Government by Revenge – Part 3 – Eliminating Environmental Analysis
By Hal Shepherd
The Imuruk Basin is on the brink of becoming a sacrificial area in the Nation’s pursuit of reduced carbon emissions and as the primary source of domestic graphite.
The Imuruk Basin watershed in which the proposed Graphite One mine would be located, serves as an essential habitat for subsistence wildlife species, including salmon, trout, moose, reindeer, and caribou. For local communities, the Basin represents far more than a resource to exploit for industrial development—it is a culturally and historically significant landscape that includes multiple anthropological sites and is associated with a history of creationists stories and legends. For this reason, the area is considered sacred to many of the local Native Alaskan community members.
Given the potential impacts of mine development on these resources, the Native villages of Teller, Mary’s Igloo, and Brevig Mission are concerned about toxic effluent from the mine, which could threaten public health and the well-being of fish and wildlife in the Imuruk Basin watershed. However, amid the rising water temperatures and decreasing stream flows in Western Alaska, the mine's most significant threat to subsistence resources may be its diversion of water from critical fish habitat.
“If they ever use all that water, I don’t know what will happen to our fish up there. There’re all kind of fish up there in creeks”
~ Henry Olanna Jr., Brevig Mission resident and former member of the Graphite One Mine Subsistence Advisory Council
Concerns first emerged in 2017 when mining exploration began after the Alaska Department of Natural Resources granted Graphite One a five-year “Temporary Water Use Authorization” (TWUA), allowing the withdrawal of up to 132,000 gallons per day from creeks and ponds draining the Kigluiak Mountains from June through October for mining exploration activities. Adding insult to injury, rather than requiring proper water rights permits as outlined in the Alaska Water Use Act, ever since DNR has repeatedly reauthorized TWUAs for the Mine every five years.
To date, federal and state agencies have failed to fully analyze the impacts of Graphite One’s exploration on water quantity and quality, and the fish and wildlife resources crucial to local communities, nor have they consulted with such communities regarding these impacts.
While mining proponents claim that a future array of wetlands, fish passage water discharge, air quality Permits, and environmental analysis standards will sufficiently mitigate any harm the mine might cause once it is developed,[1] the reality is that such analyses may not take place due to strong political momentum favoring rapid development. In fact, relative to other states, Alaska’s mining permitting regulations are lacking in teeth,[2] and under the current Dunleavy administration, any such permits are routinely rubber stamped.
Amid a trade war with China, the Trump administration is accelerating efforts to fast-track permitting for mines like Graphite One. Also, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy nominated the mine as a “high-priority infrastructure project,” making it eligible for inclusion under new legislation originally designed for transportation projects. Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41)—passed during the Obama administration—was initially intended for infrastructure projects such as energy production, transportation, aviation, and manufacturing. However, due to successful lobbying by mining companies and Trump officials, mining was added to the sectors benefiting from streamlined permitting processes.
Similarly, as part of Trump’s most recent tactics to get back at environmentalists and tribal governments, his administration recently introduced "Alternative Arrangements" for the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act for projects related to energy resource development. These Alternative Arrangements are enabled by Executive Order 14156, which declared that a national energy emergency applies to an array of natural resources including critical minerals. The Arrangements allow for dramatically shortened environmental review processes; for example, public comment periods for Environmental Impact Statements could be as brief as an alarming 30 days.
To take advantage of these relaxed restrictions, Graphite One would need to formally apply for Alternative Arrangements. These changes align with a March 20 executive order issued by Trump, which calls for “Immediate Measures to Increase American Mineral Production”—a directive that includes critical minerals such as graphite. The lack of environmental oversight of the Graphite One mine is compounded by a feasibility study released at the end of April, that suggests that the mine’s production rate could triple its initial projections.
The most effective means of contacting the Alaska Delegation who are currently overwhelmed by letters and e-mails from an increasingly angry and outspoken public, is to call them. Please call the delegation:
Lisa Murkowski - Anchorage (907) 271-3735/ Washington D.C (202)-224-6665;
Dan Sullivan: Washington Office: (202) 224-3004/Anchorage Office:
Phone: (907) 271-5915;
Nick Begich: Washington, D.C. Office: (202) 225-5765//Anchorage Office: (907) 921-6575
Tell them to take action to stop Trump’s latest shock and awe campaign against the environment and the Nation, including weakening environmental and cultural impact analysis industrial of extraction projects.
[1] See e.g., Graphite Creek Project NI 43-101 Technical Report and Feasibility Study Seward Peninsula, Alaska, pp. 31-32, (March 25, 2025).
[2] Environmental Law Institute, Alaska Hardrock Mining Policy Recommendations Based on a Comparison of State Laws and Regulations, pp. 106-12, (February 2025).