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

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released additional information in early May about its plan to conduct a scientific assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed in hopes of better understanding how future large-scale development projects may affect water quality and Bristol Bay's world-class salmon fishery.

The EPA announced the study in February, saying it was undertaken in response to concerns from Alaska Native groups, including the Bristol Bay Native Corp., and others who petitioned the agency in 2010 to assess any potential risks to the watershed.

The groups asked the EPA to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to protect Bristol Bay from potential adverse effects of developing the enormous Pebble copper-gold-molybdenum deposit located in the study area.

Under section 404 of the CWA the EPA can deny the discharge of dredged or fill material into an area if it believes the disposal "would have an unacceptable adverse impact on one or more of various resources, including fisheries, wildlife, municipal water supplies, or recreational areas."

The federal agency said the nearly 13 million acres of wildlife refuge or federal park lands that cover most of the Bristol Bay watershed will not be included in its study; instead the regulatory body will focus on areas where development is not already restricted - primarily the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds.

Scientific assessment goals

With a team of scientists expert in fisheries biology, mining, geochemistry and anthropology, the EPA plans to examine a wide range of existing information compiled by the State of Alaska, federal resource agencies, tribes and scientific institutions from around the world.

The most comprehensive dataset the scientists will have may be the 20,000-page environmental baseline document expected to be released by the Pebble Partnership sometime in June.

"We have offered, when it is ready for public release, our environmental baseline document. It is a pretty voluminous body of work," said Pebble spokesman Mike Heatwole. "One of our questions is: How is that going to be appropriately assessed and peer reviewed in this process, given how much time and cost it took us to get it to this point?"

Armed with this data, the EPA said its team of scientists will strive to:

• Describe the ecological and economic significance of Bristol Bay salmon resources locally and in the North Pacific Ocean, as well as their significance to Alaska Native culture;

• Compare Bristol Bay salmon resources to other major salmon resources in North America;

• Describe the ecosystem characteristics in the Kvichak and Nushagak watersheds that support the fish resources and the risks of large-scale development to those characteristics;

• Investigate practices that could minimize ecosystem risks and resulting risks to fish populations; and,

• Assess the success and failure rates of these mitigation practices.

Once it has compiled its findings in a report, the information will be critiqued by independent scientists from outside the agency.

Parallel public process

Alongside the scientific assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed, the EPA said it is seeking public input and will continue to work closely with tribal governments, state and federal agencies.

"Our scientific process is being conducted side-by-side with a public process - we plan to share our findings and progress throughout the course of our assessment in a series of community outreach efforts in Alaska," the agency explained on its Bristol Bay study webpage.

This public process officially began in May with EPA Senior Manager Richard Parkin attending a meeting of the Lake and Peninsula Borough Assembly in Kokhanok. This sparsely populated borough with some 1,800 residents, or about 0.05 persons per square mile, encompasses the Pebble deposit.

The May meeting was not Parkin's first trip to Bristol Bay; in February he met with representatives from a number of tribes and organizations in the region. The senior manager received mixed reviews of the project during his initial visit. Some residents urged the EPA to take action in Bristol Bay and others said they preferred the agency wait for the permitting process to run its course.

Those who live closer to Pebble - which is located some 100 miles, or 160 kilometers, from the Alaska coast at Bristol Bay - tend to be supportive of the proposed mine project, while those living farther away tend to lean toward opposition.

One unidentified resident told the EPA: "Villages that are not on the coast do not have the benefit of the commercial fishery. We were lucky enough to have a gold mine in our backyard, but now people are trying to take that away from us."

Another said: "Fish and wildlife are clearly the priority. Mining cannot be allowed to harm fish and wildlife resources."

EPA representatives have scheduled a meeting June 1 in Newhalen, a village near Pebble, to discuss progress on the EPA Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment and answer questions. The following day, the federal officials will travel by boat to Ekwok and Koliganek to listen to concerns and answer questions from residents of these Nushagak River villages.

The EPA and Alaska Department of Natural Resources also plan to conduct mine training sessions in Newhalen and Dillingham on June 2-3, respectively. During the sessions, the agencies will share information on their regulatory roles in the environmental permitting process.

The EPA also said its assessment is not limited to examining the effects of hardrock mining projects such as Pebble, but will consider the effects of large-scale development in general.

No foregone conclusion

From Day 1, the EPA has maintained that the Bristol Bay study does not represent any regulatory decision but will be used to steer the agency's future policies or recommendations regarding large-scale development in the region.

"Gathering data and getting public input now, before development occurs, just makes sense," said EPA Regional Administrator Dennis McLerran.

But the ambiguous nature of the study created anxiety among Alaska lawmakers on Capitol Hill. During a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing in March on EPA's 2012 budget proposal, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, grilled EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on the study.

"I'm concerned by the process that the EPA is using to conduct a watershed assessment for Bristol Bay. This assessment is in response to a petition from the environmental community to block the proposed Pebble Mine under the Clean Water Act. This is a controversial and very complex issue. I have not taken a position on the mining project itself because I believe it is premature to do so before the company has even submitted a permit application," Murkowski said.

"For this same reason, the EPA should be completely transparent in conducting this watershed assessment - not simply use it as cover to support a later decision to veto the mine. At a minimum, the process that you use should comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, provide for peer review of the scientific and economic analysis, and solicit input from all affected stakeholders," she added.

The Bristol Bay assessment, however, "will assure the EPA that its future decisions are grounded in the best science and information and (is) in touch with the needs of these communities," McLerran said.

To clarify its goals, the EPA is providing an informational webpage dedicated to the study (www.epa.gov/region10/bristolbay).

Author Bio

Shane Lasley, Publisher

Over his more than 16 years of covering mining and mineral exploration, Shane has become renowned for his ability to report on the sector in a way that is technically sound enough to inform industry insiders while being easy to understand by a wider audience.

• Email: [email protected]
• Phone: (907) 726-1095
• https://www.linkedin.com/in/shane-lasley-ab073b12/