Open for comment · closes December 1
Stop permanent fill of 9.18 acres of wetlands at Pogo Mine
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers · Liese Creek adjacent wetlands, wetlands adjacent to Pogo Mine 1380 portal
- What
- Northern Star would permanently bury over 9 acres of Alaskan wetlands near Liese Creek to expand mine rock storage.
- Where
- Liese Creek adjacent wetlands, wetlands adjacent to Pogo Mine 1380 portal, approximately 9.18 acres of wetlands in the Pogo Mine area, Alaska, AK
- By when
- Comments to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by December 1, 2026.Date from Army Corps public notice (Regulatory Request System) ↗, read November 4, 2026.
What to ask forAll 7 points →
Under Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and the 2008 Mitigation Rule, the Corps must require compensatory mitigation for permanent wetland fill before issuing a permit.
Where these four lines come from
- WhatOur plain-English read of the Army Corps public notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words under Case.
- WhereThe places and states the notice names, as PLAN read them.
- approximately 9.18 acres“approximately 9.18 acres of wetlands would be permanently impacted by the proposed project” PROPOSED WORK Open the document ↗
- By whenDecember 1, 2026, from Army Corps public notice (Regulatory Request System), its comment end date ↗. Read November 4, 2026.
- Read from PLAN’s record November 4, 2026.
Two ways to be heard on this, and both count. Comment for the legal record, then call the members who answer to you.
Comment now7 holes in the agency’s own analysis
Make these points, in your own words
The notice states 9.18 acres of wetlands will be permanently impacted but discloses no compensatory mitigation plan, mitigation ratio, mitigation bank credits, or in-lieu fee program.Read the point +
Under Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines and the 2008 Mitigation Rule, the Corps must require compensatory mitigation for permanent wetland fill before issuing a permit. The complete absence of any mitigation disclosure in PROPOSED WORK makes it impossible for the public to evaluate whether this application meets minimum legal standards. The agency must require the applicant to submit and publicly post a complete compensatory mitigation plan, then extend the comment period to allow meaningful review of that plan.
The stormwater management description in PROPOSED WORK ends mid-sentence: the text states stormwater 'will be collected and di' and stops there.Read the point +
The public cannot determine where mine-site stormwater will be discharged, whether it will receive treatment, or whether it will reach Liese Creek or downstream waters. At a mine site, stormwater destination is central to assessing water quality impacts. The agency must publish the complete stormwater management plan, including the full discharge destination and any treatment measures, before the comment period closes.
The opening paragraph asserts the material is 'non-mineralized rock' without providing any geochemical analysis, acid-base accounting, or supporting documentation.Read the point +
At the Pogo gold mine, the ability to distinguish non-mineralized from potentially acid-generating or metal-leaching material is essential to evaluating water quality risk to adjacent wetlands and Liese Creek. Placing inadequately characterized mine material in wetlands can cause long-term contamination the stilling basin and ditch system described in PROPOSED WORK may not capture. The agency must require the applicant to submit geochemical characterization of the rock material before this application is considered complete.
The notice denies channel modification of Liese Creek but provides no functional assessment of the 9.18 acres of wetlands being filled or analysis of how their permanent loss would affect Liese Creek's hydrology, groundwater recharge, flood storage, or water quality.Read the point +
Stating that no channel modification is proposed does not constitute analysis of indirect hydrological effects from eliminating adjacent wetlands. The agency must conduct and disclose a wetland functional assessment and analyze the indirect effects of permanent fill on Liese Creek before authorizing this work.
The notice acknowledges the portals were built before this permit application was filed.Read the point +
When major project components are constructed before permit authorization, the Corps must examine whether the full project was improperly segmented to avoid comprehensive CWA Section 404 review. The agency must disclose whether wetland impacts occurred during portal construction, whether those impacts were covered under the existing authorization, and whether this application and the prior construction together constitute a connected action requiring full review under the 404(b)(1) guidelines.
The notice frames this action as a modification of a prior authorization without disclosing a practicable alternatives analysis.Read the point +
Section 404(b)(1) guidelines require the Corps to find that no less-damaging practicable alternative exists before authorizing permanent fill in wetlands, and calling the action a modification does not waive that requirement. No alternative storage locations, reduced-footprint designs, or non-wetland sites are discussed anywhere in the notice. The agency must conduct and disclose a full alternatives analysis, including alternatives that would avoid or minimize wetland fill, before issuing a decision.
The notice refers to the existing laydown and storage area and says additional rock will be placed in wetlands adjacent to it, but discloses no acreage for wetland impacts already authorized and filled under POA-1996-00211.Read the point +
Without a baseline figure, the public cannot assess the total cumulative wetland loss from the full project footprint. The Corps' own cumulative effects analysis depends on this number. The agency must disclose the acreage of wetlands already impacted under the prior authorization so the public and the agency can evaluate cumulative impacts of the entire mine's footprint.
Say something only you can say. The law requires the agency to consider and respond to substantive comments, and specifics are what make a comment substantive.
PLAN's read: high threat
Northern Star would permanently bury over 9 acres of Alaskan wetlands near Liese Creek to expand mine rock storage.
What’s at risk
If this goes through
Our plain-English read of the official notice ↗. Check it against the agency’s own words below.
By the numbers, from the agency’s own document
- Additional permanent wetland impact proposed
PROPOSED WORK
Open the document ↗“approximately 9.18 acres of wetlands would be permanently impacted by the proposed project”
Source: the agency’s document ↗
The agency’s own analysis
What the notice says, and what it leaves out
Each one is a point a letter can put on the record.
The agency says
“An additional total of approximately 9.18 acres of wetlands would be permanently impacted by the proposed project”
The notice states 9.18 acres of wetlands will be permanently impacted but discloses no compensatory mitigation plan, mitigation ratio, mitigation bank credits, or in-lieu fee program.
The agency says
“Stormwater from the new storage area will be collected and di”
The stormwater management description in PROPOSED WORK ends mid-sentence: the text states stormwater 'will be collected and di' and stops there.
North Side Management, Isabella Creek Subdivision ↗
The agency says
“expand existing facilities at the Pogo Mine for non-mineralized rock storage and associated material and equipment laydown”
The opening paragraph asserts the material is 'non-mineralized rock' without providing any geochemical analysis, acid-base accounting, or supporting documentation.
North Side Management, Isabella Creek Subdivision ↗
The agency says
“No diversion, relocation, or channel modification of Liese Creek is proposed”
The notice denies channel modification of Liese Creek but provides no functional assessment of the 9.18 acres of wetlands being filled or analysis of how their permanent loss would affect Liese Creek's hydrology, groundwater recharge, flood storage, or water quality.
North Side Management, Isabella Creek Subdivision ↗
The agency says
“The portals have already been constructed; the proposed work concerns the adjacent rock-storage and laydown expansion”
The notice acknowledges the portals were built before this permit application was filed.
The agency says
“The proposed work is a modification of activities previously authorized under POA-1996-00211”
The notice frames this action as a modification of a prior authorization without disclosing a practicable alternatives analysis.
The agency says
“Additional rock will be placed in wetlands adjacent to the existing laydown and storage area”
The notice refers to the existing laydown and storage area and says additional rock will be placed in wetlands adjacent to it, but discloses no acreage for wetland impacts already authorized and filled under POA-1996-00211.
In the agency’s own words
Northern Star (Pogo) LLC (POC: Michael Eckert), stated the purpose is to expand existing facilities at the Pogo Mine for non-mineralized rock storage and associated material and equipment laydown adjacent to the existing 1380 portals. The portals have already been constructed; the proposed work concerns the adjacent rock-storage and laydown expansion. No diversion, relocation, or channel modification of Liese Creek is proposed. PROPOSED WORK: The proposed work is a modification of activities previously authorized under POA-1996-00211. An additional total of approximately 9.18 acres of wetlands would be permanentl…
The groups on this fight
4 groups predicted likely to care in Alaska
Predicted likely to care is a guess from the group's sourced work in Alaska, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.
- Alaska Wilderness League
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska: Built around defending the Arctic Refuge from oil and gas drilling.
- Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska: Lead plaintiff in the November 2025 federal suit challenging the land exchange signed to put a road through the Izembek Wilderness.
- Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Gates of the Arctic (Ambler Road), Alaska: First-named plaintiff in Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Trump, the Ambler road suit filed in 2020.
- Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Tongass National Forest, Alaska: Southeast Alaska’s homegrown defender of the Tongass since 1970.
Every group above is on STAND for Public Lands, with its court record, its filings and who backs it.
Who signs it
The notice names no signer PLAN could read. PLAN names a decision-maker only when the document names one.
The ground
This fight isn’t bound to a map place in PLAN’s record yet. The notice names Liese Creek adjacent wetlands, wetlands adjacent to Pogo Mine 1380 portal, approximately 9.18 acres of wetlands in the Pogo Mine area, Alaska (AK); none is a unit on the threatened lands map, so there’s no place page to open or watch.
In court on this ground
This fight isn’t bound to a land unit in PLAN’s record yet, so there are no court cases to show for its ground.
Who holds the vote
PLAN’s record doesn’t tie a member of Congress to this fight yet. The scorecard grades the votes and bills that decide public lands; nothing joins a vote or a bill to this decision, so there’s no member to name here without guessing.
See how your members vote ↗Calling your two senators and your representative is the Call door on this page.
Army CorpsWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.
Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .
More fights that need you
Go deeper, free
See how your members of Congress vote on public lands
Every representative, graded on the votes that decide the fate of parks, forests, and refuges.
Open ↗The mapSee the places under active threat
A live map of the parks, monuments, and wild country in the crosshairs right now.
Open ↗A wrong fact, a dead link, a form that wouldn’t take your letter: one tap and it comes to the people who build PLAN, with this fight attached.