Pebble debate boils at EPA hearing

June 10th 2:10 am | Carey Restino    

If there was any doubt that the proposed Pebble Mine is a passionately divisive issue for Alaskans, a meeting Monday night in Anchorage confirmed it. Hundreds packed an auditorium, slapped pro and con stickers on their shirts and waited hours to testify at the first Alaska meeting of the Environmental Protection Agency's public comment period on the Draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment.

Few minced words and even fewer presented a moderate stance, with opponents of the mine urging the EPA to move forward swiftly to stop the mine. Others, however, spoke of concern about their struggling villages, the speed of the assessment, and a timeline that is inconvenient at best for commercial and subsistence fishermen.

"We all love our communities and have seen a drastic decrease in population," said Abe Williams, adding that in his opinion, the EPA's action constituted a preemptive strike against the Pebble Mine project, an action he called ludicrous.

But those opposed to the mine spoke of their fears that the mine could destroy the fragile ecosystem of the area. The first to testify Monday night at the University of Alaska Anchorage's Wendy Williamson Auditorium was Bella Hammond, the widow of Gov. Jay Hammond.

"I am personally very opposed to the Pebble Project for obvious reasons," Hammond said, urging decision makers to take the time to tour the area and see the beauty of the fishery, and consider the fishery's impact on the economy as a renewable resource. "I think it is crucial for people to understand what we might lose."

Thomas Tilden, chief of the Curyung Tribal Council, a native tribe of 2,400 adjacent to Dillingham, testified that his grandmother always told him they were rich because of the subsistence resources they depended on. He said the EPA's study underestimates the importance of fish to his people — not just saltwater fish but freshwater species as well.

"Our people have lived in this area for centuries and we want to continue to live there," Tilden said. "We are a people of fish — fish is in our music, fish is in our dance, fish is who we are. That is our economy."

Comment period too short, some say

The EPA launched its draft assessment process last year at the request of many of the area's Native corporations as well as numerous special interest groups such as a group representing Bristol Bay fishermen. The draft assessment, the EPA says, is a study into an issue, not an enforcement action, though the EPA has asserted its right to take such action under the Clean Water Act.

The draft Watershed Assessment concluded "there is potential for certain activities associated with large-scale mining to have adverse impacts on the productivity and sustainability of the salmon fishery in the watershed."

Many have criticized the timing of the EPAs action, saying the agency should wait until the Pebble Mine developers file their permit application. Others, however, say the action is necessary and supported by the area. Among the chief requests of those opposed to the EPA action was for more time — the EPA's current proposed comment period ends in July and many in the audience Monday asked for a longer 120-day comment period.

A question of jurisdiction

State elected officials, as well as others who testified Monday night, said EPA was outside of its jurisdiction and was usurping the power of the state to make decisions about how to manage state lands.

The State Attorney General's office has echoed that sentiment in a series of letters to the EPA's office questioning the legality of the federal office's action. Many in the audience wore green hand-shaped cutouts stating "Hands off our state."

Rep. Charisse Millet, R-Anchorage, blasted McLerran, the EPA regional administrator who sat behind a table on stage.

She said the EPA assessment takes prospective ideas from the project's developers to form an opinion, without waiting for hard information.

To a loud boo and jeering, she added: "You have just scared away every potential investor to the state of Alaska when it comes to mineral resource development."

Others expressed concern about letting the EPA issue a ruling on the area's watershed. What would that ruling do to future projects not related to the mine, such as road projects and smaller mine development.

"If we allow this to go forward as Alaskans we are setting a very dangerous precedent," said Sen. Leslie McGuire, R-Anchorage.

But mine opponents say the state's actions and inactions prompted the need to go to the federal level for support.

"It's sad that we have to go to depend on the federal government to protect our resources," said Verner Wilson, who was born and raised in Bristol Bay.

Rick Halford, Former Alaska State Senate President, echoed the sentiment.

"You are here because of state failures," he said. "What you hear in the region is that they are unanimously on record asking you to be here. You are not here as someone coming from outside. You are here at the request of the people of the region."

EPA findings consider variety of scenarios

The recently released draft assessment found that a large-scale, open-pit copper, gold and molybdenum mine at the headwaters of the two largest watersheds in Bristol Bay would hurt salmon even in an ideal scenario, even if tailings never leaked. An 86-mile road would allow trucks to deliver minerals to Cook Inlet. Pipelines that deliver fuel and water would cross 70 streams.

Even a 24-hour-long leak of acidic tailings waste into rivers could have a devastating effect if it happens at the wrong time, because tens of thousands of sockeye salmon spawn in concentrated areas.

The EPA considers a small leak to be likely during the 25-to-75- year lifespan of a large-scale mine, said Rick Parkin, head of the assessment for the agency.

Less likely — but more disastrous — would be an accidental release of just 20 percent of the tailings from behind a dam. Nearly one-third of the Nushagak River salmon run could be destroyed, he said.

The long-running battle over Pebble pits two-world class resources against each other, with fisherman and environmental groups lining up against pro-development forces. Native villages from the region show up on both sides.

Bristol Bay is the world's most valuable wild sockeye salmon fishery and produces about half the world's sockeye, the assessment found. On the other hand, Pebble Partnership owners Northern Dynasty Minerals of Canada and Anglo American of London have said the mine would create more than 1,000 high-wage, full-time jobs for 25 years, as workers process a potential 81 billion pounds of copper, 107 million ounces of gold and 5.6 billion pounds of molybdenum.

The project would be built on state land and could produce more than 11 billion metric tons of ore, making it the biggest mine of its kind in North America, the draft assessment found.

Peer review process starting, comment period continues

As meetings are held throughout Bristol Bay this week, the EPA is moving forward with another part of its review process. A peer review panel has been created with 12 final panel members chosen based on their expertise and professional accomplishments. A list of draft questions for the panel was also released, and a public comment period on these draft charge questions is open through June 26.

The public comment period on the draft assessment overall continues through July 23, though an extension is being considered. You can read the full report online at yosemite.epa.gov/R10/ECOCOMM.NSF/bristol+bay/bristolbay.

Anyone can make a comment on the draft assessment using the following methods:

Preferred method: Submit them online at regulations.gov

Follow the online instructions for submitting comments to Docket # EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0276.

Send an email to ORD.Docket@epa.govInclude Docket # EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0276 in the subject line of the email.

Fax them to: 202-566-175 - Include the docket # EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0276 in the subject line of the fax.

Send a letter to the EPA Bristol Bay docket at: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 2822T)

Docket # EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0276

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

Portions of this story first appeared in the Alaska Dispatch and were reprinted here with permission.

 

---

Contact us about this article at editor@thebristolbaytimes.com