The public comment period on the Bristol Bay Watershed Draft Assessment won't be extended according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

An extension of the period was requested by the Pebble Partnership, that request was denied. Dennis McLerran, the regional administrator for the EPA said that the agency will stick to its original comment period. The period ends on July 23rd.

CEO of the Pebble Partnership said at the time of the release of the assessment in mid-May that it was rushed and inadequate. He said in a release that “As long‐time proponents of responsible resource development in Alaska, we have significant concerns regarding the EPA’s approach to the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. We believe that the EPA has rushed its assessment process, and that this is especially problematic in light of the large size of the study area. We have taken several years and expended considerable resources to study the ecosystem in a small area around the Pebble deposit, while the EPAhas, in only one year and with limited resources, completed a draft assessment in relation to an area of approximately 20,000 square miles. We believe that this explains why the EPA’s work has not yet approached the level of rigor and completeness required for a scientific assessment…”

Hearings on the draft assessment that said a mine in Bristol Bay would have a negative impact on the region and its salmon runs was held in various places in state such as Anchorage and communities in the Bristol Bay region as well as in Seattle.

Turn-out in Anchorage’s Wendy Williamson’s Auditorium was estimated to be at least 900 people, with at least 140 people allowed to comment. At least that many were able to attend in various other locations.

There have been almost 900 letters written to the EPA, as well as close to 14,000 form letters submitted during the comment period.

Even so, Senator Murkowski came out against the EPA’s decision critisizing their move to stick to the schedule. She said in a statement yesterday that “The EPA’s refusal to provide additional time for the public to comment on the draft watershed assessment for Bristol Bay demonstrates, once again, that the agency does not understand Alaska,” Murkowski said. “There is no deadline – other than the one arbitrarily imposed by the EPA – that requires the agency to act now.”

Murkowski says that the comment period was too limited and that it coincided with the busy summer season when many Alaskans are out subsistence and commercial fishing. She went on to say, “I’m disappointed that the EPA’s Washington-based leaders have failed to see the benefits of allowing Alaskans adequate time to comment on an assessment that could have significant consequences for the future of our state.”

The Bristol Bay Native Corporation said that the assessment’s comment period was adequate and pointed out that most ccomment periods in the state are shorter than that, saying “Those comment periods are routinely much shorter than 66 days 30 days 45 days sometimes 60 days,” said Daniel Chuyette, BBNC general council. “This comment period is equal or greater to the comment periods that are routinely used for action decisions and again this is just a planning document.”

Prior to the deadline, the draft report can still be commented on, if you would like to read and comment, the report can be found here.