Proposed Determination To Restrict the Use of an Area and a Disposal Site; Pebble Deposit Area, 66548-66550 [2021-25515]
Download as PDF
66548
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 23, 2021 / Notices
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
Use of the https://
www.regulations.gov website to submit
comments to EPA electronically is
EPA’s preferred method for receiving
comments. The electronic public docket
system is an ‘‘anonymous access’’
system, which means EPA will not
know your identity, email address, or
other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
Please ensure that your comments are
submitted within the specified comment
period. Comments received after the
close of the comment period will be
marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to
consider these late comments.
Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–R10–OW–2017–0369; FRL–9281–01–
R10]
Proposed Determination To Restrict
the Use of an Area and a Disposal Site;
Pebble Deposit Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
In light of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Alaska’s recent
decision to remand and vacate the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)’s 2019 decision to
withdraw the Proposed Determination
to Restrict the Use of an Area and a
Disposal Site; Pebble Deposit Area,
Southwest Alaska pursuant to the Clean
Water Act (CWA), EPA Region 10 is
providing notice that EPA has good
cause to extend the time requirement to
allow the EPA Region 10 Regional
Administrator to consider available
information, including information that
has become available since EPA issued
the 2014 Proposed Determination in
order to determine appropriate next
steps in the review process.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
Visit
www.epa.gov/bristolbay or contact Cami
Grandinetti through the Bristol Bayspecific phone line, (206) 553–0040, or
email address, r10bristolbay@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Nov 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
The Bristol Bay Watershed
Assessment is available via the internet
on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay site
at www.epa.gov/bristolbay.
B. How To Obtain a Copy of the 2014
Proposed Determination
The July 2014 Proposed
Determination is available via the
internet on the EPA Region 10 Bristol
Bay site at www.epa.gov/bristolbay.
C. How To Obtain a Copy of the
Settlement Agreement
The May 11, 2017 settlement
agreement is available via the internet
on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay site
at www.epa.gov/bristolbay.
The July 2017 proposal to withdraw
the 2014 Proposed Determination is
available via the internet on the EPA
Region 10 Bristol Bay site at
www.epa.gov/bristolbay. Information
regarding the proposal to withdraw can
also be found in the docket for this
effort at www.regulations.gov, see
docket ID No. EPA–R10–OW–2017–
0369 or via the following website
located at https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369.
E. How To Obtain a Copy of Notification
of Suspension
Notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
A. How To Obtain a Copy of the Bristol
Bay Watershed Assessment
D. How To Obtain a Copy of the
Proposal to Withdraw the 2014
Proposed Determination
[FR Doc. 2021–25514 Filed 11–22–21; 8:45 am]
ACTION:
I. General Information
The February 2018 notice announcing
EPA’s decision to suspend the
proceeding to withdraw the 2014
Proposed Determination at that time is
available via the internet on the EPA
Region 10 Bristol Bay site at
www.epa.gov/bristolbay. Information
regarding the suspension can also be
found in the docket for this effort at
www.regulations.gov, see docket ID No.
EPA–R10–OW–2017–0369 or via the
following website located at https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPAR10-OW-2017-0369.
F. How To Obtain a Copy of the Notice
of Withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed
Determination
The August 2019 notice of withdrawal
of the 2014 Proposed Determination is
available via the internet on the EPA
Region 10 Bristol Bay site at
www.epa.gov/bristolbay. Information
regarding the proposal to withdraw can
also be found in the docket for this
effort at www.regulations.gov, see
docket ID No. EPA–R10–OW–2017–
0369 or via the following website
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
located at https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369.
II. Factual Background
A. Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment
and 2014 Proposed Determination
In 2011, after EPA received petitions
to use its CWA section 404(c) authority
to protect Bristol Bay’s salmon fishery,
EPA initiated a three-year ecological
risk assessment to determine the
significance of the Bristol Bay
watershed’s ecological resources and to
evaluate the potential impacts of largescale mining on those resources. In
January 2014, EPA finalized the peerreviewed Bristol Bay Watershed
Assessment (BBWA), which it prepared
through an open and inclusive process
that included two opportunities for
public comment, eight public meetings,
interagency coordination, and
consultation with 13 federally
recognized tribal governments.
