42314 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 139 / Monday, July 21, 2014 / Notices 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–R10–OW–2014–0505; FRL–9913–96– 

Region–10] 

Proposed Determination to Restrict the 

Use of an Area as a Disposal Site; 

Pebble Deposit Area, Southwest 

Alaska 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability and public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 404(c) of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Region 10 is requesting public 

comments on its proposed 

determination to restrict the use of 

certain waters in the South Fork Koktuli 

River (SFK), North Fork Koktuli River 

(NFK), and Upper Talarik Creek (UTC) 

watersheds in southwest Alaska as 

disposal sites for dredged or fill material 

associated with mining the Pebble 

deposit, a copper-, gold-, and 

molybdenum-bearing ore body. EPA 

Region 10 is also announcing a series of 

public hearings on this section 404(c) 

proposed determination. 

DATES: Submit comments on the 

proposed determination on or before 

September 19, 2014. See PUBLIC 

HEARING section below for public 

hearing dates and related information. 

ADDRESSES: I. How to Obtain a Copy of 

the Proposed Determination: The 

proposed determination is available 

primarily via the Internet on the EPA 

Region 10 Bristol Bay site at 

www.epa.gov/bristolbay. Paper copies 

are available upon request from either of 

the following locations: 

• EPA Alaska Operations Office, 222 

W 7th Avenue, Room 537, Anchorage, 

AK 99513. The telephone number for 

this office is (907) 271–5083. 

• EPA Region 10, Public 

Environmental Resource Center, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 

98101. The telephone number for this 

office is (800) 424–4372 or (206) 553– 

1200. 

If you are requesting a paper copy, 

please provide your name, your mailing 

address, and the document title, 

‘‘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.’’ 

II. How to Submit Comments to the 

Docket at www.regulations.gov: Submit 

your comments, identified by Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OW–2014–0505, by one 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(recommended method of comment 

submission): Go to http://

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Send email to ow-docket@

epa.gov. Include the docket number 

EPA–R10–OW–2014–0505 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Mail: Send your original comments 

and three copies to: Water Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OW–2014– 

0505. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Deliver 

your comments to EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. 

EPA–R10–OW–2014–0505. Such 

deliveries are accepted only during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday (excluding legal holidays). 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

telephone number for the Water Docket 

is (202) 566–2426. 

• Submit at Public Hearing: see 

PUBLIC HEARINGS section below. 

Instructions: EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

will be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. The http://www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be captured automatically 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made publically available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA might not be able to consider your 

comment. Avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption, 

and ensure that electronic files are free 

of any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about EPA’s public docket 

visit the EPA Docket Center homepage 

at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/

dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Some 

information, however, is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Water 

Docket is (202) 566–2426. 

Public Hearings: In accordance with 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR 231.4, the 

Regional Administrator determined that 

public hearings on this section 404(c) 

proposed determination are in the 

public interest. The hearing dates and 

locations are as follows: 

August 12, 2014—2:00 p.m., Egan 

Center, Anchorage, Alaska 

August 13, 2014—5:00 p.m., Nondalton, 

Alaska 

August 13, 2014—5:00 p.m., New 

Stuyahok, Alaska 

August 14, 2014—5:00 p.m., 

Dillingham, Alaska 

August 14, 2014—5:00 p.m., Kokhanok, 

Alaska 

August 15, 2014—12:00 p.m., Igiugig, 

Alaska 

August 15, 2014—12:00 p.m., Iliamna, 

Alaska 

Additional hearing details and any 

changes to the schedule are available at 

www.epa.gov/bristolbay. The purpose of 

the public hearings is to obtain public 

testimony and comment on EPA Region 

10’s section 404(c) proposed 

determination regarding mining the 

Pebble deposit. The Regional 

Administrator will designate the official 

who will preside at the public hearing 

(the Presiding Officer). Any person may 

appear at the hearing and submit oral 

and/or written statements or data and 

may be represented by counsel or other 

authorized representatives. If you would 

like to submit written comments you 

may do so at the public hearings or by 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 139 / Monday, July 21, 2014 / Notices 42315 

1 Ghaffari et al. (2011) call the 2.0 stage mine the 

‘‘Investment Decision Case,’’ which describes an 

initial 25-year open pit mine life upon which a 

decision to initiate permitting, construction, and 

operations may be based. 

2 Ghaffari et al. (2011) call the 6.5 stage mine the 

‘‘Resource Case,’’ which is based on 78 years of 

open pit production and seeks to assess the longterm value of the project in current dollars. 

one of the methods described in the 

section of this public notice entitled: 

How to Submit Comments to the Docket 

at www.regulations.gov. 

Members of the public can sign up to 

make a comment at the venue on the 

day of the meeting. The following 

information will be requested for each 

commenter: First name, last name, 

organization and title (if applicable), 

city, state, email address, and phone 

number. Tribal elders and elected 

officials will be invited to comment 

first. The facilitator will then use a 

random number system to select 

individuals who signed up to determine 

speaking order. Audio-visual equipment 

will not be provided. 

To maximize the number of 

individuals who are able to speak at the 

hearing, oral statements may be limited 

to two minutes per person. There will 

be no cross examination of any hearing 

participant, although the Presiding 

Officer may make appropriate inquiries 

of any such participant. The hearing 

will remain open, within reason, until 

everyone who desires to speak has the 

opportunity. 

EPA Region 10 will not respond to 

questions/comments during the hearing. 

EPA Region 10 will consider the oral 

and written statements received at the 

public hearings and other written 

comments submitted pursuant to the 

instructions set forth in the section of 

this public notice entitled: How to 

Submit Comments to the Docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Any person may 

present written statements for the 

hearing file, including rebuttals to other 

commenter statements, prior to the time 

the hearing file is closed to public 

submissions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the public comment 

period, contact the Water Docket; 

telephone: (202) 566–2426 or email: owdocket@epa.gov. For technical 

information concerning the proposed 

determination, contact Judy Smith; 

telephone: (503) 326–6994 or email: 

r10bristolbay@epa.gov. For more 

information about EPA’s efforts in 

Bristol Bay, copies of the section 404(c) 

proposed determination, or copies of the 

Bristol Bay Assessment, see http://

www.epa.gov/bristolbay. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Information About the Proposed 

Determination 

The U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 10 is requesting 

public comment on a proposed 

determination to restrict the use of 

certain waters in the Bristol Bay 

watershed for disposal of dredged or fill 

material associated with mining the 

Pebble deposit, a large ore body in 

southwest Alaska. EPA Region 10 is 

taking this step because of the high 

ecological and economic value of the 

Bristol Bay watershed and the assessed 

unacceptable environmental effects that 

would result from such mining. This 

proposed determination relies on clear 

EPA authorities under the Clean Water 

Act (CWA), and is based on peerreviewed scientific and technical 

information. Its scope is geographically 

narrow and it does not affect other 

deposits or mine claim holders outside 

of those affiliated with the Pebble 

deposit. EPA Region 10 is taking this 

step pursuant to section 404(c) of the 

CWA and its implementing regulations 

at 40 CFR part 231. 

Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed is an 

area of unparalleled ecological value, 

boasting salmon diversity and 

productivity unrivaled anywhere in 

North America. As a result, the region 

is a globally significant resource with 

outstanding value. The Bristol Bay 

watershed provides intact, connected 

habitats—from headwaters to ocean— 

that support abundant, genetically 

diverse wild Pacific salmon 

populations. These salmon populations, 

in turn, maintain the productivity of the 

entire ecosystem, including numerous 

other fish and wildlife species. 

