NOAA: TMC USA Deep-Sea Mining DSHMRA Lawsuit Filed

• Conservation Council for Hawaii and Center for Biological Diversity have sued NOAA over its May 26 certification of a deep-sea mining exploration license for TMC USA.
• The lawsuit alleges NOAA violated the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA) by failing to provide adequate public review of application materials.
• Plaintiffs contend NOAA released only a redacted application and Federal Register notice, preventing a full assessment of TMC USA's eligibility and capacity.
• The challenged license covers 121,830 square kilometers in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, where TMC USA seeks polymetallic nodules.
• This case represents the first DSHMRA application under the current administration to propose active at-sea exploration, potentially setting a significant precedent.

This litigation marks a significant challenge to the federal government's approach to deep-sea resource development, potentially setting a precedent for public participation and environmental scrutiny in future marine exploration projects.

A recent lawsuit filed in federal court in Honolulu targets the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), alleging the agency bypassed crucial public review requirements before certifying a deep-sea mining exploration license. The Conservation Council for Hawaii and the Center for Biological Diversity initiated the legal action against NOAA and its administrator, Dr. Neil Jacobs, specifically challenging NOAA's May 26 certification of an application from TMC USA.

The contested exploration license pertains to a vast area of approximately 121,830 square kilometers within the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, an international expanse located between Hawaii and Mexico. TMC USA intends to search this mineral-rich region for polymetallic nodules, which are potato-sized rocks found on the seafloor containing valuable metals such as nickel, cobalt, and others essential for batteries and electronics. The plaintiffs emphasize that their legal challenge is not against the concept of deep-sea mining itself, but rather focuses on the procedural integrity and transparency of how NOAA advanced the exploration application.

According to the conservation groups, NOAA's actions have undermined the public's right to scrutinize the proposed deep-sea mining activities. They contend that the agency's process for approving the TMC USA exploration license was rushed and lacked the necessary public disclosure, thereby failing to uphold the foundational principles of environmental oversight and accountability.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act (DSHMRA) of 1980, a federal law that mandates public review of materials related to such applications before approval. The plaintiffs assert that NOAA did not adhere to these statutory requirements, instead releasing only a Federal Register notice and a heavily redacted version of TMC USA's application. This limited disclosure, they argue, rendered a meaningful public evaluation impossible.

Crucially, the conservation groups claim that NOAA withheld additional vital information, including datasets that TMC USA's application itself stated were available "on request." Despite written requests from the plaintiffs for these missing materials, NOAA reportedly failed to respond or provide the records. Without this comprehensive information, the groups contend they were unable to fully assess TMC USA's compliance with DSHMRA's four eligibility requirements, which include evaluating the company's financial and technical capacity to undertake the proposed work.

Chris Eaton, an Earthjustice attorney representing the plaintiffs, stated that NOAA "short-circuited the law in its haste to jump-start an untested, speculative industry." He emphasized the necessity of judicial intervention to ensure "legally required public transparency and accountability" before deep-sea mining operations are permitted to proceed without adequate oversight.

This litigation marks a significant challenge to the federal government's approach to deep-sea resource development, potentially setting a precedent for public participation and environmental scrutiny in future marine exploration projects. This particular certification is the first under the current administration and represents the first application under DSHMRA to propose actual at-sea exploration. NOAA's only previous approvals under DSHMRA were four exploration licenses issued in 1984, which have remained largely dormant for decades, highlighting the novel nature of the current application. Several other deep-sea mining applications are reportedly still pending before the agency.

Globally, commercial seabed mining operations have yet to be established. While the International Seabed Authority (ISA) regulates seabed exploration and mining in international waters under a United Nations treaty, the United States has not ratified this agreement. The ISA itself has not yet authorized commercial deep-sea mining, underscoring the nascent stage of this industry worldwide. Jonee Peters, executive director of the Conservation Council for Hawaii, stressed that "upholding procedural requirements prior to issuing permits for deep-sea mining exploration is imperative to the health of the ocean and the communities that depend on its resources."

Peters further warned of the potential ecological impacts, noting that the Pacific Ocean harbors numerous endangered and unknown species, unexplored ocean floors, and seamounts. These fragile ecosystems, she explained, face threats from noise and light pollution, sediment plumes, and other toxic contaminants associated with deep-sea mining activities. Emily Jeffers, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, echoed these concerns, emphasizing the public's right to thoroughly examine the details of such proposals before decisions are made regarding the exploitation of international waters.

This litigation challenges NOAA's procedural compliance under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act for deep-sea mining exploration licenses, specifically regarding public review and transparency. Lawyers advising clients in marine resource development or environmental law should monitor this case for its potential to establish critical precedents for public participation requirements and the validity of future deep-sea mining permits.

Source: Original reporting via CN