How do I submit a public comment on APMA 2299, Graphite Creek?

Submit your comment through the agency's official portal at https://rrs.usace.army.mil/rrs/public-notices?search=POA-2018-00210. This page includes talking points and a starter comment you can make your own.

When is the public comment deadline for APMA 2299, Graphite Creek?

Comments are due by November 2, 2026. Comments received after the deadline may not be considered by the agency.

Do public comments actually change federal decisions?

Yes, when they are substantive. Agencies are legally required to read and respond to substantive comments before finalizing a rule, and specific personal comments about real places and real uses carry far more weight than identical form letters. Courts have overturned rules when agencies ignored substantive comments.

PLAN's read: critical threat

Demand Answers Before Graphite Creek Buries 389 Acres of Alaska Wetlands

APMA 2299, Graphite Creek Project

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers· Graphite Creek watershed, Alaska wetlands and waters associated with the Graphite Creek mining area, potential downstream navigable waters in the Seward Peninsula regionArmy Corps public notice ↗

Army CorpsWe track this on the agency’s own system of record, where most on-the-ground decisions live.

Wetland Dredge Fill Navigable Water Habitat Mining EIS Alaska Waters Stream Impacts

Pictured: Moose in a summer wildflower meadow

The groups on this fight

4 groups predicted likely to care in Alaska

Predicted likely to care is a guess from footprint in Alaska, by the same match the STAND matchmaker runs, with no link to this decision. Give straight to them; nothing routes through us.

Alaska Wilderness League
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works Alaska: built around defending the Arctic Refuge from oil and gas drilling.
Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges
Predicted likely to care · a guess
Works 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
Works 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
Works 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.

The proposed open-pit mine would permanently fill 389.8 acres of Alaska wetlands and waters and divert 12,440 linear feet of streams over a 21-year mine life, with a record of decision planned roughly one year after this scoping notice.

What’s at risk

The project footprint covers 1,176.0 acres in the northern Kigluaik Mountains, including permanent fill of 389.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and waters, a staged-raise tailings dam, and diversion of 12,440 linear feet of streams into artificial channels. USACE has already determined the project would cause significant impacts to aquatic resources, fish and wildlife, water quality, and subsistence for the communities of Teller, Brevig Mission, and Nome.

If this goes through

If the permit issues, the mine would operate for 21 years as the only large mine on the Seward Peninsula, permanently altering 389.8 acres of wetlands that cannot be restored. The record of decision is planned for September 24, 2027, giving the public and cooperating agencies roughly one year to shape an EIS that USACE itself acknowledges must cover significant impacts across aquatic resources, subsistence, cultural resources, and the regional economy.

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

Permanent wetland and water fill: 389.8 acres
Total project footprint: 1,176.0 acres
New gravel access road length: 17.3 miles
Stream length diverted from natural channel: 12,440 linear feet
Anticipated mine operating life: Year 21
Temporary jurisdictional water impacts: 142.6 acres

Each figure is checked word for word against the decision document ↗; open a label to read the sentence it comes from and the document it’s in.

The agency’s case, tested

What the agency argues, and whether its own record backs it

2
Hold up: 5
No support given

The Army Corps of Engineers will prepare an environmental impact statement before it decides whether to issue a Section 404 fill permit for Graphite One's open pit graphite mine and 17.3-mile access road north of Nome. It says the review is needed because the project would have significant impacts on aquatic resources, water quality, fish and wildlife, subsistence and the regional economy.

“USACE has determined that the Project would have significant impacts to aquatic resources as well as to the local/regional economy and society, aesthetics and cultural importance, water quality, fish and wildlife, and subsistence.”
Project Background

Each Ask below goes into your letter when you write it with PLAN on this page, matched to what you tell it about how this land reaches you.

