EPA Archives - One Fish Foundation

Administration Forces EPA About-Face, Revokes Bristol Bay Protections

July 31, 2019October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Boy, was my Alaska trip’s timing impeccable. I got to see the pulse and vibrance of the fishery and the economy it supports. I got to see the deep connections people of all stripes have to the salmon, the water, the land. I arrived during the heart of the world’s largest sockeye run.

I also arrived just as the Environmental Protection Agency District 10 in Seattle issued a blistering statement castigating the US Army Corps of Engineers’ draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Pebble Mine. The letter claimed the EIS had some serious flaws, and “…may result in substantial impacts to waters of the United States within the Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet watersheds.”

Folks I spoke with about the EPA statement felt bolstered by the statement after fighting the mine for over a decade, particularly given the administration’s push to approve the mine in the past two years.

But as I said before, this is a chess match, and the administration yesterday pulled what I’m sure they consider a “trump” move by rolling back federal Clean Water Act protections for Bristol Bay established during the Obama administration.

Make no mistake. This is outright politics at the expense of natural resources and the 15,000 people who depend directly and indirectly on those resources, whose total economic impact is now valued at over $1.5 billion. At stake is a truly priceless, irreplaceable resource that can continue to fuel the region’s economic engine … or billions in profits for a small group of investors. Do corporate interests really outweigh the rights of citizens?

Think of the colossal irony. Think of Chris Hladick, the EPA Region 10 Administrator who penned the July 1 letter slamming the EIS, only to be forced to publicly backtrack. Several entities supporting the mine claimed they wanted to see the science that this mine could harm the natural resource. Hladick pointed out some of the flaws in the EIS in his July 1 letter. The EIS itself essentially skated over the original finding from the EPA under the Clean Water Act in 2014, declaiming the potential devastating harm of such a mine on the salmon and its habitat.

Yesterday’s announcement demonstrates the folly that mine supporters call “due process,” but is more a proof point of power politics, influence, potential collusion and graft. It screams, “JUST JOKING! We mean to railroad this mine through and strip the very protections we said would preserve the resource in the region.”

I’ve just talked to a couple of people fighting the fight. They are angry and sadly unsurprised at the political arm-twisting from the administrations of both governor and president. Particularly as this arm-twisting is in support of a mining company based in Canada, not the U.S.

A deckhand on a tender weighs part of Melanie Brown’s set net sockeye harvest during the heart of the season.

But the folks I spoke to are still resolved.

They have to be. In their view, their lives and livelihoods are essentially at stake. As for the mine’s investors, their bank account profits are at stake.

This issue forces people to check their moral compass. If we can’t protect the salmon, their habitat, and the thousands who depend on them, where are we headed? What does this mean for other priceless public spaces?

If this issue has struck a cord, follow this link for more information on how to speak out and get involved. Contact your representatives and senators in Washington, D.C., regardless of where you live. Every voice counts.

Also, stay tuned for the Fish Tales Podcast, which will feature the voices of those on the front lines of the battle to save Bristol Bay from such wanton development. You’ll hear what life is like in Bristol Bay, and why preserving it matters so much to those who live and work there.

Other resources:

Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay Press Release regarding EPA’s reversal

United Tribes of Bristol Bay Press Release

July 1 EPA Region 10 letter from Administrator Chris Hladick, voicing concerns over Army Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Impact Statement

All Blog Posts

Something There Is That Doesn’t Love A Mine

April 1, 2019October 19, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Nanci Morris Lyon’s daughter was born the year the Pebble Mine project was first proposed in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Rylie Lyon is now a sophomore in college. She is a guide at her family’s recreational fishing operation, Bear Trail Lodge, in King Salmon, Alaska. Nanci spoke out against the mine then, and she’s still doing it today.

Talk about a telling timeline.

Why is it that this mining project, purported to be resting on one of the world’s largest copper, gold and molybdenum deposits, has neither begun operation nor been abandoned as a bad job in nearly 20 years? Only recently did the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers just release its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS, which would form the basis for considering possible impacts of allowing the mine to operate) for public comment.

Ponder this the next time you use your cell phone, hop online or drive to the store: Those minerals are in more everyday items than most people know. Their claimed abundance in the geologic veins hiding in the Earth’s crust near Bristol Bay has sparked much controversy during the past two decades, sometimes, pitting neighbor against neighbor in Alaska.

Why have Lyon, her family, staff, friends and most everyone else in and around the recreational, commercial and indigenous fishing industries in the Bristol Bay region continued fighting this mine for this long? That such a unified and vocal coalition of very diverse groups and cultures directly tied to the resource continues to stand united says something.

With apologies to Robert Frost, something there is that doesn’t love a mine. Particularly this mine in this spot.

Rylie Lyon with a spring rainbow trout, just a few weeks ago. Photo courtesy Nanci Lyon

In perpetuity

The biggest concern is that minerals mining produces highly toxic chemicals that permeate much of the rock and other sedimentary layers exhumed from the earth in the process to extract the desired gold, copper and molybdenum. All of that nasty stuff must be stored safely somewhere forever. Whatever happens in that watershed now has generational impacts on everything, from salmon to water to land.

Mines aren’t supposed to let that crap loose in Nature. Sadly, time and again they do. Look no further than what happened in Brumadinho, Brazil in January, or what happened at the Mt. Polley Mine in 2014.

Aftermath of Mt. Polley tailings impoundment failure. This dam was initially engineered by the same firm engineering Pebble’s dam. National Park Service Photo

People like Lyon, and my friend and colleague Melanie Brown, who fishes for sockeye salmon with her mom and other family members near Naknek, have been fighting Pebble from the beginning. Melanie’s connection to Bristol Bay traces back over generations as her family has fished those waters commercially and for subsistence with the natural rhythms of returning salmon.

Opposition to the mine stems from its proposed location just north of Lake Iliamna, in the watershed of the world’s largest wild sockeye run … and the rivers that Brown, Lyon and thousands of others depend on for their livelihoods.

They don’t view the Pebble Mine as a potential resource for their phones and computers. They view it as a ticking bomb. In their minds, the question isn’t whether something is going to go wrong. It’s when, at what scale, and whether the damage is permanent. What they fear most is the salmon won’t return.

Melanie Brown doing what she loves near Naknek. Photo courtesy Melanie Brown

Political tide change

Less than three years ago, the mine was left for dead, sentenced to purgatory by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, which in 2014 declared the mine would violate the Clean Water Act because of its imminent threat to the wild salmon watershed. This was good news for everyone supporting the natural resource that provides a nearly $2 billion economic boost to the Alaska economy and supports over 14,000 jobs for commercial and recreational fishing businesses as well as countless related operations. Those numbers dwarf any realistic economic impact the mine would have on the state.

Then two elections happened (in 2016 and 2018), dramatically turning the political tides at both the federal and state levels and breathing life back into the project.

A 30-minute conversation between Pebble Limited Partnership CEO Tom Collier and former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in 2017 undid all of the work that Lyon, Brown, and many, many others amassed over decades to fight the project.

I wonder if someone uttered, “Good mines make good neighbors” in that meeting.

And now the mine’s permitting process, once estimated at decades if it ever got off the ground, is on a fast track. The Corps of Engineers on Feb. 20 released its draft EIS in “record time” by many accounts. Several critics claim the EIS glazes over if not outright ignores the ample scientific, economic and straightforward concerns voiced by recreational, commercial and indigenous fishermen, business owners, residents, scientists and countless voices from outside the state.

One chief concern is that the EIS does not account for the inevitable expansion the mine would have to undergo just to try and make a profit. Read this scathing economic review by a former permitting expert with one of the world’s largest mining operations (Rio Tinto, which previously pulled away from a financial deal with Pebble Limited Partnership). According to his analysis, the mine as proposed would have a big negative net present value of -$3 billion.

And despite loud protestations to extend the comment period sufficiently to allow thorough examination of the EIS and appropriate response, the Corps seems unwilling to do so. The comment period currently ends May 30, 2019.

