DOCSLIB.ORG

Final EIS, Donlin Gold Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final EIS, Donlin Gold Project Donlin Gold Project Chapter 2: Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES 2.1 REGULATORY SETTING FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) regulations describe the alternatives section as the “heart of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)” and require exploration and evaluation of all reasonable alternatives (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1502.14). CEQ further defines reasonable alternatives as “those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense” (CEQ 1981). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation procedures for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) describe reasonable alternatives as those that are feasible, and then further specify that such feasibility must focus on the accomplishment of the underlying Purpose and Need (33 CFR Part 325, Appendix B). The Corps will follow the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) when evaluating the permit application from Donlin Gold, LLC (Donlin Gold). The 404(b)(1) Guidelines require examination of practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge (or action) and other factual determinations. An alternative is considered practicable “if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes” (40 CFR 230.10). The Guidelines require that the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) be determined for permit consideration. The Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (Corps 2009) also require the determination of whether a project is water dependent. Water dependent means that the project by its very nature requires access, proximity to, or siting within a special aquatic site1 to fulfill its “basic purpose.” If a project is determined not to be water dependent, the guidelines state that: “…practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise;” and “…all practicable alternatives to the proposed discharge which do not involve a discharge into a special aquatic site are presumed to have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise” (40 CFR 230.10(a)(3). The Corps has determined that the basic purpose of the Applicant’s discharge of dredged or fill material is to extract and process gold. Extraction and processing of gold in and of itself does not require access, proximity to, or siting within, a special aquatic site to fulfill its “basic purpose.” Therefore, the Corps has found that the project is not water dependent. Both the CEQ and the Corps NEPA implementation procedures require consideration of a No Action Alternative; for a Corps EIS this alternative would preclude any construction that would require a Corps permit (33 CFR Part 325, Appendix B). The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) is described in Section 2.3.1. Donlin Gold’s proposed mine development project is Alternative 2 and is described in Section 2.3.2. 1 “Special aquatic sites” as described in 40 CFR Part 230, Subpart E include wetlands, sanctuaries and refuges, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, riffle and pool complexes. April 2018 P a g e | 2-1 Donlin Gold Project Chapter 2: Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Statement Over 300 alternative options were developed and screened to satisfy NEPA requirements; satisfy the Corps Public Interest Review (33 CFR 320.4(a)); assure compliance with the requirements of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines; and to enable federal, state, and cooperating entities the ability to make permitting decisions if and where necessary (Appendix C). These options were systematically examined to determine the reasonable alternatives to include in the Draft EIS. Alternatives carried forward for detailed study are presented in Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.7. CEQ regulations also require a brief discussion of the reasons for eliminating alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for detailed study. Alternatives that were considered but eliminated are presented in Section 2.4. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT PROCESS In addition to the No Action and the Proposed Action alternatives, the EIS team conducted several workshops with the Cooperating Agencies, and developed a range of alternatives for analysis using a five-step process that began with issues raised during scoping (see Section 1.7). It is important to understand the terms “component,” “subcomponent,” “option,” and “alternative” when reviewing this chapter: · Component – a complete mine has several components, each necessary to allow production. For the Donlin Gold Project, there are three primary components: Mine Site, Transportation Corridor, and Pipeline. · Subcomponent – each primary component includes subcomponents; for example, the open pit and processing plant are subcomponents of the Mine Site. · Option – for each component/subcomponent there are one or more options. · Alternative – an alternative is a complete package of options that comprise a functioning mine project. In the overall Alternatives Development Process described below, consideration was given to the project’s large geographic footprint; the three different, but connected, primary components (Mine Site, Transportation Corridor, and Pipeline), and comments provided by the public, stakeholders, and agencies in scoping. Alternatives Development Process Step 1: Identify Scoping Issues and Related Project Components Step 2: Develop Screening Criteria Step 3: Identify Options to Address Concerns for Each Component & Subcomponent Step 4: Apply Screening Criteria to All Options; Develop Options to Carry Forward and Carefully Document Option Disposition Step 5: Package Options into Action Alternatives April 2018 P a g e | 2-2 Donlin Gold Project Chapter 2: Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Statement Step 1 of the alternatives development process was to identify the issues raised in scoping and then to relate them to the project components and subcomponents. Step 2 was to develop the criteria for future screening of each option. To narrow the range of options considered, criteria were organized around three screening tests: purpose and need, feasibility (including logistics), and environmental impacts. The screening criteria are more fully described in Section 2.2.1.1. In Step 3, options were identified to address concerns raised during scoping; options originating from scoping comments, Donlin Gold’s consideration of design alternatives, and the Corps’ EIS contractor, AECOM, were compiled into tables, organized by project component and subcomponent. In Step 4, screening criteria from Step 2 were applied to the options developed in Step 3. The criteria were used to screen options and to eliminate options that would not meet the Corps’ determination of Purpose and Need, that were not feasible, or that would not reduce environmental impacts over similar options. The EIS contractor completed preliminary screening, which was reviewed and refined by the Corps. Step 5 was to package the options that met all of the screening criteria into action alternatives for detailed analysis in the EIS. Options that were dismissed from further analysis are summarized in Section 2.4. The range of reasonable alternatives is described in Section 2.3.1 through Section 2.3.7. 2.2.1 SCREENING THE FULL RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 2.2.1.1 SCREENING CRITERIA The EIS team organized screening criteria around three topic areas: purpose and need, feasibility, and environmental impacts. First, the EIS team documented and eliminated options clearly outside of the purpose and need. Each remaining option was then rated for feasibility (technical, economic and, where relevant, logistical) and environmental impacts (physical, biological, and socioeconomic). The final decision to analyze options rested with the Corps in consultation with the cooperating agencies. For any option eliminated from further analysis, the rationale for elimination is documented in Section 2.4, Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis. Alternatives Screening Process Step 1: Eliminate Options that Clearly Do Not Meet Purpose and Need Step 2: Determine if Option is Feasible · Identify Technologically Feasible and Operationally Efficient Options · Screen Technologically Feasible Options for Relative Cost Effectiveness · Where Necessary, Evaluate the Logistical Feasibility of Options Step 3: Eliminate Options that Increase Negative Environmental Impacts April 2018 P a g e | 2-3 Donlin Gold Project Chapter 2: Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.2.1.1.1 SCREENING – PURPOSE AND NEED Three federal agencies have regulatory permitting authority for the project that will require a Record of Decision (ROD): the Corps, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The Purpose and Need statements for the project are provided in Section 1.3 of the EIS. Options that did not meet the Corps’ determination of Overall Purpose and Need and NEPA Purpose and Need were not analyzed further in the EIS. Similarly, any options to the Pipeline component that fall outside the BLM or PHMSA Purpose and Need statements were dismissed. 2.2.1.1.2 SCREENING – FEASIBILITY The feasibility screening test considers technological, economic and, where relevant, logistical feasibility. Technological feasibility was evaluated to minimize the risk of an option causing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LEADERS from the REGION with a Maximum Contract Value of $264 Million
    JAN./FEB. 2018 • CALISTA CORPORATION NEWSLETTER Left to Right: Robert Baker, Anthony Lashley, Josh Herren, Richard Harville, Ian Neumann, all of Yulista Tactical Services NASA SELECTS YULISTA HOLDING, LLC SUBSIDIARY FOR AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS SUPPORT Yulista Holding, LLC (YHL) subsidiary Yulista Tactical Services, LLC (YTS) has been awarded the Aircraft Maintenance, Logistics, Integration, Configuration Management and Engineering (ALICE) contract. The contract was awarded to YTS on December 18th LEADERS FROM THE REGION with a maximum contract value of $264 Million. YTS JON SIMEON, ALASKA STATE TROOPER AND SHAREHOLDER AWARDS WINNER is honored to be chosen to support NASA Johnson As an Alaska State Trooper, Jon Simeon deals with a lot of tough issues on the job. Space Center (JSC) and their mission. From car accidents to investigating crimes, his job is difficult. But Jon is committed to making a difference on and off the job. He’s dedicated to the prevention of suicide and domestic violence, and his passion for protecting people began long before his career in law enforcement. Raised in Aniak, Jon saw firsthand the struggles people face with suicide, domestic “ I TELL KIDS STRUGGLING TRIBES TAKE OVER violence, and drugs and alcohol in Western THAT HOW YOU DEAL WITH Alaska. At age 19, his best friend committed HARDSHIPS IS WHAT MAKES CHILD WELFARE SERVICES suicide. “That stuck with me forever. I’ve lost a dozen or so close friends and family to YOU A BETTER PERSON.” During the annual Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) the act of suicide and that has stuck with me – ALASKA STATE TROOPER JON SIMEON Convention, the State of Alaska reached a historic through my life and career,” said Jon.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Native
    To conduct a simple search of the many GENERAL records of Alaska’ Native People in the National Archives Online Catalog use the search term Alaska Native. To search specific areas or villages see indexes and information below. Alaska Native Villages by Name A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Alaska is home to 229 federally recognized Alaska Native Villages located across a wide geographic area, whose records are as diverse as the people themselves. Customs, culture, artwork, and native language often differ dramatically from one community to another. Some are nestled within large communities while others are small and remote. Some are urbanized while others practice subsistence living. Still, there are fundamental relationships that have endured for thousands of years. One approach to understanding links between Alaska Native communities is to group them by language. This helps the student or researcher to locate related communities in a way not possible by other means. It also helps to define geographic areas in the huge expanse that is Alaska. For a map of Alaska Native language areas, see the generalized map of Alaska Native Language Areas produced by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. Click on a specific language below to see Alaska federally recognized communities identified with each language. Alaska Native Language Groups (click to access associated Alaska Native Villages) Athabascan Eyak Tlingit Aleut Eskimo Haida Tsimshian Communities Ahtna Inupiaq with Mixed Deg Hit’an Nanamiut Language Dena’ina (Tanaina)
    [Show full text]
  • Calista Region Oil and Gas
    Hydrocarbon Potential of Calista Regional Corporation Lands Bethel Basin Holitna Basin Lower Yukon Delta Region by Petrotechnical Resources of Alaska, LLC. December, 1999 Calista Corporation Calista is one of 13 Alaska Regional Native Corporations formed in 1972 by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Calista is the second largest ANCSA Corporation in terms of shareholders and land entitlement with 6.5 million acres of fee-simple land in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and nearby mountainous terrain (Figure 1). One quarter of the villages in Alaska are located in the region and are characterized by Yupik and Cupik Eskimo and Athabascan cultures with subsistence life styles, no roads, few jobs and consequent poverty. Because the region has a history of gold, platinum and mercury production, Calista and local village corporation lands were selected on the basis of both subsistence and mineral resource potential. Calista’s primary goals are to preserve traditional cultural lifestyles while encouraging economic growth. The latter is measured in terms of shareholder and dependent jobs, and corporate revenues. Many of Calista peoples’ hopes are dependent on the success of the Donlin Creek Project, where a world class, 11.5 million-ounce gold resource has been delineated. For several years now, during advanced exploration on the project, Placer Dome has made substantial shareholder payrolls as high as $1 million per annum. Those jobs and corporate revenues from joint ventures between Calista and companies such as Boart Longyear and Chiulista-Global Services result in shareholder pride in holding good jobs and a newfound hope of autonomy and economic well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision and Major Federal
    SEPTEMBER 2018 • DONLIN GOLD SPECIAL EDITION Calista Corporation President/CEO Andrew Guy, Donlin Gold General Manager Andy Cole, The Kuskokwim Corporation President/CEO Maver Carey, U.S. BLM Asst. Sec. for Land and Minerals Management Joe Balash, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District Commander Michael Brooks. THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE: MY CAREER AT DONLIN RECORD OF DECISION AND MAJOR FEDERAL TISHA NAVIQAQ KUHNS, GEOLOGIST CALISTA LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT PERMITS ISSUED TO DONLIN GOLD My parents taught our family The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Bureau of Land to appreciate our beautiful Management (BLM) issued their Record of Decision (ROD) August 13 on the culture, while also giving proposed Donlin Gold Mine project. Immediately following signing of the ROD, us the ability to see how it the Corps issued a combined permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act augments Western science and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and the BLM issued the Offer to and education. I was born Lease for the right-of-way (ROW) for those portions of the natural gas pipeline and raised in Bethel, Alaska that would cross federal lands. Issuance of the ROD and the federal approvals and recently became a marks the final step in the environmental review process that began in December Shareholder after inheriting 2012 with publication of a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact shares from my grandfather, Tisha Kuhns statement (EIS). This is a major step in the project’s effort to secure key permits the late Joseph Lomack.
    [Show full text]
  • ICC Alaska Launches New Project
    VOLUME 10, ISSUE 3, SEPTEMBER 2017 Inupiaq: QILAUN Siberian Yupik: SAGUYA Image taken from the Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska publication: Alaska Inuit Food Security Central Yupik: CAUYAQ Framework: How to Assess the Arctic from the Inuit Perspective. UPCOMING EVENTS October 13-15 ICC Alaska Launches New Project 2017 Arctic Circle Assembly • Reykjavik, Iceland • http://www.arcticcircle.org Food Sovereignty and Self-Governance – Inuit Role in Managing Arctic Marine Resources October 16-18 5th Alaska Native Health Research Conference • Anchorage, Alaska • By ICC Alaska Staff https://www.regonline.com/builder/site/ default.aspx?EventID=2022896 Our office has maintained a focus on Inuit food security through the history October 19-21 of ICC, as directed by Inuit through declarations and strategic plans. Working Alaska Federation of Natives • Anchorage, independently and with our other offices, a few of the products that have Alaska • www.nativefederation.org October 24-26 come out of this focus are - The Village Journey (the report of the Alaska Senior Arctic Officials Meeting • Oulu, Native Review Commission), Declarations on Inuit Arctic Sovereignty and Finland • www.arctic-council.org Resource Development, and the Inuit Arctic Policy. Last year we successfully November 6-8 Circumpolar Inuit Wildlife Management completed another product in efforts to address our food security, the Summit • Ottawa, Canada • Alaskan Inuit Food Security Conceptual Framework. The project was www.inuitcircumpolar.com successful because it was Inuit led, authored by us (Inuit across Alaska), November 7 Inuit Day and truly communicates what our food security is. Out of this project came November 27-29 many key points and recommendations.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Committee Update
    Board of Directors Take Key Actions (Story on page 2) REGIONAL COMMITTEE UPDATE Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Committee Votes to Improve Regional Nonprofit and Explore a Regional Tribal Government Highlights from 2014 (Story pages 4,5) © Ken Graham Photography.com Graham Ken © The Regional Committee seeks to gain a more powerful political voice in order to improve the socio-economic environment of the Region and its people. At its November gathering in Anchorage, the YK Delta Regional Committee unanimously supported making changes in regional governance. In a ballot vote, 76 percent of delegates also agreed to explore establishing a constitutional government and 58 percent of delegates supported trying to improve a regional nonprofit organization. There was significant agreement that a borough government for the Region should not be pursued. A governance convention is tentatively scheduled for March 2015 to discuss the two options, establishing a constitutional government and improving a regional nonprofit, more in depth and make a decision on what option to pursue. “Now is the time for us to move forward to strengthen our political voice. For us to improve the lives of our people, we need to unify as a Region. I am pleased that such a strong consensus exists to move forward with the governance convention,” said Nelson Angapak, a leader from the Region and facilitator for the Regional and Steering Committees. JANUARY 2015 (Continued on page 3) 2 3 4 6 8 © Ken Graham Photography.com President’s Employee Grand Descendant Year-In-Review Message Feature Opening Enrollment Vote BOARD MESSAGE “We established this investment fund (Continued from page 1) Willie Kasayulie, Board Chairman to provide a perpetual and sustainable Topics discussed at the meeting included the internal representing about 45 communities registered and source of dividends for our Shareholders.
    [Show full text]
  • ALASKA RESOURCES CONFERENCE November 14-15, 2018 // Dena’Ina Center // Anchorage
    39th Annual akrdc.org ALASKA RESOURCES CONFERENCE November 14-15, 2018 // Dena’ina Center // Anchorage RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Growing Alaska Through Responsible Resource Development Protect Tomorrow, Today RESPONSIBILITY | SAFETY | JOBS | COLLABORATION | ENERGY Responsibility goes beyond compliance. At ExxonMobil we deeply value the wisdom, culture and vision of Alaskan Natives. Our responsibility is to learn from and collaborate with all Alaskans to responsibly develop Alaska’s resources. AKRDC.ORG RDC OFFICERS President Senior Vice President Vice President Secretary Treasurer Past President Eric Fjelstad Jeanine St. John Scott Jepsen Mike Satre Lori Nelson Ralph Samuels Perkins Coie LLP Lynden ConocoPhillips Hecla Greens Creek Hilcorp Alaska LLC Holland America Line Anchorage Anchorage Alaska, Inc. Mining Company Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Juneau EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Anna Atchison Bill Jeffress Lance Miller John Shively Kinross – Fort Knox SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. NANA Regional Corporation Pebble Partnership Fairbanks Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Carol Fraser Wendy Lindskoog Kara Moriarty Lorali Simon Aspen Hotels of Alaska BP Alaska Alaska Oil and Gas Association Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Palmer Casey Sullivan Tim Gallagher Tom Maloney Hans Neidig Marathon Petroleum HDR Alaska, Inc. Ahtna Netiye’, Inc. ExxonMobil Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Scott Habberstad Sam Mazzeo Glenn Reed Sinclair Wilt Alaska Airlines Wells Fargo Pacific Seafood Processors Association Westward Seafoods, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • ALASKA RESOURCES CONFERENCE November 15-16, 2017 // Dena’Ina Convention Center // Anchorage, Alaska
    The 38th Annual ALASKA RESOURCES CONFERENCE November 15-16, 2017 // Dena’ina Convention Center // Anchorage, Alaska RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Growing Alaska Through Responsible Resource Development /RESOURCEDEVELOPMENTCOUNCIL @ALASKARDC #AKRDC2017 Protect Tomorrow, Today RESPONSIBILITY | SAFETY | JOBS | COLLABORATION | ENERGY Responsibility goes beyond compliance. At ExxonMobil we deeply value the wisdom, culture and vision of Alaskan Natives. Our responsibility is to learn from and collaborate with all Alaskans to responsibly develop Alaska’s resources. AKRDC.ORG RDC OFFICERS President Vice President Secretary Treasurer Past President Eric Fjelstad Ethan Schutt Jeanine St. John Scott Jepsen Ralph Samuels Perkins Coie LLP Cook Inlet Region, Inc. Lynden ConocoPhillips Holland America Line Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Alaska, Inc. Anchorage Anchorage Lance Miller Mike Satre EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NANA Regional Corporation Hecla Greens Creek Mining Company Anchorage Juneau Ella Ede Bill Jeffress Kara Moriarty John Shively Fairweather Science SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. Alaska Oil and Gas Association Pebble Partnership Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Wendy Lindskoog Carol Fraser Hans Neidig BP Alaska Cam Toohey Aspen Hotels of Alaska ExxonMobil Anchorage Anchorage Shell Exploration & Production Anchorage Anchorage Tim Gallagher Tom Maloney Lori Nelson HDR Alaska, Inc. Ahtna Netiye’, Inc. Hilcorp Alaska LLC Sinclair Wilt Anchorage Anchorage Anchorage Westward Seafoods, Inc. Anchorage Scott Habberstad Sam Mazzeo Glenn Reed Alaska Airlines
    [Show full text]
  • Download General Statement of Qualifications
    Brice Environmental Services Corporation is CORE COMPETENCIES a self-performing, Alaska Native Corporation (ANC) 8(a) Small Business and a proud Calista ENVIRONMENTAL Corporation subsidiary. Our company and our ` Operations and Maintenance culture are built on more than a half century ` Preparation, Characterization, Field of leadership and a strict adherence to our Investigation, Conservation, Closure values for—safety as a #1 priority, quality, ` Long-Term Monitoring/Operation integrity and ethics. With projects, people, ` Ordnance Removal and Support and offices in Alaska, Hawaii, Washington ` HTRW state, California, Utah, Alabama, and the ` Wetland Delineation and Restoration Pacific; coupled with government-approved ` Ecological Restoration management systems, Brice has unmatched ` Emergency Response ` UST/AST Removal reach and expertise for a small business, ` Soil Vapor Extraction allowing us to deliver cost-effective, low-risk ` Small Arms Range Clean-Up performance to our clients. ` Fate and Transport Modeling ` UVOST Investigations Major environmental, engineering, design- ` Environmental Geoprobe build and construction projects are complex business market. We are continually increasing undertakings involving millions of dollars our geographic footprint throughout the DESIGN-BUILD & CONSTRUCTION in resources, materials, equipment, and lower-48 states and the Pacific to support current and new work, and are leveraging our ` Value Engineering for Design services in challenging locations requiring marine capabilities and familiarity
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Native Corporation Names and Addresses(Persons Must Also Include Their Shareholder Number Or Other Documentation of Membership)
    Alaska Native Corporation Names and Addresses(persons must also include their shareholder number or other documentation of membership) Ahtna, Incorporated Bering Straits Native Corporation PO BOX 649 Anchorage Office Glennallen, Alaska 99588 4600 DeBarr Road, Suite 200 (907) 822-3476 Anchorage, AK 99508-3126 Fax: (907) 822-3495 Ph: 907-563-3788 www.ahtna-inc.com Fax: 907-563-2742 [email protected] The Aleut Corporation 4000 Old Seward Highway, Ste. 300 Bristol Bay Native Corporation Anchorage, Alaska 99503 111 West 16th Avenue, Suite 400 Phone: 907.561.4300 Anchorage, AK 99501 Fax: 907.563.4328 Phone: 907.278.3602 www.aleutcorp.com Toll Free 800.426.3602 www.bbnc.net Arctic Slope Regional Corporation P.O. Box 129 Calista Corporation Barrow, Alaska 99723 Shareholder Services Department Phone: 907-852-8633 301 Calista Court, Suite A Fax: 907-852-5733 Anchorage, Alaska 99518-3028 Toll Free: 800-770-2772 Telephone: (907) 279-5516 www.asrc.com toll-free at 1-800-277-5516 www.calistacorp.com Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Anchorage Office Chugach Alaska Corporation 3900 C Street, Suite 801 3800 Centerpoint Drive, Ste. 700 Anchorage, AK 99503-5963 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone:907-339-6000 Phone: (907) 563-8866 Fax:907-339-6028 Fax: (907) 563-8402 Toll Free: 800-770-2772 www.chugach-ak.com Bering Straits Native Corporation Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated PO Box 1008 3600 San Jeronimo Drive 110 Front Street, Suite 300 Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Nome, AK 99762 Ph: (907) 793-3600 Ph: 907-443-5252 (877) 985-5900 Toll Free Ph: 800-478-5079 www.citci.com
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Benefits of Alaska's Mining Industry
    The Economic Benefits of ALASKA’S MINING INDUSTRY March 2018 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY The Economic Benefits of Alaska’s Mining Industry Prepared for: Prepared by: McDowell Group Anchorage Office 1400 W. Benson Blvd., Suite 510 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 McDowell Group Juneau Office 9360 Glacier Highway, Suite 201 Juneau, Alaska 99801 March 2018 Website: www.mcdowellgroup.net Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Key Findings................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Overall Summary.......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Study Purpose and Methodology ...................................................................................................... 8 Purpose............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Overview of Alaska’s Mining Industry ............................................................................................ 10 Reconnaissance Exploration and Advanced Exploration
    [Show full text]
  • RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Growing Alaska Through Responsible Resource Development
    RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL Growing Alaska Through Responsible Resource Development 2018 ANNUAL REPORT RDC Officers President Eric Fjelstad Executive Committee Perkins Coie LLP Anchorage Anna Atchison Lance Miller Glenn Reed Casey Sullivan Kinross – Fort Knox NANA Regional Corporation Pacific Seafood Andeavor Sr. Vice President Fairbanks Anchorage Processors Association Anchorage Jeanine St. John Seattle Lynden Carol Fraser Kara Moriarty Sinclair Wilt Anchorage Aspen Hotels of Alaska Alaska Oil and Gas Association John Shively Westward Seafoods, Inc. Anchorage Anchorage Pebble Partnership Anchorage Anchorage Vice President Tim Gallagher Hans Neidig Scott Jepsen HDR Alaska, Inc. ExxonMobil Lorali Simon ConocoPhillips Anchorage Anchorage Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. Alaska, Inc. Palmer Anchorage Scott Habberstad Alaska Airlines Anchorage Secretary Mike Satre Bill Jeffress Hecla Greens Creek SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. Mining Company Anchorage Juneau Wendy Lindskoog BP Alaska Treasurer Anchorage Lori Nelson Hilcorp Alaska LLC Tom Maloney Anchorage Ahtna Netiye’, Inc. Anchorage Sam Mazzeo Past President Wells Fargo Ralph Samuels Anchorage Holland America Line Anchorage akrdc.org Board of Directors About RDC Cindy Bailey, Oil Search Limited, Anchorage Jaeleen Kookesh, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau RDC is a statewide association comprised Greg Baker, Westward Fishing Company, Seattle Thomas Krzewinski, Golder Associates, Anchorage of individuals and companies from Rosie Barr, Calista Corporation, Anchorage John Lau, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company, Anchorage
    [Show full text]