Purpose and need
No support given
The mine would provide essential supply-chain infrastructure for the United States' renewable energy, storage and defense sectors.
The notice cites total import dependence, federal critical mineral designations and a World Bank projection that demand will rise 383 percent between 2020 and 2050. But the concentrate would be shipped out of Alaska for further processing at a place the notice doesn't name. The notice gives no annual output either, so it doesn't show the link to a domestic supply chain.
AskState the mine's expected annual concentrate output, where it would be processed into Coated Spherical Graphite, and how much would reach domestic users.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“As a result, the Project would provide essential supply-chain infrastructure for the United States’s renewable energy sector and storage systems, as well as advanced graphite materials for industrial and Defense Industrial Base applications.”
Purpose and Need
Elsewhere in the same document
“The ore concentrate would be shipped out of Alaska for further processing and manufacturing of Coated Spherical Graphite, which would supply material needed for electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries and energy storage as well as other high-grade graphite products.”
Project Description
Effects
No support given
Impacts to 142.6 acres of waters, including 12,440 linear feet of stream moved into built channels, would be temporary.
The notice labels these impacts temporary and says the diverted flow would still reach Graphite Creek downstream. It never says how long the diversions would last, whether the streams would go back to their old channels, or how. Mining runs through closure in Year 21, and the notice includes no restoration plan.
AskState how long each stream diversion would last, whether and how the 12,440 feet of stream would be restored, and what would happen to fish habitat in the meantime.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“The Project would also incur temporary impacts to 142.6 acres of jurisdictional waters including the diversion of 12,440 linear feet of stream into artificially constructed channels that would convey flow into Graphite Creek downstream of the mine site.”
Project Description
Elsewhere in the same document
“Phase 1 would occur within the first 5 years; Phase 2 would occur from Years 6 through 12; Phase 3 would occur from Years 13 through closure, which is anticipated to occur in Year 21.”
Project Description
Effects
No support given
Apart from the Port of Nome expansion, no other major industrial actions are proposed or ongoing anywhere on the Seward Peninsula.
The Corps gives this statement as context for its finding of significant impacts. It sits next to the point that the mine would be the only large mine operating on the Seward Peninsula. The notice gives no list, source or survey for the statement. The standard scoping request for information on nearby activities doesn't by itself show the statement is wrong.
AskPublish the inventory of past, present and planned activities used for cumulative effects, and analyze the Port of Nome expansion as connected to this project.
The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
The agency says
“Except for the expansion of the Port of Nome, there are no other major industrial actions proposed or ongoing in the entire Seward Peninsula.”
Project Background
Elsewhere in the same document
“Graphite One has assumed that the Port of Nome expansion project would have progressed sufficiently to allow self-loading container ships to load containers dockside.”
Project Description
Show 2 more claims +Show fewer
- Effects
  No support given
  The project may affect, but isn't likely to adversely affect, species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
  Both consulting agencies formally agreed with the Corps' determination: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on April 16, 2026 and the National Marine Fisheries Service on August 7, 2026. The notice doesn't name the species or include the analysis. Still, the claim reports the agencies' recorded conclusions. The Corps' later finding of significant fish and wildlife impacts covers wildlife broadly and doesn't conflict with a finding limited to listed species.
  AskName the listed and candidate species considered, publish the analysis behind both concurrences, and revisit them in light of the significant fish and wildlife impacts.
  The agency’s words, the record and the law +Hide the words
  The agency says
  “On April 16, 2026, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with the USACE determination that the Project may affect and is not likely to adversely affect listed and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act managed by USFWS.”
  Project Background
  Elsewhere in the same document
  “On August 7, 2026, NMFS concurred with the USACE determination that the Project may affect and is not likely to adversely affect listed and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act managed by NMFS.”
  Project Background
  The law
  “Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency (hereinafter in this section referred to as an "agency action") is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species” Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2) ↗
- Process
  No support given
  Two scoping meetings, one in person in Nome and one virtual, make it convenient for the public to give input.
  The notice offers written, email, mail and virtual options. It also invites the tribes, Native corporations and city governments of Teller and Brevig Mission to act as cooperating agencies. But the only in-person scoping meeting is in Nome. The notice names Teller and Brevig Mission as communities to analyze in depth, and the Corps held meetings in both villages during the earlier review. It doesn't explain why neither village gets a scoping meeting.
  AskHold in-person scoping meetings in Teller and Brevig Mission, the communities the notice names for in-depth analysis, before the comment period closes.
  The agency’s words, the record +Hide the words
  The agency says
  “USACE intends to hold two public scoping meetings to make it convenient for the public to provide input into this process.”
  Scoping
  Elsewhere in the same document
  “Additional public comments were provided during public meetings held Nome, Brevig Mission and Teller in mid-April 2026.”
  Project Background
  “These issues include, but are not limited to, the construction and operation of the facilities and their effect upon subsistence, cultural resources, socioeconomics, fish and wildlife, hydrology and wetlands, and the communities of Teller, Brevig Mission, and Nome.”
  Evaluation Factors

Where its own record backs the agency

AuthorityThe Corps decides this permit because the project would permanently fill 389.8 acres of waters and wetlands confirmed as jurisdictional.Why it holds +
The notice ties the permit to the action. Graphite One applied for a Section 404 permit to discharge fill into waters of the U.S., and an approved jurisdictional determination found the affected waters and wetlands jurisdictional. The Authority section marks discharge of dredged or fill material as the basis for the decision.
The agency says
“The Project would permanently discharge fill material into 389.8 acres of waters including wetlands that were determined as jurisdictional via an approved jurisdictional determination completed on July 22, 2026.”
Project Description
Its own record backs it
“Graphite One submitted a Section 404 permit to USACE on August 15, 2025, to allow for the discharge of fill within waters of the U.S. necessary to construct the Project.”
Project Background
ScienceGraphite is a federally designated critical mineral that the United States currently imports entirely.Why it holds +
The notice attributes graphite's status to named federal sources: the Department of Energy's Critical Materials List and the Interior Department's criticality indicators. It also says the country is 100 percent import-dependent for natural graphite. Nothing else in the notice conflicts with these attributed designations.
The agency says
“The U.S. Department of Interior considers graphite to be one of nine critical minerals that meets all six of its industrial/defense sector criticality indicators.”
Purpose and Need
Its own record backs it
“At present, the United States is 100 percent import-dependent for natural graphite.”
Purpose and Need

Read from the agency’s own decision document ↗, all 8 pages. Every quote is checked word for word against it, a claim marked contradicted stands on a quote from the same document, and a second reading argued the agency’s side of every verdict before it was published. The verdicts are our reading; the quotes are the agency’s. A court can set aside agency action it finds “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” (5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) ↗), which is why these gaps are worth putting in the record.

What to say

Make these points, in your own words

I oppose this action as proposed, and I ask the agency to weigh the specific harms below.
USACE formally determined that the project has significant impacts to aquatic resources, fish and wildlife, water quality, and subsistence, requiring a full EIS (PROJECT BACKGROUND). Yet both USFWS (April 16, 2026) and NMFS (August 7, 2026) issued Section 7 concurrences that the project 'may affect and is not likely to adversely affect listed and candidate species' under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS issued its ESA concurrence four days after USACE made the EIS significance determination, meaning NMFS signed off on an informal finding even while USACE was concluding that significant fish and wildlife impacts exist. These two positions are irreconcilable: significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources cannot coexist with no likelihood of adverse effect on protected species that depend on those same resources. USACE must explain this contradiction in writing before the draft EIS is…
NMFS issued its Essential Fish Habitat concurrence on April 8, 2026, finding that effects 'would be more than minimal, but less than substantially adverse in consideration of the proposed mitigation measures' (PROJECT BACKGROUND). That concurrence was made while the project was still being evaluated as an environmental assessment. USACE did not determine a full EIS was required until August 3, 2026. The EFH consultation was therefore conducted under a less rigorous analytical framework than the EIS now underway, and the mitigation measures it credited have not been evaluated against a significance standard. USACE must explain whether the EFH consultation must be re-opened under the EIS significance framework, and if not, must justify why the EA-era consultation remains valid under the current analytical posture.
The September 30, 2025 public notice told the public that 'the Project would be reviewed in abidance of Clean Water Act regulations and as an environmental assessment under NEPA' (PROJECT BACKGROUND). Over 300 people submitted comments during that 60-day period under the assumption that an EA was the governing framework. USACE then escalated to a full EIS on August 3, 2026, without publicly explaining what new information, analysis, or changed circumstances drove that upgrade. Commenters who tailored their submissions to the EA standard could not have known to raise concerns that are only triggered by an EIS significance finding, such as the scope of alternatives and cumulative impacts analysis. USACE must disclose the basis for the EA-to-EIS escalation in the scoping record and explain whether prior commenters are entitled to re-submit under the new framework.
The project's entire logistics chain from mine to market depends on infrastructure that does not yet exist. The document states plainly that 'Graphite One has assumed that the Port of Nome expansion project would have progressed sufficiently' to accommodate self-loading container ships with a 37-foot draft (PROJECT DESCRIPTION). This assumption underlies the access road design, the shipping container staging plan, the concentrate transport schedule, and the mine's operating economics. No alternative transport scenario is analyzed if that expansion is delayed, scaled back, or cancelled. The EIS must include an alternatives analysis that evaluates project viability under a scenario in which the Port of Nome expansion does not occur on the assumed schedule, and must assess what operational changes would result.

Show every point from the document

The temporary barge staging pad and access ramp would be constructed on land owned by Bering Straits Native Corporation. The document acknowledges this arrangement, stating the pad was 'developed in coordination with the landowner, Bering Straits Native Corporation, who would lease the site to Graphite One' (PROJECT DESCRIPTION). Yet BSNC does not appear anywhere in the cooperating agencies list, which names eleven tribal and corporate entities from the region (LEAD AND COOPERATING AGENCIES). BSNC owns land within the actual project footprint, and its environmental, cultural, and economic interests are not represented in the EIS planning structure as currently described. USACE must explain why BSNC is excluded from the cooperating agencies list or must invite BSNC to participate as a cooperating agency before the draft EIS is issued.
USACE lists the EIS analysis topics as including 'their effect upon subsistence, cultural resources, socioeconomics, fish and wildlife, hydrology and wetlands, and the communities of Teller, Brevig Mission, and Nome' (EVALUATION FACTORS). Despite naming Teller and Brevig Mission as directly affected communities, the only in-person scoping meeting is scheduled in Nome on October 15, 2026. Teller and Brevig Mission are remote communities separated from Nome by significant distance with no road connection. A single Nome meeting and a virtual option do not constitute meaningful access for residents of those communities. The 47-day comment window (September 15 to November 1) compounds this barrier. USACE must hold in-person scoping meetings in Teller and Brevig Mission and extend the comment deadline by at least 30 days to allow affected community members to participate.
The document describes the tailings storage facility dam as follows: 'The dam for the tailings pond would be built in stages using compacted waste rock material and coarse tailings,' with the elevation raised over time as more storage is needed (PROJECT DESCRIPTION). The notice provides no information about dam failure consequence analysis, downstream hazard zones, or emergency action planning. A staged-raise dam constructed of waste rock and coarse tailings, holding fine wet tailings upstream of Graphite Creek and the coastal subsistence resources of Teller, Brevig Mission, and Nome, represents a long-term structural risk that the document does not analyze at all. The EIS must include a dam breach scenario analysis that identifies downstream impact zones to stream confluences and subsistence use areas, and must evaluate long-term structural performance under projected climate…
The project would carry out a 'diversion of 12,440 linear feet of stream into artificially constructed channels that would convey flow into Graphite Creek downstream of the mine site' (PROJECT DESCRIPTION). The notice does not describe the hydraulic design standards for these artificial channels, does not assess channel stability over the 21-year mine life, and does not analyze downstream impacts to fish habitat, subsistence fishing access, or water quality in Graphite Creek below the diversion point. The water treatment plant described in the notice handles contact water only; the diverted stream water is a separate flow path whose downstream effects are unanalyzed. The EIS must include a detailed hydrologic and biological analysis of the artificial channel design and its effects on Graphite Creek fisheries and water quality from the diversion outlet to tidal waters.
The cultural resources section states that 'USACE has not made an effect determination at this time regarding potential impacts to historic properties' (CULTURAL RESOURCES). The project footprint covers 1,176.0 acres in the northern Kigluaik Mountains, a region with documented Indigenous cultural significance to the communities listed as cooperating agencies. Phase 1, which involves the most land disturbance of the entire project, is scheduled to begin within the first five years. An effect determination has not been made even at the scoping stage, meaning the Section 106 consultation process is materially behind the project construction timeline. If Phase 1 proceeds before an effect determination is made, historic properties could be disturbed or destroyed without the review required by law. USACE must complete a cultural resources inventory and make the Section 106 effect…
The FAST-41 timetable shows that 'USACE plans to issue a record of decision concluding the EIS by September 24, 2027,' approximately one year after this September 15, 2026 scoping notice (SCHEDULE OF DECISION-MAKING PROCESS). USACE has already determined the project causes significant impacts to aquatic resources, fish and wildlife, water quality, subsistence, aesthetics, and the local economy. A one-year window must accommodate: completion of all technical studies, publication of a draft EIS, a mandatory public comment period, agency responses to all substantive comments, and a final EIS, for a project USACE itself describes as one of the very few large mines ever established in the entire Seward Peninsula region. USACE must publicly explain how the planned timetable allows adequate time for complete analysis and whether the FAST-41 deadline could be used to limit the scope or depth of…
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.

Every point is checked against the agency’s own decision document ↗. 10 findings verified against the text, word for word.

In the agency’s own words

Special Public Notice announcing Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS

Army Corps public notice ↗

On the record for this fight

1 person has filed on this fight through PLAN. The official record is still catching up.

Milton M.39 seals

Ranked on letters found on the agency’s record, then letters filed. Readers appear as first name and last initial, or as a steward in their state; switch yours off in your record. All boards

Did the agency answer?

10 issues are on this record. The agency has not published its decision document yet, so each one stays pending until the agency answers.

Issues on the record, awaiting the decision

PendingUSACE formally determined that the project has significant impacts to aquatic resources, fish and wildlife, water quality, and subsistence, requiring a full EIS (PROJECT BACKGROUND).
USACE formally determined that the project has significant impacts to aquatic resources, fish and wildlife, water quality, and subsistence, requiring a full EIS (PROJECT BACKGROUND). Yet both USFWS (April 16, 2026) and NMFS (August 7, 2026) issued Section 7 concurrences that the project 'may affect and is not likely to adversely affect listed and candidate species' under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS issued its ESA concurrence four days after USACE made the EIS significance determination, meaning NMFS signed off on an informal finding even while USACE was concluding that significant fish and wildlife impacts exist. These two positions are irreconcilable: significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources cannot coexist with no likelihood of adverse effect on protected species that depend on those same resources. USACE must explain this contradiction in writing before the draft EIS is published and must determine whether formal ESA Section 7 consultation must be re-initiated.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
PendingNMFS issued its Essential Fish Habitat concurrence on April 8, 2026, finding that effects 'would be more than minimal, but less than substantially adverse in consideration of the proposed mitigation m
NMFS issued its Essential Fish Habitat concurrence on April 8, 2026, finding that effects 'would be more than minimal, but less than substantially adverse in consideration of the proposed mitigation measures' (PROJECT BACKGROUND). That concurrence was made while the project was still being evaluated as an environmental assessment. USACE did not determine a full EIS was required until August 3, 2026. The EFH consultation was therefore conducted under a less rigorous analytical framework than the EIS now underway, and the mitigation measures it credited have not been evaluated against a significance standard. USACE must explain whether the EFH consultation must be re-opened under the EIS significance framework, and if not, must justify why the EA-era consultation remains valid under the current analytical posture.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
PendingThe September 30, 2025 public notice told the public that 'the Project would be reviewed in abidance of Clean Water Act regulations and as an environmental assessment under NEPA' (PROJECT BACKGROUND).
The September 30, 2025 public notice told the public that 'the Project would be reviewed in abidance of Clean Water Act regulations and as an environmental assessment under NEPA' (PROJECT BACKGROUND). Over 300 people submitted comments during that 60-day period under the assumption that an EA was the governing framework. USACE then escalated to a full EIS on August 3, 2026, without publicly explaining what new information, analysis, or changed circumstances drove that upgrade. Commenters who tailored their submissions to the EA standard could not have known to raise concerns that are only triggered by an EIS significance finding, such as the scope of alternatives and cumulative impacts analysis. USACE must disclose the basis for the EA-to-EIS escalation in the scoping record and explain whether prior commenters are entitled to re-submit under the new framework.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
PendingThe project's entire logistics chain from mine to market depends on infrastructure that does not yet exist.
