Document 1xOV0O2jzr40ZZd4eXY8MkOK

vm*v ^ - ' *vr ^ -fr. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Division of Mining, Land & Water Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 W KHtSm fn M ' *> **.- -. %. ' : -: ' ' v - J HIM Attachment A Page 1 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00001 STATE OF ALASKA Bill Walker, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Andy Mack, Commissioner DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL & GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS Steve Masterman, State Geologist and Director DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER Brent Goodrum, Director Publications produced by the Division of Geological &Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) are available for download from the DGGS website (dggs.alaska, gov). Publications on hard-copy or digital media can be examined or purchased in the Fairbanks office: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys 3354 College Rd., Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3707 Phone: (907) 451-5010 Fax (907) 451-5050 dggspubs@alaska.gov |dggs.alaska.gov D G G S p u b licatio n s are also availab le at: Alaska State Library State Office Building, 8th Floor 333 W illoughby Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99811-0571 Alaska Resource Library and Information Services 3150 C Street, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-3982 This publication, released by the Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), was produced and printed in Fairbanks, Alaska, by the- Division of Geological & Geo physical Surveys, at a cost of $3.00 per copy. Authority to print this and other pub lications is based on Alaska Statute 41.08.020, which charges DGGS to "...determine the potential of Alaskan land for production of metals, minerals, fuels, and geothermal resources; the location and supplies of groundwater and construction materials; the po tential geologic hazards to buildings, roads, bridges, and other installations and struc tures; an d ... conduct such other surveys and investigations as will advance knowledge of the geology of Alaska." Statute 41.08.030 adds, "The state geologist shall print and publish an annual report and .such other special and topical reports and maps as may be desirable for the benefit of the state.. In addition, Alaska Statute 27.05.050-060 states, "The department shall conduct a continuing survey of the mineral resources and min ing operations of the state and shall disseminate information regarding them to assist prospectors and miners, safeguard the lives and health of miners, protect investors in the mining industry, and foster and promote the best interests of the mining, mineral, and related industries of the state...The department shall make an annual report to the governor on all essential matters with regard to mining in the state.. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 2 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00002 ALASKA'S MINERAL INDUSTRY 2015 Jennifer E. Athey, Melanie B. Werdon, Evan Twelker, and Mitch W. Henning Special Report 71 Cover photo. Gold pan with clean-up from piacer operation in the Nelchina mining district northeast of Anchorage. PHOTO PROVIDED BY DNR, DIVISION OF MINING, LAND &WATER. The State of Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys complies with title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This publication is available in alternative communication formats upon request. Please contact DGGS (phone 907-4515010; fax 907-451-5050; email dggspubs@aiaska.gov) to make any necessary arrangements. Mention of any company or brand name does not constitute endorsement by any branch or employee of the State of Alaska. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 3 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00003 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 4 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00004 This summ ary of the status of Alaska's mineral industry for 2015 is the 35th annual report produced by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys with assistance from the Division of Mining, Land & Water, Published for more than one-third of a century, the annual report endeavors to provide a consistent, factual snapshot of mineral industry activity in Alaska, and also serves as the authoritative, historical record of mining in the state. Exploration Expenditures Development Expenditures Estimated First Market Value Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 3 The TOTAL r e p o r t e d value of Alaska's mineral industry decreased in 2015 to $ 3.13 b il l io n , almost 15 percent lower than its $3.66 billion value in 2014. The total value is a composite of the year's expendi tures on exploration and development plus the estimated first market value of the commodities produced. Gross income reported by mining operators indicated the continued strength of the industry by increasing nearly 3 percent in 2015, to $2.50 billion, from $2.43 billion in 2014. 3 The estimated f ir s t m a r k e t v a lu e o f p r o d u c t io n dropped almost 16 percent in 2015, from $3.28 billion in 2014 to $ 2,76 b il l io n in 2015. The decreased mineral production value in 2015 resulted from decreased metal production as well as lower metal prices. The average 2015 price for silver had the largest drop--nearly 21 percent. 3 Zin c w as t h e t o p m etal p r o d u c e d in 2015, according to its production value of almost 45 p e r cent o f TOTAL A l a s k a m e t a l p r o d u c t io n . Gold followed at 37.5 percent, along with lead at 9.1 percent, and silver at 8.8 percent. 3 D e v e l o p m e n t e x p e n d it u r e s in Alaska rose 10 percent in 2015, to $ 3 0 9 .9 m il l io n . Development expenditures at Alaska's major mines accounted for more than 92 percent of total development expendi tures. 3 Mineral e x pl o r a t io n e x p e n d it u r e s continued to drop in 2015 to $ 58.3 m il l io n , down more than 39 percent from the 2014 level of $96.2 million. More than half of the state's exploration spending (54 percent) was conducted by the major mines. 3 Min in g c l a im s a n d p r o s p e c t in g sit e s covered approximately 3 .8 m il l io n a c r e s of Alaska in 2015, with 6,074 active Federal and 42,454 active State mining claims. Although State 40-acre claim staking decreased by almost 17 percent in 2015, the num ber of new State 160-acre claims, State prospecting sites, and Federal claims increased modestly. 3 Mineral industry e m plo ym en t in 2015 is estimated at 2 ,901 fu ll-t im e -eq u iv a l e n t jo b s, an overall decrease of about 66 jobs (2 percent) from 2014. The number of exploration jobs decreased by more than half to 116 jobs in 2015, whereas combined production and development jobs saw an almost 3 percent gain as 71 new jobs were reported. 3 Estimated r e v e n u e s in 2015 to the State of Alaska and municipalities from mineral-industry-specific fees, rent, sales, royalties, and taxes amounted to almost $ 114.9 m il l io n . Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 5 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00005 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 6 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00006 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............. v INTRODUCTION.................................. 1 EMPLOYMENT.............................................................................................................................. 4 G o vern m en t Revenues from A laska's M ineral In d u stry .....................................................................................................................,,5 MINERALS-RELATED GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES....... ........................................... 7 U.S. G e o lo gical Survey......................................................................................................................................................................................7 D ivisio n of M in ing, Land & W ater...............................................................................................................................................................8 D ivisio n of G e o lo gical & G e op hysical S u r v e y s ......................................................................................................................................8 A laska G e o lo g ic M aterials C e n te r...........................................................................................................................................................8 M ineral Resources Se ctio n A ctivitie s.....................................................................................................................................................9 Strategic & Critical M inerals A sse ssm e n t................................................................................................................................. 11 G e o lo g ic M appin g and G e o ch em ical S a m p lin g ....................................................................................................................11 EXPLORATION..................................... .12 N orthern R e g io n ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 W estern Region................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Eastern R e g io n ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 So uth-central R e g io n ................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 So uthw estern Region.................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 So utheastern R e g io n ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 A laska P eninsula R e g io n .............................................................................................................................................................................20 DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION............................................................................................. 21 D eve lo p m e n t and Production D iscussio n ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Red D og M in e ...........................................................................................................................................................................................26 Fort Knox Mine........................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 P ogo Mine.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 U sibelli Coal M in e ....................................................................................................................................................................................32 K e n sin gto n M in e ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 G reens C ree k Mine.................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 C h an d aia r Placer M in e...........................................................................................................................................................................35 D onlin G o ld P ro je c t.................................................................................................................................................................................. 37 C h u itn a Coal Project................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 DRILLING.................................................................................................................................... 37 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................39 APPENDICES A. H elpful links for the m ineral ind ustry in A la s k a ............................................................................................................................ 40 B. Prim ary m etals p rod uction in A laska, 1 8 8 0 -2 0 1 5 ....................................................................................................................... 41 C. P ro ductio n of industrial m inerals, coal, an d other co m m o d itie s in Alaska, 1 8 8 0 -2 0 1 5 ................................................. 42 D. Identified m ineral resources of A laska d e p o sits........................................................................................................................... 43 E. C on ve rsion chart, U.S. C u sto m ary U nits/M etric U n its .................................................................................................................45 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 7 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00007 FIGURES 1. Re gio n s of m ineral activity as de scrib ed in this re p o rt...................................................................................................................3 2. M odern airbo rne ge o p h ysica l data co ve ra ge of A laska, m an age d by A laska D ivision of G e o lo g ical & G e op hysical Surveys an d the U.S. G e o lo gical Su rve y o ver the past 22 y e a rs .................................................................... 11 3. Selected exp loration projects in A laska, 2 015.............................................................................................................................. 13 4. A laska m ineral exp loration exp end itures, 1 9 5 6 -2 0 1 5 .............................................................................................................. 13 5. Exploration exp en d itu re s by d e p o sit type, 2 0 1 5 ........................................................................................................................ 14 6. Selected d e ve lo p m e n t projects in A laska, 2015.......................................................................................................................... 22 7. Selected p rod uction projects in A laska, 2015................................................................................................................................. 24 8. Estim ated 2015 m ineral prod uction in A laska by c o m m o d ity ................................................................................................24 9. H istorical go ld p rod uction in A laska, 1 8 8 0 -2015, and co rre sp o n d in g m arket v a lu e ..................................................... 25 10. Rock, sand , an d gravel p rod uction in A laska, 1 9 5 0 -2015, and co rre sp o n d in g m arket v a lu e ..................................... 26 11. A laska coal p rod uction and exports, 1 9 1 5 -2 0 1 5 ........................................................................................................................ 27 TABLES 1. Reported an nual e xploration and d e ve lo p m e n t exp en d itu re s of the m ineral industry, the estim ated first m arket value of m ineral production in Alaska, and gross incom e from Alaska m ining operations, 1981-2015....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Estim ated A laska m ineral ind ustry e m p loym e nt, 2 0 0 6 -2 0 1 5 ....................................................................................................4 3. Reported and estim ated revenues paid to the State of A laska and m u n icip alitie s by Alaska's m ineral industry, 2 0 0 9 -2 0 1 5 ....................................................................................................................................................................................6 4. M ining tax analysis by tax bracket for 2014 and 2015, based on M in ing Lice n se Tax returns.........................................7 5. New p u b licatio n s p rod uced by the D G G S M ineral Resources sectio n in 2 0 1 5 ................................................................. 10 6. Reported e xploration exp en d itu re s in A laska by co m m o dity, 1981-2015.......................................................................... 12 7. Su m m ary of State and Federal claim a ctivity by acres, 1 9 9 1 -2 0 1 5 .......................................................................................14 8. A ve rage m etal prices, 1 9 9 6 -2 0 1 5 .....................................................................................................................................................21 9. Reported m ineral d e ve lo p m e n t exp en d itu re s in A laska by co m m o dity, 1 9 8 2 -2 0 1 5 .................................................... 23 10. Estim ated m ineral p rod uction in A laska, 2 0 1 3 -2 0 1 5 ................................................................................................................ 23 11. Material sale vo lu m es by region reported on S tate -o w n ed land, e xclu d in g M ental Health Trust lands and lan ds m an age d by the State P ipeline C oordinator's O ffice, for 2 0 1 1 -2 0 1 5 .............................................................. 27 12. A laska international m ineral e xp ort v a lu e s................................................................................................................................... 27 13. Red D o g M ine prod uction statistics, 1989-2015........................................................................................................................... 28 14. Fort Knox M ine p rod uction statistics, 1 9 9 6 -2 0 1 5 ...................................................................................................................... 30 15. Pogo M ine p rod uction statistics, 2006-2015.................................................................................................................................. 32 16. Ke n sin gto n M ine p rod uction statistics, 2 0 1 0 -2 0 1 5 ................................................................................................................... 33 17. G reens C reek M ine p rod uction statistics, 1989-2015.................................................................................................................. 35 18. C o m p a n ie s p u b licly repo rting sign ifica n t d rillin g p rogram s in A laska in 2 0 1 5 ................................................................ 38 19. D rilling fo o ta g e reported in A laska, 1 9 8 2 -2 0 1 5 .......................................................................................................................... 38 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 8 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00008 PHOTOS 1. G e o lo g ic M aterials C en ter staff orchestrated the transfer of m ore than 3 m illion p o u n d s of rocks to the newGSViC facility in 2015,...........................................................................................................................................................................8 2. In O cto b e r 2015, th e n -G o vern o r Sean Parnell led the g ra n d -o p e n in g celebration and cut the cerem onial ribbon at the new G e o lo g ic M aterials C en ter in A n c h o ra g e ......................................................................................................9 3. N o va C o p p er staff co n d u cte d field w o rk in A m b le r project are a.............................................................................................15 4. N AN A Regio nal Corp. prospected in frost boils in the K u g ru k Fault Z o n e and fo u n d a 0.044-ou nce-o f- go ld -p e r-to n rock sam p le co n tain in g su lfid e in q u artz v e in s..................................................................................................16 5. Trench m a p p in g w as co m p lete d at C h ath am trench on the G o lden Su m m it p ro p e rty ............................................... 16 6. C h alco p yrite in drill core on the Sh o rty C ree k p ro p e rty............................................................................................................17 7. Exam ples of Peak Z o n e distal skarn textures on th e T e tlin project p ro p e rty ..................................................................... 18 8. View of Carib ou D o m e property, lo o kin g northeast from an outcro p of se d im e n t-h o ste d co p p e r m ineralization at Lense 6 tow ard tre n ch in g at Lense 3 ............................................................................................................ 18 9. Rusty outcro p at C o p p e r Jo e p ro p erty............................................................................................................................................ 19 10. Drill se tu p at C o n stan tin e Metal Resources' So uth Wall Z o n e in the G lacier C ree k prospect area of the Palm er p ro p e rty ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 11. Sm all, flo atin g "N ew Zealand -style" w ash p la n t from placer operation in so uth-central A la s k a ...................................25 12. Teck initiated a ge o syn th e tic/co m p o site pilot test in 2015 to cover w aste s to c k p ile s ....................................................29 13. View of Fort Knox Mine's open pit an d co nveyo r sy ste m ...........................................................................................................30 14. View of P o go M ine from the m ine access ro a d ............................................................................................................................. 31 15. A roof bolter used u n d e rgro u n d at K e n sin gto n M ine to secure the ro o f............................................................................. 34 16. G reens C ree k M ine reported a su ccessful 2015 u n d e rgro u n d drilling program that a d d e d new resources e xp ecte d to replace m ineral reserves over the next tw o y e a r s ................................................................................................ 36 17. Panoram ic view of C h an d ala r placer go ld o p e ra tio n s................................................................................................................. 37 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 9 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00009 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 10 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00010 Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 Jennifer E. Athey1, Melanie B. W erdon1, Evan Twelker1, and Mitch W. Henning2 Alaska's m ineral endowm ent is highly regarded by exploration and m ining companies worldwide--the state is considered among the top two regions of the world for mineral potential3. Alaska's mineral poten tial is evident from historically significant production: placer gold from the Fairbanks and Nome mining districts, copper from the Kennecott area, lode gold from the Alaska-Juneau (A--J) and Treadwell mines near Juneau, and placer platinum from the Goodnews Bay mining district. Alaska's major metal deposits cur rently in production include Red Dog, Greens Creek, Pogo, Fort Knox, and Kensington mines. Usibelli Coal Mine produces coal for Interior Alaska and Pacific Rim destinations. The untapped Pebble, Donlin Gold, Money Knob, Arctic, and Bornite deposits collectively represent a significant proportion of domestic gold and copper resources, and indicate that there are still extremely large mineral deposits to be developed in Alaska. Significant recently discovered resources at the Graphite Creek deposit and the Bokan Mountain rare-earth-element deposit promise domestic sources of critical rawr ma terials needed for twenty-first-century technologies. W ithout doubt, other Alaska mineral deposits remain to be discovered. Economically viable projects are feasible in Alaska through partnerships of industry and the State -in dustry investment in Alaska's favorable geology and the State's com m itm ent to responsible, responsive public-land stewardship. In 2015 Alaska ranked in the top six regions worldwide for Investment Attractive ness, which is a measure ofboth mineral potential and the effect of State and Federal government policies on investment3. Alaska, in its strategic Pacific Rim location, offers prospective land, sanctity of title, State-sponsored geological and geophysical mapping, a reasonable perm itting process coordinated among agencies, a capable workforce, exploration incentives, and innova tive in frastructure equity-sharing programs. More than 190 million acres of Federal, State, and Native-owned lands are open for mineral-related activi ties and mining. This allows the mineral industry to be a driving force in the state's economy through significant local employ ment, infrastructure, and government revenue. It is the policy of the State of Alaska to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by mak ing them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest. Alaska's mineral industry continued to demonstrate its health even though metal prices and worldwide venture capital investment were down in 2015. Table 1 shows the estimated values of exploration and development investments in the industry. Gross income from mining operations as reported on Alaska Mining License Tax returns is shown for comparison with the estimated `first market value' (estimated gross value of m ineral products at first wholesale) of mineral production in Alaska. For purposes of this report, Alaska has been divided into seven geographic regions, shown in figure 1. Exploration expenditures in Alaska, a sign of indus try interest and future production values, were down 39 percent, from $96.2 million in 2014 to $58.3 million in 2015. Much of the decline in exploration invest ment resulted from the paucity of large exploration projects such as Pebble, whose loss disproportionately decreased the figures. The rem ainder of the drop in Alaska exploration is consistent w ith a 19 percent worldwide decrease in nonferrous exploration expen ditures. Development expenditures in Alaska totaled $309.9 million in 2015, up from $281.7 million 2014. Even with the lack of significant data from a major mine, development expenditures in Alaska increased by 10 percent, primarily reflecting expenditures by Alaska's producers. SNL Metals & Mining noted the inverse re lationship between grassroots exploration expenditures 'State of Alaska, Departm ent of Natural Resources, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), 3354 College Road, Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3707:iennifer.atheviaalaska.qov, meianie.werdonca>alaska.qov. evan.twelkerffiala5ka.gov ^State o f Alaska, Departm ent o f Natural Resources, Division o f M ining, Land & Water, 550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 1260, Anchorage, A K 99501-3557 -Ja c k s o n , Taylor, an d G reen, K.P., 2016, Fraser In stitu te A n n u al S u rve y o f M ining C o m p a n ie s, 2015: Vancouver, BC, Fraser In stitute, 90 p. bitpiV/wyywfrfise^ Attachment A Page 11 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00011 2 Special Report 71 and mine-site exploration/development spending as be ing industry-wide; companies have shifted funds from generative projects to existing or developing mines to mitigate risk aversion4. Hie estimated first market value of m ineral production decreased 16 percent--from $3.28 billion in 2014 to $2.76 billion in 2015--a result of both lower com m od ity prices and decreased production nearly across the board. New to this report is gross income from mining operations as reported on Alaska Mining License Tax returns. Despite the decrease in production from 2014 to 2015, mining operations reported a slight increase (3 percent) in gross income. The lack of a one-to-one correlation between production values and gross in come reflects inherent differences between the sources of the two numbers. Gross income is compiled from, the Mining License Tax returns filed by all mining operators in Alaska and indicates the income received for com modities sold during the tax year, while the estimated first market value of mineral production is compiled for the calendar year, regardless of whether the com m odi ties were sold that year. See the Government Revenues section for additional information from Mining License Tax returns. Past-year statements issued by mining companies, including press releases and corporate annual and fi nancial reports, as well as phone interviews, replies to questionnaires, and permitting paperwork, are factored into the exploration, development, and production values. Due to inevitable incomplete reporting, the numbers compiled in this report are minimum estimates of the value of Alaska's mineral industry. Average metal prices used in the first market value calculations are based on average daily London PM closing price for gold and silver, and average weekly spot price on the London Metal Exchange for base metals. It is im portant to note that these prices are used to calculate the estimated first market value of metals produced in the state, but do not take into account the costs of mining, transportation, smelter charges, actual sales, or penalties. Coal prices are estimated from average coal prices for similar grade material around the Pacific Rim. Industrial materials prices are based on regional rates provided by some operators. This report is a cooperative project between the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) and the Division of Mining, Land & Water (DMLW) in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), with additional support from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) and the Department ofRevenue (DOR). The agencies involved in producing this report are committed to producing a reliable annual commentary on mineral industry activity in Alaska, which is vital for informed decision-making by state and local governments, the Legislature, land managers, industry, Native corporations, and the public. A NOTE ABOUT SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS REPORT ANDTHOSE OF PREVIOUS YEARS The formatting and presentation of data in some tables differ from previous editions of this report, reflecting changes in data collected and accounting practices by the mining industry, and an effort to present a more streamlined summary of mineral-resources activities in Alaska. Whenever possible, the authors have worked to maintain data consistency for seamless year-to-year comparisons. Most changes are described in the affected text and tables. Beginning this year, placer and materials (rock, sand, and gravel) mining in Alaska will be described using limited and proxy datasets. Recreational m in ing will no longer be tracked. As the authors modernize this annual report by utilizing digital data and technological advances, future products will also include substantial changes in the data sources used to compile the exploration, development, and produc tion information, as well as the presentation of the economic data in the report. 4SNL Metals & M ining, 2016, World Exploration Trends 2016: Charlottesville, VA, SNL Metals & M ining, 12 p. http://www.snl.com/Sectors/metalsminina Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 12 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00012 Alaska's Minera! industry 2015 3 Table 1. Reported annua! exploration and development expenditures of the mineral industry, the estimated first market value of mineral production in Alaska, and gross income from Alaska mining operations (in millions of dollars), 1981-2015. Average annual values are given for 1981-1985, 1986-1990,1991-1995, and 1996-2000; individual year totals are provided for 2001-2015. Year 1981-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Exploration Expenditures {$ millions} $37,5 $36.2 $33.2 $49,4 $23.8 $26.5 $27,6 $70.8 $103.9 $178,9 $329.1 $347.3 $180,0 $264.4 $365.1 $335.1 $175,5 $96.2 $58.3 Development Expenditures {$ millions) $36.3 $109.6 $55,3 $158.7 $81.2 $34,0 $39.1 $209.1 $347,9 $495.7 $318.8 $396,2 $330.8 $293.3 $271.9 * $342.4 $358.8 $281,7 $309.9 * Estimated First Market Value {$ millions) $204,7 $288.6 $520.1 $917,4 $917.3 $1,012.8 $1,000,7 $1,338.7 $1,401.6 $2,858,2 $3,367.0 $2,427.1 $2,455,6 $3,126.8 $3,507.7 $3,436,1 $3,418,7 $3,282.1 $2,759,2 Gross Income Mining Operations ($ millions) - $2,434.1 $2,499.8 Exploration, development, and first market values are provided in Alaska's M ineral Industry reports published annually by DGGS/DML W and DGGS/DCCED. Gross income from m ining operations is provided by the Alaska Department of Revenue through analysis o f Mining License Tax return information. * 2011 and 2015 total missing significant expected data - - = Not reported ivVffestmt. iH , if <iinti < J i t S-o if -centrs A? vipyihwegfeA \ ; A i n A ;; 2 x; , i i o if'n`ttife'i S tillili it fill Figure 1. Regions of mineral activity as described In this report. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 13 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00013 4 Special Report 71 Total mineral industry employment in 2015 is estimated at 2,901 full-time-equivalent jobs, an overall decrease of about 66 jobs (2 percent) from 2014 (table 2). Ex ploration jobs, tracking with the limited number and size o f publicly reported 2015 exploration projects, saw a sharp decrease of 137 jobs (54 percent) from 2014. Employment for nine lode exploration projects was estimated using their reported exploration expenditures and a project-cost-per-person ratio averaged from ten projects with reported, complete data. Production and development saw an increase of 71 jobs (3 percent). Most large operators do not differentiate production from development employment; consequently, prior to 2014 some development employment was included in the production employment figures, and development employment was underreported. Since 2014, develop ment and production employment have been estimated for large operations based on their reported ratio of production/development expenditures. Development expenditures saw a moderate (10 percent) increase in 2015, which accounts for the 19 percent increase in 2015 development employment, to 555 full-timeequivalent jobs. Traditional reporting sources from voluntary responses to questionnaires, Affidavits of Annual Labor, and Ap plications for Permits to Mine in Alaska (APMAs) were not widely used to collect 2015 employment data. In stead, employment information was largely researched from online public documents and employment and production data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration''. These datasets and sources represent a minimum estimate and an incomplete picture of mineral industry employment in Alaska. Changes in source data have variably affected employment report ing by commodity. For example, 2015 placer mining production employment apparently decreased by half, although a major portion o f this drop likely reflects the transition from reporting the compilation of voluntary questionnaires and State documents to using the MSHA dataset. However, materials production (rock, sand, and gravel) employment increased by 82 percent; though still underreported, the MSHA dataset captures em ployment in this sector more completely than volunteer reporting through questionnaires. Recreational mining will no longer be tracked beginning with this report. Table 2. Estimated Alaska mineral industry employment, 2006-2015a, as compiled from public documents, MSHA reporting13, personal communications, and other sources. Gold/silver mining Placer Lode Polymetailic mining Base metals mining Recreational mining Industrial minerals Sand and gravel Rock Coal0 Peatc,,J Tin,, jade, soapstone, ceramics, platinum 2006 242 704 245 457 45 337 104 95 11 -- 2007 208 808 276 457 54 284 124 102 11 -- 2008 282 739 317 475 30 277 93 110 7 -- 2009 399 832 321 413 36 286 83 117 .... -- 2010 405 1,008 350 550 35 313 11 140 3 -- 2011 439 1,085 364 586 41 307 28 140 3 -- 2012 477 1,206 386 530 52 424 SO 144 4 -- 2013 432 1,176 390 550 55 565 19 120 .... 1 2014 241 1,054 287 446 7 30 65 115 <1 1 2015 120 1,047 303 475 ... 173 ... 112 ... -- Production (total of above categories) Mineral development Mineral exploration 2,240 S4S 435 2,324 735 499 2,330 516 546 2,487 371 422 2,815 537 520 2,993 422 535 e 3,283 535 548 3,308 358 385 2,246 468 253 2,230 555 116 TOTAL 3,523 3,558 3,392 3,280 3,872 3,950 4,366 4,051 2,967 2,901 d Reported man-days are calculated on a 260-day work year and 10-hour work day to obtain average annual employment unless actual average annual employment numbers; are provided. b MSHA data; http.//ar|'Vveb.m5ha.gov/Oper:Govi:rnn-ientData/DataSet^/Mlr:e^ProcVearly.7lp f Coal and peat employment numbers are combined in 2009. d This figure does not include all of the man-days associated with peat operations; most of those man-days are included in sand and gravel numbers, - Average of 520-550 range reported for 2011. - - - Not reported See Exploration, Development, and Production sections fo r further details. sMine Safety and Health Administration,- (MSHA); httpy/ajjweh.m fih^^^ 9. Last accessed October 18,2016. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 14 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00014 Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 5 The Alaska D epartm ent of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) provided 2015 m ining em ployment and wage statistics based on 111 reporting units (companies) consisting of 56 metal ore, 34 coal and nonmetallic-mineral quarrying, and 21 miningsupport-activity units. Among companies in 2015, mining and support activities provided 2,985 jobs, up almost 3 percent from 2,906 jobs in 2014, Average wages for mining-sector jobs are some of the highest among major industries in Alaska, with a 2015 annual average wage of $108,190, more than twice as much as the av erage $53,721-per-year private-sector wage in Alaska. Total wages paid by non-oil-and-gas mining firms in 2015 were $303,699,689, up slightly (2 percent) from 2014, Total wages paid by mining support firms in 2015 were $14,395,968, a 109 percent increase from 2014 that might partially reflect reporting differences. The number of companies providing support activities increased by 17 percent, and annual average employment in this sector increased 90 percent over the last year6. DLWD data show that nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing provided 295 jobs, which includes an average of 288 jobs in cement and concrete manufactur ing for 2015. Primary metal manufacturing provided 17 jobs, while metal and mineral merchant wholesalers provided an average of 124 jobs during 2015. DLWD employment is based on wage records and includes part-time jobs but does not include the self-employed and working family members not covered under unem ployment insurance. The majority of placer operators are self-employed and are therefore not counted in the DLWD data. Employment data may not include jobs in the exploration and development phases of mining at geological and engineering consulting firms, which are categorized in the engineering, environmental, or construction industries. Consequently, minings con tributions to employment and earnings in Alaska are likely understated by DLWD's dataset. According to DLWD data, 18 boroughs or census areas reported non-oil-and-gas mining employment in 2015. Juneau, Anchorage, and Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) each had more than 100 mining jobs. The City and Borough of Juneau and FNSB continue to vie for top spot with 762 and 756 jobs, respectively. FNSB reported a gain of 100 mining and natural resources jobs (7 percent) in 2015, for a 2015 monthly average of 1,500 jobs7. The FNSB mining jobs category includes the oil and gas industry, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting as well as hard-rock and coal mining, quarry ing, and mining support activities. FNSB statistics do not include self-employed workers and unpaid family workers, such as the majority of placer operators. Min ing companies strengthen Alaska's local economies byemploying Alaska residents from local communities and by purchasing supplies and services from hundreds of Alaska businesses. GOVERNMENT REVENUES FROM ALASKA'S MINERAL INDUSTRY In 2015 government revenue from Alaska's mineral industry totaled $114.9 million. The 18 percent increase from 2014 is due primarily to increased revenues from Alaska Corporate Income Tax and Mining License Tax, which are reported for the fiscal year. Table 3 provides an itemized listing of estimated revenues paid to the State and municipalities. These revenues are incomplete and serve only as a minimum. The Department of Revenue reported that 459 taxpayers submitted Mining License Tax returns in 2015, of which 29 (6 percent) were liable for taxes on net taxable income from mining in the amount of $571.7 million (table 4). Almost 200 taxpay ers reported negative net taxable incomes from mining at an average loss of $255,762 per taxpayer. Recent declines in government revenue are consistent with a broad downturn in commodity prices, which has strained mining companies as wrell as jurisdictions that depend on minerals revenue. Fueled by greater demand from emerging markets, many resource-rich regions saw large increases in production and exploration be tween 2010 and 2013; however, a general pullback in exploration and development occurred worldwide in the last 2 years, with a general lack of investment and venture capital availability for 2014 and 2015. Fallingrevenue is not unique to Alaska, as many countries have seen dramatic revenue reductions because of sharp material price declines linked to slowing economic growth in China, the worlds top metals consumer. This situation is comparable to the crisis the State of Alaska currently faces with continued slumping oil prices. Natural-resources-dependent jurisdictions are facing limited revenue potential as worldwide market forces drive commodity prices to multi-year lows. In 6State o f Alaska Departm ent o f Labor and Workforce Developm ent (DLWD), Research and Analysis Section, Quarterly Census on Em ploym ent and W ages (QCEW); last accessed Septem ber 29,2016; http://ljveJaborstats.aiask3.qov/qcew/ee15.pdf Fa irb a n k s North Star Borough Com m unity Research Quarterly: A Socio-Econom ic Review, winter 2015,v. 38, no, 4; last accessed Septem ber 29,2016; h ttp ://w w w .co .fairb anks.ak.u s/cp/C o m m u n ity% 20R e se arch % 20Q uarte riy/2Q 15%2Q % 2Q Q 4,pdf Attachment A Page 15 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00015 6 Special Report 71 Alaska this period saw revenue to state and local gov ernm ents decline to $97.3 million in 2014, Minerals prices were volatile, with many showing inability to m aintain stable prices throughout 2015. While State government revenue from minerals and mining activity dropped considerably over recent years, it is important to note that historical yearly collections have fluctuated and 2015 numbers can be viewed more appropriately as part of the general trend. Despite revenue and pay ment declines to local governments in 2014 and 2015, revenue remained strong in many locations. In Juneau, Fairbanks, and the Northwest Arctic Borough, revenue from, mining-related activity was among the largest contributors to municipal and borough budgets. More information about various sources of revenues is avail able from individual agencies (appendix A). Table 3. Reported and estimated revenues paid to the State of Alaska and municipalities by Alaska's mineral industry, 2009-2015. The figures in this table will change as data are reviewed and updated; the table has been significantly updated to reflect Department of Natural Resources and Department of Revenue reporting for previous years. See footnotes for reporting sources and dates. State minera! rents and royalties State ciaim rentals Production royalties " Annual labor Subtotal State coal rents and royalties D Rents Royalties Bonus Subtotal State material Sales Mental Health Division of Land 0 State Pipeline Coordinator's Office Subtotal State mining miscellaneous fees 0 Filing fees Bid Bonus Penalty fees Exploration incentive app filing fee Bond pooj payment Surface mine investment interest Surface coal mining app fee ARMA mining fees Subtotal Other Fees A! DBA Facilities use fee s0 State Fuel Taxess State corporate income tax ` Mining License Tax s 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 7,770,763 8,498,314 7,951,003 7,507,976 6,740,816 6,920,029 1,591,643 5,416,473 8,982,259 9,808,575 7,004,376 4,608,137 157,848 760,884 357,500 .542,588 389,807 321,4.19 s $ 9,520,254 $ 14,675,671 $ 17,290,762 $ 17,859,139 14,134,999 $ 11,849,585 266,041 2,235,138 $ 2,501,179 $ 446,415 2,615,629 3,063,044 $ 186,204 2,921,491 3,025,000 6,132,695 $ 324,393 2,757,444 3,081,837 $ 3.15,398 2,514,532 38,005 2,867,935 $ 3.5.1,724 2,430,267 111,000 2,892,992 109,027 90,116 11,876 -7,854 115,493 69,163 200,962 .1,239,747 1,735,404 4,955,386 .10,559,857 1.1,293,545 5,910 309,600 30,746 340,786 105,330 197,644 s $ 315,899 $ 1,639,463 $ 1,778,025 5,298,318 $ 10,780,680 $ 11,560,352 4,000 1,395 6,274 403,006 3,319,323 465,850 43,405 238,115 .532,959 -76,426 -64,702 -55,201 45,752 25,890 20,491 23,502 7,534 2,200 19,873 30,741 45,055 $ 615,964 $ 3,687,700 $ 1,138,030 $ 3,350 205,453 -- 89,008 5,772 22,800 32,953 359,337 $ 3,350 93,767 122,035 -77,684 7,802 1,300 25,511 332,448 $ 2,100 43,307 -- 72,190 7,801 21,700 24,302 171,399 14,807,000 126,452 q to 29,725,100 13,500,000 741,071 81,790,274 49,588,119 12,600,000 585,034 15,020,036 40,695,833 11,985,000 951,852 26,8.12.498 46,787,690 11,986,000 Not reported 15,215,598 23,457,300 11,356,000 Not reported 17,320,051 38,665,209 STATE TOTAL Payments to Municipalities n $ 55,052,878 $ 168,685,341 $ 95,240,415 $ 113,136,670 $ 78,774,959 $ 93,815,588 14,238,251 20,378,242 21,529,472 29,412,224 18,525,615 21,041,152 TOTAL $ s $ $ $ 69,291,129 $ 189,063,583 116,769,887 142,548,894 97,300,574 114,856,740 a includes upland lease and offshore lease rentals, figures are reported by calendar year by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. h Figures are reported by calendar year by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. ' Reported on a cash basis; payments actually received during the given year. d AiDEA user fees for use of the State-owned roads and ports: the De Long Mountain Transportation System by Teck Alaska Inc., operator of the Red Dog Mine; and for use of the Skagway Ore Terminal by Minto Explorations Ltd., a subsidiary of Capstone Mining Corp. (formerly Sherwood Copper Corp,). AIDFA figures are reported by fiscal year. e in 2013, calculated on Fuel and Oil Expenditures from Mining Licenses Tax Form/Departrnent of Revenue, assuming Alaska average fuel cost of $6.09. https://www.corfrtnerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/researchanaiysis/fuelpricesurvey.aspx f Only subchapter C corporations pay income tax. This report may not reflect 100% of the returns received in a year. The amount of corporate income tax reported ineach fiscal yearisthe amount of tax actually received and may not agree with the amount reported on a corporation's tax return. This is due primarily to timing differences, 8 Includes metals, coal, and materia! for 2009-2011. In 2012 and later, Mining License Tax was not collected on materials. http://www.tax.a!aska.gov/prograrns/programs/reports/Annua!.aspx?60610&Year::.20i5 h Payments to Municipalities include property taxes, payments in lieu of taxes (PUT), severance taxes, and charitable donations. Data should be considered a minimum estimate. Data was compiled from public documents, persona! communication, and questionnaires. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 16 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00016 Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 7 Table 4. Mining tax analysis by tax bracket for 2014 and 2015, based on Mining License Tax returns. Analysis excludes royalty-only taxpayers-- those with positive royalties received but zero gross income from mining operations. Information provided by the Alaska Department of Revenue. Bracket Under SO $0 to $40,000 $40,001 to $100,000 Over $100,000 TOTAL Margina! rate 0% 0% 3%, 5 % 7% No, of taxpayers 194 222 20 15 451 2011 (Dr-ci-mber 2013 - November 2011} Gross income from mining operations $225,708,606 $10,029,137 $3,823,854 $2,194,531,323 Net taxable income* $-65,853,227 $934,556 $951,405 $470,191,692 Net income as percentage of gross -29% 9% 25% 21% Totai tax iiabiiify $0 $0 $29,896 $31,128,456 $2,434,092,920 $406,224,426 $31,158,352 Average gross income $1,163,446 $45,176 $191,193 $146,302,088 Average taxabie income -$339,450 $4,210 $47,570 $31,346,113 Average tax liability $0 $0 $1,495 $2,075,230 Bracket Under $0 $0 to $40,000 $40,001 to $100,000 Over $100,000 Margina! No, of Gross income from rate taxpayers mining operations 0% 191 0% 239 3%, 5% 19 7% 10 $181,380,675 $9,153,739 $3,034,126 $2,306,213,104 Net taxabie income* 5-48,850,623 $888,451 $979,304 $570,733,654 Net income as percentage of ......... .IfO S S .......... -27% 10% 32% 25% Totai tax iiabiiify $0 $0 $32,218 $37,822,688 Average gross income $949,637 $38,300 $159,691 $230.621,310 Average taxabie income -$255,762 $3,717 $51,542 $57,073,365 Average tax ......lia b ility....... $0 $0 $1,696 $3,782,269 TOTAL 459 $2,499,781,644 $523,750,786 $37,854,906 * Net income taxable uncerthe Mining License'fax Note: The 3% bracket (income $0,000 to $50,000} and the 5% bracket ($50,000 to $100,000} are combined for this analysis because of confidentiality issues that would arise if each bracket were reported separately. Taxpayers with negative income (under $0} are not a separate bracket, but are reported separately to distinguish between large money-losing operations and small operations with zero or positive income. U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Program conducted multiple projects focused on the geologic framework and mineral resources of Alaska in 2015. Alaska Science Center research staff in A n chorage coordinated field-based studies of the tectonic and metallogenic evolution of (1) the Lake Clark and Neacola Mountains region, south-central Alaska, and (2) the Yukon-Tanana uplands, eastern Alaska. USGS also funded a new airborne magnetic survey covering the eastern Yukon-Tanana uplands (contracted and published by DGGS). Research staff at the Crustal Geo physics and Geochemistry Science Center in Denver field tested hyperspectral remote sensing to character ize surficial materials, geology, and potential mineral resources in Alaska. The project goal is to define the hyperspectral-geologic footprint of selected mineral deposits and to regionally extrapolate this knowdedge to areas not well characterized. Additionally, Alaska Science Center research staff, in cooperation with DGGS, evaluated selected m in eral deposit types across Alaska by developing a new GIS-based method to analyze existing geospatiallyreferenced datasets (for example, stream sediment and rock geochemistry, and lithology) to generate maps of estimated potential and the certainty of that estimate for a given group of mineral deposits or deposit types. Estimated mineral-resource potential and certainty were mapped for: (I) rare-earth elements, (2) placer and paleoplacer gold, (3) platinum -group elements, (4) carbonate-hosted copper, (5) sandstone uranium, and (6) tin-tungsten-m olybdenum -fluorspar. These groups include most of the strategic and critical ele ments of greatest interest in current exploration. A description of the new method and results for the Bureau of Land Management Central Yukon Planning Area in north-central Alaska were published8. Finally, the new digital geologic map of Alaska9 was published at the end of 2015. The map is a completely new compilation and is the first fully digital statewide geologic map of Alaska. The digital map has multiple associated databases that allow creation of a variety of derivative maps and other products. 8G!S-based identification o f areas with mineral resource potential for six selected deposit groups. Bureau o f Land M anagem ent Central Yukon Planning Area, Alaska: U.S. G eological Survey O pen-File Report 2 0 1 5 -1 0 2 1 ,7 8 p., 5 appendices, 12 plates. httpy/doi.org/103133/ofr20151021 9Geologic m ap o f Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3340, pam phlet 196 p, 2 sheets, scale 1:1,584,000. httpy/doiiM rg/103133/ sjm 3340 Attachment A Page 17 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00017 8 Special Report 71 DIVISION OF MINING, LAND & WATER The Division ofMining, Land & Water (DMLW) manag es Alaska's mineral (including coal) and water resources. DMLW mineral exploration, development, and leasing programs manage the 96 million acres of State-owned lands available for mineral exploration and mining. Coal is administered through the Surface Coal Mining Control and Reclamation, or Coal Regulatory, Program (CRP). The Division also allocates and manages the state's water resources on all lands in Alaska, adjudicates water rights, and provides technical hydrologic support. DWLM ensures dam safety for 76 jurisdictional dams in Alaska, including the large tailings dams at Red Dog and Fort Knox mines, and two smaller tailings dams at the Kensington and Nixon Fork mines. In 2015 the Division's Large Mine Permitting Team (LMPT) coordinated the permitting activities of large mines in the state, including Red Dog, Fort Knox, Pogo, Kensington, and Greens Creek mines. The LMPT also consulted with owners of active, potential development projects (Bokan-Dotson Ridge, Chuitna Coal, Donlin Gold, Niblack, and Pebble projects) and inactive or reclaimed mines (Nixon Fork, True North, and Rock Creek mines), as well as engaged in the review of large hard-rock mining projects in Canada that have the potential to affect Alaska's interests that depend on trans-boundary rivers. The Division's CRP oversaw activities at IJsibelli Coal Mine's properties; CRP also completed the renewal ofthe Wishbone Hill permit and is in the process of reviewing the permit applications for the Chuitna Project. The State issued a coal lease for exploration and development of the Canyon Creek area about 60 miles northwest of Anchorage. repositories of geologic information and materials ac cessible to the public, and publishes new studies and data every year. DGGS's commitment to minerals-resource research and accessibil ity ofgeologic information promotes responsible development of Alaska's natural resources. Alaska Geologic Materials Center The Alaska Geologic M aterials C enter (GMC), maintained by DGGS, is the state's largest and most comprehensive archive of geologic samples. It is the key entity directed to understanding Alaska geology through the acquisition and preservation of physical collections, which assist in the discovery of mineral and energy resources. The GMC houses drill core from numerous Alaska mineral prospects, as well as DGGS rock samples and the Alaska collections of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the former U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM), and other agencies. In October 2014, then-Governor Sean Parnell (photo 2) presided over a DGGS-hosted grand opening ceremony at the new GMC. In 2015 the GMC relocated its entire collection to the newly renovated 90,000-square-foot facility at 3651 Penland Parkway in Anchorage. In a six-week effort, more than 3 million pounds of rock DMLW's Public Access Assertion Defense section (PAADS) pursued State title to navigable and sub merged lands that led to the State of Alaska receiving a Recordable Disclaimer of Interest (RDI) from the U.S. Department ofJustice on July 27,2015, for the Mosquito Fork of the Fortymile River. Through this action, State river-bottom mining claims on the Mosquito Fork prior to this decision are now valid and can be mined. DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL & GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS The Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) is responsible for the mineral assessment of the State's 96 million acres ofland available for mineral entry. The Division maintains extensive, authoritative Photo 1. Geologic Materials Center stafforchestrated the transfer of more than 3 million pounds of rocks to the new GMC facility in 2015. PHOTO BY KURT JOHNSON, DGGS. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 18 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00018 Alaska's Minera! industry 2015 9 samples were moved from the former Eagle River facil ity, where more than half of the collection was stored in a collection of 57 outdoor metal shipping containers. Hie new facility features more than 5,000 eight-foot-wide industrial steel shelves (photo 1), as well as viewing areas with roller tables and high-lumen overhead lighting. As part of the facility's relocation, the GMC instituted a new barcode-based online information system to track the more than 580,000 samples in the collection's inventory. The browser-based search interface (maps. dggs.alaska.gov/gmc) allows users to build simple to complex queries through text- or map-based searches. Mineral industry clients donated large volumes of m in eral core to the GMC in 2015. Major donations were received from Alaska Earth Sciences, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, and Calista Corporation, which added more than 10,000 core boxes representing 13 prospects with 120 boreholes and nearty 1,000 pulp boxes covering three surface-sample geochem ical study areas. Millrock Resources slabbed about 1,312 feet of core for bulk analysis. Archived "heavy" sand samples collected near Icy Bay in southeastern Alaska provided preliminary evidence for potentially economically recoverable heavy minerals on Alaska Mental Health Trust lands. Mineral Resources Section Activities The DGGS M ineral Resources section assesses State land, and provides information on their potential to host Alaska's undiscovered m ineral resources using its expertise in mineral deposit geology, geophysics, and geochemistry (table 5). Section staff conduct geo physical surveys, geologic mapping, mineral-resource assessments, and ore deposit research; they also track mineral industry exploration and discoveries, devel opment, and production. Additionally, the Section's expertise and knowledge are sought to review other Departm ental actions including State land selection conveyance prioritization, land-use plans, land disposal actions, review of Federal actions, and infrastructure planning. The geophysical, geological, and resource surveys conducted by the Mineral Resources section not only inventory the potential for mineral resources, but they add value to the state in terms of current and future revenue. Photo 2. In October 2015, then-Governor Sean Parnell led the grand-opening celebration and cut the ceremonial ribbon at the new Geologic Materials Center in Anchorage, ph o to b y ken papp, d g g s . Attachment A Page 19 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00019 10 Special Report 71 T a b le s , New publications produced by the DGGS Mineral Resources section in 2015. Publications are ail available from the DGGS website, http://www.daas.alaska.gov/pubs/advanced-searcb. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS AND REPORTS Iditarod survey data; report: http:/ /doi.org/10.14509/27081 * D ishna River/Fox Hills/Beaver Creek report: http://doi.org/10.14509/27326 * Farewell/Middle Styx report: http://doi.org/10.19509/29349 Tonsina survey data; report: http://doi.ofg/10.14509/29169 * Tok survey data; report: h ttp://doi,org/10.14509/29347 * U pdated Petersville m ining district data; report: http://doi.org/10,14509/29445 Updated Fortymile m ining district survey; report: http://doi.org/10.14509/29911 Updated Livengood mining district survey; report: http://doi.org/10.14509/29912 * Tanacross survey; report: http://doi.org/10.14509/29514 GEO LO G IC MAPS, REPO RTS, AN D G EO CH EM ICA L DATA Geologic map; Talkeetna M ountains C~4 Quadrangle: http://doi.org/10.14509/29470 Alpha Com plex ultramafic N i-C u-P G E (poster): http://doi.org/10.14509/2.9480 Geophysical/geological investigations, Tanacross (presentation): http://doi.org/10.14509/29524 Geologic investigations in western Wrangellia (presentation): littp://doi.org/10,14509/2.953.1 Alaska's mineral resources 2015 (AE&M presentation): http://doi.org/10.14509/29 Late Triassic Nikolai magmatic system, Wrangellia (poster): http://dioi.org/10.14509/29567 Seward Peninsula '^ A r/^ A r data: http://doi.org/10.14509/29413 Seward Peninsula geochemical re-analyses: http://doi.org/10.14509/2944B Haines area geochemical re-analyses: http://doi.org/10.14509/29449 Kougarok area, Seward Peninsula geochemical re-analyses: http://doi.org/10.14509/2945Q Northeastern Alaska Range geochemical re-analyses: http://doi.org/10.14509/29451 Tonsina area geochemical re-analyses: http://doi.org/10.14509/29452 Zane Hills geochemical re-analyses: http://doi.org/10.14509/29453 Talkeetna Mountains C-4 Quadrangle 40Ar/39Ar data: http://doi.org/10.14509/29454 * Tok area geochemical data: http://doi.org/10.14509/29517 * Wrangellia terrane geochemical data: http://doi,org/10.14509/29518 * Tonsina area geochemical data: http://doi.org/10.14509/29519 Geologic maps o f 44 quadrangles, eastern Alaska Range: h ttp ://d o io rg /1 0 .14509/29444 Geologic map compilation; proposed Susitna-Watana dam area: http://doi.org/10.14509/29446 Alaska's mineral industry 2014 (report): http://doi,org/10.14509/29515 Since 1993 the data products of the Airborne Geophysical/Geological Mineral Inventory (AGGMI) program, have been an im portant component of successful resource exploration programs; products have con tributed to the private-sector discovery of more than 22 million ounces of gold in the Sakha River-Pogo and Livengood areas (figure 2). State budget cuts impacted the AGGMI program, resulting in the loss of the pro gram's perm anent staff position and most of its annual funding for data collections and publication in July 2015. New geophysical surveys now rely on survey-by-survey funding through outside sources or the State of Alaska capital budget. DGGS collected 4,500 square miles of airborne geo physical data and published more than 9,500 square miles of data during 2015. The Tanacross fixed-wing magnetic survey, flown and published in 2015, was funded by the LIS, Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Program in support of its Yukon-Tanana terrane mineral- resource potential analysis. This survey fills gaps between previous State-funded datasets. Data collected in previous years from the Southern Dishna River, Fox ITills, Beaver Creek, Farewell, Middle Styx, Tok, and Tonsina helicopter-borne electromagnetic and magnetic surveys were published during 2015. Four older surveys, Livengood, Fortymile, Petersville, and Bonnifield, totaling 2,293 square miles, were updated and made available for download from DGGS's website (dg&s. alaska.ggy). Attachment A Page 20 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00020 Alaska's Mineral Industry 201 11 Modern Airborne Geophysical Data Coverage TOTAL: DGGS Surveys - Helicopter EM and Mag Sf rtv Fufldt rf 22>fH tq mt S 17 million imviterf A KK' of A htk ^ Fi (inJttyFtffidi'd 6^27 s(|mi Si nxllioo (9 I I4'i of ALhiki DGGS Surveys - Fixed-wing Mag H ill Fund rt M ,8 2 8 sq m i CniMSjv Fimrims; 2 0 ? Si of A].iskt Fudvrahy Fundt d 4 ^ 0 sq m t SI^OOBDiftVfStt d 0 78< o t At tska Federal Surveys - Fixed-wing Mag f'DOmhni sp'iim p mi F td c r tiFtmdmp ! fetNcrt A tasLt ]||| t ttfWm im-t* .p v m i 2fc*.S7<t sq cm F< Ftinritft!* 5 0 7 ' -o f Aki ,L Find more information on available geophysical data at: Figure 2. Modern airborne geophysical data coverage of Alaska, managed by Alaska Division of Geological &Geophysical Surveys and the U.S. Geological Survey over the past 22 years. Survey data is available from the division's website, http://maps.dqqs.alaska.qov/qp/. (SCM) S t r a t e g ic & C r it ic a l M in e r a l s A ssessm ent The DGGS Strategic and Critical Minerals (SCM) Assess ment project: is designed to evaluate Alaska's potential to contribute domestically produced strategic and critical minerals that are required to meet the nations needs for military and civilian high-tech equipment and electronics, as well as conventional- and green-energy technologies. In 2015 DGGS published 289 new, SCMrelated geochemical analyses from the south-central Alaska Range and Tonsina area, and digitally compiled geochemical data and locations for 26,963 historical samples. As part of a cooperative agreement between the DGGS and the USGS, both agencies conducted a statewide GIS- and watershed-based analysis to identify areas with SCM potential, and reanalyzed 2,071 histori cal USGS sediment samples, upgrading them to modern analytical standards. G eo lo g ic M a ppin g a n d G e o c h e m ic a l S am plin g The DGGS Mineral Resources section filled a gap in Alaska's detailed geologic map coverage by publishing its 450-square-mile map of part of the Talkeetna Moun tains in 2015. The new map and report are the result of six weeks of fieldwork and more than 1,600 support ing analyses, including geochemistry and radiometric ages. DGGS documented rock types favorable to both nickel-copper-platinum-group elements (PGEs) and copper-gold-silver mineral deposits that occur in the area. PGEs are of particular interest because of their critical role in modern technology as well as insufficient U.S. production. Additionally, in 2015 DGGS conducted field projects in the Tonsina and Tok areas. Follow-up geochemical sampling in the Tonsina mafic-ultramafic complex was conducted to complete year two of our evaluation of the area's chrom ium -copper-nickel-PG E potential. In 2015 DGGS also conducted reconnaissance field geologic mapping and geochemical sampling in the Tok area in preparation for a planned 6-week field project in 2016. The region has significant potential for host ing VMS (volcanogenic massive sulfides), structurally controlled and plutonic-related gold, skarn, and placer gold mineralization. Publications documenting these results can be obtained from the DGGS website (dggs. a!aska.goy/p ublicalions/). Attachment A Page 21 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00021 12 Special Report 71 Table 6. Reported exploration expenditures in Alaska by commodity, 1981-2015. Exploration expenditures were estimated for one project using their reported employment and a project-cost-per-person-day ratio averaged from ten projects with reported, complete data. 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TOTAL Base metals $ 28,262,200 31,757,900 9,758.760 4,720,596 2,397,600 1,847,660 2,523,350 1,208,000 3,503,000 5,282,200 4,789,500 1,116,000 910,000 600,000 2,770,000 1,100,000 1,700,000 1,000,000 3,869,000 8,545,000 4,810,000 1,700,000 262,000 3,100,000 1,764,000 5,069,000 38,888,000 30,116,000 3,862,715 6,392,519 7,730,891 18,161,211 8,122,810 8,310,433 6,199,064 $ 262,149,409 Polymetallic 3,560,000 5,676,743 8,099,054 10,550,000 11,983,364 22,347,000 13,727,000 3,168,000 3,933,000 1,977,000 5,162,000 7,081,000 40,237,000 54,271,000 81,073,000 123,487,500 163,030,000 85,871,529 122,955,321 160,880,974 150,339,009 103,524,782 29,836,240 25,171,955 $ 1,237,942,471 Precious metis $ 35,273,200 10,944,100 20,897,555 14,948,554 6,482,400 6,107,084 11,743,711 41,370,600 43,205,300 57,185,394 34,422,039 25,083,000 23,382,246 18,815,560 20,883,100 31,238,600 32,960,500 42,441,000 44,891,000 21,579,000 15,820,000 17,342,000 19,726,000 26,954,000 46,255,000 89,793,000 155,601,400 134,885,000 84,020,531 125,364,382 186,255,005 152,444,311 60,977,949 51,759,541 26,907,877 $ 1,737,959,939 Industrial minerais $ 10,300,000 2,068,300 270,000 170,000 286,000 160,200 125,000 370,000 92,000 25,000 163,500 225,000 100,000 400,000 80,000 12,000 1,000 58,500 50,000 185,000 0 213,000 142,000 20,000 42,500 0 17,850 19,000 22,762 32,221 -- s 15,650,833 Coat and peat $ 2,341,000 2,900,000 1,338,454 2,065,000 270,000 790,000 1,150,000 2,730,000 924,296 321,000 603,000 425,000 0 2,554,000 0 0 720,000 87,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 50,000 0 2,394,000 7,675,000 0 0 6,520,200 3,250,000 W w w -- $ 39,117,950 Other $ 127,000 15,300 70,000 279,500 31,000 5,000 97,000 2,000 0 125,000 810,000 3,000 0 0 0 410,000 736,100 1,106,000 2,113,000 533,000 258,000 1,463,000 580,000 3,447,000 19,238,000 6,193,518 3,104,199 6,962,325 14,129,838 2,840,713 6,300,413 -- $ 70,979,906 Total $ 76,303,400 45,617,300 34,133,069 22,283,650 9,150,000 8,914,744 15,734,061 45,468,800 47,762,596 63,255,594 39,908,539 30,209,000 30,257,489 31,103,614 34,306,100 44,721,964 57,807,500 57,267,000 52,339,000 34,851,600 23,773,000 26,502,000 27,602,000 70,812,000 103,895,000 178,929,000 329,141,400 347,269,000 179,966,143 264,355,621 365,079,195 335,074,369 175,489,016 96,238,848 58,278,896 $ 3,363,800,508 3 Polymetallic deposits considered a separate category for the first time in 1992, b Approxim ately $0.94 million spent on piatinum-group-elernent (PGE-Ni-Cu) exploration during 2014, included in the polymetallic category. Prior to 2013, PGE exploratior was included in the precious metal exploration total 0 includes rare-earth elements, magnetite sands, rock, gemstones, and graphite. N /A~ Mot available - - = Not reported W - Withheld; data included in "Other" column Mineral exploration expenditures in Alaska totaled $58.3 million, down 39 percent from 2014 and down 84 percent from 2011, the peak of recent exploration expenditures (table 6 and figures 3 and 4). Alaska's ex ploration collapse parallels, but outpaces, global trends; worldwide exploration spending fell 19 percent in 2015 and 57 percent since its peak in 20124. Alaska's five operating metal mines conducted more than half of all exploration in 2015, spending a com bined $31.2 million, or 54 percent, ofthe statewide total. Despite this strength, mine site exploration budgets declined across the board as low metals prices continued to impact producers. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 22 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00022 EXPLORATION I. Northern Region 1. Lik--Zazu Metals Corp. 2. Red Dog Mine area--Teck Alaska Inc. 3. Upper Kobuk (Arctic and Bornite)-- NovaCopper Inc. II. Western Region 4. Graphite Creek--Graphite One Resources Inc. 5. Kugruk Mega Shear-- NANA Regional Corp. III. Eastern Interior Region 6. Livengood (M oney Knob)-- International Tow er Hill Mines Ltd. 7. Shorty Creek-- Freegold Ventures Ltd. 8. Fairbanks District a. Fort Knox and district-- Fairbanks Gold M ining Inc. b. Golden Sum m it-- Freegold Ventures Ltd. c. Gil-- Kinross Gold Inc. 9. PB and nearby claim s-- Kinross Gold Inc. 10. Richardson and Hilltop-- Northern Empire Resources Corp. 11. Pogo--Sum itom o Metal M ining Pogo LLC 12. T etlin-- Contango ORE Inc. 13. Caribou Dom e-- Coventry Resources Ltd. IV. South-Central Region 14. W histler-- Brazil Resources 15. Copper Joe-- Kiska Metals Corp. Figure 3. Selected exploration projects in Alaska, 2015. Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 13 lI w ' # RY-mOHB till!: v li f tastti 5im w s $.V :ft>Uth-ST5 V' 4 ;5 S :W xp^ppp ^ 1 1 ! ' <; s 4 $ * ' * DEPOSA DR PROSPECT iykieL 4. v v * W- V :M 3V teins*# '''"WA XT " ....................... * ... .. " R,:23 =$8 V. Southwestern Region 16. T erra--W estM ountain Gold Inc. 17. Pebble--The Pebble Limited Partnership VI. Alaska Peninsula Region 18. Alaska Peninsula-- M illrock Resources Inc. 19. Unga-Popov--Redstar Gold Corp. VII. Southeastern Region 20. Palm er--Constantine Metal Resources Ltd. 21. Kensington/Jualin-- Coeur Alaska, Inc. 22. Greens Creek Mine-- Hecla Greens Creek Mining Company 23. Bokan Mountain/Dotson Ridge-- Ucore Rare Metals Inc. Figure 4. Alaska mineral exploration expenditures, 1956-2015. Blue curve in background is adjusted to 2015 dollars to account for inflation. Attachment A Page 23 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00023 14 Special Report 71 Table 7. Summary of State and Federal claim activity by acres, 1991-2015. Year3 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 New (Active) 40 acreb 3,277 2,640 2,120 4,057 4,512 9,489 8,678 9,786 11,978 4,560 858 745 856 1,070 806 1,111 576 1,333 1,142 1,446 1,932 1,638 1,622 1,219 1,014 State Claims New (Active) 160 acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 614 907 826 2,603 3,533 4,502 5,747 6,031 2,565 2,793 6,132 4,893 3,478 2,155 677 711 Total (Active) 40 acreb 37,862 36,250 34,340 34,400 30,464 36,602 42,836 49,816 56,107 54,393 49,627 44,056 38,076 34,380 34,066 33,864 31,305 23,033 24,340 24,805 24,319 24,673 24,883 25,479 26,493 Total (Active) 160 acre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 614 1,503 2,179 4,387 7,719 11,551 16,249 20,208 13,519 16,381 20,389 21,970 20,810 17,347 15,250 15,961 State Prospecting Sites Federal Claims <160 acres)___________ [20 acre sites) New Total New Total 747 454 1,412 802 1,030 2,082 2,480 3,194 1,755 1,143 27 61 101 59 128 103 57 24 40 88 180 202 28 19 21 1,723 1,472 2,259 2,378 2,725 3,687 5,305 7,148 7,600 5,675 3,091 2,138 1,857 1,484 1,612 1,646 1,625 651 335 441 273 409 209 197 218 1,299 695 601 341 376 681 1,872 427 308 523 464 261 676 66 411 457 933 3,001 1,057 332 284 632 289 69 71 23,222 20,254 9,298 8,495 7,766 9,346 11,320 11,033 10,176 7,805 8,248 8,100 8,424 8,313 7,826 8,068 8,872 11,732 10,431 8,413 8,438 -6,916 6,003 6,074 Updoted information provided by Alaska Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Bureau of Land Management After 2010, State claim and prospecting site totals are not directly comparable to previous years. Claim totals comprise Mining Claims (including "River Bottom Navigable" subtype) and Leasehold Locations whose claimants filed an Annual Affidavit of Labor, and claims initiated on State-selected land. includes claim fractions varying from 1 to 39 acres. - = Not reported 2015 EXPLORATION EXPENDITURES BY DEPOSIT TYPE gal Porphyry copper--goid--(moiybdenum) ^Intrusion-related gold (Fort Knox, Donlin Creek types) t-3Gold-quartz veins (epithermal and mesothermai, Pogo-type) U PGE-Ni-Cu : UItramafic/maflc platinumgroup-elements-nickel-copper U Massive sulfide (VMS, Sedex, basemetal-rich) ft Other: REEs. tin-poiymetallic. skarn, magnetite sands, gemstones, coal, graphite, rock, sand and gravel Figure 5. Exploration expenditures by deposit type, 2015. Chart does not include 2015 placer gold exploration expenditures. Attachment A Page 24 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00024 Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 15 The pipeline of early- to advanced-stage exploration projects saw even greater declines in activity. Exclud ing the operating mines, eight projects each spent more than $1 million, down from 11 projects in 2014; an additional six projects individually spent more than $100,000, compared to 28 projects in 2014, Early-stage exploration has been particularly hard hit, with many projects dormant. The total area of the state covered by mining claims and prospecting sites increased from about 3,610,740 acres in 2014 to about 3,769,840 acres in 2015 (an increase of more than 4 percent), but the total staked area was still well below totals from 2010-2013 (table 7). Many of Alaska's advanced projects have reached a stage of decreased exploration investment, focusing instead on optimization studies, permitting, or the search for additional financing. silver mineralization in its inaugural drill program at Shorty Creek. NORTHERN REGION At the Red Dog Mine in northwestern Alaska, operator Teck Alaska Inc. continued infill and definition drill ing ahead of mining in the Aqqaluk pit. At the end of 2015, proven and probable reserves at the m ine stood at 62.4 million tons with an average grade of 14.6 per cent zinc, 4.1 percent lead, and 2.15 ounces of silver per ton. Teck continued a strong exploration program on its Noatak claim block, drilling 41,000 feet in the Anarraaq-Aktigiruq area about 8 miles northwest of Red Dog. No exploration occurred at the nearby Lik sediment-hosted zinc deposit held by Zazu Metals Corp. in a joint venture with Teck. Alaska mineral exploration had a few bright spots in 2015 that might set the stage for future activity. Figure 5 depicts highlights, including new high-grade gold zones found at the Tetlin project by partners Contango ORE and Royal Gold Inc., as well as Freegold Ventures Inc.'s discovery of new intrusion-related copper-gold- In the southwestern Brooks Range, NovaCopper Inc. continued resource definition, engineering, and envi ronmental studies at its Upper Kobuk Mineral Project, a partnership with NANA Regional Corp. (photo 3). The 2015 program focused on advancing the Arctic copper-zinc-lead-silver-gold deposit toward feasibility Photo 3. NovaCopper staff conducted fieldwork in Ambler project area, ph o to p r o v id ed b y b o n n ie bro m an , n o v a c o p per in c . Attachment A Page 25 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00025 16 Special Report 71 stage. The company invested $5,5 million in exploration, engineering, and environmental studies, including a 10.000 foot infill and geotechnical drill program. More than 50 percent of the on-site employees were NANA shareholders and residents of northwestern Alaska. WESTERN REGION NANA Regional Corp. conducted an inaugural six-hole, 3,100 foot core drilling program on its Kugruk Mega Shear gold property in the Fairhaven District south of Kotzebue. NANA has conducted grassroots explora tion on its ANCSA lands and adjoining State-owned lands since 2010, in the process delineating orogenic gold targets along a 40 mile trend (photo 4), The 2015 drill test of some of these targets intercepted gold mineralization associated with quartz veins, including one intercept of 0.598 ounce of gold per ton over 5.8 feet; three of six holes had intervals with greater than 0.292 ounce of gold per ton. Photo 4. NANA Regional Corp. prospected in frost boils in the Kugruk Fault Zone and found a 0.044-ounce-of-gold-per-ton rock sample containing sulfide in quartz veins, pho to pro vid ed by la n ce MILLER, NANA REGIONAL CORP Graphite One Resources Inc. released an updated re source for its Graphite Creek property on the Seward Peninsula, upgrading a portion ofthe inferred resource to indicated status. The deposit now is estimated to contain 19.8 million tons grading 6.3 percent graphitic carbon indicated, with an additional 170.2 million tons inferred averaging 5.7 percent graphitic carbon (3 percent cutoffgrade). The company did not complete any further exploration during 2015. EASTERN INTERIOR Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo again accounted for the largest share of exploration in Alaska's active Eastern Interior region in 2015. The company spent $15 million exploring multiple targets along a 3 mile trend, drilling 219.000 feet from both surface and underground plat forms. This effort increased Pogo's global gold reserve by the equivalent of several years of production. Fairbanks Gold Mining Inc., a subsidiary of Kinross Gold Corp., spent $3.9 million on exploration at its open -pit, intrusion-hosted Fort Knox Mine and sur rounding properties about 20 miles north ofFairbanks. This included 10,000 feet of core drilling and 14,000 feet of reverse-circulation drilling. Kinross also conducted grassroots lode gold exploration on several claim blocks in the Circle Mining District. At the nearby Golden Summit project, Freegold Ven tures Ltd. continued to work on preliminary economic assessment, metallurgical testing, and environmental Photo 5 .Trench mapping was completed at Chatham trench on the Golden Summit property, ph o to from fr eeg o ld v en tu r es lim ited WE3Snr,HTrP:,YWWWr:REEGOLpyE^ PINGJPG. LAST ACCESSED ON OCTOBER 19, 2016. Attachment A Page 26 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00026 Alaska's Minera! Industry 2015 17 baseline studies (photo 5). To date, Freegold has a total identified resource of 361 million tons averaging 0,018 ounce of gold per ton, for a total of 6,53 million ounces of gold. International Tower Hill Mines Ltd. continued evaluation of its Livengood advanced-exploration-stage gold project about 75 road miles northwest of Fairbanks. The company's 2013 feasibility study out lined a 100,000-ton-per-day open-pit mine producing 7,8 million ounces of gold with an average head grade of 0.020 ounce per ton. The 2015 program included hydrologic and environmental baseline studies, as well as continued metallurgical and mine plan optimization. At its Shorty Creek property near Livengood, Freegold Ventures Ltd. tested copper-gold porphyry targets with a four-hole, 3,500 foot drill program following up on geochemistry, airborne and induced-polarization geophysical surveys, and geologic mapping (photo 6). The best hole intercepted a 300 foot interval averaging 0.55 percent Cu, 0.004 ounce of gold per ton, and 0.205 ounce of silver per ton. This newly discovered mineralization occurs with intense alteration includ- ing silicification, sericite, biotite, and sulfide-bearing quartz veins. Northern Empire Resources Corp. revitalized gold exploration in the Richardson district southeast of Fair banks in 2015, bringing in joint-venture partner Sonoro Metals Corp. at its Hilltop property and completing additional work on its adjacent Richardson property. The properties host multiple styles of intrusive-related gold mineralization with geologic similarities to the Fort Knox and Pogo gold mines. Project work included recompilation of historical data, soil sampling, and trenching. Exploration highlights include a trench intercept averaging 0.271 ounce of gold per ton over 13 feet at the Hilltop property. Contango ORE Inc. and partner Royal Gold Inc. com pleted a 61-hole, 46,000 foot core drilling program at the Tetlin project south of Tok, a total expenditure of $6.8 million. Phase I (29 holes) targeted seven previously defined geophysics- and geochemistry-based skarn tar gets outside the Peak Zone at the broader Chief Danny prospect. Phase II (32 holes) focused on resource defini tion and expansion in the Peak West, North Peak, and Blue Moon areas (photo 7). Highlighted drill intercepts include 23 feet averaging 0.579 ounce of gold per ton at North Peak, and 68 feet averaging 0.159 ounce of gold per ton from the Peak West zone. Contango's initial 2014 resource for the Peak Zone polymetallic skarn identified a total resource of 10.8 million tons averag ing 0.085 ounce of gold per ton, 0,36 ounce of silver per ton, and 0.24 percent copper, or a gold equivalent of 1.1 million ounces. Photo6.Chalcopyrite in drill core on the Shorty Creek property. PHOTO FROM FREEGOLD VENTURES LIMITED WEBSITE. HTTP-7/WWW.FRSEGOtPVENTURES.CQM/I/MAPS/SC/IMG/8G/2015-10-0513.02.05JPG .LAST ACCESSED ON OCTOBER 19,2016. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Coventry Resources Ltd. optioned and resumed explo ration of the Caribou Dome high-grade copper project, formerly known as Denali Copper (photo 8). The com pany completed a 14,000 foot exploration and validation drill program, along a nearly half-mile mineralized trend. This program equaled more than 50 percent of the total core drilling conducted on the prospect during its entire history, from 1964 through 2014, Coventry identified numerous high-grade copper intercepts along the trend, including new massive-sulfide lenses and some previously unrecognized along-strike connectivity between lenses. Highlighted intercepts include 46.3 feet grading 9.9 percent copper, 23.0 feet grading 6.8 percent copper, and 11.5 feet grading 9.3 percent copper (drilled thickness). The company also continued to explore a broader, 5-mile-long mineralized trend using soil sampling and induced-polarization geophysical surveys. Attachment A Page 27 of 57 ir 10 ED 002061 00172830-00027 18 Special Report 71 Very coarse-grained pyrrhotite * chaicopyriie + arsenopyrite Photo 1. Examples of Peak Zone distal skarn textures on the Tetlin project property, photo pro vid ed by c u rt freem an, avalon DEVELOPMENT CORP. Photo 8. View of Caribou Dome property, looking northeast from an outcrop of sediment-hosted copper mineralization at Lense 6 (foreground) toward trenching at Lense 3 (background), ph o to from Co v en tr y r eso u r c es w e b s it e h t t o /w ww .c o v en tr yr es. COM/NEWS. LAST ACCESSED ON OCTOBER 3, 2016. Attachment A Page 28 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00028 Alaska's Minerai Industry 2015 19 SOUTH-CENTRAL REGION First Quantum and Kiska Metals Corp. explored the early-stage Copper Joe porphyry copper-gold prospect in the western Alaska Range (photo 9). Work in 2015 focused on drill target development using magnetotelluric surveys and geologic mapping. First Quantum can earn an initial 51 percent by spending $5 million by the end of December 2017. No on-site work was performed at the nearby Whistler and Island Mountain porphyry copper-gold prospects during 2015. Brazil Resources Inc. purchased both properties from Kiska Metals in an all-share deal and intends to announce a revised resource estimate in 2016. Photo 9. Rusty outcrop at Copper Joe property, photo from kiska METAL S CORPORATION WEBSITE, I-ITTP://V,JWVV.KI5KAMETAI.5.C0M/1/PH0T05/C0PPF.RJOF./I MGP0175.JPG. LAST ACCESSED ON OCTOBER 19, 2016. SOUTHWESTERN REGION No exploration occurred at the Pebble Project, where operator Pebble Limited Partnership continues proceed ings against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in court. Northern Dynasty Ltd. became the sole owner of the deposit after partner Anglo American PLC abandoned the project in 2013. The Pebble deposit is currently the world's largest undeveloped resource of both copper and gold, with a total endowment of 81.8 billion pounds o f copper and 107.9 million ounces of gold contained in 12 billion tons of ore grading 0.34 percent copper, 0.023 percent molybdenum, 0.009 ounce of gold per ton, and 0.043 ounce of silver per ton. WestMountain Gold Inc. continued its bulk sampling program at Terra, a high-grade gold project approxi mately 125 miles west-northwest of Anchorage. The company processed bulk samples ofBen Vein mineral ization at a rate of 1 ton per hour through its pilot mill. Ongoing construction worked toward upgrading the pilot mill to 3-5 tons-per-hour capacity. Ben Vein has an identified resource o f940,199 tons at 0.446 ounce of gold per ton, and 0.82 ounce ofsilverperton (appendix D); geologic modeling indicates the high-grade vein is open to the north and at depth. SOUTHEASTERN REGION Exploration continued to keep reserves well ahead of production at Hecla Mining Co.'s silver-rich Greens Creek Mine near Juneau. Mining depletion and lower metal prices resulted in a net decrease in reserves to 7.2 million tons averaging 12.3 ounces of silver per ton, 0.09 ounce of gold per ton, 3.0 percent lead, and 8.1 percent zinc; however, definition drilling in the NWW and Deep 200 South zones promises to make up the deficit in the comingyear. Underground exploration continues to follow these zones down dip, while surface drilling continues to explore the 23-square-mile land package in search of additional resources or an entirely new deposit. Coeur Mining Inc.'s Kensington Mine north of Juneau announced an updated mine plan incorporating the recently discovered high-grade mineralization at Jualin. Exploration spending in 2015 totaled $4 million and resulted in an initial resource estimate for the Jualin deposit. Proven plus probable reserves stood at 2.8 m 1lion tons of ore averaging 0.198 ounce of gold per ton, within a larger resource (including reserves, measured, indicated, and inferred resources) of 6.7 million tons averaging 0.263 ounce ofgold per ton--an increase over year-end 2014 numbers. Underground development to reach the Jualin deposit is in progress. At the Palmer project near Haines, Constantine Metal Resources Ltd. announced a new inferred mineral re source of 9.0 million tons grading 1.41 percent copper, 5.25 percent zinc, 0.009 ounce ofgold per ton, and 0.926 ounce of silver per ton--nearly doubling the tonnage of the previous resource estimate. For 2015, earn in partner Dowa Metals & M ining Co. Ltd. funded a $5 million program including eight exploration drill holes, surface and borehole geophysical surveys, and regional prospecting. Drilling succeeded in extending South Wall EM Zone mineralization approximately 300 feet to the east and 200 feet up dip; intercept highlights include 14 feet grading 0.5 percent copper, 3.98 percent zinc, 1.762 ounces of silver per ton, 0.019 ounce of gold per ton, and 26 feet grading 1.33 percent zinc and Attachment A Page 29 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00029 20 Special Report 71 0.630 ounce of silver per ton (photo 10). In advance of fata re underground exploration and development the partners also drilled one geotechnical hole and ad vanced engineering and environmental studies. Ucore Rare Metals Inc. announced an updated mineral resource for its Dotson Ridge rare-earth-element (REE) deposit at Rokan Mountain. Results of the company's 2014 infill and exploration drill program, upgraded most of the previously released inferred resource to the indicated category and defined an additional 1.16 million tons of new inferred mineralization grading 0.603 percent total rare-earth oxides. The deposit has a total inferred and indicated resource of 6.4 million tons at 0.602 percent total rare-earth oxides. Ucore contin ued to advance the project during 2015 by initiating construction of a $3 million rare-earth separation pilot plant at an off-site location in Utah. The pilot plant will confirm the effectiveness of new beneficiation technolo gies at a bulk scale using Dotson Ridge mineralization as feedstock. ALASKA PENINSULA REGION In 2015 Redstar Gold Corp. drilled eight step-out holes at the Shumagin vein prospect, wrhich is part of the company's Unga Gold project. Highlights of the drilling program include 16 feet grading 0.273 ounce of gold per ton and 0.806 ounce of silver per ton, including 3.3 feet grading 1.23 ounces of gold per ton and 3.79 ounces of silver per ton. The precious-metal-bearing Shumagin vein system has a strike extent of more than 4,000 feet and a depth o f at least 1,000 feet, as o ut lined by drilling and surface trenching. The Shumagin trend parallels the historically active Apollo-Sitka Mine vein system, which between 1886 and 1922 produced a reported total of approximately 150,000 ounces of gold at a grade of approximately 0.292 ounce per ton. Millrock Resources Inc. and partner First Quantum Minerals Ltd. drill tested their Alaska Peninsula por phyry copper project in 2015. The project includes the Dry Creek (also known as Bee Creek), Mallard Duck Bay, and Kawisgag prospects on lands owned by Bristol Bay Native Corp. Two holes tested previously undrilled geophysical targets at the Dry Creek prospect; one encountered trace to weak chalcopyrite and more abundant molybdenite associated with porphyry-style veining and alteration. A 323-foot intercept of quartzsericite-pyrite-altered, hornfelsed sediments averaged 0.19 percent copper, 0.009 percent molybdenum, and 0.001 ounce of gold per ton. No m ineralization of significance was discovered at the Mallard Duck Bay prospect. Photo 10, Drill setup at Constantine Metal Resources' South Wall Zone in the Glacier Creek prospect area of the Palmer property. PHOTO FROM CONSTANTINE METAL RESOURCES LTD. WEBSITE, 11i li*--.Vv;-.v.COi--\iAN liHI V i IAI s O W Rl \OUi,U HOIK ISi'A I C H , KU ft,D r.R iih fk. SOL, JPG, LAST ACCESSED ON OCTOBER 19,2016. Attachment A Page 30 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00030 Alaska's Minerai industry 2015 21 This section combines development and production narratives; however, we continue efforts to tabulate development expenditures separately. Over the last 10 years the majority of development work has been conducted at mine sites, with development activities being integral to the mining operations. Additionally, there have been few purely development-stage projects. The development sector of the mining process refers to building infrastructure or conducting activities that facilitate production of mineral products. Development expenditures reflect actual expenditures at mines as well as sustaining capital. Sustaining capital includes equipment replacement and rebuilding, facility up grades, and other expenditures that must be amortized or depreciated in accordance with tax laws; thus they are frequently reported as distinct line items in securi ties filings. Development activities, whether to build a new mine or make improvements to an existing mine, are often precursors to increased annual production or extended mine life. Production expenditures include those costs directly related to the production of metals. Development and production estimates in this report are compiled from a variety o f online sources, including annual reports, 10-K reports, and news releases by producers, and supplem ented by questionnaires returned to DGGS by mining companies, phone calls, and emails. Additional information was derived from State of Alaska Affidavits of Annual Labor filed with the State Recorder's Office. The average precious metal prices used in this report are the average daily London Metal Exchange (LME) price; base metal prices are the average weekly LME price (table 8). Some respondents reported actual unit values received for production; in cases where actual values were available, they were used in place of the average values. This report uses the First Market Value (estimated gross value of mineral products at first wholesale) for production; it does not represent actual sales or gross income of producers, and does not take into account mining, shipping, smelting, and other costs incurred by the producer. Table 8. Average metal prices, 1995-2015. DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION DISCUSSION Year Gold $ / OZ Stiver Copper Lead Zinc $/oz $/lb $/lb $/lb 1996 387.60 5.19 1.03 0.37 0.49 1997 330.76 4.91 1.03 0.28 0.59 1998 293.88 5.53 0.75 0.24 0.46 1999 278.70 5.20 0.71 0.23 0.49 2000 279.10 4.96 0.82 0.21 0.51 2001 271.04 4.37 0.71 0.22 0.40 2002 310.06 4.61 0.41 0.21 0.35 2003 363.38 4.88 0.81 0.23 0.38 2004 409.72 6.67 1.29 0.40 0.47 2005 444.74 7.32 1.61 0.43 0.63 2006 603.46 11.55 3.02 0.58 1.47 2007 695.39 13.38 3.24 1.17 1.47 2008 871.96 14.99 3.12 0.94 0.84 2009a 972.35 14.67 2.35 0.78 0.75 2010' 1,224.53 20.19 3.42 0.97 0.98 2011a 1,571.52 35.12 3.99 1.09 0.99 2012a 1,668.98 31.15 3.61 0.93 0.88 2 0 1 3 a'0 1,411.23 23.79 3.32 0.97 0.87 2 0 1 4 a,b 1,266.40 19.78 3.11 0.95 0.98 2 0 1 5 a,b 1,160.06 15.68 2.70 0.81 0.88 3 2009-2015 gold and silver prices from Kitco cumulative average London PM fix; 2009-2012 copper, iead, and zinc from British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines. b 2013-2015 copper, iead, and zinc prices from U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries, based on London Metal Exchange (LME), and LME average daily settlement. Reported and estimated development expenditures in 2015 were 10 percent greater than in 2014, with seven projects reporting spending a total of approximately $309.9 million. Projects that reported significant devel opment expenditures are shown in figure 6; Red Dog, Fort Knox, Pogo, Kensington, and Greens Creek mines together spent more than $285.6 million, with Fort Knox Mine having the largest ongoing development project in Alaska. SMM Pogo did not report likely significant development expenditures, and these figures are not compiled in this publication. Employment related to development in 2015 is es tim ated at 555 full-time-equivalent employees. This development-employment figure is calculated by ap plying the proportion of development and production expenditures to the total employment at mine sites that do not distinguish between development and produc tion employees. Precious metals projects comprised 61 percent of the development expenditures in 2015 (table 9). In the past 10 years, precious metals have been the impetus behind almost two-thirds of the annual development investment. Attachment A Page 31 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00031 22 Special Report 71 DEVELOPMENT I. Northern Region 1. Red Dog M ine-- Teck Alaska Inc. 2. Chandalar placer m ine-- Goldrich NyacAu Placer LLC II. Western Region III. Eastern Interior Region 3. Fort Knox m ine-- Fairbanks Gold Mining Inc. 4. Pogo M ine-- Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo LLC 5. Usibelli Coal M ine-- Usibelli Coal Mine Inc. IV. South-Central Region 6. Chuitna Coal Project-- PacRim Coal LP V. Southwestern Region 7. Donlin Gold Project-- Donlin Gold LLC VI. Alaska Peninsula Region Figure 6. Selected development projects in Alaska, 2015. * 1 T ill RBBNS I Martha -, :U W esirs \ f hit* i w m m sss: iv V * ,,af tn*u A Vii SoutlmasteiA in i|| DERSST SYMBOL .. A* 4 t A * * soas r * ...Yi - p r " '','-. i O f ? :. f i l i -fliliilililililililll VII. Southeastern Region 8. Kensington-- Coeur Alaska Inc. 9. Greens Creek M ine-- Hecla Greens Creek Mining Co. The total value of m ineral production in Alaska dur ing 2015 is estimated at $2.76 billion, 16 percent less than the 2014 value of $3.28 billion (table 10 and fig ure 7). Metals (gold, silver, lead, and zinc) account for $2.70 billion (almost 98 percent of the total), coal adds up to $41.2 million, and industrial minerals account for $17.2 million. The negative change in Alaska m in eral production in 2015 is due to falling metals prices across the board in addition to decreased production for metals overall, and despite increased production from Fort Knox, Greens Creek, and Kensington mines in 2015. Employment related to production in 2015 is estimated at 2,230 full-time-equivalent employees, a slight decrease (less than 1 percent) from production employment in 2014. Zinc maintained its place as the leading mineral prod uct of the state with a value of $1.2 billion in 2015 (a decrease of 14 percent from 2014), and accounting for 44 percent of Alaska's production value (figure 8). The annual value of zinc production has exceeded that of gold since 2014 (appendix B). The value of gold pro duction has decreased 35 percent to $1.01 billion in 2015 since 2013's record value of $1.55 billion. Gold production from lode mines in the Eastern Inte rior and South-eastern regions totaled 873,984 ounces in 2015, of which 78 percent was produced from the Fort Knox and Pogo gold mines in Eastern Interior region (figure 9). Kensington gold and Greens Creek polymetallic mines in southeastern Alaska, the third and fourth largest gold producers, accounted for the re mainder of reported gold production. Gold production figures from 2015 do not include an estimated amount of placer gold produced, which during the past 5 years has averaged 74,360 ounces of gold or 8 percent of the total gold produced in Alaska annually (photo 11). Two placer operations, Taiga Mining (Western region) and Chandalar Gold (Northern region), reported significant development and production expenditures and gold production, respectively. Total employment related to gold production in 2015, from MSHA reporting and on line sources, is 1,166 full-time-equivalent jobs; however, the 120 full-time-equivalent jobs attributed to placer gold mining as reported by MSHA is underreported and should be considered a minimum estimate. The value of Alaska industrial minerals (rock, sand, and gravel) is at least $17.2 million in 2015, based on production data reported on Alaska lands, not including Mental Health Trust lands or lands managed by the State Pipeline Coordinator's Office (figure 10 and appendix C). The total estimated volume of industrial minerals sold is 5.73 million tons for the three DNR land offices Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 32 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00032 Alaska's Minera! Industry 201 23 Table 9. Reported mineral development expenditures in Alaska by commodity, 1982-2015. Year Etas? m etili s 1982 10,270,000 1983 19,500,000 1984 10,710,500 1985 13,000,000 1986a .3,260,800 1987 38,080,000 1988 165,500,000 1989 118,200,000 1990 -- 1991 -- 1992 80,000 1993 -- 1994 10,000,000 1995 11,200,000 1996 60,000,000 1997 133,880,000 1998 28,000,000 1999 12,500,000 2000 100,000,000 2001 43,800,000 2002 2003 2004 17,700,000 2005 28,000,000 2006 31,200,000 2007 41,374,880 2008 45,000,000 2009h 29,000,000 2010 42,000,000 2011 48,590,865 2012 35,234,500 2013 W 2014 w 2015e vv TOTAL $ 1,096,081,545 $ Precious mftfkis C r tones'* m inerAh Coni and prat Total 19,320,000 4,251,000 7,750,000 41,591,000 7,112,500 1,000,000 250,000 27,862,500 15,058,555 579,000 27,000,000 53,348,055 16,890,755 1,830,000 2,400,000 34,120,755 8,000,000 12,417,172 124,000 5.30,000 24,331,972 48,000,000 13,640,848 188,000 342,000 100,250,848 69,000,000 40,445,400 -- -- 274,945,400 411,000 6,465,350 7,000,000 2,196,000 134,272,350 4,101,000 7,136,500 30,000 3,079,000 14,346,500 8,000,000 14,994,350 262,000 2,318,000 25,574,350 4,300,000 23,151,300 404,000 1,655,000 29,590,300 10,731,136 15,103,000 433,500 1,400,000 27,667,636 5,000,000 27,392,850 5,000 2,545,000 44,942,850 9,590,000 127,165,750 426,000 200,000 148,581,750 60,100,000 273,042,000 495,000 400,000 394,037,000 7,300,000 26,299,000 500,000 410,000 168,389,000 5,600,000 15,602,000 5,355,000 850,000 55,407,000 2,500,000 15,864,000 400,000 2,575,000 33,839,000 16,400,000 24,699,000 611,000 -- 141,710,000 3,300,000 .32,719,000 300,000 1,040,000 81,159,000 5,700,000 26,555,000 250,000 1,450,000 34,055,000 38,839,332 315,000 39,154,332 6,215,000 177,440,081 4,991,4.34 2,760,000 209,106,515 16,700,000 301,011,489 856,500 1,350,000 347,917,969 26,183,280 420,759,203 1,566,000 15,985,000 495,693,483 30,766,902 239,931,040 1,320,500 5,385,000 318,778,322 24,000,000 319,702,594 205,113 7,260,000 396,167,707 17,500,000 277,020,142 225,250 270,000 6,800,000 330,815,392 16,300,000 225,793,300 200,000 -- 9,000,000 293,293,300 41,657,000 170,931,851 250,000 902,480 9,560,000 271,892,196 62,184,000 235,642,406 -- 5,290,870 4,021,544 342,373,320 57,119,121 258,130,353 295,000 1,831,369 W 358,775,844 W 199,909,824 W 188,226,940 566,658,439 $ 3,814,512,865 $ 700,000 -- 1,670,250 $ 756,495 -- 281,735,787 -- -- 309,938,884 42,749,261 $ 120,511,544 $ 5,885,665,317 b Gemstone development category added in 2009. c Significant development expenditures were not reported for precious metals in 2015. - - - Not reported W - Figures withheld for confidentiality purposes. Expenditures are incorporated into the state total. Table 10. Estimated mineral production in Alaska, 2013-20153. Gold (ounces) Silver (ounces) Copper (tons) Lead (tons) Zinc (tons) Platinum (ounces) Subtotal 1,022,987 13,453,367 38.62 126,707 665,318 948,547 15,388,901 -155,183 716,781 873,984 15,147,249 -151,2.47 686,938 s 1,551,921,325 s 1,201,239,753 s 1,013,875,933 320,121,318 304,392,456 237,508,864 278,591 -- -- 245,811,580 294,847,225 245,126,547 1,157,653,320 1,404, 890,368 1,204,315,037 $ 3,275,786,134 $ 3,205,369,802 $ 2,700,826,381 Gemstones and semi-precious stones Gemstones and semi-precious stones Subtotai $ 1,900,000 $ 120,000 5 - $ 1,900,000 $ 120,000 $ - industrial Minerals Sand and grave! (million tons)c Rock (million tons) Subtotal 7.8 0.5 5.7 $ 79,589,173 $ 6,837,950 $ 17,176,622 0.4 1.1 -- 5,469,480 17,218,014 -- $ 85,058,653 s 24,055,964 S 17,176,622 Coa! and Peat Coal (tons) d Peat (cubic yards) a Subtotal 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,177,390 $ ... 2,461 $ 56,000,000 $ 56,000,000 $ 52,500,000 $ 36,915 52,536,915 $ 41,208,650 41,208,650 TOTAL $ 3,418,744,786 $ 3,282,082,681 $ 2,759,211,653 0 Production data from DGGS questionnaires, Internet research, Interviews with operators, DOT&Pf, and municipalities, regional corporations, and Federa! land management agencies. Values for selected metal production were based on average prices for each year (unless other values were provided by the operator). Industrial minerals value for 2015 is based on r industrial minerals (rock, sand, and gravel) values are combined into the sand and gravel category in 2015. d Coal and peat production values are combined in 2012 and 2013. Attachment A Page 33 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00033 24 Specia Report 71 PRODUCTION I. Northern Region 1. Red Dog Mine--Teck Alaska Inc,--zinc, lead, silver (ger manium, indium, cadmium) 2. Chandalar placer m ine -- Goldrich NyacAu Placer LLC--gold II. Western Region 3. Hogatza placer m ine--Taiga Mining C o.