The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNational Wildlife Refuge- Final 1987LAN 023 TETLIN _—— =a Alaska Power Authorit PINAL Tet i i LIBRARY COPY. National Conservation Wildlife Plan Refuge Environmental Impact Statement Wilderness Review FINAL LAN dz a oi = 7 J United States Department of the Interior =z <2 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: 1011 E. TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 ocT 5 (987 Dear Reader: Enclosed for your review and comment is the final comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement, and wilderness review (plan) for Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. This plan has been prepared pursuant to sections 304(g)(1), 1008, and 1317 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (Alaska Lands Act), section 3(d) of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The final plan includes five alternative strategies for long-term management of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. When producing long term management plans for the nation's national wildlife refuges, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) actively seeks comments from the general public on the development of management alternatives and on the choice of a preferred management strategy. The management of national wildlife refuges in Alaska must conform to the legal and administrative requirements listed in the first section of this document. Requirements that have a direct impact on the development of the long range plan and on the choice of the preferred management alternative are discussed below. According to the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and section 304(b) of the Alaska Lands Act, no use of a national wildlife refuge will be permitted unless it is first determined to be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. Section 304(g) of the Alaska Lands Act requires the preparation of a plan such as this for each unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) established or enlarged by the Act. The plan designates areas within the refuge according to their resources and values, outlines programs for conserving fish and wildlife resource values, and specifies uses within each area that may be compatible with the major purposes of the refuge. In addition, the plan discusses opportunities that will be made available for fish- and wildlife-oriented recreation, ecological research, environmental education and interpretation, and economic use of refuge lands. Comments received on the range of management alternatives and permitted activities presented in the draft plan were taken into account during the development of this final plan. In addition to presenting the Service's long-range management strategies for Tetlin Refuge, the plan evaluates the effect of the proposed management alternatives on subsistence uses and needs, as required by section 810 of the Alaska Lands Act. The law requires the Service to give adequate notice and hold public hearings before implementing any part of the plan determined to have an effect on subsistence. These requirements are met by: (1) public hearings held in conjunction with the development of this plan, (2) the section 810 evaluation found as part of the text, and (3) the consideration of comments received. Section 1008(a) of the Alaska Lands Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish an oil and gas leasing program on federal lands in Alaska except where prohibited by law or on those units of the System where oil and gas development would be incompatible with refuge purposes. Through the planning process with its opportunity for public review, the Service is trying to determine to what extent oil and gas development should be permitted. The Secretary also must consult with the Secretary of Energy to determine the national interest in developing oil and gas on refuge lands. His finding could influence the establishment of an oil and gas program. In addition, consultations must be held with the Governor, local governments, Native and regional corporations, the Alaska Land Use Council, representatives of the oil and gas industry, conservation groups, and other interested individuals to determine the public interest in or opposition to oil and gas studies and leasing activities. During the process of developing plans, the public has an opportunity to suggest what additional lands, if any, should be placed in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Section 1317 of the Alaska Lands Act requires the Service to review all lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska not congressionally designated as wilderness to determine their suitability or nonsuitability as wilderness and to subsequently recommend areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Although large tracts of land in refuges in Alaska may be found to be suitable as wilderness, not all suitable land will be proposed for wilderness designation because of management strategies that will be used to meet refuge purposes. As a result, the range of wilderness alternatives is evaluated subsequent to the selection of the Service's preferred management alternative. Two wilderness proposals are examined in the final plan for Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. The preferred alternative identified in this final plan does not include a wilderness proposal. During the passage of the Alaska Lands Act Congress established more than 19 million acres of Wilderness on refuges in Alaska. Therefore, the criteria used to determine what land the Service additionally proposes for wilderness designation include (1) the need for wilderness unit boundary adjustment and (2) the addition of selected areas with outstanding resource values that may have been inadvertently overlooked during the original wilderness review and subsequent designations undertaken by Congress. A summary of public comments on the Service's recommended wilderness proposal is included in the final plan which is part of the wilderness package sent to Congress. Comments provided on the draft plan have been taken into account in preparation of this final comprehensive conservation plan. A record of decision will be published no sooner than 30 days following the publication of the document, and the Service will begin implementing the management directions in the preferred alternative. Comments or requests for further information should be directed to the Regional Director, Attention: William W. Knauer, (907) 786-3399. Sincerely, Cather O. RHE Regional Director Enclosure TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FINAL COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND WILDERNESS REVIEW October 1987 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGION 7, 1011 E. TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE, AK 99503-6199 Us. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, created in 1980 by an act of Congress, abuts the Canadian border, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, and the Alaska Highway. This comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement and wilderness review describes five alternatives for managing Tetlin Refuge and the effects of implementing each. An alternative reflecting current management is included as one of the management strategies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's preferred alternative is identified and the criteria used in its selection are presented. The plan also includes a wilderness review, which evaluates the suitability of lands for wilderness designation under each management alternative. For further information contact William W. Knauer at (907) 786-3399. TABLE OF CONTENTS Tablel of | Contents: |2||5\|2) |e] |< |e | ls | a [lee | = lle lel lol lel le] lial le Table of Contents - Wilderness Review. .....e es hist:|o£| Tables |||2||<|1s]|¢| \e|la||s.|' |e) elt] st leliellel ellelte le le bist |of| Pigures'|.||<|)2| || |e! ls |\s «|| ol) | ellelleliel ciel ie lel le Abbreviations||e||.|/2|/2! lel le|\s | ls || [silo lelle| ellel lel el le| « SUMMATY |o|/e|ie| js |e 1e| tol le! le) le | le | o | oi) 0) [col | ol || lel lel lel lelie| te te I. INTRODUCTION Purpose and need for action. ........2.2- Overview of Tetlin Refuge. .... 2.2. ee eee Purposes of Tetlin Refuge .........2ee. Megal| context: |. |/o|/.] |e | s|o.|% | el |s||4) | le} le| dle] \e| «| Planning |process)||. .). 2 3 |s .|s| s) «| «| s/e\6 « Special values .......2.24046- s\s|e ale Potential problems affecting fish, wildlife and habitats Public involvement .... 1... ee ee eevee Revisions to the draft comprehensive conservation II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Physical environment ......2e ee ee eee Setting |. |!e! le |i) 5 | ol) e) |o [si lelfs|iol| sels | sil e| oe Land! status, 's.|(s|.\| |! 5! |o!| 6! | || «| | =|!) | a1 s| el] «| Glimace tis | ||| 51) | fa! |e) [ol |e] |e) ot t26-1 er] | et | tla | Topography .. «eee ee ee ec ew wwe e Geology: |s!| i) i| ie) |-s||o} [ol |e: |e] lol le] » |||) s\-1| st| ol] o Water resources . «4 6 6 ee ee eee eee Biological environment ......-24.2.ee.e.. Wegetataon) ||!) ei) oll 2t ls! [sl leliel lel + | et | ol)s |-st| ol | b| 5 Fiisha}| |i) |e or) iol) bl lol lol |e) |e] fol lel fol} | el] ot | 5) 51 | ot | 6 Birds |i i) tit) | tl [el bol lol las fel [al bel| =! Fel oe| Stl st | ot | & Manmnal's |..| |'s|| 5s) | }5| || |4||+| |) [5] [+] © |e}] efor] sks! | #1 © Threatened and endangered species ...... Human environment .... 2... ee ee ee eee Cultural resources ... 2... se ee eee Population trends and composition. ..... Sociocultural systems .......-e ee ee Community infrastructure ........e.-. Economic conditions ........s.eeeee Pubbic—use—. 3a aa a a Wilderness review... 1... eee eee eeae Background and legal requirements ...... Criteria for wilderness review and evaluation Evaluation of wilderness review units .... plan . Page . i . Vv » vii viii . x » xi ° 1 . 1 . 3 . 3 . 6 - ll - 12 . 13 - 25 - 27 | | | ied - 27 - 29 - 29 - 30 - 38 - 43 - 43 - 48 - 49 - 56 - 67 - 69 - 69 - 71 - 72 « 74 - 74 «16 - 97 - 97 - 97 - 100 III. IV. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Management categories . . +. + +s Intensive management .....- Moderate management . .. «+. «ss Minimal management ...+-se-s Designated Wilderness .....- Common management directions ...-. Cooperation with other government Cooperation with refuge users and adjacent lands . 2. +. s+ ee ee Land exchanges .- + +++ ee Access to inholdings ....s«-e-s Alaska Native Claims Settlement Ac Nonexclusive use easements ... Historic roads and trails .... Transportation and utility systems Recreational access «. +. + +e Fish and wildlife and habitat mana Subsistence . . s+ ee ee eee Wilderness . - «+» es ee eee Interpretation and education .. Gabine 6 eee We eee Oil and gas studies and leasing . Mineral assessment .«.. +e Mining operations . . . ++ ees Commercial use .« « «+ + es ee ee Fire management . . + + + ee ee Air and water protection .... Shorelands . «+ 2 «© © e+ © ee @ Management of water columns... Visual resources management . . .- Litter and waste control .... Historical and cultural resources Refuge administration, facilities Management of selected lands .. agencies owners of a! lie |e » | # t section oe eee ose eee oe ee ee ew ee gement . ee ew ee rr refuge inholdings ee ee we 17(b) easements . and location ...«++s-s- er ee) Refuge management plans « «se + e+ e+ e+ © © © © ee ew we Description of the Alternatives . 2.6. ee + ee ee ee ee eee Changes to the Alternatives ... Alternative A Modified (Current Situation or No-Action Alternative) ....s+.-s Alternative A... «2 «ee ee Alternative B... 2. +e ee eee Alternative C (Preferred Alternati Alternative D... «6 «ee ee ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Introduction ... + ee 6+ ee we oe Alternative A Modified oe eo ee ve) (Current Situation or No-Action Alternative) Scenario - life of the plan. ...+-se-e-ee-s ii . Page 109 109 116 116 116 117 117 117 118 118 118 119 119 120 120 121 124 126 127 128 128 129 130 130 130 131 133 134 134 134 135 136 137 138 138 138 140 144 147 151 155 161 163 163 Scenario - long term .. 2 2 eee ee ce cee eo we we oo we © 166 Biological impacts . 2. 2 2 © ee © eo ew ww ww ew ww wo ww wt 166 Socioeconomic impacts . 2. 2. 6 6 © ee oe we we ew we we ww we wo we we (172 Impacts of the wilderness proposal . 2... 2 ee © © ee ee « « 173 Subsistence/section 810 evaluation ........+.2 2+ sess 176 Alternative A. 6s 6 we ee ee ew we ww we ww ww ew we we we we we we we ow LTT Scenario - life of the plan... 2. ee ee ee ee ee ee © ee (LTT Scenario - long term . 2... 2 2 2 ee ee ww we ew we we ow we ew 178 Biological impacts . 2. se ee ee ee ee ee ee we ow ww ow we 178 Socioeconomic impacts . . 2. 6 2 6 6 © we we we ee we we ew ww ew we we 178 Impacts of the wilderness proposal .... +e 6 «© «© © © ww © © © 178 Subsistence/section 810 evaluation .......+.2 eee ees 181 Alternative Be. . ee ee ee ew we we ee we we we ew we ww we ww we we we 1B) Scenario - life of the plan... . 2. 2. ee ee ee ee ee we © 181 Scenario - long term . 2. 2. se eo 6 «© we © eo we © ww wo ww we ww © 182 Biological impacts «©. 2. eee ee ee ee ew ew ee ew ew we we we 182 Socioeconomic impacts . . . 2 ee © © ee we ew ww ew ew ew ww wt 184 Impacts of the wilderness proposal ..... 2... +e ee + «© « © 185 Subsistence/section 810 evaluation .......2.+ 2+ eee. 190 Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) .. 2... 2.6 eee ee ee ee 191 Scenario - life of the plan... 2... eee eee ee ee ew es 191 Scenario - long term 2... 6 ee ee ee ee ee we ew ew we we wo ws 192 Biological impacts . 2. 2. 2 2 6 © ee ee ew we we ww ew ew ww we 192 Socioeconomic impacts . 2. 6 6 6 6 6 ee ee ee ew ww we ww sw 194 Impacts of the wilderness proposal ..... +. ee © © «© © © © ~ 195 Subsistence/section 810 evaluation .. 2... 2. ee ee ee ee 6 198 Alternative D . . 2 6 6 6 6 © © © © © 0 © © 0 wo wo 0 wo ww wo ww ew 199 Scenario - life of the plan... ee eee eee ee ew ee ew e ~ :199 Scenario - long term . 2. 2. 1. ee es ee ee ee eo ew ww ow eo ew ew 201 Biological impacts . 2. 2. ee eee ee eee ee ee ew ew ew ew ee 201 Socioeconomic impacts . . 2. 2. 2 6 6 © 6 oe ee we we ew we ew we ww 204 Impacts of the wilderness proposal ..... +e ee ee ee. 205 Subsistence/section 810 evaluation ..... 4.2.6 5 ee ee ees 207 Summary of section 810(a) evaluation and findings ......... . 209 Mitigation . 2. 2 ee ee ew ew ww ee ew we we we ww we we we ww we 210 Short-term use versus long-term productivity .......s..... 210 Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources ....... 211 V. EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES Evaluation criteria . 2... «ee ee ee ew ww we ww we ww we we ew 213 Relative costs of the alternatives . 2... 2. 2 6 ee ee ee ew ws 218 Selection of the preferred alternative . . . 2. ee 2 ee ee ee es 221 LIST OF PREPARERS . . « 2 2 © © © © © © © © © © © © ow wo ow ew ow ww ww we 223 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION . 2. «2 6 ee ee we we ee we we ew ew ew ww 225 REFERENCES . «2 6 2 we we ew ew we ee ew we ew ww we we ww we tw ww ww ww 233 iii Page APPENDICES A. International treaties «ee. ee ee eee eee ee ee we we we wee we 24) B. Tetlin vegetation classes . 1. ee ee ee ee ee ee ee we ee ee © 243 C. Scientific names of the fish and wildlife of Tetlin Refuge ..... ~ 252 D. Fish and wildlife species present on Tetlin Refuge and their habitats . 2... 6 eee ee ee eee eee ee ee ee © 257 E. Master Memorandum of Understanding between ADF&G and FW Le tolls b |e] & eee F. Possible rights of way under RS 2477 .. 1 ee ee eee ee ee ew 269 G. Letters commenting on proposed headquarters location ....+.+-+-+-. - 270 H. Comments on the draft plan and selected Service responses . «+++. + 289 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS - WILDERNESS REVIEW Page PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Wilderness issues and concerns .... +. eee ee eee ee eee ee 13 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT PLAN Modifications to wilderness impacts sections ........+.e-e-es 25 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Wilderness review... ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ew ee ew ew se OF Background and legal requirements .........2 eee eee. 97 Criteria for wilderness review and evaluation ........+.2.. 97 Evaluation of wilderness review units ......+.s..-e+.s-.. 100 MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Common management directions for all alternatives Wilderness management category ... 2... +e eee eee eee es 116 Wilderness management . . 2. 2. ee ee ee ewe we ee ew ew ee 126 Description of the alternatives Wilderness proposal for Alternative A Modified .......... 140 Wilderness proposal for Alternative A .... +... +s. e ee es 144 Wilderness proposal for Alternative B .......+ 2+ ese. 147 Wilderness proposal for Alternative C ......+. 2 ++. e... 15) Wilderness proposal for Alternative D ..... +... +e. 155 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Alternative A Modified (Current Situation) Scenario for the life of the plan . 2... ee eee ee ee ee © 163 Scenario for the long term wilderness impacts ......... . 166 Impacts of the wilderness proposal . .. se ee + 6 2 © © © © © © 173 Impacts on wilderness values .. 2... 2 ee we © © we © © «© 173 Impacts on fire management . 2... 2. 6 2 ee we ee ee ee 175 Impacts on habitat manipulation... ... 2. ee ee ee ee 175 Alternative A Scenario for the life of the plan ..... 2. +e 2.2 ee ee ese 177 Scenario for the long term wilderness impacts .......... 178 Impacts of the wilderness proposal . .... 6 +e 6 6 ee ee «© « 178 Impacts on wilderness values . 2... 2 6 eee ee ee ee « 179 Impacts on fire management ...... 2. 2+ +e e «ee « « ~ 180 Impacts on habitat manipulation... .... +. +e ees. 180 Alternative B Scenario for the life of the plan .... 2... 2+ ee ee ees 181 Scenario for the long term wilderness impacts ......+.. . 182 Impacts of the wilderness proposal . .. 2. 6 ee ee ee ee © © 185 Wilderness area . eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee we ew we ww 185 Impacts on wilderness values . 2... 6 ee se «© © © © © © © © 185 Impacts on fire management ..... 2 se 6 oe © © © © © © © 187 Impacts on habitat manipulation... .... +e 6 6 se + «© © 187 Page Nonwilderness area. se eee eee ee ee ee ee we we ww we 188 Impacts on wilderness values .... ++ ee ee ee ee e + 188 Impacts on fire management ... see ee ee ee eee ee 189 Impacts on habitat manipulation 189 Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) Scenario for the life of the plan .... 2.2.2 ee ee ee ee » 191 Scenario for the long term wilderness impacts . «+ «+++. 192 Impacts of the wilderness proposal... se ee ee ee eee ee 195 Impacts on wilderness values . «eee ee ee ee ee ee © 195 Impacts on fire management .... ee ee eee ee ee ee 197 Impacts on habitat manipulation... 6. ee ee eee ee - 197 Alternative D Scenario for the life of the plan . 1... 5. ee eee ee ee ee 199 Scenario for the long term wilderness impacts ......s +e 201 Impacts of the wilderness proposal... . +. se 4 ee ee ee © © 205 Impacts on wilderness values . . 2. + ee ee ee oe ee oe © 205 Impacts on fire management . ~~... eee ee ee © oe © © © 207 Impacts on habitat manipulation... . 2. ee ee ee ee + 207 . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF TABLES Number Page 1. Land status within the refuge boundary, as of January 1985 ...... 27 2. Relative abundance of land cover classes and subclasses on Tetlin Refuge] «llc di ||. Je 2 al alle Ie wt allele eM olla ot So Me Wd Sia ll 44 3. Duck species nesting on Tetlin Refuge, with relative abundance in 2983 |e os) allele clos fs w cil odie lo of oll elle o & ells ol ollells ¢ 4] alle |l| 52 4. Population characteristics of four communities using Tetlin Refuge, 1960-2000... 2... ee eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 72 5. Estimated population and wage employment for the North Star Borough and four communities using Tetlin Refuge, 1980 ....... 75 6. Local and nonlocal public use on Tetlin Refuge, 1982-1983, recorded by the number of visits ... 2... ee eee ee eee ee 77 7. Annual pattern of harvest by local residents using Tétlin: Refugel|. | -|.|/6 2 4) ol ells js a) olle lle lo sl elle & wll ollie |e © ell ollie || OO 8. Management activities, public uses, and economic uses permitted in management categories ..... 2.2. eee ee eee eee ee oe ~ 110 9. Population sizes of select species or species groups on Tetlin Refuge ee a ol ola Me Je al ole Me IE al elle et ell elllle le et all 6 lrg 2 10. Management category designations for each alternative ......... 141 1l. Summary of the alternatives for Tetlin Refuge ....... 22-2 214 12. Summary of biological and socioeconomic impacts ......+ sees. 215 13. Summary of wilderness impacts of the alternatives ........... 217 14. Staffing levels and costs of the five alternatives .......... 219 vii 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. LIST OF FIGURES Tetlin Refuge and vicinity . Location of Tetlin Refuge and other national wildlife refuges in Alaska . . 2 ee eee ee eee eee ee The refuge comprehensive conservation planning process General refuge planning requirements ... . Land status as of January 1985 eee © we ew Terranes and faults in the Tetlin area ... Surficial geology .....-. Soil associations .....-. Streams, lakes, and ponds Land cover types «+2... « Canada goose and sandhill crane Duck production distribution Raptor distribution. .... Moose distribution ..... Sheep distribution ..... Grizzly bear distribution. . Marten and fox distribution . Beaver and muskrat distribution Otter distribution ..... re ee ry distribution oe eo eo ee Local resident waterfowl hunting areas ... Local resident fishing areas . oe we ee ee Local resident moose hunting areas ...+.- Local resident trapping areas... +. +s eee Recreational sheep hunting area. ...ss-s-s viii Page 28 31 34 36 40 45 51 53 55 57 60 61 63 64 65 81 82 83 84 88 LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.) Number Page 25. Recreational bear hunting areas... 1... ee ee eee ee ee ee BY 26. Recreational moose hunting areas . 1... eee ee eee eee ee 90 27. Recreational waterfowl hunting areas ..........eee eee. Ql 28. Recreational fishing areas .. 1... eee eee eee eee eee 93 29. Wilderness review units .. 2... ee eee ee ee ee ee wee ee 99 30. Alternative A Modified (The Current Situation) ........... 142 31. Alternative A... eee eee ewe ee ee ew ee ee ew ew we 146 32. Alternative Be... eee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ww we 149 33. Alternative C (The Preferred Alternative) ..........e.2..2.2. 153 34. Alternative D. wwe eee ee eee ee ee we ee ww ew we 157 35. Relative annual costs of the alternatives ........s...se-e ee. 220 ix ADF&G . ANCSA . ANILCA AS .. ccP.. CFR. . DNR. . EIS... FRWR . NEPA . NWPS . NWR. . RM .. ROW. . RS 2477 WR . ABBREVIATIONS Alaska Department of Fish and Game Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Alaska Statutes Comprehensive Conservation Plan Code of Federal Regulations Alaska Department of Natural Resources Environmental Impact Statement Federal Reserved Water Right National Environmental Policy Act National Wilderness Preservation System National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Manual Right-of-way Revised Statute 2477 Wilderness Review SUMMARY SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This document describes five alternatives for managing Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge and identifies possible consequences of implementing the alternatives. Each alternative provides broad policy guidance for managing the refuge, and two alternatives include wilderness proposals. The congressional boundaries of Tetlin Refuge encompass 924,000 acres, of which about 700,000 acres are under federal jurisdiction. It is bordered on the north by the Alaska Highway, on the east by the Canadian border, on the south by the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, and on the west by the Tetlin Reserve (previously known as the Tetlin Indian Reservation). The refuge landscape consists primarily of lakes, ponds, and tundra. These habitats support 1 amphibian, 14 fish, 192 bird, and 44 mammal species. The refuge provides important habitat for waterfowl, furbearers, and moose. Congress established Tetlin Refuge in 1980 when it enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). According to ANILCA the purposes for which the refuge was established and shall be managed include: (i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not Limited to, waterfowl, raptors and other migratory birds, furbearers, moose, caribou (including participation in coordinated ecological studies and management of the Chisana caribou herd), salmon and Dolly Varden; (ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; (iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge; (v) to provide, in a manner consistent with subparagraphs (i) and (ii), opportunities for interpretation and environmental education, particularly in conjunction with any adjacent State visitor facilities. The fifth purpose listed in ANILCA is unique to Tetlin Refuge. PLANNING PROCESS The first step in developing a comprehensive conservation plan for Tetlin Refuge was to collect information. Field inventories, local interviews, remote sensing, and literature searches produced information about refuge resources and uses. Public meetings, workshops, and other means were xi used to learn the issues people were concerned about and what they felt should be done on the refuge. All available information was then analyzed with the help of resource specialists from several agencies and the private sector to identify special values, problems, and issues as required by ANILCA. The following were identified as special values of the refuge: the environmental education opportunities, the trumpeter swan population, the nesting osprey population, the bird diversity, waterfowl production, and the vegetated sand dunes of the Tanana Valley. Four potential problems affecting fish and wildlife were identified for Tetlin Refuge: the lack of detailed resource data, access, development and use of inholdings and adjacent private lands, and intensive public use. Issues raised by the public include fish and wildlife populations and habitats; trapping; oil and gas development; recreational use and development}; access and transportation; land acquisition, exchanges, and boundary adjustments; cabins; woodcutting; fire; law enforcement; and wilderness. The Service used criteria set forth in the Council of Environmental Quality's implementing regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) for the National Environmental Policy Act in determining what issues were significant. Six issues were identified as being significant for the comprehensive conservation plan based on the above analysis: fish and wildlife populations, subsistence lifestyles, mechanical habitat manipulation, routes and means of access, fire management, and designated wilderness. Two issues were identified as being significant for wilderness designation based on the above analysis. These issues include mechanical habitat manipulation and fire management. Public Comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Following a 90-day review of the draft comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement and wilderness review by government agencies, Native corporations, special interest groups, and the general public, the Service has revised the document. All comments received and responses to particular comments are included in Appendix H. Revisions to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan In response to Service policy and public comments on the draft comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement and wilderness review, several changes have been made in this final document. Changes include: o The significance and treatment of each issue identified through the scoping process is discussed with respect to both the comprehensive conservation plan and potential wilderness designation; o wildlife distribution and subsistence use maps have been updated} o a revised and expanded format is used for the wilderness review; xii o the table of "Management activities, public uses, and economic uses permitted in management categories" has been expanded to include fisheries management ; ° new wording has been added on management of shorelands and the water column, Revised Statutes (RS) 2477 rights-of-way, and 17(b) easements; o discussion of management of recreation and access, interpretation and education, mineral assessment, mining operations, commercial uses, water rights, water quality, historical and cultural resources, transportation and utility systems, and selected lands have been significantly modified or expanded; o discussion of the allowable activities within a wilderness area has been clarified and expanded to include the provisions of the Service's policy on use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas; o an evaluation of Northway and Tok for the final headquarters location and the final decision to keep the headquarters in Tok is presented}; o anew alternative, Alternative A Modified (AM), has been added that reflects the current situation with no wilderness recommendation; ° the preferred alternative, Alternative C, has been changed to increase the amount of land in minimal management}; o Alternative D has been modified to increase the amount of land in moderate management 3 o the wilderness impacts section of the environmental consequences chapter has been expanded and reorganized to more clearly show the impacts of wilderness or nonwilderness on the significant wilderness issues} o long term (more than 15 years) scenarios have been prepared for the wilderness evaluation sections of the environmental consequences chapter to allow evaluation of the long term impacts of designating or not designating wilderness. After a 30 day protest period following publication of this final plan, the Service will issue a record of decision and will begin implementing the preferred alternative. Implementation and Revision of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan The availability of funds and personnel, and the coordination of other governmental activities will determine the extent of development, management, and maintenance undertaken on the refuge in any given year. The Service will develop detailed management plans as necessary to guide implementation of the adopted plan and operation of the refuge. These plans will address specific resource and public use management activities such as wilderness, fire, habitat, and recreation management. Public involvement may be required. According to the Service's Manual (4 RM 3.19): In any circumstance where an aspect of the management program deals with a subject of known special interest or controversy, the affected public should be brought into the management planning process at appropriate stages. If a management activity or program may constitute or involve a major federal action, NEPA compliance will be required. This plan provides broad policy guidance for managing Tetlin Refuge. It should be viewed as a dynamic document that will be reviewed and updated periodically as knowledge of refuge resources and users improves; the refuge's fish and wildlife populations, user groups, adjacent land uses, and other management considerations change; and problems in implementing the plan become apparent. Most revisions will "fine-tune" rather than modify the plan. These changes will be addressed in the more detailed refuge management plans and annual work plan advices. Every three years the Service will hold meetings or use other methods to solicit comments in order to enable refuge users, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to express their views on how the refuge is being managed. All comments and new resource information received within the preceding three year period will be reviewed to determine if revisions to the plan are necessary. When appropriate, changes will be made and added as an appendix to the plan with the Regional Director's concurrence. Refuge objectives will govern such revisions. By continuously updating the plan, major revisions will rarely be necessary, and Service Management will be more effective. Full review and updating of the plan will occur every ten years. In implementing the plan the Service periodically will prepare site-specific evaluations to determine whether various proposed activities or uses are compatible with refuge purposes. All compatibility determinations will be reviewed by the regional office to ensure the findings are consistent with Service policy. A record of compatibility determinations will be kept on file and will provide the basis for future decisions on refuge uses. If regulations of any type are proposed, the Service is required to follow the legal requirements for a rule-making process, including public involvement. COMMON MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS Management of the refuge under any alternative is governed by federal law, Service policy, and principles of sound resource management, all of which restrict the range of potential activities. Accordingly, certain management directions must be implemented in all of the management alternatives for Tetlin Refuge. These common management directions include: o coordinating management with other resource management agencies, and cooperating with owners of refuge inholdings and adjacent lands, including local governments and Native councils}; xiv studying possible land exchanges and cooperative agreements that would help ensure consistent management and protection of fish and wildlife habitats; working with village corporations regarding the use and development of village lands}; ensuring that fish and wildlife populations and ecological relationships necessary to conserve natural diversity are maintained; providing interpretation and environmental education for local residents and the traveling public; ensuring that subsistence opportunities are maintained by assessing potential impacts of proposed uses or activities, conducting research, enforcing regulations, and monitoring fish and wildlife populations and uses; maintaining opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-oriented activities on the refuge; collecting data on waterfowl, fish, big game, furbearers, subsistence, public use, and other topics that are of primary management interest; providing reasonable access onto the refuge for subsistence and recreational activities per ANILCA sections 811 and 1110; permitting the use of snowmachines (during periods of adequate snow cover), motorboats, airplanes, and nonmotorized surface transportation methods for traditional activities on refuge lands and for travel to and from homesites, subject to reasonable regulations}; permitting oil and gas studies, including seismic exploration, throughout the refuge subject to a site-specific determination of compatibility with refuge purposes and consistency with management objectives; the exception is designated wilderness areas where only an Interior Department agency or its contractors will be permitted to conduct oil and gas studies that require motorized equipment; prohibiting oil and gas development on refuge lands in minimal management and designated wilderness categories; on all other areas oil and gas leasing will not be permitted until the oil and gas potential has been assessed, an affirmative national interest determination made, and a favorable compatibility determination completed. xV ALTERNATIVES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section briefly describes the alternatives and resulting environmental consequences. The alternatives are general in nature and provide broad strategies for management of refuge resources and uses. Each of the alternatives designates areas within the refuge using the management categories described in Chapter III. All of the alternatives are consistent with the purposes of the refuge and comply with existing laws, regulations, and Service policy. To evaluate the effects of each alternative the Service developed short and long term scenarios that describe events likely to occur on the refuge. These scenarios are described in Chapter IV. ALTERNATIVE A MODIFIED (THE CURRENT SITUATION) This alternative, which maintains the current situation, offers the least habitat manipulation of any of the proposed management alternatives except Alternative A, the all wilderness alternative. All of the refuge, except a three acre administrative site, would be in minimal management. Fish and wildlife management would be confined primarily to monitoring harvest and populations and recommending seasons and bag limits to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Four hundred and fifty acres per year would be burned to create a natural fire break across the refuge to protect inhabited areas and inholdings. An additional 200 acres per year would be burned to improve habitat distribution and reduce hazardous fuel build-up. Wildfires would be permitted to burn unless human life or property were endangered or too much of the predominantly mature spruce forest was threatened. Subsistence use is expected to increase as the local population grows. Public use would continue to be managed as it has been in the past, however, a major increase in recreational use of the refuge is projected independent of the alternative selected due to the proximity of the refuge to the Alaska Highway, a planned public contact station at the border of the refuge, waysides along the highway adjacent to the refuge, and increasing public awareness of the refuge. Oil and gas studies would be allowed in all portions of the refuge, but oil and gas leasing would not be allowed. Due to low oil and gas potential, no activity is anticipated. Management Directions © emphasize maintenance of the refuge's natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their present condition; o provide for continued subsistence monitoring and use of refuge resources} © maintain traditional access} o© maintain opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation; ° recommend no areas for wilderness designation; Maintain the refuge in an undeveloped state; o allow compatible oil and gas studies throughout the refuge, do not allow oil and gas leasing; o provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education; o manage habitat through wildfires and prescribed burning where necessary to reduce hazardous fuel loads. ° xvi Environmental Consequences Fish and Wildlife © minor negative impact on fish populations from fishing; negligible impact on fish populations from fire management; oO minor increase in waterfowl density due to increased nutrients in waters from fire management; negligible impact from increased hunting; o negligible impact on cranes from wildfire; possible minor negative impact on cranes from public use; oO minor increase in number of other aquatic birds where fires have enhanced aquatic productivity; o negligible impact on osprey from fire management; minor benefit to bald eagles, hawks and owls due to increased prey, minor negative effect due to loss of nesting area from fire; no impact on peregrine falcons; o diversity of birds may increase due to greater variety of vegetation after fire; 0 possible short term minor negative impact on caribou due to loss of winter habitat; © minor to moderate increase in moose in the ten year planning period; long-term significant increase} o negligible impact on Dall sheep; o negligible impact on grizzly bear; possible minor increase in black bear} oO minor to moderate increase in fox, lynx, wolf; no effect to minor decrease in marten; no impact on beaver}3 © moderate to major increase in snowshoe hares following fire; major negative impact on red squirrels due to habitat loss from fire; minor increase in other small mammals following fire. Socioeconomic Impacts o negligible impact on cultural resources due to increased use or prescribed burning; © minor positive impact on local economy due to increased recreational use and increased number of furbearers. Recreation © major off-site increase in nonconsumptive use due to an increase in interpretation and environmental education and increased public contact} ° minor increase in moose and black bear hunting} no impact on hunting grizzly bear, sheep, or waterfowl; 0 major increase in recreational fishing. Wilderness oO minor short term negative impact on naturalness due to fire} o minor long term impact on solitude from increased recreational use} Subsistence o minor positive impact from increased harvest of refuge resources; o negligible impact from increased recreational use. ALTERNATIVE A Under this alternative all but three acres at Northway Junction would be proposed for wilderness designation. After the refuge was designated wilderness, there would be a negligible increase in recreational visitors in addition to the increases described in Alternative A Modified. Disturbances to fish and wildlife habitats and populations would be minimized. Public use would be managed as it has been in the past, except information and education programs would be developed in compliance with ANILCA. Fire would be managed as in Alternative A Modified: 450 acres would be burned for the blackline, 200 acres would be burned for habitat improvement, and wildfires would be allowed to burn, if they did not threaten life or property or get too large. After wilderness designation, nonmechanized oil and gas studies would be allowed. Mechanized studies would not be allowed unless conducted by or for a Department of the Interior agency according to the provisions of section 1010 of ANILCA. Oil and gas leasing would not be allowed. Management Directions o emphasize the maintenance of the refuge's natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their present condition; o provide for continued subsistence monitoring and use of refuge resources; © maintain traditional access; © maintain opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation; o provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education; oO manage habitat through wildfires and "minimum tool" prescribed burning}; © recommend 100% of the refuge for wilderness designation}; o allow compatible nonmechanized oil and gas studies throughout the refuge; do not allow oil and gas leasing; Environmental Consequences Fish and Wildlife o minor negative impact on fish populations from fishing; negligible impact on fish populations from fire management; o minor increase in waterfowl density due to increased nutrients in waters from fire management; negligible impact from increased hunting} o negligible impact on cranes from wildfire; possible minor negative impact on cranes from public use}; o minor increase in other aquatic birds where fires have enhanced aquatic productivity}; o negligible impact on osprey from fire management; minor benefit to bald eagles, hawks and owls due to increased prey; minor negative effect due to loss of nesting trees; no impact on peregrine falcons}; o diversity of birds may increase due to greater variety of vegetation after fire; o possible short term minor negative impact on caribou due to loss of winter habitat; xviii o minor to moderate increase in moose in the ten year planning period; long-term significant increase}; o negligible impact on Dall sheep; o negligible impact on grizzly bear; possible minor increase in black bear} ° minor to moderate increase in fox, lynx, wolf; no effect to minor decrease in marten; no impact on beaver}; o moderate to major increase in snowshoe hares following fire; major negative impact on red squirrels due to habitat loss from fire; minor increase in other small mammals following fire. Socioeconomic Impacts o negligible impact on cultural resources due to increased use or prescribed burning; o minor positive impact on local economy due to increased recreational use. Recreation o negligible increase over A Modified in nonconsumptive use} 0 minor increase in moose and black bear hunting; no impact on hunting grizzly bear, sheep, or waterfowl} Oo major increase in recreational fishing. Wilderness o negligible short term positive impact on wilderness values; minor long term benefits. Subsistence Oo minor positive impact from increased harvest of refuge resources; o negligible impact from increased recreational use. ALTERNATIVE B This alternative emphasizes restoration of fish and wildlife populations to historic levels. As a resul of successful management hunting, trapping, wildlife observation, and wildlife photographic opportunities would increase. Twenty percent of the refuge, the Cheslina drainage, would be recommended for wilderness designation; 1,400 acres next to the highway would be intensively managed for public use; 43,000 acres on the north end of the refuge would be in moderate management which would allow for the use of tracked vehicles in the construction of firelines for prescribed burns; and the remainder of the refuge would be in minimal management as in Alternative A Modified. As in Alternative A Modified, 450 acres per year would be burned for the blackline, 200 acres would be burned for habitat improvement, and wildfires would be allowed to burn if they did not threaten life or property or get too large. Chum salmon and lake trout would be reintroduced at two sites each to restore historic population levels. Three fishing access points along the highway and on the refuge would be marked for the benefit of visitors. Continued public use of the refuge would be allowed using existing access methods and routes. Interpretation and environmental education efforts would focus on sites adjacent to the refuge. xix Management Directions oO ° oo ° oO oO emphasize the restoration and maintenance of the refuge's natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats; reintroduce chum salmon and lake trout at two sites each; maintain traditional access} maintain opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation; recommend 140,000 acres in the Cheslina Unit for wilderness designation; Maintain the refuge in an undeveloped state}; allow compatible oil and gas studies in minimal, moderate, and intensive management areas; allow nonmechanized oil and gas studies in designated wilderness areas} potentially allow oil and gas leasing, subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatibility determination in moderate and intensive management areas; do not allow oil and gas leasing in minimal management and designated wilderness areas; provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education; provide for increased subsistence use of refuge resources; manage habitat through prescribed burning and wildfires. Environmental Consequences Fish & Wildlife ° ooo negligible impact from lake trout reintroductions; moderate positive impact on some fish populations due to increased nutrients from reintroduced chum salmon; negligible impact from fire; moderate impact on fish near fishing access points from increased fishing; minor increase in waterfowl density from prescribed burning and wildfire management; negligible impact from increased recreational use} negligible impact on cranes due to wildfire; possible minor negative impact from public use} minor increase in number of other aquatic birds where fires have enhanced aquatic productivity}; minor to moderate positive impact for bald eagles and osprey due to increased food from fire management and reintroduced chum salmon; minimal negative impact on bald eagles and osprey from increased recreational use due to protected nesting areas; minor benefit for hawks and owls due to increased prey; minor negative effect due to loss of nesting area; no impact on peregrine falcons; diversity of birds may increase due to greater variety of vegetation after fire; possible short term minor negative impact on caribou due to loss of winter habitat; minor positive impact on moose from increased browse; negligible impact from increased hunting; negligible impact on Dall sheep; negligible impact on grizzly bear; minor positive impact on black bear; minor to moderate increase in fox, lynx, wolf; no effect to minor decrease in marten; no impact on beaver; xx 0 moderate to major increase in snowshoe hares following fire; major negative impact on red squirrels due to habitat loss from fire; minor increase in other small mammals following fire. Socioeconomic Impacts o negligible impact on cultural resources due to prescribed burning; o minor positive impact on local economy due to increased tourism, local hiring for fire management. Recreation Oo major increase in nonconsumptive use due to an increase in interpretation and environmental education and increased public contact}; o minor increase in moose hunting} minor increase in black and grizzly bear hunting; Oo major increase in fishing. Wilderness o negligible short term benefits; o minor long term benefits in designated area. Subsistence o minor positive impacts on subsistence due to increased resources; o negligible increase in recreational use competing with subsistence use. ALTERNATIVE C (THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Alternative C would increase the extent of fish and wildlife habitat Management over Alternative B, thereby increasing opportunities for fishing, hunting, trapping, and observing wildlife. In this alternative, no areas would be proposed for wilderness. Fourteen hundred acres next to the highway would be in intensive management; 120,000 acres would be in moderate management which would allow tracked vehicles to construct firelines for prescribed burns; and the remainder, 577,500 acres would be in minimal management as in Alternative A Modified. As in Alternative A Modified, 450 acres per year would be burned for the blackline, and wildfires would be allowed to burn if they did not threaten life or property or get too large. An additional 400 acres per year would be burned for habitat improvement. Chum salmon would be reintroduced at six sites, lake trout reintroduced in four lakes, and grayling stocked in two road-accessible lakes. It would take approximately four years for the stocking program to yield fish to the public. Three fishing access points on the refuge would be marked for the benefit of visitors along the highway. The area near the visitor contact station, or near one of the interpretive sites along the Alaska Highway, would have a loop trail about one-half mile long. Increases in subsistence use would be similar to those described in Alternative A Modified. Recreational use would increase beyond that described for Alternative A Modified due to increased access and public information programs. xxi Management Directions oO ° oo oo emphasize restoration of the refuge's natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats to historic levels; increase the annual amount of prescribed burning}; reintroduce chum salmon at six sites and lake trout at three sites} manage two lakes for grayling and one lake for lake trout adjacent to the Alaska Highway using a stock, restore, and maintain concept} provide for increased subsistence use of refuge resources} maintain traditional access} provide increased opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation; recommend no areas for wilderness designation; maintain the refuge in an undeveloped state} allow compatible oil and gas studies throughout the refuge; potentially allow oil and gas leasing subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatibility determination in moderate and intensive management areas; do not allow oil and gas leasing in minimal management areas; provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education. Environmental Consequences Fish & Wildlife oO ° oo minor negative impact on refuge fish population due to fire management} moderate negative impact on introduced fish from increased fishing; minor increase in waterfowl density due to increased nutrients in waters from fire management; negligible impact from increased hunting}; negligible impact on cranes from wildfire; possible minor negative impact from public use; minor increase in number of other aquatic birds where fires have enhanced aquatic productivity; minor to moderate positive impact for bald eagles and osprey due to increased food from fire management and reintroduced chum salmon; minimal impact on bald eagles and osprey from increased recreational use due to protected nesting areas; minor benefit to hawks and owls due to increased prey, minor negative effect due to loss of nesting area; no impact on peregrine falcons} minor to moderate benefits for other birds due to increased habitat diversity} possible short term minor negative impact on caribou due to loss of winter habitat; minor to moderate increase in moose habitat; management of hunting pressure would keep impacts from hunting negligible; negligible impact on Dall sheep; slight increase in grizzly bear hunting; minor increase in black bear populations; o minor benefits to fox and lynx; possible minor increase in beaver population; no effect to minor decrease in marten; Oo moderate to major increase in snowshoe hares following fire; major negative impact on red squirrels due to habitat loss form fire} minor increase in other small mammals following fire. Socioeconomic Impacts o minor adverse impacts to cultural resources due to increased habitat Management and increased public use} oO minor positive impact on the economy due to increased recreational use and hiring local fire crews for prescribed burning. Recreation 0 major increase in nonconsumptive use due to an increase in interpretation and environmental education and staffed visitor contact station; moderate increase in moose and black bear hunting; oO major increase in fishing due to new access points and expanded fisheries Management. ° Wilderness o minor negative impacts from burning on naturalness}; o moderate negative long term impacts on solitude near the highway. Subsistence Oo minor increase in subsistence harvest of waterfowl, furs and berries}; moderate increase in moose harvest; moderate to major increase in fishing harvest} o© minor increase in competition between local and nonlocal residents. ALTERNATIVE D Alternative D would permit the maximum level of wildlife habitat manipulation, and nonwildlife oriented activities, compatible with refuge purposes. In this alternative, no areas would be proposed for wilderness designation; 14,000 acres along the Alaska Highway would be in intensive management; 215,800 acres would be in moderate management which would allow for mechanical habitat manipulation and use of tracked vehicles on prescribed burns; and the remainder, 481,800 acres, would be in minimal management as in Alternative A Modified. Seven hundred acres a year would be burned by prescription, and 450 acres a year for the blackline. Mechanical manipulation of 300 acres per year would take place along the Nabesna, Cheslina, and Chisana rivers for moose browse rejuvenation. Wildfires would be allowed to burn where human life and property are not endangered. Canada geese may be restored to their original breeding range on the Tanana River and tributaries. Chum salmon and lake trout would be reintroduced in six sites each to restore populations to historical levels. Fisheries enhancement would take place in six lakes for northern pike, six lakes for grayling, and one lake for lake trout. Three fishing access points on the refuge would be marked for the benefit of the public. The area near the visitor contact station, or near one of the interpretive sites along the Alaska Highway, would have a loop trail about one-half mile long. The difference in environmental education between alternatives C and D would be in the size of the interpretive staff and the season and range of environmental education activities. Management Directions o emphasize restoration of the refuge's natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats to historic levels; ° increase the annual amount of prescribed burning and use mechanical habitat manipulation in selected areas; restore Tanana River Canada goose population; o increase fishery development programs over those described for Alternative C3 ° o provide for continued subsistence use of refuge resources; © maintain traditional access} © provide increased opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation; ° recommend no areas for wilderness designation} Maintain the refuge in an undeveloped state; o allow compatible oil and gas studies throughout the refuge; potentially allow oil and gas leasing subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatibility determination in moderate and intensive management areas; do not allow oil and gas leasing in minimal management areas}; o provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education, with staffing of the visitor contact station near the border increased over the level described for Alternative C3 © possibly allow sand and gravel extraction in a limited area along the Alaska Highway. ° Environmental Consequences Fish & Wildlife o minor adverse impact on refuge fish populations due to prescribed burning, mechanical manipulation, and public use; moderate negative impact on introduced fish from fishing; o minor increase in waterfowl populations due to construction of small dams; possible positive impact on Canada geese due to reestablishment, if stocking is successful$ o negligible impact on cranes from wildfire; minor negative impact on cranes from public activity; o minor increase in number of other aquatic birds where fires have enhanced aquatic productivity}; oO minor to moderate positive impact for bald eagles and osprey due to increased food from fire management and reintroduced chum salmon; minor benefit hawks and owls due to increased prey, minor negative effect due to loss of nesting area; no impact on peregrine falcons}; diversity of other birds may increase due to greater variety of vegetation; minor short-term detrimental impact on caribou due to loss of wintering habitat; oo XX1V 0 minor to moderate moose habitat improvement due to prescribed burning and mechanical manipulation; moderate increase in hunting due to increased access and information; overall‘ net benefit to moose population; o negligible impact on Dall sheep; © minor to moderate increase in grizzly bear population, minor increase in harvest; moderate to major increase in black bear harvest and population; © minor benefits to fox and lynx; minor increase in beaver population} minor to moderate benefits for wolves from increased prey; minor positive impact on other furbearers due to increase in habitat and food; 0 moderate to major increase in snowshoe hares following fire; major negative impact on red squirrels due to habitat loss from fire} minor to moderate increase on other small mammals following fire. Socioeconomic Impacts © minor adverse effects on cultural resources due to higher levels of use, gravel extraction, and water level manipulation; 0 moderate positive impact on the economy due to increased public use and increased management. Recreation © major increase in nonconsumptive use due to an increase in interpretation and environmental education and increased public contact3 © major increase in moose and black bear hunting; moderate increase in grizzly bear and sheep hunting; moderate increase in waterfowl hunting; © major increase in fishing due to improved access and public information. Wilderness © major impact on naturalness in vicinity of sand and gravel pits; moderate impact on naturalness in areas of mechanical crushing; minor impact due to fire management; o moderate long term impact on solitude near the highway and on the major lakes and rivers. Subsistence © moderate increase in moose and berry harvest; minor increase in furbearer and waterfowl harvest; significant chum salmon harvest restored to refuge; oO minor competition from nonlocal users; Section 810 Evaluation Management recommendations in alternatives A Modified, A, B, and C would not significantly restrict subsistence use. Impacts to subsistence use could occur in Alternative D in areas of high recreational use, but careful monitoring, management of harvest location, and regulation should minimize these impacts. XXV SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Service has chosen Alternative C for managing Tetlin Refuge. This alternative has about 90,000 less acres in moderate management than the draft Alternative C. Those acres are now in minimal management. Alternative C meets most of the concerns that were raised during the planning process while satisfying the purposes of the refuge and ensuring that opportunities are maintained for the widest range of users. The Service will carefully monitor and regulate all uses and activities to ensure that adverse impacts to the refuge are minimized. xxvi I. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The Tetlin Refuge comprehensive conservation plan environmental impact statement and wilderness review is a congressionally mandated plan that provides general guidance for managing Tetlin Refuge. The Tetlin plan is general in nature and will be periodically reviewed and updated. Future Management plans will treat specific management issues such as fisheries, particular wildlife species, and recreation. This document describes the physical, biological, and human environment of Tetlin Refuge and five alternative strategies for long-range management. Each alternative has a different management emphasis and wilderness review. The document includes a final environmental impact statement that assesses the effects of the five alternatives. The Fish and Wildlife Service has evaluated the five alternatives and selected one for implementation. After a 30 day protest period, a record of decision will be published and the plan will be implemented. This document has been revised to reflect comments made during public review of the draft plan. In 1980, upon passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the lands of Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge became part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Both Fish and Wildlife Service policy and ANILCA require preparation of a plan to guide management of new additions to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Service policy states that "national wildlife refuges will have approved master plans to guide refuge management decisions in response to the goals, objectives, and long-range plans of the Service" (Part 4 of the National Wildlife Refuge System Manual). Section 304 of ANILCA directs the Secretary of the Interior to "prepare and from time to time, revise, a comprehensive conservation plan ... for each refuge" in Alaska. Section 1317 of ANILCA directs the Secretary to review refuge lands and make recommendations for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires federal agencies to analyze impacts in an environmental impact statement before taking major actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A comprehensive conservation plan is additionally needed in order to: o provide a direction and basis for refuge management decisions; o ensure that national policy is incorporated into management of Tetlin Refuge; o provide continuity in refuge management; o provide a basis for budget requests. OVERVIEW OF TETLIN REFUGE The congressional boundaries of Tetlin Refuge encompass 924,000 acres of federal, selected, and conveyed lands in southern Alaska (Figure 1). Nearly 700,000 acres are under federal jurisdiction. It is bordered on the north by the Alaska Highway, on the east by the Canadian border, on the south by the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, and on the west by the Tetlin Reserve (previously known as the Tetlin Indian Reservation). The refuge landscape consists primarily of lakes, ponds, and tundra. 20 Gas) Village A SG ° = Mes Tetlin Indian & S @Y Northway Reserve 3 3 I g Tetlin Refuge ) Boundary ro $ v& ° vatahmund A fa Lake wy ond Vv ‘ \ yoy y 3 ™~ ¥ Nabesna Wrangell - St. Elias National Park and Preserve ® Chisana 30 40 Miles U.S.A CANADA Cr. a away?’ TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE *T ean31g *AYIUTIIA pue aBnjeay ut{IeL Species known to occur on the refuge include 1 amphibian, 12 fish, 192 bird, and 44 mammal species. Two other species of fish, Dolly Varden and chinook salmon, are known to use waters adjacent to the refuge and may be on the refuge as well. The refuge provides important habitat for fish, waterfowl, furbearers, and big game. PURPOSES OF TETLIN REFUGE Section 302(8)(B) of ANILCA sets forth the following purposes for which Tetlin Refuge was established and shall be managed: (i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, waterfowl, raptors and other migratory birds, furbearers, moose, caribou (including participation in coordinated ecological studies and management of the Chisana caribou herd), salmon and Dolly Varden; (ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; (iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge; (v) to provide, in a manner consistent with subparagraphs (i) and (ii), opportunities for interpretation and environmental education, particularly in conjunction with any adjacent State visitor facilities. Tetlin is one of two refuges in Alaska (the other is Kenai Refuge) for which interpretation and environmental education was identified in ANILCA as a refuge purpose. As the first refuge seen by road travelers entering Alaska, Tetlin Refuge serves as an introduction to the National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. Interpretive displays and programs on Tetlin's broad array of habitats, all visible from the road, apply to landscapes throughout Alaska. LEGAL CONTEXT Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge is one unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. The principal federal statutes affecting refuge planning and management are discussed briefly below. Regulations developed to guide implementation of applicable laws are codified under Title 50 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR). National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 This act established the National Wildlife Refuge System primarily to conserve valuable habitat for migratory birds (especially waterfowl), large game animals, and endangered species. It defines fundamental policies for administration and management by the Fish and Wildlife Service of all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System including Tetlin Refuge. The act defines key terms, establishes criteria for opening refuges to migratory bird hunting, and gives procedures for divestiture of lands. This act also establishes the concept of "compatibility" whereby proposed uses of refuge lands must first be determined to be compatible with the purposes for which individual refuges were established. The refuge system includes over 430 units in 49 states, with 16 refuges in Alaska (Figure 2). Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) In addition to amending the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska Statehood Act, ANILCA expands the federal conservation system throughout the state including refuges, parks, forests, wilderness areas, and rivers and trails. ANILCA established many new refuges, of which Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge is one. With respect to national wildlife refuges, ANILCA defines refuge purposes, specifies planning and management requirements, and authorizes studies and programs related to wildlife and wildland resources, commodity resources, subsistence opportunities, and recreational and economic uses. Section 1317 of ANILCA requires that all refuge lands that are not designated as wilderness be reviewed as to their suitability for wilderness designation. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) This act requires federal agencies to carefully analyze impacts prior to taking major federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Implementation of any one of the alternative plans for management of Tetlin Refuge is considered a major action, therefore, the planning process is subject to NEPA requirements. This document combines the environmental impact statement required by NEPA with the comprehensive conservation plan required by ANILCA. Wilderness Act of 1964 This act established the National Wilderness Preservation System and prescribed policy for wilderness designation and management. Although no lands on Tetlin Refuge have been congressionally designated as wilderness, this comprehensive conservation plan evaluates the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation and serves as the basis for the wilderness recommendation that will go to Congress. International Treaties Migratory bird and anadromous fish treaties with Canada, Me,ico, Japan, and the Soviet Union and the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Conservation in the Western Hemisphere provide mandates for protecting and managing species and critical habitat. Appendix A describes the treaties in greater detail. CO MON DNB wD = On ek Wn = Alaska Maritime Alaska Peninsula Arctic Becharof Innoko Izembek Kanuti Kenai Kodiak Koyukuk Nowitna Selawik Tetlin Togiak Yukon Delta Yukon Flats °Z ean3ty *BySe TY ut se8njal aJITP[IM Teuotqyeu 19yIO pue enjoy ute] Jo uotqeI07 Tetlin NWR Treaties for migratory bird protection include the following directives: 1) the Secretary of the Interior may establish seasons for the taking of birds and eggs by “indigenous inhabitants" of Alaska for their own essential needs; 2) each nation shall undertake measures necessary to protect and enhance alteration of their habitats; 3) each nation must provide immediate notification when pollution or destruction of habitats occurs or is expected; 4) each nation shall, to the extent possible, establish preserves, refuges, protected areas, and facilities for migratory birds and their habitats and manage them to preserve and restore natural ecosystems. Of the migratory birds of concern in the treaties, those which use Tetlin Refuge include loons, swans, geese, ducks, hawks, eagles, harriers, osprey, falcons, cranes, plovers, sandpipers, gulls, terns, owls, and passerines. The Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and Canada establishes a Pacific Salmon Commission charged with managing the salmon fishery on the west coast. According to this treaty, salmon stocks in the Yukon River are to be managed jointly based on escapement needs. In order to fairly allocate salmon between the two countries, the Service must determine what percentage of each salmon species is produced in United States waters. This requires an inventory of all stocks on refuges with tributaries to the Yukon. This treaty affects chum salmon on Tetlin Refuge. Other Laws Laws which affect mineral leasing, recreational use, commercial fishing, and other activities on federal lands were considered in this planning effort. The technical supplement to this plan contains a summary of legal references and their provisions. PLANNING PROCESS Legal and Administrative Planning Requirements Section 304(g) of ANILCA requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge in Alaska. It also specifies that prior to developing a plan for any refuge, the Secretary of the Interior is required to identify and describe: (A) the populations and habitats of the fish and wildlife resources of the refuge} (B) the special values of the refuge, as well as any other archaeological, cultural, ecological, geological, historical, paleontological, scenic, or wilderness values of the refuge} (C) areas within the refuge suitable for use as administrative sites or visitor facilities, or for visitor services, as provided for in sections 1305 and 1306 of this Act; (D) present and potential requirements for access with respect to the refuge, as provided for in Title XI; (E) significant problems which may adversely affect populations and habitats of fish and wildlife identified and described under subparagraph (A). Section 304(g)(3) of ANILCA states that each comprehensive conservation plan shall: (A) be based upon the identifications and the descriptions required to be made under paragraph (2)- (i) designate areas within the refuge according to their respective resources and values; (ii) specify the programs for conserving fish and wildlife and the programs relating to maintaining the values referred to in paragraph (2)(B), proposed to be implemented within each such area; and (iii) specify the uses within each such area which may be compatible with the major purposes of the refuge; and (B) set forth those opportunities which will be provided within the refuge for fish and wildlife oriented recreation, ecological research, environmental education and interpretation of refuge resources and values, if such recreation, research, education, and interpretation is compatible with the purposes of the refuge. Section 810 of ANILCA directs the Service to evaluate the effects of various land uses on subsistence needs and to consider alternatives to reduce or eliminate any anticipated impact. In preparing the plans, the Secretary is required to ensure adequate interagency coordination and public participation. Interested and affected parties such as state agencies, Native corporations, local residents, and political subdivisions must be provided meaningful Opportunities to participate in the planning process. Prior to adopting a plan the Secretary is to issue notice of its availability in the Federal Register, make copies available in regional offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service throughout the country, and provide opportunity for public review and comments. Finally, section 1317 of ANILCA requires the Secretary to conduct a review, consistent with provisions of the Wilderness Act, of all refuge lands in Alaska not already designated as wilderness. The Secretary is to forward recommendations to the President and Congress regarding any lands considered suitable for addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System based on this review and public comment. Description of the Planning Process The planning process used to develop alternatives for Tetlin Refuge was designed to fulfill the legal mandates cited above as well as administrative requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System (Figures 3 and 4). Figure 3. Step 1 ° oooo Step 6 ooo The refuge comprehensive conservation planning process. PREPLANNING Identify laws, regulations, and policies affecting refuge management Develop analysis methods and capabilities Prepare public involvement plan Hold region-wide public scoping meetings Identify management issues and concerns INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS Identify and compile resource information needed for planning Describe the physical, biological, economic, and social environments Establish data base Determine capability of resources to respond to issues and concerns FORMULATE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES Develop alternative strategies for management Identify different combinations of uses for resources EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES Evaluate the effects of implementing each alternative on the physical, biological, and human environments Evaluate the ability of each alternative to achieve refuge purposes and resolve issues and concerns Identify changes from baseline resource information PLAN SELECTION Select a preferred alternative Prepare and distribute a draft plan describing the alternatives and their expected effects if implemented Provide opportunities for public review and comment SELECT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN Review and evaluate public comments received on the draft plan Prepare and distribute a final plan that responds to public comments Provide opportunities for public review and comment Prepare a Record of Decision PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Prepare a detailed management plan(s) identifying specific actions necessary to implement the plan and achieve its goals and objectives with appropriate state and public involvement Begin implementing the plan PERIODIC UPDATING OF PLAN Every three years solicit public comments in order to make appropriate revisions Review all public comments, local, state, and federal recommendations, scientific data and other information to update plan as needed Make minor changes as an appendix to the plan after approval by the Regional Director with notification to affected agencies and individuals Make major changes by going through the planning process Figure 4. General refuge planning requirements. ANILCA REQUIREMENTS The Fish and Wildlife Service planning process for each refuge involves three stages progressing from developing a broad comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement, wilderness review to refuge management plans for specific resources and, finally, annual work plans for specific projects. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLANS address topics of resource management, visitor use, refuge operations, and development in general terms. The wilderness review determines which lands are suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The goal of this plan is to establish a consensus between the Service and interested agencies, groups, and individuals about the types and levels of visitor use, development, and resource protection that will occur. Decisions are based on the refuge purposes, its significant values, the activities occurring there now, and the resolution of any major issues surrounding possible land use conflicts within and adjacent to the refuge. The following kinds of detailed management plans are prepared after completion of the comprehensive conservation plans. Vv REFUGE MANAGEMENT PLANS identify the actions that will be taken to preserve and protect natural and cultural resources. Examples include fishery management plan, a wildlife habitat management plan furbearer management plan, a fire management plan, and a public use management plan. Vv ANNUAL WORK PLANS identify specific tasks or projects to be completed in the current year to implement the detailed management plans. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COOPERATIVE PLANNING EFFORTS ARE CONTINUED THROUGH THE COMPLETION OF THE DETAILED MANAGEMENT PLANS. The mission of the Service is "to provide the federal leadership in the conservation, protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife populations and their habitats for the continuing benefit of people" (Service Management Plan 1982). The mission of the refuge system is "to provide, preserve, restore, and manage a national network of lands and waters sufficient in size, diversity and location to meet society's needs for areas where the widest possible spectrum of benefits associated with wildlife and wildlands is enhanced and made available" (Refuge Manual 2 RM 1.3). Together, these mission statements and the refuge purposes lay the foundation upon which plan alternatives were developed and evaluated. The effects of implementing each of the alternatives on physical, biological, and human environments were then assessed. The alternatives were also evaluated on their ability to achieve refuge purposes and resolve issues. Based on this evaluation a preferred alternative was chosen. Tetlin Refuge supports an expanding population of trumpeter swans, a species sensitive to disturbance (photo by Karen Bollinger). 10 After review of the draft document by government agencies, Native corporations, special interest groups, and the general public the Service has revised the alternatives as necessary and adopted one for implementation. This alternative will become the Tetlin Refuge comprehensive conservation plan. The refuge staff will, as necessary, undertake management planning following completion and adoption of this plan. Management plans will specify in detail Management activities that will be used to implement the comprehensive conservation plan. They will address specific resources and public uses such as habitat, fire, hunting, fishing, and environmental education. Public involvement will be sought where a management plan deals with a subject of known special interest or controversy. Figure 4 outlines the planning procedure and the differences between the comprehensive conservation plan and future management plans. SPECIAL VALUES Section 304(g) of ANILCA directs the Secretary of the Interior to designate "special values of the refuge, as well as any other archaeological, cultural, ecological, geological, historical, paleontological, scenic, or wilderness values of the refuge." The Service identified these special values for Tetlin Refuge: l. Environmental education. Tetlin is one of two refuges in Alaska accessible by road and having environmental education as an ANILCA mandate. As the first refuge seen by road travelers entering Alaska, Tetlin Refuge is able to serve as an example of the National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska. Interpretive displays and programs on Tetlin's broad array of habitats (all visible from the road) are applicable to landscapes throughout Alaska. 2. Trumpeter swans. Tetlin Refuge supports an expanding population of this nationally important species. The refuge is on the major swan migration route. Several thousand swans, both trumpeter and tundra swans, stage on the refuge. An ever increasing number of trumpeter swans nest there. 3. Osprey. Tetlin Flats, encompassing Tetlin Refuge, supports the only nesting population in Alaska. 4. Bird diversity. As the easternmost refuge in Alaska, Tetlin supports bird species that are rare or absent elsewhere in Alaska. Some of these species that nest on Tetlin Refuge include blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, osprey, sharp-tailed grouse, and red-winged blackbird. The American coot, sora, and brown-headed cowbird, which have been found on the refuge, are found nowhere else in Alaska. 5. Waterfowl production. Hosting one of the densest populations of nesting waterfowl in Alaska, Tetlin Refuge produces from 70,000 to 100,000 fledglings in an optimum year. 6. Sand dunes of the Tanana Valley. Composed of wind-blown glacial flour, the parabolic dunes southeast of Northway and at Big John Hill are geological formations uncommon to interior Alaska. ll POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AFFECTING FISH, WILDLIFE, AND HABITATS Section 304 of ANILCA requires the Service to identify problems that may adversely affect fish and wildlife and habitats on the refuge. Potential problems identified thus far are: l. Lack of detailed resource data. Improved knowledge of fish and wildlife populations, habitats, and public use would assist in managing Tetlin Refuge. Data is needed as a basis for refining fish and wildlife harvest levels, managing habitat, regulating human access, and avoiding conflicts with subsistence users. Research has been done on certain high interest species, but much of the information is applicable only to specific populations. The lack of detailed information on wolf and bear predation, moose populations, and distribution of fish species is significant. Information on vegetation, water quality, archeology, visitor use, trapping levels, and subsistence use needs further refinement. Working in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), more research on Tetlin Refuge would allow the Service to more fully meet the ANILCA mandate to conserve fish and wildlife in its natural diversity. Access. Most of the refuge land along the Alaska Highway has been selected or conveyed, making access to the refuge difficult. If the Service is to properly manage public use, easements on some lands along the Alaska Highway need to be secured. Development and use of inholdings and adjacent private lands. Activities on private property adjacent to or within the refuge may conflict with refuge goals and may impact wildlife populations. Avoiding conflicts with landowners can become a major management concern. To protect inholdings and property adjacent to the refuge, many natural processes (fire, insect infestations, predator/prey relationships) may be disrupted to the detriment of species dependent on those processes. Commercial development of adjacent lands may affect air and water quality on the refuge. Development may adversely affect species that range on and off refuge lands. Intensive Public use. Because of Tetlin's location on the Alaska Highway, the possibility of intensive use in the future is significant. Heavy public use may have a long-lasting impact on wildlife populations and habitat in a subarctic environment, where cold winters and short summer growing seasons slow biological processes. As populations of villages in the refuge area expand and as the number of visitors to the area grows, subsistence and recreational demands on wildlife resources will increase. Conflicts between different interests are already likely for waterfowl hunting, moose hunting, and trapping. 12 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Section 304(g) of ANILCA requires the Service to consult with state agencies, Native corporations, and the general public concerning Tetlin's management. This ensures that all interested parties, in particular residents of the area affected by refuge administration, have an opportunity to present their views. In 1982 the Service began the process of seeking information from the public on issues to address in the comprehensive conservation plan for Tetlin Refuge. Notices announcing public meetings were mailed to individuals interested in the refuge. Advertisements were placed in newspapers, posters were put up in Tok and Northway, and a notice was published in the Federal Register. In the fall of 1982 public meetings were held in Tok, Northway, and Tetlin. Interested citizens were urged to write and offer additional comments. In addition, Northway residents and high school students were interviewed. In 1983 public comments from Tok, Tetlin, and Northway were summarized in a compendium of issues (Evans and Opgrand 1983). A brief synopsis was mailed to all interested parties (Alaska Refuge Plan-it 1(1) May 1983). Public meetings and resulting comments provided a local perspective on Tetlin issues, but neglected the statewide and national outlook. In the fall of 1983 state and national organizations and people on the Tetlin mailing list outside of Tok, Tetlin, and Northway were contacted by letter and asked to comment on issues raised earlier in the public meetings. Responses were summarized in January 1984 (Wilson 1984). In January 1984 the refuge staff and the planning team delineated questions to be addressed by the plan based on public comments, resource management recommendations prepared by the state specific to Tetlin Refuge, and Service policy and guidelines. A complete list of public meetings held on the subject of planning for Tetlin Refuge is presented in the "Consultation and Coordination" chapter. The Issues Eleven major issue categories were identified in the scoping process. Several other topics mentioned in public meetings such as interagency cooperation, research, and guiding are already regulated by general Service policy and are discussed later under common management directions. Several comments addressed issues beyond the scope of this document (i.e., spring waterfowl hunting, the public involvement process). This section is organized by the main issue categories. Each heading is followed by a summary of public comments pertaining to the issue category and a list of specific issues distilled from public comments. Most of these specific issues are presented in two ways. One questions the effect of the comprehensive conservation plan on the particular resource or use and the other questions the effect of wilderness designation. Although the plan and the wilderness review are both contained in this document, they are two separate major federal actions. Responses to each issue detail how and where the issue is addressed in the plan and whether or not it is considered significant. 13 1. Fish and wildlife populations and habitats - This broad category includes species management, habitat manipulation, and hunting. Comments ranged from "Leave the refuge as is" to "Recognize the potential for bison habitat along the Nabesna River." Specific comments were made about ducks, geese, moose, and furbearers. Local people would like to remain primary users of the refuge, with separate seasons set up for nonlocal hunters. They cited examples of littering, waste, and unethical hunting practices by nonlocals as reasons for separate seasons. Most comments were concerned with whether or not the opportunity to hunt on the refuge would change. Village residents wanted to continue hunting, trapping, and fishing as they always have. Native residents wanted to continue hunting waterfowl in the spring, saying they depend on the food source for survival. Locals felt hunting pressure from nonlocals prevented them from getting enough game for subsistence uses. While many local residents wanted to keep nonlocals out, other respondents pointed out it may be unlawful to prevent people from using a national wildlife refuge. A few nonNatives were dismayed by the lack of enforcement of waterfowl regulations, particularly those that prohibit taking birds "out of season." Although they expressed a strong desire for stricter enforcement of waterfowl regulations, they indicated a willingness to support a longer hunting season if the nesting period is protected. Mechanical manipulation of habitat was suggested by people in Tok and opposed by people in Tetlin. Some comments suggested that native plant species should be introduced in refuge lakes for duck feed. Comprehensive conservation plan - ° What would be the effect of refuge designation on fish and wildlife populations? This is a significant issue. The purposes set forth in ANILCA section 302(8)(B) for establishing Tetlin Refuge include: (i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, waterfowl, raptors and other migratory birds, furbearers, moose, caribou (including participation in coordinated ecological studies and management of the Chisana caribou herd), salmon and Dolly Varden. The alternatives are different ways of carrying out this purpose. The effects of the alternatives on fish and wildlife populations are analyzed in the environmental consequences chapter. Some management activities are common to all the alternatives, and these are explained in the common management directions section of the management alternatives chapter. 14 What would be the effect of refuge planning on state fishing and hunting regulations? This is not a significant issue. The cooperative agreement between the Service and ADF&G (Appéndix E) is explained in the common Management directions section of the management alternatives chapter. The relationship between the two agencies is a matter of policy and law and does not vary across the alternatives. What would be the effect of refuge planning on subsistence lifestyles? This is a significant issue. Subsistence use by local residents is a purpose of the refuge. Subsistence use would be managed in the same way under all the alternatives as explained in the common management directions section of the management alternatives chapter. The various alternatives may have different impacts on subsistence resources and this is analyzed in the environmental consequences chapter. What would be the effect of refuge planning on mechanical habitat manipulation? This is a significant issue. Mechanical manipulation is allowed in intensive and moderate management categories but not in minimal management. The various alternatives propose different levels of management. This is discussed in the management alternatives chapter and is evaluated in the environmental consequences chapter. Wilderness designation - ° What would be the effect of wilderness designation on fish and wildlife populations? This is not a significant issue. The effects of designation on species are described in the environmental consequences chapter for Alternative A, the all wilderness alternative. In all cases, there is no impact resulting from designation. Alternative A recommends 100% and Alternative B recommends 20% for wilderness. Alternatives A Modified, C, and D recommend no wilderness. What would be the effect of wilderness designation on state fishing and hunting regulations? This is not a significant issue because there is no effect. The state manages hunting and fishing on all federal lands including wilderness. Regulations are set by game units and are not affected by the status of federal lands within the game units. 15 oO What would be the effect of wilderness designation on public use for hunting and fishing? This is not a significant issue because there would be no effect except that motorized equipment, such as chainsaws and generators, which are not specifically allowed in ANILCA could not be used by nonsubsistence users. Recreational users seldom use chainsaws and generators on the refuge. Traditional means of access such as snowmobiles, motorboats, and airplanes could still be used. Hunting and fishing would still be regulated by the state. ° What would be the effect of wilderness designation on subsistence lifestyles? This is not a significant issue. Wilderness designation does not restrict hunting, fishing, trapping, or traditional methods of access for subsistence purposes. Table 8 explains what activities can occur in designated wilderness. The impacts of the alternatives on subsistence are analyzed in the environmental consequences section. The environmental consequences of alternatives A and B evaluate the effects of designating all or part of the refuge as wilderness. 0 What would be the effect of wilderness designation on opportunities for mechanical habitat manipulation? This is a significant issue. Mechanical habitat manipulation is not allowed in wilderness areas. 2. Trapping - Comments indicated that existing traplines should be allowed to remain. Voluntary registration of traplines was suggested. Additional road construction generally was not favored as it would give access to many outsiders and would reduce the availability of furbearing animals. Cabins were considered necessary as shelter for trappers. People felt that prescribed burning should be extremely limited because they believe it is detrimental to populations of furbearers. Furbearers and waterfowl were considered more important than big game animals, and many felt they should be a priority in resource management. Comprehensive conservation plan - o What would be the effect of refuge planning on trapping? This is not a significant issue because trapping is allowed under all alternatives. The state would continue to regulate trapping. The Service's policy on cabins for trapping and other purposes is described in the common management directions. The conservation of furbearers is one of the purposes of the refuge. The alternatives would have similar effects on furbearer populations as described in the environmental consequences chapter. 16 Wilderness designation - ° 3. What would be the effect of wilderness designation on trapping? This is not a significant issue because the state regulates trapping on all refuge lands. Wilderness designation does not restrict trapping or the subsistence use of cabins or chainsaws. Other motorized equipment is not allowed in designated wilderness. Oil and gas development - Oil and gas development was generally opposed, because of potential impacts to the environment. Lower gas prices for local residents was mentioned, but most were skeptical that local fuel prices would drop. Comprehensive conservation plan - oO What would be the effect of refuge planning on oil and gas studies and leasing? This is not a significant issue because available information indicates the refuge does not have oil and gas potential (see the affected environment chapter). The refuge is currently closed to oil and gas leasing. No leasing would occur until (1) the oil and gas potential is assessed; (2) a national interest determination is made} and (3) the compatibility of leasing with refuge purposes is assessed. This process would not be completed until after the record of decision is issued for this plan. Areas in moderate and minimal management in this plan might be opened to oil and gas leasing after the above assessments were completed. Minimal management areas would not be opened to leasing unless the plan was rewritten in compliance with the NEPA process, including opportunities for public involvement. Geological and geophysical studies may be allowed anywhere in the refuge where site specific stipulations can be designed to ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and objectives of this plan. Oil and gas studies and leasing are discussed in greater detail in the oil and gas section of the common management directions. Wilderness designation - ° What would be the effect of wilderness designation on oil and gas studies and leasing? This is not a significant issue because available data indicates the refuge does not have oil and gas potential. Oil and gas leasing is not allowed in wilderness areas. Studies involving mechanized equipment are not allowed unless conducted by or for an Interior Department agency in accordance with the provisions of section 1010 of ANILCA. 17 4. Recreational use and development - The local consensus was against additional campgrounds, although the younger generation was not completely opposed. One factor that bothered everybody was the amount of littering that results from increased development of recreational facilities. Others mentioned access, overcrowding, and noise as detrimental impacts of recreational development. Development of a limited number of campgrounds located along the highway was acceptable. Several people expressed the need for environmental education and some type of visitor-contact facility. Comprehensive conservation plan — ° What would be the effect of the refuge plan on the development of recreational facilities and visitor services? This is not a significant issue. None of the alternatives propose facilities on the refuge. The visitor contact station and highway pull-offs are being built adjacent to the refuge along the highway. Wilderness designation - oO What would be the effect of wilderness designation on the development of recreational facilities and visitor services? This is not a significant issue. Although some types of facilities are not allowed in wilderness areas, such as visitor centers, large developed campgrounds, and permanent boat ramps, none are proposed in any alternatives. Facilities which are being developed for the refuge are all off the refuge along the highway. Primitive campsites, improved campsites, and interpretive and educational activities are allowed in wilderness. Activities permissible in wilderness areas are discussed in Table 8. 5. Access and transportation - Local residents generally felt additional roads within the refuge were not desirable. The major objection to increased access was the accompanying increase in people from outside the region. However, access in the form of boat launches and snowmachines won some approval. Current levels of use of snowmachines, boats, off-road vehicles (ORVs), and airplanes were considered acceptable and not damaging to wildlife habitat. Personnel from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game listed specific areas in which they would like to see continued or additional access. The principal issue is whether or not to allow, enlarge, or restrict ORV use, airboats in particular. Comprehensive conservation plan - ° What effect would the refuge plan have on routes and means of access? This is a significant issue. Access is addressed in the common management directions section for access to inholdings, recreational areas, and subsistence use. Traditional means of access including riverboats, airplanes, and snowmachines are permitted by section 1110(a) of ANILCA. Owners of inholdings in Tetlin Refuge are entitled to reasonable access across the refuge by section 1110(b) of ANILCA. Section 811 of ANILCA permits traditional methods of surface transportation for subsistence purposes. 18 What effect would the refuge plan have on the use of off road vehicles (ORVs)? This is not a significant issue. ANILCA permits the use of snowmachines, powerboats, and traditional means of ground transportation for subsistence purposes. Off-road vehicles (ORVs) including four wheel drive vehicles, three wheelers, and airboats are not allowed on the refuge except on designated routes or areas, or in areas where they have been traditionally used for subsistence purposes. No ORV trails are proposed for the refuge. An ORV trail was considered in one of the draft plan alternatives, but further research revealed that the route up the Cheslina drainage was impassable. Most airboat use within the congressionally designated refuge boundaries occurs on waters adjacent to private inholdings. Although the State has jurisdiction over most water ways, the Service has authority to regulate uses proven detrimental to refuge resources. However, the Service would attempt to cooperatively resolve any issues prior to exercising these authorities. No information is currently available suggesting that the current level of airboat use is detrimental. Wilderness designation - ° 6. made about Service acquisition of boundary lands that control access to the refuge. maintained. State personnel also pointed out the state may request boundary or status changes during development of the refuge plans. The general consensus was that the Service should remain flexible for the time being about options for exchange, acquisition, or boundary adjustments. What effect would wilderness designation have on access? This is not a significant issue because wilderness designation would not affect traditional means (airplanes, riverboats, and snowmachines) and routes of access. ANILCA protects access for subsistence purposes, and owners of inholdings would be entitled to adequate and reasonable access across designated wilderness. Wilderness designation prohibits new roads other than for valid existing rights. Transportation corridors across wilderness are also restricted and can only be built with congressional approval. However, no proposals for roads or corridors are anticipated. What effect would wilderness designation have on the use of ORVs? This is not a significant issue. Snowmobiles and powerboats are not considered ORVs and are permitted in wilderness. The use of other types of ORVs (four wheelers, three wheelers, airboats, etc.) is not allowed in wilderness areas unless traditionally used for subsistence purposes in those areas. No ORY routes or areas are proposed for the refuge under any alternative. ORVs cannot be used in refuges outside of designated routes or areas. An ORV trail was considered in one of the draft plan alternatives, but further research revealed that the route up the Cheslina drainage was impassable. Land acquisition, exchanges and boundary adjustments - Comments were Some individuals wished to see the current access to private property 19 Comprehensive conservation plan — ° What would be the effect of the plan on land exchanges, acquisitions, and easements? This is not a significant issue because Service policy on these questions does not vary with the alternatives. Land acquisition and exchanges have been addressed in a step-down land management concept plan completed in 1985. This is discussed in the land exchange section of the common management directions. Easement policy is discussed in the access to inholdings section of the common Management directions. Wilderness designation - ° What would be the effect of wilderness designation on land exchanges, acquisitions, and easements? This is not a significant issue. Designated wilderness areas are probably not subject to land exchanges, but acquisitions would be unaffected. Any land trades which would occur would involve trading nonrefuge federal land for private land within the refuge boundary. Owners of inholdings are entitled by ANILCA to adequate and reasonable access across designated wilderness. 