The project's entire logistics chain from mine to market depends on infrastructure that does not yet exist. The document states plainly that 'Graphite One has assumed that the Port of Nome expansion project would have progressed sufficiently' to accommodate self-loading container ships with a 37-foot draft (PROJECT DESCRIPTION). This assumption underlies the access road design, the shipping container staging plan, the concentrate transport schedule, and the mine's operating economics. No alternative transport scenario is analyzed if that expansion is delayed, scaled back, or cancelled. The EIS must include an alternatives analysis that evaluates project viability under a scenario in which the Port of Nome expansion does not occur on the assumed schedule, and must assess what operational changes would result.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
PendingThe temporary barge staging pad and access ramp would be constructed on land owned by Bering Straits Native Corporation.
The temporary barge staging pad and access ramp would be constructed on land owned by Bering Straits Native Corporation. The document acknowledges this arrangement, stating the pad was 'developed in coordination with the landowner, Bering Straits Native Corporation, who would lease the site to Graphite One' (PROJECT DESCRIPTION). Yet BSNC does not appear anywhere in the cooperating agencies list, which names eleven tribal and corporate entities from the region (LEAD AND COOPERATING AGENCIES). BSNC owns land within the actual project footprint, and its environmental, cultural, and economic interests are not represented in the EIS planning structure as currently described. USACE must explain why BSNC is excluded from the cooperating agencies list or must invite BSNC to participate as a cooperating agency before the draft EIS is issued.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
PendingUSACE lists the EIS analysis topics as including 'their effect upon subsistence, cultural resources, socioeconomics, fish and wildlife, hydrology and wetlands, and the communities of Teller, Brevig Mi
USACE lists the EIS analysis topics as including 'their effect upon subsistence, cultural resources, socioeconomics, fish and wildlife, hydrology and wetlands, and the communities of Teller, Brevig Mission, and Nome' (EVALUATION FACTORS). Despite naming Teller and Brevig Mission as directly affected communities, the only in-person scoping meeting is scheduled in Nome on October 15, 2026. Teller and Brevig Mission are remote communities separated from Nome by significant distance with no road connection. A single Nome meeting and a virtual option do not constitute meaningful access for residents of those communities. The 47-day comment window (September 15 to November 1) compounds this barrier. USACE must hold in-person scoping meetings in Teller and Brevig Mission and extend the comment deadline by at least 30 days to allow affected community members to participate.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
PendingThe document describes the tailings storage facility dam as follows: 'The dam for the tailings pond would be built in stages using compacted waste rock material and coarse tailings,' with the elevatio
The document describes the tailings storage facility dam as follows: 'The dam for the tailings pond would be built in stages using compacted waste rock material and coarse tailings,' with the elevation raised over time as more storage is needed (PROJECT DESCRIPTION). The notice provides no information about dam failure consequence analysis, downstream hazard zones, or emergency action planning. A staged-raise dam constructed of waste rock and coarse tailings, holding fine wet tailings upstream of Graphite Creek and the coastal subsistence resources of Teller, Brevig Mission, and Nome, represents a long-term structural risk that the document does not analyze at all. The EIS must include a dam breach scenario analysis that identifies downstream impact zones to stream confluences and subsistence use areas, and must evaluate long-term structural performance under projected climate conditions.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
PendingThe project would carry out a 'diversion of 12,440 linear feet of stream into artificially constructed channels that would convey flow into Graphite Creek downstream of the mine site' (PROJECT DESCRIP