On February 28, 2014, after careful
consideration of available material,
including information collected as part
of the BBWA, other existing science and
technical information, and information
provided by stakeholders, EPA Region
10 notified the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), the State of Alaska
(State), and the Pebble Limited
Partnership (PLP) that it had decided to
proceed under its CWA section 404(c)
regulations to review potential adverse
environmental effects of discharges of
dredged and fill material associated
with mining the Pebble deposit in
southwest Alaska. In accordance with
its regulations at 40 CFR 231.3(a)(1),
EPA Region 10 offered the Corps, the
State, and PLP the opportunity to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Region 10 Regional Administrator that
no unacceptable adverse effects would
occur as a result of such discharges.
On July 21, 2014, EPA Region 10
published in the Federal Register notice
of its 2014 Proposed Determination to
restrict the use of certain waters in the
South Fork Koktuli River, North Fork
Koktuli River, and Upper Talarik Creek
watersheds (located within the larger
Bristol Bay watershed) as disposal sites
for the discharge of dredged or fill
material associated with mining the
Pebble deposit (79 FR 42314, July 21,
2014). EPA Region 10 held seven public
hearings throughout southwest Alaska
during the week of August 11, 2014 and
received more than 670,000 public
comments, more than 99% of which
supported the 2014 Proposed
Determination.
E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM
23NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 23, 2021 / Notices
B. PLP’s Litigation and Settlement
Agreement
Before EPA could reach the next step
in the CWA section 404(c) review
process—to either withdraw the 2014
Proposed Determination or prepare a
recommended determination pursuant
to 40 CFR 231.5(a)—PLP filed multiple
lawsuits against the Agency. On
November 25, 2014, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Alaska issued a
preliminary injunction against EPA in
one of those lawsuits that halted EPA
Region 10’s CWA section 404(c) review
process until the case was resolved.
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
at 1–2, Pebble Limited Partnership v.
EPA, No. 3:14–cv–00171 (D. Alaska
Nov. 25, 2014). On May 11, 2017, EPA
and PLP settled that lawsuit—and all of
PLP’s outstanding lawsuits—and the
court subsequently dissolved the
injunction and dismissed the case with
prejudice.
Under the terms of the settlement,
EPA agreed to ‘‘initiate a process to
propose to withdraw the Proposed
Determination.’’ EPA also agreed not to
forward a signed recommended
determination to EPA Headquarters
until May 11, 2021 or until EPA
published a notice of the Corps’ final
environmental impact statement (EIS)
on PLP’s CWA section 404 permit
application for the proposed Pebble
mine, whichever came first. To take
advantage of this period of forbearance,
PLP was required to submit its CWA
section 404 permit application to the
Corps within 30 months of execution of
the settlement agreement. For a link to
a copy of the settlement agreement, see
Section I of this document.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
C. Proposal To Withdraw the 2014
Proposed Determination, ‘‘Suspension,’’
and Withdrawal
On July 19, 2017, in accordance with
the terms of the settlement agreement,
EPA Region 10 published in the Federal
Register a notice of its proposal to
withdraw the 2014 Proposed
Determination (82 FR 33123, July 19,
2017). In its July 19, 2017 publication,
EPA identified three reasons for its
proposed withdrawal—that
withdrawing the 2014 Proposed
Determination would (1) provide PLP
with additional time to submit a CWA
section 404 permit application to the
Corps; (2) remove any uncertainty, real
or perceived, about PLP’s ability to
submit a permit application and have
that permit application reviewed; and
(3) allow the factual record regarding
any forthcoming permit application to
develop. EPA explained that ‘‘[i]n light
of the basis upon which EPA is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Nov 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
considering withdrawal of the Proposed
Determination, EPA is not soliciting
comment on the proposed restrictions or
on science or technical information
underlying the Proposed
Determination.’’ (82 FR 33124, July 19,
2017)
EPA received more than one million
public comments regarding its proposal
to withdraw. Approximately 99% of
commenters expressed opposition to the
withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed
Determination. The public comments,
transcripts from the public hearings,
and summaries of the tribal and ANCSA
Corporation consultations can be found
in the docket for this proceeding; see
Section I of this document for
information on how to access this
docket.
