Federal judge orders EPA to halt pending Pebble action

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to block Pebble mine is on hold after a Nov. 24 federal court ruling.

U.S. Alaska District Court Judge H. Russel Holland ordered a preliminary injunction be put in place on the EPA’s Clean Water Act Section 404(c) process in the Bristol Bay region.

The ruling came immediately after oral arguments on a motion for the injunction filed by Pebble Limited Partnership in its lawsuit against the EPA.

Pebble claims the 1,000-plus page Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment, the document on which the EPA based the need to take action against mine development, is biased and flawed.

Pebble CEO Tom Collier said in a formal statement the ruling is important because it prevents the EPA from continuing its process to ban the mine. If a final agency determination were reached prior to a final ruling in the case, the court could not repeal the agency’s action.

“The court today granted our preliminary injunction blocking EPA from taking any further steps in the 404(c) regulator process it has initiated at Pebble before Judge Holland is able to issue a final decision on the merits of our case,” Collier said Nov. 24. “We expect this case may take several months to complete. This means that for the first time EPA’s march to preemptively veto Pebble has been halted.”

The EPA has the authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to ban specific development projects it deems would cause a significant adverse impact on fish and wildlife because of fill placement.

Trout Unlimited Alaska Director Tim Bristol said in a formal statement the ruling does not prevent the EPA from eventually using the science in the assessment. Trout Unlimited has been a lead organization in the fight against Pebble.

“This decision is far from damning, but it does nonetheless represent an unfortunate example of Pebble throwing up legal and procedural road blocks against scientific fact and the will of Alaskans, which has consistently spoken out against Pebble mine,” Bristol said.

“Moving forward, we hope the legal process is quickly and fully resolved so the people of Bristol Bay can get back to living their lives, running their businesses and making investments with an eye on a fish-filled and mine-free future.”

It is the second suit Pebble has brought against the agency heard by Holland.

He dismissed a prior case Sept. 26 on several of Pebble’s claims because the EPA has not made a final decision. The State of Alaska intervened on Pebble’s behalf in that case.

The agency announced its intent to begin the 404(c) process in late February, about a month after the final Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment was released. It typically takes about a year to complete.

EPA Region 10 officials are quick to note the authority has only been used 13 times since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972.

While the law does not specify when the agency can use its authority, the copper-gold Pebble project would be the first instance in which it was used prior to a formal project plan being released.

Pebble’s first lawsuit challenged the EPA’s authority to block a project prior to a wetlands permit application being submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which evaluates such applications. The EPA has ultimate say, however, and can veto a project even if the Corps approves the application.

Holland ruled that Pebble attorneys raised “serious questions” as to whether working groups that contributed to the watershed assessment document were subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which attempts to ensure the advice agencies receive from such groups is objective and the process is public.

Pebble contends emails sent as the assessment was formed from 2011-2014 between EPA Region 10 staff and mine opposition groups including Trout Unlimited Alaska and the United Tribes of Bristol Bay prove the agency had a predetermined agenda to block the mine.

The EPA Inspector General’s Office initiated a review of the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment earlier this year. That review is ongoing.

Pebble attorney Roger Yoerges argued anti-mine groups and the agency worked together to form the assessment.

“The EPA specifically reached out to groups who it knew what their opinion was,” Yoerges said.

The agency was seeking advice to advance a common agenda, he said.

Department of Justice civil division attorney Brad Rosenberg for the EPA said the agency had an “open door” policy to groups on both sides of the issue and did not shun Pebble while it developed the assessment, as the mine developers claim.

“The fact that EPA was receptive to the belief of multiple environmental groups should not be a surprise to anyone,” Rosenberg said.

Pebble’s Collier said after the ruling that the company’s accusation that the EPA colluded with environmental groups is based on documents disclosed in Freedom of Information Act requests.

“The documents we have been able to review thus far disclose more than 500 contacts between EPA and activists,” he said. “We fully expect that once we have access to all documents that there may be many times that number.”

Holland also said Pebble is likely to suffer irreparable harm if it is not allowed to litigate the case because, “The 404(c) action underway now could result in ‘no action,’ but it isn’t headed that way,” Holland said in preparation to issue his ruling.

He ruled against Pebble’s claims that it faced economic hardship as a result of the EPA’s actions.

The preliminary injunction would only lead to a temporary delay in the agency’s actions at this point, he said, as public testimony on the Pebble 404(c) process has closed.

After issuing his ruling, Holland ordered Pebble to file an amended complaint. He called its original 138-page complaint an “outrageous violation” of court procedure guidelines.

Whether the EPA would suspend its motion to dismiss and file a second dismissal motion based on a revised complaint, Holland asked the parties to meet and agree on a procedural path forward by Dec. 2.

Elwood Brehmer can be reached at [email protected].