The Bristol Bay watershed’s streams, 

wetlands, and other aquatic resources 

support world-class, economically 

important commercial and sport 

fisheries for salmon and other fishes, as 

well as a more than 4,000-year-old 

subsistence-based way of life for Alaska 

Natives. Each year Bristol Bay supports 

the world’s largest runs of sockeye 

salmon, producing approximately half 

of the world’s sockeye salmon. These 

sockeye salmon represent the most 

abundant and diverse populations of 

this species remaining in the United 

States. Bristol Bay’s Chinook salmon 

runs are frequently at or near the 

world’s largest, and the region also 

supports significant coho, chum, and 

pink salmon populations. Because no 

hatchery fish are raised or released in 

the watershed, Bristol Bay’s salmon 

populations are entirely wild. Bristol 

Bay is remarkable as one of the last 

places on Earth with such bountiful and 

sustainable harvests of wild salmon. 

One of the main factors leading to the 

success of this fishery is the fact that its 

aquatic habitats are untouched and 

pristine, unlike the waters that support 

many other fisheries. 

Nearly 70% of the sockeye and large 

numbers of the coho, Chinook, pink, 

and chum salmon are harvested in 

commercial, subsistence, and 

recreational fisheries before they can 

return to their natal lakes and streams 

to spawn. Thus, these salmon resources 

have significant economic, nutritional, 

cultural, and recreational value, both 

within and beyond the Bristol Bay 

region. The Bristol Bay watershed’s 

ecological resources generated nearly 

$480 million in direct economic 

expenditures and sales and provided 

employment for over 14,000 full- and 

part-time workers in 2009. The Bristol 

Bay commercial salmon fishery 

generates the largest component of this 

economic activity, with an estimated 

value of $300 million (sales from fishers 

to processors) and employment for over 

11,000 full- and part-time workers 

(USEPA 2014: Chapter 5). 

In February 2011, Northern Dynasty 

Minerals Ltd. (NDM) and the Pebble 

Limited Partnership (PLP) formally 

submitted information to the U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC) that put forth plans for the 

development of a large-scale mine at the 

headwaters of this pristine ecosystem. 

Their proposal outlines several stages of 

mine development, the smallest being a 

2.0-billion-ton mine 1 and the largest 

being a 6.5-billion-ton mine 2 (Ghaffari 

et al. 2011, SEC 2011), both of which are 

larger than 90% of the known ore 

deposits of this type in the world 

(USEPA 2014: Chapter 4). 

The Pebble deposit is a large, lowgrade, porphyry copper deposit 

(containing copper-, gold-, and 

molybdenum-bearing minerals) that 

underlies portions of the South Fork 

Koktuli River (SFK), North Fork Koktuli 

River (NFK), and Upper Talarik Creek 

(UTC) watersheds. Based on information 

provided by NDM and PLP to the SEC 

(Ghaffari et al. 2011, SEC 2011), mining 

the Pebble deposit is likely to involve 

excavation of the largest open pit ever 

constructed in North America, covering 

up to 6.9 square miles (17.8 km2) and 

reaching a depth of as much as 0.77 

mile (1.24 km) (USEPA 2014: Chapter 

6); for reference, the maximum depth of 

the Grand Canyon is approximately 1 

mile. Disposal of resulting waste 

material would require construction of 

up to three mine tailings impoundments 

covering an additional 18.8 square miles 

(48.6 km2) and waste rock piles covering 

up to 8.7 square miles (22.6 km2) 

(USEPA 2014: Chapter 6) in an area that 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42316 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 139 / Monday, July 21, 2014 / Notices 

3For more information about EPA’s efforts in 

Bristol Bay or copies of the Bristol Bay Assessment, 

see http://www.epa.gov/bristolbay. 

contains highly productive streams and 

wetlands. The volume of mine tailings, 

and waste rock produced from the 

smallest mine proposed by NDM/PLP to 

the SEC (Ghaffari et al. 2011, SEC 2011) 

would be enough to fill a professional 

football stadium more than 800 times, 

whereas the largest mine would do so 

more than 3,900 times. 

