On September 6th, Alaska Wildlife Alliance submitted our comment to stop Pebble Mine once and for all.
More than half a million people showed up to tell EPA to finish the job of protecting Bristol Bay, and you can add your voice (in under 2 minutes) here! Submit your comment by September 6th, 2022.
Alaska Wildlife Alliance’s comment is below
Re: Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OW–2022–0418; Support for Proposed Determination for Bristol Bay
The Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA) is a non-profit organization founded by Alaskans in 1978 and based in Anchorage, Alaska. AWA advocates for healthy ecosystems which are ethically and scientifically managed to protect our wildlife for present and future generations. AWA is a member-supported organization, with supporters from across Alaska and the United States. The following comment is on behalf of our organization with the intent of preserving intact and healthy wildlife populations in Bristol Bay.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment in support of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Proposed Determination to prohibit and restrict the use of certain waters in the Bristol Bay watershed as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with mining at the Pebble deposit, May 26, 2022 (FR 32021). The focus of our comments are to reiterate the components of the Army Corp's DEIS that highlight the irrevocable harms this mine would cause to wildlife and habitat as a basis for why this Proposed Determination must pass.
The project
The Pebble deposit is a large ore (copper, gold, and molybdenum) body located at the headwaters of the pristine Bristol Bay watershed that underlies portions of the South Fork Koktuli River (SFK), North Fork Koktuli River (NFK), and Upper Talarik Creek (UTC) watersheds. The SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds drain into two of the largest rivers in the Bristol Bay watershed, the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers (EPA 2022). The EPA’s Proposed Determination would restrict discharges for the construction and routine operation of a mine at the Pebble deposit anywhere in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds that would either individually or collectively result in adverse effects similar or greater in nature and magnitude to those associated with the 2020 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit application in these watersheds. The USACE denied the permit application due to unavoidable adverse impacts that would result in significant degradation to aquatic resources and determined the project would be contrary to the public interest (USACE 2020). We applaud the agency for acting on this conclusion, as it holds scientific merit.
Overview of the Bristol Bay Watershed’s Wildlife and Habitat
The Bristol Bay watershed provides habitat that supports incredible biodiversity, including 29 fish species, more than 190 bird species, and more than 40 terrestrial mammals (EPA, About Bristol Bay). Chief among these resources is a world-class commercial and sport fishery for Pacific salmon and other important resident fishes. The Bristol Bay watershed, including the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers, supports all five species of Pacific salmon (Chinook, Sockeye, Coho, Pink, and Chum), and several other commercially, recreationally, and ecologically important fish species. No hatchery fish are raised or released in the watershed - Bristol Bay's salmon populations are entirely wild. These fish are anadromous - hatching and rearing in freshwater systems, migrating to the sea to grow to adult size, and returning to freshwater systems to spawn and die.
The Bristol Bay watershed supports the largest Sockeye salmon fishery in the world, with approximately 46% of the average global abundance of wild sockeye salmon (EPA, About Bristol Bay). Between 1990 and 2010, the annual average inshore run of sockeye salmon in Bristol Bay was approximately 37.5 million fish. Annual commercial harvest of sockeye over this same period averaged 27.5 million. In 2022, the total commercial harvest reached 59.5 million fish — 26% more than had ever been caught in a single Bristol Bay season; enough fish to serve a quarter-pound of salmon to every person in America (Berton, 2022). The Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery generates the largest component of economic activity and was valued at approximately $300 million in 2009 (first wholesale value) and provided employment for over 11,500 full- and part-time workers at the peak of the season. Approximately half of the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon production is from the Nushagak River and Kvichak River watersheds.
Salmon are one component of this complex ecosystem. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) trust resources, including anadromous fish, migratory birds, certain marine mammals, and threatened and endangered species, are found in the ecologically important Bristol Bay watershed. In addition to supporting major fisheries, Pacific salmon in Bristol Bay play an important role in the ecosystem by transferring large quantities of marine-derived nutrients from the marine environment into terrestrial and freshwater environments, which benefits wildlife, juvenile salmon, and the overall productivity, diversity, and physical structure of the ecosystem.
The Bristol Bay watershed is also home to brown bear, black bear, moose, caribou, wolves, waterfowl, and many other species of mammals and birds. The federally threatened northern sea otter and Steller's eider occur in the waters of the Cook Inlet, including Kamishak Bay (where they occur in relatively high abundance). Bald eagles commonly nest and feed along the coast and along all the major salmon spawning rivers in the Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet regions, and a relatively high number of golden eagles are found in the proposed project area. Migratory birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and landbirds are abundant throughout the proposed project area.
Bristol Bay is also home to 25 federally recognized Tribal Governments, of which salmon is a resource of national importance. The Alaska Native cultures present in the Nushagak River and Kvichak River watersheds - the Yup'ik and Dena'ina - are two of the last intact, sustainable salmon-based cultures in the world. Salmon are integral to the entire way of life in these cultures as subsistence food and as the foundation for their language, spirituality, and social structure. Fourteen of Bristol Bay's 25 Alaska Native villages and communities are within the Nushagak River and Kvichak River watersheds, with a total population of 4,337 in 2010. In the Bristol Bay region, salmon constitute approximately 52% of the subsistence harvest. Subsistence from all sources (fish, moose, and other wildlife) accounts for an average of 80% of protein consumed by area residents (EPA, About Bristol Bay). These cultures have a strong connection to the landscape and its resources. In the Bristol Bay watershed, this connection has been maintained for at least the past 4,000 years and is in part due to and responsible for the continued pristine condition of the region's landscape and biological resources.
Turning to economic importance, Bristol Bay’s intact habitat and robust wildlife is a significant source of revenue. Considering the commercial, sport and subsistence fishing industries, sport and subsistence hunting industries, and non-consumptive recreation (e.g. wildlife viewing and tourism), the ecological resources of the Bristol Bay watershed generated nearly $480 million in direct economic expenditures and sales in 2009, and provided employment for over 14,000 full- and part-time workers (EPA, About Bristol Bay). A recent study by the McKinley Research Group entitled The Economic Benefits of Bristol Bay Salmon estimates that Bristol Bay’s commercial salmon industry alone generated $2 billion in economic benefit and an average of 15,000 jobs in 2019. Revenues from the commercial fishery include a share of the Fisheries Business Tax to Bristol Bay communities (McKinley Research Group. 2021). A third of the Bristol Bay Borough’s total revenue came from that share in 2019. The Borough also uses a Raw Fish tax to pay for sewer upgrades and repairs. The Lake and Peninsula Borough also collects a Raw Fish tax. Unlike the two boroughs, Dillingham does not have a raw fish tax. But the city has reported a three year average of $617,000 from the Fisheries Business Tax.
In summary, the Bristol Bay watershed is an area of unparalleled ecological, cultural, and economic value, boasting salmon diversity and productivity unrivaled anywhere in North America. As a result, the region is a globally significant resource. The Bristol Bay watershed provides intact, connected habitats—from headwaters to ocean—that support abundant, genetically diverse wild Pacific salmon populations. These salmon populations, in turn, help to maintain the productivity of the entire ecosystem, including numerous keystone fish and wildlife species. These species, living in intact and healthy habitats, are the bedrock for local economies.
Proposed Pebble Mine’s Impacts on Wildlife and Habitat
According to the Proposed Determination, the EPA is exercising its authority under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 231 due to unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas in the Bristol Bay watershed that could result from discharges of dredged or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit. We agree with the agency’s conclusion, that the proposed Pebble Mine would have unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas in the Bristol Bay watershed.
We cite, first and foremost, the EPA Region 10 Regional Administrator’s finding in the 2022 Proposed Determination that discharges of dredged or fill material for the construction and routine operation of the mine at the Pebble deposit identified in the 2020 Mine Plan (PLP 2020) could result in unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas in the SFK and NFK watersheds. Based on information in Pebble Limited Partnership’s (PLP) Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit application, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and the Record of Decision (ROD), such discharges would have the following impacts on aquatic resources:
The loss of approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 km) of documented anadromous fish streams (Section 4.2.1).
The loss of approximately 91.2 miles (146.8 km) of additional streams that support anadromous fish streams (Section 4.2.2).
The loss of approximately 2,113 acres (8.6 km2) of wetlands and other waters that support anadromous fish streams (Section 4.2.3).
Adverse impacts to at least 29 additional miles (46.7 km) of anadromous fish streams resulting from greater than 20 percent changes in average monthly streamflow (Section 4.2.4).
