The Middle River Group, LLC

fly fishing, conservation and politics.

Pebble Mine

Bristol Bay / Pebble Mine – Permit Application Denied

By

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers let science and common sense prevail over politics.

On Nov. 25, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) notified the Pebble Limited Partnership and the public that they had denied the application for the permit for the Pebble Mine project. The Corps said the project would not comply with the Clean Water Act and would be “contrary to the public interest.” The record of decision goes into the details of why they made the decision they did.

This is excellent news and a possible fatal wound to the Pebble project. Given the history of the project, one has to wonder whether any investors would be willing to finance this project.

The Corps also provided a memo for the record summarizing their findings for the compensatory mitigation plan. The memo listed nine elements required to be included in a complete compensatory mitigation plan. The plan submitted by Pebble was found to be noncompliant with all nine elements. You can download and read the Corps memo here.

Following the announcement, U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan issued a joint statement. Murkowski said:

After years of review and analysis, the Army Corps has found that this project is ‘contrary to the public interest,’ ending consideration of its permit application and affirming that this is the wrong mine in the wrong place. I thank the agency and the broader Trump administration for completing a rigorous, impartial, and science-based process to determine the best course of action. This is the right decision, reached the right way. It should validate our trust and faith in the well-established permitting process used to advance resource development projects throughout Alaska. It will help ensure the continued protection of an irreplaceable resource – Bristol Bay’s world-class salmon fishery – and I hope it also marks the start of a more collaborative effort within the state to develop a sustainable vision for the region.

Sullivan said:

I welcome the Army Corps’ Record of Decision to deny the permit. The Pebble Limited Partnership had its opportunity to present a project that could meet the high environmental standards in Alaska that we demand. Today, the Army Corps has made the correct decision, based on an extensive record and the law, that the project cannot and should not be permitted. Resource development is one of the key industries that drives Alaska’s economy and provides thousands of hard-working Alaskans with good-paying jobs and opportunity for the future. I will continue to be a strong advocate for these resource-development jobs and economic opportunities in our state. However, given the special nature of the Bristol Bay watershed and the fisheries and subsistence resources downstream, Pebble had to meet a high bar so that we do not trade one resource for another. As I have been saying since August, Pebble did not meet that bar and, accordingly, the Corps rightly denied the permit. Throughout this process, I’ve emphasized to senior federal officials and Alaskans that this decision needed to be based on science and data, not politics. I want to thank the Army Corps and the Trump administration for acting accordingly, giving this permit a fair hearing through the regular process, and ultimately following the law and the record to deny the permit.

The Pebble Partnership CEO, John Shively, issued the following statement regarding the decision by the Corps, referred to in the statement as USACE, to deny a permit for the Pebble project:

We are obviously dismayed by today’s news given that the USACE had published an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in July that clearly stated the project could successfully co-exist with the fishery and would have provided substantial economic benefit to the communities closest to the deposit. One of the real tragedies of this decision is the loss of economic opportunities for people living in the area. The EIS clearly describes those benefits, and now a politically driven decision has taken away the hope that many had for a better life. This is also a lost opportunity for the state’s future economy – especially at a time when Alaska is seeing record job losses from the impacts associated with Covid.

The Pebble Deposit contains minerals such as copper that are in the national interest as they will be necessary to support the nation’s transition to more renewable sources of energy and a lower carbon future. President-elect Biden has stated that increasing domestic copper production will be an important step in meeting these goals.

Since the beginning of the federal review, our team has worked closely with the USACE staff to understand their requirements for responsibly developing the project including changing the transportation corridor and re-vamping the approach to wetlands mitigation. All of these efforts led to a comprehensive, positive EIS for the project that clearly stated it could be developed responsibly. It is very disconcerting to see political influence in this process at the eleventh hour.

For now, we will focus on sorting out next steps for the project including an appeal of the decision by the USACE.

It’s pretty rich of Shively to cry political influence at this point, given all we know about Pebble’s actions around this project. We will have to wait and see what they do after sorting out the next steps.

In their joint statement, Senators Murkowski and Sullivan made it clear they support the Army Corps’ decision to deny the permit. Should Pebble try and resurrect this project, their statements of opposition will be put to the test.

