|
MINING NEWS: Corps launches Red Dog Mine port plans Draft EIS recommends constructing a trestle and dredged channel to improve navigation and reduce fuel transportation costs Sarah Hurst Mining News Editor
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has published a draft Environmental Impact Statement for navigation improvements to the DeLong Mountain Terminal, the port that serves the Red Dog Mine in Northwest Alaska. The public review period continues until Dec. 27. The corps’ “tentatively recommended” plan is to construct a 1,450-foot-long trestle from shore to a new off-shore loading platform and a 3.5-mile channel from the loading platform to allow navigation by bulk freighters and tanker ships.
Management of the project from the state’s point of view recently transferred from the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Since 2000 over $9 million has been spent preparing the draft EIS, according to AIDEA’s mining specialist, John Wood. AIDEA spent $1 million, the maximum it intended to put into the project, and has now passed it on to DOT to oversee the final EIS. The Corps of Engineers and Teck Cominco, Red Dog’s operator, came up with the bulk of the funds.
“Complying with all the federal requirements is time-consuming and the corps wanted to make sure they got it right,” Wood told Mining News. The cost of producing the final EIS is still uncertain, he added. “A deepwater port would provide substantial benefits to the Northwest Arctic area with no lasting environmental consequences. The (Murkowski) administration is solidly behind the development of this port,” Wood said. Estimated $75 million in dredging The estimated cost of dredging the federal channel and turning basin would be $75 million, with annual maintenance costs of $1,245,000. These costs would be shared between the federal government and the “non-federal sponsor” — the State of Alaska or whoever else provided the funding.
Construction of the trestle, a 1.5 million gallon fuel storage tank and other project features would cost $155.5 million according to the corps. all of which would have to be covered by the non-federal sponsor. Annual operation and maintenance costs would be $6.55 million. The project would produce estimated annual benefits of $26,898,700 due to the increased efficiency and lower fuel transportation costs it would provide.
The existing DeLong Mountain Terminal facilities accommodate lightering and fuel barges, but not deep-draft bulk ore freighters or tanker ships. By making these improvements, the corps hopes to increase ore concentrate loading efficiency and lower fuel transportation costs by allowing direct offloading of fuel from tanker ships. The terminal is about 80 miles north of Kotzebue on the southeastern coast of the Chukchi Sea, and connected to Red Dog Mine by the only major road in the region.
Red Dog produces up to 1.5 million tons of zinc and lead ore concentrates each year. Trucks haul the concentrate 52 miles from the mine to the terminal storage buildings, where it is stored until the open-water season, which usually begins in late June or early July and lasts for 90-110 days. During the open-water season, the concentrate is loaded onto barges that are towed by tug to bulk cargo ships moored three to five miles offshore, where concentrate is transferred into the ships. About 250 barge trips are required and about 27 ships are loaded each year. Supplies come in by barge Ocean-going barges deliver fuel to heat, generate electricity and power vehicles in the region: about 20 million gallons of fuel each year for Red Dog and another 30 million gallons for the local communities. Tanker ships could deliver fuel more cheaply, but they are not used currently because there are no ports deep enough for them to offload fuel directly into on-shore storage tanks.
A total of 8.1 million cubic yards of material would be dredged from the sea bottom during construction of the channel that the corps proposes. This material would be placed in an off-shore disposal area. The disposal site would be a 5,600-acre rectangular area about two miles wide by about 4.3 miles long. There would also be maintenance dredging in the years following construction.
The main project features could be built in three construction seasons, according to the corps. After construction, shipping and loading operations would be much quieter than they are now. Ships waiting to be loaded would wait in the same mooring areas, but instead of 250 barge trips and about 1,500 hours of operation by four tugs, ships would be assisted to the mooring berth by two tugs, and after loading would be assisted back out to sea by two tugs. Other alternatives The preferred alternative was chosen by the corps over a number of others, including a no action alternative. Building a road or rail connection to the existing highway or railroad system was considered too expensive, as was building a highway or railroad to a new port in northwestern Alaska. Reducing fuel costs by using coal or wind generation was considered too expensive, and natural gas has not been found in sufficient quantities in the region to be economically developed.
Using three barges instead of two to lighter ore concentrate to bulk cargo ships was considered, but the corps did not recommend this because it would not be better economically or environmentally than the no-action alternative. Constructing an off-shore breakwater so that barges could be loaded in rougher seas was considered, along with the construction of a new on-shore pumping station and a pipeline to a mooring area to offload fuel from ocean-going tankers. This alternative was not recommended because it would produce less economic benefit than the trestle-channel alternative and would not greatly improve ore concentrate loading efficiency.
None of the alternatives considered in detail would affect movement by people traveling to reach subsistence resources on land, the corps said. During the open water season, people traveling by boat past the port might need to make a quarter- or half-mile detour. The navigation improvements would not cause more than minor, local effects to land plants or animals used in subsistence, according to the corps. Freshwater fish would not be affected, although saffron cod and other marine fish would be affected locally and temporarily in marine waters about 15 miles from the village of Kivalina. They could be displaced during summer construction activities, but these activities would stop long before winter, when marine fish are harvested in local subsistence.
There would be no more than minor local effects on the distribution and subsistence availability of walrus, polar bears and seals. Subsistence harvests of belugas and bowhead whales could be affected by the project, the corps said, but this would be difficult to measure because other factors such as changes in ice conditions also affect whale migration and habitat use. The corps proposed numerous mitigation measures to protect fish, wildlife and cultural resources, and to work with local communities to ensure their participation.
| 