On December 22, 2017, PLP submitted
to the Corps a CWA section 404 permit
application that proposed to develop a
mine at the Pebble deposit. On January
5, 2018, the Corps issued a public notice
that provided PLP’s permit application
to the public, stated that an EIS would
be required as part of its permit review
process consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and
invited relevant federal and state
agencies, including EPA, to be
cooperating agencies on the
development of the EIS.
On January 26, 2018, EPA Region 10
announced a ‘‘suspension’’ of the
proceeding to withdraw the 2014
Proposed Determination at that time.
This action was published in the
Federal Register on February 28, 2018
(83 FR 8668, February 28, 2018).
On August 30, 2019, after conferring
with EPA’s General Counsel,1 EPA
Region 10 published in the Federal
Register its decision to withdraw the
2014 Proposed Determination, thereby
concluding the withdrawal process that
was initiated on July 19, 2017 (84 FR
45749, August 30, 2019). EPA identified
that it was withdrawing the Proposed
Determination because:
(1) New information had been
generated since 2014, including
information and preliminary
conclusions in the Corps’ Draft EIS, that
EPA would need to consider before any
potential future decision-making
regarding the matter;
1 In 1984, the EPA Administrator delegated the
authority to make final determinations under CWA
section 404(c) to EPA’s national CWA section 404
program manager, who is the Assistant
Administrator for Water. That general delegation
remains in effect. On March 22, 2019, EPA
Administrator Wheeler delegated to the General
Counsel the authority to perform all functions and
responsibilities retained by the Administrator or
previously delegated to the Assistant Administrator
for Water for EPA’s section 404(c) action for the
Pebble deposit area.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
66549
(2) The record would continue to
develop throughout the permitting
process; and
(3) EPA could and then had initiated
the section 404(q) MOA process and it
was appropriate to use that process to
resolve issues before engaging in any
potential future decision-making
regarding the matter.
In its August 30, 2019 notice of
withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed
Determination, EPA stated that ‘‘[a]s in
EPA’s prior notices, EPA is not basing
its decision-making on technical
consideration or judgments about
whether the mine proposal will
ultimately be found to meet the
requirements of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines
or results in ‘unacceptable adverse
effects’ under CWA section 404(c).’’ (84
FR 45756, August 30, 2019)
In November 2020, the Corps denied
PLP’s CWA section 404 permit
application. The denial addresses only
that specific permit application, and
PLP filed an administrative appeal of
the Corps’ decision pursuant to the
Corps’ regulations at 33 CFR part 331.
D. Legal Challenge To Withdrawal of the
2014 Proposed Determination
In October 2019, twenty tribal,
fishing, environmental, and
conservation groups challenged EPA’s
withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed
Determination in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Alaska, asserting that
EPA’s withdrawal decision was not
supported by the record and that EPA
had failed to consider the science and
technical information, including
whether the proposed project would
result in unacceptable adverse effects.
The District Court dismissed the action,
holding that EPA’s decision to withdraw
a proposed determination was
unreviewable for lack of a meaningful
legal standard governing the Agency’s
action.
On appeal, in June 2021, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the District Court’s
holding that EPA’s decision to withdraw
a proposed determination was
unreviewable, finding instead that
EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR 231.5(a)
provides a standard for review.
Specifically, the Ninth Circuit
concluded that EPA is authorized to
withdraw a proposed determination
‘‘only if the discharge of materials
would be unlikely to have an
unacceptable adverse effect.’’ Trout
Unlimited v. Pirzadeh, 1 F.4th 738, 757
(9th Cir. June 17, 2021) (emphasis in
original). The Ninth Circuit remanded
the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.
On September 28, 2021, EPA filed a
motion in the District Court requesting
E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM
23NON1
66550
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 23, 2021 / Notices
that the court vacate the Agency’s
decision to withdraw the 2014 Proposed
Determination and remand the action to
the Agency to reconsider its action. In
its motion, EPA explained that, in
making the withdrawal decision, the
Agency had not addressed the ‘‘unlikely
to have an unacceptable adverse effect’’
standard that the Ninth Circuit
subsequently held must be met when
EPA withdraws a proposed
determination and that such an
omission ‘‘was serious and
fundamental.’’ The District Court
granted EPA’s motion on October 29,
2021.