In total, these three mine components 

(mine pit, tailings impoundments, and 

waste rock piles) would cover an area 

larger than Manhattan. Mine 

construction and operation would also 

require the construction of support 

facilities, including a major 

transportation corridor, pipelines, a 

power-generating station, wastewater 

treatment plants, housing and support 

services for workers, administrative 

offices, and other infrastructure. Such 

facilities would greatly expand the 

‘‘footprint’’ of the mine and affect 

additional aquatic resources beyond the 

scope of this proposed determination. 

Although NDM/PLP’s preliminary plans 

(Ghaffari et al. 2011, SEC 2011) could 

change, any mining of this deposit 

would, by necessity, require similar 

mine components, support facilities, 

and operational features. 

Given the extent of streams, wetlands, 

lakes, and ponds both overlying the 

Pebble deposit and within adjacent 

watersheds, excavation of a massive 

mine pit and construction of large 

tailings impoundments and waste rock 

piles would result in discharge of 

dredged or fill material into these 

waters. This discharge would result in 

complete loss of fish habitat due to 

elimination, fragmentation, and 

dewatering of streams, wetlands, and 

other aquatic resources. In addition, 

water withdrawal and capture, storage, 

treatment, and release of wastewater 

associated with the mine would 

significantly impair the fish habitat 

functions of other streams, wetlands, 

and aquatic resources. All of these 

losses would be irreversible. 

Based upon information known to 

EPA about the proposed mine at the 

Pebble deposit and its potential impact 

on fishery resources, and as a result of 

multiple inquires, concerns, and 

petitions to EPA to use its authorities to 

protect these fishery resources, EPA 

decided to conduct an ecological risk 

assessment before considering any 

additional steps. After three years of 

study, two rounds of public comment, 

and independent, external peer review, 

EPA released its Assessment of Potential 

Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems 

of Bristol Bay, Alaska 3 (the Bristol Bay 

Assessment) (USEPA 2014) in January 

2014. The Bristol Bay Assessment 

established that the extraction, storage, 

treatment, and transportation activities 

associated with building, operating and 

maintaining one of the largest mines 

ever built would pose significant risks 

to the unparalleled ecosystem that 

produces one of the greatest wild 

salmon fisheries left in the world. In 

simple terms, the infrastructure 

necessary to mine the Pebble deposit 

jeopardizes the long-term health and 

sustainability of the Bristol Bay 

ecosystem. 

The Bristol Bay Assessment 

characterizes the significant ecological 

resources of the region and describes 

potential impacts to salmon and other 

fish from large-scale porphyry copper 

mining at the Pebble deposit. The 

Bristol Bay Assessment evaluated these 

impacts using three mine scenarios that 

represent different stages of mining at 

the Pebble deposit, based on the amount 

of ore processed: 

• Pebble 0.25 stage mine 

(approximately 0.25 billion tons of ore 

over 20 years); 

• Pebble 2.0 stage mine 

(approximately 2.0 billion tons of ore 

over 25 years); and 

• Pebble 6.5 stage mine 

(approximately 6.5 billion tons of ore 

over 78 years). 

Ghaffari et al. (2011) indicate that the 

total mineral resources at the Pebble 

deposit are now believed to be 

approximately 12 billion tons of ore. 

Thus, it is expected that development of 

a mine at the Pebble deposit would 

ultimately be much larger than the 0.25 

stage mine and could exceed the 6.5 

stage mine. NDM has stated to the 

public that ‘‘the Pebble deposit supports 

open pit mining utilizing conventional 

drill, blast and truck-haul methods, with 

an initial mine life of 25 years and 

potential for mine extensions to 78 years 

and beyond’’ (NDM 2011). This 

statement, along with others to 

investors, indicate that NDM is actively 

considering a mine size between 2.0 and 

6.5 billion tons. 

Nevertheless, EPA also assessed the 

impacts of a much smaller mine 

footprint in the Bristol Bay Assessment. 

The 0.25 stage mine is based on the 

worldwide median size porphyry 

copper deposit (Singer et al. 2008). 

