Five Norton Sound tribes are asking a federal judge to throw out a key federal permit for a large-scale gold mine proposed in Bonanza Channel, an estuary about 30 miles east of Nome.

The mine, proposed by a Nevada company called IPOP LLC, would dredge roughly 2.7 miles along the channel’s 28-mile estuary bed.

Oral arguments for the case went before a federal judge on June 16 in Anchorage. The tribal governments of the Village of Solomon, Native Village of Council, King Island Native Community, Chinik Eskimo Community and Native Village of White Mountain say that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ignored serious environmental and subsistence concerns when it granted the Clean Water Act permit for the proposed mine in 2024.

Erin Colón is an attorney with the environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. She’s representing the tribes in the case.

“This is the first large‑scale dredging project, mining project in an estuary in Alaska, and it’s a project that every agency that reviewed it had major concerns about what the environmental impacts would be,” Colón said. “That’s Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS, EPA, and the Alaska District of the (U.S. Army) Corps.”

The tribes filed the lawsuit a little over a year ago. It argues that the Corps violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act by downplaying impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, migratory birds and marine mammals. And, they say the Corps did not fully consider how around‑the‑clock dredging could disrupt fishing, egg‑gathering and berry‑picking in and around Safety Sound, a critical area for subsistence users.

“It’s not just an estuary where, you know, there aren’t people living nearby, it’s a place with a rich history that is in active use still today,” Colón said.

Colón said tribal members of the Village of Solomon, whose historical homeland overlaps the proposed mining area, filled the courtroom to watch the hearing.

Deilah Johnson is a tribal member, council member and the tribal resources director for the Village of Solomon. She said the Bonanza Channel estuary functions as a year‑round subsistence location for nearby communities and as a place where people teach and pass down cultural practices. She flew into Anchorage from Oregon for the oral arguments, and said she joined more than two dozen other tribal members of all ages in the courtroom.

“Having our youth present with us, teaching them to continue the fight and to continue the important advocacy as our future leaders, I think was also just an incredibly proud moment for us as a community,” Johnson said. “Because that is where they go fishing, that is where they go swimming, that is where we have our own small education classes with our biologists, I mean, that is part of who they are.”

The Village of Solomon has been opposing the large-scale dredge mine since IPOP initially submitted its applications for the project in 2018.

Johnson said this lawsuit is the most recent opposition.

“It constantly feels like we can’t ever let our guard down, no matter what decision was made by who. We have to stay on guard and prepared for anything,” she said.

IPOP was initially denied the Clean Water Act permit by the Corps’ Alaska District office in 2022. The state branch found the project failed to prove it was the least environmentally damaging option, and was not in the public interest. In its statement rejecting the proposal, the Corps noted that less than 1% of permitting applications nationwide are denied, usually because the applicant refused to alter the design, timing or location of the project.

But IPOP filed its own lawsuit against the Corps, arguing the Alaska office acted in bad faith and dragged out the review. The company then filed a modified version of the project with a smaller footprint.

The Corps’ Pacific Ocean Division stepped in, and in 2024 vacated the Alaska District’s denial and issued a permit to the modified proposal.

IPOP’s proposed project

As it stands, the proposed mine would vacuum up the estuary bed, moving 4.5 million cubic yards of material to a nearly 160-acre area of land. IPOP’s permit application says this would turn the area from vegetated shallows to mudflats, but those impacts would be temporary.

Attorneys for the Corps argue that IPOP’s revised project reduces the environmental impacts, and an Environmental Impact Statement typical for large-scale projects permitted by the federal agency is not necessary.

In its written argument, the defense said the area is “expansive” and “mostly uninhabited,” and the impact would be confined to the footprint of the project. Further, they say no “unique subsistence resource” is available within the footprint of the project that couldn’t be found elsewhere and people could subsist in other areas.

The argument states that the Corps determined the Bonanza Channel was not a “particularly productive” area for fishing because of low water levels and higher water temperatures.

But Johnson said that the Corp’s argument effectively sidesteps local expertise and community concerns, and the smaller footprint does not offset the impacts.

“It to me doesn’t make any sense, but they are still claiming that there’s no fish. We proved that there was, and that the Corps didn’t consider the fish that are still with that yardage, regardless of how much smaller they made it,” Johnson said.

IPOP also needs state authorization to mine. A land use permit from the Alaska Division of Mining, Land and Water — within the state Department of Natural Resources — has been denied, and the state recently rejected IPOP’s appeal. Without both the federal and state permits, the company cannot move forward with the project.

Earthjustice attorney Colón said the denial could still be challenged in Superior Court.

“There is no guarantee that the state will stand by its denial, and there’s always a potential that a court could reverse that decision too,” Colón said.

There’s currently no timeline for a ruling, but Colón said she generally expects a written decision within about a year, though it could come sooner.

The U.S Army Corps’ Pacific Ocean Division did not respond to a request for comment for this story. IPOP also could not be immediately reached for comment.

This story originally appeared on KNOM and is republished here with permission.

OPINION: Alaska’s LNG future requires creative thinking

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, July 1, 2026

Many Alaskans have grown increasingly skeptical that the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) pipeline is not moving forward because of its escalating cost. Early estimates placed the project near $44 billion; more recent figures — though unofficial — suggest costs approaching $60 billion or more. When projects reach this scale, uncertainty alone can stall even the most ambitious development plans.

That uncertainty is reflected in the caution shown by Alaskan major energy companies such as Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and BP. Their hesitation is not surprising: projects of this magnitude carry significant capital exposure, and investors require a clear path to profitability before committing. In practical terms, that means LNG prices would need to be high enough to recover costs and provide returns, even in a global market where competing supply — including underdeveloped reserves in Russia and elsewhere — continues to exist.

This cost pressure is also evident in current negotiations with prospective project partners. Currently, one example is Glenfarne, which has reportedly emphasized that state corporate taxes would need to be waived as part of any development agreement. While tax incentives are common in large infrastructure deals, the scale of the requested waiver raises legitimate questions about long-term public benefit and fiscal sustainability.

Alaska has faced similar debates before. During the Trans-Alaska Pipeline negotiations, tax structures were part of the broader discussion, but they were not treated as a condition that undermined the project’s feasibility. More recently, companies such as Hilcorp — now a major operator in Cook Inlet following acquisitions from BP — have benefited from favorable operating conditions, as a sub chapter S Corp, and therefore tax exempt.

Yet declining natural gas production in Cook Inlet has already raised concerns about long-term energy security for the Anchorage region, underscoring the need for new reliable supply sources. The central question is: if a project is only viable with extensive tax waivers and escalating public concessions, does it truly serve Alaska’s long-term economic interests? The state relies heavily on a limited set of revenue streams to fund education, transportation, and public services, including the Alaska Highway System. At the same time, Permanent Fund Dividend levels have become increasingly constrained. Against that backdrop, LNG development is often presented as one of the few significant new revenue opportunities on the horizon.

However, waiving broad categories of taxation for a single project could set a dangerous precedent with long-term consequences. Alaska must balance the need to attract investment with the responsibility to maintain a stable and equitable revenue base.

Infrastructure costs are only part of the challenge. Alaska’s unique land ownership structure — where the federal government controls roughly two-thirds of land within the state — adds complexity to large-scale development. This makes innovative approaches to transportation and energy export even more important.

It has been suggested that the proposed LNG line from the North Slope to Kenai be built in two phases. The first would be to build the line to initially serve the Fairbanks and Anchorage metro areas. Later, the final section, including the export dock, would be constructed on the Kenai. The drawback with this approach is the first section would not distribute enough LNG to cover operating costs or debt reduction.

An interesting group that continues to research the Arctic proposal of LNG by ice-breaking tanker to Asia is Oilak, associated with Lloyd Energy Company, with estimates of nearly 40% cost savings in transportation by the Arctic tanker route suggested.

Ice-breaking LNG tanker technology is already in use in Arctic regions, including Russia. Similar approaches could allow North Slope gas to reach Asian markets more directly. This would involve specialized loading facilities and seasonal shipping strategies designed around Arctic conditions.

During the 1967-68 period I worked in state government and during that time, we maintained a State office in Tokyo, Japan. The purpose was to promote Alaska resource potential to the Asian countries. This resulted in stimulating Alaska’s timber and fisheries industry, resulting in pulp mills in Sitka and sawmills in Ketchikan, Wrangell, Haines and Metlakatla, as well as several fish processing plants throughout Alaska.

