Northern Dynasty issues a sharply-worded response to EPA proposal for Alaska's Pebble Project.
Yes, I know that it's a few years out at least and all eyes are on Hay mountain, but mark my words... LBSR's Pebble claims will be huge someday. If not for us, then for our kids. I regard it as a tool for intergenerational wealth transfer.
=================================================================================
July 18, 2014 Vancouver, BC -- Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (TSX: NDM; NYSE MKT: NAK) ("Northern Dynasty" or the "Company") reports that while today's announcement from the US Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") Region 10 is only a proposal at this time, we note the agency is seemingly moving away from pre-emptively vetoing the Pebble Project in favor of imposing specific conditions on future development.
That said, we do not accept that EPA has the statutory authority to impose conditions on development at Pebble, or any development project anywhere in Alaska or the US, prior to the submission of a detailed development plan and its thorough review by federal and state agencies including review under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
Moreover, EPA's attempt to pre-emptively impose conditions on future development at Pebble in the absence of completing an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIA"), as is required of every major development project in the United States, is causing significant and even critical harm to our business interests and our abilities to fairly advance our project. For this reason, we fully intend to continue our litigation against EPA in order to halt the pre-emptive and unprecedented regulatory process under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, and invalidate the conditions proposed by EPA Region 10.
It is important to remember that, in addition to the lawsuit brought by Pebble and the State of Alaska against EPA, there are a number of investigations yet underway with respect to EPA's Bristol Bay Assessment and its pre-emptive regulatory process, including one by the Office of the EPA Inspector General and another by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. There are also two bi-partisan bills pending in the US House and Senate seeking to clarify that EPA does not have authority to pre-emptively veto or otherwise restrict development projects prior to the onset of federal and state permitting.
In aggressively pursuing each of these remedies, the Pebble Limited Partnership (the "Pebble Partnership") is aware that the precedent established by EPA taking pre-emptive action at Pebble would be devastating for the future of investment in the State of Alaska and throughout the United States. We have already seen a group in Wisconsin seeking pre-emptive action by the EPA on a mineral project in that state.
EPA's proposal is based on a watershed assessment that its peer reviewers found to be no better than a screening document, and that EPA's professionals have recognized is missing the information needed for a permitting decision. EPA's proposal is also based on mining scenarios that are outdated and, in any event, would never qualify for environmental permits. Thus, the EPA's use of the Bristol Bay Assessment for its agency decision making is fundamentally flawed as it is not scientifically or technically defensible.
The correct, legal, and defensible way forward is for EPA to suspend its pre-emptive 404(c) process and allow us the full opportunity to have our project reviewed by federal and state regulatory agencies, including EPA, under NEPA.
Finally, while we believe the conditions for development at Pebble proposed by EPA Region 10 are misguided and not based on sound science or regulatory precedent, we continue to believe the project must be developed in a way that protects clean water, healthy fish and wildlife populations, and the Alaska Native communities that rely on them. The Pebble Partnership is committed to working with EPA and other federal and state regulatory agencies during the permitting process for the Pebble Project to ensure that adequate protections exist for clean water, healthy fisheries and other important natural resources, and that the 'spirit' of EPA's proposed conditions are fulfilled.