Although this smaller size is dwarfed by 

the mine sizes that NDM/PLP put 

forward to the SEC (Ghaffari et al. 2011, 

SEC 2011), its impacts would still be 

significant. 

In total, the Bristol Bay Assessment 

estimates that habitat losses associated 

with the 0.25 stage mine would include 

nearly 24 miles (38 km) of streams, 

representing approximately 5 miles 

(8 km) of streams with documented 

anadromous fish occurrence and 19 

miles (30 km) of tributaries of those 

streams (USEPA 2014: Chapter 7). Total 

habitat losses would also include more 

than 1,200 acres (4.9 km2) of wetlands, 

lakes, and ponds, of which 

approximately 1,100 acres (4.4 km2) are 

contiguous with either streams with 

documented anadromous fish 

occurrence or tributaries of those 

streams. For the largest mine that NDM/ 

PLP put forward to the SEC (the 6.5 

stage mine), stream losses would 

expand to 94 miles (151 km), 

representing over 22 miles (36 km) of 

streams with documented anadromous 

fish occurrence and 72 miles (115 km) 

of tributaries of those streams (USEPA 

2014: Chapter 7). Total habitat losses for 

the 6.5 stage mine would also include 

more than 4,900 acres (19.8 km2) of 

wetlands, lakes, and ponds, of which 

approximately 4,100 acres (16.6 km2) 

are contiguous with either streams with 

documented anadromous fish 

occurrence or tributaries of those 

streams. 

To put these numbers in perspective, 

stream losses for just the 0.25 stage mine 

would equal a length of more than 350 

football fields and the 0.25 stage mine 

wetland losses would equal an area of 

more than 900 football fields. Although 

Alaska has many streams and wetlands 

that support salmon, individual streams, 

stream reaches, wetlands, lakes, and 

ponds play a critical role in protecting 

the genetic diversity of Bristol Bay’s 

salmon populations. Individual waters 

can support local, unique populations 

(Quinn et al. 2001, Olsen et al. 2003, 

Ramstad et al. 2010, Quinn et al. 2012). 

Thus, losing these populations would 

erode the genetic diversity that is 

crucial to the stability of the overall 

Bristol Bay salmon fisheries (Hilborn et 

al. 2003, Schindler et al. 2010, USEPA 

2014: Appendix A). 

These stream, wetland, and other 

aquatic resource losses also would 

reverberate downstream, depriving 

downstream fish habitats of nutrients, 

groundwater inputs, and other subsidies 

from lost upstream aquatic resources. In 

addition, water withdrawal, capture, 

storage, treatment, and release at even 

the 0.25 stage mine would result in 

streamflow alterations in excess of 20% 

in more than 9 miles (nearly 15 km) of 

streams with documented anadromous 

fish occurrence. These streamflow 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 139 / Monday, July 21, 2014 / Notices 42317 

4Anadromous fish are those that hatch in 

freshwater habitats, migrate to sea for a period of 

relatively rapid growth, and then return to 

freshwater habitats to spawn. For the purposes of 

these restrictions, anadromous fish refers to coho or 

silver (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Chinook or king (O. 

tshawytscha), sockeye or red (O. nerka), chum or 

dog (O. keta), and pink or humpback (O. gorbuscha) 

salmon. 

changes would result in major changes 

in ecosystem structure and function and 

would reduce both the extent and 

quality of fish habitat downstream of the 

mine to a significant degree. The 

impacts from the larger mine sizes 

NDM/PLP has forecasted would be 

significantly higher. The 2.0 and 6.5 

stage mines would result in streamflow 

alterations in excess of 20% in more 

than 17 miles (27 km) and 33 miles (53 

km), respectively, of streams with 

documented anadromous fish 

occurrence (USEPA 2014: Chapter 7). 

The CWA is a law essential for EPA’s 

mission, which is to protect and restore 

the environment and public health for 

current and future generations. Section 

404(c) of the CWA authorizes EPA to 

prohibit, restrict, or deny the use of any 

defined area in waters of the United 

States for specification as a disposal site 

whenever it determines, after notice and 

opportunity for public hearing, that the 

discharge of dredged or fill material into 

the area will have an unacceptable 

adverse effect on fishery areas 

(including spawning and breeding 

areas). EPA has used its section 404(c) 

authority judiciously and sparingly, 

having completed only 13 section 404(c) 

actions in the 42-year history of the 

CWA. 

As a first step in the regulatory 

process pursuant to section 404(c), EPA 

Region 10 coordinated with NDM/PLP 

and the State of Alaska to provide them 

an opportunity to submit information 

that demonstrated either that no 

unacceptable adverse effects would 

result from discharges associated with 

mining the Pebble deposit or that 

actions could be taken to prevent 

unacceptable adverse effects on fishery 

areas. EPA Region 10 met with both 

NDM/PLP and the State and extended 

the time period for both to submit this 

information. 

Both NDM/PLP and the State of 

Alaska submitted information that 

raised scientific and technical issues, 

most of which had been previously 

raised in public comments on the 

Bristol Bay Assessment. However, this 

information did not demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of EPA Region 10 that no 

unacceptable adverse effects on fishery 

areas will occur should the disposal of 

dredged or fill material associated with 

mining of the Pebble deposit proceed. 

Therefore, EPA Region 10 has decided 

to take the next step in the section 

404(c) review process, publication of 

this proposed determination. As part of 

a section 404(c) proposed 

determination, the EPA Regional 

Administrator must identify a defined 

area, known as the disposal site, where 

its prohibitions or restrictions would 

apply. In this case, the proposed 

geographic boundaries of the potential 

disposal site are the waters within the 

mine claims held by NDM subsidiaries, 

including PLP, that fall within the SFK, 

NFK, and UTC watersheds. EPA Region 

10 focused on this area because it 

determined that it best represents the 

smallest geographical area where the 

discharge of dredged or fill material 

associated with mining the Pebble 

deposit is most likely to occur. 

To protect important fishery areas in 

the SFK, NFK, and UTC watersheds 

from unacceptable adverse effects, EPA 

Region 10 recognizes that losses of 

streams, wetlands, lakes, and ponds and 

alterations of streamflow each provide a 

basis to issue this section 404(c) 

proposed determination. 

Given the proposals made by NDM/

PLP to develop 2.0- and 6.5-billion-ton 

mines at the Pebble deposit (Ghaffari et 

al. 2011, SEC 2011) and EPA’s 

evaluation of the 0.25-billion-ton mine 

(USEPA 2014), the Regional 

Administrator has reason to believe that 

mining of the Pebble deposit at any of 

these sizes, even the smallest, could 

result in significant and unacceptable 

adverse effects on ecologically 

important streams, wetlands, lakes, and 

ponds and the fishery areas they 

support. 

Accordingly, the Regional 

Administrator proposes that EPA 

restrict the discharge of dredged or fill 

material related to mining the Pebble 

deposit into waters of the United States 

within the potential disposal site that 

would, individually or collectively, 

result in any of the following. 

1. Loss of Streams 

a. The loss of 5 or more linear miles 

of streams with documented 

anadromous fish 4 occurrence; or 

b. The loss of 19 or more linear miles 

of streams where anadromous fish are 

not currently documented, but that are 

tributaries of streams with documented 

anadromous fish occurrence; or 

2. Loss of Wetlands, Lakes, and Ponds 

The loss of 1,100 or more acres of 

wetlands, lakes, and ponds contiguous 

with either streams with documented 

anadromous fish occurrence or 

tributaries of those streams; or 

3. Streamflow Alterations 

Streamflow alterations greater than 

20% of daily flow in 9 or more linear 

miles of streams with documented 

anadromous fish occurrence. 

These restrictions derive from the 

estimated impacts resulting from the 

discharge of dredged or fill material 

associated with construction and 

routine operation of a 0.25 stage mine at 

the Pebble deposit, as evaluated in the 

Bristol Bay Assessment (USEPA 2014). 

EPA Region 10’s evaluation of 

relevant portions of the section 404(b)(1) 

Guidelines (40 CFR part 230) further 

demonstrates that discharge of dredged 

or fill material resulting in the level of 

adverse effects identified in the 

proposed restrictions could result in 

unacceptable adverse effects on fishery 

areas. Degradation of these aquatic 

resources would be even more 

pronounced given extensive cumulative 

impacts at successive stages of mine 

expansion (i.e., 2.0 and 6.5 stage mines 

or larger) at the Pebble deposit, 

including elevated instream copper 

concentrations sufficient to cause direct 

toxicity to fish. Toxic effects on fish 

would include fish kills; reduced 

survival, growth, and/or reproduction; 

and reduced sensory acuity, which is 

important to salmon for locating natal 

streams, finding food, and avoiding 

predators. 

EPA Region 10 recognizes it has 

underestimated potential adverse effects 

to resources within the SFK, NFK, and 

UTC watersheds from mining the Pebble 

deposit for several reasons. This 

evaluation does not include footprint 

impacts associated with all of the 

components necessary to construct and 

operate such a mine (e.g., a major 

transportation corridor, pipelines, a 

power-generating station, wastewater 

treatment plants, housing and support 

services for workers, administrative 

offices, and other infrastructure). It also 

does not rely upon impacts resulting 

from potential accidents and failures as 

a basis for its findings. There is a high 

likelihood that wastewater treatment 

plant failures would occur, given the 

long management horizon expected for 

the mine (i.e., decades). There is also 

real uncertainty as to whether severe 

accidents or failures, such as a complete 

wastewater treatment plant failure or a 

tailings dam failure, could be 

adequately prevented over a 

management horizon of centuries, or 

even in perpetuity, particularly in such 

a geographically remote area subject to 

climate extremes. If such events were to 

occur, they would have profound 

ecological ramifications. By not relying 

on potential accidents and failures, EPA 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
42318 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 139 / Monday, July 21, 2014 / Notices 

Region 10 has employed a conservative 

analysis of adverse effects. 

Known compensatory mitigation 

techniques are unlikely to offset impacts 

of the nature and magnitude described 

in the proposed restrictions. 

Compensatory mitigation is the concept 

of improving stream or wetland health 

in other parts of the watershed to 

compensate for stream or wetland 

destruction or degradation in a separate 

area. Compensatory mitigation efforts 

typically involve restoration and 

enhancement of waters that have 

potential for improvement in ecological 

services. However, the waters of the 

Bristol Bay watershed are already 

among the most productive in the 

world. EPA Region 10 sees little 

likelihood that human activity could 

improve upon the high quality natural 

environment in the Bristol Bay 

watershed that nature has created and 

has thus far been preserved. 

Compensation methods proposed by 

PLP, including placement of in-stream 

structures, stream fertilization, and 

construction of spawning channels, 

have typically had only variable, local, 

or temporary effects, were designed for 

use in degraded watersheds, or resulted 

in adverse, unintended consequences 

(USEPA 2014: Appendix J). 

Mine alternatives with lower 

environmental impacts at the Pebble 

deposit are not evaluated in either the 

Bristol Bay Assessment or this section 

404(c) proposed determination. If these 

proposed restrictions are finalized, 

proposals to mine the Pebble deposit 

that have impacts below each of these 

restrictions would proceed to the 

section 404 permitting process with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any such 

proposals would have to meet the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

for permitting under section 404. 

After evaluating available 

information, EPA Region 10 has reason 

to believe that unacceptable adverse 

effects on fishery areas (including 

spawning and breeding areas) could 

result from the discharge of dredge or 

fill material associated with mining the 

Pebble deposit. Further, it has not been 

demonstrated to the satisfaction of EPA 

Region 10 that no unacceptable adverse 

effect(s) will occur. 

EPA Region 10 is soliciting public 

comment on all issues discussed in this 

proposed determination, including 

likely adverse impacts to fishery 

resources, mitigation measures to 

potentially address these impacts, and 

other options to restrict or prohibit 

potentially harmful discharges of 

dredged or fill material associated with 

mining the Pebble deposit. All 

comments will be fully considered as 

EPA Region 10 decides whether to 

withdraw the proposed determination 

or forward to EPA Headquarters a 

recommended determination to restrict 

the use of certain waters in the SFK, 

NFK, and UTC watersheds in southwest 

Alaska as disposal sites for the 

discharge of dredged or fill material 

associated with mining the Pebble 

deposit. Should EPA Region 10 make a 

recommended determination, EPA 

Headquarters will then determine, based 

on the recommended determination, 

public comments received on the 

proposed determination, and all other 

available, relevant information, whether 

to issue a final determination under 

section 404(c). 

II. Solicitation of Comments on the 

Proposed Determination 

Please see the section above entitled 

ADDRESSES for information about how to 

obtain a copy of the proposed 

determination and how to submit 

comments on the proposed 

determination. EPA Region 10 is 

soliciting comments on all issues 

discussed in the proposed 

determination. In particular, we request: 

(1) Comments regarding whether the 

proposed determination should become 

the recommended determination and 

ultimately the final determination, and 

corrective action that could be taken to 

reduce the adverse impact of the 

discharges. 

(2) Additional information on the 

likely adverse impacts on fish and other 

ecological resources of the receiving 

waters that would be directly or 

indirectly affected by mining the Pebble 

deposit (including the SFK, NFK, and 

UTC and downstream reaches of the 

Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers). 

(3) Additional information on the 

water quality, flora, fauna, and 

hydrology of the waters identified in 

No. 2 above, and information on the fish 

species that would be affected by 

aquatic ecosystem changes if the 

discharges from the project occur. 

(4) Additional information about 

wildlife species that would be affected 

if the discharges from the project occur. 

(5) Additional information about 

recreational uses of the project area and 

how they would be impacted if the 

discharges from the project occur. 

(6) Additional information about 

drinking water (including municipal 

water supplies and private sources of 

drinking water such as streams and/or 

wells) and how they would be impacted 

if the discharges from the project occur. 

(7) Additional information on the 

potential for mitigation to be successful 

in reducing the impacts of the project. 

(8) Comments regarding the approach 

used to define the potential disposal 

site, including how EPA Region 10 

weighed the factors discussed in section 

2.2.3 and whether there are other factors 

or approaches EPA Region 10 should 

consider for defining the potential 

disposal site. 

(9) Whether the discharge of dredged 

or fill material associated with the 

project should be completely 

prohibited, restricted as proposed, 

restricted in another manner, or not 

restricted at all at this time. In 

particular, EPA Region 10 is also 

seeking comment on whether 

environmental effects associated with 

other mine stages or scenarios (e.g. 

environmental effects from mining 

approximately 2.0 billion tons of ore 

over 25 years) could provide a basis for 

alternative or additional restrictions. 

(10) Comment on the definitions 

provided in Section 5. 

(11) Comment on whether and how 

EPA Region 10’s action under section 

404(c) should consider discharge of 

dredged or fill materials beyond those 

associated with the mine pit, tailings 

dam, and waste rock piles, to include 

such discharges associated with the 

construction of other mine 

infrastructure (e.g., wastewater 

treatment facilities, transportation 

corridors, etc.). 

All relevant data, studies, or informal 

observations are appropriate. The record 

will remain open for comments until 

September 19, 2014. All comments will 

be fully considered as EPA Region 10 

decides whether to withdraw the 

proposed determination or forward to 

EPA Headquarters a recommended 

determination to restrict the use of 

certain waters in the SFK, NFK, and 

UTC watersheds in southwest Alaska as 

disposal sites for the discharge of 

dredged or fill material associated with 

mining the Pebble deposit. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16920 Filed 7–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2014–0011; FRL–9912–17] 

Notice of Receipt of Pesticide 

Products; Registration Application To 

Register New Uses 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES