Army Corps puts the brakes on Pebble Mine: Here’s what we know
While uncertainties about Bristol Bay’s future remain, one thing is certain: American Rivers will continue to support the indigenous communities, conservation organizations and anglers who oppose this project.
Like a zombie, the Pebble Mine project in the Bristol Bay watershed in Alaska, has been the project that just will not die.
We thought the project was dead back in 2014 when the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) preemptively vetoed it using its authority under the Clean Water Act. However, the Trump Administration’s EPA reversed the veto in 2019 after initiating a fast-tracked environmental review process in 2018.
Last month, the EPA announced the results of that environmental review process. Reversing its earlier findings, the agency concluded that the project poses no serious environmental risks to the rivers of Bristol Bay watershed (a dubious claim, to be sure). It seemed that the EPA was paving the way for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue a permit for the project.
Fast forward to this week. In a surprise move, the Army Corps sent a letter to Northern Dynasty (the company that wants to build the mine) stating that it must figure out how it will mitigate for “all direct and indirect impact” to rivers in the Bristol Bay watershed. This letter follows vocal criticism of the project by President Trump’s son, Donald Trump, Jr., as well as Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, who have both fished Bristol Bay. In another surprise move, Alaska’s two U.S. senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, expressed strong support for the Corps’ stunning turnabout.
While uncertainties about Bristol Bay’s future remain, one thing is certain: American Rivers will continue to support the indigenous communities, conservation organizations and anglers who oppose this project — until it goes away for good. We included the rivers of Bristol Bay in our America’s Most Endangered Rivers® report three times— in 2006, 2011, and 2018. And we’ll continue to help our partners keep the pressure on until this pristine watershed is safe from harm.
The Nushagak and Kvichak rivers, including tributaries such as the Koktuli, Mulchatna and Talarik rivers, are home to one of the last great wild salmon runs in the world, and host world-class rainbow trout, char and other freshwater fish.
Returning salmon have been the cornerstone of the Yup’ik, Dena’ina, and Alutiiq people’s cultures for thousands of years, still providing physical and cultural sustenance for the region’s more than 7,000 residents spread out across a region the size of Ohio. The rivers of Bristol Bay not only sustain local communities, but they also support countless wildlife species that thrive in the region, from marine mammals to waterfowl to brown bears. The Bristol Bay salmon fishery supports 14,000 sustainable American jobs worth $1.5 billion annually.
The Bristol Bay watershed provides habitat for at least 29 fish species, 40 terrestrial mammal species and 190 bird species. The area attracts tens of thousands of tourists each summer. Sport fishing results in more than 29,000 angler trips per year, and salmon-dependent wildlife such as brown bears attract thousands more. Just downstream from the Pebble Mine site lies Lake Iliamna— Alaska’s largest freshwater lake and home to one of two known freshwater seal populations in the world.
As river advocates, we care deeply about all of these things. That’s why we will remain vigilant until the Pebble Mine is finally put to rest.
9 responses to “Army Corps puts the brakes on Pebble Mine: Here’s what we know”
I don’t know if you know this, but mines have been historically documented to degrade the surrounding environment and poison nearby water sources, both near the mine site and along transportation routes. The remaining mixture of chemicals and rock, after the ore is extracted, will be shipped roughly 80 miles away to be ferried offshore and dumped into the ocean. Pretty sure dumping chemicals in the ocean will have adverse effects. Why do you propose this specific mine is any different from majority of others that are known to have contributed to their surrounding environments degradation? Please explain because I do not understand your reasoning. If you are looking for more information, this article does a fantastic job of framing the situation in Bristol Bay https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/01/risky-plan-to-haul-minerals-from-mine-in-alaskan-wilderness/#close
P.S. The term “fake news” shouldn’t be tossed around as recklessly as you have, calm down, and don’t insult the authors of any article you read, it is childish and ridiculous. If you want that kind of fire, go to youtube comments, leave articles such as this to people who are actually passionate about the subject, not someone who is just looking for a situation in which they can act condescending and make themselves feel intelligent (for once).
We have enough gold. Why do we want more?
NAK stock is less than a buck still. Get in or be left out
you can always get more money but cant get back the environment
The mining corporations have polluted more watersheds then any other industry. They perpetually break the environmental protection laws in place and expect to pay miniscule govt. fines as part of their operational costs. Cheaper to pollute then to obey laws. When the environmental damage lawsuits force them to pay cleanup costs, the mining corporations simply file for bankruptcy for us to pay and fix the toxic waste created in tailing dams. Biggest scam on taxpayers ever.
I oppose the mine myself. Have you ever tried chewing gold? It not only tastes horrible but can break your teeth.
MORE FAKE NEWS!!! You have to be one of the worst journalist I have ever seen! You left out some important facts in your oneside articel. For instance over the last 3 yearsThe ACOE;s did the research on the fish problem and concluded that I would not have any negitive impact of the fish since the mine was 200 miles away. Secondly your two weeks behine on when the army released their fake news letter. You wrote….”(the company that wants to build the mine) stating that it must figure out how it will mitigate for “all direct and indirect impact” to rivers in the Bristol Bay watershed.” WRONG….the Northern Dynesty has been been working on the mitigation plan since Feb 27th which was stated in the EPA and ACOES recent new release debunking articles like yours. You need to find another job because you won’t make it as a fake news jounalist.
Dan Ritz
Nice try regurgitating fake news but we all know this project is moving ahead whether you like it or not.
MINE PEBBLE! THE PEOPLE WANT THE JOBS, WE NEED THE COPPER FOR ELECTRIC REVOLUTION, WE NEED RHENIUM TO BE INDEPENDENT FROM CHINA, AND WE NEED THE GOLD BECAUSE ITS FREAKING GOLD!! The USACE stated there will be no dramatic impact on the fish, why will you not accept that? Also, mitigation is PART OF THE PROCESS, there are no brakes being applied. The people WANT the mine.. Alaska needs REVENUE, and JOBS!