Hundreds of Alaskans attended a pubic hearing in Anchorage June 4 on a controversial draft watershed assessment of the Bristol Bay region in Southwest Alaska, where the Pebble Partnership is considering developing a large copper and gold prospect.
About 60 percent of those testifying at the Anchorage hearing were critical of the assessment, however, most people who attended similar hearings in Southwest Alaska and Seattle encouraged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to preemptively veto the Pebble project.
Three state legislators – Senator Cathy Giessel, Representative Charisse Millet, and Representative Dan Saddler – criticized the EPA assessment as rushed, precedent setting, and a pre-judgment of a project on state-owned lands. Millet was particularly critical of the agency scheduling the first hearing on the assessment in Seattle.
Lisa Reimers, CEO of Iliamna Development Corporation, said that Iliamna, the village nearest to the project, opposes the assessment because of the uncertainty it creates for land use activities on Native-owned lands in the region.
In a statement released before the Anchorage hearing, Pebble CEO John Shively said, “We believe that the EPA has rushed its assessment process, and that this is especially problematic in light of the large size of the study area. We have taken several years and expended considerable resources to study the ecosystem in a small area around the Pebble deposit, while the EPA has, in only one year and with limited resources, completed a draft assessment in relation to an area of approximately 20,000 square miles. We believe that this explains why the EPA’s work has not yet approached the level of rigor and completeness required for a scientific assessment.”
In his testimony at the Anchorage hearing, Shively said that preemptively vetoing Pebble now would be no different than approving the project before it enters the permitting process. He said opponents of the mine would “howl” if the assessment was being conducted to consider a premature approval of the project, and he said they would be right to oppose such an assessment.
The EPA chose to do the assessment after it was petitioned to use its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to preemptively veto any dredge or fill permits in wetlands associated with mining and the Pebble Project.
Alaska Native tribes close to the project asked EPA to refrain from such action until a formal permit application has been submitted and the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act initiated. Having never used its authority preemptively, the EPA said it decided instead to conduct a watershed assessment to help “inform its decision” on potential impacts of large-scale mining in the region.
EPA did no scientific fieldwork on the assessment other than a literature review. It also conducted interviews with 54 tribal elders to gather traditional knowledge on the region’s bountiful salmon fisheries.
The State of Alaska has strongly objected to the assessment, insisting it is premature and unprecedented, given the Pebble Partnership has not yet developed a mine plan and filed applications for permits. The State has said that any consideration of impacts should be made within the context of a specific, detailed mine plan, including proposed mitigation measures.
The State has said that if the EPA were to deny Pebble access to the process through a preemptive veto, such action would rob Alaska of its sovereign right to determine uses on state land in Southwest Alaska, where land use designations already prohibit or restrict resource development on about 70 percent of the land base. Pebble is located on state land specifically designated for mineral exploration.
The State’s Attorney General has warned that preemptive action on Pebble would not only be illegal, it would deprive government agencies and stakeholders of the specific information, science, and rigorous reviews that would come out of the multi-year permitting process.
The CWA does give the EPA authority to veto other agencies’ approval of permits. But it is unprecedented that the agency would prepare its watershed assessment in advance of any permit application. The agency has rarely used its veto authority and never in advance of permits being issued by other agencies.
Pebble must successfully obtain more than 60 major permits from state and federal government agencies before advancing. An environmental impact statement will be required, including analysis of Pebble’s detailed plans and proposed mitigation measures.
When Pebble presents its package to regulators, government agencies will thoroughly analyze the project to determine if it can coexist with fish. If the science-driven process ultimately determines the project would have an adverse effect on Bristol Bay, Pebble would not advance.
The EPA assessment concludes a large-scale mine would result in significant impact on fish populations in streams and wetlands surrounding the site. However, the streams near the prospect contribute only a very small fraction of the total salmon runs in Bristol Bay, and the assessment ignores mitigation that will be required to offset unavoidable impacts.
The EPA assessment also ignores the positive benefits of Pebble in a region without a diverse economy. While the fishery provides important commercial and subsistence benefits, fishing alone has not provided the needed support to improve the region’s economy. Fishing by its nature is seasonal, and a majority of those employed in the fishery live outside Alaska. People in the region are leaving and schools have closed. Yet a large project like Pebble has the potential to diversify the local economy, providing thousands of year-round jobs.
RDC urged that final decisions on Pebble should come through the established process, and only after the completion of a thorough environmental impact statement and evaluation of the project.
“The process was designed to provide a full and honest assessment with public input at various phases to help reach informed decisions,” said RDC Executive Director Rick Rogers. “If EPA preemptively vetoes Pebble, it would undermine the process and set a dangerous precedent for future projects.”
The EPA is accepting comments on the assessment until July 23. For additional information and comment points, please see the RDC Action Alert at akrdc.org.
Return to newsletter headlines
