Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource Management Plan & Enviorn. Impact Statement 2006
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management April 2006 sis ees, obuk-Seward Peninsula ) anagement Plan and Environmental Impact Statement a] = = vs 9 s x uw Y uu o me th) + »O - oe a © a s a. > s a = ° = 2 a © aa = a. ° > ay a - > 9 wu x 9 The Bureau of Land Management Today Our Vision To enhance the quality of life for all citizens through the balanced stewardship of America’s public lands and resources. Our Mission To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula S Planning Area ae Het ae an ee BLM/AK/PL-06/015+1610+025 BLM File Photos: Imuruk basin Cow moose with two calves De Long Mountains Glacial Lake in the Kigluaik Mountains Caribou swimming across a river McCarthy’s Marsh Caribou skull and antlers with fireweed Birdwatching at McCarthy’s Marsh PNOARWN> U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management DRAFT Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 Chapter I: Introduction Chapter II: Alternatives Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Prepared by the Fairbanks District Office and Anchorage Field Office Alaska April 2006 United States Department of the Interior ae + BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT av Alaska State Office TAKE PRIDE” 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13 NAMERICA Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.ak.blm.gov 1610 (020) FEB 28 2006 Dear Reader: Enclosed for your review is the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft RMP/EIS). The Draft RMP/EIS considers and analyzes four alternatives that address future management of approximately 13 million acres of public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Fairbanks District Office and Anchorage Field Office. The planning area includes lands in western Alaska from Point Lay to the Norton Sound, and from the Bering and Chukchi seas east to the Kobuk River. Your comments are needed at this time. The public review period for the Draft RMP/EIS will last 90 calendar days beginning with the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. Public hearings will be held before the close of the comment period in communities within the planning area. Hearing dates, times, and specific locations will be announced through news releases and on the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP Web site (http://www.ak.blm.gov/ksp). Written comments may be sent via U.S. Mail to the BLM Fairbanks District Office, Attn: Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS, 1150 University Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99709, or via e-mail to ksp_comments@ak.bIm.gov. All comments will be considered and evaluated in the preparation of the Final RMP/EIS, and all substantive comments will be addressed. Comments will be most useful if they are specific, mention particular pages (where appropriate), and address one or more of the following items: e Inaccuracies or discrepancies in information, e Identification of new information that would have a bearing on the analysis, e Identification of new impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures, and e Suggestions for improving management direction. Public comments submitted for this planning review, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Fairbanks District Office during regular business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, and may be published as part of the Final EIS. If you wish to withhold your name or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. Anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of an organization or business, will be available for public inspection in their entirety. We appreciate your help in this planning effort and look forward to your continued interest and participation. For additional information or clarification regarding the Draft RMP/EIS or the planning process, please contact Jeanie Cole, Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP Lead Planner, at 907-474-2200. Henri R. Bisson State Director Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Proposed Action: Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft RMP/EIS) for lands within the Fairbanks District Office and Anchorage Field Office. Type of Action: Draft ( X ) Final (_ ) Administrative (X) Legislative (_ ) Abstract: The Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS was developed based on information provided by BLM personnel, other agencies and organizations, and the public. Four alternatives are described and analyzed in this Draft RMP/EIS: Alternative A is the “no action” alternative; Alternatives B and C propose varying levels of resource use and conservation; and Alternative D, the agency preferred alternative, provides a balance between resource conservation and development. Major issues and management concerns analyzed include: recreation, minerals management, subsistence, special designations, and management of cultural and natural resources. Comments: Comments on the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS are due within 90 days from publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. The close of the comment period will also be announced in news releases, newsletters, and on the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP Web site (http://www.ak.blm.gov/ksp). Comments can be submitted electronically or mailed to the address below. Further Information: Jeanie Cole, Team Leader Phone: (907) 474-2200 E-mail: ksp_comments@ak.blm.gov Bureau of Land Management Fairbanks District Office Attn: Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 1150 University Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 http://www.ak.blm.gov/ksp Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Executive Summary A. Introduction The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to provide direction for managing public lands within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area boundaries and to analyze the environmental effects that would result from implementing the alternatives presented in the Draft RMP/EIS. The exterior boundaries of the planning area encompass approximately 31 million acres in northwestern Alaska. Within this area the Draft RMP/EIS will analyze proposed management on approximately 13.1 million acres administered by the Fairbanks District Office, including approximately 8.2 million acres of lands that are selected by the State of Alaska or Alaska Natives. The BLM is responsible for management of selected lands until conveyance occurs or until the selections are relinquished back to the BLM because of overselection. The planning area also includes private land (including Native Corporation land), State land, and lands managed by other Federal agencies. Management measures outlined in the Draft RMP apply only to BLM-managed land in the planning area; no measures have been developed for private, State, or other Federal agency lands. The Draft RMP/EIS was prepared using BLM’s planning regulations and guidance issued under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and under requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), the BLM’s NEPA Handbook 1790-1, and the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook 1601-1 (March 2005). B. Purpose and Need The RMP will provide the Fairbanks District Office with a comprehensive framework for managing lands within the planning area under the jurisdiction of the BLM. The purpose of an RMP is to provide a public document that specifies overarching management policies and actions for BLM-managed lands. Implementation-level planning and site-specific projects are then completed in conformance with the broad provisions of the RMP. The RMP is needed to update the Northwest Management Framework Plan (MFP) approved in 1982, and to provide a land use plan consistent with evolving law, regulation, and policy. This RMP meets the requirements of FLPMA, which states, “The Secretary shall, with public involvement . . . develop, maintain, and, when appropriate, revise land use plans which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands” (43 U.S.C. 1712). iii Executive Summary Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS C. Decisions to be Made Land use plan decisions are made on a broad scale and guide subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. The RMP will make the following types of decisions to establish direction in the planning area: e Establish resource goals, objectives, and desired future conditions. e Describe actions to achieve goals, objectives, and desired future conditions. e Make land use allocations and designations. e Make land use adjustments. Management under any of the alternatives would comply with State and Federal regulations, laws, standards, and policies. Each alternative considered in the Draft RMP/EIS allows for some level of support of all resources present in the planning area. The alternatives are designed to provide general management guidance in most cases. Specific projects for any given area or resource would be detailed in future implementation plans or site-specific proposals, and additional NEPA analysis and documentation would be conducted as needed. After the comments on the Draft RMP/EIS are reviewed and analyzed, the responsible officials can decide to: Select one of the alternatives analyzed for implementation, or e Modify an alternative (e.g., combine parts of different alternatives) as long as the environmental consequences are analyzed in the Final RMP/EIS. The alternative selected for implementation will be presented in a Proposed RMP and Final EIS. Following a 60-day Governor's Consistency Review, a 30-day protest period, and the resolution of any protests, a Record of Decision will be signed and an approved RMP will be released. D. Issues A planning issue is an area of controversy or concern regarding management of resources or uses on the BLM-managed lands within the planning area. Issues for the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP were identified through scoping, interactions with public land users, and resource management concerns of BLM, the State, and other Federal agencies. These issues drive the formulation of the plan alternatives, and addressing them has resulted in the range of management options across the Draft RMP alternatives. Additional discussion on each issue can be found in the Scoping and Issues section in Chapter |. Issues of primary concern in the development of this Draft RMP/EIS include: e Manage recreational use of public lands to reduce conflicts between sport and subsistence hunting and to prevent negative impacts on subsistence hunting opportunity, particularly in the Squirrel River. e Maintain and protect subsistence opportunities. Determine how the management actions, guidelines, and allowable uses prescribed in response to the other issues will affect both subsistence opportunities and resources, and the social and economic environment. Executive Summary iv S Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS e Determine which areas should be made available for mineral exploration and development. e Provide access to BLM-managed lands for various purposes, including recreation, subsistence activities, and general enjoyment of public lands, while protecting natural and cultural resources. Alternatives The basic goal in developing alternatives was to prepare different combinations of management actions to address issues and resolve conflicts among uses. Alternatives must meet the purpose and need; must be reasonable; must provide a mix of resource protection, use, and development; must be responsive to the issues; and must meet the established planning criteria. Each alternative constitutes a complete RMP that provides a framework for multiple use management of the full spectrum of resources, resource uses, and programs present in the planning area. Under all alternatives the BLM would manage their lands in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and BLM policies and guidance. Four alternatives were developed and carried forward for detailed analysis in the Draft RMP/EIS. Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) represents the continuation of current management practices. Alternatives B, C, and D describe proposed changes to current management, as well as what aspects of current management would be carried forward. These three alternatives were developed with input from the public, collected during scoping, from the BLM Planning Team, and through collaborative efforts conducted with the State of Alaska and the Alaska Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The alternatives provide a range of choices for meeting BLM planning and program management requirements, and resolving the planning issues identified through scoping. Alternative A Alternative A would continue present management practices and present levels of resource use based on the existing Northwest Management Framework Plan (MFP). (BLM 1982) and other management decision documents. Valid decisions contained in the Northwest MFP would be implemented if not already completed. Direction contained in existing laws, regulation, and policy would also continue to be implemented, sometimes superseding provisions in the Northwest MFP. The current levels, methods, and mix of multiple use management of public land in the planning area would continue, and resource values would receive attention at present levels. Most activities would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Few uses would be limited or excluded as long as they were consistent with State and Federal laws. One exception to this is the ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals that close large portions of the planning are to mineral entry and location. Fire would be managed consistent with the Alaska Land Use Plan Amendment for Wildland Fire and Fuels Management (BLM 2004b, 2005c). Alternative B Alternative B highlights actions and management that would facilitate resource development. All ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term Federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative v Executive Summary Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (Appendix A). Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River to focus management on recreational use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Alternative C Alternative C emphasizes active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than in Alternative B or D, and in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Five Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and two SRMAs are identified, and specific measures proposed to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers are recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic River Act. All areas would be designated as “Limited” to off-highway vehicles (OHVs) to protect habitat, soil and vegetation resources. Most ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals are revoked but some would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative treats lands selected by the State and by Native or village corporations as if these lands were to be retained in long-term Federal ownership. Alternative D Alternative D emphasizes a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement of resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one Research Natural Area (RNA), five ACECs, and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic River Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The RNA and three anadromous rivers would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative describes interim and long-term management strategies for State- and Native-selected lands. BLM Preferred Alternative Alternative D was selected as the preferred alternative based on examination of the following factors: e Balance of use and protection of resources. Extent of the environmental impacts. This alternative was chosen because it best resolves the major issues while providing for common ground among conflicting opinions. It also provides for multiple use of BLM-managed lands in a sustainable fashion. Alternative D provides the best balance of resource protection and use within legal constraints. Executive Summary vi Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS F. Environmental Consequences Selection of Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would maintain the current rate of progress in protecting resource values and in resource development. It would allow for use levels to mostly continue at current levels in the same places in the planning area, with adjustments required in order to mitigate resource concerns in compliance with existing laws and regulations. OHV use would remain unrestricted, resulting in the continued proliferation of trails and resource degradation in certain areas. Alternative B would allow for maximum resource development with the fewest constraints. This alternative would result in greater impacts on the physical and biological environment than would implementation of Alternative C or D. Uses would generally be least encumbered by management under this alternative, though legal constraints, and Required Operating Procedures and Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations (Appendix A) would be applied. This alternative would offer the greatest potential for mineral development and could result in economic benefits to local economies from resource extraction. All BLM-managed lands in the planning area would be designated as “limited’ to OHV use with a maximum 2,000 pound gross vehicle weight rating. Development of new trails and resource degradation would continue in certain areas. Recreational use in the Squirrel River would be designated as a SRMA and more intensively managed than under Alternative A. Alternative C would have the least potential to impact physical and biological resources from BLM actions. Uses would be the most restricted by management. More areas of BLM- managed land would be closed to mineral development than under any other alternative. All BLM-managed lands in the planning area would be designated as “limited” to designated roads and trails during the snow-free season, thereby reducing impacts to resources. This more restrictive OHV designation would somewhat reduce access to BLM-managed lands. Qualified subsistence users would be allowed to travel off designated trails to retrieve game. Two SRMAs would be designated. Recreational use in the Squirrel River would be very intensively managed during August-September. Designation and management of five ACECs would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Eleven river segments would be determined suitable for designation as wild under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, affording these areas more protection than under other alternatives. Subsistence resources would be maintained or enhanced. Alternative D would allow for increased levels of resource development while providing for site- specific protection of resources. This alternative would provide almost as much opportunity for mineral development as Alternative B. Closures to mineral entry and location would be limited to small, site-specific areas. This alternative could result in economic benefits to local economies from resource extraction. All unencumbered BLM lands in the planning area would be designated as “limited” to OHVs with a maximum gross vehicle weight rating of 2,000 pounds. On State-and Native-selected lands, OHVs would be managed consistent with the State’s Generally Allowable Uses, resulting in less resource degradation than under Alternatives Aor B. Within two SRMAs, additional limitations may be defined through development of activity plans, and may include instituting seasonal closures or limitations to existing or designated trails. Designation and management of five ACECs and one Research Natural Area would provide additional protection to wildlife, vegetation, visual, and other natural resources. Subsistence resources would be maintained. vii Executive Summary Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS G. Public Involvement Public involvement has been an integral part of the BLM’s planning effort. During scoping, nine public meetings were held during March and April 2004. Scoping meetings were held in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Kotzebue, Nome, Buckland, Kiana, Kivalina, Koyuk, and Shaktoolik. Newsletters have been mailed to update interested parties on the progress of the Planning Team and stages of the planning process. In addition, numerous briefings were held with various groups and organizations during the preparation of the Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM also invited all Native villages in the area for government-to-government consultation during the course of the process. Public involvement is described in more detail in Chapter V. The comment period on the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS will extend for 90 days following publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. After 90 days, comments will be evaluated. Substantive comments could lead to changes in one or more of the alternatives, or changes in the analysis of environmental effects. A proposed RMP and Final EIS will then be completed and released. If protests are received on the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, they will be reviewed and addressed by the Director of the BLM before a Record of Decision and Approved Plan are released. Executive Summary viii Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table of Contents—Volume 1 Cover Sheet Dear Reader Letter PoE eee ee tle este adidade tae tecthabattvasdtetedt stead Mecca taetelees Mees sotltelieddseedodeetateatittabnenartitedtuhe i EXECUTIVE SUT ey nee et sdb ssludadtendeteastlt dest lentldbleattteatssaatnensesssesslacttynesdpnaaenettes eases iii Table of Contents... ix List of Maps...... a) Xi LSE OTe eee eee ee ctdchstadbastetadttewastendeeenstledecntscteeateaeettsbasitaceevceltieetatnetlbeetuceetetesen xii SE OT EU eS eee eee na ese esatlestedbosteesdtitaatstaadteecattendteatlebeatletectsteassltaataasetsctitas Hlabcteraghereas xiv Chapter I: Introduction Be eGo eee e Ue satiehsllekedsdeeserdustslless treat luateteetsteecd deel adttisecdeheshsectdleetiibeauabed B. Purpose and Need for the Plan C. Planning Area 1. Land Ownership and Administration ..............::ccccceesseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeneeeeneeeaeeeeneeseneeeeeeeeeeeeees 1-4 2. Geographic and Social Setting....... -1-6 D. Scoping and Issues..............:.06 1-9 TISSUES FOOTE Se eel adshe ead easltecddaetttecltueet teat Meatactany dol bdesetteatlstactill ssiituad 1-9 2. Issues Considered but Not Further AnalyZed ...............::cesccesceeseesesesceeeeeeeeeeseesneeeeeeeees 1-11 E. Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints F. Planning Process ...........ccccecesesceeseeeceeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeees - 1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs. ..........::cccccceseeeseeeteeeneeeeeneeeeeeeeees 1-16 2. CONADOPATON ee UE U, MieatidstlbavalledtncdtMnco est taaatesdetlestahoctideedeedestteattbsattdastet stare 1-17 3. Relationship between the RMP and EIS .. 1-18 4. Implementation of the RMP................ 1-19 GG; Related FANS sie ett tssslcsetetsceseeatseecallesotetecdavescreccvaureusresdeiteatereat/vectitectutadtunadslvedtteadehascsnestane 1-19 Ee Cy eee eee recedes secdtdeclsMncetteshduhestehattttedsmteslilessMeeadt Hest esabeat eels adensathllesltveatehant sat 1-20 Chapter Il: Alternatives A. General Descriptions of the Alternatives ........0....cccecceeceeeeceneeceneeeeneeeeaeeeeeeeeeeesneeeeeeeeseeenaaes 2-3 1. Alternative A 2 2. Alternative B 2 3. Alternative C 2 4. Alternative D 5. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail . i B. Detailed Descriptions of the Alternatives ...........cccccceceeeceeceneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeteeeeeeseeenseeseneeenseeeeees 2-6 TIREOSOUICOS eee ee elects altecstaecst stents teativeatteeslllasttasstredetedletoqantadhessetesauttlnet 2-6 a) Air Quality and Soil and Water Resources. 7 b) Vegetation Management...............065 2-7 )|| FISH ANG IWIN eel se testle, ceheesttencatetestesevsnecseteedticesateeuarasuerestettedntestuessatesessueed 2-9 d) Special Status Species ...............cccscesesesessecseeeeseeseceseceseeeseeeeesseeeeeeeseeeseaeeeeeeeeseneees 2-13 e) Fire Management and Ecology ...........::cc:cecscessceseeeeeeeeeeneeeseeeeeceseeeeseseeseneeeeseateeees 2-15 ix Table of Contents—Volume 1 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS f) Cultural RESOUPCES oo... eee eeeeeeeteeseeeecseeeseseeseeeeeaesaseecsecaecaecassassessesaesaceeseeaees 2-17 Q) Paleontological RESOUPCES ooo... eecceecesesssseesseesesecseeaseesesesecseesecsecaesaesasasseeseeaeeeees 2-20 h) Visual RESOUFCES 0.0.2... eccseeseseeseeeseseseseseseseseseseseceeseeecaeseacaesecsesesaeseeecatseeaeeees 2-21 2. Resource Uses........ a) Forest Products.. i b) Livestock Grazing oo... cece ceeeeeeeeeeeeeeseseeecseeecseseeseeseseseeseesseseeseesseeseesseeeesaeerees C) Minerals... eee cece cceescesceeceeesceeeeaceeesesesesseseesseeeseceseeseasseseessessessesaecasseseesausaeeaseees d) Recreation Management... e) Travel Management/OHV .. f) Renewable Energy..........ceccccseseesscsssseesseseeeseecseceecsscsseeeaeeeessaeeeeseaeenaees g) Lands and Realty Actions 3. Special Designations........ 4. Social and Economic. 5. Subsistence 0.0... ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees C. Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternative Chapter Ill: Affected Environment A. How to Read This Chapter ...........cccceccecesesseesesessesssessesesscseesesaesassaeseesessacsecsecaecesesesessesareaeaees 3-3 B. RESOUICES 2.0.0... eeeeeeeeeee 3-3 1. Air Quality .. 3-3 2. Geology ........... 3-6 3. Soil Resources .... 3-8 4. Water Resources. 3-15 5. Vegetation ....... 3-27 6. Fish and Wildlife ........... 3-47 7. Special Status Species........... 3-71 8. Fire Management and Ecology.. 3-99 9. Cultural Resources. ............0:08 .3-117 10. Paleontological Resources 3-127 11. Visual Resources.............00. 3-128 12. Wilderness Characteristics .3-133 C. Resource US@S........ceeeeeeee 3-137 1. Forest Products ... 3-137 2. Livestock Grazing 3-143 3. Minerals 0.0.0.0... cece 3-146 4. Recreation Management... 3-209 5. Travel Management/OHV. -3-217 6. Renewable Energy. ........... 3-223 7. Lands and Realty Actions ...........cccccceceeccsssssssseesessestsecaecascssassessecsessecsecsecsecsessteaseaeeaee 3-224 D. Special Designations Suvduadavicuyausueuvacussesctstessdvessessusussssecguscesduesteasucesctusietudsecesessverseces! 3-233 1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas 3-233 2. Iditarod National Historic Trail .............ccccccccsessessesscseessecesseseesseseeeuse 3-238 3. Wild and Scenic RiVEPs...........cccccecesceseesseeessesesesesseseesesseeaccscsscsacsaseacsecsecaecaseaseaseaseaeeas E. Social and Economic... F. SubSiStenCe 0.0... eccccecesccseessecsecsseesecssesaeessecsescsesecsscssesecsuscseesaucnsecsecuscaescauesaeesaueenernseeees Table of Contents—Volume 1 x Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS List of Maps Map 1-1. General Land Status .........ccccccceccecceeseeseeeeeeseeseeeeeeeeceeceeecseceeeeaeeeseaeeneeseeeneseeeeeeneeerees 1-7 Map 2-1. Visual Resource Management Alternative B .. 2-23 Map 2-2. Visual Resource Management Alternative C.. 2-25 Map 2-3. Visual Resource Management Alternative D.. 2-27 Map 2-4. Grazing on BLM Lands Alternative C ......... 2-37 Map 2-5. Grazing on BLM Lands Alternative Do... 2-38 Map 2-6. Proposed Fluid Leasable Mineral Management Alternative B.. 2-45 Map 2-7. Proposed Fluid Leasable Mineral Management Alternative C.. 2-47 Map 2-8. Proposed Fluid Leasable Mineral Management Alternative D........ 2-49 Map 2-9. Proposed Solid Mineral Exploration and Prospecting Alternative C... 2-55 Map 2-10. Proposed Solid Mineral Exploration and Prospecting Alternative D 2-57 Map 2-11. Proposed Locatable Mineral Management Alternative C .. .2-63 Map 2-12. Proposed Locatable Mineral Management Alternative D .. “ .2-65 Map 2-13. Proposed Special Recreation Management Areas Alternative B. .2-75 Map 2-14. Proposed Special Recreation Management Areas Alternative C . .2-77 Map 2-15. Proposed Special Recreation Management Areas Alternative D .... .2-79 Map 2-16. Proposed OHV Management Classes on BLM Lands Alternative C .2-87 Map 2-17. Proposed OHV Management Classes on BLM Lands Alternative D 2-89 Map 2-18. Lands for Retention Alternatives B, C, and Do... ecceeeeeeteeeee 2-101 Map 2-19. Proposed Transportation Corridor ............::cesesceereeeeeeeeneceeeeeeeneeeneeeeeeeeees 2-103 Map 2-20. Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Alternative C 2-109 Map 2-21. Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Alternative D 2-111 Map 2-22. Rivers Suitable for Wild and Scenic Designation Alternative C............... 2-117 Map 3-1. Major Land Resource Areas ...........:cccccceeseeceseeeeteeeteeeeeeeeeeeees 3-11 Map 3-2. Permafrost .........0.c::cceeeeee 3-13 Map 3-3. Average Annual Precipitation .. 3-21 Map 3-4. Municipal Water Sources...............+. 3-23 Map 3-5. USGS Hydrological Unit Codes (HUC).......... cece 3-25 Map 3-6. Vegetation and Land Cover Types (1 Kilometer Resolution)... 3-41 Map 3-7. Western Arctic Caribou Herd Seasonal Ranges and Fire Perimeters .. 3-43, Map 3-8. Rare Plant Species Designated by Alaska Natural Heritage Program . 3-45 Map 3-9. Anadromous Fish Rivers 3-51 Map 3-10. Kivalina River Dolly Varden Spawning Grounds. 3-53 Map 3-11. Moose, Muskox, and Dall Sheep Distributions ... ..3-67 Map 3-12. Caribou Distribution ............ceeeeeeeeeneeeeeees .. 3-69 Map 3-13. BLM-Alaska Sensitive Plant Species.. .. 3-81 Map 3-14. Lakes Likely Containing Arctic Char................. .. 3-84 Map 3-15. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species............. ... 3-93 Map 3-16. Sensitive Species: Waterfowl and Shorebird Occurrences 3-95 Map 3-17. BLM Sensitive Species: Passerine Bird Occurrences .. .. 3-97 Map 3-18. Fire History 0.0.0.0... ceceeecseseceeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeseneeseseneeeaee 3-111 Map 3-19. Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System—Fuels .. .3-113 Map 3-20. Existing Fire Management Options ..............::cceeeeeeeeeees .3-115 Map 3-21. Visual Resource Management Overall Inventory Classes.. 3-131 Map 3-22. Wilderness Characteristics Units .............:cccecceeeeeteeeees .3-136 Map 3-23. Spruce Bark Beetle Damage ..............:::ceee .3-140 Map 3-24. Generalized Vegetation (1 Kilometer Resolution).................. 3-141 Map 3-25. Grazing Allotments ...........::ccccecceeceseeeeteeeeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeeneeeneees 3-145 Map 3-26. Federal Mineral Leasable Status .........0...:ccccecceeseeeceecesseeseeeeceseeaeseeeseaeeeeeseeeeeaes 3-155 xi Table of Contents—Volume 1 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Map?3-27— Oll-and:Gas Basins ctatatctatatctea cet atc cag calat cca ata caveat eta bet ctietv des tat caetcas tet stetec tet ee 3-157 Map 3-28. Coal Resources Map 3-29. Existing Locatable Mineral Status Including Hardrock and Placer Known Mineral OOCCUIT ON COS aac acacveteteded sete te tace ca ogededve ct ed cieeresetal esis aici cdueet sacs meget ededezie eletec == eeerectistere: Map 3-30. Annual Placer Mining Application Filings 1989-2004 : Map 3-31. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ..........cccccccceesssecsecsecsecscssesecsecsecsecseceeeeeseeateaees Map 3-32. R.S. 2477 Routes, 17(b) Easements, and Winter Trails Map 3-33. Native Allotments and Land Status Map 3-34. Nominated Research Natural Areas (RNA) and Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).......:c:ceccesssssssssseesesecsesesecseeseeseveecseeesassecaecaeaseaesecaeacens 3-239 Map 3-35. Rivers Inventoried for Wild and Scenic Values...............c.ccccccccesesessccessceesseesseeneee 3-247 Map 3-36. Potential Hazardous Material Sites........0...0..00cccccceeseeeeees : Map 3-37. Subsistence Use Areas—Mammals Northwest AK Communities 3-285 Map 3-38. Subsistence Use Areas—Fish Northwest AK Communities .............c:ccccceeees 3-286 Map 3-39. Subsistence Use Areas—Marine Mammals Northwest AK Communities ........... 3-287 Map 3-40. Subsistence Use Areas—Mammals Seward Peninsula Communities .. Map 3-41. Subsistence Use Areas—Fish Seward Peninsula Communities = Map 3-42. Subsistence Use Areas—Marine Mammals Seward Peninsula Communities .. .. 3-290 Map 3-43. Subsistence Use Areas—Mammals Upper Kobuk/Selawik River Communities. 3- 291 Map 3-44. Subsistence Use Areas—Fish Upper Kobuk/Selawik River Communities .......... 3-292 Map 3-45. Subsistence Use Areas—Marine Mammals Upper Kobuk/Selawik River Communities List of Tables Table 1-1. Land Status within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area .............:.cc0ccceee 1-6 Table 1-2. Steps in the BLM Land Use Planning Process.............::0::e00 - 1-16 Table 2-1. Fish and Wildlife—Summary of Alternatives................... Table 2-2. Fire Management and Ecology—Summary of Alternatives ... aa Table 2-3. Cultural Resources—Summary of Alternatives ............... 2-19 Table 2-4. Visual Resources—Summary of Alternatives . Table 2-5. Forest Products—Summary of Alternatives....... Table 2-6. Forest Products—Constraints on Specific Areas... Table 2-7. Livestock Grazing—Summary of Alternatives .......... Table 2-8. Fluid Leasable Minerals—Summary of Alternatives . Table 2-9. Solid Leasable Minerals—Summary of Alternatives. Table 2-10. Locatable Minerals—Summary of Alternatives.... = Table 2-11. Mineral Materials—Summary of Alternatives............. -. 2-68 Table 2-12. Recreation Management—Summary of Alternatives. Table 2-13. Travel Management Areas for Alternative C Table 2-14. Travel Management Areas for Alternative D.... Table 2-15. Travel Management/OHV—Summary of Alternatives Table 2-16. Lands and Realty—Summary of Alternatives Table 2-17. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas—Summary OF-Altermativess . oes ett cae sotatet cc vecentectuvatssecsstahstececeeveyeladvdees .2-107 Table 2-18. Wild and Scenic Rivers—Summary of Alternatives : we 2-115 Table 2-19. Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternatives . mele .2-123 Table 3-1. Water Resources Data for Selected Rivers in the Planning Area (2004-05)..........3-18 Table 3-2. Vegetation Types Within the Planning Area ............ccccccccscceseesseeseceseessecsseeeeceseenes 3-28 Table of Contents—Volume 1 xii Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-3. BLM-Alaska Sensitive Plant Species and Other Rare Plant Species Known to Occur Within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area............::::ccccceeeeeees Table 3-4. Non-native Plant Species Known to Occur in the Planning Area.. = Table 3-5. BLM Sensitive Plant Species in Alaska ..........0.ccccccccescsseeeseeeeee 3-72 Table 3-6. Global and State Ranking Criteria ......... 3-73 Table 3-6. Global and State Ranking Criteria ......0....c.cccccccccscscseceessescstseeseseeeees Table 3-8. Wildlife Special Status Species Likely to Occur i in the Planning Area . “ Table 3-9. Fire Regimes in the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area......... 3-101 Table 3-10. Fuel Types in the Planning Area............:cccccsccsseeeeseeneees ... 3-103 Table 3-11. Fire Management Options ............::c:eceeceseeseeseseeseeeeeeeees ... 3-107 Table 3-12. Current Fire Management Options in the Planning Area ........esceceesceeteeeeeeeesees 3-107 Table 3-13. Known Cultural Resource Sites in the Planning Area by Land Status and Chronological Period ...........cccceseeseseseeseseeeseseseeseseseescsesesecseseseeseeseseseeseseeesaeeeaeseseeeeaeees 3-125 Table 3-14. Sites or Site Components by Cultural Affiliation Table 3-15. VRM Inventory for the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area.... Table 3-16. Grazing Allotments in the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area.. Table 3-17. HLMP by Land Ownership............:ccccccececeseseseeeeseseteeseeeeeseeeaseeee 3-168 Table 3-18. Wales HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary... Table 3-19. Kougarok HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary . Table 3-20. Imnachuk HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary . Table 3-21. Imnachuk MLMP Surface Disturbance Summary. Table 3-22. Teller HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary....... Table 3-23. Nome East HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary .. Table 3-24. Nome West HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary .... 3-182 Table 3-25. Darby Mountains HLMP Surface Disturbance SUMMATY...........::cccscscsesseseeeeees 3-187 Table 3-26. Eastern Seward Peninsula/Western Alaska HLMP Surface Disturbance SUMIMALY ..........ccccccccsccssesseseseesecseesesacsecsecsessesaesaesassassacsessecsecaeeatesseaceecatentens 3-188 Table 3-27. Shaktoolik HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary 3-190 Table 3-28. Ambler HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary ........ 3-191 Table 3-29. Omar-Kiana HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary. Table 3-30. Red Dog HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary.. Table 3-31. Red Dog MLMP Surface Disturbance Summaty ..........:::cecseeeee Table 3-32. Serialized Mineral Material Actions in the Planning Area 1980-2004 Table 3-33. ROS Class Acreages and Descriptions... Table 3-34. Withdrawals Affecting BLM Land................:0:00 Table 3-35. Withdrawals for Other Agencies Excluding ANILCA... Table 3-36. Eligible Rivers within the Planning Area............... Table 3-37. Activities and Associated Hazardous Materials... Table 3-38. Potential Effects and Risks to Environmental Media .. Table 3-39. Potential Effects and Risks to Human Activities .. Table 3-40. Growth of Alaska Native Population ...............:cccceee Table 3-41. Population per Community, Historic U.S. Census Data. Table 3-42. Population of Selected Boroughs Table 3-43. Employment by Sector............c:cccccseees Table 3-45. 2004 Per Capita Tax Revenues in Dollars............c:cccccesssseseeseeseesecseeseeseeseseeeees 3-267 Table 3-46. Environmental Justice Data from the 2000 CensuS.............cccccccseeseeseestesteeeeeeee 3-269 Table 3-47. Resources Harvested and Reported Per Year .... Table 3-48. Market Basket Comparison ............ccccccccceeseeeeee 3-282 Table 3-49. Subsistence Resource Harvest and Economic Significance ..............:::ccceeee 3-284 Table 4-1. Anticipated Levels of Activity for Resource Management............:.cccceceeeeeeeeees 4-11 Table 4-2. Livestock Grazing ASSUMPIiIONS.............:cccceccecceseeceeeeseceeeseeseeaeeceseceeesecsecateseeatereetes 4-12 xiii Table of Contents—Volume 1 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 4-3. Crude Oil Spills Estimated Over the Production Life of the RMP .............::eee 4-17 Table 4-4. Small Refined Oil Spills <500 bbl Estimated Over the Production ERR OF TINS RMP stave gas eet vumcct ttc co dv casa oe cac td eclc ba outbc chaauvdvesaceaeavel ducbbdevetivtttddeteddendsladet dds 4-17 Table 4-5. Assumed Size Distribution for Small Crude Oil Spills for the Production Life of the Ree etal eM ed sa tt Ue hadchidschdaettaurarcetdybtadbedsscaveinsher cet lSietaddtadat dat taal 4-18 Table 4-6. Anticipated New Placer Mines ..............cccccceceseeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeceeeseeeeseeeeneeeeeeeenieeennees 4-22 Table 4-7. Proposed Riverbank Setbacks under Alternatives C and D ..........cceeceeeeeeeeeeeee 4-140 Table 4-8. Potential ACEC/RNA Units Under Alternatives C and D............... 4-143 Table 4-9. Special Recreation Management Area Designations by Alternative.................... 4-147 Table 4-10. Management Emphasis Areas within the Extensive Recreation Management Area by Alternative Table 4-11. OHV Designations by Alternative 4-160 Table 4-12. Outstandingly Remarkable Values Cross-reference for Eligible Rivers............. 4-180 Table 4-13. Effects of the Alternative on Employment and Personal Income by Place of Residence with Oil at $30/DDI 0.2.2... ee eeceeeceeeeceeeeeeeeseseseseeteeseeseceeeeeeeeesaseeseeseetateeetateeea 4-186 Table 4-14. Summary of Estimated Direct Input to Employment, Income, AMG-ROVONUC.. ne ccse cn steeescresscuectsasarsvoceseabeseastusoetusttacussseesetestpentssuteeudtaesoatesstervaten cabsasvesvoneeonsoode 4-188 Table 5-1. Kobuk-Seward RMP/EIS Planning Team ............c:ccccsesseeessecseeeeseeeseeeeseeesseesseteeees 5-9 Table A-1. Recommended Water Bar Spacing Table A-2. Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations Table B-1. Kigluaik ACEC and Mount Osborn RNA—Alternative Comparison Table. B-3 Table B-2. Western Arctic Caribou Herd Calving and Insect Relief Habitat ACEC—Alternative COMpPaniSOM: TADS oat ci hice. deccsccecsccercacesceececccedcdicccosecsstsisstessavestductvacedtvcctssesessoesdsneeacstssnetss B-6 Table B-3. McCarthy’s Marsh ACEC—Alternative Comparison Table. Table B-4. Kuzitrin River ACEC—Alternative Comparison Table..... Table B-5. Nulato Hills ACEC—Alternative Comparison Table Table B-6. Shaktoolik, Ungalik, and Inglutalik Watershed ACECs—Alternative Comparison Table C-1. Salmon Lake-Kigluaik SRMA—Alternative Comparison Table Table C-2. Squirrel River SRMA—Alternative Comparison Table ............::cceeceesereereeeseeeeeees C-5 List of Figures Figure 3-1. Estimated Fire Return Intervals for Interior Alaska .............c:cecceeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 3-100 Figure 3-2. Cultural Chronology for Northwest Alaska............::.:::ceeeeee Figure 3-3. Base Metal, Nickel, and Tin Prices and Labor Costs 1970-2004 : Figure 3-4. Precious Metal, Labor, and Equipment Costs 1970-2004 ....... .3-165 Figure 3-5. Summary of Mining Surface Disturbance (excluding Red Dog) by Land Ownership In the Planning Area ............ cc eeseesccceseeeseeeeseeeceeescesaeeeseeeaeeesaeeesaeeeeaeeseaeeseaeeeenseseaeeseseeeaees 3-166 Figure 3-6. HLMP Surface Disturbance by Land Ownership 1989-2004 .3-167 Figure 3-7. Annual Mineral Materials Production 1980-2004................ .3-207 Figure 3-8. Comparison of Per Capita Income (2000) .......... ce eeeeeeeeeeeeee 3-262 Figure 3-9. Percent of Private Sector Workers Who Are Local Residents.............:::::eeeee 3-265 Table of Contents—Volume 1 xiv Chapter I: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Chapter I: Introduction Psy SACK NOUN sy ctececec tyatee ces eee, cece cecivesaeca cr cataetesseraacseeareduedstenan caug aecacessee tec itae wate teehee caecaaasuatasse B. Purpose and Need for the Plan C. Planning Area............eceeeseseeeeses 1. Land Ownership and Administration . 2. Geographic and Social Setting....... D. Scoping and Issues... 1. Issues Addressed ..........:cccceesesceseeeteeseeeeenes 2. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed ot a) Wilderness Inventory and Management ..............ccccccccsceseesseessesseeseceseesseesesesteneeaeenee b) Land Conveyance...... c) Commercial Activities.............. d) Hunting and Fishing Regulations.. oa e) State of Alaska Administration of Guides, Outfitters, and Transporters..............0.0 1-13 f) Federal Subsistence Program E. Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints. F1|Planning | Pro C es ee a alt 1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs ..........:ccccesccesseseeeseesseeseeseeeseeeeseeeees 1-16 Si COMADOFAUOM certs tec iusto tan es teaner cca vers aty teat ta tee nT mEUE ot eo Tn yun a Suen ato Mae geo, 1-17 a) Intergovernmental, Interagency, and Tribal Relationships 1-18 b) Other Stakeholder Relationships ...............c:cccceeseeseees 1-18 3.. Relationship between the RMP and EIS...................::ccccssccssssecesseeesceesecnesonesecsaccsstaccsacesss 1-18 4 implementation Of InoiRMR ii crccvecr ules esvovesvectesstusbeleival saletvevatuetevanvecteedsteatvesebotivide 1-19 G. Related Plans H. Ba eng ne rng 1-1 Chapter I: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Chapter I: Introduction A. Background On January 30, 2004, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register to prepare a Resource Management Plan (RMP) and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for lands administered by the Northern Field Office (now known as the Fairbanks District Office).' As defined by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, public lands are those federally-owned lands and interests in lands (e.g., federally-owned mineral estate) that are administered by the Secretary of the Interior, specifically through the BLM. This includes lands selected, but not yet conveyed, to the State of Alaska and Native Corporations and villages. The approved RMP will meet BLM statutory requirements for a land use plan as mandated by Section 202 of FLPMA, which specifies the need for comprehensive land use plans consistent with multiple-use and sustained yield objectives. The EIS will fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, to disclose and address environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions through a process that includes public participation and cooperation with other agencies. Due to BLM administrative boundary adjustments in January 2005, management of approximately 4.2 million acres of BLM-managed land in the Seward Peninsula area was transferred to the Anchorage Field Office. As this Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP had already been initiated before the boundary adjustment, the Fairbanks District Office will continue to prepare the RMP in close coordination with the Anchorage Field Office; once approved, the RMP will be implemented by both offices. The BLM is the lead agency in preparing this Draft RMP/EIS. The BLM is coordinating closely with the State of Alaska and with Bering Strait Regional Corporation, NANA, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, as well as with village councils located within the planning area. In addition, the BLM has coordinated with the National Park Service, Western Arctic Park Lands, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge, in preparation of this document. ‘In summer 2005, the Northern Field Office was renamed the Fairbanks District Office and reorganized with three new Field Offices: Arctic, Central Yukon, and Eastern Interior. 1-3 Chapter |: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS B. Purpose and Need for the Plan Through the completion of an RMP/EIS, the BLM proposes to provide a comprehensive land use plan that will guide management of the public lands and interests administered by the Fairbanks District Office and the Anchorage Field Office. Most site-specific decisions and management actions, such as designation of specific trails, will occur through subsequent implementation plans. Current management of these lands is guided by the Northwest Management Framework Plan (MFP) (BLM 1982). The MFP was amended in 2005 to be consistent with the National Fire Plan (BLM 2004b, 2005c). Since approval of the MFP in 1982, new regulations and policies have created additional considerations that affect the management of public lands. In addition, new issues and concerns have arisen over the past 20 years. Consequently, some of the decisions in the MFP are no longer valid or have been superseded by requirements that did not exist when the MFP was prepared. These new issues and changes in management policy drive the need for an inclusive, comprehensive plan that provides clear direction to both the BLM and the public. C. Planning Area 1. Land Ownership and Administration Map 1-1 at the end of the Planning Area section shows the location of the planning area within the State of Alaska and depicts the varying ownership and conveyance status within the planning area. Of the approximately 31 million acres within the planning area, decisions in the RMPYEIS will apply to 13 million acres, as described below and shown in Table 1-1 on page 1-6. Once conveyances are complete in 2009, somewhat less than 13 million acres will remain under BLM management within the planning area. e BLM: These are lands that will most likely be retained in long-term Federal ownership. These lands, which constitute approximately 16 percent of the planning area, are not selected by the State or by Native corporations or villages. e State-selected: These are formerly unappropriated and unreserved public lands that were selected by the State of Alaska as part of the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980. Until conveyance, State-selected lands outside of National Park system lands or National Wildlife refuges will continue to be managed by the BLM. ANILCA allowed for overselection by the State by up to 25 percent of the entitlement (sec. 906 (f)). Therefore, some State-selected lands will eventually be retained in long-term Federal ownership. State-selected lands constitute approximately 12 percent of the planning area. e Native-selected: The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 gave Alaska Natives an entitlement of 44 million acres to be selected from a pool of public lands specifically defined and withdrawn by the Act for that purpose. Some ANCSA corporations filed selections in excess of their entitlements. Similar to overselections by the State, some of the Native-selected lands will not be conveyed and will be retained in federal ownership. Native-selected lands constitute approximately 15 percent of the planning area. Chapter |: Introduction 1-4 