Bay, affecting both the natural ecosystem and the economic wellbeing of the area. 2017: After a meeting between the EPA administration and the CEO of Northern Dynasty (developers for the Pebble Project), litigations are settled and the EPA agrees to begin proceedings to withdrawal the Proposed Determination act. Developers move forward with a plan for permits. In July, after the EPA proposes to withdrawal Proposed Determination, the Pebble Limited Partnership submits permits to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the key agency in charge of reviewing the permit, laid out in a 3-4 timeline. EPA decided to not withdraw the BBWA. 2018: Due to increased input of concerns for the Bristol Bay fishery because of Pebble Project, EPA decides to suspend withdrawal of Proposed Determination. USACE decides to gather more information regarding the impact to area's fish and natural resources. 2019: EPA submits comments to the USACE Environmental Impact Statement saying that the document underestimates the environmental impacts. More than 700,000 comments are posted in opposition to the Pebble Project. Later, the Proposed Determination is revoked, saying the five-year old document does not fully consider all information, including the Pebble Limited Partnership's project plan and the additional information considered during the USACE permit process. 2020: In July, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found in a final environmental analysis that the operation of a Pebble Mine "would not be expected to have a measurable effect on fish numbers" in the Bristol Bay watershed. In November the Corps denied the project a permit for its discharge plan, required under the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. In 2020, while campaigning for the presidency of the US, Joe Biden stated the location was "no place for a mine." In January 2021, Northern Dynasty Minerals submitted an appeal to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers decision. 2021: On September 9, 2021, it was reported that the EPA, calling the bay an "Alaskan treasure," had "asked a federal court to allow for Clean Water Act protections for parts of the bay. If the court agrees, the agency could move forward with designing long-term protections for the bay." The EPA restoring protections would, according to The Washington Post, essentially block the mine project. Apparently, the EPA had only used authority under "Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to block a major project only a dozen other times." Before implemented,