You are here:
Bristol Bay Assessment – Supplemental Peer Review Reports (May 2012)
Citation:
Bristol Bay Assessment – Supplemental Peer Review Reports (May 2012). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2012.
Impact/Purpose:
The purpose of the assessment is to provide a characterization of the biological and mineral resources of the Bristol Bay watershed, increase understanding of the potential impacts of large-scale mining on the region’s fish resources, and inform future governmental decisions.
Description:
These reports represent the results of independent peer reviews of several technical reports submitted to the public docket for the May 2012 draft of the Bristol Bay Assessment, An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska.
Background
In May 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) released the draft assessment entitled An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska, or the Bristol Bay Assessment. The purpose of the assessment is to provide a characterization of the biological and mineral resources of the Bristol Bay watershed, increase understanding of the potential impacts of large-scale mining on the region’s fish resources, and inform future governmental decisions. During the public comment period for the May 2012 draft, numerous technical reports were submitted to the public docket. The USEPA identified several of these reports as providing information about issues raised by the peer reviewers, but the reports did not show evidence of prior peer review. The USEPA made arrangements for a contractor to conduct independent peer reviews of seven such reports.
The reports and the results of these supplemental peer reviews are provided here to document that the reports are of "sufficient scientific quality and credibility" to be incorporated into the second external review draft of the Bristol Bay Assessment.
URLs/Downloads:
1. Peer review comments on reports by Kuipers et al. 2006 and Earthworks 2012. (PDF, 32 pp, 212 KB, about PDF)Kuipers et al. 2006. Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: The Reliability of Predictions in Environmental Impact Statements (PDF, 228 pp, 1451 KB, about PDF)
Earthworks. 2012. U.S. Copper Porphyry Mines Report: The Track Record of Water Quality Impacts Resulting from Pipeline Spills, Tailings Failures and Water Collection and Treatment Failure (PDF, 33 pp, 830 KB, about PDF)
2. Peer review comments on report by Wobus et al. 2012 (PDF, 15 pp, 119 KB, about PDF)
Wobus et al. 2012. Potential Hydrologic and Water Quality Alteration from Large-Scale Mining of the Pebble Deposit in Bristol Bay, Alaska (PDF, 86 pp, 12526 KB, about PDF)
3. Peer review comments on reports by Chambers and Higman 2011 and Levit and Chambers 2012 (PDF, 23 pp, 240 KB, about PDF)
Chambers and Higman. 2011. Long-Term Risks of Tailings Dam Failure (PDF, 34 pp, 1006 KB, about PDF)
Levit and Chambers. 2012. Comparison of the Pebble Mine with Other Alaska Large Hard Rock Mines (PDF, 12 pp, 117 KB, about PDF)
4. Peer review comments on reports by Woody and O’Neal 2010 and Woody and Higman 2011 (PDF, 26 pp, 171 KB, about PDF)
Woody and O'Neal. 2010. Fish Surveys in Headwater Streams of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages, Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2008–2010 (PDF, 48 pp, 2171 KB, about PDF)
Woody and Higman. 2011. Groundwater as Essential Salmon Habitat in Nushagak and Kvichak River Headwaters (PDF, 19 pp, 1387 KB, about PDF)