watersheds of Bristol Bay. “EPA Region 10’s action rep - resents the third step in EPA’s four- step Clean Water Act Section 404(c) review process,” Sixkiller said. If af - firmed by EPA’s Office of Water, the action would prohibit certain waters in the South Fork Koktuli River and North Fork Koktuli River watersheds as disposal sites for the discharge of dredged or fill material for the con - struction and routine operation of a large mine EPA’s Office of Water is review - ing the Recommended Determina - tion and the administrative record supporting Region 10’s decision, as well as information provided by the United States Army Corps of Engi - neers. EPA’s regulations do not re- quire public notice of Recommended Determinations and EPA is not seek- ing additional public comment, the agency said. Dunleavy said the action sets a dangerous precedent. “It vetoes a permit that has not been issued and imposes a blanket prohibition on development over 309 square miles of Alaska-owned land. Alarmingly, it lays the foundation to
stop any development project, min- ing or nonmining, in any area of Alaska with wetlands and fish-bear - ing streams. “The State of Alaska has the duty, under our constitution, to develop its resources to the maximum in order to provide for itself and its people, so it’s important that any and all op- portunities be explored in further- ance of this idea,” Dunleavy said. “This is an incredible power for a federal agency — staffed by unelect - ed officials, unaccountable to Alas - kans — to have,” said Jason Brune, Commissioner of the Alaska Depart- ment of Environmental Conserva- tion. The governor noted several flaws in the veto’s supporting documents. One is the veto’s prematurity: proj- ect plans are still working through the established permitting process, which the Army Corps of Engineers oversee. At this juncture, Alaska’s State agencies—the Alaska Depart - ment of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Environmental Con- servation, and the Alaska Depart- ment of Natural Resources—have not yet weighed in; through the
State permitting process, the State’s 401 certification process, or through State input as a landowner. “The veto disregards the Alas- ka Statehood Act, violates the Clean Water Act, and departs from basic scientific methodology. Of particular concern is EPA’s failure to demon- strate why the Army Corps of Engi- neers was wrong when it reviewed the same scientific data but arrived at the opposite conclusion — that the proposed mine plan “would not be expected to have a measurable effect on fish numbers or result in long- term changes to the health of the commercial fisheries in Bristol Bay,” Dunleavy said. Additionally, united by a desire for greater predictability in the 404 permitting process, the Western States Water Council, representing 18 states and accountable to the West- ern Governors’ Association, passed a resolution urging EPA to adhere to established procedure, meaningfully consult with affected States, and ade - quately document its rationale before exercising the 404(c) veto power.
— Tim Bradner
11
Winter 2023
The Alaska Miner
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker