As the Trump administration rushes to finalize all sorts of policies and regulations that are bad for the environment, it got this one right. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers rejected a permit for the massive Pebble Mine proposal near Alaska’s Bristol Bay, which would have threatened a key salmon fishery and other natural resources.


Workers with the Pebble Mine project test drill in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska, near the village of Iliamma, on July 13, 2007. A permit for the proposed gold and copper mine at the headwaters of the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery in Alaska was recently rejected by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as “contrary to the public interest.” Al Grillo/Associated Press, File

In rejecting the permit, the corps said the project was “contrary to the public interest.”

Yes, the Trump administration chose the public good and the environment over corporate desires. Of course, it probably didn’t hurt that Donald Trump Jr., who styles himself as an outdoorsman, opposed the project.

Details of the proposal had shifted over time (with some reported misdirections by proponents), but it was expected to become one of the largest open-pit mines in the world with a dam, a shipping port, roadways and massive storage ponds for runoff from operations aimed primarily at digging up copper, gold and other materials.

The proposed mine site is about 200 miles southwest of Anchorage, on land with runoff that eventually reaches Bristol Bay. The bay is home to the world’s largest wild sockeye salmon fishery, which supports 14,000 jobs in a $1.5 billion local industry of commercial fishing boats and individual anglers – like Trump Jr.

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board has long opposed the project as not only a danger to the environment, but also – had the administration approved it – a callous elevation of the interests of an international mining company over an existing sustainable regional economy.

“Bristol Bay supports a vibrant, long-running economy based on a sustainable fishery … as well as tourism and other non-extractive businesses,” The Times wrote last year as President Trump appeared to change course on the Obama administration’s opposition to the mine. “Allowing the mine to go forward would sacrifice the existing and more environmentally friendly economy for gold and copper extraction that could be disastrous for the environment.”

Fortunately, the Trump administration listened – even if the decision bore the weight of the president’s son’s thumb.

I should note, too, that the editorial board wrote last year that “the Trump administration has earned the nation’s skepticism over whether, in adopting policies and weighing proposed projects, it can be relied upon to shepherd our natural resources in a balanced, sustainable and sensible manner.”

Score one for Trump.


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.