Ballot Measure 4, billed the “Clean Water Initiative” by its proponents and viewed as a potential “mining shutdown” by its opponents, could determine the future direction of mining in Alaska. The measure will go before Alaska voters in the primary election on Tuesday, August 26.
The Alaska Federation of Natives, RDC, local communities, Native corporations, and scores of other organizations across Alaska remain deeply concerned about the possible effects of Ballot Measure 4 and what damage it could do to Alaskan jobs and the economy.
RDC views the initiative as just one part of an ongoing comprehensive campaign against economic development in Alaska.
The same people who sponsor and support Ballot Measure 4 are those who have been part of an anti-mining agenda that pushed legislation to shut down mining and wrote four other initiatives, one that was denied by the Lieutenant Governor’s office, one that was ruled unconstitutional by Alaska’s courts because it would have shut down mining in Alaska and two of which are currently in the process of gathering signatures.
Proponents claim the initiative’s main target is the proposed Pebble copper and gold mine in Southwest Alaska. They believe the initiative is necessary to protect the salmon fishery of Bristol Bay from Pebble, given its location near the headwaters of several streams that feed into rivers draining into the bay. Yet, the initiative makes no mention of the Pebble project or the Bristol Bay region.
Those opposing the initiative contend it is unnecessary and they consider it an arbitrary override of the stringent environmental regulatory process already in place. That process includes federal government laws which provide extensive permitting to protect water, fish and the environment.
Ed Fogels, Director of the Office of Project Management and Permitting at the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), pointed out the State already has stringent water quality standards that limit the amount of pollutants that can be discharged to amounts that are small enough so as not to cause adverse effects on aquatic life and humans. “These limits are set by scientific analysis, and are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency,” Fogels said. “If further scientific analysis shows that a particular water quality standard is not protective enough, there are regulatory mechanisms by which the standard can be changed to a more protective level.”
Tom Irwin, Commissioner of DNR, is a strong proponent of the state’s permitting process, which he calls “a world-class system that has demonstrated development can and is being accomplished with highest concern for the environment.“
Irwin noted in workshops held last winter on resource development permitting and regulation that the State has a large project permitting team that works with applicants and operators, federal resource managers, local governments and the public to ensure projects are designed, operated and reclaimed consistent with the public interest. He said State laws balance potential economic and social benefits of developing non-renewable mineral resources with the potential risks to a region’s renewable resources.
“The State must be able to assure the international industries and financial markets that our processes work, that they accommodate Alaskans’ concerns, and that the system cannot be ignored because some individuals do not like a potential outcome impacts an entire industry,” said RDC Executive Director Jason Brune. “The existing state and federal review process ensures no permitting decision is made until all environmental studies are completed and reviewed by government regulators and independent professionals.”
Unfortunately, Ballot Measure 4 throws this process out the window, Brune said. “Major laws typically have hundreds of pages of testimony and days of hearings. This ballot initiative has had no scientific review or public hearings.”
Brune emphasized the permitting process does not guarantee a mine will be given a green light to move forward. In fact, he noted regulators routinely reject development plans and preliminary designs, sending them back for revision; only allowing projects to move forward after agency concerns are fully addressed.
“Regulators say ‘no’ routinely in the permitting process,” Brune said. “Permits are not obtained until the requirements of the regulatory agencies are met. There are some large projects in Alaska that never did get permitted, despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars and many years navigating the process.” One of those projects was a proposed molybdenum mine near Ketchikan that U.S. Borax attempted to permit during the 1980s. Other projects received their permits and eventually moved forward into development, but only after extensive revisions in their preliminary design and operating plans were made.
Alaskans agree that protecting the environment and clean water should be a top priority, said Lorna Shaw, Executive Director of the Council of Alaska Producers. “But ballot measure 4 does not rely on a deliberate process. We should not let scare tactic politics trump sound science-based policy.” Shaw said.
At worst, ballot measure 4 could seriously harm Alaska’s mining industry, which would be felt in communities across the state, warned Karl Hanneman, President of the Council of Alaska Producers and Director of Corporate Affairs for Teck Cominco in Alaska. In the least, he said the poorly written initiative would likely generate years of litigation, unnecessary red tape and costly bureaucracy that would create a cloud of uncertainty over new regulations that could hinder new mining projects and expansion of existing mines, with little benefit.
“If the initiative becomes law, state agencies would need to revise regulations to comply, and at this point, no one really knows what these regulations will demand,” Hanneman said. “We are at risk of how this could be interpreted in the future. We cannot commit to a blank sheet of paper. What we do know today is that Alaska’s strong regulations already protect salmon and human health.”
At a recent Anchorage debate on Ballot Measure 4, Rose Barr of NANA Regional Corporation noted that no mine in Alaska will get permitted if it is going to pollute the water and harm fish.
No single permit to mine: there are many permits & authorizations
STATE
- Plan of Operations (DNR)
- Reclamation and Bonding (DNR)
- Waste Management Permits and Bonding (DEC)
- Certification of NPDES and ACOE Permits (DEC)
- Sewage Treatment System Approval (DEC)
- Air Quality Permits (DEC)
- Fish Habitat and Fishway Permits (ADF&G)
- Water Rights (DNR)
- Right of Way/Access (DNR/DOT)
- Tidelands Leases (DNR)
- Dam Safety Certification (DNR)
- Cultural Resource Protection (DNR)
- Monitoring Plan (Surface/Groundwater/Wildlife) (DNR/DEC)
- Coastal Zone Consistency Determination (DNR)
FEDERAL
- EPA Section 402 NPDES Water Discharge Permit
- EPA Air Quality Permit review
- EPA Safe Drinking Water Act (UIC Permit)
- US ACOE Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit
- US ACOE Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act
- US ACOE Section 106 Historical and Cultural Resources Protection
- NMFS Threatened and Endangered Species Act Consultation
- NMFS Marine Mammal Protection Act
- NMFS Essential Fish Habitat
- NMFS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
- USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species Act Consultation
- USFWS Bald Eagle Protection Act Clearance
- USFWS Migratory Bird Protection
- USFWS Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(These are only some of the authorizations required)
Each day large mines must comply with the strict requirements of dozens of permits and are always in the process of renewing permits
