Pebble Permit is Inadequate and Must Not be Processed

Transcription

1 To: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Subj: Scoping Comments on Pebble Project Environmental Impact Statement, processing of permit application received by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) I am writing to provide scoping comments as part of this review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 2 of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321) requires that USACE promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere. This overarching mandate must be at the forefront of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analysis. I will also add that the accelerated timeline of completing a final EIS within one year of the publishing of a Notice of Intent (NOI) does not comply with the existing case law requirements for a complete and thorough review of the affected environment, potential impacts, and consideration of all alternatives. As such, this review should follow the timeline of a comparable project, the Donlin Mine EIS, which the USACE spent over six years conducting careful review, collaboration with cooperating agencies, and providing for adequate public input. Pebble Permit is Inadequate and Must Not be Processed A permit application cannot be properly processed if the applicant has provided insufficient information to describe the affected environment and plans of the applicant in connection with the planned project. Here, Pebble has submitted a somewhat dishonest application, focusing on a vision of a smaller mine project than it has publicly pushed for 16 years. Even after this new vision of a smaller mine was released to the public, Pebble officials still make public statements averring to their intention to expand the mine in future years. There are other specific examples as to the inadequacy of the permit application: (1) Pebble has not provided a water management plan water consumption for a Pebble Mine will be significant and will cause adverse effects to habitat and fisheries; (2) no fish surveys to identify salmon streams have been provided for the South Access Road; (3) Pebble s baseline environmental studies did not contemplate an Iliamna Lake crossing or the current planned port facility, so no baseline data exists for those areas; (4) there is no baseline environmental data for the natural base pipeline corridor; (5) lack of an economic feasibility study to show that the mine can even operate (and, as noted below, Northern Dynasty Minerals lacks the finances to develop the mine). Thus, the application does not provide all the information necessary for USACE to process the application and fulfill its obligations under NEPA. It must therefore reject the application.

2 Pebble is Financially Incapable of Proceeding Further Twice in the last five years, the Pebble Limited Partnership has lost its principle financial backers. First, in 2013, Anglo American withdrew from its partnership with Northern Dynasty Minerals, after spending over $500 million to support environmental baseline studies. In withdrawing, Anglo American noted that it wanted only to financially support projects with the highest value and lowest risks for its portfolio. Thus, Anglo American recognized this project was too high of a risk to proceed any further. Earlier this year, First Quantum Minerals terminated a funding agreement with Northern Dynasty Minerals. The agreement could have introduced more than $1 billion in funding for development of the Pebble Mine. Northern Dynasty currently has no outside funders, and lacks sufficient financial resources to carry out the development of the Pebble Mine. Northern Dynasty s current stock value is only $0.54 per share, it has no other assets other than the Pebble claims, has hardly any cash on hand, and generally lacks resources to develop a large project like Pebble. Since Northern Dynasty is financially incapable of developing the project, the USACE should proceed no further with any analysis. It is a waste of time and resources. USACE Cannot Override EPA Authority The EPA underwent a three-year process that produced a 1,438-page peer-reviewed scientific document called An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems in Bristol Bay, Alaska (Assessment) 1 to serve as the scientific basis for its Proposed Determination. This was initiated at the request of Alaskan individuals and tribes in the Bristol Bay region. In doing so, the EPA relied upon the best available science including data gathered by the Pebble Limited Partnership as well as interviews with Alaska Native elders to glean traditional ecological knowledge and gain an understanding as to the cultural and spiritual importance of salmon in the Bristol Bay region. The EPA thoroughly engaged in the notice and opportunity for public hearings that Section 404(c) requires: it made 25 visits to 12 villages and held nine public hearings over two separate public comment periods. Over a million Americans participated in that three-year process either in person or through written comments. In 2017, the EPA proposed a withdrawal of that Proposed Determination. After a brief public comment period and approximately one million comments, it decided to not withdraw the Proposed Determination. In doing so, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stated, in his judgement, that any mining projects in the region likely pose a risk to the abundant natural resources that exist there. Until we know the full extent of that risk, those natural resources and world-class fisheries deserve the utmost protection. However, to this date, the EPA has not taken final agency action on the Section 404(c) action. Given that the EPA did not withdraw its Proposed Determination 1 The USACE should incorporate the entirety of this document into its EIS analysis.

3 and will therefore likely make those restrictions final, it would be inappropriate and a usurpation of the EPA s Section 404(c) authority to even consider authorizing a mine larger than that authorized under the Proposed Determination. Pebble has already stated that its immediate plans are larger, and that it intends to expand the footprint of the mine in future years. Affected Environment Pebble will attempt to narrowly-define the affected environment. Their past messaging on the scope of impacts indicates that they will downplay any affects downstream, and try to limit them to the immediate vicinity of the mine site. It would be inappropriate and violate NEPA for the USACE to consider that approach. Thus, the scope of the affected environment must include the following: (1) the entirety of the Koktuli watershed, including the Mulchatna and Nushagak Rivers and their tributaries; (2) the entirety of the watershed downstream of Lower Talarik Creek, including Iliamna Lake and the Kvichak River and its tributaries; (3) the Lake Clark watershed, including the Chulitna River, Sixmile Lake and the Newhalen River (salmon that migrate to Lake Clark come through the Kvichak River and Iliamna Lake). Fish passage through all of these watersheds would be affected by surface and groundwater contamination caused by the Pebble Mine. Additionally, the USACE must examine the impacts to the coastal areas of Cook Inlet in the vicinity of the proposed mine site, including Katmai National Park & Preserve, Lake Clark National Park & Preserve, the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, and McNeil River State Game Sanctuary. Environmental Consequences Contamination to Watershed It is well-known that large hard rock mines contaminate watersheds. A study in 2006 showed that 60% of mines in operation in the United States were violating water quality standards, and 90% of those mines predicted that acid mine drainage was unlikely (James R. Kuipers et al., Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: The reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements). In a presentation given to the Resource Development Council in Anchorage on October 5, 2017, Pebble touted several Alaska mines as examples of environmentally-responsible development: Fort Knox, Greens Creek, Kensington, Pogo, and Red Dog. All of these mines have a history of environmental contamination. Acid rock drainage has been an issue at the Kensington Mine since 2007 and was even cited by the EPA for discharge violations in Red Dog Mine, Greens Creek Mine, and Fort Knox Mine are, respectively, the top three producers of toxic waste in Alaska as documented in EPA s Toxic

4 Release Inventory (TRI). Greens Creek has been cited numerous times by the EPA for Clean Water Act violations. Aside from producing more toxic waste than any other site in the United States, a National Park Service study concluded that Red Dog also has the distinction of producing pollutants that rivals industrial sites in Eastern Europe. While Fort Knox has done better environmentally than other mines, it has had two spills of cyanide-laden water one as large as 300,000 gallons. It is interesting that Pebble would identify Pogo as an environmentallyresponsible mine because it is one of the worst. It ranks fourth on the TRI, is among the 10 largest producers of mercury waste in the United States, uses a natural water body for depositing mining waste, and has posted a bond that will be inadequate to cover mine reclamation in the event that acid rock drainage occurs. These mines provide a certain glimpse as to what a Pebble Mine would do to contaminate the invaluable Bristol Bay watershed, especially given the extensive interactions between ground and surface waters in the area of the Pebble deposits. Therefore, as part of analyzing the impacts to the Bristol Bay watershed, the USACE must consider it highly likely that standard operations of the Pebble Mine (exclusive of a catastrophic event) will cause contamination to the watershed (from acid rock drainage to mercury) and analyze accordingly the impacts to salmon and other fish, wildlife, plants, and waterfowl. The USACE must pay particular attention to impacts to overwintering salmon habitat, spawning and rearing salmon habitat, disruption of instream flow necessary to support salmon and other aquatic life, and changes to temperature and water chemistry. The uniqueness of this watershed in creating extremely productive salmon habitat is well documented in Schindler et al., Population diversity and the portfolio effect in an exploited species, Nature, June 3, Additionally, the USACE should consider all reports and studies listed on the Nature Conservancy s page dedicated to Bristol Bay Salmon Ecosystems. 2 The USACE should also look to specific examples of tailings pond contamination impacts on waterfowl, such as the mass die-offs associated with the Berkeley Pit of the Kelly Mine in Butte, Montana. Given the location of Bristol Bay within the Pacific Flyway, the likely impacts upon waterfowl are significant. Analyzing impacts also includes an appropriate consideration of the length of time related to those impacts. Pebble, like other similar upland hard rock mines with a tailings pond, has stated that the tailings pond would exist in perpetuity. Analysis should consider both the impact on the watershed from a perpetual tailings pond as well as the extreme likelihood that the Pebble Partnership, or whoever operates and closes the Pebble Mine, will not provide funding for thousands of years into the future to keep treating waste water from the tailings pond(s). 2 ecosystemsand mining.xml.

5 Roads and Transportation Corridors The permit application submitted by Pebble suggests some 200 culverts will be required to accommodate the planned road system and includes transporting ore across Alaska s largest lake, Iliamna Lake. These plans implicate numerous adverse environmental impacts that must be analyzed, including (1) the likelihood of fugitive dust contamination along road corridors and directly into Iliamna Lake (through which some 25% of the Sockeye Salmon in the region traverse); (2) habitat fragmentation along road corridors and related impacts, from aquatic to mammal species; (3) culverts must be designed to provide for full, unobstructed fish passage; (4) impact to the Iliamna Lake freshwater harbor seals from increased boat traffic; (5) likelihood of fuel spills as a result of terminal and dock activity along the transportation corridor; and (6) impact to local transportation needs in winter (snowmachine) as a result of ice breaker activity necessary to accommodate winter use of transportation corridor through Iliamna Lake. Permanent Loss of Anadromous Streams and Wetlands The Pebble Mine could destroy up to 90 miles of fish-bearing streams and over 5,000 acres of wetlands. Operation of the tailings dam would block passage in the headwaters of the Koktuli River. There is no existing example of such habitat being restored to either its natural condition or to a condition that can support aquatic life to the extent that existed prior to its destruction. Countless examples from the Pacific Northwest show the extreme difficulties in repairing salmon runs damaged by human development and release of toxic chemicals. The permanence of this loss and its impacts should be fully analyzed. Environmental Justice The approximately 8,100 year-round residents of the 33 villages in the Bristol Bay region are a majority Alaska Native, with a mixture of Aleut, Alutiiq, Dena ina Athabascan and Yup ik people. According to EPA study, Alaska contains the last thriving salmon cultures on the planet. 3 This places a unique and compelling emphasis on the importance of preserving that culture and the specifically unique impacts that would befall the people of the region were there to be any adverse impacts to salmon. Of the three boroughs or main census areas in the region, two of them have a median income below the Alaskan median household income of $69,825: the Lake and Peninsula Borough 3 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems in Bristol Bay, Alaska, Appendix D, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Characterization of the Indigenous Cultures of the Nushagak and Kvichak Watersheds, Alaska.

6 ($43,864) and the Dillingham Census Area ($56,055). Only the Bristol Bay Borough has a median income higher than the Alaska median at $88,000, and it just so happens that this borough includes Naknek, which has a higher concentration of commercial fishing operators than in Dillingham. The primary source of income in the region is fish, whether commercial fishing or sport fishing through guided activities. Commercial fishing is a nearly $2 billion annual economy, provding almost 17,000 regional jobs. Numerous sport fishing lodges are scattered throughout the region, providing employment and revenue. It is also important to consider that fishing provides more jobs and state revenue than mining. The EIS for this project must examine the likely adverse impacts to the regional economy due to water quality contamination and impact to key aquatic species such as all five Pacific salmon stocks, Rainbow Trout, Arctic Grayling, and other fish integral to commercial and sport fishing. Additionally, the analysis must consider the adverse impacts to the residents of the region as a result of decreased salmon and other fish stocks that are relied upon for subsistence. The Bristol Bay region catches more subsistence Sockeye Salmon than any other region in the state, commanding approximately 22% of the total statewide consumption. Depending on what the purchasing source is, a single Sockeye Salmon can be worth more than a barrel of oil in today s prices. As supplies can only arrive in these villages, the cost for supplies and food is extremely high. Having a reliable subsistence resource is extremely important to the residents of the region. The USACE must analyze the adverse impacts to these residents if they lose the important and reliable subsistence resource of Sockeye Salmon. This analysis must also consider the loss of culture that would result, including the documented spiritual aspects of salmon to the Alaska Native people of Bristol Bay. As such, the USACE analysis should include whether any First Amendment violations would occur due to the loss of spirituality that would follow the loss of salmon. Alternatives Given the mandates of NEPA to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts to the environment, the only appropriate preferred action must be the No Action alternative. Additionally, Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act requires that the USACE only permit the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). A careful review of the affected environment and the planned operations, both immediate and long term, can only conclude that a No Action Alternative is the only appropriate choice to comply with the LEDPA requirement. Setting that aside, the USACE should consider the following alternatives:

7 1. Restricting the size of the Pebble Mine to that found to be appropriate in the EPA s Assessment. 2. Requiring that the tailings pond be constructed at a location that will not impair in any way any surface waters, block fish passage, or have the potential to contaminate ground or surface waters. It is not the role of NEPA to provide economically viable alternatives to those seeking permits; rather, to minimize or eliminate ecological impacts. 3. Providing for an alternative route for the natural gas pipeline; specifically, an alternative route that instead goes north to connect with the planned natural gas pipeline to support the development and operation of the Donlin Mine. That pipeline will be constructed to go from the Donlin site to the natural gas facility in Beluga. This route would proceed directly north of Pebble. Such a route would greatly minimize potential impacts to waterways, such as Cook Inlet, which has recently experienced natural gas spills at Hilcorp-operated natural gas pipeline. 4. Requiring that the tailings pond be lined in such a way as to prevent any interaction between tailings waste and ground waters. 5. Prohibiting construction of an underground mine, which would impossible to isolate from the extensive ground water networks in the area. Carl Johnson Anchorage, Alaska Author, Where Water is Gold: Life and Livelihood in Alaska s Bristol Bay