North of 60 Mining News - The mining newspaper for Alaska and Canada's North

The first miners arriving in Alaska 100 years ago focused on enduring the challenging environment, building some basic infrastructure and finding enough gold to survive. Long term environmental consequences were not a high priority.

Mining techniques have since changed with awareness, technology and with guidance from evolving regulations designed to ensure adequate protection of the nation's lands while allowing development of natural resources.

Since August 2000, developers of the Pogo gold project have been working with regulators to determine whether it is environmentally permissible to build an underground gold mine and mill complex in the upper Goodpaster River valley, northeast of Delta Junction, Alaska. Pogo's public approval process involved a total of 55 permits or authorizations from five different state agencies and eight federal agencies.

In September 2003, regulators released the 1,000-plus page final environmental impact statement, outlining their preferred plan of development. Pogo's developers began to receive authorizations, concluding with a water discharge permit approved by EPA in mid-March. Apparently, that's not enough regulatory scrutiny for a Fairbanks-based environmental group, which filed an appeal of EPA's water permit in April.

Construction crews are being sent home and work is stopping at Pogo. Estimates to complete the appeal cycle range from four months to a year. Already, this post-approval appeal has cost money and time, already a precious commodity in a tight construction schedule. And for what?

"We decide to trade a certain level of environmental impact for the project and now we're getting all the impact without any of the plus side-the jobs and economic impact to the community," said Ed Fogels, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources' project manager for Pogo. "Unfortunately there's a huge amount of disturbance that's already been done."

Pendulum has swung too far

The pendulum of environmental review has swung too far.

Environmental groups should raise issues early in the public review process, when constructive criticism can be helpful to regulators and developers. Waiting until after permission is granted gives the appearance of a desire to simply stop development, rather than an effort to resolve environmental concerns. Finally, environmental groups should trust the regulatory agencies and the public review process they helped create, rather than punish developers with paperwork maneuvers and abuses of the public's regulatory rights.