There is good reason to believe this project will not happen. Still, history has shown that the backers are seemingly relentless in their desire to push forward. We will continue to watch closely and keep you informed.

Note: This article also appeared on the Marine Fish Conservation’s blog.

Bristol Bay / Pebble Mine – Murkowski Appropriations Statement

By

There continues to be a fair amount of discussion about the fate of the Pebble mine. One development worth looking at carefully is the statement Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the Senate’s Interior Appropriations committee, included with the committee’s bill.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2021
SUMMARY OF BILL

Protection of Resources in Bristol Bay, Alaska.—The Committee continues to monitor the Federal permitting process for the proposed Pebble mine project in southwest Alaska, including the efforts of the Department of the Interior, EPA, and independent subject matter experts to help protect the world-class ecosystem and salmon fishery in the Bristol Bay region from unavoidable adverse impacts. The Committee concurs with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ [Corps] assessment of August 24, 2020, that ‘‘the project, as proposed, cannot be permitted under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act’’ and appreciates the administration’s commitment to a decision guided by sound science.

The Committee notes that on August 20, 2020, the Corps separately sent a letter to the Pebble Limited Partnership outlining mitigation requirements for the project. The Corps requested a mitigation plan within 90 days that addresses both in-kind and compensatory requirements, which the Committee believes set an appropriately high bar for this unique project. In the absence of a valid mitigation plan that has received all necessary approvals at the Federal and State levels, the Committee urges the agencies to continue to withhold the applicant’s Clean Water Act permit.

If the Pebble Limited Partnership is unable to provide a full and functional compensatory mitigation plan that meets all requirements within the Corps’ requested 90-day timeframe, the Committee encourages the agencies to proceed to a decision denying the permit for the project.

Reaction from the folks who work on this issue day-to- day were not especially laudatory of the action.

I think if we would’ve seen something that essentially recommended no spending be allowed in the next fiscal year to move forward with the Pebble project, that would’ve been a little more reassuring. But this doesn’t do that,” Bristol said. “It just seems to sort of describe the situation as it is right now.”

Tim Bristol, executive director of SalmonState

According to an Associated Press report, Murkowski spokeswoman Karina Borger said the senator wanted the Corps to know it must hold the mitigation plan to a high standard and Pebble should end the process if the requirements cannot be met.

The language is a clear shot across the bow of the EPA. Hopefully, with the election behind us the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will let science rather than politics drive the decision. But if you are following the news you know anything could happen and the administration may decide to flip off the myriad interests who oppose this project.

We will have to wait and see what the Corps decides to do with Pebble’s mitigation plan. The people I talk to say the bar set by Corps is almost impossible to meet. If the Corps accepts it, and it doesn’t “provide a full and functional compensatory mitigation plan that meets all requirements” the ball will be in Senator Murkowski’s court.

Time will tell. In the meantime it can’t hurt to send a message to Senator Murkowski.

Sources:
https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/release/murkowski-unveils-interior-environment-bill-
https://apnews.com/article/alaska-bills-lisa-murkowski-appropriations-5199732752e804c15e0c0b8854171e2d
https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/11/10/murkowskis-latest-pebble-action-disappoints-mine-opponents/

Bristol Bay/Pebble Mine – Mitigation Plan Filed.

By

My friends at SalmonState put out an update last week. The mitigation plan has not been released to the public yet and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can take their time about making a decision. Some folks think the current administration will still do the right thing. I’m skeptical, but will be delighted to be proven wrong.

SalmonState: Pebble’s mitigation plan inherently flawed; veto only way to defend Bristol Bay

Anchorage, AK—Northern Dynasty Minerals, the parent company of the Pebble Limited Partnership, announced today [Nov. 16] that it has submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the mitigation plan it hopes will allow its proposed open pit mine and toxic dump at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, Alaska to move forward. Bristol Bay is the planet’s greatest sockeye salmon run and has provided more than half the world’s sockeye salmon catch in recent years. Despite that, the area remains unprotected from destructive mining impacts. 