III. Legal Background
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
A. CWA Section 404(c)
CWA section 404(a) allows the Corps
to issue permits authorizing the
discharge of dredged or fill material at
specified disposal sites. Section 404(b)
provides that ‘‘[s]ubject to subsection (c)
. . . , each such disposal site shall be
specified for each such permit by the
Secretary. . . .’’ CWA Section 404(c)
authorizes EPA to prohibit the
specification of any defined area or
deny or restrict the use of any defined
area as a disposal site for the discharge
of dredged or fill material into waters of
the United States within the defined
area ‘‘whenever’’ it determines that the
discharge of such material into such
area will have ‘‘an unacceptable adverse
effect on municipal water supplies,
shellfish beds and fishery areas
(including spawning and breeding
areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.’’
33 U.S.C. 1344(c).
B. CWA Section 404(c) Regulations
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 231
provide a four-step process for the
Agency to follow in exercising its 404(c)
authority.
Step 1: Initial Notification. If the EPA
Regional Administrator has reason to
believe, after evaluating available
information, that an unacceptable
adverse effect could result from the
specification or use for specification of
a defined area as a disposal site, the
Regional Administrator may initiate the
section 404(c) process by notifying the
Corps, the applicant (if any), and the
owner of record of the site that s/he
intends to issue a public notice of the
proposed determination to prohibit or
withdraw the specification, or to deny,
restrict or withdraw the use for
specification, whichever the case may
be, of any defined area as a disposal site.
40 CFR 231.3(a)(1).
Step 2: Proposed Determination. If
within 15 days of receipt of the Regional
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:09 Nov 22, 2021
Jkt 256001
Administrator’s notice under Step 1, it
has not been demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Regional
Administrator that no unacceptable
adverse effect(s) will occur or the Corps
does not notify the Regional
Administrator of its intent to take
corrective action to prevent an
unacceptable adverse effect satisfactory
to the Regional Administrator, the
Regional Administrator must publish a
notice of the proposed determination in
the Federal Register, soliciting public
comment and offering an opportunity
for public hearing. 40 CFR 231.3(a)(2);
40 CFR 231.3(b).
Step 3: Withdrawal of Proposed
Determination or Preparation of
Recommended Determination. Within
30 days after the conclusion of the
public hearing (but not before the end
of the comment period), or, if no hearing
is held, within 15 days after the
expiration of the comment period on the
public notice of the proposed
determination, the Regional
Administrator must either withdraw the
proposed determination or prepare a
recommended determination. If the
Regional Administrator prepares a
recommended determination, the
Regional Administrator must promptly
forward the recommended
determination and administrative record
to the Assistant Administrator for
Water. 40 CFR 231.5(a) and(b).
Step 4: Final Determination. Within
30 days of receipt of the
recommendations and administrative
record, the Assistant Administrator for
Water shall initiate consultation with
the Corps, the applicant (if any), and the
owner of record of the site. Each of
those parties shall have 15 days to
notify the Assistant Administrator for
Water of their intent to take corrective
action to prevent unacceptable adverse
effects, satisfactory to the Assistant
Administrator for Water. Within 60 days
of receipt of the recommendations and
administrative record, the Assistant
Administrator for Water shall make a
final determination affirming,
modifying, or rescinding the
recommended determination.
EPA’s regulations authorize it to
extend the regulatory deadlines ‘‘upon a
showing of good cause.’’ 40 CFR 231.8.
‘‘Notice of any such extension shall be
published in the Federal Register and,
as appropriate, through other forms of
notice.’’ Id.
IV. Extension of Regulatory Time
Requirements for Good Cause
The District Court’s vacatur of the
decision to withdraw the 2014 Proposed
Determination reinstates the 2014
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Proposed Determination and reinitiates
the CWA section 404(c) review process.
The next step in the CWA section 404(c)
review process requires the Region 10
Regional Administrator to, within 30
days, decide whether to withdraw the
2014 Proposed Determination or prepare
a recommended determination. See 40
CFR 231.5(a). EPA Region 10’s 2014
Proposed Determination relied on EPA’s
authority under section 404(c) of the
CWA; was issued in accordance with
the regulations at 40 CFR part 231; and
reflected EPA Region 10’s robust
consideration of the extensive science
and technical information available to
the Agency at the time. Since EPA
issued the 2014 Proposed
Determination, new information has
become available, including the
voluminous public comments EPA
received on the 2014 Proposed
Determination; technical information
contained in PLP’s CWA section 404
permit application and updated mine
plan; analysis developed during the
NEPA process and contained in Corps’
Final EIS and its permit denial; as well
as new and potentially relevant science
and technical information produced
through other contemporaneous efforts.
EPA has concluded that it should
consider this information in its
decision-making. EPA has therefore
determined that good cause exists under
40 CFR 231.8 to extend the thirty-day
regulatory time requirement in 40 CFR
231.5(a). An extension through May 31,
2022 will allow the Region 10 Regional
Administrator to consider available
information in order to determine
appropriate next steps, which may
include revising the 2014 Proposed
Determination.
Dated: November 17, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2021–25515 Filed 11–22–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[FR ID 58790]
Deletion of Item From November 18,
Open Meeting
The following item has been adopted
by the Commission and deleted from the
list of items scheduled for consideration
at the Thursday, November 18 2021,
Open Meeting. This item was previously
listed in the Commission’s Notice of
Wednesday, November 10, 2021.
E:\FR\FM\23NON1.SGM
23NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66548-66550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25515]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369; FRL-9281-01-R10]
Proposed Determination To Restrict the Use of an Area and a
Disposal Site; Pebble Deposit Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In light of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Alaska's recent decision to remand and vacate the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s 2019 decision to withdraw the
Proposed Determination to Restrict the Use of an Area and a Disposal
Site; Pebble Deposit Area, Southwest Alaska pursuant to the Clean Water
Act (CWA), EPA Region 10 is providing notice that EPA has good cause to
extend the time requirement to allow the EPA Region 10 Regional
Administrator to consider available information, including information
that has become available since EPA issued the 2014 Proposed
Determination in order to determine appropriate next steps in the
review process.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit www.epa.gov/bristolbay or
contact Cami Grandinetti through the Bristol Bay-specific phone line,
(206) 553-0040, or email address, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. How To Obtain a Copy of the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment
The Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment is available via the internet
on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay site at www.epa.gov/bristolbay.
B. How To Obtain a Copy of the 2014 Proposed Determination
The July 2014 Proposed Determination is available via the internet
on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay site at www.epa.gov/bristolbay.
C. How To Obtain a Copy of the Settlement Agreement
The May 11, 2017 settlement agreement is available via the internet
on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay site at www.epa.gov/bristolbay.
D. How To Obtain a Copy of the Proposal to Withdraw the 2014 Proposed
Determination
The July 2017 proposal to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination
is available via the internet on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay site at
www.epa.gov/bristolbay. Information regarding the proposal to withdraw
can also be found in the docket for this effort at www.regulations.gov,
see docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369 or via the following website
located at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369.
E. How To Obtain a Copy of Notification of Suspension
The February 2018 notice announcing EPA's decision to suspend the
proceeding to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination at that time is
available via the internet on the EPA Region 10 Bristol Bay site at
www.epa.gov/bristolbay. Information regarding the suspension can also
be found in the docket for this effort at www.regulations.gov, see
docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369 or via the following website located
at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369.
F. How To Obtain a Copy of the Notice of Withdrawal of the 2014
Proposed Determination
The August 2019 notice of withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed
Determination is available via the internet on the EPA Region 10
Bristol Bay site at www.epa.gov/bristolbay. Information regarding the
proposal to withdraw can also be found in the docket for this effort at
www.regulations.gov, see docket ID No. EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369 or via the
following website located at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-R10-OW-2017-0369.
II. Factual Background
A. Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment and 2014 Proposed Determination
In 2011, after EPA received petitions to use its CWA section 404(c)
authority to protect Bristol Bay's salmon fishery, EPA initiated a
three-year ecological risk assessment to determine the significance of
the Bristol Bay watershed's ecological resources and to evaluate the
potential impacts of large-scale mining on those resources. In January
2014, EPA finalized the peer-reviewed Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment
(BBWA), which it prepared through an open and inclusive process that
included two opportunities for public comment, eight public meetings,
interagency coordination, and consultation with 13 federally recognized
tribal governments.
