Opposition builds as public comments are drafted for first major Graphite One permit application
As the public comment period on a major permit application for the proposed graphite mine in the northern Kigluaik Mountains winds down, the nearest communities that would be affected by the mine are voicing their opposition.
On Monday, the lights of snowmachines and four-wheelers pierced the soft light of the Arctic dawn as the caravan was picking their way from Brevig Mission to Teller across the ice on Grantley Harbor.
Representatives from the City of Brevig Mission, Brevig Mission Traditional Council and Brevig Mission Native Corporation made the journey to meet with their counterparts of Teller and Mary’s Igloo to discuss the ramifications of the proposed Graphite One mine on their subsistence way of life. The mine, the mill complex and the waste management facility would be built near the northern slopes of the Kigluaik Mountains, straddling Graphite Creek and Glacier Canyon Creek, which empty into the Imuruk Basin.
On Saturday, Nov. 21, all three Brevig Mission entities unanimously passed a resolution in opposition of the mine “due to threats to subsistence resources, cultural integrity, environmental health, community wellbeing and long-term sustainability of the region.”
The two-page resolution addresses the stewardship since time immemorial and ties the health of the land to the cultural, spiritual and physical wellbeing of Brevig Mission residents. The resolution expresses fear of contamination of surface and groundwater, of wildlife disturbance and industrial traffic, noise and pollution as well as long-term risks from the tailings and waste facilities. It concludes that short-term economic benefit doesn’t outweigh the long-term risks and resolves that all three local governing entities formally oppose the development, permitting, construction and operation of the proposed mine and its associated infrastructure.
The resolution calls for a rigorous environmental review, independent scientific assessment and full incorporation of Indigenous knowledge and community concerns.
Teller entities called for a public meeting on Wednesday, Nov. 26, to gather public comments. A similar resolution to the Brevig document was passed by Teller governmental entities on Monday.
Asked for comment on the opposition from Teller and Brevig Mission, Graphite One’s Senior Vice President Kevin Torpy said in an email to the Nugget, “We respect those positions and value their concerns. We will continue to work with all the communities in the region to assure we understand their concerns and do our best to resolve them. We truly appreciate the importance of the subsistence resources near the project and have already incorporated several suggestions from nearby residents into our design.” He said since 2014, Graphite One has held approximately 75 meetings with local communities, tribal organizations, Alaska Native corporations, municipal governments and a Subsistence Advisory Committee. The feedback from those meetings that has been incorporated into the mine’s design, he said. “We are not perfect, but we want to make sure everyone’s remaining concerns are addressed in the environmental review of the project. Importantly, we want everyone to know that we are committed to designing, building, and operating a project that is environmentally sound, accounts for subsistence activities and is economically beneficial to the communities of the region,” Torpy wrote.
The urgency of comments is spurred by a dual set of permit applications as Graphite One is in the process to get federal and state approval to build the mine, the mining complex and a 17.5 access road through the mountain range to connect the mine to Nome. Graphite
One proposes year-round operations and hauling processed graphite material to the port of Nome for export.
In March President Donald Trump issued an executive order on immediate measures to increase American mineral production, to boost critical mineral production and to streamline permitting. Graphite One was included in a fast-tracked process called FAST-41 and a timeline on the permitting dashboard shows the objective to have the project fully permitted by late summer 2026.
A key component for the fast track is an interpretation of what constitutes the waters of the United States, and thereby the jurisdiction of the federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is the agency in charge of permitting fill being placed into waters and wetlands, under the Clean Water Act Section 404. According to the permit application by Graphite One, a total of 1,175 acres would have permanent impacts on “uplands and non-jurisdictional” acreage. This would include the roughly 780 acres of wetlands below the mine pit that would be used for the processing facilities, the waste management facility and the water management facility.
The interpretation of what constitutes waters under federal jurisdiction has been narrowed down in the Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court ruling. A key criterion for adjacent wetlands is that they must have a “continuous surface connection” to a relatively permanent water body to be considered jurisdictional. For wetlands that are not immediately adjacent to a navigable water, a two-part test is applied: First, the wetland must be adjacent to a navigable or relatively permanent water. Second, the wetland must have a continuous surface connection to that water.
In an email, Graphite One consultant Simon Wigren with HDR wrote to the Army Corps that the FAST-41 timetable should assume that USACE will prepare an Environmental Assessment rather than an Environmental Impact Statement.
“The draft timetable initially provided assumes USACE would prepare an EIS based on an expected impact to greater than 600 acres of aquatic resources. However, this amount of impact is far greater than the acreage of impact to jurisdictional Waters of the United States (WOTUS) that will be requested in Graphite One’s forthcoming permit application,” he wrote. “As we discussed at our pre-application meeting on May 23, 2025, Graphite One intends to submit a Jurisdictional Determination Report (JDR) as part of their application package following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling on the definition of WOTUS. Based on the findings of our JDR, Graphite One anticipates that the access road and mine site infrastructure would impact approximately 1.7 acres of WOTUS under USACE jurisdiction.” The Nome Nugget obtained the communication through a FOIA request.
Asked for comment, as Graphite One in its May 2025 public meeting in Nome said that the assumption is to prepare a full-blown Environmental Statement, Torpy said that at the time of the May 2025 meeting, Graphite One was expecting that the NEPA process to be completed under an Environmental Impact Statement. “However, after reviewing our project plan, the Army Corps of Engineers determined our project will not impact enough wetlands to necessitate an EIS. Because the Graphite Creek Project lies 100% on State lands, it is the placement of fill in waters of the US that triggers the federal NEPA process, via the USACE 404 permit application, and the subsequent EA-EIS determination. Given the very small wetlands footprint, the Corps made the initial decision to schedule the project as an Environmental Assessment (EA) until such time as the entirety of the project impacts could be reviewed,” Torpy wrote.
An Environmental Assessment does not allow for public comment periods. David Chambers, a mining expert with the Center for Science in Public Participation in Bozeman, MT submitted comments to the Army Corps objecting to exactly that point. As an example, he referenced the accelerated permitting of the ill-fated Rock Creek gold mine near Nome, which was permitted with only an Environmental Assessment. This accelerated permitting, he said, “contributed to major issues with the Rock Creek mine that eventually led to premature closure and abandonment of the entire project.”
Specific to Graphite One’s application, he said that the size of the project – a pit over a mile long and a quarter mile deep – and a 300-ft high waste facility as well as the 230 million tons of waste material “should require the analysis and discussion provided by a full Environmental Impact Statement.” Chambers said in his comments that the information accessible to the public does “not provide the level of technical analysis and detail necessary to answer basic questions about whether the potential environmental risks from this project […] have been examined in sufficient detail or whether the mitigations proposed are sufficient to abate these risks.” Chambers particularly pointed to the lack of technical reports regarding the tailings facility design, water quality predictions, water management and reclamation. The only details are found in G1’s Feasibility Study. However, some technical support documents were labeled “proprietary.” “It is unprecedented for technical reports submitted in support of a project application, or for an environmental analysis, to be considered proprietary,” said Chambers.
Chambers also noticed a change in waste disposal facility design from a filtered and thickened waste storage as described in the Feasibility Study to the USACE’s public notice, which states that the facility would also include wet tailings. Changing the approach from filtered to wet tailings “raises a whole series of new concerns because wet tailings pose significantly more long-term risks than filtered tailings,” he wrote.
Asked for clarification from Graphite One, Torpy explained that during the late stage of the feasibility study, “our tailings filtration test work identified a portion of the material contained a high amount of fine clays that can cause issues with filtration.”
“That work is now done in sufficient detail that we are proceeding with the option for the permit because 1) it provides better overall geotechnical stability and 2) it reduces the project’s power consumption by eliminating a portion of the tailings filtration process. The conventional tailings will account for approximately 25 percent of the total tailings stream and will be isolated in a fully lined impoundment. That impoundment will be surrounded by the remainder of the dry stack tailings and comingled waste rock, also on a liner, providing a buttress not normally seen in conventional tailings facilities. The overall reclamation strategy for the facility will not fundamentally change. Graphite One will reclaim as much of the facility as possible, as quickly as possible. The conventional tailings portion will take several years longer to drain before we can cover it with liner, place topsoil, and revegetate it.”
On Friday, the state of Alaska’s Department of Environmental Conservation issued on its website a public notice that neither this newspaper nor stakeholders in the region received in form of an email or letter. It is a notice for a state water quality certification connected to the permit application before the Army Corps. The state’s permit is required “for assurance that the proposed activity would comply with applicable water quality requirements.”
According to the state application fill would only impact 2.2 acres of waters, including wetlands “that have been asserted by the applicant as jurisdictional and requiring permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.” The remaining 1,000-plus acres of wetlands impacted are not considered to be in the jurisdiction of the Army Corps and don’t require fill permits from the state of Alaska. The comment period for the state permit began November 21 and ends December 24.
The public notice can be found at http://notice.alaska.gov/221813
The comment period for the Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the Army Corps ends November 30.