[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33213-33215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13431]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9681-3; EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0358]
An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of
Bristol Bay, Alaska--Peer Review Panel Members and Charge Questions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 33214]]
ACTION: Notice of availability and public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is announcing the peer review panel members assembled by
an independent contractor to evaluate the draft document titled, ``An
Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol
Bay, Alaska'' (EPA-910-R-12-004a-c). EPA is also announcing a three
week public comment period for the draft charge questions to be
provided to the peer review panel. The assessment was prepared by the
U.S. EPA's Region 10 Office (Pacific Northwest and Alaska), EPA's
Office of Water, and EPA's Office of Research and Development. The U.S.
EPA conducted this assessment to determine the significance of Bristol
Bay's ecological resources and evaluate the potential impacts of large-
scale mining on these resources.
DATES: The public comment period begins June 5, 2012, and ends June 26,
2012. Comments should be in writing and must be received by EPA by June
26, 2012.
Availability: Draft charge questions are provided below. Copies of
the draft charge questions are also available via the Internet on the
EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay Web site at www.epa.gov/bristolbay. The draft
document ``An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon
Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska'' is also available on the Internet
on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay Web site at www.epa.gov/bristolbay. A
limited number of paper copies of the draft charge questions are
available from the Information Management Team, NCEA; telephone: 703-
347-8561; facsimile: 703-347-8691. If you are requesting a paper copy,
please provide your name, your mailing address, and title, ``Peer
Review Charge Questions on An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on
Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska.''
Comments on the draft charge questions may be submitted
electronically via www.regulations.gov, by email, by mail, by
facsimile, or by hand delivery/courier. Please follow the detailed
instructions provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the Office of Environmental Information Docket;
telephone: 202-566-1752; facsimile: 202-566-9744; or email:
[email protected].
For technical information concerning the report, contact Judy
Smith; telephone: 503-326-6994; facsimile: 503-326-3399; or email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Information About the Project
The U.S. EPA conducted this assessment to determine the
significance of Bristol Bay's ecological resources and evaluate the
potential impacts of large-scale mining on these resources. The U.S.
EPA will use the results of this assessment to inform the consideration
of options consistent with its role under the Clean Water Act. The
assessment is intended to provide a scientific and technical foundation
for future decision making. The Web site that describes the project is
www.epa.gov/bristolbay.
EPA released the draft assessment for the purposes of public
comment and peer review on May 18, 2012. Consistent with guidelines for
the peer review of highly influential scientific assessments, EPA asked
a contractor (Versar, Inc.) to assemble a panel of experts to evaluate
the draft report. Versar evaluated the 86 candidates nominated during a
previous public comment period (February 24, 2012 to March 16, 2012)
and sought other experts to complete this peer review panel. The twelve
peer review panel members are as follows:
Mr. David Atkins, Watershed Environmental, LLC.--Expertise in
mining and hydrology.
Mr. Steve Buckley, WHPacific/NANA Alaska--Expertise in mining
and seismology.
Dr. Courtney Carothers--Expertise in indigenous Alaskan
cultures.
Dr. Dennis Dauble, Washington State University--Expertise in
fisheries biology and wildlife ecology.
Dr. Gordon Reeves, USDA Pacific NW Research Station--Expertise
in fisheries biology and aquatic biology.
Dr. Charles Slaughter, University of Idaho--Expertise in
hydrology.
Dr. John Stednick, Colorado State University--Expertise in
hydrology and biogeochemistry.
Dr. Roy Stein, Ohio State University--Expertise in fisheries and
aquatic biology.
Dr. William Stubblefield, Oregon State University--Expertise in
aquatic biology and ecotoxicology.
Dr. Dirk van Zyl, University of British Columbia--Expertise in
mining and biogeochemistry.
Dr. Phyllis Weber Scannel--Expertise in aquatic ecology and
ecotoxicology.
Dr. Paul Whitney--Expertise in wildlife ecology and
ecotoxicology.
The peer review panel will be provided with draft charge questions
to guide their evaluation of the draft assessment. These draft charge
questions are designed to focus reviewers on specific aspects of the
report. EPA is seeking comments from the public on the draft charge
questions and welcome input on additional charge questions consistent
with the objectives of the assessment. The draft charge questions are
as follows:
(1) The assessment brought together information to characterize the
ecological, geological, and cultural resources of the Nushagak and
Kvichak watersheds. Was this characterization accurate? Was any
significant literature missed that would be useful to complete this
characterization?
