ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A federal judge ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acted unlawfully when it approved the Bonanza Channel gold mining plan east of Nome, and she asked the parties to propose what remedy the court should impose before entering a final order.
U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason concluded Tuesday that the Corps’ Pacific Division improperly signed off on a Nevada company’s suction dredging proposal for Safety Sound and the Bonanza Channel. The case was brought by five Alaska Native tribal groups, including the Village of Solomon and the King Island Native Community, who had sought to vacate the Corps’ 2024 approval in its entirety.
Instead of immediately voiding the permit decision, the judge directed the tribes and the agency to submit additional briefing within three weeks on potential court-ordered remedies, with two more weeks allowed for responses.
Bonanza Channel gold mining plan faces legal setbacks
The estuary is recognized by Audubon and the American Bird Conservancy as an area of importance for birdwatching and supports fish and marine mammals that underpin Alaska Native subsistence traditions. According to court filings, IPOP LLC, a Las Vegas-registered firm led by president Beau Epstein, has pursued mining there since 2018. The initial concept paired extraction with a reality television show, “Rivers of Gold,” a media plan the company has since abandoned.
The mining proposal calls for vacuuming the estuary bed and removing more than 4 million cubic yards of material over five years, substantially altering terrain and vegetation. The project encountered multiple regulatory hurdles. In 2022, the Corps’ Alaska District denied IPOP’s Clean Water Act permit application after finding the operation would significantly degrade Safety Sound waters.
In 2023, Corps official Kirk Gibbs vacated that denial following IPOP’s assertions that the Alaska District was biased toward Alaska Native interests. The permit review moved to the Hawaii-based Pacific Division, which later approved the project.
Departing from the agency’s typical approach for major resource developments, the Pacific Division did not prepare an environmental impact statement and instead determined the project’s effects “are expected to be not significant and adverse.”
Judge faults Corps for inconsistent environmental review
In her decision, Gleason repeatedly cited the Alaska District’s nearly 120-page rationale for the 2022 denial and found the Pacific Division’s later approval inconsistent with environmental laws. “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,” she wrote.
After the supplemental briefs are filed, the court will consider the appropriate remedy. The judge’s order leaves the estuary protected from dredging for now but stops short of a final resolution.
“It’s frustrating that our communities have to continually defend our lands, our waters, and our way of life,” said Deilah Johnson, tribal resources director for the Village of Solomon, who called the ruling an important step while vowing continued advocacy.
IPOP LLC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
According to court filings, IPOP LLC, a Las Vegas-registered firm led by president Beau Epstein, has pursued mining there since 2018. The initial concept paired extraction with a reality television show, “Rivers of Gold,” a media plan the company has since abandoned.
The project encountered multiple regulatory hurdles. In 2022, the Corps’ Alaska District denied IPOP’s Clean Water Act permit application after finding the operation would significantly degrade Safety Sound waters.
In 2023, Corps official Kirk Gibbs vacated that denial following IPOP’s assertions that the Alaska District was biased toward Alaska Native interests. The permit review moved to the Hawaii-based Pacific Division, which later approved the project.
Departing from the agency’s typical approach for major resource developments, the Pacific Division did not prepare an environmental impact statement and instead determined the project’s effects “are expected to be not significant and adverse.”
In her decision, Gleason repeatedly cited the Alaska District’s nearly 120-page rationale for the 2022 denial and found the Pacific Division’s later approval inconsistent with environmental laws. “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,” she wrote.
After the supplemental briefs are filed, the court will consider the appropriate remedy. The judge’s order leaves the estuary protected from dredging for now but stops short of a final resolution.
“It’s frustrating that our communities have to continually defend our lands, our waters, and our way of life,” said Deilah Johnson, tribal resources director for the Village of Solomon, who called the ruling an important step while vowing continued advocacy.
IPOP LLC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.