Fort Knox Mine is in a major state permitting process. Fairbanks Gold Mining Inc. (FGMI), a subsidiary of Kinross, is seeking renewed approvals from the State of Alaska for the next operating and closure cycle. These approvals include the mine’s Plan of Operations (POO), Waste Management Permit (WMP), Reclamation and Closure Plan (RCP), Monitoring Plan, and financial assurance package.
This is not just routine paperwork. The current permit process would shape how Fort Knox continues mining, manages waste and water, expands waste rock storage, processes ore from other mines, monitors fish and water quality, and funds cleanup far into the future.
The public comment period is a chance to ask a basic but important question:
Has the State required Fort Knox to fix the gaps identified in previous audits, inspections, water-quality reports, and fish studies before approving the next permit cycle?
For readers who want to review the full State file, the documents are posted on the State of Alaska Fort Knox Mine project page.
Fort Knox has a long history in the Fish Creek drainage
The Fort Knox area has been shaped by mining for more than a century. The 2026 Reclamation and Closure Plan (RCP) traces mining in the area back to Felix Pedro’s 1902 gold discovery, early drift mining, dredging in Fish Creek valley, and placer mining in Pearl Creek, Yellow Pup Creek, Barnes Creek, Fish Creek, and other tributaries. Modern Fort Knox construction began after environmental review and permitting in the 1990s, with the first gold pour in 1996. The mine poured its 9 millionth ounce of gold in 2023.
Today, Fort Knox is not a small or winding-down operation. The 2026 plan estimates 254.8 million tons of ore remain from July 2025 through the end of leaching in 2042. Mining production averages about 193,900 tons per day, including ore and waste rock. Milling is projected through 2038, heap leaching through 2041, and the mine operates 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
That matters because the current permit review is not just about what Fort Knox has already done. It is about whether state permits are strong enough for the next phase of mining and closure.
What is different about the current permit request?
The current renewal package includes much more than the original open pit, mill, Tailings Storage Facility (TSF), and heap leach operations. The 2026 Reclamation and Closure Plan says the updated plan addresses changes to the mine plan and closure strategy and includes reclamation for major facilities including the Victoria Creek Waste Rock Dump (VCWRD), Pedro Creek Waste Rock Dump (Pedro Creek WRD), Roman Hill Waste Rock Dump (Roman Hill WRD), Tailings Storage Facility (TSF), Pit Lake, heap leach facilities, and Gil Project-related reclamation.
The plan also says progressive reclamation will begin in 2026, final reclamation will begin after permanent cessation or abandonment of mining and milling, and agencies must be notified within 30 days of permanent cessation or abandonment. Within 90 days of a decision to permanently cease operations, Fort Knox must submit an updated final reclamation plan, schedule, and monitoring plan.
In plain language: this permit cycle is about continued mining, expanded waste rock management, active pit-lake disposal, long-term closure, and whether the public is protected if closure assumptions are wrong.
What previous reports already flagged
1. Long-term water quality and treatment were identified as uncertain years ago
A 2019 third-party environmental audit by SRK Consulting found Fort Knox was generally in substantial compliance with reviewed permits. But the same audit identified serious planning gaps. SRK concluded that the Reclamation and Closure Plan (RCP) was “substantially complete,” but lacked a reclamation plan showing surface drainage and reclaimed contours for all facilities. SRK also found that reclamation cost estimates appeared adequate for surface reclamation, but that uncertainties surrounding long-term water quality and management — including treatment and pumping — were not clearly defined and may be underestimated.
That finding should be central to current public comments. The 2026 package still relies heavily on long-term predictions for pit lake chemistry, heap leach draindown, Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) seepage, groundwater movement, and future water treatment. The public should ask whether the State has required the company to resolve the same uncertainty SRK flagged in 2019.
2. Heap leach closure questions were not fully resolved
The 2019 audit recommended completion of column rinsing tests to determine final rinsing or draindown requirements for the Walter Creek Heap Leach (WCHL) and Barnes Creek Heap Leach (BCHL) facilities. SRK also recommended reviewing whether the Walter Creek Heap Leach (WCHL) closure plan was adequate, because the proposed closure scenario assumed drainage through liner perforations under the dam structure into the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF), but SRK noted that drainage “may not occur” and water could remain impounded in the short or long term.
That concern is still relevant. The current closure plan says final heap leach closure plans must include water-quality monitoring, draindown quality and quantity, ore geochemical characterization, and environmental audit results. It also says seepage from the heap leaches will be combined with pit lake water after leaching ends.
3. Reclamation design has historically lacked enough detail
SRK’s 2019 audit specifically recommended that the Reclamation and Closure Plan (RCP) include a grading plan showing reclamation contours and drainages. The current 2026 Reclamation and Closure Plan (RCP) now includes figures for post-reclamation topography, drainage, and facility-specific reclamation, but the public should still ask whether the designs are specific enough for the expanded mine footprint, especially Pedro Creek, Roman Hill, Victoria Creek, and the Yellow Pup / Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) infill areas.
This matters because reclamation is not just seeding disturbed ground. It requires stable slopes, working drainage, erosion control, growth media, revegetation, and long-term monitoring.
4. The fish and aquatic record shows real habitat issues, not theoretical ones
Reports from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) show that Fort Knox’s water-management system affects fish habitat in the Water Supply Reservoir (WSR), Fish Creek, North Fork Fish Creek, the Reverse Osmosis (RO) Channel, the developed wetlands, and the Stilling Basin.
The 2023 winter Water Supply Reservoir (WSR) report found the reservoir was highly stratified under ice. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) was relatively high in the upper eight meters, then dropped rapidly, becoming near zero below approximately 10 meters.
