlife propagation takes on especial importance in this region. As just one example, the Southern Seward Peninsula is in the midst of a salmon crisis that has lasted nearly five years. The majority of salmon that enter the Bonanza Channel and Safety Sound Estuary come through the eastern most outlet just past the Bonanza Bridge. If IPOP is allowed to dredge and mine these waters, their operations will certainly impact salmon migration and propagation, further exacerbating salmon declines. The Bonanza Channel and Safety Sound are listed in the Anadromous Body of Water Catalog and chum salmon are noted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to have spawning grounds in close proximity to the proposed dredging and mining operation. Further, Safety Sound has been documented as an important rearing and growth habitat for juvenile chum salmon as they migrate to the ocean. Kawerak therefore joins with Tribes, its tribal members, community and neighbors in expressing its opposition to the as-of-yet undetermined levels of disturbance to the substrate and resuspension of toxic heavy metals occasioned by IPOP;s mining activities. Kawerak notes with particular concern IPOP;s lack of data regarding water chemistry and the potential for introduction of metals including arsenic, mercury, copper and lead into the Project area. Nor has IPOP furnished any reassurance on this front; to the contrary, IPOP has conceded that its activities will negatively impact the water quality, wildlife, and recreational activities in the area…. But ADEC cannot as a matter of law simply take IPOP;s unsupported water quality assurances at face value. Nor can ADEC rely on the Corps; determination that IPOP;s Project will pass muster, because the Corps Permit in turn relies on the State's determination. It is impermissible for ADEC to certify a Project if the Project will cause the quality of water to exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, wildlife and recreation. Yet IPOP has provided no evidence that its dredging activities will meet this . ... Project will continue to support the various wildlife, recreation, and subsistence uses within the Project area, and ADEC must deny IPOP's Application. III. The Project will Adversely Impact Numerous Cultural and Natural Resources.
As established by the public record for this Project, the Corps; decision to issue lPOP;s Corps Permit failed to take into account the vociferous opposition of local testimony and comments, was contra1y to actions requested during Tribal Consultation, and ignored the recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA. We ask that ADEC not repeat the mistakes of the Federal government, and instead take into account the devastating impact that IPOPs Project will have on Native and rural Alaskan communities. Another factor that IPOP;s permit application does not address is the impact it will have on Native Allotment and campsite owners. Several Native Allotments have been identified by the Corp; s and the State of Alaska to be in close proximity to the area intended to be mined by !POP. There are reports of IPOP trespassing on several Native Allotments in the area. Native allotments and campsites are chosen in this area due to their close proximity to subsistence harvestable resources. Native Allotments have been in use for generations and must be maintained as such and simply cannot be moved. Bird-watching is another activity that would be impacted if !POP is allowed to operate. Migratory birds, birdwatching and bird tourism provides economic oppo1iunities and the maintenance of the wildlife habitat is of economic importance. State & Federal agencies have stated that they will not be on the ground, or in the area to regulate any activity taking place by IPOP, LLC. However, state &; federal agencies will rely on members from !POP, LLC to self-report or the general public to make a report. Kawerak;s experience with state agencies (DNR, OED, Div. of Habitat) regarding repot1ing on other mining activities taking place to be that of reluctance or just outright denial of any reports having been made. This is of concern, as the closest Department of Natural Resource office is located in Fairbanks, Alaska and then Anchorage, Alaska over 539 air miles from Nome.
IV. Request for Public Hearing
As provided by ADEC in its Public Notice regarding this matter, Kawerak formally submits this written request for a public hearing. Kawerak asks that the public hearing undertake the following issues, as set forth in greater detail above:
V. Conclusion
Thank you for the oppo11unity to provide comments on Kawerak's concerns with the Project and the minimal cosmetic changes to the Project that still do not bring the Project into compliance with State or Federal law. We are very troubled with how the Project would seriously and adversely impact community subsistence, Subsistence Priority, Native Allotment owners, water quality, migratory birds, marine mammals, aquatic species, and other properties of traditional , religious, and cultural importance to Kawerak, as well as native and non-native use of the area. These comments and our previous comments on the scope of the Project describe the many reasons why Kawerak opposes this Project and the many considerations that ADEC must evaluate in reviewing IPOP's Application. After completing a thorough review of all the environmental and cultural impacts and costs that would result from this Project, we strongly urge ADEC to deny the Application.