XPost: ba.politics, dc.media, soc.penpals   
   XPost: alt.burningman   
   From: murderess@msnbc.com   
      
   Eclipsed by the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline, the battle   
   over the fate of Alaska’s Bristol Bay has been one of the most   
   intense between industry and ecologists of the new century.   
   Today the Environmental Protection Agency appeared to tip the   
   scales in favor of the native Alaskans and environmentalists who   
   had petitioned the agency to use its authority under the Clean   
   Water Act to block a big mine proposed near the bay’s watershed.   
   Formally, the EPA has initiated a process (under section 404c   
   (PDF) of the act) that could lead to restrictions—or even a   
   veto—on any future mining at the site. For the time being,   
   neither a court nor the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may issue a   
   permit for a mine, and given the findings in its January   
   assessment of the watershed (PDF), it’s difficult to imagine the   
   EPA saying anything but no.   
      
   “Extensive scientific study has given us ample reason to believe   
   that the Pebble Mine would likely have significant and   
   irreversible negative impacts on the Bristol Bay watershed and   
   its abundant salmon fisheries,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy   
   said in a conference call announcing the move. “It’s why EPA is   
   taking this step forward in our effort to ensure protection for   
   the world’s most productive salmon fishery from the risks it   
   faces from what could be one of the largest open-pit mines on   
   earth. This process is not something the agency does very often,   
   but Bristol Bay is an extraordinary and unique resource.”   
      
   Today’s EPA decision is in response to a three-year-old request   
   by nine tribes in the region who had asked the agency to protect   
   the rivers where half of the world’s sockeye salmon spawn. The   
   proposed mine is touted as being worth $300 billion; the fishery   
   generates $480 million in annual revenue. Local salmon runs are   
   also essential to communities where many rely in part, or whole,   
   on wild-caught food for survival. The tribes contend that the   
   mine would pollute the rivers, and the EPA’s January report   
   found that “depending on the size of the mine … 24 to 94 miles   
   of salmon-supporting streams and 1,300 to 5,350 acres of   
   wetlands, ponds, and lakes would be destroyed.”   
      
   STORY: Why Miners Walked Away From the Planet's Richest   
   Undeveloped Gold Deposit   
   Kimberly Williams, director of Nunamta Aulukestai, an   
   association of 10 Bristol Bay native tribes and native village   
   corporations, welcomed today’s news. “We are happy with the   
   EPA’s decision to take this crucial step,” she says. “I and more   
   than 30 other Alaskan leaders just came back from Washington to   
   urge the EPA to do so. Now we’re one big step closer to   
   protecting our salmon, our resources and our people from the   
   proposed Pebble Mine.”   
      
   On today’s conference call, McCarthy, seeming to anticipate   
   complaints of regulatory overreach, said repeatedly that Bristol   
   Bay was “an extraordinary resource worthy of out-of-the-ordinary   
   protection. … Let me be clear, this decision does not reflect a   
   new approach or policy change at EPA. This is a unique   
   situation.”   
      
   The probable reason for her emphasis: The Pebble Partnership,   
   including Vancouver-based Northern Dynasty Minerals (NAK), who   
   holds the mineral rights through a lease, has yet to apply for a   
   permit to build the mine. The EPA is moving preemptively. And   
   Tom Collier, chief executive officer of the Pebble Partnership   
   in Anchorage, says he doubts the EPA has the legal authority to   
   issue a veto before he’s even filed for a permit. Nor is that   
   the only reason Collier calls today’s announcement   
   “insignificant” and “part of a process,” which he expects will   
   ultimately not prevent him from developing the Pebble Mine.   
      
   VIDEO: Randgold Says Mining Industry Must Reinvent Itself   
   “There are three reasons we’re confident that when we finally   
   file a permit to the [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers], it will be   
   approved,” Collier says. “The first is that not once in the 42   
   years of the [Clean Water] Act that I’m aware has the EPA vetoed   
   a project when there hasn’t been a permit filed.” Under the   
   National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), he says, an   
   environment assessment ought to be carried out based on his   
   company’s specific plan.   
      
   Second, he says, the EPA’s watershed assessment had 12 peer   
   reviewers, and after reading over the transcripts of their   
   discussions and e-mails, Collier counted 59 times where the   
   reviewers remarked that the document was “inadequate” for a   
   federal agency to rely on for decision-making. “I don’t believe   
   Administrator McCarthy has even read her own report,” he says,   
   implying that if McCarthy had read the report, she’d realize   
   there’s a lack of consensus on its findings.   
      
   http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-28/epa-tells-miners-   
   to-keep-out-of-alaskas-bristol-bay-and-they-arent-buying-   
   it?google_editors_picks=true   
      
       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)