Rush to judge Corps’ work on Pebble EIS is unfounded

When a copy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was leaked to the media, the rhetoric machine from project opposition groups went into full swing. It is worth noting that the Corps of Engineers shared this preliminary report with federal, state, local and tribal cooperating agencies for their review prior to releasing the final EIS to the public sometime early this summer. We were also provided with a courtesy copy with the clear understanding that it was a deliberative document for cooperating agency review and comment only. Since the document was somehow leaked, we felt it was important to point out the facts about what the Corps has actually done in its review of Pebble.

To begin, the Corps’ work is directly responsive to issues raised by other federal agencies — such as the Environmental Protection Agency. It is responsive to issues raised by members of Congress, specifically Senator Lisa Murkowski. And, it is responsive to the breadth of issues raised by the public. Every significant comment submitted by state and federal agencies has been carefully considered by the Corps of Engineers and is discussed in some detail.

The Army Corps’ work product has been transparent every step of the way. Every request for information from the project has been published on their website. The minutes from the cooperating agency meetings have been posted. The Corps has been especially open with interested members of the media. They have undertaken government to government consultations with more than 30 interested tribal organizations.

A review of the preliminary final EIS document shows that there is a solid technical foundation underlying every issue. While Pebble critics want Alaskans to believe there is nothing new in the document, a review of the executive summary shows some of the substantive changes that were made:

• the air quality model has been updated.
• the groundwater hydrology model has been updated (a major issue for the EPA).
• new alternatives were introduced to further reduce project impacts.
• expanded fish and wildlife impact analyses are included.
• data gaps for wetlands were filled and updated.

The Corps of Engineers sought additional and updated management plans in order to fill gaps identified in the Draft EIS and to refine the impact analysis for the proposed project. These include: Reclamation and Closure; Invasive Species Management; Fugitive Dust Control; and a monitoring summary report. There are many more substantive improvements beyond this list.

The preliminary report also shows several steps Pebble has taken in direct response to public comments received last summer. For example, after concerns were expressed about potential subsistence-related impacts on the lower portion of Upper Talarik Creek, a decision was made to move the Northern Ferry Terminal (on the shore of Iliamna Lake) to an alternate location. A bridge crossing on the Newhalen River was moved to accommodate the discovery of cultural resources at the original crossing site. We also moved our Cook Inlet pipeline crossing by approximately 12 miles after marine surveys found a shipwreck. We proposed a caisson dock design for our port facility in order to minimize in-water impacts associated with our previous solid fill dock.

At multiple points in the document, the Corps of Engineers acknowledges comments and concerns that were raised during the comment window for the draft EIS. Since that time, the agency has done exactly what the National Environmental Policy Act review process requires. The Corps of Engineers has reviewed every comment that was raised – including those from federal agencies and Sen. Lisa Murkowski – and taken steps to address the issues. When the Corps of Engineers determined that no further action was required for an issue, it explains in detail the rationale for the decision.

One example is the Corps of Engineers’ decision that it was not appropriate to undertake a catastrophic tailings failure scenario for the project as requested by several commenters. It was deemed inappropriate based upon how we plan to manage tailings at the site by using thickened tails stored in a permeable, flow-through dam design. A key point from our perspective is that we made this design change in direct response to failures at other locations so that we could assure our stakeholders that our plan was sound. This is good news. The reason there is no need to model the type of failure that occurred at Mt. Polley is that we designed the tailings storage facility to prevent that type of failure from happening.

On the major issue that has been debated about Pebble for more than 15 years, the report concludes that the project can be developed responsibly and without measurable impact to the important fishery in Bristol Bay. It says that the job opportunities for communities closest to the project would be significant. Just because some do not like the findings from the Corps of Engineers’ work does not mean the process is flawed. The Corps of Engineers has managed a diligent and transparent process thus far. We are pleased that this draft of the Final EIS has been released to the cooperating agencies and tribal organizations involved in the process. We believe it shows that the process continues to move forward toward a Record of Decision by mid-2020.

Tom Collier has been CEO of the Pebble Partnership since February 2014.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.