Week Thirteen 

Presentation complete, literature review submitted! Having the two main projects for BIOL446 and BIOL473 off my back is a big relief. At the last minute, for both of these projects, significant changes in the area of study caused me to make drastic changes to both of these projects (see below). 

It was a lovely week to have family in town! I was able to bring them along for a cold and snowy Harbor Porpoise field trip in Kachemak Bay, as well as on my wrack studies, individual research for BIOL484, and on our Peterson Bay intertidal fieldwork, which I'll go over in next week's blog. 

We saw around four harbor porpoises, no dall's porpoises (which are my favorite), and way more sea otters than I could count. In some photos I took, around eight were present, with more just outside the frame or ducking underwater. How incredible is it that these magnificent and fascinating relatives of weasels are just unaffected by the freezing waters and snowstorms? I admit, there were a few moments when I wished my coat was as warm as the million of hairs per square inch of their body... alas, that's because I assumed the day would warm up. 

For the literature review in BIOL473, Conservation Biology, I had been seeking scientific research and sources regarding the health of the Cook Inlet watershed. How can we conserve Cook Inlet environments in order to limit the negative potential for threats (such as climate change, oil spills, sewage contamination, etc.) on the peoples who rely on the Cook Inlet for economic, social, cultural, or physical survival? Unfortunately, just a day before submitting this 10+ page review on scientific literature, a key portion of my study was redacted: all water quality data done and published by state or federal government had been removed from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation website. I could no longer use previous reports of wastewater treatment plant violations and clean periods to demonstrate how effective wastewater and sewage management can reduce the harm on Cook Inlet inhabitants, nor could I include much information about what water quality data (including temperature, DO, pH, fecal bacteria, and more) typically looks like in regions such as Anchorage, Soldotna, Eagle River, Homer, Girdwood, and more. I submitted multiple Freedom of Information Act requests through federal departments (such as the Council on Environmental Quality, which is in the process of being disbanded) to no avail. Contacting a few collegues in state jobs, I found out that the water quality reports were available to state employees... with redacted data. With less than 24 hours until the deadline, and no baseline of consistent multi-regional data to prove what aquatic Cook Inlet homeostatic readings typically show, I ended up diving into some psychology research on censorship of scientific data and information, and why such an event occurs. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published one particularly interesting article, by Cory J. Clark et al. (linked below) on the underlying drivers of scientific suppression. 

Because of this extremely last minute, truly significant change of focus, I am not confident in the work I submitted. To be incredibly honest, it's disappointing that my academic experience is so impacted by well-funded voices that have never experienced what goes into environmental science data and regulation (or have only experienced one side). It's so critical that myself, other students, other scientists, and the general public has access to all the data which has been publicized and shared. All of these studies, research articles, experiments, and investigations into whether or not our public systems (such as wastewater treatment plants) are effectively sticking to standards set based off what the most up-to-date science suggests, that's all critical to democratic processes of changing these standards when we need to or recognizing public systems and branches who are excelling at what they do. I wish I had more time to refine my literature review. I wish I had more data to go off, and more access to once-public documents that way I can encompass my true interests (natural resource management) in my work rather than purely third-party work. We'll see what happens in the future, but I will update this page if and when I recieve any water quality data that I had requested. 

For the BIOL446 presentation, I wanted to focus on deepsea minings and the impacts it could have on climate change. Before beginning the project, I knew next to nothing about deepsea mining. I had heard of the Clarion-Clipperton Zone once, and had no idea how regulating a 4,000-6,000 meter deep region of the mid-Pacific works through international resource management, let alone what the mining would look like. Learning about the process of countries and companies (also called contractors) which seek approval to explore the CCZ and make progress toward mining the benthic sediment for precious metals (such as nickel, copper, and cobalt) is fascinating. 

Shortly after April 1st, though, I saw news that The Metals Company (US) had announced they'd be mining the deepsea for these polymetallic nodules soon. At first, I had assumed it was an April Fool's prank, as no such permits had been granted by the UN's body which governs international benthic environments (the International Seabed Authority or ISA)... especially for a US company, since we as a nation have never and likely will not ratify the UN Convention on the Law Of the Sea (governing body of ISA). Not ratifying this organization means we aren't required to abide by their laws, but it also excludes us from international and deepsea studies when we aren't partnered with a nation which actively participates in UNCLOS/ISA research and regulation. So, how could it be possible for us to partake in deepsea mining when this activity has not yet been approved for UNCLOS/ISA members, and we aren't able to become UNCLOS/ISA members? 

Several emails with public land, developlent, and natural resource law specialists later, I recieved word that this is in fact possible. The United States Congress has the ability to pass approval for a US company to mine the deepsea with untold environmental impacts, for private company profits, with absolutely no regard to international law and regulations. "In this case," said a professor of graduate international law studies for UAA, "global governance has failed." 

Talk about a punch in the gut. I incorporated this into my presentation as best as I could, because this accelerates the deadline for which we need conclusive evidence that The Metals Company's processes of harvesting polymetallic nodules from the deepsea will not negatively OR significantly impact benthic ecosystems. I'm waiting to see The Metals Company release their full plans for the third quarter of this Congressional Term's approval, and when it is released I am hopeful they provide ample evidence of little impact on benthic organisms and environments, or at least a quick recovery time for the disturbance of sedimentation and/or submarine mining tailings which will be caused by mining activity. 

Aside from this, I continued wrack surveys in the snow and rain, and wrapped up CPR and first aid training with Prairie and Dr. Whippo at my internship. I cannot believe this semester is coming to an end! I will continue editing and working on the scripts and drafts of the NOAA NCCOS Kachemak Bay video we are creating for this internship. 

Until later, I encourage any and every reader to reach out to their local or state mayors, governors, Representatives, Senators, and other elected officials. If you feel your interests are (or are not) being best represented by their decisions and actions, you as a constituent have the right to call and learn more about the decisions made or express your approval/disapproval of the legislation they support/do not support.