JUNEAU — The possible failure of a dam holding waste from a large-scale mine near the headwaters of one of the world’s premier salmon fisheries in Alaska could wipe out or degrade rivers and streams in the region for decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in a draft watershed assessment released Friday.
EPA regional administrator Dennis McLerran said there was a fairly low risk of that occurring, however, and the more likely impact would be direct loss of habitat from the mining activity itself.
The report responded to concerns about a large copper-and-gold prospect near the headwaters of Bristol Bay. It is a draft, with a final report that could affect permitting decisions perhaps due by the end of the year after public comment and peer review.
The Pebble Partnership, the group behind the Pebble Mine project, has called the deposit one of the largest of its kind in the world, with the potential of producing 80.6 billion pounds of copper, 107.4 million ounces of gold and 5.6 billion pounds of molybdenum over decades.
It has been the subject of a heated public relations battle for years. Supporters say it would bring much-needed jobs to economically depressed rural Alaska, but opponents fear it could fundamentally change the landscape and disrupt, if not destroy, a way of life.
McLerran told reporters the study is not about a single project such as Pebble but instead is a look at the potential impacts of mining in a region that he says accounts for 46 percent of wild sockeye salmon worldwide. He said there are at least seven other claims in advance stages of exploration and development.
The report said that if water from a mine is not managed, contaminants would flow into streams. Even without any failures, the agency said there would still be an impact on fish due to eliminated or blocked streams, removal of wetlands and a reduction in the amount and quality of fish habitat as water is used for mine operations.
It offered no verdict on whether the Pebble Mine project should move forward.
The report is not an in-depth assessment of any specific mine but rather is billed as a look at the impacts of the kind of mining needed to successfully develop the deposit.
It is based on a hypothetical mine scenario that the agency says draws in part on plans and data put forth by the Pebble Partnership.
Therefore, EPA acknowledges, it may not mirror the location and size of things such as a mine pit or tailings storage facility.
Due to lack to quantitative information on salmon, char and trout populations, the review could not quantify such things as the consequences of habitat degradation or loss on fish populations.
Pebble Partnership CEO John Shively in a statement called EPA’s review rushed and inadequate and said he was concerned it could be used as a basis for “unprecedented” regulatory action against the Pebble Project. He said Pebble spent years studying a much smaller area around the deposit while the EPA, with what he called limited time and resources, covered an area of about 20,000 square miles.
He said Pebble is working on an environmental mitigation plan intended to protect fish and water in the area. He couldn’t say when that might be presented. “We are working on it but our position has been that we need to get this right, because we’re in a sensitive area,” he said in an interview.
EPA’s assessment put the annual probability of failure for a tailings dam — the kind that could destroy more than 18 miles of salmon stream and degrade the habitat of more streams and rivers for decades — in the range of 1-in-10,000 for a project designed, built and operated using standard engineering practices, to 1-in-one million for a state-of-the-art operation.
The failures evaluated are those that EPA said have occurred at other large-scale mining projects and could occur during operations or after the mine is closed.
Alaska Attorney General Michael Geraghty had fought EPA over the study, calling the agency’s actions premature and an overreach — positions echoed by Pebble Partnership.
Geraghty raised concerns the assessment could lead to the agency vetoing mining activity. In a March 9 letter to McLerran, he said that if EPA were to invoke a section of the Clean Water Act that allows it to restrict or bar use of certain waters for dredge or fill materials, it could have the potential to “extinguish” the state’s mineral rights and leases held by others.
McLerran said Friday that EPA isn’t at a point where a decision on whether to take that step might be made.
Ruth Hamilton Heese, a senior assistant attorney general in Alaska, said in an email that the state, in reviewing the assessment, will, among other things, be looking closely at the data, methodologies and assumptions used, whether the assessment is based on appropriate modeling for the region, and whether it contains any unfounded bias involving any particular development.
“Although we are greatly concerned that there is no legal authority for this assessment, we will thoroughly evaluate it and seek to protect and promote the best interests of the state, its resources, and its citizens,” she said.
Some conservationists and others hailed EPA’s action Friday.
Lindsey Bloom, a commercial fisher and organizer with Trout Unlimited, said her first impression of the assessments was that it gives her some peace of mind.