7. Cabins - Cabins were viewed as necessary shelter for hunters and trappers. Some felt cabins should be owned only by locals who use them year-round. Comments from the rest of the state and nation cited ANILCA to argue that locals legally cannot be given preference. One person commented that if permits are given for cabins, owners should assume all risks and not expect special protection in the event of fire. State personnel and other respondents believed cabins should exist in some form on the refuge. Several comments pertained to details of cabin protection and use of existing cabins. Comprehensive conservation plan - oO What is the effect of refuge planning on cabin use? This is not a significant issue because the Service's cabin policy does not vary across the management categories. The Service's policy on cabins for trapping and other purposes is explained in the common management directions. Cabin policy is currently under review. A new policy will be out for public review and comment in the fall of 1987. Wilderness designation - ° What is the effect of wilderness designation on cabin use? This is not a significant issue because the Service's cabin policy does not vary across the management categories. Wilderness designation does not affect the Service's cabin policy. 20 8. Woodcutting - Local residents want to continue to cut firewood and houselogs as they have in the past. They also feel they should be allowed to cut both dead wood and green trees. A suggestion was made that research on the quantity of timber needed per person living in the area should be conducted and the results used to establish a tree cutting policy. State and national interests urged the Service to establish policies to protect refuge resources and wildlife. Comprehensive conservation plan - ° What would be the effect of the refuge plan on subsistence woodcutting? This is not a significant issue because woodcutting policy does not vary across the alternatives. Houselog and firewood collection is allowed in all management categories. Live standing trees less than three inches in diameter can be cut without a permit unless restricted by the refuge manager. Twenty live standing trees between three and six inches in diameter can be cut without a permit, unless restricted by the refuge manager. Wilderness designation - ° What would be the effect of the refuge plan on subsistence woodcutting? This is not a significant issue because ANILCA protects subsistence use of the refuge including woodcutting. However, almost no woodcutting is occurring on refuge lands since the Native lands within the refuge are closer to the villages and have better timber. Commercial timber harvest is not allowed in wilderness areas. However, this is not significant because there are no commercial quality timber stands on federal lands in the refuge. 9. Fire - Most participants believed fire to be beneficial to moose and rabbit populations but detrimental to furbearers. Tetlin residents were concerned that fire would threaten their timber land. Controlled burns generally were considered acceptable. Some felt a natural fire regime should be maintained. Opinions differed on whether or not the Service should control fires and on the extent to which private inholdings should be protected. Comprehensive conservation plan - ° What would be the effect of the refuge plan on fire management including controlled burning? This is a significant issue. The refuge's fire management policy is described in the common management directions section. In addition, proposals for prescribed burning vary by alternative. This is described in the management alternatives chapter and evaluated in the environmental consequences chapter. 21 Wilderness designation - oO What would be the effect of wilderness designation on fire management? This is a significant issue. Wildfire control and prescribed burning can occur in wilderness areas. However, the kind of practices used in fire suppression and prescribed burning may be different and more costly in wilderness areas. This is discussed in the environmental consequences chapter. 10. Law enforcement - Several people asked what the Service intends to do about hunting regulations, particularly waterfowl hunting regulations. The fundamental question is whether or not the refuge staff should or would enforce hunting regulations that apply to the refuge. Comprehensive conservation plan - ° What would be the effect of the refuge plan on law enforcement? This is not a significant issue because the Service policy on law enforcement is not affected by this plan. Wilderness designation — oO What would be the effect of wilderness designation on law enforcement? This is not a significant issue because there would be no effect. Wilderness designation does not change the Service policy on law enforcement. 1l. Wilderness - Most comments were against the designation of wilderness unless used to prohibit additional people from using or developing the refuge. In that light wilderness was viewed positively as a way to protect the land and resources. Some comments indicated that wilderness designation might be acceptable in the future if more pressure is placed on the resources. In summary, people favor the concept but not the legislative creation of wilderness. Comprehensive conservation plan - oO Should the refuge or any part of it be designated wilderness? This is a significant issue and is addressed in several places in the plan. The wilderness review section of the affected environment chapter evaluates the wilderness qualities of the refuge according to criteria based on the Wilderness Act and Service policy. Alternatives A and B recommend some of the refuge for wilderness designation. This is explained in the management alternatives chapter and evaluated in the environmental consequences chapter. 22 Wilderness designation - ° What would be the effect of the proposed action on wilderness values? This is a significant issue. The impact of each alternative on wilderness values is discussed in the environmental consequences chapter. Significant Issues The Service used criteria set forth in the Council of Environmental Quality's implementing regulations (40 CFR 1508.27) for the National Environmental Policy Act in determining what issues were significant. Issues were identified as being significant, based on the above analysis, because of the degree to which the action would affect the future of wildlife in the refuge, the degree to which the action would affect the quality of the human environment, and the degree to which controversy is generated. Six issues were identified as being significant for the comprehensive conservation plan: o What would be the effect of refuge designation on fish and wildlife populations? What would be the effect of refuge planning on subsistence lifestyles? o What would be the effect of refuge planning on mechanical habitat manipulation? What effect would the refuge plan have on routes and means of access? What would be the effect of the refuge plan on fire management including controlled burning? o Should the refuge or any part of it be designated wilderness? ° oo Three issues were identified as being significant for wilderness designation: o What would be the effect of wilderness designation on opportunities for mechanical habitat manipulation? o What would be the effect of wilderness designation on fire management? o What would be the effect of the proposed action on wilderness values? Alternative Development The public was again involved in planning for Tetlin Refuge in September and October 1984 when the Service held a technical workshop and five open houses (see consultation and coordination chapter) to solicit ideas and opinions on potential ways to manage the refuge. This intermediate step between scoping and publication of the draft plan was an opportunity for the public to comment on alternatives and potential uses for each management category. Comments received were considered in preparing the alternatives which appeared in the draft. 23 Public Review of the Draft Plan The draft Tetlin plan was made available for public review and comment on July 11, 1985. The Service's restated oil and gas policy was added as a supplement to the plan and made available on February 25, 1986. The deadline for written comments was April 1, 1986, however comments were accepted as late as April 29, 1986. The Service received 32 letters from 28 sources on the Tetlin draft plan from federal and state agencies, and individuals. These are reproduced along with the Service's responses to selected comments in Appendix H. Public meetings on the draft plan were held in the Tetlin community hall on October 1, 1985; in the Northway community hall on October 2, 1985; in the Tok school library on October 3, 1985; and in Fairbanks in the federal office building on October 4, 1985. A formal hearing for the draft plan was held in Anchorage in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service building on October 8, 1985. Comments received on the draft plan are summarized below. Many people in Tetlin were concerned that increased access and use of the refuge would harm the wildlife, and were in favor of the Service monitoring public use more closely. They did not want more road construction, facilities including cabins, or oil and gas development that might bring more people into the refuge area. A few people raised questions on the benefits of prescribed burning. There were some inquiries as to plans to expand refuge boundaries. Northway people were in favor of moving the refuge headquarters to Northway. Many were concerned that if the refuge were designated as wilderness, it would lead to restrictions on their use of the refuge. Other comments concerned the proposed intensive management, which could potentially open up some areas to oil and gas development, mechanical manipulation, and a likely increase of visitor use of the refuge. A few people were against increased access to the refuge. In Tok, there was some concern that Service policy on off road vehicle (ORV) use on refuge lands would keep them from using airboats and snowmachines as they had been doing for years. One comment was against wilderness, and another wanted to know mining regulations. Other comments were opposed to oil and gas development and any recreational use of the refuge that might conflict with subsistence use of the refuge. Most written comments were in favor of Alternative C, which manages the refuge more intensively than the current situation. Some were in favor of all wilderness, others were in favor of opening up the refuge to development. These public meetings were tape recorded. The verbal comments as well as the written comments were used in revising the draft plan. Public comments are not treated as "votes," and the Service does not necessarily select the alternative with the most support. However, public comment is one of the two major criteria used in selecting a preferred alternative. The purposes of the refuge and other provisions of ANILCA make up the other major criterion (see the evaluation of the alternatives chapter for a more complete discussion). Revisions to the draft plan which resulted from reconsideration of these criteria are described below. Future Public Involvement The public will have an additional opportunity to review the final Tetlin Refuge plan during a 30 day protest period following publication. Then the Service will issue a record of decision and begin implementing the preferred alternative. Any changes to the preferred alternative resulting from comments 24 during the protest period will be described in the record of decision. Every three years following adoption of the final plan there will be a review of all public comments and official suggestions to keep the plan current. The public will be advised of these updates and urged to comment. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN In response to Service policy and public comments on the draft comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement, wilderness review, several changes have been made in this final document. Changes include: o The significance and treatment of each issue identified through the scoping process is discussed with respect to both the comprehensive conservation plan and potential wilderness designation; o wildlife distribution and subsistence use maps have been updated; 0 a revised and expanded format is used for the wilderness review} ° the table of "Management activities, public uses, and economic uses permitted in management categories" has been expanded to include fisheries Management 3 ° new wording has been added on management of shorelands, the water column, Revised Statutes (RS) 2477 rights-of-way, and 17(b) easements; o discussion of management of recreation and access, interpretation and education, mineral assessment, mining operations, commercial uses, water rights, water quality, historical and cultural resources, transportation and utility systems, and selected lands have been significantly modified or expanded; o discussion of the allowable activities within a wilderness area has been clarified and expanded to include the provisions of the Service's policy on use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas}; o an evaluation of Northway and Tok for the final headquarters location and the final decision to keep the headquarters in Tok is presented; Oo anew alternative, Alternative A Modified (AM), has been added that reflects the current situation with no wilderness recommendation; ° the preferred alternative, Alternative C, has been changed to increase the amount of land in minimal management; o Alternative D has been modified to increase the amount of land in moderate management 5 o the wilderness impacts section of the environmental consequences chapter has been expanded and reorganized to more clearly show the impacts of wilderness or nonwilderness on the significant wilderness issues; ° long term (more than 15 years) scenarios have been prepared for the wilderness evaluation sections of the environmental consequences chapter to allow evaluation of the long term impacts of designating or not designating wilderness. 25 ll. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Setting Comprising about 924,000 acres in the lower Chisana and Nabesna river drainages, Tetlin Refuge lies in an upland basin at the head of the Tanana Valley (Figure 1). Refuge boundaries form a rough triangle. The base runs east-west between the Canadian border and the Mentasta Mountains along the boundary of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, the northeast side abuts on the Alaska Highway, and the northwest side borders Tetlin Reserve. North of the refuge the Yukon-Tanana upland resembles a rolling dissected plateau. To the south are the Mentasta and Nutzotin mountains, extensions of the Alaska Range. On the east a series of hills between the Yukon-Tanana upland and the Nutzotin Mountains rim the basin in which the refuge lies. Land Status Legislation affecting land ownership on Alaskan refuges includes the Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. These acts transferred lands from federal to state and Native ownership. Table 1. Land status within the refuge boundary, as of September 1986. Ownership Acres % of Refuge Federal 699,000 75.6 Selected (village, regional, state) 51,000 7.7 Conveyed (patented, interim conveyed) 147,700 13.8 Other (homesteads, placer claims) 700 0.1 Dual selections (conflicts) 25,600 2.8 Total 924,000 100.0 Note:. The state has jurisdiction over all "shorelands," lands under navigable waters (not included in table). Also, there is an undetermined amount of land that may be encumbered with RS 2477 rights-of-way and ANCSA 17(b) easements (see discussion in common Management directions). 27 Tonong TI " fh . it | o> Tetlin ru Village + Tetlin oa OF eens el Loke sy s 4 © | fT seeeen tt | | { Tetiin indian S s Reservation g Jatahmund Loke © v & v2 oy Wrangell - St Elias National Preserve ¢ TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LAND STATUS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Land ro : Hit Native Land Conveyed ttt 7 = Ls | State Land Conveyed | Native Land Selected State Land Selected Source: USFWS Division of Realty, Anchorage, Alaska, 1985 USA Canada | *¢ ean3ty */86T eunr jo se fa8nzaa ay uo snqeqs puey The land status of Tetlin Refuge changes constantly as refuge lands selected by Natives, Native corporations, and the state are conveyed, exchanged, or relinquished. Table 1 summarizes land status within the refuge as of September 1986 and Figure 6 shows the arrangement of ownership. This figure does not include the location of Native allotments or the navigability status of rivers in Tetlin Refuge. Of the nearly one million acres within the refuge boundary, about 75% is owned by the federal government. The remaining land has been selected or conveyed. Climate Tetlin Refuge lies in the "cold triangle" of Alaska. Winter temperatures at Northway are frequently the lowest in the state, dropping as low as -70°F, and often staying below -40°F for a week or below O°F for a month. Cold weather begins in early October and lasts through April, during which time the area receives an average of 34 inches of snow, and as much as 40 inches. The Tanana River freezes in October and usually breaks up in early May. The large, deep lakes on the refuge take a month longer to thaw. Vegetation usually leafs out in late May. Summer temperatures may be as high as 90°F, although they usually range from 40° to 80°F. Summers are often dry; the average annual precipitation at Northway is ten inches. The hot dry conditions are conducive to electric storms and lightning fires. Topography Topography of the refuge basin is primarily flat, although the Black Hills provide some relief between the Nabesna and Chisana rivers. The Nabesna and Chisana rivers are broad, winding glacial streams. East of the Chisana River, at the southeast end of the refuge, the high ground from Airs Hill to Wellesley Mountain constitutes a segment of the modern drainage divide of the White River, tributary to the Yukon River at Dawson. Alluvial flats crossing the divide indicate drainage from the refuge formerly may have been east to the White River. Outlying hills of the Mentasta Mountains separate headwater tributaries of the Cheslina River west of the Nabesna River. Short, vertical limestone cliffs crop out in a belt across the Cheslina River drainage. The Nabesna and Chisana Rivers originate in the Wrangell Mountains south of the refuge, then flow north through the Alaska Range and across the Tanana Valley, where they join to form the Tanana River. These anomalous drainages are signs that the Alaska Range and the south side of the Tanana Valley are being uplifted relative to the north side of the valley and bordering upland. Northeast of the Black Hills the broad floor of the Tanana Valley is dotted with innumerable lakes, ponds, and meander scars on a nearly flat plain at most 15 miles wide, paralleling the Tanana River and the northwest segment of the Chisana River. Superimposed on the plain are large dunes, composed of wind-blown glacial flour. The largest dune fields are southeast of the town of Northway; another is in the area of Big John Hill. 29 Southwest of the Black Hills, at the foot of the rugged ice-scoured Mentasta and Nutzotin mountains, the refuge is covered by glacial till, interrupted by scattered bedrock hills. The portion of the Mentasta Mountains within the refuge is composed largely of steep-sided aretes and horns, glacial valleys, and overhanging rock and ice precipices. Average elevation in the refuge basin is about 1,800 feet. The lowest point, where the Tanana River leaves the refuge near the Tetlin River mouth, is at 1,650 feet. The Nabesna and Chisana rivers are 2,100 and 2,150 feet above sea level, respectively, where they enter the refuge. The highest elevation on the refuge, where the southwest boundary follows a section of the Mentasta Mountains crest, is at about 8,000 feet. Geology The geology of the Tetlin Refuge area is a complex history of continents built at the margins of convergent plates. According to theories of plate tectonics and continental drift, plates are light portions of the earth's crust which drift about on deeper "plastic" portions. Where plates converge they weld together, resulting in mountain building, underthrusting of the heavier plate, and volcanism. Alaska and the western margin of North America are believed to have formed from pieces of crust colliding with and adding or "accreting" to the continent of North America since it began its westward drift 200 million years ago. Alaska is geologically a mosaic of sutured land masses. The pieces are called "tectonostratigraphic terranes," meaning the adjacent rock varies considerably in composition or conformation. Some 50 terranes have thus far been recognized in Alaska (Jones et al. 1981). Many of them are made up of rocks that were added to the continent. Many terranes "docked" with parts of North America south of Alaska, to be "sliced off" later and moved northward at the edges of a Pacific Ocean plate rotating counter-clockwise. Some terranes have rock entirely foreign to other Alaskan and North American terranes and are termed "exotic." In general, the oldest terranes contain the oldest rocks; the youngest known terranes are the subaerial volcanic rock and the shallow-water mudstones of flysch rock. Four tectonostratigraphic terranes run in a northwest-southeast direction across Tetlin Refuge (Jones et al. 1981). Locations of the terranes are shown in Figure 6. From north to south they are: the Yukon-Tanana, Pingston, Windy, and some unnamed flysch rock (sandy and calcareous muds originally deposited in troughs beside rising mountains). A fifth terrane, Wrangellia, begins south of the southwest refuge corner, at Totschunda Creek. Wrangellia is an exotic terrane; its rocks were originally deposited far to the south of Alaska on the ocean floor. The oldest terrane on the refuge, the Yukon-Tanana, is also the oldest part of Alaska, or the first to be added to the margin of ancient North America, perhaps 180 to 200 million years ago (Jones et al. 1982). The Yukon-Tanana is distinctive in that it is one of the few terranes made of rock originally formed as continental rock. The youngest terrane is Wrangellia; it collided with what was then the continental margin about 90 million years ago. The intervening terranes were added between 200 and 90 million years ago. 30 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE g TERRANES AND FAULTS IN THE TETLIN AREA Source: Jones et. al. 1981 *g aan3tq ‘Baie UTTIA] ey. UT sq[NeZ pue souParsl Castellated limestone forms give the Cheslina watershed in the southwest corner of the refuge a rugged and picturesque skyline (photo by Dave Stearns). The margins of each terrane are major faults. Separating the Windy and McKinley terranes and the deformed upper Mesozoic flysch belt is the Denali Fault, a southeast strand of the Denali-McKinley-Farewell-Togiak fault system (Figure 6). Between the flysch and Wrangellia terranes is the Totschunda Fault. These two faults show the most recent movement. The faults of the other terranes are mostly covered by alluvium and other surficial deposits, although the fault on the southern boundary of the Yukon-Tanana terrane is exposed on the north flank of Airs Hill. Bedrock crops out through glacial cover and other unconsolidated sediment in scattered hills and the Mentasta Mountain foothills. The rock types present depend on the terrane from which they originated; they were, however, often mixed by tectonic forces. Granitic bedrock occupies some terranes. The 32 granites are mostly light- or grayish-colored and form hills at the east end of the Black Hills, east of Fern Lake, and in massive outcrops along the refuge boundary east of the Tetlin River. Another whitish-colored granite is on the refuge north of Eliza Lake and is exposed in road cuts along the Alaska Highway. Subsequent to the granitic intrusions, uplift in the refuge area has been connected to mountain building in the Wrangell Mountains and the Alaska Range. Evidence of such uplift is an apron-type conglomerate and coarse sandstone accumulation over the southeast end of the refuge from Wellesley Mountain to Mirror Creek. The great volume of Wrangell lava flows and associated intrusions are also evidence of uplift. The refuge is therefore not likely to contain basin-type Tertiary sediments, a possible repository for oil and gas. The most recent events of geologic history began about a million years ago with a reactivation of movement along the Denali Fault, perhaps the last of several such reactivations in response to a change in direction of movement of the drifting Pacific Ocean plate. Movement along the strand of the Denali fault which crosses the refuge was replaced, however, by initiation of movement along the Totschunda Fault to the south. A slipping movement along the Totschunda fault and along the Denali fault strand west of the Tetlin River has continued to the present, as indicated by interrupted drainages, cliff-like faces and offsets of glacial deposits. Glaciation and surficial deposits - Glaciation is responsible for most of the land forms, waters, and surficial deposits on the refuge. The glacial deposits are composed of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. Most are pieces of volcanic rock (basalt and andesite) that occur in the Wrangell Mountains, reflecting the source of the deposits. General locations of surficial deposit on the refuge are shown in Figure 7 (Fernald 1966a). The earliest glaciation is the Black Hills glaciation, named for the farthest reach of its moraines. The Black Hills deposits are eroded and only the larger moraines remain, rounded and flattened, mostly in terrace shapes along the slopes of the Black Hills. More recent, but less extensive than the Black Hills glaciation, is the Jatahmund Lake glaciation named for the largest Lake formed by the glacier's moraines. Deposits of the Jatahmund Lake glaciation are fresh looking assemblages of ground, lateral, and end moraines with sharp angular ridges, knobs and deep hollows. Ground moraine is an even layer of till with a rolling surface; lateral and end moraines are till deposited in ridges at the sides and ends of glacier tongues. The lateral and end moraines cross the landscape in sinuous, lobe-shaped patterns and spill out through gaps in the Mentasta and Nutzotin mountains, demarking the limits of glacial advance and retreat. The differences in topography between Black Hills and Jatahmund Lake glacial deposits indicate a long time interval between the two glaciations. 33 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SURFICIAL GEOLOGY Fluvial & Lacustrine Moraines Fan Deposits Dune Sand Bedrock Source: adapted from Fernald 1966a *y ean8tg *£Z0[008 [eTITJaNS Large glaciers are fed from Wrangell Mountain ice fields down the Nabesna and Chisana river valleys. Local glaciers from the Nabesna and Nutzotin mountains reached the refuge via the Chisana and Stuver river valleys and contributed to the Nabesna and Chisana glaciers. A secondary effect of glaciation is the outwash deposited by meltwater. Outwash occurs downhill from moraines and occupies the surface that is uncovered by still younger deposits, northwest of the Chisana River and east of the Nabesna River northwest of the Black Hills. Sand dunes also result from glaciation. They are composed of wind-blown glacial flour and silt from the outwash plains. The dune fields in the refuge are best developed southeast of Northway, at Big John Hill, and northeast of the Chisana River southeast of Northway Junction. According to Fernald (1966a) the Northway dunes were stabilized, probably by vegetative cover, about 11,250 years ago. Rising from 100 to 200 feet high, their original parabolic places are easily recognized, even though they have been dissected by lateral stream migration. The dune sands are gray and black, revealing their volcanic Wrangell Mountain origin. Most of the lowland section of Tetlin Refuge is surfaced with mud, sand, and silt in slack water deposits of lakes, ponds, and sluggish streams. Fernald (1966b) suggested the lowland was created about 3,000 years ago by rivers migrating laterally against dune fields and low terraces, depositing fine-grained sediments and organic matter in a mixed river and lake environment. Unconsolidated deposits of soil and rock are found in major streams, flood plains, alluvial fans, and terrace deposits. They are also common on bedrock exposures as frost-broken rubble or talus and other deposits on and below slopes. Many of the talus bodies below cirques in the Mentasta Mountains on the refuge are "rock glaciers," composed of rock and ice and moving like glaciers by ice flowage. The ice begins several feet below the surface and is not visible, but the flowage shapes resemble those of small valley glaciers. Mineral Occurrences - Igneous rocks are the primary source of metallic minerals. Few igneous rocks (granite, for example) have been found on Tetlin Refuge, so there is little potential for metal mining on the refuge. A granite intrusion in the eastern section of the refuge deflects the course of Stuver Creek through the Black Hills. There is an area from the Black Hills to Mirror Creek of undivided sedimentary and mafic volcanic rocks, possibly favorable for copper, zinc, silver, and gold deposits (AEIDC 1982). Other igneous intrusions are on the west side, east of Fern Lake, and along the refuge border east of Hill Point. These western intrusions are the probable source of the Cheslina River gold-carrying gravels reported by Moffit (1954). Several attempts at prospecting have been unsuccessful. Currently there are four placer mining claims on the Cheslina River in Tetlin Refuge. The Nabesna 1:250,000-scale quadrangle, which covers all but the north end of the refuge, has been investigated for mineral potential under the U.S. Geological Survey Alaskan Mineral Resource Assessment Program (Richter et al. 1975b). Significant findings were made only to the south of the refuge. 35 Teti.n Village Presmrve TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SOIL ASSOCIATIONS Ochrept - Rounded Hills, Fresh Till Ochrept — Dune Fields Ochrept - Upland Areas, Bedrock Colluvium Aquept - Valley Lowlands Aquept - Mountain Foothills Rough Mountainous Land Source: Rieger et. al. 1979 [tog ‘*g eansty *suotqzetoosse Large deposits of copper/molybdenum porphyry are located southwest of Baultoff Creek in the Nutzotin Mountains and in the area of Orange Hill and Bond Creek on the north flanks of the Wrangell Mountains. A deposit of copper lies three miles southwest of the refuge near Soda Lake. The Tanana quadrangle, which covers the north end of the refuge, was also investigated (Singer et al. 1976). Across the highway from Tetlin, in an area including the Gardiner Creek watershed, stream sediments are high in tin, copper, lead, zinc, and molybdenum. Stream sediments contain anomalous amounts of gold in streams west of Jatahmund Lake and in a northern tributary of the Nabesna River. These anomalies indicate the existence of upstream sources which May contain concentrated metal, although no upstream sources can be suggested as no igneous rocks are mapped in their drainage areas. Stream sediments south of the Black Hills, from Mirror Creek to Stuver Creek, are anomalously high in chromium and nickel. Magnetic anomalies in the area between Mirror Creek and Takomahto Lake are a possible sign of above-average nickel and chromium content. Although this area is mostly covered by surficial deposits, an outcropping rich in iron and magnesium is found south of Mirror Creek, with an isolated fragment of massive chromite (chrome oxide) nearby (Richter et al. 1975a). The refuge has no geothermal resources; no recent volcanic rocks, hot springs, or other evidence of shallow heat chambers is present. Tetlin Refuge lies in a basin which is probably filled with glacial and other unconsolidated sediment (Mertie 1937). Since the bedrock is either deformed, metamorphosed, or in other ways unfavorable for hydrocarbons, the oil and gas potential is probably low to nonexistent (Ehm 1983). Soils - Soil units mapped at a scale of 1:500,000 are described in the Exploratory Soil Survey of Alaska (Rieger et al. 1979). Soils of similar type, texture, and topographic occurrence are classified together as "associations." Soil associations and locations are described in Figure 8. All the soils are immature mineral soils, containing altered horizons with changes that are mostly textural or chemical, most noticeably relating to losses in aluminum and iron. The most immature soils are "aquepts," situated above shallow permafrost in wet lowlands and flood plains of the refuge. Most other soils are "ochrepts,' found on more freely-drained uplands (sand dunes, recent glacial moraine, and bedrock rubble). Ochrept soils, developed under a continental climate and with seasonal drainage, show some oxidation and accumulation of organic matter. The sand dune ochrepts in particular are potentially suitable for cultivation. ' Paleontology - The limestone which forms the prominent vertical-standing slabs in the upper Cheslina River drainage contains fossils - rugose (horn) corals, colonial corals, brachiopods (Moffit 1954) and a sponge-like stromatoporoid (Richter and Jones 1973) - from about 360 million years ago. 37 More Limestone and fossils from unspecified rock have been found at Wellesley Mountain (Moffit 1954). Other sedimentary bedrock on the refuge probably does not contain fossils, because it was either metamorphosed or originally deposited in environments unfavorable to marine life. Geologic hazards - Earthquakes are probable, and perhaps imminent in the Tetlin region, because the refuge lies near active strands of two major fault systems, the Denali and the Totschunda (Figure 6). Both faults extend northwest to southeast across the southwest corner of the refuge. Both are of the "strike-slip" type: the crustal blocks on either side slide past each other in sideways, rather than vertical motion. Recent evidence of such motion are fresh bedrock scars and offset drainages (Foster 1970; Plafker et al. 1976). Along the Denali Fault, earthquakes of up to 7.3 on the Richter scale have occurred in the Fairbanks-Salcha River vicinity within the last 50 years (Carter and Galloway 1978). Along the Totschunda Fault, no release of compression has been known to occur in the last 1,600 years, and the unrelieved strain build-up could displace terrain by as much as 70 feet (Plafker et al. 1976). Water Resources Water is an extremely important resource on Tetlin Refuge. Wildlife production is greatest in the lowland complexes of ponds, marshes, and bogs in the north end of the refuge. Rivers and major streams influence water levels and nutrient richness in these wetlands. Rivers also provide the main transportation routes for subsistence use throughout the summer. Rivers - Tetlin Refuge is drained by two major rivers, the Nabesna and the Chisana. At their confluence in an area of private land north of Northway Village, they form the Tanana River. The Nabesna and Chisana rise from glaciers in the Wrangell Mountains south of the refuge. The Nabesna, approximately 75 miles long, drains 2,100 square miles. The Chisana, approximately 117 miles long, drains 3,300 square miles. Important tributaries of the Chisana include Stuver and Mirror creeks, which drain the southern plateau3 Scottie and Desper creeks, which run through an important wetland; and Gardiner Creek, which rises in the Tanana Uplands north of the refuge. Tributaries of the Nabesna include the Cheslina River, which flows down the only high mountain-enclosed valley on the refuge, and Lick Creek, which drains a portion of the central wetlands. The Kalutna River, a tributary of the Tanana, forms the western boundary of the refuge. Watersheds on Tetlin Refuge are poorly defined, as the land between major rivers is virtually flat. Most refuge rivers and streams have maximum discharges during spring runoff. Glacial rivers in the Tanana Basin generally remain high through July due to rain and melting glacial ice. Peak runoff varies from 10 cfs/sq mi in the lowlands to 50 cfs/sq mi in steep basins in the uplands. Minimum discharges occur in late winter. As tributary streams usually freeze completely in winter, the only major source of runoff is subsurface water from the larger rivers. Minimum runoffs average 0.1-0.2 cfs/sq mi. 38 Legumes that grow on gravel bars in the Chisana River, shown here as it enters the refuge from the Wrangell-St. Elias Preserve, are an important source of food for grizzly bears (photo by Lana Shea). Flooding - Flooding of major rivers and streams occurs after ice breakup or during spring runoff, when channel icing or ice jams block rivers swollen by snowmelt runoff. The height and duration of floods depend on snowfall the previous winter and on weather during runoff. Some flooding may occur later in summer if rainfall is particularly heavy and glacial melt is high. Spring flooding influences the levels of ponds and lakes connected to streams, however, the levels of water bodies on Tetlin Refuge generally remain stable during the rest of the summer. Pond areas do not decrease drastically due to falling river levels or evaporation as they do in some wetlands in interior Alaska. 39 2 s c= ., “.. Wrangell - St. Elias National Park and Preserve weg vatahmund °4 Lake a ‘ 3 ] .” - 5 S < 9 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE STREAMS, LAKES, AND PONDS Source: 1:63,360 USGS quads, various dates *6 ean3tg *spuod pure soye], ‘sweerzqs Lakes and ponds - Most standing water on the refuge is contained in thousands of closely spaced ponds and small lakes separated by strips of wet meadow, brush, or spruce forest, and ranging in size from less than an acre to nearly 3,000 acres (Figure 9). The northern portion of the refuge is almost entirely occupied by wetlands. Smaller wetlands can be found near the eastern boundary along Scottie and Desper creeks, Mirror Creek, and Wellesley Lakes. On the southern plateau are small concentrations of ponds around Jatahmund and Pickerel lakes. Some ponds and lakes are connected to rivers and streams, but others, especially in the central area, are fed primarily by groundwater drainage. The type of stream drainage of a lake or pond affects its value to wildlife; this is described further under "Biological Environment - Birds." Permafrost - Tetlin Refuge is in a zone of discontinuous permafrost, although frozen areas outnumber unfrozen areas. The most continuous permafrost is found in the poorly-drained lowlands, where the ground may be frozen to a depth of 40 to 250 feet. Thawed ground is most extensive in the uplands, under streams and large lakes, and along streamsides and lakeshores. Sediment and water quality - During summer, both the Chisana and the Nabesna rivers carry large loads of suspended solids that are deposited in the lowlands. In winter the streams are clear of glacial sediment. Normal summer sediment concentrations from streams draining the Wrangell Mountains range from 500 to 2,000 mg/l. Streams originating in hills derive suspended solids from bank and bed erosion; suspended solid loads in these streams range from 5 to 50 mg/1. Water quality on Tetlin Refuge is excellent. Placer mining claims in the Cheslina and Nabesna drainages upstream from the refuge have not been sufficiently active to be a source of water pollution. There is little known pollution on the refuge, and the water contains only natural minerals in moderate amounts (total dissolved solids are 75-200 mg/l). The Chisana and Nabesna Rivers have fairly hard water, normal acidity, relatively high dissolved calcium and magnesium, and normal levels of other chemicals. Mineral concentrations are lower in glacial rivers in summer than in winter due to the influx of meltwater from the icefields. Scottie Creek, which is probably typical of streams that originate in hills and flow through peaty lowlands, has a high concentration of iron. Ponds in dwarf-shrub peatlands may have even more iron; one at the northeast corner of the refuge has 0.71 mg/1, which is above recommended limits for drinking water. 41 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Vegetation The vegetation of Tetlin Refuge and the surrounding area was mapped at the 1:250,000 scale, using Landsat satellite imagery. The Landsat photo, taken in September 1977, was interpreted at the U. S. Geological Survey EROS field office in Anchorage by interactive digital image manipulation. A detailed description of the analysis methods and the results can be found in this plan's technical supplement. Scientific names of the major species appear in Appendix B. Vegetation of the area forms part of the circumpolar northern coniferous forest in North America, which extends south from the Brooks Range into Canada. In Tetlin Refuge, forest cover types dominate at elevations below treeline (3,200 feet). Open stands of black spruce (25-60% tree cover) are particularly common in low-relief wet terrain. White spruce, occasionally growing with white birch and aspen, can be found in better drained and warmer sites. Paper birch, willow, and aspen may dominate following fire on southern exposures. Willow, arctic dwarf birch, lingonberry, cottongrass, and Labrador tea are common on moist sites. Feathermoss covers the ground in well-drained sites and forests. Poorly-drained wetlands consist primarily of tussocks of sheath cottongrass. Above treeline, arctic dwarf birch, willow, lingonberry, crowberry, and white mountain avens dominate. Seven major land cover classes were distinguished in the mapping process (Table 2, Figure 10). These are described below. Forest - 65% of the refuge is covered with trees 16 feet tall or taller, or in the intermediate successional stage less than 16 feet tall but growing. Of the five recognized subclasses, needleleaf woodland and open needleleaf forest are the most extensive on Tetlin Refuge (Table 2). Closed needleleaf forests have 60-100% tree cover and predominate on moist to well-drained sites. They are particularly well developed on alluvial sites. The dominant tree is white spruce. Open needleleaf forests have 25-60% tree cover and are found on moderate to poorly drained soils. They also develop on organic deposits. They usually are dominated by black spruce. Needleleaf woodlands with 10-25% tree cover, are found on poorly drained soils. Black spruce is the most common tree. Sparsely distributed willows characterize the shrub layer. Dwarf shrubs (Labrador tea, bog blueberry, lingonberry, dwarf arctic birch, crowberry, red bearberry) are important in the understory. Mixed forest (25-100% cover) of deciduous broadleaf and evergreen needleleaf trees cover large areas of moderately to well drained soils in lowlands and foothills. Principal species are white birch, alder, aspen, and white spruce. 43 Table 2. Relative abundance of land cover classes and subclasses on Tetlin Refuge. Vegetation Class and Subclass Acres Percentage FOREST (599,150) (65) Closed needleleaf forest 89,900 10 Open needleleaf forest 198,000 22 Needleleaf woodland 263,000 28 Mixed forest 32,000 3 Deciduous forest 16,250 2 SCRUB (45,900) (5) Lowland deciduous scrub 6,100 0.7 Alpine and subalpine deciduous scrub 37,000 4 Alluvial scrub 2,800 0.3 DWARF SCRUB (194,500) (21) Prostrate dwarf shrub tundra 4,300 1 Dwarf shrub - graminoid tussock peatland 190,200 20 HERB (12,900) (1) Graminoid marsh and alluvial scrub 12,900 1 Aquatic forb SPARSELY VEGETATED AREAS (26,700) (3) Scarcely vegetated and barren scree 14,300 2 Scarcely vegetated and barren floodplain 12,400 1 WATER (44,100) (5) Clear water 29,000 3 Shallow low sedimented water/ aquatic vegetation 8,700 1 Medium to high sedimented water 6,400 1 OTHER AREAS (750) (0.1) Snow 680 0.1 Northway Airport 70 0.0 TOTAL 924,000 100 Source: Talbot 1984 44 Figure 10. Land Cover Types. YP" uu S 2 Le Lu ao uu = a Qa = = - <x z o = <x z adapted from Scarcely Vegetated Talbot et. LAND COVER TYPES Dwarf Scrub Source: 45 Broadleaf forests (25-100% cover) occur in well-drained sites. White birch, aspen, and balsam poplar dominate the overstory. Evergreens, particularly white spruce, may be present in the canopy or understory. Deciduous scrub - Sites in this vegetation class are composed predominantly of deciduous shrubs ranging from 1.5 to 16 feet in height. On the refuge, scrub occurs primarily along water courses, in poorly-drained sites, and in alpine and subalpine zones. There are three subclasses of scrub. Lowland deciduous scrub occurs in poorly-drained sites, such as tussock peatlands or needleleaf woodland swamps. Willow and alder predominate in the overstory. Shrub and dwarf shrub species include arctic dwarf birch, Labrador tea, bog blueberry, shrubby cinquefoil, and lingonberry. Grasses and mosses are common. Alluvial deciduous scrub occurs on frequently flooded sites, often in a zone along river banks between riverine grasslands and balsam poplar forests. Felt-leaf willow and diamondleaf willow predominate in some areas, river alder and green alder in others. Alpine and subalpine deciduous scrub occurs above timberline and is dominated by green alder, grayleaf willow, diamondleaf willow, and arctic dwarf birch. Dwarf scrub - Sites in this vegetation class contain slow-growing dwarf shrubs less than 1.5 feet tall, chiefly in the heath and crowberry families. An abundance of mosses and lichens grow among the dwarf shrubs. Two subclasses are recognized. Prostrate dwarf shrub tundra refers to relatively bare alpine communities. It is dominated by matted dwarf shrubs, especially white mountain avens, and is rich in lichens. Dwarf shrub-graminoid tussock peatland covers much of Tetlin Refuge. Organic soils of this subclass are very poorly drained. In relatively dry peatlands dwarf shrubs predominate, while in wetter peatlands a tussock graminoid (sheath cottongrass) is most common. Herbaceous vegetation - Two subclasses of herbaceous vegetation are recognized on the refuge. Graminoid marshes are wetlands periodically inundated with standing or slowly moving water and are found along lake shores and in alluvial sites. The most important graminoids are beaked, blue joint, and water sedge; primary forbs include marsh cinquefoil and buckbean. In wet marshes swamp horsetail forms a distinct zone at the inner edge of water. The aquatic forb subclass consists of freshwater communities of rooted aquatic plants structurally supported by water. The dominant forbs are yellow pond lilies floating on the surface and pondweeds submerged in the water. 46 Sparsely vegetated areas - In this class plants are scattered or absent and bare mineral soil or rock dominates the landscape. Four subclasses are recognized. Sparsely vegetated scree is composed of steep, unstable slopes of stone and weathered rock, with pockets of prostrate dwarf shrub tundra. Barren scree is usually devoid of soil or flowering plants, colonized only by blackish lichens. Sparsely vegetated floodplains are areas of river alluvium recently colonized by balsam poplar, yellow dryas, fireweed, river beauty, soapberry, bearberry, milk vetch, sweet vetch, and grasses. Barren floodplains have less plant cover than sparsely vegetated floodplains. Water - Three water classes are distinguished by clarity and sediment load. These are clear water, low-sedimented water, and medium- to high-sedimented water. The latter appear opaque or milky and occur primarily in glacial rivers. Low-sedimented water includes water with beds of aquatic herbaceous vegetation. A radio is implanted in a burbot, as part of a study of this major recreational and subsistence fish species (photo by Dave Stearns). 47 Other areas - The snow subclass includes late-melt snowbeds which were present in September 1977. The subclass of cultural features is represented by the Northway Airport. Fish Tetlin Refuge has a diverse subsistence and recreational fishery resource. Northern pike, whitefish, and burbot can be caught in the many stream-connected lakes. The Kalutna River, Scottie Creek, Desper Creek, Mirror Creek, and several other small streams produce quality grayling fishing. A historic whitefish subsistence fishery is located in the Northway and Fish Lake area, and burbot can be caught in most of the major river systems. Although chum salmon were once caught in large numbers it is only occasionally captured now. Lake trout are reported to be in many lakes in the area, but are only known to be in Jatahmund Lake within the refuge. The Service has determined that Dolly Varden and chinook salmon are national resource species which may be on Tetlin Refuge. These species are of sufficient importance or concern to merit special attention in the agency's Regional Resource Plan. They have not yet been found on the refuge, but exist in waters adjacent to the refuge. Fourteen species of fish are believed to occur on Tetlin Refuge, although only twelve are known at this time (Appendix C). It is likely that others will be found. Species important to subsistence and recreational fisheries are described below. Humpback whitefish - These fish have been found in several streams on the refuge including Desper, Scottie, and Little Scottie creeks, and several lakes including Weed, Fish, Three, Gull, American Wellesley, East Wellesley, and Fish Camp lakes. Streams provide avenues for exchange between populations of humpback whitefish and may be important in maintaining genetic diversity. Little is known about the abundance or condition of this species on the refuge. Least cisco - Least cisco are commonly found in association with other whitefish species on Tetlin Refuge. Areas noted for least cisco include Desper, Takomahto, and Wellesley Number One lakes. No specific data concerning abundance or condition of least cisco are available for the refuge. Chum salmon - Tetlin Refuge supports a fall run of chum salmon which reaches the refuge in September. Chum salmon occur in Sheep Creek of the Chisana River drainage and may use other areas as well. The abundance of chum salmon on the refuge is currently below historic levels, according to local residents. Chinook salmon - Chinook salmon have been reported from the Chisana River but use of refuge streams has not been documented. Round whitefish - This species is found in clear-water streams on and near the refuge including the Tanana and Chisana rivers and Moose Creek. It is also known to inhabit Gull, American Wellesley, and East and West Wellesley lakes. Little is known about the abundance or condition of this species on Tetlin Refuge. 48 Rainbow Trout - The rainbow trout is not native to interior Alaska but has been introduced to a number of lakes and ponds, including Hidden Lake on Tetlin Refuge. The rainbow trout is basically a spring spawner with the majority breeding between April and late June. They are not expected to reproduce successfully when introduced to lake environments without gravel beds or gravel bottom inlet streams. Dolly Varden - Tetlin Refuge was established by ANILCA in part to protect the habitat of Dolly Varden. To date, Dolly Varden have not been found in any drainages on the refuge. If the species does exist on Tetlin Refuge, it is most likely as a resident fish in the spring fed, clear-water tributaries that originate from the Alaska Range. Lake trout - Jatahmund Lake is the only place on Tetlin Refuge where lake trout have been found. This small trout population migrates into shallow rocky shoals in spring and fall for feeding and spawning. Arctic grayling - The Kalutna River and Scottie, Desper, and Mirror creeks, and some larger lakes are known to produce grayling and it is likely that many other clear-water streams and lakes of the refuge are used. Little data is available on the abundance or condition of arctic grayling in Tetlin Refuge. Northern pike - Northern pike are widely distributed in lakes and streams throughout Tetlin Refuge. Although it is assumed the abundance of northern pike within the refuge is high, there is little specific data on the subject. On Tetlin Refuge pike eat dragon fly larvae and fish. Longnose sucker - This species is found in most streams in the refuge and is an important forage species for other refuge fish. Longnose suckers spawn in refuge streams in early spring. Large concentrations of fry during summer months are common. Burbot - This species occurs in both the Chisana and Nabesna river drainages and some of the larger lakes. Burbot are primarily associated with deep-water habitats on the refuge but also use shallow waters in January and February for spawning. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game estimates high populations in the refuge. Other species - Lake chub and slimy sculpin are also found in Tetlin Refuge, but little is known about these widely distributed populations. Birds At least 135 species of birds are known or possible breeders on Tetlin Refuge, and another 57 species have been observed on or near the refuge. These species are listed along with their scientific names, breeding status, abundance, and a list of their habitats, in appendices C and D. Nine of the species have been designated by the Service as national resource species. These are the trumpeter swan, lesser Canada goose, white-fronted goose, mallard, northern pintail, canvasback, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and sandhill crane. The white-fronted goose and peregrine falcon are not known to breed on Tetlin and the canvasback is common, so no special management considerations are suggested for these. The other species are discussed below. 49 Trumpeter swan - The abundance and isolation of the ponds and lakes make Tetlin Refuge a potentially a very important breeding area for trumpeter swans. Swans were first observed nesting on the refuge in 1982, and their number has been increasing ever since. Currently at least six pairs breed on the refuge on lakes with abundant aquatic vegetation surrounded by extensive needleleaf forest (Banko 1960; Hansen et al. 1970). Trumpeter swans are extremely sensitive to disturbance when nesting and rearing broods May through September. They are likely to desert a breeding area and may not return in following years if disturbed by airplanes, boat motors, or other human activity. Sounds cause disturbance at great distances if they are very loud or if the source is visible to the birds (R. King, pers. comm., 1985). Tetlin Refuge is also a staging area for trumpeter swans migrating South in October. Tundra (whistling) swan - The region of Tetlin Refuge is an important staging area on the primary migration route of tundra swans entering and leaving Alaska. Several thousand birds sometimes stop on Tenmile Lake and other lakes. No tundra swans breed on the refuge. Canada goose (lesser Canada goose) - Tenmile Lake and the Chisana-Gardiner Creek Flats are used by Canada geese in the spring and fall during migration. The refuge area, including selected and conveyed lands, also supports 20 to 50 pairs of geese nesting on lake and river islands. Broods are reared along the shores of nearby river channels and ponds. The population of Canada geese may have decreased in recent years; their density on the Tanana River has declined recently, and broods are no longer seen on Tenmile Lake, below Gardiner Creek, or on the Tanana River, although pairs still gather in these areas in early spring (Figure 11). A factor contributing to their decline may be disturbance by people during the breeding season, as the lower Chisana and Tanana are an important local transportation corridors. Ducks - Tetlin Flats contains one of the densest breeding populations of waterfowl in interior Alaska. The area is also on a major migration route, and serves as a fall stopover point and spring nesting habitat for ducks moving between central and western Alaska and Canada and the western United States. Ducks are locally used for both food and recreation. A preliminary survey of subsistence conducted by the Tetlin Refuge staff in 1983 showed that ducks were used by over 70% of the households in Northway and Tetlin Village, as well as by Tok, Dot Lake, and Tanacross residents. Nonlocal hunters come to the refuge from Fairbanks and Anchorage. Trappers use ducks for bait and food. At Least 40,000 ducks breed on Tetlin Refuge in a good year, but this number, dependent in part on weather on the prairies farther south, can vary drastically. When water levels in prairies to the south are reduced by drought, many ducks continue north to Alaska. Production of young also varies with local conditions. Flooding or a cold, wet spring reduces the number of young produced. In 1982 25,000 young fledged on Tetlin; in 1983 86,000 fledged. Of the 13 nesting species the most abundant are lesser scaup, followed by American wigeon, white-winged scoter, green-winged teal, and mallard. Table 3 lists the nesting duck species in order of abundance. Two species, the blue-winged teal and the ruddy duck, are rare in Alaska as most of their range lies south of the state. The blue-winged teal is found regularly on the refuge while the ruddy duck is rare. 50 vf/ ¢ $ oi )o o W Jotahmund vay TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE CANADA GOOSE AND SANDHILL CRANE DISTRIBUTION V4 Cranes—fall staging NA Geese—broods (0) Geese—pairs, potential broods, unused breeding habitat Source: refuge field information 1986 “IT eanstgy ‘uOoTJnqtaqstp auezd [[ Typues puke esoos epeueD Table 3. Ducks species nesting on Tetlin Refuge, with relative abundance in 1983. Species % of total % of total young duck pairs ducks produced Lesser scaup 31.8 28.6 White-winged scoter 16.7 6.6 Green-winged teal 11.8 20.5 American wigeon 11.2 10.7 Mallard 9.4 8.4 Ring-necked duck 6.0 5.6 Bufflehead 5.5 7.9 Northern shoveler 2.9 2.1 Goldeneye (common and Barrow's) 2.1 2.6 Canvasback 1.3 3.9 Northern pintail 0.8 2.6 Blue-winged teal 0.8 0.5 Oldsquaw 0.8 0.1 Ruddy duck 0.1 0.1 Source: Refuge field information 1983 52 Ww S 2 wL Ww a WwW re a a 7 = 4 <x z o - <x z DUCK PRODUCTION DISTRIBUTION (1 High (1.0 duckling/ acre water) WZ. XN Medium (0.75-1.0/ acre Distribution of duck production is shown in Figure 12. Areas with the highest densities of ducks and the highest production of young per pair are in the northern part of the refuge including selected and conveyed lands, and particularly in the northwestern corner. The best habitat is ponds with shrub grass complexes along the banks. Nearby vegetation may be grassland, scrub, or forest. Productive ponds often are joined to sloughs or creeks and flood briefly in spring or during late summer rains (Murphy et al. 1984). Rich ponds in the northwestern area may also be fed by groundwater. Ponds and lakes south and east of Tsolmund Lake and near Scottie Creek are moderately productive but still yield many ducks. The density and production of duck populations on Tetlin Refuge has been consistently high in recent years. Maintaining breeding and migration habitat is important to preserve the productivity success of waterfowl. Occasional local fires may be beneficial, because they prevent shoreline scrub and grass from developing into peatland (Lensink 1962). Since the best waterfowl ponds depend on a continuous or seasonal influx of water, it is important to maintain the natural flow of creeks and sloughs. Other waterbirds - Arctic loons breed throughout the refuge, primarily on ponds that dot the needleleaf woodland-dwarf shrub peatlands. A few pairs of common loons are also present. Horned grebes nest on many of the small ponds and lakes, while red-necked grebes may nest on larger lakes. Mew and Bonaparte's gulls and arctic terns nest on ponds and lakes in the needleleaf woodland-dwarf shrub peatlands. Shorebirds, including snipe, lesser yellowlegs, red-necked phalaropes, and several species of sandpiper are abundant throughout the wetlands. The area of Tetlin Refuge is on a migration route for approximately 125,000 lesser sandhill cranes (Kessel 1984). In the fall thousands of birds stop at Tenmile Lake, on the Tanana River flats in the northwest corner of the refuge, or on the Chisana River flats near lower Gardiner Creek (Kessel 19793 Figure 11). In other years the route passes across the Tanana Uplands north of the refuge (Kessel 1984). The Tanana flats is a major stopover for the crane population. Other major regional stopovers are on the lower Delta River and the upper Fortymile (Kessel 1979), neither of which are managed primarily for wildlife. It is possible disturbance on these staging areas could increase the importance of the Tetlin area. A few pairs of cranes breed on and near the refuge. Their breeding habitat is open marshy meadows and flats. Raptors - Tetlin Refuge provides good bald eagle habitat. Thirty-two nests have been located within the congressional boundaries of the refuge, most are used yearly. Nests may be more widely distributed than current records show, as no systematic search has been made. Likely breeding areas are shown in Figure 13. Nests are in poplars or spruces near larger rivers or lakes. Bald eagles feed on a variety of fish, waterfowl, small game, and carrion. They are sensitive to disturbance during the breeding season, especially when eggs are in the nest. They tend to be more tolerant of constant sounds such as road traffic than of nearby or intermittent noise arising from such things as off-road vehicles, construction, or aircraft (Cade and White 1976; Kessel 1978). 54 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE “ET ean3tg RAPTOR DISTRIBUTION [ Low density-all raptors EZ Bald eagle-Moderate or High Osprey-Moderate or High suot jnqtaqystp 10qdey Source: refuge field information 1987 — XY R: NNNNANSASSSSANAN NNSANN sh NX wee x NSS SN N S\N NNNN vatahmund Gi Ga MOU GGG Lett fl 1, CPACCES NN \ N N NN \ \ ~ N N\ \ Wrangell — St. Elias National Park and Preserve LLL Z tC __i_# al Miles NNN NNNAN NNANNNANNAN DMAWdoa > Ss Canada NNAANANSNSNNAN ANNANAANANNS NANNA\NAWS YAN Tetlin Flats supports the only major concentration of osprey in Alaska (Schempf 1983). Of the estimated 200 osprey in the state an estimated 47 osprey pairs breed on or near the refuge (Schempf 1983). To date 42 nests have been located in cursory surveys. Osprey are highly dependent on wetlands as they feed almost entirely on fish. They nest in the broken tops of tall spruce next to lakes and ponds. Known and probable breeding areas are shown in Figure 13. Their sensitivity to disturbance is similar to that of bald eagles. Other raptor species observed regularly on the refuge include the red-tailed hawk, northern harrier (marsh hawk), American kestrel, merlin, gyrfalcon, great horned owl, and short-eared owl. Peregrine falcons have been seen but are not known to nest on the refuge, probably because nesting habitat (cliffs below 2500 feet elevation) is scarce. Grouse - Spruce grouse, ruffed grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, and ptarmigan are found on the refuge. Spruce grouse occupy closed needleleaf or mixed forest, ruffed and sharp-tailed grouse live in tall scrub in lowlands and along rivers, sharp-tailed grouse use clearings in deciduous forests, and ptarmigan breed in subalpine scrub and tundra at the southern edge of the refuge and descend to lower elevations in winter. Grouse are harvested for food. All the populations fluctuate greatly. Songbirds - Because of its variety of habitats Tetlin Refuge supports a wide variety of songbirds. Seventy-eight species have been observed, 57 of which are believed to breed on the refuge. The most common breeding species include alder and Hammond's flycatchers, horned lark, gray jay, ruby-crowned kinglet, Swainson's thrush, American robin, water pipit, yellow-rumped and Wilson's warbler, tree and white-crowned sparrows, and Lapland longspur. Two uncommon breeders are the red-winged blackbird, which is near the northern limit of its range, and the Siberian tit (gray-headed chickadee). Habitats that support the greatest songbird diversity are mixed forest and tall scrub in wetlands (Spindler and Kessel 1980). Mammals Tetlin Refuge supports 44 species of mammals. All are listed in appendices C and D, together with their scientific names, approximate abundance, and habitats. Moose - The lowlands between Tok and the Canadian border are good moose habitat, and about half is on Tetlin Refuge. Tetlin Refuge supports approximately 800 moose, which are a major species hunted on the refuge. Moose in the Tetlin area move among several habitats according to the season. From the time the wetlands thaw in spring until late summer moose feed heavily on aquatic vegetation. In September moose form rutting or breeding groups in areas at high elevations. Winter habitat includes deciduous scrub of various types, particularly tall alluvial and riparian scrub. In winter moose particularly favor species such as felt-leaf willow growing on frozen pond margins. Areas used in different seasons are shown in Figure 14. 56 Village Northway Jatahmund vay . e By 2 5 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE MOOSE DISTRIBUTION (i Calving Rutting & early winter Summer & late winter Source: refuge field information USA Canada *yT ean3ty *uOTINGIAISTp esooy Moose management on Tetlin is complicated by the seasonal movements of different components of the population. Approximately 80% to 90% of the animals spend the calving season and summer in the lowlands, but travel for the rut to subalpine scrub on the upper Cheslina River and in foothills south of the refuge. They spend early winter in the same areas, but in midwinter or later they move back to the northern lowlands. About 100 resident moose spend the entire year in the lowland forests, scrub, and lakes. Few if any moose are in the lowlands as yearling residents. About 100-150 moose move on and off the refuge from areas in the north. A radio-collared moose in the Cheslina drainage (photo by Steve Breeser). 58 Migrant and resident moose on Tetlin Refuge have different management problems. The migrant population is stable and productivity is good (approximately 130 calves per 100 cows) but recruitment is low. The autumn and winter range is in good condition, except in areas along the Cheslina River that are heavily browsed, where over 50% of available shrubs and 70% of favored species are cropped. Winter moose habitat on the refuge may have been impaired by 20 years of aggressive fire suppression, with the result that browse plants have grown beyond the reach of moose or have been replaced by unpalatable species such as spruce. Some old age plants are also decadent due to over browsing in the 1960's. Hunting of the migrant population is light due to difficult access to their fall range. Caribou - The winter ranges of three caribou herds include Tetlin Refuge. The Fortymile Herd, with 15,000 animals, summers in the Tanana Hills. Before 1932 this herd was much larger, containing over 500,000 caribou, and several thousand animals migrated onto the refuge each winter (Murie 1935). After 1932 they remained north of the refuge (Hemming 1971). A group of 50 to 100 Fortymile caribou now occasionally winter near Midway Lake, an area that includes the northwest corner of the refuge. The Nelchina herd of 24,000 caribou summers near the upper Susitna River. Part of this herd has wandered farther east each winter since the 1950's (Hemming 1971), and the animals reached the Tetlin area in large numbers in the winter of 1978-79. They did not reappear until 1982-83, when 4,000 to 8,000 animals wintered on the refuge. The Mentasta herd of 2,500 caribou summers in the Wrangell Mountains south of the refuge, and has recently been wintering on the refuge. Around 300 to 500 caribou from this herd wintered on the refuge in 1983-84, and 600 to 1200 in 1985. The Chisana herd of approximately 3,000 occupies an area near the White River 20 to 40 miles south of Tetlin Refuge. This herd migrates very little and has never been known to move as far north as the refuge, although section 302 of ANILCA specifically mentions this herd as a Tetlin resource to study and manage. Future use of the refuge by caribou is difficult to forecast. They generally migrate farther when the size of the herd increases (Hemming 1971). At present the Nelchina and Fortymile herds are growing and the other two herds are stable. Winter ranges also change as the animals respond to food supplies, snowfall, large wildfire effects, and other conditions. Caribou move widely between habitats during winter. They feed on lichens in mature needleleaf woodland and on dwarf shrub, grasses, and sedges in tussock peatlands. Caribou also seek green sedge rootstocks near ponds and feed on vegetation stored by muskrats. A registration permit hunt was instituted in 1984 for caribou on the refuge, but was discontinued. A registration permit hunt for Nelchina caribou was reinstated at the March 1987 Board of Game Meeting; it closely resembles the former regulation. The Nelchina and Fortymile herds on their autumn ranges north and west of the refuge also are important to hunters. 59 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE *GT ean3ty _ ) SHEEP DISTRIBUTION RY Sheep Source: refuge field information 1986 suotanqtaqystp daeys USA Canada L TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE GRIZZLY BEAR DISTRIBUTION ‘UOT INGI4ySTp aeveq ATZZI4IQ +g] eanBIy Dall sheep - Sheep are an important species on Tetlin Refuge, although the population is small (Figure 15). Eighty to 125 sheep occupy a small area in the southwest corner of the refuge, where the Mentasta Mountains rise above 4,000 feet. Most of the population's range lies south of the refuge. In winter some move into the Wrangell-St. Elias Preserve seeking south-facing slopes. Bears - Tetlin Refuge provides a good mix of important habitats for both grizzly (brown) and black bear. Actual numbers are unknown, but the number of sightings suggests both species are common. Grizzly bears spend most of the fall season in alpine and subalpine areas, and also seek berries on dwarf shrub peatlands. In early spring they frequent river gravel bars where they dig for roots (Figure 16). Black bears are found wherever there is a mixture of semi-open forest, tall scrub, wetlands with emergent food plants, and dwarf scrub peatland. Both bear species prey on moose calves (Franzman and Schwartz 1979; Ballard et al. 1982), caribou and other wildlife, but the local impact is not known. Both species are hunted incidentally to other game, and a few are shot when they conflict with humans. Furbearers - Tetlin Refuge supports ten species of furbearers. All are harvested by trappers, and five (marten, fox, lynx, mink, and muskrat) play a major role in the economy of the region. Population estimates are not available for furbearers, but general trends are described below. Marten are present in scattered locations and are trapped on the refuge. Numbers fluctuate naturally, probably due in part to variations in the populations of voles, which are the marten's most important prey. The principal marten habitat is spruce forest in rolling hills (Figure 17). They are most abundant where forests alternate with small open areas of scrub, sedges, and grass as edges between habitats provide optimal hunting (Koehler and Hornocker 1977; Buskirk 1983). Intense, widespread fires are detrimental to marten habitat for the first few years but dense forests are likely to support more marten if parts are burned infrequently by rapid, cool fires that leave many unburned patches and allow shrubs to regenerate quickly. Some parts of Tetlin Refuge are excellent red fox habitat (Figure 17). This area currently supports moderate numbers; the population fluctuates in response to changes in prey populations (muskrats, hares, and voles). Foxes are found in almost all habitats, though they are often most common in scrub and meadow near wetlands. Foxes are fairly important in the regional trapping economy. The area also provides good habitat for lynx in all lowland scrub - alluvial scrub, dwarf shrub peatland, and stream shorelines. Their numbers vary greatly according to the populations of their principal prey, the snowshoe hare. When snowshoe hares are abundant, lynx are an important source of income to trappers. Present numbers of lynx are very low. Muskrat are moderately abundant in some refuge wetlands (Figure 18). Numbers are currently higher than in previous years but they fluctuate, probably in response to food and water conditions. Muskrats are the furbearer most heavily harvested, both by trapping in winter and by shooting in spring and fall. In 1977, 21,000 were sold in Northway. 62 Figure 17. Marten and fox distribution. DISTRIBUTION Source: refuge field information MARTEN AND FOX Fox moderate WW S 2 uw Ww a uu re = a = = <x z © - <= z / Tetlin Village Wrangell ~ Jatahmund yay" —_ ———_ — St. Elias National Park and Preserve & o S 2 x 9 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BEAVER AND MUSKRAT DISTRIBUTION YH Muskrat high YQ Beaver high Beaver & muskrat moderate to low Source: refuge field information X Wellesley Lokes oe *gT ean3tq uot Inqtaqstp Jeaysnu pue AsAP|g TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Village OTTER DISTRIBUTION Otter moderate Otter low refuge field information 1986 al a 4 Wl \ 4 s a7 \ = Ve Vil a ii LS ONa 2 Es 4 =. WW" vasa “61 2an3ty qtaqstp 129330 *uotqn Beaver populations are low but increasing throughout most of the upper Tanana basin (ADF&G 1978). One reason for this may be the scarcity of favorable lakes and streams with solid banks, stable water levels, and sufficient depth (Murray 1961). Areas that support moderate populations are shown in Figure 18. Some beaver are trapped in the northeastern lowlands of Tetlin Refuge. Mink populations are moderately high along ponds, marshes, lakes, and streams on the refuge. Mink hunt muskrats, hares, and rodents, and their population fluctuates somewhat with prey numbers. Otter are widespread in lakes and streams on the refuge (Figure 19). Populations are moderately high, and a few animals are trapped each year. Wolverines range throughout the refuge, however, they are rare and few are taken by trappers. Historical populations were much larger. Coyotes are common in several areas, and their numbers may be increasing. Few wolves are harvested on Tetlin Refuge. Aerial surveys in the winter of 1985-1986 showed that about fifty individuals in seven packs used the refuge, although only one pack spent all of their time on the refuge. As predators on species such as moose and caribou, wolves are likely to influence prey populations. Wolves prey on moose calves in summer and on all age classes throughout the year, but the proportion of moose mortality attributable to wolf predation is unknown. They are the most frequent predator of moose calves based on recent investigations by refuge staff. Some people favor reducing the wolf population on Tetlin Flats to increase the resident moose population, while others view the wolf as a species which should not be manipulated for the benefit of another species. Some people with this viewpoint advocate reducing wolf populations only if the demand for moose and caribou cannot be met otherwise, particularly in areas where habitat enhancement has raised the carrying capacity but not the ungulate population. The Service recognizes predator control as a valid wildlife management tool where it is biologically justified. If it is proposed, an environmental assessment and public involvement will be required. Small mammals - Snowshoe hares occupy scrub habitats throughout the refuge. Their populations are subject to extreme fluctuations. Hares are a major prey of several furbearers and raptorial birds, and are commonly harvested by local residents. Present numbers are moderate, but are slowly increasing. Hares need dense thickets of deciduous scrub or black spruce, but also may use more open areas (Wolff 1980). Small rodents (mice, voles, and lemmings) and shrews are common in all habitats with thick ground cover. Most use heavy grass or open tundra in summer and move into scrub or trees in winter (Wolff and Lidicker 1980; West 1982). Numbers and diversity of small rodents in the interior are highest in small openings with grass and herbs, lowest in dense scrub, and intermediate in forest (Fox 1983). Small rodents are important in the diets of most furbearers and raptors. Their numbers fluctuate greatly. 66 Threatened and Endangered Species Alaska has no plant species officially designated as threatened or endangered, and no plant species considered as possible candidates for listing are known to be present on Tetlin Refuge. The American peregrine falcon, which migrates through the refuge in spring and fall, is the only endangered or threatened species known to be present. Although there is no evidence of peregrines nesting on the refuge, some suitable habitat exists. Peregrine nests have been recorded along the Alaska Range, near Tetlin Lake, and on the Tanana River downstream from the refuge. Two vertebrate species, lynx and Swainson's hawks, are considered candidates for possible future listing due to of their questionable status in the contiguous 48 states. 67 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT Cultural Resources The prehistory of interior Alaska is not well known. Judging from recent discoveries archaeologists believe the area to have some of the earliest prehistorical sites in North America. The interior of the state remained essentially ice-free during the last glaciations, making the area a focal point for travelers entering the New World. Dated materials from the Yukon Territory indicate people were present in the area at least 27,000 years ago. Several potentially significant archaeological sites have been identified in Tetlin Refuge, largely along river courses and lake shores. As these areas are also the most likely to be impacted by use, there is a definite possibility of conflict from development activities on the refuge. To avoid impacting any potential sites when development is proposed, a qualified archaeologist will investigate records and reported sites and examine the area. Site examinations will be included in the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) environmental education program. The earliest known site near Tetlin Refuge is the village site at Healy Lake, about 100 miles to the northwest, the lowest levels of which date to 11,000 years ago. The materials from these levels, which are part of the American Paleo-arctic tradition, include microblades (small stone flakes used as weapon insets or as blanks for other tools) and bifacially-flaked projectile points. Sites of this period are widespread in Alaska, with some being as recent as 8,000 years ago. This phase was followed by the Northern Archaic tradition, beginning around 6,000 years ago. People from this period fabricated microblades, side-notched projectile points, and large, oval or crescent-shaped bifaced tools. This stage is thought to be an adaptation to the boreal forest that was becoming the dominant vegetation type in the interior. This tradition continued, with minor variations, until about 4,000 years ago. The Denali Complex, which continued from that point into the first part of the Christian era, was associated with different types of projectile points, but people still predominantly used microblades as tools. Sites of this period have been found at Healy Lake and other locations near the refuge. The Denali Complex is followed in many sites by a distinct hiatus, perhaps caused by drastic environmental changes following an eruption of Mount Saint Elias about 1,400 years ago. As people returned to the area about 1,000 years ago, they brought with them a tool kit that included the Kavik-type projectile point, thought to be one of the earliest indicators of Athapaskan culture in Alaska. This development may well be part of the Denali complex (Reynolds and Jordan 1982). The Native residents of Tetlin Refuge at the time of European contact were Upper Tanana (also called Nabesna or Nabesnatana) Athapaskans, who numbered no more than a few hundred. By the time the first anthropologist studied these people in the 1920's, their population was 152, divided into five local bands and occupying an area of about 17,500 square miles. 69 The Upper Tanana Athapaskans were nomadic hunters, concentrating on moose, sheep, and most importantly, caribou. As the upper Tanana River contained few salmon, fishing was limited to late spring and early summer runs of whitefish. Other food resources included hare, hunted in fall drives, and muskrat, ducks, geese, swans, and cranes, primarily hunted in spring or summer. The Upper Tanana Athapaskans lived in semipermanent round or elliptical houses in winter and in permanent rectangular houses in summer. Most of the summer houses were located near reliable fishing spots. Lean-to, brush, or bark covered shelters were used for hunting and traveling. The basic unit of social organization was the nuclear family. Families within a local band often were closely related. The local bands were flexible, changing size and composition over time, while larger, regional bands were more stable. Political organization was essentially nonexistent, although there were recognized leaders in each band, frequently the wealthiest members (Gue'don 1974; McKennan 1981). "Women's dance with guns," from an Upper Tanana potlach. A ceremony that follows a funeral or honors a living person, the potlatch functions as an important cultural and social event between villages in the Upper Tanana and Copper River basins. As the host village is required to feed a large number of people for several days, gathering local wild foods is particularly important during a potlach (photo by Elizabeth Halpin). 70 The Upper Tanana Athapaskans may have been involved in trade with British posts along the Yukon and with Russians in the Copper River drainage as early as the 1840's. They also served as middlemen between the Russians and the Han and Tutchone Athapaskans to the north and east. The first Europeans to trade or travel on the Tanana River were probably Bates and Harper in the late 1870's. The first actual exploration of the Tanana was by Lieutenant Henry Allen in 1885, when he entered the area by way of the Copper River and Suslota Pass. Most of the subsequent activities by explorers, miners, and missionaries took place outside the refuge at Tanacross, but some traders did maintain posts on the refuge at the mouth of the Kalutna River, at Nabesna, and at Gardiner Creek Camp. In the 1930's with the establishment of schools, the Upper Tanana Athapaskans abandoned their seasonal movements and settled in permanent villages. The Upper Tanana Basin remained one of the most isolated areas in the state until the Alaska Highway was constructed during World War II (Simeone 1982; Ducker 1982). Population Trends and Composition The communities of Northway, Tetlin, Tok and Tanacross were selected for discussion because their residents are known to regularly use Tetlin Refuge for recreation and subsistence activities. Tetlin, Northway, and Tanacross are traditional Athapaskan villages whose residents engage in noncommercial production and exchange based on the harvest of renewable natural resources. Tok, the largest town in the subregion, serves as the subregional supply center for the Upper Tanana and Fortymile area. It is also considered a rural community having noncommercial production and exchange. The population of Tok includes former residents of Tanacross, Tetlin, Northway, Eagle, and Mentasta. These people retain strong ties to their former communities and continue to harvest resources with friends and families from these villages. The Tanana Basin population increased approximately 23% from 1970 to 1980, largely as a result of the boom years of the Trans—Alaskan Pipeline (Table 4). Expansion of state government and tourism also contributed to the increase. Tok has experienced a dramatic increase in growth of 83% from 1960 to 1970 and an additional 21% from 1970 to 1980. In contrast, the population of Tetlin decreased by 7% from 1960 to 1970 and 6% from 1970 to 1980. Tetlin is the only village of the four not connected by road to the Alaska Highway, although a winter road provides access from November to March. Tanacross, twelve miles northwest of Tok and one mile off the Alaska Highway, experienced a 39% population increase from 1970 to 1980. Northway grew at a similar rate. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources' Tanana Basin area plan (1983) projected population growth through the year 2000, based on assumptions that economic and subsistence patterns will remain the same, state and federal governments will continue to play a role, and tourism and recreation-related employment will grow. While there has been speculation on development of regional mineral resources and extension of the Alaska Railroad, such major investments are unlikely to occur within the time frame of this plan. Given the lack of major investments designated for the Upper Tanana Basin, only minor changes in population trends and composition are forecast for the near future. 71 Table 4. Population characteristics of four communities using Tetlin Refuge, 1960-2000. 1960 1970 1980 % Native % change % change forecast % change census census census 1980 60-70 70-80 2000 80-2000 Tok 315 577 696 15% 83% 21% 1742 150% Northway 237 234 326 61% -1% 39% 320 -2% Tetlin 122 114 107 97% -7% -6% 126 18% Tanacross 102 84 117 86% 18% 39% 170 45% Total Area 776 1009 1246 30% 23% 2358 89% Note: Tok and Northway figures include people living in the general area. Sources: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1981; Louis Berger and Assoc., 1982a; Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, 1983. Population projections for the four communities are found in Table 4. The population of Tok is expected to grow at the highest rate (150%) from 1980 to 2000. Tetlin, the most isolated community, will grow 18%, Tanacross 46%, and Northway will remain about the same size (Louis Berger and Associates 1982a). In 1980, the composition of the populations of Tanacross, Tetlin, and Northway was approximately 82% Native and 18% non-Native. The larger community of Tok was 15% Native. Composition is broken down by community in Table 4. Sociocultural Systems Since the early part of the twentieth century, the nomadic way of life of the Upper Tanana Athapaskans has been replaced by a more sedentary existence revolving around stable settlements, although some families still follow the tradition of setting up seasonal fish camps in the summer (Vitt 1971). Subsistence way of life - Subsistence is defined as "the customary and traditional use by rural Alaskan residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles out of inedible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family consumption}; and for customary trade." (ANILCA Title VIII 1980). Important resources on Tetlin Refuge include moose, fish, waterfowl, furbearers, timber, and certain plants. 72 Subsistence as practiced today is still an important way of life in the Tanana Basin for Natives and non-Natives alike. For the Athapaskan Indian, subsistence is deeply embedded in the culture. The residents of Tetlin, Tanacross, and Northway in many instances have adopted modern means of hunting to fit their basically traditional life styles. The majority of people in Tok are more recent arrivals to the area who have adopted a subsistence lifestyle to supplement their social and economic needs. Because subsistence activities overlap with commercial activities, and because there are no market values established for commodities and services received, it is difficult to estimate the size or impact of any given subsistence economy (Berman 1983). The subsistence sector, composed of fishermen, hunters, and trappers, engages in a cash economy for a portion of the year and a subsistence economy for the remainder of the year. The economies of Northway, Tetlin, and Tanacross are in a transitional phase, with mixed cash and traditional activities. Tok, however, has more of a cash economy, supplemented by traditional activities to offset the high cost of living. The subsistence lifestyle of communities using Tetlin Refuge is described in more detail in the public use section. Kinship and social organization - Natives living in local communities retain a strong sense of pride in their cultural heritage. Kinship, social bonds, and strong ties to the land cause many people to stay in smaller communities despite limited employment opportunities. Traditional ceremonies such as potlatches, which reaffirm kinship and village ties, are frequently held in Northway, Tetlin, and Tanacross. The use of Native dialects in the home, particularly among the elderly, preserves social and kinship affiliations. Kinship is an important influence in social interaction and exchange of subsistence resources. Subsistence harvests are shared with local family members and with family members who have moved to other communities. Hunting, fishing, trapping, child care, and many social activities are often conducted along kinship lines. The importance of this exchange is magnified by the shortage of social services in the isolated communities. Intraregional interactions - Fairbanks is the center of economic and social exchange in the Tanana Basin and serves as the regional transportation center for interior Alaska. The subregional center of commerce and development for the Upper Tanana and Fortymile area is Tok, strategically located at the junction of the Alaska and Glenn highways 90 miles west of the Canadian border. Because of its location, Tok is an important service area for truckers and tourists. As the largest community in the subregion, Tok has a relatively full complement of schools, shops, service stations, lodges, restaurants, and other basic infrastructure upon which the smaller communities depend. 73 All communities in the Tanana Basin are tied together by Doyon, Ltd., a profit-making Native regional corporation, and Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc., a nonprofit Native association. Perceptions, values, and response to change - The rural way of life is mainly a measure of people's ability to benefit from various resources available at different times of year and in varying quantities. People living close to the land, regardless of their ethnic origin or place of birth, tend to be conservative and resistant to change. The concerns most commonly expressed at public meetings for state and federal planning efforts have dealt with change. Residents dependent on local resources have legitimate concerns about increasing competition from recreational users, and efforts to increase public access and game populations are met with suspicion as this is seen leading to a reduction of resources local residents depend on year round. Community Infrastructure The underlying framework or support system for a community is known as its infrastructure. Included in this infrastructure is local government, housing, schools, health services, local transportation, water, waste and utility systems, communication systems, and police and fire protection. All four communities possess the basic components of infrastructure to some degree. The components enjoyed by all communities are a community hall, grade school, church, health clinic, post office, airstrip or airport, electrical power generation, and local groups which administer federal assistance and other services (Darbyshire and Associates 1980). Of the four communities, Tok, having bolstered its commercial and tourist industries with motels, restaurants, service stations, and related businesses, has the broadest range of support facilities. Government spending supports a large portion of the economic infrastructure and provides nearly 50% of winter employment in Tok. Tok has no local government. The city is not incorporated as a municipality under state law, and residents, wishing to limit government interference, have declined the opportunity to form local or regional governments. Property and sales taxes are not levied; instead, special interest groups working through nonprofit corporations accomplish many community objectives. Tetlin, Northway, and Tanacross are all unincorporated and thus are without taxing authority. They are governed by tribal councils. Economic Conditions Subsistence plays a key part in the local economy. However, this discussion focuses only on the cash economy of the area. The important role of subsistence activities is discussed separately. Tok is a service and trade center for the area and a fuel, food, lodging, and service center for truckers and tourists. The local economy is primarily driven by government spending and tourism, both of which change seasonally. Employment opportunities are more plentiful in Tok than in the other three communities. The economy of each community is highly dependent on "outside" money, as none of them have local taxes. The state and federal governments support the basic community infrastructure, such as roads, schools, clinics, police, magistrate, fire department, community dump, and social programs. 74 Table 5. Estimated population and wage employment for the North Star Borough and four communities using Tetlin Refuge, 1980. Ratio of Wage Wage Employed Community Population Employment To Population Fairbanks North Star Borough 53,893 21,200 0.39 Northway 186 46 0.25 Tanacross 117 12 0.10 Tetlin 107 ll 0.10 Tok 585 249 0.43 Sources: Louis Berger and Associates 1982b; Fairbanks North Star Borough, Community Research Center, Research Quarterly 1982. Employment - Wage employment opportunities in the small communities are generally limited to teaching, working for the regional or village corporations, summer construction, fire-fighting, and other federal or state jobs which sporadically become available. A general store and post office provide limited employment opportunities. Nearly 30% of the local labor market in Tok is supplied by the state and federal governments. The high cost of living in each of the four communities encourages people to supplement their incomes by harvesting natural resources, particularly as employment is seasonally dependent on tourism and other summer activities. Some residents take seasonal construction jobs outside the area for several months at a time, then return home to a subsistence lifestyle. In winter the unemployment rate in all communities is very high. Table 5 depicts the employment levels of the North Star Borough and the four communities that use Tetlin Refuge. Tourism is a significant stimulant to the local economy and helps stabilize boom and bust cycles. In Tok, the "Gateway Community" to Alaska for people traveling the Alaska Highway, tourism is a mainstay industry. Facilities such as gasoline stations, restaurants, a laundromat, camper parks, retail businesses, and a new visitor information facility make a significant contribution to the local economy. Tourism combined with government accounts for most of the stable employment in Tok. Many residents of the villages outside Tok make handicrafts to sell in gift shops in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Tok, and Northway Junction. Traditional Native handicrafts include a wide variety of hats, mittens, moccasins, and birch bark baskets. 75 Income - Information on personal income is difficult to obtain and subject to limitations. The Bureau of Economic Analysis provides partial income data by census division rather than by community. The per capita income of the census district in 1980 was $9,778. This does not include income derived from commercial fishing, trapping, fire-fighting, firewood cutting, craft sales, or related activities, which usually represent a significant proportion of the annual family income. Social security payments, unemployment compensation, and welfare payments presumably are a portion of the total personal income, but there is no way to determine that percentage (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 1983). In rural interior Alaska, 57% of the families make less than $15,000 per year (Huskey 1982). Personal annual income varies widely, ranging from $2,000 or the equivalent for those who live entirely by subsistence, to $75,000 to $100,000 for teaching couples. A few individuals have even higher incomes. The actual range may vary from $2,000 to $85,000. This disparity in income is characteristic of communities with seasonal employment, subsidies, unstable economies, poor infrastructure development, and large sporadic injections of "outside" money. Public Use Wildlife observation, picnicking, photography, and camping are the most popular uses of Tetlin Refuge (Table 6). Fishing and hunting, particularly waterfowl hunting, are enjoyed by many local and nonlocal users. Levels of nonconsumptive use are high on Tetlin, since the Alaska Highway runs for 65 miles along the east boundary of the refuge and nearly 160,000 travelers pass this way each year. Three state wayside parks provide camping facilities and opportunities to observe wildlife and scenic vistas. Access and transportation - Boat, snowmobile, and light aircraft are the most common modes of transportation on the refuge. In addition, a few off-road vehicles resembling swamp buggies are used for hunting. Areas suitable for landing wheel planes are very limited, so most air travel on the refuge is confined to float planes. Boats gain access to the refuge via Desper Creek and the Tanana and Chisana rivers. Northway and Tetlin residents boat the Nabesna River. Recreationists reach the refuge by floating from Chisana, Nabesna, or Orange Hill in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. A network of snowmobile trails crosses the refuge. Some of these trails are used occasionally by off-road vehicles. No major changes in transportation are anticipated. Previous planning exercises have identified the potential for roads between Northway and Nabesna and between McCarthy and the Alaska Highway (USDI 1973). These proposals are not currently being considered. The Alaska Highway along the northeast boundary of the refuge is currently being realigned, creating six new pullouts and making the refuge more visible to the public. The modes of transportation currently used on the refuge and the level of use are expected to remain the same. 76 Table 6. Local and nonlocal public use of Tetlin Refuge in 1986, recorded by the number of visits. Activity Visits? Percent of Total Refuge Visits (26,240 visits)? Environmental Education Students 200 1% Teachers 2 <1% Camping? 1,765 7% Picnicking® 8,190 31% Wildlife Observation 13,335 51% Photography 7,605 29% Hunting Ducks 263 1% Game birds 300 1% Moose 150 <1% Dall sheep 20 <1% Grizzly bear 8 <1% Small game 85 <1% Trapping 650 2% Fishing 1,380 5% a Includes visits to three state wayside parks within the refuge. Column does not total because refuge visitors frequently engage in more than one activity. Source: Tetlin Refuge files, 1986 77 Subsistence - Subsistence is defined in ANILCA in part as the customary and traditional use by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for personal or family consumption. This means most harvest of refuge resources by local residents, including fishing by hook and line, qualifies as subsistence use. (The state of Alaska defines fishing with hook and line, with a minor exception, as sport fishing, permitted under a separate set of regulations.) For the purposes of this plan, all local harvest will be considered subsistence. Studies have been conducted on resource harvest patterns of residents from Northway and Tetlin. The data presented here are preliminary data fromthose studies. The data on Northway residents are based on 15% to 20% of the households. Data for Tok were obtained from a few knowledgeable residents. No information was available for Tanacross residents, however, their use is believed to be minimal. There are approximately 15 people living near the Canadian border for whom there is little harvest data. They are known to use sections of the refuge from the Chisana River to the Canadian border to High caches built in the late 1920's or early 1930's to store furs, traps, meat and other supplies (photo by Elizabeth Halpin). 78 hunt and fish. Studies of Tetlin, Northway, and Tok have been conducted. All subsistence monitoring will be performed in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division. Residents of Tetlin, Northway, Tok, and Tanacross harvest waterfowl, ptarmigan, grouse, fish, moose, hare, furbearers, and plants. Caribou are harvested when present on the refuge or nearby. Bears occasionally are hunted on the refuge. Waterfowl, fish, moose, and furbearers appear to be the most important resources harvested for local consumption on the refuge. Figures 20-23 indicate where local residents hunt these species. A few animals may be taken on an opportunistic basis in areas that are unmarked in the figures, and harvest areas and levels fluctuate with changes in game populations. Different resources are harvested at different times of year. Table 7 shows a generalized annual cycle of harvest activities. The availability of resources, cash income, and legal hunting seasons are the primary factors determining when harvests occur. "Bah'," a way of cutting whitefish for dry smoking and storing for later consumption. Families in Tetlin typically cut and dry 200-300 whitefish in the summer (photo by Elizabeth Halpin). 79 Table 7. Annual pattern of harvest by local residents using Tetlin Refuge. Moose | | —- |-- Furbearers (other than | | | (muskrat ) | | | Muskrat (trapping) -- |_| | | Muskrat (hunting) i tod I | od || | Whitefish | | | Young pike ("pickles") | | Pike | -- a | Lingcod | | | | | | | Grayling | Ducks PT Geese | | Ptarmigan/grouse Rabbits |_| Edible plant parts (berries, roots) | Bark Firewood | | | | | | | | | | Porcupine | | | | | | | | | --- use could occur during this period use is likely to occur during this period Source: Preliminary data from joint ADF&G and USFWS studies. 80 Tetlin Loke a TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Vilage LOCAL RESIDENT WATERFOWL HUNTING 7 [LL] Tettin Northway > % 4 a’ ¥ es be % r eee mW Source: adapted from 5 T. \ Case 1986 and L ) pees it Halpin 1985 s 3 Megs s a “6, ete y v air ha, wt 97 ye ° ' ; ' 3 Jotahmund s Loke Ae Y iy y 5 i ° °° > <! oye —————— - Dla Wrangell - St. Ellas Notional Park and Preserve oO | ° 5 10 o—~ | Tai iitwateet iil Tt °OZ eansty *seaae Sutquny [MOj19qeM JUSpTsez [eI07 Tetlin Village Tetlin Lake 8 5 : : j . y at Wrangell - St. Elias « 04 Py, be, Ss Nabesy, National Park and 10 t Northway Preserve Hi TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LOCAL RESIDENT FISHING Tetlin A Northway Tok* Source: adapted from Case 1986 and Halpin 1985 * refuges field information 1987 "TZ ean8tg *seoae SUTYSTJ JUepTsea [RIOT Tetlin Village Wrangell — St. Elias Takomahto National Park and Preserve TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LOCAL RESIDENT MOOSE HUNTING VZZ) Tetlin Northway Tok Source: adapted from Case 1986 and Halpin 1985 *@Z ean3ty *sPeoie 3utquny esoow JUepTser [eI07 Tetlin Village Northway > r wWatahmundn Park and Preserve 5 ona < 4 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LOCAL RESIDENT TRAPPING EA [22] EES] Source: adapted from Case 1986 and Halpin 1985; refuges field information 1987. "eZ ean8ty eso] tsol P *spoae Sutddeaq que A few local residents have cabins and campsites on the refuge used to support hunting, fishing, and trapping activities. Most local residents that harvest small game such as grouse, ptarmigan, and hares do so incidentally to other activities such as big game hunting or fishing. Hares are most often taken in conjunction with trapping. Northway residents harvest more small game on the refuge than do residents from other villages. Tetlin residents gather plants in the Riverside area, the Tanana River from the refuge boundary to Riverside, and the Fish Camp Lake area. Northway residents gather plants and wood primarily along the Alaska Highway, Moose Creek, and between the village and the Alaska Highway. Northway - Because of the community's location within the refuge boundary, Northway residents harvest significant amounts of fish and wildlife near or on the refuge. Moose are hunted throughout the northern half of the refuge from boat on the Nabesna, Tanana, and Chisana rivers, as well as on tributaries including Moose, Desper, and Mirror creeks. Other moose are taken within walking distance of the Alaska Highway. In the 1982-83 season, the two primary harvest areas appeared to be a strip the entire length of the refuge along the highway and along river drainages and tributaries. Waterfowl are harvested on a few bodies of water between Northway and the highway, as well as on the Chisana River, Moose Creek and in the Desper/Scottie Creek area. The residents of Northway trap throughout most of the refuge, according to the sampled households of active trappers. The majority of households surveyed in Northway fish within a five mile radius of the community, primarily along Moose Creek, the Nabesna River, the Chisana River downstream from the Chisana bridge, and on Fish Lake. In addition, some fish are taken from Mark Creek, from Tenmile Lake, at the confluence of Stuver Creek and the Chisana, and in the Desper/Scottie Creek area. The majority of the fish, moose, furbearers, and waterfowl taken by Northway residents come from within the refuge boundary. Sheep are taken very infrequently outside the refuge. Tetlin - Residents of Tetlin also use the refuge extensively, although not as much as Northway residents. Tetlin people hunt moose on the refuge primarily in the northwest panhandle. Other less accessible areas such as Tlocgon Lake, Nuziamundcho Lake, Big John Lake, and the lakes directly west of Riverside are used less frequently. Tetlin villagers trap primarily in a strip along the Kalutna River, from its mouth and upstream about 15 miles and around Big John Lake. 85 While most of Tetlin's fishing takes place outside the refuge, several traditional sites on the refuge are used. Fish Camp Lake (Tlechegn Lake) is used extensively for whitefish and burbot. Pike and grayling are harvested from the Kalutna River. Other areas in the northeast panhandle are fished but usually by only one family group. Tok - Tok residents use the refuge primarily to hunt waterfowl, trap, and fish. In an average year, they take around 2,000 waterfowl from the refuge. Most waterfowl hunting appears to take place east of Northway around Fish Lake. Some people launch boats at the Chisana River bridge and hunt along the river up to Desper Creek. The Desper/Scottie Creek area is used less frequently. Some hunting also occurs on the Kalutna River and in the sloughs and lakes east of the Kalutna's confluence with the Tanana River. Tok residents trap primarily in the northeastern panhandle, the Black Hills area, the Cheslina River area, and in the southern half of the refuge. Marten, fox, lynx, and muskrat are the principle species trapped. A few beaver are trapped in the Desper/Scottie Creek area. A trapping, hunting and fishing camp used by several extended families. It includes several cabins, drying racks for meat and fish, tent frames and a steam bath frame; the camp has been in this approximate area since the early 1920's (photo by Elizabeth Halpin). 86 Tok residents sometimes kill moose on the refuge incidentally to other activities. An estimated one to three moose are taken in an average year. The kills appear to be distributed equally among sites along the highway, the Chisana River from Tenmile Lake to the Chisana bridge, the Tanana River from its origin to its confluence with the Kalutna, the Kalutna River, and lakes east of the Kalutna from its mouth to Big John Lake. Most fishing by Tok residents on the refuge takes place along the highway. The Chisana River is used to gain access to Moose Creek, which is fished heavily for burbot and pike. Gardiner Creek, accessible by foot from the highway, is a popular place to fish for grayling. Tenmile Lake, also accessible by foot, is fished less frequently for pike and burbot. The Desper/Scottie Creek area, reached by boat from the highway, is also moderately fished for pike and burbot. Some people launch from the Steel Bridge near Tetlin Junction to fish for burbot on the Tanana River or to boat up the Kalutna for burbot, grayling, and pike. A moderate amount of icefishing for burbot takes place on Moose Creek and Jatahmund Lake, and for rainbow trout on Hidden Lake. Plant materials are not collected by Tok residents in significant quantities. Most of the moose and virtually all of the bear, sheep, and caribou harvested by Tok residents are taken outside the refuge, while significant amounts of waterfowl, fish, and furbearers are taken from the refuge. Recreation - Tetlin Refuge is relatively unknown as a recreational area, due in part to its remoteness from major population centers and the lack of access into the interior of the refuge. As a result, most recreational users are either residents of the area or people driving by the refuge and stopping in the state-administered waysides. Hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, wildlife observation, and photography are the major activities pursued on the refuge. One licensed transporter and four air-taxi operators provide transportation and equipment for trips into the refuge. Cabins built on Tetlin Refuge before the refuge was established are used under special-use permit, primarily during trapping and hunting seasons. Most cabins were constructed by trappers and are located along trap lines. Hunting - Waterfowl, moose, bear, caribou, and sheep are the major species hunted on Tetlin Refuge (Figures 24-27). Local use of these species is discussed in the section on subsistence. Nonlocal use is low. Numerous guide areas lie inside the refuge and two big game guides are licensed to operate within the refuge. Approximately 30 big game hunters were guided on the refuge in 1984. An average year of guided hunts on Tetlin produces one sheep, five grizzly bear and five moose. Hunts may last up to ten days, with the cost varying from $200 a day to $6,000 a hunt. The price of a guided hunt varies greatly, depending on the number of species taken. As waterfowl hunting increases in popularity, guide services for this activity will continue to be available in Tok. In recent years, one to three parties have used this service each year at a cost of approximately $300 per day per party. At least six parties were guided in 1983. Waterfowl hunting trips average two to three days. 87 Wrangell — vatahmund yay" St. Elias National Park and Preserve ‘ : s » S TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RECREATIONAL SHEEP HUNTING 7] Sheep hunting area Source: refuge field information *yZ eanBIg ‘seoie Butquny daays [PuOT IP=eII04 y vatahmund vay" Wrangell — St. Elias National Park and Preserve edge cge gpe . 2 A 9 ° TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RECREATIONAL BEAR HUNTING Cc] Black bear are hunted throughout the refuge; recreational hunting levels are low. GRIZZLY 2-10% of activity 11-20% of activity LZ Greater than 20% of activity Source: refuge field information 1985 "CZ ean3ty *seole sutquny aeveq [PUOTIR=1D04 %, "2 Se co MK C ) a Tetlin Village Wrangell - St. Ellas National Park and Preserve s 3 s S$ TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RECREATIONAL MOOSE HUNTING 2-10% of activity 11-20% of activity | 1] Greater than 20% of activity Remainder of refuge has a low level of use via float planes Source: refuge field information 1986 *9z eandty *sPpole sutquny essoow [TPUOTIP3II04 S,, <2, "0 C Zz Village TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RECREATIONAL WATERFOWL HUNTING 2-10% of activity 11-20% of activity VY] Greater than 20% of activity Source: refuge field information 1985 *1Z ean3ty ‘svoae Sutquny [MojJiaqeM [BUOTIBAII0y The number of guided trips is not expected to increase dramatically, although this too may increase as more information on Tetlin becomes available to travelers. Waterfowl hunting may be the one activity that will increase substantially as more hunters become aware of the quality of hunting on the refuge and the availability of guide services. Fishing - Fishing for lake trout, pike, grayling, and burbot draws some nonresidents and a few local fishermen. Lake trout are found in only one refuge lake. People icefish in late winter for rainbow, lake trout, burbot and pike. Refuge visitors fish predominantly in the road-accessible lakes and streams, or fly in to lakes (Figure 28), and hunters on the refuge often fish when the opportunity presents itself. Fishing guide services are available in Tok for $225 a day (including food and equipment) but demand for these services is low. In 1983, approximately 15 people paid for a guided fishing trip. Productive wetlands in the Desper/Scottie Creek basin, seen from an overlook on the Alaska Highway (photo by Leslie Kerr). 92 Wrangell - Sf. Elias National Park and Preserve TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE RECREATIONAL FISHING 2-10% of activity 11-20% of activity Greater than 20% of activity Source: refuge field information 1986 gz ean8tg ‘seore BZulysty [BUOT IPEID0y The lack of road access to refuge lakes is the major factor limiting increased fishing. Any increase in access will greatly increase fishing by refuge visitors, as will an increase in public contact and information, and population increases. Nonconsumptive recreational use - Of all visits to the refuge in 1986, 51% included wildlife observation, 29% photography, 7% camping, and 31% included picknicking (Table 6). Since many visitors engage in more than one activity, these percentages do not total. Almost all these uses take place along the northeast boundary adjacent to the highway by people passing through on the Alaska highway. An unknown but small number of floaters boat on Scottie Creek and the Nabesna and Chisana rivers. Fishing is the motivating factor for trips on Scottie Creek, however, opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife are also fair. Daily and overnight guiding and outfitting services were available in Tok for approximately $225 per party in 1984. To date, use of these services has been low, but increases gradually each year. Tetlin Refuge has more frontage (65 miles) on a major highway than any other refuge in Alaska. Most people driving to Alaska, approximately 160,000 people in 1984, pass the refuge. Identification signs will be installed after the ongoing highway realignment project is completed. Plans are being made to establish a visitor contact station near the border. Another contact station is proposed for the refuge headquarters site at Tok. Two state wayside parks along the highway are filled to capacity almost every day in the summer. Interpretive signs and programs produced in cooperation with Alaska State Parks are planned for these waysides. As the area along the boundary is more completely evaluated, additional opportunities may be discovered. As a result of these developments, the spectrum of visitor opportunities is expected to widen dramatically in the next ten years along the highway. Environmental education - Environmental education is currently an activity that takes place primarily outside the refuge. Refuge staff make presentations to school groups and lend technical assistance to teachers in communities near the refuge. In addition programs are given in a summer youth camp near Tok. The refuge staff also provides summer wildlife programs and information to the Interagency Visitor Center in Tok. Economic Use Trapping - Trapping is an important activity on the refuge and on private lands adjacent to the federal border of the refuge. In 1983 between $70,000 and $100,000 worth of raw fur was taken on the refuge by an estimated 25 trappers. The main species taken were muskrat ($22,000), lynx ($21,000), marten ($16,000), and fox ($10,000). These estimates do not include fur that was used locally for handicrafts. In addition, a few wolves, wolverine, mink, and beaver werd harvested. Guiding - Two big game guides have permits to operate on the refuge. The number of clients using their services varies each year with the economy, weather, game populations, and the timing of the sheep season. In 1984, about 30 people paid approximately $150,000 for guide services to fish and hunt moose, bear, and sheep on the refuge. 94 Guided waterfowl hunting figures are not available for 1984, but in 1983 six parties paid approximately $4,000 each to hunt waterfowl with a guide on the refuge. The demand for guided fishing on the refuge is very low. In 1984 two clients spent approximately $1,100 for guided fishing services. In addition to fishing and hunting trips, guides provide air service and guide camps for backpackers, photographers, and other recreationists. In 1984, $6,000 was spent for such services. A commercial guide operates a hunting camp in this part of the upper Cheslina watershed (photo by Dave Stearns). 95 WILDERNESS REVIEW Background and Legal Requirements Section 1317 of ANILCA requires the Service to study the refuge and determine which areas are suitable and subsequently recommend areas for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Section 4(a) of the Wilderness Act states: The purposes of this Act are hereby declared to be within and supplemental to the purposes for which national forests and units of the national park and national wildlife refuge systems are established and administered. After completion of the Tetlin Refuge plan, the Service's recommendations for wilderness will be sent to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary's wilderness recommendation then will be forwarded to the President. The President must send wilderness recommendations to Congress by December 1987. Only Congress can designate part or all of the refuge as wilderness. Criteria for Wilderness Review and Evaluation Most criteria for evaluating wilderness qualities of refuge lands are based on the Wilderness Act of 1964 which defines wilderness as follows: A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Since most federal land in Alaska qualifies as wilderness, the Service has developed additional criteria to determine the preferred wilderness proposal. These are: o The addition of selective areas with outstanding resource values that may have been inadvertently overlooked during the original wilderness review and subsequent designations undertaken by Congress; o The need for wilderness unit boundary adjustment. 97 There are no congressionally designated wilderness areas on or adjacent to Tetlin Refuge, so agency recommendations will consider only outstanding resource values of the refuge. In addition, seven other criteria based on the Wilderness Act were developed for evaluating the wilderness qualities of the wilderness review units. These criteria are: 1. Size - The Wilderness Act requires that a wilderness be 5,000 acres or large enough to allow for its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition. 2. Land ownership - Only areas where the federal government owns both surface and subsurface rights are suitable for wilderness designation. Specifically, conveyed lands and lands with encumbrances in the refuge are unsuitable for wilderness designation. Selected lands may or may not be suitable for designation depending on the final determination of the land status. About 75% of the land within the refuge boundary is administered by the federal government and is eligible for wilderness designation. (Current land status is discussed at the beginning of this chapter.) 3. Natural integrity - The degree to which an area retains its primeval character and influence from an ecological perspective. 4. Apparent naturalness - The extent to which an area appears natural and unaffected by human activities. 5. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - Solitude refers to the degree of isolation from sights, sounds, and presence of others. According to the Wilderness Act, a wilderness must provide either "outstanding" opportunities for solitude or "outstanding" opportunities for primitive recreation. 6. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - To experience primitive recreation visitors should perceive a vastness of scale, feel they are a part of the natural environment, and experience a high degree of isolation, challenge, and risk. Primitive recreation requires outdoor skills and meeting nature on its own terms without comforts or convenience facilities. 7. Special or unique features - Special ecological features (e.g., threatened or endangered species, wilderness dependent species, unusual plant or animal communities), landforms that represent significant examples of geological processes (e.g., natural bridges, mass movement areas, caves, lava flows, glaciers), scenic values, and cultural features. Special features are optional in wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act states wilderness areas "may" have these features. 8. Outstanding resource values - Areas proposed for wilderness must have truly unique and outstanding features not found within the wilderness system. Outstanding values could be biological, physical, or human values. 98 CHESLINA UNIT (140,000 acres) TETLIN FLATS UNIT TETLIN _ (20,000 acres) NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WILDERNESS REVIEW UNITS MN Wilderness Review Units c-—4 | 3 Selected or Conveyed Lands SOUTH CENTRAL UNIT N NS (419,000 acres) Canada \\ corn ~ °6Z ean3ty “S]TUN MOTAdI SSoUISPTIM Evaluation of Wilderness Review Units For the purposes of evaluation, the refuge has been divided into four wilderness review units (Figure 29). This evaluation will determine which lands, if any, meet the criteria necessary for wilderness designation. Tetlin Flats Unit - This unit contains two areas, roughly equal in size, located in the northern end of the refuge along the Tanana River. The broad floor of the Tanana Valley is dotted with innumerable lakes, ponds, and meander scars and is the most productive wetland within the refuge boundaries. The predominant vegetation type is open stands of black spruce. Deciduous scrub of alder, willow, bog blueberry, and dwarf scrub also occur in the wetlands. The ponds of Tetlin Flats have the highest duck productivity on the refuge. Swans have been observed nesting on adjacent Native lands and others may nest on refuge lands. This unit provides part of the nesting habitat for the largest breeding population of ospreys in Alaska. Bald eagles also nest here. Tetlin Flats is on the primary fall and spring migration route for waterfowl which nest throughout Alaska. In most years, thousands of trumpeter and tundra swans, sandhill cranes, and ducks stop over on the ponds and lakes of the open tundra. This is one of two major moose calving areas on the refuge. Caribou from the Nelchina herd winter in the unit. Muskrat, lynx, and fox are common and otter and wolves also occur in the unit. 1. Size - This unit meets the size criterion. It contains two areas which are not contiguous but each meet the size criteria on their own. The northern area is 11,500 acres and the southern area is 8,500 acres for a total of 20,000 acres or 3% of the refuge. 2. Land ownership - Several small parcels in the northern unit have been Native selected or conveyed. In addition, the two areas are surrounded by Native selected or conveyed lands. Access to or development of the private lands will probably not impact the wilderness values of the unit. These lands are undeveloped now and probably will remain so. 3. Natural integrity - The fish and wildlife populations and ecological systems of this unit are generally unaffected by human activities. However, hunting pressures have had some negative effect on the populations of moose and nesting Canada geese. Activities occurring on the unit include trapping, waterfowl and moose hunting, fishing, and river travel. 4. Apparent naturalness - There are no improvements within the unit. The unit appears natural. 5. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - Constant vehicle travel along the Alaska Highway and boat travel on the Tanana River decrease opportunities for solitude in those portions of the unit. In the remainder of the unit travel is difficult and there is little chance that a visitor would encounter anyone else. Overall, the unit offers outstanding opportunities for solitude. 100 6. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - Sightseeing, wildlife viewing, river travel, fishing, and moose and waterfowl hunting are the most common recreational activities in the unit. This unit is also a sightseeing resource for the 160,000 travelers per year on the Alaska Highway adjacent to the unit. However, the activities and scenery are similar to those found elsewhere in the state and are not truly outstanding. 7. Special and unique features - Several species found in this unit are rare in Alaska. These include the American coot, sora, brown-headed cowbird, red-winged blackbird, blue-winged teal, and ruddy duck. These species are at the northern or western edge of their range. Six "national resource" species have been observed on the unit: trumpeter swan, lesser Canada goose, mallard, canvasback, bald eagle, and sandhill crane. This unit is located in the heart of the nesting area for the largest breeding population of ospreys in the state. 8. Outstanding resource values - This unit does not have outstanding resource values that would be unique to the wilderness system. Habitat types, species, and recreational opportunities are similar to those found elsewhere in the state. Conclusion - The Tetlin Flats Unit meets the Wilderness Act criteria for size, ownership, natural integrity, apparent naturalness, and solitude or primitive recreation opportunities. It also has outstanding special features which is an optional criterion in the wilderness evaluation process. However, the unit does not meet the Service's criterion of outstanding resource values. South Central Unit - This unit encompasses all land in the central portion of the refuge north of the refuge border, east of the Nabesna River and west of the Chisana River and the Alaska Highway. Habitats are diverse and include three areas of wetlands, the Black Hills with elevations to 3,220 feet, and a high upland. Numerous ponds, small lakes, and the largest lakes on the refuge (Jatahmund, Takomahto, Tahamund, and Pickerel lakes) are found in this unit. Pickerel Lake is particularly scenic because of its dramatic setting at the base of the Nutzotin Mountains of the adjacent Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve. The northern end of the unit is primarily open forest, but the high plateaus on the south end are covered by dwarf scrub species. The wetlands near Jatahmund Lake are an important trumpeter swan nesting area. Geese breed along the Chisana River, and ducks are found throughout the unit particularly in the wetlands along Scottie Creek. Gravel bars along Stuver Creek in the central part of the unit provide spring foraging habitat for grizzly bears. Stuver Creek is also an important wolf travel route. Caribou from the Nelchina and Mentasta herds winter in the unit. Bald eagles nest along all the major waterways, and osprey nest at the north end. Moose, wolves, marten, beaver, muskrat, and otters use the area. Jatahmund Lake has the only lake trout on the refuge. Chum salmon, several species of whitefish, Arctic grayling, burbot, and northern pike are found in the unit. 101 Pickeral Lake with the Nutzotin Mountains in the background. The boundary between the refuge and the adjacent Wrangell-St. Elias Preserve is at the base of the mountains (photo by Jay Hammernick). Size - This unit meets the size criterion. It is approximately 419,000 acres or 60% of the refuge. Land ownership - Several small parcels have been Native selected or conveyed on the northern and central portion of the unit and around Jatahmund Lake. The northernmost township in the unit is surrounded by Native lands except for a strip approximately one mile wide. Should any development occur on private lands requiring road access across refuge lands, wilderness values would be affected in the immediate vicinity. The private lands are undeveloped now and developments are not anticipated. The majority of the unit will remain in federal ownership and is not adjacent to any private lands. The lands in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve adjacent to the south boundary of the unit were found suitable but were not recommended for wilderness designation in the park plan (USDI 1985). 102 3. Natural integrity - Fishing, trapping, waterfowl, moose and bear hunting, river travel, and sightseeing take place in the unit. Fish and wildlife populations and ecological systems of this unit are generally unaffected by human activities. Hunting has had some negative effect on moose and nesting Canada geese populations. 4. Apparent naturalness - Four primitive trapping cabins, a Service administrative cabin at Jatahmund Lake, and approximately 50 miles of winter trails are the only known human improvements in the unit. Most cabins are used only in winter. The cabins are all less than 400 square feet and would appear natural to most visitors. They are not visible for more than 100 yards. The trails are also visible for only a short distance and appear natural. Overall, the unit appears natural. 5. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - This unit is very large and travel is difficult in most areas. Visitors would be unlikely to encounter others except on some of the larger lakes accessible by float plane, along the rivers, and along the Alaska Highway. Constant vehicle traffic would affect opportunities for solitude near the fifteen miles of the Alaska Highway which forms part of the east boundary. However, overall the unit would have outstanding opportunities for solitude. 6. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - Hunting, fishing, sightseeing, photography, and river travel are the most common recreational activities in this unit. The unit is an important sightseeing and photographic resource for the 160,000 travelers per year on the adjacent Alaska Highway, as lands in this unit make up much of their first view of Alaska. However, the quality of recreational activities and scenery in this unit is not outstanding when compared to other areas in the state. 7. Special and unique features - Three species found in this unit, the brown-headed cowbird, the blue-winged teal, and the ruddy duck, are rare in Alaska. These species are at ithe northern or western ddge of their range. Five "national resource" species have been observed on the unit: trumpeter swan, lesser Canada goose, mallard, canvasback, and bald eagle,. 8. Outstanding resource values - This unit does not have outstanding resource values that would be unique to the wilderness system. Habitat types, species, and recreational opportunities are similar to those found elsewhere in the state. Conclusion - The South Central Unit meets the Wilderness Act criteria for size, ownership, natural integrity, apparent naturalness, and solitude or primitive recreation opportunities. It also has outstanding special features which is an optional criterion in the wilderness evaluation process. However, the unit does not meet the Service's criterion of outstanding resource values. 103 Wellesley Lakes Unit - This unit is located in the southeast corner of the refuge between the Chisana River and the Canadian border. Much of the unit is hilly with Wellesley Mountain at 4,960 feet the highest point. A complex of lakes, ponds, and wetlands is located at the base of Wellesley Mountain. Wetlands also occur along Mirror Creek. Dwarf shrubs, chiefly in the heath and crowberry families, cover the lowlands. The hill country is primarily forested although alpine scrub such as dwarf birch and green alder grow on ‘Wellesley Mountain. { pein Trumpeter swans and eagles nest in the Wellesley Lakes area (photo by Steve Breeser) Trumpeter swans and numerous species of ducks nest on the wetlands in the unit. The Chisana River bordering the unit is one of the few places Canada geese still nest on the river. Bald eagles also nest in the unit. Pea vines growing on the gravel bars in the Chisana River are an important spring food source for grizzly bears. Wolves, otter, marten, and moose also inhabit the unit. Several species of whitefish, grayling, burbot, and northern pike are found in the streams or lakes. 104 5. Size - This unit meets the size criterion. It contains approximately 120,000 acres or 17% of the refuge. Land ownership - Several small parcels of Native selected or conveyed land are located along the highway and Scottie Creek. These private lands are undeveloped now. Future developments or access needs are unlikely to affect the unit since the parcels are located near the edge. Lands within the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve adjacent to the south boundary of the unit were found suitable for wilderness designation but were not recommended for designation in the park plan (USDI 1985). Natural integrity - Fish and wildlife populations and ecological systems of this unit are generally unaffected by human activities. Trapping, moose and bear hunting, and fishing occur in the unit but not to the extent that the natural systems are affected. Apparent Naturalness - Six primitive cabins are the only known human improvements in the unit. The cabins are used mainly in the winter. They are all less than 400 square feet and would appear natural to most visitors They are not visible for any significant distance. Overall, the unit appears natural. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - Travel is difficult in much of this unit. Visitors would only be likely to encounter others along the Chisana River and on some of the larger lakes accessible by float plane. The hilly terrain would also help isolate visitors. This unit offers outstanding opportunities for solitude. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - Fishing, grizzly bear hunting, and river travel are the principle activities occurring on the unit. These activities and the scenery are good but not exceptional. Primitive recreation opportunities are less than outstanding. Special and unique features - Two species found in the unit, the brown-headed cowbird and the blue-winged teal, are rare in Alaska. These species are at the northern or western edge of their range. Five "national resource" species have been observed on the unit: trumpeter swan, lesser Canada goose, mallard, canvasback, and bald eagle, . Outstanding resource values - This unit does not have outstanding resource values that would be unique to the wilderness system. Habitat types, species, and recreational opportunities are similar to those found elsewhere in the state. Conclusion - The Wellesley Lakes Unit meets the Wilderness Act criteria for size, ownership, natural integrity, apparent naturalness, and solitude or primitive recreation opportunities. It also has outstanding special features which is an optional criterion in the wilderness evaluation process. However, the unit does not meet the Service's criterion of outstanding resource values. 105 Cheslina Unit - The dominant feature of this unit is the entire watershed of the Cheslina River, the only valley surrounded by mountains on the refuge. Steep-sided aretes and horns, glacial valleys, and overhanging rock and ice precipices characterize that portion of the Mentasta Mountains within the unit. Other scenic features are vertical limestone cliffs and spires which extend in a belt across the Cheslina River drainage. The braided glacier-fed Nabesna River forms the eastern boundary of the unit. Approximately 15 lakes are located in the broad flat valley of the Nabesna. Elevations within the unit range from a low of 2,000 feet to over 8,000 feet. The lowlands are primarily forested with black spruce with areas of tundra and peatland. Above timberline at 3,200 feet, alpine and subalpine scrub areas of green alder, grayleaf willow, and dwarf birch are found. Much of the high altitude areas are sparsely vegetated scree and rock cliffs. The only Dall sheep population on the refuge is located in the mountainous portion of this unit. One moose calving area is located in this unit as well as heavily used wintering habitat. About 300 to 400 moose, the majority of the moose on the refuge as well as moose from other areas, congregate in the The only Dall sheep habitat on the refuge is in this area of the upper Cheslina watershed (photo by Steve Breeser). 106 Cheslina drainage for the rut and remain through early winter. Caribou from the Nelchina and Mentasta herds use this drainage as a migration route. The Cheslina is also important wolf habitat. Wolverine, otter, and marten are also found in the unit. Bald eagles breed along the Nabesna, and ducks breed on the lakes although in lower densities than elsewhere on the refuge. 1. Size - The unit meets the size criterion. It contains approximately 140,000 acres, 20% of the refuge. 2. Land ownership - Four placer mining claims are located in the lower Cheslina drainage. Should they prove valid and be developed, wilderness values in the immediate vicinity would be lost. No mining is anticipated on these claims since they are located in an area the U.S. Geological Survey has determined has low mineral value (Richter et al. 1975b). The claims would not affect the remainder of the unit since they are at the bottom of the drainage, and transportation routes would be outside of the unit. A parcel of Native selected land is located adjacent to the unit on the northern boundary of the refuge in the upper Cheslina drainage. Should this portion of the watershed be conveyed to private ownership, it is unlikely that any developmental activities would occur which would affect the remainder of the drainage. Transportation routes to the parcel would probably not involve refuge lands. The remainder of the unit is expected to remain in federal ownership. The lands within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve which are adjacent to the south and west boundaries were found suitable but were not recommended for wilderness designation in the park plan (USDI 1985). 3. Natural integrity - The fish and wildlife populations and ecological systems of this unit are generally unaffected by human activities. Mining claims in the lower Cheslina drainage and the Nabesna drainage above the refuge have not affected the water quality of these rivers. Hunting, trapping, and river floating also take place in the unit but have not affected the natural systems. 4. Apparent naturalness - Seven primitive trapping cabins and about 25 miles of winter trail are the only known human improvements in the unit. Only four of the cabins are still used, and those are used mainly in winter. The cabins and the trail are not visible for any significant distance and would appear a natural part of the scene to most visitors. Overall, the unit appears natural. 5. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - This unit is rugged and remote. Visitors would be unlikely to encounter anyone else except along the Nabesna River and the larger lakes accessible by float plane. This unit offers outstanding opportunities for solitude. 107 6. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - This is the only area on the refuge with sheep hunting and backpacking opportunities. Grizzly bear hunting, moose hunting, wildlife viewing, fishing, and river floating are other possible activities. The Cheslina drainage is remote but accessible to Nabesna River floaters who can put in at the Nabesna Road and float to Northway. The scenery is outstanding and varied with high mountain peaks, scenic limestone outcrops, and broad river valleys. Habitats are also diverse due in part to a 6,000 foot elevational change. This unit offers outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation. 7. Special and unique features ~ This unit has outstanding special features. The limestone which forms the prominent vertical-standing slabs in the upper Cheslina River drainage contains 360 million year old fossils: horn corals, colonial corals, brachiopods, and stromatoporoids. Two species found in the unit, the brown-headed cowbird and the blue winged teal, are rare in Alaska. These species are at the northern or western edge of their range. Six "national resource" species have been observed on the unit: trumpeter swan, lesser Canada goose, bald eagle, mallard, canvasback, and peregrine falcon. The 20 to 80 Dall sheep whose habitat includes this unit are the only sheep on the refuge. The unit contains a caribou migration route and a locally significant moose rutting area. 8. Outstanding resource values - This unit does not have outstanding resource values that would be unique to the wilderness system. Habitat types, species, and recreational opportunities are similar to those found elsewhere in the state. Conclusion - The Cheslina Unit meets the Wilderness Act criteria for size, ownership, natural integrity, apparent naturalness, and solitude or primitive recreation opportunities. It also has outstanding special features which are optional in wilderness evaluation. However, the unit does not meet the Service's criteria of outstanding resource values. 108 Ill. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES This chapter consists of three parts: a description of the management categories that make up each alternative, a description of the management directions common to all of the alternatives, and a description of the alternatives themselves. In addition, this chapter identifies areas that the Service recommends as suitable for wilderness designation under each of the management alternatives. All of these sections form the core of the final Tetlin Refuge comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statement, wilderness review. MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES According to ANILCA the comprehensive conservation plan for Tetlin Refuge must (1) designate areas within the refuge according to their respective resources and values, (2) specify management programs to conserve fish and wildlife resources in each area, and (3) specify uses within each area that may be compatible with refuge purposes. The plan must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires that reasonable alternatives be considered. To develop management alternatives that meet ANILCA requirements, four Management categories, ranging from proposed wilderness to intensive management, were identified. A management category is a set of refuge management directions applied to an area in light of its resources and existing and potential uses, to facilitate management and accomplish refuge purposes. Each alternative is composed of a different mosaic of land in the different management categories. Table 8 shows what management activities, public uses, and economic uses would be permitted in each management category. The management categories used in formulating Tetlin's comprehensive conservation plan are: Intensive Management (I) This least protective category encompasses areas that could benefit from habitat manipulation or have a potential public or economic use if intensively developed. Refuge lands in this category may be managed through such practices as mechanical habitat manipulation, intensive prescribed burning using motorized equipment if necessary, and water level manipulation to restore or artificially maintain habitats for selected species such as moose, furbearers, and waterfowl. Regulated hunting, fishing, and trapping are permitted. Fisheries management, which incorporates fish stocking for the purpose of establishing fish populations or supplementing native fish stocks, is permitted. Administrative and interpretive facilities, such as visitor centers, are allowed in this category. Traditional motorized access is permitted for traditional activities. Refuge lands managed in this category may be available for sand and gravel extraction, subject to site-specific compatibility determinations and stipulations to avoid all significant impacts to fish and wildlife. Oil and gas studies may be permitted subject to site-specific compatibility determinations. Oil and gas leasing may be permitted subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatability determination. 109 Table 8. Management activities, public uses, economic uses permitted in Management categories. Intensive Moderate Minimal Designated MANAGEMENT CATEGORY Management Management Management Wilderness qq) (11) (III) (Iv) HABITAT/POPULATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Research and Management Studies Collection of data necessary for refuge Will be routinely Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) management decisions or to further practiced as long as science. Priority will be given to the studies do not studies that contribute to the conflict with refuge conservation and management of native purposes fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Studies may be conducted by the Service, ADF&G, or by other researchers in cooperation with the Service. Ecological Monitoring Activities or studies that address how Will be routinely Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) fish and wildlife and their habitats practiced are changing, due to either natural or human causes. Fish and Wildlife Inventories Using acceptable management techniques Will be routinely Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) to obtain information on species practiced distributions, habitats, and population dynamics to meet refuge objectives. Marking and Banding To contribute information on population Will be routinely Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) trends, survival, and movements practiced as long as necessary for the overall management of the activities do not the species. Cooperation with ADF&G conflict with refuge and other institutions will be stressed. purposes Habitat Manipulation Modification of habitats to increase May be permitted on Same as (I) Only Same as (III) target wildlife populations. Includes a case by case basis prescribed activities such as prescribed burning, subject to the burning water level manipulation, and provisions of NEPA permitted mechanical manipulation. Does not and a compatibility include planting or fertilizing. determination Timber Management A way of maintaining a sustained yield May be permitted, Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) for long-range subsistence needs, for subject to house logs and firewood. May entail reasonable designation of areas for cutting regulations and the issue of special use permits. Exotic Wildlife Species Introduction Introduction of species not native to Not permitted Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) North America. Native Wildlife Species Introduction Introduction of species native to May be permitted on Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (I) North America outside their a case by case basis original range. Wildlife Stocking Re-establishing, augmenting, or May be permitted Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) maintaining native species within their original breeding range. Specific policies apply for various wildlife groups. Predator Control Relocation or removal of predators to May be permitted Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) favor other wildlife populations or to on a case by case protect reintroduced, threatened, or basis subject to endangered species. the provisions of NEPA and a compatibility determination Pest Control Relocation or removal of organisms that Normally will not Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) threaten human health and property or survival of native fish and wildlife species. occur except to control exotic species; native species may be controlled where severe resource danger is likely or where public health or safety is jeopardized 110 Table 8. Management activities, public uses, economic uses permitted in Management categories (cont.). Intensive Moderate Minimal Designated MANAGEMENT CATEGORY Management Management Management Wilderness a) qq) (1) (av) HABITAT/POPULATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES (cont.) Disease Prevention and Control Management practices directed at Normally will not Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) controlling pathogens that threaten fish, wildlife, and people. Includes rabies and parasite control. Fire Management Prescribed burning and actions taken to suppress wildfires, in accordance with refuge's fire management plan. Water Quality and Quantit Monitoring of water quality and quantity to enable the Service to propose mitigation of adverse effects that originate on or off the refuge. Administrative Facilities Primitive structures built for administrative use, primarily to to facilitate field work logistics. Available for emergency use by public. FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT occur except where severe resource damage is likely or where public health and safety is jeopardized Natural fires may be permitted to burn, except where they threaten human life and property or reach excessive size; prescribed burning will be used for hazardous fuel reduction or restoration of natural vegetation patterns Will be routinely practiced Permitted Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Collection of data and information on fish populations and their habitats, modification of fish habitat, fish hatchery programs and related activities, fishery regulation, supplemental production, and other activities designed to accomplish management goals and objectives. Fish Passes The construction or installation of a fish ladder, removal of a barrier (e.g., beaver dam), or other activity to enable fish to get past a natural or man-made barrier and reach unaccessible habitat; the fish pass may be either temporary or permanent. Fish Weirs The construction and installation of an instream fish counting facility. Weirs may be either permanent or temporary Permanent weirs have a permanent instream anchoring device while temporary weirs do not. The above water structure for both types of weirs would be removed after the season of use. Spawning Channels The construction and maintenance of an artificial gravel laden channel where water quality and quantity is controlled to facilitate spawning by fish Physical Habitat Modifications Activities designed to physically modify aquatic habitats, for the purpose of affecting production of a target fish species, such as bank stabilization or installation of instream structures. The change may be either temporary or permanent. Native Fish Reintroductions Reintroduction of native species for the purpose of re-establishing historic populations. May be permitted on a case by case basis subject to the provisions of NEPA and a compatibility determination May be permitted on a case by case basis subject to the provisions of NEPA and a compatibility determination May be permitted on a case by case basis subject to the provisions of NEPA and a compatibility determination May be permitted on a case by case basis subject to the provisions of NEPA and a compatibility determination May be permitted 111 Same as (1) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) May be built if needed for the protection of public health and safety Same as (I) except permanent facilities will normally not be permitted Same as (I) except permanent facilities will normally not be permitted Same as (1) except permanent facilities will normally not be permitted Same as (I) except permanent facilities will normally not be permitted Same as (I) Table 8. Management activities, public uses, economic uses permitted in management categories (cont.). MANAGEMENT CATEGORY Intensive Management (1) Moderate Management (II) Minimal Management (111) Designated Wilderness (iv) HABITAT/POPULATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES (cont.) Native Fish Introductions Introduction of fish species native to North America outside of their original range Exotic Fish Introductions Introduction of species not native to North America. Fish Hatcheries The construction and operation of required facilities for incubation of fish eggs and/or rearing of fish fry, fingerlings, or smolts. A fish hatchery can be either permanent or temporary. A permanent fish hatchery could be operated either seasonally or year-round and would be permanently maintained. A temporary fish hatchery would be operated seasonally and is project related (removed when project is completed). Fish Rearing Pond May be permitted on a case by case basis Not permitted May be permitted on a case by case basis subject to the provisions of NEPA and a compatibility determination Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) except permanent facilities will normally not be permitted The use of natural ponds for rearing fry May be permitted on Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) or fingerling fish to a larger size. a case by case basis subject to the provisions of NEPA and a compatibility determination Supplemental Fish Production Planting fertilized or eyed eggs, fed May be permitted on Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) or unfed fry, fingerlings, presmolts, a case by case basis or smolts, which have been incubated, subject to the hatched, fed, and/or reared at a provisions of NEPA hatchery or temporary rearing facility and a compatibility and are subsequently introduced determination into the species’ natural environment. Fish Egg Taking Site Tnstaltetion and operation of a May be permitted on Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (I) temporary facility that uses adult a case by case basis spawning fish to take eggs for subject to the the establishment of a brood stock or provisions of NEPA for use in supplemental production. and a compatibility Both the facilities and activities determination would be on an “as needed” basis. Chemical Habitat Modification Jntroduction of either organic or May be permitted on Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (I) inorganic chemicals on an annual a case by case basis or temporary basis to an aquatic subject to the environment to control the production provisions of NEPA of a target fish species. and a compatibility determination Predator/Competitor Control Removing or reducing predator and/or May be permitted on Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) competitor fish species for the purpose a case by case basis of controlling the production of a subject to the target fish species. provisions of NEPA and a compatability determination Fishing, Hunting, Trapping, and Berry Picking The taking of fish and wildlife and Permitted subject to Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (1) other natural resources for personal reasonable regulation consumption, or as provided by law. Allows use of traditionally used camping areas SUBSISTENCE Access Use of snowmobiles, motorboats, and Permitted subject to Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) other means of surface transportation reasonable regulation tradionally employed for subsistence and the provisions of purposes. ANILCA 811 House Log and Firewood Collection Collection for personal or extended Permitted subject to Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) family use. reasonable regulation 112 Table 8. Management activities, public uses, economic management categories (cont.). uses permitted in Intensive Moderate Minimal Designated MANAGEMENT CATEGORY Management Management Management Wilderness (1) (11) (III) (iv) HABITAT/POPULATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES — SUBSISTENCE(cont.) Cabins Small, primitive structures necessary May be built under a Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) for health and safety and necessary to provide for continuation of ongoing subsistence activity; not for recreational use. special-use permit PUBLIC ACCESS (restrictions subject to provisions of ANILCA 1110; access for subsistence purposes [ANILCA 811] is discussed in SUBSISTENCE above) Nonmotorized Access Access by foot, dogsled, kayaks, rafts, Permitted; access may Same as (1) Same as (I) Same as (1) etc. on waterways, trails, and be restricted at crosscountry. certain times for resource protection or public safety Pack Animals Surface transportation using domestic Permitted for Same as (1) Same as (I) Same as (1) dogs, horses, and other pack or saddle _— traditional acitvities, animals. subject to reasonable regulation (50 CFR 36.21b) Motorboats Includes in-board and out-board power Permitted for Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) boats and jet boats that provide traditional access to the refuge. Excludes activities, subject air boats and air-cushion boats. to reasonable regulation Airplanes Jneludes all fixed-wing planes that Permitted for Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) provide access to the refuge. traditional activities, subject to reasonable regulation Helicopters All rotary-wing aircraft that provide May be permitted, but Same as (I) Same as (I) (1) access to the refuge. only by special use permit Snowmobiles AII snowmachines weighing under 1000 Permitted for Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) pounds and with an overall width of less traditional than 46 inches, driven by tracks or skis activities on or off in contact with the snow and steered by designated trails, in a ski or skis in contact with the snow. periods of adequate snow cover, subject to reasonable regulation Other Motorized Vehicles Includes all other motorized vehicles Permitted only on Same as (I) Same as (I) Not permitted (e.g., cars, 4x4's, tracked vehicles, designated routes per 43 CFR off-road vehicles, airboats, and or areas; airboats and 36.11(g)(2) air-cushion vehicles). air-cushion vehicles not permitted PUBLIC USES Hunting, Fishing, Trappin, Forms of outdoor activities and fish Permitted; pertinent Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) and wildlife population control state and federal regulations apply Primitive Camping Sites selected by users to pitch tents Permitted Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (1) overnight. The Service will not maintain or improve these sites. Wildlife Observation Wildlife, wildlife habitat, and Permitted Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) landscape features viewed and enjoyed in their natural setting. Includes photography and bird watching. 113 Table 8. Management activities, public uses, economic uses permitted in Management categories (cont.). Intensive Moderate Minimal Designated MANAGEMENT CATEGORY Management Management Management Wilderness (1) (II) (III) (Iv) PUBLIC USES (cont. ) Interpretation and Environmental lucation To broaden public awareness and Interpretive Interpretive Same as (II) Same as (II) appreciation of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, cultural resources, and resource management practices. To inspire visitors to further their own comprehension of wildlife habitat and resource issues as they relate to society's needs and to foster wildlife and wildland stewardship. materials and facilities may be provided, including posted nature trails, wildlife/wildland facilities,and wildlife displays materials may be provided; other facilities not provided PUBLIC FACILITIES Improved Campsites Permanent sites that may include fire rings, shelters, and sanitary facilities. Visitor Contact Facilities K variety of staffed and unstaffed structures where the public can obtain information on the refuge and its resources. Boat Launch Sites Designated access sites where boats can be put into lakes and rivers. Sites may vary from simple clearings to permanent ramps. Foot Trails Designated routes restricted to walking. Not cleared or maintained Roads Designated, maintained corridors that provide access for motorized vehicles. Includes cleared strips, gravel roads, and asphalt roads. Airstrips Designated sites that provide access for aircraft. Navigation Aids/Remote Weather Stations Jaclades alr and water navigation aids, facilities for national defense, and facilities for weather, climate, and fisheries research and monitoring Other Temporary Facilities Establishment and use of tent platforms, shelters, and other temporary facilities and equipment directly related to the taking of fish and wildlife. May be provided if needed to confine resource degradation May be provided May be permitted May be provided Not provided; may be permitted subject to Title XI of ANILCA Primitive airstrips may be designated; no new construction allowed, except subject to Title XI of ANILCA Permitted on a site- specific basis subject to reasonable regulation May be permitted under the provisions of ANILCA 1316; a special use permit may be required per 50 CFR 27.92 Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Not Same as (II) Same as (II) permitted Same as (1) No perma~ Same as (III) nent sites permitted Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Not Same as (III) permitted except subject to Title XI of ANILCA Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) as (I) Same as (I) (1) Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (I) ECONOMIC USES Surface Geology Studies Includes surface rock collecting and geological mapping activities (includes helicopter or fixed-wing access). Core Sampling xtraction of subsurface rock samples with small, portable (usually helicopter transported) drill rigs. Does not include exploratory drilling for ofl and gas. May be permitted subject to refuge special use permit conditions May be permitted subject to refuge special use permit conditions 114 Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Not permitted unless conducted by or for a DOI agency under ANILCA 1010(g) Table 8. Management activities, public uses, economic uses permitted in management categories (cont.). MANAGEMENT CATEGORY Intensive Moderate Management Management a) (11) Minimal Designated Management Wilderness (111) (av) ECONOMIC USES (cont.) Seismic (Geophysical) Studies Examination of subsurface rock formations through devices that set off and record vibrations in the earth. Usually involves mechanized surface transportation, but may be helicopter supported. Other Geophysical Studies Helicopter supported gravity and magnetic surveys and other minimal impact activities that do not require mechanized surface transport. O11 and Gas Leasin Drilling and extraction of ofl and gas for commercial purposes. Includes all associated above and below ground facilities. Sand and Gravel Removal Extraction of sand and gravel for commercial purposes. Other Mineral Leasin; Includes the extraction of coal, pumice, pumicite, cinders, clay, potassium, sodium, phosphate, sulfur, or other minerals for commercial purposes Hydroelectric Power Develo, Includes low-head and major hydroelectric developments and associated facilities (e.g. dam, impoundment area, penstock, powerhouse, and tailrace) ent Transmission Lines/Pipelines Includes telephone and electrical power lines, oil and gas pipelines, and other necessary related facilities. Does not include facilities associated with on- refuge oil and gas development. Guiding, Outfitting, Transportin, Licensed big game guides, outfitters, sport-fishing guides, air-taxi operators, and all other commercial operators that provide services to recreationists on the refuge. Includes all activities of the operator and facilities used by the operator on the refuge (e.g., tent camps, landing strips, and access methods). Grazing Grazing of domestic animals, including reindeer, for commercial purposes riculture Introducing plant species to maintain or increase native wildlife populations. Commercial Fishin Includes all land-based sites, acitivities, and facilities in the refuge (e.g. campsites, cabins, motorized vehicles, and landing strips) Commercial Timber Harvestin, Harvest of timber for sale. May be permitted Same as (1) subject to refuge special use permit conditions May be permitted subject to refuge special use permit conditions Same as (I) May be permitted subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatibility determination Same as (I) Not permitted May be permitted Not permitted Same as (I) Not permitted Same as (I) May be permitted on a Not site specific basis _ permitted subject to except restrictions on road subject to access and methods of transmission/pipeline placement, and subject to Title XI of ANILCA of ANILCA Title XI Permitted by special use permit, subject to reasonable stipulations (e.g., duration of trips, timing, and party size) Same as (I) Not permitted Same as (I) Not permitted Same as (I) May be permitted Same as subject to reasonable regulation in accordance with provisions of ANILCA (1) May be permitted Same as (I) subject to reasonable regulation Same as (I) Not permitted unless conduced by or for a DOI agency under ANILCA 1010 (g) Same as (1) Same as (I) Not permitted Same as (III) Same as (II) Same as (II) Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (II) Same as (II) the provisions Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (I) Same as (1) Same as (I) Same as (I) Not permitted Same as (III) Note: Management of activities occurring agency. on navigable waters will be 115 coordinated with the appropriate State Moderate Management (II) This category places less emphasis on public use while maintaining or restoring fish and wildlife populations in areas that receive little public pressure. Regulated hunting, fishing, and trapping are permitted. Sand and gravel extraction is prohibited. Refuge lands in this category will not have developed interpretive facilities such as visitor centers. Habitat manipulation is permitted on a site-specific basis to restore target wildlife habitat. Fisheries management, which incorporates fish stocking for the purpose of establishing fish populations or supplementing native fish stocks, is permitted. Traditional motorized access is permitted for traditional activities. Oil and gas studies may be permitted subject to site-specific compatibility determinations. Oil and gas leasing may be permitted subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatability determination. Minimal Management (III) Management under this category is directed at maintaining fish and wildlife populations in their present state. No facilities such as visitor centers are to be built and public programs will be kept to a minimum. Natural fish and wildlife population dynamics and habitats are emphasized although prescribed burning, fishery management using supplemental fish stocking to restore populations, regulated hunting, fishing, and trapping are allowed. Management activities focus on biological monitoring, research, and regulation. Traditional motorized access is permitted for traditional activities. Oil and gas studies may be permitted on a site-specific basis. Oil and gas leasing is not permitted. Designated Wilderness (IV) There are no designated wilderness areas in Tetlin Refuge now. This category would only apply if Congress designates all or a portion of the refuge as wilderness. The designated wilderness category is similar to the minimal management category. Differences occur in oil and gas policy and requirements for routing transportation or utility systems. The use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas is governed by the Wilderness Act, ANILCA, and 50 CFR 35.5. Generally, motorized equipment is prohibited by the Wilderness Act. ANILCA makes exceptions for snow machines, motorboats, and airplanes in sections 81l and 1110(a). In addition, section 811 of ANILCA allows subsistence use of other means of transportation, subject to reasonable regulation. Regional policy allows local residents engaged in subsistence activities to use chainsaws while other motorized equipment not related to transportation is not allowed. Under 50 CFR 35.5 the Director of the Service is permitted to designate certain areas where other motorized equipment may be used, where such use was established prior to the date wilderness was established. Oil and gas leasing is not allowed in wilderness areas. Oil and gas studies involving mechanized equipment are not permitted in wilderness except when conducted by or for a Department of the Interior agency under the provisions of section 1010 of ANILCA. Transportation or utility system route proposals would require Presidential concurrence and Congressional approval. The minimal management category can be changed in future plan revisions. Designated wilderness can only be altered by Congress. 116 COMMON MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, ANILCA, and several other laws, treaties, and regulations govern administration of national wildlife refuges in Alaska. Regardless of which alternative is selected, management of Tetlin Refuge will comply with these laws and regulations. As a result the alternatives share a set of common management directions described below. Cooperation with other Government Agencies The Service will continue to work closely with other federal, state, and local agencies whose programs affect or are affected by Tetlin Refuge. Examples of cooperative efforts include fire management, water quality management, management of navigable waters, law enforcement, search and rescue, fish and wildlife management, land exchange, land management, administrative identification of RS 2477 rights-of-way, identification and preservation of cultural resources, support for the Interagency Visitor Center in Tok, and construction and maintenance of public facilities such as a visitor contact station. Whenever practical, the Service will share equipment and aircraft costs, conduct joint wildlife surveys, exchange data, and co-fund research to meet mutual management needs. The Service will cooperate with regional and local advisory councils to provide resource information and to resolve user conflicts. The Service and the state of Alaska will cooperatively manage fish and wildlife resources of Tetlin Refuge. A 1982 memorandum of understanding between the Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) defines the cooperative management roles, responsibilities, and jurisdictions of each agency (Appendix E). Specifically, ADF&G will manage fish and wildlife populations, advise the state Boards of Fish and Game on hunting and fishing regulations, and carry out studies and research related to management techniques. The Service will concentrate its resources on enhancing and protecting fish and wildlife habitats by managing access, recreation, vegetation, fire, and economic activities on refuges. The Service will also carry out studies on habitat management and the impacts of management activities and public uses on refuge resources. The two agencies will cooperate in setting fish and wildlife population goals and conducting research. The Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Policy: State and Federal Relationships (43 CFR 24) further addresses intergovernmental cooperation in the protection, use, and management of fish and wildlife resources. The interrelated responsibilities of protecting habitat and wildlife utilization requires cooperation of ADF&G, the Service, and all resource users. Cooperation with Refuge Users and Owners of Refuge Inholdings and Adjacent Lands The Service will work in cooperation with its:neighbors. Specifically, the Service will keep the public informed about refuge management policies and activities; consult periodically with landowners, communities, special interest groups, and other constituents who have expressed an interest in or are affected by refuge programs; and respond promptly to conflicts arising in refuge programs. Cooperative efforts with adjacent landowners may include water quality monitoring, timber management, and fish and wildlife management. 117 The Service will seek cooperative agreements with owners of lands adjacent to or near the refuge whenever necessary to achieve refuge goals. As set forth in section 304(£)(1) and (2) of ANILCA, the Service may provide technical and Management assistance in certain cases in exchange for an agreement to manage the land in a manner compatible with refuge purposes and to permit the Service reasonable access to refuge lands. The Service will also seek to establish land bank agreements where large tracts of valuable fish and wildlife habitat have been conveyed to Native villages and village and regional corporations. The purposes and requirements for land bank agreements are described in section 907 of ANILCA. These agreements require owners to retain their land for ten years (which can be extended), to manage the land in a manner compatible with the management plan, and to provide the Service with reasonable access for the purposes of administering the refuge or carrying out obligations under the agreement. The lands may also be open to local or recreational use if the owner consents. Native corporations and other groups receiving land under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) also receive immunity from taxes, court judgements, and adverse possession. Land Exchanges A land management concept plan has been developed for Tetlin Refuge based on the need to consolidate land ownership patterns, simplify management, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. This identifies several potential land exchanges and acquisitions. Some inholdings have been overselected by Native corporations and will probably remain as part of the refuge. All possible relinquishments or exchanges will occur independently of the management alternative selected for Tetlin Refuge. The Service will pursue land exchanges and cooperative agreements only with willing parties to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats and to increase management efficiency. Only the minimum amount of land necessary to reach management objectives will be considered for negotiations and care will be taken to minimize the impacts on all parties concerned. Access to Inholdings In accordance with sections 811 and 1110(b) of ANILCA, the state and private interests with valid surface or subsurface rights, on or surrounded by Tetlin Refuge, are entitled to reasonable access. Stipulations may be added to the permits to ensure that refuge resources and public health and safety are protected. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) Section 17(b) Easements Campsites and linear access easements may be reserved on Native corporation lands that are within or adjoin Tetlin Refuge, as authorized by section 17(b) of ANCSA. The Service will be responsible for management of the public easements inside the refuge and for those assigned to the Service outside the 118 refuge. Pursuant to Part 601 of the Department of Interior Departmental Manual (601 DM 4.2), where these easements access, or are part of the access to, a conservation system unit, the easement shall become part of that unit and be administered accordingly. The purpose of 17(b) easements is to provide access from public lands. The routes and location of these easements are identified on maps contained in the conveyance documents. The conveyance documents also specify the terms and conditions of use, including periods and methods of public access. The Service will work cooperatively with the affected Native corporations and other interested parties, including the State of Alaska, to develop management strategies for easements. Management of these easements will be in accord with specific terms and conditions of the individual easement and applicable refuge regulations. As easements are reserved and the Service assumes management responsibility for them, the locations, mileages, and acreages will be compiled and management strategies will be formulated. This information will be maintained at refuge headquarters. As authorized in 601 DM 4.3G, the physical location of an easement may be adjusted to rectify a usability problem or to accommodate the underlying landowner's development of the lands, if both the Service and the landowner agree to the relocation. Easements also may be expanded, if an acceptable alternate easement or benefit is offered by the underlying landowner and the exchange would be in the public interest. An easement may be relinquished to the underlying landowner if an alternative easement has been offered by the landowner or termination of the easement is required by law. The Service may also propose to place additional restrictions (to those authorized in the conveyance document) on the use of an easement, if existing uses are in conflict with the purposes of the refuge. In all cases where a change is proposed in authorized uses or location from the original conveyance, the Service will give adequate public notice and Opportunity to participate and comment to the affected Native corporation and other interested parties, including the State of Alaska. Service proposals for changing the terms and conditions of 17(b) easements will include justification for the proposed change, an evaluation of alternatives considered, if any, and an evaluation of potential impacts of the proposed action. Maps concerning 17(b) easements are being prepared by the Realty Division at the Regional Office in Anchorage and are anticipated to be available at refuge headquarters in December, 1987. Nonexclusive Use Easements Nonexclusive use easements may be reserved by BLM across Native allotments when trails or areas of prior established public use overlap an allotment application.. Historic Roads and Trails Revised Statute (RS) 2477, formally codified as 43 USC 932 and enacted in 1866, provides that: "The right-of-way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." The Act was repealed by Public Law 94.570 as of October 21, 1976, subject to valid existing rights, including rights-of-way established under RS 2477. The validity of these rights-of-way will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 119 A map illustrating possible rights-of-way in Tetlin Refuge has been included in Appendix F for informational purposes. This map is not necessarily all inclusive. Private parties or the State of Alaska may identify and seek recognition of additional RS 2477 rights-of-way within the refuge. Supporting material regarding those rights-of-way identified by the state may be obtained through the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities or the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Identification of potential rights-of-way on the map does not establish the validity of these RS 2477 rights-of-way and does not necessarily provide the public with the right to travel over them. All RS 2477 rights-of-way within the refuge shall be subject to appropriate state and federal laws and regulations. The various types of access routes discussed above may overlap. For example, a valid RS 2477 right-of-way may overlap an easement conveyed under section 17(b) of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Management strategies, where this occurs, will reflect valid existing rights and other considerations unique to the situation. The Service will work cooperatively with interested parties to assure that management is compatible with the purposes of the refuge. Overlap situations will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in conformance with the management policies outlined in other sections of the Tetlin Refuge Plan. Transportation and Utility Systems Under Title XI of ANILCA, transportation and utility systems could be constructed on or across refuges, including through wilderness with congressional approval, in all management categories under all alternatives Any proposed system would be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of ANILCA Title XI. The northern boundary of Tetlin Refuge was set back 300 feet from the centerline of the Alaska Highway to minimize the need for any future transportation or utility systems to be constructed across refuge lands. The U.S. Air Force will be constructing a OTH-B radar site near Tok. The site is not on the refuge, but the facility design has been modified it use a horizontal configuration to minimize environmental concerns expressed by the Service. Recreational Access Reasonable access onto the refuge will be maintained to ensure visitor participation in wildlife-oriented activities. Non-motorized access will be encouraged under all alternatives, however, the use of snowmachines, motorboats, airplanes, and nonmotorized surface transportation methods for traditional activities is permitted on the refuge under section 1110(a) of ANILCA. Although these activities are subject to reasonable regulation to protect the natural and other values of the refuge, they cannot be prohibited unless it is determined they would be detrimental to the resource values of the refuge. Before regulations prohibiting these uses are instituted the Service must hold public hearings in the vicinity of the refuge. Therefore, any access restrictions or prohibitions that may be proposed will be implemented only after legal requirements, including public hearings, for establishing refuge regulations are met. Any management activities pertaining to navigable water will be coordinated with the appropriate state agency. 120 Use of off-road vehicles (ORV's) on areas other than established roads and parking areas is prohibited, except on routes or in areas designated by the refuge manager or pursuant to a valid permit (50 CFR 36.22). The definition of off-road vehicle includes four-wheel drive or low-pressure-tire vehicles, motorcycles, and related two-, three-, or four-wheeled vehicles, amphibious machines, ground-effect or air-cushioned vehicles, airboats, and recreational vehicle campers (50 CFR 36.2). Airboats, considered ORV's by Service policy, are currently used within the congressionally designated refuge boundaries on waters adjacent to private inholdings. Laws discussed in the section on management of water columns provide for water management by both the State and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service will oppose any uses of waterways proven detrimental to refuge resources. The Service will attempt to cooperatively resolve any issues prior to exercising these authorities. No information is currently available suggesting the current level of airboat use is detrimental. Recreational hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-oriented recreational activities (e.g., hiking, primitive camping, photography, wildlife viewing, river rafting, cross-country skiing) will be allowed throughout the refuge. The Service will manage recreation to avoid conflicts with subsistence use, minimize overcrowding, and avoid situations that could adversely affect fish and wildlife, wilderness, and historical, cultural, and other special values. For example, access to lakes on which swans nest may be regulated during breeding season. Actions that may be taken to minimize impacts include regulating access, regulating harvest of migratory birds, recommending changes in state hunting regulations to ADF&G, and encouraging user behavior sensitive to wildlife and wildland resources through interpretive and educational programs. Recreational use by unguided visitors will be managed through informational programs and voluntary compliance. Direct restrictions of use, such as limiting the number of users or the number of river trips, will be avoided unless voluntary methods fail. Any restrictions of access will be subject to the provisions of section 1110(a) of ANILCA. Commercial recreational use, such as guided parties, will continue to be regulated by permits as required by Service policy. Fish and Wildlife and Habitat Management The Service will fulfill its ANILCA obligations to maintain natural diversity by managing indigenous populations so they do not decline unnaturally below the levels that existed on December 2, 1980, when the refuge was established. According to legislative history, the term "natural diversity" reflects an intent to maintain the flora and fauna on the refuge in a healthy and natural combination, and not to emphasize management activities favoring some species to the detriment of others. Although it stresses use of natural means, avoiding artificial development and habitat manipulation programs, the term is not intended to restrict the Service's authority to manipulate habitat for the benefit of fish or wildlife populations within the refuge or for the benefit of the use of such populations by people as a part of the balanced management program mandated by ANILCA and other laws. The term is also not intended to preclude predator control on refuge lands in appropriate instances (Congressional Record - H 12352, 1980; H 815131 1980). 121 Fish and wildlife monitoring on the Tetlin Refuge would continue according to the directions established in the Inventory Plan for Tetlin Refuge (USFWS 1987). As part of its regional resource planning process the Service has identified national resource species nationally and in Alaska that are of sufficient importance or concern to merit special attention. Nine national resource species (trumpeter swan, white-fronted goose, lesser Canada goose, mallard, canvasback, northern pintail, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and sandhill crane) are known to use Tetlin Refuge. Two other national resource species (Dolly Varden and chinook salmon) may use the refuge, although they have not been officially observed on the refuge. The Service has developed several general management strategies for each of these species in its Alaska Regional Resource Plan. Strategies relevant to refuges, such as collecting survey data, monitoring populations, and protecting habitats, are reflected in the management directions developed in this plan. National resource species, in addition to other species of high public interest (e.g., moose, wolves, Dall sheep, grizzly bears, furbearers, burbot, rainbow trout, northern pike, whitefish) will continue to receive management attention. The Service will cooperate with ADF&G in all the latter's efforts, particularly with respect to resident fish and wildlife such as caribou, brown bear, moose, wolves, other furbearers, and salmon. Critical wildlife habitats will be protected. Such areas include black and grizzly bear foraging sites, lakes with swan nests, raptor nest sites, moose calving and wintering areas, and fish migration, spawning, and rearing areas. Indigenous species may be reintroduced into their historic range after careful study and public input. Non-indigenous or exotic species will not be introduced on the refuge. The exception to this rule is Hidden Lake, which will continue to be the site of repeated introductions of fingerling rainbow trout. A proposal for stocking will have to be prepared by the State of Alaska as outlined in Chapter 7 RM 12.4 of the Service's Refuge Manual. The proposal will include plans for monitoring and evaluating the project. Table 9 lists the only species or species groups for which populations can be estimated on the refuge. By striving to maintain or increase present population levels, the Service hopes to accommodate compatible public demands while maintaining all plant and animal species. Should populations fall below desired levels, steps will be taken to restore populations. As more data on fish and wildlife species are collected, objective levels may be established or modified. Predator control may be allowed on refuge lands, provided it can be justified. If data supports the need for reducing predator population levels, a proposal for predator control must be accompanied by an environmental assessment in accordance with NEPA guidelines. The proposal and assessment must be made available to the public for review and comment. The assessment will determine whether or not the full environmental impact statement process, as defined by NEPA, is needed. 122 Table 9. Population sizes of select species or species groups on Tetlin Refuge. Species Current breeding population Population objective Trumpeter swan 40-80 200-500 Waterfowl 70,000-120,000 70,000-150,000 Moose (August) 400-700 500-1500 Dall sheep 100-150 150-200 (Refuge files, 1987) Additional information is needed on the refuge's existing resources and users. This information is essential for refining management objectives, determining trends, evaluating management effectiveness, identifying existing and potential problems, and generally meeting the needs of refuge management. Thus, under all alternatives the Service will pursue studies and research necessary to improve the refuge data base. The fish population on Tetlin Refuge will be managed according to the Management concepts described below. These concepts are used to describe the type(s) of fisheries management proposed under the different alternatives. A fisheries management plan will be prepared for Tetlin Refuge in cooperation with ADF&G which will determine which lakes and streams will be managed under each concept. Wild concept - This concept applies to waters where management is primarily directed toward providing the visitor with the opportunity to catch fish from a fishery totally supported by natural reproduction. The wild concept will include only those waters specifically designated for wild fisheries management and not those sustained yield waters presently supported by natural reproduction. This distinction is made because future fishing pressure may require supplemental stocking of sustained yield waters presently supported by natural reproduction, as opposed to a wild fishery where fishing pressure or harvest would be limited in lieu of supplemental stocking. Waters managed under the wild concept must meet the following criteria: 1) Relatively free of human influence, exhibiting excellent water conditions and habitat 2) High potential for sport fish reproduction; 3) Support densities of wild game fish capable of sustaining a fishery with no stocking; 4) Limited public access. 123 Sustained yield - This concept applies to waters where management is primarily directed toward providing visitors with the opportunity to harvest fish. Sustained yield fisheries may be restored by stocking, but the yield to the fisher is a fish which grows to catchable size in the wild. The opportunity to catch trophy fish, unique species, wild and catchable fish is not a major intent of this concept, even though sustained yield fisheries are supported by natural reproduction, and trophy and unique fish species occasionally enter the catch. Trophy concept - This concept applies to waters where management is primarily directed toward providing visitors with the opportunity to catch "larger than average" or "more flavorful than average" fish. A water area that typically produces larger than average fish is not necessarily a trophy area unless this is a major objective of present and future management. In order to be managed under the trophy concept, a water area must have relatively high productivity and/or abundant forage. Management procedures might include restrictive creel limits, and limitations on fishing pressure. A trophy water area typically will not support as much use as a sustained yield or put, grow and take managed area. Unique species - This concept applies to waters where management is primarily directed toward providing the visitor with the opportunity to catch a unique species. Unique refers to those species which are relatively rare throughout the country, and because of their scarcity, are highly prized by the person fishing. Some unique species water areas may also be managed under the trophy concept. Put, grow, and take - This concept applies to water areas where management is directed toward allowing the visitor to consumptively harvest fish. All of the harvest from waters managed under this concept are comprised of fish which were stocked as fry or fingerlings from a fish hatching facility. Most water areas maniaged for put, grow, and take lack the potential for natural reproduction of salmonids and thus must be supported by repeated stocking. Put, grow and take water areas can be managed to sustain high visitor use. The only water area on this refuge which will be managed under this concept is Hidden Lake, which will be subject to repeated stocking of non-indigenous rainbow trout. Stock, restore, and maintain - This concept applies to water areas where management may be directed toward allowing the visitor to consumptively harvest, catch and release, view or photograph fish. The major use of water areas managed under this concept is for fish which are stocked as fry or fingerlings from a fish hatching faciltiy for the purpose of restoring a species to a stated level. Repeated fish introductions may be required to maintain restored populations at a stated level. Subsistence One of the purposes of Tetlin Refuge, as described in Title III of ANILCA, is to provide the opportunity for continued subsistence use by local residents. Title VIII of ANILCA further provides that rural Alaskan residents engaged in a subsistence way of life be allowed to continue using refuge resources for traditional purposes. Subsistence uses on the refuge will be given preference over other consumptive uses when restrictions onharvests are necessary to assure the continued viability of fish and wildlife populations. 124 Subsistence use would be managed the same way under each alternative. The Likelihood that improved access and increased wildlife populations will attract more recreational use has raised concerns with local residents dependent on subsistence activities. To address these concerns the Service will: © continue to cooperate with Native landowners and villages within or adjacent to the refuge; 0 monitor recreational use on the refuge; o develop programs to inform and educate recreational users about subsistence lifestyles and possible conflicts}; o work with guides to resolve conflicts with subsistence use} o continue to monitor subsistence activities. Title VIII of ANILCA authorizes the state to manage subsistence use of fish and wildlife on federal lands if it provides for subsistence preference and if it assures local involvement in management of subsistence resources. The Service will support the state in meeting those responsibilities under all alternatives, however, the taking of fish and wildlife for subsistence and other purposes on Tetlin Refuge will be as prescribed by regulations established by the Alaska Boards of Fish and Game. If the State fails to comply with the subsistence provisions of ANILCA the federal government will assume management of subsistence resources on federal lands in Alaska. Although the state's program for subsistence Management and use generally governs subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on the refuge, other duties remain vested in the Department of the Interior. Among the most important of these statutory duties are those required by section 806 of ANILCA. Under all alternatives the Service will monitor the status of fish and wildlife populations harvested for subsistence uses and the state fish and game regulatory system. This monitoring is intended to identify potential problems before populations of fish and wildlife become depleted and to ensure preference is given to subsistence users as required by law. The Secretary can close an area to subsistence use to assure the continued viability of a particularly fish or wildlife population. Timber stocks subject to subsistence use will also be monitored to ensure they remain available over the long term. The Service has developed, with other federal land management agencies and the state, subsistence monitoring guidelines. The Service will participate in a cooperative subsistence monitoring effort with ADF&G, local fish and game advisory committees, the regional councils, and the Boards of Fish and Game. The Service will attend meetings of these organizations to provide information on the status of subsistence resources and management of the refuge, identify data needs related to subsistence, become aware of concerns regarding subsistence uses and refuge programs, and provide comments to the boards on regulatory proposals that affect subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on the refuge. Two studies serve as part of the baseline data for the refuge (Halpin 1985; Case 1986). 125 The Service will also evaluate the effects of proposed actions on subsistence use under all alternatives in compliance with section 810 of ANILCA. When a decision is to be made on "whether to withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition" of refuge lands, the Service will evaluate the effect of the proposed action on subsistence uses and needs, note the availability of lands for the proposed activity, and consider other alternatives to the proposed action. The Service will work with the ADF&G Subsistence Division and other appropriate local sources in determining whether a proposed action "significantly restricts" subsistence uses. If a proposed action is likely to adversely affect subsistence use, the Service will follow the formal procedures specified in section 810 before further considering the proposed action. Access to refuge lands by traditional means will be permitted for subsistence purposes in accordance with section 811 of ANILCA. Traditional means, as defined in Service regulations (50 CFR 36), include snowmachines, motorboats, dog teams, and other means of surface transportation traditionally used by local rural residents engaged in subsistence activities. Use of snowmachines will be limited to periods of adequate snow cover. Use of trucks, passenger vehicles, and off-road vehicles (ORV) including airboats, will be limited to designated areas of traditional use. Airboats, considered ORV's by Service policy, are currently used within the congressionally designated boundaries of Tetlin Refuge on waters adjacent to private inholdings. Laws discussed in the section on management of water columns provide for water management by both the State and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service will oppose any uses of waterways proven detrimental to refuge resources. The Service will attempt to cooperatively resolve any issues prior to exercising these authorities. No information is currently available suggesting that the current level of airboat use is detrimental. Under section 816 of ANILCA, the Service may close the refuge to the taking of fish and wildlife if necessary for reasons of public safety, administration, or to assure the continued viability of particular populations of fish or wildlife. Emergency closure to subsistence taking would occur only after other consumptive uses competing for the resource are eliminated. Although Titles III and VIII of ANILCA require the Service to maintain opportunities for, and give preference to, subsistence harvest, these requirements are subject to all other applicable laws. Wilderness Section 1317 of ANILCA requires the Service to study the refuge and determine which areas are suitable to recommend for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. (See the wilderness review section of the affected environment chapter.) The alternatives recommend varying amounts of the refuge for wilderness designation. The preferred alternative does not recommend any areas for wilderness. In the unlikely event that the record of decision recommends any part of the refuge for wilderness, the proposed wilderness area will be managed under the minimal management category until the President sends the wilderness recommendation to Congress. After the presidential recommendation, the proposed wilderness area would be managed according to the provisions of 126 the Wilderness Act. Uses permitted in wilderness areas are explained in Table 8 and the management category section at the beginning of this chapter. Should congressional designation be denied, the area would no longer be a proposed wilderness area and would be managed under the minimal management category. Interpretation and Education The success of the management activities outlined in this plan will depend to a large extent on the actions of refuge users, adjacent landowners, local residents, and other interested citizens. An effective education and interpretation program will help avoid potential problems by increasing public understanding and support of refuge management goals and actions. The Service - will concentrate its initial efforts on informing adjacent landowners and local residents about the refuge and the Service, and ensuring that users are aware of and respect private lands within or adjacent to the refuge. Educating teachers about the use and availability of interpretation and education materials and techniques will continue to be an important focus. Service staff have cooperatively offered two classes to teachers in the area for continuing education credit. Since Tetlin Refuge is bordered by 65 miles of the Alaska Highway, it is generally the first refuge seen by visitors to Alaska. A variety of Service Management actions are aimed at educating the travelling public about the refuge system in Alaska, and Tetlin Refuge in particular. Current activities include: o A cooperative program with the Alaska Department of Transportation (DOT) whereby the Service is developing interpretive displays for several DOT waysides along the Alaska Highway adjacent to the refuge; o Participation in the existing interagency visitor center in Tok to increase public awareness, understanding, and support for natural resource areas throughout the state; o Construction of a visitor contact station on the Alaska Highway near where it enters Alaska from Canada so travellers can be made aware of the refuge, before they have passed through it, and of interpretive facilities further along the road and in Northway; o Distribution of educational material through the outlet for the Alaska Natural History Association at refuge headquarters. Potential future activities include: o developing additional refuge brochures; o creating an "outdoor classroom" in cooperation with local schools; o educating local subsistence hunters on the impacts and conflicts of using refuge resources. 127 By expanding information and education programs on Tetlin Refuge, the Service can give travellers information on the vast variety of habitats found in Tetlin Refuge and throughout Alaska, as well as impressing on them the programs accomplished by the Service within Alaska's National Wildlife Refuges. Cabins Fish and Wildlife Service regulations on existing cabins within Alaskan refuges (50 CFR 36.33 [b] [1]) state that traditional and customary use of these cabins (e.g., guiding, subsistence use) will be allowed to continue if the Service determines the uses are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. Non-transferable, renewable, five-year permits were issued for these existing cabins. According to section 1303 of ANILCA and 50 CFR 36.33(a), the construction of new cabins for private recreational use is prohibited. Non-transferable, five-year permits may be issued by the Service for a new cabin if a determination is made that the proposed use, construction, and maintenance of the cabin are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established, and the use of the cabin is essential for continuation of an ongoing activity or use where the applicant has no reasonable off-refuge alternative sites, or for public health and safety. The refuge manager can issue special use permits authorizing construction of tent frames, caches, smokehouses, and other facilities not associated with cabins if compatible with refuge purposes. Without such a permit these uses are prohibited by 50 CFR 27.92. There are two administrative cabins on Tetlin Refuge used by the Service in support of Service activities. Oil and Gas Studies and Leasing Section 1008(a) of ANILCA directs the Secretary to establish an oil and gas leasing program on federal lands in Alaska except where prohibited by law or on those units of the National Wildlife Refuge System where oil and gas development would be incompatible with refuge purposes. Studies - Geological and geophysical studies including seismic activities will be permitted in all parts of the refuge where site-specific stipulations can be designed to ensure compatibility with refuge purposes and consistency with the management objectives of this plan. Decisions will be made on a case by case basis in all areas including minimal management areas and proposed designated wilderness areas if any. However, seismic and other surface disturbing activities will not be permitted on the refuge prior to the issuance of a record of decision on this plan. Should Congress designate the refuge or a portion of the refuge as wilderness, no exploration activities involving motorized equipment or mechanized surface transportation will be allowed after designation except those conducted by or for an Interior Department agency under the provisions of section 1010 of ANILCA. These provisions require that activities do not result in lasting environmental impacts and are compatible with refuge purposes. 128 Leasing - Oil and gas leasing will not be permitted on the refuge until completion of 1) an assessment of potential; 2) a national interest determination; and, 3) a compatibility determination. An assessment of oil and gas potential on the refuge and the viability of development will be completed. Current data indicates little possibility of oil and gas on the refuge as discussed in the geology section of the affected environment chapter. After completion of the assessment of potential, the Secretary must consult with the Secretary of Energy to determine the national interest in developing oil and gas on refuge lands. In addition, consultations must be held with the State of Alaska, local governments, native and regional corporations, the Alaska Land Use Council, representatives of the oil and gas industry, conservation groups, and other interested individuals to determine the public interest in or opposition to oil and gas exploration and leasing activities. After considering national interest in producing oil and gas, the Department will determine if oil and gas leasing would be compatible with the purposes for which Tetlin Refuge was established. These purposes were defined by ANILCA and are listed in the summary chapter. The process described above will not be completed until after this plan is done and a record of decision issued. A determination that oil and gas development would be in the national interest and would be compatible with refuge purposes could cause this plan to be modified. If this occurs, the Service would revise the plan in compliance with the NEPA process, providing opportunities for public involvement. In minimal management areas where: 1) it is later determined that it would be in the national interest to open those lands to oil and gas leasing and development and 2) it is also determined that oil and gas can be made compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established, the area will be reclassified (i.e., taken out of minimal management and placed in moderate or intensive management) before leasing is permitted. This would require an amendment of the plan, including public review of the proposed amendment. No such revision would be required to open intensive or moderate management areas to leasing. Should Congress designate the refuge as wilderness, no leasing will be permitted. Mineral Assessment Section 1010 of ANILCA requires the Secretary to assess all federal lands for oil, gas, and other mineral potential. Mineral assessment techniques with no lasting impacts, such as side-scanning radar, will be permitted throughout the refuge under all alternatives. The Service will issue permits for assessment work with stipulations to ensure that the assessment program is compatible with refuge purposes. For example, stipulations may limit access during nesting, calving, and spawning seasons, or other times when fish and wildlife may be especially vulnerable to disturbance. 129 Mining Operations Mining on valid claims established prior to creation of the refuge will be permitted, but by law (section 304[c] of ANILCA), the refuge is closed to location, entry, and patent under the mining laws. There are four mining claims on Tetlin Refuge, all in the Cheslina drainage and claimed by the same person. Should these claims prove valid, mining will only be done in accordance with an approved Plan of Mining Operations. Other pertinent state and federal regulations will also apply. Current assessment work involves working gravels collected with hand tools through a sluice box, a cradle, and gold pans. The Federal Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 1975 prohibits coal mining on refuges. Recreational panning for gold will be permitted where conflicts with wildlife will not occur. Commercial Uses Big game hunting guides and their guiding areas are regulated by the State Guide Board. They are also required to obtain permits under 50 CFR 27.97 from the Service before operating on the refuge. Other guides on the refuge such as fishing, waterfowl hunting, and river guides, and air-taxi operators, are also required to obtain refuge permits. The Service will attach conditions to these permits to ensure that the guides' camps, cabins, travel methods, and activities are consistent with the selected alternative. If problems arise relating to guided parties such as conflicts with subsistence use, the Service will modify or terminate use under the special use permit conditions. Commercial timber harvesting, agriculture, and grazing will not be permitted. Although there is presently no commercial fishing on the refuge and no interest in establishing a commercial fishery, ANILCA provides for the exercise of valid commerical fishing rights on refuges subject to reasonable regulation and the provisions of ANILCA. Fire Management Refuge policy on prescribed burning and suppression is expressed in the refuge fire management plan and the Alaska Interagency Fortymile Fire Management Plan. The Service will cooperate with local, state, and federal fire suppression agencies in managing wildfires and will use the "minimum appropriate tool" on refuge fires. Prescribed burning will be done so as to protect sensitive areas such as fish spawning sites. Adjacent private lands and inholdings will receive appropriate fire protection, while wildfires on federal lands will be allowed to burn naturally where they do not endanger life or property. Prescribed burning will be used to reduce fuel loads and protect private lands. If refuge wildlife objectives indicate the need to modify plant succession, prescribed burning and wildfire management will be the principal methods used. Fire breaks will be built if needed between areas of different suppression levels, adjacent to private inholdings. 130 Creation of a fire break across the refuge to protect Northway and inholdings in the northern third of the refuge will be a major fire management objective. Over a period of years, a series of small, prescribed burns will reduce fuel loads and create a valley wide natural fisandeau South of this firebreak the refuge manager will allow wildfires to burn naturally. Although this objective is common to all alternatives, the emphasis in terms of staff, funding, and allowable control techniques varies across the alternatives. Prescribed burns to improve wildlife habitat will also be done to areas with short term resource needs. Emphasis in terms of staff, funding, and allowable control techniques varies across the alternatives. Air and Water Protection One of the major purposes of Tetlin Refuge as described in ANILCA is to preserve water quality and quantity required to fulfill refuge objectives. This is necessary to maintain natural diversity and healthy populations of fish and wildlife. Water rights - Water resources of Tetlin Refuge will be managed to maintain the primary purposes of the refuge, as stated in section 303(6)(B) of ANILCA, and other statutory mandates. Specific water resource requirements for the primary purposes of the refuge will be identified and the reasonable amount of water necessary to maintain these purposes will be quantified in cooperation with the State of Alaska. Once Federal Reserved Water Rights (FRWR) have been quantified, the Service will record this information with the state Department of Natural Resources. Water for secondary purposes and other uses not provided for by FRWR will be applied for in accordance with Alaska Statutes (AS) 46.15. Following adoption of the comprehensive conservation plan for Tetlin Refuge, a water resource plan will be prepared. This plan will identify streams, lakes, and other water bodies whose protection has highest priority and will outline procedures for quantifying their FRWR. The Service will cooperate with the state in obtaining these data. Instream flow studies will investigate the full annual range of flow, as both flood and low-water stages are essential, or even critical, in the life cycles of wetland and aquatic species. Extreme flood and drought years also will be included in the analysis, as both are important to the renewal of aquatic habitats. Once year-round instream flow requirements have been quantified, the Service will continue to monitor streams that may be subject to modification outside the refuge. The Service will contact other water users if the Service determines that a proposed project threatens refuge waters, fish, or wildlife. Reductions in instream flows, lake water levels, or groundwater levels below the FRWR will be reported to the appropriate state or federal agencies so action can be taken to maintain the purposes for which the refuge was established. 131 Instream flow data are urgently needed on all streams entering the refuge from lands to be developed in the near future. Mining, forestry, and residential and recreational developments have been proposed for state lands north of the refuge. Old mining claims that could be reactivated exist on streams that enter the refuge from the Wrangell-St. Elias Preserve to the south. Currently there are mining activities in the Cheslina drainage at the southwest corner of the refuge and on the upper Nabesna River. Organic matter incorporated with surface run-off and deposited in stream beds, snow cover, long periods of darkness, and other complex factors in arctic and sub-arctic streams cause a gradual depression of dissolved oxygen from headwaters of streams to the lower reaches (Shallock 1974). Water withdrawals in headwater areas could cause dissolved oxygen depletion in the lower stream areas. Also, other chemical parameters will be considered in addressing minimum flow needs. Water withdrawals in headwater areas could also cause lower reaches of streams to freeze to the bottom. Water quality - To protect water quality on the refuge, contaminant baseline data will continue to be collected and the effects of activities on and off the refuge will be monitored. All activities on the refuge will comply with pollution control standards set by the Clean Water Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, their amendments, and other state and federal laws and regulations (see Refuge Manual, 5 RM 11). The Service will cooperate with the state and other appropriate agencies responsible for establishing and enforcing water quality standards. A water resource management plan will be written in cooperation with the state as described earlier, and will include important water quality measurements. It is essential to collect baseline data as soon as feasible so that changes due to human activity can be documented and corrected. The Service may cooperate with adjacent landowners in collecting this data. Oil by-products have entered Moose Creek immediately upstream of Tetlin Refuge from a solid waste dump left by a contractor of the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA has attempted to clean up this site for several years, with no apparent success. Additional monitoring is needed to determine the nature and extent of damage that may be occurring. The highest priority for collecting baseline water quality data are streams on the north side of the refuge entering from lands that may be developed in the near future. The roadhouse on Desper Creek is a potential source of water pollution. Mining, forestry, agriculture, and settlement, unless properly controlled can have adverse effects on water bodies downstream. A special concern in Alaska is that pesticides and domestic sewage quickly build up to toxic levels in a cold environment. The Cheslina River, which flows through the four placer claims on the refuge, will be sampled above and below these sites. Refuge staff will cooperate with mining operators in filing the operators' Plan of Mining Operations to protect water quality. Other important but less urgent sampling sites include streams, marshes, and lakes below sources of potential pollution on or near the refuge. Present or future developments that may impact water quality include residential settlement, road improvements, and recreational areas. 132 Habitat manipulation can also affect water quality and quantity. Streams near selected prescribed burns should be sampled before and after treatment and above and below the burned area. Streambeds should be surveyed before and several years after burning to characterize their profile, pool/riffle ratio, spawning and rearing habitats, and to document any changes caused by burning. Mitigation of effects of burning on fish habitats will include avoidance of burning in areas with steep watersheds and maintenance of a buffer strip of unburned or mechanically treated vegetation next to streams, ponds, and marshes. Water quality measurements should be taken around times of low flow (fall) and high flow (mid-summer). Both water and sediment should be collected. To ensure the results have legal standing, sampling programs will be designed, carried out, and analyzed by Service-approved agents. Important parameters to measure in all samples include temperature, pH, conductivity, alkalinity, hardness, suspended solids (turbidity), and settleable solids (sediment). Other parameters to measure depend on the suspected sources of pollution and include: below mines, levels of at least ten heavy metals; near burns, several nutrients and dissolved gases; below cabins and camps, fecal coliform bacteria and complex sewage chemicals; and by other developments, petroleum hydrocarbons, and approximately 100 insecticides and herbicides. Selected fish and wildlife should also be tested for accumulated contaminant levels if pollution is suspected. Some important indicator species on Tetlin Refuge are filter-feeders such as freshwater clams and predators such as salmonids, northern pike, and loons. The refuge staff will advise adjacent landowners to ensure awareness of potential pollution threats and to coordinate protection of water quality among all concerned. Any pollution of refuge waters will be reported to appropriate state and federal agencies. The Service recognizes there is potential for oil and gas spills affecting the refuge. The sensitive nature of refuge resources and the difficulty of containing spills make any fuel or oil spills a special concern. To minimize damage to the resources in and adjacent to the refuge, the Service will work with other federal and state agencies in initiating, reviewing, and responding to oil and fuel spill contingency planning requirements. Air quality - All activities on the refuge will comply with the Clean Air Act, its amendments and all applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and orders. The Service will cooperate with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and other appropriate agencies responsible for establishing and enforcing air quality standards. Shorelands The Submerged Lands Act of 1953, the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958, and the state constitution provide for state ownership of water, shorelands (land under navigable waters) and submerged lands (lands seaward from tidelands). 133 Determination of what waters are navigable is an ongoing process in Alaska at both the administrative and judicial levels. Within Tetlin Refuge, the Bureau of Land Management has determined the navigability of the portions of streams and lakes that are within lands selected by Native corporations or by the State of Alaska. Pursuant to section 901(g) of the Alaska Lands Act, those determinations are for the purpose of determining title to lands beneath navigable waters as between the United States and the State of Alaska. On Tetlin Refuge, portions of the Nabesna and Chisana rivers have been determined to be navigable. Other water bodies may be determined to be navigable in the future. The Service will work cooperatively with the state to ensure that existing and future activities occuring on shorelands are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. In the future, the Service may propose Management actions to the state for these areas. The Service will manage the refuge uplands adjacent to shorelands to protect their natural character. Management of Water Columns The Service has authority to regulate certain activities on watercolumns to protect refuge lands, and for conservation purposes. These authorities stem from two provisions of the the United States Constitution (the property clause and the commerce clause), the Alaska Lands Act, and other authorities including the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1968, the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The State of Alaska also has authority to Manage water based on the laws cited in the section on shorelands above. These laws provide for water management by both the state and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service will oppose any uses of waterways that will adversely affect water quality or the natural abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife species in the refuge. The Service will work with the state on a case-by-case basis to resolve issues concerning the use of the various waterways where management conflicts arise. Cooperative agreements for the uses on the water will be pursued if a case-by-case resolution of management proves unacceptable to the Service and the state. Visual Resources Management In all alternatives the Service will identify and maintain the natural scenic values of the refuge and minimize the visual impacts of developments. Refuge facilities will be designed to blend into the landscape. The Service will cooperate with state agencies to prevent any significant deterioration of visual resources. Litter and Waste Control Under Service regulations (50 CFR 27.94) littering, disposing, or dumping of garbage, refuse, sewage, or other debris on refuges is prohibited except at points or locations designated by the refuge manager. Litter disposal is the responsibility of individual refuge users. If waste disposal and litter control problems occur on the refuge the Service will increase its public education and law enforcement efforts. 134 Historical and Cultural Resources There are potentially a large number of significant archeological sites within Tetlin Refuge, largely along river courses and lake shores. As these areas are the most likely to be impacted by any development activities, there is a possibility of conflicts. Federal laws and regulations serve to minimize and prevent damage to such sites. These authorities are contained primarily in sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and in the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservacion; 36 CFR 800. When any federal undertaking is contemplated that has the potential to directly or indirectly effect any archaeological or historic site, including any action funded or permitted by the federal government, several steps must be taken. First the Service will determine if there are any such sites in existence. This includes an examination of existing records, consultation with knowledgeable local residents, and frequently, an examination of the area by qualified archaeologists. If no sites are found that may be impacted, the project may continue. If any sites are found, they will be evaluated against the standards for eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 60). For sites that are determined to be eligible, the Service assesses the effect of the proposed undertaking. If there is no effect, the project may continue. If an effect is identified, a process of consultation is initiated that includes several parties, including but not limited to, the Service, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, local governments, Native groups, and the National Park Service. This consultation will result in a course of action causing the least possible impact on the site or sites in question. The minimization of the impacts may be accomplished in a variety of ways, such as mitigation through information collection, relocation of a project, redesign of a project, or cancellation of a project if no other alternatives are feasible. In addition to these project-specific obligations, the Service has long-term responsibilities for cultural resources on refuge lands that include a responsibility to inventory and evaluate all such resources. Due to the limitations of time, funding, and staffing, the Service must designate priorities in evaluating all refuge lands for their cultural resources. When funds become available for Tetlin Refuge, the first priority will be to prepare a substantial and comprehensive cultural resource overview and a detailed predictive model describing possible sites within the refuge. After field testing, this overview will be used to guide the Service in selecting future inventory and evaluation projects for funding. The Service will also encourage archaeologists and historians from educational institutions or other government agencies to pursue their research interests on refuge lands with the long-term objective of meeting these goals. A summary research project staffed by a professional archeaologist and Youth Conservation Corps enrollees is planned for 1988. 135 Refuge Administration, Facilities, and Facilities Location Administration and facilities - As of 1987, refuge staff consists of a refuge manager, assistant manager, fire management officer (a position shared with other refuges), pilot/bio-tech, and clerk-typist. An outdoor recreation planner position has been approved. Two park technicians are planned to staff the visitor contact station planned for construction near the Alaska border. An effort is made to hire local people. Additional staff needs will depend on the alternative selected and are discussed in the alternatives section of this chapter. As of 1987, present refuge headquarters is at Tok. Facilities consist of four Service owned residences, valued at about one million dollars, and leased office and airplane hangar space. A visitor contact station is being designed for a site along the Alaska Highway adjacent to the refuge near the Alaska border. Construction will take place in 1988. The Service also owns a bunkhouse and a storage building at Northway Junction and two administrative cabins on the refuge. The Service hopes to continue leasing a hangar, office, and equipment storage area in Tok, assuming favorable rates can be negotiated. Construction of facilities in addition to these will depend on the alternative selected and is discussed in the alternatives section. Refuge headquarters location - The location of the refuge headquarters was not discussed in the draft plan because it was not brought up as an issue during the scoping process for the plan. After publication of the draft plan it became an important local issue. The Service received a petition with 92 signatures from Greater Northway, Northway Natives, Inc., and Northway Village Council supporting a move of the refuge headquarters to Northway. In addition, letters from Northway Natives, Inc. Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc., Doyon, Ltd., and several individuals who also commented on other aspects of the CCP have supported a move. The Service has also received a petition signed by 133 Tok residents supporting retention of the headquarters in Tok. The Tok Chamber of Commerce and two Tok residents also wrote letters supporting retention of the headquarters. These letters and petitions are included in Appendix G. Letters commenting on the plan and the headquarters location appear in Appendix H. The headquarters was originally located in Tok based on results of a Service study done in 1978 (Shea 1978). That study analyzed numerous factors including the distance to the refuge; lines of communication with local users and landowners most of whom live in Northway; services to the travelling public; facilities and services facilitating refuge operation such as airports, equipment repair and purchase, and air charters and scheduled air service; facilities and services which make it easier to attract and retain refuge staff such as schools, medical facilities, and social services} construction costs} availability and suitability of building sites and existing structures; location of cooperating agencies; and local attitudes. The original report was lengthy and will not be repeated in this document. Only those factors which have changed since the original study will be analyzed. 136 1. Facilities and services - Northway has added an emergency medical service team, a laundromat, another restaurant, a 20 space campground, and an additional state trooper. Northway Natives, Inc. intends to develop other facilities in addition to the campground at Northway Junction to increase tourist business. Tok has added a dentist, a full-time hardware and building supply store, one grocery store and three convenience food stores, a second physician's assistant, additional churches, a community school program, and an Office of Aircraft Services approved aircraft maintenance facility. 2. Service investment - The four houses which have been constructed in Tok would have to be sold or leased if the headquarters were to move. In addition, moving expenses would need to be paid for the four families which would move to Northway. 3. Visitor services - An interagency information center has been developed in Tok. 4. Local attitudes - At the time of the original study, the refuge had not yet been created. Residents of both communities expressed negative attitudes towards the creation of the refuge and the stationing of refuge Managers in the area. Northway residents were more negative than Tok and Northway was much smaller than Tok. Now both communities have seen the economic advantages of the refuge headquarters location and have learned to live with the refuge to the point where they welcome the headquarters. The changes that have occurred since the original study and refuge headquarters decision are not sufficient to warrant a change in refuge headquarters. The principle advantages of Northway are its proximity to the refuge, closer communication and coordination with Northway refuge users and landholders, and a better runway. These same advantages existed in 1978 but did not outweigh the advantages of Tok. Tok's principle advantage is that it is a regional center for tourists, other cooperating agencies, and facilities and services which facilitate refuge management and the recruitment and retention of refuge staff. Also, Tetlin village and the refuge users that live there are somewhat more accessible from Tok given the winter road. The refuge headquarters will remain in Tok under all alternatives. Management of Selected Lands Approximately 96,000 acres of the land selected by Native villages, regional corporations, and the State of Alaska have not been conveyed to private or state ownership. Much of this land will eventually be conveyed though some lands may be returned to the refuge. The Service retains interim management responsibility for these lands, although the appropriate Native corporation or state agency would be consulted prior to management actions being conducted. Management directions for these lands would be the same as on adjacent refuge lands. 137 Refuge Management Plans Following adoption of the comprehensive conservation plan, more detailed management plans will be prepared. These later plans will specify actions to take in implementing the general directions outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. They will also form the basis for annual work planning and budgeting. The Service will work closely with other federal and state agencies and with village and regional corporations in developing refuge management plans. Public involvement may be required as outlined by the Refuge Manual: Depending on the scope or sensitivity of management activities being planned for, the development of certain chapters of the management plan may require public involvement and/or environmental assessments. In any circumstances where an aspect of the management program deals with a subject of known special interest or controversy, the affected public should be brought into the management planning process at appropriate stages. If a management activity or program may constitute or involve major federal action, NEPA compliance will be required. (Refuge Manual 1983). DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES Based on legislative purposes, resources, issues, and opportunities found on Tetlin Refuge, four management alternatives were developed for the draft plan. The alternatives were general in nature and provided broad strategies for management of refuge resources and uses. Each alternative designated a different mix of the management categories described earlier, and although the alternatives shared some common strategies, each alternative had a different overall emphasis. These alternatives varied primarily in the level of proposed fish and wildlife and habitat management and the extent or presence of a wilderness recommendation. All alternatives were consistent with the purposes of the refuge, and complied with existing laws, regulations, and Service policies. Changes to the Draft Alternatives After the draft plan was published the Service received comments from the State of Alaska, Native corporations, interest groups, local residents, and other interested individuals. These comments varied considerably in their emphasis and recommendations (see Appendix H), but most comments focused on the alternative strategies for, and levels of, habitat management, potential impacts on subsistence and cultural resources, or the wilderness review. As a result of comments received, changes in Service policy (particularly on oil and gas activities), and the availability of congressionally appropriated development funds, the Service has modified the alternatives in this final plan. The plan now includes five alternatives. 138 Changes to the alternatives can be summarized as follows: o anew alternative, Alternative A Modified (AM), has been added that reflects the current situation with no wilderness recommendation} ° some of the land, 83,100 acres, in the preferred alternative, Alternative C, has been changed from moderate to minimal management 3 o most of the land under intensive management in Alternative D has been changed to moderate management. The new alternative, Alternative A Modified, the current situation, is the same as Alternative A from the draft plan, except that no land is proposed for wilderness recommendation. When the draft plan was published, wilderness recommendations were being treated as overlays essentially independent of the management alternatives. This was confusing to the public and led to problems with NEPA compliance. The current situation, Alternative A Modified, was also changed to include the construction of a visitor contact station adjacent to the refuge near the Alaska border and four residences for refuge staff in Tok. Since the draft was published, Congress appropriated money for these projects, and the houses have been completed. Also, negotiations with the Alaska Department of Transportation have led to cooperative development of several interpretive wayside parks. In Alternative C, the preferred alternative, the moderate management areas on the south end of the refuge, 83,100 acres, have been changed to minimal Management. After considering public comment, the Service determined minimal Management would best protect the wildlife values in that area. All of the intensive areas along river corridors in Alternative D were changed to moderate management. The purpose of the intensive designation was to allow for the opportunity to mechanically manipulate habitat. A policy change now allows mechanical habitat manipulation in moderate managment areas. Maps illustrating the placement of management categories accompany the description of each alternative. 139 Alternative A Modified (The Current Situation or No-Action Alternative) Alternative A Modified emphasizes management to maintain fish and wildlife values and natural diversity. Continued public use of the refuge would be allowed using existing access methods and routes. Opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other recreational uses would be maintained, as would scientific research and wildlife and wildland observation opportunities. The following management directions summarize Alternative A Modified (AM). The Service would: o emphasize maintenance of the refuge's natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their present condition; o provide for continued subsistence monitoring and use of refuge resources} maintain traditional access$ oO maintain opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation; recommend no areas for wilderness designation; Maintain the refuge in an undeveloped state; ° allow compatible oil and gas studies throughout the refuge, and not allow oil and gas leasing; o provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education; Oo manage habitat through prescribed burning and wildfires. ° oo Table 10 lists acreages and the proportion of the refuge placed in each Management category. Figure 30 shows the location of management categories in Alternative A Modified. Most of the refuge would be in the minimal management category; three acres at Northway Junction would be maintained for administrative use. Fish and wildlife management - Fish and wildlife would be managed according to the common management directions and Table 8. The Service would emphasize protection of existing fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Fish and wildlife management would focus on monitoring and research; most wildlife habitat restoration would be through wildfires, allowed to burn in accordance with the Fortymile Fire Plan. Fishing, hunting and trapping would be managed to maintain fish and wildlife populations at their naturally occurring levels. Fisheries would continue to be managed under the wild concept which means the harvest would be totally supported by natural reproduction with no supplemental stocking. The exception is Hidden Lake which would be repeatedly stocked with non-indigenous, fingerling rainbow trout to support a put, grow, and take fishery. (See the common management directions, fish and wildlife management, for a complete explanation of fishery management concepts.) No commercial fishing is expected to occur on the refuge. 140 Table 10. Management category designations for each alternative. Alternative AM A B Cc D Minimal mgmt.(acres) 699,000 699,000 654,600 577,500 481,800 % of refuge 100% 100% 94% 83% 69% Moderate mgmt. (acres) 0 0 43,000 120,000 215,800 % of refuge 0% 0% 6% 17% 31% Intensive mgmt.(acres) 3 3 1,400 1,400 1,400 % of refuge <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Total Acres 699,000 699,000 699,000 699,000 699,000 Percent 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Proposed Wilderness* Acres 0 699,000 140,000 0 0 Percent 0% 100% 20% 0% 0% *Proposed wilderness areas are included in the totals for the minimal Management category since they will be managed as minimal management areas not wilderness, until after the President forwards a favorable recommendation to Congress. Subsistence use management - Subsistence use is expected to increase as the local population grows, resulting in a moderate increase in subsistence harvests of waterfowl and fish. Although the Northway population is expected to stabilize or decline, an 89% increase in population is predicted for the total refuge area by the year 2,000. Most of this growth will occur in Tok (Table 4). Subsistence opportunities would be maintained as described in the common management directions. By monitoring local and nonlocal use on the refuge, subsistence activities will be given priority in using the refuge's resources. Publi use and access management - Public use and access would be managed according to Table 8. Most visits to the refuge would continue to be for subsistence purposes as described in the above paragraph. Of the 26,000 visits to the refuge in 1986, 90% of them were for sightseeing, photography, wildlife viewing, camping, and picnicking along the Alaska Highway and at the state waysides. These visitors were not actually on the refuge but utilized 141 Village TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Alternative A Modified (The Current Situation) Wi Intensive Management l Minimal Management HiT} Private Land “OE eansty *(uoTIeNITE JUeIIND aYyL) PeTFIPOW V eATIBUIeITY refuge resources. On-refuge visits were for fishing, waterfowl hunting, moose hunting, trapping, and river floating. Of the 2,600 on-refuge visits per year, 80% are considered subsistence activities because they involve harvest activities by local residents. By the end of the planning period, refuge visits would have doubled to about 52,000 visits per year, 90% of which would occur along the highway and at the waysides. Utility corridors would not be developed on the refuge since these needs would be most efficiently met in the existing corridor along the highway. No facilities or trails would be developed on the refuge. Interpretive materials would be provided at a visitor contact station near the Alaska border with Canada, at the state waysides along the highway, and in the interagency visitor center in Tok. Aircraft, motorboats, and snowmobiles would be allowed throughout the refuge for pursuit of traditional activities, although traditionally used areas may be closed seasonally by the refuge manager to protect sensitive wildlife species (particularly swans). All access restrictions would meet the provisions outlined in Title VIII and Title XI of ANILCA. Wilderness review - No wilderness is proposed under this alternative. Fire management - One fire management officer, shared with other refuges, would maintain the current practice of managing prescribed burning and wildfires to burn an average of 7,500 acres a year over the next ten years. In this and all alternatives, 450 acres a year would be burned in one block to form a "blackline" firebreak to protect Northway and private lands in the north end of the refuge from wildfires on the south end. When completed, 20 years from now, the firebreak would be approximately 13 miles long and would average one mile in width. In addition to the blackline, 200 other acres would be burned per year to improve the distribution of habitat types and reduce hazardous fuel build-up. This burning would take place on the north end of the refuge. Fire management, including wildfires, is described in the common management directions. Commercial use management - Guiding and transporting will be permitted throughout the refuge under special use permits. Commercial fish harvesting will be regulated in accordance with ANILCA section 304(d). No mining is expected on the refuge since it is closed to further claim activity. The four existing claims on the refuge have not been examined for validity. No mining is atiicipated on these claims since they are located in an area which the U.S. Geological Survey has determined has low mineral value (Richter et al. 1975b). Although various types of geological and geophysical studies may be permitted, none are expected since information currently available indicates low oil and gas potential. Oil and gas leasing will not be allowed. Management Costs - Annual operations and maintenance costs to fully implement Alternative A Modified are estimated at $465,000 (in FY 1987 dollars). One time development costs are estimated at $130,000. Operating cost estimates are broken down as follows: salaries total $298,000; overhead totals $47,000; and management programs total $120,000. 143 The refuge staff currently consists of a refuge manager, assistant manager, pilot/bio-tech, fire management officer (shared with other refuges), clerk-typist, and a temporary outdoor recreational planner. Staff time equivalent to one full time person is provided by the Service's fishery resource field station in Fairbanks. Two part-time park technicians are planned to staff the visitor contact station near the border. Youth Conservation Corps and volunteer programs are used to supplement refuge staff as available. Facilities owned by the Service include four residences in Tok, a bunkhouse and a storage building at Northway Junction, and two administrative cabins on the refuge. A visitor contact station is being designed for a site adjacent to the refuge near the Alaska border. The Service hopes to continue leasing its office and hangar in Tok if favorable rates can be negotiated. Alternative A This alternative is similar to Alternative A Modified, the current situation alternative, except that all of the refuge, except for the three acre administrative site at Northway, is proposed for wilderness designation. Consequently, this alternative is more restrictive with respect to some of the permitted uses allowed on the refuge. Restrictions are placed on the use of motorized equipment by nonsubsistence users, oil and gas studies and leasing, and the routing of transportation or utility systems. The use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas is governed by the Wilderness Act, ANILCA, and 50 CFR 35.5. Generally, motorized equipment is prohibited by the Wilderness Act, however, ANILCA makes exceptions for snow machines, motorboats, and airplanes in section 1110(a). Under 50 CFR 35.5 the Director of the Service is permitted to designate certain areas where other motorized equipment may be used where its use was established prior to the date wilderness was designated. Oil and gas studies requiring motorized equipment are not permitted in designated wilderness, except for those conducted by or for an Interior Department agency under the provisions of section 1010 of ANILCA. Oil and gas leasing is not permitted in designated wilderness. Transportation or utility system routes are not permitted in designated wilderness except with congressional approval. Alternative A continues the maintenance of wilderness values, fish and wildlife values, and natural diversity. Continued public use of the refuge would be allowed using existing access methods and routes. Opportunities for subsistence and recreational hunting, fishing, and other uses would be maintained, as would scientific research and wildlife and wildland observation opportunities. Interpretation and environmental education would be provided at off-refuge sites. Alternative A has the following management directions in common with Alternative A Modified and would: o emphasize the maintenance of the refuge's natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their present condition; © provide for continued subsistence monitoring and use of refuge resources} ° maintain traditional access} © maintain opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation}; 144 o provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education; Oo manage habitat through prescribed burning and wildfires; o not allow oil and gas leasing. In addition, Alternative A would: o recommend all of the refuge for wilderness designation except for three acres already used as an administrative site at Northway Junction; o allow only compatible oil and gas studies which do not utilize mechanized equipment. Figure 31 shows the location of management categories in Alternative A. Table 10 lists acreages and the proportion of the refuge placed in each Management category. Most of the refuge would be in the minimal management category until such time as Congress designated it wilderness. Three acres at Northway Junction would be under intensive management. Fish and wildlife management - Management actions described for fish and wildlife management in Alternative A Modified would also apply to this alternative. Subsistence use management - With one exception, subsistence use would be managed as described in Alternative A Modified and the section on common Management directions. Most types of power tools and equipment such as generators are not allowed in wilderness. However, chainsaws (for subsistence users only), airplanes, motorboats, and snowmobiles are allowed in wilderness. Public use and access management - The management actions described in Alternative A Modified and Table 8 apply here as well. The additional publicity given wilderness areas would have a negligible effect on public use of this refuge. Recreational use of the refuge would increase less than one percent or 52 visits a year as a result of wilderness designation. Wilderness status and publicity would have no impact on the out of state tourists traveling the Alaska Highway who make up 90% of the visits to the Tetlin Refuge. Wilderness status would also have no impact on the number of subsistence users. Access would be managed according to the provisions outlined in Titles XI and VIII of ANILCA. Wilderness review - In this alternative, all but three acres of the refuge is proposed for wilderness designation. The use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas is governed by the Wilderness Act, ANILCA, and 50 CFR 35.5. Generally, motorized equipment is prohibited by the Wilderness Act. However, ANILCA makes exceptions for snow machines, motorboats, and airplanes in section 1110(a). Under 50 CFR 35.5 the Director of the Service is permitted to designate certain areas where other motorized equipment may be used where its use was established prior to the date the wilderness was established. 145 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Alternative A GW Intensive Management Minimal Management Private Land Proposed Wilderness Areas “TE ean3ty “Vy eat eussITV Section 811 of ANILCA allows for other means of traditional surface transportation for subsistence use. Service policy would allow chainsaws for subsistence use but no other equipment. Oil and gas leasing would not be allowed in wilderness areas. Oil and gas studies involving mechanized equipment would not be allowed unless conducted by or for a Department of the Interior agency under the provisions of section 1010 of ANILCA. Transportation or utility system route proposals would require Presidential concurrence and Congressional approval. Fire management - Wildfires and prescribed burns would be managed the same way as described for Alternative A Modified with one exception. Care would be taken to ensure that containment lines maintain a more natural appearance. No fire management officer would be needed. Fire management, including wildfires and prescribed burning, is described in the common management directions. Commercial use management - The management actions described for Alternative A Modified apply here as well. Wilderness designation would effect management as follows. Chainsaws and generators would not be permitted for nonsubsistence uses in the wilderness area. Until such time as the President acts on the wilderness proposal by forwarding his recommendation to Congress, geophysical studies may be allowed throughout the refuge subject to reasonable stipulations. After the presidential recommendation, geophysical studies involving mechanized equipment will not be allowed on the refuge unless conducted by or for a Department of the Interior agency under the provisions of section 1010 of ANILCA. Management costs - Annual operations and maintenance costs to fully implement Alternative A are estimated at $415,000 (in FY 1987 dollars). One time development costs are the same as for the current situation. Operating cost estimates are broken down as follows: salaries total $252,000; overhead totals $43,000; management programs total $120,000. To fully implement the common management directions (e.g., research and monitoring) and the management directions in Alternative A the budget for the refuge and fisheries programs would be 11% lower than in Alternative A Modified (the current situation), because a fire management officer would not be required. Alternative B This alternative places federal land in the northern end of the refuge under moderate management. Management of the southern area of the refuge will be managed similar to that described for Alternative A Modified. The Cheslina River drainage is proposed for wilderness designation. Management in the wilderness area would be identical to Alternative A. Restrictions are placed on the use of motorized equipment for nonsubsistence use, oil and gas studies and leasing, and the routing of transportation or utility systems. Alternative B emphasizes restoration of fish and wildlife populations to historic levels, and increasing opportunities for hunting, fishing, and trapping above existing levels in the northern third of the refuge. Continued public use would be allowed using existing access methods and routes. Interpretation and environmental education efforts would focus on sites off the refuge. 147 Alternative B has the following management directions in common with Alternative A Modified and would: Oo maintain traditional access; o provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education$3 © manage habitat through prescribed burning and wildfires. In addition Alternative B would: o emphasize restoration and maintenance of natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats}; reintroduce chum salmon and lake trout at two sites each; recommend 140,000 acres in the Cheslina Unit for wilderness designation; o allow compatible oil and gas studies in minimal, moderate, and intensive management areas and allow only oil and gas studies that do not utilize mechanized equipment in designated wilderness area} o not allow oil and gas leasing in minimal management and designated wilderness area and may allow oil and gas leasing subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatability determination in moderate and intensive management areas; provide for increased subsistence use of refuge resources} o provide increased opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. oo ° Figure 32 shows the distribution of management categories in Alternative B. Table 10 lists acreages and the proportion of the refuge placed in each category. Most of the refuge (94%) would be in the minimal management category; several townships (6%) at the north end would be in the moderate management category; 1403 acres along the Alaska Highway near the border and at Northway Junction would be under intensive management. Fish and wildlife management - Wildlife management actions described for Alternntive A Modified would also apply to this alternative. Fall chum salmon would be reintroduced at two sites in the Scottie Creek drainage and lake trout at two remote fly-in lakes in order to reestablish these species within their native range. Chum salmon would be reintroduced each year for a period of four years to selected stream sites. Annual introductions of chum salmon smolt or eggs would be necessary for the length of a typical chum salmon life cycle. Rainbow trout fingerlings would continue to be stocked in Hidden Lake as described in Alternative A Modified. Subsistence use management - Subsistence use would be managed in the same way under each alternative, as described in the section on common management directions to all alternatives. Reintroduction of chum salmon would eventually support a minor increase in subsistence use. By monitoring local and nonlocal use on the refuge, subsistence activities will be given priority in using the refuge's resources. 148 Figure 32. TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Alternative B Alternative B. ntensive Management oderate Management Minimal Management Private Land __| Proposed Wilderness Area “149 Miles Public use and access management - Table 8 generally describes how public use and access would be managed under Alternative B. Three new fishing access points with pull-offs and signs may be installed along the Alaska Highway to insure safety and legal access. The access points would be utilized for other recreational activities in addition to fishing. Off-site interpretation and environmental education levels would be similar to Alternative A Modified; a corridor along the northern refuge boundary would be the focus of most of the interpretation and environmental education program. This would involve displays, interpretive handouts, and signs. Visitor contact stations would display information in Tok and near the border. The Tok contact station would be unstaffed, the border contact station would be staffed, one shift per day, during the summer. Aircraft, motorboats, and snowmobiles would be allowed throughout the refuge for the pursuit of traditional acitvities, although some areas may be closed seasonally by the refuge manager to protect sensitive wildlife species (particularly swans). Access would be managed according to the provisions outlined in Titles XI and VIII of ANILCA. Wilderness review - Figure 32 shows the 140,000 acre Cheslina unit recommended for wilderness designation under Alternative B. Designation would depend on the approval of Congress. If wilderness designation is approved, the use of motorized equipment, oil and gas studies and leasing, and the routing of transportation or utility systems would be restricted. Motorized equipment would be prohibited but traditional means of access, such as snowmobiles, motorboats, and airplanes (ANILCA section 811), would be permitted. The use of motorized equipment in wilderness areas is governed by The Wilderness Act, ANILCA, and 50 CFR 35.5. Service policy would allow chainsaws for subsistence use but no other equipment. Oil and gas leasing would not be allowed in wilderness areas. Oil and gas studies involving mechanized equipment would not be allowed unless conducted by or for a Department of the Interior agency under the provisions of section 1010 of ANILCA. Transportation or utility system route proposals would require Presidential concurrence and Congressional approval. Fire management - Wildfire and prescribed burns would be managed as described for Alternative A Modified. Prescribed burning would be used as a management tool to increase carrying capacity in lowlands in the northern part of the refuge. A fire break would be developed through prescribed burning to protect inholdings in the northern area of the refuge. Two hundred acres a year would be burned by prescription in areas under moderate management, while wildfires and additional prescribed burning would be managed as in Alternative A Modified. Other fire management activities would be as described in the section on common management directions. Commercial use management - Wilderness areas will be managed the same as in Alternative A. Areas in minimal management will be managed the same as Alternative A Modified. In moderate and intensive management areas, oil and gas leasing may be permitted subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatability determination. There is low oil and gas potential so leasing is not expected. The assumptions in Alternative A Modified, that no mining would take place, also applies to this alternative. 150 Management costs - Annual operations and maintenance costs to fully implement Alternative B are estimated at $540,000 (in FY 1987 dollars). One time development costs are the same as for the current situation. Operating cost estimates are broken down as follows: salaries total $337,000; overhead totals $43,000; management programs total $160,000. To fully implement the common management directions (e.g., research and monitoring) and the management directions in Alternative B the budget for the refuge and fisheries programs would require a 16% increase over Alternative A Modified (the current situation). Most increases are due to the addition of two part-time biological technicians and the staff time equivalent of an additional half-time person from the fishery resources field station in Fairbanks. Alternative C (The Preferred Alternative) This alternative increases the moderate management area in Alternative B to include areas south of the major inholdings and along the Chisana River (Figure 33). The southern portion of the refuge would be in minimal Management. Fourteen hundred acres along the Alaska Highway near the border and three acres at Northway Junction already used as an administrative site would be under intensive management. Alternative C would increase the annual amount of fish and wildlife habitat Management over Alternative B through prescribed burning and more fisheries development projects, thereby increasing opportunities for fighing, hunting, and trapping. Continued public use of the refuge would be allowed using existing methods and routes and new and existing access points. Interpretation and environmental education efforts would focus on state waysides and on sites adjacent to the Alaska Highway. Alternative C has the following management directions in common with Alternative A Modified and would: Oo maintain traditional access; Oo recommend no areas for wilderness designation; o allow compatible oil and gas studies throughout the refuge; not allow oil and gas leasing in minimal management areas} 0 provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education; o manage habitat through prescribed burning and wildfires. In addition Alternative C would: o emphasize restoration of natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats to historic levels; o increase the annual amount of prescribed burning; 0 reintroduce chum salmon at six sites and lake trout at three sites; manage fisheries adjacent to the Alaska Highway using a stock, restore and maintain concept; o may allow oil and gas leasing subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatability determination in moderate and intensive management areas} 151 ° increase staffing of visitor contact station near the border; provide for increased subsistence monitoring and use of refuge resources3 oO provide increased opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. ° Figure 33 shows the distribution of management categories in Alternative C. Table 10 lists acreages and the proportion of the refuge placed in each category. The southern portion of the refuge (83% of the refuge) would remain in minimal management; most of the northern section (17%) would be in moderate management; 1,400 acres along the Alaska Highway near the border and three acres at Northway Junction would be intensively managed. Fish and wildlife management - Fish and wildlife would be managed according to the common management directions and Table 8. This alternative would increase the extent of wildlife habitat restoration over Alternative A Modified, with more highly managed prescribed burning in the northern half of the refuge, to create a "black line" to reduce fuel loads near private lands. Special fishing areas would be designated. Regulations to close six to eight trumpeter swan nesting lakes to aircraft landings during the summer nesting and rearing season would be developed through a special regulatory process which would include public comment. Opportunities for hunting, fishing, and trapping may be increased as a result of improved habitat but fisheries and wildlife populations will continue to be monitored to assure maintenance of healthy populations. Fall run chum salmon would be reintroduced into six sites in the Scottie Creek drainage and the Fish Camp Lake area. Lake trout would be reintroduced in three remote fly-in lakes in an attempt to restore populations within their native range. Fishery development for the purpose of creating a stock, restore and maintain fishery along the highway would take place in one other lake for lake trout and in two lakes for grayling. These fish populations would probally not be self-sustaining due to the fishing pressure they would be subjected to. Periodic stocking in the stock, restore, and maintain lakes would be expected to occur throughout the life of the plan. Portions of Mirror, Scottie, and Desper creeks would be considered for trophy management for grayling and northern pike. This means these waters would be managed by creel limits or other techniques to produce a continuing, sustainable supply of larger than average fish. Non-indigenous, fingerling rainbow trout would continue to be introduced into Hidden Lake to support a put, grow, and take fishery as in Alternative A Modified. (See the common management directions, fish and wildlife management, for a complete explanation of fishery management concepts.) Subsistence - Subsistence use would be managed the same way under each alternative, as described in the section on common management directions to all alternatives. The likelihood that improved access and increased fish and wildlife populations under this alternative would attract more recreational use has raised concerns with local residents dependent on subsistence activities. To address these concerns the Service will: 152 TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Alternative C (The Preferred Alternative) Mo Intensive Management 4 Moderate Management Minimal Management Private Land A fay a ld ull St. Elia: National Park and Pre "eg ean8ty “(@ATIBUIAITY pezzajzeig ay) D eat eUAAaITY oO continue to cooperate with Native landowners and villages within or adjacent to the refuge}; o© monitor recreational use on the refuge}; o develop programs to inform and educate recreational users about subsistence lifestyles and possible conflicts} o work with guides to resolve conflicts with subsistence use} o regulate non-subsistence access to areas with low subsistence use} O monitor subsistence activities as described in the common management directions. Public use and access management - Table 8 generally describes how public use and access would be managed under Alternative C. Visitor use would increase due to the increased public use program, expanded visitor center hours, increased fishing resulting from the fish stocking, and three new fishing access points. The access points would be utilized for other recreational activities in addition to fishing. This alternative has a greater emphasis than Alternative B on wildlife observation and interpretation as a result of a more active on-site interpretation and education program and increased public contact. In addition to the facilities offered in Alternative B, the visitor contact station near the border would be staffed for two shifts per day during the summer, and a short self-guiding interpretive trail would be developed. Aircraft, motorboats, and snowmobiles would be allowed throughout the refuge for traditional activities; although areas may be closed seasonally by the refuge manager to protect sensitive wildlife species (particularly swans). Access would be managed according to the provisions outlined in titles VIII and XI of ANILCA. Wilderness review - No wilderness is proposed under this alternative. Fire management - Fire management would be more extensive than in Alternative B. Prescribed burning would be used as a management tool to increase carrying capacity in lowlands in the northern part of the refuge. Four hundred acres a year would be burned by prescription in areas under moderate management, while wildfires and additional prescribed burning would be managed as in Alternative A Modified. A fuel break would be developed across the refuge through prescribed burning to protect inholdings in the northern area of the refuge. Fire management would be as described in the section on common management directions to all alternatives. Commercial use management - Guiding and transporting would be permitted under special use permits. Geophysical studies would be allowed throughout the refuge, subject to reasonable stipulations. Oil and gas leasing may be allowed in the moderate and intensive management areas subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatability determination. There is low oil and gas potential so leasing is not expected. Management costs - Annual operations and maintenance costs to fully implement Alternative C are estimated at $702,000 (in FY 1987 dollars). One time development costs increase $20,000 over the current situation to fund construction of a self-guided interpretive trail near the visitor contact station on the Alaska Highway. Operating cost estimates are broken down as follows: salaries total $397,000; overhead totals $59,000; management programs total $244,000. 154 To fully implement the common management directions (e.g., research and monitoring) and the management directions in Alternative C the budget for the refuge and fisheries programs would require about a 50% increase over Alternative A Modified (the current situation). Staff increases over Alternative AM are two additional part-time park technicians (total of four), two part-time biological technicians and the staff time equivalent of both a full and a half-time time person from the fishery resources field station in Fairbanks (total of 2.5). Alternative D This alternative places nearly all the major river corridors under moderate management. An area along the Alaska Highway near the border would be placed under intensive management as in Alternatives B and C. Alternative D would permit the maximum level of wildlife habitat manipulation compatible with refuge purposes. Opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other recreational uses would be greater than those in any of the previous alternatives. Continued public use of the refuge would be allowed using existing access methods and routes. Opportunities for non-consumptive use would increase as a result of an expanded interpretation and education program. Alternative D has the following management directions in common with Alternative A Modified: Oo maintain traditional access; o recommend no areas for wilderness designation}; o allow compatible oil and gas studies throughout the refuge; not allow oil and gas leasing in minimal management areas}; o provide off-site opportunities for interpretation and environmental education; In addition Alternative D would: o emphasize restoration of natural diversity and key fish and wildlife populations and habitats to historic levels; ° increase the annual amount of prescribed burning and use mechanical habitat manipulation in selected areas; o restore Chisana River Canada goose population; o may allow oil and gas leasing subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatability determination in moderate and intensive management areas} o increase fishery development programs over those described for Alternative C3; o increase staffing of visitor contact station near the border over the level described for Alternative C3; o possibly allow sand and gravel extraction in a limited area along the Alaska Highway. 155 Figure 34 shows the distribution of the management categories in Alternative D. Table 10 lists acreages and the proportion of the refuge placed in each category. The southern half of the refuge (69%) would remain under minimal management; much of the northern half (31% of the refuge) would be under moderate management; and nearly all the major river corridors (less than 1% of the refuge) would be under intensive management. Fish and wildlife management - Fish and wildlife would be managed according to the common management directions and Table 8. Alternative D would allow mechanical manipulation along river corridors to artificially maintain early successional stages for the benefit of wildlife. Water levels in river oxbows also may be manipulated, in cooperation with state agencies, to benefit waterfowl. Special regulations to close six to eight trumpeter swan nesting lakes to aircraft landings during the summer nesting and rearing season would be developed through a special regulatory process which would include public comment. Canada geese populations would be restored to historic levels on the Tanana and Chisana rivers and enhanced in other areas if reintroduction is found to be feasible. The building of small dams on oxbows in the Tanana River corridor would create ten to fifty acres of additional nesting habitat for waterfowl at each site (approximately 2,000 acres total). Opportunities for hunting, fishing, and trapping would be greater than those in Alternative C, but public use would have to be monitored and managed carefully in coordination with the state to maintain healthy populations at the new carrying capacity. Fall run chum salmon would be reintroduced into six sites in the Scottie Creek drainage and the Fish Camp Lake area as in Alternative C. Lake trout would be reintroduced in six remote fly-in lakes in an attempt to restore populations within their native range. Fisheries developement for the purpose of creating a stock, restore and maintain fishery along the highway would take place in six lakes for northern pike, six lake for grayling, and one lake for lake trout. These fish populations would probably not be self-sustaining due to the fising pressure they would be subjected to. Periodic stocking in the stock, restore, and maintain lakes would be expected to occur throughout the life of the plan. Portions of Mirror, Scottie, and Desper creeks will be considered for trophy management for grayling and northern pike. This means these waters would be managed by creel limits or other techniques to produce a continuing, sustainable supply of larger than average fish. Portions of Scottie and Desper creeks will be considered for management under the sustained yield concept. The purpose of this type of fishery is to provide opportunities to harvest fish. Stocking may be necessary. Non-indigenous, fingerling rainbow trout would be repeatedly introduced into Hidden Lake to support a put, grow, and take fishery as in Alternative A Modified. (See the common management directions, fish and wildlife management, for a complete explanation of fishery management concepts.) Subsistence use management - Subsistence use would be managed in the same way under each alternative, as described in the section on common management directions. In addition, the subsistence management actions described for Alternative C would apply to this alternative as well. By monitoring local and nonlocal use on the refuge, subsistence activities will be given priority in using the refuge's resources. 156 a ne SN Figure 34. Alternative D. TETLIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE a (~ _ > s x «£ 2 Public use and access management - Public use and access would be managed according to Table 8. As in Alternative C, visitor use would increase due to the increased public use program, expanded visitor contact station hours, increased fishing resulting from the fish stocking and fishing access points. The access points would be utilized for other recreational activities in addition to fishing. As in Alternative C, a larger interpretation and environmental education staff would increase the opportunities for non-consumptive recreation on the refuge over those offered by Alternative B. The visitor contact station near the border would be staffed for two shifts per day, during the summer and a short self-guiding interpretive trail would be developed. Aircraft, motorboats, and snowmobiles would be allowed throughout the refuge for the pursuit of traditional activities, although areas may be closed seasonally by the refuge manager to protect sensitive wildlife species (particularly swans). Access would be managed according to the provisions outlined in Titles VIII and XI of ANILCA. Campsites may be designated if needed to confine resource degradation to one area. Wilderness review - No wilderness is proposed under this alternative. Fire management - Extensive sections in the northern half of the refuge would be subject to rotational prescribed burning. In addition, 700 acres a year would be burned by prescription in the northern area of the refuge. As in Alternative C, a fire break across the refuge would be developed through prescribed burning. As in previous alternatives, fire management would aim for 7,500 acres of wildfire and prescription burning a year over the next ten years. Fire management would be as described in the common management directions section. Commercial use management - Guiding and transporting will be permitted under special use permits. An upland area between Tenmile and Desper creeks would be open to sand and gravel extraction by the Alaska Department of Transportation, provided that sand and gravel extraction is found to be compatible with refuge activities in the area. This area is within 1,000 feet of the highway but would be screened from view. Development would involve approximately 300 acres. The leasing would be subject to environmental stipulations as developed by the refuge manager. Geophysical studies would be allowed throughout the refuge, subject to reasonable stipulations. Oil and gas leasing may be allowed in the moderate and intensive management areas subject to an assessment of potential, a national interest determination, and a compatability determination. There is low oil and gas potential so leasing is not expected. Management costs - Annual operations and maintenance costs to fully implement Alternative D are estimated at $1,017,000 (in FY 1987 dollars). One time development costs increase $210,000 over the current situation to fund upgrading of Service facilities at Northway Junction to support the expanded Management and YCC programs. Additional interpretive signs are also proposed. Operating cost estimates are broken down as follows: salaries total $553,000; overhead totals $70,000; management programs total $394,000. 158 To fully implement the common management directions (e.g., research and monitoring) and the management directions in Alternative D the budget for the refuge and fisheries programs would require a 119% increase over Alternative A Modified (the current situation). Staff increases over Alternative AM are a biologist, four additional part-time biological technicians, five additional recreational technicians (total of seven), an additional clerk-typist, and the staff time equivalent of three full time people from the fishery resources field station in Fairbanks (total of four). The proposed level of management could also support a twelve person residential Youth Conservation Corps camp and approximately four volunteers. 159 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES INTRODUCTION This section identifies and compares the biological and socioeconomic impacts that would result from implementing each of the management alternatives on Tetlin Refuge. To provide a basis for assessing the alternatives, likely development activities on the refuge for the life of the plan (10-15 years) are described for each alternative. In all scenarios it is assumed that reasonable Management practices and the best available technology would be applied. Although certain activities permitted in the management alternatives could result in increased hunting pressure, all scenarios assume that regulation by the Alaska Board of Game would avoid excessive harvest. The Service's selection of a preferred alternative does not imply that all activities outlined in the scenarios would necessarily occur in the manner and to the extent specified. The scenarios are sets of reasonable assumptions on which the assessments are based. In the future more detailed site-specific environmental assessments would assess proposed projects and actions. Some of the assumptions such as population growth or actions of inholders or adjacent landowners would affect refuge resources but are not the result of Service actions or policies. Scenarios for Wilderness Evaluation Unlike the plan, wilderness recommendations for the refuge would not be reviewed every few years. It is a one time, long term decision. The consequences of designating or not designating wilderness must be evaluated over a longer time frame than the life of the plan. For this reason additional long term (more than 15 years) scenarios have been prepared to be considered along with the short term scenarios in wilderness evaluation. These scenarios are highly speculative since it is very difficult to make assumptions about the political, economic, technological, and social climate 20 or more years in the future. Definitions of Degree of Impact Because of the general nature of the assessment and the lack of numerical information on refuge resources, impacts are expressed in general terms. Changes resulting from implementation of the plan may be either beneficial or detrimental. The meanings of the terms used are as follows: For fish: o major impact - affecting a regional or resident population of a species sufficiently to cause a decline in abundance or a change in distribution beyond which natural recruitment would not likely return that population to its former level within several generations. 161 For ooo0oo For moderate impact - affecting a portion of a regional or resident population sufficiently to result in a change in abundance or distribution over more than one generation, but unlikely to affect the integrity of the regional population as a whole. minor impact - affecting a specific group of individuals of a population in a localized area for one generation or less} the integrity of the regional population is not likely to be affected. negligible impact - the degree of anticipated biological impact is considered less than minor. wildlife and human resources: major impact - an increase or decrease of more than 30% moderate impact - an increase or decrease of 15% to 30% minor impact - an increase or decrease of 5% to 15% negligible impact - an increase or decrease of 0% to 5% Short term impact - for wildlife species a change that persists less than five years from the onset of disturbance; for fish species a change that persists less than one year. Long term impact - for wildlife species a change that persists five or more years from the onset of disturbance; for fish species a change that persists more than one year; for wilderness impacts a change that persists for more than the life of the plan (10 to 15 years). water quality: Major impact - extensive changes in the physical, chemical, or biological parameters of a waterbody, on the level of several orders of magnitude, to a degree that renders the waterbody unacceptable for use by humans or fish and wildlife species, creates a health hazard, or otherwise impairs the beneficial uses of the waterbody. Moderate impact - a statistically significant change in the the physical, chemical, or biological parameters of a waterbody that cannot be overcome without human caused corrective measures. Minor impact - a change in some or all of the normal measures of water quality, such as oxygen content, temperature, transmittance, trace metal concentrations, and hydrocarbon levels, but the change is either not statistically different from ambient conditions or the change deviates significantly but can be readily overcome by the waterbody's natural withstanding capacity. Short term impact - a change that persists for one year or less. Long term impact - a change that persists for more than one year. 162 Differences in the type of change we expect are discussed in each assessment. When duration and extent of change are not specified, the change is expected to last throughout the planning period (ten years) and to affect the entire refuge. Definition of Burns Wildfires are normally started by lightning. The current fire policy, as stated in the Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan for the Fortymile Planning Area, allows wildfires to burn naturally in the southern half of the refuge, except where they have the potential to encroach on private property. A wildfire also can be controlled if the refuge manager decides this would benefit fish and wildlife habitat. In the northern part of the refuge, wildfires would be suppressed promptly to protect private property. Prescribed burns are ignited intentionally to cause specific alterations in land cover. Prescribed burning is used to create firebreaks for protection of critical areas against wildfire and to improve wildlife habitat. To produce the best results, location, vegetation, soil, and weather must be carefully selected. This assessment considers the effects of prescribed burning on refuge resources and the effects of restricting wildfire to a selected acreage per year. We do not assess the effect of letting wildfires burn in the southern part of the refuge or of suppressing fires in the northern part, as these policies were made independent of this plan. ALTERNATIVE A MODIFIED (THE CURRENT SITUATION) Scenario for the Life of the Plan (10-15 years) Very little habitat change would take place in this alternative, except as a result of fire. As outlined in the Fortymile Interagency Fire Management Plan, wildfires would be permitted to burn, primarily in the southern two-thirds of the refuge, if human life and property are not endangered. However, since the refuge is predominantly covered by mature spruce woodland and open forest, it is susceptible to large, uncontrollable fires, such as the Kennebec fire in 1982 which burned 43,000 acres. Wildfires may need to be managed in order to insure an adequate variety of habitats. Until a more varied vegetative mosaic is achieved, wildfires would be allowed to burn an average of 6,900 acres each year for the life of the plan. The goal for a ten year period would be a total of 75,000 acres burned by wildfire and the prescribed burning described below. This amount of burning would restore a 100 year fire cycle to the refuge. In this and all alternatives, 450 acres a year would be burned in one block to form a "blackline" firebreak to protect Northway and private lands in the north end of the refuge from wildfires on the south end. When completed, 20 years from now, the firebreak would be approximately 13 miles long and would average one mile in width. The line would extend from Ten Mile Hill on the east to the mouth of the Cheslina River on the west. To ensure that 163 vegetation on the line does not regrow to the point where the line loses its effectiveness, it would either be reburned on a 20 year cycle or adjacent areas would be burned creating a new line. In addition to the blackline, 200 other acres would be burned per year to improve the distribution of habitat types and reduce hazardous fuel build-up. This burning would take place on the north end of the refuge. Prescribed burns for habitat improvement would be done in small units averaging 80 acres without the use of mechanized crushers or tracked vehicles. Fish and wildlife management would be confined primarily to managing harvests and populations by recommending seasons and bag limits to ADF&G. This scenario assumes ADF&G would take a conservative approach in managing subsistence and sport moose hunting. Illegal moose harvest would decline over the life of the plan as law enforcement techniques improve and the refuge becomes more established. Fish and wildlife monitoring would continue according to the directions established in the Inventory Plan for Tetlin Refuge (USFWS 1987). Fisheries would continue to be managed under the wild concept which means that harvest would be totally supported by natural reproduction with no supplemental stocking. The exception is Hidden Lake which would be repeatedly stocked with non-indigenous, fingerling rainbow trout to support a put, grow, and take fishery. (See the common management directions, fish and wildlife management, for a complete explanation of fishery management concepts.) No commercial fishing is expected to occur on the refuge. Although various types of geological and geophysical studies may be permitted, none are expected under this scenario since information currently available indicates low oil and gas potential. Oil and gas leasing would not be permitted. No mining is expected on the refuge since it is closed to further claim activity. The four existing claims on the refuge have not been examined for validity. No mining is anticipated on these claims since they are located in an area which U.S.G.S. has determined has low mineral value (Richter et al. 1975b). Three claims upstream from the refuge in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve would probably be mined during the life of the plan. The claim in the White Mountain area of the Nabesna drainage is a gold leaching operation on existing mine tailings. The two claims in the Chisana drainage are placer gold operations. Activities on these claims are subject to a plan of operations which must be approved by the National Park Service. It is expected that these plans of operations would contain stipulations to protect refuge water quality. There is little or no potential for other operations upstream from the refuge (Kit Mullen, National Park Service, pers. comm., 1987). No roads would be developed on the refuge. Although inholders are entitled to reasonable access by section 1110(b) of ANILCA, the Natives and Native corporations holding land within the refuge have expressed no interest in road development. People at the village meetings were opposed to road development 164 on the refuge. The Doyon, Ltd. holdings within the refuge have little potential for economic uses which would require road access. Oil, gas, and mineral potential is low in the area, and firewood and houselogs are cut much closer to Northway. No utility corridors would be developed on the refuge since these needs would be most efficiently met in the existing corridor along the highway. Of the 26,000 visits to the refuge in 1986, 90% of them were for sightseeing, photography, wildlife viewing, camping, and picnicking along the Alaska Highway and at the state waysides. These facilities are on the highway right-of-way or Bureau of Land Management land, not on the refuge. Very few of these visitors actually get on the refuge. They utilize refuge resources in a passive manner by enjoying the view, studying the interpretive displays, and photographing the refuge. On-refuge visits were for fishing, waterfowl hunting, moose hunting, trapping, and river floating. Of the 2,600 on-refuge visits per year, 80% are considered subsistence activities because they involve harvest activities by local residents. By the end of the planning period, refuge visits would have doubled to about 52,000 visits per year, 90% of which would not be actually on the refuge but along the highway, at the visitor contact station, and at the waysides. On-refuge visits would total 5,200 per year. Public use would increase for the following reasons. 1) The refuge is adjacent to the Alaska Highway making it one of only two wildlife refuges in Alaska with road access. Use of the Alaska Highway is expected to grow by 5% per year from the current level of 160,000 travelers (Louis Berger and Assoc. 1982). 2) Under all alternatives, a visitor contact station would be constructed on the highway near the border, interpretive displays would be developed at waysides along the Alaska Highway, participation in the Tok interagency visitor center would continue and increase, interpretive materials would be available at the refuge office, and refuge staff would continue participation in school environmental programs. These facilities and services would increase public awareness of the refuge. 3) Local population is expected to increase 89%, 1,112 residents, by the year 2000. Subsistence use is expected to increase as the local population increases. However, all but 50 of the new residents would live in Tok (Table 4). Tok residents primarily hunt waterfowl and fish on the refuge. Northway residents use the refuge more, but Northway's population is expected to stabilize or decline slightly. Overall subsistence use of waterfowl and fish would increase about 30% over the life of the plan. Subsistence moose hunting, small game hunting, and trapping would increase five percent. Firewood and houselogs are mainly cut on private lands not refuge lands, and this is not expected to change. The public use program would be staffed by a temporary outdoor recreation planner, two seasonal park technicians to work at the visitor contact station, two public use volunteers to work at the visitor contact station, and one Youth Conservation Corp employee to help with recreation maintenance and 165 improvements. The visitor contact station at the border would be opened in the fall of 1988. During the summer season it would be open five days a week for eight hours a day. No facilities or trails would be developed directly on the refuge. The visitor contact station would be built on land currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management. Scenario for Long Term (more than 15 years) Wilderness Impacts The refuge would be managed on a 100 year fire cycle through wildfires and a limited amount of prescribed burning. The blackline firebreak would be abandoned after the first 20 year cycle as more sophisticated fire fighting methods would be available to protect Northway and the private lands. Improved biological inventories and knowledge would help establish the regulations and management practices necessary to maintain the refuge's fish and wildlife populations in spite of increasing recreational and subsistence use and conflicts. Habitat loss on surrounding lands would decrease regional wildlife populations. No oil and gas studies or leasing would occur since the potential is low. No mining would occur on the refuge since it is closed to claim activity and the four existing claims are in an area of low potential as discussed in the short range scenario. No additional mines other than those discussed in the short range scenario would be developed upstream from the refuge due to low potential, and the closure of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve to further claim activity. No roads would be developed on federal land within the refuge since land ownership would have been blocked up through land trades. The Native corporations would have retained ownership of parcels on the periphery of the refuge adjacent to the Alaska Highway, and some roads would be built on those parcels. No utility corridors would be developed on the refuge since these needs would be most efficiently met in the existing corridor along the highway. Public use would continue to increase as use of the Alaska Highway increases and the local population grows. The rate of increase would be less than the current rate once the refuge was fully established and the visitor contact station completed. Refuge use would double every 20 to 25 years. Lodges and campgrounds would be developed on private land to deal with the demand. Use would increase for river floating, bird watching, sightseeing, photography, camping, and fishing. Hunting would level out after 15 years as the demand for moose, bear, and sheep would exceed the biological capacity of the refuge to produce these animals. Biological Impacts of Alternative A Modified Fish - Burning at least 200 acres and up to 7,500 acres each year could have a moderate negative impact on local fish populations if the fires are near streams. Fires along a stream may temporarily expose the bank and reduce its stability, causing erosion, movement of sediment, severe stream braiding and increased water velocity. Spawning gravels and eggs already deposited may 166 be buried under sediment. Fish may not spawn in areas of unsuitable substrate, high velocity, and turbidity. Aquatic invertebrates may be buried by sediment or carried downstream by fast-moving water, making them unavailable as a food source. The impact of fire on fish populations would be short term and extremely localized, and would not affect refuge fish populations or species diversity as a whole. The increase in recreational and subsistence fishing would have a minor impact on most fish populations. Major impacts could occur on populations inhabiting streams and lakes accessible to the highway, Scottie Creek, Desper Creek, and the lower Kalutna River. Waterfowl - An increase of less than 15% in waterfowl density and production would be expected as a result of wildfires and prescribed burning, based on limited information. Nutrients leached from ashes of burned terrestrial vegetation are likely to enrich the water of neighboring rivers and ponds, and stands of aquatic vegetation may be thinned (Kantrud 1986). Grasses, aquatic vegetation, and invertebrates may be more abundant for several growing seasons thereafter, providing more food and cover for ducks. Fires in the dry months of late summer and fall are most likely to be beneficial to wetlands, as dry emergent vegetation burns readily and when water levels are low, peaty mud in the bottom of ponds may burn. Nutrients from these materials are then recycled. Autumn fires have the least direct impact on waterfowl. If nesting habitat or cover are burned in spring or summer, they are not usable until the following spring, and nests or broods may also be destroyed by fires during the breeding season. The increase in duck production in burned areas would be from 5 to 30%. Since an estimated 10% of the refuge would be burned over the next ten years, the total increase in waterfowl population would be minor. Any loss of nests in fires would be localized, and minor in comparison to the population as a whole, and would be compensated for by increased productivity. The benefit to waterfowl from burning is hard to predict because such factors as predator population growth are uncertain. The effect of fire on swans might be similar to that on ducks, as enrichment of emergent vegetation would enhance food and nesting habitat. At present there is not enough data to be certain of the effect on swans. Canada geese might gain a benefit of less than 15% for a few years following a fire in their small range, through an increase in the short grasses favored for grazing. The impact of wildfire would be minimal if very few natural fires occur during the planning period. A large impact is unlikely, since very extensive wildfires would be suppressed. The increases in subsistence and sport waterfowl hunting would not have a minor effect on the populations of Tetlin Refuge. Many of the birds harvested would be migrating from other areas. Also, birds which nest on the refuge are subject to harvest throughout the flyway. 167 If increased recreational use results in boaters frequently visiting lower portions of Scottie and Desper creeks or the Chisana River they could disturb the Canada geese nesting there. As a significant part of their breeding range on the refuge is in that area, goose productivity could be reduced by less than 15%. River use would be monitored and, if necessary, controlled during the breeding season. Cranes - Wildfire would not be allowed to burn in the northern part of the refuge which cranes occupy so there would be no impact. Prescribed burns in the forest and tall scrub of the northwest corner of the refuge would not alter the open meadows and dwarf scrub required by cranes. Cranes could suffer minor disturbance if public activity increased in the northern portion of the refuge. Fishing access or environmental education tours in this area could disturb roosting sites (Kessel 1979), so these activities would not be allowed within a half-mile of crane roosting sites during the autumn Migration. Boating could be restricted similarly on the Gardiner Creek Flats when cranes roost in that area. Other aquatic birds - An increase of less than 15% in the number of loons and grebes would be likely where fires have enhanced aquatic productivity. Shorebirds, gulls, and terns could benefit from increased productivity of invertebrates and fish and the short term opening of shoreline habitat by removal of dense vegetation. Trees are important to several species. Bonaparte's gulls, which nest in spruce, would be adversely affected to a minor extent if spruce trees burned. Birds that eat fish including loons, grebes, and terns, could experience minor short-term difficulties in finding food if sediment in the water increases after a fire, thereby reducing the visibility of their prey. Raptors - The impact on ospreys should be negligible since a small amount of their habitat would be subject to wildfire. Bald eagles would probably experience an increase of less than 15% in prey such as ducks and hares as a result of fire. Nest trees of eagles and ospreys would be abandoned during prescribed burning. Destruction by wildfire of an entire stand of large trees that included a nest tree could have a minor, short-term negative impact of 15% on the breeding population of bald eagles, although if it's early enough in the year an alternative nesting site would be used. Eagles that lose a nest would breed the next year, selecting a pre-existing nest platform or building a new one. Hawks and owls would benefit from an increase in their prey, hares and small rodents, two to twenty years after a fire (see the section on these species). Nesting of some species could be reduced in local areas if large trees suitable for nests are burned, but this would probably be compensated for in the population as a whole by the increased density of prey. If boaters on Desper Creek reached the Chisana River frequently enough, they could disturb bald eagles nesting in the vicinity with a minor detrimental impact on breeding on the refuge as a whole; success of any active nests would be monitored and control measures taken if necessary. Increased fishing on lakes along the highway could disturb bald eagles or ospreys nesting nearby, so fisheries development or marked access would not be provided closer than a half mile to such a nest. This alternative would have no impact on peregrine falcons using Tetlin Refuge. 168 Other birds - In some places diversity of other birds species has increased after a fire particularly if small burns over a number of years create a mosaic of habitats (Fox 1985); in other cases diversity has decreased in the early stages after a fire (Refuge files). The habitat types that support the greatest bird density and diversity are mature mixed forest and tall scrub (Spindler and Kessel 1980; Fox 1985). These now comprise a small proportion of refuge land cover but would be increased by fire. Numerous species dependant on these habitats and other successional types would benefit the most, such as willow ptarmigan, ruffed and sharptailed grouse, alder flycatcher, American robin, hermit thrush, yellow and orange-crowned warblers, and white-crowned sparrow. Birds of the coniferous forest and woodland, such as spruce grouse, northern three-toed woodpecker, gray jay, varied thrush, Townsend's warbler, and boreal chickadee would decrease less than 15%. A few species, such as the black-backed woodpecker, which exploit fire-killed trees, would undergo an increase of more than 30% immediately after fire (E.C. Murphy, pers. comm., 1985). Caribou - Alternative A Modified is expected to have no impact on caribou. Numbers on the refuge in winter have been small for most of this century but have increased consistently in the past few years. Fire could render up to 10% of the refuge's coniferous forest unusable by caribou during the planning period. The remaining forest probably could support higher densities of this species than at present, but habitat could become limiting in the future if numbers continue to increase. Other habitats would be unaffected or would increase in productivity. Moose - Fire is expected to improve habitat for moose, particularly browse used during the critical winter months. Favored winter foods - willows and young deciduous trees between three and fifteen feet high - are in short supply on Tetlin Refuge due largely to effective suppression of fire in the past three decades. Cover types such as tall deciduous scrub, mixed and deciduous forest, white spruce, and black spruce forest on less boggy sites would regenerate after fire to young deciduous scrub and saplings. The new deciduous scrub would provide better browse for moose, due to its more rapid growth. Spruce, which is not usable by moose as browse, is killed by fires and regenerates more slowly than deciduous plants, although on boggy sites black spruce may grow back without a deciduous stage. The effectiveness of wildfire in enhancing moose browse cannot be predicted closely, because it varies according to the type of vegetation burned, the season of the fire, and how hot it is. However, five years after a fire, one burned area in Alaska can produce four times more moose browse than before the fire (Nelson and Weixelman 1983). Since not all cover types produce good browse after burning, an improvement of three times is estimated for Tetlin. Production continues to increase for ten to thirty years after a fire. Areas chosen for prescribed burning (three percent of the total proposed burn area) would favor regeneration of deciduous scrub so as to maximize browse production for moose. Habitat improvement due to the small amount of prescribed burning would be negligible. 169 Since only 10% of the refuge would be burned by wildfire or prescribed burning during the planning period, the increase in the carrying capacity for moose would be less than 15%. In the decade after this planning period, with continued growth of vegetation and additional fires, overall browse improvement could be more than 30%, depending on the number of fires and their characteristics. Moose response to new browse cannot be predicted exactly, because this species is often reluctant to move into new areas until several years after the food supply improves. During the planning period, moose productivity may increase no more than 15%. Over the long term, the population may increase significantly as the enhanced range is used, if other factors such as weather and predation don't limit the population growth. A few more moose may be harvested on the refuge than at present, due to the increased number of moose available. Because the current harvest is very low, on the order of ten to fifteen moose yearly, a 30% increase would have no effect on the population. A major influx of hunters is not expected, as the increase in moose would not be significant, and it would occur largely in the inaccessible southern part of the refuge. Dall sheep - Alternative A Modified would have a no impact on sheep. Grizzly bear - The effect of this alternative would be negligible. Fires would probably result in a slight increase in the production of berries needed by bear in the fall, but these dwarf shrub communities already cover extensive areas on the refuge. If grizzlies prey to a significant extent on moose calves, which is not known, the increase in moose production following fires could constitute a minor increase in the summer food supply of bear. Conflicts between recreationists and grizzly bear may increase as float trips increase on refuge streams such as the Nabesna River. Grizzly bear frequent gravel bars on the Nabesna and other rivers in spring, where they seek plant tubers before other succulent foods become available. Conflicts could be minimized by limiting the number of float trips early in the season. Black bear - The population of this species could undergo an increase of less than 15% under Alternative A Modified. Habitat may improve slightly as a result of fire, through an increase in open wetland areas with grasses and emergent vegetation. In addition, there would probably be a 5 to 30% increase in the black bear population through the indirect influence of hunting. Bear currently are taken in small numbers incidental to moose hunting. An increase in moose hunting would also raise the number of bear killed. This harvest is likely to include some adult males in the prime of life. Adult males are aggressive towards females and young males and tend to suppress the number of subadults. Any significant reduction in the number of old males may therefore allow the rest of the population to increase, especially young males (Young and Ruff 1982). However, no studies have been done to document the current age class structure of the present population. Furbearers - Some furbearers would benefit from the fire regime proposed for Alternative A Modified. This assessment is based on the maximum yearly average that would be allowed to burn. 170 Fox are likely to undergo a short term 5 to 15% increase. They prey on ducks and hare, which would be enhanced in some places and years, and on mice and voles, which undergo a local increase of 30% after almost any fire. Muskrat may benefit to a minor extent where aquatic vegetation is stimulated by burning. Trapping of this species could increase if more local people take advantage of the fall harvest. This can temporarily cause 15 to 30% population declines in local areas, but the impact on the refuge population would be beneficial in the long term. Lynx may undergo a 5 to 30% increase 15 to 20 years after a fire due to improvement in scrub habitat for hares (Parker et al. 1983). The response by lynx to habitat changes is difficult to predict, however, because they depend on hares. Hare populations are cyclic and tend to be very high or low in some years independent of the habitat. Marten populations might suffer a 5 to 15% decrease during the planning period. In the long term, marten habitat probably would improve. Marten depend primarily on mature spruce forest, but thrive best where trees are adjacent to meadow or scrub, since prey are most abundant along the edges (Koehler and Hornocker 19773 Wolff and Lidicker 19803; Buskirk 1983). Fire destroys marten habitat because some spruce forest is lost, but the value of the remaining forest is increased along the edges of the new openings. Habitat tends to be improved by fire more in moist lowlands then on hills (Stephenson 1984). Small fires or fires that leave islands of unburned forest could bring a net benefit to marten in two to five years. Large fires, however, would be likely to destroy more habitat than they improve during the planning period. Beaver probably would not be significantly affected by this alternative, since their populations are low in most of the refuge. Deciduous trees and scrub, which provide most of their food, are now sparse along most lakes and streams. Ten years after a fire, forage would improve significantly (Stephenson 1984). However, other factors may be limiting beaver numbers on the refuge. The high beaver population along Scottie and Desper creeks would not be affected by this alternative. Wolf populations would benefit 5 to 15% by the increase in prey (small mammals and moose) due to fire. Other furbearer populations would not be affected by this alternative. Small mammals - Shrub habitat for snowshoe hares could expand following fire. The hare population could undergo a 15 to 30% increase as a result of improved cover and food production about fifteen to twenty years after a fire (Parker et al. 1983). Populations are cyclic however, and would be low in some years regardless of habitat and carrying capacity. Mice and voles are killed by fire, but repopulate burned areas rapidly (USFS 1978; West 1982). Populations would Likely undergo an increase of more than 30% in the first few years following a fire when food plants such as grasses, sedges, and forbs are abundant. Rapid increases occur in moist, but not boggy, lowlands where grass and dwarf shrubs regenerate most vigorously, if patches of unburned forest and other vegetation provide starting points for recolonizing rodents (West 1982). Small mammals would increase 5 to 15% over the refuge as a whole. Red squirrels would be low or absent in burned areas for at least 25 years (Stephenson 1984). 