Army Corps review shows Pebble is still the wrong mine for Alaska

When the Army Corps of Engineers released the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Pebble mine, the reaction from the Pebble Limited Partnership was predictable. Pebble declared it had “passed a critical milestone” for the mine meeting a high standard for permitting. A subsequent mailer sent to homes across Alaska glosses over reality and misrepresents the project’s true impacts. Pebble likes to call the National Environmental Policy Act review of its project proposal “robust” and “transparent.” In reality, the review has not been either, and the Final EIS confirms that Pebble is still the wrong mine in the wrong place.

Let’s take a look at the facts – or, in many instances, the lack thereof.

The Final EIS includes findings that Pebble would impact over 4,500 acres of wetlands and more than 190 miles of streams in the Nushagak and Kvichak drainages, where 60-70% of Bristol Bay’s tens of millions of sockeye salmon return. To make matters worse, these impact estimates are only a fraction of the damage the mine would cause in its lifetime, as the FEIS only assessed the impacts of a 20-year mining plan that would extract 12% of the ore body. Pebble’s executives are touting a much larger operation to investors. And the FEIS documents that even a mine plan that targets 55% of the ore deposit would impact more than 15,000 acres of wetlands and 500 miles of streams.

Pebble’s concept-only design for the proposed tailings impoundment has, by the Corps’ own admission, “implications for (dam) stability.” Despite promising to prevent disaster in Bristol Bay like that experienced at the Mount Polley mine in British Columbia, Pebble’s answer is “trust us.” The mine’s impoundment design cannot be verified, because the Corps did not require that Pebble provide the details. The Corps also refused to model a catastrophic dam failure, further limiting the understanding of Pebble’s potential impacts.

Pebble also did not provide detail regarding how the massive volume of water that will flow through the mine site will be gathered, treated and stored or discharged. Per the Final EIS, Pebble would need to treat more than 38 million gallons of water every day – a volume six times greater than the water treatment at Red Dog mine or at the proposed Donlin mine. And keep in mind that neither of those two projects are located at the headwaters of a prolific salmon fishery.

Pebble has also yet to produce a final, approved compensatory wetlands mitigation plan. Nor has Pebble applied for necessary Coast Guard permits for proposed bridges over the Iliamna and Pile rivers or with the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement for a marine pipeline, which the EIS process was supposed to also evaluate. And the Corps has yet to complete consultations regarding historic preservation, impacts to endangered species and essential fish habitat.

What’s more, Pebble has also not yet applied for any state permits. In a typical permitting process, these various permits would be reviewed and considered concurrently, to give the public and relevant agencies a comprehensive understanding of the project. As it stands, the public is left with an Final EIS that raises more questions than it answers.

It’s not only those opposed to the mine who are waving red flags about Pebble. Throughout this aggressive permitting process, federal agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified deficiencies that have yet to be resolved. Comments from experts at three state agencies also questioned Pebble’s assurances that its mine plan will not harm the Bristol Bay’s fish or watersheds.

In recent days, other prominent voices have weighed in. Democratic nominee for President Joe Biden and President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. both opined that Pebble is the wrong mine in the wrong place – a concern first raised many years ago by our late Sen. Ted Stevens. These individuals may not find common ground on many issues, but they know it’s important to protect Bristol Bay for future generations. In the coming days, we should learn where our President stands. President Donald Trump promised to “listen to both sides” ahead of critical permitting decisions from both the Corps and EPA.

The release of the Final EIS is the latest evidence that a permit denial by the Corps or a veto of the permit by EPA is warranted. Indeed, if science is truly our guide, the Final EIS should be the beginning of the end of this decades-long fight to preserve and protect the 14,000 American jobs reliant on Bristol Bay’s commercial salmon fishery. In the meantime, Alaskans should be wary of any of Pebble’s portrayals of the project. It is a company desperately searching for support.

Robin Samuelsen is chairman of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation Board.

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.