“After all the years I’ve fished in Bristol Bay and have been watching this issue, it’s good to see someone give it the time and depth of knowledge that it looks like EPA has,” Bloom said.
Tim Bristol, Alaska program director for Trout Unlimited, said he hopes this is just a first step and will lead to protections for the region against harmful mining activity.
Comments (14)
Add commentJust what we have come to
Just what we have come to expect from a highly politicized EPA.
Most politicians know where their money is coming from...
and i don't think those pushing for this mine plan on nice cushy retirements as Bristol Bay subsistence fishers.
We've got a revolving door with multinational mineral extraction in Alaskan politics, as Parnell has served to blatantly underline: Our governors since Murkowski have been gaming the system in favor of projects like Pebble and the Chuitna strip-mine, projects which negatively affect the health of watersheds and pose grave risks to renewable resources.
The EPA report is merely acknowledging these risks, which of course is going to be seen as biased and politicized by those who view development at any cost as the only rubric.
(largely reposted from the same article on 5-19)
madison - do you even know
madison - do you even know that EPA regs are bipartisan, that all the regs go through a process and are passed in Congress by both Republicans and Democrats?
That EPA was put in place by Pres. Richard Nixon a "Republican" citing concerns for environmental protection and conservation?
And that the "true" Republican Party has been taken over by a bunch of Rich Pukes & dumb ass es that don't give a sh it about anything but making more and more money..and that a bunch of brainless farts like yourself have fallen right in step with them?
"Alaskans" do not need this mine but we do need our Fish.
@sefisher - and soooo what?
@sefisher - and soooo what? Now the EPA is on steroids under this administration.
No one is saying, 'no regs'. Prudence though, please...
We all know from your prior posts, that you're fully on board looking through the rose-colored glasses of environmentalism - at all costs - no ifs, ands or buts.
"Rose-colored glasses"??
Please explain.
Calypso - Actually there were
Calypso - Actually there were more regulations passed under Bush than President Obama
In 2008. 80 acres of sludge
In 2008. 80 acres of sludge from a coal plant in central Tennessee broke free as the containment wall failed this week :
In 2008:
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-23/us/tennessee.sludge.spill_1_kingston-...
In 2010:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/10/a_flood_of_toxic_sludge.html
@dust - are you trying to
@dust - are you trying to stir up trouble?!
When environmentalism runs amok - (and no, I'm not going to research and footnote everything - I'm just winging it!)
- bigger and more widespread forest fires because of poor thinning practices
- malaria rampant because of DDT ban
- protection of smelt in California's central valley cuts water to agriculture
- naming part of Arizona desert as "protected" and not allowing Border Patrol access - perfectly ok for drug smuggling illegals to trample across in the dead of night though
@abnotey - "A new report from the liberal Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) says that the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under the Obama Administration has made more changes to federal regulations– including EPA rules– than their Bush Administration predecessors."
And big deal about your false statement that Bush enacted more regulations. It's apples to oranges when BO has his czars do the dirty work. Think Lisa Jackson and Kenny Salazar...who Alaskans should be quite familiar with.
Not a sheep
I'm not a sheep, but it means a lot to me that Uncle Ted was against it.
I think a few thousand jobs for Alaskans and money going OUTSIDE for the most part is not worth risking our fishery.
It's NOT worth the risk.
@Calypso: when you "wing" it,
@Calypso: when you "wing" it, you're actually marginally more accurate than when you "research" your positions (but only because you didn't blame George Soros).
But each of your points is very, very wrong.
"- bigger and more widespread forest fires because of poor thinning practices"
BZZZZZPT. Incorrect. Responsible forest stewardship is a big part of environmentalism, and we've known for decades that forest fires are natural and necessary components of many habitats. We used to suppress fires whenever they occurred because we didn't know better. Thankfully, forest management is science-based, and so we've learned to only suppress fires that threaten human life and property.
Climate change, however, will certainly make forest fires worse in the future.
"- malaria rampant because of DDT ban"
The alternative is to cause extinction and disruption in all trophic levels by using DDT. I wouldn't say malaria is any more "rampant" than it was before the use of DDT, though. Less so, in fact, as you no longer have to worry about it when you go to Florida.
But this is a moot point, because some species of Plasmodium-carrying mosquitoes have already evolved (err, intelligently designed!) resistance to DDT.
Interestingly, DDT can cause miscarriages in humans. Or, perhaps more accurately since it's not a natural event, abortions. I thought you were anti-abortion, Calypso?
"- protection of smelt in California's central valley cuts water to agriculture"
And? Are you trying to say that agriculture, which can be performed in places with adequate sources of water, should take precedence over an ecosystem that can NOT simply be moved elsewhere?
"- naming part of Arizona desert as "protected" and not allowing Border Patrol access - perfectly ok for drug smuggling illegals to trample across in the dead of night though"
BLM patrols the border in the Sonoran Desert and have actually caught many would-be smugglers. To suggest the stretch of desert is unguarded is a lie.
It's good to see you using that BS degree, though.
Rerserving Judgement
I'm reserving judgment until an actual mine proposal is put forth right now we are in the research stage. What the EPA said makes sense and everyone already knew it. If you mess with fish habitat it will adversely affect the fish.
I will say that I would prefer more little mines than one giant one as I think it would have less of an impact should something go wrong.
Finding the right balance to development and perservation are difficult especially when both are hightly valued.
@p - each of my points aren't
@p - each of my points aren't "very, very wrong" -
Forest Fires - "This study implies that attempts at “sustainable” forest management and endangered species issues have in fact made our forests more unsustainable."
"Mega-fires in Southwest due to forest mismanagement"
DDT Ban - "The DDT ban, born of Rachel Carson’s hysteria, has cost the lives of tens of millions of people - mostly children. DDT saved millions of lives during World War II. And despite decades of testing DDT has never been shown to have any ill effects on humans."
"Admittedly, some resistance to DDT took place in selected mosquito strains. However, this was the result of widespread agricultural use - not as a result of vector control. Resistance testing can be done in problem areas and DDT or another pesticide may be used if DDT resistance is found. Pesticides can be used in an alternating fashion to prevent resistance."
California's Central Valley - And we'll just tell that farmer in the Central Valley to pick up his land and move it somewhere else in order to raise America's food supply because some 3" minnow has more rights than he does.
Arizona's Deserts - "To operate in wilderness areas requires tedious bureaucratic requests to the Department of Interior. Operating bases are not permitted. In addition, once land is labeled "wilderness," the Border Patrol must pay mitigation fees for repairing land "harmed" while in the pursuit of illegal activity. Despite the fees, this does not permit greater use of the lands. Instead, every specific task or operational strategy the Border Patrol considers requires approval processes that, in general, prevent timely and effective operations. As a result of the legal barriers that a wilderness designation brings, the Border Patrol loses both incentive and the ability to work on such lands."
"Obviously, the impact of the [Wilderness] policy is severe on our operations. When you can't drive in those areas, it makes it impossible to patrol and enforce the law, and it transforms it into a sanctuary for illegal aliens."
If all you do is cut-and-paste
at least cite your sources, and apply a homogenous rule for analysis. For example:
"This study implies that attempts at “sustainable” forest management and endangered species issues have in fact made our forests more unsustainable."
WHAT study? By whom? What were their methods?
Secondly - if I posted a paper regarding climate change with those words "this study implies", you'd do through the roof with righteous indignation and scream "See that word? 'IMPLIES'?? They're not certain of anything at all! Why should we change anything until they're certain?"
Third - your original post stated that forest fires had grown larger due to poor thinning practices, with nothing regarding endangered species, although the two might be related under certain conditions. However, the original policy of fire suppression, thereby allowing extensive overgrowth of small underbrush and such that would, when finally ignited, cause a significantly larger fire with more damage, was a product of the US Army and the US Forest Service as pressured by timber industry groups at the turn of the century. How is that environmentalism "run amok"?
dust - it gets tiresome being
dust - it gets tiresome being called a liar and stupid when I write my own opinions and facts so cutting and pasting is my way of saying, 'see, others agree'.
This is a silly little, and I mean little, blog that people should enjoy hashing over events and other things of interest. Mostly no one is interested in research and citing sources and all that jazz.
It's only when those with the progressive mind-set get involved with the mud slinging and put-downs that we conservatives feel the need to justify what we say and try to have the last word. Most of the time it's an act of futility. Let my case in point be p's post of yesterday that went on for hundreds of words with an insulting, made-up word putting down another poster's intelligence. It was, frankly, embarrassing and actually bigoted.
This is what those of us that have convictions and common sense are up against.