JUNEAU — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to issue a final report this year on the impacts of large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay region, regional director Dennis McLerran said.
McLerran, in prepared remarks set to be delivered Tuesday to the Alaska Forum on the Environment, said the EPA plans to release a revised draft report this spring for public comment and additional peer review. The EPA said it will consider the additional input as it prepares its final report.
The agency began its study in response to concerns about a large copper-and-gold prospect near the headwaters of one of the world’s premier salmon fisheries in Alaska. The EPA released a draft watershed assessment last year that found that, even without any failures, 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.
The report offered no position on whether the proposed Pebble Mine project should move forward. McLerran said at the time that the assessment wasn’t about a single project — though Pebble is the highest-profile in the region — but was instead a look at the potential impacts of mining in the Bristol Bay region. The assessment was based on a hypothetical mine scenario that the EPA said drew in part on plans and data put forth by Pebble LP, the firm behind the mine.
The draft underwent peer review, with some panelists raising concerns about things like lack of clarity in the document’s objective, missing data and incomplete information. The EPA announced in November that it would address the concerns raised by the panel, first with a revised draft.
McLerran, in his prepared remarks, said the EPA is arranging to have the original experts review the revised assessment and evaluate whether it is responsive to their comments. The EPA plans to release the draft to the public for comment concurrently. He said he expects the additional public comment period and review will be initiated this spring, before the Bristol Bay fishing season begins.
“Our primary objective is to make sure that we have gotten the assessment right and are using the best available science,” he said in his prepared remarks. “The Bristol Bay salmon runs are an Alaskan treasure and no one wants to see them harmed, so we want to make sure we have the best understanding possible of what the impacts of large scale mining could be on the salmon.”
McLerran said the EPA intends to complete the assessment this year. The agency hasn’t decided how it will use the information and won’t until the assessment is finalized, he said.
Critics of the mine project expressed frustration with what they said could be a lengthy second review. They said they want quick action from EPA.
“While we appreciate this administration’s efforts to survey the risks and impacts of large-scale mining on the world-class natural resources and fisheries of Bristol Bay with sound science, the EPA has already gone above and beyond the letter of the law in drafting its assessment and conducting an independent and transparent review of it,” said Tim Bristol, Alaska program director for Trout Unlimited, in a news release.
He said the “added delay is unacceptable to Bristol Bay’s communities and stakeholders.”
The EPA process has been criticized by Pebble LP, the state, pro-development groups and others, who see the agency’s actions as premature and an overreach that could lead to it vetoing mining activity in the region.
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said EPA’s draft assessment was flawed.
“The agency chose to evaluate a hypothetical mine that was basically designed to violate modern environmental standards,” she said in a news release. “Until the EPA fixes this fundamental flaw, the agency’s draft assessment will remain a work of fiction rather than sound science.”
___
Follow Becky Bohrer at http://twitter.com/beckybohrerap .
Comments (16)
Add commentMining
Thumbs up or down?
Balance
The Bristol Bay fishery is a national treasure. The Pebble Mine deposit is a world-class mineral resource. Sacrificing either one of them without careful consideration is irresponsible.
Q1. What percentage of the fishery would be degraded from mine development and normal operations? 1%? 5%? 50%? What level would be acceptable? The people that say only 0% is acceptable are not being reasonable.
Q2. What would be the potential impacts on the fishery of a mine mishap, such as an earthquake damaging containment structures?
Q3. What would be the likelihood of those mishaps occurring?
Q4. What's the mine worth to the region, the state, the country? After all, it's foreign-owned.
Looks like a lot of those questions can't be fully answered until an actual mine plan is revealed, but the process for asking them could be set up in advance.
Good questions!!
Lat, You've concisely hit the main issues. Next, the hard part; an unbiased forum to answer those questions. However, many individuals feel those questions should never be asked.
The rest of "Balance"
1. To what extent is the fishery inhibiting the mine?
2. What is the real worth of the fishery to the region, State and Country since all the packers and processors are Japanese owned or controlled most of the workers are illegal’s and 80 percent of the permit holders reside outside the region and more than 50 percent reside outside the state.
