March 2023 | Volume 14, Issue 8

Read the full article from ABC News.

According to the article, the Environmental Protection Agency has vetoed a controversial proposed gold and copper mine in Alaska.

Pebble Limited Partnership, the company that would control the mine commonly known as Pebble Mine, argues it would bring economic opportunity to the Bristol Bay region of Alaska. However, the location of the mine and the infrastructure needed for it to become operational is the focus of a coalition of local Alaska Natives, fishermen and conservation groups concerned about the environmental impact it would have on the Bristol Bay watershed, which is home to the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery.

“After extensive review of scientific and technical research spanning two decades, and robust stakeholder engagement, EPA has determined that certain discharges associated with developing the Pebble deposit will have unacceptable adverse effects on certain salmon fishery areas in the Bristol Bay watershed,” the EPA said in a recent statement.

The EPA, citing the Clean Water Act, said it has the authority to veto the project because of the impact of "certain discharges of dredged or fill material associated with the development of a mine at the Pebble deposit."

Pebble Limited Partnership said it will fight the EPA's decision, which it said will hurt the economic opportunity for local residents.

“Today’s action by the EPA to preemptively veto the proposed Pebble Project is unlawful and unprecedented. For well over a decade, we have argued that fair treatment under the rules and regulations of the U.S should be followed for Pebble or any other development project," Pebble Limited Partnership CEO John Shively said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the Biden EPA continues to ignore fair and due process in favor of politics. This preemptive action against Pebble is not supported legally, technically, or environmentally. As such, the next step will likely be to take legal action to fight this injustice.

"Pebble development can be done in an environmentally responsible manner without harm to the Bristol Bay fishery," Shively's statement continued. "Unfortunately, EPA’s decision ignores their purported commitment to environmental justice as it dashes the hopes of hundreds of local Native Americans for a brighter economic future."

The Army Corps of Engineers denied the permit application for Pebble Mine in 2020, a decision that was later appealed by Pebble Limited Partnership. Using the details provided in that permit application, in December 2022, the EPA's local administrator suggested a veto of the mine, due to how the company planned to discharge materials “for the construction and routine operation of the mine.”

The EPA said the region near the proposed project is home to 25 Alaska Native villages and communities and “is an area of unparalleled ecological value, with salmon diversity and productivity unrivaled anywhere in North America.”

In an unusual move shortly after the recommendation to veto the mine proposal, an Alaskan Native group sold land it owns near Pebble Mine for $20 million as “conservation easements," which under Alaskan law prevents any future development at those sites. These easements would block the construction of a key transportation road that mine developers planned to build.

The money from the easements will go to the Pedro Bay Corporation, an Alaska Native village corporation that owns the land where part of the transportation road to the mine would be built. Pedro Bay Corporation shareholders are Alaska Natives who inhabit the eastern shore of Lake Iliamna in the Bristol Bay region and have a vested interest in not only the economic prosperity of the region but also in maintaining their cultural traditions.

Funding for the conservation easements was raised from a variety of donors in an effort spearheaded by The Conservation Fund. The president and CEO of the Conservation Fund, Larry Selzer, said this money will compensate the Pedro Bay Corporation for the appraised value of the land, taking into consideration the economic opportunities future development projects like Pebble Mine would bring to the region if they moved forward.

However, the prospect of job opportunities and other economic benefits from Pebble Mine are not the only reason Pebble Limited Partnership said they want to mine there. Some of the metals that would be extracted from Pebble Mine are essential for a transition to renewable energy sources, which is considered a key part of the global effort to mitigate the effects of climate change.

“The copper at Pebble could provide a critical metal necessary for the substantial increase in renewable sources of energy which require significant amounts of mined materials in order to meet the nation’s stated goals for renewable energy,” Mike Heatwole, a Pebble Limited Partnership spokesperson, told the media.

“A prime question for policymakers is whether we want to produce these minerals domestically under the most stringent environmental standards or if we intend to turn a blind eye and get the metals from other countries,” Heatwole added.

The executive director of the Bristol Bay Heritage Land Trust, Tim Troll, was also involved in the purchase of the conservation easements, which the land trust now holds. The exact locations for the easements were chosen to protect two rivers and a creek that feeds into Lake Iliamna. All of them are important bodies of water for the salmon habitat.

In an interview with the media, Troll cited a specific concern for “fugitive dust,” a term used to describe small particles that pollute the air as well as water ecosystems, which he said trucks using the transportation road for mining activities could release into the environment.

Selzer said the Conservation Fund balances economic and environmental objectives carefully, and is not anti-mining, acknowledging the role it will play in a transition to greener energy systems.

But Selzer said that there is no safe way to build Pebble Mine due to seismic activity in the region and its proximity to the Bristol Bay watershed.

“There are other places to mine,” Selzer said. “There are no other places to fish salmon at this scale.”

Discussion Questions

  1. Explain the mission and the functions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment.
    The EPA works to ensure that:
    Americans have clean air, land, and water;
    National efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best available scientific information;
    Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are administered and enforced fairly, effectively, and as Congress intended;
    Environmental stewardship is integral to U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;
    All parts of society--communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments--have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;
    Contaminated lands and toxic sites are cleaned up by potentially responsible parties and revitalized, and Chemicals in the marketplace are reviewed for safety.
    To accomplish its mission, the EPA: (a) develops and enforces regulations; (b) gives grants; (c) studies environmental issues; (d) sponsors partnerships; (e) teaches people about the environment; and (f) publishes information.
  2. Critically assess the following statement from Pebble Limited Partnership CEO John Shively
    “Today’s action by the EPA to preemptively veto the proposed Pebble Project is unlawful and unprecedented. For well over a decade, we have argued that fair treatment under the rules and regulations of the U.S should be followed for Pebble or any other development project. Unfortunately, the Biden EPA continues to ignore fair and due process in favor of politics. This preemptive action against Pebble is not supported legally, technically, or environmentally. As such, the next step will likely be to take legal action to fight this injustice. Pebble development can be done in an environmentally responsible manner without harm to the Bristol Bay fishery. Unfortunately, EPA’s decision ignores their purported commitment to environmental justice as it dashes the hopes of hundreds of local Native Americans for a brighter economic future."

    Based on your critical assessment of Mr. Shively’s statement, do you support or oppose his position? Do you need additional information before formulating an opinion? If so, what type of information?

    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, referring to the EPA’s action as “not supported legally, technically, or environmentally” is devoid of specificity. Perhaps the details will be provided in the legal action Mr. Shively claims Pebble Limited Partnership will likely take.
  3. In your reasoned opinion, is it possible for commercial and environmental interests to “peacefully coexist,” or are these interests destined to forever clash? Explain your response.
    This case is perhaps yet another example in an exhaustive list of cases involving commercial interests pitted against environmental interests. To cast a more optimistic light, there are examples in our nation’s economy where commercial and environmental interests—witness the number of automobile manufacturers that have embraced alternative fuel technology without a specific government mandate.