{"id":1903,"date":"2014-10-07T09:50:25","date_gmt":"2014-10-07T13:50:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www3.law.harvard.edu\/journals\/elr\/?p=1903"},"modified":"2023-07-25T15:59:41","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T19:59:41","slug":"1903","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/2014\/10\/07\/1903\/","title":{"rendered":"Pebble Mine and EPA\u2019s Veto Authority Under the Clean Water Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Yellowstone_Caravello\"<\/a>By Cecilia Segal -\u2014 October 7 at 9:50 a.m.<\/em><\/p>\n

Since 2011, the Pebble Limited Partnership (\u201cPLP\u201d) has been attempting to build a large-scale copper and gold mine in the Bristol Bay watershed in southwestern Alaska.[1]<\/a> The mine proposal includes<\/a> an open pit mine, a tailings facility, a power generating station, a deepwater port, and substantial transportation infrastructure, and is slated to operate for at least 20\u201325 years.[2]<\/a> Though exact design specifications have not yet been determined, the mine is expected<\/a> to be one of the largest open pit mines in the world.[3]<\/a> In light of recent developments, however \u2013 including a rare move by EPA to invoke its veto authority under \u00a7 404(c) of the Clean Water Act \u2013 the mine\u2019s future is in serious doubt.<\/p>\n

PLP maintains<\/a> that the project can coexist with the surrounding environment. Many disagree with this contention. The Bristol Bay watershed is a delicate ecosystem<\/a>, providing spawning grounds for all five species of Alaska salmon and habitat for over 40 species of mammal and 190 species of birds.[4]<\/a> Most notably, the watershed is home<\/a> to the world\u2019s largest sockeye salmon run.[5]<\/a> The watershed also supports<\/a> subsistence activities for 25 communities of Alaska Natives [6]<\/a>; the Native village of Newhalen, for example, averages a 700 pound per capita harvest each year.<\/p>\n

With so much at stake, the mine has understandably attracted a great deal of controversy. Indeed, the opposition has expanded beyond the traditional environmental<\/a> organizations<\/a> to include celebrities like Robert Redford<\/a> and jewelry giant Tiffany\u2019s<\/a>. Ultimately, petitions from several federally recognized tribes and concerned individuals led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (\u201cEPA\u201d) to conduct<\/a> an assessment of the mine\u2019s potential environmental impacts on the region.<\/p>\n

In January 2014, EPA released<\/a> its final assessment. Following that assessment, EPA issued a Proposed Determination in July 2014 to bar development of the Pebble mine, citing the \u201chigh ecological and economic value of the Bristol Bay watershed and the assessed unacceptable environmental effects that would result from such mining.\u201d[7]<\/a> EPA provided<\/a> a period for public comment on the proposal and held public hearings throughout Alaska. The author of this blog post attended the hearing in Anchorage on August 12, 2014.<\/p>\n

EPA\u2019s Proposed Determination rests on its authority under \u00a7 404 of the Clean Water Act (\u201cCWA\u201d). Although the mine would be<\/a> located on state land, it is nonetheless subject to federal permitting requirements. Specifically, because the mine construction would require a significant amount of dredging, PLP must obtain<\/a> a permit under \u00a7 404 of the CWA. These permits are issued<\/a> by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under \u00a7 404(c), however, the EPA may prohibit or restrict fill activities if it determines that a project would have an \u201cunacceptable adverse effect\u201d on fishery habitat, including spawning and breeding areas.[8]<\/a> Though sparingly used \u2013 EPA has only taken advantage<\/a> of this provision on 13 occasions \u2013 the D.C. Circuit recently upheld EPA\u2019s \u201cveto\u201d authority in Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA<\/em>.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

Here, EPA\u2019s use of the \u00a7 404(c) veto unleashed a new flurry of controversy and immediately sparked litigation \u2013 particularly because EPA\u2019s actions occurred before PLP had applied for the \u00a7 404 permit. On May 22, 2014, for instance, PLP filed suit in federal court, arguing that EPA\u2019s Proposed Determination was a \u201cpreemptive veto\u201d and seeking<\/a> an injunction to halt EPA\u2019s process entirely. But on September 26, 2014, the District Court judge dismissed the suit.[10]<\/a> Because EPA\u2019s Proposed Determination was not a final agency action, the court held, PLP\u2019s suit was premature.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

While PLP intends<\/a> to challenge EPA\u2019s final determination \u2013 which must be issued by February 4, 2015 [12]<\/a> \u2013 the future of the project has been thrown into doubt. A number of factors signal the project\u2019s demise, including significant costs and delays, heated public outcry, a loss of investors, EPA opposition, and a tailings pond breach at a similar mine in British Columbia in August, 2014. Given the project\u2019s \u201cnear-moribund state,\u201d<\/a> it may not be capable of surviving the slew of permit application and review processes it must undergo prior to construction. Such a result would be a significant win for EPA and might encourage more use of its veto authority under \u00a7 404(c).<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> See <\/em>U.S. E.P.A., Proposed Determination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, Pebble Deposit Area, Southwest Alaska, ES-2 (July 2014), available at<\/em> http:\/\/www2.epa.gov\/sites\/production\/files\/2014-07\/documents\/pebble_es_pd_071714_final.pdf<\/a> [hereinafter \u201cProposed Determination\u201d].
\n[2]<\/a> See <\/em>Proposed Determination at ES-2.
\n[3]<\/a> Proposed Determination at ES-2.
\n[4]<\/a> U.S. E.P.A., An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska: Executive Summary, 6 (January 2014), available at<\/em> http:\/\/www.epa.gov\/ncea\/pdfs\/bristolbay\/bristol_bay_assessment_final_2014_ES.pdf <\/a>[hereinafter \u201cFinal Assessment\u201d].
\n[5]<\/a> Proposed Determination at ES-1.
\n[6]<\/a> Proposed Determination at ES-1.
\n[7]<\/a> Proposed Determination at ES-1; 79 Fed. Reg. 42,314 (July 21, 2014).
\n[8]<\/a> 33 U.S.C. \u00a7 1344(c).
\n[9]<\/a> 714 F.3d 608, 609 (D.C. Cir. 2013), cert. denied<\/em>, 134 S.Ct. 1540 (2014).
\n[10]<\/a> Pebble Ltd. P\u2019ship v. EPA, No. 3:14-cv-0097-HRH , slip op. at 15 (D. Alaska Sept. 26, 2014).
\n[11]<\/a> Id. <\/em>at 14\u201315.
\n[12]<\/a> 79 Fed .Reg. 56,365, 56,365 (Sept. 19, 2014).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Cecilia Segal -\u2014 October 7 at 9:50 a.m. Since 2011, the Pebble Limited Partnership (\u201cPLP\u201d) has been attempting to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":164,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[8,17,44,101,105,149,201],"class_list":["post-1903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-helr-online","tag-administrative-law","tag-alaska","tag-clean-water-act","tag-environmental-regulation","tag-epa","tag-indigenous-communities","tag-pebbe-mine"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/seZkUb-1903","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/164"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}