JUNEAU — A panel convened Tuesday to begin evaluating the science behind a federal study that found large-scale mining near the headwaters of Bristol Bay could hurt the productivity and sustainability of one of the world’s premier salmon fisheries.
The watershed assessment was conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in response to concerns about development of a massive large copper-and-gold prospect in the Bristol Bay region. The draft report was released in May, with a final report that could affect permitting decisions for the proposed Pebble Mine perhaps coming by the end of the year, after the scientific peer review panel weighs in and public comments are analyzed.
EPA Regional Administrator Dennis McLerran said the focus, at this point in the process, is on “getting the science right.”
The review panel, selected by EPA contractor Versar from a list of publicly nominated candidates and those Versar found on its own, is intended to act as a cross-check on the science used by EPA. The panel’s findings are expected to be published this fall, and used by EPA to help identify areas of concern that might need more attention or additional analysis.
The panel opened three days of meetings in Anchorage on Tuesday, with the first day reserved for public comment focused on specific topics.
Critics of the EPA draft , including officials with the group behind the mine project, the Pebble Limited Partnership, called the study rushed, flawed and based on a theoretical mine project the likes of which would never be permitted in the U.S. Supporters of the EPA’s effort see it as a step toward protecting the region against harmful mining activity.
John Shively, Pebble CEO, said EPA based its study on a “fantasy” mine, with no basis in reality.
McLerran, talking to reporters, dismissed that claim.
The assessment was billed as a look at the impacts of the kind of mining needed to successfully develop the deposit, not an in-depth assessment of any specific project. It used a hypothetical mine scenario — but one that McLerran said drew in part on plans and data put forth by Pebble and Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
The Pebble Mine is a joint venture between Northern Dynasty and Anglo American plc.
Pebble says the prospect is one of the largest of its kind in the world, with the potential of producing 80.6 billion pounds of copper, 5.6 billion pounds of molybdenum and 107.4 million ounces of gold. Supporters of the mine say it would bring much-needed jobs to economically depressed rural Alaska, but opponents fear it could disrupt, if not destroy, a way of life in the region.
Sarah McCarr, who works for Pebble, became emotional describing limited employment opportunities in the region and how she wouldn’t be able to stay there without a good job like she has now.
Some commenters who praised EPA’s effort Tuesday also suggested areas for further analysis. Sue Mauger, science director for Cook Inletkeeper, recommended EPA look at how climate change might further compound the potential for habitat loss for fish due to mining activity.
McLerran said EPA received more than 220,000 comments on its draft assessment, many of which came on form letters, with “well over 90 percent” of total commenters supportive of EPA’s work on the draft. The comment period closed last month, above objections from state leaders and others, who sought an extension.
EPA has gotten push-back from resource development groups and the state of Alaska, among others, who consider the agency’s actions to be premature and an overreach.
Alaska Attorney General Michael Geraghty, for example, has raised concerns that the assessment could lead to EPA vetoing mining activity.
Those speaking Tuesday had registered to do so in advance of the meeting.
____
Associated Press writer Mark Thiessen contributed to this report from Anchorage, Alaska.
Comments (16)
Add commentRoyalties
The claim is that this is one of the largest deposits in the world...is it on private land? State land? Federal land? If it's on State land, what is the State's take?
Royalties on oil pay for most of our state expenditures (such as ice skating rinks, ferries, roads, and prisons). Shouldn't all minerals extracted from public lands in Alaska pay a similar share? The foreign company extracting the resource would still become fabulously wealthy.
Lat, are you kidding? What
Lat, are you kidding? What is the states take? Drill baby drill! Dig baby dig! If there is a dollar to be made, get it! Damn the environment...
Or were you meaning what is its take as in share of the loot? Parnell is probably already drafting a two billion dollar give away to the mining sector too.
Fish first,
There exists no metal or profit motive, more important than protecting the Bristol Bay fisherys.
