The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today issued a draft assessment of the Bristol Bay watershed, and whether large-scale mining could harm its famed salmon runs.
The assessment was done in response to the clamor over the proposed Pebble copper and gold mine, although the EPA says it didn't focus in-depth on any specific project.
Bottom line is, the EPA report "concludes that 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."
The EPA stops far short, however, of declaring that major mining projects in the Bristol Bay watershed should be forbidden right here and now.
Find the full assessment report here. And here's an EPA press release.
Woo Hoo! The EPA proves again how utterly clueless they are about Alaska! While I agree with the EPA that salmon are important, and mining may harm the salmon, the EPA's website makes it sound like they just discovered this truth.
ReplyDeleteHere's an excerpt from the press release:
"Key findings in EPA’s draft assessment include:
· All five species of North American Pacific salmon are found in Bristol Bay."
Stop the presses! So newsworthy!
So the EPA demonstrates that even with its head firmly positioned up its arse it recognizes that Bristol Bay is home to Bristol Bay salmon. SOme really gifted technical writers on this crack team.
It's off to the races for pebble! EPA effectively sides with the state and Anglo just authorized a 107M budget for the year.
ReplyDeletePuck Febble.
ReplyDeleteOne medium sized earthquake and WHAMMY!!!....There goes the watershed.....State of the Art Technology or not!...Northern Dynasty...a Canadian Corporation...will NOT be paying taxes like the Oil companies have to Alaska!...And the Employment benefits?....PFFFFFT!...You mean the kickbacks that the boys in Juneau will be getting...
ReplyDeleteOh, don't be so hard. Some of the locals are getting pay-offs too. Just enough to cause confusion. Getting a handout is a LOT easier than fishing!
ReplyDelete"kickbacks" and "pay-offs" makes it sound like gangland out here in wild Alaska.
ReplyDeleteMine companies from other countries especially care about our renewable resource....they wont lie and pay off to get in and then do what ever they want, oh no, not at all. Common sense , atleast find some where in the interior to have this cotastrophy
ReplyDeleteThis Whole Pebble Mine concept is Lisa Murkowski's Alaskan equivalent to the South African Butt Diamond...shove it where the sun don't shine!...they'll never find it...
ReplyDeleteIf everyone knew what there plan was there would be much greater concern. First it will be an underground mine. They will move the minerals in a slurry through an above ground pipeline anywhere from 24 to 36" and running from the mine site to the cook Inlet. A road will be built but not be available to the public. It will cross several large rivers and many smaller streams. There will be one, two at the most, pump stations and heating stations. the slurry will be pumped year around. the minerals will be processed at the mine before becoming slurry and as such be somewhat toxic while in transit. If there is a problem with pumping, it could result in freezing of the contents of the pipe and lead to a disaster far away from the mine. There is not enough electrical power anywhere near the area to power the mine requirements, so power would have to be produced. There are two ways: first bring LNG across the inlet, turn it into gas on the east side of the inlet, build a generation facility and transmit the power through lines, or build the generation at the mine and transmit the gas through a pipeline next to the slurry line to the mine. the other possibility given great thought is to develop a hydro plant using water from a lake at altitude near the east side of lake Iliamna and transmit the power through transmission lines. this would require a very large wind generation system to pump water up to the lake when needed. The lake required by the mine to store the toxic water would be stored by an earthen damn several hundred feet high and would be a couple square miles in size. Permanent employment would be around 1400 but most would be skilled labor from outside the region. More menial jobs would be staffed with locals labor, say around 400 or so. the state would get a small percentage, say 1 to 2 percent of the profit from the mine under current law. However there would likely be no profits for nearly 20 years until the costs of construction are paid. Sounds like a great deal for the State, huh? And it is hard to calculate all the risks involved. This scenario I have laid out was outlined by the Pebble manager. Ask him if what I am saying is accurate. But where have you read about it? They know what they need to do, but are holding back arguing that they have not decided how this mine will be run. That is simply not true. The officers of pebble main concern is and has been federal permitting. they know that the current administration is favorable to the mine regardless of the public sentiment. So in order to make sure that there will be zero tolerance for a disaster, the Feds have arrived on scene. I, for one, am happy to have their oversight, since the State will likely not provide enough.
ReplyDeleteAlaska is a corrupt state, that's why the blogger above believes that "the State will likely not provide enough." oversight.
ReplyDeleteOversight is lacking in many departments in our state system. Oversight is lacking in Federal Dollar agencies. It's about time that "the Feds...arrive(d) on scene." Their oversight could save the American taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.