Where does the EPA's Final Determination rely on the Corps' Final EIS, and where does it reach a different conclusion?
Searched 42,053 pages · 16 sources
EPA's Final Determination says that "none of the FEIS conclusions quoted above contradict EPA's conclusions in the final determination", yet it finds that the FEIS conclusions about the lack of effects on fish habitats and fish populations "often are not supported by the available evidence". EPA bases the final determination on the "measurable" impacts that the FEIS concludes will occur. The FEIS finds measurable habitat loss (mine site development "would permanently remove approximately 22 miles of fish habitat") but no measurable population-level effect ("the loss of habitat is not expected to have a measurable impact on fish populations"); EPA treats the habitat loss itself as the unacceptable adverse effect, and its final determination "does not conclude that impacts to the fish-related endpoints" will be measurable.
The Final Determination adopts the FEIS stream loss figure: "The FEIS identifies 99.7 miles of streambed habitat at the mine site that would be lost", matching the "removal of 99.7 miles of streambed habitat" in FEIS Section 4.24. EPA found that losing the 8.5 miles of FEIS-identified anadromous habitat "will have unacceptable adverse effects on anadromous fishery areas in the NFK watershed". The wetland figures are not like for like: FEIS Section 4.22 reports "2,162 acres of wetlands and other waters" at the mine site, while EPA's finding rests on the "approximately 2,108 acres" in the SFK and NFK watersheds, part of approximately 2,113 acres across the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds that "PLP's CWA Section 404 application identified". EPA has concerns with the methods used to predict streamflow impacts but treats the FEIS modelling as "a reasonable minimum approximation of impacts for this project".
EPA departs from the FEIS on scale: the FEIS conclusions "focus on impacts to fish populations at large spatial scales", and "EPA has not made an unacceptable adverse effects determination at these larger scales". EPA also treats FEIS values as "a minimum estimate of impacts to fishery areas". Finally, EPA calls the significant degradation finding in the Corps' Record of Decision "consistent with EPA's final determination".
| Final EIS | EPA Final Determination | |
|---|---|---|
| Habitat loss (stream miles, wetland acres) | 2,162 acres of wetlands and other waters, including 99.7 miles of streams | approximately 2,108 acres (8.5 km2) of wetlands and other waters |
| Population-level effect on salmon | impacts to anadromous and resident fish populations from these direct habitat losses would not be measurable | would adversely affect fish habitats and populations in the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds |
| Scale of analysis | not likely to be noticeable in context of the Bristol Bay watershed | unacceptable adverse effects on fishery areas at the scale of the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds |
| Habitat quality assumptions | not ideal spawning and rearing habitat for salmon | not supported by the available information about these habitats |
| Downstream streamflow | discernable changes in flow would be unlikely | would adversely affect approximately 29 miles (46.7 km) of additional anadromous fish streams |
| Portfolio Effect | the impact to the Portfolio Effect would not be discernable | the FEIS provides no evidence to support these conclusions |