Passion to safeguard Nature and livelihoods. Photo: Seafood News

Worse still, the last election produced a new pro-mine governor, who has appointed pro-mine commissioners (including a former employee of Anglo American, one of the world’s largest mining operations, which also pulled away from a financial deal with Pebble) of the departments of Environmental Conservation and Fish and Game. This move essentially sets the stage to fast-track state permits (of which there are nearly 60 to secure).

Follow the money

So why the rush? If the mine is as much a fait accomplis as its backers would have you think, why are they pushing state and federal agencies, which are supposed to have the state’s best interests (read natural resources and citizens) in mind, to approve everything now?

Perhaps it’s that Pebble’s owners want the appearance of momentum to continue so they might attract yet a fifth financial backer to the altar. The previous four, including three of the four largest mining interests in the world, bailed out citing massive opposition and the risk of economic disaster.

Maybe it’s the nifty clause that promises Collier more than $12.5 million in bonus money if he secures a positive Record of Decision from the Corps of Engineers within 4 years of submission of the permit (in Dec. of 2017). That’s on top of his $2+ million salary.

Talk about scale and incentive. The tailings impoundment to hold the toxic waste produced to extract these minerals would be up to 700 feet deep and extend for several miles. *And it must be secured “in perpetuity.”*

This is the same Collier recently quoted railing against the mine’s opposition: “I believe that a lot of these environmental organizations choose issues in Alaska. They make them cause celebs so they can raise money around them. And they choose Alaska primarily because they don’t have to suffer the backlash from the economic impact of the project being killed because no one gives a rat’s ass what happens in Alaska.”

Is that so? Within the Bristol Bay region, opposition to the project remains at over 75 percent, with the latest state-wide poll showing 61 percent opposed across Alaska. In 2014, 65% of Alaskans voted in favor of a measure that would require approval by the state legislature (rather than simply the state Department of Environmental Services) of any mine project that would threaten salmon habitat.

But then again, politics and money can make a difference. A ballot measure was defeated last November that would have added enforcement teeth to existing state laws that would have made permitting a mine in crucial salmon habitat harder to do. How did this happen so soon after the 2014 vote?

Because Ballot measure 1’s proponents, which included many of the same collective of fishermen, business owners and residents opposing the mine, were out-spent by several out-of-state companies. Supporters raised close to $2 million. Opponents raised close to $12 million, with the top five cash donors being such “neighbors” as Conoco Phillips ($1.4 million), BP Exploration (Remember Deepwater Horizon! $1.05 million), Donlin gold ($976,000), Hecla Mining Company, (just shy of $1 million), Coeur Alaska, (just shy of $1 million).

Oh, and let’s not forget other outside influences, such as the Koch brothers, who funded the Alaska Policy Forum, Power the Future, and Americans for Prosperity- Alaska Chapter, which operated an influence campaign to defeat Ballot Measure 1.

Profits over living natural resources, anyone?

Rolling boulders, not pebbles up hill

Certainly the mine’s operation would most significantly benefit its owners, managers and shareholders, maybe a few dozen.

On the other side of the fence are tens of thousands currently working in harmony with the salmon resource. This has been a grueling uphill battle for Lyon, Brown and everyone else standing up to outside influence. Years of persistent, grinding effort and emotion, speaking out publicly, holding signs, singing songs and writing letters take an emotional, spiritual and physical toll.

Why keep at it?

Because it’s their way of life. A connection to the land and water and salmon deeply intertwined with who they are.

Perhaps that’s a reminder of what should be important, whether we live in Bristol Bay or not. Yes, we depend on our cell phones and stuff like that. But there’s something else at work here.

Perhaps mining interests/investors/manufacturers should find the raw materials somewhere else, where there isn’t an imminent threat to a priceless resource that may not be able to recover should when something bad happens.

Can the forces working to topple a fabled stone wall in northern New England woods serve as a proxy for what’s really at risk in Bristol Bay?

Would that we could ask the salmon.

