Public Comments on Ambler Road

[IK-NWhunter]

BLM is soliciting public comments for a few more days on the proposed Ambler Road project which connects the Dalton Hwy to the Ambler mining district. Most of the land the proposed 200+ mile road would cross is publicly owned state or federal land. Once complete, the road would not be open to the public. I feel strongly about this, as I imagine many Hunt-talk members do as well. Regardless of how you feel about the proposed mine, this is also a public lands & access issue.

EplanningUi

eplanning.blm.gov

 

[oswald2581]

BLM is soliciting public comments for a few more days on the proposed Ambler Road project which connects the Dalton Hwy to the Ambler mining district. Most of the land the proposed 200+ mile road would cross is publicly owned state or federal land. Once complete, the road would not be open to the public. I feel strongly about this, as I imagine many Hunt-talk members do as well. Regardless of how you feel about the proposed mine, this is also a public lands & access issue.

EplanningUi

eplanning.blm.gov

My understanding, and please correct me if I am off, but the Ambler mine has been there since the 50's and "the development of the mineral resources has been limited due to a lack of transportation infrastructure" I agree, that regardless of how anyone feels about the mine, nothing can be done about the mine itself at this point. It is a question of the access to the mine and future environmental impacts. Allowing the road to go through would not only have an impact on the public land it goes through, but allow for the mining operation to really take off. According to the link below, "Establishing access through the Ambler Access Project has the potential to lead to up to five concurrent mine operations over time."

Me personally, I would not like a road there at all. We all know it will have an impact to both wildlife and the environment. I cant get onboard with a private road going across public land. My only guess as to why the public would not have access is there would be a greater environmental impact with more traffic and the mine and AIDEA are funding the road and will have to maintain it. However, how much more traffic would the public cause, it would probably be a single digit percent of all traffic on the road. Far less of an impact than the industrial traffic will cause.

Once again I don't want it there, but if it gets approved, I believe the public should be able to access it.

https://www.aidea.org/Portals/0/PressReleases/042022%20AAP%20Corridor%20Feasibility%20PR_final.pdf?ver=bTgJft3EZIPSSnYrVyvUGA%3d%3d

 

[texwest44]

The proposed road would cross state lands (61%), Native corporation lands (15%), and federal lands (24%) managed by the BLM and the National Park Service.

All that public land only accessible to private owners, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mining_Act_of_1872#The_Mining_Law_of_1872

It set the price of the land claim to range $2.50 to $5.00 per acre. This price set by law has remained the same since 1872.

I say we stake ourselves a claim, call ourselves miners, and enjoy our new private road. For those prices, I'll put up $ for the first 100 acres.

 

[Bambistew]

NIMBY, even though none of you live here... did Steve Renella convince you?

 

[mtmiller]

Is that how NEPA works?

 

[Deleted member 18333]

All that public land only accessible to private owners, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mining_Act_of_1872#The_Mining_Law_of_1872



I say we stake ourselves a claim, call ourselves miners, and enjoy our new private road. For those prices, I'll put up $ for the first 100 acres.

Have at it. Keep in mind you have to pay for the road construction.

 

[IK-NWhunter]

NIMBY, even though none of you live here... did Steve Renella convince you?

I live in Alaska, so yeah it's my backyard. I don't really care where that happens, I simply can't support degradation of public lands for private gain. At least the Alyeska pipeline generates a PFD for residents. To the best of my knowledge, there's no such portfolio or dividend proposed by the mining companies invested in Ambler. I agree with oswald2581, I'd rather not see the road built, but if it is to be built across public lands, the public should be able to use the road.

 

[Movi]

I live in Alaska, so yeah it's my backyard. I don't really care where that happens, I simply can't support degradation of public lands for private gain. At least the Alyeska pipeline generates a PFD for residents. To the best of my knowledge, there's no such portfolio or dividend proposed by the mining companies invested in Ambler. I agree with oswald2581, I'd rather not see the road built, but if it is to be built across public lands, the public should be able to use the road.

You must be new to AK, how long have you lived there?

 

[Gellar]

You know the native tribe isn’t letting it go through their land for free.

 

[Irrelevant]

So this would be similar to the Pogo Mine access road?

Have at it. Keep in mind you have to pay for the road construction.

Really, because the owner of the mine wasn't the ones that submitted the application? Looks like the State of AK started picking up the tab in 2009 with the dept of trans now it's been handed off to the public resource development div, who has a wonder mandate to do this very thing.


I may, or may not comment. It doesn't directly affect me, and as Bambi and mulecreek have pointed out in the past, we need to mine somewhere to get minerals. I'm just really leery of anything in salmon country.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

So this would be similar to the Pogo Mine access road?

Really, because the owner of the mine wasn't the ones that submitted the application? Looks like the State of AK started picking up the tab in 2009 with the dept of trans now it's been handed off to the public resource development div, who has a wonder mandate to do this very thing.

View attachment 247613
I may, or may not comment. It doesn't directly affect me, and as Bambi and mulecreek have pointed out in the past, we need to mine somewhere to get minerals. I'm just really leery of anything in salmon country.

You may be correct in circumstance. Possibly some sort of state funded economic development project. All the more reason why for texwest to go ahead and stake his claim.

Don't have a dog in this fight, should not have even replied. Either way, everywhere is some critters country whether its salmon, sage grouse, tortoise, mule deer, antelope, etc. Where to develop and why is hard to figure out and certainly up for debate. IMO, complaining that something shouldn't be built on public land unless all public can use it is low on the list of good reasons. Plenty of good reasons to build on public land but limit public use.

 

[Irrelevant]

You may be correct in circumstance. Possibly some sort of state funded economic development project. All the more reason why for texwest to go ahead and stake his claim.

Don't have a dog in this fight, should not have even replied. Either way, everywhere is some critters country whether its salmon, sage grouse, tortoise, mule deer, antelope, etc. Where to develop and why is hard to figure out and certainly up for debate. IMO, complaining that something shouldn't be built on public land unless all public can use it is low on the list of good reasons. Plenty of good reasons to build on public land but limit public use.

You certainly can't pick where the resources are... And you could make the claim that it might be better to limit the public access lest it be overrun with us GD NRs.

 

[Irrelevant]

Either way, everywhere is some critters country whether its salmon, sage grouse, tortoise, mule deer, antelope, etc.

One of my rationales for always mentioning salmon, is just that the impacts can go so far when you impact surface water. Desert tortoise, sure, you may lose acres of habitat, but when you impact water bodies the impacts are far greater. We recently had a dandy of an example, thankfully the impacts appear to have attenuated long before actually impacting salmon, at least for now (tribes are working to expand the range over Chief Jo and Grand Coulee).

Okanogan County mining operation committed thousands of clean water violations

The company running the controversial Buckhorn Mine in Okanogan County was found to have committed thousands of violations of the U.S. Clean Water Act.

www.ncwlife.com

And that wasn't a legacy mine, it started in 2008.

 

[Bambistew]

No one wants development, but everyone wants what comes from it, a.k.a Alaskan's collecting a PFD, laugh'n.

What do you think AK would like like without Prudo? There would be a heck of a lost less people here, less infrastructure, no PFD, no running water in 90% of the villages, etc. The north slope built this state, before that we were a territory with a few trappers, gold miners, and fishermen. No way it could survive on its own with that kind of economy. Look at the Yukon, Nunavut or NTW. We'd be exactly the same. 100,000 living off the federal government.

The state won't get anything out of the road to Ambler? How about 1000+ year round jobs, just for starters. There is only 140,000 non-government jobs in AK. Almost 60% of jobs in Alaska are federal/state/local government funded jobs. Who pays for those jobs? Oil does, and when it dries up, he other 40% will. 1000 jobs is a lot, especially when they pay 3x the average rate. Less we forget the property/income tax on a mine, AND on the property/toys owned by the miners (who pay for local schools). The argument that the jobs will just be "temporary" mining jobs. The only jobs that last forever are government jobs. Go look at the industrial cities like Detroit, Columbus, etc. How did long did that job boom last? That was different right? Nearly every town in the mountains in the west has its roots, or was tied to mining in the past.