On February 28, 2014, after careful consideration of available
material, including information collected as part of the BBWA, other
existing science and technical information, and information provided by
stakeholders, EPA Region 10 notified the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), the State of Alaska (State), and the Pebble Limited
Partnership (PLP) that it had decided to proceed under its CWA section
404(c) regulations to review potential adverse environmental effects of
discharges of dredged and fill material associated with mining the
Pebble deposit in southwest Alaska. In accordance with its regulations
at 40 CFR 231.3(a)(1), EPA Region 10 offered the Corps, the State, and
PLP the opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Region 10
Regional Administrator that no unacceptable adverse effects would occur
as a result of such discharges.
On July 21, 2014, EPA Region 10 published in the Federal Register
notice of its 2014 Proposed Determination to restrict the use of
certain waters in the South Fork Koktuli River, North Fork Koktuli
River, and Upper Talarik Creek watersheds (located within the larger
Bristol Bay watershed) as disposal sites for the discharge of dredged
or fill material associated with mining the Pebble deposit (79 FR
42314, July 21, 2014). EPA Region 10 held seven public hearings
throughout southwest Alaska during the week of August 11, 2014 and
received more than 670,000 public comments, more than 99% of which
supported the 2014 Proposed Determination.
[[Page 66549]]
B. PLP's Litigation and Settlement Agreement
Before EPA could reach the next step in the CWA section 404(c)
review process--to either withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination or
prepare a recommended determination pursuant to 40 CFR 231.5(a)--PLP
filed multiple lawsuits against the Agency. On November 25, 2014, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska issued a preliminary
injunction against EPA in one of those lawsuits that halted EPA Region
10's CWA section 404(c) review process until the case was resolved.
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction at 1-2, Pebble Limited
Partnership v. EPA, No. 3:14-cv-00171 (D. Alaska Nov. 25, 2014). On May
11, 2017, EPA and PLP settled that lawsuit--and all of PLP's
outstanding lawsuits--and the court subsequently dissolved the
injunction and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Under the terms of the settlement, EPA agreed to ``initiate a
process to propose to withdraw the Proposed Determination.'' EPA also
agreed not to forward a signed recommended determination to EPA
Headquarters until May 11, 2021 or until EPA published a notice of the
Corps' final environmental impact statement (EIS) on PLP's CWA section
404 permit application for the proposed Pebble mine, whichever came
first. To take advantage of this period of forbearance, PLP was
required to submit its CWA section 404 permit application to the Corps
within 30 months of execution of the settlement agreement. For a link
to a copy of the settlement agreement, see Section I of this document.
C. Proposal To Withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination,
``Suspension,'' and Withdrawal
On July 19, 2017, in accordance with the terms of the settlement
agreement, EPA Region 10 published in the Federal Register a notice of
its proposal to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination (82 FR 33123,
July 19, 2017). In its July 19, 2017 publication, EPA identified three
reasons for its proposed withdrawal--that withdrawing the 2014 Proposed
Determination would (1) provide PLP with additional time to submit a
CWA section 404 permit application to the Corps; (2) remove any
uncertainty, real or perceived, about PLP's ability to submit a permit
application and have that permit application reviewed; and (3) allow
the factual record regarding any forthcoming permit application to
develop. EPA explained that ``[i]n light of the basis upon which EPA is
considering withdrawal of the Proposed Determination, EPA is not
soliciting comment on the proposed restrictions or on science or
technical information underlying the Proposed Determination.'' (82 FR
33124, July 19, 2017)
EPA received more than one million public comments regarding its
proposal to withdraw. Approximately 99% of commenters expressed
opposition to the withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed Determination. The
public comments, transcripts from the public hearings, and summaries of
the tribal and ANCSA Corporation consultations can be found in the
docket for this proceeding; see Section I of this document for
information on how to access this docket.
