August 12, 2019 — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency changed its position on the Pebble Mine project after Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy met with President Donald Trump, according to a CNN report.
Although the EPA’s decision not to oppose the mining project was made public on 30 July, staff scientists at the agency learned of the decision a month before, soon after the meeting. Dunleavy met with Trump while Air Force One was in Alaska on 26 June on the way to the G20 summit in Japan.
August 1, 2019 — The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will withdraw protections implemented by in 2014 under the Clean Water Act that could have posed a hurdle to the proposed Pebble Mine development, which many salmon harvesters say threatens Alaska’s Bristol Bay fishery.
The EPA said in a July 30 statement that it will withdraw section Clean Water Act 404(c) provisions that would have restricted the use of “certain waters in the South Fork Koktuli River, North Fork Koktuli River, and Upper Talarik Creek watersheds in southwest Alaska as disposal sites for dredged or fill material”.
Under the administration of president Barack Obama, the EPA implemented the provisions in 2014. Three years later after the election of president Donald Trump, the agency’s then-head, Scott Pruitt, began the process to withdraw the protections. However, following an investigative report from CNN that claimed that Pruitt made the decision to withdraw the protections only an hour after meeting with the CEO of mine developer Pebble Limited Partnership, Tom Collier, Pruitt stopped the withdrawal process.
July 31, 2019 — The Environmental Protection Agency announced Tuesday it will reverse an Obama-era decision to block a controversial Alaska mine project.
“After today’s action EPA will focus on the permit review process for the Pebble Mine project” Region 10 Administrator Chris Hladick said in a statement.
“The agency has worked closely with the Army Corps to engage with stakeholders and the public on this issue, which has resulted in an expansive public record, including specific information about the proposed mining project that did not exist in 2014,” Hladick added.
While the EPA is withdrawing the 2014 determination, which it wrote “was issued preemptively and is now outdated,” the withdrawal does not constitute an approval of the permit application or a determination in the permitting process.
July 22, 2019 — The diverse coalition of Alaskans working to protect Bristol Bay would like to respond to the recent comments by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency stating major deficiencies in Pebble’s plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), as well as last week’s news that the EPA will resume the withdrawal process for the 2014 proposed determination that would protect the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed.
Our diverse coalition formed after six Bristol Bay Tribes petitioned the EPA in 2010 for help protecting the water and land that sustains our communities. The request was quickly supported by commercial and sport fishing groups, and our broad collection of Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, commercial fishermen, sport fishing businesses and enthusiasts and Alaska-based conservation groups. Together, we seek to protect the world-class treasure that is the Bristol Bay salmon fishery from the proposed Pebble mine.
Since this request was made, major financial backers have abandoned the project, a twice-peer reviewed study found that mining the Pebble deposit would have unacceptable adverse impacts to the fishery, and the majority of Alaskans have continually opposed the project. Now, the EPA has said Pebble’s permit application confirms its prior finding: Pebble Mine cannot safely coexist with the fishery.
The EPA’s multi-year public process and the resulting proposed determination included every stakeholder group – our organizations, state government representatives, scientific experts, Bristol Bay residents and the Pebble Partnership all had seats at the table.
July 12, 2019 — The Environmental Protection Agency issued harsh assessments of the proposed Pebble Mine last week, and they’ve made an impression on Lisa Murkowski. But the senator says her powers are limited.
For years, Murkowski has stayed neutral on the mine itself while defending the permitting process, so her recent statements are uncharacteristically pointed.
“I have read the 404(q) submission and the issues that are raised by the EPA are substantial and, based on my read, well made,” she said Wednesday, referring to the agency’s review of Pebble’s proposal.
The EPA found the project “may have substantial and unacceptable adverse impacts” on the fish and fish habitat in the Bristol Bay watershed.
July 9, 2019 — On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency released its formal comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Pebble Mine.
The 100-page release pointed to a bevy of environmental studies that highlight potential harm to land, water and animals in the Bristol Bay region — consequences that the EPA claims were not fully considered in the draft EIS from the Army Corps of Engineers.
One of those studies focused on the growth and development of young salmon in a region with the largest wild sockeye run in the world.
One of the study’s co-authors, Daniel Schindler, said his findings show that the waters where young sockeye and Chinook salmon grow and develop can shift from year to year. Essentially, even rivers and streams that don’t serve as homes for young fish now, may do just that in the future.
“Certain parts of the habitat do well in some years,” Schindler said. “And other parts of the habitat do better in other years. So it’s really the intact nature of the whole Nushagak watershed that produces such reliable returns to the fishery.”