There is potential for a half a dozen mines in the Ambler district and decades and decades of potential development, for minerals that are in short supply worldwide, at least ones that the US could control. China controls 40-45% of the worlds copper now. You think OPEC has a strangle hold on the world, wait until China takes the reins.

Those deposits around have been known for a long time. One project (Bornite Mine) operated for a short time but had no way of getting the ore/concentrate out to market economically so it stalled 50+ years ago.

In case you haven't noticed we've lost about 10,000 high paying oil field/support jobs in AK that aren't coming back. If it wasn't for $90-100bbl oil we'd be paying income tax in the near future, and your PFD would go away. Well at least those of us with a job would lose it. Your PFD was huge this year, be grateful for that $100bbl oil, and the feds for giving us some Covid money.

Once oil money dries up, we'll have to start paying for all those "free" services, well at least those of us who don't work for the government. Who is going to pay for all those services that we dearly love, like road maintenance, airports, schools, govn't funded welfare programs, medicaid, etc. The Feds? Those people who don't have government jobs will foot the bill. Not sure if you followed what's happening, but to make a sustainable budget at $50bb oil, we will need like a 15% income tax and about a 15% sales tax. Just so we can pay for medical services statewide and for schools in the bush. Lets build a few more $20-30M schools for 60 kids, and pay for it with oil money. When its gone, who pays to maintain the school? Its not the people living there, they don't have a job, nor do they pay property tax. It will be those 140,000 people who don't have a government job.

Tourism won't keep this state afloat more than 2 months a year, and most of those people that work those jobs don't even live here. Fishing? Most of that money goes to Washington, and the locals that fish, do so as a second job for a month a year. The majority of fishing jobs are non-locals. We don't have nearly as many fish as we used to either. The amount of "tax" paid on fish doesn't even cover the management of them. Many of the locals deal in cash for their fish, so they skirt the government pick-pocket as well amongst other ways of not paying their fair share.

I get the preserve everything forever idea, but ANILCA set aside 2/3 of the state as a national park or monument to preserve the grandeur of Alaska forever. Lets preserve the rest too? Sounds like the argument of expand a buffer around Yellowstone or Denali to save the wolves that live in the park 90% of the time. Wait until they want to include the elk as well.

One of the main reasons for ANICA was to preserve wild lands but more importantly allow for the development of natural resources in Alaska on those areas not preserved forever. When it was singed, everyone knew that Alaska wasn't sustainable as a state without resource development. The State was granted a huge amount of land to develop to create a sustainable economy... Yet here we are trying to keep the economy from developing. The state (and native corps) selected land specifically for development of resources, or to control access to lands. Ever wonder why AHTNA and CIRI controls most of the land along the highways in south central? Weird that their "traditional lands" are coincidently only found within a mile of a highway.

Hunt the Hual road, or have aspirations of it but are against Ambler? If so you're a hypocrite to the nth level.

The Ambler road is proposed to be a private industrial road, and so was the Haul Road, but people complained and it was opened up, but with a buffer. A portion of the Ambler road corridor through Gates of the Arctic was set aside SPECIFICALLY with an easement for a road to the Ambler mining district. Here we are 42 years later trying to reneg on the deal. Why not open it up for access? Because the 4 local villages within 40 miles of the road don't want competition. I'm sure if it was open 90% or more of the people on this website would jump at the chance to have access to such wild country, and not require a $5000 bush flight. I could be wrong though.

What about the 60 mile road to Pogo mine that was built 15 years ago? Is that some sort of ecological disaster into untamed Alaskan wilderness? Most people don't even know it exists. There are no villages or private hunting lodges out there, so no one cared. There is 100% without a doubt more moose along that 60 mile stretch than there is or ever will be along the entire Ambler corridor. Moose were not even prevalent along the south side of the Brooks range 50 years ago. The locals claim subsistence will be impacted... for an animal that wasn't even a traditional subsistence animal. There are very few caribou present along much of the Ambler corridor.

What about the 50 mile long port road connecting Red Dog Mine to the port? It runs right through the middle of the WACH migration path. After the North Slope, Red Dog is the next largest contributor to Native Corporation coffers and employer. The locals use the road, and so do the caribou... It all comes down to control, and who has it. I'd give a left testicle to get hunting access off the Pogo road.

Pretty easy to be against something when it doesn't effect you directly, i.e. NIMBY. Even if it is in your backyard, you should open your eyes a bit and see that it does in fact benefit you.

Mining = bad. Live a day without a mining product or something developed from a mineral. It will be a hard, cold day.

 

[mtmiller]

Mining = bad. Live a day without a mining product or something developed from a mineral. It will be a hard, cold day.

So disappointed with that logic.

• World needs oil, that doesn't mean you should drill everywhere to extract if from the ground. "Well you drive a pickup, how can you require responsible extraction".
• Moo cows have eaten all the grass to the dirt and "you want me to change my public land grazing AUMs or season of use?" "Don't you like beef?"
• World needs better and more batteries, do whatever it takes to get that lithium out of the ground. "You like using that iPhone, don't you?"

I am not intimate with the proposed project but did spend about half hour reading about some of the resources in Chapter 3, some public comment and the Fact Sheet. Nothing jumped out at me that the road is a terrible idea, but as I mentioned, not that familiar with the entire proposal and won't be submitting comments.

I do think the argument that if you don't live in AK you shouldn't be part of the decision making process on public lands or if you benefit from a mining product this should be an automatic "go full bore".

Read the EIS (I believe funded by the proponent) and make an informed decision.

 

[Bambistew]

So disappointed with that logic.

• World needs oil, that doesn't mean you should drill everywhere to extract if from the ground. "Well you drive a pickup, how can you require responsible extraction".
• Moo cows have eaten all the grass to the dirt and "you want me to change my public land grazing AUMs or season of use?" "Don't you like beef?"
• World needs better and more batteries, do whatever it takes to get that lithium out of the ground. "You like using that iPhone, don't you?"

I am not intimate with the proposed project but did spend about half hour reading about some of the resources in Chapter 3, some public comment and the Fact Sheet. Nothing jumped out at me that the road is a terrible idea, but as I mentioned, not that familiar with the entire proposal and won't be submitting comments.

I do think the argument that if you don't live in AK you shouldn't be part of the decision making process on public lands or if you benefit from a mining product this should be an automatic "go full bore".

Read the EIS (I believe funded by the proponent) and make an informed decision.

Agree that the logic is terrible, and it was tongue in cheek sort of. So many automatically assume that all mining is bad, no mater what. There is always a reason against a mining project, always. We will soon be to the point that no mine will be permitted in the US outside some desert "waste land" in NV. Sooner or later those NV wastelands will be sacred lands or something else and the mine should not be built there.

Proponents don't want to listen or reason, just a big fat NO. There is rarely a mining project, and I say rare, because its 1 in 1000 that gains any sort of support from the general public. The only one mentioned in this forum in recent years has been Thacker Pass, but there are many, many people against that project as well.

I understand why the opposition. Mining creates impacts to the environment, many that are irreversible, and people make money off it. Its nearly impossible to develop a project and be 100% compliant in all aspects of the 1000s of permit requirements. I'm not saying mine at all costs, but we don't mine at all costs, its done responsibly to the extent we can and the hoops to jump through are many.

@neffa3 I hadn't heard of Buckhorn compliance issue. Just did a few minute search to see what was up. Many/most of the "thousands" of the compliance violations appear to be from discharging water that meets drinking water standards? A violation was issued each day they were discharging drinking water... Non-degradation rules are tough, if they knew it going in, that's on them, but I also I think its a bit disingenuous to pretend that drinking water is somehow toxic. They did appear have some other exceedances but I didn't dig far enough to see what or how much or exactly what they were for. I couldn't get past the drinking water discharge "violations" and suspect that many 1000s of the viloations were for discharging drinking water. I'm guessing most of the metal compliance issue was above background but below drinking water? This the the type of rhetoric mining is up against. They discharge drinking water, but are polluting the environment? Its insanity...

Sure, you can live somewhere and comment on a project far away. Go for it, I do it all the time. The fact that so many jump the gun and fire off comments from the hip without any context of what is proposed, or what has been developed to get to the EIS level is what's sad. Mining = bad, thats all that matters to most. 10s of millions of dollars have been spent studying this road alone in support of the NEPA process. I would venture that vast majority (probably close to all) of the commenters haven't read the EIS. I've yet to talk to a person who's against Pebble that actually read the EIS. I'm batting about 0 for 60 for people that are willing to discuss the issue. I have informed and changed the minds of about a dozen of them however. About 50 of them couldn't even point to where it would be on a map. Pebble Mine = no fish in Bristol Bay. That's all you have to say, and people will be against it. Read the EIS that states there would be no way of measuring or even determine if there was an impact to BB in the event of a failure, but that requires reading. Yep salmon habitat will be lost that is like 1% of 1% of the habitat in that particular watershed. I get it, one salmon is, is one too many.

 

[IK-NWhunter]

No one wants development, but everyone wants what comes from it, a.k.a Alaskan's collecting a PFD, laugh'n.

What do you think AK would like like without Prudo? There would be a heck of a lost less people here, less infrastructure, no PFD, no running water in 90% of the villages, etc. The north slope built this state, before that we were a territory with a few trappers, gold miners, and fishermen. No way it could survive on its own with that kind of economy. Look at the Yukon, Nunavut or NTW. We'd be exactly the same. 100,000 living off the federal government.

The state won't get anything out of the road to Ambler? How about 1000+ year round jobs, just for starters. There is only 140,000 non-government jobs in AK. Almost 60% of jobs in Alaska are federal/state/local government funded jobs. Who pays for those jobs? Oil does, and when it dries up, he other 40% will. 1000 jobs is a lot, especially when they pay 3x the average rate. Less we forget the property/income tax on a mine, AND on the property/toys owned by the miners (who pay for local schools). The argument that the jobs will just be "temporary" mining jobs. The only jobs that last forever are government jobs. Go look at the industrial cities like Detroit, Columbus, etc. How did long did that job boom last? That was different right? Nearly every town in the mountains in the west has its roots, or was tied to mining in the past.

There is potential for a half a dozen mines in the Ambler district and decades and decades of potential development, for minerals that are in short supply worldwide, at least ones that the US could control. China controls 40-45% of the worlds copper now. You think OPEC has a strangle hold on the world, wait until China takes the reins.

Those deposits around have been known for a long time. One project (Bornite Mine) operated for a short time but had no way of getting the ore/concentrate out to market economically so it stalled 50+ years ago.

In case you haven't noticed we've lost about 10,000 high paying oil field/support jobs in AK that aren't coming back. If it wasn't for $90-100bbl oil we'd be paying income tax in the near future, and your PFD would go away. Well at least those of us with a job would lose it. Your PFD was huge this year, be grateful for that $100bbl oil, and the feds for giving us some Covid money.

Once oil money dries up, we'll have to start paying for all those "free" services, well at least those of us who don't work for the government. Who is going to pay for all those services that we dearly love, like road maintenance, airports, schools, govn't funded welfare programs, medicaid, etc. The Feds? Those people who don't have government jobs will foot the bill. Not sure if you followed what's happening, but to make a sustainable budget at $50bb oil, we will need like a 15% income tax and about a 15% sales tax. Just so we can pay for medical services statewide and for schools in the bush. Lets build a few more $20-30M schools for 60 kids, and pay for it with oil money. When its gone, who pays to maintain the school? Its not the people living there, they don't have a job, nor do they pay property tax. It will be those 140,000 people who don't have a government job.

Tourism won't keep this state afloat more than 2 months a year, and most of those people that work those jobs don't even live here. Fishing? Most of that money goes to Washington, and the locals that fish, do so as a second job for a month a year. The majority of fishing jobs are non-locals. We don't have nearly as many fish as we used to either. The amount of "tax" paid on fish doesn't even cover the management of them. Many of the locals deal in cash for their fish, so they skirt the government pick-pocket as well amongst other ways of not paying their fair share.

I get the preserve everything forever idea, but ANILCA set aside 2/3 of the state as a national park or monument to preserve the grandeur of Alaska forever. Lets preserve the rest too? Sounds like the argument of expand a buffer around Yellowstone or Denali to save the wolves that live in the park 90% of the time. Wait until they want to include the elk as well.

One of the main reasons for ANICA was to preserve wild lands but more importantly allow for the development of natural resources in Alaska on those areas not preserved forever. When it was singed, everyone knew that Alaska wasn't sustainable as a state without resource development. The State was granted a huge amount of land to develop to create a sustainable economy... Yet here we are trying to keep the economy from developing. The state (and native corps) selected land specifically for development of resources, or to control access to lands. Ever wonder why AHTNA and CIRI controls most of the land along the highways in south central? Weird that their "traditional lands" are coincidently only found within a mile of a highway.

Hunt the Hual road, or have aspirations of it but are against Ambler? If so you're a hypocrite to the nth level.

The Ambler road is proposed to be a private industrial road, and so was the Haul Road, but people complained and it was opened up, but with a buffer. A portion of the Ambler road corridor through Gates of the Arctic was set aside SPECIFICALLY with an easement for a road to the Ambler mining district. Here we are 42 years later trying to reneg on the deal. Why not open it up for access? Because the 4 local villages within 40 miles of the road don't want competition. I'm sure if it was open 90% or more of the people on this website would jump at the chance to have access to such wild country, and not require a $5000 bush flight. I could be wrong though.

What about the 60 mile road to Pogo mine that was built 15 years ago? Is that some sort of ecological disaster into untamed Alaskan wilderness? Most people don't even know it exists. There are no villages or private hunting lodges out there, so no one cared. There is 100% without a doubt more moose along that 60 mile stretch than there is or ever will be along the entire Ambler corridor. Moose were not even prevalent along the south side of the Brooks range 50 years ago. The locals claim subsistence will be impacted... for an animal that wasn't even a traditional subsistence animal. There are very few caribou present along much of the Ambler corridor.

What about the 50 mile long port road connecting Red Dog Mine to the port? It runs right through the middle of the WACH migration path. After the North Slope, Red Dog is the next largest contributor to Native Corporation coffers and employer. The locals use the road, and so do the caribou... It all comes down to control, and who has it. I'd give a left testicle to get hunting access off the Pogo road.

Pretty easy to be against something when it doesn't effect you directly, i.e. NIMBY. Even if it is in your backyard, you should open your eyes a bit and see that it does in fact benefit you.

Mining = bad. Live a day without a mining product or something developed from a mineral. It will be a hard, cold day.

Honestly Bambistew, I agree with most of what you’ve said. I also try not to simplify things like mining=bad. In this particular case, I simply think the majority of Alaskan’s are so pro-resource development that we’ve cut ourselves a raw deal on this project. What’s stopping Amber Metals LLC from offering up a dividend similar to the oil PFD? I think it’s a calculated move on their part. They sense broad public support so its not needed to advance the project, and they can pocket additional profits that would otherwise benefit Alaskan residents.

I wouldn’t care if it’s smaller then our oil PFD, at least it’s something. Instead we’re asked to suck it up, or the state’s economy will collapse. I think there’s some middle ground here most of us aren’t seeing. Have you seen the prices of copper lately?

What about those 1,000+ truck drivers and mine workers you mentioned. Are you telling me they’re not going to go hunting or fishing from their own private road when they have a weekend off? The rest of us will have to pay 5k to access the same areas. Sounds like BS to me.

 

[Movi]

Honestly Bambistew, I agree with most of what you’ve said. I also try not to simplify things like mining=bad. In this particular case, I simply think the majority of Alaskan’s are so pro-resource development that we’ve cut ourselves a raw deal on this project. What’s stopping Amber Metals LLC from offering up a dividend similar to the oil PFD? I think it’s a calculated move on their part. They sense broad public support so its not needed to advance the project, and they can pocket additional profits that would otherwise benefit Alaskan residents.

I wouldn’t care if it’s smaller then our oil PFD, at least it’s something. Instead we’re asked to suck it up, or the state’s economy will collapse. I think there’s some middle ground here most of us aren’t seeing. Have you seen the prices of copper lately?

What about those 1,000+ truck drivers and mine workers you mentioned. Are you telling me they’re not going to go hunting or fishing from their own private road when they have a weekend off? The rest of us will have to pay 5k to access the same areas. Sounds like BS to me.

Ok so if they offer you money than you’re ok with it? how much was your PFD this year?

 

[Salmonchaser]

Well put Bambistew. Until you’ve tried to do anything, get anywhere in Alaska it’s hard to comprehend how truly isolated the state is. When I was a little kid you couldn’t drive from Anchorage to Fairbanks. We would put our car on the train, on a flatcar. Among the many changes that have occurred since oil started flowing, like everything else of value, out of Alaska, is the advent of the ATV. Snow machines started showing up in the late 50s and in winter were largely limited only by the fuel you could carry. Come ice out there would be very limited evidence of their passing. Over the last thirty years or so the network of ATV trails continues to expand, like the veins on an old mans legs. I get it, there are millions of acres that you just can’t get to. In many cases these trails are not environmentally friendly, The BLM is becoming more involved in limiting where they go, I wonder if a few more roads that actually go from somewhere to someplace might not be such a bad idea.
I first saw that country in 1960 or 61 from the window of a Beaver. I would, in a heartbeat drive the haul road to the mining road if it were open to the public. For those who have never been, envision Montana standing on end, interstate 90 running up the middle with nothing more than a couple of rest areas of to the side, thats Alaska and you’ve only covered about 1/3 the state.

 

[Irrelevant]

@neffa3 I hadn't heard of Buckhorn compliance issue. Just did a few minute search to see what was up. Many/most of the "thousands" of the compliance violations appear to be from discharging water that meets drinking water standards? A violation was issued each day they were discharging drinking water... Non-degradation rules are tough, if they knew it going in, that's on them, but I also I think its a bit disingenuous to pretend that drinking water is somehow toxic. They did appear have some other exceedances but I didn't dig far enough to see what or how much or exactly what they were for. I couldn't get past the drinking water discharge "violations" and suspect that many 1000s of the viloations were for discharging drinking water. I'm guessing most of the metal compliance issue was above background but below drinking water? This the the type of rhetoric mining is up against. They discharge drinking water, but are polluting the environment? Its insanity...

A couple comments.
1. I would argue it's not insanity to require mine discharge at levels below drinking water standards, because as shown, when a mine violates it's own permit it doesn't seek to rectify the situation, but sues. Sure they may have a claim, and initially the Buckhorn did, and their permit was reworked to allow for higher limits (2014). However, the concentrations kept increasing, violating the new thresholds. So instead of addressing the water quality they sued. They've lost every lawsuit, but keep appealing, all the while not addressing increasing water quality issues. The limits are set low, so that when a mining company takes this litigation approach there's a large buffer so that as impacts keep adding up they're not necessarily killing all the bull trout and polluting the river and aquifers while the legal system sorts it out. I don't think that if the thresholds were higher they would have stayed in compliance. They extracted 1.3 billion in gold in ~ a decade, that's a fair bit of money that could have been used to "try" to meet their permit requirement, instead they chose to pay for lawyers. All the while their concentrations continued to increase.

Red line is the revised permit level. Black line is the drinking water standard/anti degradation standard.
2. There are thread upon thread on this site alone complaining about, in essence, how some previously wild landscape is not longer as wild, is overrun with people, etc. Roosevelt himself, and later Leopold and many more after that, all professing to the unmeasurable value of wild landscapes, yet we have allowed that wild to be continually whittled away either through direct actions or through direct inactions. I do not think there is inherent fault in being overly protective of what we still have, though I will admit it is certainly easier for the lower 48-ers to support anti-economic measures in favor of more conservation in AK while we live in the land of economic opportunities. However, no rational human thinks there will be less pressure on our existing wilds or that there will be less pressure to develop those wilds. To place a value on wild that is equal to or greater than minerals is not wrong and will likely pay dividends in the future.
3. Will this road be terrible in an of itself? Probably not, in fact, it will probably be viewed as an asset. Maybe so will the next. And the next. But when does it not? And is that a line or just a slow whittling away until it's only a shell of it's former self. When do we look back and start to wish that maybe, we'd been a little more conservative in our ideas of how much wild we need, how much of it we should develop vs conserve. What will our legacy be? I don't view this as much as the lower 48 telling AK what they SHOULD do, but instead trying to not make the same mistakes that were made down here. Trying to look down the long road and leave a legacy that can be honored by those in the womb of time.