Officials with the group seeking to build a copper, gold and molybdenum mine in Southwest Alaska said Nov. 16 that they want a role in the litigation over the legality of a state land use plan critical to project development.
"Essentially, we want to have a seat at the table in a matter that is clearly trying to delay or stop our project from advancing," said Mike Heatwole, a spokesman for the Pebble Limited Partnership.
The Bristol Bay Area Plan was adopted in 2005 following a two-year process involving multiple state and federal agencies, Alaska Native corporations, tribal groups, local governments, interest groups and the public.
A lawsuit filed in June in Dillingham Superior Court challenges whether the plan, as revised, is in compliance with state statutes. Barring a challenge before the Alaska Supreme Court, the case appears to be heading for trial before Superior Court Judge Fred Torrisi in Dillingham.
On Oct. 13, Torrisi denied a state motion to dismiss seven of eight causes of action brought by plaintiffs, all of whom oppose development of the Pebble prospect, now in the exploration phase. Dismissal would have assured priority for development of mining claims within the 2005 Bristol Bay area plan for state lands.
On Oct. 28, the Pebble Partnership moved to intervene in the case. Torrisi has yet to rule on that motion.
State officials, meanwhile, filed a motion Nov. 3 to extend until Nov. 25 its deadline to file a petition seeking a review of the case by the Alaska Supreme Court. Assistant Attorney General John Baker said the state has not yet decided whether it will seek to involve the Alaska Supreme Court.
Baker did say, however, in a Nov. 9 interview, that the state did not oppose the Pebble Partnership's motion to intervene.
In his Oct. 13 decision, Torrisi wrote that the Bristol Bay area plan was developed pursuant to specific legislative direction to provide a roadmap for future decisions concerning the use of state land.
Plaintiffs allege that the revised plan failed to comply with state law. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources contends that the plan is not a regulation, but rather a planning tool, a quasi-executive document that sets standards for future action, and that it is these future decisions which are regulatory, or adjudicatory, and either way subject to judicial review, the judge noted.
Torrisi concluded that the plan is a regulation, and therefore subject to action for declaratory relief.
Plaintiffs in the case include the Alaska Independent Fishermen's Marketing Association, Trout Unlimited and six federally recognized tribes seeking to overturn the 2005 revisions of the land use plan.
Margaret Bauman can be reached at
margie.bauman@alaskajournal.com.
