DOCSLIB.ORG

On in the Planning and Construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On in the Planning and Construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline FWS/OBS- 78/70 October 1978 Fish and Wildlife Protect;on in the Planningand Construction of the Trans-AlaskaOil Pipeline by Thomas A. Morehouse, Robert A. Childers, and Linda E. Leask Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Alaska Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau Project Officers Performed for Norval Netsch Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior 1011 E. Tudor Road Washington, D.C. 20240 Anchorage, Alaska 99507 This study was conducted as Sumner A. Dole part of the Federal I nteragency Office of Biological Services Energy-Environment Research Fish and Wildlife Service and Development Program, U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20240 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-010·00470-3 ii Foreword The discovery of huge oil deposits on Alaska's North Slope in 1968 resulted in immediate planning for rapid transport of oil to U.S. markets. Concurrent with consideration of alternative means for moving the oil, including preliminary design of a proposed pipeline, an aroused general public demanded earnest governmental evaluation of the environmental impacts of the project. This growing awareness and concern was reflected in the passage of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act requiring an Environmental Impact Statement on any proposal for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. These developments set the stage for subsequent court battles and Congressional actions. Many agencies representing various interests of the Federal Government, the State of Alaska, the private sector, as well as numerous individuals concerned with conservation of fish, wildlife and the environment, expressed frequently differing viewpoints and contributed a variety of recommendations. For most parties, the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline project-one of the largest and most costly ever to be undertaken-entailed a new set of parameters and required novel analyses and approaches. Nonetheless, important decisions were reached regarding authorities, responsibilities, organizational structures, and relationships among govern­ ment agencies, and between government and private industry. From the outset of the project, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognized the unique opportunity it offered to gain insight into the complex developmental process characteristic of such an enterprise. From the beginning and throughout the process the Service conducted studies to help minimize the environmental impacts of construction of the pipeline. Among these, the present report, Fish and Wildlife Pmtection in the Planning and Construction of the Tmns-Alaska Oil Pipeline, focuses on fish and wildlife protection issues in the course of planning, establishing, and conducting monitoring activities. In addition, it explores the rationale behind the decisionmaking process and offers recommendations for improved environ­ mental management in future cases. The principal usefulness of the study comes from the guidance it offers for the conduct of future projects requiring similar monitoring efforts, such as the Arctic Gas Pipeline, or any other large scale enterprise in Alaska and elsewhere. As a study of significant environmental management issues, it will be of interest to a variety of users, including government agencies, private industry, resource managers, the environmental community, and the academic community. LynnJ:~ . Greenwal Direct U.S. l~~~Fis Wildlife Service iii Acknowledgements We are indebted to many people for their cooperation and support in prepar­ ing this study. Norval Netsch and Sumner Dole of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service served as their agency's project officers for the study contract; they consistently supported the independence of our research while providing en­ couragement and assistance. Morris J. Turner, acting authorized officer of the Alaska Pipeline Office, helped assure the cooperation of APO central office and field staffs and per­ sonally contributed valuable information. State pipeline coordinator Charles Champion was similarly cooperative to the extent of our more limited work on the state's pipeline surveillance organization. We particularly want to thank Julius Rockwell, APO-Joint Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team fisheries biologist, for helping to guide us through some of the intricacies of his professional field. Jewell Darr of APO's administrative staff graciously and efficiently accommodated our rather extensive requests for file materials. James Hemming, federal coordinator, and Allan Carson, state supervisor, of the Joint Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team made it possible for us to look closely at JFW AT's experience. They and their JFW AT colleagues provided much critical information and many insights, and we are extremely grateful to them and to their support staff. We want finally to thank our institute colleagues-particularly Michael Scott and. Arlon Tussing-for their suggestions and interest in the project; Susan Yates for organizing the administrative support necessary to our work; and Marjorie Matlock for the care and patience with which she typed the vari­ ous drafts of our manuscript. IV Table of Contents Page List of Figures . v Executive Summary . vii Part 1-Introduction . 1 Chapter I-Introduction . 3 Chapter II-Pipeline Construction and Surveillance . 7 Part 2-Pre-Permit Phase . 15 Chapter III-Policy Development: An Overview ...... ! • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 Chapter IV-Pipeline Planning . 27 Part 3-Construction Phase . 41 Chapter V-Government Surveillance Organization and Policy . 43 Chapter VI-Government Surveillance Operations . 55 Chapter VII-Stream Crossings and Big Game Crossings . 71 Part 4-Conclusions and Recommendations . 85 Chapter VIII-Conclusions and Recommendations . 87 Appendixes . 93 Appendix A: Selected Portions of Stipulations . 95 Appendix B: The Jurisdictions of the Federal and State Governments Over the Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, by H. Clifton Eames, Jr. 98 Appendix C: Chapman and Sheep Creeks Crossing Histories .......... 107 Appendix D: Analysis of the Costs of Delay in the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline Project, by Michael J. Scott ............................ 115 List of Interviews . 123 References Cited ...................................................... 127 List of Figures Figure 1-Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline Route . 8 Figure 2-Government Surveillance Organizatioh . 38 Figure 3-Alaska Pipeline Office Organization Chart . 45 Figure 4-Joint Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team Organization Chart . 49 V Disclaimer The opinions, findings. conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarilv reflect the views of the Office of Biolog1cal Services. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the federal government. vi Executive Summary Scope and Purposes led to the establishment of JFWAT and deter­ mined its place within the larger government Stretching from the Arctic Ocean 800 miles surveillance system. Second, it examines how the south to Prince William Sound, the trans-Alaska surveillance system worked during the construc­ oil pipeline crosses hundreds of fish streams and tion period, concentrating on fish and wildlife habitats and migration routes of dozens of species protection activities. This is not an assessment of of animals and birds. How these fish and wildlife the environmental impacts of the trans-Alaska along the route were to be protected during pipe­ pipeline, but rather an examination of how the or­ line construction was a question State of Alaska ganization that was ultimately established to pro­ and U.S. government agencies began considering tect fish and wildlife worked during construction in 1969, when a group of oil companies proposed and what factors influenced its effectiveness. The to build the pipeline which would carry oil from report looks primarily at involvement of federal the recently-discovered Prudhoe Bay field. agencies in the pipeline planning and construc­ By 1974, when work on the pipeline system be­ tion processes, but also includes some discussion gan, the federal and state governments had estab­ of state planning and surveillance activities. lished environmental and technical standards the pipeline builders agreed to meet and had set 11p Planning Period: 1969-1973 separate surveillance organizations to oversee After a group of oil companies applied for fed­ construction along the route crossing about 550 eral approval to build a pipeline spanning all four miles of federal and 250 miles of state land. These of Alaska's major physiographic regions, three organizations-the federal Alaska Pipeline Office and the State Pipeline Coordinator's Office-were mountain ranges, and several earthquake faults, intended to concentrate, as much as possible, re­ national environmental organizations initiated a sponsibilities of various government agencies for court suit that held up the start of construction regulating projects affecting public land and until after the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authoriza­ thus to increase efficiency of government pipeline tion Act was passed in late 1973. During this four­ surveillance. year delay, government pipeline planning and Although forming separate surveillance agen­ policy making was dominated by two basic cies, the State of Alaska
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nome River Water Control Structures
    BLM LIBRARY 88049206 Department of the Interior BLM-Alaska Open File Report 62 Bureau of Land Management BLM/AK/ST-97/003+81 00+020 April 1997 Alaska State Office 222 West 7th, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Nome River Water Control Structures Howard L. Smith JK 870 .L3 06 no. 62 ^&&£ *>v^ fe Nome River Water Control Structures Howard L. Smith U.S. Department of the Interior of Bureau Land Management 0pen Fi)e Report 62 Alaska State Office -| ^pr il 997 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Author Howard Smith is an archaeologist with the Northwest Management Team, Northern District, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, Alaska. Open File Reports Open File Reports identify the results of inventories or other investigations that are made available to the public outside the formal BLM-Alaska technical publication series. These reports can include preliminary or incomplete data and are not published and distributed in quantity. The reports are available at BLM offices in Alaska, the USDI Resources Library in Anchorage, various libraries of the University of Alaska, and other selected locations. Copies are also available for inspection at the USDI Natural Resources Library in Washington, D.C. and at the BLM Service Center Library in Denver. Cover Photo: Headgate of the Miocene Ditch on the Nome River, Alaska. Photo by Howard L Smith Table of Contents Abstract 1 Background 1 Discovery of Gold 1 Events in 1899 2 Events in 1900 4 Events after 1900 5 Water Control Structures 6 The Miocene Ditch 7 The Seward Ditch 17 The Pioneer Ditch 18 The Campion Ditch 19 The
    [Show full text]
  • Captive Orcas
    Captive Orcas ‘Dying to Entertain You’ The Full Story A report for Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) Chippenham, UK Produced by Vanessa Williams Contents Introduction Section 1 The showbiz orca Section 2 Life in the wild FINgerprinting techniques. Community living. Social behaviour. Intelligence. Communication. Orca studies in other parts of the world. Fact file. Latest news on northern/southern residents. Section 3 The world orca trade Capture sites and methods. Legislation. Holding areas [USA/Canada /Iceland/Japan]. Effects of capture upon remaining animals. Potential future capture sites. Transport from the wild. Transport from tank to tank. “Orca laundering”. Breeding loan. Special deals. Section 4 Life in the tank Standards and regulations for captive display [USA/Canada/UK/Japan]. Conditions in captivity: Pool size. Pool design and water quality. Feeding. Acoustics and ambient noise. Social composition and companionship. Solitary confinement. Health of captive orcas: Survival rates and longevity. Causes of death. Stress. Aggressive behaviour towards other orcas. Aggression towards trainers. Section 5 Marine park myths Education. Conservation. Captive breeding. Research. Section 6 The display industry makes a killing Marketing the image. Lobbying. Dubious bedfellows. Drive fisheries. Over-capturing. Section 7 The times they are a-changing The future of marine parks. Changing climate of public opinion. Ethics. Alternatives to display. Whale watching. Cetacean-free facilities. Future of current captives. Release programmes. Section 8 Conclusions and recommendations Appendix: Location of current captives, and details of wild-caught orcas References The information contained in this report is believed to be correct at the time of last publication: 30th April 2001. Some information is inevitably date-sensitive: please notify the author with any comments or updated information.
    [Show full text]
  • Steve Mccutcheon Collection, B1990.014
    REFERENCE CODE: AkAMH REPOSITORY NAME: Anchorage Museum at Rasmuson Center Bob and Evangeline Atwood Alaska Resource Center 625 C Street Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 907-929-9235 Fax: 907-929-9233 Email: [email protected] Guide prepared by: Sara Piasecki, Archivist TITLE: Steve McCutcheon Collection COLLECTION NUMBER: B1990.014 OVERVIEW OF THE COLLECTION Dates: circa 1890-1990 Extent: approximately 180 linear feet Language and Scripts: The collection is in English. Name of creator(s): Steve McCutcheon, P.S. Hunt, Sydney Laurence, Lomen Brothers, Don C. Knudsen, Dolores Roguszka, Phyllis Mithassel, Alyeska Pipeline Services Co., Frank Flavin, Jim Cacia, Randy Smith, Don Horter Administrative/Biographical History: Stephen Douglas McCutcheon was born in the small town of Cordova, AK, in 1911, just three years after the first city lots were sold at auction. In 1915, the family relocated to Anchorage, which was then just a tent city thrown up to house workers on the Alaska Railroad. McCutcheon began taking photographs as a young boy, but it wasn’t until he found himself in the small town of Curry, AK, working as a night roundhouse foreman for the railroad that he set out to teach himself the art and science of photography. As a Deputy U.S. Marshall in Valdez in 1940-1941, McCutcheon honed his skills as an evidential photographer; as assistant commissioner in the state’s new Dept. of Labor, McCutcheon documented the cannery industry in Unalaska. From 1942 to 1944, he worked as district manager for the federal Office of Price Administration in Fairbanks, taking photographs of trading stations, communities and residents of northern Alaska; he sent an album of these photos to Washington, D.C., “to show them,” he said, “that things that applied in the South 48 didn’t necessarily apply to Alaska.” 1 1 Emanuel, Richard P.
    [Show full text]
  • ANWR: the Legislative Quagmire Surrounding Stakeholder Control and Protection, and the Practical Consequences of Allowing Exploration
    Buffalo Environmental Law Journal Volume 9 Number 2 Article 3 4-1-2002 ANWR: The Legislative Quagmire Surrounding Stakeholder Control and Protection, and the Practical Consequences of Allowing Exploration Kristofer Pasquale University of Idaho College of Law (Student) Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/belj Part of the Legislation Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Kristofer Pasquale, ANWR: The Legislative Quagmire Surrounding Stakeholder Control and Protection, and the Practical Consequences of Allowing Exploration, 9 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 245 (2002). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/belj/vol9/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANWR: THE LEGISLATIVE QUAGMIRE SURROUNDING STAKEHOLDER CONTROL AND PROTECTION, AND THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALLOWING EXPLORATION Kristofer Pasquale* Introduction Along the freezing northern region of Alaska's coast lies approximately twenty million acres of land known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or better known by its acronym, ANWR. For the last thirty years, battles have raged between the state and the federal government, between environmentalists and oil companies, and between a variety of other stakeholders for control over the future of development of ANWR for oil exploration and production.' The ongoing, contentious debate on whether to explore and drill for oil in ANWR is at the forefront of national policy, concerning environ- mentalists and peaking oil industry interest still today.2 This comment explores the legislative history behind what has become ANWR, identifies possible stakeholders in the question of how ANWR should be treated, and analyzes the effect that exploration would have upon them.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment Frostfire Prescribed Burn BLM Northern
    Environmental Assessment of the Frostfire Prescribed Burn BLM Northern Field Office 1150 University Avenue Fairbanks, AK. 99709 BLM Alaska Fire Service P.O. Box 35005 Ft. Wainwright, AK. 99703 No. AK-AFS-EA-99-AA03 April 5, 1999 2 I. Introduction The Bureau of Land Management-Alaska Fire Service (BLM-AFS) proposes to assist in conducting a prescribed burn to meet objectives of the Frostfire Project funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). BLM-AFS has prepared a Burn Plan (Wilmore, et. al., 1998) (See Attachment A) for approval by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) and the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). BLM-AFS would provide the Incident Commander/Burn Boss and other key positions for burn operation, and provide all command and safety functions during the operation. The research watershed selected for the prescribed burn is the C-4 subwatershed of the Caribou- Poker Creeks Research Watershed (CPCRW) (See Map A) which is part of the Bonanza Creek Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Site (See Map B) operated by UAF. BLM-AFS would prepare the C-4 watershed for burning, including developing and constructing helispots, fuel breaks and access trails. BLM-AFS would also provide personnel and equipment during preburn, burn, and mopup operations. The Frostfire Project is a cooperative effort between UAF, the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station (PNW), ADNR, the Canadian Forestry Service, and BLM-AFS. A Memorandum of Understanding (# PNW 98-5124-2-MOU) was signed by all parties in May and June, 1998 to formalize Frostfire cooperative efforts. The Frostfire Project would be a continuation of international fire research activities under the International Boreal Forest Research Association Stand Replacement Fire Working Group, and as part of the LTER program.
    [Show full text]
  • Hhiiissstttooorrriiicccaaalll Hhaaappppppeeennniiinnngggsss
    UUU...SSS... FFFiiissshhh &&& WWWiiillldddllliiifffeee SSSeeerrrvvviiiccceee NNNooovvveeemmmbbbeeerrr 222000000999 HHHiiissstttooorrriiicccaalll HHHaaappppppeeennniiinnngggsss NNNooottteeesss ooonnn CCCuuullltttuuurrraaalll RRReeesssooouuurrrccceee MMMaaannnaaagggeeemmmeeennnttt iiinnn ttthhheee UUU...SSS... FFFiiissshhh aaannnddd WWWiiillldddllliiifffeee SSSeeerrrvvviiiccceee Historical Happenings provides information on the USFWS Cultural Resources Management program. Information comes from sources such as the Regional Historic Preservation Officers, websites, new sources, as well as other cultural resource management professionals. Issues are also available on the USFWS Cultural Resources website http://historicpreservation.fws.gov. Submissions are encouraged and can be made via email. Please contact Eugene Marino at [email protected] for submission guidelines. Wonderful Things A look at FWS Museum Property FWS Regional News: Robert Hines and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6 Archaeology and Conservation Robert Hines (1912-1994) was the only USFWS permanent employee hired as such to be a full-time artist. His official title was National Wildlife Artist. He worked from the Biology—A Rewarding Partnership Washington, D.C. office, and throughout his career, illustrated 2 wildlife art series (one on birds, and one on the wildlife of Alaska). He made educational posters, and large scale oil Large mammal bones were found in 1971 paintings to hang in refuge and regional offices. He was the artist on two duck stamps, on what
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Park Science. Volume 14, Issue 2
    Alaska Park Science National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior Alaska Regional Office Anchorage, Alaska Birds of Alaska’s National Parks In this issue: Critical Connections: Conserving Migratory Birds 16 Black Oystercatchers in Kenai Fjords National Park 22 Glaucous-winged Gull Monitoring and Egg Harvest in Glacier Bay 34 ...and more. Volume 14, Issue 2 Table of Contents Swan Song ________________________________________________________________ 6 Avian Soundscape Ecology in Denali National Park and Preserve _______________ 8 Critical Connections: Conserving Migratory Birds in Alaska’s National Parks _______________________ 16 Black Oystercatchers in Kenai Fjords National Park: A Keystone of the Intertidal Zone __________________________________________ 22 Conserving Migratory Golden Eagles in a Rapidly Changing World: What Role Will the NPS Play? ______________________________________________ 28 Glaucous-winged Gull Monitoring and Egg Harvest in Glacier Bay, Alaska ______________________________________________________ 34 Birds of the Arctic—Simon Paneak and Laurence Irving: Collaborators in Arctic Research ____________________________________________ 40 The Birds of Bob Uhl’s Journals _____________________________________________ 46 Birding is for Everyone! ___________________________________________________ 52 Looking Back—A Heady Time for National Park Service Science in Alaska _____________________________________ 56 Cover photo: A black oyster catcher in Kenai Fjords National Park protects its eggs. NPS photo 2 National Park
    [Show full text]
  • Yukon and Kuskokwim Whitefish Strategic Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Whitefish Biology, Distribution, and Fisheries in the Yukon and Kuskokwim River Drainages in Alaska: a Synthesis of Available Information Alaska Fisheries Data Series Number 2012-4 Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Field Office Fairbanks, Alaska May 2012 The Alaska Region Fisheries Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts fisheries monitoring and population assessment studies throughout many areas of Alaska. Dedicated professional staff located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Kenai Fish and Wildlife Offices and the Anchorage Conservation Genetics Laboratory serve as the core of the Program’s fisheries management study efforts. Administrative and technical support is provided by staff in the Anchorage Regional Office. Our program works closely with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other partners to conserve and restore Alaska’s fish populations and aquatic habitats. Our fisheries studies occur throughout the 16 National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska as well as off- Refuges to address issues of interjurisdictional fisheries and aquatic habitat conservation. Additional information about the Fisheries Program and work conducted by our field offices can be obtained at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/index.htm The Alaska Region Fisheries Program reports its study findings through the Alaska Fisheries Data Series (AFDS) or in recognized peer-reviewed journals. The AFDS was established to provide timely dissemination of data to fishery managers and other technically oriented professionals, for inclusion in agency databases, and to archive detailed study designs and results for the benefit of future investigations. Publication in the AFDS does not preclude further reporting of study results through recognized peer-reviewed journals.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land, and Water
    STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING, LAND, AND WATER FINAL FINDING AND DECISION of a Land Offering in the Fairbanks North Star Borough DMVA Tracts, ADL 420894 Public Access Easement, ADL 421103 Private Easement, ADL 421088 AS 38.05.035(e), AS 38.05.045, AS 38.05.850 and its RELATED ACTION(S): None This Final Finding and Decision (FFD) complements and updates the Preliminary Decision (PD) dated October 22, 2018. The PD and associated easements (attached) have had the required public review. I. Recommended Action(s) Land Offering, ADL 420894: The State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Mining, Land, and Water (DMLW), Land Sales Section (LSS) recommends offering for sale State-owned land for private ownership within the DMVA Tracts project area (ADL 420894), as described in the PD. Parcels will be offered for future sale by a method under AS 38.05.045 Generally. For the purposes of providing land for settlement in the DMVA Tracts project area, DNR may offer for sale no more than two parcels no smaller than 160 acres. DNR currently plans to offer the project area as a 320-acre parcel. This project area is located within the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB). The project may be offered in multiple stages. Public Access Easement ADL 421103: DNR DMLW is authorizing a public access easement to the land offering project area from Goldstream Road up to 100 feet in width within government lots 7 and 8, Section 2, Township 1 North, Range 1 West, Fairbanks Meridian.
    [Show full text]
  • Tundra Swans
    Fish and Wildlife of Alaska’s North Slope TUNDRA SWANS ince 1986, ConocoPhillips scientists and industry consultants have conducted a variety of wildlife studies in the oilfield region of the Alaskan North Slope. S ConocoPhillips has chosen tundra swans (Cygnus columbianus or qugruk) for long-term monitoring to assure their well-being and also to use them as an indicator of the overall health of the abundant waterfowl and shorebird communities that use the oil- fields. Included in this work has been studies of the waterfowl and shorebirds that use the oilfields in summer for feeding, nesting, and raising their young. Tundra swans are common nesters in the North Slope oilfields, they generally mate for life, and they are sensitive to disturbance within their nesting territories. There are about 200,000 tundra swans in North America, approxi- mately half of which winter in Cali- fornia and half on the Atlantic Coast. The North Slope swans are at the western extreme of the east- ern wintering population that nest Tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus or qugruk). from northern Alaska across Arctic Canada to Hudson’s Bay. After a remarkable journey southeast in the fall, the North Slope swans winter in Chesapeake Bay, sometimes within sight of the Washington Monument, and in coastal sections of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. They provide bird watchers with much-valued winter viewing in a number of areas and are hunted in some places. Tundra swans are one of the first birds to arrive on the Arctic Coastal Plain each spring. Often swans arrive in mid-May when ice and snow are still melting and soon begin nesting.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 North Slope Best Interest Finding
    April 18, 2018 Final Finding of the Director Recommended citation: ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 2018. North Slope areawide oil and gas lease sales. Written Finding of the Director. April 18, 2018. Questions or comments about this final finding should be directed to: Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1100 Anchorage, AK 99501-3560 Phone 907-269-8800 The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility please write to: ADNR ADA Coordinator P.O. Box 111000 Juneau AK 99811-1000 The department’s ADA Coordinator can be reached via phone at the following numbers: (VOICE) 907-465-2400, (Statewide Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) 1-800-770-8973, or (FAX) 907-465-3886 For information on alternative formats and questions on this publication, please contact: ADNR, Division of Oil and Gas 550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1100 Anchorage, AK 99501-3560 Phone 907-269-8800. Division of Oil and Gas Contributors: Shawana Guzenski Jonathan Schick Kyle Smith Final Finding of the Director Prepared by: Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas April 18, 2018 Contents Page Chapter One: Director’s Final Written Finding and Decision 1-1 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Alask4 Gold Dredging
    ALASK4 GOLD DREDGING Clark C. Spence IT THE BEGINNING of the twentieth century, and four years before one was introduced into Alaska, two new mass-production techniques were beginning to there were already more than half a hundred· operating revolutionize the mining industry. One was the low­ on a seventy-mile stretch of the Clutha River in New grade copper technique pioneered by engineer Daniel Zealand.3 In California, the Down Under model and a Jackling in Utah. The other was the gold dredge, first pioneer Montana version were quickly amalgamated successful in New Zealand and imported into Califor­ into what would soon be known as the California-type nia. Both methodologies were based on massive of gold dredge, soon standard throughout the mining machinery and the economies of scale. With patience, world. careful drill prospecting, and adequate capital, skilled These events coincided with the discovery of the engineers could predict results. No longer did it have to golden beaches at Nome. Beginning with the Wist.'OIIJ'in, be said that the miner could see no farther than the end which. was towed from Seattle to Nome in time for the of his pick. Both dredging and the low-grade copper end of the 1899 season, countless get-rich-quick special­ approach enabled the profitable working of ground ists attempted to apply at least somebody's version of once considered worthless; and both were global in the new dredge techniques to the Far North. The sands their impact. of Nome were soon strewn with derelict "jackass The gold dredge applied Henry Ford's production machinery," "wonderful to behold," and about "as well line to placer deposits.
    [Show full text]