171 Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative A Modified Cultural resources - People using refuge lands for a variety of purposes may cause some damage to sites, intentionally or unintentionally, and some sites may be damaged by or lost to natural forces. However, these are both low-level risks. Prescribed burning under this alternative raises the possibility of damage to some cultural resources, particularly historic sites with above ground remains. This risk can be minimized or eliminated by pre-project inventory and avoidance of any identified sites. Overall, the impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be negligible. Population - Alternative A Modified would have no significant effect on the number of people living in local communities. Local populations would grow for reasons which have nothing to do with the refuge. The refuge would be managed as it is now, with additional emphasis on environmental education. Economy - Independent of the selected alternative, there would be a 5 to 15% benefit to the local economy due to increased recreational use. Expenditures for gas, food, lodging, and guide services would provide some economic stimulation but probably no new jobs. Trapping incomes may increase as a result of expanding furbearer populations, but this would not have a significant impact on the study area as a whole. Recreation Nonconsumptive recreation and environmental education - Independent of the alternative selected, a 100% increase in nonconsumptive recreational use would occur mainly off the refuge. Most of the increase would be in environmental education, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, and photography opportunities for tourists on the highway. The nature of public contacts would change from incidental contacts with visitors coming to the Tok office for information, to active contacts at the visitor contact station, along the highway, at the interagency information center, and in the office. Refuge-sponsored environmental education activities in the schools would increase by 5 to 15%. On-refuge activities including photography, boating, hiking, and camping would also double although the total number of visitors would still be low. Hunting - The current management program, particularly fire Management, probably would increase moose populations and thereby increase hunter success and harvest 30% over the next ten years, to three to five moose harvested a year. By the end of the planning period, the number of moose hunters could increase by approximately 10%. The actual number of hunters would be low even though the percentage increase is high due to the very low level of moose hunting that now exists. Habitat improvement as a result of the fire management program could increase the black bear population and harvest by as much as 30% over the next ten years. By the end of the planning period, recreational hunting could increase by approximately 10%. Alternative A Modified would have a minor impact on moose and black bear hunting and no impact on hunting of grizzly bear, sheep, or waterfowl. 172 Fishing - Sport fishing would double independent of this alternative. Impacts of the Wilderness Proposal for Alternative A Modified In this alternative, none of the refuge would be proposed for wilderness designation. The impacts of nondesignation are evaluated for the three significant wilderness issues; impacts on wilderness values, impacts on fire management, and impacts on wildlife habitat manipulation. Wilderness values Naturalness - The only activity on the refuge which could affect naturalness during the life of the plan is fire management. Wildfires which would be allowed to burn would not affect naturalness since they are a natural part of the ecosystem. Suppression activities may affect naturalness should they be necessary to control fires which threaten private property on the north end of the refuge or get too large. Fire lines when built by machines are usually straight and about 75 feet wide. They are very visible from the air for up to 100 years. On the ground, they are visible in the immediate vicinity for 5 to 50 years depending on the type of habitat burned. Vegetation grows up over the stumps in a few years, but the straight line of adjacent vegetation is visible. Fire camps which require clearing up to five acres can also be visible. Wildfires would only be allowed to burn ten percent of the refuge in a ten year period, and some of these fires would not require lines. Also lines would not affect the naturalness of the entire burned area. Consequently, naturalness would be affected on less than five percent of the refuge. Prescribed burns for habitat improvement and the blackline would be controlled by hand lines several feet in width. These lines would resemble trails and would have little effect on naturalness. The burns would be small, 450 acres for the blackline and 80 acres average for the habitat burns. Within a few years these burns would appear completely natural due to natural revegetation. Over the long term, wildfire containment would probably involve less machine built line as fire control techniques become more sophisticated. The cumulative impacts of fire suppression activities would peak after 20 years with less than ten percent of the refuge affected. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, impacts on naturalness due to fire suppression activities would involve less than five percent of the refuge. Over the long term, fire suppression would have less effect on naturalness as control techniques improve. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - The increase in visitor use projected in the scenario for the life of the plan would have a negligible negative impact on overall opportunities for solitude. Ninety percent of refuge visits would occur at the visitor contact station near the border, the state waysides, and the six pull-outs along the highway. None of these facilities are even on refuge land since the boundary is 300 feet off the highway. Of the 5,200 visits that would actually occur on the refuge by the 173 end of the planning period, at least half would be for fishing, hunting, bird watching and sightseeing within one mile of the highway. Solitude opportunities would decline in this area particularly along fishing streams and lakes. Although use would increase in the interior of the refuge along the Cheslina, Chisana, and Nabesna rivers and on the large lakes accessible by float plane, these areas are large enough to provide solitude opportunities to Many more visitors. Over the long term, opportunities for solitude would continue to decline near the highway particularly in the Desper and Scottie creek areas. Parties on the major rivers and the larger lakes such as Pickerel, Jatahmund, and Fern would be likely to encounter other parties. On the remainder of the refuge opportunities for solitude would be unaffected. Conclusion - During the life of the plan opportunities for solitude would not be affected except within one mile of the Alaska Highway. Over the long term, solitude would decline near the highway and to a lesser extent on the major interior rivers and large float plane lakes. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - Increased interpretive information available at the new visitor contact station and the highway pull-offs would improve recreational experiences for refuge visitors. It would also lead to the increase in visitor use described in the scenario. Wildfires and prescribed burns would create blackened, unattractive areas which would not have recreational value for a few years after burning. About one percent of the refuge per year would be burned, but the remainder of the refuge would be unaffected. As the areas revegetate, recreational values in the immediate vicinities may increase above their original state since more wildlife would be attracted to the burns. Moose populations would begin to increase by the end of the planning period, but not enough to attract more hunters. Over the long term, recreational users would face increased competition in the areas near the highway. The quality of activities in that area would decline particularly for fishing. Increased competition among hunters throughout the refuge would lead to decreased success rates or hunts which would be limited by permits, length of season, or other measures. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for primitive recreation would have improved throughout the refuge due to increased visitor information except on recent burns where opportunities would have declined. Over the long term, opportunities for fishing would decline near the highway and for hunting throughout the refuge due to increased competition. Special features - The special features on this refuge are eight national resource species - trumpeter swan, lesser Canada goose, white-fronted goose, mallard, canvasback, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and sandhill crane} osprey; bird species not found elsewhere in Alaska; the fossils of the limestone cliffs and spires of the Cheslina River drainage; and the sand dunes of the Tanana Valley. 174 During the life of the plan, fire may have a positive impact of less than five percent on populations of the five species of waterfowl which are National Resource species. Wetlands would become more productive as nutrients from the ashes are leached into the water. Fire would have no impact on peregrine falcon, osprey, and sandhill crane but would increase the prey species of bald eagles. Other bird species would benefit from fire as it increased habitat diversity. (For supporting analysis see the discussion under biological impacts of Alternative A Modified.) The long term impacts of fire would be similar to the short term impacts. Bird diversity would continue to increase as habitat diversity increased reaching its maximum 100 years from now when burning of the entire refuge would be completed. During the life of the plan, the doubling of recreational use on Scottie and Desper creeks and the Chisana River could disturb nesting Canada geese. Goose productivity could be reduced ten percent since a significant part of their breeding range is in that area. Trumpeter swan nesting could be negatively impacted on the larger lakes accessible to float planes as this use increases. Over the long term, these impacts would intensify as recreational use continues to grow. Nothing would affect either the fossils or the sand dunes during the life of the plan or the long term. No surface disturbing activities would occur on the refuge. Conclusion - During the life of the plan and the long term, burning may have a minor positive impact on bird species. Increased recreational use would have a negative impact on Canada geese and trumpeter swans during the life of the plan and the long term. Nothing would affect the fossils or the sand dunes. Fire management Fire management activities proposed for this alternative are allowing 6,900 acres of wildfire to burn per year, suppressing wildfires which are too large to benefit habitat diversity or in an area where they pose a danger to people or property$ burning 450 acres per year across the center of the refuge to create a "blackline"; and burning 200 acres per year in small patches averaging 80 acres to benefit habitat diversity. These activities are not affected by the lack of a wilderness designation except that there are less constraints on fighting wildfire. Fire bosses need not be concerned with the appearance of fire lines. This may save money. Conclusion - The lack of a wilderness designation has no impact on fire management except that fighting wildfires may be somewhat less expensive than in a wilderness area. Habitat manipulation No habitat manipulation activities are proposed in this alternative. Conclusion - The lack of a wilderness designation would have no impact on habitat manipulation. 175 Subsistence/Section 810 Evaluation and Finding Evaluation - This section examines the impacts on subsistence resulting from enactment of Alternative A Modified. It also conforms to guidelines recommended by the Alaska Land Use Council and guidelines of the Department of the Interior for complying with section 810 of ANILCA. Similar evaluations and findings are included for each alternative. Of the five alternatives considered, this alternative and Alternative A would have the least impact on subsistence harvests since it does the least to increase public use of the refuge. However, use by local and nonlocal people would increase independent of the alternative selected. Population growth in the local area, mainly in Tok, would result in minor to moderate increases in subsistence fishing and waterfowl hunting. Competition for fish would increase in areas accessible from the highway and the lower Kalutna River. Fish populations should be able to sustain this increased pressure. Since waterfowl are abundant, hunting opportunities should not decline. Nearly all of the refuge is already divided into traplines, so there are few opportunities for new trappers. This alternative also involves less habitat manipulation, and thus does not increase the size of harvestable populations as much as the other alternatives. The harvest of moose by local residents could increase with a rise in moose populations. As black bear often are hunted in conjunction with moose, their harvest by local residents could also increase. This alternative would have no effect on the caribou, sheep, or grizzly bear populations or on their harvest by local residents. It would have some impact on waterfowl populations, but populations are already abundant. Enhanced furbearer populations would possibly result in an increased take by local residents. Fish populations would not increase. Availability of other lands - Section 810 requires considering the availability of other lands and other alternatives in evaluating the effect of each alternative on subsistence use. This document is a refuge plan by definition and addresses the general suitability of a broad range of activities for refuge lands. Thus although there may be other lands available for the uses considered, lands outside of the refuge are not considered because they are beyond the scope of this plan. Habitat management undertaken in this alternative is minimal and focuses on allowing wildfires to burn in the southern section of the refuge to create a natural mix of vegetation age classes. Fire is the cheapest and most thorough means of altering large areas. The land involved is the only land owned by the Service within Tetlin Refuge where human life and property would not be endangered by wildfire. There are no other lands within the refuge boundary which can be manipulated to such an extent at such a low cost. Other Alternatives - Of the five alternatives developed for Tetlin Refuge, Alternative A Modified would do the least to change the current situation and would have the smallest impact on present subsistence use. 176 Other management actions were considered but rejected because they would be detrimental to subsistence use on the refuge or would be too costly. One management alternative designed to enhance public use called for specification of canoe trails, backpacking trails, and campsites in remote areas of the refuge. It was decided that refuge purposes and minimizing conflicts with subsistence use of the refuge would best be served by concentrating public use enhancement efforts on areas adjacent to the highway. Finding - Based on the above evaluation the net effect of this alternative should be a minor increase in harvest of resources by local residents. The fire management program would increase the number of furbearers and moose available. Competition for resources from nonlocals would increase but would be at its lowest level relative to the other alternatives. Thus, the Service concludes that Alternative A Modified would enhance subsistence use of the refuge to a minor extent. ALTERNATIVE A Scenario for the Life of the Plan (10-15 years) All of the refuge except for the existing three acre administrative site at Northway is proposed for wilderness under this alternative. This scenario assumes Congress approves the recommendation and designates the refuge as wilderness. Management of the refuge would be subject to the provisions of the Wilderness Act as amended by ANILCA. Wilderness management policy prohibits the use of mechanized equipment in wilderness areas except for snowmachines, motorboats, and airplanes. Subsistence users can also use chainsaws. Wildfires and prescribed burns would be managed the same way as described for Alternative A Modified with one exception. Care would be taken to ensure that containment lines maintain a more natural appearance. Firelines would not be straight and would vary in width. This would increase the cost and number of personnel needed to fight wildfires. Management actions described for fish and wildlife management for Alternative A Modified also apply to this alternative. As in Alternative A Modified, this scenario assumes there would be no roads, no mining, no utility corridors, and no oil and gas activity on the refuge. Oil and gas leasing and studies utilizing mechanized equipment are not permitted in wilderness areas. However, they are not expected to occur under any alternative since the oil and gas potential of the refuge is low. The scenario for a 100% increase in public use of the refuge described in Alternative A Modified applies here as well. The additional publicity given wilderness areas would have a negligible effect on public use of this refuge. Recreational use of the refuge would increase less than one percent or 52 visits a year as a result of wilderness designation. Wilderness status and publicity would have no impact on the out of state tourists traveling the Alaska Highway who make 90% of the visits to the Tetlin Refuge. Wilderness status would also have no impact on the number of subsistence users. Wilderness status and publicity would increase the number of recreational users actually on the refuge and away from the highway, but this group accounts for only 520 of the 26,000 refuge visits per year. The public use program would be staffed as described in the scenario for Alternative A Modified. 177 Scenario for Long Term (more than 15 years) Wilderness Impacts This scenario is identical to the long term scenario for Alternative A Modified except that the refuge would remain designated wilderness. As in the short term scenario, care would be taken to ensure that fire containment lines retained a natural appearance. This would be easier to achieve as fire containment techniques improved. Use of mechanized equipment on the refuge would be limited to airplanes, snowmobiles, and motorboats. Subsistence users could also use chainsaws. Visitor use would increase as described in the long term scenario for Alternative A Modified. As in the short range scenario, wilderness designation would not appreciably affect the amount of visitor use. Biological Impacts of Alternative A The impacts on fish and wildlife resources would be identical to those described for Alternative A Modified. The negligible increase in recreationists under this alternative would not impact any species to a measurable degree. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative A Cultural resources - The impacts of this alternative are identical to Alternative A Modified. Population - The impacts of this alternative are identical to Alternative A Modified. Economy - The negligible increase in recreational visitors would not have a measurable effect on the economy. The impacts of this alternative are identical to Alternative A Modified. Recreation Nonconsumptive recreation and environmental education - A negligible increase in recreational visitors would result from increased publicity given to designated wilderness areas. The increase would be negligible, because the area already gets publicity for being a refuge and adjacent to the highway. Other increases would be identical to Alternative A Modified. Hunting - The impacts are identical to Alternative A Modified. Fishing - The impacts are identical to Alternative A Modified. Impacts of the Wilderness Proposal for Alternative A In Alternative A, all of the refuge except for three acres at the Northway Junction currently used as an administrative site, would be proposed for wilderness designation. If Congress designates the refuge as wilderness, the refuge would be managed according to the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964 as amended by ANILCA. Wilderness designation would add to the National Wilderness Preservation System an area which qualifies for wilderness according to the criteria of the Wilderness Act but which does not have outstanding resource values. 178 The impacts of the wilderness proposal are evaluated for the three significant wilderness issues; impacts on wilderness values, impacts on fire management, and impacts on habitat manipulation for the proposed wilderness portion of the refuge. These impacts are not analyzed for the three acre administrative site, because it is already developed with several buildings and does not have wilderness values. Wilderness values Naturalness - The only activity on the refuge which could affect naturalness during the life of the plan is fire management. Wildfires which are allowed to burn and prescribed burns for the blackline and habitat improvement would have little impact as described for Alternative A Modified. Suppression activities may affect naturalness should they be necessary to control fires which threaten private property on the north end of the refuge or get to large. Although fire lines would be irregular and would take advantage of natural breaks in the vegetation, they would still be visible in the immediate vicinity for several years. After vegetation has grown over the stumps, the area would appear natural. Since wildfires would be allowed to burn only one percent of the refuge per year and only some of the fires would require lines, naturalness would be affected on less than one percent of the refuge. Fire camps would be located off the refuge or in areas where extensive clearing was not necessary. Camps would not affect naturalness. Over the long term, wildfire containment would probably involve less machine built line as fire control techniques become more sophisticated. There would be no impact on naturalness. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, impacts on naturalness due to fire suppression activities would involve less than one percent of the refuge. There would be no long term impacts on naturalness. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - The impacts on opportunities for solitude are identical to those described for Alternative A Modified (see discussion on page 173). The additional 52 visits to the refuge per year which would result from wilderness designation would not affect solitude. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for solitude would not be affected except within one mile of the Alaska Highway. Over the long term, solitude would decline near the highway and to a lesser extent on the major interior rivers and large float plane Lakes. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - The impacts on opportunities for primitive recreation are identical to those described for Alternative A Modified (see discussion on page 174). The additional 52 visits per year which would result from wilderness designation are not enough to affect competition for recreational opportunities. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for primitive recreation would have improved throughout the refuge due to increased visitor information except on recent burns where opportunities would have declined. Over the long term, opportunities for fishing would decline near the highway and for hunting throughout the refuge due to increased competition. 179 Special features - The special features on this refuge are eight national resource species, osprey, bird species not found elsewhere in Alaska, the fossils of the limestone cliffs in the Cheslina River drainage, and the sand dunes of the Tanana Valley. Impacts on special features are identical to those described for Alternative A Modified (see discussion on page 174). Conclusion - During the life of the plan and the long term, burning may have a minor positive impact on bird species. Increased recreational use would have a negative impact on Canada geese and trumpeter swans during the life of the plan and the long term. Nothing would affect the fossils or the sand dunes. Fire management Prescribed burning can be done in wilderness areas to reduce accumulation of hazardous fuels and restore natural vegetation patterns. Fire suppression can also be done by whatever techniques are essential to protect life and property and refuge resources. Wilderness designation would affect both prescribed burning and fire suppression in that every attempt must be made to preserve the naturalness of the wilderness area. Hand lines would be used where possible rather than machine built lines, lines would be irregular rather than straight, and fire camps would be located off the refuge or in habitat types that would require less clearing. This would have a minimal effect on fire suppression activities since anything can be done in an emergency, and many, if not most, refuge wildfires would not even be suppressed. The greatest impact wilderness designation would have on fire suppression would be on costs. Implementing wilderness guidelines may increase fire fighting costs. Some prescribed burns may also cost more if carried out under wilderness guidelines. Other prescribed burns may not be practical without mechanized equipment to make containment lines. Over the long term, wilderness designation would have less effect on fire management since fire containment techniques would improve. Ground lines for firebreaks would probably not be as important a part of fire containment as they are today. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, wilderness designation would have a minor effect on the costs of fire suppression and prescribed burns and would make some prescribed burns impractical. Over the long term, the impact of wilderness designation on fire management would be negligible. Habitat manipulation Prescribed burning is the only habitat manipulation allowed in wilderness areas. Water level manipulation and mechanical crushing would not be allowed in wilderness areas. Moose habitat along the Chisana, Cheslina, and Nabesna rivers and along waterways on the north end of the refuge would benefit from crushing. The willows are nearly 100 years old, over 20 feet tall, and are too tall for the moose to reach. Crushing would promote willow sprouts which would make excellent moose browse. About 3,000 acres would benefit from this treatment. Moose would increase 5 to 15% after crushing. Water level manipulation to create more rearing area for waterfowl would also not occur under wilderness. Some oxbows in the Tanana River corridor could be effectively damned. Waterfowl would increase less than five percent. 180 Conclusion - During the life of the plan and for the long term, water level manipulation and mechanical crushing would not be allowed in wilderness areas. As a result, opportunities to increase moose and waterfowl by 5 to 15% would be forgone. Subsistence/Section 810 Evaluation and Finding The impacts on subsistence resulting from implementing this alternative are identical to Alternative A Modified except that subsistence users would not be able to use generators or other motorized tools except chainsaws due to the wilderness designation. It is not known if any are in use now. Motorboats, snowmobiles, and airplanes can be used in wilderness. Wilderness designation would not restrict subsistence activities as this is protected by ANILCA. The section 810 evaluation and findings for Alternative A Modified apply to this alternative as well. ALTERNATIVE B Scenario for the Life of the Plan (10-15 years) In this alternative, 140,000 acres in the Cheslina Unit would be recommended for wilderness designation, 1,400 acres would be in intensive management next to the highway, 43,000 acres would be in moderate Management on the northern end of the refuge, and the remainder would be in minimal management. This scenario assumes Congress would approve the wilderness recommendation and designate the Cheslina Unit as wilderness. Management of the Cheslina Unit would be subject to the provisions of the Wilderness Act as amended by ANILCA. Wilderness management policy prohibits the use of mechanized equipment in wilderness areas except for snowmachines, motorboats, and airplanes. Subsistence users can also use chainsaws. Wildfire and prescribed burns would be managed as described in the scenario for Alternative A Modified. However, it may be more efficient to use mechanized equipment on some of the prescribed burns proposed for the moderate Management area on the north end of the refuge. Tracked vehicles may be used in winter to prepare firelines by knocking down vegetation around the edges of proposed burns. As a result, wider fire lines than those proposed under Alternative A Modified would be created on no more than 20% of the prescribed burns. Fish and wildlife monitoring would continue according to the directions established in the Inventory Plan for Tetlin Refuge (USFWS 1987). This scenario assumes that special regulations to close six to eight trumpeter swan nesting lakes to aircraft landings during the summer nesting and rearing season would be approved through a special regulatory process which would include public comment. Fall chum salmon would be reintroduced at two sites in the Scottie Creek drainage and lake trout at two remote fly-in lakes in order to reestablish these species within their native range. Lake trout restoration to the point where the population is self-sustaining and can be fished without stocking would take approximately six years. Chum salmon would be reintroduced each 181 year for a period of four years to selected stream sites. Annual introductions of chum salmon smolt or eggs would be necessary for the length of a typical chum salmon life cycle. The reintroduction effort would support a return to the Tetlin area of 2,300 harvestable and 500 escapement salmon. Rainbow trout fingerlings would continue to be stocked in Hidden Lake as described in Alternative A Modified. Three fishing access points with pull-offs along the highway would be signed for the benefit of visitors. Although various types of geological and geophysical studies may be permitted in the nonwilderness portion, none are expected under this scenario since information currently available indicates low oil and gas potential. Oil and gas leasing may be permitted in the 44,400 acres in moderate and intensive Management but none is expected due o the low potential. The assumptions found in the Alternative A Modified scenario of no roads, no mining, and no utility corridors also apply to this alternative. In addition, subsistence use would not increase beyond that projected in Alternative A Modified. The public use program would be staffed as described for Alternative A Modified. Visitor use would increase an additional ten percent or 2,600 visits per year beyond that projected in the scenario for Alternative A Modified. Total refuge visits in ten years would be 54,600. This additional increase is due to increased fishing resulting from the fish stocking and new fishing access points. The access points would be utilized for other recreational activities in addition to fishing. Scenario for Long Term (more than 15 years) Wilderness Impacts This scenario is identical to the long term scenario for Alternative A Modified except that the Cheslina Unit would remain designated wilderness. Visitor use would increase as described in the long term scenario for Alternative A Modified except that fishing use would be higher due to the new salmon fishery and additional fishing access areas. This would account for an additional 2,000 to 4,000 visits per year beyond that described for Alternative A Modified. Biological Impacts of Alternative B Fish - Lake trout reintroductions are expected to have a negligible impact on present fish populations. The trout would only be reintroduced where they would not compete with other species. Introducing chum salmon could have a moderate beneficial impact on grayling and other native fish as the dead salmon fertilize the streams each year. Chum salmon begin their seaward migration immediately after emerging from gravel beds and should not compete with resident fish for food or space. No reintroductions would be undertaken without extensive study to assure that species diversity is not reduced. Fishing visits would increase from their 1986 level of 1,380 to nearly 3,000 visits. This would have a moderate impact on fish populations adjacent to the roadside pull-offs. 182 The impacts of fire management should be similar to Alternative A Modified, since habitat management is nearly the same. Burning at least 200 acres and up to 7,500 acres each year could have a moderate negative impact on local fish populations if the fires are near streams. Soil erosion and sedimentation of stream waters could increase. Burning streambank vegetation could destabilize the bank and the streambed, causing erosion and sedimentation, severe braiding, and an increase in water velocity. Spawning gravels or eggs already deposited could be buried under sediment, or fish could choose not to spawn in areas of unsuitable substrate, high velocity, and turbidity. Aquatic invertebrates also could be buried by sediment or carried downstream by fast-moving waters, making them unavailable as a food source. Wildfires would be controlled when riparian habitat is threatened so regional species diversity would not be affected. The impact of fire on fish populations would be short term and extremely localized. Waterfowl - The impact of this alternative would be similar to that of Alternative A Modified, as fire would be managed in much the same way. Waterfowl production in this area may be enhanced slightly by prescribed burning in the northwest segments of the refuge, but it is already so high that any increase would be negligible. Swans and Canada geese may benefit slightly from fires, as under Alternative A Modified. Trumpeter swans would benefit from the proposed regulations to close six to eight lakes to aircraft landings during nesting season. Swans are sensitive to disturbance. The closure would prevent nest abandonment and increase swan productivity. Cranes - The impact under Alternative B would be negligible. Prescribed burns in the forest and tall scrub of the northwest corner of the refuge would not alter the open meadows and dwarf scrub required by cranes. Other aquatic birds - These would incur a minor benefit, with some minor short-term negative impacts, as in Alternative A Modified. Raptors - Bald eagles would benefit from fire to a minor or moderate extent as in Alternative A Modified. Prescribed burns in the northwest corner of the refuge may selectively enhance habitats of their prey. Nest trees of eagles and ospreys would be avoided during prescribed burning. There are active eagle nests in the vicinity of Desper Creek. A buffer at least a half-mile wide around bald eagle and osprey nests has been used in other parts of Alaska to prevent disturbance (Olendorff and Kochert 1977). Bald eagles could also benefit to a moderate extent by feeding on the introduced salmon. This alternative would have no impact on peregrine falcons that use the refuge. Other raptors would receive a minor or moderate benefit, as in Alternative A Modified. Other birds - Some birds would benefit but a few species dependent on spruce forest would suffer a minor decrease, as in Alternative A Modified. Caribou - Alternative B would have no effect or a minor detrimental impact on caribou. 183 Moose - The increase in habitat potential for moose should be moderate, as in Alternative A Modified. Areas chosen for prescribed burning (three percent of the total proposed burn area) would favor regeneration of deciduous scrub $0 as to maximize browse production for moose. Habitat improvement due to the small amount of prescribed burning would be negligible. Wildfire is unpredictable but could have a minor to moderate impact on moose habitat. The response of the moose population to browse enhancement is difficult to predict, as under Alternative A Modified, but should be minor to moderate. Moose harvest is expected to increase as in Alternative A Modified. If some moose used the new browse in the northwestern prescribed-burn areas during autumn, these animals would be more available to hunters. The overall impact of hunting on the moose population during the planning period would still be negligible, however, because current hunter numbers are so low. Dall sheep - Alternative B would have a negligible impact on sheep as under Alternative A Modified. Grizzly bear - Fire would have a negligible effect on grizzly bear, as under Alternative A Modified. Black bear - This species would benefit to a minor extent. The effects of fire and hunting would be the same as under Alternative A Modified. Furbearers - Effects on furbearers would be the same as under Alternative A Modified. Small mammals - Impacts would be similar to those in Alternative A Modified. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative B Cultural resources - The impacts would be the same as those in Alternative A Modified. Population - The impact of this alternative on the local communities would not vary significantly from that of Alternative A Modified. Economy - This alternative would have a minor positive economic impact on the local economy in addition to the benefits described in Alternative A Modified. The increase in fishing opportunities would attract nonlocal recreationists stimulating recreational expenditures on gasoline, food, lodging, guide service, and air taxi charters. Recreation Nonconsumptive recreation and environmental education - Opportunities would be similar to those described under Alternative A Modified. Hunting - The impacts would be identical to Alternative A Modified. Fishing - The number of fishing visits would increase as much as 100% over the increase predicted in Alternative A Modified because of three new river access points and reintroduced salmon and lake trout. 184 Impacts of the Wilderness Proposal for Alternative B In this alternative, the Cheslina Unit, 140,000 acres, would be proposed for wilderness designation which would require the approval of Congress. If Congress designated the unit as wilderness, it would be managed according to the provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964 as amended by ANILCA. Wilderness designation would add to the National Wilderness Preservation System an area which qualifies for wilderness according to the criteria of the Wilderness Act but which does not have outstanding resource values. The impacts of the wilderness proposal are evaluated for the three significant wilderness values, impact on wilderness values, impacts on fire management, and impacts on habitat manipulation for the proposed wilderness portion of the refuge. These impacts are analyzed for the wilderness and nonwilderness portions of the refuge. Wilderness area Wilderness values Naturalness - The only activity in the Cheslina Unit which could affect naturalness during the life of the plan is fire management. Almost all wildfires would be allowed to burn due to the remote location of the unit. This would have no impact on naturalness. The blackline would only involve about 2,000 acres on the north end of the Cheslina Unit. Impacts from the blackline would be negligible as described for Alternative A Modified. Prescribed burning for habitat improvement would not occur in the unit. Suppression activities may affect naturalness should they be necessary to control fires which get to large. Although fire lines would be irregular and would take advantage of natural breaks in the vegetation, they would still be visible in the immediate vicinity for several years. After vegetation has grown over the stumps, the area would appear natural. Fire camps would be located out of the unit or in areas where extensive clearing was not necessary. Camps would not affect naturalness. It is unlikely that a fire would occur in the Cheslina Unit during the life of the plan that would require suppression. Over the long term, wildfire containment would probably involve less machine built line as fire control techniques become more sophisticated. There would be no impact on naturalness. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, impacts on naturalness due to fire suppression activities would be unlikely. There would be no long term impacts on naturalness. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - There would be no impacts on opportunities for solitude during the life of the plan. Sheep hunting and river floating on the Nabesna River would double. However, there were only 20 visits to the refuge for sheep hunting and about 20 floaters on the Nabesna in 1986. Doubling this low level of use would not affect opportunities for solitude. 185 Over the long term, solitude would decline on the Nabesna River as use increased. Sheep hunting would level out after 20 years as the demand exceeded the refuge's biological ability to produce sheep, and the hunt became limited by permit. Hiking would increase in the Cheslina drainage but not to the extent that opportunities for solitude would be lost. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for solitude would not be affected. Over the long term, solitude would decline along the Nabesna River. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - Increased interpretive information available at the new visitor contact station and the highway pull-offs would have a minimal effect on the recreational experiences of visitors to the Cheslina Unit. Most would fly into the refuge from Tok and would not visit the new interpretive displays. Wildfires and the prescribed burns for the blackline would create blackened, unattractive areas which would not have recreational value for a few years after burning. About one percent of the unit would be burned in an average year, but the remainder would be unaffected. As the areas revegetate, recreational values in the immediate vicinities may increase above their original state since more wildlife would be attracted to the burns. Moose populations would begin to increase by the end of the planning period, but not enough to attract more hunters. Over the long term, increased competition among hunters would lead to decreased success rates or hunts which would be limited by permits, length of season, or other measures. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for primitive recreation would have declined on recent burns. Over the long term, opportunities for hunting would decline due to increased competition. Special features - The special features on the Cheslina Unit are six national resource species - trumpeter swan, lesser Canada goose, mallard, canvasback, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon; bird species not found elsewhere in Alaska; and the fossils of the limestone cliffs in the Cheslina River drainage. During the life of the plan, fire may have a positive impact of less than five percent on populations of the four species of waterfowl which are National Resource species. Wetlands would become more productive as nutrients from the ashes are leached into the water. Fire would have no impact on peregrine falcon but would increase the prey species of bald eagles. Other bird species would benefit from fire as it increased habitat diversity (for supporting analysis see the discussion under biological impacts of Alternative A Modified on page 169). The long term impacts of fire would be similar to the short term impacts. Bird diversity would continue to increase as habitat diversity increased reaching its maximum 100 years from now when burning of the entire unit would be completed. Nothing would affect the fossils during the life of the plan or the long term. No surface disturbing activities would occur in the unit. 186 Conclusion - During the life of the plan and the long term, burning may have a minor positive impact on bird species. Nothing would affect the fossils. Fire management Prescribed burning can be done in wilderness areas to reduce accumulation of hazardous fuels and restore natural vegetation patterns. Fire suppression can also be done by whatever techniques are essential to protect life and property and refuge resources. Wilderness designation would affect both prescribed burning and fire suppression in that every attempt must be made to preserve the naturalness of the wilderness area. Hand lines would be used where possible rather than machine built lines, lines would be irregular rather than straight, and fire camps would be located off the unit or in habitat types that would require less clearing. This would have a negligible effect on fire suppression activities since anything can be done in an emergency, and almost all wildfires in the unit would not even be suppressed. Also, it is not practical to use heavy equipment in such a remote part of the refuge. The greatest impact wilderness designation would have on fire suppression would be on costs. Implementing wilderness guidelines may increase fire fighting costs. Some prescribed burns may also cost more if carried out under wilderness guidelines. Other prescribed burns may not be practical without mechanized equipment to make containment lines. Over the long term, wilderness designation would have less effect on fire management since fire containment techniques would improve. Ground lines for firebreaks would probably not be as important a part of fire containment as they are today. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, wilderness designation would have a negligible effect on the costs of fire suppression and prescribed burns. Over the long term, the impact of wilderness designation on fire management would be negligible. Habitat manipulation Prescribed burning is the only habitat manipulation allowed in wilderness areas. Water level manipulation and mechanical crushing would not be allowed in wilderness areas. Moose habitat along the lower Cheslina and Nabesna rivers would benefit from crushing. The willows are nearly 100 years old and over 20 feet tall, tall for the moose to reach. Crushing would promote willow sprouts which would make excellent moose browse. About 1,000 acres would benefit from this treatment. Moose would increase from 5 to 15% percent in the unit after crushing. Water level manipulation to create more rearing area for waterfowl would also not occur under wilderness. However, there are no suitable areas for water level manipulation in this unit. Conclusion - During the life of the plan and for the long term, water level manipulation and mechanical crushing would not be allowed in wilderness areas. As a result, opportunities to increase moose by 5 to 15% would be forgone. 187 Nonwilderness area Wilderness values Naturalness - The impacts for the life of the plan and the long term on naturalness from wildfire would be the same as those discussed for Alternative A Modified on page 173. The impacts from controlled burning for the blackline and habitat improvement would be the same as those for Alternative A Modified except that tracked vehicles would be used to prepare firelines on approximately 20% of the burns, 130 acres per year. These lines would be straighter and wider than those anticipated under Alternative A Modified. They would be visible from the air for up to 100 years, and visible on the ground in the immediate vicinity for 5 to 50 years. Vegetation grows up over the stumps in a few years, but the straight line of adjacent vegetation is visible. However, the affected area is less than one percent of the nonwilderness area. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, a decrease in naturalness due to fire suppression activities and prescribed burning would involve less than five percent of the nonwilderness area. Over the long term, fire suppression and prescribed burning would have less effect on naturalness as control techniques improve. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - The increase in visitor use projected in the scenario for the life of the plan would only affect solitude within one mile of the Alaska Highway. Eighty-five percent of refuge visits would occur at the visitor contact station near the border, the state waysides, the three fishing access sites, and the six pull-outs along the highway. None of these facilities are even on refuge land since the boundary is 300 feet off the highway. Of the 6,800 visits per year that would actually occur on the refuge by the end of the planning period, at least half would be for fishing, hunting, bird watching and sightseeing within one mile of the highway. Solitude opportunities would decline in this area particularly along fishing streams and lakes. Although use would increase in the interior of the refuge along the major rivers and on the high lakes accessible by float plane, these areas are large enough to provide solitude opportunities to many more visitors. Over the long term, opportunities for solitude would continue to decline near the highway particularly near the fishing access points and Desper and Scottie creeks. Parties on the major rivers and the larger lakes such as Pickerel and Jatahmund would be likely to encounter other parties. On the remainder of the nonwilderness area opportunities for solitude would be unaffected. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for solitude would not be affected except within one mile of the Alaska Highway. Over the long term, solitude would decline near the highway and to a lesser extent on the major interior rivers and large float plane accessible lakes. 188 Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - In addition, to the impacts discussed for Alternative A Modified on page 174, the new fisheries would affect recreational opportunities. Lake trout fishing would be introduced into two more lakes resulting in about 100 more fishing visits per year. Salmon sport fishing would be possible on the Chisana and Tanana rivers. The new fishing access points would facilitate access to the refuge. These benefits would occur during the life of the plan and the long term. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for primitive recreation would have improved throughout the refuge due to increased visitor information, new fisheries, and improved fishing access. Opportunities would have declined on recent burns. Over the long term, opportunities for fishing would have improved where the new fisheries are located and declined near the highway due to increased competition. Opportunities for hunting would have declined throughout the refuge due to increased competition. Special features - The special features on the nonwilderness portion are eight National Resource species - trumpeter swan, lesser Canada goose, white-fronted goose, mallard, canvasback, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and sandhill crane$; osprey; bird species not found elsewhere in Alaska}; and the sand dunes of the Tanana Valley. The impacts on these features are identical to those discussed for Alternative A Modified with one exception. Nesting trumpeter swans would be protected from disturbance by float plane landings after regulations for seasonal closure of six or eight key swan lakes were developed and implemented. Conclusion - During the life of the plan and the long term, burning may have a minor positive impact on bird species. Increased recreational use would have a negative impact on Canada geese during the life of the plan and the long term. Nothing would affect the sand dunes. Fire management Fire management activities proposed for this alternative are allowing 6,900 acres of wildfire to burn per year, suppressing wildfires which are too large to benefit habitat diversity or in an area where they pose a danger to people or property; burning 450 acres per year across the center of the refuge to create a "blackline"; and burning 200 acres per year in small patches averaging 80 acres to benefit habitat diversity. These activities are not affected by the lack of a wilderness designation except that there are less constraints on fighting wildfire and no prohibitions on the use of tracked vehicles to prepare prescribed burns. Fire bosses need not be concerned with the appearance of fire lines. This may save money. Conclusion - The lack of a wilderness designation has no impact on fire management except that fighting wildfires and prescribed burning may be somewhat less expensive than in a wilderness area. Habitat manipulation No habitat manipulation activities are proposed in this alternative. Conclusion - The lack of a wilderness designation would have no impact on habitat manipulation. 189 Subsistence/Section 810 Evaluation and Finding Evaluation - The positive impact of this alternative on subsistence use of the refuge would be higher than that of Alternative A Modified. As in Alternative A Modified, the number of available moose and furbearers would increase to a moderate and minor extent respectively, with the fire management program. Although waterfowl populations could increase, current supply exceeds the demand. Berries could be more plentiful in years after an area is burned. This alternative undertakes several fishery projects, in particular the restoration of a harvestable chum salmon population on the Chisana and Tanana rivers. At present, most of the residents in the study area who fish for salmon take sockeyes and some chinooks from the Copper River. A smaller number go downstream near Delta or over to the Yukon River near Eagle. The full impact of a harvestable chum salmon run on the refuge would rest on the quality of the meat and the continuing availability of present sources of salmon. If other sources of salmon were not available, the restored chum run could become very important. The timing of the run would coincide with the big game season so it might not be as useful as other runs. However, even poor quality meat could become an important source of dog food. Regardless of the above factors, it is safe to assume the establishment of a chum run on the refuge would significantly benefit subsistence users in the area. Availability of other lands - As noted in the section 810 evaluation for Alternative A Modified, there may be nonrefuge lands available for the uses considered, but lands outside the refuge are beyond the scope of this plan. Within the refuge there are particular areas where wildfires can safely be allowed to burn to create the desired habitat. Lands selected for prescribed burning were chosen on the basis of safety to human life and property. Because of the generality of the fire plan and the unpredictability of wildfire there are no other alternatives to this fire prescription if big game habitat is to be enhanced. The Chisana River is the only feasible location for restoring a chum run, and Scottie Creek is a tributary with the necessary habitat and easy accessibility. Other alternatives - Other alternatives considered and rejected are discussed in Alternative A Modified. Of the five alternatives developed for this plan, Alternative B has more positive impacts on subsistence resources than A Modified and A, but less than C or D. However, competition for resources with nonlocals increases in alternatives C and D. Additional alternatives were briefly considered but were rejected for reasons noted in Alternative A Modified. Finding - This alternative should have minor positive impacts on subsistence harvest of waterfowl, furbearers, and berries, and moderate positive impacts on hunting and fishing. Some local residents are concerned about nonlocals using the refuge and harvesting resources that are needed for subsistence. This alternative would do the most to provide additional resources without encouraging nonlocal use. Thus, the Service concludes that Alternative B would enhance subsistence use of the refuge a minor to moderate extent. 190 ALTERNATIVE C (THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) Scenario for the Life of the Plan (10-15 years) In this alternative, no areas would be proposed for wilderness, 1,400 acres next to the highway would be in intensive management, and 120,000 acres in the north half of the refuge would be in moderate management. The remainder would be in minimal management. The goal for total acres burned in a ten year period would be 75,000 acres as in Alternative A Modified. Wildfire would be allowed to burn slightly less acres, 67,000 acres in ten years as compared to 69,000, because more acres would be burned by prescription for habitat improvement, 4,000 acres in ten years or 400 acres per year. The number of acres to be burned per year for the blackline, 450 acres, would be the same as in Alternative A Modified. Wildfire management would be the same as that described for Alternative A Modified. The blackline would be managed the same as that described for Alternative A Modified except that on about one third of the 13 mile long line, fire containment lines would be constructed in winter using tracked vehicles. The vehicles would knock down the vegetation creating lines which look more distinct and less natural. Fish and wildlife monitoring would continue according to the directions established in the Inventory Plan for Tetlin Refuge (USFWS 1987). This scenario assumes that special regulations to close six to eight trumpeter swan nesting lakes to aircraft landings during the summer nesting and rearing season would be approved through a special regulatory process which would include public comment. Fall run chum salmon would be reintroduced into six sites in the Scottie Creek drainage and on the north end of the refuge. The chum salmon fishery would take at least four to six years to develop sufficiently to support fishing. The reintroduction effort would support a return to the Tetlin area of 4,600 harvestable and 1,000 escapement salmon. Lake trout would be reintroduced in three remote fly-in lakes in an attempt to restore populations within their native range. Lake trout restoration to the point where the population is self-sustaining and can be fished without stocking would take approximately six years. Fishery development for the purpose of creating a stock, restore, and maintain fishery along the highway would take place in one other lake for lake trout and in two lakes for grayling. It would take four years for the stocking program to yield fish to the public. These fish populations would probably not be self-sustaining due to the fishing pressure they would be subjected to. Periodic stocking in the stock, restore, and maintain lakes would be expected to occur throughout the life of the plan. Portions of Mirror, Scottie, and Desper creeks would be considered for trophy management for grayling and northern pike. This means these waters would be managed by regulations to produce a continuing, sustainable supply of larger than average fish. Non-indigenous, fingerling rainbow trout would continue to be introduced into Hidden Lake to support a put, grow, and take fishery as in Alternative A Modified. (See the common management directions, fish and wildlife management, for a complete explanation of fishery management concepts.) 191 Three fishing access points with pull-offs along the highway would be signed for the benefit of visitors. A small fish and wildlife exhibit and a signed loop trail about one-half mile long would be located near the visitor contact station along the highway. Although various types of geological and geophysical studies may be permitted throughout the refuge, none are expected under this scenario since information currently available indicates low oil and gas potential. Oil and gas leasing may be permitted in the 121,400 acres in intensive and moderate management but none is expected due to the low potential. The assumptions found in the Alternative A Modified scenario of no roads, no mining, and no utility corridors also apply to this alternative. In addition, subsistence use would not increase beyond that projected in Alternative A Modified. Public use management would increase beyond that of Alternative A Modified. A permanent outdoor recreation planner would be hired to run the public use program. A seasonal employee would be hired to work at the interagency visitor center in Tok. Four seasonal employees would staff the visitor contact station on the highway allowing it to be open for seven days a week, ten hours a day. A public use volunteer would also work at the visitor contact station. Two Youth Conservation Corps employees would help with recreation improvements and maintenance. Visitor use would increase an additional 30% or 7,800 visits per year beyond that projected in the scenario for Alternative A Modified. Total refuge visits by the end of the planning period would be 59,800 per year. Ninety percent of these visits would take place off the refuge along the highway, at the waysides, and at the visitor contact station. This additional increase is due to the increased public use program, expanded visitor contact station hours, increased fishing resulting from the fish stocking, and new fishing access points. The access points would be utilized for other recreational activities in addition to fishing. Scenario for Long Term (more than 15 years) Wilderness Impacts The assumptions for the long term scenario for Alternative A Modified also apply here with a few exceptions. After 15 years, there would have been 3,000 more acres of prescribed burns or about 35 more burns on the refuge than under Alternative A Modified. This would mean more firelines but also smaller, better located fire scars from the standpoint of habitat improvement. Visitor use would increase above that described in Alternative A Modified because of the new salmon, lake trout, and grayling fisheries and the increased public use program. This would account for an additional 7,000 to 15,000 visits per year beyond that described for Alternative A Modified. Biological Impacts of Alternative C Fish - No development projects would be undertaken unless suitable habitat could be found where the species already present would not be adversely affected. Although the fishery projects would have no impact on native fish populations, the significant increase in fishing as a result of these 192 projects, increased access, and other public use programs would have a moderate impact on the introduced fish populations. Annual fish introductions would be required to sustain high populations for fishing. The impact of fire in this alternative is similar to Alternative A Modified, except that prescribed burning of 400 acres a year in the north part of the refuge would be assured. Burning at least 850 acres with a possible additional 6,650 acres of wildfire each year could have a moderate impact on fish in the area, particularly if the fires are near streams. The acreage involved would not differ significantly from that in Alternative B and impacts would be the same as previously discussed. Although this alternative could have a moderate local impact on fish populations as a result of fire, it would have a minor impact on refuge fish as a whole. Introduced fish would suffer a moderate impact as a result of public use and would require supplemental stocking to maintain fish populations at stated levels. Waterfowl - The effects of habitat management would be the same as under Alternative A Modified. The effects of the proposed closure of swan nesting lakes to float plane landings would be the same as that described under Alternative B. Cranes and other aquatic birds - Effects would be the same as under Alternative A Modified. Raptors - This alternative would have no impact on peregrine falcons. Effects on other raptors would be the same as under Alternative A Modified. Other birds - Effects of habitat management would be the same as under Alternative A Modified. The impacts of increased hiking or boating would be negligible. Caribou - Alternative C, like Alternative A Modified, would have no effect or a minor detrimental impact on caribou. Moose - Habitat potential for moose would increase to a minor or moderate extent under this alternative. Six percent of the target area burned would be prescribed burning, which improves browse more efficiently than does wildfire. Hunting pressure would rise over Alternative A Modified, because of both habitat manipulation and increased public information. Increased information services would permit hunters to be directed to areas of high moose density, if this serves management goals. These areas could include burns and remote drainages, where little-exploited populations provide excellent opportunities for hunting trophy bulls. Hunting moose in the lowland areas of Tetlin Refuge may increase enough under this alternative to harvest a significant proportion of the animals produced each year. Yearly monitoring (already underway) would insure that harvest levels permit some population growth, so the overall effect of the harvest on 193 the moose population would be negligible. Increased hunting pressure in remote areas would probably have a negligible or minor beneficial effect on moose populations. Heavy use of browse in parts of remote drainages suggests that moose may be near the carrying capacity of the habitat there; removal of a small number could allow a slight recovery of browse, but would not improve it much. Dall sheep - The effect of this alternative would be negligible. Grizzly bear - Harvest of grizzly bear would increase slightly as a result of increased information available to hunters. Black bear - The population could increase a minor to major amount, as described under Alternative A Modified. Furbearers - Habitat manipulation would benefit fox and lynx to a minor extent. Prescribed burning would insure at least a minor improvement in habitat even if few wildfires occurred. Scottie and Desper creeks, an area of high beaver density, would be under moderate management, making possible the selective enhancement of beaver forage, which could cause a minor increase in the beaver population. Other furbearers would be affected the same as under alternatives A Modified and B. Small mammals - Impacts would be similar to those in Alternative A Modified or slightly more beneficial due to larger areas under prescribed burning. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative C Cultural resources - Increased habitat management on refuge lands under this alternative would increase the risk of damage to cultural resources, but not to unacceptable levels. Increased public use of refuge lands increases the possibility of damage to sites, especially through unauthorized collecting. Altogether, the impacts to cultural resources under this alternative would be, at most, minor. Population - The impacts of this alternative would not vary significantly from those of Alternative A Modified. Additional refuge staff and a slight stimulation of the local economy would have no impact on the size of the local population. Economy - This alternative, like alternatives A Modified, A, and B, would have only a minor positive impact on the economy of the study area. Economic impacts of fire management would increase over those in Alternative B with an increase in the acreage of prescribed burning. The effects would still center on the areas of food, lodging, gasoline, air charter services, and wages to local firefighters. Expenditures by recreationists would increase as a result of improved visitor contact facilities and the fishery enhancement program. If the visitor contact program attracts sufficient visitors, a private recreational facility may become feasible in the Northway area. This could have a significant impact on the economy of the Northway community. 194 As in Alternative A Modified, the fire management program could result in a minor increase in the number of furbearer pelts taken from the refuge. In summary, the positive economic impacts of this alternative would be larger than those of Alternative A Modified but would still be considered minor for the entire study area. Recreation Nonconsumptive recreation and environmental education - This alternative would be similar to Alternative A Modified except the interpretive trail would provide a new opportunity for interpretation, sightseeing, and wildlife viewing. The expanded visitor contact station hours would allow more visitors to take advantage of the facility. The fishing access points would probably be utilized by bird watchers and photographers as well as fishers. Hunting - Moose harvest would increase by a major amount (as much as 40%) over Alternative A Modified, due to larger moose populations. A more extensive public information program could disperse hunters over a larger portion of the refuge, including relatively inaccessible and unused areas. The moderate increase in moose harvest and hunter dispersal could cause conflicts with local users, especially as the harvest rate might not increase as fast as the number of hunters and the percentage of successful hunters could decline. A moderate increase in black bear hunters would accompany the increase in moose hunting. The impacts of this alternative on grizzly bear and waterfowl hunting would be the same as those of Alternative A Modified. This alternative would have no impact on sheep or caribou hunting. Fishing - Alternative C could increase fishing by a major amount, as much as 200% over Alternative A Modified, due to new access points and expanded fisheries management. Most fishing would take place in the road-accessible lakes restocked with grayling. Some increase can be expected in interior lakes as a result of restocking lake trout. Impacts of the Wilderness Proposal for Alternative C In this alternative, no areas would be proposed for wilderness designation. The impacts of nondesignation are evaluated for the three significant wilderness issues, impacts on wilderness values, impacts on fire management, and impacts on wildlife habitat manipulation. Wilderness values Naturalness - The impacts for the life of the plan and the long term on naturalness from wildfire would be the same as those discussed for Alternative A Modified on page 173. The impacts from controlled burning for the blackline and habitat improvement would be the same as those for Alternative A Modified except that tracked vehicles would be used to prepare 195 firelines on approximately 33% of the blackline burns and 20% of the habitat burns, 230 acres per year. These lines would be straighter and wider than those anticipated under Alternative A Modified. They would be visible from the air for up to 100 years, and visible on the ground in the immediate vicinity for 5 to 50 years. Vegetation grows up over the stumps in a few years, but the straight line of adjacent vegetation is visible. However, the affected area is less than one percent of the refuge. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, a decrease in naturalness due to fire suppression activities and prescribed burning would involve less than five percent of the refuge. Over the long term, fire suppression and prescribed burning would have less effect on naturalness as control techniques improve. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - Eighty-eight percent of refuge visits would occur at the visitor contact station near the border, the state waysides, the fishing access points, and the six pull-outs along the highway. None of these facilities are even on refuge land since the boundary is 300 feet off the highway. Of the 7,000 visits that would actually occur on the refuge by the end of the planning period, at least half would be for fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking the interpretive trail, and sightseeing within one mile of the highway. Solitude opportunities would decline in this area particularly along fishing streams and lakes. Although use would increase in the interior of the refuge along the Cheslina, Chisana, and Nabesna rivers and on the high lakes accessible by float plane, these areas are large enough to provide solitude opportunities to many more visitors. Over the long term, opportunities for solitude would be lost near the highway particularly in the Desper and Scottie creek areas. Parties on the major rivers and the larger lakes such as Pickerel, Jatahmund, and Fern would be likely to encounter other parties. On the remainder of the refuge opportunities for solitude would be unaffected. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for solitude would not be affected except within one mile of the Alaska Highway. Over the long term, solitude would be lost near the highway and decline on the major interior rivers and large float plane lakes. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - In addition, to the impacts discussed for Alternative A Modified on page 174, the new fisheries would affect recreational opportunities. New lake trout, grayling, and salmon fisheries would provide a 200% increase in fishing visits over that anticipated in Alternative A Modified. Managing for trophy northern pike and grayling would maintain a unique fishing opportunity in spite of increased fishing pressure. The new fishing access points would facilitate access to the refuge. These benefits would occur during the life of the plan and the long term. The expanded visitor contact station hours, increased public use program, and new interpretive trail would improve recreational experiences for refuge visitors beyond that described for Alternative A Modified. It would also lead to the increase in visitor use described in the scenario. 196 Over the long term, recreational users would face increased competition in the areas near the highway. More fish would be available, but fishing would be more crowded, and more fish would be stocked rather than wild. Increased competition among hunters throughout the refuge would lead to decreased success rates or hunts which would be limited by permits, length of season, or other measures. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for primitive recreation would have improved throughout the refuge due to increased visitor information, new fisheries, and improved fishing access. Opportunities would have declined on recent burns. Over the long term, opportunities for fishing would have improved where the new fisheries are located and declined near the highway due to increased competition. Opportunities for hunting would have declined throughout the refuge due to increased competition. Special features - The special features on this refuge are eight national resource species, osprey, bird species not found elsewhere in Alaska, the fossils of the limestone cliffs in the Cheslina River drainage, and the sand dunes of the Tanana Valley. Impacts on special features are identical to those described for Alternative A Modified on page 174 with one exception. Trumpeter swans would be protected from disturbance during nesting season on those six to eight lakes proposed for closure to float plane landings. Conclusion - During the life of the plan and the long term, burning may have a minor positive impact on bird species. Increased recreational use would have a negative impact on Canada geese during the life of the plan and the long term. Nothing would affect the fossils or the sand dunes. Fire management Fire management activities proposed for this alternative are allowing 6,650 acres of wildfire to burn per year, suppressing wildfires which are too large to benefit habitat diversity or in an area where they pose a danger to people or property; burning 450 acres per year across the center of the refuge to create.a "blackline"; and burning 400 acres per year in small patches averaging 80 acres to benefit habitat diversity. These activities are not affected by the lack of a wilderness designation except that there are less constraints on fighting wildfire and tracked vehicles can be used to prepare prescribed burns. Fire bosses need not be concerned with the appearance of fire lines. This may save money. Conclusion - The lack of a wilderness designation has no impact on fire management except that fighting wildfires and prescribed burning may be somewhat less expensive than in a wilderness area. Habitat manipulation No habitat manipulation activities are proposed in this alternative. Conclusion - The lack of a wilderness designation would have no impact on habitat manipulation. 197 Subsistence/Section 810 Evaluation and Finding Evaluation - The positive impact of this alternative on subsistence uses of the refuge would be slightly higher than that of Alternative B. As in Alternative A Modified, the habitat management program would increase the refuge moose population, with a subsequent moderate increase in the harvest by local residents. The black bear harvest would increase in conjunction with the moose harvest. The fire management program would enhance furbearers and waterfowl habitats and could result in a minor increase in the harvest of those animals. The intensity of the effort to restore a chum salmon run is considerably greater in Alternative C than in B. The number of introduction sites and the yield of fish would both increase. If a run of sufficient quantity and quality is established it could have a significant positive impact on subsistence users. Development projects for lake trout and grayling would be oriented toward sport fishing and would have little impact on subsistence use, although some local residents would benefit from these programs. Availability of other lands - There may be other lands available for uses considered in this alternative, but as noted in the section 810 evaluation for Alternative A Modified, lands outside the refuge are not considered because they are beyond the scope of this plan. With respect to fire management, the whereabouts of wildfires are not predictable, and would not be allowed to burn in areas where there is concern for human life and property. The areas chosen for prescribed burning were selected on the basis of desirable habitat type and accessibility. Other areas are available on the refuge but are not as desirable. Likewise, fishery reintroductions sites were chosen on the basis of desirable habitat and accessibility. Other areas are available on the refuge but are less desirable. Other alternatives - Other alternatives considered and rejected for this plan are discussed in Alternative A Modified. Of the five alternatives developed for this plan, this alternative is intermediate in the range of alternatives evaluated. It could have more positive impacts on subsistence resources than alternatives A Modified, A, or B, but fewer than Alternative D. The public use program is not as intensive as in Alternative D and would not attract as many nonlocals to the refuge. Finding - This alternative should provide for a minor growth in the subsistence harvest of waterfowl, furs, and berries on the refuge. The harvest of moose could increase moderately while the fish harvest could increase by a moderate to major amount. An increase in competition between local and nonlocal residents could arise from this alternative. However, it would be minor and primarily related to areas along the highway used for pole fishing. Thus, although there could be a growing perception by local residents of outsiders harvesting local resources, the Service concludes this alternative would have an overall positive impact on subsistence use of the refuge. 198 ALTERNATIVE D Scenario for the Life of the Plan (10-15 years) No areas would be proposed for wilderness designation, 1,400 acres along the highway would be in intensive management, and 215,800 acres in the north half of the refuge would be in moderate management. The remainder would be in minimal management. The goal for total acres burned in a ten year period would be 75,000 acres as in Alternative A Modified. Wildfire would be allowed to burn slightly less acres, 63,000 acres in ten years as compared to 69,000, because more acres would be burned by prescription for habitat improvement, 7,000 acres in ten years or 700 acres per year. The amount of acres to be burned per year for the blackline, 450 acres, would be the same as in Alternative A Modified. The blackline would be managed the same as that described for Alternative A Modified except that on about one third of the 13 mile long line, fire containment lines would be constructed in winter using tracked vehicles. The vehicles would knock down the vegetation creating lines which look more distinct and less natural. This would also occur on about 20% of the prescribed burns for habitat improvement. Wildfire management would be the same as that described for Alternative A Modified. Mechanical manipulation would be used to improve 300 acres of river bottom habitat along the Chisana River above Ten Mile Hill, along Stuver Creek, along stream courses below the mouth of the Cheslina River on the north end of the refuge, and along the Cheslina and Nabesna rivers above their confluence. These areas are all in moderate management. In scattered five to ten acre patches, 20 to 30 foot high willows would be knocked down to stimulate new sprouts for moose browse. A small tracked vehicle with a blade would be utilized in winter on the ice to knock down the willow stands. A 50 to 100 foot wide buffer would be left along the river to stabilize the banks and screen the appearance of the treated areas. Fish and wildlife monitoring would continue according to the directions established in the Inventory Plan for Tetlin Refuge (USFWS 1987). This scenario assumes that special regulations to close six to eight trumpeter swan nesting lakes to aircraft landings during the summer nesting and rearing season would be approved through a special regulatory process which would include public comment. Canada geese may be restored to their original breeding range on the Tanana River and tributaries if stocking is found to be feasible and if funding permits. Small dams would be built on oxbows in the Tanana River corridor to create ten to fifty acres of additional brooding habitat for waterfowl at each site (approximately 2,000 acres total). Fall run chum salmon would be reintroduced into six sites in the Scottie Creek drainage and on the north end of the refuge as in Alternative C. The chum salmon fishery would take at least four to six years to develop sufficiently to support fishing. The reintroduction effort would support a return to the Tetlin area of 4,600 harvestable and 1,000 escapement salmon. Lake trout would be reintroduced in six remote fly-in lakes in an attempt to restore 199 populations within their native range. Lake trout restoration to the point where the population is self-sustaining and can be fished without stocking would take approximately six years. Fisheries development for the purpose of creating a stock, restore, and maintain fishery along the highway would take place in six lakes for northern pike, six lakes for grayling, and one lake for lake trout. It would take four years for the stocking program to yield fish to the public. These fish populations would probably not be self-sustaining due to the fishing pressure they would be subjected to. Periodic stocking in the stock, restore, and maintain lakes would be expected to occur throughout the life of the plan. Portions of Mirror, Scottie, and Desper creeks would be considered for trophy management for grayling and northern pike. This means these waters would be managed by regulations to produce a continuing, sustainable supply of larger than average fish. Portions of Scottie and Desper creeks would be considered for management under the sustained yield concept. The purpose of this type of fishery is to provide opportunities to harvest fish. Stocking may be necessary. Non-indigenous, fingerling rainbow trout would be repeatedly introduced into Hidden Lake to support a put, grow, and take fishery as in Alternative A Modified. (See the common management directions, fish and wildlife management, for a complete explanation of fishery management concepts.) Three fishing access points with pull-offs along the highway would be signed for the benefit of refuge visitors. A small fish and wildlife exhibit and a signed loop trail about half a mile long would be developed along the highway near the visitor contact station. An upland area between Tenmile and Desper creeks would be open to sand and gravel extraction by the Alaska Department of Transportation, provided that it is found to be compatible with refuge activities in the area. This area is within 1,000 feet of the highway but would be screened from view. Development would involve approximately 300 acres. The extraction would be subject to environmental stipulations as developed by the refuge manager. Although various types of geological and geophysical studies may be permitted throughout the refuge, none are expected under this scenario since information currently available indicates low oil and gas potential. Oil and gas leasing may be permitted in the 217,200 acres in intensive and moderate management but none is expected due to the low potential. The assumptions found in the Alternative A Modified scenario of no roads, no mining, and no utility corridors also apply to this alternative. In addition, subsistence use would not increase beyond that projected in Alternative A Modified. Public use management would increase beyond that of Alternative A Modified. A permanent outdoor recreation planner would be hired to run the public use program. A seasonal employee would be hired to work at the Interagency Visitor Center in Tok. Six seasonal employees would staff the visitor contact 200 station on the highway allowing it to be open seven days a week, 12 hours a day. Two public use volunteers would also work at the Visitor Contact Station. A crew of 12 Youth Conservation Corps workers would do maintenance and improvements at public use facilities. Visitor use would increase an additional 35% or 9,100 visits per year beyond that projected in the scenario for Alternative A Modified. Total refuge visits in ten years would be 61,100. This additional increase is due to the increased public use program, expanded visitor contact station hours, increased fishing resulting from the fish stocking, and new fishing access points. The access points would be utilized for other recreational activities in addition to fishing. Ninety percent of all visits would occur off the refuge along the highway, at the visitor contact station, and at the state waysides. Scenario for Long Term (more than 15 years) Wilderness Impacts The assumptions for the long term scenario for Alternative A Modified also apply here with a few exceptions. After 15 years, there would have been 7,500 more acres of prescribed burns or about 95 more burns on the refuge than under Alternative A Modified. This would mean more fire lines but also smaller, better located fire scars from the standpoint of habitat improvement. Mechanical crushing of willows would not be repeated after the 15 year life of the plan. Enough habitat would have been altered at that point. It would not need to be repeated for another 100 years. The sand and gravel would have been exhausted at the existing pit, and an additional one of similar size in the same area would have been permitted. Visitor use would increase above that described in Alternative A Modified because of the new salmon, lake trout, and grayling fisheries and the increased public use program. This would account for an additional 10,000 to 20,000 visits per year beyond that described for Alternative A Modified. Biological Impacts of Alternative D Fish - Impacts from this alternative would be similar to those described for alternatives B and C, only more extensive. The number of development projects would increase, as would the number of visitors using the refuge to fish. Introduced fish would suffer a moderate impact as a result of public use and would require constant management. The acreages involved in prescribed burning (at least 700 acres) would increase over Alternative C. Mechanical manipulation would take place on 300 acres. Either activity could have a moderate to major impact should they destroy streambank vegetation. The impact on overall refuge fish populations would be minor. Sand and gravel extraction should not threaten the integrity of stream flows if conducted in an upland area. Resulting pits of an acre or more may provide a desirable fishery development site. 201 Waterfowl - The effects of burning would be the same as under Alternative A Modified. Construction of small dams on oxbows along the Tanana River would retain water in these ponds for longer periods in the summer than is now the case. This could increase duck productivity on the refuge by a minor amount. The potential for new habitat created by damming would probably be highest in oxbows that already support some marsh vegetation and ducks. The Canada goose population on the refuge is a good candidate for restocking to restore former numbers. Restocking has been carried out in other goose populations when the birds had deserted former breeding habitat. There is extensive former breeding habitat on the lower Chisana and the Tanana rivers. However, before stocking is attempted, it would be determined whether the factors that caused abandonment of the habitat are still present. There may also be potential habitat on lakes that are visited by pairs before the breeding season. It is not known whether geese formerly bred there; studies would evaluate suitability of the lakes for nesting and brood-rearing. It is too early to assess the possible impacts of a restocking program on the goose population, however, it would be positive, not detrimental. Trumpeter swans would benefit from the proposed regulations to close six to eight lakes to aircraft landings during nesting season. Swans are sensitive to disturbance. The closure would prevent nest abandonment and increase swan productivity. Sand and gravel extraction could be permitted between Tenmile and Gardiner creeks under Alternative D. Paired swans have been observed on Tenmile Lake, three miles or less from areas open to sand and gravel sale. Breeding swans are very sensitive to unfamiliar noises. A disturbance visible to the birds is more disruptive than a concealed source, and persistent sounds may be worse than occasional noises such as passing traffic. The distance at which disturbance occurs depends greatly on terrain and sound patterns. Potential disturbances would be studied and no permit would be issued by the refuge manager for activities that would disturb breeding swans. Cranes and other aquatic birds - Effects would be the same as under Alternative A Modified. Raptors - Sand and gravel extraction between Tenmile and Gardiner creeks could disturb bald eagles and osprey nesting near Tenmile Lake. Development would not be permitted within one mile of nests. Mechanical habitat manipulation would be carried out in winter and would not disturb breeding birds. This alternative would have no impact on peregrine falcons using the refuge. Other birds - Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A Modified. Caribou - Extensive refuge management would have a minor detrimental effect. 202 Moose - Habitat potential would be enhanced to a minor to moderate extent. Nine percent of the total burned area under this alternative would be the product of prescribed burning, positioned throughout the northern area of the refuge as under Alternative C. Prescribed burning alone would improve habitat to a minor degree. Willows along certain river banks and gravel bars would be crushed mechanically in the winter to enhance browse production in the next growing season. Moose could browse on large felled branches immediately after treatment, and young, nutritious willow shoots would grow in the spring. Mechanical manipulation may be more beneficial than other methods of habitat manipulation in special circumstances; further study would identify suitable locations for manipulation on Tetlin Refuge. Manipulation can increase browse production more rapidly than burning in dense stands of aged willows, which are common along rivers. In contrast, burning is more beneficial where unpalatable plants such as spruce predominate before treatment. Manipulation is useful along old stream channels where flooding no longer occurs} however, stands near the main channel are renewed naturally through uprooting and fertilization by the river, and these would not benefit greatly from artificial manipulation. Production declines sooner after mechanical manipulation than after burning, because there is no clearing of litter from the soil nor nutrient recycling from ashes. Manipulation is more expensive than burning, but is safer where small areas are to be treated close to human habitation. There may be a risk of increased erosion near stream banks where vegetation is crushed, but this would be minimized by leaving a fringe of intact willows along all streams. The total increase in habitat potential for moose due to mechanical manipulation cannot be estimated without further study but probably would be minor. The importance of mechanical manipulation would increase if there were few wildfires on the refuge. There would be a minor increase in hunting over Alternative C, due to the expanded public information program. Dall sheep - The impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative A Modified. Grizzly bear - Hunting levels would increase slightly over those in Alternative C because of the increase in moose hunting. The effect on the bear population could be a minor to moderate increase on the refuge as a whole. The potential exists for conflicts with recreational boaters on the Nabesna, as under Alternative A Modified. Black bear - The black bear harvest and population could experience a moderate to major increase, due to habitat alteration and hunting as described under Alternative A Modified. Furbearers - Impacts would be similar to or slightly greater than those described for Alternative C. Wolves would benefit to a minor or moderate extent from increased prey. 203 Small mammals - Impacts would be similar to or slightly greater than those anticipated under Alternative A Modified due to increased prescribed burning. Socioeconomic Impacts of Alternative D Cultural resources - This alternative provides the greatest risks to cultural resources, both from higher levels of activities similar to those allowed under the other alternatives, and from additional activities such as mechanical manipulation, gravel leasing, and water level manipulation. However, with proper protective measures, the net effect on the refuge's cultural resources would be minor. Population - The impacts of this alternative on populations in local communities would not vary significantly from those of Alternative A Modified. Some additional people would be added to the refuge staff. In addition, the economic stimulation resulting from the increased public information program could attract a few new residents to the area. However, the overall impact on the populations presently living in the communities would be insignificant. Economy - This alternative would have the greatest economic impact of the five alternatives. The fire management program would provide economic stimulation in the form of wages to local residents and expenditures for gasoline, food, lodging, and possibly air charter services. The small amount of mechanical manipulation being considered would not have a significant impact. The number of furs taken by trappers could increase by a minor amount as a result of fire management. Expenditures by recreationists would increase as a result of the enhanced visitor contact, fishery, and habitat management programs. The refuge staff needed to administer these programs would have to be expanded, increasing the amount of wages spent in the local communities. The visitor contact program in this alternative could create enough recreational interest to make a private recreational facility feasible in the Northway area. This would significantly stimulate the economy of Northway. Tourist facilities such as restaurants, motels, campgrounds, service stations, and gift shops would also enjoy a significant increase in business. In summary, this alternative would have a moderate positive impact on the economy of the study area, in the form of wages and expenditures in conjunction with the fisheries, habitat, and public use programs. Recreation Nonconsumptive recreation and environmental education - This alternative would result in a major change over Alternative A Modified in the interpretation and environmental education program stemming from increased access, expanded visitor contact station hours, and staff. Staffing levels, increased over those in Alternative C, would allow for greater public access to programs, information, and assistance. 204 Hunting - The impact on moose hunting would be the same as in Alternative C. Hunting of waterfowl would increase to a moderate extent, primarily due to information programs but also to more intensive waterfowl management. Fishing - This alternative would cause a major increase over Alternative A Modified in fishing due primarily to improved access and increased public information. Fish stocking would also lead to increased fishing. Impacts of the Wilderness Proposal for Alternative D In this alternative, none of the refuge would be proposed for wilderness designation. The impacts of nondesignation are evaluated for the three significant wilderness issues, impacts on wilderness values, impacts on fire Management, and impacts on wildlife habitat manipulation. Wilderness values Naturalness - The impacts for the life of the plan and the long term on naturalness from wildfire would be the same as those discussed for Alternative A Modified on page 173. The impacts from controlled burning for the blackline and habitat improvement would be the same as those for Alternative A Modified except that tracked vehicles would be used to prepare firelines on approximately 33% of the blackline burns and 20% of the habitat burns, 290 acres per year. These lines would be straighter and wider than those anticipated under Alternative A Modified. They would be visible from the air for up to 100 years, and visible on the ground in the immediate vicinity for 5 to 50 years. Vegetation grows up over the stumps in a few years, but the straight line of adjacent vegetation is visible. However, the affected area is less than one percent of the refuge. The willows patches crushed for habitat improvement would appear unnatural for the first two years after crushing. Then the new willow sprouts would grow up and screen the broken stumps and knocked down branches. Since the crushing would be done in small patches of five to ten acres, would be screened from the rivers by 50 to 100 foot buffers, and would involve less than .1% of the refuge per year, the overall effect on naturalness would be negligible. There would be no long term impacts since the crushing would not be repeated after 15 years, and the old sites would revegetate. Naturalness would be lost in the vicinity of the 300 acre gravel pit. Even after the pit was abandoned and recontoured, it would appear unnatural for at least 20 years. Naturalness would also be lost on any future pits. The total affected area includes the pit itself, areas within the refuge from which the pit could be seen, and areas within the refuge from which the gravel extraction process could be heard. 205 Conclusion - During the life of the plan, naturalness would be lost in the vicinity of the sand and gravel pit and would decline in areas affected by mechanical crushing, prescribed burning, and fire suppression activities. Over the long term, naturalness would be lost in the vicinity of the sand and gravel pits. Outstanding opportunities for solitude - Eighty-eight percent of refuge visits would occur at the visitor contact station near the border, the state waysides, the fishing access points, and the six pull-outs along the highway. None of these facilities are even on refuge land since the boundary is 300 feet off the highway. Of the 8,000 visits that would actually occur on the refuge by the end of the planning period, at least half would be for fishing, hunting, bird watching, hiking the interpretive trail, and sightseeing within one mile of the highway. Solitude opportunities would decline in this area particularly along fishing streams and the stocked lakes. Although use would increase in the interior of the refuge along the Cheslina, Chisana, and Nabesna rivers and on the large lakes accessible by float plane, these areas are large enough to provide solitude opportunities to Many more visitors. Over the long term, opportunities for solitude would be lost near the highway particularly in the Desper and Scottie creek areas. Parties on the major rivers and the larger lakes such as Pickerel, Jatahmund, and Fern would be likely to encounter other parties. On the remainder of the refuge opportunities for solitude would be unaffected. Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for solitude would not be affected except within one mile of the Alaska Highway. Over the long term, solitude would be lost near the highway and decline on the major interior rivers and large float plane lakes. Outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation - In addition, to the impacts discussed for Alternative A Modified on page 174, the new fisheries would affect recreational opportunities. New lake trout, grayling, and salmon fisheries would provide a 300% increase in fishing visits in addition to the 100% increase anticipated under Alternative A Modified. Managing for trophy northern pike and grayling would maintain a unique fishing Opportunity in spite of increased fishing pressure. The new fishing access points would facilitate access to the refuge. These benefits would occur during the life of the plan and the long term. The expanded visitor contact station hours, increased public use program, and new interpretive trail would improve recreational experiences for refuge visitors beyond that described for Alternative A Modified. It would also lead to the increase in visitor use described in the scenario. Over the long term, recreational users would face increased competition in the areas near the highway. More fish would be available, but fishing would be more crowded, and more fish would be stocked rather than wild. Increased competition among hunters throughout the refuge would lead to decreased success rates or hunts which would be limited by permits, length of season, or other measures. 206 Conclusion - During the life of the plan, opportunities for primitive recreation would have improved throughout the refuge due to increased visitor information, new fisheries, and improved fishing access. Opportunities would have declined on recent burns. Over the long term, opportunities for fishing would have improved where the new fisheries are located and declined near the highway due to increased competition. Opportunities for hunting would have declined throughout the refuge due to increased competition. Special features - The special features on this refuge are eight national resource species, osprey, bird species not found elsewhere in Alaska, the fossils of the limestone cliffs in the Cheslina River drainage, and the sand dunes of the Tanana Valley. Impacts on special features are identical to those described for Alternative A Modified on page 174 with one exception. Trumpeter swans would be protected from disturbance during nesting season on those six to eight lakes proposed for closure to float plane landings. Conclusion - During the life of the plan and the long term, burning may have a minor positive impact on bird species. Increased recreational use would have a negative impact on Canada geese during the life of the plan and the long term. Nothing would affect the fossils or the sand dunes. Fire management Fire management activities proposed for this alternative are allowing 6,350 acres of wildfire to burn per year, suppressing wildfires which are too large to benefit habitat diversity or in an area where they pose a danger to people or property; burning 450 acres per year across the center of the refuge to create a "blackline"; and burning 700 acres per year in small patches averaging 80 acres to benefit habitat diversity. These activities are not affected by the lack of a wilderness designation except that there are less constraints on fighting wildfire and tracked vehicles may be used to prepare prescribed burns. Fire bosses need not be concerned with the appearance of fire lines. This may save money. Conclusion - The lack of a wilderness designation has no impact on fire management except that fighting wildfires and prescribed burning may be somewhat less expensive than in a wilderness area. Habitat manipulation Three hundred acres of 20 foot high willows would be crushed per year to improve moose browse. Crushing is not allowed in wilderness and could not have occurred, if this alternative had proposed the refuge for wilderness. Moose populations would benefit less than 15% because of habitat improvement. Conclusion - The lack of a wilderness designation allows habitat manipulation to occur which would yield minor benefits to moose populations. Subsistence/Section 810 Evaluation and Finding Evaluation - The overall positive impact of this alternative on subsistence use is significantly higher than that of Alternative A Modified. The habitat management program probably would have a significant positive 207 impact on the number of moose using the refuge, resulting in a moderate increase in the number of moose harvested by local residents. A few additional grizzly and black bear could also be taken. The waterfowl harvest by local residents could increase a minor amount as a result of habitat improvement and the possible restoration of Canada geese to the Tanana River. The number of furbearer pelts trapped would increase with more abundant furbearer populations but it would not vary significantly from levels in Alternative A Modified. The restoration of a chum salmon run on the refuge would have the same impacts as those discussed under Alternative C. The impact could be significant if the fish are of desirable quality and quantity. Development projects involving lake trout, grayling, and northern pike would have little impact on subsistence harvest, although some local residents would enjoy the fishing benefits of these projects. Increased recreational fishing on the refuge could result in a actual or perceived increase in competition between local and nonlocal users of the refuge. The public information effort is at its highest level in this alternative. The increase in public use resulting from interpretation and education programs, added to the increase resulting from fishing, could increase competition between local and nonlocal users of the refuge. The conflict would focus on fishing sites near the highway. The existing feeling among local residents that outsiders harvest refuge resources needed by subsistence users probably would become more pronounced with this alternative. Availability of other lands - There may be other lands available for uses considered in this alternative, but as noted in the section 810 evaluation for Alternative A Modified, lands outside the refuge are not considered because they are beyond the scope of this plan. In terms of the fire management program the choice of other lands within the refuge is very limited. The location of wildfires is unpredictable and the general area open to wildfires is all that is available if human life and property are to be protected. The areas chosen for prescribed burning and mechanical manipulation were selected on the basis of desirable habitat types and accessibility. Other areas available on the refuge are not as desirable. Fishery reintroduction sites were selected on the basis of biological feasibility and accessibility. Other areas on the refuge are less desirable or are inadequate. Other alternatives - Other alternatives considered but rejected are discussed in Alternative A Modified. Of the five alternatives developed for this plan, this alternative provides the most intensive management of Tetlin Refuge, and would have the most impacts, both positive and negative, of all the alternatives. Alternatives C and D would cause significant increases in refuge fish populations and a minor or moderate increase in game populations over alternatives A Modified and A. Nonlocal use would also increase over previous alternatives. 208 Finding - This alternative has similar impacts to those of Alternative C, although the impacts are slightly more substantial. The habitat management program would moderately increase the moose harvest, enhance the berry crop, result in a minor increase in the furbearer and waterfowl harvests, and restore a significant chum salmon run to the refuge. Competition between local and nonlocal users of the refuge would be at its highest level in this alternative, although it would be related primarily to pole-fishing in areas adjacent to the highway. Because this alternative augments fish and game populations considerably, while only causing a minor increase in competition and trespass conflicts, the Service concludes that its overall impact on subsistence use of the refuge is positive. SUMMARY OF SECTION 810 EVALUATION AND FINDINGS Section 810(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) states: In determining whether to withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands under any provision of law authorizing such actions, the head of the Federal agency having primary jurisdiction over such lands or his designee shall evaluate the effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and needs, the availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be achieved, and other alternatives which would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes. The management alternatives in the Tetlin Refuge plan do not withdraw, reserve, lease, or permit any use of the public lands, as defined by section 102(3) of ANILCA, within the refuge. However, they do recommend various land uses be allowed on the refuge. It is for this reason that section 810 evaluations and findings are included in this document. The Tetlin Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan is a general land use plan, and makes only recommendations for land uses on the refuge. Other Service actions on the refuge, including development of the more specific refuge management plans, and issuance of special use permits, would directly affect specific land uses on the refuge. The Service would make additional section 810 evaluations for all other activities that affect land uses on Tetlin Refuge. As one of the four major purposes of Tetlin Refuge, under section 302(4)(B) of ANILCA, subsistence considerations have been addressed throughout the plan. Chapter I of the plan identifies subsistence concerns raised by local residents. Chapter II notes important subsistence species, describes subsistence use patterns, and identifies areas where local residents harvest resources in the refuge. All of the management alternatives included in this plan share a common management direction on subsistence. In its section 810(a) evaluations of the alternatives, included in this chapter, the Service determined that none of the alternatives would significantly restrict subsistence use. 209 The preferred alternative, Alternative C, provides broad direction for uses of the 699,000 acres of federal land within the refuge boundary. A complete description of the alternative is found in the management alternatives chapter. The preferred alternative emphasizes management and restoration of fish and wildlife populations to historical levels, allowing increased opportunities for hunting, fishing and trapping above existing levels. The Service determined in its section 810 evaluation that the preferred alternative would have a negligible impact on subsistence use of Tetlin Refuge, although concerns over increased recreational use may be expressed. The preferred alternative would enhance subsistence by protecting existing levels of use, offering the possibility of increased harvest opportunities, and providing additional management resources and options to mitigate user conflicts. The Service would work with the local villages, the ADF&G and the State Boards of Fisheries and Game to ensure that subsistence activities are not adversely affected by this alternative. MITIGATION Adverse impacts resulting from implementing Tetlin Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan would be mitigated whenever and wherever possible, relative to the goals and objectives of the plan. As noted in the common management directions, the ADF&G would regulate fish and wildlife harvests on the refuge. Changes in the hunting and fishing regulations that might be required and improved inventory procedures should mitigate most adverse effects associated with increased numbers of hunters and anglers visiting the refuge. The Service would publicize regulations, develop stipulations and issue permits to mitigate other impacts. These regulations, stipulations and permits would mitigate impacts by: avoiding the impact altogether; minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action; rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; or, compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mitigation may consist of standard stipulations imposed on common refuge activities, or may be attached to special use permits. Site-specific, project-specific mitigation identified through detailed "step-down" management plans or the NEPA process would also entail stipulations attached to permits. The degree, type and extent of mitigation undertaken would depend on site-specific conditions at the time of the impact and management goals and objectives of the actions being implemented. SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY In all of the alternatives the primary short-term use of the refuge would be for recreational and subsistence purposes. Monitoring and regulating fish and wildlife harvests by ADF&G and the Service would ensure the long-term productivity of fish and wildlife populations. 210 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES As there is little or no commercial development proposed for Tetlin Refuge, there would be no irreversible commitment of resources. Sand and gravel removal would occur in areas adjacent to the highway and with relatively little value as fish or wildlife habitat. Any ground-breaking activity would be preceded by a survey for historical and cultural resources and would not be allowed to proceed until such means are found to preserve the resources. High levels of public use may ireversibly affect cultural resources; however, supervision and other protective measures could curtail any detrimental activities. 211 V. EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION OF THE ALTERNATIVES This section evaluates each of the five alternatives for Tetlin Refuge against two evaluation criteria and proposes a preferred alternative to manage the refuge. Tables 11 and 12 summarize the major differences between the alternatives. As noted previously, although each alternative was designed to meet financial, technical, and legal tests of feasibility, each alternative has a different management emphasis. Table 13 summarizes the impacts of the wilderness proposal for each alternative. EVALUATION CRITERIA To minimize subjectivity in selecting the preferred alternative, the five alternatives were judged against two criteria: ° to what extent does the alternative satisfy the purposes of the refuge and other provisions of ANILCA? ° to what extent does the alternative satisfy the issues and concerns of the public? The relative costs of implementing the alternatives were also examined in the evaluation of the alternatives. The most important criteria in evaluating the alternatives is the degree to which they achieve the purposes of the refuge as mandated by ANILCA (see the introduction). The biological and socioeconomic assessments indicate how well each alternative satisfies this criteria. Table 12 summarizes potential biological and socioeconomic impacts of each alternative. Alternative A Modified would cause the fewest impacts, while Alternative D would cause the most impacts over a larger area. None of the alternatives are expected to have major adverse impacts on either refuge resources or refuge users. Four of the alternatives would have a positive effect on wildlife populations in localized areas of habitat improvement or reintroductions. Demographic trends suggest that competition between subsistence and recreational users will occur regardless of which management strategy is selected. The alternatives reflect several possible strategies for addressing this trend, ranging from ignoring it to proposing strategies for flexible and innovative management. None of the alternatives are expected to result in a significant restriction of subsistence opportunities, although increased competition between subsistence and recreational users will occur in Alternative D and perhaps in Alternative C. The Service will need to devote attention to monitoring and managing recreational use levels to minimize any possible impacts. None of the alternatives would significantly affect size of the local human population or the economy, with the possible exception of Alternative D which could moderately improve the economy by increasing public use. 213 1é “TT 819PL Resource or Use Alternative AM (the current situation) Alternative A Alternative B (the preferred alternative) Alternative C Alternative D Fish and wildlife Fire management blackline prescribed burning Access Subsistence Recreation Economic use Interpretation and environmental education Recommended wilderness Management costs |High level of | protection | | | | 1450 acres | 200 acres | ICurrent level |maintained | |Existing opportunities |maintained | |Existing opportunities [maintained |Existing opportunities |maintained [Existing opportunities |maintained | 10% of the refuge | [Moderate increase over |present level for full |implementation [Highest level lof protection; no |change in populations 450 acres | | | | | | 1200 acres | |Current level |maintained | |Existing opportunities [maintained [Existing opportunities |maintained | [Existing opportunities | maintained | | | [Existing opportunities |maintained | |100% of the refuge [Minor increase over |present level |High level of | protection; lrestoration of lsome populations 1450 acres |200 acres | |Minor increase | | |Minor increase in lopportunities [Minor increase in |hunting and fishing lopportunities | |Existing opportunities |maintained | IMinor increase in |programs offered | 120% of the refuge [Major increase in |annual budget [High level of |protection; restoration |more extensive efforts lof some populations; lenhancement of some |fish populations | 1450 acres | 1400 acres | [Minor increase | | IMinor increase in lopportunities | |Minor increase in |hunting and fishing lopportunities | [Existing opportunities |maintained |Moderate increase in programs offered 10% of the refuge | |Minor increase in one- |time building costs; |major increase in lannual budget |High level of protection; [to restore some |populations and enhance |some fish populations 1450 acres | 1700 acres | [Minor increase | | [Moderate increase in lopportunities | [Moderate increase in |hunting and fishing lopportunities | [Existing opportunities |maintained; sand and lgravel extraction | possible | [Moderate increase in | programs offered | 10% of the refuge | [Major increase in one- [time building costs; |major increase in [annual budget casnyay UITIe] 10J Seatqeussz {Te ey jo Aaeuwns eee Resource Alternative AM Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Fish Minor impact from Same as AM Negligible to moderate Moderate impact on Moderate impact from increased fishing impact from introduced fish from increased fishing increased fishing and increased fishing and and development projects restoration projects development projects Waterfowl Negligible or minor Same as AM Same as AM; and minor Same as B Negligible or minor benefit benefit from fire; benefit to swans from from fire; negligible minor increase in hunting lake closures beneficial impact from with negligible impact; restocking of geese; negligible to minor negligible or minor adverse disturbance from boating impact on swans on Scottie and Desper from gravel mining creeks Other aquatic birds Minor benefit from Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Raptors STc Other birds Caribou Moose fire; minor detriment to a few species due to loss of nest trees and short-term sedimentation of water Minor benefit from fire Same as AM due to increase in prey; minor detriment if nest trees burned Minor increase in Same as AM diversity due to fire; moderate increase in species dependent on deciduous vegetation; minor decrease in species of needleleaf forest; moderate woodpecker increase Negligible or minor Same as AM adverse impact from fire Minor to moderate Same as AM benefit from fire; negligible impact from increased hunting Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Minor to moderate benefit from fire; negligible to minor benefit from increased hunting Same as AM; and negligible or minor adverse impact from gravel mining Same as AM Same as AM Minor to moderate benefit from fire; negligible to minor benefit from intensive management; minor benefit from increased hunting “@T PT9PL pue yeotT8oToTq jo Aaeuung *sqoedwt 2twOUudde0T IOS 917 Resource Alternative AM Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Dall Sheep Grizzly bear Black bear Furbearers Small mammals Cultural resources Population Economy Recreation Subsistence Negligible impact Negligible impact Minor to moderate increase due to fire and hunting of a few dominant males Negligible to moderate benefit from fire; negligible to minor decrease in marten from loss of mature spruce habitat; negligible impact from increased trapping Minor to moderate benefit from fire Negligible impact Negligible impact Negligible impact Major increase in interpretation and environmental education programs and public use; minor increase in hunting Negligible impact Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Same as AM Minor benefit from increased fire management, public use, and trapping opportunities A moderate increase in addition to Am for interpretation, en- vironmental education, and public use; major increase in hunting and fishing Minor increase due to habitat management Same as AM Same as AM with slight increase in hunter harvest Same as AM Minor benefit from habitat manipulation; minor increase in beaver population Same as AM Negligible to minor impact from public use Same as AM Same as B An increase in addition to B for interpretation, environmental education programs, public use, and hunting and fishing Moderate increase due to habitat management Same as AM Minor to moderate impact due to increased hunting levels; negligible impact on bear from potential float trip conflicts Moderate to major increase due to habitat changes and hunting of a few dominant males Same as C; minor or moderate benefit to wolves Same as AM Same as C Same as AM Moderate stimulation from increased public use and trapping opportunities An increase in addition to C for intrepretation, environmental education programs, and public use; hunting and fishing - same as C Same as C “CT 8T9PL *(*qQu09) sjoedwt otwouode0T20s puke [RoTSo[OTq Jo AaeuuNg L412 Resource Alternative A Modified Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D (No wilderness) (100% wilderness) (20% wilderness) (No wilderness) (No wilderness) Wilderness Values Naturalness Negligible negative impact Negligible negative impact Same as A Same as A Modified Negligible to minor during the life of the plan during the life of the plan; negative impact over the and over the long term no long term impact life of the plan from crushing and gravel pit construction; negligible to minor negative impact over the long term from pit construction Solitude No impact during the life Same as A Modified No impact during No impact during Same as C of the plan; negligible the life of the plan; the life of the negative impact over the minor negative long plan; minor to long term term impacts from moderate negative increased river use impact from increased refuge use Primitive Negligible positive impact Same as A Modified Negligible negative Short term impacts Same as C Recreation during the life of the plan impact during the same as A Modified; on recreation opportunities life of the plan from negligible positive (except burn areas); prescribed burns; and negative long negligible negative long negligible negative term impacts from term impact on recreation long term impact improved opportunities from increased number opportunities of hunters and increased competition Special Possible minor positive Same as A Modified Minor positive impact Same positive Same as C Features impact on bird species from during the life of the impacts as A; burning during the life of plan and over the minor negative the plan and over the long term from impact only on long term; minor negative wildfires and geese during the impact on geese and swans prescribed life of the plan during the life of the burning and over the plan and over the long long term term from increased recreational use Fire No impact during the life Minor negative impact during Negligible negative Same as A Modified Same as A Modified Management of the plan and over the the life of the plan on impact during the long term fire suppression costs life of the plan and prescribed burns; and over the long negligible negative long term term impact Habitat No impact during the life Minor negative impact during Same as A Same as A Modified Minor positive impact on Manipulation of the plan and over the the life of the plan and moose during the life of long term over the long term to moose and waterfowl due to restricting water level manipulation and crushing plan and over the long term from crushing *SeATJBUIDITe ay} Jo sjoedwt ssausapyttIm yo AaeuNS “ET aTqey Of the alternatives considered, Alternative C poses few if any risks to refuge resources while providing the greatest balance between increased subsistence and recreational opportunities oriented especially toward the travelling public. Alternatives A Modified, A, and B do not have very extensive prescribed burning programs and will not significantly augment fish and wildlife populations. Alternative B does little to change the current situation, with the possible exception of expanding recreational fishing. With more people using the refuge in Alternative D, there would be a higher potential for impacts on fish and wildlife populations and subsistence use. Recreationists seeking a wilderness experience on the refuge rivers may be displaced by the extent of habitat manipulation allowed in Alternative D. Alternative C best fulfills ANILCA purposes for conserving fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity and protects opportunities for continued subsistence use by local residents. From a refuge-wide perspective, most impacts resulting from the five alternatives would be beneficial, negligible to minor in impact, and limited to areas of habitat manipulation and recreational use. None of the alternatives would result in a population decrease that would affect the long-term viability of the refuge's fish and wildlife populations. None of the negative potential impacts would be irreversible, and most could be minimized by careful regulation and monitoring. The second criterion in evaluating the alternatives is the degree to which the alternatives respond to or satisfy issues and concerns raised by the state, local residents, industry, conservation groups, and other interested parties. The Service must work closely with all these groups to minimize conflicts in order to effectively manage the refuge and its resources. Major issues and concerns were identified early in the planning process and provided one of the bases for developing the management alternatives. Because of the many different types of issues raised, and groups affected by refuge management many of which have different ideas on how the refuge should be managed, no single alternative would satisfy all the issues. Each alternative would satisfy concerns of some groups and cause problems for others. For example, alternatives A and B would satisfy the desires of conservation groups to maximize environmental protection, but would not satisfy recreational and subsistence users who want more opportunities to hunt, fish, and trap. The Service has decided Alternative C would satisfy most concerns of recreational and subsistence users and other interested groups. Under this alternative, 74% of the refuge would be under minimal management, no new access will be developed, and a moderate level of habitat manipulation is allowed to augment wildlife populations. RELATIVE COSTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES Staffing needs and management costs are another factor to consider in evaluating the alternatives. Table 14 and Figure 35 compare the costs of the alternatives. 218 Table 14. Staffing levels and costs (in 1000's of dollars) of the five alternatives. Alternative AM A B Cc D Staffing: Number of full-time (at refuge) 6 5 6 6 8 Number of part-time (at refuge) 2 2 4 6 ll Other full-time (support 1 1 1.5 2.5 4 from other field stations) Number of YCC 1 0 2 2 12 Number of volunteers 3 2 2 3 4 Annual Operations and Maintenance: Salaries 298 252 337 397 553 Wildlife monitoring* 45 45 45 45 100 Habitat management* 0 0 30 85 120 Wildfire management* 30 30 20 20 20 Fisheries management* 20 20 30 50 100 Subsistence monitoring* 10 10 10 15 20 Cultural resource protection* 3 3 3 5 10 Interpretation and environmental education* 12 12 22 24 24 Administrative overhead 47 43 43 59 70 Total $ 465** 415 540 702. »=«-1017 Development Costs: Administrative facilities: Tok: Office (lease) 0 0 0 0 0 Hangar and tie-down space (lease) 0 0 0 0 0 Equipment storage (lease) 70 70 70 70 140 Cold/warm Storage facility 0 0 0 0 100 Public Use Facilities: Roadside interpretive signs 60 60 60 60 80 Interpretive foot trail 0 0 0 20 20 Total $ 130 130 130 150 340 * - other than salaries ** - This represents a 35% increase over fiscal year 1986 budget. This increase is necessary to fully implement the common management directions. 219 Figure 35. Relative annual costs of the alternatives. #3 35% Increase ¢¢ 21% Increase 64 57% Increase 64 104% Increase 6¢ 196% Increase o > o 4 ~ c © a _ J Oo 220 Alternative A is the least expensive and Alternative D is the most expensive. Alternative C requires one and a half more full-time and four more part-time staff than the current situation and a 51% increase in funding over the funding required to fully implement Alternative A Modified to manage the expected increase in habitat projects and public use. SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The Service has selected Alternative C as its preferred alternative for managing Tetlin Refuge, on the basis that it would both satisfy the purposes of the refuge and maintain opportunities for the widest range of users. The Service would carefully monitor and regulate all uses and activities to minimize adverse impacts to refuge resources and users. No areas are proposed for wilderness designation. The proposed management will maintain existing values of the refuge; impacts to these values will be short-ter and limited to areas of habitat manipulation. No areas meet the agency's criterion of having outstanding values unrepresented in the Wilderness Preservation System. The other alternatives were not selected either because of their potential impacts on resources or user groups (Alternative D) or because of their inability to respond to public concerns (Alternatives A Modified, A, and B). 221 LIST OF PREPARERS LIST OF PREPARERS Management and Policy Direction Walter Stieglitz Regional Director David Olsen Deputy Regional Director John Rogers Asst. Regional Director, Wildlife Resources Joseph Mazzoni Deputy Asst. Regional Director, Wildlife Resources John Kurtz Refuge Supervisor, North Clay Hardy Chief of Planning Tetlin Refuge Planning Team Bill Behrends Fire Management Officer Poppy Benson Assistant Planner Mark Bertram Clerk/Typist Steve Breeser Assistant Refuge Manager Leslie Kerr Planning Team Leader Vivian Mendenhall Wildlife Biologist Melinda Schroyer Technical Writer Elizabeth Sharpe Biological Technician Dave Stearns Refuge Manager Pamela Wilson Public Involvement Specialist Disciplinary Specialists and Support Staff Phil Bigsby Physical Scientist Chuck Diters Archeologist Patti Gallagher Visual Information Specialist Elizabeth Halpin Sociologist John Hawkinson Fisheries Biologist Jim Henderson Supervisory Computer Systems Analyst Carl Markon Remote Sensing Analyst Gary Nichols Cartographer Dave Patterson Recreation Planner Larry Peterson Fisheries Biologist Patty Rost Fisheries Biologist Robert Seemel Wilderness Specialist Stephen Talbot Vegetation Ecologist Ron Thuma Socioeconomist Doug Vandergraft Cartographer 223 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION MEETINGS The public involvement process is described in the introduction. The following meetings were held at the pre-planning stage to address planning for Tetlin Refuge. 10/25/82 Tok Public Meeting. "Scoping" for issues. Community Center 10/26/82 Northway Public Meeting. "Scoping" for issues. Community Hall 12/09/82 Tetlin Public Meeting. "Scoping" for issues. 2/23/83 Fairbanks Discuss Tetlin planning and the study approach ADF&G office used by the Subsistence Division with Terry Haynes. 2/24/83 Fairbanks Discuss Tanana Basic Area Plan with Susan Todd. DNR office 3/14/84 Fairbanks Discuss Tetlin, Kanuti & Yukon Flats planning ADF&G office projects with Terry Haynes. 4/28/83 Anchorage Meet with Dave Cline, Audubon Society, to USFWS office discuss general concerns. 5/2/83 Glenallen Discuss pre-ANILCA management of Wrangell- BLM Area St. Elias and Tetlin areas with Darrel Fish, office BLM Area Director. 5/4/83 Tok Discuss plan with Cathie Ipalook and Ted TCC office Charles, TCC. 5/4/83 Tok Discuss plan with Bob Brean. Upper Tanana Dev. Corp. office 1/16/84 Fairbanks Met with Gary Lee of Doyon Ltd. Lands staff. Doyon office Discuss 14(h)(1) lands and cooperative management. 3/12/84 Fairbanks Informal discussions with TCC staff and Traveller's delegates at TCC annual meeting about status Inn of the plan and our proposed "workshops" in the fall. (Ted Charles, Charlie David Sr., Gary Thomas). 225 5/29/84 9/27/84 9/27/84 10/1/84 10/2/84 10/3/84 10/3/84 10/5/84 Anchorage FWS office Fairbanks Public Lib. Fairbanks Ryan JHS Tok Community Center Tok Refuge Office Northway Clinic Tetlin Village Council Hall Anchorage FWS Office, lst floor conference room Meet with Sally Gibbert, State CSU coordinator. Technical meeting with State, Federal and Native organizations and interest groups on proposed Tetlin NWR alternatives. Public Open House for Tetlin NWR alternatives. Public Open House Public Open House Public Open House Public Open House Public Open House The following public meetings were held to review 10/1/85 10/2/85 10/3/85 10/4/85 10/8/85 Tetlin Community Hall Northway Community Hall Tok School Library Fairbanks Federal Office building Anchorage FWS Office, lst floor conference room Public meeting on Public meeting on Public meeting on Public meeting on for Tetlin NWR for Tetlin NWR for Tetlin NWR for Tetlin NWR for Tetlin NWR the draft plan. draft plan. draft plan. draft plan. draft plan. Formal Hearing for draft plan. 226 alternatives. alternatives. alternatives. alternatives. alternatives. PLAN REVIEW The following agencies or organizations received copies of the plan for Tetlin Refuge for review and comment. Approximately 1,000 copies were distributed. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS House of Representatives Subcommittee on Fish & Wildlife Representative Don Young Senator Frank H. Murkowski Senator Ted Stevens FEDERAL AGENCIES Alaska Federal-State Land Use Council General Services Administration Federal Information Center The President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration North Pacific Fishery Management Council U.S. Department of Defense Defense Mapping Agency, Hydro/Topo Department of the Air Force U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Public Health Service Alaska Native Medical Center U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Mines U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Minerals Management Service National Park Service Office of Surface Mining U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of Transporation U. S. Coast Guard Federal Aviation Adminstraton Federal Highway Adminstration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 227 FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA Government of South Australia Department of Lands GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Canadian Arctic Research Commission Department of Indian Affairs International North Pacific Fisheries Commission Yukon Territorial Government Dept. of Renewable Resources, Whitehorse STATE AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING Alaska State Legislature Office of the Governor Office of Coastal Management Office of Management & Budget Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development Alaska Power Authority Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs Alaska Department of Education State Library Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Alaska Department of Fish and Game Board of Fisheries Board of Game Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Alaska Department of Labor Alaska Department of Law Fairbanks Law Library Alaska Department of Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Alaska Department of Public Safety Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission University of Alaska-Anchorage Library: Government Documents Institute for Social and Economic Research School of Economic and Public Affairs University of Alaska, Fairbanks Alaska Cooperative Fish Research Center Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center a/ Executive branch agencies were contacted through the State Conservation System Unit Planning Coordination Office. 228 Department of Resource Management Elmer E. Rasmusen Library Institute of Arctic Biology Institute of Northern Forestry Mineral Industries Research Laboratory School of Agricultural & Land Resources Palmer Research Ctr. School of Fisheries & Science Cross-Cultural Education Department University of Alaska, Juneau Library: Government Documents Alaska Pacific University LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS, AND LIBRARIES Anchorage, Municipality of Public Libraries City of Fairbanks Eagle Game and Fish Advisory Committee Forty Mile Game and Fish Advisory Committee North Star Borough Library and Regional Center Northway Library Northway, Village of Slana Game and Fish Advisory Tetlin School Library Tetlin, Village of Tok Public Library Tok School Tok Umbrella Corporation NATIVE ORGANIZATIONS Ahtna, Inc. Alaska Federation of Natives Alaska Indian and Eskimo Assocation Doyon, Ltd. Northway Natives, Inc. Tanana Chiefs Conference Tok Area Natives 229 ORGANIZATIONS AND INDUSTRY Alaska Assocation of Soil Conservation Subdistricts Alaska Center for the Environment Alaska Land Management Associates Alaska Legal Services Corp. Alaska Map Service Alaska Miners Assocation Alaska Oil and Gas Association Alaska Professional Hunters Association Alaska Sportsmen's Council Alaska State Chamber of Commerce Anchorage Chamber of Commerce Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Alaska Trapper's Assocation Alaska Wilderness Council American Fisheries Society American Wilderness Alliance ARCO Alaska Center for Environmental Education Center for Northern Studies Chevron USA, Inc. Cities Service Oil Company Citizens Advisory Committee on Federal Areas Commonwealth North Defenders of Wildlife Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Exxon Company USA Friends of the Earth International Association for Fish & Wildlife International North Pacific Fisheries Commission International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission Izaak Walton League Louisiana Pacific Corporation Marathon Oil Company National Audubon Society Anchorage Audubon Society Arctic Audubon Society National Refuge Association National Rifle Assocation National Wildlife Federation National Wildlife Refuge Assocation Nature Conservancy North Pacific Fishery Management Council Northern Alaska Environmental Center Off-Highway Sportsman's Association Resource Development Council for Alaska Shell Oil Company Shell Western E & P Inc. Sierra Club National Conservation Department Legal Defense Fund Alaska Field Office Society of American Foresters 230 Standard Alaska Production Co. Sportsmans Game Preservation Assocation Standard Oil of California Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Corporation Texaco Inc. The Institute of Ecology The Real Alaska Coalition The Wilderness Society Alaska Programs Wildlife Refuge Program The Wildlife Society Trout Unlimited Alaska Trustees for Alaska Unocal Upper Tanana Development Corporation Wildlife Management Institute MEDIA ALASKA NATIVE NEWS ANCHORAGE DAILY NEWS ANCHORAGE TIMES FAIRBANKS DAILY NEWS MINER MUKLUK NEWS, Tok NORTHLAND NEWS, Fairbanks THE COUNCIL TUNDRA TIMES Alaska Television Network KAKM TV, Anchorage KATN-TV, Fairbanks KJNP-TV & Radio, North Pole KSKA Public FM Radio, Anchorage KIMO-TV, Anchorage KTBY-TV, Anchorage KTUU-TV, Anchorage KTVA-TV, Anchorage KIVF-TV, Fairbanks KUAC FM Public Radio & TV, Fairbanks CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED The Service received 33 letters from 28 sources commenting on the draft plan during the comment period. These letters are printed in Appendix H, together with responses to selected comments. These comments were considered in preparing this final plan. 231 REFERENCES REFERENCES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Evans, M. and N. Opgrand. 1983. Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge issues and concerns for comprehensive conservation planning. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Anchorage, AK. Unpubl. rep. 41 pp. Wilson, P. 1984. Content summary analysis of November 1983 scoping letters. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Anchorage, AK. Unpubl. rep. 5 pp. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT Anderson, G.S. 1970. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Tanana Basin, central Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Hydrol. Invest. Atlas HA-319. - Mineral Terranes of Alaska; 1982, Plate E. Arctic Information and Data Center. Anchorage, AK. Carter, L.D. and J.P. Galloway. 1978. Preliminary engineering geologic maps. Ehm, A. 1983. Oil and gas basins map of Alaska. Alaska Dep. Nat. Res., Div. Geol. and Geophys. Surv. Spec. Rep. 32. Fernald, A.T. 1966 a. Glaciation in the Nabesna River area, upper Tanana River Valley. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 525-C:120-123. - 1966 b. Recent history of upper Tanana River lowland. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 525-C:124-127. Foster, H.L. 1970. Reconnaissance geologic map of the Tanacross quadrangle. Alaska U.S. Geol. Surv. Misc. Geol. Invest. Map I-593. Jones, D.L., A. Cox, P. Coney, and M. Beck. 1982. The growth of North America. Sci. Am. 247 (5):70-84. Jones, D.L., N.L. Silberling, H.C. Berg, and G. Plafker. 1981. Map showing tectonostratigraphic terranes of Alaska, columnar sections, and summary description of terranes. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-file Rep. 81-792. 20 pp. Lotspeich, F.B., G.W. Mueller and P.J. Frey. 1970. Effects of large scale forest fires on water quality in interior Alaska. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fed. Water Poll. Control Admin., AK Water Lab. 155 pp. Marsh, S.P. 1975. Geochemical and generalized geological map showing distribution and abundance of gold in the Nabesna quadrangle, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Misc. Field Stud. Map MF-655-D. 233 Mertie, J.B. Jr. 1937. The Yukon-Tanana region, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Bell. 873. 276 pp. Moffit, F.H. 1941. Geology of the upper Tetlin River district, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 917-B:115-157. - 1954. Geology of the eastern part of the Alaska Range and adjacent area. U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 989-D. 218 pp. Pflaker, G., P. Hudson, and D.H. Richter. 1976. Preliminary observations on late cenozoic displacements along the Totschunda-Denali fault systems. U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 751-B:67-69. Reid, G. K. and R. D. Wood. 1976. Ecology of inland waters and estuaries. Second edition. Van Nostrand, N.Y. Richter, D.H. 1975. Geologic map of the Nabesna quadrangle, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Misc. Field Stud. Map MF-655-A. Richter, D.H. and D.L. Jones. 1973. Structure and stratigraphy of the eastern Alaska Range, Alaska. In M.G. Pitcher, ed. Arctic geology: proceedings. Symposium on arctic geology. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem. 19. 747 pp. Richter, D.H., D.A. Singer, and D.P. Cox. 1975a. Mineral resources map of the Nabesna quadrangle, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Misc. Field Stud. Map MF-655-K. Richter, D.H., N.R.D. Albert, D.F. Barnes, A. Griscom, S.P. Marsh, and D.A. Singer. 1975b. The Alaskan Mineral Resource Assessment Program: background information to accompany folio of geologic and mineral resource maps of the Nabesna quadrangle, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 718. 1l pp. Rieger, S., D.B. Schoephorster, and C.E. Furbush. 1979. Exploratory soil survey of Alaska. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conserv. Serv., Anchorage, AK. 213 pp. Selkregg, L. 1976. Alaska regional profiles Yukon Region. Univ. of Alaska, Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. Shea, L. 1978. Proposed Tetlin Wildlife Refuge headquarters site inventory - Tok and Northway. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Anchorage, AK. Unpubl. rep. Singer, D.A., Gurtin, G.C., and Foster, H.L. 1976. Mineral resources map of the Tanacross quadrangle, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Serv. Misc Field Stud. Map MF-767-E. U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1983. Map showing possible geothermal leasing areas, Alaska. Map on file in Minerals Management Office, Anchorage, AK. 234 U.S. Geological Survey. 1969. Water resources data for Alaska 1968. Part l. Surface water records. Anchorage, AK. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT Vegetation Argus, G.W. 1973. The genus Salix in Alaska and the Yukon. Natl. Mus. Nat. Sci. (Ottawa) Publ. Bot. No. 2. Crum, H.A., W.C. Steere, and L.E. Anderson. 1973. A new list of mosses of North America north of Mexico. Bryologist 76:85-130. Daget, P., M. Godron, G. Long, and J. Poissonet. 1968. L'occupation de la station. Pp. 25-58 in M. Godron, ed. Code pour le releve methodique de la vegetation et du milieu. Principes et transcription sur cartes perforees. Centre Nat. Rech. Sci. Masson, Paris. Daubenmire, R. 1953. Notes on the vegetation of forested regions of the far northern Rockies and Alaska. Northwest Sci. 27:125-138. Egler, F.E. 1977. The nature of vegetation. Aton Forest, Norwalk, CT. 527 pp. Ellenberg, H. and D. Mueller-Dombois. 1967. Tentative physiognomic-ecological classification and mapping. Ber. Geobot. Inst. ETH Stifg Rubel, Zurich. 37:21-46. ESL, Inc. 1981. IDIMS functional guide. Tech. manual ESL - TM705. Vols. I-II. ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA. 716 & 319 pp. Fernald, A.T. 1966. Recent history of the Upper Tanana River lowland, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Pap. 525-c: 124-127. Fleming, M.D. 1975. Computer aided analysis of Landsat - 1 MSS data: a comparison of three approaches including a modified clustering approach. Purdue U. Lab. Applications of Remote Sensing. LARS Inf. Note 072475. 9 pp. Foster, H.L., N.R.D. Albert, D.F. Barnes, G.C. Curtin, A. Griscom, D.A. Singer, and J.G. Smith. 1976. The Alaskan Mineral Resource Assessment Program: background information to accompany folio of geologic and mineral resources maps of the Tanacross quadrangle, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 734. Arlington, VA. 23 pp. Hale, M.E. and W.L. Culberson. 1975. A fourth checklist of the lichens of the continental United States and Canada. Bryologist 73:499-543. Hamet-Ahti, L., T. Ahti, and T. Koponen. 1974. A scheme of vegetation zones for Japan and adjacent regions. Ann. Bot. Fennici 11:59-88. Hansen, H.P. 1953. Postglacial forests in the Yukon Territory and Alaska. Am. J. Sci. 251:505-542. 235 Hulten, E. 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA. 1008 pp. Ireland, R.R., C.D. Bird, CG.R. Brassard, W.B. Schofield, and D.H. Vitt. 1980. Checklist of the mosses of Canada. Nat. Mus. Can. (Ottawa) Publ. Bot. No. 8. Knapp, R. 1965. Die Vegetation von Nord und Mittelamerica und der Hawaii-Inseln. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 373 pp. La Roi, G.H. 1967. Ecological studies in the boreal spruce-fir forests of the North American taiga. I. Analysis of the vascular flora. Ecol. Monogr. 37:229-253. Orloci, L. and W. Stanek. 1979. Vegetation survey of the Alaska Highway, Yukon Territory: types and gradients. Vegetation 41:1-56. Richter, D.H. 1975. Geological map of the Nabesna quadrangle, Alaska. U.S. Geol. Surv. Misc. Field Stud. Map MF-655 A. Rieger, S., D.B. Schoephorster, and C.E. Furbush. 1979. Exploratory soil survey of Alaska. U.S. Dep. Agric., Soil Conserv. Serv., Anchorage, AK. 213 pp. Stanek, W. 1980. Vegetation types and environmental factors associated with Foothills gas pipeline route, Yukon Territory. BC-X-205. Pacific Forest Research Center, Victoria, BC. 48 pp. Stotler, R. and B. Crandall-Stotler. 1977. A checklist of the liverworts and hornworts of North America. Bryologist 80:405-428. Talbot, Stephen S. et al. 1984. Landsat-Facilitated Vegetation Map and Vegetation Reconnaissance of Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Resource Support, USFWS. Anchorage, Ak. UNESCO. 1973. International classification and mapping of vegetation. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris. 93 pp. Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, and A.R. Batten. 1982. Revision of preliminary classification for vegetation of Alaska. Mimeo. Inst. for Northern Forestry, Fairbanks, AK. 72 pp. Walker, D.A., W. Acevedo, K.R. Everett, L. Gaydos, J. Brown, and P.J. Webber. 1982. Landsat-assisted environmental mapping in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. CRREL Report 82-27. Cold Regions Res. and Eng. Lab., Hanover, NH. 68 pp. Westhoff, V. and E. van der Maarel. 1973. The Braun-Blanquet approach. Pp. 619-726 in R.H. Whittaker (ed). Ordination and classification of communities. Handbook of vegetation science, Past 5. Dr. W. Junk B.V. Publ., The Hague. 236 Wildlife A.O.U. Committee on Classification and Nomenclature. 1982. Thirty-fourth suplement to the American Ornithologists Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 99(3) suppl. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1978. Alaska's wildlife and habitat, Vol. I. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game, Juneau, AK. Armstrong, R. H. 1983. Guide to the birds of Alaska. Second edition. Alaska Northwest Publ. Co., Anchorage, AK. Ballard, W.B., G.L. Garner, J.H. Westlund, and J.R. Dau. 1982 Moose - upstream. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game, Susitna Hydro-electric project, final phase I report, Vol. III. Unpubl. rep. for the Alaska Power Authority. Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto, Toronto. Banko, W.E. 1960. The trumpeter swan. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., North Amer. Fauna No. 63. Burt, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A field guide to the mammals. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA. Buskirk, S.W. 1983. The ecology of marten in southcentral Alaska. Unpubl. PhD. diss., Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Cade, T.J. and C.M. White. 1976. Alaska's falcons: the issue of survival. Living Wilderness, January-March: 35-47. Coady, J.W. 1973. Evaluation of moose range and habitat utilization in interior Alaska. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Fed. Aid Proj. W-17-4 and W-17-5, Job 1.3R. Unpubl. progress rep. Fox, J.F. 1983. Profile succession of small mammal and bird communities. Pp. 155-180 in R.W. Wein and D.A. MacLean, eds. The role of fire in northern circumpolar ecosystems. Wiley, New York, NY. Franzman, A.W. and C.C. Schwartz. 1979. Kenai Peninsula moose calf mortality study. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Fed. Aid Proj. W-17-10 and W-17-11, Job 1.24R. Unpubl. final rep. Hansen, H.A., P.E.K. Shephard, J. King, and W.A. Troyer. 1971. The trumpeter swan in Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 26. Hemming, J.E. 1971. The distribution and movement patterns of caribou in Alaska. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game, Tech. Bull. No. l. Kessel, B. 1978. Raptors and raptor habitat along the Alaska portion of the Northwest Alaskan Gas Pipeline corridor. Unpubl. rep., Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, to the Northwest Gas Pipeline Co. 21 pp. 237 - 1979. Migration of sandhill cranes, upper Tanana River valley, Alaska. Unpubl. rep., Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, to the Northwest Gas Pipeline Co. - 1984. Migration routes of sandhill cranes, Grus canadensis, in east-central Alaska, with routes through Alaska and western Canada. Can. Field-Nat. 98:279-292. Koehler, G.M. and M.G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. J. Wildl. Manage. 41:500-505. Lensink, C.J. 1962. Waterfowl populations and production within the impoundment area of the proposed dam at Rampart on the Yukon River, Alaska. Bur. Sport Fish. and Wildl., Migratory Bird Populations Station, Laurel, MD. Unpubl. rep. MacDonald, S.O. 1980. Checklist: mammals of Alaska. Univ. of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, AK. Morrow, J.-E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co., Anchorage, AK. Murie, O.J. 1935. Alaska-Yukon caribou. U.S. Dep. Agric., North Am. Fauna No. 54. Murphy, S.M., B. Kessel, and L.J. Vining. 1984. Waterfowl populations and limnologic characteristics of taiga ponds. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1156-1163. Murray, D.F. 1961. Some factors affecting the production and harvest of beaver in the upper Tanana River valley, Alaska. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. Nelson, K. and D. Weixelman. 1983. Moose-fire vegetation survey. Progress report for 1983., U.S. Dep. Agric., Forest Serv., Chugach Nat. Forest, Seward, AK. Unpubl. rep. Olendorff, R.R. and M.N. Kochert. 1977. Land management for the conservation of birds of prey. Proc. ICBP World Conf. on Birds of Prey, Vienna, 1975: 294-307. Parker, G.R., J.W. Maxwell, L.D. Morton, and G.E.J. Smith. 1983. The ecology of the lynx (Lynx canadensis) on Cape Breton Island. Can. J. Zool. 61:770-786. Peterson, R.T. 1961. A field guide to western birds. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA. Robins, C.R. et al. 1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Fourth edition. American Fisheries Soc., Spec. Publ. No. 12. 238 Sage, B.L. 1975. Recent observations in the Wrangell Mountains, Alaska. Condor 77:206-207. Schempf, P.F. 1983. Alaska birds of prey; a plan for their conservation. Draft. U.S. Dep. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Raptor Manage. Stud., Juneau, AK. Spindler, M.A. and B. Kessel. 1980. Avian populations and habitat use in interior Alaska taiga. Syesis 13:61-104. Stephenson, R.O. 1984. The relationship of fire history to furbearer populations and harvest. Alaska Dep. Fish and Game, Fed Aid Pro}. W-22-2, Job 7.132. Unpubl. final rep. U. S. Forest Service. 1978. USDA Forest Service Environmental Statement for the Chugach Moose Fire Management Program, Chugach National Forest. U.S. Dep. Agric., Forest Serv., Report No. USDA-FS-R10-FES (ADM) 77-07. West, S.D. 1982. Dynamics of colonization and abundance in central Alaskan populations of the northern red-backed vole, Clethrionomys utilus. J. Mammal. 63:128-143. Wolff, J.O. 1980. The role of habitat patchiness in the population dynamics of snowshoe hares. Ecol. Monogr. 50:111-130. Wolff, J.O. and W.Z Lidicker. 1980. Population ecology of the taiga vole, Microtus xanthognathus, in interior Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 58:1800-1812. Yocum, C.F. 1963. Birds of the Tetlin Lake-Tok-Northway area, Alaska. Murrelet 44:2-8. Young, B.F. and R. L. Ruff. 1982. Population dynamics and movements of black bears in east central Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 46:845-860. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1983. Tanana Basin area plan draft. Fairbanks, AK. Berman, M. 1983. Alaska's national resource development. Thomas Morehouse (ed.). Univ. of Alaska, Inst. of Social and Economic Res. Pinecrest Publications, Boulder, CO. Case, M. 1986. Wild Resource Use in Northway, Alaska. Alaska Dep. of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Tech. Paper #132. Darbyshire and Associates. 1980. Community profile series for Tok, Tetlin, Northway, and Tanacross. Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company, Anchorage, AK. Ducker, J.H. 1982. Alaska's Upper Yukon Region: a history. Draft. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Land Manage., Anchorage, AK. 685 pp. 239 Gue'don, M.F. 1974. People of Tetlin, why are you singing? Natl. Mus. Can. Mercury Ser., Ethnology Div. Pap. No. 9. Ottawa, ON. 241 pp. Halpin, L. 1985. Living off the Land: A Study of Contemporary Patterns of Subsistence in Tetlin, Alaska. Thesis; Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. Huskey, L. 1982. Rural labor force participation and OCS development in Alaska. U.S. Dep. Inter., Bur. Land Manage., Tech. Rep. No. 73. Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. 1982a. Population forecast working paper. Alaska Dep. Labor, Juneau, AK. . 1982b. Employment forecast working paper. Alaska Dep. Labor, Juneau, AK. McKennan, R.A. 1959. The Upper Tanana Indians. Yale Univ. Publ. in Anthropology No. 55. New Haven, CT. 226 pp. Reynolds, G.L. and J. Jordan. 1982. Archeological reconnaissance of Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve. Draft. U.S. Dep. Inter. Natl. Park Serv., Anchorage, AK. 142 pp. Simeone, W.E. 1982. A history of Alaska Athapaskans. Alaska Hist. Comm., Anchorage, AK. 133 pp. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1981. 1980 census of population, supplementary reports. Bureau of the Census, Washington D.C. U.S. Department of Interior. 1973. Proposed Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, Alaska. Final Environment Statement. Alaska Planning Group. 764 PP- Vitt, R.B. 1971. Hunting practices of the Upper Tanana Athapaskans. Master's Thesis. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. WILDERNESS REVIEW U. S. Department of Interior. 1985. Wrangell-St. Elias draft general management plan/environmental assessment/land protection plan/ wilderness review. National Park Service, Alaska. 203 pp. MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Inventory plan for Tetlin Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Inventory plan for Tetlin Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska. 240 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. International treaties. A number of international treaties affect how the Fish and Wildlife Service manages Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. The following table identifies the major treaties and their primary purposes. Treaty Convention between the Govern- ment of the United States of America and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and Their Environment (1972) Convention between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds (1976) Convention between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning the Con- servation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment (1976) Convention between the United States and the United Mexican States for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals (1936) Purpose To provide for the protection of species of birds which are common to both countries, or which migrate between them, by (1) enhancement of habitat, (2) exchange of research data, and (3) regulation of hunting. Adopted a uniform system of protection for certain species of birds which migrate between the United States and Canada, to assure the preservation of species either harmless or beneficial to man. Sets certain dates for closed seasons on migratory birds. Prohibits hunting insectivorous birds, but allows killing birds under permit when injurious to agricul- ture. Canada and the United States signed an agreement on January 30,1979, to amend the treaty to allow subsistence hunting of waterfowl outside of the normal hunting season, but this amendment has not been ratified. Provides for the protection of species of birds that migrate between the United States and the Soviet Union or that occur in either country and "have common flyways, breeding, wintering, feeding or moulting areas." Encourages actions to identify and protect important habitat and to cooperate in measures to protect migratory birds identified as being in danger of extinction. Adopted a system for protecting certain migra- tory birds in the United States and Mexico. Allows, under regulation, the rational use of certain migratory birds. Provides for enact- ment of laws and regulations to protect birds by establishment of closed seasons and refuge zones. Prohibits killing of insectivorous birds, except under permit when harmful to agriculture. Provides for enactment of regulations on transportation of game mammals across the United States-Mexican border. 241 Treaty Pacific Salmon Treaty between the United States and Canada (1985) Treaty between the United States and Great Britain or Relating to Boundary Waters between the United States and Canada (1910) Convention on Nature Protec- tion and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere (United States and 17 other American Republics, 1940) Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Environmental Protection (United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1972) Purpose Establishes six fishery management regions, as well as a Pacific Salmon Commission charged with managing the Pacific salmon fishery on the west coast of the US. Major provisions of the treaty include joint management of the Pacific salmon stocks and a reduction in catch of certain stocks off southeastern Alaska and British Columbia. It also provides for US-Canadian negotiations on Yukon River stocks of Pacific salmon with management based on escapement needs. To prevent disputes regarding the use of boun- dary waters and settle all questions pending that may arise in the future between the United States and Canada involving the rights, obligations, and interests of both nations along their common frontier. To "protect and preserve in their natural habi- tat representatives of all species and genera of their native flora and fauna, including migratory birds" and to protect regions and natural objects of scientific value. The nations agreed to take certain actions to achieve these objectives, including the adoption of "appropriate measures for the protection of migratory birds of economic or esthetic value or to prevent the threatened extinction of any given species." To cooperate in the field of environmental Protection through exchange of scientific personnel, organization of bilateral confer- ences, exchange of scientific and technical information, and development and implementation of projects. Emphasizes activities related to air and water pollution, enhancement of urban environments, preservation of nature, estab- lishment of preserves, and arctic and subarctic ecological systems. 242 APPENDIX B. Class Percentage Description 0 6.55% Background 2 7.03% Closed coniferous forest (60-100% cover) 3 16.54% Open coniferous forest (25-60% cover) 243 Tetlin Refuge vegetation classes. Species Picea glauca white spruce) Picea mariana black spruce) Populus balsamifera (balsam poplar) Populus tremuloides (aspen) Alnus incana (river alder) Rosa acicularis (prickly rose) Vaccinium vitis—idaea (lingonberry) Lupinus sp. (lupine) Pyrola spp. (wintergreen) Geocaulon lividum (toadflax) Hedysarum sp. (sweet-vetch) Hylocomium splendens (feathermoss) Picea mariana Alnus cris green alder) Ledum groenlandicum Galeatorjese) Arctostophylos rubra (red bearberry) Rosa acicularis Hylocomium splendens Comments dominant minor components characteristic understory dwarf shrub herbs carpets ground characteristic of poorly drained mineral soils APPENDIX B. Class 4 Percentage 25.31% Description Coniferous woodland (10-25% tree cover) 244 Tetlin Refuge vegetation classes cont. Species Picea mariana Ledum groenlandicum Vaccinium vitis—idaea Hylocomium splendens Aulacomnium palustre Tomenthypnum nitens Sphagmum girgensohnii S. squarrosum S. warnstorfii Eriophorum vaginatum (sheath cottongrass) Calamagrostis canadensis (blue joint) Picea mariana Salix planifolia pulchra (diamondleaf willow) S. glauca acutifolia (grayleaf willow) Ledum groenlandicum Vaccinium uliginosum (bog blueberry) V. vitis-idaea Betula nana (dwarf artic birch) Empetrum nigrum Cerowberry) Arctostaphylos rubra Eriophorum vaginatum Carex spp. (sedges) Hylocomium splendens Tomenthypnum nitens Sphagnum warnstorfii Aulacomnium acuminatum Dicranum undulatum Comments characteristic of organic deposits, wetlands dominant tree species in lowland sites, usually poorly drained. sparse shrub layer, characterized by willows rich dwarf shrub stratum tussock-forming graminoids important mosses less abundant but frequently encountered mosses APPENDIX B. Class Percentage Description 5 5.12% Mixed coniferous - deciduous forest 6 2.96% Deciduous forest (alluvial sites) 245 Tetlin Refuge vegetation classes cont. Species Betula papyrifera (white birch) Populus tremuloides Picea glauca Populus balsamifera Picea mariana Rosa acicularis Salix scouleriana (Scouler willow) Linnaea borealis Ctwinflower) Vaccinium vitis-idaea Mertensia paniculata Clungwort) Epilobium angustifolium (fireweed) Betula papyrifera Populus tremuloides P. balsamifera Picea glauca Populus balsamifera Picea glauca Alnus incana Rosa acicularis Shepherdia canadensis (soapberry) Linnaea borealis Aster sibircus (Siberian aster) Hedysarum mackenzii (northern sweet-—vetch) Lupinus sp. Pyrola secunda (one-sided wintergreen) Comments covers large areas of well- to moderately-drained soils in the lowlands and lower montane. dominant decidous species dominant conifer less frequent shrubs dwarf shrubs herbs dominant may be present dominant regenerating as understory shrub stratum weakly developed dwarf shrub/herb stratum APPENDIX B. Class Percentage Description 0.66% (dry steep bluffs) Lowland deciduous scrub 246 Tetlin Refuge vegetation classes cont. Species Populus tremuloides P. balsamifera Shepherdia canadensis Rosa acicularis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (ceueteris) Calamagrostis purpurascens (purple reedgrass) Solidago decumbens (decumbent goldenrod ) Oxytropis campestris (field oxytrope) Weissia controversa Salix glauca acutifolia S. planifolia pulchra Betula nana Ledum groenlandicum Vaccinium uliginosum Potentilla fruticosa (shrubby cinquefoil) Vaccinium vitis-idaea Eriophorum vaginatum Calamagrostis canadensis Eriophorum angustifolium (cottongrass) Carex spp. Hylocomium splendens Aulacomnium palustre Comments dominant shrubs dwarf shrub grasses moss occurs in poorly drained sites, primarily as peatlands, often associated with dwarf shrub-graminoid tussock peatlands and needleleaf woodland swamps dominant shrubs and dwarf shrubs graminoids mosses APPENDIX B. Class Percentage Description 8 6.09% Alpine & subalpine deciduous scrub 9 0.21% Alluvial scrub 247 Tetlin Refuge vegetation classes cont. Species Salix glauca S. planifolia pulchra Betula nana Vaccinium uliginosum Empetrum nigrum Ledum decumbens (narrow-leaf Labrador tea) Pedicularis labradorica (Labrador lousewort) Artemisia arctica (mountain sagebrush) Cornus canadensis (bunchberry) Lycopodium spp. (clubmoss) Mertensia paniculata (tall bluebell) Festuca altaica (rough fescue) Hylocomium splendens Pleurozium schreberi Cladina alpestris C. rangiferina Stereocaulon sp. Peltigera aphthosa Salix alaxensis (feltleaf willow) S. planifolia Alnus incana A. crispa Comments dominant shrubs dwarf shrubs weakly developed herb stratum feathermosses intermittent lichen cover occurs on frequently-flooded sites; colonizes zone along river banks between riverine grasslands and balsam poplar forests; also found at high elevation alluvial sites near treeline dominant on frequently- flooded sites sometimes dominant APPENDIX B. Class 10 Percentage 0.82% Description Prostrate dwarf scrub tundra 248 Tetlin Refuge vegetation classes cont. Species Epilobium latifolium (dwarf fireweed) Parnassia palustris (northern grass-of- Parnassus) Equisetum arvense (meadow horsetail) Drepanocladus uncinatus (moss) Dryas octopetala (white mountain-avens) Salix reticulata (netleaf willow) Vaccinium uliginosum V. vitis~idaea Empetrum nigrum Diappensia lapponica (arctic diappensia) Salix arctica (arctic willow) Loiseleuria procumbens (alpine azalea) Cladina alpestris Cetraria nivalis Alectoria ochroleuca Dactylina arctica Masonhalea richardsonii Thamnolia subuliformis Stereocaulon spp. Pedicularis lanata (Kane lousewort) Hierochloe alpina (alpine holygrass) Silene acaulis (moss campion) Comments understory low ground vegetation above the limit of continuous forests in the mountains, dominated by matted dwarf shrubs dominant often included rich in lichens other characteristic species APPENDIX B. Class 11 12 Percentage 20.73% 0.99% Description Dwarf scrub-graminoid tussock peatlands Graminoid marsh 249 Tetlin Refuge vegetation classes cont. Species Ledum groenlandicum L. decumbens Betula nana Andromeda polifolia (bog rosemary) Chamaedaphne calyculata (leatherleaf) Myrica gale (sweet gale) Potentilla fructicosa Eriophorum vaginatum Carex aquatilis (water sedge) Eriophorum angustifolium Scirpus (Trichophorum) caespitosus (tufted clubrush) Aulacomnium palustre Dicranum undulatum Hylocomium splendens Sphagnum warnstorfii S. subfulvum S. fuscum S. fuscum Carex rostrata (beaked sedge) Calamagrostis canadensis (blue joint) Carex aquatilis Potentilla palustris (marsh cinquefoil) Menyanthes trifoliata (buckbean) Comments dominant in relatively dry peatlands dominant in wetter peatlands dominant in raised peatlands along lake shores and alluvial sites; also found as a mosaic complex with dwarf shrub - graminoids tussock peatland most important graminoids primary forbs APPENDIX B. Class Percentage Description 13 2.77% Clear water 14 0.57% Shallow water/low sedimented water/ aquatic vegetation 15 0.41% Medium-high sedimented water 16 1.57% Barren scree 17 0.67% Scarcely vegetated scree 18 0.31% Barren floodplains 19 0.61% Scarcely vegetated floodplain 250 Tetlin Refuge vegetation classes cont. Species Equisetum fluviatile (swamp horsetail) Nuphar polysepalum Cyellow pond lily) Potamogeton natans P. alpinus P. gramineus P. perfoliatus P. zosterifolius P. subsibiricus P. berchtoldi P. pectinatus P. filiformis P. vaginatus Umbilicaria Cetraria Cornicularia Pseudephebe Populus balsamifera Dryas drummondii (yellow dryas) Epilobium angustifolium E. latifolium (river beauty) Shepherdia canadensis Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Comments achieves dominance in wettest marshes and often forms distinct zone near pond center. lichen tundra mostly of four genera unstable, steep stone slopes; grades into prostrate dwarf shrub tundra result of initial invasion of plants into recent river alluvium APPENDIX B. Tetlin Refuge vegetation classes cont. Class Percentage Description Species Comments Astragalus spp. (milk vetch) Hedysarum spp. (sweet vetch) several members of Gramineae 20 0.08% Snow 21 See # 11 22 0.00% Northway airport 251 APPENDIX C. Scientific names of the fish and wildlife of Tetlin Refuge (after MacDonald 1980, Morrow 1980, Robins et al. 1980, A.O.U. Committee on Classification and Nomenclature 1982). Fish Least Cisco (Coregonus sardinella) Round Whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) Humpback Whitefish (Coregonus pidschian) Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri) Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) Chinook Salmon (Onchorhynchus tshawytscha) Chum Salmon (Onchorhynchus keta) Arctic Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) Northern Pike (Esox lucius) Lake Chub (Couesius plumbeus) Longnose Sucker(Catastomus catastomus) Burbot (Ling Cod) (Lota lota) Slimy Sculpin (Cottus cognatus) Amphibians and Reptiles Wood Frog (Rana sylvatica) Birds Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) Arctic Loon (Gavia arctica) Common Loon (Gavia immer) Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii) Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena) Tundra Swan (Whistling Swan) (Cygnus columbianus) Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator) Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) Cackling Canada Goose (Branta canadensis minima) Lesser Canada Goose (Branta canadensis parvipes) Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) Cinnamon Teal (Anas cyanoptera) Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata) Gadwall (Anas strepera) Eurasian Wigeon (Anas penelope) American Wigeon (Anas americana) Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) Redhead (Aythya americana) 252 Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra) Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca) Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) Ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Northern Harrier (Marsh Hawk) (Circus cyaneus) Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus) Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) American Kestrel (Sparrow Hawk) (Falco sparverius) Merlin (Falco columbarius) Peregrine Falcon, American (Falco peregrinus anatum) Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) Spruce Grouse (Dendragapus canadensis) Willow Ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus) Rock Ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) White-tailed Ptarmigan (Lagopus leucurus) Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus) Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) Sora (Porzana carolina) American Coot (Fulica americana) Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) Lesser Golden Plover (Pluvialis dominica) Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) Wandering Tattler (Heteroscelus incanus) Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemastica) Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) Black Turnstone (Arenaria melanocephala) Surfbird (Aphriza virgata) Sanderling (Calidris alba) Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) 253 Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis) Baird's Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii) Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) Dunlin (Calidris alpina) Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) Wilson's Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) Red-necked (Northern) Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicaria) Long-tailed Jaeger (Stercorarius longicaudus) Bonaparte's Gull (Larus philadelphia) Mew Gull (Larus canus) Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens) Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus) Arctic Tern (Sterna paradisaea) Rock Dove (Common Pigeon) (Columba livia) Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) Snowy Owl (Nyctea scandiaca) Northern Hawk-Owl (Surnia ulula) Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Boreal Owl (Aegolius funereus) Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus) Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) Three-toed Woodpecker (Northern Three-toed woodpecker)(Picoides tridactylus) Black-backed Woodpecker (Black-backed Three-toed Woodpecker)(Picoides arcticus) Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus borealis) Western Wood Pewee (Contopus sordidulus) Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) Hammond's Flycatcher (Empidonax hammondi) Say's Phoebe (Sayornis saya) Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalus) Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) Purple Martin (Progne subis) Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina) Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) Cliff Swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota) Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) Gray Jay (Perisoreus canadensis) 254 Clark's Nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) Black-billed Magpie (Pica pica) Common Raven (Corvus corax) Black-capped Chickadee (Parus atricapillus) Siberian Tit (Parus cinctus) Boreal Chickadee (Parus hudsonicus) Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) Arctic Warbler (Phylloscopus borealis) Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satra satrapa) Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) Northern Wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe) Mountain Bluebird (Sialia currucoides) Townsend's Solitaire (Myadestes townsendi) Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus) Swainson's Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) American Robin (Turdus migratorius) Varied Thrush (Ixoreus naevius) Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava) White Wagtail (Motacilla alba) Water Pipit (Anthus spinoletta) Bohemian Waxwing (Bombycilla garrulus) Northern Shrike (Lanius excubitor) European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrina) Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata) Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) Townsend's Warbler (Dendroica townsendi) Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) Western Tanager (Piranga ludoviciana) American Tree Sparrow (Spizella arborea) Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerina) _ Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) Lincoln's Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) Golden-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla) White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) — Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus) Smith's Longspur (Calcarius pictus) Snow Bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis) Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoe phoeniceus) Yellow-headed Blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) 255 Rosy Finch (Leucosticte arctoa) Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) White-winged Crossbill (Loxia leucoptera) Common Redpoll (Carduelis flammea) Hoary Redpoll (Carduelis hornemanni) Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) Mammals Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus) Dusky Shrew (Sorex monticolus) Water Shrew (Sorex palustris) Arctic Shrew (Sorex arcticus) Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi) Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) Collared Pika (Ochotona collaris) Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus) Woodchuck (Marmota monax) Alaska Marmot (Marmota broweri) Hoary Marmot (Marmota caligata) Arctic Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus parryii) Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Northern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys s sabrinus) Beaver (Castor canadensis) Northern Red-backed Vole (Clethrionomys rutilus) Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) Tundra Vole (Microtus oeconomus) Yellow-cheeked Vole (Microtus xanthognathus) Long-tailed Vole (Microtus 1 longicaudus ) Singing Vole (Microtus miurus) Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) Brown Lemming (Lemmus sibiricus) Northern Bog Lemming (Synaptomys borealis) Collared Lemming (Dicrostonyx torguatus) Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) House Mouse (Mus musculus) Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonicus) Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) Coyote (Canis latrans) Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Red Fox (Vulpes | vulpes) Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) Marten (Martes americana) Ermine (Mustela erminea) Least Weasel (Mustela nivalis) Mink (Mustela vison) Wolverine (Gulo gulo) River Otter (Lutra canadensis) Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Moose (Alces alces) Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) Dall's Sheep (Ovis dalli) 256 APPENDIX D. Fish and wildlife species present on Tetlin Refuge and their habitats. These species have been recorded either on the refuge or nearby in similar habitats. Frequency of occurrence Common (in suitable habitat every year) = Uncommon (occurs regularly, but not in all suitable habitat) = Rare (occurs most years, but in very low numbers) = Peripheral (casual or accidental, not seen annually) wvunraaQ Breeding status: * = known or possible breeder on refuge Habitats principally used for nesting, feeding, or shelter; Landsat cover classes are given for each type Riv = Rivers and streams, including shores (several Landsat water types) Lak = Lakes and ponds, including shores and graminoid marshes (several Landsat water types) Grs = Grassy meadow--small areas near lakes and on recent burns (not a Landsat class) LTu = Dwarf scrub-graminoid tussock peatland ("lowland tundra") TMS = Tall and medium scrub} includes alluvial scrub, riparian scrub, and alpine-subalpine deciduous scrub, both closed and open Coniferous forest and woodland; includes closed needleleaf forest, open needleleaf forest, and open dwarf needleleaf woodland ("spruce bog", "muskeg") MFW = Mixed forest DFW = Decidous forest Cl£ = Cliff (not a Landsat class) Grv = Barren and scarcely vegetated floodplain ATu = Prostrate dwarf scrub tundra ("alpine tundra") Alp = Barren and scarcely vegetated alpine scree and rocks CFW Principal sources: Tetlin Refuge files, Peterson 1961, Yocum 1963, Banfield 1974, Sage 1975, Burt & Grossenheider 1976, Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1978, Springer & Kessel 1980, Armstrong 1983 257 8SZ AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES Wood Frog BIRDS Red-throated Loon Arctic Loon Common Loon Yellow-billed Loon Horned Grebe Red-necked Grebe Tundra Swan Trumpeter Swan Greater White-fronted Goose Snow Goose Cackling Canada Goose Lesser Canada Goose Green-winged Teal Mallard Northern Pintail Blue-winged Teal Cinnamon Teal Northern Shoveler Gadwall Eurasian Wigeon American Wigeon Canvasback Redhead Ring-necked Duck Greater Scaup Lesser Scaup Harlequin Duck Oldsquaw Black Scoter Surf Scoter White-winged Scoter Common Goldeneye Occur-| Breed Habitat |rence |Status] Riv | Lak | Grs | LTu | TMS | CFW | MFW | DFW | Clif | Grv | ATu | Alp | TT Oo Cc * Xx Xx Xx Xx | | R x Xx | | Cc x X Xx | Cc * X x | R x x | Cc x x | Cc x Xx x | U Xx x Xx lc x x x x X | U Xx Xx Xx x R x x Xx U Xx Xx x Xx Cc * x x x Xx | Cc * x x x x x X x | Cc * x x x Xx Xx xX x x Cc * Xx x Xx x X | vu * x x x x P Xx Cc * x x x X | | P Xx | P x | Cc * Xx Xx x x x x x lc * Xx Xx X Xx | R * x X x x | c x x x x x x x | | u * Xx x X X x | x x Cc * x Xx X X X R * x Xx Xx | U * X x | R x x | | R x X x X x | x Xx Cc x x X x Xx | | c x Xx X Xx X | 6S7 Barrow's Goldeneye Bufflehead Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Red-breasted Merganser Ruddy duck Osprey Bald Eagle Northern Harrier Sharp-shinned Hawk Northern Goshawk Swainson's Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Rough-legged Hawk Golden Eagle American Kestrel Merlin Peregrine Falcon, American Gyrfalcon Spruce Grouse Willow Ptarmigan Rock Ptarmigan White-tailed Ptarmigan Ruffed Grouse Sharp-tailed Grouse Sora American Coot Sandhill Crane Lesser Golden Plover Black-bellied Plover Semipalmated Plover Killdeer Greater Yellowlegs Lesser Yellowlegs Solitary Sandpiper Wandering Tattler Spotted Sandpiper Upland Sandpiper PARPGDAARNDVAGANWNAAARCAANAARAACACaAwWwANaCAARAaGCaGWANA Occur- |rence Breed * * +e ee eH HH HF ee ee OO OH OO OO * + * * Habitat Status] Riv | Lak | Grs | LTu | TMS | CFW | MFW | DFW 1 Clif 1 Grv Xx X x | x x x X Xx x X | x x Xx x X Xx x | x x x | x Xx Xx Xx Xx X X x x Xx x Xx Xx x X Xx x x x x Xx X X x | Xx Xx X x | xX x x x x x x x x x | x Xx Xx x X x Xx x Xx Xx Xx x X Xx x X X Xx x X | x x Xx x | X Xx | x x Xx x Xx Xx Xx X X Xx x X X x X Xx Xx X X Xx | x X x | x x Xx Xx Xx x Xx X Xx Xx x Xx Xx X Xx X X x X Xx Xx Xx x Xx Xx Xx X Xx Xx X | x + ee eH ATu > > OS XO OX ~ > > ae x > 097 Whimbrel Hudsonian Godwit Ruddy Turnstone Black Turnstone Surfbird Sanderling Semipalmated Sandpiper Western Sandpiper Least Sandpiper White-rumped Sandpiper Baird's Sandpiper Pectoral Sandpiper Dunlin Stilt Sandpiper Buff-breasted Sandpiper Long-billed Dowitcher Common Snipe Wilson's Phalarope Red-necked Phalarope Red Phalarope Long-tailed Jaeger Bonaparte's Gull Mew Gull Ring-billed Gull Herring Gull Glaucous-winged Gull Glaucous Gull Arctic Tern Rock Dove Mourning Dove Great Horned Owl Snowy Owl Northern Hawk-Owl Great Gray Owl Short-eared Owl Boreal Owl |Occur-| Breed |rence |Status] Riv | Lak T TT +. TT | vu X | R x | R Xx | P X | R Xx | P x Cc * X | R x Cc * x | P Xx R * X R Xx R X P X P x Cc * Xx Cc * X P x Cc * x | x R x R * Cc * Xx Cc x x | x P x | x R * x | x R x | x R x | x Cc * x | x | R * | R Cc * R U * R * R * U * Grs > > > OOS x xX x > Habitat LTu | TMS | CFW | MFW | DFW en eee eee ee Xx | | | | | | | Xx x | x | | | | | | | x | x | x | x | Xx | x | X x x x x | x X x Xx x | Xx Xx | | | x x | OS OS OS OO OO x X X | | | | x X X Xx Xx X | X 197 Common Nighthawk Rufous Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Three-toed Woodpecker Black-backed Woodpecker Northern Flicker Olive-sided Flycatcher Western Wood Pewee Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Alder Flycatcher Hammond's Flycatcher Say's Phoebe Western Kingbird Eastern Kingbird Horned Lark Purple Martin Tree Swallow Violet-green Swallow Bank Swallow Cliff Swallow Barn Swallow Gray Jay Clark's Nutcracker Black-billed Magpie Common Raven Black-capped Chickadee Siberian Tit Boreal Chickadee Red-breasted Nuthatch Brown Creeper American Dipper Arctic Warbler Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet Occur-| Breed Habitat rence |Status] Riv | Lak | Grs | LTu | TMS | CFW 1 MFW 1 DFW 1 Clif | crv | ATu | Alp T ] TT! eles l P x Xx x x | R Xx x | c * x Xx U * x x X U * x x Xx R * x x R * x | x Cc * x xX Xx x U * x x R * x Xx R X x Cc * x x x Cc * Xx x | R x x x x R x x x R x x x Cc * x Xx Xx x P X x x x x x Cc * x x Xx x x X xX Cc * x X x Xx X x x x Cc * x x x x x Cc * x Xx x Xx Xx x R x x Xx x x ¢c * Xx x xX R x | x U * x Xx x (e * x X x x x x x xX Xx x ¢ x X x R * x x x c * x Xx x R * x x x R * x Xx U x Xx | ¢>—|s5% x x R x U * x x x 797 Northern Wheatear Mountain Bluebird Townsend's Solitaire Gray-cheeked Thrush Swainson's Thrush Hermit Thrush American Robin Varied Thrush Yellow Wagtail White Wagtail Water Pipit Bohemian Waxwing Northern Shrike European Starling Tennessee Warbler Orange-crowned Warbler Yellow Warbler Cape May Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler Townsend's Warbler Blackpoll Warbler American Redstart Northern Waterthrush Common Yellowthroat Wilson's Warbler Western Tanager American Tree Sparrow Chipping Sparrow Savannah Sparrow Fox Sparrow Lincoln's Sparrow White-throated Sparrow Golden-crowned Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco Lapland Longspur |Occur-|Breed | Habitat lrence |Status] Riv | Lak | Grs | LTu | TMS crt MFW | DFW [oe oy Tae AGT R * x | x R * x | x X Xx R * X U x x | x | xX | c * x Xx x R * x | x | x | xX | | c * x X x x x | c * x | xX | | | P x x P x | Cc * x | x U * x | x | x I xX | R x | X x x x x R * x | x | x | x | P Xx x | x Cc x x | x x Cc * x Xx | P x Cc * x | x | xX | Cc a | | x | x U * | x | x | xX | | P | x x | Cc * | x | x | x P | x X | Cc x | | X x | Xx | P | | x | x | Cc * | x | x | | R x | x | x | x | x | Cc * | x | x | xX | x Cc * | x | x | x | Cc x | | x | x | x | xX P | Xx U * | Xx x | xX ! x | Cc x | x | x |x | x Cc * | x | x | x | xX Cc * | X X i x 3 a ej] x x x 4] x >< g plo ox >< << P< aq baat ech Hae sg mimes Senn ens Janeen et cans mr: ns laos alae eae, eee > < u a ee ee —— — o — ee ee eee oe =. ny x< >< >< 4 d ce ce ce ee ce ee ee ee ee ee ee ee OSS ee DS PS DS DS DS OS = x< KS OS a i LL 8 < ds << x = < SS PS OS < a = Se a a a oe ee ee es ee ee 3 |_| <x Db n ale >< DS PS DS DS < x fe a a ee SIP Low AL x mS =e xX PS PS P< x a <M >< P< & DS DS DS OS DS >< es es ee eee ee ee ee Poiana iaserans be PS bd ma) bs bs Mb OK OS Ed ———— — _— _— _— o —_ — _ —— —— — 7 = < me < < % —_— n —_—_—_ ——— a te v5 [- ov > oa) x * * * * x x * * oa x >< ur 4 an I ' i) Ho 39 30 o¢ BSDaMMOMMMMAMODA og VCOPOUDVUDDDVY On Ow I = — KE v0 u qd qd dt dq o 0 a 9 od u ux u a u dO ae a aa a8 a a 3 Ho wed = ° 2 a 3 yvau ° u © nA a H Vo Od —Q Q dod Sd odd eo vp vo wowmMmveaxd CHU Or 2 2 gx oven ga uuxvd Vn DaOE OFRBVUB EHD foBY Cn DVSUVUAUVAAA MOU Ad HouoHvoaAD BOn AvYYDHHAVHNH ADIN SHuyocuy 42OHAH E€wMWSGHAOYUROHA MOD ASDC ONGMNVYYUSTAOH OS EGTM GAH OB wa An n eos 3 “Ad & SlmeouxHlgs n U0 8 VHoOG SD uo ae} FORSE OvVodp DAHA >A BHYVRrAAN YPBLAvE p>o _ vgegha MSMUYPBYVAEVHHY BESSSSLSEBEB ES gos e Pas eSases ABAHEZORBLZAASOLE SaASSPRSE2SU2L32 263 797 |Occur- Habitat | lrence |] Riv Lak | Grs LTu | TMS CFW | MFW | DFW Cif | Grv | ATu | Alp | 3 | Northern Flying Squirrel Beaver Northern Red-backed Vole Meadow Vole Tundra Vole Yellow-cheeked Vole Long-tailed Vole Singing Vole Muskrat Brown Lemming Northern Bog Lemming Collared Lemming Norway Rat House Mouse Meadow Jumping Mouse Porcupine Coyote Gray Wolf Red Fox Black Bear Grizzly Bear Marten Ermine Least Weasel Mink Wolverine River Otter Lynx Moose Caribou Dall Sheep xX ~ ~ > OO OO ~ MO OO OX OOS > OX ox > > Os ~ Pal > OM OO OS OO > > OO Od Od OO > > OM OOS PSO OS OS Od Ot OOS OO OOS ~ ~ os > Od OS OOS ~ ~ ~ > ~ PS Od OS Od OS OO OO OO OOS > > > Od oo Ot > Ld ie > > x > > G@qaqnnaqnnnannnanaaanaaqaw~wmaaqaannnaqannnaaad Least Cisco Round Whitefish Humpback Whitefish Rainbow trout Lake Trout Dolly Varden Chinook Salmon Chum Salmon Arctic Grayling Northern Pike Lake Chub Longnose Sucker Burbot Slimy Sculpin H = High use FRESHWATER AND ANADROMOUS FISH Lakes mMmmmmmBDaaywDereoe * stocked in Hidden Lake * Rivers Streams maommmmmaawancet I = Intermediate use mRMmmazammnma2awaycey R = Rare use 265 N unknown use APPENDIX E. Memorandum of Understanding between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Anchorage, Alaska. This Master Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, hereinafter referred to as the Department, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hereinafter referred to as the Service, reflects the general policy guidelines within which the two agencies agree to operate. WHEREAS, the Department, under the Constitution, laws and regulations of the State of Alaska (Appendix I), is responsible for the management, protection, maintenance, enhancement, rehabilitation, and extension of the fish and wildlife resources of the State on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses; and WHEREAS, the Service, by authority of the Constitution, laws of Congress and regulations of the U.S. Department of Interior (Appendix I) has a mandated management responsibility for certain species or classes of wildlife and is responsible for the management of Service lands in Alaska, and the conservation of fish and wildlife resources on these lands; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Service share a mutual concern for fish and wildlife resources and their habitats and both are engaged in extensive fish and wildlife conservation, management, and protection programs and desire to develop and maintain a cooperative relationship which will be in the best interests of both parties, the concerned fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, and produce the greatest public benefit; and WHEREAS, it has been recognized in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and subsequent implementing Federal regulations that the resources and use of Service lands in Alaska are substantially different than those of other states}; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Service recognize the increasing need to coordinate resource planning and policy development; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 266 THE l. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AGREES: To recognize the Service as the agency with the responsibility to manage migratory birds, endangered species, and other species mandated by Federal law, and on Service lands in Alaska to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats and regulate human use. To manage fish and resident wildlife populations in their natural species diversity on Service lands. To consult with the Regional Director in a timely manner and comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations before embarking on enhancement or construction activities on Service lands. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AGREES: To recognize the Department as the agency with the primary responsibility to manage fish and resident wildlife within the State of Alaska. To recognize the right of the Department to enter onto Service lands at any time to conduct routine management activities which do not involve construction, disturbance to the land, or alterations of ecosystems. To cooperate with the Department in planning for enhancement or development activities on Service lands which require permits, environmental assessments, compatibility assessments, or similar regulatory documents by responding to the Department in a timely manner with requirements, time tables, and any other necessary input. To manage the fish and wildlife habitat on Service lands so as to insure conservation of fish and wildlife populations and their habitats in their natural diversity. To consider carefully the impact of any proposed treaties or international agreements relating to fish and wildlife resources on the State of Alaska which could diminish the jurisdictional authority of the State and to consult freely with the State when these treaties or agreements have a primary impact on the State. To review present U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies and any future proposed changes in those policies in consultation with the Department to determine if modified or special policies are needed for Alaska. To adopt refuge management plans whose provisions--including provision for animal damage control--are in substantial agreement with the Department's fish and wildlife management plans, unless such plans are determined formally to be incompatible with the purposes for which the respective refuges were established. 267 8. To utilize the State's regulatory process to maximum extent allowed by Federal law in developing new or modifying existing Federal regulations or proposing changes in existing State regulations governing or affecting the taking of fish and wildlife on Service lands in Alaska. THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MUTUALLY AGREE: l. To coordinate planning for management of fish and wildlife resources on Service lands so that conflicts arising from differing legal mandates, objectives, and policies either do not arise or are minimized. 2. To consult with each other when developing policy and legislation which affects the attainment of wildlife resource management goals and objectives, or management plans. 3. To recognize that the taking of fish and wildlife by hunting, trapping, or fishing on Service lands in Alaska is authorized in accordance with applicable State and Federal law unless State regulations are found to be incompatible with documented Refuge goals, objectives, or management plans. 4. To develop such supplemental memoranda of understanding between the Commissioner and the Regional Director as may be required to implement the policies contained herein. 5. That this Master Memorandum of Understanding shall become effective when signed by the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Alaska Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and shall continue in force until terminated by either party by providing notice in writing 120 days in advance of the intended date of termination. 6. That amendments to this Master Memorandum of Understanding may be proposed by either party and shall become effective upon approval by both parties. STATE OF ALASKA U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Department of Fish and Game Fish and Wildlife Service Ronald O. Skoog Keith M. Schreiner Commissioner Regional Director, Alaska March 13, 1982 March 13, 1982 Date Date 268 ™ Ang TETLIN VILAGE Za rN itAKE TETLIN INDIAN RESERVATION POSSIBLE R.S. 2477 RIGHTS-OF-WAY TETLIN National Wildlife Refuge memes NWR BOUNDARY @ © @ POSSIBLE R.S. 2477 TRAIL qq ib s.2477 TRAIL No. (This number corresponds 10 the Alaska Existing Trails System Source State of Alaska Department of Transportation/Public Facilites Submitted April 1974 ) *q xtpueddy “LL97 SU on. * |ATAHAMUND eee eo a - a - bun f WRANGELL-ST. ELIAS NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE APPENDIX G. CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE TETLIN REFUGE HEADQUARTERS . The Fish and Wildlife Service has received numerous letters, comments, and petitions recommending the Tetlin Refuge headquarters be moved to Northway from its present location in Tok. The letters and petitions dealing specifically with the refuge location are printed here. Several others commenting on the draft comprehensive conservation plan are printed in Appendix I. Two Native corporations, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. in their letter dated Febuary, 1986 and Doyon Ltd. in their letter dated Febuary 7, 1986 recommended the refuge headquarters be moved to Northway. These letters are in Appendix H. 270 HUNTING - FISHING - CAMPING TOK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WRITE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RITA EUERS, PRESIDENT BILL ARPINO, V. PRESIDENT GERALYN BROKER, SECRETARY BUDDY JOHNSON, TREASURER SPIKE JORGANSON DALE YOUNG JR. FREDE GLIDDEN tlZ2 Senator Ted Stevens United States Senate 522 Hart Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Congressman Don Young 2331 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Senator Frank Murkowski United States Senate 709 Hart Building Washington, D.C. 20510 April 4, 1986 Dear Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski , and Representative Young, Your consideration of the rationale presented herein for further development and continued location of national park, monument and refuge management and information centers in Tok is appreciated, The Tok Area Chamber of Commerce feels that the location of the Tetlin Wildlife Refuge Management and Personnel should most practically remain here. One million dollars was just invested in housing last year. The refuge in association with the park, monument, and state agencies operate the new co-sponsored Visitors Center here. To move or reduce the effort here would be very counter-productive, In fact, the more practicel effort would be to further consolidate the management and information service of these agencies here. We are the center point and the primary access to the Tetlin Wildlife Refuge, Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve, and the Yukon Charley National Monument. (Continued) GATEWAY tw ADVENTUR P.O. BOX 389 TOK, ALASKA 99780 Page Two April 1986 Because of this access and location on the highway, it is encouraged that consideration be given to locating the proposed, new, Interpretative Center for the refuge here instead of near the border. Our building costs are more reasonable because of location, no permafrost, good water, and ready access to services. The Tok Community was established as a federal effort when the Alaska Highway was constructed, and the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Bureau of Land Management, and others have followed. As a result, your agencies are most welcome here in contradiction to many communities. Please do what you can to assist these agencies in placing personnel in the Visitors Center while it is open. They presently contribute to its operation but staffing is needed. Displays scheduled for the Interpretative Center could be palced in the existing Visitors Center. Present staff also prefer to live here. Thank you for your attention and help, Sincere and on behalf of the membership, Hide id Frede Glidden, President P TOK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE cc: Robert E, Gilmore Regional Director/Fish and Wildlife Service GATEWAY t ADVENTURE HUNTING - FISHING - CAMPING Box 249 p Tok, AK 99780 WSs TOK May 1, 1986 a CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WRITES ccccsnscccnees . P.O, BOX 389 “TOK, ALASKA 99780 BOARD OF DIRECTORS RITA EUERS, PRESIDENT BILL ARPINO, V. PRESIDENT GERALYN BROKER, SECRETARY BUDDY JOHNSON, TREASURER SPIKE poneanect RESOLUTION Mr. Robert Gilmore, Regional Director DALE YOUNG J FREDE GLIDDEN Regional Office U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service WHEREAS, the refuges, monuments, and parks in this area constitute the nice Pon nell oieay major portion of the public land mass in our area, and ae WHEREAS, these areas have been used by human-kind since their Persian ene respective presence in the geographic area for hunting, fishing, subsistence, ? I and recreation, and On behalf of the Tok Community I would appreciate your WHEREAS, the only possible way to maintain the magnificent scenery TAT ANT TRINA e TMT tt and wildlife in the area is through wise management, and maintenance of the Tetlin Wildlife Office and personnel in ele WHEREAS, our community, its purpose, and its residents depend 4 1 Tok, Alaska. economically, culturally, and socially on this resource, 1d b tl, iated. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Tok Chamber of Commerce TT ATM HITT CAMTI UA strongly encourages the continued use of all of these areas for hunting, fishing, subsistence, and recreation, and Ri tfully, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these areas be managed in such a way nial that this continued use is insured, and that our refuges, monuments, and parks , are not areas which become forever lost in the "lockup philosophy". Pocke Doug Hosken 5d attachments 3 rede Glidden, President ate WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OFFICE MBERS OF TOK, ALASKA, WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS THE PERSONNEL OF TNE TETLIN WILDLIFE REFUGE IW ASSET AND CONTRIRUTORS TO OUR COMMUNITY AND F & RELOCATION TC ANOTHER COMMUNITY IS NOT WARRANTED. THE PETITION SRALL TO THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: RCBERT GILMORE, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE; THE HONORABLE TED STEVENS, U.S. SENATOR; THE HONORALLE FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR; THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG, U.S. CONGRESSMAN. 6. Rosia wransenn Box 1B eh abQd80 234 Tok 1. Protez? <Suer:a S32 0K 12. iy fi 33. 9. i Box (AS Far 34. 10. Box 334 Tak 35 - nL. Seo. coun Be TOs 35, 12. Manose Guo Gx a4 Jsk Ak 37. Y Wile TykcdbPs. L271 Tak Be 997%039- 273 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OVFICE OULD LIKE TO EXPRESS N WILDLIFE REFuUCe IN HEY 220 A VSFINLTE ASSET AND CONTRIBUTOKS 70 T WARRANTED. 274 if SETLIN WELDLIFE MANAGEMENT OFF iCL SE ADDRESS SSS 29. Se SSO fh A 7t- SoD tbh & Cu rn 25 bam A) pbecks Tob sk 50. Cypha _ — 275 922 David G. Kelleyhouse P.O. Box 134 Tok, Alaska 99780 April 24, 1986 Mr. Robert Gilmore Regional Director U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Gilmore: I have been reluctant to comment upon the Northway proposal to site the Tetlin NWR staff in that community, because I hoped the Service would not take the proposal seriously after a preliminary evaluation. The rumors of a possible relocation persist, however. I have been interested in FWS activities in the eastern Interior for many years, ever since Lana Shea first visited the area scoping for a refuge headquarters location. Tok was wisely selected, and the proximity of the FWS and ADFG offices has proved beneficial to both agencies and, ultimately, the wildlife resources on the Tetlin NWR. Should the FWS office and staff be relocated to Northway, 50 miles away, it is a certainty that our interagency cooperative relationship would deteriorate from lack of constant, personal contact between our respective staffs. For many years, BLM maintained a "compound" separate from the community of Tok where most agencies in the region are headquartered. While only six miles distant, interagency coordination and interchange was minimal, resulting in misunderstandings and duplication of effort. Such has not been the case with FWS and other agencies in this area. I have been the Area Game Biologist for Units 12 and 20E and stationed in Tok since 1978. This length of stay qualifies me to make a few comments regarding the relationship between an individual's social atmosphere and accomplishment of mission. Like ADFG personnel, FWS personnel generally have families to accomodate. While Tok lacks many of the social diversions of more urban areas, sufficient opportunities exist to provide a satisfying social atmosphere for all members of a family. I do not believe such a diversity of social opportunities exists in Northway. This could well lead to dissension within FWS families required to live in Northway and ultimately affect job performance. I know that when my family has been content, I have been free to devote more of my energies toward accomplishing my resource management mission. If it is true that the village corporation intends to construct and provide housing, office, and hangar facilities in Northway, one consideration for a major relocation should be the potential lessening of FWS authority in the management of refuge resources. It is no secret that residents of Northway have been cited for out-of-season taking of big game or that village leaders have acted defensively on behalf of those individuals cited. Should the village corporation act similarly, undue influences could be brought to bear on FWS. Social pressures could also be brought to bear which would also have the effect of reducing enforcement authority or inclination. In conclusion, the working relationship between FWS and ADFG in Tok has been exemplary and has resulted in the collection of better quality data, a sharing of survey responsibilities and data, and an interagency approach to problem solving. It has also resulted in cost savings to both agencies. Ona more personal note, all PWS and ADFG staff get along well outside the working relationship. Your Refuge Manager's daughter is my child's babysitter, his son worked for me as a Student Intern, we have hunted and fished together, and all of us belong to the local sportsmans club. Your staff and their families have been totally accepted by the community and the associations have been mutually beneficial. Before a final decision on the matter is made, please consider the present, highly desireable situation and the very real potential (probable) consequences of a relocation. Sincerely, Card David G. Kelleyhouse DGG/ko Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. 201 First Ave. Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 (907) 452-8251 Tok Subregional Office Box 126 Tok AK 99780 April 29, 1986 & Mr. Robert:Gilmore, Regional Director SFA; gee Service pe :O%-Road “ef aK” 99503 ch 3 {x ? Lease find enclosed Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. (TCC) Resolution 86-4, titles/"Tetlin Wildlife Refuge Office" which was passed at the Tanana Chsess Conference, Inc. Board of Directors meeting on March 13, 1986. net In the past several months, Doyon Ltd. and the Northway Community (both Native and‘fon-Native) have petitioned and have written letters of support for the elo¢ation of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge facility to be moved to See. These requests have been denied several times. igyletter will serve as a supplement to those earlier submissions, sup- the relocation of the Tetlin Wildlife Refuge office. eject that you give full ,eonsideration for the relocation of the above entloned facility. = $<? » N 7 7 you have any “quebtigns, please Feel free to call or write me. Subregional ‘Director Tim af Enclosure (1) : cc Will Mayo, Director Subregional Services, TCC-Fairbanks William C. Williams , President TCC-Fairbanks Representative Don Young Letter to Mr. Gilmore ce Senator Ted Stevens Senator Frank Murkowski Greater Northway Northway Natives Inc. Northway Village Council Doyon, Ltd. page 2 8lz TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, INC. Resolution No. 86-4 Tetlin Wildlife Refuge Office WHEREAS: the Community Members, Northway Natives, Inc., and the Northway Village Council has petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials to move the current office in Tok to Northway; and WHEREAS : the U.S. Fish and wildlife officials has refused to move the office and denied the petitions; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Tanana Chiefs Conference Board of Directors requests the Congressional Delegation to support Northway's request to move the Tetlin Wildlife Refuge office; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that TCC assist the Village of Northway in supporting the petition submitted by Northway to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this resolution was duly passed by the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. Board of Directors on March 13, 1986 at Fairbanks, Alaska. Daisy NorthWay Secretary-Treasurer wur letter ta Mr Morris ar dated © af the Tatlin wiiolife Setuce ci ue that ott gift shop, ¢ twenty space carne ground alt se physicians and dentists, there 1s sr tearm in N : peer 5 e at Northway and is na different that your emiployees do their work naddressing the if th Fsirbanks 622 Northyray Natives, Inc. P.O. Box 401 Northway, Alaska 99764 February 21, 1986 As far as considering location in relation to the refuge, | again, would like to point out that Fish and Wildlife employees have to drive approximately 120 miles just to get into the refuge. It is approximately 200 miles round trip ta get to the other end of the refuge from Tok. A charter from Tok to Northway costs approximately $120.00 or more. The loca) FAA records indicate that Fish & Wildlife has been flying over the refuge constantly, weather permitting. It is estimated that they fly over the refuge at least 15 days a month. Just to get into the refuge is casting $1800.00 4 month or more in charter costs. There would be additional cost of flying over the refuge which we would have no idea on cost The Northway Airport is a modern facility with runway lights and beacon, and the FAA is near the airport. The support facilities include airplane gas, hotel, cafe, grocery store, laundry facilities, past office, modern fire department and ambulance facitlities, power plant, and any service that may be required for people passing through. The Northway School is a part of the Alaska Gateway School District. The school is a modern 4 million dollar building and houses students from kindergarten through 12 th grade. Although the school population is approximately 95 students, there are a variety of programms which the cormmunity gets involved in. The students and staff are invalved in statewide programs and and has received a State Merit Award for their attendance programs. The students participate in statewide activities including sports, scadernics and other programs. | disagree with the fact that you seem to think that Tok is a better school. We are proud of our school and think that we are comparable to the Tok Schoc! As far as availability of land and buildings in Northway, we have tried ta work with the Tok office in providing an information center for the Wildlife Refuge. | was asking them to pay rent equivalent to what the State Troopers and Department of Transportation naw pay, and they were willing to pay only $ .75 per square foot for office spare. | do nat beheve that they can get space anywhere that cheap. The Northway Native: Corporation has developed a complex at the Northway Junction that is geared to attracting tourist. The Tok complex is not unique in providing essential contacts for the refuge's public use programs. Northway Natives, Inc. P.O. Box 401 Northway, Alaska 99764 February 21, 1986 The Wiidlife Refuge received land from Federal Sur Lakeview Purng Station which would have de neadguerters. I. 1s my understanding thet the land that the State owns near wildlife refuge itis also my understandini interest in $ oreperty near the No wildlife owns 2.9 acres at the Northy use a summer work carp As tar as addressing the fact Service resident area. Northway Natives, inc , there) osz Northway Natives, Inc. P. 0. Box 401 Northway, Alaska 99764 February 21, 1986 Mr. Gilmore, you have been quoted as saying "No way in h--- the refuge headquarters will be be moved to Northway.” This statement was made even before the facts and reasons for moving were investigated. | would like to know who has the authority and final say as ta whether the headquarters are moved to Northway. In closing, | would like to ask what is the purpose of the Tetlin wildlife Refuge? | do not believe that the decision not to move to Northway should be based on the comfort and convience of employees.! have lived in Northway for over 30 years. | have 6 comfortable home with electricity, running water, and all modern conviences including a telephone and television. | do not believe that your letter addresses the concerns of Doyon, Ltd and Northway Natives, Inc. Sincerely, Rosemarie Mater President ce: Doyon, Ltd. Senator Stevens Senator Murkowski Representative Young Representative Schultz Senator Coghill P.O, Box 447 Tox, Ak, 99780 March 24, 1986 Robert F, Gilmore U.S. Dept. of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 EB. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, Ak, 99503 dear Mr, Gilmore, It has cone to my attention that there i Tetlin National Wildlife Refi7e hex [ strongiy oppose this i such a move, paten under way to move tite re now in Tok to Northway, T can see :o justifiable reason for For an agency to establish itself in a community takes time and 1 feel that our local staff and the agency has reacted a point where they can be most effective in managing the the Tetlin Wildlife £ ure. A million dollars was spent to provide housing for the stafi, An o“fice has been established in a central location, on the highway and directly a:r-ss from the Tourist Info- mation Center, All the other agencies that ish si Wildlife interact with are headquatered in Tok,Among these are Alaska Jept, of Fish & Game, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Alaska Dept. of Sransportation and the Gateway School District, It does not make good sense vo start over again in another community, As a tax payer I would resent the expense of such a move, especially sinc: wou’d, in all probability affect the on going work of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Asa local citizen I would hate to lose what I consider to he a -mi] ac-et to the Tok community. Sunny Robinson ect Senator Ted Stevens Senator Frank Murkowski Congressman Don Young Tok Fish & Wildlife Office Mukluk News Lez Doyon, Limited Doyon Building 201 First Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Tel: (907) 452-4755 Telex 090-36615 January 17, 1986 Mr. Robert Gilmore Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 Re: Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge Dear M Tmore: b-? In recent days, it has come to my attention that the Northway community (both native and nonnative) is desirous of having the planned permanent headquarters and visitor center for the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge located at Northway. To this end, petitions and letters of support have crossed your desk in the past few weeks. I am writing to supplement those earlier submissions. While most arguments lead to a logical conclusion that new refuge facilities should be located at Northway, and those arguments stand on their own, there is an additional important factor which must be emphasized. Section 1306 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 clearly mandates that the U.S, Fish & Wildlife Service "shall attempt to locate such [adminis-— trative] sites and facilities on Native lands in the vicinity of the unit." It does not appear that this required preference is being addressed in the Service's evaluation of new refuge facilities. Northway Natives, Inc. is the owner of the surface estate of much available property in and around Northway which could easily be developed for your purposes. Further, Northway Natives, Inc. has available commercial-grade office space and other suitable facilities sufficient to meet immediate needs. Mr. Robert Gilmore January 17, 1986 Page 2 We request that you give full consideration to locating new facilities at Northway as it is the logical place to put them, and that you consider utilizing properties owned by Northway Natives, Inc. Ver ruly yours, ler.. CC mes Q. Mery ice-President Lands and Resourc: JOM: jgf zez Doyon, Limited Doyon Building 201 First Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Tel: (907) 452-4755 Telex 090-36615 January 13, 1986 Mr. Robert Gilmore Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Gilmore: Doyon, Limited strongly supports the recent petition (copy attached) submitted by the community of Northway in favor of relocating the headquarters of the Tetlin Wildlife Refuge to Northway. The opportunity for Fish and Wildlife Service to expand and improve its management ability in this refuge by this relocation is evident. Northway's prime location in the heart of the refuge offers optimum access to more than the land and its resources. A more direct and positive line of communication would also be established between the managers of the refuge and its primary users. Additionally, relocation to Northway would actually be more convenient to many if not most other public users who use areas closer to Northway to access the refuge. With the recent expansion of tourist and community services, coupled with the existing lighted runway and air support ser- vices, this community exceeds others as a logical choice for this office. Although the relocation could result in temporary minimal monetary increases, the reduced time that refuge staff would require in the mere commute from Tok would certainly be a substantial corollary reduction offsetting any increases in a few short years. Add to this the higher degree of management input from direct users, visitors, and large land inholders via your presence and such a relocation makes sound economic sense. It has become painfully evident to Doyon that land manage- ment of a remote location is, at best, difficult. Unfortunately, our broad land base and business arrangements dictate our central location in Fairbanks. The Tetlin Refuge and the Fish and Mr. Robert Gilmore January 13, 1986 Page 2 Wildlife Service are very fortunate to be afforded the oppor- tunity to be based in a community convenient to your land base that also affords you the support required of a refuge office. We highly recommend that you strongly consider this relocation, not only in today's light but also with an eye to the increasing benefits Northway will provide in the future. Regards, Reyne chon President BW/MT: jgf xc: Sen. Ted Stevens Sen. Frank Murkowski Rep. Don Young Greater Northway Northway Natives, Inc. Northway Village Council eez We, the undersigned members of the community of Northway, primary users and residents of the Tetlin ‘'ational Wildlife Refuge, would like to urge the management teem of the refuge to establish their headquarters and homes in the Nc thway area. We feel this would benefit the refuge management in meny ways - the most obvious being an “on site" location in the actual refuge area. The current location in Tok is approximately SO miles from the general western refuge boundary and approximately 90 miles from the eastern mos’ refuge boundary. This location necessitates many extra miles by air or land (thus many more dollars) for any monitoring or management activities. This distance also requires much more “commuting time" - time which could be better spent in direct ref: 2 management activities. Also, th: Fish and Wildlife Service owns land in the Northway area which could be used to establish their headquarters - they do not own any land in Tok in terms of adminstrative sites. Another big plus is that by establishling themselves locally the refuge management team vo2uld have access to continual firsthand information from the refuge’s primery users, the local ttorthway people. Northway is the only community located within the boundaries of the refuge. The community of Northway offers many services, including a 5,000 #t. paved , lighted runway allowing cay and might VFR and IFR approaches, weekly ¢reigit service from Anchorage, a new modern Pre-12 school, bulk fuel, new laundromat, gift, and camper park at the junction, groceries , lodging, fire cepartment , ambulance » @ir taxi service, and state trooper office. AGAIN - the people ani community of Northway would welcome the establishement of the ‘etlin National Wildlife Refuge in Northway. ae LO. KOage HR £0. Lor 22 We, the undersigned members of the community of Northway, primary ers and residents of the Tetlin Nalional Wildlife hefuge, weld like to urge the management team ov the revice to estaliish their headquarters end homes in the Ne thway Ne feel this would benefis the refugr manacement in many ways - the most obv being an "on site" location in the actu 1 refuge r erea. current location in Tok is approximately 5O miles froin generel western refuge boundary and approxi ately 90 riles the eastern most refiae boundary. This lec tia sasitates many extra miles by air or land (iho = many mee 5) for any monitoring or management activities. Tme @lf2 requires much more “commu cia ~ time which spent in direct refuge management activities. enh and Wildlife Service owns land in the Neo ctway wid bs used to este lisn their he. iquartere - they land in Tok in terms of admins -iva site by establishling themselves locally the ent team would have sccees to continual firsthand aiien fron the refuge’s prim: y users, the locai Northway people. Nor ths is .he only community loc The community of N within the b y offers many 20 Day sol do rurceay allowing y ISP approac @aly freight service trom . a cfw medern Fre- school, bulk #e new ty, pies, 1G camoe park et the Junction, groceries , fire ceparttent , ambulance , eir tavi s rvice, end trooper office. - the people ard co munity of Northway would welee the hement of tre Tetlin National Wildlife retuce in (Be hx. LY —_ pth hk 2782260 — hos the ee Mr OL. $24 | Mae, 12S D. on ermnay eT Sette —dtian...2oy 5 Mortiwag AL G61 Rone WARIO AK ploy lok, A. C77P0, Pilot $32 Morlbusiy BK 2706 Me-@E. Sean LE GEE___104 Cony vez We, the undersigned members of the come unity of Northway, primary users and residents of the Tetlin N :j jal Wildl fe Refuge, would like to urge the management tean c, the refuge to establish their headquarters and homes in the Northway area. We feel this would benefit the refuge management in many ways — the most obvious being an “on site" location in the actual refuge area. The current location in Tok is approximately SO miles from the general western refuge boundary and spproximately 90 miles from the eastern most refuge bow ary. This location necessitates many extra miles by air or %end (thus many +ore dollars) for any monitoring or management activities. This distance also requires much more “comauting time" - time which could be better spent in direct refuge management activities. Also, the Fish and Wildlife Service owns land in the Northway area which could be used to establish their headquarters - they do not cwn any land in Tok in terms of adminstrative sites. Another big plus is that by establishling themsclves locally the refuge management team would have access to continual firsthand information from the refuge’s primary users, the locel Northway We, the undersigned members of the community of Northway, primary users and residents of the Tetlin Naticnal Wildli a Refuge, would ike to urge the management team «7 the refuge to tablish ir headquarters and homes in the We- thway ares feel this would benefit the refuge management in meny som most obvious being an “on eite” lucation in the actual refuge The current location in Tek is apprcosimately SO miles from the g: eral western refuge boundary and approximately 90 miles the eastern most refuge boundary. This location ssitates many extra miles by air or lend (thus many more for any monitoring or management activities This also requires much more “comcuting Lime" — time which could be better spent in direct refuge managerant ectivities. Also, the Fish and Wildlife Service owns land in the No-thway rea which could be used to establish their heac juarte - they Jo not own any land in Tob in terms of adminstrative sites. Anether big plus is that by establishling themselves locelly the refuge management team would have ac: to continual firsthand information from the refuge’s primary users, the local Northway people. eople. PNorthaey is the only community located within the boun ‘aries of Northway 3s the only community loceted within the bounderies of the refuge. The community of Northway offers many services, the refucs The community of Northway offers many forvices, including a 5,000 ft. paved , lighted runway allowing day and including ¢ 5,009 #t. paved , lighted runway allowing vay and might VFR and IFR approaches, weekly freight service fron might YFR and IFR approaches. weekly fight service from Anchorage, @ new modern Pre-12 school, bulk fuel, new Anche -:9e, a new meiern Fre-12 school, bulk fuel, new laundromat, gift, and camper park at the junction, groceries , leunerc naty gift, and camper park at the junction, groceries , lodging, fire department , ambulance , air taxi service, and lodging, fire department , ambulance , air texi service, ang state trooper office. state trooper office. | AGAIN —- the people and community of Northway would welcom:> the AGAIN - the people and communi ty of Northway would welcome the establishement of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge in establishement of the Tetlin National Wildlife fAefuge in Northway. Nor thwa ADDRESS PHONE NAME PHONE Mick LISE Tek 128-2274 49. 22S ERG E Bek. AES Tek, AK... YIU Bet.S18. Mathuray._ 778-2270 Box 4é1_North Lok... L28B27Y LOE _22£ 2296 Pe 77h-222 9d Ly, Het F DT5-2266 Bt 6 Methusmng Lk 22 22622 4/ Sa an Lil <3 Welbdal® 72: 226-43 (ae LAL, Lb iwicg- LE. VB-ZA9L sez We, the undersigned members of tie community of Northway, prim ry users and residents of the Tetlin Nat:onal Wildlife Refuge, would like to urge the management team of the refuge to establish their headquarters and homes in the Northway erea. We feel this would benefit the refuge managenent in many ways - the most obvious being an “on site" location in the actual refuge area. ‘he current location in Tok is approximately 50 miles from th general western refuge boundary and approximately 906 miles fron the eastern most refuge boundary. This location necessitates many extra miles by air or land (thus many more dollars) for any monitoring or management activities. This distance also requires much more “commuting time" - time which could be etter spent in direct refuge management activities. Also, the Fish nd Wildlife Service owns land in the Northway aree which could be used to establish their headquarters - they de mot own any land in Tok in terms of adminstrative sites. Pnother big plus is that by estahblishling themselves locally the We, the undersigned members of che community ef Northway, primary were and residents of the Tetlin National Wilelife Refuge, would like to urce the nancvement team * the to exsterlish -heir headquerters and homes in the Noo “hua, ve teal this would benefit the refuge menagem at in meny wos - the most obvious being an “on site" location in the actual refure area. The current location in lok is approximatery SC miles from ihe general western refuge boundary and approximacely 99 miles from the eastern most refige boundary This location necoesitates many extra mile by air ar lend (thus more dollars) for any monitoring or management ectivitie This distence also requires much more “commuting time" — t which could be better spent in direct refuce manage: al the Fish and lildlife Service owns lend ia the rthway ars which could be od to establish their hea ters - they do net own any land in “ok in terms of a ainstrai ve sites. Another big plus is tha. by establishling + mselves lecaily ine refuge management team would have access to continual firsthand reiuge management team would have é to continual fil theand information from the refuge’s primary users, the local Northway un¢ piaretet from the refuge’s primary users the local Northway people. ple. Northway is the only community located within the boundaries of tnway is the only cc munity Jocated within th ndaries of the refuge. The community of Northway offers many services, a refuge. The commu: ity of Northway offers mony services, including a 5,000 ft. paved , lighted runway allowing day and j a 5,00 ft. pe lighted runway wing vay and night VFR and IFR approaches, weekly freight service from f and IFR appr weekly fre t servie from Anchorage, a new modern Pre-12 school, bulk fuel, new Anonorage, a new modern Pre-12 school, budk 1, new laundromat, gift, and camper park at the junction, groceries , laundromat, gift, and camper park at the junction, groceries , lodging, fire copartment , ambulance , air taxi service, and 2 ng. fire copartment . ambulence air teri vice, and state trooper office. state troapar ovfice. : AGAIN —- the pesple and community of Northw / would welcome the SiN - the people ad community of Northway would welcome the establishement of the Tetlin National Sildlife Rete in aetablisnenent of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuce in Northway. Northway. NAME PHONE PHONE 778-221F Dyas Motul Box 556 Northway Lox Hs. Nor way eet Lea.yey bisthe ay 2 eres IL Meer eor aU 77-82 Bax 5as_ nn -- 71£+225% Lage 524. ra Eo “Bn 13. Podtig Tibcares Lb tb. A lartlheeg... PUB IZ pee Mer thu, 22422285 i A SEC Bos oi TAT 2m Ws Ph We We, the undersigned members of the community of Northway, primary Mey the undersigned caubers of the anmunity of Northway, pricaty users and residents »f the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, would Ke re and residents of the tetlin Navional Wile ife & oe, would like to urge © the management team c# the refuge to establish iit tol ur the management taan the refuge to astablisn their headquarters and homes in the Ne: thway area. heir heedquarters and home Jin the Herthwey area. We feel this would benefit the refuge management in many ways — Wo feel this would benefit the rafus z ent in many ways — location in the actusl refuge the most obvious being an "on site" location in the actual refuge uh m obvious being e1 "on sit area. arcae The curre:': location in Tok miles from Wye current ‘ocation in Tok is approximately £0 miles from the general western refuge boundary and approximately 90 miles = general western refuge bound proximately GO miles from the eastern most refuge boundary. This location from the castern ost retuc: boundary. This lecation nec:ssitates many extra miles by air or land (thus many more necessitates meny 2x ra miles Sy air or land (thus many mere dollars) for any ronitoring or management activities. This dell for any son: oring er faneg activities. his distance slso requires much more “commuting time” —- time which distance alse requires auch coe commuting time" = time whic. could be better spent in direct refuge manac-ment activities. could better spent in direct ement activit Also, the Fish and Wildlife Service owns !and in the Northway Also, the Fish ang wildli¢ 98 Land in the Northway area which could be used te ex . rhe ers — they area which could be used to establish their headquarters —- they do not own any land in Tok in terms of sdminstrative sites. do not orn any lend in Tok Another big plus is that by establishling themselves locally the Pnotner big plus is that by cs refuge manacement team would have access to continual firsthand refuge management team wor la have information from the refuge’s primary users, the local Northway information from the refuge’s primary us people. Northway is che only community located within the boundaries of the refuge. The community of Northway offers many services, including a 5,000 ft. paved , lighted runway allowing day and nst ative the only community located within tre boun The community ov Novthwa, cite any = O ft. prved i ated ry lucing 4 8,0 AY night VFR and IFR approaches, weekly freight service from eight VSR and IFR appr: rvice Anchor age, a new modern Fre-12 school, bulk fuel, new Anchor ee, a new modern laundromat, gift, and camper park st the junction, groccries , te ronat, gift, and camper lodging, fire c>partment , ambulanc> , air taxi service, and leiging, fire de artment , ambuis tate trooper off.ce. Ald = the .eople2 and commu blishement of the Tetlin rthway. state trooper office. AGAIN - the peopl2 and community of Northway would welcome the establishement of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge in Northway. ADDRESS 1s, Uo Mlary a Bot 53 ¥ Tuten Box S38 Northuuy Ak. 278-2885 Mi.e. 1a, Lense ble hey Mp-T Ok $780 Mudd, J240 WE Ajwy via. Toe 282 We, the undersigned members of the community of Northway, primary users and residents of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, would like to urge the management team c# the refuge to establish their headquarters an‘! homes in the othway area. We feel this would benefit the refuge management in many as - the most obvious being an "on site” location in the actual refuge erea. The current location in Tok is approximately 50 miles from the general western refuge boundary and approximately 90 miles from the eastern most refuge boundary. This location necessitates many extra iles by air or land (thus many more dollars) for any monitoring or management activities. This sistance also requires much more “commuting time" - time which could be better spent in direct refuge management activities. Also, the Fish and Wildlife Service owns land in the Northway area which could be used to establish their hecdquarters - they do not own any land in Tok in terms of adminstrative sii ss. Another big plus is that by establishling themselves locally the refuge management team would have access to continual firsthand information from the refuge’s primary users, the local Northway people. Northway is the only community located within the boundaries of the refuge. The community of Northway offers may services, including a 5,000 ft. paved , lighted runway allowing day and might VFR and IFR approaches, weekly freight service from Anchorage, a new modern Pre-12 school, bulk fuel, new laundromat, gift, and camper park at the junction, groceries , lodging, fire department , ambulance , air taxi service, and state trooper office. AGAIN - the people and co munity of Northway would :elcore the establishement of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge in Northway. ADDRESS PHONE the undersigned members of the comminity of Northway, primary s and residents of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge like to urge the management teem ov the refuge tu © their headquarters and homes in the No thway area. We feel this would benefit the refuse manegement in many the most obvious being an "on site" location in the actual refuge area. The current location in Tok is approximately 50 miles from the general western refuge boundary and approximately 90 miles from the ecstern most refuge boundar This location Nezassitates many extra miles by air or land (thus many are dollars) for any monitoring or management ectivities. ihis distance also requires mucn more “commuting time" - time which ccald be better spent in direct refuge manage ent activities. Slsa, the Fish and Wildlife Service o land in the Northway ar@a which could be used to establish their neadquarters —- they do not own any land in Tok in terms of admins! ve sites. Another big plus is that by establishli 9 th mse 28 localiy the refuge management team would have access to cont:nual firethard information fron the refuge’s primery users. the local Nortnway peopl2. Northway is tne only community located within the boundaries cf the refuge. The community of Northway offers many services, including a 5,009 #t. paved , lighted runway allowing day and night VFR and IFR apsroaches, weekly freignt service from anchorage, & new modern Fre-12 school, tulk fuel new laundromat, gift, and camper park at the junction, groceries , ledging, fire department , ambulance , air taxi service, and state trooper cftice. AGAIN - the people and community of Northway would welcos the establishement of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge in Northway. ADDRESS i PHONE We, the undersigned members of the community of Northway, primary users anc residents of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, would like to urge the management team «f the refuge to establish their headquarters and homes in the Northway area. We feel this would benefit the refuge management in many ways - the most obvious bein. an “on site” location in the actual refuge area. The current location in Tok is approximately 50 milus from the general western refuge boundary and approximately 90 miles from the eastern most refuge boundary. This location necessitates many extra miles by air or lend (thus m--y more dollars) for any monitoring or management activities. This distance also requires much more “commuting time ~ time which could be better spent in direct refuge management activ: ies. Also, the Fisn and Wildlife Service owns land in the Northway area which could be used to establish their headquarters —- they do not own any land in Tok in terms of adminstcative sites. Another big plus is that by estadlishiing themselves locally the cefuge management team would have access to continual firsthand information from the refuge’s primary users, the local ' orthwey people. Northway is the only community lecated within the boundaries of the refuge. The community of Northway offers many services, including a 5,000 ft. paved , lighted runway allowing cay ana might VFR and IFR approaches, weekly freight service from Anchorage, a new modern Pre-i2 school, bulk fuel, new laundromat, gift, and camper park at the junction. groceries , lodging, fire department , ambulance , air texi service, and state trooper office. AGAIN - the people end community of Northway would welcome the establishement of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge in Northway. y . | x —s veo Teh. PHONE APPENDIX H. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT TETLIN CCP/EIS AND SELECTED SERVICE RESPONSES. The Service received 32 letters from 28 sources on the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge draft comprehensive conservation plan. These comments and the Service's responses to selected comments are printed here. Federal U.S. Army Corps of Engineers » National Park Service Forest Service (Chugach National Forest) Bureau of Mines (Juneau) Mineral Management Service (Outer Continental Shelf) Environmental Protection Agency qaaacac . ANnNnNNnNN . State Office of the Governor Native Organizations Doyon Ltd. Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. Northway community petition Industry Alaska Oil and Gas Organization Alaska Miners Assoc. Conservation & Recreational Organizations Wilderness Society Northern Alaska Environmental Center Sierra Club National Audubon Society Individuals Eva Rugg David Parker Gerald R. Brookman Ethel W. Thorniley Jake Lestenkof Mary C. Burtness Mrs. Leon Hicks Ken Emmel Boyd Evison John Swanson 289 062 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 EO S74 Mes 1200 SIXTH AVENUE 2 a zB SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 8 SZ; ~ 27 7a . é NOV 27 1985 PAL pp? Thank you for the opportunity to review this report. If you have any Simo, M/S 443 uestions, please contact Brian Ross of our EIS and Energy Review Section at (206) 442-8516 or FTS 399-8516. Sincerely, Robert E. Gilmore , , Regional Director Fi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ke oC ( St ts { 1011 East Tudor Road Robert S. Burd Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Director, Water Division Dear Mr. Gilmore: We have completed review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. The DEIS evaluates alternatives for management of the Refuge's 924,000 acres. Our review was conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and our responsibility under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act to determine whether the impacts of proposed federal acttons are acceptable in terms of environmental quality, public health, and welfare. Implementation of Alternative C, the DEIS preferred alternative, could result in local water quality degradation and related effects to fish due to prescribed burning. The DEIS states that careful monitoring and regulation will minimize impacts. The Final EIS should fully describe the monitoring that will occur and discuss how the information will be used. For example, monitoring should be used to determine whether applicable water quality 1 standards are being met; the Final EIS should go on to describe how activities can be modified if standards violations occur. Possible types of mitigation for any such impacts should also be presented. Finally, the Final EIS should reference the standards that apply, including those for turbidity, suspended solids, and instream sedimentation. We understand that little potential for significant oil and gas discoveries is thought to exist on the Tetlin Refuge. We would appreciate 2 being kept informed of any leases that may be proposed in the future. We would also like to be included in the scoping for any EISs. We have rated the DEIS/CCP as EC-2 (Environmental Concerns, Insufficient Information). A summary of the EPA rating system for DEISs is enclosed for yourreference. The additions we have suggested will allow the public to determine that the impacts of implementing Alternative C will be minimized. 162 Responses to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1. 2. The parameters measured for water quality standards are listed under water quality in the section on Air and Water Protection. We will add measures to regulate water quality as it becomes necessary. Through the notification process the EPA will be advised of and encouraged to comment on oil, gas, and mineral exploration within the refuge. aghoulnng es U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 0 S14 REGION 10 &. 1200 SIXTH AVENUE 8 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 $ i é MAR 25 i496 7A pane REPLYTO M/S 443 ATTN OF Robert E. Gilmore Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Gilmore: We have completed review of the supplement to the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) and Wilderness Review for the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Our review was conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and our responsibility under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act to determine whether the impacts of proposed federal actions are acceptable in terms of environmental quality, public health, and welfare. The purpose of the supplement is to incorporate the restated U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oil and Gas Policy into the draft CCP/EIS. The Service does not expect this to affect management of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge because very little potential is thought to exist for significant oi] and gas discoveries on the Refuge. As you will remember, our original comments on the draft CCP/EIS (letter dated November 27, 1985) and the original rating of EC-2 (Environmental Concerns, Insufficient information) focused on our concerns regarding the potential for water quality degradation and how activities could be modified to correct such degradation. The supplement does not address these concerns. The rating for the proposal and the EIS is therefore unchanged by addition of the supplement. We expect that the Final EIS will be able to resolve our water quality concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to review the supplement to the draft CCP/EIS. If you have any questions, please contact Brian Ross of our EIS and Energy Review Section at (206) 442-8516 or FTS 399-8516. Sincerely, Robert S. Burd Director, Water Division 262 Soy, DR : : Pe \ United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ALASKA REGIONAL OFFICE 2525 Gambell Street, Room 107 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 - 2892 IN REPLY REFER TO: 7619 (ARO-ONR) & 5 OCT 1985 Memorandum To: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region Attention: Bill Knauer From: Regional Director, Alaska Region Subject: Review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement and Wilderness Review for Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (DES 85/34) We have reviewed the subject document and have no comment, cc: Supt., WRST WASO (762) y United States Department of the Interior s NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ALASKA REGIONAL OFFICE 2525 Gambell Street, Room 107 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 - 2892 IN REPLY REFER TO: L7619 (ARO-OLR) 6 DEC 1985 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service Attention: William Knauer From: Regional Director, Alaska Region Subject: Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska At a recent coordination meeting between the superintendent of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve and the manager of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, the proposals for fish stocking within the refuge were discussed. We did not view these proposals with any concern in our initial review of the draft plan. But, after discussions with the refuge staff and fisheries staff in Fairbanks, we would like to make the following comments on the draft plan, specifically related to fisheries rehabilitation or enhancement. In Alternative C (the preferred alternative), it is proposed that chum salmon and lake trout be reintroduced at various locations throughout the refuge. We understand that additional study will be done before making specific decisions on these proposals. The National Park Service is concerned primarily with the proposals to restore chum salmon to their historic levels. We would like to see information on how and why the original chum salmon stocks were lost and how park/preserve waters including spawning grounds could be potentially affected by the proposed stocking activities. While not necessarily opposed to the reintroduction of native fish species, we would want to be consulted on any proposals that could possibly change or impact park/preserve resources. We realize these comments are late, but hope they will be considered in the final plan. p> Boyd Evison £62 Responses to Park Service 1. The original chum salmon population was lost due to overharvesting or radical habitat alteration. Native history tells that quantities of chum salmon sufficient for subsistence harvesting were available at one time. 2. Reintroducing chum salmon and lake trout into refuge waters will increase the nutrient level in the waters when adult salmon return to spawn. This will be a positive impact on local predators such as bears, eagles, and fish that prey on spawning salmon, salmon eggs, and salmon smolt. It will also impact all forms of fishing on the refuge and on waters connecting to the refuge. 3. Through the notification process the National Park Service will be advised of any developments on the refuge and invited to comment. United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ALASKA REGIONAL OFFICE Duieeecy tegen 0 2525 Gambell Street, Room 107 7619 (ARO-ONR) Anchorage, Alaska 99503 - 2892 1 APR 1986 Memorandum To: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 7 Attention: Bill Knauer From: podRByiona Director, Alaska Region Subject: Review of supplement to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and Wilderness Review for the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (DES 85/34) We have reviewed the subject supplement and have the following comment. The National Park Service would appreciate the opportunity to comment at a preliminary stage on any oil, gas or mineral exploration, lease or development proposal for any area adjacent to or near the boundary of the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. Please advise Jonathan Halpern (271-2619) or Larry Wright (271-2636) of my staff when a proposal of this kind is being considered. ae ce: Supt., WRST WSO (762) Paul Gates, DOI v6 sponses to National Park Service Through the notification process the National Park Service will be advised of any developments on the refuge and invited to comment. United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF MINES Alaska Field Operations Center 201 E. 9th Avenue Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 February 26, 1986 Regional Director Attn: Bill Knauer Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Knauer: The U.S. Bureau of Mines, Alaska Field Operations Center has reviewed the supplement to the Draft CCP/EIS and Wilderness Review for Tetlin NWR (reference # PSS-PL-0472C) and would like to offer the following comments concerning your revised position affecting oi] and gas studies and geologic core sampling within the refuge. As the Bureau of Mines is involved in mineral evaluation on ANILCA lands, your stated position allowing core sampling in three of four management categories is welcome as this will facilititate more comprehensive assessments. This policy is definitely in the public's interest and as stipulations concerning the compatibility of these studies with other refuge purposes is mandated, evaluation with environmental protection will ensue. As we have already responded to the initial CCP/EIS, we have no other comments to make at this time. eee UC Fk PLe he Donald P. Blasko Chief, AFOC DPB/ap s6z United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF MINES Alaska Field Operations Center P.O. Box 550 Juneau, Alaska 99802 October 23, 1985 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attn: William Knauer 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Sir, The U.S. Bureau of Mines has reviewed the Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and Wilderness Review for the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge and we would like to respond with the following information and comments relative to your discussion of the geology and mineral occurrences within the refuge. We are providing you with MILS and KARDEX map overlays and printouts for the Nabesna Quadrangle. MILS data comes from our computer data files in which information is stored for every mineral occurrence and deposit in the State. The KARDEX maps show the locations of all mining claims registered in the State. We have drawn the refuge boundaries on the overlays to facilitate this discussion. We have studied the Tanacross Quadrangle and found no mineral locations within the refuge, therefore we see no need to include maps depicting this situation. The MILS map for the Nabesna Quadrangle pinpoints three mineral locations that fall within refuge boundaries. The location corresponding to map number 22 is the Cheslina gold placer operation which was active in 1984. We have no information Pertaining to the last activity year for map numbers 25 & 35 ( Cheslina River gold placer and an unnamed chromite occurrence, respectively) and therefore can only suggest that the current operative status be identified to preclude any potential user conflicts. The KARDEX information for the Nabesna Quadrangle reveals four mineral locations that lie within the refuge. All four of these locations have been inactive since 1982 and therefore pose no current conflicts with the intended refuge purposes. We are also providing you with a photocopy of “Mineral Terranes of Alaska; 1982," that depicts the lands within the boundaries of Tetlin. We have drawn a rough outline around the vefuge and it is apparent that a favorable mineralized area exists east of Jatahmund Lake. Do your management plans allow for the evaluation of this area if metal prices increase and interest develops? We would like to point out a few erroneous statements and overgeneraliza- tions made in the text. You define tectonostratigraphic terranes as pieces of the earth that have been squeezed, crushed and mixed by convergent forces. There are existing terranes that show very little internal deformation as your defintion implies. A tectonostratigraphic terrane describes a stratigraphic unit of rock that differs markedly from neighboring rock and is fault bounded. These rocks have been redeposited in their present location by tectonic forces. Your statement that the oldest terranes contain the oldest rocks, and the youngest terranes contain the shallow water mudstones of flysch rocks is in error as Wrangellia is the youngest terrane that you mention and it contains thousands of feet of subaerial volcanic rocks( Nikolai Greenstone). Is there a better word than “built-ons" to describe the suturing of land masses that occurs along the west coast of North America? We checked the reference made to U.S.G.S. Open-File Report 81-792 ( which is listed as 81-729 in the reference section in the report ) and found a few inconsistencies in the information. The area depicted as Windy Terrane on your map is labeled "Windy and Mckinley Terranes,” and the area marked flysch belt on your map is labeled “Deformed Upper Mesozoic Flysch Belt” in this OFR. The geologic map presented on page 18 is not referenced, nor does it conform to usual and accepted geologic standards. There is no detailed information concerning the bedrock geology of the area. This is very important relative to mineral deposits and their potential occurrence. It is not prudent to discount the potential for metal mining on the refuge because igneous rocks are scarce. Metals can concentrate in sedimentary and metamorphic rocks and in fault zones, of which there are at least three major ones in the refuge, and in contacts between rock units. The possibility of mineral concentra- tions should not be ignored until further evaluation has been completed. We thank you for the opportunity to comment and offer you the best of luck with your project. Sincerely, “Dench P Blake Donald P. Blasko Chief Enclosures: 3 4 5 6 962 Responses to Bureau of Mines lL 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Thank you for your information. We have noted the active mining sites in the text. We have stated the possibility of mineral deposits as you described. ANILCA section 1010 requires assessment of potential oil, gas, and other mineral deposits on public lands in Alaska, however, under ANILCA sections 206 and 304(c) Alaskan refuges are closed to location, entry and patent under the mining laws, subject to valid existing rights. This has been changed. We have added subaerial volcanic rock to the youngest known terranes. The term "sutured land masses" has been used in place of "built-ons." We have corrected our maps and the error in our references. We have referenced all maps used in the plan. Due to time limitations, we did not include a map on bedrock geology of the area. United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF MINES Alaska Field Operations Center 201 E. 9th Avenue Suite 101 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 May 13, 1986 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Attn: William Knauer 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Sir; The U.S. Bureau of Mines, Alaska Field Operations Center was notified by phone conversation by Mindy Willis (FWS, Anchorage) that some of the information provided in our review of the CCP/EIS & WR for Tetlin NWR (submitted October 23, 1985) had been misplaced or is in need of clarification. Hopefully this correspondence will supplement the original reply. We are enclosing a copy of that portion of MINERALS TERRANES OF ALASKA; 1982, which includes Tetlin NWR. There is an area of undivided mafic volcanic rocks and sediments northeast of Jatahmund rake that appears favorable for deposits of copper, zinc, silver, and gold. We are also enclosing map overlays containing MILS and KARDEX locations for the Nabesna quadrangle. There are three MILS and four KARDEX locations within refuge boundaries, but only the Cheslina Gold Placer (MILS location #22) has been recently active. We draw attention to a few erroneous statements and overgeneralizations made in the text of the management plan. The geologic map presented on page 18 could differentiate between the types of bedrock present in the refuge as this information is currently available from ALASKA REGIONAL PROFILES: YUKON REGION, a source included on your list of references. This is important because igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks are all present within the refuge and could all be potential hosts for mineral deposits, especially near the contact zone between any two of these units. You define tectonostratigraphic terranes as pieces of the earth that have been squeezed, crushed, and mixed by convergent forces. There are existing terranes that show very little internal deformation as your definition implies. A tectonostratigraphic terrane describes a stratiaraphic unit of rock that differs markedly from neighboring rock and is fault bounded. These rocks have been redeposited in their present location by tectonic forces. Your statement that the oldest terranes contain the oldest rocks, and the youngest terranes contain the shallow water mudstones of flysch rocks is in error as Wrangellia 2462 is the youngest terrane that you mention and it contains thousands of feet of subaerial volcanic rocks (Nikolai Greenstone). Is there a better word than "built-ons" to describe the suturing of land masses that occurs along the west coast of North America? We checked the reference made to USGS Open-File Report 81-792 (which is listed as 81-729 in the reference section in the report) and found a few inconsistencies in the information. The area depicted as Windy Terrane on your map is labeled "Windy and McKinley Terranes", and the area marked flysch belt on your map is labeled "Deformed Upper Mesozoic Flysch Belt" in this OFR. We hope that this information will clear up any misunderstandings that may have been generated. Sincerely, TD ll ? blake Donald P. Blasko Chief, AFOC DPB/ap Enclosures @ Ve Mike United States Yen nent of Agriculture Mnited States Department of tue Taterior Fis and Yildlife Service 1011 2, Tudor Rd. Anchorase, AT 99503 Resional Disveetor: rehensive dlife Ref you for si Ye have received your Dart : :, and Tosiak ‘lation: this tine, 7 would like & nis you. Crp /) tite LTO DuLAC Forest Supervisor 080635 1409 ppb 1920 rinr FS-6200-28/7-82) 86z United States Department of the Interior MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICI ALASKA OCS REGION Mailing Addrem: P.O. Box 101159 ‘Anchorage, AK 99510 21 FEB 1986 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Alaska Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service From: Regional Director, Alaska OCS Region Subject: Review of Supplement to Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and Wilderness Review for Tetlin Wildlife Refuge. We have reviewed the supplement to the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and Wilderness Review for Tetlin Wildlife A Alan D. Powers Refuge and have no comments. Dare: REPLY TO ATTN OF: SUBJECT: To: UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT memorandum BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS JUNEAU AREA OFFICE Review of Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement and Wilderness Proposal for the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska October 30, 1985 Area Director, Juneau Area Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage Juneau Area Office and Anchorage Agency staff have reviewed the DEIS and have no suggestions for revising the document. The preferred alternative adequately addresses subsistence uses, traditional access, and Native land ownership. Overall the DEIS is a comprehensive and well done study. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. dake Lestenkof Buy U.S. Savings Bonds Regularly on the Payroll Savings Plan OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10 (REV. 7-76) GSAFPMR (41. CFR) 101-11.6 soro-112 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR US. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA P.0. BOX 898 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99506-0898 ; STATE CSU COORDINATOR pone 21 October 1985 OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 2600 DENALI STREET, SUITE 700 ArFewrion or: ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-2798 OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET PHONE: (907) 274-3528 Environmental Resources Section DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION April 14, 1986 Mr. Bill Knauer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Pegionei Director laska 9 mnchorsae | Hee U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ° 1011 East Tudor Road Boon ne Knauer Anchorage, AK 99503 The U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska, has reviewed the Draft 1 pe Environmental Impact Statement/Comprehensive Conservation Plan for pean es gianoteP in National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. We have no comments. pe ei Roar The State of Alaska has reviewed the draft Tetlin National 662 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Comprehensive Conservation _ document. It will go onto our shelves as a valuable reference. Plan/Environmental Impact Statement/Wilderness Review (CCP). This letter is submitted on behalf of state agencies and If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to represents a consolidation of state concerns and comments. contact me directly. If further details are desired by your staff, The state has generally concluded that no individual contact can be made with Ms. Lizette Boyer of our Environmental management alternative is entirely acceptable as written; Resources Section at 753-2637. therefore, our comments focus on general issues, rather than on an analysis of each of the alternatives. Our comments Sincerely, address public involvement, fish and wildlife management, wilderness, transportation and access, navigability, management of watercolumns, water rights, and land protection planning. rian GX PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Chief, Engineering Division : 7 The CCP is not clear regarding the extent and nature of FWS' commitment to future state and public involvement in planning and management of the refuge. Page ix says, "If major changes in the plan are proposed, public meetings may be held, or new environmental assessments/environmental impact statements may be necessary." Yet on page 16, under the heading Future Public Involvement, the following statement appears: “Additional opportunities for public review and comment will be provided as the plan is updated and as more specific management plans are developed." We support the direction given in the latter statement and request that the plan more fully describe a cooperative public and state involvement process consistent with ANILCA. (See additional comments on public involvement regarding access on page 12 under Access Restrictions). (01-A3OLH ooe Mr. Robert Gilmore -2- April 21, 1986 FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT Opportunities for maintenance and improvement of fish and wildlife populations should be provided regardless of which alternative is selected. This is consistent with one of the refuge's key purposes: "to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity" as mandated in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). We believe it is essential that both the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) be able to conduct a full range of necessary, biologically sound, and mutually acceptable methods of maintenance or improvement in order to ensure the conservation of the populations. In particular we are concerned about restrictions on the use or construction of permanent fish passes, permanent spawning channels, permanent hatcheries, chemical habitat modifications, supplemental production catchable fish release, and mechanical manipulation as presented in Tables 8 and 9 and Appendix E of the plan. It is premature to restrict application of these management options until more information is available through studies and population assessments. This lack of data is recognized as an issue in the CCP, as shown by the statement on page 12 that, “(Additional resource] data are needed as a basis for recommending fish and wildlife harvest levels, managing habitat, and regulating human access". The following illustrates our concern: Mechanical manipulation is a tool included in the current interagency fire management plan for the region. The CCP does not permit mechanical manipulation under the moderate or minimal land management categories which comprise most of the NWR under the preferred alternative. We believe the two plans should be compatible and that mechanical manipulation should therefore be permitted on the refuge on a case-by-case basis when cooperatively determined to be necessary by the FWS and the ADFS&G. Maximum flexibility for maintenance and improvement of fish and wildlife is consistent with the management objectives in paragraph 2 of page 118 which states that the FWS hopes to accommodate compatible public demands by striving to maintain or increase present population levels. It further states, "Should populations fall below desired levels, steps will be taken to restore populations." The latter direction is also consistent with state wildlife management plans for the area. We therefore urge that Tables 8, 9, and Appendix E be revised to allow potential management activities where they are currently indicated as not permitted. The tables and appendix should also clarify that case-by-case cooperative FWS and ADF&G determinations of acceptability will precede permitting these activities. Mr. Robert Gilmore -3- April 21, 1986 Throughout the CCP we believe a greater effort should be made to stress cooperative planning, research, and manage- ment efforts between the FWS and the ADF&G. Although this is mentioned on page 115 it should be emphasized and reiterated as appropriate in other portions of the CCP. As written, acknowledgement of the closely interrelated roles is inconsistent, rendering possible impressions that FWS may be exercising its oversight authority unnecessarily. We are certain that this is not FWS' intent and we request that the CCP be clarified to avoid this implication. We also request that the CCP identify the need for public cooperation and education in adhering to resource harvest regulations on the NWR. This is consistent with ANILCA 304(g) (2) (E) which calls for identification and description of significant problems "which may adversely affect the populations . . . of fish and wildlife." The problem is indirectly mentioned on page 16 under the heading Law Enforcement by stating that "several people asked what the Service intends to do about hunting regulations ...." As our respective staffs increase their efforts in the Tetlin NWR area, violations of harvest regulations may become more apparent. We request that the FWS clarify that such harvests may be a significant limiting factor of big game and waterfowl populations in the Tetlin NWR. A commitment to improved enforcement, education, and achieving local support in order to reduce and eventually prevent such harvest should be described. We request that the possible significance of illegal harvest in preventing attainment of population goals be more clearly evident in the CCP, as well as a discussion of programs to resolve the problem. The Management Alternatives section on pages 99 - 141 summarizes the general direction of the different management alternatives. Oftentimes, however, it does not provide enough substantive detail for a meaningful review of the proposals. Some of this needed information is found in the Environment Consequences section of the CCP. Management intent would be more apparent if the information in this section were included in the Management Alternatives discussion. This would enable proposals to be compared to tables and maps that are presented in the Management Alternatives section. Fisheries Page 38, paragraph 2 - This paragraph states that 14 fish species have been observed on Tetlin NWR and refers to Appendix D, which includes Dolly Varden as a fish species of Tetlin NWR. Paragraph 3 on Page 38, how- ever, states "to date, Dolly Varden have not been found in any surveyed drainages on the refuge." Likewise ADF&G is unaware of documentation to substantiate the | ; toe Mr. Robert Gilmore =4~ April 21, 1986 presence of chinook salmon and rainbow trout on Tetlin NWR. We suggest that these three species be removed from Appendices C and D, as well as from paragraph 2 on page 117. Page 113, Commercial Fishing - Table 9 indicates that commercial fishing, including all land-based activities and facilities, would not be permitted on Tetlin NWR. The ANILCA Section 304(d), however, states that "the Secretary [of the Interior] shall permit within units of the National Wildlife Refuge System... the exercise of valid commercial fishing rights or privileges . . . subject to reasonable regulation... . " Until such time as information is available which supports FWS, proposed prohibition of commercial fishing activities on the refuge, we cannot support this proposal. Page 117, paragraph 3, last sentence - We request that resident and anadromous fish migration, spawning, and rearing areas be added to the list of critical wildlife habitats. Pages 152 and 158, Scenario - It is stated that chum salmon would be reintroduced in two sites in Alternative B (Page 152) and six sites in Alternative C (Page 158) in an attempt to restore populations to historic levels. The CCP should clarify that these are basic fisheries Management goals and that site-specific details will be worked out in subsequent step-down planning. These details include the specific sites chosen for release of juvenile chum salmon and the reason for their selection, the proposed source of chum salmon eggs (i.e., from what brood stock), the hatchery facility to be used, and the number of fry to be released at each of the locations under each scenario. We also request clarification of "reintroduced" as used in these paragraphs. Consistent with previous state comments on refuge plans, ADF&G is also interested in a cooperative forum to assist in determining "historic levels" of salmon populations and use. Page 220, Appendix E - Unlike Table 9 (Page 104) which refers to this appendix, no wilderness category is shown. The final plan should include the intent for fisheries management activities in wilderness areas. Subsistence Pages 57-58, Human Environment - We applaud the intent to pursue archaeological investigations on the Tetlin NWR and recommend that this be given high priority. Mr. Page Page Page Page Page Robert Gilmore -5- April 21, 1986 We would appreciate inclusion of references in the text of this section and clear identification of information sources throughout the CCP, including maps, tables, and appendix. 10 59, paragraph 3 - The population of Tok includes former residents of Tanacross, Tetlin, Northway, and possibly Eagle and Mentasta. These people generally retain strong ties to their former community of residence and continue to harvest resources with friends and relatives from those communities. 11 61, Sociocultural Systems, paragraph 1 - The phrase "some of the older families still move to traditional fish camps in the summer" should be clarified to reflect that persons of all ages in Tetlin, Northway, and Tanacross participate in harvest activities based in seasonal camps. 12 Boards of Fisheries and Game have not determined it necessary to separate subsistence from other harvest types, the statement that the Boards have not deter- mined "what constitutes subsistences uses in this area" is not totally correct. Data from the report The Use of Copper River Salmon and Other Wild Resources by Upper Tanana Communities, 1983-1984 (Division of Sub- sistence Technical Report Paper No. 115) strongly suggest that Tetlin and Northway have an established customary and traditional use pattern that includes portions of the Tetlin NWR. 13 61, Sociocultural Systems, paragraph 4 - We would encourage use of the term "subsistence-based socio- economic system" to generally describe the economies of Tetlin, Northway, and Tanacross, rather than consider- ing them to be "transitional." It is unclear at this time whether the cash economy will significantly expand in the years ahead, or whether economic conditions in Alaska may change such that resource harvesting will regain greater importance. 14 62, paragraph 5 - The important points in this paragraph need clarification. Some residents of communities on or near the Tetlin NWR have expressed legitimate concerns about actual or potential increased competition for resources which have been an essential part of their traditional economy, not merely "benefits now enjoyed." Rural residents throughout Alaska resist changes which they perceive might increase competition for limited fish and wildlife resources. 15 61, Sociocultural Systems, paragraph 2 - Although the | zoe Mr. Page Page Page Page Page Page Robert Gilmore -6- April 21, 1986 We take exception to the statement that there is "general resentment and suspicion" directed toward all "outsiders." The impressions conveyed in this para- graph are unnecessarily negative and do not acknowledge differences in the communication styles of non-local government employees and local residents. Our experience suggests that many residents of communities on or near the Tetlin NWR (1) are genuinely concerned about the affects of the refuge on their lives and livelihoods; (2) have had limited opportunities to interact with government staff outside the context of public meetings or brief community visits; and (3) are hospitable and conversant under proper circumstances. 67, Table 6 - The column totals in this table bear no relationship to the sum of the figures presented in each column and all numbers have been rounded. This suggests these figures are only estimates; the table needs corresponding clarification. 71, continuing paragraph - The ADF&G, particularly Division of Subsistence, requests participation in any resource use studies planned for Tanacross and Tok. 72, Figure 22 - Information derived from our research indicates that Northway residents also hunt waterfowl in the shaded area of the Chisana River corridor used by Tok residents (see attached revised map, Figure 22). 73, Figure 23 - Available information indicates that fishing areas used by Northway residents should be extended to include Scottie Creek all the way to the mouth and a larger area east of Northway on Moose Creek (coinciding with "Fish Camp" to the west of the fishing area depicted east of the community). Refer to the attached revised map, Figure 23, for specific details. 74, Figure 24 - According to our mapped data, Northway residents hunt for moose up the Nabesna River to and including the Pickerel Lake area. Our information does not indicate use of Jatahmund Lake for moose hunting, but use of Takomahto Lake immediately to the east (this lake is unlabeled on the map). This discrepancy may be due to the fact that our maps are derived from interviews with a sample only of Northway residents (see attached revised map, Figure 24). 75, Figure 25 - Northway residents also use the Jatah- mund Lake area for furbearer trapping (see attached revised map, Figure 25). This is noted in the text on page 77 but not depicted in the map. Other areas trapped by Northway residents and depicted on our revised Figure 25 include (1) the west bank of the Nabesna River from the Cheslina River south to the 15 16 17 18 19 20 Mr. Page Page Page Robert Gilmore -7- April 21, 1986 refuge boundary; (2) the area from the Northway road west to the Nabesna River; and (3) the area along the Alaska Highway south from the northwest border of the refuge to Seattle Creek. 76, Table 7 - This table refers to months of harvest on the refuge and adjacent areas used by “local residents" from Northway, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Tok. This should be clarified in the table heading and in the text on page 71 where Table 7 is referenced. Since the table does not restrict its coverage only to harvest on the refuge, we recommend adding caribou, salmon, and sucker to the species list. Caribou are harvested in August, September, and November through February. Salmon are harvested primarily in June and July, but also occa- sionally in May and August. Suckers are taken pri- marily from June through September but also occasion- ally in May and October. Additions to this table based on our Northway data are shown on the attached and revised Table 7. Current limited data for Tetlin also reveal (1) occasional use of young pike ("pickle") in September, December, and January; and (2) occasional use of edible plants in October. September is the primary month for moose hunting, with occasional effort occurring in July, August, December, and January, according to ADF&G, Division of Subsistence, information for the four communities. We suspect other studies will show this to be potentially a year-round harvest activity, generally excluding fall rut and spring calving season. Preliminary findings from a Division of Subsistence study conducted in Northway were provided for incor- poration in this plan, as were data from a study in Tetlin conducted by a FWS researcher to whom the Division provided assistance. Selected data from these two studies and from Division research conducted in Tok and Tanacross are presented in the recently-published The Use of Copper River Salmon and Other Wild Resources by Upper Tanana Communities, 1983-1984. Copies have been provided to the Tetlin Refuge and other FWS staff. The Division is continuing research in Northway and will submit additional information to the refuge as it becomes available. We also look forward to continuing our cooperative research efforts. 77, paragraph 3 - The ADF&G mapped data for Northway indicates that wood is also cut in areas of the refuge accessed from the Alaska Highway. 77, paragraph 4 - The final sentence should begin "In the 1982 and 1983 seasons . . .." ADF&G data indicates that the primary moose harvest areas in 1982 and 1983 | 20 |2 |: e0e Mr. Robert Gilmore -8- April 21, 1986 coincide with the river drainages and tributaries mentioned and not only “between the Nabesna and Chisana rivers near the Black Hills"; the FWS may have obtained additional information of which we are unaware. Page 77, paragraph 6 - We caution against indicating that the panhandle and Black Hills areas are not used by Northway residents for furbearer trapping on the basis of data we provided. Information was derived from a small sample of active harvesting households (as is noted on Page 70) and may not include all trapping areas being used. Page 77, paragraph 7 - In this section on fishing areas, it may be more appropriate to begin the first sentence "The majority of sampled households in Northway . ..." We again are not aware of whether the FWS is basing this assessment on information other than studies provided by ADF&G, Division of Subsistence. Pages 80-85 - It is unclear whether the maps presented in Figures 26-30 are designed to depict areas used only by residents other than of Northway, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Tok or also by recreational users from these four communities. This confusion should to be corrected by labeling the maps more clearly as was done in Figures 22-25. Page 86, final paragraph - We request clarification that trapping is an important activity on the refuge despite the statement ". . . less than 25 local residents used the refuge for trapping" in 1983. Pages 151, 156, 162, and 192, Subsistence/Section 810 Findings - The CCP generally concludes that each of the proposed management alternatives would result in at least nominal positive impacts on subsistence uses of the refuge. Yet, it also cites the likelihood of continuing (or possibly increasing) perceptions among local residents of increasing competition from non- local residents. Consequently, we strongly encourage refuge staff to enhance communication and consultation with local communities as it proceeds with population and habitat improvement activities that will facilitate increased public use of the refuge. This will increase the identification of potential conflicts and provide for their timely resolution. As mentioned earlier, the ADF&G Division of Subsistence remains committed to working cooperatively on studies which will (1) strengthen our understanding of local fish and wildlife use patterns; and (2) provide data needed to minimize conflicts among user groups. 23 24 25 26 27 Mr. Robert Gilmore =9- April 21, 1986 WILDERNESS As we explained more fully in our comments on the Kodiak draft CCP, we are concerned that the FWS has neither developed adequate criteria for a wilderness suitability determination, nor provided specific criteria to determine which suitable lands should be recommended for wilderness. Since the preferred alternative does not propose wilderness recommendations, our immediate concern focuses on the suitability process. We request that more specific criteria, as well as a map or specific description illustrating lands that have been determined to be suitable, [| 28 be included in the final CCP. We also request that the Tetlin CCP, and all other CCPs, include a Wilderness Designation Issues analysis similar to the section on pages 26 - 32 of the draft Kodiak CCP. We request that such a discussion include each of the issues in the attached statement presented to the National Park Service on the same subject. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION We recommend that FWS make the following revisions to the portions of the plan that address transportation and access. These proposed additions are to help clarify the issues of traditional access, RS 2477 rights-of-way and 17(b) easements. We recognize that the CCP has already incorporated some of our suggestions, however the plan as currently written still contains some ambiguity on these issues. Most of the information requested below addresses concerns which we have with all of the ANILCA plans for the national park and wildlife refuge systems in Alaska. The general comments below are addressed more specifically in the page-specific comments beginning on page 13 of this letter. General Organization of Access Issues The sections on access and transportation in the Affected Environment chapter should include a more detailed summary of the existing roads, trails, airstrips, and waterways used currently or historically for transportation in the refuge, including a brief discussion about the historical use, current use, and management status of each. The information 29 in this section should include, but not be limited to 17(b) easements and RS 2477 rights-of-way as noted in our page-specific comments. The Management Alternatives chapter should also address 17(b) easements, RS 2477 rights-of-way and non-exclusive use easements. If the FWS cannot at this time explain in detail how it intends to address each RS 2477 right-of-way and 17(b) 30 easement, the plan should refer to a land protection plan that FWS will develop upon completion of the CCP. This vOe Mr. Robert Gilmore -10- April 21, 1986 discussion in the CCP should state in general how 17(b) easements and RS 2477 rights-of-way will be addressed in the land protection plan. The discussion should also indicate that the State and other interested parties will be involved in the development of this plan. ANCSA 17(b) Easements More specifically, the Affected Environment discussion of 17(b) easements reserved pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) should include a description of the easement types and uses for which each easement was designated. A list of all ANCSA 17(b) easements within the refuge boundary or on adjacent lands that terminate at the refuge boundary should also be included. A complete list and additional information about these easements may be obtained from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or an affected ANCSA corporation. We also suggest referencing the section of the plan which will be addressing management of these easements. A separate section on 17(b) easements in the Management 30 Directions Common to All Alternatives should reference the list of easements in the Affected Environment chapter of the plan, as described above. It should then indicate the FWS management intent for these easements. The plan should also explain what modifications to the terms of conveyance, if any, FWS intends to propose for these easements. By law, proper notice is required before any modifications to the terms are made. If no modifications are intended, the plan should state that policy for refuge management will not affect 17(b) easements, and that all uses that are authorized in the conveyance document are allowed. If FWS does not at this time know the policy it intends to follow, then the CCP needs to explain in detail what the issues are that the policy will address and how the public will be involved in developing that policy. RS 2477 Rights-of-Way The discussion of Revised Statute (RS) 2477 in the Affected Environment chapter should briefly describe the nature of these rights-of-way and include a list of possible RS 2477 rights-of-way in the NWR. Available information regarding the current and historical use and the management status of 31 each should be described. The section should also include a reference to the section of the plan where FWS addresses RS 2477 management concerns. The Management Alternatives chapter should similarly reference the rights-of-way listed under Affected Environment and address management intent. Mr. Robert Gilmore -11- April 21, 1986 Because it is important that the FWS recognize that valid RS 2477 rights-of-way may exist within national wildlife refuges, the State has suggested in the past that the CCPs include maps of possible RS 2477 rights-of-way (ROWs). Since our recommendation last summer, it has become clear that private landowners are concerned that the depiction of possible RS 2477 ROWs in the CCPs may lead to unauthorized use of adjacent private land or inholdings. Furthermore, since the CCPs acknowledge that the units are subject to valid existing rights, including RS 2477 ROWs, and the State has provided information to FWS concerning possible routes, including their location, the State believes that it is no longer necessary to include such maps in the plans. Rather, the State recommends that these maps be kept on file in FWS offices and be available for public review. Additionally, the State recommends that each CCP include a statement that additional RS 2477 ROW information is available from the FWS regional office or the State of Alaska. Even though we feel it is no longer necessary to include maps of possible RS 2477 ROWs in the CCPs, we reiterate our request that all CCPs continue to acknowledge valid existing rights. Therefore, we request that the language on page 115 be replaced with the following: RS 2477 (formally codified as 43 U.S.C. 932; enacted in 1866) provides that: "The rights-of-way for the 31 construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." The act was repealed by P.L. 94-579 as of October 21, 1976, subject to valid existing claims. The Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge is subject to valid existing rights, including rights-of-way established under RS 2477. The validity of these rights-of-way will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The following list identifies rights-of-way that the State contends may be valid under RS 2477: (List of potential RS 2477 ROWs) A map of these possible RS 2477 rights-of-way has been provided by the State and is on file at the refuge managers office and the regional office. This list and Map are not necessarily all inclusive. Private parties or the State of Alaska may identify and seek recognition of additional RS 2477 rights-of-way within the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. Supporting material regarding potential rights-of-way identified by the State may be obtained through the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, or the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. soe Mr. Robert Gilmore -12- April 21, 1986 Identification of potential rights-of-way on the list and map does not establish the validity of these RS 2477 rights-of-way and does not necessarily provide the public the right to travel over them. 31 Unless a cooperative management agreement between the State and FWS is developed, it is inappropriate to require that users of any rights-of-way must comply with FWS permit requirements. Access Restrictions Because of inconsistent and sometimes vague statements, it is often difficult to determine actual management intent. For example, in describing public use of the Affected Environment, paragraph 5 of page 65 states "The modes of transportation currently used on the refuge and the level of use are expected to remain the same." Figure 20 on page 68 illustrates that air boats are commonly used for access in both the Northway area and the Nabesna River drainage. Table 9 on page 107, however, excludes air boats and air- cushion boats from the permitted modes of access. Paragraph 3 on page 120 prohibits air boats and air-cushion vehicles for subsistence use in accordance with FWS policy and definitions found in FWS regulations (50 CFR 36). In addition, on page 121, paragraph 4 in the discussion of ANILCA Section 1110(a), the CCP states, "Therefore, none of the access restrictions or prohibitions proposed in this plan will be implemented until procedures for the establishment of refuge regulations (including public hearings) are met." In general it appears that various statutes, executive 32 orders, regulations, and studies are inappropriately referenced to support prohibitions and restrictions which seem to violate Congressional intent. In passing the ANILCA, which amended previous statutes and supercedes regulations and policies (Section 305), Congress intended a liberal approach to access, different than "lower 48" management, assuring continuance of traditional and customary activities. It is our understanding that Congress intended closures to be pursued on a site-specific and case-by-case basis as necessary to reduce impacts on public.health and safety, resource protection, protection of cultural or scientific values, subsistence uses, etc., as specified in 50 CFR 36.16 and 36.42. To be consistent with these ANILCA implementa- tion regulations, FWS should follow established criteria and procedures to gain data and public input prior to implementing proposed restrictive actions. Our interpreta- tion of ANILCA and subsequent regulations suggests that, at a minimum, this process should include the following: Mr. Robert Gilmore -13- April 21, 1986 determine and document existing use levels or activities; determine the basis (finding) or reason for the proposed action or decision; substantiate the finding by documenting the known impact of not making the decision; investigate 32 alternative measures for accommodating the activity in question that would avoid the same impacts; and pursue separate public notice and public hearing. Page-specific Comments Concerning Access Page 19, Table 1 - The table should acknowledge. that there is an undetermined amount of land that is or may be 33 encumbered with RS 2477 rights-of-way or 17(b) easements. This could be added as a footnote. Page 65, paragraph 4 - Although not specifically addressed in the CCP, we request that the plan clarify that access to and use of existing materials sites within the NWR will not be precluded. These materials sites are identified on the attached "Materials Site Strip Maps". The CCP should also specifically recognize the possible future needs of Department of Transportation and Public Facilities with regard to highway realignment and sand and gravel extraction adjacent to the Alaska Highway within the northern NWR boundaries. We also request that the CCP recognize that there may be a future need for telephone or electrical transmission lines from the Alaska Highway to Northway. We recognize that the lands on either side of the existing road corridor are currently selected by the Northway Corporation, however we seek assurances that such utility development will not be precluded by the ccP. Page 69, Figure 21 - The title on this map should be corrected to read: "Trails Included in the 1973 Alaska Existing Trail System Inventory." In addition, the key that identifies these trails as "snowmobile trails" should be deleted. The 1973 Inventory does not distinguish methods of travel. This map or a similar map should include the 17(b) easements that have been reserved in and adjacent to the refuge. The legend should refer to a document that will be available at various FWS offices where the reader can find the exact location of the 17(b) easements on more detailed maps than those included in the plan. The Department of Interior manual (601 DM 4) requires that this information be made available. The map should also note that since Native conveyances have not been completed, the total list of 17(b) easements in the NWR is not yet known. 34 90 Mr. Robert Gilmore -14- April 21, 1986 Pages 106-110, 116 and 121 - The sections of Table 9 titled "Access," "Hiking," Snowmobiles," "Other Motorized Vehicles," and "Roads" should include a footnote referring the reader to a discussion in the Management Directions Common to All Alternatives section of the plan about how FWS will manage a route being used for access that coincides with a RS 2477 right-of-way. Conservation system units were established by ANILCA subject to valid existing rights. Therefore, these sections of the plan should identify that state management authority applies to valid RS 2477 rights-of-way, and indicate that when a route coincides with an RS 2477, the management of this right-of-way will be addressed through cooperative management agreements with the state. Similarly the sections on Access to Inholdings and Recreation and Access also need to be clarified. Page 115, paragraph 1 - We request that the list of examples of cooperative efforts include RS 2477 rights-of-way and navigable rivers. Page 124, paragraph 3 - This paragraph states that "The Service will not permit any additional corridors within the refuge boundary." This sentence is clearly inconsistent with the provisions of ANILCA Title XI and should be deleted. NAVIGABILITY The FWS should consider developing cooperative management agreements with the state concerning the management of navigable rivers. The state is willing to consider FWS management proposals for management of the rivers. Any such proposals should be directed to the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management. The CCP should be clarified to reflect this. Page 19 - This land status table should include the acreage of submerged lands beneath navigable waters that are in state ownership. It should also include a footnote that acknowledges the unresolved navigability status of many of the waterbodies in the refuge. Page 20, Land Status Map - Rivers within the refuge that have been determined to be navigable should be identified. Additionally, the legend to the map should identify the uncertain status of lands in other drainages. At a minimum, a footnote should be included in the legend of the map mentioning the possibility that other rivers in the refuge may also be determined to be navigable. 35 36 3 3 7 8 Mr. Robert Gilmore -15- April 21, 1986 Page 127, Navigable Waters - This discussion is confusing because two issues are being addressed in this section that could better be dealt with under separate headings. The first issue is how to manage lands under navigable waters. The second issue is how to manage the use of the watercolumns of rivers and other waterbodies in the refuge. (See next section) We request that the discussion under Navigable Waters be replaced with the following paragraph: 39 At the time of Statehood, the State received ownership of the beds of navigable waters to the “ordinary high water mark." At present the (name of waterways) have been determined navigable. The FWS will seek cooperative agreements with the State concerning the management of submerged lands under navigable waters. The FWS will make requests for the use of these lands to the appropriate State agencies. MANAGEMENT OF THE WATERCOLUMN As discussed above, we request that the CCP include a separate section titled "Management of the Watercolumn." This section should include the portions of the discussion on page 127 that address the use of the watercolumn itself, not the lands under the watercolumn. It should also acknowledge that these watercolumns remain subject to management authority by the State, although the State may choose to cooperatively manage such areas with FWS on a case-by-case basis. 40 Additionally, the "Motorboats" section on page 107 needs to be clarified. The management of these uses may require cooperative management agreements with the state. This needs to be acknowledged in the discussion about these uses. We are also concerned about the apparent qualification that motorboats may only be used to "provide access to the refuge". Such a restriction would be inconsistent with ANILCA. We request that this phrase be deleted. WATER RIGHTS Federal reserved water rights are created either expressly or by implication when federal lands are withdrawn from entry (by Congress or other lawful means) for federal use. It is the state's position that federal water rights, both 41 instream and out-of-stream, are either generally or specifically reserved for the primary purposes of the reservation. Characteristics of a federal reserved water right include: 20€ Mr. Robert Gilmore -16- April 21, 1986 1. it may be created without actual diversion or beneficial use; 2. it is not lost by non-use; 3. its priority date is from the date the land is withdrawn for the primary purpose(s) involved; and 4, it is the right to the minimum amount of water reasonably necessary to satisfy both existing and reasonable foreseeable future uses of water for the primary purpose(s) for which the land is withdrawn. Water for secondary purposes must be obtained under State law, AS 46.15. Discussion at the March, 1985 meeting of the Alaska Water Resources Board emphasized the importance of two aspects of federal reserved water rights. First, they are recognized only for the primary purposes for which the land was withdrawn, and second, they apply only to the minimum amount of water reasonably necessary to satisfy the primary purposes of the withdrawal. Legislation establishing the withdrawal of land is critical, because it establishes the priority date for the federal reserved water right, and 41 often expressly state the primary purposes of the withdrawal. All of these aspects of federal reserved water rights - the priority date, the primary purposes, and the minimum amount of water reasonably necessary to maintain the primary purposes - are important concepts that should be reflected in the plan. Page 125 - We suggest that the following language be included under the section titled Water Rights: "The water resources of the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge will be managed to maintain the primary purposes for which the unit was established. The primary purposes of this NWR are , as cited in the following legislation establishing this national wildlife refuge (reference to legislation). Specific water resource requirements for the primary purposes of the refuge will be identified and the minimum amount of water reasonably necessary to maintain these purposes will be quantified in cooperation with the State of Alaska. Once federal reserved water rights have been quantified, the Fish and Wildlife Service will file this information with the State in accordance with State laws." Water for secondary purposes and all other uses within the NWR will be applied for under AS 46.15. Mr. Robert Gilmore -17- April 21, 1986 LAND PROTECTION PLAN The CCP on page 116 mentions that several land exchanges and acquisitions have been recommended but does not identify where these are located within the refuge. The plan should show these areas and explain that the details of the exchanges will be worked out during the development of a land protection plan. The CCP should outline in greater detail than is included on page 227 how and when a land protection plan for the refuge will be developed. The discussion should include a list of the issues the plan will address. Included on this list should be the recommended land exchanges referenced above State land and waters, and RS 2477 rights-of-way. REMAINING PAGE-SPECIFIC COMMENTS directs that the Tetlin NWR shall consist of approximately seven hundred thousand acres of public land. The CCP, however, uses different figures, including 924,000, 699,086, and 697,616 acres. Although a brief explanation regarding the differences is presented in paragraph 3 of page 17, we recommend (for the purposes of comparative charts and tables) that one figure be used. Page vii, paragraph 2, last sentence - We suggest adding caribou, black bear, grizzly bear, and Dall sheep to the species list for consistency with the species addressed in the Environmental Consequences section (Pages 143-170). 42 43 44 Page ix, paragraph 2, first sentence - Add "appropriate state laws and regulations" to the list of policies governing refuge management. 45 Page 49, paragraph 4 - The caribou registration permit hunt referred to here was discontinued by Board of Game action in March 1985. 46 Page 87, paragraph 1 - According to this paragraph, three big game guides have permits to operate on the refuge. The final paragraph on page 79 says that four big game guides operate within the refuge. We request that this discrepancy be corrected or otherwise explained. Page 90, last paragraph - This is technically correct, though somewhat misleading. Significant wilderness acreage occurs south of the NWR in the Wrangell/St. Elias National Park and Preserve. 47 48 Pages vii, 17, 19, and 132 - The ANILCA Section 302(8) | go0e Mr. Robert Gilmore -18- Page Page Page Page Page Page April 21, 1986 control and abatement be added following the discussions of water and air quality. The National Park Services draft general management plan for the Noatak National Preserve (page 3-22, attached), contains a discussion on this topic which could serve as a model. 126 - We recommend that a section addressing pollution 49 127-128, Mining Operations - We request that the following sentence be added to the first paragraph: "Plans of Mining Operations will be evaluated and administered in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation." 50 130, paragraph 3, last sentence - This sentence mentions that three acres at Northway Junction would be designated intensive management. Table 11 on page 132, however, lists six acres for intensive Management. We request that this discrepancy be corrected. 51 134 and 136 - We note that an intensive Management area at Northway Junction is included in Alternatives A and D but excluded in Alternative B and C. We understand that there is an existing administrative site at this location. Assuming that the site will remain in use, it would seem appropriate for all alternatives to include an intensive management area for the site. there is some justification for the variation, we request it be provided in the final CCP. 52 under moderate management and 5 percent under intensive management. However, Table 11 on page 132 lists 29 percent and less than one percent for each classification, respectively. We request that this discrepancy be corrected. 53 138, Public Use and Access Management - In our view, it would not be appropriate to concentrate all camping in Tetlin in one area. Consequently, we request that the last sentence in this paragraph be clarified as follows: "Campsites may be designated if needed to confine resource degradation to specific areas." Pages 144, 152, 158, and 163, Scenario - The Alaska Alaska Fire Management Plan: Fortymile Area was an interagency effort, cooperatively developed for environmentally sound fire management of the Tetlin NWR area. However, the FWS proposes to limit annual acreage burns to a maximum 7,500 acres. This policy is not consistent with the. interagency plan. While it is true that approximately 1 to 1} percent of this portion of Alaska 55 136, paragraph 5 - Of the NWR, 24 percent would be | Mr. Page On bi oppo: Refu Stat inc The consi Robert Gilmore -19- April 21, 1986 burned annually prior to federal fire suppression, this is an average percentage. The fire rotation of approximately 80-100 years could be significantly altered by implementing "initial attack" after 7,500 acres have burned in any given year. The Tetlin NWR has a good mosaic of older plant communities including the most fire prone black spruce forest. Studies indicate that fire is likely to leave 55 many unburned inclusions of deciduous forest, riparian white spruce forest, and riparian brush. Fire effects on sedge hummock and other moist herbaceous habitats are minor and short lived. We request that the FWS not manage this relatively small area independent of, but rather as a portion of, a larger ecosystem including adjacent Tanana Upland and Nutzotin-Mentasta Mountains foothills. We thus request that the 7,500 acre annual burn limit be removed so that fire management is consistent with the region's interagency plan. 165, paragraphs 5 and 6 - We support cooperative habitat improvement efforts for waterfowl and suggest these efforts not be limited to damming river sloughs. We request that provisions to pursue cooperative efforts to improve waterfowl habitat, including studies and habitat improvements, be included in management 56 directions for the refuge, regardless of alternative selected. We also support the reestablishment of waterfowl breeding populations, wherever appropriate. The CCP should note that such efforts need corresponding public education, support, and enforcement to assure their success. ehalf of the State of Alaska, thank you for the rtunity to review this draft Tetlin National Wildlife ge Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact ement/Wilderness Review. If we can be of any assistance larifying these comments, please contact this office. state looks forward to review of the final comprehensive ervation plan. Sincereiys 7 Mh bi Lt a nen Gibert State £SU Coordinator 60€ Mr. cc: Robert Gilmore -20- April 21, 1986 Senator Rick Halford, CACFA, Fairbanks Attorney General Brown, Law, Juneau Commissioner Collinsworth, DFG, Juneau Commissioner Knapp, DOTPF, Juneau Commissioner Lounsbury, DCED, Juneau Commissioner Notti, DCRA, Juneau Major General Pagano, DMVA, Anchorage Commissioner Robison, Labor, Juneau Commissioner Ross, DEC, Juneau Commissioner Sundberg, DPS, Juneau Commissioner Wunnicke, DNR, Juneau John Katz, Office of the Governor, Washington, D.C. Janie Leask, Alaska Federation of Natives, Anchorage Molly McCammon, Office of the Governor, Juneau Responses to Office of the Governor 1. 2. 4 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14, The Service relies on public input in managing Alaska'a national wildlife refuges. For this plan, every three years public comments will be solicited to update the plan as it becomes necessary. We have indicated this in the section on implementation and revision of the comprehensive conservation plan in the introduction. We agree. The Service relies on cooperation with the State of Alaska for information, research, and protecting wildlife populations and subsistence use. Numerous references are found in the text on working cooperatively with the State, and we cover cooperation with state government agencies in the introduction and in the common management directions. We agree on the importance of educating the public on the effects of harvest regulations and waterfowl populations. Because Tetlin Refuge is located adjacent to the Alaska Highway and serves as an introduction to Alaska's scenic values and national wildlife refuges, more emphasis has been placed on educating visitors to the refuge. However, we have added emphasis on educating local refuge users as well. A summary of environmental consequences has been added into the introduction after the summary of management alternatives. Due to time limitations we did not alter the main body of text. ANILCA section 302(8)(B)(i) requires us to protect Dolly Varden and salmon on Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. Although these species have not been found on the refuge yet, we cannot delete reference to them. Rainbow trout are stocked in Hidden Lake on Tetlin Refuge. We have changed the text to conform to the provisions of ANILCA 304(d). This has been added. The CCP is a general land management plan. The details of the fisheries management plan will be developed in cooperation with ADF&G. The term "reintroduced" refers to fish that were historically found in the refuge but have become extinct in refuge waters. We have expanded Appendix E to address fisheries management in designated wilderness, and incorporated the appendix into Table 9. We have referenced the section on cultural resources as suggested. All maps and tables used have been referenced. Thank you for your information, This has been added to the text. This has been clarified. We have deleted this statement. We disagree. On a long term basis, the economy is in a transitional phase. ore 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. We have changed this section to identify the reliance of the rural lifestyle on resources available, including hunting and fishing, as well as the reasonable concern that reduced resources may result from non-local competition. We have stressed our intention to protect present and future subsistence usage on the refuge with the state's cooperation in the section on subsistence and in the common management directions. We have deleted the reference to the reception of visitors. It is difficult monitoring exact usage on the refuge, therefore these totals are approximate. We have simplified the chart and referred to the totals as approximations. This information has been added. This information has been added. We have added this lake to our map and changed the hunting area accordingly. We have added this information to our map. We have added this information to our chart. We have added this to the text. The sentence has been changed as suggested. We have changed our statement. We have changed the sentence as suggested. We have labeled the maps as suggested. Most local trappers use non-federal lands adjacent to the refuge. While only 25 trappers are known to use refuge lands, the actual number of local trappers is much higher. We agree trapping is a moderately important activity on the refuge. A wilderness criteria list was included in the draft plan wilderness review. A wilderness designation issues analysis has been added. We have added a map provided by the State Senate Transportation Committee as an appendix including RS 2477 rights-of-way. The land protection plan, called the Land Management Concept Plan in the plan, is discussed in common management directions. The Land Management Concept Plan was developed only for land acquisition and does not address RS 2477 rights-of-way and 17(b) easements. These topics are covered separately in the common management directions. We have replaced our discussion of RS 2477 rights-of-way with Language developed mutually by the State and the Service. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46. 47. Discussions of access throughout the plan have been modified and expanded. A footnote has been added to the table as suggested. We have deleted this map and added a map provided by the State Senate Transportation Committee as an appendix due to a decision by Bill Horn, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. We have addressed RS 2477 rights-of-way in the common management directions. We have added this to the paragraph as requested. Congress established the boundary of the refuge 300 feet west of the Alaska Highway specifically to allow an easement for potential utility developments. We believe this minimizes the need for additional corridors in the refuge, although we recognize provisions in Title XI apply. This has been indicated in the text. We have added a footnote to the land status table indicating the state's jurisdiction over shorelands. A map of navigable water on the refuge is not available at this time, although we have included a list of navigable waters in the text. We have added language to the text that reflects the current agreement between the Service and the state of Alaska. A section for management of the watercolumn has been added to the section on navigable waters. We have noted that regulating motor boat use may be a cooperative effort with the state. The section on water rights in the refuge has been modified to meet the concerns expressed. This information is available in the Land Management Concept Plan developed for Tetlin Refuge. Total acreage within the congressional boundaries of the refuge is 924,000 acres. Federal lands cover around 700,000 acres. We have used these numbers in the text. These species have been added. This has been added. We have noted the discontinuation of this hunt in the text. There are two guides operating with permits on the refuge at this time. Others occasionally operate on the fringe of the refuge. Thank you for bringing this discrepancy to our attention. Lie 48. 49. 50. Sl. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. We have mentioned the proximity of wilderness in our discussion. Pollution control measures will be developed as it becomes necessary. We have used the most current language on mining operations. This has been corrected. Thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention. The intensive management area has been added to alternatives B and C. This has been corrected. This phrase has been added as requested. Wildfire will be managed as described in the Fortymile Interagency Fire Management Plan. However, since the refuge is succeptible to large, uncontrollable fires, wildfires may need to be managed in order to ensure an adequate variety of habitats. The Service's goal for the next ten years would be a total of 75,000 acres burned by wildfire and prescribed burning. This amount of burning would restore a 100 year fire cycle to the refuge. The average yearly acreage figure is included in the scenario for analysis purposes. We agree that waterfowl habitat is a major concern. However, more research is needed to determine what will benefit migrating waterfowl. We have stressed cooperation between the Service and ADF&G in pursuing research on this matter. - ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION, INC. 509 W. Third Ave., Suite 17, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 276-0347 August 5, 1985 Regional Director Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attn: Bill Knauer Dear Sirs: The Alaska Miners Association has reviewed the draft plan for the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. It is well organized and easy to follow and the preferred alternative seems to be a very adequate and practical approach to the management of the fish and wildlife resources. The Alaska Miners Association represents the mining and related industries in Alaska. We support the concepts of allowing land to be available for mineral exploration and extraction, but recognize the statutory limitations placed by ANILCA. We have the following comments relative to the draft plan: 1. Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge systems are subject to Section 1008 of ANILCA; yet, there is no mention of the requirement and only a brief statement concerning oil and gas. It is well known that these overthrust type structures can contain hydrocarbon reserves even though the surface geology is unfavorable, We recommend the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comply with the 1008 requirement and also allow some exploration to add to the geologic knowledge and determine the potential of the area. While industry may exhibit very limited interest in the area now, under a change in economic situations this could change. 2. The plan suggests that certain type of lands are included within the refuge boundary while ANILCA 103(C) specifically excludes these lands from the conservation units. 3. There is some indication of additional mineralization within the refuge. This discussion should be expanded since the indicators suggest the presence of strategic minerals, More data ele ALASKA MINERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Regional Director Fish and Wildlife Service August 5, 1985 Page 2 4. The discussion on the existing claims is very brief and should be expanded to describe the location, geology, extent of mineralization, access, economics and potential of these claims. Without this information as well as some history it is impossible to evaluate these values. Even though only about 700 acres of the 900,000 acres in the refuge are involved, these values may represent some economic advantage to the region or may be part of the cultural background of the area. 5. The established and historic access to these claims should be protected, 6. While plans of operations are required for claims within the refuge, these requirements should be coordinated with other state and Federal agencies to eliminate duplicative efforts and stream- line the process. le appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Tetlin draft ‘lah and appreciate your consideration of our suggestions and vomments. Sincerely, ALA: yi) ATION Jin) 7 Bames R. Executive Director 5 Responses to AK Miners Assoc. 1. The supplement published after the Tetlin CCP and incorporated into the text permits oil and gas exploration within the refuge. The congressional boundaries of Tetlin Refuge have been used in maps in the text. Management proposals apply only to federal lands. ANILCA section 1010 requires assessment of potential mineral deposits on public lands in Alaska, however, subject to valid existing rights, ANILCA sections 206 and 304(c) close the refuge to location, entry, and patent under the mining laws. The Bureau of Mines has provided us with the sites of four mining claims within the refuge. There has been no recent activity on these claims according to Bureau of Mines records. Customary access will be allowed as provided for in ANILCA section 1110(b). The Service does not make policy for mining claims and operations. Alaska Oil and Gas Association : Response to Alaska Oil and Gas Assoc. 505 W. Northern Lights Boulevard 1. Oil and gas studies will be allowed throughout the refuge. Oil and gas Sulte 219 leasing will be allowed in areas in moderate and intensive management Anchorage, Alaska 99503 areas subject to site-specific compability determinations and a national (907) 272-1481 interest determination. This has been added to the text. November 4, 1985 Mr. Bill Knauer Regional Director U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska Dear Mr. Knauer: The Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) is a trade association whose Member companies account for the majority of oil and gas exploration, production and transportation activities in Alaska. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Comprehensive @ >nservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) for the o *tlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. AOGA recommends that this area not be closed to various resource activities before the mineral potential can be evaluated. Although these lands may not now be considered of highest priority for oil, 1 gas and mineral exploration, that situation could change. We recommend that these lands be open to mineral evaluation. Emphasis should be placed on multiple use of resources to the maximum extent Possible. As to any potential land-use conflicts, we believe that all of them could be resolved or mitigated without undue difficulty if mineral exploration were to occur in the Tetlin National Wild- life Refuge, Alaska. Very truly yours, lynt egy nis WILLIAM W. HOPKINS Executive Director WWH:tp vLe Alaska Oil and Gas Association 505 W. Northern Lights Boulevard Suite 219 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 (907) 272-1481 April 1, 1986 Mr. Bill Knauer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge Supplement to the Draft CCP/EIS and Wilder- oratt CCP Eis and Wilder ness Review Dear Mr. Knauer: We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Supplement to the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge draft. Our general comments forwarded to you on November 5, 1985 on the draft plan still apply. We commend the Service on the recently-restated oil and gas policy which allows vital and necessary evaluation for oil and gas potential in National Wildlife Refuges. AOGA concurs with the Service's proposal selecting Alternative C in the draft plan. We are pleased that Alternative C provides for no new wilderness designation, and we believe the industry can work with the Service under the combination of minimal, moderate and intensive management designations as summarized in the supplement of February 6, 1986. We reiterate our belief that the exploratory methods used by the industry are of a non-destructive nature and cause minimal disturbance to other Refuge values. We urge that the final plan will have as a part, the oil and gas exploration methods described in the supplement. Very truly yours, WILLIAM W. HOPKINS Executive Director WWH:tp10:1045 Doyon, Limited Doyon Building 201 First Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Tel: (907) 452-4755 Telex 090-36615 February 7, 1986 Mr. Robert Gilmore Regional Director U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 1101 East Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 Attn: William Knauer Re: Comments on Draft CCP/EIS -- Tetlin NWR Dear Mr. Gilmore: This letter represents the combined comments of Doyon, Limited and Northway Natives, Inc. on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan--Environmental Impact Statement for the Tetlin Refuge. Our review of the draft reveals two major deficiencies, Produces one item of serious concern and generates a host of comments. The two deficiencies involve threshold issues which, because they have not been dealt with adequately, or at all, will require further efforts on the part of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) before the draft plan can be lawfully finalized, Section 304(g)(2)(B) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires the Secretary of the Interior to identify and describe "... the special values of the refuge as well as any other archeological. cultural, biological, geological, historical, paleontological, scenic or wilderness value of the refuge ..." before Plans are developed for each refuge (emphasis added). The plan states that there are no known archeological sites in the refuge. Cultural resources are discussed with reference to a Healy Lake site 100 miles to the northeast and the further removed Denali complex. Recent telephone conversations with USFWS staff indicate that required inventories of archeological and cultural resources have not been undertaken. A logical extension is that historical values have also probably not been researched. However, Doyon has identified several historical sites of cultural and archeological signifi- cance through selections made several years ago pursuant to Ste Mr. Robert Gilmore February 7, 1986 Page 2 Section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Obviously, sources of information have, at best, been overlooked, Furthermore, we have grave concerns about the poten- tial impacts of increased use on the Scottie and Desper Creeks drainages. There is at least one old village site and other culturally significant areas located in the drainage that warrant attention. We oppose development of a boat launch on Desper Creek until we know that the values which are so very important to the Northway people are being protected. In addition to the ANILCA requirement to inventory and valuate such sites so to protect them from disturbance and damage, the Antiquities Act, Archeological Resources Protection Act, and National Historic Preservation Act have similar and more passive mandates which have not been met. The second threshold deficiency involves the draft's non- compliance with Sections 810 and 812 of ANILCA whereby land use decisions such as this draft plan requires the USFWS to evaluate the effects of its plan on subsistence uses and needs after compiling data on subsistence uses of the fish and wildlife from the affected public lands. This has not been done. The basic problem of the USFWS approach to subsistence in general stems from a "lumping" together of all local uses. USFWS has missed a critical distinction found in the law between uses by (1) those residing in the general area of the refuge who take fish and game for recreation, and (2) those local residents who can show a customary and direct dependence upon the wildlife populations as the mainstay of livelihood. We have serious objection to the Service's plan to further develop the present refuge headquarters at Tok and provide only a seasonal satellite station in Northway. The management goals in the Plan include habitat manipulation, providing visitor informa- tion services, facility development, altering use patterns, and increasing use of the Refuge. Yet other than a minimal effort at maintaining the satellite office near Northway, the plan does very little for the community that is impacted most significantly by the recommended alternative. There are no economic opportuni- ties to offset the changes that will occur in Northway as a result of this Plan. This is contradictory to Sections 1306 and 1307 of ANILCA which provides for economic opportunities to the people most affected by refuge management. This approach is not acceptable to either Northway or Doyon. The largest budget item identified in alternatives B, C, and D is $2,202,000 for administrative offices, warehouses and an aircraft hanger; all to be built in Tok. The only budgetary item to benefit Northway is a $100,000 upgrade of the Northway station, and only if alternative C or D is chosen. The community of Northway and Northway Natives, Inc. and Doyon would welcome the administrative headquarters. We think Mr. Robert Gilmore February 7, 1986 Page 3 that it makes sense from many angles to have your headquarters located here. First, operating costs would be reduced enormously. Your staff currently charters airplanes out of Tok or drives 100 miles round trip just to get to the refuge. The federal government could save 40 to 60 minutes on each air charter by living at Northway and using the local air taxi service. This savings in travel and staff time could be devoted to refuge work, rather than commuting. The runway is lighted, paved and has a control tower in 24-hour operation, therefore making it safer and more consistently available for use than the runway at Tok. Secondly, there are administrative facilities available now that could be used for office space. Northway Natives has office and warehouse space available. Land is available for construc-— tion of facilities either through the lease lots on the State Airport, or federal land at the former FAA repeater site near the airport which BLM has recently declared unavailable for selection by Northway. Private land could be made available to USFWS through Northway, if there was an opportunity for the corporation to participate economically. We know that USFWS has spent money in Tok for employee housing, but we feel this was done without adequate planning and a recognition of the impact that the refuge will have on Northway. This expenditure can be protected by phasing the move of the headquarters to Northway and renting the facility to other federal or state agencies or employees. Thirdly, Northway is a good community in which to live. Community activities and sporting events take place all year around. The school in Northway has an excellent academic record, as well as a long history of community involvement. All members of the Northway community are welcome to take part in the school, Both state and FAA family heads participate on the school PTA. Greater Northway Inc., a nonprofit community organization, was formed to include all persons in the progress taken place in Northway over the last few years. As a result, we have an active emergency medical service and volunteer fire department that are as well equipped as any in the Interior. The president of Greater Northway is an FAA employee. Lastly, by living near and working with the people most affected by the Refuge, your staff would have learned many things about the culture, tradition, and history of Northway which would have made this planning document a more useful tool. Northway Natives, Inc. has constructed a Laundromat, quick- stop grocery, and coffee shop in the last two years to improve the quality of life in Northway, and develop a business related to the Alaska Highway traffic. Northway Natives, Inc, has built a 20-unit camper park at Mile 1264, at the Northway Road Junction, and have plans to develop other tourist attractions in that area this coming summer, Three years ago, Northway Natives, gle Mr. Robert Gilmore February 7, 1986 Page 4 Inc, built a subdivision at the Junction adjacent to the Laundromat, with roads and power available. The lots were sold on the local market, and individuals are beginning to build homes there. The community and the corporations are willing to work with USFWS and can demonstrate the capability to do so if given the opportunity. The following paragraphs contain page specific comments. Page 12, Paragraph 3. USFWS claims access to the refuge is difficult. We agree; however, we feel that this is one of the factors that make this area unique. Our people have always relied on boats and foot travel. We think that further road access is impractical. We would much rather have improved boat access. In particular, improvement of the access ramp at the Chisana River Bridge. This would take pressure off the Moose Creek access ramp which is on private property and has a history of encouraging conflict with subsistence use of both Moose and Fish Creeks. Northway Natives, Inc. has plans to develop a cultural tourist attraction adjacent to the Chisana River Bridge this coming summer and is willing to work with USFWS on a joint project. Tourists are going to concentrate in the area because of the Laundromat and camper park, so it makes sense to take advantage of it and use it as a tool to control access and educate the public. USFWS's maps refer to the Riverside access easement which is difficult and dangerous to use. Northway Natives, Inc. and Doyon are willing to work with USFWS to search for alternative access which would benefit both parties. Page 14. Trapping. Permits should be allowed for trapping cabins on refuge lands. We cannot support recreational cabins for their potential conflict with subsistence uses. Page 15. Oil and Gas. We do not support oil and gas development on the Tetlin Refuge at this time as it is not a realistic option given the known very low hydrocarbon reserve potential. Recreational Use. Northway has developed a camp site and has the capability of working on similar developments with USFWS should similar facilities be identified in the future. Access. Road access within the refuge is impractical and not economically justified. Road construction only increases conflict and competition between outsiders and local residents. Limited access gives the corporation and USFWS better management control of the land and resources. Mr. Robert Gilmore February 7, 1986 Page 5 Land Acquisitions, Exchanges, and Boundary Adjustments. We are aware that USFWS is interested in land exchanges, but before Northway or Doyon can comment on these concepts, more information is needed. Page 60, Population Characteristics. We disagree with the population trends shown in the table. We feel that given the construction activities that have taken place in this area over the past few years, and what is anticipated for the next two years, the 2% decrease is actually a 10% increase. This would be even greater if the refuge headquarters were located in Northway. Page 61, Subsistence. Subsistence is unquestionably the most important use and purpose for the refuge, second only to the protection of the fish and game populations, and any activity that takes place therein should accommodate subsistence needs. Page 63, Economic Conditions. We feel that Northway offers more than Tok not only from a cost reduction aspect, but a quality of life that cannot be found living on the Alaska Highway at Tok. Page 68-69, Trails and Recreation. We oppose any access based on the state's assertion under R.S. 2477. R.S. 2477 does not apply to the land of Doyon and Northway, having been implicitly repealed by Section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. We feel that the inclusion of these asserted claims encourages trespass on our private lands within the refuge boundaries and on the properties of many of the allottees who are also impacted by the claims. Page 77, Northway. This paragraph is a great supporting statement for why the administrative facilities should be in Northway. Page 79. Tenmile Lake is surrounded by Native allotments and corporate land, and public use is not allowed. If USFWS is interested in stocking this lake under a cooperative management agreement, it should first approach the private landowners involved. Page 99. USFWS proposes to sell sand and gravel within the intensively managed areas (along the highway) to the State of Alaska. Northway and Doyon are in the business of selling gravel, and the United States should not put itself in the position of competing with private enterprise, especially along the highway where the corporations own the land. Please refer to our comments on Page 141. Page 120, Subsistence and Section 810 determinations, We feel that any agency action, for example the construction of two Zte Mr. Robert Gilmore February 7, 1986 Page 6 agency cabins at Jatamund and Wellesley Lakes, should require at ieast informal hearings at the village level before a determina- tion is made, The intended purposes of the cabins were for refuge administration and public safety but have expanded into use by individuals and charter services for fly-in fishing and hunting trips. The record of these determinations are at best unclear that any public hearings or contact were made in Northway, or that any archeological or cultural inventories were made prior to construction. Reference to subsistence use was casual, and the reader is unable to determine if there were any subsistence uses in the area which might be affected. Regardless of the impact, the record should reflect Northway input and comment on the proposed action. Page 122, Interpretation and Education. We would like to re-emphasize that Northway has the capability to build needed facilities and owns facilities suitable for administrative and visitor purposes, and wants to be afforded the opportunities Provided under ANILCA Section 1306 and 1307. Page 141. Corporation land ends about one mile west of the entrance to the Deadman Lake Campground, and any references to gravel sales on the highway between Tenmile Creek and Deadman Lake should be deleted. To the east, Northway has received title to land to approximately mile 1284.5 Alaska Highway. In closing, we would like to emphasize our position that we are willing to work with USFWS in the planning and management of the refuge, and feel that the logical location of the head- quarters should be at Northway. The Northway people are an integral part of the management of the refuge for many reasons, and it is inconceivable to us that management would not welcome the chance to live and operate out of Northway. We think that we have a lot to offer each other. We hope that our comments will be incorporated into the final plan, and if there are any questions concerning them, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Wai Sy ! Seve Late s_ Rosemarie Maher Morris Thompson President President Northway Natives Inc. Doyon, Limited xc: D. Stearns, TNWR; Senator Stevens; Senator Murkowski; Rep. Young; Gary Thomas, Chief, Northway Village Council; Lyle Cronk, President, Greater Northway Inc. Responses to Doyon Ltd. 1. 2. 3. 5. 7. 8. The proposed car top boat launch will improve the safety of an already existing launch site, which is several miles from the archaeological site you refer to. Measures will be added if it becomes necessary to protect the cultural resources of Tetlin Refuge. We have added reference on the known archaeological sites within the refuge. In accordance with ADF&G terminology, the plan refers to local use as subsistence use. ANILCA section 804 requires us to differentiate between subsistence use groups only when it becomes necessary to regulate subsistence hunting. By monitoring subsistence and recreational use on the refuge, considering public input, and cooperating with Native councils as stated in the common management directions, the Service will protect subsistence use as required in ANILCA Title VIII. All information presently known on subsistence use in Tetlin Refuge is detailed in maps in the section on the human environment. The Service has decided to maintain refuge headquarters in Tok. This is discussed in the common management directions under refuge administration, facilities, and facilities location. The information on this chart was taken from United States and Alaskan census reports. The extrapolation takes into account the lack of major investments designated for the Upper Tanana Basin. The Service will work cooperatively with the State of Alaska and other adjacent landowners to identify rights-of-way claims made pursuant to RS 2477 within Tetlin Refuge for administrative purposes only. The validity of any claims can only be determined in a court of competent jurisdiction. We have deleted all maps referring to access and replaced them with the map provided by the State Senate Transportation Committee as an Appendix. The proposed car top boat launch will improve safety of an existing Launch site and will not offer increased access. Interpretive pullouts along the Alaska Highway promote non-consumptive use of the refuge and should not increase competition. Lands in intensive management areas will potentially be available for leasing for sand and gravel development subject to site specific compatibility determinations. The federal government will not compete with local businesses. We acknowledge the two Service cabins on the refuge and have added reference to them in the text. When they are not being used by the Service they are available for public use. Subsistence surveys taken on the refuge indicated the cabins do not conflict with subsistence use. See response #6 to this letter. Sle Comments on Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehension Conservation Plan, Environmental Report Statement, Wilderness Review February 1986 By the Tanana Chiefs Conference, Inc. The draft CCP we feel is a very seriously deficient docu- ment. There appears to be so little information and data available that it is impossible to determine how conclusions contained in the CCP have been reached. Furthermore, the CCP contains a very substantial emphasis upon increased recreational use thus increasing overall use in a way that we feel will significantly compromise some of the purposes for which the refuge was established by ANILCA, in particular Sec. 302 (8) (B). (iii) to provide in a manner consistent with the purpose set forth in subparagraph (i) and (ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; It becomes increasingly apparent to us that the USFWS generally, and the Tetlin Refuge staff and planners in particular have no substantive notions about what the subsistence purpose (ANILCA Sec. 302 (8) (B) iii) quoted above means, how to plan to meet this mandate, and how to implement such plans. In fact we feel that the preferred Alternative C depicts management goals and objectives which appear to significantly militate against the subsistence purpose, see for example p. 36, management directions: provide increased opportunities for recreational hunting, trapping and wildlife observation. The language that outlines the preferred Alternative C speaks of “new --- access" but says little or nothing specific about where such access is to be located, or how new access will affect local subsistence uses of the refuge. 2961 1 6Le It speaks of increasing fish and wildlife populations "through stocking" (p. 136), and that "Trophy fishing areas would be designated." It speaks to the planned maintenance of animal and fish populations " at the new carrying capacity." No specif- ics. are given and subsequently no discussion follows which in any way addresses potential conflict such plans could pose to local users. It is our belief that the FWS generally believes its subsist- ence obligations end with monitoring fish and wildlife populations. The impression made by this plan is that if fish and wildlife populations are deemed adequate for overall harvest (p. 118) the FWS then considers that subsistence opportunities are thus adequately provided. Nothing in this plan substantively suggests that conflicts resulting from competition for subsistence re- sources could be the result of the emphasis the plan places upon managing to encourage increased public use; and equally importantly nothing of substance is presented as a plan to mitigate such conflicts. We suggest that the FWS statutory obligation to provide for subsistence opportunities as intended by Congress does include a mandate to plan so as to avoid building conflicts into the plan over resource harvests, and to show how such conflicts may be mitigated should they occur. The FWS appears to rely solely upon the state's subsistence Management program (Subsistence p. 118) to keep FWS within the subsistence mandate found in ANILCA. Assuring adequate popula- tions of animal and fish stocks for general harvest is not enough. Alaska courts have ruled that it is not sufficient for the Alaska Board of Game to claim it satisfies subsistence needs merely by providing open seasons and bag limits to all takers in a general hunt (even though this is the present situation in GMU-12). Special subsistence accommodations are to be made for subsistence hunters in specific situations (and subsequently the present Alaska Board of Game regulation has not provided for local subsistence needs in GMU-12 and does not serve well as a model for FWS). 2961 2 Yet the FWS seems content to assume that the "lets-provide- game-and-fish-for-all-and-subsistence-needs-without-conflict-will - be-met" approach will suffice. Coupled with this fundamentally wrong FWS approach are provisions in the plan designed to increase recreational hunting, fishing and trapping, the designation of trophy fish areas, development of new access points, and to increase to a new carrying capacity for animals (p. 136). How do trophy fishing areas conflict with local users? How do the sport fishermen get there? Where do they stay? These questions should be answered. Public use and access management (p. 138) speaks of "loop foot-trail" and "car-top boat-launch" development in the area of Desper and Scottie creek. Native allotment conflicts literally are built into this part of the plan. The area is filled with pre-contact sites, mostly presently allotments. It is the wrong place for such activity. Furthermore, this area is an old village site and, as such, should be treated entirely differently in the plan as directed by ANILCA Sec. 304: (2) Before developing a plan for each refuge, the Secretary shall identify and describe --- (B) the special values of the refuge, as well as any other archeological, cultural, ecological, geological, historical, paleontological ----- values of the refuge; (3) Each plan shall - (A) be based upon the identifications and the descriptions required - under paragraph (2) - 2961 3 oze (i) designated areas within the refuge according to their respective resources and values; What data was developed to lead to this your Desper/Scottie creek decision? What detailed information exists (if any) to depict subsistence use areas (such as subsistence use mapping) within and adjacent to the refuge. In the decision, IV (Environ- mental Consequences) has FWS utilized such data in the discussion of subsistence impact? No such data or use of such data are apparent in X (References). Yet Section 810 Evaluation, p. xiii, states "Management recommendations in each alternative would not significantly restrict subsistence use." How has FWS reached these conclusions? Any such statements that dismiss conflicts with local users appear speculative at best, and wholly without support. The plan consistently treats "economic" considerations in the context of cash economy only. Page 59, " --- economic and - (emphasis added)" patterns are economic patterns. Subsistence in this plan is subsistence patterns subsistence never seen as economic activity. Yet subsistence production of rural communities and regions of Alaska is clearly an important productive sector of the Alaskan economic. Robert Wolfe and Robert Walker have quantified such data collected since 1980 in their paper Subsistence Economies in Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and Development Impacts, presented December 7, 1985 in Washington, D.C. at the symposium "Modern Hunting and Fishing Adaptation in Northern North America" at the 84th annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington D.C., make a compelling case for consideration of rural subsistence activities as a productive sector of Alaska's economy. A copy is attached herewith. 2961 4 Wolfe and Walker conclude: Though documentation of Alaska's mixed subsistence - based economy is just beginning, this preliminary survey suggests that subsistence fishing and hunting are making substantial contributions to the economic and social welfare of large portions of the state. Many regions appear to be heavily dependent upon fish and wildlife harvests. By understanding the role of subsistence in Alaska's regional economies, development may be planned in ways to enhance this important economic base. Although Wolfe and Walker are the first to and utilize and quantify recent, current data to present this type of broad view of Alaskan subsistence as economic activity with verifiable data, any serious attempt to gather subsistence data for the purposes of this plan could only result in a similar conclusion for the communities within the area of the Tetlin Refuge. Some data have been collected in projects performed by ADFG Subsistence Division. Our belief is that this plan is seriously flawed and fundamentally dishonest. To further illustrate this view we wish to discuss the issue of construction of two cabins by the FWS within the Refuge. On p. 13 a statement speaks as though no decision has been made to build facilities on the refuge. In the event that facilities must be built in the refuge, data are needed to locate buildings or developments in areas of mutual benefit or where they will do the least harm. Two FWS buildings - cabins in this case - have been con- structed in the refuge. An ANILCA Section 810 analysis for this action has been filed for this action by the Tetlin Refuge manager. 2961 5 | lille chances — Lee (a) ----- No such withdrawal, ----- reserva- tion, lease, permit, or other case, occupancy or disposition of land which would significantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected (until the manager) - (1) gives notice to the - state agency and appropriate local committees and regional councils established (2) gives notice of, and holds, a hearing in the vicinity of the area ----- The refuge manager has apparently excused himself from meeting these requirements since none of them were met that we know of, possibly because he determined in- that his decision to build these cabins could not “significantly restrict" subsistence. However, it also appears his judgment may be faulty or weak enough in this matter that a public process would have been a more appropriate approach from which FWS could leave made more solace conclusions. The discussion of recreation, p. 79, chooses to ignore the presence and the recreational use by the public of these FWS cabins as does the rest of the plan. The refuge manager has on several occasions admitted to our personnel that these FWS cabins are used by members of the public when not in use by refuge personnel. In fact, when confronted by the allegation that a local flying service is dropping off paying customers at these cabin sites said manager emphatically stated no effort would be made on his part to keep "“taxpaying members of the public" from making what is locally reported as recreational use of the FWS cabins. Local people have complained that these activities are in conflict with local users of the areas in question. 2961 6 During a personal visit to Tok refuge headquarters TCC personnel purposefully requested information about possible recreational public use of such cabins and was eagerly accommo- dated by the refuge manager who never once inquired as to whether such cabin use in fact would or would not be for recreational use. Recreational use of refuge cabins is prohibited (ANILCA Sec. 1303(b). We fail to understand why the CCP does not acknowledge this situation. Presence of the cabins and the Sec. 810 determina- tion, written for their constructions faulty as it may be, should be referenced in the plan. There also should be discussion of the decision to locate such cabins prior to the completion of the refuge plan, of any subsistence and other consequences of this matter, who uses the cabins and how users get there and return, and the option to remove the cabins at a future date. Administrative Facilities We believe the refuge administration headquarters should be located in Northway. Accordingly we believe the FWS Regional Office funding request for a 2,000 square foot administrative building in Tok (p. 129) should be dropped. This request to relocate has also been made by the community of Northway. Since Northway is located within the refuge, there is no doubt that ANILCA as it addresses administrative sites intends that sites such as Northway are to be considered in the plan, and not ignored as is the present situation: 1306(a) Establishment - In conformity with the conservation and management plans prepared for each unit ------- - the Secretary may establish sites ------ (1) within the unit ------- the Secretary shall attempt to locate such sites and facilities on Native lands -- 2961 7 Zee We believe that the community of Northway in a previous communication to FWS, in keeping Sec. 1306 (a) in mind, has made a strong case for relocation of refuge headquarters in Northway. We cannot understand why this matter is not under discussion within the CCP. It should be. Such consideration is entirely appropriate and undeniably intended by Congress to take place. Local Hire ANILCA Sec. 1308, directs establishment of a local hire program. No evidence of such local hire is found within this CCP. It should be. A program for local hire should be developed and should be reflected within the CCP as intended by Congress. Again the FWS has apparently declined the opportunity to take this and other congressional mandates seriously in the CCP or in any other format or forum we know of. In summary, this plan tells us virtually nothing about how choices and decisions are made in the plan and it is not possible from material presented in the plan to determine how decisions were reached. Identification of subsistence data, especially precise data about resource uses, historical sites, harvest locations past and current, and the nature of subsistence based economic activity should be noted and consulted. Trapping is discussed as a recreational activity (p. 79). Trapping should be acknowledged also as a local economic activity with some detailed data to illustrate the point. Page 86, " - less than 25 local residents used the refuge for trapping." Says who? These numbers appear low. The plan credits inappropriate sources in other instances (see Access and Transportation p. 15: outside of routine consul- tation we cannot think of any instance in which ADF&G personnel 2961 8 can be identified as an appropriate authority for identification of locations for the development of new access on national wildlife refuges). The plan does not identify local governments as entities with which FWS must work (p. ix). Local governments including Native councils must be recognized and consulted as a matter of FWS policy if not law. 2961 9 €ze Respon: to Chiefs Conference lL 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. By monitoring subsistence and recreational use on the refuge, considering public input, and cooperating with Native councils as stated in the common management directions, the Service will protect subsistence use as required in ANILCA Title VIII. Priority will be given to nonwasteful subsistence use if it becomes necessary to restrict the taking of fish and wildlife on the refuge. The proposed car top boat launch will improve safety of an existing launch site and will not offer increased access. Interpretive pullouts along the Alaska Highway promote non-consumptive use of the refuge and will not increase competition. The possible conflict between subsistence fishing and sportsfishing has been addressed in the common management directions. Subsistence will be protected as required in ANILCA Title VIII. We have added a map provided by the State Transportation Committee depicting present access as an appendix. The proposed car top boat launch and interpretive pullouts along the Alaska Highway should not increase access to the refuge. Thank you for your information. The proposed car top boat launch will improve the safety of an already existing launch site, which is several miles away from the archaeological site you refer to. Measures will be added if it becomes necessary to protect the cultural resources of Tetlin Refuge. We have added reference in the text on the known archaeological sites within the refuge. We agree. Rural economies in Alaska are based on subsistence economies as well as cash economies. Because the section on economic conditions addresses the cash economy only, we have noted that the text ignores this interdependence. The rest of the plan includes this interdependence in the text. We have added reference to these cabins in the text. When they are not being used by Service personnel they are open to use by the public. Subsistence surveys indicate they do not conflict with local use. Local people have been employed whenever possible on Tetlin Refuge, and it is the policy of the Service to hire locally when feasible. We have added this to the common management directions. Decisions are made based on information received in public scoping, biological studies, and laws and regulations governing refuge management. We develop management alternatives and scenarios based on this information, and make decisions based on information received. We have added references to data, tables, and maps presented in the plan. We agree trapping may be an economic as well as a recreational activity. We have made this change accordingly. The refuge manager provided us with the number of local residents known to use the refuge for trapping. 8. The scoping process required for all CCP's gives everyone a chance to respond. Comments of local residents, state and federal agencies, native organizations, and special interest groups are taken into consideration. We do not edit comments, and we try to satisfy as many recommendations as possible. We have specified cooperation with owners of refuge inholdings and adjacent lands as a common management direction. Local governments, owners of refuge inholdings and adjacent lands, and village corporations have been referred to in the introduction. We have also added cooperation with local governments to the discussion on sociocultural systems. yze THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY April 1, 1986 Regional Director Attn: Bill Knauer Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 RE: Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Dear Sir: The following comments are submitted on behalf of The Wilderness Society's 150,000 members nationwide, including 1,400 in Alaska. For over 50 years, the Society has been committed to the wise management of all the federal lands and the preservation of wilderness. The Society has commented on the comprehensive ; conservation plans (CCP) for several of Alaska's national wildlife refuges. Many of the problems identified in those comments are pertinent to the Tetlin Refuge and should be incorporated as appropriate. In particular, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) should note the Society's objections to the Service's policies regarding wilderness recommenda- tions and the oil and gas program pursuant to section 1008 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). One additional point on the latter: how can the FWS possibly justify allowing oil and gas exploration consi- dering the stated lack of development potential of the refuge? Such an outcome is silly, illogical and in ; violation of the law as contrary to the purposes for which the refuge was established. The Wilderness Society opposes the FWS's selection of Alternative C as the preferred alternative. Alternative A would best protect the resources of this refuge and achieve the purposes Congress outlined in ANILCA. Inadequate Wilderness Recommendation For the Fish and Wildife Service not to recommend any wilderness out of the nearly 700,000 acres of suitable federal land in the Tetlin National Wildife Refuge is totally unacceptable and inappropriate. In the Service's ALASKA REGION 519 WEST 8TH AVENUE, SUITE 205, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) 272-9453 The Wilderness Society Page 2 own words, "most of the Federal land in Alaska qualifies as wilderness" (page 90). All of the wilderness review units (Cheslina, South Central, Wellesley Lakes, Tetlin Flats) easily meet the statutory criteria for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System and should be recommended for designation. None of the Service's management goals for the Refuge would be compromised by designated wilderness. To the contrary, wilderness designation would prevent the kinds of development that would adversely affect the refuge's natural resources the Service is charged to protect. Furthermore, by preserving habitat, wilderness would protect the wildlife and fish species that are the foundation of the local subsistence economy. In discussing public involvement, the plan notes that "...people favor the concept but not the legislative creation of wilderness" (page 16). Public opinion of this sort provides further evidence of the overwhelming failure on the part of the Service to educate the public on the true significance of wilderness. The Service must take positive steps to clarify and correct the many myths and misconcep- tions regarding wilderness that permeate the public con- sciousness and create unnecessary conflict on the issue. Lack of Information As in all the other CCPs, the draft for Tetlin points out a chronic lack of detailed information on the resident wildlife and fish species. Future decisions on protecting refuge resources are hampered without a greater depth and breadth of information. The FWS is urged to allocate a greater share of future budget dollars to basic inventory and population studies, seasonal movement and concentration research, socio-economic research, and more detailed subsistence use data. In the interim, the status quo should be maintained until enough information is gathered to ensure wise decision-making. Fish and Wildife Habitat Management The draft CCP strongly overemphasizes manipulation of fish and wildlife populations for sport hunting, trapping and fishing. Though these uses of the refuge are consistent with the purposes for which the refuge was established, management solely for them is not. Such an orientation flies in the face of the clear mandate in ANILCA to protect populations "in their natural diversity." Mechanical manipulation of habitat is entirely inappropriate in the management of an Alaska's national wildlife refuges. Moose, and many other, populations would derive greater benefits from a comprehensive and well planned fire management strategy. sce The Wilderness Society Page 3 The continued introduction of fingerling rainbow trout at Hidden Lake should be stopped. The artificial nature of this program directly violates FWS policy and is not compatible with the pristine environment of this refuge. Fisheries "enhancement," and other intensive manipulation for the purpose of producing "harvestable surpluses, as planned under preferred Alternative Cc, are not compatible with the wilderness quality of this refuge or consistent with law. Furthermore the FWS is inappropriately creating a recreational demand that could cause many problems in the future. Water Quality A top priority in the near future should be the gathering of data to document the Present condition of water quality, especially in those areas that could be affected by upstream development (mining, forestry, agriculture). Close scrutiny of state planning proposals should occur to head off activities on the edges of the refuge that would affect the quality of the refuge's undisturbed environment. A cooperative agreement should be reached with the National Park Service regarding the monitoring of streams that also run through Wrangell-st. Elias National Park. Environmental Education and Interpretation The close proximity to the Alaska Highway to the refuge provides an excellent opportunity to educate the 160,000 people who pass the refuge. It is important to recognize the value of educating casual visitors and local residents about the management Philosophy, goals and objectives of the Service and the resources of the refuge. The Wilderness Society supports the development of educational materials and programs for visitors and local residents. This could include interpretive signs and displays as well as the establishment of appropriately located visitor contact facilities off the refuge to complement such an educational program. The FWS seems to see public access and education as mutually exclusive from wilderness. This is not the case as virtually all the proposals stated in Alternative C could be accomplished even if all suitable lands were designated wilderness. Conclusion The best way to achieve all the purposes Congress mandated for Tetlin is through a recommendation and designation of all suitable lands for inclusion in the wilderness system. In addition, some facilities to enhance public education could be developed both along the Alaska Highway and off-site. The Wilderness Society Page 4 Once again, The Wilderness Society does not believe the FWS has met the requirements of the Alaska Lands Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable laws. The Society urges the Service to bring the plan into compliance as it proceeds toward finalization of the plan. Sincerely, Anna Macao Susan Alexander Regional Director Responses to The Wilderness Society l. 2. 4. 9ze ANILCA section 1008 allows oil and gas development subject to a site specific compatibility determination, and it is the policy of the Service to allow oil and gas studies on refuges. The high cost of studies and development will keep oil companies from exploring or developing land that has little potential. We agree. A major concern with all Alaska refuges is further research on resident wildlife. There have been accurate trend counts of moose, swans, bald eagles, osprey, wolves and waterfowl since 1980 on this refuge. There is ongoing research to keep accurate trend counts and current data on these animals and to increase our knowledge of others. Accurate counts of other animals in the refuge are lacking due to shortage of time and staff. Knowing the distribution is more important than actual numbers to avoid adversely affecting their populations. Alternative C stresses diversity of species and habitats, which may concentrate on game related species, but is not considered single species management since habitat favorable to one species also profits others. Young forest growth favorable to moose browse also benefits small rodents and songbirds by increasing their habitat. This indirectly profits eagles, hawks, and other predators that prey on small animals. Rabbits thrive in small bushes and shrubs that grow up a few years after fire, and lynx profit from an abundance of rabbits. When Hidden Lake was first surveyed in March 1979 there were no competing fish in the lake, and an annual survey is run to ensure there are no developing problems. It is the only lake in a 40 mile radius capable of supporting rainbow trout through the winter, and since being stocked by the state in 1982 has provided recreational fishing for local residents. The lake is a closed system, and since there are no conflicts with other species and no outlet for the stocked fish, we feel the benefits are worthwhile and plan on allowing the state to continue stocking the lake. We have stated the parameters to be measured for water quality in the section on air and water protection under water quality. We agree that maintaining water quality is important on the refuge. National Audubon Society ALASKA REGIONAL OFFICE 308 G STREET, SUITE 217, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) 276-7034 March 20, 1986 Robert Gilmore, Regional Director U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Gilmore: These are the comments of the National Audubon Society on the "Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and Wilderness Review" (DCCP) for the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (Tetlin NWR) dated July, 1985. We would first like to commend the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for all the hard work that went into development of the materials. We also appreciate the FWS' many efforts to date in providing opportunities for public participation in the planning process. In reviewing the DCCP, we were guided by the intent of Congress in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Of special importance in this regard are the purposes for which Tetlin NWR was established. The lack of commitment to protect refuge wilderness values, Department of Interior policies on oil and gas exploration and leasing, and emphasis on single game species management are principle shortcomings of the DCCP. For these reasons, we strongly urge FWS to adopt a strengthened Alternative A as the preferred Alternative for managing the refuge over the next 5-10 years. Our specific comments and recommendations are as follows: Wilderness We were very disappointed to find that FWS does not recommend a single acre of refuge land for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. We deem this to be the most serious problem with the draft plan. Wilderness values should receive more than a "moderate level of protection," as stated in the DCCP for the preferred alternative C (page 163). AMERICANS COMMITTED TO CONSERVATION rrr rrr Lee Tetlin NWR Comments, Page 2 All lands identified as suitable for wilderness designation, including those designated for "minimal management", should be recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Particularly significant are the 140,000 acres in the remote Cheslina River Drainage. It would be an irresponsible action by the FWS not to recommend wilderness designation for the drainage. This watershed is a concentration area for the refuge's wilderness dependent grizzly bear population, and one of the three areas on Alaska refuges that grizzly bears use year round. The only known wolf den, Dall sheep habitat, and extremely important moose wintering habitat are also located in the Cheslina Drainage. In addition, no other area on the refuge provides the rugged mountainous terrain found in this extension of the Mentasta Mountains of the Alaska Range adjacent to Wrangell-St. Elias National Preserve. FWS should also commit to development of a "Wilderness Management Plan" for the refuge based on the "minimal tool" management concept. This would include limiting development of structures and facilities in wilderness, while maximizing opportunities for freedom, self-sufficiency and solitude. In regard to access in designated wilderness areas, compatibility standards should be applied to all transportation activities. Wilderness areas should be closed to recreational snowmobile and ORV use to protect refuge values. Qil and Gas Exploration and Leasing We strongly urge that the October 9, 1985 FWS policy on oil and gas exploration and leasing in Alaska refuges be abandoned. As stated on pages 39-44 of the draft plan, many wildlife species, particularly nesting waterfowl such as trumpeter swans and nesting raptors including bald eagles and osprey are sensitive to noise and visual disturbances. Construction and production phases of oil field development in particular could have a negative impact on the refuges resident and migratory wildlife. Not mentioned in the plan or the Service's oil and gas policy addenum is the fact that commercial development for oil and gas inevitably results in a reallocation of always scarce refuge personnel and funds away from wildlife and public use management to monitoring of these commercial activities. Seldom if ever have additional resources been provided to FWS as add-ons in the appropriation process to prevent the refuge mission from being compromised. For example, monitoring and studying oil and gas exploration on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is currently consuming 90% or more of that refuge's manpower and financial resources. The result is virtual abandonment of wildlife and public use management on much of the remainder of the refuge. Given its incompatibility with refuge purposes, the extremely poor prospects for discovery of commercial quantities of oil on the refuge, the Tetlin NWR Comments, Page 3 current world oversupply of oil, dramatically falling oil prices, cutbacks in oil company exploration programs, and probable further cuts in an already understaffed and underfunded refuge program, how can the Department of the Interior justify adopting a policy that essentially invites industry to explore for oil and gas on Tetlin NWR? The policy is both unsound in terms of the broad, long-term national interest in energy conservation, and irresponsible from the standpoint of the Service's mission to protect and manage wildlife on the Tetlin NWR consistent with the purposes for which it was established. Fish and Wildlife Management There is an overemphasis throughout the DCCP on manipulation of refuge fish & wildlife populations and habitats for sport hunting, trapping and fishing. Following are examples of the single game species management orientation evident throughout: 1. "Alternative C would increase the extent of fish and wildlife habitat management over Alternative B, thereby increasing opportunities for fishing, hunting, and trapping" (page 136); 2. "Hunting of moose in the lowland areas of Tetlin Refuge may increase enough under this alternative to harvest a significant proportion of the animals produced each year" (page 160); 3. "These areas could include burns in the remote Cheslina River Drainage, where a little-exploited population provides excellent opportunities for hunting trophy bulls" (page 160); 4. "Some of the fish and wildlife populations would be increased over historical levels through stocking" (page 136); 5. "Opportunities for hunting, fishing, and trapping would be managed carefully in coordination with the State to maintain healthy populations at the new (emphasis added) carrying capacity" (page 136); 6. "The enlarged area under moderate management would allow more flexibility in the placement of prescribed burns, so that they can be located where moose are likely to browse. Increased information services would permit hunters to be directed to areas of high moose density, if this serves management goals" (pages 159-160); 7, “Harvest of moose would increase by a major amount (as much as 40%) over Alternative A, due to larger moose populations. The number of hunters would moderately increase (as much as 30%) as a result of publicity stemming from increased hunting opportunity. A more extensive public information program could disperse hunters over a larger portion of the refuge, including relatively inaccessible and unused areas such as the Cheslina drainage, which supports a trophy moose population" (page 162); 8. "Introduced fish would suffer a moderate impact as a result of public use and would require supplemental stocking to maintain fish populations at stated levels" (page 159); and 8ze Tetlin NWR Comments, Page 4 9. "Fisheries enhancement, or the annual fish stocking for harvest, would take place in one lake for lake trout and in two lakes for grayling. Grayling would be stocked in road-accessible lakes; it would take four years for the stocking program to yield fish to the public. The three restoration projects would occur in remote areas; these lakes could be fished after several years when lake trout become large enough to be attractive for fishing" (page 158). It appears from such statements that there is more interest in managing the refuge as a a game farm for sport harvests than protecting and managing a nationally significant natural ecosystem for its diverse fish & wildlife values. This misplaced emphasis in management is in violation of the intent of Congress and must be changed. Please be reminded that the principle purpose of the refuge as stated by Congress is to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity. These criticisms should not be interpreted to mean that Audubon is opposed to hunting, fishing or trapping on refuges. On the contrary, we fully recognize that these activities are legitimate uses on many refuge lands. Directing management primarily to promote these opportunities is, however, not serving the national interest as intended by Congress. There should be no intensive manipulation of habitats (e.g. burning) or wildlife populations (e.g. predator control) on the Tetlin NWR for the sole purpose of producing "harvestable surpluses" of game specifically for hunting, fishing or trapping. Instead of spending limited funds on habitat manipulation and stocking, we recommend that more emphasis be placed on developing a highly coordinated and comprehensive ecological research program. Such a program is essential to providing baseline data and information necessary to better understand fish and wildlife populations and the refuge's natural diversity. As with other recreational pursuits on a subarctic national wildlife refuge, emphasis in management of hunting, fishing, and trapping should be on dispersed low density (small party) participation. Bag limits should be set at conservative limits to avoid overharvest and undue interference with animal behavior, population structure and gene pools. Hunting is damaging to refuge values if accompanied by indiscriminate shooting, illegal killing or overharvest of game animals. Whike we strongly support the goal of enhancing state-federal relations in management of Tetlin NWR, we find the draft plan proposes unlawful delegation of management responsibility to the state. In fact, certain sections show more concern for state jurisdiction than effective wildlife conservation in the national interest. For example, on page 115 in the section on "Management Directions Common to All Alternatives", the statement is made that, "In 1982, the Service signed a cooperative agreement with ADF&G concerning fish and wildlife management responsibilities and jurisdictions. Under the agreement, ADF&G has the primary responsiblitiy for managing resident fish and wildlife resources on the refuge and the Service has the primary responsibility for managing habitats..." (emphasis added). The statement refers to the Master Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Tetlin NWR Comments, Page 5 As set forth in our comments aated November 29, 1982 on "Draft Departmental Fish and Wildlife Policy," 47 Federal Register 46417, October 15, 1982 (please see copy attached), we found the policy on which the Master Memorandum of Understanding is based, fails to comply with law in allocating wildlife management responsiblity between states and the federal government. As a result, we believe that crucial portions of the draft plan will be subject to legal and political challenges that will defeat the intended goal of fostering state/federal cooperation in wildlife conservation on the Tetlin NWR. Research As stated on page 13 of the draft plan, "the lack of information on wolf predation, moose populations and distribution of fish species is significant. Information on vegetation, water quality, archeology, visitor use, trapping levels, and subsistence use is also inadequate." For these reasons, initiation of a highly coordinated and comprehensive research program is recommended in two principal areas, social-economic and ecological research. Social-economic Research: 1, Determine the variables such as sex, age, education, occupation, income, residence, expenditures, travel distance, and previous visitation of refuge visitors, broken down according to their preferred activities on the refuge (hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, canoeing, viewing wildlife, etc.); 2. Determine visitor motives, values and expectations as related to wilderness conditions and management strategies; 3. Determine through visitor management studies how wildlife-oriented recreation can be optimized and balanced with preservation of refuge resources. Assess the consequences and public acceptability of various management techniques including visitor redistribution programs as related to motor policy, regulations, scenic quality, degree of development and amount of use. Such information will indicate the kinds of people who benefit from direct use of the refuge and offer clues for establishing better communication with them. Updated and carefully targeted conservation education efforts will, in turn, help achieve refuge management objectives. Basic Ecological Research: Basic scientific knowledge of ecological processes should be expanded. High priority, long-term, broad study topics deemed necessary in this regard include the following: 1. Determine ecological relationships between forest succession and wildlife abundance with special emphasis on grizzly bear, wolf, 6ze Tetlin NWR Comments, Page 6 wolverine, otter, beaver, lynx, pine marten, moose, caribou, and migratory birds including trumpeter swans and other waterfowl, loons, bald eagles, ospreys and "indicator" passerine species; 2. Establish baselines of natural conditions in both terrestrial and aquatic communities and the extent to which natural conditions are being maintained; 3. Inventory all wildlife on the refuge with emphasis on the wilderness-dependent species, and determine the characteristics of their natural habitats; and 4. Institute a "Fire Research Program" to determine the ecological consequences of both natural fires and prescribed burns in maintaining natural diversity in wildlife habitats. The historical role of fire and frequency of fires throughout major forest habitats on the refuge should be made a priority in terms of informational needs. As new information is obtained, it should be incorporated into the refuge policy on prescribed burning and fire suppression as expressed in the refuge fire management plan and the Alaska Interagency Fortymile Fire Management Plan. Budgetary and manpower constraints will, of course, limit the degree to which resource inventories on the refuge will be comprehensive and thorough. Managers are encouraged to solicit the participation and help of citizen volunteers, cooperative educational institutions, other federal and state resource agencies, and interested scientists and conservationists in this endeavor. Inholdings On page 12 of the DCCP it states that, "activities on private property adjacent to or within the refuge may conflict with refuge goals and may impact wildlife populations." Since there is a significant block of private land within refuge boundaries, the Service is urged to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of all private inholdings and prioritize them for eventual inclusion in the refuge through acquisition, trade or lease. Inholdings critical to protection and management of the refuge should be acquired in a timely manner through purchase, exchange, lease or easement. Envirorimen: Educ ion d_Interpre ion The Tetlin NWR is an ideal refuge for environmental education and interpretation given its location in proximity to the Alaska Highway. As the legislative mandate in ANILCA requires, the FWS is to manage the refuge to provide, "opportunities for interpretation and environmental education, particularly with any adjacent state visitor facilites." We strongly support development of an extensive environmental education and interpretation program along the Alaska Highway adjacent to the refuge and at the visitor center in Tok. Interpretive displays at highway turnouts, and self-guided interpretive trails would provide Tetlin NWR Comments, Page 7 excellent opportunities to educate visitors about the values of the northern coniferous forest ecosystem and its associated native fish and wildlife populations. Educational efforts should be in keeping with the purposes for which the area was established, however, with an emphasis on self-guiding education and interpretation materials. Refuge visitors should be encouraged to intepret refuge features for themselves with the help of guidebooks, pamphlets, brochures and maps. Education of visitors is a preferable and potentially powerful tool in refuge management, and it should play a decidedly major role in the future. Information about wilderness lands in the Tetlin NWR should stress its wild natural character and de-emphasize recreation opportunities that are not wildlife and wild country oriented. Artificial structures and facilities should be discouraged on refuge lands. Extensive exhibits and displays are best located at the visitor center in Tok. The FWS is encouraged to produce films and/or slide presentations to provide for greater public awareness and appreciation of the refuge at the visitor center. In addition to travelers, special effort should be made to reach local residents and interested citizens in larger population centers of the state including Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. ACCESS As discussed on pages 39-44, nesting waterfowl including trumpeter swans, Canada geese, bald eagles and ospreys are all extremely sensitive to human disturbance during nesting. Continual harassment can lower reproductive succcess and cause birds to abandon key habitat in favor of less suitable, more isolated areas. Given the importance of the refuge to production of waterfowl, raptors and other migratory birds, and the vunerability of these birds to human disturbance, power boats such as jet boats and air-cushioned boats should be prohibited on the refuge under all alternatives. In addition, recreational use of ATV's and ORV's should also be prohibited. Such vehicles can disturb wildlife, and damage soil and vegetation as well. This, in turn, can result in unsightly and unmanageable trails through refuge lands. If such uses are not prohibited at this time, they can be expected to increase and cause serious damage, especially in sensitive wetland areas. Subsistence Use Management Although subsistence uses of refuge resources have potential for causing serious impact, no mention is made of managing or regulating such uses consistent with scientific management principles and biologically sound regulations. The Service is urged to develop a "Subsistence Management Plan" for the refuge in cooperation with the local people and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The plan should contain research, management, oce Tetlin NWR Comments, Page 8 of Fish and Game. The plan should contain research, management, information/education, and law enforcement components. Once developed, biologically sound regulations should be adopted to implement the plan. In other words, all subsistence uses on the refuge should be conducted consistent with scientific management principles, and biologically sound regulations designed to conserve fish and wildlife resources. Strategies for enforcing regulations should be as fair as humanly possible, and designed to reflect geographic, cultural, and political realities. By adopting the aforementioned recommendations, we are confident that Alternative A will prove to be the best alternative for management of Tetlin NWR over the next five to ten years. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and recommendations. We look forward to a final plan that is in keeping with the intent of Congress for this outstanding national wildlife refuge. Pive 2 Z . David R. Cline Regional Vice President cc: Peter Berle, National Audubon Society Dick Martyr, National Audubon Society Alaska Audubon Chapters Other Alaska conservation organizations Responses to National Audubon Society 1. 2. Service policy (Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 36.22) prohibits off-road-vehicle use within minimal management areas and designated wilderness areas unless traditionally used for subsistence purposes. Snowmobile use is allowed per ANILCA sections 811 and 1110(a). There are no areas designated for ORV use in Tetlin Refuge, although airboats will be allowed on navigable waters in the refuge. Alternative C stresses diversity of species and habitats, which may concentrate on game related species, but is not considered single species management since habitat favorable to one species also profits others. Young forest growth favorable to moose browse also benefits small rodents and songbirds by increasing their habitat. This indirectly profits eagles, hawks, and other predators that prey on small animals. Rabbits thrive in small bushes and shrubs that grow up a few years after fire, and lynx profit from an abundance of rabbits. Hunting and trapping regulations and bag limits are set by the state of Alaska. The Service will protect refuge values by imposing its oversight authority if needed, however, it will exercise these rights only after exhausting all other options. A major concern with all Alaskan refuges is further research on resident wildlife as well as public use, both local and non-local. Future research and management will be determined by the availability of funds and personnel, and the Service will work as much as possible with other groups engaged in studies on or near Tetlin Refuge. Sierra Club Alaska Field Office 241 E. Fifth Avenue, Suite 205, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 276-4048 March 31, 1986 Robert Gilmore Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Gilmore: The Sierra Club appreciates this opportunity to provide comments on the draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and its supplement for the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. We would like to commend the planning team for their effort, which has resulted in a very informative document. We do, however, have major concerns with the draft plan. Lee These concerns stem from recent shifts in Service policy regarding oil and gas exploration and development, and wilderness xecommendations. After thorough review and consideration of the draft plan in light of those policy shifts, we suggest the Service select Alternative A, with minimal management as it existed prior to changes in oil and gas policy, as the preferred alternative. Alternative A offers the best Protection for refuge resources, the best opportunity to maintain subsistence use, and the appropriate level of increased recreational use at a budget that is realistic. Evaluation of Alternatives ataiuation of Alternatives _ We find the evaluation section in the draft plan to be unjustifiably skewed in favor of the Fish and Wildlife Service's preferred alternative. It is Plainly evident that current and Proposed management is biased against less intensive management Practices, which are more appropriate for refuges in Alaska. In order to satisfy FWS goals to dramatically increase game populations, prescribed burnings are necessary to increase carrying capacity, or predator control Programs might be needed. To allow habitat and population manipulation, a moderate Printed on Recycled Papen management classification is proposed by the FWS in its preferred alternative. We contend that, in light data gaps acknowledged by the FWS, the FWS should be stressing habitat and population maintenance, not manipulation, in the draft plan. Management activities Proposed under the moderate management category in Alternative C (such as prescribed burning to artificially inflate populations, fish stocking for trophy fish, etc.) are inconsistent with the natural diversity purpose of the refuge. The minimal management category can best maintain the refuge habitat and wildlife in a natural condition. Other problems with Alternative C are the inevitable conflicts that will arise as a result of promoting recreational opportunites, i.e., installation of a boat ramp, etc. According to the draft plan, under Alternative C "hunting pressure would vise a moderate to major extent." (Emphasis added.) Yet, in a contradictory statement, only "minor" competition for refuge resources would result between recreation and subsistence hunters because of significantly increased hunting pressure." The impact of increased recreational use is downplayed, at the expense of subsistence opportunities, which the FWS has a clear mandate to protect on the Tetlin Refuge. Increased use of the refuge as promoted under Alternative C would also adversely affect wildlife populations to a greater degree than what the draft describes. For instance, the "Affected Environment" section describes a decline in the breeding of Canada geese on the refuge because of unknown reasons. AS a result of increased boating use on Scottie and Desper Creeks and the Chisana River expected under Alternative C, goose productivity "could be reduced to a minor extent." This reduction would further contribute to a decline of goose productivity, which runs contrary to FWS obligations under international migratory waterfowl treaties. It is clear that increased use proposed under Alternative C goes far beyond the purpose of education and intrepretation, and detrimentally affects other essential purposes for the Refuge as outlined in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Therefore, we disagree entirely with the statement on page 177 that Alternative C "best fulfills the ANILCA Purposes relating to conservation of fish and wildlife populations in their natural diversity and protection of opportunities for continued subsistence use by local residents. Alternative A, the plan admits, offers the "highest level of protection" for fish and wildlife, while providing existing use levels for recreation and subsistence. Moreover, the natural diversity standard is best fulfilled by Wilderness designation, according to another FWS draft refuge plan. Alternative A is without a doubt superior to the FWS' preferred alternative in zee carrying out the purposes for which Tetlin Refuge was created in 1980. We have two additional suggestions which could further enhance Alternative A. Page 13 of the draft notes: The lack of information on wolf predation, moose populations and distribution of fish species is significant. Information on vegetation, water quality, archeology, visitor use, trapping levels, and subsistence use is also inadequate. Alternative A should emphasize research projects designed to advance knowledge of wildlife dynamics and resource inventories. The shift to an emphasis on research as opposed to manipulation is a prudent course to take until more is understood about refuge resources. Secondly, we strongly advise the FWS halt the violation of FWS policy by discontinuing introductions to Hidden Lake, noted on page 117. Qil and Gas Policy As a result of the recent change in the Fish and Wildlife Service's policy on oil and gas exploration and development, the draft plan does not contain a full range of alternatives. Now the plan lacks an alternative that would maintain wilderness values of the refuge until Congress acts on the wilderness recommendations of the Service. Prior to the policy change, Alternative A would have provided such interim protection for the refuge's de facto wilderness pending a Congressional decision on the various wilderness recommendations. Alternative A places all federally owned refuge acreage in the minimal management category and recommends the same acreage for wilderness designation. Previously, seismic exploration was not permitted in minimal management areas, and protection was assured. The Sierra Club recommends the Fish and Wildlife Service disallow seismic exploration in minimal management areas. This does not preclude fulfillment of ANILCA Section 1008 because other methods of exploration can be employed, including surface geological studies, core sampling, or other geophysical studies. Wilderness In defiance of ANILCA Section 1317, the Fish and Wildlife Service is unduly limiting wilderness recommendations to "wilderness unit boundary adjustments," or to “addition of selective areas with outstanding resource values that may have been inadvertantly overlooked" during the earlier cursory review by Congress. The premise on which this rationale is based comes from misapplication of Sections 101(d) and 102(4) of ANILCA. Had Congress intended there be no more tracts of Wilderness areas it would not have devoted an entire section in ANILCA calling for wilderness review and recommendations additional to that which was done prior to passage of ANILCA. Moreover, the interpretation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that Wilderness areas are separate conservation units runs contrary to the Wilderness Act in Section 2(b), which states: No appropriation shall be available for payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit" (Emphasis added). The Sierra Club strongly urges the Fish and Wildlife Service revise its wilderness policy to reflect Congressional intent more accurately. Additionally, since the entire refuge has been recognized as suitable for wilderness, it is wholly inappropriate for the Fish and Wildlife Service not to recommend in its preferred alternative any areas for inclusion in the Wilderness System. We recommend the wilderness recommendation of Alternative A be adopted. Revised Statute 2477 A map indentifying potential RS 2477 routes should not be included in the final plan. Identification of these alleged rights-of-way results in confusion over their ownership status, which must be adjudicated, and will likely lead to trespass violations and resource damage. We suggest the plan cite the statute and include in its discussion of RS 2477s the following statements: Revised Statute 2477, enacted in 1866, states, "The right-of- way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby granted." The law, revoked by Congress in 1976, indicates that to be valid, an RS 2477 assertion must be a highway or a road, not a trail or path. Conclusion With adoption of the suggestions above, the purposes for the Tetlin Refuge will be greatly benefitted. We urge you include the revisions in preparing the draft plan. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Mike Matz Associate Representative eee 1. 3. 4. 5. Club Due to years of fire suppression, the mature spruce forest now predominant on Tetlin Refuge is not considered a "natural" diversity of habitats. Alternative C stresses diversity of species and habitats, which may concentrate on game related species, but is not considered single species management since habitat favorable to one species also profits others. Young forest growth favorable to moose browse also benefits small rodents and songbirds by increasing their habitat. This indirectly profits eagles, hawks, and other predators that prey on small animals. Rabbits thrive in small bushes and shrubs that grow up a few years after fire, and lynx profit from an abundance of rabbits. Approximately 150 recreational hunters a year use the refuge. Since present hunting pressure is slight, tripling or quadrupling the number of recreational hunters on the refuge would still be a minor conflict with local use. Recreational and subsistence hunters use different areas of the refuge. Increased use of rivers on the refuge might disturb migrating or nonbreeding waterfowl, but we do not anticipate a huge increase in usage on the refuge during the migration and nesting season. If necessary we will monitor and limit boating to protect breeding waterfowl. We agree. A major concern with all Alaska refuges is further research on resident wildlife. There have been accurate trend counts of moose, swans, bald eagles, osprey, wolves, and waterfowl since 1980 on this refuge. There is ongoing research to keep accurate trend counts and current data on these animals and to increase our knowledge of others. Accurate counts of other animals in the refuge are lacking due to shortage of time and staff. Knowing the distribution is more important than actual numbers to avoid adversely affecting their populations. See response #4 to The Wilderness Society. This trail map has been dropped from the body of the plan and a map provided by the State Transportation Committee has been added as an appendix. All R.S. 2477 rights of way must be decided on individually in a court of law. See response #30 to Office of the Governor. Northern Alaska Environmental Center 218 DRIVEWAY FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99701 (907) 452-5021 April 1, 1986 Robert Gilmore Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Re: Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan Dear Mr. Gilmore: The Northern Alaska Environmental Center supports a modified version of Alternative A for the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. This management proposal, combined with some of the provisions of Alternative B, will best fulfill the purposes of the refuge as well as minimize management expenses. We strongly support a recommendation to designate of the majority of the refuge as wilderness. Tables 8 and 9 on pages 100 thru 113 of the draft / plan demonstrate that very few activities compatible with refuge purposes and likely to occur would be prohibited by wilderness designation. One of the few activities which would be precluded by wilderness designation is mechanical manipulation of habitat; an activity which is unnecessary and inappropriate in this refuge. The management costs of Alternative A are less than one fifth the cost of management under Alternative B, the second cheapest scenario. At this time of decreasing federal budgets these cost factors must be given serious attention, We support providing opportunities for interpretation and environmental education as a purpose of the Tetlin Refuge as provided in Section 302.8 of ANILCA. These opportunities can be provided along the north boundary of the refuge adjacent to the Alaska Highway with minimal alteration of Alternative A. Providing additional opportunities for environmental education and interpretation will slightly increase the management costs of Alternative A, however costs will remain substantially below that of all the other alternatives. Access into the refuge must be managed to protect habitat and wildlife, particularly during crucial reproductive stages. Recreational use of all-terrain vehicles and motorboats should be prohibited. Restrictiions should be placed on aircraft if needed to prevent adverse impacts to trumpeter swans, osprey and other nesting birds. We urge the Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a program to acquire inholdings within the refuge which possess outstanding habitat values. We also recommend development of a subsistence management plan for the refuge. The Northern Alaska Environmental Center remains extremely concerned with the present U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policies on additional wilderness designations within refuges and oil and gas development in the minimal management catagory. We continue to assert that these policies do not reflect the intent of Congress and severely undercut the objectivity of the Services planning process. Once again, we urge you to eliminate these policies and provide protection for de-facto wilderness and recommendations for additional wilderness as Congress intended. I hope these comments assist you in developing a final conservation plan which protects the special qualities of the Tetlin Refuge with minimal management costs. Sincerely, Executive Director vee R-/-8 US Fisk t+ wildlife Gweuce [es ron 7, sory E. Teor feed Ari lorase , AK 99503 fe: TAT Refuse Brett @/a ‘Dem, Sir, Cou cerns who OAtervarives i the Dra TAT hiss hapse Cl, 8 Syperr 4 modiGed Altervative Gey \ Ne Nodcenos would Nedure Wd thucsatroval , (GYrore rove | or grosely Hine 105 1 g Ye Neuse U7] the ovhe na mv Asem evT Obyootrves nave Lees Uerrousrrated ; — fwo 7 HNree Yhoussrd paves erwed And shrue BQ ECIES Ne $sTmO6Mshed — Salmon byere Succes fy Acar) few produed Badd craw Spgo-T Prrvesi~ jrcresa sed rmoase Rege 7204 Weressed pasrvesiT Lp for Lever ers - yecvresssed barvesT Ware foro! wowversed hAarvesT OMAK Merges =a lakes shocked w/ Greg has f rroe™ - wereased harvesr Berries i.e gov Se, WO dwr honesrh, fewe — ou com ish wes -.. Aewevrn- SC Sy gonT And Aanaod fpr ters. athe Seaovd neddificortow Wold Le MersvurAtle milesrones FOS, he, wey witht 4 Corep sete Qe Mee AT 2 2 apoms Aid S Genrss Vie prpvagemaT g rJ Sad" Wor Kir 5 7 oh So7 79 Le. Fey, b/e duaugh fo bogs / see To fweouras e Meyessed Us Fors Awd Consumers Grier xo Sh Aa cepe1 2 T- ghee e fegurces wll Jere wo ¥ Gor unced debhrum a P/ 2ERer ow resource prud will tsceBo7t locml / now /ocw/ Bmngetrtor. wQ gredict Yares- modiFed 4/fenatzive CT’ wil depmelt wt Bla A” (mines Ye 0: (deralecs desis wa Tro) —e jew ever~ A wll Lew noble Qiqerten eT kz (S Awl (rowl/e dsit7on 1 tekKe ns 1 der PS OO have hog Aiscuss rows an Arq Concer wins AN Ag pheated CBr le Vntormsata/ O@eae Gos 770~ wv $b Nepxe. Ch weg, Guess CO am forsel YGar Awhile. Qlense Keep me (Qpes7Ec wrk feslh 9 dhe LV /eeo (Grecess - Sivcerel “Der B PrKear— (04 38% Tox AK 9370 gee Responses to David Parker 1 Interpretation and environmental education was identified in ANILCA as a major purpose because the Alaska Highway borders Tetlin Refuge. In order to meet the requirement the Service must assess information and education programs. We have revised the policy for Tetlin Refuge to revise the plan every three years. a te Seth = ily he Cocke Zen ay | | bed Me -) pr s Z Th a a fauer a SPLEEN paler Thee ee A Cortes opal on Zee Respo: to Mr. cl 1. We disagree. The only permanent facilities proposed for the refuge are a boat launch and interpretive pullouts along the highway bordering the refuge. Fishing and hunting in Alaska are considered primitive sports and require no additional facilities, and "increased use" of Tetlin Refuge will mainly be limited to information and education for tourists and visitors travelling the Alaska Highway. Kenneth Emmel Anchorage, Alaska 14 December 1985 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Attn: William Knauer Subject: Tetlin Comprehensive Conservation Plan Dear Mr. Knauer: I am concerned about the overharvesting of animals on the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. The bag "limits" established by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game are far too excessive. You are required by the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act to "conserve wildlife and habitat in their natural diversity." Allowing each individual hunter to harvest 35 grouse and ptarmigan per day, 3 bears, no limit on racoons, hares and squirrels, is definitely not conserving wildlife and contrary to the purpose for which the refuge was established. It is a big mistake for you to allow no limit on wolf hunting with airplanes approved when these animals are so scarce. One can hardly call this conservation and it doesn't seem like much of a refuge for wildlife. Alaska's land is less productive for wildlife, acre for acre compared to the rest of the country and these animals are becoming fewer and far between. Excessive bag "limits" only benefits a few of the more fortunate people who happen to get there first and take a larger share of the harvest that should be shared by others. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has an obligation to stop the abuse of wildlife on national wildlife refuges when the state fish and game regulations are too wasteful. Sincerely, / Perera e| felt Kenneth Emmel sce Response to K. Emmel 1 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulates seasons and bag limits on resident species within the refuge. The Service works cooperatively with the state to determine the biological surplus. 715 Muir Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 October 11, 1985 Regional Director U.S. "ish & Wildlife Service ATTENTION: Bill Knauer 1011 East Tudor Road Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Dear Mr. Knauer: I am unable to attend any of the public hearings to be held on the Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement/ Wilderness Review (Draft) on the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. I am, however, submitting this written comment in lieu of oral testimony presented at a public hearing, and request that it be accepted as such, and considered as if it had been so submitted. I wish to state that I strongly favor Alternative A, Minimal Management, with all of the Refuge, except for the area immediately adjacent to Northway Junction, to be designated as Wilderness, as described in the Wilderness Act of 1964. I feel that such management, and such wilderness designation, is the highest and best use of the Refuge. I thank you for your conisderation of my comments on this matter. Sincerely, a EL , IN t a ih [us MA fi October 26, 1985 Mr. Robert E Gilrann, Regionai Director Tetiin Nationai Wilaiire Reruge Fish and Wilatite Cervice 4Ul1l E ‘tudor Rd. Anchorage, AK 995¢3 Dear Mr. Lehmann: There appears to be little difference bew ween the alternstives. Alternavie II would appear to be the best of the alternatives, Since these areas are designated to be Rduges the welfare of the wililife would seem t o be the primary concern and and surcoce of creatiae them. 30 how can se allow trapping wrich trat a only means rrotracted suffer- go to m. veterinesr an) ani ddath for the unfortunate animals cau flo At t in thm. ORV's and their riders 6 ten hurt both the fauna and of any rerion and frightenxw people whose recreation is on foot. east this has been our experience hera in yee Be maibyerd og PO" Ms. Ethel W. Thornile 18683 Schoenherr Detroit, MI 48205 Bey $23 Aorthuny, Akaska Cote he, Xs GS Wy, Uk ™ AUue, ip ike cand WEIR Sauce heage /Ataske PY tne: 168 he fend vd LR «off Kone tye eit 4 pafeads nagfiee - ‘\uitk Same oy Oe digue ameunt f of Cn teare fee S a “ila FOr yne fd sgtpucn Q ahuay, Zerlen Lede ore wae eh Wy ake corked Awe dety, Th A GP oma Take cctuid (ho 7? ALC an zien enact Ags at Scofte - Deype, weg eget staged / Jute NOMA rk, ar Leth iay AG, @ May iy ouzud agers Atha tions wth the lo LL uct apse head quien tas hse Aerthiun oy a shy cod de bisaaz tes ¢y Lhaa au; nd Lage time 0 each Tan yeu frrke Bertenity * armen Yona tay Pena ffi Cadan Ove P.O. Box 523 Northway, AK 99764 November 4, 1985 William Knauer U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Mr. Knauer: | would like to take this time to voice my opinion on the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EIS/WR. | favor the services preferred alternative “C" with some changes. Since the refuge is on the road system and the people of Northway depend on the resources, | think the access should be minor, not moderate. | think that some kind of center on the refuge should be built. Tok is too far away for such a facility. Maybe a small one could be built at the east entrance for the incoming traffic, and a more detailed one Northway junction. Another important change would be to move the refuge head-quarters to Northway. This would give the residents a chance to understand what is going on. Much has been attempted for good relations, but to have the personnel living among the people of Northway would greatly enhance those relations. | would suspect this would greatly reduce the cost of transportation, air and land, for the personnel. | want to thank you for this opportunity to respond to the draft. Sincerely yours, They C Puabrias Mary € Burtness JOHN R. SWANSON P. 0. Box 6854 Minneapolis, Minn. $5406 seals pes Nee. Fide wd VIAL Mac Jou & SMA. chat tue aa ton un by e tern yao vs Www , Urner = Mey Oe ean dion se renbahragX \Goraind® 4 \ ley Samus. * Addie Bator Wh) Sy Sebeger 7 Sith te abou Any Nour Ce peniinn To ong sabia (na Ay gre - cA mb qea achnilira » ck AN enh aed AEA 4 Thi IE UA ME oder oth Ke na Marwan avd, ur Ni Pare ee ls Sithita MAN dea cle aur\ere evi oily our Qene ineMrerr eri HR dd BusTr wg Ode 4 Nha WabernaK NIG Flea prahasalinaen ALUN. Fah ova ae bayiate, AXE npc (aed Sad and ye beneiie LA grit wk gn, om biskenieaS nineties wank Lene naey TL aR ek (ea dieclpreas , eye * ee aon be Raver, we wn te Auucthin grrlict this Sat len ean SUA MAL Td . . : . SANE bin wittena deanery Fethe St Vin A Mma DUNN LT aae 00 tla 2 TAMA DUA Wy Alage Willman WS coeds Yarwhan ine Mowe ot nana hah i wtion § fun. Deus train, {en rch > Wn beans Lye Miss Eva Rugg 4 , re @ jreya iiss 7 parker aor Ped teens oT thay Reguenal Verekie Cor . i of & Veet pt phot od He 16M wank 7 yas eh OA <ik £5. Wa. Q.24 Krre , fae lines Cea Pniiien § Ao ay Hoke Nori Wildl 9, Bh Then Frat spe Bee anal hin le pele tas a ae geet Ga Ett gy Hee hoe ; pot ot «Kg Qbarika < oer aan Le <A Ley | at pre. Soyretal Astley Geetha Ty RX ade BUT wit tT fro, : Qi tteng tf be qubbled up an ci Slee tilts ee eee ary ; ‘ alld ek , De state? as wD @ wy Th aed Fon Toned ek ae TI te, g ae A® Meer, UrLof Jew frersid tec a Mige © tet. 1 obicert : Brerad, aro 4) tl ace! chef Nec d Lee Cobar d do acc ch We wae peopl at I Ty foe) 4 él a eee ih le eee Ne a 2 ida cael wth Cy geet ay Asem fe > | then @ ) ils 1, oO Fe us a >, gee ee he BP te % ¥ I Rowe, back that thee eeecitza ha wren he ; Here tee Aorta cha, the & ¥ f haat AheHe Meee 22 . Lo wth oft a Ww-esz, ‘ Te us oh PLT Dputt® lee eae ace all ch, pera S, enw LES tretan g an eat prwrra sits Atrery gue, Seas te hfectal Hay dec wad fina! . al i oP heer e LO of ra ety é, <a tae Baty BF eens fecvlmad fi fan A Wyers Che, 3 370e be ok tol a ht ~. | Sat hbnel Le} od PS Une "Ak matin C= dace a : bect fer Coutinceel mig raf ei Aree a $s AA, ceeeepenba, — ha ath ent Sverre nti eee salen aN simmer A Sa te the Loletaat! |] Sacre ate there Thaigot eon Rebrwrey: Hazy OM ny UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGIONAL OFFICE 1011 E. TUDOR ROAD ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-6199 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR INT 423