The 2022 spring sampling report documented runoff from road improvements entering Fish Creek and North Fork Fish Creek during spring melt. The runoff was high in total suspended sediments and visibly increased turbidity until Fort Knox improved stormwater diversion measures.
The 2023 Arctic grayling report documented Arctic grayling use of Fish Creek and the Reverse Osmosis (RO) Channel, including wetland habitats created by reverse osmosis discharge waters. The 2024 Stilling Basin report found only one adult Arctic grayling captured during six hours of angling effort and noted the adult population may be lower than previous surveys, while approximately 20 juvenile grayling were observed. The 2024 burbot report found Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) was the third lowest since sampling began in 1996, and fewer large burbot were captured than in 2023.
These reports show that aquatic habitat is directly tied to mine water management, spillway operations, reverse osmosis discharge, road sediment, beaver dams, fish passage, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen.
5. Inspections show expansion and disturbance have continued across the site
Inspection reports from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR or DNR) show that Fort Knox’s active footprint has continued to expand and change.
The 2023 inspection report documented the Victoria Creek Waste Rock Dump (VCWRD) on Mental Health Trust land. It stated that the lease area is approximately 751.62 acres, with the Victoria Creek Waste Rock Dump (VCWRD) being constructed on about 498.3 acres, including 391.03 acres of new disturbance in the upper reaches of the Victoria Creek watershed.
The same inspection documented the Barnes Creek Heap Leach (BCHL) facility, with a design capacity of 207 million tons, a final disturbance of about 290 acres, and use of an 80-mil double-sided textured linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) geomembrane liner. It also documented that Walter Creek Heap Leach (WCHL) is no longer receiving new ore, but leaching continues until solution is no longer economical.
The 2021 inspection focused on the proposed Victoria Creek Waste Rock Dump (VCWRD), Tailings South Borrow Areas, and Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) causeway and buttress, and noted that Fort Knox was seeking reclamation credit for certain reclamation activities.
What still appears lacking for the current permit process
Based on the current permit packet and previous reports, the biggest issue is not that Fort Knox failed to submit documents. The issue is that the public record still needs stronger, clearer, enforceable answers.
1. The public needs the full pit lake record
The current Reclamation and Closure Plan (RCP) says pit lake water-quality evaluations have been submitted from 2006 through 2025, and that annual pit lake study/modeling is required during operations. The plan says future studies are intended to evaluate updated data, methodology, sensitivity, viability of the reclamation approach, and potential treatment or management alternatives if needed. But for public review, summaries are not enough. The full 2023, 2024, and 2025 pit lake evaluations should be publicly available and reviewed before permit approval.
2. Long-term water treatment costs may still be underestimated
This is one of the most important carryover issues from the 2019 audit. SRK said long-term water quality and management uncertainties — including treatment and pumping — were not clearly defined and may be underestimated. The current financial assurance amount is much larger than the old bond, but the question is whether it fully covers long-term water treatment if predictions fail.
3. Pedro Creek should not be approved on incomplete analysis
Pedro Creek is one of the most important new facilities in the current renewal. The 2026 Reclamation and Closure Plan (RCP) identifies the Pedro Creek Waste Rock Dump (Pedro Creek WRD) as part of the reclamation package and shows a pending Pedro Dump land area of approximately 520 acres. Because Pedro Creek is a new waste rock facility and watershed disturbance, the public should ask whether the State has the complete technical record before approval.
SRK Consulting’s 2080 “full revegetation” rendering shows how the proposed Pedro Creek Waste Rock Dump (PCWRD) is expected to appear decades after reclamation, with darker evergreen vegetation mixed into softer deciduous vegetation and a smoother visual blend with the surrounding hillsides. However, the report notes that the landform may still be visible in winter until evergreen cover becomes more established.
4. Fish and habitat protections need to be enforceable
Reports from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) show that Fish Creek, the Water Supply Reservoir (WSR), the Reverse Osmosis (RO) Channel, Pond AB, the Stilling Basin, and the developed wetlands are active aquatic systems with Arctic grayling and burbot use. They also show real management concerns: low Dissolved Oxygen (DO) at depth, beaver-dam fish passage issues, reverse osmosis discharge effects, sediment runoff, and changing fish capture rates.
5. Stormwater and road-sediment controls need stronger conditions
The 2022 Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) spring sampling report documented visible turbidity from runoff entering Fish Creek and North Fork Fish Creek after road improvements. Fort Knox staff improved stormwater diversion measures, but that example shows why stormwater controls need enforceable conditions, especially for Pedro Creek, Roman Hill, Gil, Victoria Creek, haul roads, growth media stockpiles, and reclaimed areas.
6. The State should connect all permits instead of reviewing them separately
Fort Knox’s water system is interconnected. Tailings Storage Facility (TSF) seepage, Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment, Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) discharge, pit lake disposal, heap leach draindown, Water Supply Reservoir (WSR) operations, wetlands, fish habitat, and groundwater monitoring all interact. The 2019 audit also recommended better coordination among agencies and better document tracking.
Bottom line
The history of Fort Knox shows that many of today’s concerns are not new. Previous audits, inspections, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) reports have already flagged the same core issues now before the State: long-term water quality, closure uncertainty, heap leach draindown, reclamation design, fish habitat, stormwater, and agency coordination.
The current permit process is the moment to require those issues to be resolved — not deferred into another permit cycle.
The State’s public comment period is May 8, 2026 through June 7, 2026, and comments must be received by Sunday, June 7, 2026, at 11:59 PM Alaska Daylight Time.
How to submit comments
Email comments to:
james.hyun@alaska.gov
Address comments to:
Fort Knox Comments
James Hyun, Large Project Coordinator
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) / Office of Project Management & Permitting
Anchorage, AK 99501-3561
Phone for questions:
(907) 334-2185