The project would carry out a 'diversion of 12,440 linear feet of stream into artificially constructed channels that would convey flow into Graphite Creek downstream of the mine site' (PROJECT DESCRIPTION). The notice does not describe the hydraulic design standards for these artificial channels, does not assess channel stability over the 21-year mine life, and does not analyze downstream impacts to fish habitat, subsistence fishing access, or water quality in Graphite Creek below the diversion point. The water treatment plant described in the notice handles contact water only; the diverted stream water is a separate flow path whose downstream effects are unanalyzed. The EIS must include a detailed hydrologic and biological analysis of the artificial channel design and its effects on Graphite Creek fisheries and water quality from the diversion outlet to tidal waters.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
PendingThe cultural resources section states that 'USACE has not made an effect determination at this time regarding potential impacts to historic properties' (CULTURAL RESOURCES).
The cultural resources section states that 'USACE has not made an effect determination at this time regarding potential impacts to historic properties' (CULTURAL RESOURCES). The project footprint covers 1,176.0 acres in the northern Kigluaik Mountains, a region with documented Indigenous cultural significance to the communities listed as cooperating agencies. Phase 1, which involves the most land disturbance of the entire project, is scheduled to begin within the first five years. An effect determination has not been made even at the scoping stage, meaning the Section 106 consultation process is materially behind the project construction timeline. If Phase 1 proceeds before an effect determination is made, historic properties could be disturbed or destroyed without the review required by law. USACE must complete a cultural resources inventory and make the Section 106 effect determination public before the draft EIS is released.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document
PendingThe FAST-41 timetable shows that 'USACE plans to issue a record of decision concluding the EIS by September 24, 2027,' approximately one year after this September 15, 2026 scoping notice (SCHEDULE OF
The FAST-41 timetable shows that 'USACE plans to issue a record of decision concluding the EIS by September 24, 2027,' approximately one year after this September 15, 2026 scoping notice (SCHEDULE OF DECISION-MAKING PROCESS). USACE has already determined the project causes significant impacts to aquatic resources, fish and wildlife, water quality, subsistence, aesthetics, and the local economy. A one-year window must accommodate: completion of all technical studies, publication of a draft EIS, a mandatory public comment period, agency responses to all substantive comments, and a final EIS, for a project USACE itself describes as one of the very few large mines ever established in the entire Seward Peninsula region. USACE must publicly explain how the planned timetable allows adequate time for complete analysis and whether the FAST-41 deadline could be used to limit the scope or depth of any required analysis.
A hole PLAN found in the agency’s own analysis, quote verified against the document

The reporting behind this

From More Than Just Parks

BREAKING: Trump Administration Pushes Forward on Uranium Mine on New Mexico National ForestSep 16, 2026

Another foreign mining company wants a piece of America’s public lands. This one comes with millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and radioactive radon.

US Forest Service to Clearcut One of the Last Great Groves in the TongassSep 4, 2026

It’s referred to as Unit 346 in the Twin Mountain II Timber Sale. On the ground, it’s some of the most spectacular old growth we’ve ever witnessed, and it’s marked for clearcutting.

We’re Headed to the TongassAug 22, 2026

To document and do our part to save America’s greatest old growth forest

More actions that need you

Demand the Army Corps stop the first Ambler Road mine21 days left Demand full review of Roca Honda's 366-acre, 21-year mine plan2 days left Stop oil and gas leasing on 13,000 acres in New Mexico7 days left

Go deeper, free

Scorecard

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 map

See 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.

Know an open comment period we are missing, or spotted a wrong deadline? .