January 17, 2014 — The following was released by Bristol Bay United:
On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency released the final version of its Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBWA). The BBWA details the risks of potential large-scale hard rock mining in Bristol Bay, Alaska, home to the world’s largest wild sockeye salmon fishery — a $1.5 billion industry that supports 14,000 jobs. The assessment was initiated after nine federally-recognized Alaska Native tribes, the Bristol Bay Native Corporation, commercial and sport fishing interests and others asked the EPA to use its Clean Water Act section 404(c) authority to protect Bristol Bay from the proposed Pebble Mine – a huge deposit of copper, gold, and molybdenum at the headwaters of two of Bristol Bay’s most productive rivers.
More than 75% of the 900,000 comments were in favor of EPA action to restrict hard rock mining in Bristol Bay. 85% of all Alaskans and 98% of those in the Bristol Bay region expressed support for what the EPA is doing in Bristol Bay in a state known for its support of resource development.
The BBWA gives ample evidence to back up the original request for EPA Clean Water Act action. Indeed, even without a major disaster or catastrophe, EPA found that the Pebble Mine would destroy up to 94 miles of salmon streams and up to 5,350 acres of wetlands, lakes, and ponds in Bristol Bay. And Pebble’s waste rock – which could be more than 10 billion tons – would have to be stored somewhere and that portion which is potentially acid generating will have to monitored and treated in perpetuity. With the final assessment now released, the EPA has the opportunity to protect both a unique natural resource and an economic powerhouse.
Stopping Pebble Mine will create certainty for existing American businesses
The Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery supports more than 14,000 jobs and $1.5 billion in economic impact. The continued threat of the proposed Pebble Mine has cast a cloud of uncertainty over this fishery for the last decade, denying businesses the confidence they need to make important investment decisions that would create more jobs. Even Senator Lisa Murkowski – typically very pro-development – has voiced frustration with the years of failed promises by Pebble to apply for permits. Now, the Pebble Limited Partnership (or PLP, the foreign mining company behind the mine) wants to drag the fishing industry through a second decade of uncertainty, including through a long National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and Clean Water Act permitting fight. This will only worsen the economic problems Pebble has already created. By using its well-established proactive Clean Water Act authority, the EPA can and should act now to provide certainty to the commercial fishermen, sportsmen and lodge owners, and subsistence fishermen who rely on Bristol Bay that Bristol Bay salmon will not be sacrificed in favor of the proposed Pebble mine.
Even Pebble’s own supporters acknowledge the tremendous risk of the project. In September 2013, Anglo American, which had invested over $540 million in the project, announced that it was withdrawing from the Pebble Limited Partnership. Even though it will take a $300 million loss on the project, Anglo American said it wanted to focus on projects with the “highest value and lowest risks.” In December, Rio Tinto – which owns a 19% stake in now-sole PLP partner Northern Dynasty Minerals – announced it is mulling divestment in Northern Dynasty.
The EPA has full authority to protect Bristol Bay
Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act was created to allow the EPA Administrator to prohibit, withdraw, deny, or restrict the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the waters of the United States if such discharge “will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.” EPA may do so “before a permit application has been submitted to the Corps.” The EPA’s Watershed Assessment found that, among other far-reaching impacts, Pebble would destroy 90 miles of salmon habitat under a “best case scenario.” The standard for a 404(c) action has already been met and exceeded by EPA.
Further, in the recent Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA case, a federal Appeals Court ruled that: "The Congress made plain its intent to grant the [EPA] administrator authority to prohibit/deny/restrict/withdraw a specification at any time.” The decision reaffirms the EPA’s authority to proactively restrict projects even before permits are filed. In fact in the initial regulations for the Clean Water Act’s 404c provision (44 Fed. Reg. 58076, 58077), the EPA recognized that “where possible it is much more preferable to exercise this [§404(c)] authority before the Corps or state has issued a permit…”
The EPA’s science is sound
In its assessment, the EPA used publically available information about the Pebble deposit put forward by Northern Dynasty Minerals, as well as reasonable copper mining scenarios in the Bristol Bay region. Through its peer-reviewed science, it is clear that mining on the scale of Pebble simply cannot coexist with a thriving and healthy fishery. In an earlier draft, one peer reviewer said:
“Make no mistake we cannot have both mining and productive salmon stocks in the Bristol Bay watershed. . . As a result of the mining operation, the government will be saddled with a 1000 years (at minimum) of monitoring and maintenance of this closed site.” (Stein)
Northern Dynasty Mineral’s own data is the backbone of the EPA Watershed Assessment
Though PLP claims it does not have a mining plan, the EPA based its assessment on documents publically filed by Northern Dynasty Minerals, and subsequent actions put serious doubt in this assertion. In 2006, the company submitted plans when it applied for water rights with the State of Alaska. In 2011, they submitted a preliminary assessment to the Securities Exchange Commission to solicit investor support for the project. And, PLP used realistic mining scenarios to release an economic study about the potential economic benefits of the Pebble Mine.
Moreover, as the EPA notes in the executive summary of the BBWA, “Even an environmental assessment of a specific plan proposed for permitting by a mining company would be an assessment of a scenario that would undoubtedly differ from the actual development.” What won’t change are the size, location, and potentially acid-generating type of ore for the Pebble deposit that is squarely located at the headwaters of the world’s most productive wild sockeye salmon fishery.
Pebble is a long-term burden for the government and taxpayers
Large-scale hard rock mines almost universally tend to leave pollution legacies that are left to the government and taxpayers to deal with. PLP CEO John Shively explained his views on mining pollution last year: “The biggest problems came not during mining, but after… At closure, we will have to have a system for closure, and we will have to have a very substantial amount of money set aside so that if we’re not available to work on closure, the government or someone else can do it.” This is hardly a reassuring promise to deal with the reclamation, long-term monitoring and water treatment that will be necessary in perpetuity.
There is unprecedented support for EPA action
Over 1,000 hunting and fishing groups and businesses, commercial fishermen in Alaska and across the U.S., 26,000 retail food stores, 225 chefs and restaurant owners, over 100 jewelers like Tiffany and Co., religious organizations and leaders, and many others support EPA action to protect Bristol Bay. In a state known for its strong support for resource development, polls show that nearly 60% of Alaskans and 80% of Bristol Bay residents oppose the Pebble Mine.
The Clean Water Act stands between Bristol Bay and massive mining development
The Pebble Mine will need 67 permits to start mining – 66 from Alaska, and one from the federal government. Alaska has never denied a permit for major resource development and the state is trying to pass legislation that would stack the deck even further in favor of mining proponents.
“We have a good process. We can permit a project like Pebble. It will take more time and more resources and more manpower.”
– Ed Fogels, Deputy Commissioner Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources (In Juneau Empire)
Further, if permitted, the proposed Pebble Mine will enable the development of a mining district that includes additional contiguous blocks of mining claims owned by other mining companies. As the assessment notes, the development of six other mine sites in the region could span an additional 14,000 acres and eliminate another 43 miles of streams, substantially increasing the likelihood that mining operations will adversely impact Bristol Bay ecosystems. Seven different mining operators have already established claims covering 965 square miles, an area 14 times larger than Washington D.C. If the Obama administration fails to stop the proposed Pebble mine, foreign mining companies could succeed in creating the largest open pit mines in North American history.
The EPA has the rare opportunity to both protect a vital habitat and thousands of American jobs by using its Clean Water Act authority in Bristol Bay.
For more information contact Lewis Lowe, 202-333-2234; lewisl@strategies360.com