(2) A formal mine plan or application is not available for the
porphyry copper deposits in the Bristol Bay watershed. EPA developed a
hypothetical mine scenario for its risk assessment. Given the type and
location of copper deposits in the watershed, was this hypothetical
mine scenario realistic? Has EPA appropriately bounded the magnitude of
potential mine activities with the minimum and maximum mine sizes used
in the scenario? Is there significant literature not referenced that
would be useful to refine the mine scenario?
(3) EPA assumed two potential modes for mining operations: A no-
failure mode of operation and a mode outlining one or more types of
failures. The no-failure operation mode assumes best practical
engineering and mitigation practices are in place and in optimal
operating condition. Is the no-failure mode of operation adequately
described? Is the choice of engineering and mitigation practices
reasonable and consistent with current practices?
(4) Are the potential risks to salmonid fish due to habitat loss
and modification and water quantity/quality changes appropriately
characterized and described for the no-failure mode of operation? Does
the assessment appropriately describe the risks to salmonid fish due to
operation of a transportation corridor under the no-failure mode of
operation?
(5) Do the failures outlined in the assessment reasonably represent
potential system failures that could occur at a mine of the type and
size outlined in the mine scenario? Is there a significant type of
failure that is not described? Are the assumed risks of failures
appropriate?
(6) Does the assessment appropriately characterize risks to
salmonid fish due to a potential failure of water and leachate
collection and treatment from the mine site? If not, what suggestions
do you have for improving this part of the assessment?
(7) Does the assessment appropriately characterize risks to
salmonid fish due to culvert failures along the transportation
corridor? If not, what suggestions do you have for improving this part
of the assessment?
[[Page 33215]]
(8) Does the assessment appropriately characterize risks to
salmonid fish due to pipeline failures? If not, what suggestions do you
have for improving this part of the assessment?
(9) Does the assessment appropriately characterize risks to
salmonid fish due to a potential tailings dam failure? If not, what
suggestions do you have for improving this part of the assessment?
(10) Does the assessment appropriately characterize risks to
wildlife and human cultures due to risks to fish? If not, what
suggestions do you have for improving this part of the assessment?
(11) Does the assessment appropriately describe the potential for
cumulative risk from multiple mines?
(12) Does the assessment identify the uncertainties and limitations
associated with the mine scenario and the identified risks?
The preferred method to submit comments on the draft peer review
charge is through the docket, which is described below. This docket is
separate from the docket collecting public comments on the draft
assessment itself. The EPA will evaluate comments received on these
draft charge questions. Charge questions will be finalized and provided
to EPA's independent contractor, Versar, Inc., who will convene the
expert panel for independent external peer review.
The external peer review panel meeting is scheduled to be held in
Anchorage, AK on August 7, 8, and 9, 2012. The public will be invited
to attend on August 7 and 8, 2012. Further information regarding the
external peer review panel meeting will be announced at a later date in
the Federal Register.
II. How to Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
www.regulations.gov
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-
0358, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number EPA-
HQ-ORD-2012-0358 in the subject line of the message.
Fax: 202-566-9744.
Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket
(Mail Code: 28221T), Docket EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0358, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is 202-566-1752. If you provide
comments by mail, please submit one unbound original with pages
numbered consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For
attachments, provide an index, number pages consecutively with the
comments, and submit an unbound original and three copies.
Hand Delivery: The OEI Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is 202-566-1744. Deliveries are only accepted during the
docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information. If you provide comments by
hand delivery, please submit one unbound original with pages numbered
consecutively, and three copies of the comments. For attachments,
provide an index, number pages consecutively with the comments, and
submit an unbound original and three copies.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2012-0358. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the
specified comment period. Comments received after the closing date will
be marked ``late,'' and may only be considered if time permits. It is
EPA's policy to include all comments it receives in the public docket
without change and to make the comments available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless a comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comments.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov_index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI Docket in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center.
Dated: May 30, 2012.
Darrel A. Winner,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2012-13431 Filed 6-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P