Comment deadline was June 30, 2013

View RDC Comments (June 28, 2013)
View RDC Comments (May 29, 2013)
View Member Comments

Read RDC's Comments on the Draft Bristol Bay Watershead Assessment (July 2012)

Overview:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a revised assessment of the Bristol Bay region. This revised draft attempts to assess the effects of a potential mining project, without the project plans.

In 2010, the EPA was petitioned to use its authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to preemptively veto any dredge or fill permits in wetlands associated with mining and the Pebble Project in Southwest Alaska. Tribes closer to the project asked EPA to refrain from such action until a formal permit application has been submitted and the permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) initiated. Having never used its authority preemptively, the EPA decided instead to conduct a watershed assessment to help "inform its decision" on the issue. The EPA study began in February 2011, and completed the assessment on an area the size of West Virginia in less than one year. Previous watershed assessments conducted on smaller areas have taken years to complete.

The CWA does give the EPA authority to veto other agencies’ approval of permits, however, it is unprecedented that the EPA would prepare its watershed assessment in advance of any permit application. Moreover, the agency has rarely used its veto authority and never in advance of permits being issued by other agencies.

In its revised assessment, the EPA states it is “Based on the mine scenarios,” not on actual mine plans. The assessment focuses on the effects of a mining project that has not been proposed, and for which key engineering solutions, environmental safeguards, and mitigation measures have not been provided. This is a deeply flawed, speculative approach.

Senator Lisa Murkowski has said the EPA’s assessment “Attempts to prejudge any mining project before the full details of that proposal are submitted to the EPA for review is unacceptable. The permitting process exists for a reason and a federal agency can no more ignore the established process than can an applicant.”

In response to the release of the assessment, Senator Mark Begich said, “I remain opposed to any pre-emptive decision on the Pebble mine. While the project needs to meet a high hurdle – protecting the world’s largest and most valuable salmon run - developers should be allowed to present their project and it should succeed or fail on its merits.”

The State of Alaska, many statewide business associations, including RDC, and Native village and tribal organizations in the area have opposed the EPA assessment until there is a formal permit application to properly evaluate the project, and a thorough environmental impact statement is completed. The public comment period will run through May 31.

A copy of the revised assessment is available online at: http://www2.epa.gov/bristolbay

Action Requested:
Please submit written comments discouraging the EPA from preemptively vetoing projects in the Bristol Bay area. Tell the EPA to stop undermining existing regulatory processes and avoid setting a dangerous precedent for development. Investment in Alaska should not be jeopardized by federal overreach. Further, request an extension of the comment period to adequately allow for public review of the document. To view RDC’s request for an extension, visit: http://www.akrdc.org/alerts/2013/bristolbayassessmentextensionrequest.html

Submit comments:

Submit comments online: http://www.regulations.gov Reference Docket #EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0189

Email to: ORD.Docket@epa.gov, include Docket #EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0189 in the subject line.

Fax to: 202-566-9744, include Docket #EPA-HQ-ORD-2012-0276 in the subject line.

Mail to:
Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket (Mail Code: 28221T)
Docket # EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0189
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Use ProsperityAlaska.org's online tool: http://www.bipac.net/issue_alert.asp?g=ALASKA_B&issue=EPA-BristolBayAssessment&parent=ALASKA_B

Points to consider in your comments:

• A preemptive decision, prior to permit or project application and completion of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, is unacceptable, whether it be approval or denial of any project in any industry.
• The assessment undermines existing processes. The EPA has indicated, “Should specific mine projects reach the permitting stage, the assessment will enable state or federal permitting authorities to make informed decisions to grant, deny, or condition permits and/or conduct additional research or assessment as a basis for such decisions,” which undermines existing agency responsibilities on both the state and federal level.
• The revised assessment does not address many of the questions and concerns submitted by Alaskan stakeholders.
• The revised assessment continues to use a hypothetical mine, and periodically refers to outdated mining techniques, which is significantly flawed.
• The assessment and potential 404(c) actions against the Pebble Project are premature. The project has not yet been finalized and no permit applications – including detailed plans and environmental mitigation strategies – have been submitted to government agencies, nor has the NEPA process been initiated. As a result, the current assessment and any preemptive action would deprive government agencies and stakeholders of the specific information, science, and rigorous reviews that would come out of the multi-year NEPA process.
• Every project, no matter the size or location, should have an opportunity to be reviewed under existing legal processes. In the case of mining, there are more than 60 major permits and hundreds more from local, state, and federal agencies that must be successfully obtained. If the process determines a project as designed cannot protect the environment and other resources, it will not advance. The process will not permit one industry or resource to advance at the expense of another.
• Any 404(c) action outside the existing permitting process would be an extreme case of federal overreach and an assault on Alaska sovereignty. The Pebble mineral deposit is not located on federal land, nor inside a refuge or park. It is located on state land designated for mineral exploration. The State of Alaska depends on the responsible development of natural resources on its lands to diversify and support its economy.
• Until an application is filed describing the project in detail and an Environmental Impact Statement is completed, the EPA is prematurely determining adverse impacts based on hypothetical assessments and inapplicable modeling.
• The EPA spent less than one year assessing 20,000 square miles, an area about the size of New Jersey and Maryland combined. The short time frame of the study is insufficient and outside the context of a permit application. In contrast, the Pebble Partnership has spent eight years and expended more than $120 million to study the ecosystem in a smaller area around the deposit, while the EPA has in only one year with limited resources, conducted a draft assessment over a much larger area. The EPA should either revisit the assessment, giving their study the due time to develop into a comprehensive analysis, or drop the assessment process altogether.
• The governor and congressional delegation all support due process and fair consideration of the project. The State Attorney General has asked the EPA to stop its work on the assessment process until there is a permit application in front of the federal government.
• The assessment and potential actions would undermine existing regulatory processes and set a dangerous precedent for future projects. If the EPA preemptively stops projects before they enter the permitting process, any large project could be at risk. Preemptive action by the EPA could become a new tool opponents use to stop projects, or at a minimum, introduce significant uncertainty and delay, chilling Alaska's business climate.
• The comment period should be extended to adequately allow for public review of the document. The 30-day comment period in place is insufficient and should be extended by 120-days to allow commenters ample time to provide feedback.
• The content of the assessment is vague and flawed, and cannot be addressed, adequately reviewed and commented on in such a short amount of time.

Comment deadline was June 30, 2013