Jobs for now vs. jobs (and food) forever
The hardest thing is getting people, like Sarah, to think about a life beyond their own. We are so lucky to have inherited such a fantastic ecosystem as the Bristol Bay watershed. It is absolutely our responsibility not to risk messing it up. This issue certainly motivates me to be sure my students have basic science understanding so they know the most important questions to ask and how to evaluate scientific assessments. Fishing Bristol Bay isn't just a tradition; it provides good food for the world.
No to Pebble!
Those who are pro-Pebble are intelligent enough to try and make this a "pro-development vs enviro-tree-hugger" issue.
Let's not let them do that-we are smarter than that.
I support mining!
Let Pebble build three mines elsewhere. Let them build a mine right near (or in) ANWR. Double the size of Greens Creek. Fine.
Pebble is NOT worth it. The few Alaskans who will actually receive well-paying, long-term jobs is minimal and the potential for disaster to the fishery is real. It's in the wrong place...
I am pro mining but I am adamantly opposed to this one.
Pebble is a BAD idea for Alaskans.
complex decisions often require complex solutions
@ Lat58-Pebble would be located entirely on state land. The state's mineral royalties ("take") is 3% of net income.
The Pebble deposit will take a complex design to develop in a way that minimizes impacts and manages risks to the fisheries of Bristol Bay. The mining industry, especially in Alaska, has the engineering capabilities to pull that off. But the Pebble Partnership hasn't yet demonstrated they have the "social license" to try.
Building trust can often be the most complex piece of a project to build.
What PattyB and Fisherwoman44 said
was right on the mark! I agree 100% - I support mining, but not this mine! AlaskaBobC was right as well - no mine is as important as our fisheries.
Our constitution states that
Our constitution states that our resources are to be managed for the needs of future generations of Alaskans.
This mine is exploiting Alaskans resources and enriching Corporations: Anglo American and Northern Dynasty Minerals. Rio Tinto owns 19.8% of Northern Dynasty shares and Mitsubishi Corp. owns 11%.
Sean Parnell is a corporate wealth creator at the expense of all Alaskans and the Alaskan way of life.
Alaskans need a Governor (and Representatives) that will honor the Alaska constitution and not corporations. Sean Parnell of California needs to pack his bags and go back home.
I think it is time to vote out Don Young, Lisa Murkowskie, Mark Begich along with Parnell
Lets get rid of these sell outs, that are out pimping our resources.
They have all allowed their job to go to their now big fat heads.
"Let Pebble build three mines
"Let Pebble build three mines elsewhere".
yah, how about in there own country.
"Supporters of the mine say
"Supporters of the mine say it would bring much-needed jobs to economically depressed rural Alaska".
People are in rural Alaska to be and get away from it all. If these people want to work they can move to where the jobs are, like the rest of us, and not destroy an ecosytem that the rest of us want to keep.
And on our Federal Lands The
And on our Federal Lands
The 1872 Mining Law allows companies to buy valuable mineral bearing "public land"s for next to nothing -- $5 an acre- -- and take those minerals without paying the public any royalty.
In New Mexico, more than 55,000 acres or 86 square miles of public lands have already been sold to private interests for either $2.50 or $5.00 per acre according to mining reform advocacy group, Earthworks.
The law doesn't contain any environmental provisions and its legacy is hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines requiring an estimated $32 - $72 billion to clean up. Under the mining law, mining has been interpreted as trumping all other uses of public lands even if that mining would destroy special places or threaten valuable water supplies. .....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HR2262's Mining Reform Bill - Don Young referred to this as a stupid law....
The committee's leading Republican, Don Young of Alaska, erupted when Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., offered an amendment that would apply the 8 percent royalty to existing mines as well as new ones. Young said if he owned a mining claim on federal land and DeFazio's amendment became law, he would be in court "the next day."
"We make a fortune for a bunch of trial lawyers because we pass stupid laws," Young fumed.
+1 for promine but not this
+1 for promine but not this one.
That being said, I would like to know it the EPA study was in fact done using an imaginary mine, one that isn't planning on being put there. That would be Irresponsable to use the government agency and science findings to influence development. Let pebble actually propose what they want to do. That should be step one before permits and what not anyway. I'd be surprised if they actually want to do something that would be feasible but there is no reason to get set in opinions without some facts.
Since im not a civil or environmental engineer, like I can guess most of us are not, all I can do is say if what we all have been told is in fact the plan, I would prefer it not be built in such a sensitive area.
It seems like this has already been dragged out for so long both sides are just pulling for support before actually discussing what IS planned. I must have missed who scheduled these hearings or if this is apart of the process.
"I don't like what you have found so let's get a bunch of people to comment on it and at the end we will vote to see if your science passes my standards."
That's not how it's suppose to work. Too much politics, not enough science.
Don't you just love all the
Don't you just love all the vote No. on 2 radio spots funded by the oil, gas & mining Companies. These industries just want it all and don't want pesky Alaskans messing with their money making scams
Public Testimony
I appreciated that a picture of Trefon Angasan Jr. was included in the article of Bristol Bay; but I am amazed you did not devote any effort to 'illuminate the masses', as to his thoughts and comments. What's up with that Journalism?
legislators
sefisher, our local state legislators may have more influence on this project than our federal government legislators.
I talked with one of my legislators a couple days ago on this issue and he told me that 'if we have to put hatcheries in to mitigate the impact of pebble mine then I'm for it'.
My jaw dropped, I was stunned. I couldn't believe what I just heard.
This is what we are up against. This kind of thinking shows very little respect for the other inhabitants that we share the planet with, they are just collateral damage. It also shows indifference toward the habitat, and the indiginous people that depend on these salmon. Also it indicates that some believe that hatchery salmon are the equivilent of wild salmon. Even if a hatchery were installed there is no guarantee that hatchery fish would be able to overcome whatever stressors had impacted wild populations. This is a giant train wreck waiting to happen.
I have spoken with biologists from Bristol bay to Oregon and they all say that there are plenty of scientific papers that document the inferiority of hatchery fish. I am collecting that data now.
We need to approach this with all our collective knowlege and wisdom and a respect for the real, wild Alaska that has brought so many of us here and kept us in an awe that never seems to fade.
Big Money seldom loses and they will attempt to buy everyone that matters but we have to win this one.
The most burning question I have regarding this project is;
How do the Pebble partners plan on maintaining this huge damn for all of eternity? What precedent are they citing to support their assertion that it can be maintained for all of eternity, and how do they plan to fund the maintenance of the damn for all of eternity?
here they come
I strongly suspect that big money is eyeing Alaska as the next big wild lands to exploit and industrialize. They want to damn the Susitna River for electricity to help power this industrialization. This would represent the first industrialization of an Alaskan salmon river.
Alaska holds about 1/8th of the coal on Earth. This is attracting coal companies and if we allow it this could bring very significant changes to Alaska and our quality of life.
Maybe some of the supporters of the Pebble Mine could point us to some current copper mines that have been able to prevent the formation of acids and toxic tailings.
I have been reading of copper mine projects like the Berkeley Pit. A 1,780 foot deep open pit copper mine. After they were done with the mine they turned off the pumps and it began to fill with water which has become acid from the sulphur and other minerals which has leached naturally occurring metals into the water making the lake acid and toxic. About 350 geese died that unfortunately landed there. Autopsies showed internal chemical burns and festering sores.
The water level in the pit lake has risen to within 150 feet of groundwater and the lake holds over 30 billion gallons of acidic, metal laden water. If it hits ground water levels massive areas will become poisoned.
In an attempt to keep the water from rising to groundwater levels they built a water treatment facillity that will likely have to be in operation forever.
Looking around the only efforts I have found to prevent this in copper mines is an experiment with dumping massive amounts of city sewage sludge into the pits which also contain heavy metals and toxic industrial and residential chemicals. This seems to be 'the state of the art' in the greening of mining.
I can not imagine experimenting with a copper mine in the Brtistol Bay headwaters. It shows a complete lack of reasoning and common sense, IMO.