After the AK Department of Natural Resources made revisions to the original 1984 Bristol Bay area plan in 2005, environmental groups and Bristol Bay communities brought a law suit against the state agency. They were upset about how the state classified some of the lands. Thursday, DNR made its settlement official giving, three million extra acres a wildlife habitat classification.
"Just because a particular area is designated as being suitable for wildlife habitat, doesn't mean that the land is not available for other uses," DNR Commissioner Joe Balash said.
That's where the controversy lies. The wildlife habitat classification doesn't restrict other companies or groups from leasing lands out for other types of resource extraction like with the Pebble mine prospect. The classification can make companies like the Pebble Partnership adhere to sometimes more stringent regulations.
"I think what they did was perfectly appropriate," Pebble Project's John Shively said. "They felt like they had some problems with the plan that needed to be fixed.The state has the authority through the regulatory process to make sure if we're going to want mine that we mine correctly."
The DNR did meet its settlement requirements but Rewewable Resource Foundation's Anders Gustafson, who is a main opponent of the Pebble Project, says it didn't completely give the petitioners all they wanted.
"An initial glance it looks like some of the things the petitioners asked for were granted and other things were maybe ignored," Gustafson said. "The bottom line is that we're looking to make sure the renewable resources of the area are protected."
Now that some acres are co classified for wildlife habitat and mineral use, the ultimate question remains, 'Can those classifications coexist?'
Contact Garrett Turner: