Alaska judge finds Bonanza Channel gold mining proposal unlawful

Tribal villages successfully questioned the legality of corporate plans to dredge for gold in Safety Sound and the Bonanza Channel.ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CN) — An estuary abundant with wildlife in northwestern Alaska will likely be spared from an industrial suction dredging operation, though a federal judge Tuesday refrained from making the final call for now.U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason, a Barack Obama appointee, ruled the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unlawfully approved a Nevada company’s gold mining project plan in Safety Sound and its Bonanza Channel, located east of Nome.The five Alaska Native tribal groups who sued the Corps, including the Village of Solomon and the King Island Native Community, had asked Gleason to vacate the Corps’ 2024 approval. Instead, the judge asked them and the agency to provide additional briefing within three weeks on what a court-imposed remedy should look like.The Bonanza Channel is renowned for birdwatching, having received official recognition as an area of importance by Audubon and the American Bird Conservatory. It’s also home to fish and marine mammal species, all contributing to an ecosystem that has supported Alaska Native subsistence living for countless generations.Plans by Las Vegas-registered IPOP LLC to mine the estuary date back to 2018, when the corporation said it would bundle a reality television show, “Rivers of Gold," with the mineral operation.IPOP and its president, Beau Epstein, have since dropped that concept, but the mining plan, which entails vacuuming the estuary bed, removing more than 4 million cubic yards of material over five years and significantly altering sections of terrain and vegetation, has hit legal roadblocks at multiple points. In 2022, the Corps’ Alaska District rejected IPOP’s Clean Water Act permit request for the proposal after concluding that Safety Sound waters would face significant degradation threats.In 2023, however, Corps official Kirk Gibbs vacated that permit denial after IPOP accused the Alaska District of being biased towards Alaska Native interests. The permit review was assigned to the Hawaii-based Pacific Division instead, which approved the plan.The Pacific Division opted not to make an environmental impactsStatement for the proposal, as the Corps often does for large-scale resource development projects, writing instead that the IPOP project’s impacts “are expected to be not significant and adverse.”In her ruling, Gleason repeatedly drew from the Alaska District’s nearly 120-page explanation for denying the permit in 2022, rebuffing the Pacific Division’s approval as inconsistent with environmental law.“The division did not explain why it disagreed with the district’s conclusion that impacts to birds and other wildlife would be major or why, in its view, the project constituted only a small part of the estuary system such that any impact would be minor and temporary,” Gleason wrote.After submitting supplemental briefs to Gleason by Nov. 24, the Alaska Native plaintiffs and Pacific Division will be given another two weeks to respond to each other.“It’s frustrating that our communities have to continually defend our lands, our waters, and our way of life against decisions that fail to recognize just how much is at stake for our people,” said Deilah Johnson, tribal resources director for the Village of Solomon. “These aren’t just environmental concerns to us. This is our food security, our traditions, and the future of our children. We shouldn’t have to fight this hard to be heard, and we certainly shouldn’t have to wait until the damage is done for our concerns to matter. This ruling is an important victory, but our work isn’t finished. We will continue to stand together and fight for the protection our communities deserve.”IPOP LLC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads