A new hardrock exploration proposal near the Richardson Highway deserves close public attention, not because every exploration proposal is automatically a mine, but because this one is proposed near important public waters, community recreation areas, and a river system already under stress.
The project, known as the Tower Project, is listed under APMA 9627, a State of Alaska Application for Permits to Mine in Alaska. The applicant and mineral owner is Tower Exploration, LLC, and the operator is Fairbanks Gold Mining, Inc., a Kinross company. The application requests a multi-year authorization from 2026 through 2031 for hardrock exploration and reclamation on state mining claims in the Richardson Mining District.
The project is proposed near Richardson Highway Milepost 302, with access from Tower Road. The application maps show activity near Canyon Creek, an unnamed tributary of Canyon Creek, the Tanana River, Tanana Valley State Forest lands, and existing utility infrastructure. It is also near Birch Lake, a popular Interior Alaska recreation area located around Mile 305.3 of the Richardson Highway, about 59 to 60 miles southeast of Fairbanks. Birch Lake State Recreation Site is used for fishing, boating, water skiing, jet skiing, camping, ice fishing, and winter recreation.
The Tanana River is part of the Yukon River drainage, where salmon declines have caused years of severe conservation restrictions and deep impacts to subsistence, food security, and cultural continuity. ADF&G’s Yukon salmon management page continues to list frequent Yukon and Tanana River salmon fishery announcements and restrictions, and federal managers have closed federal public waters of the Yukon River drainage to Chinook and chum salmon fishing during recent seasons based on poor run outlooks and conservation needs. Tanana Chiefs Conference has described the Yukon River salmon decline as a crisis that affects not only freezers, but the ability to practice and pass on traditional lifeways.
In that context, any proposed activity involving water withdrawals, stream crossings, new trails, heavy equipment, and fuel transport near the Tanana River drainage should receive careful, transparent review.
What has been done so far?
Based on the APMA packet, the public record appears to include application-level screening and applicant-prepared planning, but not a full independent environmental assessment or complete technical review. The packet includes forms, maps, a reclamation plan, water-use information, equipment lists, fuel-handling information, and a hardrock exploration narrative.
What does not appear in the packet is equally important. The materials do not appear to include a completed agency environmental assessment, cumulative impacts analysis, fish presence survey, hydrologic analysis, wetlands delineation, Army Corps jurisdictional determination, cultural resources survey, wildlife habitat assessment, or full spill contingency plan approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
That is the heart of the concern: agencies should not approve this proposal based only on applicant assurances that impacts will be avoided or minimal.
What is proposed for 2026?
For the 2026 field season, the application describes up to 5,400 feet of drilling in up to 20 drillholes, up to 3,000 feet of trenching in up to four trenches, up to 10 test pits, up to 2.5 acres of drill pad disturbance, and up to 5 acres of total disturbance. It also identifies approximately 4,000 linear feet of new trail construction and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material disturbance in 2026.
The full five-year scope is much larger
The application is not limited to one season. Over the 2026–2031 APMA period, the narrative states that the operator may conduct up to 500,000 feet of drilling in up to 500 drillholes, up to 30 trenches, and up to 100,000 linear feet of new trail construction, depending on exploration success.
That scale raises a cumulative impacts question. Even if each individual drill pad, trench, or trail segment is described as temporary, five years of exploration can add up to a larger footprint across a landscape, especially when new access routes, repeated water withdrawals, and heavy equipment are involved.
Water withdrawals need more than applicant assurances
The application identifies five potential water sources:
- Canyon Creek at Old Rich
- Banner Creek at MP 295.3
- A pond near a borrow pit on the Tanana
- A pond off the Tanana River
- An unnamed tributary of Canyon Creek
The water-use forms list possible withdrawals of 14,400 gallons per day from some sources and 28,800 gallons per day from others. Pumping could occur up to 24 hours per day, 28 to 31 days per month. The narrative also states that water withdrawals may occur from January 1 through December 31 each year from 2026 through 2031.
The packet also contains inconsistent water-use numbers. One section says water use may range up to 28,000 gallons per drilling day, another lists 28,800 gallons per day, and another states a maximum of 26,000 gallons per day.
Those inconsistencies should be resolved before any authorization is issued. Agencies should require clear source-by-source withdrawal limits, seasonal flow information, fish presence information, and enforceable monitoring.
Streams, fish habitat, and salmon decline should be central to review
The application identifies in-stream activity involving an unnamed tributary of Canyon Creek and lists multiple temporary water uptake locations. The applicant states that no effect on fish and game is anticipated and that screened intakes would be used to prevent fish entrapment, entrainment, or injury.
The agencies should verify whether fish are present in Canyon Creek, Banner Creek, the unnamed tributary, and any connected ponds. They should evaluate seasonal flows, withdrawal timing, erosion risk, sedimentation, stream crossing impacts, and the potential for cumulative impacts to aquatic habitat.
Given the severe salmon declines across the Yukon River drainage, including impacts to Tanana River communities and fisheries, agencies should apply a precautionary approach to water and habitat impacts in connected waters.
Birch Lake is a well-used recreation area along the Richardson Highway. Alaska State Parks describes Birch Lake State Recreation Site as popular with fishers, jet skiers, and water skiers in the summer, and with snowmachines and ice fishers in the winter. The lake has a boat launch and courtesy dock, and fishing opportunities for stocked rainbow trout, king and silver salmon, grayling, and Arctic char. The Birch Lake public-use cabin page places the turnoff at Mile 305.3 of the Richardson Highway, roughly 59 miles southeast of Fairbanks.
The proposed exploration activity is in the same general Richardson Highway recreation corridor. Public review should consider not only mining claims and access routes, but also how industrial exploration traffic, road use, water use, dust, noise, and fuel transport may affect nearby recreation values and public use of the area.
Access expansion is a major public-interest issue
The application proposes access from Richardson Highway Milepost 302 onto Tower Road, then along existing utility and logging routes where possible. Where improved access is needed, the applicant states that a mid-sized dozer with an 8-foot blade may be used. The application also states that trails may create approximately 1,400 square feet of surface disturbance per 100-foot leg.
For 2026, the operator proposes about 4,000 linear feet of new trail construction. Over the five-year APMA period, that could expand to as much as 100,000 linear feet of new trail.
Exploration trails can become long-term access routes. They can alter drainage, increase erosion, fragment habitat, and create management challenges even when reclamation is promised. Agencies should require maps showing where all trails would be built, what would be reclaimed, what may remain open, and how access would be controlled.
Fuel and spill risk deserve stronger safeguards
The application identifies fuel transport and storage, including a 350-gallon tank on a heavy-duty vehicle, a 110-gallon tank in light-duty trucks, 5-gallon jerry jugs, contractor pickup-mounted fuel tanks up to 300 gallons, and lubricants up to 30 gallons.
The petroleum section states the project does not have an approved Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan. It also indicates petroleum storage in the 0 to 1,320 gallon category, storage more than 100 feet from flowing waters, and no fuel containment berms around storage containers.
For a project near streams, ponds, and the Tanana River drainage, that should be strengthened. Agencies should require secondary containment, clear setbacks from all waterbodies, spill-response materials at every active site, inspection schedules, winter and summer fuel-transport procedures, and public reporting of spills.
Reclamation needs enforceable timelines and public reporting
The reclamation form states that 5 acres would be newly disturbed in 2026, 5 acres would be reclaimed in 2026, and approximately 40,000 cubic yards of material would be disturbed.
However, the narrative also states that some sites may be left unreclaimed for future uses such as vehicle turnarounds, helicopter landing zones, temporary equipment supply, and sample laydown areas.
That is why reclamation cannot be vague. The agencies should require annual public reporting of actual disturbance, reclaimed acreage, unreclaimed areas, open trails, remaining pads, water use, spills, and reclamation bond adequacy.
The wetlands and Clean Water Act question is not settled by the applicant
The application states that the APMA is for exploration only and claims there will be no discharge of fill material into wetlands, streams, or lakes, and therefore that a Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands permit is not required.
That conclusion should be independently verified. The proposal includes trail construction, drill pads, trenching, test pits, heavy equipment, stream-adjacent work, and water uptake locations. The public record should include a clear agency determination on whether wetlands or waters of the United States may be affected.
What the public should ask for
Before any approval, agencies should require:
- A cumulative impact analysis for the full 2026–2031 proposal, not just the 2026 work plan.
- Clear and consistent water-use numbers.
- Source-specific water withdrawal limits.
- Fish presence surveys and aquatic habitat review for Canyon Creek, Banner Creek, the unnamed tributary, and Tanana-connected ponds.
- Seasonal flow information for proposed water sources.
- Public maps showing all trails, drill pads, trenches, test pits, water uptake sites, stream crossings, fuel storage areas, and reclamation areas.
- A formal wetlands and Clean Water Act Section 404 determination.
- Stronger spill prevention, secondary containment, and waterbody setbacks.
- Annual public reporting of actual disturbance, reclamation, water use, spills, and unreclaimed sites.
- Adequate bonding for the full reasonably foreseeable disturbance, not only the first year.
The bottom line
The Tower Project is a proposed multi-year hardrock exploration program near the Tanana River drainage, close to Birch Lake’s recreation corridor, with the potential for hundreds of drillholes, dozens of trenches, new trails, water withdrawals, heavy equipment, and fuel transport.
The applicant has provided preliminary forms, maps, and assurances. What the public needs now is independent review, clear data, enforceable conditions, and transparency. In a watershed connected to a river system experiencing significant salmon declines, and near a popular Interior Alaska recreation area, agencies should not approve a five-year exploration program without taking a hard look at water, fish habitat, access, reclamation, spill risk, and cumulative impacts.
Take Action
The public deserves clear answers before this multi-year exploration proposal moves forward. If you are concerned about water withdrawals, fish habitat, salmon declines in the Tanana River drainage, impacts near Birch Lake, new trail construction, fuel transport, reclamation, or the lack of completed technical review, please submit written comments to the State of Alaska.
Ask the State to require a full review of the Tower Project’s cumulative impacts, clear water-use limits, fish and habitat surveys, wetlands review, stronger spill protections, enforceable reclamation requirements, and public reporting before any authorization is issued.
Written comments, questions, or requests to view the full application packet should be directed to by July 16th, 2026:
Willow-Creek Feighery
Phone: (907) 458-6885
Fax: (907) 451-2703
Email: dnr.apma.comments@alaska.gov
When submitting comments, reference APMA 9627, Tower Project, and ask that your comments be included in the public record.