July 3, 2019 — The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday moved to ensure it has a role negotiating the terms of any permit for the massive Pebble Mine planned near Alaska’s Bristol Bay, a move that may bolster the permit’s chances of approval.
The EPA’s action comes as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluates how the proposed gold, copper and molybdenum mine would affect the region’s water, land and thriving salmon fishery. In comments filed with the Army Corps, the EPA invoked a provision in a federal clean-water law that would allow top officials from both agencies to work out disagreements over a potential mine permit.
The EPA last week decided to resume consideration of proposed water pollution restrictions that threatened the project since the Obama administration outlined the restrictions in 2014.
The EPA’s continued involvement could be welcomed by supporters of the mine, developer Pebble LP and its parent company, Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
However, the EPA stressed that its action should not be viewed as a decision on the project or what to do about those five-year-old proposed restrictions. Regional EPA officials are coordinating with the Army Corps “to ensure that the EPA can continue to work with the Corps to address concerns raised during the permitting process,” the agency said in letters and formal comments made public Tuesday.
May 29, 2019 — A nonprofit that tracks pollution in the Chesapeake Bay lambasted Pennsylvania on Tuesday, saying that the state is failing to protect the nation’s largest estuary from farm manure and dirty stormwater.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation released a report saying Pennsylvania’s plan to reduce pollution from farms and cities is “woefully inadequate” and underfunded by about $250 million a year.
The foundation also warned that the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to keep Pennsylvania on track. It’s one of six states, along with the District of Columbia, federally required to significantly reduce bay pollution by 2025.
“If EPA does not hold Pennsylvania accountable, CBF and others must consider legal action,” foundation President William C. Baker warned in a news release.
Pennsylvania officials said the foundation’s assessment is inaccurate and failed to account for all of the state’s efforts. The EPA said in its own statement that Pennsylvania has made “significant” progress.
The foundation’s report is the latest note of caution about the Chesapeake Bay’s health, which appears to be improving after decades of unbridled pollution.
In recent years, the story of the 200-mile-long (325-kilometer-long) bay has mostly been about signs of recovery. Underwater grasses are spreading. Oxygen dead zones are shrinking. The latest survey of blue crabs showed the highest estimates in seven years.
But environmentalists say more work is needed and threats like climate change still loom. Last year, a punishing cycle of downpours led to increased pollution in the bay, according to a recent report from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.
May 20, 2019 — Optimism, as related to a possible increase in funding for Puget Sound recovery, permeated discussions last week, when 80 officials from the region met with lawmakers in the nation’s capitol.
“It’s the first time in several years that we’ve actually been in a position to direct more money to Puget Sound programs,” said U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, during one of many “Puget Sound Day on the Hill” meetings.
With Democrats now in control of the House, they can draft a budget that fits their priorities for a host of projects — from civil rights legislation to funding for climate change. Of course, the challenge will be to get their issues through the Senate.
“It is really heartwarming to see the optimism that they are expressing, almost to a member,” said Stephanie Solien, vice chair of the Leadership Council, the oversight board for the Puget Sound Partnership. The partnership coordinates the wide-ranging efforts to restore Puget Sound to ecological health.
Kilmer said he was sworn to secrecy about the actual numbers in the soon-to-be-released House appropriations bill, “but when it comes to fish funding and Puget Sound funding, we did very well.”
When Republicans controlled both the House and Senate, funding was substantially reduced for environmental programs, including money for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which operate specific funds for improving salmon habitat and restoring major estuaries throughout the country.
The Trump administration’s proposed budget the past two years “zeroed out” funding for the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, which supports salmon-restoration efforts throughout the Northwest. But Republicans and Democrats worked together to restore the levels to $65 million, which is spread across five states.
May 10, 2019 — The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has backed down on the terms of a proposed pollution permit for seafood processors in the state, after the last iteration of the permit expired eight years ago, according to the Statesman Journal.
Since the permit expired, more than a dozen Oregon seafood processors have been operating under an administrative extension as negotiations have taken place.
The Department of Environmental Quality began regulating the discharges of seafood producers in 1982, in an attempt to crack down on the shells, bones, blood and fish waste as well as chemical byproducts that were being dumped into bodies of water by companies.
When the department put out the initial version of a proposed permit in spring of last year, politicians representing fishing communities on Oregon’s coast had called the regulations “extreme.”
“In Oregon, seafood processing is a key component of coastal economies and we ask that the state revisit the revision process for the [permit] in a way that supports the success of this critical industry,” state legislators wrote in a letter to the DEQ.