Pebble Mine Update: Federal Court Deadline Looms as Alaska Legislature Debates Permanent Protections

Image by Ben Knight

As of early February 2026, the decades-long fight over the Bristol Bay watershed continues on multiple fronts: federal courts, the Alaska State Legislature, and regulatory agencies. While the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 veto of the proposed Pebble Mine remains in effect, legal and legislative skirmishes have intensified, with the next two weeks bringing a major deadline that could shape the project’s future.

Key Deadline: The Department of Justice must file its response brief defending the EPA’s Pebble Mine veto by February 16, 2026—just 14 days away. This filing represents the next major pivot point in the federal litigation.

The Federal Lawsuit: Where Things Stand

The primary focus for those tracking the Pebble Mine saga is the ongoing case Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. v. EPA in Alaska Federal District Court. Northern Dynasty, the Canadian parent company behind the Pebble Limited Partnership, is challenging the EPA’s authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, arguing the 2023 veto was unlawful.

According to court filings from November 2025, the plaintiffs—which include Northern Dynasty, the State of Alaska, and two Alaska Native village corporations (Iliamna Natives Ltd. and Alaska Peninsula Corp.)—filed their opening summary judgment briefs in October 2025. The original schedule called for the DOJ to respond by January 2, 2026, but a 43-day federal government shutdown that began October 1, 2025, forced a revised timeline.

Under the updated schedule, the DOJ must now submit its response by February 16, 2026, with the plaintiffs’ reply brief due April 15, 2026. Northern Dynasty President and CEO Ron Thiessen expressed frustration with the extension, telling Mining News North: “We appreciate the challenge faced by the DOJ lawyers during the shutdown; however, we believe this to be an excessive extension of time for a case attempting to support an illegal Obama/Biden-era veto.”

The company maintains a parallel strategy, continuing negotiations with federal officials while pursuing litigation. Settlement discussions with the EPA in July 2025 concluded without agreement, pushing the matter back to the courts.

Alaska Legislature Takes Up Bristol Bay Forever Act

While 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 Forever Act back into active consideration.

House Bill 233, introduced in May 2025 by Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon (I-Dillingham) and Representative Andy Josephson (D-Anchorage), would permanently prohibit metallic sulfide mining within the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve. The bill goes beyond the EPA’s 404(c) determination, which protects only the immediate headwaters of the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers where the Pebble deposit is located.

As the United Tribes of Bristol Bay explains, the legislation would extend protections across the entire 36,000-square-mile Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve, addressing not only Pebble but more than 20 additional active mining claims in the region. The Reserve was established in 1972 under Governor Jay Hammond’s leadership and already prohibits oil and gas development without legislative approval.

“Bristol Bay is ready to focus on sustainable growth and the wellbeing of our communities. We should not be condemned to endless decades of fighting to protect our ways of life from large-scale mines like Pebble.”
— Alannah Hurley, Executive Director, United Tribes of Bristol Bay

 

The bill carries strong public support. A December 2025 poll by David Binder Research found that 95 percent of Alaskans say protecting Bristol Bay is important, with 64 percent continuing to oppose the Pebble Mine specifically. Katherine Carscallen, executive director of Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay, called it “a rare point of bipartisan alignment among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.”

Donlin Gold: A Signal of Federal Caution?

Adding context to the regulatory landscape, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced on January 30, 2026, that it will prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Donlin Gold project, a separate proposed mine in Southwest Alaska’s Kuskokwim River region.

The SEIS, ordered by U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason in June 2025, will analyze the potential impacts of a large tailings spill from the mine’s planned 471-foot waste containment dam. The Donlin project, while distinct from Pebble, represents another large-scale mining proposal in salmon-rich Alaska waters. Six tribal governments in the Kuskokwim area brought the lawsuit that resulted in the court order.

According to Earthjustice, which represents the tribal plaintiffs, the SEIS will “evaluate the impacts of a larger tailings spill” than was analyzed in the original 2018 environmental study. A public comment period is open through February 24, 2026.

While the Donlin decision does not directly affect Pebble, it signals ongoing federal scrutiny of large-scale mining risks in Alaska’s salmon ecosystems—a theme central to the Pebble dispute.

The Legal Arguments

Northern Dynasty’s summary judgment filings challenge the EPA’s veto on multiple grounds. Among the company’s key arguments:

The EPA exceeded its legal authority under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. The agency’s findings contradict the official record established in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Following the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA decision, which narrowed the definition of regulated wetlands, much of the Pebble site may no longer qualify as “jurisdictional waters” under the Clean Water Act. Additionally, the EPA underestimated the economic costs of its veto to Alaska and the nation.

Pebble proponents also note that the deposit sits on state land designated by statute for mineral exploration and development, framing the dispute as federal overreach into state affairs.

Defenders of the veto counter that the 404(c) determination followed years of scientific review and reflects the unique ecological value of the Bristol Bay watershed. The EPA concluded that mining at the Pebble site would result in “unacceptable adverse effects” on the region’s fisheries.

What Comes Next

The February 16 DOJ filing will reveal how vigorously the federal government intends to defend the EPA’s veto. Northern Dynasty has indicated it would prefer a negotiated withdrawal of the veto over continued litigation, but no settlement has materialized.

In Juneau, the Bristol Bay Forever Act faces an uncertain path. While polling shows broad public support for Bristol Bay protections, the legislation must navigate a divided state government. Speaker Edgmon, who represents the Bristol Bay region, is positioned to advance the bill, but its ultimate fate will depend on committee assignments, floor votes, and whether Governor Mike Dunleavy would sign or veto such legislation.

For those who have followed the Pebble saga through its many twists—the EPA’s initial 2014 proposed determination, the permitting battles of the Trump administration, the Army Corps’ 2020 permit denial, and the 2023 veto—the next few months promise another consequential chapter. The confluence of federal litigation, state legislation, and broader regional mining debates ensures that Bristol Bay will remain at the center of America’s conversation about resource development, environmental protection, and the future of wild salmon.