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Dual-selected: These are lands that have been selected by both the State and Natives. Because of overselection, some of these lands could be retained in long-term Federal ownership. Dual-selected lands constitute less than 1 percent of the planning area. Mineral estate: Alaska is a “split estate" property rights state in which there can be two distinct owners of a given parcel of land: the surface owner and the sub-surface owner. Federal split-estate lands are those on which the surface of the land has been patented, that is, transferred to private ownership, while the mineral interests are retained by the United States. Surface property owners, for example, include home owners and businesses. The rights of a surface owner generally do not include ownership of mineral resources such as oil, natural gas or coal. Under the appropriate provisions and authorities of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, individuals and companies can prospect for and develop coal, petroleum, natural gas and other minerals reserved by the Federal Government. All subsurface mineral estate lying beneath BLM lands is managed by the BLM. State and Native selections segregate the land and keep it closed to mineral entry, except on pre-existing, valid federal mining claims (locatable minerals) and issue of mineral material permits with the concurrence of the selecting entity (salable mineral materials). Conveyances made under ANCSA and the Statehood Act includes the mineral estate. In some cases, subsurface mineral estate is reserved to the Federal government through conveyance of Native Allotments. This reservation only occurs where information dictates that a particular mineral was prospectively valuable at the time of conveyance. Conveyances made under other land disposal laws, such as the Recreation and Public Purpose Act, do not include the mineral estate and it remains under BLM management when the surface is conveyed. Within the planning area, the BLM manages an estimated 80,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate. Military lands: These lands are under withdrawal to the military. If released and returned to BLM management during the life of the plan, direction contained in the RMPY/EIS would apply. Military lands constitute less than 1 percent of the planning area. Lands within the planning area that will not be covered by the RMP/EIS: State of Alaska lands: These are lands that have already been conveyed to the State of Alaska. These lands constitute approximately 17 percent of the planning area. Native lands: These are lands already conveyed to village and regional Native corporations and are now private lands. These lands constitute approximately 18 percent of the planning area, and are included with other private lands when calculated in Table 1-1 on page 1-6. National Park Service lands: These are lands within Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Kobuk Valley National Park and Preserve, and Noatak National Preserve. These lands constitute approximately 43 percent of the planning area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands: These are lands managed by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service within the Selawik and Alaska Maritime National Wildlife refuges. These lands constitute approximately 8 percent of the planning area. Private lands: These lands are privately owned, aside from Native corporations or villages and include Native allotments and other private land. These lands constitute less than 1 percent of the planning area. 1-5 Chapter |: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 2. Geographic and Social Setting The Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area generally encompasses the area included in the Northwest Arctic Borough, the northern portion of the Bering Straits Region, and the western edge of the North Slope Borough. The planning area is bounded on the west and south by the Chukchi and Bering seas and on the east by the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), Noatak National Preserve, Kobuk-Valley National Park and Preserve, and the Yukon River watershed. The area is remote with no road access to interior Alaska. The only roads in the planning area are those associated with communities, the Red Dog Mine road, and about 200 miles of road out of Nome. The two larger communities of Nome (population 3,505) and Kotzebue (population 3,082) serve as hubs for the area. There are 21 small villages with a combined population that ranges from 400 to 800 residents, and a few seasonal communities with no year-round residents. Table 1-1. Land Status within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area BLM-managed lands BLM public lands 4,970,000 16 State-selected 3,624,000 12 Native-selected 4,539,000 15 Dual-selected 108,000* <1 BLM-managed lands subtotal 13,133,000 43 National Park Service 4,090,000 13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2,327,000 8 Military 5,000 <1 State of Alaska 5,296,000 17 Private** 5,576,000 19 Total lands within the planning area 30,427,000 100 Note: All acreage figures are rounded to the nearest 1,000 acres to account for future updates to improve land status data. No warranty is made by the BLM as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. For official land status and boundary information, refer to cadastral survey plats, master title plats, and land status case-files. * Dual-selected acres are already included in the State- and Native-selected totals, and are not included in the total lands within the planning area acreage. ** Private lands include ANCSA lands, Native allotments, and all other privately owned lands. The vast majority of this acreage is comprised of Native corporation land. Chapter I: Introduction 1-6 2] sa}deyo uononpo.ju| KSP RMP Wainwright Planning Area Point Lay? pated Ub Re Cape Lisburpe_/ ga tH National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska {3 anal Peer 61 id River. (colville Point Hope UMIAT MERIDIAN [/}ofely KATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN, iy bret sae 2 fan 'N ional | fet Hoot Te Pre rve IE ia LT Cape Krusenstern National Monument 31) ON 9 sw) 29/ 28 | oy 12 Selawik National Wi Bering iidlife Refuge Sra 5 Land 5 ss i ot Ot ? tow, Bridge L National 7 J (ae Koyukuk ! +t National Wildlife: ‘Refuge HusliaS@ 7 ‘Reap 11} 12} 13} 14 [8S pes? been, <"*SRuby « . . ’ . ; ’ 10) " Norton Sound | | tt bia | | x i | «Poorman? 18) 718) 9) 10) 14) 12] af) 14) 88! 9 1 : 15E 165°W 160°W Generalized Land Status BLM Surface Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP (August 3, 2004) Management Only Bureau of Land Management - Alaska Bureau of Land Management Native Selected — Road 0 6 1218 24 48 Miles Fish and Wildlife Service State Patent or TA ------ Iditarod Trail Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area National Park Service State Selected [__] ksP RMP Planning Area cererencing MADE: Ee Native Patent or IC Source: USDOI-BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for Map 1-1 Land Status graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIA/dWY YRC eINsulued pemas-ynqoy D. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Scoping and Issues Early in the planning process, the public was invited to help the BLM identify planning issues and concerns relating to the management of BLM-managed lands and resources in the planning area. The formal 90-day scoping period began with publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on January 30, 2004. The scoping process included nine public meetings held in March and April 2004. Most of these meetings were held in small communities and villages within the planning area, although meetings were also held in Fairbanks and Anchorage. Concurrently, a Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP Web site was developed. This Web site contained the public meeting schedule, an explanation of the RMP process, and contact information. At the end of the scoping period, a scoping report was posted on the web pages and made available to the public (BLM 2004c). The Web site was available through April 2005, at which time all BLM Web sites nationwide were shut down for extensive system maintenance. On January 12, 2006, an updated version of the Web site was posted at http://www.ak.blm.gov/ksp. News releases and radio announcements were also used to notify the public of the planning process and how to become involved. Identification of issues is the first step in the planning process. A planning issue is a controversy or dispute over resource management or uses on public lands that can be addressed in a variety of ways. During scoping, the BLM asked the public to provide issues or management concerns that needed to be addressed during plan development. After consideration of public comments, four planning issues were identified. Addressing these issues has resulted in a range of management options presented in three action alternatives and one no action alternative. While other management concerns are addressed in the RMP, management related to them may or may not change by alternative. Issues Addressed Issue Statement 1: How can recreational use of public lands be managed to reduce conflicts between sport and subsistence hunting and to prevent negative impacts on subsistence hunting opportunity? Local residents are heavily engaged in subsistence activities and the public lands adjacent to communities throughout the planning area provide ideal opportunities for harvesting renewable resources. Except for Nome and Kotzebue, all communities within the planning area are small, isolated, predominantly Native communities that rely heavily upon subsistence harvests as a mainstay of livelihood. The population of the planning area is approximately 75 percent Alaska Native (Fried and Windisch-Cole 2005). Large tracts of BLM-managed lands within the planning area are critical to subsistence by providing largely undisturbed and uninhabited areas for wildlife populations to flourish. Commercial and dispersed recreational use of public lands in the Squirrel River has been a concern of local residents for the last 10-15 years, when the number of non-resident hunters began to increase substantially. In other areas, recreation is an emerging concern as moose populations in the region decline and increased regulation of hunting in other parts of Alaska makes the planning area more attractive to guides and sport hunters. Local residents have 1-9 Chapter |: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS expressed concern about maintaining the availability of wildlife and fish for subsistence use. Some are concerned that increased recreational use may prove detrimental to wildlife populations. In particular, low-flying aircraft are believed to disturb migrating caribou and other wildlife which may subsequently affect the availability of wildlife in areas accessible by local subsistence hunters. BLM guidelines for the number of special recreation permits issued in the various game management units established by the State of Alaska have not been established. There is currently no limit to the number of special recreation permits that could potentially be authorized. Transporters and air taxi operations that transport unguided sport hunters into remote areas are currently not regulated by the BLM. This plan considers designation of special recreation management areas which will better allow the BLM to address this issue. Limitations may be placed on the number of special recreational use permits authorized or the number of visitors permitted. Issue Statement 2: Maintain and protect subsistence opportunities. Determine how the management actions, guidelines, and allowable uses prescribed in response to the other issues will affect both subsistence opportunities and resources and the social and economic environment. Subsistence opportunities and resources are an important part of rural Alaskan lifestyles. ANILCA requires that rural residents have a priority over other users to take fish and wildlife for subsistence on Federal public lands where a recognized consistent and traditional pattern of use exists. When it is necessary to restrict the taking of fish and wildlife on these lands, subsistence uses are given preference over other consumptive uses. Resource development, increasing recreational activities, increased off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and an increasing number of sport hunters all have the potential to affect subsistence resources and access to subsistence resources. ANILCA mandates that the BLM consider the effects of proposed management on subsistence resources. Issue Statement 3: Determine which areas should be made available for mineral exploration and development. Under the authority of 17(d)(1) of ANCSA millions of acres of public lands were withdrawn from mineral entry, location, and leasing for the purposes of study and classification. This planning process will assess the continued need for withdrawals on selected and unselected lands, balancing the need for mineral development and production with protection of resource values. Public Land Order (PLO) 6477 was issued in 1983 in response to the Seward 1008 Study (BLM 1983). This PLO modified the 17(d)(1) withdrawals and opened parts of the planning area to mineral location and mineral leasing. There are no active Federal oil and gas leases in the planning area. Parts of three oil and gas basins are located within the planning area, and a total of five exploration wells have been drilled within the planning area boundaries. All or parts of five coal fields are also found in the planning area, and there are currently two preferential right coal leases in the planning area. Both are 10-year leases that were issued in 1999, but at present neither lease is producing coal. There are just over 300 known locatable mineral occurrences located on BLM-managed lands within the planning area. Most of these occurrences are located on the southern Seward Chapter |: Introduction 1-10 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Peninsula, with a smaller number occurring in the Cosmos Hills region of the Kobuk River Valley. Known mineral deposits within the planning area that have seen active mining include numerous deposits of placer gold, placer tin, placer nephrite (Alaskan jade), lode gold, lode lead-silver, lode copper, and zinc. In addition, there are numerous known deposits that have never seen mineral production, including deposits of lode tin, fluorspar, and nickel/platinum group elements (PGE). Issue Statement 4: Provide access to BLM-managed lands for various purposes, including recreation, subsistence activities, and general enjoyment of public lands, while protecting natural and cultural resources. The planning area is comprised of a checkerboard pattern of mixed land status. As lands are conveyed from public management to private ownership (in the case of Native selections), some access routes to public lands are in danger of being lost if easements are not reserved as part of the conveyance process. Section 17(b) of ANCSA provided for the reservation of easements across lands being conveyed to Native regional and village corporations primarily to provide access to isolated public lands. In some cases, easements were reserved as a result of a paperwork exercise using maps without being field-checked. The locations of some easements were not field verified or marked for public use. As a result, easements are often unusable due to terrain or land ownership patterns. Additionally, many easement reservations were effectively nullified by later conveyance of Native allotments across the easement, thereby making them discontinuous. Some 17(b) easement trails are nearly impassible due to wet or unstable surface conditions, resulting in trespass on Native land when users travel off the trail (and off the easement) to get around bad spots. Some members of the public use 17(b) easements for uses that are not allowed as specified by the BLM in the conveyance document or regulations. The vast majority of the planning area is roadless. The State has recently developed a Northwest Alaska Transportation Plan, which covers many of the acres in the planning area (ADOT&PF 2004). There may be a need for rights-of-way across BLM-managed lands if and when projects in the transportation plan are developed. Access may also be needed across BLM-managed lands for development of mineral resources and other commercial uses. Issues Considered but Not Further Analyzed During scoping, several concerns were raised that were beyond the scope of the plan, represented questions about how the BLM would go about the planning process, or do not meet current policy (see the Planning Process section beginning on page 1-15 for more information). The issues and concerns that will not be analyzed further are summarized below. a) Wilderness Inventory and Management In 1964, Congress enacted the Wilderness Act “. . . to assure that an increasing population . . . does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States . . . , leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.” The statutory criteria used to identify lands with wilderness character have been in effect since passage of the Wilderness Act over 40 years ago. Alaska lands were inventoried, reviewed, and studied for their wilderness values under the Wilderness Act criteria beginning in 1971 when Congress enacted ANCSA. For eight years 1-11 Chapter |: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS thereafter, the Department evaluated national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and other lands for potential designation as wilderness. Subsequently, Congress passed ANILCA, which preserved more than 150 million acres in specially protected conservation units. This represents more than 40 percent of the land area of the State of Alaska, and about 60 percent of the Federal land in Alaska. Pursuant to ANILCA, more than one-third of the lands preserved in conservation units, or 57 million acres, were formally designated as wilderness. In recognition of the sensitive and protracted negotiations that resulted in the designation of large amounts of wilderness and the limitations wilderness designations impose on the multiple use of those lands, Congress did not mandate further wilderness inventory, review, or study of BLM lands in Alaska with one exception. Section 1001 of ANILCA mandated a study of Federal lands north of 68 degrees latitude and east of the western boundary of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. These lands are not within the planning area. Rather than mandating further wilderness inventory, review, or study, Congress granted the Secretary the discretion to undertake additional wilderness study of BLM lands but, per section 1326 (b) of ANILCA, precluded further study of any Department lands in the State of Alaska “. . . for the single purpose of considering the establishment of a conservation system unit, national recreation area, national conservation area, or for related or similar purposes” absent Congressional direction. Shortly after the passage of ANILCA, the Secretary exercised this discretion to adopt a policy to not conduct further wilderness inventory, review, or study (outside of ANILCA) as part of the BLM planning process in Alaska. This policy was in effect for approximately 20 years. On January 18, 2001, Secretary Babbitt adopted another approach that deviated from this long- term policy. Clearly, Congress may direct the BLM to undertake further wilderness study in Alaska in future legislation. However, in the absence of further legislation, Congress has granted the Secretary the discretion to determine whether further wilderness inventory, review and study of BLM lands in Alaska is warranted. The current Secretary, in a letter dated April 11, 2003, has instructed the BLM to “. . . consider specific wilderness study proposals in Alaska, as part of any new or revised resource management planning effort, if the proposals have broad support among the State and Federal elected officials representing Alaska. Absent this broad support, wilderness should not be considered in these resource management plans” (DOI 2003). The State of Alaska has asked the BLM to adhere to this directive in this RMP, stating, “[a]t this time it is clear that there is a lack of broad support for further wilderness proposals” (ADNR 2004). Therefore, wilderness inventory was not conducted as part of this planning process and wilderness areas are not considered in any of the alternatives. Chapter |: Introduction 1-12 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS There are no BLM-managed wilderness areas or wilderness study areas within the planning area. There are areas that possess opportunities for a primitive recreation experience, solitude, and naturalness. These areas are described in the Wilderness Characteristics section in Chapter Ill. These will not be recommended for congressional designation as wilderness areas. b) Land Conveyance Decisions made in the RMP will not affect or speed up the land conveyance process, nor will the RMP affect the recently-passed Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act (2004). The RMP does not attempt to influence prioritization of selections by either the State or Native or village corporations. c) Commercial Activities Comments were received regarding the fee structure and permitting of commercial activities such as special recreation use permits and grazing permits. These activities are governed by BLM regulation. Decisions made in the RMP will not affect existing BLM regulations. d) Hunting and Fishing Regulations There were numerous comments about changing hunting regulations to protect subsistence resources. The BLM manages wildlife and fisheries habitat; the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) manages wildlife and fish populations and issues fishing and hunting regulations. The Alaska Board of Game and Board of Fisheries create the regulations. In addition, the Federal Subsistence Board develops hunting and fishing regulations for federal public lands (as defined by Sec. 102 of ANILCA) which are closely coordinated with ADF&G. Decisions made in the RMP will not affect State or Federal fishing or hunting regulations. Any actions that might affect hunting and fishing will be coordinated with ADF&G consistent with 43 CFR Part 24, the Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Policy (which clarifies the Department's relationship with State fish and wildlife management agencies) and the Master Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies. e) State of Alaska Administration of Guides, Outfitters, and Transporters There were numerous comments about the State of Alaska’s administration of guides, outfitters, and transporters. A State Commercial Services Board was recently reestablished to make recommendations to the State on how to better manage guides, outfitters, and transporters. Decisions in the RMP will not affect State administration of guides, outfitters, and transporters. Limits on the number of special recreational use permits issued by the BLM for activities on BLM-managed lands, however, may be instituted in special recreation management areas. See the Recreation Management section of Chapter II for more information on potential permitting limits in selected alternatives. 1-13 Chapter I: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS f) Federal Subsistence Program Decisions made in the RMP will not change administration of this program; it will continue to be conducted through the Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) and the Federal Subsistence Board, with input from the general public, ADF&G, and Federal staff. Implementation of the federal subsistence program within federal conservation units and other affected federal lands will continue to be administered through the respective federal land management agency. The RMP will, however, consider impacts and access to subsistence resources and subsistence opportunities from proposed actions associated with the alternatives considered in the EIS. E. Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints FLPMA is the primary authority for the BLM’s management of public lands. FLPMA consolidates and articulates the BLM’s management responsibilities. It provides overarching policy by which public lands will be managed and establishes provisions for land use planning, land acquisition and disposition, administration, range management, rights-of-way, designated management areas, and the repeal of certain laws and statutes. NEPA requires the consideration and public availability of information regarding the environmental impacts of major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In Alaska, public land management is further directed by ANILCA, ANCSA, and the Alaska Statehood Act, particularly in regard to land and realty issues, as well as access and subsistence. Additional laws, regulations, and policies guide management of public lands. Planning criteria are standards, rules, and guidelines that help guide data collection, alternative formulation, and alternative selection during the planning process. In conjunction with planning issues, criteria assure that the planning process is focused. The criteria also help guide the final plan selection and provide a basis for judging the responsiveness of the planning options. The following planning criteria were developed by the BLM and were reviewed by the public as part of the scoping process. e Opportunities for public participation will be encouraged throughout the RMP process. e Valid existing rights will be recognized and protected. e Subsistence uses and needs will be considered and adverse impacts minimized to the extent possible in accordance with ANILCA Section 810. e The Planning Team will work cooperatively with the State of Alaska, Native corporations, municipal governments, other Federal agencies, interested groups, and individuals. e Wildlife habitat management will be consistent with ADF&G objectives and/or the Federal Subsistence Board requirements or mandates. e The RMP will be consistent with the mandates of FLPMA, NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and other Federal laws, regulations, and policies as required by law. The planning process will include an EIS that will comply with NEPA standards. e The BLM will meet the requirements in Section 810 of ANILCA. e OHV designations for all public lands within the planning area will be completed in accordance with 43 CFR 8342. e Areas proposed for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern designation will meet the criteria contained in 43 CFR 1610.7-2. e Review and classification of waterways as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System will follow the criteria contained in 43 CFR 8351. Chapter |: Introduction 1-14 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS The RMP will address all lands within the planning area that are currently administered by the BLM. The plan will be consistent with the Iditarod National Historic Trail: Seward to Nome Route Comprehensive Management Plan (BLM 1986). The BLM will not conduct a wilderness review or make wilderness area recommendations as part of this planning process per Secretarial direction (see the Wilderness Inventory and Management section on page 1-11). The BLM will characterize existing social and economic conditions and trends for local communities. The BLM will characterize impacts to existing social and economic conditions and trends. The BLM will incorporate environmental justice considerations in land use planning alternatives to adequately respond to environmental justice issues and problems facing minority populations, low-income communities, and Tribes living near public lands and using public land resources. The BLM will determine if its proposed actions will adversely and disproportionately impact minority populations, low-income communities, and Tribes (Executive Order No. 12898, Environmental Justice). The Alaska Land Health Standards and Guidelines will be incorporated into the RMP. F. Planning Process An RMP is an overall plan that guides management of public lands within a defined planning area e . An approved RMP establishes the following items: Resource goals and objectives, Allowable resource uses, Areas to be managed for limited, restricted, or exclusive resource uses or for transfer from BLM management, Program constraints and general management practices and protocols, General implementation schedules, and Intervals and standards for monitoring the RMP. The nine major steps in preparation of an RMP are outlined in Table 1-2. 1-15 Chapter I: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 1: Identification Table 1-2. Steps in the BLM Land Use Planning Process This step is designed to identify major problems, concerns, or opportunities associated with the management of public land in the planning area. Issues are identified by the planning criteria of issues public, the BLM, and other governmental entities. The planning process is then focused on resolving the planning issues. 2: Develop Planning criteria are identified to guide development of the RMP and prevent the collection of unnecessary information and data. This planning step involves the collation and collection of various kinds of alternatives 3: Collect environmental, social, economic, resource, and institutional data. In most cases, this and compile process is limited to information needed to address the issues. The data required for inventory data | land use planning decisions is usually at a broader scale than data required in implementation level planning and analysis. . . This step calls for the deliberate assessment of the current situation. It identifies the 4: Analysis eta ‘ . : of the way lands and activities are currently managed in the planning area, describes conditions and trends across the planning area, identifies problems and concerns management - : . sai ree resulting from the current management, and identifies opportunities to manage these situation : lands differently. During this step, the BLM formulates a reasonable range of alternatives for managing resources in the planning area. Alternatives include a combination of a current 5: Formulate management (no action) alternative and other alternatives that strive to resolve the major planning issues while emphasizing different management scenarios. Alternatives usually vary by the amounts of resource production or protection that would be allowed, or in the emphasis of one program area over another. 6: Estimation This step involves estimating the physical, biological, economic, and social effects of implementing each alternative in order to provide a comparative evaluation of impacts and evaluation of effects in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500). 7: Selection Based on the information resulting from the estimation of effects, the BLM identifies a of preferred Preferred Alternative. The Draft RMP/EIS is then prepared for printing and distributed alternative for public review. Following review and analysis of public comments on the Draft RMP/EIS, the BLM 8: Selection makes adjustments as warranted and selects a proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP ‘of RMP and a final EIS is then published. A final decision is made after a 60-day Governor's Consistency Review and a 30-day public protest period are completed. The BLM then publishes the Record of Decision (ROD) and prepares the Approved RMP. This step involves the collection and analysis of resource condition and trend data to 9: Monitoring determine the effectiveness of the plan in resolving the identified issues and achieving desired results. Implementation of decisions requiring subsequent action is also monitored. Monitoring continues from the time the RMP is adopted until changing conditions require revision of the whole plan or any portion of it. 1. Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs The following BLM plans relate to or otherwise govern management in the planning area: e Northwest Management Framework Plan (BLM 1982), Seward 1008 Study (BLM 1983), Land Use Plan Amendment for Wildland Fire and Fuels Management for Alaska (BLM 2004b, 2005c), and e Alaska Land Health Standards and Guidelines (BLM 2004a). Chapter |: Introduction 1-16 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 2. Collaboration Collaboration is often described as interaction with a wide range of external and internal working relationships. A variety of strategies have been implemented throughout the planning process to foster a collaborative approach, improve communication, and develop understanding of the issues and the process in development of the RMP/EIS (BLM 2004c). Some of these strategies are widely accepted outreach tools, while others have been implemented based on suggestions made by the public as to how they wanted to collaborate with the BLM in development of the plan. To promote scoping participation, the BLM mailed letters to the boroughs, Native corporations, cities, and other entities listed below. The letters explained the RMP process, stressed the need for cooperation and consultation, and invited participation. A similar letter providing background material for the meeting was sent to all the Village Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) councils where scoping meetings were scheduled. e Bering Straits Native Corporation, Nome e Cities within the Bering Straits Region o City of Brevig Mission City of Buckland City of Deering City of Elim City of Golovin City of Koyuk City of Nome City of Shaktoolik City of Shishmaref City of Teller City of Wales City of White Mountain Kawerak Incorporated, Nome Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association, Nome NANA Regional Corporation, Kotzebue Northwest Arctic Borough Cities within the Northwest Arctic Borough o City of Ambler City of Kotzebue City of Kiana City of Kivalina City of Kobuk City of Noorvik City of Selawik o City of Shungnak Maniilaq Association, Kotzebue Arctic Slope Regional Corporation IAupiat Community of the Arctic Slope North Slope Borough City of Point Hope (the only city within the North Slope Borough that is also within the planning area) eoee3ee ooo0o0°0 00000000000 eeeee 1-17 Chapter |: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS a) Intergovernmental, Interagency, and Tribal Relationships During scoping, the BLM initiated government-to-government consultation with 25 tribes located within the planning area. As mentioned in the previous section, letters providing background information were also sent to several Native corporations and Tribal entities, particularly in those communities where public meetings were scheduled. Follow-up calls and/or faxes to all the tribes reminding them of the comment period were distributed in late April 2004. A joint BLM-State of Alaska position has been created, with that person acting as liaison between the State of Alaska and the BLM in this planning process and for all other RMPs being prepared by the BLM across the state. This has been effective in facilitating information exchange and review of draft materials by State personnel. The BLM requested State input into the scoping process by contacting the State of Alaska liaison office by letter on February 5, 2004. On May 7, 2004, consolidated scoping comments were received. b) Other Stakeholder Relationships The BLM has sought involvement in the planning process by a variety of stakeholders outside of government and agency groups. Scoping comments were received from several individuals and organizations representing a range of interests including environmental concerns, mineral exploration and development, subsistence hunting, wildlife management, fisheries, and commercial ventures. Stakeholders were kept informed of progress on the RMP through a semi-annual newsletter, the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP/EIS Web site, and opportunistically at meetings held by various groups such as the Northwest Arctic and Seward Peninsula Regional Advisory Councils, Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group, Alaska Miners Association, and Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association. The BLM-Alaska Resource Advisory Council (RAC) is a 15-member advisory panel that provides advice and recommendations to the BLM on resource and land management issues. Members include Alaskans from around the state representing energy, tourism, commercial recreation, environmental interests, and archeological interests. Members also include elected officials, Alaska Native organizations, and the public-at-large. A subcommittee of the RAC was assigned to keep abreast of the planning process. The RAC as a whole was kept informed of progress on the plan through updates at its quarterly meetings. Members on the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula subcommittee were kept informed through email and newsletters. All RAC members were given an opportunity to review the preliminary alternatives before development of this Draft RMP/EIS. Relationship between the RMP and EIS This document actually contains two documents: A Draft RMP and a Draft EIS. As part of the EIS, the RMP is not a stand-alone document; rather, it consists of the text, data, and maps found in Chapter II. Chapter II describes four alternatives for the RMP and explains the differences between these alternatives as they relate to the planning issues. Each of the four alternatives represents a different RMP that would address the issues in different ways, though some decisions may be common to more than one alternative. Chapter Il is also a required component of an EIS, written to compare and analyze the effects of implementation of each of the alternatives. Chapter |: Introduction 1-18 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS After public comments on the Draft EIS have been analyzed, a Final EIS and Proposed RMP will be prepared. The Final EIS will be very similar in content to the Draft EIS but will include responses to all public comments. Any errors or corrections identified through the comment process or through internal review will also be addressed in the Final EIS and Proposed RMP through modifications to the proposed plan or alternatives, development and evaluation of alternatives not previously considered, corrections to the document, and/or improved, supplemented, or modified analyses. No earlier than 30 days after the Final EIS/Proposed RMP document is issued, a Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved RMP will be approved and published in a single document. The Approved RMP may be different from the preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS and Proposed RMP if the deciding official elects to combine elements of multiple alternatives into the Approved RMP. The RMP will describe the goals, objectives, and actions for fulfilling the direction and vision developed throughout the planning process. The ROD and Approved RMP will function as a stand-alone document to guide future land management decisions. Implementation of the RMP RMPs provide broad, general direction for management of BLM-managed lands. After an RMP is approved, many of the decisions made in the RMP become effective immediately. Other decisions will only be effective after additional action. For example, a decision to withdraw lands from mineral entry would not be effective until after formal action at the Secretarial level. Before specific projects can be implemented on the ground, an implementation plan must be completed, and all implementation plans must tier to and be in compliance with the affected area’s RMP. All implementation-level planning will be tiered to the management framework established in the RMP. For example, the RMP will describe what areas will be available for land disposal. The implementation level plan would describe under what conditions the lands would be made available and other conditions necessary to facilitate land disposal (appraisal, fair market value determination, access, etc.). G. Related Plans Plans formulated by Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments that relate to the management of lands and resources were reviewed and considered during development of this Draft RMP/EIS. BLM planning regulations require that BLM plans be consistent with officially approved or adopted resource related plans of other Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments to the extent that those plans are consistent with Federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. Management of Federal and State lands immediately adjacent to public land administered by the BLM will be considered to the extent possible in the formulation of alternative management scenarios and land use allocations. The main planning documents of other Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments to be considered in development of the RMP include: e Northwest Area Plan for State Lands — Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR 1989) 1-19 Chapter |: Introduction Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS e Northwest Area Transportation Plan — Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF 2004) e Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Coastal Management Plan — Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP 1989) e Northwest Arctic Borough Coastal Management Program: Enforceable and Administrative Policies (ACMP 1998) e Northwest Arctic Borough Coastal Management Plan Public Review Draft (ACMP 2004) e North Slope Borough Coastal Management Program: Enforceable Polices (ACMP 1988) e Northwest Arctic Borough Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (Northwest Arctic Borough 2004) e Bering Straits Native Corporation Land Use Policy (BSNC 1999) H. Policy The following policies and legislation are outside the scope of the plan but may influence decisions or constrain alternatives. A 2003 memo from the Secretary of the Interior established the current policy on consideration of wilderness during BLM planning efforts in Alaska. The Secretary instructed BLM to“. . . consider specific wilderness study proposals in Alaska, as part of any new or revised resource management planning effort, if the proposals have broad support among the State and Federal elected officials representing Alaska. Absent this broad support, wilderness should not be considered in these resource management plans” (DOI 2003). As described above in the Wilderness Inventory and Management section beginning on page 1-11, the State of Alaska does not support further wilderness proposals; therefore, neither a wilderness inventory or wilderness area recommendations are included as part of this planning process. Under the Statehood Act, the Federal government allowed the State of Alaska to select 104 million acres of Federal land. Approximately 28 percent of the BLM-managed lands in the planning area is State-selected. ANCSA requires the transfer of 44 million acres of public land to Alaska Native corporations. Approximately 38 percent of the BLM-managed lands in the planning area is Native-selected. Conveyance of State- and Native-selected lands within the planning area is ongoing. Implementation of planning decisions on selected lands may be delayed until conveyances are complete and final ownership is determined. Other decisions may be precluded because the lands in question may ultimately pass from BLM management. Although Federal lands, including lands within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area, are excluded from the coastal zone (16 USC 1453[1]), the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended (PL 92-583), directs Federal agencies conducting activities within the coastal zone or that may affect any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone to conduct these activities in a manner that is consistent “to the maximum extent practicable” with approved State management programs.” The Alaska Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, as amended, and the subsequent Alaska Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement (1979) establish ? “To the maximum extent practicable” means to the fullest degree permitted by existing law (15 CFR Sec. 930.32). Chapter |: Introduction 1-20 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS policy guidance and standards for review of projects within or potentially affecting Alaska’s coastal zone. In addition, specific policies have been developed for activities and uses of coastal lands and water resources within regional coastal resource districts. Most incorporated cities, municipalities, and boroughs as well as unincorporated areas (coastal resource service areas) within the coastal zone now have State-approved coastal management programs. Although State and coastal district program policies guide consistency determinations, more restrictive Federal agency standards may be applied. Federal regulations state that “(when) Federal agency standards are more restrictive than standards or requirements contained in the State’s management program the Federal agency may continue to apply its stricter standards...” (15 CFR Sec. 930.39 [d]). Certain Federal actions may require a Federal Consistency Determination. The BLM will contact the ADNR Alaska Coastal Management Program for program applicability before beginning a project that may affect a coastal zone. 1-21 Chapter |: Introduction Chapter Il: Alternatives Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Chapter Il: Alternatives A. General Descriptions of the Alternatives .............cccccccecccessesscesccescesccseccsscesscaceasesceseersceneeseee 2-3 aAPON> B. Detailed Descriptions of the Alternatives.. 1. 4. 5. Alternative A... cccececeseseseesteeeeeees Alternative B.. Alternative C . Alternative Doo... ecccccccseseseceseseesesecsecseesessssessessessessessesaesaesecsassecseesecsecseeseeaeaseataeateatens Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail..........0....cccccccescsseseseeseseseescsesecseseeaees 2-4 a) Transfer of BLM-managed Lands in the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve to the National Park Service.........ccccccccecccescssescssescseseeeseseesesesesesesseseesesecsesesecsesessesacsesecsesesecseseeaee b) Proposed Clear Creek Hot Springs RNA c) Proposed Camp Haven Gap RNA....... d) Proposed Windy Cove RNA....... RESOUICES 0.0... eee eeeeeeesceseeeeeeseeeseeeeeaeeneeeaes a) Air Quality and Soil and Water Resources. b) Vegetation Management.. c) Fish and Wildlife............ d) Special Status Species ........... e) Fire Management and Ecology... f) Cultural Resources ........... g) Paleontological Resources .. h) Visual Resources............. Resource Uses ....... a) Forest Products... b) Livestock Grazing C) Minerals............cccceeeee d) Recreation Management.. e) Travel Management/OHV f) Renewable Energy............ g) Lands and Realty Actions i Special Designations ..........cccececccceseeseescesceeseeseeseeseeeesececsesecsessessesseseesaesaesassasesseeaees a) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas.................0+ 2-104 b) Wild and Scenic Rivers ..........cccccccccsccsssescesseeseeescesceseesaseseeseeeseseees 2-113 Social and Economic ..... .2-119 €) Public Safety oo... ee cccecceeesesseseceecseesscsesscsecsecsecsecsecsacsecsecsecsecaecasesecaseasasenseaeatease 2-119 MUD SISUOM CC ire cece cca veveccteveveceecnecuvenectenecsis( sorezeesatsetersevaesssts0cevnetsesureeseisvsieivesusnnenrasrazts 2-120 2-1 Chapter Il: Alternatives A. 1. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Chapter Il: Alternatives General Descriptions of the Alternatives Alternative A Alternative A would continue present management practices and present levels of resource use based on the existing Northwest Management Framework Plan (MFP) (BLM 1982) and other management decision documents. Valid decisions contained in the Northwest MFP would be implemented if not already completed. Direction contained in existing laws, regulation, and policy would also continue to be implemented, sometimes superseding provisions in the Northwest MFP. The current levels, methods, and mix of multiple use management of public land in the planning area would continue, and resource values would receive attention at present levels. In general, most activities would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and few uses would be limited or excluded as long as they were consistent with State and Federal laws. Fire would be managed consistently with the Alaska Land Use Plan Amendment for Wildland Fire and Fuels Management (BLM 2004b, 2005c). Alternative B Alternative B lays the groundwork for active management to facilitate resource development. In this alternative, constraints to protect resource values or habitat would be implemented in very specific geographic areas rather than across the planning area or in special designations. All Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) (d)(1) withdrawals would be revoked on lands retained in long-term Federal ownership, increasing the potential for mineral exploration and development. Seasonal stipulations for oil and gas leasing in caribou habitat would not apply under this alternative (Appendix A). Travel and trail restrictions would be minimized. One Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) would be identified in the Squirrel River to focus management on recreational use. In other areas, recreation management would focus on dispersed recreation and management of permits. Management of State- and Native-selected lands would be mostly custodial. Alternative C Alternative C emphasizes active measures to protect and enhance resource values. Production of minerals and services would be more constrained than in Alternative B or D, and in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive resources. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and SRMAs are identified, and specific measures proposed to protect or enhance values within these areas. Several rivers are recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic River Act. Limited areas are proposed for off-highway vehicles (OHVs) to protect habitat, soil and vegetation resources. Most ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals are revoked but some would be replaced with new withdrawals in order to protect or maintain resource values. Most anadromous streams and all ACECs would be closed to mineral entry General Descriptions 2-3 Chapter II: Alternatives of the Alternatives Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS and location. Areas suitable for mineral material disposal would be very limited. This alternative treats lands selected by the State and by Native or village corporations as if these lands were to be retained in long-term Federal ownership. Alternative D Alternative D, which is the BLM preferred alternative, emphasizes a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement of resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than under Alternative C. This alternative would designate one Research Natural Area (RNA), five ACECs, and two SRMAs. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic River Act. This alternative would revoke most ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals, leaving the majority of the planning area open to mineral entry and location. The RNA would be withdrawn from mineral entry. This alternative describes interim and long-term management strategies for lands selected by the State, or Native regional or village corporations. Alternative D represents the mix and variety of actions that the BLM believes best resolves the issues and management concerns in consideration of all values and programs, and is thus considered the BLM’s Preferred Alternative. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail a) Transfer of BLM-managed Lands in the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve to the National Park Service One organization submitted a proposal to transfer lands in the Bendeleben Mountains to Bering Land Bridge National Park and Preserve. This Draft RMP/EIS considers alternatives that provide a full range of protection for the natural and cultural resource values found on these lands. Thus this alternative was not considered further. b) Proposed Clear Creek Hot Springs RNA This proposal, submitted by one organization in the mid-1980s, was submitted by another organization during scoping. While this area meets the criteria for designation of an RNA set forth in 43 CFR 1610.7, the land will not be retained in BLM ownership. c) Proposed Camp Haven Gap RNA This proposal, submitted by one organization in the mid-1980s, was submitted by another organization during scoping. The BLM has determined that the area does not meet the criteria for designation of an RNA set forth in 43 CFR 1610.7. This Draft RMP/EIS considers alternatives that provide a full range of protection for the natural and cultural resource values found on these lands. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-4 General Descriptions of the Alternatives Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS d) Proposed Windy Cove RNA This proposal, submitted by one organization in the mid-1980s, was submitted by another organization during scoping. Portions of the proposed RNA are high-priority selected lands and probably will not remain in BLM ownership. In addition, the BLM has determined that portions of the area do not meet the criteria for designation of an RNA set forth in 43 CFR 1610.7. This Draft RMP/EIS considers alternatives that provide a full range of protection for the natural and cultural resource values found on these lands. Other parts of the RNA are included in the Kigluaik ACEC, which is considered in one alternative. General Descriptions 2-5 Chapter II: Alternatives of the Alternatives Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Detailed Descriptions of the Alternatives The following narrative provides a detailed description of proposed management by four categories: Resources, Resource Uses, Special Designations, and Social and Economic Conditions. Goals are listed under each resource, resource use, or program. These are followed by a description of objectives, management actions, and allocations proposed to achieve the goals and to address issues. Goals are consistent across alternatives. Objectives, management actions, and allocations may change by alternative. Management that is common across the alternatives is presented first, followed by descriptions of management by alternative. Resources a) Air Quality and Soil and Water Resources (1) Goals e Air and water quality should meet or exceed local, State and Federal requirements. e Ensure that watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, a properly functioning physical condition that includes stream banks, wetlands, and water quality. e Minimize negative impacts to soils and wetland vegetation and prevent soil erosion. e Maintain desired ecological conditions as defined by the BLM-Alaska Statewide Land Health Standards. (2) Alternative A This alternative would continue existing management. The Northwest MFP contains little guidance relative to management of soil, water, and air resources. Under the watershed program, a permit is required for the use of vehicles weighing over 2,000 pounds off of existing trails. This alternative also recommends that the BLM file for water rights under State law to secure water for needed BLM uses on an as-needed basis. To date, the BLM has not filed water rights in the planning area. Proposed permitted or authorized uses would be analyzed through the appropriate NEPA document. Based on this analysis, the BLM would develop mitigation to minimize impacts from proposed activities to soil, water, and air resources. The resulting mitigation measures would be included in the permit that authorized the use. The BLM would continue to comply with applicable legislation, Federal regulations, and policy relative to soil, water, and air. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring e Support monitoring and assessment of riparian areas for proper functioning condition, as defined in the BLM manual Technical Reference 1737-3. Use this information to develop maintenance and restoration projects. Priority areas will include rivers determined suitable Chapter II: Alternatives 2-6 Detailed Descriptions: Air, Soil, and Water Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS for inclusion as wild or scenic, designated ACECs, areas known to be in need of restoration, and riparian areas within anticipated or ongoing mining activity. e Develop a water quality database in critical aquatic habitats and important recreation use areas to establish baseline values. After initial assessment, monitor water quality in these areas. e Contract soil surveys in areas of high resource value or proposed development as needed. e Assess impacts from OHV trails, especially in high-use areas where riparian and wetland resources are at risk. (b) Management Decisions e In cooperation with the appropriate Federal, State, local, or tribal requirements, identify area-wide use restrictions, or other protective measures, including the Clean Air and Water Acts, Federal wetlands and floodplain requirements. e In order to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and protect the quality and quantity of drinking water, the BLM will consult with owners/operators of potentially affected, Federally- regulated public water supply systems when proposing management actions in State- designated Source Water Protection Areas. The locations of public water supply systems and Source Water Protection Areas are available from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Drinking Water and Wastewater Program. e File for water rights under State law to secure water needed for BLM uses. (c) Land Use Requirements Resource protection would be applied on a site-specific basis for permitted activities and uses that affect soil, water, and air based on guidelines provided in the Required Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix A. Oil and gas leases would be subject to the Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations also listed in Appendix A. b) Vegetation Management (1) Goals e Maintain the current, largely pristine nature of the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula landscape. Plant communities within the plan area generally exist in a natural mix of seral stages and species diversity, undisturbed except by natural forces generated by climate, weather, terrain, and wildlife. e Prevent the introduction and spread of noxious and invasive plants on BLM-administered land. (2) Alternative A This alternative would continue existing management. The Northwest MFP contains little guidance relative to vegetation management. The permit required for the use of vehicles weighing over 2,000 pounds off of existing trails would reduce impacts to vegetation. The BLM would manage so as to maintain or improve the quality of the range through proper management of livestock and fire. Proposed permitted or authorized uses would be analyzed through the appropriate NEPA document. Based on this analysis, mitigation would be developed to minimize impacts from proposed activities to vegetative resources. The resulting Detailed Descriptions: 2-7 Chapter II: Alternatives Vegetation Management Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS mitigation measures would be included in the permit that authorized the use. The BLM would continue to comply with applicable policy relative to management of riparian vegetation. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring ¢ Complete land cover classification by extending project work to cover Point Hope, De Long Mountains, and Point Lay U.S. Geologic Survey topographic map quadrangles. e Inventory and monitor BLM-managed lands within the plan area to document the presence of noxious and invasive plant species and prevent their spread. e Continue to monitor permanent vegetation and fire effects transects established in the Buckland River valley, northern Nulato Hills, Selawik Hills, McCarthy's Marsh, and Death Valley to evaluate changes in vegetation in general, and specific plant communities such as lichen-rich and lichen-dominated habitats. (b) Management Decisions e Recognize and manage lichen-rich plant communities (lichen tussock tundra, white spruce- lichen woodland, etc.) as unique habitats due to the slow growth potential of lichen and its great importance to caribou and reindeer. e As needed, plan and implement site-specific actions necessary to protect and manage habitat through activity-level planning and/or mitigation and stipulation guidelines. e Ona landscape scale, and in cooperation with other State, Federal, Native and private land managers, use wildland fire to protect, maintain, and enhance vegetative resources, and as nearly as possible, allow fire to function in its natural ecological role. e Use wildland fire, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment as appropriate to manage for a natural fire regime to support a diverse mix of habitats. e As needed, consider managing fire to protect old growth lichen stands in caribou winter range on the Seward Peninsula and Nulato Hills through the appropriate fire management option. e Manage for multi-aged lichen stands, which provide diversity and ecological stability, while recognizing that caribou make substantial use of old growth lichen range. e Protect vegetation on lands underlain by continuous or discontinuous permafrost from physical damage and thermokarst erosion from uncontrolled OHV use. e Work with others to implement the BLM’s Partners Against Weeds Plan and the Strategic Plan for Noxious and Invasive Plant Management in Alaska. e Work with the Committee for Invasive and Noxious Plant Management to develop appropriate educational materials on noxious and invasive species. e Use integrated pest management (IPM) practices to control or eradicate noxious and invasive species. (IPM incorporates the best-suited cultural, biological, and chemical controls that will result in the least impact on the environment.) (c) Land Use Requirements Resource protection would be applied on a site-specific basis for permitted activities and uses that affect vegetation based on guidelines provided in the Required Operating Procedures, as described in Appendix A. Oil and gas leases would be subject to the Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations, also listed in Appendix A. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-8 Detailed Descriptions: Vegetation Management Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS c) Fish and Wildlife (1) Goals e Maintain and protect subsistence opportunities. e Determine how the management actions, guidelines, and allowable uses prescribed in response to the other issues will affect both subsistence opportunities and resources as well as the social and economic environment. (a) Fish e In cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), maintain and restore important migratory and resident fisheries habitat, including the maintenance of existing habitat improvements. e Work with ADF&G to maintain or restore the fisheries potential of anadromous fish streams to support the public use and enjoyment of the resource and to promote economic stability within the planning area by managing for healthy wild populations of anadromous stocks. ¢ Manage habitat in a condition that will support resident species that spend all or part of their life cycles on public lands and that are of high economic, social, or scientific value to local communities or the nation. (b) Wildlife e Maintain sufficient quality and quantity of habitat to support healthy populations of wildlife. e To the extent practical, mitigate impacts to wildlife species and their habitats from authorized and unauthorized uses of BLM-managed lands. e In cooperation with ADF&G, ensure sustained populations and a natural abundance and diversity of wildlife resources. (2) Alternative A This alternative continues current management. Under the Northwest MFP, “crucial” wildlife habitats would be protected. Outside of crucial habitats, other uses would be mitigated to prevent any significant alterations in wildlife populations. Proposed permitted or authorized uses would be analyzed through the appropriate NEPA document. Based on this analysis, mitigation would be developed to minimize impacts from proposed activities. The resulting mitigation measures would be included in the permit that authorized the use. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring 1. Fish e Work cooperatively with ADF&G, USFWS, NPS, local Native corporations, and private non- profit corporations to inventory habitats and populations to help identify streams that contain anadromous and resident fish species on Federal public lands. ¢ Conduct habitat inventories in upper river drainages on BLM lands to extend coverage of the anadromous stream catalog. Inventory Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Koyuk, Tubutulik, Detailed Descriptions: 2-9 Chapter II: Alternatives Fish and Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Fish, Kuzitrin, Agiapuk, Buckland, Kivalina, Pah, Pick, Kukpowruk, |pewik, and Nilik rivers; and Kikliovilik Creek (upper Selawik River). e Determine upstream limits of Dolly Varden on public lands where data gaps exist. In particular, determine the upstream extent of Dolly Varden spawning in the Kivalina River drainage. Survey suspected spawning grounds associated with fresh water springs in the upper watershed. e Incooperation with the State of Alaska, collect genetic samples to characterize Chinook, coho, and chum salmon stocks throughout the planning area. The Boston Creek Chinook population in the upper Fish River drainage is high priority. e Monitor water quality in priority watersheds to assess compliance with Alaska Land Health Standards. 