Pebble Mine Update: Federal Court D...

Picture by Ben Knight

As of early February 2026, the decades-long combat over the Bristol Bay watershed continues on a number of fronts: federal courts, the Alaska State Legislature, and regulatory companies. Whereas the Environmental Safety Company’s 2023 veto of the proposed Pebble Mine stays in impact, authorized and legislative skirmishes have intensified, with the subsequent two weeks bringing a serious deadline that would form the undertaking’s future.

Key Deadline: The Division of Justice should file its response transient defending the EPA’s Pebble Mine veto by February 16, 2026—simply 14 days away. This submitting represents the subsequent main pivot level within the federal litigation.

The Federal Lawsuit: The place Issues Stand

The first focus for these monitoring the Pebble Mine saga is the continued case Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. v. EPA in Alaska Federal District Courtroom. Northern Dynasty, the Canadian guardian firm behind the Pebble Restricted Partnership, is difficult the EPA’s authority beneath Part 404(c) of the Clear Water Act, arguing the 2023 veto was illegal.

Based on court filings from November 2025, the plaintiffs—which embody Northern Dynasty, the State of Alaska, and two Alaska Native village firms (Iliamna Natives Ltd. and Alaska Peninsula Corp.)—filed their opening abstract judgment briefs in October 2025. The unique schedule known as for the DOJ to reply by January 2, 2026, however a 43-day federal authorities shutdown that started October 1, 2025, compelled a revised timeline.

Underneath the up to date schedule, the DOJ should now submit its response by February 16, 2026, with the plaintiffs’ reply transient due April 15, 2026. Northern Dynasty President and CEO Ron Thiessen expressed frustration with the extension, telling Mining News North: “We admire the problem confronted by the DOJ attorneys throughout the shutdown; nevertheless, we imagine this to be an extreme extension of time for a case trying to assist an unlawful Obama/Biden-era veto.”

The corporate maintains a parallel technique, persevering with negotiations with federal officers whereas pursuing litigation. Settlement discussions with the EPA in July 2025 concluded without agreement, pushing the matter again to the courts.

Alaska Legislature Takes Up Bristol Bay Endlessly Act

Whereas the federal case proceeds, a parallel effort is underway in Juneau. The Alaska Legislature convened its 2026 session on January 20, bringing the Bristol Bay Endlessly Act again into lively consideration.

House Bill 233, launched in Might 2025 by Speaker of the Home Bryce Edgmon (I-Dillingham) and Consultant Andy Josephson (D-Anchorage), would completely prohibit metallic sulfide mining throughout the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve. The invoice goes past the EPA’s 404(c) dedication, which protects solely the speedy headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers the place the Pebble deposit is positioned.

Because the United Tribes of Bristol Bay explains, the laws would lengthen protections throughout your entire 36,000-square-mile Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve, addressing not solely Pebble however greater than 20 further lively mining claims within the area. The Reserve was established in 1972 beneath Governor Jay Hammond’s management and already prohibits oil and fuel improvement with out legislative approval.

“Bristol Bay is able to deal with sustainable progress and the wellbeing of our communities. We shouldn’t be condemned to countless many years of preventing to guard our methods of life from large-scale mines like Pebble.”
— Alannah Hurley, Govt Director, United Tribes of Bristol Bay

 

The invoice carries robust public assist. A December 2025 poll by David Binder Research discovered that 95 % of Alaskans say defending Bristol Bay is necessary, with 64 % persevering with to oppose the Pebble Mine particularly. Katherine Carscallen, government director of Business Fishermen for Bristol Bay, known as it “a uncommon level of bipartisan alignment amongst Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.”

Donlin Gold: A Sign of Federal Warning?

Including context to the regulatory panorama, the U.S. Military Corps of Engineers announced on January 30, 2026, that it’s going to put together a Supplemental Environmental Affect Assertion (SEIS) for the Donlin Gold undertaking, a separate proposed mine in Southwest Alaska’s Kuskokwim River area.

The SEIS, ordered by U.S. District Choose Sharon Gleason in June 2025, will analyze the potential impacts of a big tailings spill from the mine’s deliberate 471-foot waste containment dam. The Donlin undertaking, whereas distinct from Pebble, represents one other large-scale mining proposal in salmon-rich Alaska waters. Six tribal governments within the Kuskokwim space introduced the lawsuit that resulted within the courtroom order.

Based on Earthjustice, which represents the tribal plaintiffs, the SEIS will “consider the impacts of a bigger tailings spill” than was analyzed within the authentic 2018 environmental research. A public remark interval is open via February 24, 2026.

Whereas the Donlin resolution doesn’t immediately have an effect on Pebble, it indicators ongoing federal scrutiny of large-scale mining dangers in Alaska’s salmon ecosystems—a theme central to the Pebble dispute.

The Authorized Arguments

Northern Dynasty’s summary judgment filings problem the EPA’s veto on a number of grounds. Among the many firm’s key arguments:

The EPA exceeded its authorized authority beneath Part 404(c) of the Clear Water Act. The company’s findings contradict the official report established within the Closing Environmental Affect Assertion. Following the Supreme Courtroom’s Sackett v. EPA resolution, which narrowed the definition of regulated wetlands, a lot of the Pebble website might now not qualify as “jurisdictional waters” beneath the Clear Water Act. Moreover, the EPA underestimated the financial prices of its veto to Alaska and the nation.

Pebble proponents additionally be aware that the deposit sits on state land designated by statute for mineral exploration and improvement, framing the dispute as federal overreach into state affairs.

Defenders of the veto counter that the 404(c) dedication adopted years of scientific assessment and displays the distinctive ecological worth of the Bristol Bay watershed. The EPA concluded that mining on the Pebble website would lead to “unacceptable opposed results” on the area’s fisheries.

What Comes Subsequent

The February 16 DOJ submitting will reveal how vigorously the federal authorities intends to defend the EPA’s veto. Northern Dynasty has indicated it will desire a negotiated withdrawal of the veto over continued litigation, however no settlement has materialized.

In Juneau, the Bristol Bay Endlessly Act faces an unsure path. Whereas polling exhibits broad public assist for Bristol Bay protections, the laws should navigate a divided state authorities. Speaker Edgmon, who represents the Bristol Bay area, is positioned to advance the invoice, however its final destiny will rely upon committee assignments, ground votes, and whether or not Governor Mike Dunleavy would signal or veto such laws.

For individuals who have adopted the Pebble saga via its many twists—the EPA’s preliminary 2014 proposed dedication, the allowing battles of the Trump administration, the Military Corps’ 2020 allow denial, and the 2023 veto—the subsequent few months promise one other consequential chapter. The confluence of federal litigation, state laws, and broader regional mining debates ensures that Bristol Bay will stay on the middle of America’s dialog about useful resource improvement, environmental safety, and the way forward for wild salmon.