3. The fishery happens every year and lasts less than a month. The fish might or might not come and the price might or might not be good. Compare that to having a mine job that lasts all year that spurs other business growth in the area that would last all year.
ah ha
Interesting points, AH HA. However, the shelf life of a mine is finite. How many years will it last? A couple decades? Then what? A big hole in the ground and a bunch of miners with their hands in their pockets looking for something to do. How long does a fishery like Bristol Bay last? Well, from what we know, it's returned every year for the past 10,000 - 12,000 years.
Which would you prefer? A foreign-owned mine that digs up our resources, ships them overseas to China in the raw so they can produce a bunch of superfulous ipods and cell phones to sell back to us, which will only last a few decades? Or a perennial salmon run that provides both jobs and healthy food, year after year?
Since we are discussing it....
Nobody is making anything like a living wage in that fishery except the permit holders and I can't afford to "buy" one of those Bristol bay jobs.... Permits are going for $90,000 right now if and when you can find one available… there are a limited amount of them and there will never be any more. Of course then you are looking at another $100,000 for a boat..... It's a lot to pay for a mediocre job that has no health care no retirement and does not even count as earnings for social security.
BTW: nearly all of the fish that are harvasted in the bay are processed by foreign owned and operated companies and then sent to japan, korea and china for consumption.
The plan isn't there
Pebble Partnership says they have the technology to hold back one of the largest tailings pit in North America with a series of dams, the largest of which spans more than 4 miles, and is located on an active fault line.
Across the world tailings dams have failed and contributed to loss of life and environmental devastation. If the pebble tailings dams failed the bristol bay fishery would be over as we know it with millions of tons of battery acid spilling into the drainage.
The technology doesn't exist on small scale mines, but pebble wants us to believe they can do it right with the largest-scale ever. The copper isn't going anywhere. The fish are there now however. The state would receive little tax increase from the mine and if we want to weigh this on jobs alone, we can consider hundreds of other mine claims to produce jobs at.
This is not being let go because pebble has spent millions to produce faux studies and pay off scientists to convince us we need them more than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. That's not true, but believe what you want.
The tailings dam would have to last for thousands of years or until we ruin the environment with other genius plans first. Thousands of years... who can honestly say they believe we have the technology to build a 4 mile long dam on an active fault line that will last for a hundred years?
If pebble can come up with a sound plan I'm sure the folks in Dillingham will listen. At this point, the people most affected by this plan are dead against it. Maybe we should consider this when we discuss it. Consider those who would ACTUALLY be affected and their stance on this issue. It's all available to the public. It reminds me of the comments complaining about the feds making decisions for Alaskans... "GET OUT!" I believe is the reply... well, who are we to tell the people of Dillingham they don't really matter. Their reply to us is "GET OUT!"... maybe we could respect that.
AHHA, sounds like you're complaining. IS that what you're doing? I'll play the world's smallest violin for you... can you hear it?
By the way, I know people who make a great living fishing in Bristol Bay. I also know it's been done for decades. If you want to buy in you should. It costs a lot to be an entrepreneur but it's worth it. Seining and gillnetting permits across the state have gone up... why? Because there's a strong market for them. Why? Because people want them. So save your "bristol bay fishery isn't that great" schpeel. It's bs.
Lets take a hard look
Unfortunately the economy now. Is quite depressed. However a mining project would add many jobs to those badly in need. Not just with mining jobs too The wealthy salmon fisherman are stingy and wont budge and few in number. And most importantly the salmon is going overseas for consumption. Look at Canada. They are mining and growing their economy. It's a shame the wealthy lodge owners and few who are benefitting from the salmon business won't share. How much will the creation of a mine affect the Land and streams In the end a mining project. Will benefit many more Alaskans who. Are in need. I can repeat that. Many more jobs created. Why did the government allow pebble to enter in the first place. The project is important and won't be as bad as the few and Loud would like everyone to believe.
Please show me...
...your proof that the pebble people have produced all these fake studies. The fines and sanctions they would face if this were true would be astronomical. They are bound by regulation to report accurately and honestly. Whatever environmental group you belong to, isn't.
fdubzou
The tobacco companies produce studies that show smoking their tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer. You need proof that tobacco does cause cancer? I suggest you look online... anywhere. The fines and sanctions the tobacco companies receive are nil, by the way. Scientists don't make statements that are blatantly false, they make statements based on convenient data... that's how they avoid those fines and sanctions.
As for pebble partnership producing faux studies, specifically they have a study that they speak of, however no one has seen, that indicates the fault line takes an unexpected turn and completely avoids the pebble mine location. But again, no real independent scientists have seen this study. It's just their word we must take...
I belong to no environmental group, aside form my appreciation for the environment. Whatever reasoning you use to look the other way and convince yourself any development is good development is just conveniently ignorant. Anglo mining corp is evidence enough of pro-development not being good for the people. I suggest you do a little research into the organization. See for yourself who actually suffers. Not that you would care, since you don't live in the affected area... but still. And if you want to have a say in what affects other people you should consider putting yourself in their shoes... and dealing with the negative side affects yourself instead of being isolated from any downside.
Now is the time
@ cheesy proof. You unfortunately don't answer my comments but start in with a tobacco argument. That's sad. Again. The area is in an economic depression and jobs are needed. Status quo is just not doing it. The fish are being consumed in Japan. Yes let the pebble show the report however no the fishermen need to balance a loss agains a greater gain and the state is Hugh so your appreciation of the environment has an opportunity to take itself elsewhere. This is a very small area within this state The downside is offset with the upside.
most of the arguments presented above
are rich in distortions.
I find cheeesypoof's questions to be the most apt to the actual issue.
Lat., it's not nearly as simple as you portray with your questions: The plans as laid out by the Pebble Project pose profound risks to the fishery as a whole and put the burden of proof on the public, while refusing to commit to a particular proposal----Mistakes on the part of the industry could well endanger a renewable resource whose value is literally incalculable: Those opposed to this mine, based on what has been published by the multinationals wishing to develop the (non renewable) resource, view the project as it has been put forward as an insurmountable risk, an unwarranted gamble with their livelihoods, and justifiably so. (And they might well want to hang on to their gold and copper!)
"Now is the time," you're mistaken in your assumptions: Quite a few Alaskans make a living off the sweat of their brow in Bristol Bay, myself included. And it's true, many of our companions are from other states---This makes the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery a national treasure, and it should be protected as such---It's the largest wild sockeye run in the world, has been maintained largely intact in the modern age for generations, and looks to remain so outside of blatant threats to it's watersheds, like the Pebble Project.
and "Now,"
The fish I catch in the commercial sockeye salmon fishery in Bristol Bay are marketed exclusively in the States, at Costco. If you've eaten sockeye salmon bought at Costco, you may well have eaten a fish I've caught. In the fresh fish market we aren't the exception.
Now is the time
@jamieson. What percentage of lost business would you expect shoud a responsible mining project be developed? I understand human nature and that is such zero would be your best option however. A responsible laid out mining project would cost the fisherman how much at a cost of more jobs and a better life for many more people in need? Where is the balance? The pebble needs to bring foward the plans and the government needs to have a balance in its thinking
Now is the time
@jamieson. What percentage of lost business would you expect shoud a responsible mining project be developed? I understand human nature and that is such zero would be your best option however. A responsible laid out mining project would cost the fisherman how much at a cost of more jobs and a better life for many more people in need? Where is the balance? The pebble needs to bring foward the plans and the government needs to have a balance in its thinking
Jamison
Actually, I think my questions reasonably condense the issue (for the sake of argument, we'll assume AH HA's questions regarding the value of the fishery are nonstarters).
But answering those questions is the difficult part. That will demand accurate and honest data. It will also require full disclosure of the mine development and operational plans. And then the necessary level of analysis to reach the correct conclusions.
I'm reading 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' right now. Pebble and the Oil Tax keep coming to mind.