Treaty Rights and Environmental Concerns
In mid-September 2025, the Nez Perce Tribe filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Forest Service’s approval of the Stibnite Gold Project in Idaho, led by Perpetua Resources. The Tribe alleges that the project, set in the headwaters of the South Fork Salmon River, infringes on their treaty-reserved rights to fish, hunt, gather, and travel, as guaranteed in treaties from the mid- 1800s. The environmental review approved by the Forest Service permits diversion of parts of the river into tunnels, massive disturbances of wetlands and streams, and long-term ecological impacts in areas essential for wild salmon, steelhead, and bull trout.
Consultation, Alternatives, and Legal Claims
A core element of the dispute is that the Tribe and other stakeholders say the Forest Service did not meaningfully consider alternative project configurations or mitigation measures that would reduce harm, especially to aquatic ecosystems and species. They also claim that federal laws like NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and the National Forest Management Act were not properly followed in terms of both procedural and substantive requirements—especially regarding analyzing less-damaging alternatives and protecting waterways and habitat.
Risks to License to Operate & Stakeholder Trust
While the permit and Record of Decision are technically in place for the project, the Nez Perce lawsuit and public criticism threaten Perpetua’s social license to operate. Delays, injunctions, or unfavorable court rulings could force redesign or suspension of parts of the project. For the Tribe, the case represents a defense of sovereign and treaty rights and a demand for deeper participation. For Perpetua and regulators, the case underscores the growing stakes around environmental justice, indigenous consultation, and biodiversity protection in mining, especially in sensitive watersheds.