Resources

Speak out: Your voice matters, whether you live in Alaska or not. Here’s a link to comment on the US Army Corps of Engineers draft EIS.
Let Sen. Lisa Murkowski R-Alaska, know what you think. She needs to hear from everyone, in and out of the state. Follow the link and add additional comments if you are out of state but concerned.
Good resource for timeline, facts and ways to engage: Save Bristol Bay
Pebblewatch, which also has some cool maps
National Park Service in-depth analysis of the long-term effects of tailings impoundment failures.
A Bristol Bay fisherman speaks out in Juneau Empire op-ed against the mine.
Op-ed by Ron Thiessen, CEO of Northern Dynasty Minerals, which owns Pebble Limited Partnership. Funny how this “neighbor” tells people not to buy into “the alarmism” about the mine, but doesn’t mention his salary is over $2 million. Even more ironic is that he encourages people to read the Army Corps of Engineers’ EIS, but fails to mention that it is incomplete and virtually ignores most of the more damning issues raised in the first phase of public comment.
Finally, if you love wild Pacific salmon, and would like to do something beyond commenting, check out this offer from Wild for Salmon.

Top photo: Alaska Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service/Flickr

All Blog Posts

Don’t Open The Door to the Pebble Mine

January 16, 2018October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

Like a bad horror flick with predictable surprises hidden behind closed doors, we are watching an environmental tragedy unfold and we’re screaming at the top of our lungs at the screen…to no avail. Only this time, the protagonist isn’t some likeable, yet extremely naïve teenager. It’s the administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. And what’s behind the door isn’t a chainsaw brandishing, mask-wearing lunatic. It’s 10 billion tons of toxic waste threatening the watershed for the world’s largest and most significant wild salmon run.

The carnage is not immediate, but its impact would be permanent.

Imagine a flood of toxic waste destroying this wild salmon habitat. NOAA photo

Such is the horror of the proposed Pebble Mine, resuscitated thanks to drastic and surprising reversals of environmental policy under the current administration, which seems to be wielding an axe over the Bristol Bay region of Alaska.

How did we get here?

Talk about drama. Consider that Northern Dynasty Minerals, which acquired leases to begin exploring the region for minerals (copper, gold, molybdenum, etc) in 2001, has said it was ready to begin operations only to backtrack and withdraw promises several times since. It has signed with, then alienated four different financial/mining partners. Two of the largest mining operations in the world, Anglo American and Rio Tinto, pulled out because of massive opposition from Native tribes, commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, business owners, politicians and US citizens.

Once the financial backing walked, Northern Dynasty’s stock plummeted, and proceeding was fiscally impossible without another partner.

One of many continuing traditions. You know you want some. NOAA photo

The previous administration ruled the mine would violate the Clean Water Act. With its back against the wall, Northern Dynasty filed three separate lawsuits.

Here are some of the concerns scientists and the previous administration had with the project:

The initial proposal would have made the Pebble mine the largest in North America and one of the largest in the world, with a 20-square mile footprint (almost the size of Manhattan).
The giant pond to hold the tailings, the toxic waste, originally was to be 10 square miles in area, up to 700 feet deep and hold up to 10 billion tons of toxic waste that could devastate critical salmon spawning areas in three major rivers.
This tailings impoundment would be “held” by a dam 700 feet high (think the wall in Game of Thrones).
The mine’s owners would have to continually treat the toxic waste in that impoundment area to keep it stabilized.
The dam would be built over a seismically active area subject to earthquakes.
Scientists question whether the proposed dam could withstand a major earthquake, like the one that struck the region in 1964.
The dam and the rest of the tailings impoundment are currently scheduled to be designed by the same firm that designed the Mt. Polley Mine dam that failed in 2014, releasing more than 24 million cubic feet of toxic waste into the Fraser River estuary.
The toxic waste would have to be held in the Pebble tailings impoundment in perpetuity: translation, forever.

For these reasons and others, the EPA in 2014 preemptively ruled the mine as proposed would pose an imminent threat to the watershed, effectively shutting down the project. In so doing, the administration actively used the Clean Water Act to defend a vital natural resource whose value can be measured in $1.5 billion in revenue from commercial and recreational fishing and supporting 14,000 jobs.

The difference a year makes

Then we had a regime change, and that haunting piano theme from the original Halloween movie started playing in the background.

Now Northern Dynasty claims it has another financial backer, First Quantum Minerals, which will reportedly pay up to $150 million over four years to secure the federal permitting. The Pebble Limited Partnership filed its permit application with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before Christmas. The company claims it is seeking permits for a substantially smaller operation than originally proposed (down to 5.4 square miles with a smaller tailings impoundment). But opponents argue this new plan is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” speculating the partnership will quickly move to expand the footprint once operations start.

The question isn’t whether Northern Dynasty will get those permits. That much seems obvious given recent pronouncements from the administration. The question is what happens next in Alaska. Even with the federal permits finalized, the mine’s owners would need to secure some 60 state permits.

This time last year, the political winds in Alaska seemed to have shifted more toward opposing the mine. In 2014, 65% of Alaskans voted in favor of a measure that would require approval by the state legislature (rather than simply the state Department of Environmental Services) of any mine project that would threaten salmon habitat. And people in the legislature and Gov. Bill Walker have voiced strong opposition.

But what are the current political winds in Alaska regarding the mine now that the administration openly favors the project? Is there enough political will to stand up to pressure from the administration? Will legislators and the governor move to protect those 14,000 jobs, which far outnumber the jobs impact of the proposed mine? Do they have the courage to stand for a crucial ecosystem that is woven into the fabric of the state’s identity?

The next few months should be telling.

Today, opponents submitted a ballot initiative accompanied by nearly 50,000 resident signatures to the state legislature that would essentially give the state the same power to review and limit mining projects that would jeopardize wild fish populations as the EPA used under the Clean Water Act in 2014. Called Yes for Salmon, the initiative would be put on the general election ballot next November.

In the meantime, skip the movie popcorn and go for the computer or phone. If protecting these resources is important to you, then silence is not an option. The EPA has been inundated with more feedback than ever because of this issue. But it’s important to show Alaska state and federal legislators and the governor that people outside of Alaska are concerned.

Once that door is opened, it’s going to be damn hard to shut it again.

Here are some contacts if you want to be heard:

Alaska Governor Bill Walker

Alaska Senator Murkowski – (202) 224-6665
Alaska Senator Sullivan – (202) 224-3004

Here are some links for more info:

Save Bristol Bay: Good resource for the backstory on how we got here and why we should care.

Stand for Salmon: Organization aimed at changing state laws so the legislature has more authority over permitting for operations that could endanger wild salmon populations.

Businesses for Bristol Bay: Advocacy group aimed at supporting the region’s fishery and the industry that it supports.

EPA website explaining why it chose to use Section 404 of Clean Water Act to protect Bristol Bay in 2016. This was before the new EPA administrator reversed that decision last spring in what appears to have been a 30-minute meeting between the administrator and the CEO of Northern Dynasty.

CNN report on the EPA reversal to open the door to the mine last spring.

All Blog Posts

Fake News: Making Mountains Out Of The Pebble Mine

January 27, 2017October 20, 2021
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

If there’s any question that money is directly tied to resource management, look no further than the Dakota Access Pipeline, Keystone XL pipeline and the Pebble Mine. Two of them were dormant for a while, and the first was on hold.

No longer.

That the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska has reared its ugly head again is both alarming and telling. It is alarming because the project, which had been on life support for years, directly threatens one of the world’s largest and last wild sockeye salmon runs. It is telling that the changing political climate has created an atmosphere more weighted toward corporate profits and against environmental protections.

Sockeye approaching spawning beds. Photo: Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Authority

The massive copper and gold mine again became a discussion topic earlier this week when its sole investor, Northern Dynasty, claimed it expected to have its permitting issues resolved with the EPA by April, and that it was actively seeking an investor.

Northern Dynasty has been mired in three federal lawsuits aimed at handcuffing the EPA’s authority to reject the mine’s permit because the mine would violate protections in the Clean Water Act. In 2014, the EPA ruled the mine presents a potentially irreversible threat to the stability of the Bristol Bay watershed. At the moment, Northern Dynasty’s only on-site operations include geology tests and equipment storage.

