Dig Deeper: Mining the Documents

by

Pebble Project’s Environmental Baseline Document

In 2012, the Pebble Partnership released its assessment — which it says it spent eight years and $120 million working on — of the proposed mine’s impact on the environment in what it calls “one of the most comprehensive environmental study programs ever undertaken for a natural resource project in Alaska.” The report, available for download by chapter, totals roughly 27,000 pages, but condensed summaries are available here.

Opponents have charged the data is nearly impossible to analyze independently because its in locked form: all of the data would have to be entered by hand. Critics also argue the study focuses on main stem rivers rather than the headwaters, where the majority of the salmon habitat is located.

Learn more about the study in Pebble Project’s FAQs.

Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. Preliminary Assessment (PDF)

Released in October 2011 by Northern Dynasty, one of the companies in the Pebble Limited Partnership, this 555-page-report provides the latest and most comprehensive plan about Pebble’s proposed mine, including details about development, drilling and costs.

Pebble Science

A number of scientists concerned about “the mine’s impact on water quality and fisheries” have published their own research about Pebble’s impacts on fisherieswater qualityseismic riskacid drainagewaste disposal; and other aspects of the local environment.

The Regulators’ E-Mails

Emails obtained by conservation group Trout Unlimited through Freedom of Information Act Requests reveal that some state regulators who attended meetings with Pebble were frustrated by the company’s refusal to share information.

In this e-mail, an official of Alaska’s Department of Fish and Game writes, “It’s virtually impossible” to review Pebble’s science because “they don’t provide detailed project designs, … agency staff have consistently asked for.”

Some regulators questioned why they had been asked to the meetings, saying that “none of their suggestions had been used in any of Pebble’s studies.”

A representative from US Fish and Wildlife wrote, “this entire process only benefits [Pebble’s] public relations campaign.” In another e-mail, a regulator expressed frustration that “further participation in the process is a waste of our time (and money to travel to meetings).”

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Report (PDF)

The EPA spent more than a year gathering information about the salmon ecosystems in the Bristol Bay watershed and published a draft assessment in May 2012. It came down hard on the Pebble Project, detailing the many risks involved, including a major loss of fish habitat, the high probability of a damaging pipeline break, the catastrophic consequences of tailings dam failures, and the never-ending threat of acid mine drainage. The findings are significant in that the EPA can unilaterally stop the mine.

Pebble has fired back at the agency, charging that its assessment was “rushed and inadequate,” and issuing a 10-page comment addressing “technical errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies” in the assessment. In a statement, Pebble CEO John Shively also said (PDF):

We believe that the EPA has rushed its assessment process, and that this is especially problematic in light of the large size of the study area.  We have taken several years and expended considerable resources to study the ecosystem in a small area around the Pebble deposit, while the EPA has, in only one year and with limited resources, completed a draft assessment in relation to an area of approximately 20,000 square miles.  We believe that this explains why the EPA’s work has not yet approached the level of rigor and completeness required for a scientific assessment.

Shively isn’t alone. Anchorage residents have also complained, some of whom view the EPA’s involvement as federal meddling in states’ affairs and worry that it could detract from other investment. But some native Alaskans, environmentalists and fishermen have supported the agency’s involvement.

After an independent panel of scientists reviews their data, the EPA could make a decision, but the agency has not indicated when that will happen.

blog comments powered by Disqus

In order to foster a civil and literate discussion that respects all participants, FRONTLINE has the following guidelines for commentary. By submitting comments here, you are consenting to these rules:

Readers' comments that include profanity, obscenity, personal attacks, harassment, or are defamatory, sexist, racist, violate a third party's right to privacy, or are otherwise inappropriate, will be removed. Entries that are unsigned or are "signed" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. We reserve the right to not post comments that are more than 400 words. We will take steps to block users who repeatedly violate our commenting rules, terms of use, or privacy policies. You are fully responsible for your comments.

SUPPORT PROVIDED BY

FRONTLINE on

ShopPBS
Frontline Journalism Fund

Supporting Investigative Reporting

Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Major funding for FRONTLINE is provided by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Additional funding is provided by the Park Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Wyncote Foundation, and the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund with major support from Jon and Jo Ann Hagler on behalf of the Jon L. Hagler Foundation.
PBSCPBMacArthur FoundationPark FoundationFord Foundationwyncote

FRONTLINE   Watch FRONTLINE   About FRONTLINE   Contact FRONTLINE
Privacy Policy   Journalistic Guidelines   PBS Privacy Policy   PBS Terms of Use   Corporate Sponsorship
FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of WGBH Educational Foundation.
Web Site Copyright ©1995-2014 WGBH Educational Foundation
PBS is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.