Fall 2023 The Alaska Miner 23 BY KATI CAPOZZI, TESSA AXELSON, KAREN MATTHIAS, DEANTHA SKIBINSKI, REBECCA LOGAN, ALICIA AMBERG AND LEILA KIMBRELL For more than a decade, there has been a lot written on these pages about the Pebble project and its interactions with the Environmental Protection Agency. Gov. Mike Dunleavy recently filed suit against the EPA over its actions to block the project and foreclose economic opportunity on nearly 200,000 acres of land owned by the state of Alaska. Some have questioned this litigation. It is important to outline the critical importance of this lawsuit and why so many in the business community care a great deal about it. To begin, the issue is about process and the rules of the game for making decisions about resource development in Alaska. Businesses make decisions about investing in Alaska and our economy for a variety of reasons but among the most important is whether there is a clear and fair process for a company to follow. In a normal process for many resource development projects, the applicant files for a permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or USACE, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, aka CWA. This usually triggers a full review of the project via the environmental impact statement process. The EPA and other federal agencies participate in the EIS review and provide important technical input. If the USACE grants a permit the EPA disagrees with, the CWA grants the EPA the ability to veto the decision. These vetoes have been rarely used since the passage of the CWA as federal agencies attempt to work through significant differences. With Pebble, things got off the rails in this process when the EPA went outside the norm and began its attempt to preemptively block the project before there OPINION: EPA’s Pebble action sets unfair precedent Decision interferes with Alaska’s ability to manage its own lands CONTINUED on PAGE 24
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTcxMjMwNg==