Balanced Reporting is Equally Important as a Fair Regulatory Review Process
CNN recently published a highly inaccurate, slanted perspective about the Pebble Project that lacked facts and relevant details. Like the need for a fair regulatory process, this unbalanced reporting is a disservice to the general public who deserve fair and accurate information to evaluate as part of the decision-making process.
As a territory and later upon achieving statehood in 1959, Alaska, the Last Frontier, has a proud history: Pioneers who took on challenges, carved new paths and laid the foundation for responsibly developing a young state with respect for the environment.
The keen understanding of Alaska’s unique aspects has been refined throughout the years by those who have risen to its challenges to problem solve within highly unique environments. Like those early pioneers, Alaskans represent an unusual combination of grit and drive – entrepreneurship, ingenuity, and critical thinking are simply part of Alaska’s DNA; not only by necessity, but by choice. The result is one of the nation’s most robust regulatory systems and a recognition that Alaskans best know how to manage and protect its broad resources from fisheries to mining, and tourism, oil and gas development.
It is perhaps understandable that those who have never lived in Alaska lack an awareness of the challenges and operating environment presented statewide and the extraordinary requirements that must be met as part of Alaska’s regulatory system, in addition to federal oversight. The complex processes define the rule of law by which each proposed project should be judged and represent the commitment to environmental stewardship exhibited by those who operate in the state.
A recent CNN report demonstrates the bias that can alter perceptions, or reinforce misinformation, when facts are not thoroughly researched nor presented. Wildly off-base views and inflammatory statements about the Pebble project does a disservice to the public who deserves accurate and thorough reporting in order to evaluate and process informed decision-making.
Key pieces missed, or omitted, in the CNN report:
The Pebble Partnership was in publicly disclosed settlement discussions with the Obama Justice Department and Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from litigation which began in the summer of 2016. A deal had been reached with the Obama team to resolve this prior to the Trump administration taking office, however, the Obama team scuttled the opportunity at the 11th hour. As such, settlement discussions took place with the Trump team with a resolution in May 2019 that corrected an unprecedented regulatory overreach.
The CNN article characterized the “restrictions” as final, which is categorically untrue. They were never finalized by Region 10 nor EPA headquarters. Pebble sued in September 2014 because the process followed was inappropriate and a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against EPA in December 2014. This significant step by the court validated that Pebble should have its day in court, however, a settlement agreement was later reached.
The settlement does not greenlight the development of the Pebble Deposit. It does follow the rule of law by providing Pebble the ability to file an actual permit plan and to be reviewed under the established National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, as well as allowing a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process review of the project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
The preemptive actions by the EPA were unprecedented under the Clean Water Act, something their internal documents validated. While the process argument is not nearly as sensational or interesting, the rule of law and a reliable regulatory system is highly relevant, not just for Pebble, but for all development projects nationwide.
The Bristol Bay watershed is 40,000 square miles with millions of acres already in protected status. While it might be easier to craft a story that fits a particular narrative, especially the classic story of industry vs. the environment, the public deserves reporting that offers the complete picture so that they can evaluate the facts, ask informed questions and then formulate a decision.
The Pebble Deposit is located on state of Alaska land that is open to mineral exploration. The area surrounding the Pebble Deposit was originally, and remains, designated for mineral exploration and development as part of a historic land trade.
The 2014 EPA study referred to in the CNN story was designed with a pre-determined conclusion and was not based on an actual Pebble project plan. In fact, the hypothetical mining plan used in the 2014 EPA evaluation was designed to fail as the concepts presented in the hypothetical plan would never be permitted in the United States.
There is no verifiable evidence that development of the Pebble Deposit, as actually proposed under the current plan, will harm the Bristol Bay fishery – this is a speculative and inflammatory statement. In fact, quite the opposite, the USACE Draft EIS found that there are no population impacts for fish from the tailings release scenarios evaluated (ES 71), and that the project will not reduce returning adult salmon to the Kvichak and Nushagak river systems (ES 53).
The recent decision by the EPA only removed its pre-permitting block of the Pebble project. The preemptive veto action has been widely condemned by a range of groups that understand the long-range negative impacts this would have on development in the U.S. A preemptive action has never been initiated by the EPA since the Clean Water Act was passed and the EPA was created. As a result of behind-the-scenes collusion between EPA staff and environmental organizations, the Pebble project was singled out for this unprecedented step and clear overstep of an agency’s legal authority.
Ironically, the National Resource Development Council (NRDC) — one of Pebble’s most vocal opponents, calls the NEPA process the Magna Carta of environmental law and endorse it for all projects in the U.S. — except the Pebble project. It begs the question as to why groups like the NRDC have fought so hard to prevent the Pebble project from entering the NEPA process unfettered. Perhaps it is because we have undertaken one of the most extensive environmental and technical studies programs for a mining project in the U.S. and have designed a project that will meet the nation’s high standards for development. The Pebble project can be developed safely and can be done without harming the fish and water resources in Southwest Alaska.
Currently, the USACE is developing a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) following the transparent and objective rules prescribed by NEPA. The EPA is fully participating in this process as a cooperating agency. They have a seat at the table for this environmental review and published a constructive comment letter about their views to date on the USACE process. When the USACE is finished, the EPA still retains the authority to initiate a veto of the USACE decision about the Pebble project.
Alaskans are proud of their ability to balance decisions between resource development and environmental protections. The issue has never been about reducing environmental requirements for mineral development at Pebble. It has been about restoring fair access to the U.S. permitting system as prescribed by law.
Pebble has a clear path forward. This is an exciting time for us – and for all Alaskans. Pebble can co-exist with the fisheries and we are committed to a project that benefits all Alaskans.