Sections 4.2.1 through 4.2.4 describe the basis for EPA Region 10’s determination that each of the above impacts could, independently, result in unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas). This is the foundation for the agency’s subsequent conclusions and Alaska Wildlife Alliance’s support for the Proposed Determination.
We also cite EPA’s four independent unacceptability findings in the draft EIS, each of which is based on one or more factors, including:
The pristine condition and productivity of anadromous habitat throughout the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds.
The large amount of permanent loss of anadromous fish habitat. As demonstrated in the FEIS and ROD, construction and routine operation of the mine proposed in the 2020 Mine Plan would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including streams, wetlands, lakes, and ponds overlying the Pebble deposit and within adjacent watersheds. The direct effects (i.e., resulting from placement of fill in aquatic habitats) and certain secondary effects of such discharges (i.e., associated with a discharge of dredged or fill material, but not resulting from the actual placement of such material) would result in the “total loss” of aquatic habitats important to anadromous fishes. These losses are the result of the construction and routine operation of the various components of the mine site, including the open pit, bulk tailings storage facility (TSF), pyritic TSF, power plant, water management plans, water treatment plans, milling/processing facilities, and supporting infrastructure. According to the FEIS and ROD, discharges of dredged or fill material to construct and operate the mine site proposed in the 2020 Mine Plan would result in the total loss of approximately 99.7 miles (160.5 km) of stream habitat, representing approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 km) of anadromous fish streams and 91.2 miles (146.8 km) of additional streams that support anadromous fish streams. Such discharges of dredged or fill material also would result in the “total loss” of approximately 2,113 acres (8.6 km2) of wetlands and other waters that support anadromous fish streams. Additional secondary effects of the proposed discharges of dredged or fill material at the mine site would degrade anadromous fishery areas downstream of the mine site. Further, streamflow alterations from water capture, withdrawal, storage, treatment, or release at the mine site are another secondary effect of the discharge of dredged or fill material associated with the construction and routine operation of the 2020 Mine Plan. Such streamflow alterations would adversely affect at least 29 miles (46.7 km) of anadromous fish streams downstream of the mine site due to greater than 20 percent changes in average monthly streamflow. These streamflow alterations would result in major changes in ecosystem structure and function and would reduce both the extent and quality of anadromous fish habitat downstream of the mine.
The degradation of additional downstream spawning and rearing habitat for salmon due to the loss of ecological subsidies provided by the eliminated streams, wetlands, and other waters. According to the FEIS and ROD, the stream, wetland, and other aquatic resource losses from the footprint of the 2020 Mine Plan would reverberate downstream, depriving downstream anadromous fish habitats of nutrients, groundwater inputs, and other ecological subsidies from lost upstream aquatic resources.
The resulting erosion of both habitat complexity and biocomplexity within the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds, which are key to the abundance and stability of salmon populations within these watersheds.
As recognized in the FEIS, all instances of complete loss of aquatic habitat and most impairment to fish habitat function would be permanent. Although Alaska has many streams and wetlands that support salmon, individual streams, stream reaches, wetlands, lakes, and ponds play a critical role in supporting individual salmon populations and protecting the genetic diversity of Bristol Bay’s wild salmon populations. The diverse array of watershed features across the region creates and sustains a diversity of aquatic habitats that support multiple populations of salmon with asynchronous run timings and habitat use patterns (i.e., biocomplexity, after Hilborn et al. 2003). These population differences are reflected in salmon genetic diversity and adaptation to local conditions within Bristol Bay’s component watersheds (e.g., Quinn et al. 2012) and provide stability to the overall system (Schindler et al. 2010).
Impacts of the 2020 Mine Plan are concentrated in the SFK and NFK watersheds, which are a part of the Nushagak River watershed. Recent analysis specific to the Nushagak River watershed underscores the important role that the streams, wetlands, lakes, and ponds across the entire Nushagak River watershed, including those that would be adversely affected by the 2020 Mine Plan, play in stabilizing the Nushagak River’s productive Sockeye and Chinook salmon fisheries (Brennan et al. 2019). Similarly, both the Koktuli River (the SFK and NFK are tributaries to the Koktuli River) and UTC have been documented to support genetically distinct populations of Sockeye Salmon (Dann et al. 2012, Shedd et al. 2016, Dann et al. 2018). Loss of salmon habitats and associated salmon diversity in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds would erode both the habitat complexity and biocomplexity that help buffer these populations from sudden and extreme changes in abundance and ultimately maintain their productivity.
In addition to supporting genetically distinct salmon populations, the streams and wetlands draining the Pebble deposit area provide key habitat for numerous other fish species and supply water, invertebrates, organic matter, and other resources to downstream waters (Meyer et al. 2007, Colvin et al. 2019, Koenig et al. 2019). This is particularly true in dendritic stream networks like the SFK, NFK, and UTC systems, which have a high density of headwater streams. As a result, headwater streams and wetlands play a vital role in maintaining diverse, abundant anadromous fish populations—both by providing important fish habitat and supplying the energy and other resources needed to support anadromous fishes in connected downstream habitats.
Alaska Wildlife Alliance agrees with the agency’s conclusion in support of the proposed prohibition described in the 2022 Proposed Determination. For the sake of Bristol Bay’s unique wildlife and habitat - resources our members and fellow Americans depend upon and enjoy - we urge the agency to adopt this critically important determination.
Sincerely,
Nicole Schmitt
Executive Director
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
PO Box 202022,
Anchorage, AK 99520
Sources
Berton, Hal. 2022. The Salmon Mystery of Bristol Bay. The Seattle Times. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2022/08/28/the-salmon-mystery-of-bristol-bay/
Brennan, S. R., D. E. Schindler, T. J. Cline, T. E. Walsworth, G. Buck, and D. P. Fernandez. 2019. Shifting habitat mosaics and fish production across river basins. Science 364:783–786.
Colvin, S. A. R., S. M. P. Sullivan, P. D. Shirey, R. W. Colvin, K. O. Winemiller, R. M. Hughes, K. D. Fausch, D. M. Infante, J. D. Olden, K. R. Bestgen, R. J. Danehy, and L. Eby. 2019. Headwater streams and wetlands are critical for sustaining fish, fisheries, and ecosystem services. Fisheries 44:73–91.
Dann, T. H., C. Habicht, J. R. Jasper, E. K. C. Fox, H. A. Hoyt, H. L. Liller, E. S. Lardizabal, P. A. Kuriscak, Z. D. Grauvogel, and W. D. Templin. 2012. Sockeye Salmon Baseline for the Western Alaska Salmon Stock Identification Project. Special Publication No. 12-12. Anchorage, AK: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries.
Dann, T. H., G. Buck, and B. Jones. 2018. Stock composition of subsistence harvests and total return of sockeye salmon from the Kvichak River. ADF&G Alaska Sustainable Salmon Grant Proposal Presentation, 148th Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). About Bristol Bay. https://www.epa.gov/bristolbay/about-bristol-bay
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. Final Report. EPA 910-R-14-001. Washington, DC.
Hilborn, R., T. P. Quinn, D. E. Schindler, and D. E. Rogers. 2003. Biocomplexity and fisheries sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:6564–6568. Kalanchey, R., H. Ghaffari, S. Abdel, L. Galbraith, J. D. Gaunt, E. Titley, S.
McKinley Research Group. 2021. The Economic Benefits of Bristol Bay Salmon. Prepared for the Bristol Bay Defense Fund. Anchorage, AK.
Meyer, J. L., D. L. Strayer, J. B. Wallace, S. L. Eggert, G. S. Helfman, and N. E. Leonard. 2007. The contribution of headwater streams to biodiversity in river networks. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:86–103. PLP (Pebble Limited Partnership). 2020. Pebble Project Department of the Army Application for Permit POA-2017-00271 (dated June 8, 2020). Anchorage, AK.
Quinn, T. P., H. B. Rich, D. Gosse, and N. Schtickzelle. 2012. Population dynamics and asynchrony at fine spatial scales: a case history of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population structure in Alaska, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 69:297–306.
Schindler, D. E., R. Hilborn, B. Chasco, C. P. Boatright, T. P. Quinn, L. A. Rogers, and M. S. Webster. 2010. Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species. Nature 465:609–612.
EPA. 2022. Proposed determination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10
pursuant to section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act pebble deposit area, southwest Alaska.
Executive summary. May 2022. 21 pp.
USACE. 2020. Record of decision for application submitted by Pebble Limited Partnership to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Department of the Army permit number POA-2017-00271.