“You cannot ‘mitigate’ your way out of a toxic 200-year megamine at the headwaters of the world’s most important wild salmon habitat, which is pristine. This ‘plan’ is a continuation of a crooked process full of off-the-record, back-room deal conversations between the Pebble Limited Partnership, the Alaska District of the Army Corps of Engineers, politicians and political appointees,” said SalmonState executive director Tim Bristol. “The only way to defend the incomparable salmon resource of Bristol Bay — and to ensure fishermen, Tribes and Alaskans aren’t dragged through this rubber stamp ‘process’ all over again — is for the EPA to immediately veto the permit application through the Clean Water Act.” 

The Alaska District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a history of rubber stamping “mitigation” measures inconsistently and, at times, going against its own guidelines. It does not plan to make Pebble’s mitigation plan public until it has reviewed it and deemed it “compliant.”

Numerous independent mining experts and scientists have also identified the Final Environmental Impact Statement on which the mitigation plan is based as fatally flawed, which means the plan Pebble submitted would be grossly inadequate were mitigation even possible. 

Pebble Mine Update: What the Army Corps Did and Didn’t Do

By

If you are following the saga of the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska, you would be forgiven if you thought recent action by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was the death knell for the proposed mine.

On August 24, the USACE released a letter to the Pebble Limited Partnership. The U.S. Army’s press office proclaimed, “Therefore, the Corps finds that the project, as currently proposed, cannot be permitted under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.”

In reality, the USACE essentially kicked the can down the road. The letter to the Pebble Limited Partnership informed them, “As part of the [Record of Decision] the [Alaska District of the USACE] made Clean Water Act Section 404(b) (1) factual determinations that discharges at the mine site would cause unavoidable adverse impacts to aquatic resources and, preliminarily, that those adverse impacts would result in significant degradation to those aquatic resources.” The Alaska District of the USACE determined that Pebble Limited Partnership would need mitigation measures within the Koktuli River Watershed, where the mine potentially will be located, for all direct and indirect impacts on aquatic resources caused by the mine’s discharges.

The letter went on to outline the ways those damages could be mitigated:

There are three approved mechanisms for providing compensatory mitigation, which include mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, and permittee-responsible mitigation with preference, in that order. Your mitigation plan may include a combination of means and mechanisms but must comply with all required components of Rule and be found sufficient to offset the unavoidable adverse impacts to the aquatic resources identified above.

Some reactions critics of the project from both sides of Capitol Hill were less than laudatory of the action. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) stated :

A mitigation plan to make up for unavoidable damage from the Pebble Mine is not enough. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for Pebble Mine did not assure me the pristine Bristol Bay region of Alaska, which is home to the world’s most productive salmon fishery, supports 14,000 jobs and generates $1.5 billion of revenue annually, would be sufficiently protected. I again urge the Administration to completely veto a Clean Water Act permit for this project.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) said :

Delaying the permit for the Pebble Mine is welcome news, but let’s be clear: the only reason this environmental atrocity came this close to happening is because the Trump administration is a favor factory for polluting industries. The previously rejected permit was revived and fast-tracked by this administration, and the only reason they finally hit the pause button is because – thankfully – some individuals close to President Trump made a personal appeal. We can welcome the outcome, but let’s not confuse any of this with environmental stewardship or good government.

This letter did not come as a surprise to the Pebble Limited Partnership. The company responded:

The letter we received today is a normal letter in the permitting process and we are well into an effort to present a mitigation plan to the USACE that complies with the requirements of their letter. A clear reading of the letter shows it is entirely unrelated to recent tweets about Pebble and one-sided news shows. The White House had nothing to do with the letter nor is it the show-stopper described by several in the news media over the weekend.

Now that dust has settled, let’s take a look at the facts included in the Corps’s letter, which should send chills down the spine of anyone who still thinks it is a good idea to permit this mine.

The letter tells us what is at stake:

Therefore, the District has determined that in-kind compensatory mitigation within the Koktuli River Watershed will be required to compensate for all direct and indirect impacts caused by discharges into aquatic resources at the mine site. Direct and indirect impacts at the mine site total 2,825 acres of wetlands, 132.5 acres of open waters, and 129.5 miles of streams.

The District has also determined that compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts to aquatic resources from discharges associated with the transportation corridor and the port site. Direct and indirect impacts associated with the transportation corridor and port site total 460 acres of wetlands, 231.7 acres of open waters, and 55.5 miles of streams.

Let me help you with the math. Here are the totals for what’s at risk:

  • 3,285 acres of wetlands
  • 364 acres of open waters
  • 185 miles of streams

So somewhere, somehow, the Pebble Limited Partnership is going to mitigate all that damage. As they said, “We will share more details of our initial plan as they become more defined.”

They have until November 20 to do that, although they seem to think it may happen sooner. “Based on our understanding of the substance of the letter, our discussions with the state, our substantial work in the field and our discussions with the USACE we believe our final Comprehensive Management Plan submission will be submitted within weeks and will satisfy all of the requirements of the letter.”

We shall see.

Here’s the rub. Bristol Bay is unique. How will that uniqueness be mitigated? How do you mitigate the loss of the world’s best salmon run?

On August 31, a letter from Representatives Huffman and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and signed by 31 of their colleagues to EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler, made the point, “There is no level of compensatory mitigation that would be sufficient to address the mine’s irreversible harm to the pristine environment that exists in Bristol Bay.”

The letter went on to ask “that the EPA exercise its authority under the Clean Water Act and oppose the flawed Environmental Impact Statement.”

Let’s hope the administration comes to realize that, as the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska said, “This is the wrong mine in the wrong place,” and vetoes the Clean Water Act permit. If the USACE and Environmental Protection Agency don’t see the light, hopeful Congress will make them feel the heat.

UPDATE (Oct 30, 2020): Tim Sohn writing in Outside Online, gives a terrific, recap, analysis and update on the state of play in Bristol Bay.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2418304/pebble-mine-tapes-election-explainer.

Your comments questions and other witty repartee are welcome around the Campfire.

Note: This article (pre update) originally appeared on the Marine Fish Conservation Network’s From the Waterfront blog.

EPA’s Draft Watershed Assessment for Bristol Bay

By

Hard work pays off.

The folks at TU’s Save Bristol Bay campaign and Sportsmen’s Alliance for Alaska deserve some serious congratulations. Because of their efforts the a critical milestone in the efforts to protect Bristol Bay has been reached. On May 18, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency put out a draft scientific study of the Bristol Bay watershedand its natural resources. The study is open for public comment through July 23, 2012. Scott Hed and Shoren Brown (below) in particular have been tireless in their efforts to get us to this point and have earned a round of applause at the very least and a round of drinks next time you see them.

These guys have reason to smile

Forewarned is Forearmed

EPA has taken an important step and deserves credit for being pro-active in doing this forward-looking assessment. Knowing what the potential challenges of a project this size could be and the ecological and economic impacts it could have, allows EPA and those who have an interest in Bristol Bay to be much better informed when it comes to siting mining or other extraction projects in the region.

 Sportsmen in particular have written, spoken out and shown their concerns about the impact a large-scale mining operation could have on the Bristol Bay watershed.

What the DRAFT Watershed Assessment says

Here is what EPA wrote in their press release:

“The report assesses the watershed’s natural resources and the economic benefits associated with those resources, including the largest undisturbed wild sockeye salmon run in the world. EPA’s draft study does not provide an in-depth assessment of any specific mining project, but instead assesses the potential environmental impacts associated with mining activities at a scale and with the characteristics that are realistically anticipated, given the nature of mineral deposits in the watershed, the requirements for successful mining development, and publicly available information about potential mining activity. The report concludes that there is potential for certain activities associated with large-scale mining to have adverse impacts on the productivity and sustainability of the salmon fishery in the watershed. Potential impacts could include loss of habitat used for salmon spawning and rearing. The assessment, when finalized following the important public comment and independent peer review, could help inform future decisions on any large-scale mining in Bristol Bay by both federal and non-federal decision-makers.
The draft assessment focused on the Nushagak and Kvichak watersheds, which produce up to half of all Bristol Bay salmon and are open to mining development under Alaska law.

Key findings in EPA’s draft assessment include:

  • All five species of North American Pacific salmon are found in Bristol Bay. The Bristol Bay watershed supports the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world. The Kvichak River produces more sockeye salmon than any other river in the world. The Nushagak River is the fourth largest producer of Chinook salmon in North America.
  • Bristol Bay’s wild salmon fishery and other ecological resources provide at least 14,000 full and part-time jobs and is valued at about $480 million annually.
  • The average annual run of sockeye salmon is about 37.5 million fish.
  • Bristol Bay provides habitat for numerous animal species, including 35 fish species, more than 190 bird species and 40 animal species.

EPA also examined the importance of Bristol Bay salmon in sustaining the traditional subsistence lifestyle of Alaska Native Villages in the watershed. The assessment includes detailed reports on Bristol Bay indigenous culture, wildlife and economics, as well as salmon and other fish.

TU’s Save Bristol Bay campaign website adds this:

“Even at its minimum size, mining the Pebble deposit would eliminate or block 55 to 87 miles of salmon streams and at least 2500 acres of wetlands – key habitat for sockeye and other fishes. EPA evaluated four types of large-scale mine failures, and found that even though precise estimates of failure probabilities cannot be made, evidence from other large mines suggest that “at least one or more accidents of failures could occur, potentially resulting in immediate, severe impacts on salmon and detrimental, long-term impacts on salmon habitat.”

What it means for Bristol Bay

This DRAFT assessment is a good first step. There is still a lot of work to be done however. EPA’s assessment is scientific and technical. It is not final, takes no regulatory action and “no way prejudges future consideration of proposed mining activities.”

Unless significant changes to the assessment are justified during the public comment and peer review period, EPA should take the next step and initiate a process under the Clean Water Act to protect Bristol Bay’s waters.

Please add your voice in support of protections for Bristol Bay; Click here to take action.

For information on public meetings and how to submit comments, visit EPA’s website:http://www.epa.gov/region10/bristolbay/.

For more information on EPA’s Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment and to read the assessment, visit:http://www.epa.gov/region10/bristolbay/

Saving Bristol Bay

By

Damn right it is worth protecting!

Tomorrow I will put on my American Fly Fishing Trade Association hat and join sportsmen from around the country in Washington, DC. We are gathering to tell our elected officials and the President that protecting Bristol Bay in Alaska is a top priority for sportsmen.

Scott Hed, director of the Sportsman’s Alliance for Alaska, shares the importance of our effort in this post from Trout Unlimted’s Save Bristol Bay website

Sportsmen fly to DC to tell President and Congress no to Pebble Mine

Next week, April 16 – 18, about 40 sportsmen from around the country are traveling to the nation’s capitol to let their elected officials and the President know that protecting Bristol Bay is a top priority for sportsmen.

This is an important week to show the folks who have the power to protect Bristol Bay that sportsmen are in this fight. We’ve got folks from Alaska, Montana, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Texas, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, Ohio, North Carolina, California, Missouri, New York, and Virginia representing this great country and the millions of people who want Bristol Bay to be protected.

A recent report by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation shows that there are 34 million hunters and anglers in the U.S., and we’re a powerful constituency. Every year, we pump $76 billion into the economy in pursuit of our passion, through our spending on gear, licenses, gas, lodging, meals and more. All of that spending and activity directly supports 1.6 million jobs in this country.

We are also an influential group because 80% of sportsmen are likely voters – much higher than the national average. And, we also contribute the most money of any group toward government wildlife conservation programs. So, hopefully if we care about an issue and show our support, the decision makers will listen to what we have to say.

In just a few weeks, the EPA will be releasing a draft of its Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment. This huge scientific assessment will likely guide future decisions about large-scale mining and other industrial development in the Bristol Bay region. If they find that disposal of waste from the mine would adversely harm the surrounding clean waters or natural resources, the EPA can deny or place restrictions on a required dredge and fill permit. If warranted, we hope the Obama Administration would take that step to protect Bristol Bay.

You can support the fight for one of planet Earth’s finest and most productive fishing and hunting destinations by taking action today. Fill out this simple form that will send a letter to the President and your members of Congress asking them to protect Bristol Bay. Let’s carry our sportsmen into D.C. with a lot of momentum.