On most issues there are multiple perspectives. This is the case with Pebble. Eric Forrer recently wrote about his views regarding recent actions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I think it would be helpful to understand ours.
It is well known that former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson does not like mining. Many in Juneau remember her opposition to the Kensington Mine. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing Kensington to go forward, she attempted (unsuccessfully) to abandon the rule of law and subvert the courts via administrative action — a bold step against fair process.
Administrator Jackson then sought a creative use of the Clean Water Act to preemptively block Pebble, an action unprecedented in the 40-plus-year history of that law.
To give the EPA cover for its decision to stop Pebble before a single permit application had been filed, the EPA initiated something it called the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment or BBWA. Although the EPA told us it was not going to use the BBWA as a decision-making document, they did exactly that — one of many misrepresentations the agency made to us.
The BBWA process was rigged from the start. An EPA employee even colluded with the parties who petitioned EPA to veto Pebble by helping develop a petition that the agency claimed was the basis for initiating the BBWA. EPA then hired consultants who had publicly expressed their opposition to Pebble, apparently to ensure they got the answers they wanted.
Pebble uncovered many internal documents showing that purportedly objective EPA staff opposed Pebble and embraced the effort to stop us. While I could dedicate a tome to the problems we found with the BBWA as a scientific document, I’ll highlight a couple to illustrate my point.
To begin with, the EPA created a hypothetical mine plan for Pebble that would not meet current state or federal environmental regulations. Their plan did not meet the standards under which large mines in Alaska are operated. In their effort to stop Pebble, they intentionally designed a project that would fail and damage the environment.
The agency brought in a panel of scientists to peer review the BBWA and responded to its feedback in a paper called “Response to Peer Review Comments — May 2012 and April 2013 Drafts.” I’ll share a few of their responses. They shed light on views held both by EPA technical staff and peer reviewers that the BBWA was an insufficient scientific record upon which to make permitting decisions on major development projects like Pebble:
“Evaluation of measures that would be proposed for an actual mine would occur through the regulatory process.” (p. 116)
“Risk management decisions will be made during the permitting process.” (p. 123)
“This is not a permitting document.” (p. 121)
“Permit applicant mitigation measures that reduce the risks identified in the assessment would be welcome during the application process.” (p. 238)
“We agree that these are key questions that must be addressed in the regulatory process.” (p. 246)
The EPA acknowledges 59 times that the permitting and regulatory review process is where decisions about environmental impacts, mitigation, and other data necessary for a more comprehensive regulatory review would and should be taken. Yet, the EPA took preemptive actions against Pebble anyway.
Forrer wants you to believe Pebble is receiving special treatment from the new leadership at EPA. This is not accurate. We have seen a course correction from the EPA to retract its ill-founded Proposed Determination, thus allowing us to enter the regular, established process for mine permitting. Not special, just fair.
One fact often overlooked regarding Pebble is that the Bristol Bay land area is about the size of Ohio, around 26 million acres. The Pebble mine site will be about the size of a very large airport, some 12,000 acres.
Given that Pebble will occupy such a small portion of the region, there is no way we could have the impact on the fishery our opponents claim. However, we can bring jobs to an area of Alaska where economic opportunities are scarce, provide much needed tax revenues to the state, and contribute to the Permanent Fund. A full and fair review process will allow Alaskans to evaluate all of the environmental, economic and social issues relating to Pebble. We look forward to participating with Alaskans in that process.
• John Shively was CEO for Pebble from 2008 to 2014 and is now chairman. He worked at NANA during the development of the Red Dog Mine and was Commissioner of Natural Resources for Gov. Tony Knowles.