-- gold III. Eastern Interior Region 4. Fort Knox m ine-- Fairbanks Gold M ining Inc,--gold 5. Pogo M ine--Sum itom o Metal M ining Pogo LLC--gold 6. Usibelli Coal M ine-- Usibelli Coal Mine Inc,--coal IV. South-Central Region V. Southwestern Region VI. Alaska Peninsula Region Figure 7. Selected production projects in Alaska, 2015. 01! W REGIONS i WNftersUteimrniIlVi Bssi&muninttiesriior V Sotfhwessm VVII. ASlaysthkeai3Psf&cm*rnosiVa mPOmBYMBOi ^S-TS ^ POy-W;ai::jC ^ ;8*ss?>s$si; ^ Coa? /y n VI VII. Southeastern Region 7, Kensington-- Coeur Alaska Co,-- gold 8. Greens Creek M ine-- Hecla Greens Creek Mining Co.-- silver, gold, lead, and zinc $1,400 ,, $ 1,200 I $1,000 uo> 33 $800 $600 Z2 $ $400 $200 $0 Zinc $1,014 $245 W r> 1 1 1 Gold Lead Silver Coal Figure S. Estimated 2015 mineral production in Alaska by commodity. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 <1 r Industrial m in erals Attachment A Page 34 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00034 Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 25 Figure 9, Historical gold production in Alaska, 1880-2015, and corresponding market value. Photo 11. Small, floating "New Zealand-style" wash plant from placer operation in south-central Alaska. Wash plant functions similarly to the old-style bucket-line dredges, except these are usually fed via an excavator instead of a bucket line. This style of operation can reduce the amount of equipment involved to only a dozer, excavator, and the washplant; however, a good sized pond system and fairly wide valley are needed to lay out the system, photo provided by dnr, division of mining, land &water. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 35 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00035 26 Special Report 71 (table 11), of which the Northern region accounted for 62 percent of industrial minerals sold in the state. MSHA reported 173 full-time-equivalent jobs in the industrial materials sector in 2015. The 2015 production volume, value, and employment figures should be considered minimum estimates due to reporting shortfalls. These figures do not account for significant production of in dustrial minerals on private, Native, and Federal lands. lying, lens-shaped ore bodies in thrust-fault-stacked slices: Main, Aqqaluk, and Qanaiyaq. The deposits are hosted in Mississippian- to Pennsylvanian-age marine clastic rocks and lesser chert and carbonate rocks. Sphal erite, pyrite, marcasite, and galena primarily occur in semi-massive to massive, fragmental, and vein textures and, rarely, as sulfide-sedimentary layering. Massive barite is common in and above the sulfide deposits. Alaska's Office of International Trade reported that Alaska shipped mineral ores and concentrates, metal ores and concentrates, and coal to at least 11 other countries in Europe, Asia, and North America in 2015. The Alaska 2015 export value was $1.48 billion, down 17 percent from 2014 (table 12). Total exports include copper-gold concentrates from the Minto Mine in Yukon Territory, Canada, which were shipped through the AIDEA-owned term inal in Skagway, and coal exported through the Alaska-Railroad-owned coal loading facility in Seward. Coal production declined by approximately 323,000 tons or 22 percent in 2015 (figure 11), primarily due to a reduction in coal exports. In the past decade, the value of coal exports has de creased 85 percent from the high of $33 million in 2009 to $5 million in 2015. The Usibelli Coal Mine section contains additional information about the decrease in exports and impacts to the mine. Red Dog Mine Red Dog Mine is one of the world's largest zinc mines, both in terms of resources and annual zinc production (table 13). Red Dog resources represent 3 percent of the world's resources and Red Dog reserves equate to 28 percent of world reserves. Red Dog Mine, located in northwestern Alaska, comprises three sediment-hosted zinc-lead sulfide deposits, which form, relatively flat- Red Dog is operated by Teck Alaska Inc., and is 100 percent owned and operated by Teck Resources Ltd., under a partnership agreemet with landowner NANA Regional Corp. Inc. (NANA). In accordance with the operating agreement between Teck and NANA govern ing the Red Dog mine, Teck pays NANA a 30 percent royalty on net proceeds of production. This royalty increases by 5 percent every fifth year to a maximum, of 50 percent, with, the next adjustment in October 2017. The NANA royalty charge in 2015 was $137 million, compared with $195 million in 2014. Red Dog is a conventional open-pit mine utilizing a drill, blast, shovel, and truck mine cycle. To blend different ore types prior to milling, Red Dog uses a large, managed stockpile, which applies conventional grinding and sulfide flotation methods to produce zinc and lead concentrates. Outgoing concentrates and in coming fuel and supplies are transported through the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)-owned DeLong Mountain Transportation System (DMTS), which includes a 52-mile-long road, concentrate and fuel storage, and shallow-water port facilities on the Chukchi Sea. Since inception AIDEA has received more than $443 million in user fees for the DMTS; the port has an approximately 100-day an nual shipping season. Highlights for 2015 at Red Dog Attachment A Page 36 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00036 Alaska's Mineral industry 2015 27 T a b l e ' l l . Material (rock, sand, and grave!) sale volumes (in tons) by region reported on State-owned land, exclud ing Mental HealthTrust iandsand lands managed bythe State Pipeline Coordinator's Office,for 2011-2015. These volumes do not include material produced from private, Native, or Federal lands, which are significant amounts. These figures serve as minimum amounts of materia! produced. Region Northern (Fairbanks office) South- Centra! (Anchorage office) Southeast (Juneau office) 2011 2,890,304 70,410 77,940 2012 3,501,387 1,035,450 56,115 2013 4,991,349 235,050 69,866 2014 9,247,223 433,433 62,559 2015 3,559,580 2,115,750 50,211 Total 3,038,654 4,592,952 5,296,265 9,743,214 5,725,541 Source: Department of Natural Resources, Division o f Mining, Land and Water Southeast Regional Office (SERO), South -Central Regional Office (SCRO}, and Northern Regional Office {NRO) Material Sale Tracking Spreadsheets. Prepared by Zoya Ponomareva. a DNR material sales volumes and revenues do not correlate., as volumes ere attributed to the calendar year in which material was extracted while revenues are tracked on a cash basis (when received), which could be in the subsequent calendar year. T a b le 12. Alaska international mineral export values (in millions of dollars). Year 1996 1937 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Mineral Ores and Concentrates1 $249 369 317 359 293 329 380 413 505 511 1,094 1,269 691 853 1,336 1,803 1,502 1,495 1,750 1,467 Can d Copper Ores Through Skagway Terminal ------- .. -- 16 103 64 37 199 169 150 186 99 Precious Metals >$1 >$1 >$1 >$1 1 3 47 84 110 132 110 132 144 153 214 267 84 22 11 7 Coal ' $27 26 8 15 16 17 9 4 14 14 10 5 23 33 25 31 32 27 17 5 Total Value of Mineral Exports $276 395 325 374 310 349 436 501 629 657 1,214 1,406 858 1,039 1,575 2,107 1,618 1,543 1,778 1,479 Sources: 1996-2013, US. Census Bureau, Origin of Movement Series; 2014-201$, Alaska Office of international Trade a HS 26 Mineral Ores: Zinc ores and concentrates, lead ores and concentrates, copper ores and concentrates, silver ores, gold ores and concentrates, zirconium ore (onjy in 2009), and miscellaneous ores. bValue of Canada copper ores moving through Skagway that are included in Mineral Ores and Concentrates values c HS 71 Precious Metals: Gold dore, precious stones, and wrought jewelry d HS 27 Coal figure 11 Alaska coal production and exports, 1915-2015. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 37 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00037 28 peda! Report 71 include initiation of a geosynthetic/composite pilot test of a conceptual design plan for covering the entire main waste stockpile surface (photo 12), and drilling 20 holes, totaling approximately 9,547 feet, in the Aqqaluk pit: 12 holes (4,216 feet) for geotechnical purposes and eight (5,331 feet) for resource infill and confirmation. In 2015 Teck reported 62.4 million tons of proven and probable reserves at Red Dog Mine with an aver age grade of 14.6 percent zinc, 4.1 percent lead, and 2.15 ounces of silver, in a total identified resource of 62.6 million tons at 14.6 percent zinc, 4.1 percent lead, and 2,15 ounces of silver per ton (appendix D). Red Dog dominates Alaska's mineral-production value, as it has for a quarter century, accounting for approxim ately 51 percent of the entire value of Alaska's 2015 mineral production. In 2015 Red Dog mined 3.89 million tons of ore, milled 4.44 million tons of ore, and produced 625,004 tons of zinc concentrate and 129,630 tons of lead concentrate. Annual average prices in 2015 for zinc were $0.88 per pound. In 2015 Red Dog provided more than 630 full-time-equivalent, jobs. Teck projects Red Dogs production of contained metal in 2016 will be between 600,800 and 628,300 tons of zinc and approxi mately 126,800 to 132,300 tons of lead. Most ore mined in 2016 is anticipated to come from the south wall of the Aqqaluk pit; minor ore from the Qanaiyaq pit may be processed through the mill during the latter part of 2016. Projected 2016 capital costs for Red Dog are ap proximately $35 million, and projected cash operating costs for Red Dog are approximately $230 million, not including transportation or royalties. Table 13, Red Dog Mine production statistics, 1989-2015a. Year Tons Milled 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 33,300 996,700 1,599,300 1,582,000 1,874,600 2,339,500 2,485,900 2,312,600 2,127,000 2,752,587 3,282,788 3,365,508 3,560,430 3,489,600 3,476,689 3,249,613 3,402,831 3,569,280 3,726,910 3,306,934 3,729,119 3,937,456 4,048,000 3,941,000 4,243,899 4,739,302 4,437,950 Zinc (%> 20.4 26,5 22.5 19.9 18.4 18,8 19.0 18.7 20.3 21,4 21.3 21.0 19.8 21.1 21.7 22.0 21.7 20,6 20.2 20.1 20.9 18,2 19.1 18.2 17.0 16.6 14,1 Ore Grade Lead (%) 7.6 8.5 6.6 6.0 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 4.7 5.0 5.4 6.2 6.0 5.6 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.4 5.0 4.6 3.9 4.4 2.9 Silver (oz/ton) 3.6 3.6 2.8 2,9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2,8 2.3 2.7 2.7 2,5 2.5 2.7 3.1 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.1 3,1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3,0 NA NA NA Total T o r s Concentrate Prmiui i i f 8,532 443,600 521,400 474,900 533,800 658,000 753,600 765,300 733,400 1,015,773 1,207,160 1,211,539 1,215,837 1,366,480 1,410,892 1,337,545 1,330,717 1,378,384 1,428,014 1,273,885 1,445,870 1,300,694 1,182,060 1,134,415 1,271,221 1,409,511 1,351,221 Contamed Tons Zinc -191,981 234,510 231,363 255,143 328,160 358,676 357,680 373,097 490,461 574,111 585,030 570,980 637,800 638,569 610,900 626,112 614,538 633,511 567,911 642,096 593,043 572,208 529,157 607,704 656,971 625,004 Contained Tons Lead -31,187 43,815 15,960 24,788 32,775 55,715 65,886 69,284 80,193 97,756 91,557 105,000 118,880 137,673 128,970 112,766 136,135 146,152 135,143 144,954 121,144 84,033 95,282 106,594 135,032 129,630 Million Ounces Silver -1.6 1,46 1.38 1.51 1.84 3,62 4.3 4.27 5.2 6,21 5.84 5.9 6.75 7.7 7.22 1.97 7.62 11.55 7.5 8.12 6.78 5,19 5.83 6,1 7.56 6.7 Employees 28 350 331 349 376 391 397 417 479 466 533 536 559 560 388 508 449 457 453 475 413 550 586 530 5 5 0 fl 639d 630a TOTAL 81,610,796 28,235,750 13,106,722 2,446,309 139.78 a Revised s ightiy from Special Report 51, Alaska's Mineral Industry 1995 , based on new company data. b Totals for years 1990 through 1995 include bulk concentrate. Total for 2013 estimated from t<ota! metal prode ced for 2013. c Estimate calculated at 56 ounces per ton of jead metal produced to from 1990 to 2004 and 2006; as reported credit for 2005, net of treatment charges; calculated at 3.1 ounces per ton of ore for 2007; estimated as proportional with Increase in zinc and lead In 2013; as reported in 2014; calculated based on recoverable silver from reported lead concentrate recovered in 2015. d Value reported by Department of datura! Resources - - - No concentrate produced NA - Not available Attachment A Page 38 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00038 Alaska's Minerai Industry 2015 29 Looking N at SW comer of Main Waste Dump Photo 12. Teck initiated a geosynthetic/composite pilot test in 2015 to cover waste stockpiles, photo from 4THquarters annual report 2015 TO THE STATE OF ALASKA, POSTED ON STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, LARGE MINE PERMITTING WEBSITE, HIIPWDNR.ALASKA.GOV/ MLW/M!NLNG/LARGM|NB'BEDDOG/PDF/RD LAST ACCESSED ON OCTOBER 19, 2016. Fort Knox Mine Fort Knox Mine, operated by Fairbanks Gold Mining Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary o f Kinross Gold Corp., is approximately 25 miles northeast of Fairbanks, on primarily State of Alaska and private lands. The deposit is hosted in the multi-phase Fort Knox pluton, with gold occurring as grains ranging from <0.1 mm up to 2 mm on the margins of stockwork and sheeted quartz potassium-feldspar veins, veinlets, and quartz-filled shears. Sulfide minerals are rare (less than 0.1 percent) and consist mainly of bismuthinite and minor arsenopyrite as well as several varieties of bism uth-tellurium minerals, pyrite, pyrrhotite, scheelite, and molybdenite. The pluton and alteration are coeval at approximately 92 million years old, and the deposit is oxidized to the depth of drilling. Fort Knox is an open-pit, truck-and-shovel operation using carbon-in-pulp (GIF), heap leach, and gravity processes to recover gold (photo 13). Production began in November 1996, and Kinross acquired 100 percent interest in the mine in 1998. Highlights of 2015 activi ties include completion of Stage 5 of the Walter Creek heap leach facility, a 14-foot raise to the tailings storage facility dam, and various reclamation activities. Phase 8 stripping activities continued, and mining of Phase 8 ore was initiated. In December the mine achieved 2 million safe hours worked. Total employment: at: Fort Knox was 657 full-time-equivalent positions. Fort Knox reported capital expenditures of $140.8 million during 2015. Production increased compared with 2014, which is primarily attributed to higher mill grades; late in the year mining transitioned into an area with lower grades. In 2015,60.86 million tons of ore and waste were mined, with an average production rate of 166,700 tons per day. Mill throughput was 14.82 million tons, and 27.7 mil lion tons were added to the Walter Creek heap leach. Combined 2015 gold recovery from the mill and heap leach was 401,553 ounces (table 14). At the end o f 2015, the total identified resource is 284.4 million tons at 0.013 ounce per ton, containing 1.9 m il lion ounces of gold (appendix D); within that resource there are 162.4 million tons of reserves at 0.012 ounce of gold per ton, sufficient to carry the current mine plan into 2020. The planned final year for ore processed through the Fort Knox mill is 2018; after that time, allo t the run-of-mine ore and ore stockpiles will be stacked on the Walter Creek heap leach. In 2016 mining is scheduled to continue in the Phase 8 final pit layback area with delivery of ore to the mill and the leach pad from 2015 until mining activities end in 2019. Projected mill throughput for 2016 is approximately 14.6 million tons with production of an estimated 246,000 ounces of gold; heap leach ore placement is projected to be 29.8 million tons with production of an estimated 142,000 ounces of gold. Pogo Mine The Pogo underground gold mine and associated facilities (photo 14) are 38 miles northeast of Delta Junction on land owned by the State of Alaska. Access to the mine is via a 49 mile all-season road from the Richardson Highway. Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo Attachment A Page 39 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00039 30 Special Report 71 Table 14. Fort Knox Mine production statistics, 1996-2015. Tons mined Year (ore + waste) Fort Knox True North 1996 16,684,000 0 1997 32,380,000 0 1998 33,294,000 0 1999 30,350,000 0 2000 35,600,000 2001 25,957,900 0 8,448,400 2002 24,583,500 11,461,000 2003 30,597,940 12,707,100 2004 44,187,000 3,763,000 2005 53,248,000 0 2006 51,070,000 0 2007 45,940,000 0 2008 46,300,000 0 2009 27,585,000 0 2010 42,400,000 0 2011 34,550,000 0 2012 53,120,000 0 2013 63,280,000 0 2014 49,240,000 0 2015 60,860,000 0 Totji 15,684,000 32,380,000 33,294,000 30,350,000 35,600,000 34,406,300 35,044,500 43,305,040 47,950,000 63,248,000 51,070,000 45,940,000 46,300,000 27,585,000 42,400,000 34,550,000 53,120,000 63,280,000 49,240,000 60,860,000 Fort Knox 769,700 12,163,151 13,741,510 13,819,010 15,000,000 13,282,514 11,887,200 11,473,000 12,917,966 14,384,842 14,839,297 14,021,400 15,110,000 17,884,000 14,560,000 14,880,000 14,550,000 13,960,000 14,920,000 14,820,000 Tons milled torej True North1 0 0 0 0 0 2,377,386 3,371,800 3,611,682 1,675,854 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 769,700 12,163,151 13,741,610 13,819,010 15,000,000 15,660,000 15,259,000 15,084,682 14,593,820 14,384,842 14,839,297 14,021,400 15,110,000 17,884,000 14,560,000 14,880,000 14,550,000 13,960,000 14,920,000 14,820,000 Tons placed on heap leuch 28,500,000 27,700,000 ,, _ .J 16,085 366,223 365,320 351,120 362,929 411,220 410,519 391,831 338,334 329,320 333,383 338,459 329,105 263,260 349,729 289,794 359,948 428,822 387,285 401,553 TOTAL 821,227,340 36,379,500 857,606,840 268,383,790 11,036,722 280,020,512 160,600,000 6,824,239 0 True North Mine started production in 2001 and suspended production in 2004. b Waiter Creek Heap each facility started production in 2009, but was not tracked until 2014. Total includes 104.4 million tons placed on heap leach from 2009 through 2013. Employees 243 249 245 253 253 360 360 316 427 411 406 399 449 500 525 522 565 629 649 657 Photo 13. View of Fort Knox Mine's open pit and conveyor system, photo from Kinross gold corp.website, Hrrp://S2.Q4CDiTCOM/496390694/ FILES/!MAGES/MEDIA GALLERY/FORTKNOX/FORT-KNOX-CONVEYORJPG. LAST ACCESSED ON OCTOBER 19,2016. Attachment A Page 40 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00040 Alaska's Mineral industry 2015 31 LLC (SMM Pogo) operates Pogo Mine on behalf of owners Sumitomo Metal M ining Co. Ltd. (85 percent) and Sumitomo Corp. (15 percent). Pogo utilizes spiral ramps and declines to access the ore, and cut-and-fill drift mining methods. A covered conveyor system feeds ore from the mine to the conventional SAG (semi-autogenous grinding) and hall mill grinding circuit, gravity circuit, and then to flotation and CIP (carbon-in-pulp) cyanidation processes. The mill treats approximately 2,500 tons per day. The Pogo deposit consists of three distinct zones: the Liese, East Deep, and N orth Zone vein systems. The Liese and East Deep consist o f stacked, shallow-d ipping quartz veins, whereas the North Zone veins are steep and could be feeders to the Liese and East Deep. Indi vidual veins range from 0 to 65 feet thick and have a variety of quartz vein filling and replacement textures, suggesting multiple episodes of mineralization. Gold occurs as 1-25 micron grains in arsenopyrite, along fractures, and as inclusions in native bismuth and other gold-lead-bism uth-tellurium minerals. The age of the mineralization overlaps with nearby gran itic intrusions at: around 104 million years. There is lack of consensus over the origin of the veins, with evidence for both orogenic-vein and deep-seated intrusion-related-vein genesis. SMM Pogo produced 283,000 ounces of gold in 2015 (table 15). All ore was produced from the East Deep zone, where ore grades matched or exceeded expecta tions, but unanticipated faults and fractures required additional ground control. Pogo reported having 350 full-time-equivalent employees on site in 2015. In September 2015 Sumitomo Metal Mining Pogo LLC an nounced a major milestone--their 3 millionth ounce of gold production at Pogo. In 2015 Pogo completed their $18 million Water Treatment Plant 3 capital project, which will enhance Pogo's ability to stabilize discharge by being able to treat 74 million gallons of water per year. Pogo also completed their2012-2015, $36 million project to develop the East Deep ore body; mining of ore Photo 14. View of Pogo Mine from the mine access road, photo provided by lorna shaw, smm pogo. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 41 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00041 32 Special Report 71 Table 15. Rogo Mine production statistics, 2006-2015. Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013b 2014 2Q15t Tons Ore Mined 447,129 715,665 882,400 944,823 900,585 892,725 815,922 963,229 972,406 .... Tons Ore Milled 338,000 715,400 818,237 930,836 947,189 929,020 875,351 875,351 967,230 .... Ounces of Gold Recovered 113,364 259,820 347,219 389,808 383,434 325,708 315,886 337,393 342,147 283,000 Recovery Head Grade ( ;) Gold (oz/fonj 85.0 0.395 84.4 0.430 83.8 0.506 88.2 0.475 89.6 0.452 89.6 0.392 89.7 0.402 90.2 0.395 89.0 0.396 .... ... TOTAL 7,534,884 7,396,614 3,097,779 a Includes contract employees; calculated as 11-hour days.. 260 employee-days per year. b Silver production of 32,000 ounces was reported in 2013. c Production figures as reported by DMR, last accessed on 10/6/2016. http://dnr.alaska.gov/nilw/niining/largemlne/pogo/ - - = Not reported Employees 477 339 285 272 300 310 335 320 320 350 from East Deep began in 2013. In 2015 Pogo completed construction of a paste backfill line and 14-foot-wide ventilation shaft from 1170 ramp to the surface near the 2150 portal. In August 2015 Pogo mine announced working more than 2 years without a lost-time injury. Usibelli Coal Mine Usibelli Coal Mine Inc. is a local, family-owned coal m ining com pany in production since 1943, with 112 full-tim e-equivalent employees. The com pany mines coal from the Miocene Suntrana Formation from leases on State-owned lands in the ITealy area. Usibelli has approximately 140 million tons of reserves on State leases. The main leases are in the Hoseanna Creek and Jumbo Dome areas. There are four ac tive and past resources: Poker Flats produced about 27 million tons of coal since the 1970s and the site is now in full reclamation; Gold Run Pass, which is near the end of the reclamation process; Two Bull Ridge, which has 15 million tons of reserves with 3.5-8 cubic yards of overburden for each ton of coal, and multiple seams with the num ber 4 seam up to 32 feet thick; and Jumbo Dome with 83 million tons of reserve, and the num ber 4 seam 40 feet thick. All coal is subbituminous, low-sulfur coal. Usibelli produced coal from its Two Bull Ridge and Jumbo Dom e sites near Mealy, w ith an output of 1,177,390 tons in 2015, down from 1.5 million tons in 2014. The majority of the coal is used for in-state electrical power generation at seven Interior coal-fired power plants, with lesser amounts exported through the Alaska Railroad Corporations export facility in Seward, which is operated by Aurora Energy Services LLC, a subsidiary of Usibelli. In 2015,150,000 tons of coal were exported to Japan, but no shipments were made to other regular customers in Chile or South Korea. In the last quarter of 2015, exports stopped and the coal-loading facility was put into temporary closure status. Com pany officials attribute lowr export demand and a drop in price for Alaska coal to an oversupply in the global market as well as the strength of the U.S. dollar. Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), one of Usibellis prim ary customers, is in the process of commissioning the Healy Num ber 2 power plant, a 50-megawatt, coalfired electrical plant at the m outh of the Usibelli mine, which is expected to become fully operational in 2016 and is projected to use about 200,000 tons of coal per year. This increase in coal demand is partially offset by a predicted 55,000-ton decrease in coal consumption fay the U.S. Air Force, as they plan to phase out their coal-fired powrer plant in Clear. Kensington Mine The Kensington underground gold mine and associated facilities are located in the Berners Bay mining district, about 45 miles north-northw est of Juneau. The project is owned and operated by Coeur Alaska Inc., a subsid iary of Coeur M ining Inc. Kensington is on private and U.S. Forest Service lands in the City and Borough of Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 42 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00042 Alaska's Minera! industry 2015 33 Juneau, and access to the mine is fay air or sea. Coeur Alaska controls two contiguous land groups: the Kens ington and Jualin properties. Each property consolidates several historical mines and prospects that comprise the northwestern extent o f the Juneau gold belt. Kensington mine began m odern commercial production in 2010. The underground mine is accessed by a horizontal tunnel, and mining is accomplished by underground long-hole stoping and drift-and-fill methods (photo 15). Ore is processed in a flotation mill that produces a gold-bearing concentrate. The Kensington ore deposit consists of multiple mesothermal quartz, carbonate, and pyrite vein swarms and discrete quartz-pyrite veins hosted in the Cretaceous Jualin diorite. Structure in the area is dominated by the Gastineau shear zone to the southwest, and the Kens ington shear zone, which passes through the mine area. The gold occurs as native grains in quartz veins and is as sociated with pyrite and various gold-telluride minerals. Both shear-hosted and extensional quartz vein arrays are common at Kensington and form roughly northsouth-trending zones that dip steeply east, although individual vein sets in the zones can dip at low angles, sub-parallel to the broader zones. The mineralization is approximately 55 million years old. Coeur reported development capital expenditures of $9.0 million for 2015. Approximately 669,837 tons of ore were mined, 659,786 tons were milled, and about 128,865 ounces of gold were produced from 21,829 tons of concentrate that were shipped to an off-site refinery (table 16). The gold output made this the best year of production from the main deposit at adjusted costs ap plicable to sales per ounce of gold of $798--the lowest since operations began in 2010. As of December 31, 2015, Coeur reported proven and probable reserves of 2.8 million tons of ore at 0.198 ounce of gold per ton w ith 560.000 ounces of contained gold out of a total identified resource, inclusive of the proven and probable reserves, of 6.7 million tons at 0.263 ounce of gold per ton (ap pendix D). Coeur employed 332 full-time-equivalent employees at Kensington as of the end of 2015. Highlights of 2015 activity at Kensington include the addition o f ore-sort ing technology to the m ill flow sheet in November to improve recovery rates going forward. Payback of this $1.8 million capital investment is ex pected to be achieved in the second quarter of 2016. Coeur also produced an initial resource estimate for the Jualin deposit at Kensington, and development of the high-grade deposit remains on schedule. The decline (ramp) length was increased by more than 2,000 feet, representing nearly 30 percent of the total required development to reach the ore body. Jualins inferred resource o f289,000 tons at 0.619 ounce of gold per ton is much higher grade than the average grade at Kensington. Permitting is underway for u n derground development at Jualin to provide access to underground drill stations. Drilling at Jualin to increase confidence levels of the existing Jualin resource and to expand the size of the ore body is expected to continue in 2016, with initial production expected in 2017. Coeur also plans to release a rescoped mine plan reflecting expected higher-grade, higher-margin production over an extended mine life at Kensington. Coeur proj ects that in 2016 Kensington will produce 115,000 to 125.000 ounces of gold at costs applicable to sales per ounce o f gold of $825 to $875. Capital expenditures are estimated to be approximately $30 million, focused on underground development of the Jualin deposit, further development of the Kensington and Raven ore bodies, and capitalized exploration. Table 16. Kensington Mine production statistics, 2010-2015. Year Ore (tons milled} Ore grade gold (ounce/ton) 2010a 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 174,028 415,340 394,780 553,717 635,960 659,786 0.28 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20 TOTAL 2,833,611 a Production .started July 3, 2010 Gold Recovery m 89.9 92.7 95.6 96.6 94,1 94.9 Gold produced (ounces) 43,143 88,420 82,125 114,821 117,823 128,865 575,197 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 43 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00043 34 Special Report 71 Photo 15. A roof bolter used underground at Kensington Mine to secure the roof, photo provided by coeur Alaska inc. Greens Creek Mine Greens Creek Mine, one of the w orlds largest and lowest-cost prim ary silver mines, is owned by Hecla Mining Co. (100 percent: ownership since 2008) through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Hecla Greens Creek M in ing Co. Hie mine opened in 1989 and, except for an approximately 2-year hiatus, has been in continuous operation since. Greens Creek Mine is in southeastern Alaska, in the Tongass National Forest on Admiralty Island, approximately 18 miles southwest: of Juneau, on U.S. Forest Service and private patented land in the City and Borough of Juneau, which is completely enclosed within Admiralty Island National Monument. Access to the mine is by sea, then a 13-mile access road up from the port site. The Greens Creek deposit is a polymetallic, strati form, volcanogenic massive-sulfide deposit hosted by predominantly marine sedimentary, and Late Triassic mafic to ultramafic volcanic and plutonic rocks, which have been subjected to multiple periods of deformation. Mineralization is present most often along the contact between a structural hanging wall of quartz-m ica- car bonate phyllites and a structural footwall of graphitic and calcareous argillite. The underground mine is accessed by a ramp from the surface and produces approximately 2,100-2,300 tons of ore per day via cut-and-fill and longhole stoping (photo 16). Ore is processed with a SAG/ball mill grinding circuit, a gravity circuit to recover electrum (a gold-silver alloy in the ore), and floatation to recover base metals--a silver-rich lead concentrate, a zinc con centrate, and a zinc-rich polymetallic bulk concentrate. Stopes are backfilled with a combination of mill waste (tailings) and cement. In 2015, Greens Creek produced a total o f8,452,153 mil lion ounces of silver, exceeding the prior year's pro duction by more than 625,000 ounces of silver (table 17). The mine also produced 60,566 ounces of gold, an increase of 3.1 percent over 2014; 61,934 tons of zinc; Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 44 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00044 Alaska's Mineral industry 2015 35 Table 17. G reens Creek Mine production statistics, 1989-2015, Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 0 1994 c 1995c 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Tons Milled 264,600 382,574 380,000 365,000 77,780 --135,000 493,000 540,000 578,358 619,438 658,000 733,507 781,200 805,789 717,600 732,176 732,227 734,910 790,871 800,397 772,063 789,563 805,322 816,213 8.14,398 Tons Concentrate ---113,827 ---43,000 --217,200 ------ ------ Tons Zinc 187,007 37,000 41,850 40,500 9,500 --9,100 46,000 58,900 68,527 84,082 63,903 80,306 76,200 69,1.15 58,350 59,429 62,603 58,224 70,379 74,496 66,050 64,249 57,614 53,810 6.1,934 To rs Lead 9,585 16,728 15,900 15,500 3,515 --4,200 19,000 22,700 25,503 31,677 22,385 27,582 24,800 21,826 18,600 20,992 21,029 18,562 22,253 25,336 21,055 21,074 20,114 20,151 21,617 Metai Produced Tons Ounces Gold Copper' 23,530 -- 38,103 -- 37,000 -- 32,400 -- 7,350 -- -- -- -- 193 7,480 1,300 56,000 1,300 60,572 1,400 80,060 1,400 128,709 1,400 87,583 1,600 102,694 -- 99,000 -- 86,000 -- 72,800 -- 62,935 -- 68,006 67,269 67,278 68,838 -- 56,818 -- 55,496 -- 57,457 -- 58,810 -- 60,566 TOTAL 15,319,998 -- 1,565,128 493,684 8,593 1,542,754 a No copper credits in 1989-1993 and 2003-2015. b Partial-year production. c No production in 1994 and 1995 due to mine closure. d Fifteen of these employees were assigned to development effort. e Fifty employees were assigned to development and reported in that section's employment. f Forty-five employees were assigned to development and reported in that section's employment. 8 Nineteen employees were assigned to development and reported in that section's employment. h Eighty-five employees were assigned to development and reported in that sector's employment. 1 Seventy-nine employees were assigned to development and reported in that sector's employment. J Nineteen employees were assigned to development and reported in that sector's employment. k Thirty-nine employees were assigned to development and reported in that sector's employment. 1 All employees were assigned to the production sector. - - = Not reported Ounces Silver 5,166,591 7,636,501 7,600,000 7,100,000 1,721,878 --2,476,000 9,700,000 9,500,000 10,261,835 12,424,093 10,300,000 10,313,183 11,707,000 9,707,000 9,700,000 8,865,818 8,646,825 7,145,711 7,459,170 7,206,973 6,498,337 6,394,235 7,448,347 7,826,341 8,452,153 202,457,991 Employees 235 265 238 217 217 --265 275 275 275 275 275 262 295 265 265d 245e 276* 336e 321h 343 1 3641 386k 390 415 418 and 21,617 tons of lead. Hecla considers silver to be the primary product of Greens Creek and claims a cash cost of production, alter byproduct credits, of $3.91 per ounce of silver. As of December 31,2015, Hecla reported proven and probable reserves of 7.2 million tons of ore at 12.3 ounces of silver per ton, 0.09 ounce of gold per ton, 3.0 percent lead, and 8.1 percent zinc containing 88.7 million ounces of silver, sufficient for a remaining mine life at Greens Creek of 10 years. The total identi fied resource, including proven and probable reserves, is 11.7 m illion tons at 12.3 ounces of silver per ton, 0.09 ounce of gold per ton, 2.9 percent: lead, and 7.6 per cent zinc, containing nearly 143 million ounces of silver (appendix D). Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) reported 418 full-time-equivalent employees at Greens Creek in 2015. In addition to reporting a banner production year, Greens Creek reported a very successful underground drilling program, adding new resources that are expected to replace mineral reserves over the next 2 years. Construction of the tailings expan sion project continues, with approximately $14 million being invested in this project in 2015. W hen completed, this project will result in an additional 10 years of tail ings storage capacity. Production in 2016 is expected to be 8.3 million ounces of silver. Chandalar Placer Mine The Chandalar gold mine, centered on the Little Squaw placer gold deposit in northern Alaska, is operated by Gold rich NyacAu Placer LLC, a 50/50 joint venture be- Attachment A Page 45 of 57 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 ED 002061 00172830-00045 36 Special Report 71 Photo 16. Greens Creek Mine reported a successful 2015 underground drilling program that added new resources expected to replace mineral reserves over the next two years, photo from hecla mining company, HTTP-y/vww.HECU-MiNiNG.coM/wp-coNTiTAJPLOADS^oi5/ii/ HECLA-GREENSCREEK-11 DSC2452.JPG. LAST ACCESSED ON OCTOBER 20, 2016. tween the Goldrich Mining Co. and NyacAu LLC (photo 17). In 2015, over 35 days in July/August, the joint ven ture partners removed overburden and produced 4,400 ounces of placer concentrate, which is expected to yield about 3,500 ounces o f refined gold. To date, $23 million has been invested to get the placer mine up and running. Resources are estimated to be 250,000 ounces of placer gold in a 10.5-million-cubic-yard alluvial deposit with an average grade of about 0.0243 ounce of gold per cubic yard. For 2016, projected production is expected to be about 23,100 ounces of gold. the Kuskokwim Corp., wrhich comprises ten villages on the middle Kuskokwim River. The Donlin deposit is hosted in and around a Late Cre taceous rhyodacite dike swarm that intrudes graywacke and shale of the Cretaceous Kuskokwim Group. M in eralization in the main ACMA-Lewis resource consists of quartz, quartz-carbonate, and sulfide (pyrite-arsenopyrite) veins. Gold is tightly bound in the lattice of arsenopyrite. Donlin is classified as a low-sulfidation epithermal deposit. Donlin Gold Project The Donlin Gold project, 270 miles west of Anchor age, is the major development project in the state. It is operated by Donlin Gold LLC, equally owned and supported by NovaGold Resources and Barrick Gold Corp., under an exploration and mining mineral lease agreement with Calista Corp., the areas ANCSA re gional corporation, and a surface-use agreement with Donlins current total identified resource is 698 million tons at 0.061 ounce per ton gold containing 45 million ounces of gold (appendix D). The proposed project, based on a proven and probable reserve of 556 million tons containing 33.8 million ounces of gold, would have a mine life of 27.5 years, with a projected annual production rate of 1.1 million ounces of gold. The p ro posed operation calls for an open-pit mine that extracts 420,000 tons of material per day; the mill wrould process Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 46 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00046 Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 37 59,000 tons of material per day through flotat ion , pres Chuitna Coal Project sure oxidation, and CIP leach facilities. The proposed project would include the mine, mill, tailings facility, 600-person camp, airport, road to a river port on the Kuskokwim River, and a saltwater port at Bethel. The mine and mill would require a 150-megawatt power plant, and the current plan also includes a 14-inch, 315-mile-long natural gas pipeline from Cook Inlet. The Chuitna Coal project is a major coal mining and export development project being designed and pro posed by PacRim Coal LP as a surface coal mine with contemporaneous reclamation to recover an estimated 300 million tons of subbitum inous ultra-low-sulfur coal. The resource is in the Beluga coal field of southcentral Alaska on Alaska Mental Health Trust lands, In November 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) published the Donlin Gold LLC draft envi ronmental impact statement (EIS); public review of the draft, meetings, and a 5-month comment period were conducted from November 2015 through April 2016. The Corps will review and respond to all comments on the Draft EIS in a Final EIS, which the Corps an ticipates will be published in 2017. NovaGoId reported 2015 expenditures of $11 million toward its share of the joint venture, and anticipates expenditures exceeding approximately 45 miles west of Anchorage on the west side o f Cook Inlet. The current project proposal consists of a surface coal mine and associated support facilities, mine access road, coal transport conveyor, personnel housing, airstrip facility, a logistics center, and coal ex port terminal. The current project predicts a m inimum 25-year mine life with an annual production rate of up to 12 million tons. PacRim is currently working on up dating their permit application after making significant changes to their proposed project. $9 million in 2016. ... jjllS B l Photo 17. Panoramic view of Chandalar placer gold operations, ph o to fro m g o ld r ic h m in in g co m pan y, HTTP-y/www.GOLDracHMiNiNG.coM/ [MAGES/CHANDAEAR,'GALLERY;701.5/0-1ANPALAR-,MINE-2015-1.JPG. LAST ACCESSED ON JANUARY 1, 2015. Eight companies publicly reported significant drilling programs in Alaska in 2015 (table 18). Total drilling by 14 operators across all sectors in 2015 was 937,769 feet, up 86 percent from about half a million feet of drilling in 2014 (table 19). Exploration drilling totaled 489,470 feet in 2015, 85 percent more footage than the 264,487 feet drilled in 2014. About 377,983 feet or 77 percent of exploration drilling was conducted by lode mines looking to increase their reserves and extend mine life. Development drilling totaled 309,914 feet, and production drilling totaled 138,385 feet. Despite the general depression of the mining industry fueled in part by limited financing and lower commodity prices in 2015, Alaska's mines continue to invest in their opera tions and the state. Drilling was primarily compiled from public company reports and online information, and represents a mini mum amount for 2015. Placer exploration drilling in 2015 was not compiled, and development and produc tion drilling is also likely underreported. Blast-hole drilling during production at Alaska's large lode mines was not tracked. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 47 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00047 38 Special Report 71 Table 18, Companies publicly reporting significant drilling pro grams in Alaska in 2015. Coeur Alaska Inc. Constantine Metal Resources Ltd. Contango ORE Inc. Coventry Resources Kinross Gold Corp. (Fairbanks Gold Mining Inc.) NovaCopper Inc. Sumitomo Meta! Mining Pogo LLC Teck Alaska Inc. Table 19, Drilling footage reported in Alaska, 1982-2015. Year Placer Exploration Placer Thawing TOTAL PLACER TOTAL COAL 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 30,000 23,000 31,000 46,000 32,400 94,000 30,000 98,000 34,000 227,000 124,000 53,000 129,000 80,000 259,400 80,000 12,000 25,700 8,700 28,800 1987 1988 50,250 152,000 130,000 300,000 180,250 452,000 19,900 26,150 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 97,250 78,930 51,247 6,740 25,216 21,000 27,570 61,780 38,980 33,250 6,727 15,480 1,100 1,250 10,108 107,526 3,360 8,759 19,575 1,216 1,244 10,427 3,150 13,282 17,986 7,227 -- 210,000 105,000 130,000 65,000 -- 307,250 183,930 181,247 71,740 25,216 21,000 27,570 61,780 38,980 33,250 6,727 15,480 1,100 1,250 10,108 107,526 3,360 8,759 19,575 1,216 1,244 10,427 3,150 13,282 17,986 7,227 .... 