State approves Amanita mine exploration project, opens public comment after the fact

The state Department of Natural Resources approved a renewal of a mining exploration permit for work north of Chena Hot Springs Road on September 9. But it didn’t open the plan to public comment until posting a public notice September 28.

The Dunleavy administration says it is allowing public comments as a courtesy.

Everything about the DNR handling of this matter smacks of discourtesy.

There are a lot of things wrong with the DNR approach to the Amanita exploration project pursued by Avidian Gold, a Canadian company that envisions mining gold north of Chena Hot Springs Road and hauling it to the Fort Knox mine for processing.

The public comment notice is only decipherable by people with specialized knowledge. I suspect that is intentional. The state should publish a usable map, like the one below from Avidian’s website, which shows the location north of Chena Hot Springs Road. Instead, the state mentioned section and township numbers, a level of detail that is meaningless to most people.

Early this year, Avidian canceled a project in the area that would have been on 680 acres of mental health trust lands. That came about after widespread objections from people who live nearby.

Separately, Avidian has 88 state mining claims on nearly 6 square miles in the Amanita area, the company says.

Here is the text of an email I sent to state employees Stephen Buckley, a DNR manager in Anchorage in mining, land and water, and to David Charron, a DNR geologist in Fairbanks.

Stephen, Dave:
I have questions and observations about the handling of the Amanita lease situation.

First, DNR is approaching this as if it is in the mining promotion business and is unable to perceive that with the growth of residential areas in Fairbanks over the past 40 years and more, there are conflicting resource values that must be acknowledged and dealt with.

If the department believes that it really is in the mining promotion business, regardless of other issues, that would explain the situation. Please let me know if that is the case.

Attached is the map that Avidian has on its website, which I am posting on my blog. This map clearly shows the potential for conflicting values regarding resources. If this map is not correct, where is the state map?

While mining exploration companies might look at this map and see an easy path to haul millions of tons of rock to Fort Knox for processing, people who live in those subdivisions see a threat to their way of life.

Is the area covered by the black line the site of the 88 state mining claims the company has and the location of the proposed exploration activities until 2025?

DNR and the Dunleavy administration have responsibilities to the people who live nearby, not just to companies that hope to sell a big prospect to a major mining firm.

DNR didn't help itself by approving the lease with Avidian without public comment. That this is an extension of a previous agreement doesn't justify the secrecy.

The reasonable interpretation of that decision was that it was an attempt to hide what was happening.

DNR seems to have the attitude, like the mental health land trust office, that the best way to avoid opposition from people who live nearby is to approve the agreement without telling anyone.

This is not the approach or attitude that Alaska needs. It is guaranteed to increase opposition once the word gets out.

A department that thinks it is in the mining promotion business, not the business of dealing with complicated questions of competing values, acts this way. The natural result is suspicion, mistrust and opposition.

The alleged "courtesy" public comment period that has now been set up is good in a sense, but also it reinforces the thought that this was underhanded and sneaky.

The department approved the project Sept. 9. But it allowed, as a courtesy, public comment after the fact, announcing that on Sept. 28. If you want to create distrust, this is the way to do it.

Discourtesy is the mildest word that comes to mind.

No one reading that public notice who is not a specialist can decipher it. Where exactly is the exploration work to take place? That you failed to include a map is an indication that you did not want anyone to know about it. You post a public comment notice that means nothing to most people, not a public comment notice that explains what is really going on.

Start with understanding that decisions about mining exploration mean one thing in an area where no one has invested years and money to create a community with homes and families.

DNR should have the ability to discern that this is an area where people live and they deserve a real public notice and a process that does not exclude them.

The idea that this is only about exploration, not open pit hard rock mining, is a half-truth. The exploration effort, promoted as a minimal undertaking, is pursued only because of the chance that it will lead to open pit mining or an underground mine with rock that can be hauled to Fort Knox for processing.

DNR has to be more honest about this.

The situation here is that DNR probably believes that it is in the mining promotion business, especially under Dunleavy, an attitude that is going to lead to more dissension as projects close to residential subdivisions advance, with the state putting the interests of the mine promoters above all else.

Your contributions help support independent analysis and political commentary by Alaska reporter and author Dermot Cole. Thank you for reading and for your support. Either click here to use PayPal or send checks to: Dermot Cole, Box 10673, Fairbanks, AK 99710-0673