Federal move opens more land to mining

MARY LOCHNER

November 13, 2008 at 10:05AM AKST

Much of the federal government’s mineral-rich land in Goodnews Bay and Bristol Bay is being transferred to the state of Alaska now that the Bureau of Land Management’s proposed land-use plan for the region, released Dec. 7, 2007, has been tweaked, finalized and signed by BLM Alaska state director Thomas Lonnie.

The plan opens nearly 2 million acres that had previously been closed to development. About 1.16 million acres of that will be retained as federal land.

The approval of the plan, called the record of decision, is being made public Friday, Nov. 14.

That’s when the details of the final plan are available in print and online, at the Bureau of Land Management Alaska homepage, http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en.html.
BLM spokeswoman Teresa McPherson said the approved plan doesn’t differ greatly from BLM’s recommendations last December. In general, those lands held by BLM in the region that are most likely to have higher-value mineral deposits will not be retained by the federal government, she said, but are being conveyed to the state.
The mineral resources on retained federal land are described as marginal. They will be developed with certain conditions in place that will help protect the environment and subsistence resources, McPherson said.

Lands with mineral resources going to the state will fall under state regulations for mining and development.

Activists representing environmental, subsistence and commercial and sport-fishing interests have opposed opening more land in the region to mining, including the lower-value deposits on what will be retained as federal lands.

“Whatever is allowed to go on in terms of industrial development upstream will affect downstream fisheries,” said Lindsey Blume, a commercial fisher in Bristol Bay for 13 years.

Terry Hoefferle, director of Nunamta Aulukestai, said there is concern about the future of subsistence in Bristol Bay after the record of decision. Nunamta Aulukestai is a nonprofit cooperative effort of several local village corporations to address local land-use issues.

If more land is open to mining, Hoefferle said, that means greater potential harm to people, plants and animals in the form of pulverized dust, sulfuric acid, excessive noise, chemicals that are used to separate out desired minerals from ore, and other possible byproducts of mining.

He said berries, fish, birds, grazing animals and the people who rely on them for food could be adversely affected. 

“I would anticipate major impacts of this on subsistence,” Hoefferle said.

Add to that the influx of workers who could arrive as a result of any potential increase in mining or other development, and what the region could see are subsistence resources already jeopardized by development placed under further pressure from a greater number of people using them.

McPherson from the BLM  said that regulations will be in place on those federal lands that are retained to protect subsistence and the environment from being harmed by any potential development. Those regulations, called required operating procedures, could be found in an appendix of the plan — called the Bay Resource Management Plan — when it is made public on Friday, Nov. 14.

Examples of a required operating procedure include buffers around river systems that prevent development from occurring too close to the stream, said Chuck Denton, a hydrologist and air, water and wetlands specialist at the BLM Anchorage field office. Denton said the buffer requirements were created with input from BLM’s fisheries biologists.

As an example of an operating procedure that was included as a result of public input, Denton pointed to a clarification raised by the Alaska Wilderness League, a local wildlife protection group. The final regulation provides protections for area caribou by requiring developers to suspend activity once caribou are in the area, and not commence activity until the caribou have left, Denton said.

The BLM and activists who oppose its Bay plan have different narratives on why nearly 2 million acres of pristine lands in Southwest Alaska that provide habitat for so many subsistence resources are being opened to development now.

Activists who are against the plan don’t see why, if the lands retained by the federal government contain such marginal mineral deposits, they should be opened to development at all. Jeremiah Millen, field representative for the Alaska Wilderness League, called the opening of federal lands to mining a travesty of the Bush administration’s policy leanings.

“It’s essentially a decision being made through the Bush administration, which prioritizes private development interests over local economies, human health and sustainable resources such as salmon in Bristol Bay,” Millen said. He called BLM’s record of decision, finalizing its Bay Resource Management Plan, “a lame-duck giveaway.”

McPherson said the plan is simply the resolution of unfinished business left over from the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 started with the Statehood Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Federal lands in Bristol Bay and Goodnews Bay were being managed to keep them in their original state until state and ANCSA corporation land selections and conveyances were finalized, McPherson said. The record of decision completes that process, and provides a land management plan for those lands that will remain with the United States government.

The BLM, she said, is merely moving forward with putting normal federal management in place on those lands.

Blume said that’s not what’s best for the region and the people who live there.
“Bristol Bay should be regulated as a fisheries resource,” she said. “That’s a huge economic engine for the region. The majority of the public testimony to BLM on making this decision was absolutely not to open it to mineral entry.”

Mary Lochner can be reached at 907-348-2438, or 800-770-9830, ext. 438.

Back