Scenarios. Currently, there are at least 4 interrelated federal statutory mechanisms in which regulatory agencies can deny the proposed action (current mine plan submitted to USACE) and/or restrict mining within the watershed.
#’s 1, 2 and 3 are on-going federal interventions while #4 remains available to EPA.
1. USACE issued negative Record of Decision (ROD) rejecting the proposed action/404 permit application-current.
2. USACE ROD appeal denial. Proponent may resubmit 404 permit application initiating new NEPA review and assessment (EIS). The current administration, USACE and EPA will not allow the appeal to succeed-? “Conditional” appeal appears not to be an option by statute-?
3. EPA restricts mining within watershed boundary by issuing a Final Determination. 13 such Final Determinations, restricting development, have been issued by EPA in the past.
4. EPA will not issue the required Water Quality Certification if either the proponent’s ROD appeal is upheld and all subsequent federal, state and local authorizations are issued, or EPA’s Final Determination to restrict watershed mining fails.
Per state statute, the Alaska legislature rejects the proposed project after all federal, state and local permits/authorizations have been issued.
If the proponent’s strategy was to obtain “approval” of the smaller mine plan, which may or may not be economic, and apply for mining the majority of the resource thereafter, the strategy would be fundamentally flawed and possibly considered unethical.
Additionally, the USACE completely failed to present, assess, weigh and mitigate all cumulative impacts, foreseeable future (large mine plan) cumulative impacts and mining method(s) alternatives, namely underground mining in combination with open pit or underground mining only.
Underground mining integrating waste rock and tailings backfilling significantly reduces environmental impacts and long-term water treatment, discharge, maintenance and cost.