On December 22, 2017, PLP submitted to the Corps a CWA section 404
permit application that proposed to develop a mine at the Pebble
deposit. On January 5, 2018, the Corps issued a public notice that
provided PLP's permit application to the public, stated that an EIS
would be required as part of its permit review process consistent with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and invited relevant
federal and state agencies, including EPA, to be cooperating agencies
on the development of the EIS.
On January 26, 2018, EPA Region 10 announced a ``suspension'' of
the proceeding to withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination at that
time. This action was published in the Federal Register on February 28,
2018 (83 FR 8668, February 28, 2018).
On August 30, 2019, after conferring with EPA's General Counsel,\1\
EPA Region 10 published in the Federal Register its decision to
withdraw the 2014 Proposed Determination, thereby concluding the
withdrawal process that was initiated on July 19, 2017 (84 FR 45749,
August 30, 2019). EPA identified that it was withdrawing the Proposed
Determination because:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1984, the EPA Administrator delegated the authority to
make final determinations under CWA section 404(c) to EPA's national
CWA section 404 program manager, who is the Assistant Administrator
for Water. That general delegation remains in effect. On March 22,
2019, EPA Administrator Wheeler delegated to the General Counsel the
authority to perform all functions and responsibilities retained by
the Administrator or previously delegated to the Assistant
Administrator for Water for EPA's section 404(c) action for the
Pebble deposit area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) New information had been generated since 2014, including
information and preliminary conclusions in the Corps' Draft EIS, that
EPA would need to consider before any potential future decision-making
regarding the matter;
(2) The record would continue to develop throughout the permitting
process; and
(3) EPA could and then had initiated the section 404(q) MOA process
and it was appropriate to use that process to resolve issues before
engaging in any potential future decision-making regarding the matter.
In its August 30, 2019 notice of withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed
Determination, EPA stated that ``[a]s in EPA's prior notices, EPA is
not basing its decision-making on technical consideration or judgments
about whether the mine proposal will ultimately be found to meet the
requirements of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines or results in `unacceptable
adverse effects' under CWA section 404(c).'' (84 FR 45756, August 30,
2019)
In November 2020, the Corps denied PLP's CWA section 404 permit
application. The denial addresses only that specific permit
application, and PLP filed an administrative appeal of the Corps'
decision pursuant to the Corps' regulations at 33 CFR part 331.
D. Legal Challenge To Withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed Determination
In October 2019, twenty tribal, fishing, environmental, and
conservation groups challenged EPA's withdrawal of the 2014 Proposed
Determination in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska,
asserting that EPA's withdrawal decision was not supported by the
record and that EPA had failed to consider the science and technical
information, including whether the proposed project would result in
unacceptable adverse effects. The District Court dismissed the action,
holding that EPA's decision to withdraw a proposed determination was
unreviewable for lack of a meaningful legal standard governing the
Agency's action.
On appeal, in June 2021, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District
Court's holding that EPA's decision to withdraw a proposed
determination was unreviewable, finding instead that EPA's regulation
at 40 CFR 231.5(a) provides a standard for review. Specifically, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that EPA is authorized to withdraw a proposed
determination ``only if the discharge of materials would be unlikely to
have an unacceptable adverse effect.'' Trout Unlimited v. Pirzadeh, 1
F.4th 738, 757 (9th Cir. June 17, 2021) (emphasis in original). The
Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.
On September 28, 2021, EPA filed a motion in the District Court
requesting
[[Page 66550]]
that the court vacate the Agency's decision to withdraw the 2014
Proposed Determination and remand the action to the Agency to
reconsider its action. In its motion, EPA explained that, in making the
withdrawal decision, the Agency had not addressed the ``unlikely to
have an unacceptable adverse effect'' standard that the Ninth Circuit
subsequently held must be met when EPA withdraws a proposed
determination and that such an omission ``was serious and
fundamental.'' The District Court granted EPA's motion on October 29,
2021.
III. Legal Background
A. CWA Section 404(c)
CWA section 404(a) allows the Corps to issue permits authorizing
the discharge of dredged or fill material at specified disposal sites.
Section 404(b) provides that ``[s]ubject to subsection (c) . . . , each
such disposal site shall be specified for each such permit by the
Secretary. . . .'' CWA Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to prohibit the
specification of any defined area or deny or restrict the use of any
defined area as a disposal site for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States within the defined area
``whenever'' it determines that the discharge of such material into
such area will have ``an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water
supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and
breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas.'' 33 U.S.C. 1344(c).
B. CWA Section 404(c) Regulations
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 231 provide a four-step process
for the Agency to follow in exercising its 404(c) authority.
Step 1: Initial Notification. If the EPA Regional Administrator has
reason to believe, after evaluating available information, that an
unacceptable adverse effect could result from the specification or use
for specification of a defined area as a disposal site, the Regional
Administrator may initiate the section 404(c) process by notifying the
Corps, the applicant (if any), and the owner of record of the site that
s/he intends to issue a public notice of the proposed determination to
prohibit or withdraw the specification, or to deny, restrict or
withdraw the use for specification, whichever the case may be, of any
defined area as a disposal site. 40 CFR 231.3(a)(1).
Step 2: Proposed Determination. If within 15 days of receipt of the
Regional Administrator's notice under Step 1, it has not been
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Administrator that no
unacceptable adverse effect(s) will occur or the Corps does not notify
the Regional Administrator of its intent to take corrective action to
prevent an unacceptable adverse effect satisfactory to the Regional
Administrator, the Regional Administrator must publish a notice of the
proposed determination in the Federal Register, soliciting public
comment and offering an opportunity for public hearing. 40 CFR
231.3(a)(2); 40 CFR 231.3(b).
Step 3: Withdrawal of Proposed Determination or Preparation of
Recommended Determination. Within 30 days after the conclusion of the
public hearing (but not before the end of the comment period), or, if
no hearing is held, within 15 days after the expiration of the comment
period on the public notice of the proposed determination, the Regional
Administrator must either withdraw the proposed determination or
prepare a recommended determination. If the Regional Administrator
prepares a recommended determination, the Regional Administrator must
promptly forward the recommended determination and administrative
record to the Assistant Administrator for Water. 40 CFR 231.5(a)
and(b).
Step 4: Final Determination. Within 30 days of receipt of the
recommendations and administrative record, the Assistant Administrator
for Water shall initiate consultation with the Corps, the applicant (if
any), and the owner of record of the site. Each of those parties shall
have 15 days to notify the Assistant Administrator for Water of their
intent to take corrective action to prevent unacceptable adverse
effects, satisfactory to the Assistant Administrator for Water. Within
60 days of receipt of the recommendations and administrative record,
the Assistant Administrator for Water shall make a final determination
affirming, modifying, or rescinding the recommended determination.
EPA's regulations authorize it to extend the regulatory deadlines
``upon a showing of good cause.'' 40 CFR 231.8. ``Notice of any such
extension shall be published in the Federal Register and, as
appropriate, through other forms of notice.'' Id.
IV. Extension of Regulatory Time Requirements for Good Cause
The District Court's vacatur of the decision to withdraw the 2014
Proposed Determination reinstates the 2014 Proposed Determination and
reinitiates the CWA section 404(c) review process. The next step in the
CWA section 404(c) review process requires the Region 10 Regional
Administrator to, within 30 days, decide whether to withdraw the 2014
Proposed Determination or prepare a recommended determination. See 40
CFR 231.5(a). EPA Region 10's 2014 Proposed Determination relied on
EPA's authority under section 404(c) of the CWA; was issued in
accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR part 231; and reflected EPA
Region 10's robust consideration of the extensive science and technical
information available to the Agency at the time. Since EPA issued the
2014 Proposed Determination, new information has become available,
including the voluminous public comments EPA received on the 2014
Proposed Determination; technical information contained in PLP's CWA
section 404 permit application and updated mine plan; analysis
developed during the NEPA process and contained in Corps' Final EIS and
its permit denial; as well as new and potentially relevant science and
technical information produced through other contemporaneous efforts.
EPA has concluded that it should consider this information in its
decision-making. EPA has therefore determined that good cause exists
under 40 CFR 231.8 to extend the thirty-day regulatory time requirement
in 40 CFR 231.5(a). An extension through May 31, 2022 will allow the
Region 10 Regional Administrator to consider available information in
order to determine appropriate next steps, which may include revising
the 2014 Proposed Determination.
Dated: November 17, 2021.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2021-25515 Filed 11-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P