I believe there is an opportunity to consider international equity partnerships in any LNG proposal. Countries such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Taiwan, as well as other major LNG importers, could potentially participate as investors in infrastructure development in exchange for long term supply agreements. Similar models have been used in Alaska’s resource history, including earlier investment in timber, pulp and sawmills and fisheries operations across Alaska. Our state’s presence in Tokyo, as I’ve indicated, helped facilitate trade relations and market development.

These kinds of partnerships are not without complexity, but they reflect a broader truth: large-scale resource development increasingly requires creative financing structures and shared risk models.

Ultimately, the most expensive component of any LNG strategy is not just production, it is transportation to market. Whether through pipelines, rail systems, or Arctic shipping corridors, the chosen infrastructure path will determine the project’s viability more than resource availability itself.

Alaska should be cautious about allowing enthusiasm for a single project structure to override broader fiscal considerations. The goal should not be development at any cost, but development that strengthens the state’s long-term economic foundation. I believe if consideration of the potential of the Alaska Arctic tanker route were given genuine support by our governor and the legislature, the Arctic route would advance far beyond the current debate over foreign tax forgiveness. The state would generate greater revenue from the cost savings on transportation alone. Let’s take a look at how they are doing it from the Russian Arctic.

Frank Murkowski is a former U.S. senator and Alaska governor.

Alaska transportation officials on Tuesday identified the likely winner of a bidding process for building a $350 million vessel to replace the state’s 62-year-old Tustumena ferry.

The M/V Tustumena has been connecting communities along the Aleutian chain to Southcentral Alaska since 1964. Alaska leaders for years have been discussing plans to replace the ferry with a newer vessel.

But the process of constructing a new ferry has been repeatedly delayed and hampered amid shifts in state and federal administration priorities.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski was instrumental in adding funding to a bipartisan federal infrastructure bill in 2021 to build new ferries for Alaska. Funding from that bill, signed into law by former President Joe Biden, will be the primary way the state plans to pay for the new vessel.

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities said Tuesday that it is nearing the conclusion of a monthslong bidding process, and had identified a Louisiana-based shipbuilder to construct the new ferry at a cost of just under $350 million.

That is an increase from 2021, when Gov. Mike Dunleavy announced a plan to replace the Tustumena by 2027 at a cost of up to $250 million. Both the price tag and the timeline have since been altered. The vessel is not expected to be complete until 2029, according to the latest plan.

In a written statement, Dunleavy said Tuesday that replacing the Tustumena reflects his administration’s “commitment to rebuilding this critical transportation network.”

During Dunleavy’s eight-year tenure, ridership and state revenue from the Alaska Marine Highway System have seen significant decline, with an aging fleet and difficulty in recruiting and retaining workers.

After several false starts, the state began seeking bids for the construction of the Tustumena replacement in January. The bidding process was initially intended to conclude in May, but was extended to provide more time for bidders to complete their proposals, according to state officials.

The department did not share how many bids it had received or details on the other bids.

The requirements for the new vessel include a 330-foot-long ship with a range of 4,000 nautical miles, and a capacity of 250 passengers and 28 crew plus 58 vehicles. That would be larger than the current vessel, which has the capacity to carry 160 passengers and up to 34, 20-foot vehicles.

Transportation officials said Tuesday that Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors, the Louisiana-based shipbuilder, has a 14-day window to submit all remaining requirement documentation. The award won’t be formalized until that process is complete.

Thoma-Sea recently completed work on the Arctic Fjord, a Seattle-based factory trawler operating in the Bering Sea. The Alaska transportation department stated that the project demonstrates the company’s “ability to successfully deliver complex vessels designed for Alaska’s demanding operating environment.”

The ferry system’s Marine Director Craig Tornga said in a statement that the step toward constructing the Tustumena replacement vessel “represents more than a new ship — it represents renewed confidence in the future of the Alaska Marine Highway System.”

“The replacement vessel will provide improved reliability, enhanced safety, increased operational flexibility, and modern efficient systems that will better serve our passengers, crews, and the communities that depend on us. We look forward to working with the men and women of Thoma-Sea Marine Constructors to deliver a high-performance vessel,” Tornga said in a statement.