Hamson  1  

Jona Hamson Brady Bergeson ENG 358 2/11/14

An Environmental Assessment: Analyzed Background The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was first founded in December 1970, in response

to growing demand for open door policies when it came to the publics’ quality of water, air, and

overall environmental quality. At this point in history killer smog was affecting England, Love

Cannel in New York was under scrutiny, and the information presented Silent Spring was at the

forefront of American’s minds. The general public was beginning to raise questions about the

effect humans have on the environment and why the

government would allow things to continue in this

manner. In response to growing concern, our

government created the EPA. This bill was signed by

President Nixon, to “protect human health and the

environment” through developing and enforcing

regulations, giving grants, studying environmental

issues, and publishing research findings. Though the

main function of the EPA is to assist federal funded

projects through the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) process.

Under NEPA law every federally funded project must undergo an assessment period, in which

the agency submits an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to decide if the action is lawful or

unlawful. Whether an agency submits and EA or an EIS is dependent on how big of a project the

Hamson  2  

agency is undergoing, for example if the DNR wants to build a small shack in the woods there

are not likely to be any damaging effects to the environment so an EA is all that is required.

However, if the DNR wanted to build a road back to that shed the agency would have to do an

EIS because of the potential damages to the environment.

The Proposed Project

The project that has been proposed is an open pit mine in Bristol Bays’ watershed. This

watershed is an important ecological system to the area, as well as to the world. The ecosystem

of Bristol Bay’s watershed is almost untouched by humans and is home to the world’s largest

wild sockeye salmon run, terrestrial animals, native communities, and commercial fishermen; all

relying on this ecosystem for their survival.

Publication This analysis on the EPA’s final assessment of Bristol Bay titled An Assessment of Potential

Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska, is currently going through the

NEPA process. Compiled and researched by the EPA as a means to educate it’s direct audience,

the CEQ, to help inform their decision wither to allow the mine or not. In my paper I will be

analyzing the ethos, logos, and special attention on pathos in this document because of the

hidden meaning given to Bristol Bay, by the EPA, through the design of this document.

Purpose The publications purpose is stated clearly in the beginning, to “inform [decision makers] of the

risks of mine development to the sustainability of the Bristol Bay salmon fisheries” (2). These

risks are explained to their audience through expository writing, which has the purpose to

“compare viewpoints on a controversial subject…by analyzing the data in order to educate

[their] audience” (Examples of Informative Essays). The EPA uses a chart (right of page) to

display failures that could occur, the probability of these failures happening, as well as the

Hamson  3  

consequences these failures would result in on

the ecosystem of the area. The chart used is very

easy to understand and follow; it is effective in

giving the reader a quick over view of the risks

being argued over in this controversial project.

Audience The CEQ is this publications intended audience;

however because this project “has received

significant attention from groups in and outside of Alaska” interested parties, such as non-

governmental organizations opposing the mine, Native Tribes, Alaskans, commercial fisherman,

as well as the company who proposed the mine will read this publication (5).

Framework of Publication A good outline of a publication allows for the reader to follow along without wondering how

they got to where they are. In the outline of this assessment, I found it easy to follow when

reading it in it’s entirety, however if one is looking for the quick facts, it is harder to find;

perhaps this was by design? The designers wanted people to read all the facts so they would be

capable of making a well-informed and holistic decision.

The amount of space taken to explain what this publication was about and what it was not is

something I found interesting, though it should not have come as a surprise. It is important that

the audience understands the context of this publication and the topics they did not discuss in the

assessment. As stated in the publication, the “primary focus…is the abundance, productivity, and

diversity of these fishes [salmon]” and to assess the risks that could affect the productivity of

these “salmonids” (3). What is not in this publication is an “in-depth assessment of a specific

mine,” or impacts which are not “reasonable foreseeable mining activities” (5).

the watershed, modern conventional mining technologies and practices, the scale of mining activity required for economic development of the resource, and the infrastructure needed to support large-scale mining. Therefore, the mine scenarios evaluated in this assessment realistically represent the type of development plan that would be anticipated for a porphyry copper deposit in the Bristol Bay watershed. Uncertainties associated with the mine scenarios are discussed later in this executive summary.

The three mine scenarios evaluated in the assessment represent different stages of mining at the Pebble deposit, based on the amount of ore processed: Pebble 0.25 (approximately 0.25 billion

tons [0.23 billion metric tons] of ore over 20 years), Pebble 2.0 (approximately 2.0 billion tons [1.8 billion metric tons] of ore over 25 years), and Pebble 6.5 (approximately 6.5 billion tons [5.9 billion metric tons] of ore over 78 years). The major components of each mine would be an open mine pit, waste rock piles, and one or more TSFs. Other significant features include plant and ancillary facilities (e.g., a water collection and treatment system, an ore-processing facility, and other facilities associated with mine operations) and the groundwater drawdown zone (the area over which the water table is lowered due to dewatering of the mine pit). An underground extension of the mine, which could increase the size of the mine to 11 billion tons of ore, is not included in this assessment.

Mine Scenario ParametersMine Scenario

Parameter Pebble 0.25 Pebble 2.0 Pebble 6.5Amount of ore mined (billion metric tons) 0.23 1.8 5.9

Approximate duration of mining (years) 20 25 78

Ore processing rate (metric tons/day) 31,100 198,000 208,000

Mine Pit

Surface area (km2) 1.5 5.5 17.8

Depth (km) 0.30 0.76 1.24

Waste Rock Pile

Surface area (km2) 2.3 13.0 22.6

PAG waste rock (million metric tons) 86 580 4,700

NAG waste rock (million metric tons) 320 2,200 11,000

TSF 1a

Capacity, dry weight (billion metric tons) 0.25 1.97 1.97

Surface area, exterior (km2) 6.8 16.1 16.1

Maximum dam height (m) 92 209 209

TSF 2a

Capacity, dry weight (billion metric tons) NA NA 3.69

Surface area, exterior (km2) NA NA 22.7

TSF 3a

Capacity, dry weight (billion metric tons) NA NA 0.96

Surface area, exterior (km2) NA NA 9.82

Total TSF surface area, exterior (km2) 6.8 16.1 48.6

Notes: a Final value, when TSF is full; PAG = potentially acid-generating; NAG = non-acid-generating; TSF = tailings storage facility; NA = not applicable.

11

Hamson  4  

Rhetorical Appeal: Ethos This final assessment, written by a government agency, is using ethos to influence their audience

that the facts and information present in this assessment are credible and can be trusted. As

American citizens we trust our government has the means to not only to produce accurate

information but also to use that information in a way that is beneficial, not harmful, to American

citizens. This is the power we give our government and in this situation the EPA; we trust these

institutions because of the ethos they have in society.

Rhetorical Appeal: Logos Logos, another one of the three rhetorical appeals, is harder to find in this document because the

very nature of the publication is to be unbiased towards a particular side. Making it harder to find

the logic that is being used to support an argument. This publication takes a matter of fact

approach to writing, which is necessary to allow

both sides to feel that their side of the argument

is heard. This part of logos can coincide with

the ethos of the EPA, if the agency had a

reputation of not being fair, their ethos would

suffer like a corrupt judge in court.

Rhetorical Appeal: Pathos The third rhetorical appeal, pathos, is also

harder to locate in this publication. After asking

myself what my first impression of this

publication was and what is surprising about it,

I came up with an answer – the design of the

assessment. In this element of the assessment Sample  of  page  layout  

Hamson  5  

the agency gives away their true feelings on Bristol Bay. When thinking of the design of a

government document it is common to see something along the lines of simple, plain, and even

boring. The final assessment of Bristol Bay is none of those things, suggesting that the EPA

hired a design company to format this publication. Hiring a company costs money, which is not

something government agencies do if they are disinterested or do not care about a topics

outcome.

The images displayed in this publication give

the audience nostalgic emotions in-favor of

Bristol Bay and not the mine. In the beginning

of the publication the pictures are of

undeveloped areas that are lush with

vegetation, salmon populations are shown in

close-up high definition pictures, other animals

and community shots are included in the

“nostalgic” pictures of Bristol Bay. As the

publication continues on to potential mining

effects, there is one picture of a different mine

in Alaska that is brown and desolate looking

compared to the lush vegetation pictures before. If mining pictures had dominated the images or

pictures of the materials one gets from mining then it would suggest the EPA wants the reader to

think about the good that comes from the mining and not the adverse effects of mining.

Another element, which is reveling about the EPA’s opinion of Bristol Bay, is the chosen color

scheme of mainly blues and greens. When looking at colors, people unintentionally associate

Hamson  6  

them with certain meanings. For example, people associate blue with water and the sky and

green with nature. Blue symbolizes trust, wisdom, and intelligence; dark blue (color in

publication) in particular suggests knowledge, expertise, power, integrity, and seriousness. Blue

is known to give humans a calming feel. Green is a color that symbolizes growth and freshness;

it suggests stability and endurance. Green is known to “be the most restful color for the human

eye” and has a “strong correspondence with safety” (Color Meaning).

The chosen color scheme is an obvious pick as to why they choose blue and green; they directly

represent their subject. This could be interpret in a way that the EPA chose colors that

represented water and nature because they want their audience to associate Bristol Bay with

nature and all things natural, not an industrial toxic mine pit. Subtly they are influencing their

audience. This could also be said for the symbolism/meaning behind the colors themselves; blue

to show the report and the EPA can be trusted, green to suggest safety in keeping Bristol Bay

natural.

Also mentioned in the publication, Native Americans and how they are negatively affected by

the proposed mine; this argument is also using pathos. Most American’s regret the way our

government has dealt with Native American’s in the past and by stating that the mine might

create “changes in salmon fisheries [that] are expected to affect the health and welfare of Alaska

Native populations”, creates and emotional response in audiences and is not something most

people want to do to the Native Tribes (3).

Conclusion Overall the EPA effectively wrote the final assessment on Bristol Bay’s watershed. They were

able to inform their audience of the situation at hand and present them with unbiased

information. The EPA was able to quietly give their insight into what they think should happen

through the use of pathos in the design of this publication. The true test of the assessment is to

Hamson  7  

see what the CEQ decides is best for society as a whole. Will they be influenced by the

suggestions in the design and side with nature, or will the quality of the environment and social

wellbeing or the nations pocket book?

Bibliography  Color  Meaning.  11  March  2014  <www.color-­‐wheel-­‐pro.com/color-­‐meaning.html>.    Examples  of  Informative  Essays.  10  Feb  2014       <examples.yourdictionary.com/examples/examples-­‐of-­‐informative-­‐essays.html>.  US  Environmental  Protection  Agency.  An  Assesment  of  Petential  Mining  Impacts  on  Salmon     Ecosystems  of  Bristol  Bay,  Alaska.  Executive  Summary.  Government.  Seattle,  2014.