Three days of meetings began when a panel selected by EPA contractor Versar convened to evaluate the EPA findings on Bristol Bay on Tuesday.

The twelve scientists chosen for the evaluation will review and discuss the scientific and technical aspects of the EPA Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment.

The public comment period for the Draft Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment closed to public comment on July 23rd.

The public was also able to register to make public comment on the first day during this external panel discussion that is focussing on the science relevant to the asessment. The first two days of the discussion are open to the public. The third day of the panel’s meeting will take place in private.

As the EPA prepares its final assessment, it will take into consideration Versar’s report of the comments and recommendations from the external peer review meeting.

There are anumber of items that the external panel is charged with considering by the EPA during this panel discussion.

First, the EPA would like to know if the charactorization of the ecological, geological, and cultural resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds was accurate and/or appropriate and if there is any data, reports and literature missing that would be useful to complete the charactorization.

The EPA would also like to know if the hypothetical mine scenario used in the draft assesssment was realistic and sufficient for the assessment.

Also the panel is charged with finding if the no-failure mode of operation for mining operation in the region was described adequately, and if the potential risks to salmonid fish due to habitat loss and changes in hydrology and water quality in a no-failure scenario was appropriately charactorized.

The EPA also wants the panel to review if the estimates of potential system failures described in the EPAs asssessment represent potetial failures that could occur in a mine of this type, and if there are any further failure scenarios not mentioned in the assessment.

The EPA has also asked the panel to discuss if the assessment appropriately charactorizes the risks to salmonid due to leachate and water treatment, culvert failure, pipeline and dam failure, and asks the panel for reports and data that hasn’t been referenced for the assessment.

Because the Pebble Limited Partnership hasn’t submitted a development plan, the assessment by the EPA isn’t specific to the proposed Pebble mine.

Pebble mine and its supporters say that the assessment was rushed and flawed. It was pointed out on the first day of the discussion by the chief executive of the Pebble Partnership John Shively, that the hypothetical mine used in the study wouldn’t have been allowed under current mining rules. He said, “The fantasy mine that EPA uses to measure the potential impacts on this very large watershed has no basis in reality in the 21st century.”

EPAs Area Region 10 administrator Dennis McLerran countered saying that the EPA relied on documents filed by one of Pebble’s partners.

While the native community in the region is split in their opinion of the mine. 90 to 95% of the roughly 200,000 people who submitted written comments to the EPA support the EPA study.

If you would like to watch the live broadcast of day two, go to this link.: August 8 link: Peer Review Meeting Day 2 Webcast: Wednesday, August 8 Day two discussion commences at 8 am.