38,670 18,195 16,894 12,875 -8,168 8,500 13,998 2,300 36,151 2,000 7,500 50,539 26,869 W 11,601 W 7,704 W w w a Core and rotary drilling not differentiated prior to .1987, - - = Not reported W = withheld for confidentiality; included in hardrock rotary or core. Hardrock Core J 95,600 223,630 242,440 648,600 205,805 211,812 124,325 347,018 363,690 524,330 523,676 505,408 369,863 418,630 240,318 385,290 270,456 415,628 592,497 765,363 830,478 874,634 403,275 688,911 883,272 1,082,439 933,194 487,106 923,324 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Hardrock Rotary'1 19,500 130,230 89,790 112,355 110,850 148,022 127,990 91,692 51,795 134,527 180,834 45,670 78,934 127,638 75,750 103,612 100,178 36,024 41,780 54,173 268,112 250,278 260,059 216,768 175,181 14,182 17,800 9,736 12,795 TOTAL HARDROCK 200,000 180,500 176,000 131,700 50,200 115,100 353,860 332,230 760,955 316,655 359,834 252,315 438,710 415,485 658,857 704,510 551,078 448,797 546,268 316,068 488,902 370,634 451,652 634,277 819,536 1,098,590 1,124,912 663,334 905,679 1,058,453 1,096,621 950,994 496,842 937,769 TOTAL FEET DRILLED 404,000 245,500 330,700 220,400 338,400 315,250 832,010 678,150 963,080 514,796 444,449 277,531 467,878 443,055 729,137 757,488 586,628 455,524 561,748 353,319 490,152 382,742 559,178 637,637 835,795 1,168,704 1,152,997 664,578 927,707 1,061,603 1,117,607 968,980 504,069 937,769 Attachment A Page 48 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00048 Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 39 The authors thank the companies, agencies, and in dividuals that responded to emails or phone calls and provided information about their activities and opera tions. Without their voluntary and timely information this report would not be possible. In addition to op erational information, members of the public provided photographs and images used in this report. These contributions are greatly appreciated. The authors spe cifically acknowledge Shane Lasley (Data Mine North) and William Groom and co-workers [Department of Natural Resources (DNR)/Division of Mining, Land & Water (DMLW)] for providing photos. Where appropri ate, contributors have been acknowledged in the text. The production of this publication depends upon the collaboration of many agencies and organizations. Listed here are staff from the major agencies and orga nizations wrho provided mining-related information. Conor Bell (Department of Labor and Workforce De velopment) provided updated mining employment and wage information. William Bishop (Alaska Department of Revenue), Brenda Applegate (Alaska Industrial De velopment and Export Authority), Karsten Eden (Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office), Katie Earley (State Pipeline Coordinators Office), Cristin Cowles-Brunton (DNR/Support Services Division), and Annette Ziegman (Denali Borough) provided government revenue data. Zoya Ponomareva (DMLW) provided informa tion on the industrial minerals sector, as well as Robert Ellefson and Edward Klimasauskas (U.S. Bureau of Land Management) and Steve Hohensee (U.S. Forest Service). Deborah Morgan (Alaska Governor's Office/ Office oflnternational Trade) provided commodity ex port information. Jamey Jones (U.S. Geological Survey) and Kurt Johnson and Gina Graham (DGGS) provided information on government activities in Alaska in 2015. Jennifer Athey, Melanie Werdon, and Evan Twelker (DGGS) and Mitch Henning (DMLW) compiled the data and prepared the body of the text, tables, and ap pendices. The booklet's design, layout, and cover are by Kara Lewandowski (DGGS); graphic illustrations were created and updated by Jennifer Athey (DGGS); and Paula Davis (DGGS) edited the text. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 49 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00049 40 Specia! Report 71 APPENDIX A HELPFUL LINKS FORTHE MINERAL INDUSTRY IN ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Recording Fees j http://diir.alaska.gov/ssd/recofr/fces RO.ciin Public Information Center j http://dnr.alaska.gov/contmjs/pic/ State Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Documents Search j http://dn r.alaska.gov/ssd/recofiy Division of Mining, Land & Water Mining Applications and Forms j http://dnr.alaska.gpy/mtw/fonns/ Fact Sheets j hllp:/7dnr.alaska,gov/mlw71actsh.t/ Annual Placer Mining Application (APMA) 2015 ; http://ditr.-alaska.gov/iniw/forms/ l/iapma/ Annual Rental j hUtp2/Mnr-alaska,ov/mlw/fa^ o Leasing State Land j hL!p.;//dni;.alasia.goyrj)l;^ Land Lease & Contract Payment Information j b.y.P.l//.dJir.alaska.j;gy/mlw/factshtiland,,^^^^ Production Royalty | DNR Production Royalty Form j http://dnr.alaska.gov/miw/forms/miidng/royalty he.pdf Exploration Incentive Credit Program j http://dm-Alaska.gov/nihy/factsht/mine fc/expiore.pdf Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Publications On-Line j http://dggs.-alasfca.gov/publications/ Interactive Maps {http://maps.dgjffi.alaska.gov/ Geologic Maps of Alaska: Online Map Search Tool Ihttp://maps.dgys.alaska.gov/mapindex/ Unpublished Geology-Related Data (Alaska Geologic Data Index) \ 1L S C A t it ,V V i h't ; i vi d M I M ' \ W 'i i.! \ U ' i *IH' M`\iAi !\ U 1 Geologic Materials Center j http://dgg8 .alaska.gov/gmc/ Geochemical Sample Analysis Search (WebGeochem) Ihttp://www.dg.gs.alaska.gov/webg.eochem/ Minerals Report Questionnaire j http://www.dggs.alasfca.gDv/mlnerals questionnaire Alaska's Minerals Data & Information Rescue in Alaska (MDIRA) Project Websites MDIRA Portal Home Page | http://akgeology.info/ Alaska Mining Claims Mapper Ihttp://akmining.info/ Land Records Web Application j bhj " 1 1 iska.gov/Landrecords/ State Recorder's Office Search j http: d u ska.p^oy/ssd/trecoflvsea Alaska Resource Data Files |! http.vVa! 11 i l , _s.gov/ USGS Alaska Geochemical Database (NURE, RASS, PLUTO...) Ihttp://pabs.usgs.gov/ds/637/ Guide to Alaska Geologic and Mineral Information j http://doi.org/10.14509/3318 Alaska State Geo-Spatial Data Clearinghouse j http://www.a5 gdc.state.ak.u5 / DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Minerals Information j https://www.commerceaiaska.gov/web/ded/dev/mineraisdeyeiopment Community and Regional Information j https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/Researcb Analysis Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (A1DEA) | http://wwwaidea.org AIDEA Supports Mining jwww.aidea.org/Programs/PtDiectDeyelopment/30YearsoiMiningSapport DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Mining License Tax Ihttp://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/programs/index.aspxf606l0 Motor Fuel Tax Claim for Refund j http://www.tax.alaska.gOv//progtams/prog.rams/forms/index.aspxf60210 Alaska Motor Fuel Tax Instructions j http://www.iax.alaska.goy/progtattts/docamentyiewer/yiewer.aspxf5086f Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 50 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00050 Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 41 APPENDIX B PRIMARY METALS PRODUCTION IN ALASKA, 1880-2015" 0.3 0. 0 0 0 0.3 17,091.9 : r * q q q s : 8 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ! 1 1 3 1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... r- ^ co q q q ^ ^ j 1 S 2 ....................................................................... i i CO q O rn q rn i O ro *N IN IN IN :SliiiS....................................................................... illllll ................................... * 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 : : S3 : : IP ^ h P illili : l/3 n eri rq V :ss3 ; P ||P | ;1 3S3 ; 3 P f-i "! T 03 ^ , <H IN O O .......................................... ................................... I : : , , '-o uo -I r-j ................................... : : i ti q q o q o q q q in q v> --f o rv; in <; ,-.-i q I 1; I 3 1 3 s a I 3 I s s 3 1 s I 1 I I a 3I rI-i ! in -sf -I i s-? fr-iT -3i' q2- ?q q p p p p p p lp p p p p lp Ssssss s s 3 llls s s !s $ si3 5 PP | q oq -N ro f.i q q Is 3 s .... liillllllilllllllllslilil ^ R ^ S isiiisis'assS s-is-sn ' ! I p s5 " ; " '' 3 81I1I1I1I1 I1I III 1I 11 qqqq qqqqqqqqqqqqqqq .......... ` I I 1 I ! 3 ! I a 3 I " s l i l i l li|i I I s a s a. : a pii 5 1 1 1 11 S s 3S S 8 5 q MO q 3 g 8 s 1 111 : :aS3s 3 3 3 : ~p s ' 3s ill! q q w q q CTi r-- q q q q q q q p I p s I 33a 33S3 1 l il! li fI 1 I i 111113I 1 r IS 8 S 3 H q N rn q 00 q q N SS8SSs s ! islPIliPPiPIIPiiliPpsiiliiilippppi I S p p I 11 11 11 I I R I p I p p p 11 3 p p S p p p p 3 S I P 3 P P S S s 1 8 P a P s 3 s 3 *s P P P P I I s I a a I s I= I I --i O h ni if] ro IN --r ! ! i i i i i i 1i i i i i i i I i i 11 i i I i 111 i ! 111! i i 1i i i r * 3 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 51 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00051 42 Special Report 71 APPENDIX C PRODUCTION OF INDUSTRIAL MINERALS, COAL, AND OTHER COMMODITIES IN ALASKA, 1880-2015a'b Yea f 1880-1899 1900-1909 1910-1919 1920-1929 1930-1939 1940-1949 1950-1959 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200S 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Other O tti short tons 19,429 33,214 210,806 937,860 1,222,797 3,189,025 6,532,541 7,849,000 7,405,000 800,000 800,000 830,000 830,000 849,161 1,370,000 1,492,707 1,508,927 1,551,162 1,452,353 1,576,000 1,540,000 1,531,800 1,586,545 1,490,000 1,640,000 1,481,000 1,446,000 1,339,000 1,560,000 1,473,355 1,537,000 1,158,000 1,088,000 1,450,000 1,402,174 1,397,500 1,273,004 1,538,000 1,861,714 2,061,000 2,220,000 2,018,759 1,600,000 1,500,000 1,177,390 mS $0.1 0.2 1.2 5.2 5.5 20.2 59.7 58.8 89.0 15.0 17.6 18.0 18.0 23.8 39.7 40.1 42.4 44.3 41.5 45.0 39.0 38.3 38.1 36.8 41.3 38.0 38.1 35.2 41.1 38.8 48.1 37.4 38.1 50.8 49.1 48.9 44.6 53.8 65.2 72.1 77.7 70.7 56.0 52.5 41.2 ---- 42,332 1,758,504 65,804,686 163,315,000 489,522,000 40,000,000 45,000,000 45,000,000 50,000,000 27,000,000 28,184,080 20,873,110 16,696,374 17,264,500 14,418,000 15,013,500 14,160,011 14,599,745 13,162,402 13,518,321 9,847,550 9,890,463 13,800,000 12,363,450 10,600,000 10,600,000 10,360,000 22,412,000 11,868,001 19,576,092 15,620,009 13,953,455 14,163,676 12,461,685 7,072,037 5,977,297 5,862,851 7,799,994 11,522,045 525,509 5,725,541 --- $0.0 0.7 55.1 176.7 1,004.9 86.0 88.2 91.0 105.0 95.0 112.1 75.8 42.7 48.8 39.9 40.8 45.5 42.2 40.6 41.0 30.9 32.2 51.9 57.3 52.4 49.9 55.2 120.7 64.1 101.5 76.5 63.4 76.1 72.4 41.4 48.0 38.7 52.3 79.6 5.8 17.2 Rock short torts 7,510 15,318 50,014 494,417 689,676 286,341 1,843,560 2,034,000 47,930,000 3,700,000 4,200,000 3,400,000 5,270,000 2,700,000 2,500,000 4,200,000 1,805,000 3,500,000 2,914,000 3,200,000 3,000,000 2,900,000 3,561,324 3,843,953 2,811,152 3,000,045 3,200,000 1,636,200 1,640,000 5,200,000 3,091,000 3,152,000 851,382 7,312,050 2,803,172 2,359,738 2,211,954 2,485,820 1,837,090 290,852 499,722 1,050,762 364,632 1,147,869 2,300,000 ' $0.0 0.2 0.3 2.7 2.8 1.3 5.2 4.2 137.4 15.4 19.3 15.6 25.0 16.0 12.0 20.3 11.6 24.7 20.3 22.1 22.5 23.0 26.2 27.0 22.1 23.6 20.0 14.0 18.0 36.6 27.2 31.4 10.4 106.2 22.5 23.8 25.5 39.5 27.2 4.3 6.4 15.8 5.5 17.2 W {tanto short tons tS -- -, -- -, 225,000 502,000 50,000 ------- $1,200.0 8,217.0 2,000.0 ,, ,, ----- -- ,,,, -- ,,,, -- ,,,, -- ,,,, -, -, -, -, -, -, -, ,, ,, ,, ,, -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 79,000 W Other $ $246,403 2,014,788 2,523,754 899,767 27,124,158 25,443,427 34,143,000 77,501,000 97,500 256,000 150,000 242,000 875,875 559,000 384,800 388,400 389,000 1,492,000 400,000 462,000 430,000 465,000 459,500 182,500 200,000 217,000 215,000 190,000 203,000 205,000 200,000 175,000 2,732,554 809,642 1,057,500 1,085,500 1,159,502 3,678,930 2,303,950 3,200,000 1,900,000 120,000 TOTAL 78,930,324 41.776.8 1,330,435,238 53,420.4 153,410,553 $952.5 856,000 $11,417.0 S 196,782,450 8 From published and unpublished state and federal documents. Where state and federal figures differ significantly, state figures are used. b Please refer to previous editions of this appendix for year-to-year production information for years 1900 to 1979. ` As of 2015, rock, sand, and gravel are reported as a combined commodity. d Building-stone production figures for 1880-1937 are for the southcentral and interior regions of Alaska only. e Includes 2.4 million lb U30 8 (1955-1971); 505,000 tons gypsum (1905-1926); 285,000 lb W 0 3 (intermittently, 1916-1980); 94,000 lb asbestos (1942-44); 540,000 lb graphite (1917-1918 and 1942-1950); and undistributed amounts of zinc, jade, peat, clay, soapstone, miscellaneous gemstones, and other commodities (1880-present). f Marble quarried on Prince of'Wales Island, southeastern Alaska (1900-1941). m$ - millions of dollars t$ - thousands of dollars - - = not reported W - withheld Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 52 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00052 Alaska's Mineral Industry 2015 43 APPENDIX D IDENTIFIED MINERAL RESOURCES OF ALASKA DEPOSITS Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Page 53 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00053 44 Special Report 71 APPENDIX D IDENTIFIED MINERAL RESOURCES OF ALASKA DEPOSITS, CONTINUED a a 8 5i bi ! !KIS i s S - JTS 20.3 12.3 3 13 I 3i 1,163,460 0.090 1,820 0.120 If PP gi Is 15 S3 :S g s ! Is II P S s i? il Ils g g I* ITcI?slss' ! S3 S3 333 g ggg fill i s IS 5 m 10.000 7.204.000 .... l l Si ! ' !! m 1 li f g g s! l iri fa y* ^ K - if I I c V iI% ! ! ?! Ias Si M if l ! !! \W i 5 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 54 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00054 Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA CONVERSION CHART, U .S. CUSTOMARY UNITS/METRIC UNITS To convert from: ounces (avoirdupois) ounces (troy) pounds short tons grams grams kilograms metric tons (tonnes) parts per million (ppm) parts per million (ppm) parts per million (ppm) to: W eight/M ass/O re Content grams grams kilograms metric tons (tonnes) ounces (avoirdupois) ounces (troy) pounds short tons parts per billion (ppb) ounces per ton grams/metric tons (tonnes) miles miles miles yards feet feet feet inches inches kilometers meters meters millimeters millimeters centimeters Length kilometers yards meters meters meters centimeters millimeters centimeters millimeters miles yards feet feet inches inches mutiply by: 28.3495 31.1035 0.4535 0.9072 0.03527 0.03215 2.20462 1.10231 1,000 0.0292 1.00 1.60934 1,760 1,609.34 0.9144 0.3048 30.48 304.8 2.54 25.4 0.621371 1.09361 3.28084 0.00328 0.03937 0.3937 To convert from: square miles square miles acres acres square yards square feet square inches square inches square meters square kilometers square kilometers square meters square meters hectares hectares square centimeters square millimeters cubic yards cubic feet cubic inches cubic meters cubic meters cubic centimeters gallons (U.S.) liters milliliters ounces (fluid) to: 8E square kilometers acres square meters hectares square meters square meters square centimeters square millimeters acres acres square miles square feet square yards acres square meters square inches square Inches Volume cubic meters cubic meters cubic centimeter cubic yards cubic feet cubic inches liters gallons (U.S.) ounces (fluid) milliliters multiply by: 2.59 640 4,046.86 0.40486 0.836127 0.092903 6.4516 645.16 0.000247105 247.105 0.386102 10.7639 1.19599 2.47105 10,000 0.155 0.00155 0.764555 0.0283168 16.3871 1.30795 35.3147 0.0610237 3.78541 0.264172 0.033814 29.5735 Tier 10 Attachment A Page 55 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00055 lEiVSEERATUSLE CCL To convert from: degrees Fahrenheit degrees Celsius to: degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit do this: subtract 32, multiply by 5, divide by 9 multiply by 9, divide by 5, add 32 4cn^ Production jm h fmi-d ttoy m tnrt sr .1 Lisburne district 2 Noatak district 3 Wainwright district 4 Barrow district 5 Colville district 6 Canning district 7 Sheenjek district 8 Chandaiar district S Koyukuk district 10 Shurignak district .1.1 Kiana & Selawik districts 12 Fairhavert district (Candle subdistrict) 13 Fairhaven district (inmachuk subdistrict) 14 Serpentine district 15 Port Clarence district .16 Kougarok district 17 Nome (Cape Nome) district 18 Council district IS Koyuk district 20 Hughes district 21 Kaiyuh district 22 Anvik district 23 Marshall district 24 Bethel district 25 Goodnews Bay district 26 Aniak district 27 Iditarod district 28 McGrath district 29 innoko district 30 Ruby district 31 Kantishna district 32 Hot Springs district 33 Melozitna district 34 Rampart district 35 Tolovana district 36 Yukon Fiats district 37 Circle district 38 Black district 39 Eagle district 40 Fortymile district 41 Chisana district 42 Tok district 43 Goodpaster district 44 Fairbanks district 45 Bonnifield district 46 Richardson subdistrict of Fairbanks district13 47 Delta River district 48 Chistochina district 49 Valdez Creek district 50 Yentna district 51 Redoubt district 52 Bristol Say Region 53 Kodiak district (53b)-Alaska Peninsula Region (53a) 54 Homer district 55 Hope & Seward districts S6 Anchorage districtc 57 Willow Creek district 58 Prince William Sound district 58 Nelchina district 60 Nizina district 61 Yakataga district 62 Yakutat district 63 Juneau district (partial) 64 Juneau (64a) & Admiralty (64b) districts 65 Chichagof district 66 Petersburg district 67 Kupreanof district 68 Hyder district 69 Ketchikan district 70 Bering Sea Region 71 Aleutian Islands Region Unknown (undistributed)" 0 7,800 0 0 0 0 0 70.278 378,075 5,000 40,607 254,265 349,975 4,536 42,358 191,712 5,043,465 1,047,042 84,462 40.3,671 149,703 7 124,506 42,953 31,202 613,407 1,565,226 364,672 757,219 478,023 99,307 604,926 14,630 204,845 547,556 0 1,125,341 2 52,166 602,758 144,521 288 3,100,130 15,404,602 108,983 121,828 11,732 .186,604 533,167 204,980 105 1,570 .1.12,409 17 135,252 460 667,841 .137,802 15,016 148,500 18,041 13,200 82,540 9,908,402 770,000 15,000 0 219 62,002 0 0 29 0 7,800 0 0 0 0 0 52,878 378,075 15,000 40,607 254,265 349,975 4,536 42,358 191,712 5,043,465 1,020,042 84,462 403,671 5,400 7 124,506 42,95.3 31,202 613,407 1,562,296 133,307 757,06.3 478,023 91,401 604,926 14,630 204,845 547,556 0 1,125,341 2 52,166 602,758 78,021 288 2,051 8,282,595 102,283 119,528 11,732 186,604 531,586 204,980 IDS 1,570 4,809 .17 70,252 460 58,841 102 15,016 148,500 18,041 2,200 82,540 82,390 0 15,000 0 219 4,002 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,000 0 0 144,303 0 0 0 0 0 2,930 231,365 156 0 7,906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66,500 0 3,098,079 7,122,007 6,700 2,300 0 0 1,581 0 0 0 107,600 0 65,000 0 609,000 137,700 0 0 0 11,000 0 9,826,012 770,000 0 0 0 58,000 0 0 0 (1973). Sources of data: U. records 1880-1930; U.S. W ( 1,469 i by kartsome aod rNerns (a9.>4) and Cobb urvoy, U.S. Bureau of Mines, and A h c - i I j p im e n t of Mines 0 -1 9 69 ; Sfare of Alaska production cr i Js I e A 013 t fries o f "O11 0 Mot included in iota! for Fairbanks district. c Most piacer go:d production included in W fio w Creek district. d includes lode production from Glacier Bay area and piacer production from Lituya Bay area. e Production that cannot be credited to individual districts due to lack of specific records or for n Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Attachment A Page 56 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00056 TO TAL G O LD PRO D U CTIO N IN A LA S K A BY MINING D ISTRICT, 1880-2015 D istrict producing more then $.000,000 ounces of gold Districts producing more than 1,000,000 ounces of gold 111 'm v ! a Mining district names and boundaries revised slightly from those defined by Ransome and Kerns (1954) and Cobb (1973). Sources of data: U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Mines, and Alaska Territorial Department of Mines records 1880-1930; U.S. Mint records 1930-1969; State of Alaska production records 1970-2013. Entries of "0" generally mean no specific records are available. b Not included in total for Fairbanks district. c Most placer gold production included in Willow Creek district. d Includes lode production from Glacier Bay area and placer production from Lituya Bay area. e Production that cannot be credited to individual districts due to lack of specific records or for reasons of confidentiality. Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 10 Note: Table does not contain new placer gold production as o f 2015. Also, several totals were corrected; most significantly, gold production from Kensington Mine was incorrectly included with, the Juneau (par tial) district 63 in 2014. This production has been moved to the Juneau & Admiralty district 64. Attachment A Page 57 of 57 ED 002061 00172830-00057