Not surprisingly, three days after the new administration took office, Northern Dynasty’s CEO Ronald Thiessen said President Donald Trump’s administration has “a desire to permit Pebble.” He added, “We will come to a resolution within 100 days” with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Copper mine in Utah run by Rio Tinto, which backed out of the Pebble Mine. If built, Pebble would be bigger than this. Photo: Deep Green Resistance

Opposition to the mine has been surprisingly universal from a broad range of user groups. That’s likely because Bristol Bay’s salmon population supports 14,000 full-time jobs and a $1.5 billion a year industry, according to federal and industry figures. In a rare instance, commercial and recreational fishermen are speaking with one voice: “Don’t destroy one of the last significant wild sockeye salmon populations!” Many of Alaska’s tribal leaders and several environmental groups have joined the chorus.

Is this Fake News?

That depends. To date I’ve seen no direct statement from the president saying he was going to drive the Pebble Mine through to operation. I’ve only seen Northern Dynasty say that.

If noted anti-resource attorney Scott Pruitt becomes head of the EPA, that could streamline federal permit approval, which accounts for a small number of significant permits.

That leaves the state of Alaska, which would have to issue more than 60 permits before the mine begins in earnest. And that won’t necessarily be an easy process for Northern Dynasty. An interesting political sea change has occurred in the past two years. Prior to the election the mine’s biggest opponent was the Obama administration and the EPA, while the Alaska state legislature was more supportive of the mine.

The tables flipped a bit in Nov. when the State House gained a bipartisan majority, with the Speaker of the House being from Bristol Bay. So while the federal administration appears to favor projects like the mine, the governor’s office and much of the legislature are signaling support for the state’s natural resources like salmon.

“Pebble doesn’t necessarily have an EPA problem,” says Sam Snyder, Trout Unlimited Alaska Engagement Director and a key figure in the fight against the mine. “But they have an Alaska problem. Sixty-five percent of Alaska residents in every precinct voted against it. Bristol Bay Tribes, villages and residents overwhelmingly oppose Pebble. Eventually this will also have to go through the state legislature.”

Here are some harsh realities that make the approval process a steep uphill climb for Northern Dynasty:

The political climate in Alaska has brought more scrutiny of the environmental risks of such a mine. The legislature recently put a 90-day delay on a routine permit to allow Northern Dynasty to maintain base operations (testing and equipment storage on site, etc.), because lawmakers wanted a closer look at impacts.
While there have been several reports about Northern Dynasty’s stock performance in the past few weeks since the Trump victory, there is context. Yes, the stock jumped nearly 300% in that time … from 75 cents to $2.89 on Jan. 26. That is a shell of the $22 stock price the company had in Feb. of 2011. It’s a penny stock.
Two major partners have backed away from the project because of widespread opposition and losses: Anglo American, PLC in 2013 and Rio Tinto in 2014.
In 2014, 65% of Alaskans approved a measure that would allow the legislature to ban mines lawmakers believe would harm wild salmon stocks. So a majority of Alaskans are skeptical.
That opposition continues. There is support for a new proposal to strengthen laws governing protection of fisheries habitats, which would have to be considered with any state permit for development that impacts salmon habitat.

What does this all mean? It means there are several roadblocks and years before the mine would have any chance of operation … if at all. Northern Dynasty would likely have to spend close to $200 million dollars just to secure all of the necessary permits. It would then need another several hundred million dollars to begin operations.

It also means that opposition must continue, within and without the state of Alaska, if opponents want to ensure the safety of the resource.

As the current mantra goes: wrong mine, wrong place.

Top photo credit: Robert Glenn Ketchum

Other resources:

Save Bristol Bay : Good resource for background and the mine’s impacts.

One Fish Blog: Further background

Homer News: Public comments on state fisheries protections.

Alaska Daily News OpEd: Wrong mine, wrong place.

All Blog Posts

Despite Legislation, Litigation, Pebble Mine on Downhill Slide

March 10, 2015September 3, 2015
by Colles Stowell

Share it!

The owners of the proposed Pebble Mine, Northern Dynasty Minerals, are getting desperate. While still alive, the project to build one of the world’s largest mines smack dab in the middle of one of the world’s most significant wild salmon runs has suffered several major setbacks in the past year. Read more “Despite Legislation, Litigation, Pebble Mine on Downhill Slide” →