2. Wildlife e Work cooperatively with State and other Federal agencies to inventory and monitor habitats and populations of important subsistence species to provide the necessary information to develop subsistence regulations and bag limits on Federal lands as required by the Federal Subsistence Board. e Cooperate with other State and Federal agencies to identify important habitats for Special Status Species and important subsistence species. (b) Management Decisions 1. Fish e Use the NEPA review process to mitigate adverse effects on fisheries resources from actions permitted on public lands to ensure that habitats are maintained or restored to a condition that will support desired populations of resident and anadromous species. e Enter into cooperative restoration projects with private, State and other Federal agencies to implement the priority restoration work identified in BLM’s Norton Sound Aquatic Habitat Management Plan, the Norton Sound/Bering Strait Regional Comprehensive Salmon Plan, and the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP. e Assure land use decisions are managed in compliance with State water quality standards. e Increase habitat productivity in streams/lakes currently utilized by anadromous fish but producing below potential. e Incorporate the mitigation measures outlined in Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A for avoiding potential impacts to aquatic life from use of fire retardant and fire suppression foams. 2. Wildlife e¢ Work cooperatively with State and other Federal agencies to implement the Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WACH) Strategic Management Plan, the Seward Peninsula Muskox Cooperators Plan, Boreal Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska, and other cooperative management efforts. e Mitigate impacts from other uses to ensure that habitats are maintained in a condition that will support desired populations of wildlife species and to reduce direct impacts on wildlife from permitted activities. e Use wildland fire and prescribed fire to improve moose wintering habitat, but not to the detriment of caribou winter range. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-10 Detailed Descriptions: Fish and Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS e Due to their value as wildlife habitat, protect riparian and tall shrub habitats through avoidance, rehabilitation of disturbed areas, or other measures. e Minimize, to the extent possible, the displacement of wildlife resources from traditional subsistence harvest areas. e Additional site-specific actions needed to manage wildlife habitat will be made through activity-level planning or as mitigation on proposed activities. (c) Land Use Requirements All permitted activities would operate under guidelines and stipulations provided in Appendix A: Required Operating Procedures, Stipulations, and Standard Lease Terms. These procedures were developed through the EIS process and are based on current knowledge of resources in the planning area and current permitting procedures. All oil and gas leases would be subject to the Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations also listed in Appendix A. (4) Alternative B As in Alternative A, appropriate mitigation measures would be developed through NEPA analysis on a case-by-case basis. In addition, this alternative proposes some inventory and monitoring of wildlife and fish habitats. Required Operating Procedures applied to all activities would provide additional protection for fish and wildlife habitat. No seasonal restrictions would be applied to oil and gas development in caribou habitat. (5) Alternative C This alternative would be the same as Alternative B with the exception that an activity plan would be developed for management of caribou habitat in the Nulato Hills ACEC. This plan would address fire management specific to maintaining lichen habitats for caribou. (6) Alternative D This alternative would be the same as Alternative B with the exception that an activity plan would be developed for management of WACH calving, insect relief, and core wintering habitat. Through this planning process, the BLM would develop additional oil and gas leasing stipulations for calving and insect relief habitat, appropriate mitigation measures for linear ROW, and fire management prescriptions for caribou winter range. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Detailed Descriptions: 2-11 Chapter II: Alternatives Fish and Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 2-1. Fish and Wildlife—Summary of Alternatives habitat management activities in WACH herd habitats on a case-by-case basis and mitigate impacts to the extent possible. calving, insect relief, and core winter habitat in the Nulato Hills subject to BLM Required Operating Procedures and oil and gas leasing stipulations with the exception that leasing stipulations #6 and #7 would not apply. calving, insect relief, and core winter habitat in the Nulato Hills as ACECs. Develop an activity plan for management of caribou habitat in the Nulato Hills ACEC. This plan would address fire management specific to maintaining lichen habitats for caribou. Caribou Address Manage WACH Designate WACH Designate WACH calving, insect relief and core winter habitat in the Nulato Hills as ACECs. Develop activity plan for management of WACH calving, insect relief, and core wintering habitat. Through this planning process, additional oil and gas leasing stipulations for calving and insect relief habitat, appropriate mitigation measures for linear ROW, and fire management prescriptions for caribou winter range would be developed. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-12 Detailed Descriptions: Fish and Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS d) Special Status Species (1) Goals e Identify, conserve, and monitor rare and vulnerable habitats and plant communities to ensure a self-sustaining persistence of Special Status Species plants within the Kobuk- Seward Peninsula RMP area. e Ensure that proposed land uses initiated or authorized by the BLM avoid inadvertent damage to habitats supporting Special Status Species plants and plant communities. e Manage habitats consistent with the conservation needs of Special Status Species to avoid listing any species under the Endangered Species Act and ensuring progress toward recovery of listed species. (2) Alternative A The alternative continues current management. The Northwest MFP does not contain any specific guidance for management of Special Status Species, which would be managed according to BLM policy, applicable laws, and Federal regulations. If actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM may affect any Federally listed species or designated critical habitat, consultation under sec. 7 of the Endangered Species Act would be initiated with USFWS. Proposed permitted or authorized uses that may affect special status species are analyzed through the appropriate NEPA document. Based on this analysis, mitigation is developed to minimize impacts from proposed activities. The resulting mitigation measures are included in the permit that authorizes the use. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring 1. Special Status Plants e Identify botanically unexplored regions within the planning area and prioritize for floristic inventory. e Inventory project sites for Special Status Species plants on an as-needed basis. e Monitor Special Status Species plant populations and associated habitats for population trends and threats. e Contribute data on Special Status Species plant locations, population numbers, and trends (and voucher specimens as needed) to the Northern Plant Documentation Center (University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum Herbarium) and Alaska Natural Heritage Program in a cooperative effort to build a statewide rare plant database. 2. Special Status Fish e In cooperation with ADF&G, inventory habitat for Special Status fish species, and monitor priority species’ population trends according to direction provided in BLM Manual 6840. e Initiate population trend studies on BLM Sensitive Species arctic char and Dolly Varden found in the Kigluaik Mountain lakes. Establish Fall Creek Lake and Crater Lake fish population monitoring as the primary indices for the trend study. Detailed Descriptions: 2-13 Chapter II: Alternatives Special Status Species Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 3. Special Status Wildlife e Identify specific areas and habitats of importance to Special Status Species, including, but not limited to: spectacled eider, Kittlitz’s murrelet, yellow-billed loon, and shorebirds. e Cooperate with other State and Federal agencies to monitor special status landbird species. (b) Management Decisions 1. Special Status Plants e Ensure OHV use on designated trails and OHV designations result in avoidance of locations with known populations of Special Status Species plants. e Protect habitats of Special Status plant species from disturbance and mitigate impacts to Special Status plants from permitted activities. e Do not authorize mineral material sales in habitats containing known populations of Special Status Species plants. e Asneeded, site-specific actions necessary to manage habitat for Special Status Species plants will be made through activity-level planning, such as ACEC or SRMA management plans, or as mitigation/stipulations on proposed activities. 2. Special Status Fish e Work with ADF&G and the State Board of Fisheries to protect the populations of Kigluaik arctic char through fishing regulations, if warranted. e Cooperate with State and other Federal agencies in the development and implementation of recovery plans, management plans, conservation strategies, or assessments for Special Status fish species that occur on BLM-managed lands. 3. Special Status Wildlife e Cooperate with State and other Federal agencies in the development and implementation of recovery plans, management plans, conservation strategies, or assessments for Special Status Species that occur on BLM-managed lands. e Lands within the planning area will be managed to protect Federal and State listed, as well as candidate Threatened and Endangered species habitat, and to maintain public land health through avoidance of sensitive habitat. e Where practical, use will be redirected, as necessary, to protect Federal and State listed and candidate Threatened and Endangered species habitat, to enhance indigenous animal population, and to otherwise maintain public land health through avoidance of sensitive habitat. (c) Land Use Requirements All permitted activities would operate under guidelines and stipulations provided in Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. These procedures were developed through the EIS process and are based on current knowledge of resources in the planning area and current permitting procedures. Oil and gas leases would be subject to the Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations also listed in Appendix A. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-14 Detailed Descriptions: Special Status Species Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS e) Fire Management and Ecology (1) Goals e Provide appropriate management response on all wildland fires, with an emphasis on firefighter and public safety. Suppression costs must be commensurate with the values to be protected. e Use wildland fire, prescribed fire, and other treatments to maintain or restore ecological systems and to meet land use and resource management objectives. e Prevent human-caused fires. e Reduce risk and costs of uncontrolled wildland fire through wildland fire use, prescribed fire, manual or mechanical treatments. e Reduce adverse effects of fire management activities. e Continue interagency collaboration and cooperation. (2) Alternative A Current guidance for fire management is provided by the BLM-Alaska Land Use Plan Amendment for Wildland Fire and Fuels Management (BLM 2005c). Under this alternative, BLM would continue to cooperate and collaborate with other Federal, State, and Native land managers, and with other suppression organizations to address issues and concerns related to wildland fire management in Alaska and to implement operational decisions. Fire Management programs would emphasize the protection of human life and site-specific values while recognizing fire as an essential ecological process and natural agent of change to ecosystems. This alternative recognizes wildland fire use for resource benefit as a viable management tool. Vegetative communities would be monitored for cumulative effects of wildland fire, suppression activities, and effects of excluding fire as funding permits. Fuels management projects and prevention programs are proposed and funded on a case-by-case basis. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring e Monitor the number and size of wildland fires for cumulative impacts on wildlife habitat, particularly caribou winter range. e Monitor vegetative communities for cumulative effects of wildland fire, suppression actions, and as funding permits, the effects of excluding fire from the landscape to evaluate best management practices. (b) Management Decisions e Use the appropriate mix of Fire Management Options and update as needed. e Identify sensitive areas where special restrictions may be needed for fire monitoring and suppression activities. e Identify and prioritize values at risk. e Flight patterns and suppression activities will be prohibited around areas designated Avoid”. e Determine number of human-caused fires and then implement an appropriate prevention program. Detailed Descriptions: 2-15 Chapter II: Alternatives Fire Management and Ecology Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS e Implement the most current fire management plan. e Use wildland fire and fuels treatments to meet desired future conditions. e The Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A will be implemented during fire management activities. e The BLM policy for Structure Protection has been updated to clearly state District/Field Office priorities and to facilitate appropriate fire suppression actions on BLM-managed lands in the planning area. The policy can be found in Appendix E. Site-specific fuels management actions needed to meet desired future conditions, habitat needs, or to meet protection objectives will be made through activity-level plans including: e Modeling the impact of fire on habitat of the WACH to determine appropriate management strategies. e Evaluating the number of human-caused fires and implementing an appropriate prevention plan. (4) Alternative B The alternative would be similar to Alternative A. Management options would be assessed based resource management and land use objectives. A new structure protection policy would be implemented. Fuels management and prevention programs would be developed as warranted. The need for active fuels management program would increase as the natural fire regime is effected by suppression efforts. Wildland fire use would not be allowed. Decisions in this RMP would supersede decisions in the BLM-Alaska Land Use Plan Amendment for Wildland Fire and Fuels Management (BLM 2005c). (5) Alternative C This alternative would be similar to Alternative B except that wildland fire use would be allowed. Management option designations would be reviewed for compliance with land use and resource management objectives identified under this alternative. A new structure protection policy would be implemented. Fuels management and prevention programs would be developed as warranted. (6) Alternative D This alternative would be the same as Alternative C. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Table 2-2. Fire Management and Ecology—Summary of Alternatives Allow “wildland fire use.” | Same as C. Develop an activity-level plan outlining specific prescriptions for wildland fire use. Do not allow wildland fire use. Allow wildland fire use for resource benefit and to meet land use and resource management objectives. Fire Management and Ecology Chapter II: Alternatives 2-16 Detailed Descriptions: Fire Management and Ecology Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS f) Cultural Resources (1) Goals e Protect significant cultural resources on public lands. e Manage cultural resources for a variety of uses, including scientific use, conservation for future use, public use, traditional use, and experimental use. e Preserve important cultural resource values through stabilization and data recovery. (2) Alternative A Under current management, BLM works with applicants to modify proposed surface-disturbing activities to completely avoid impacts to cultural resources if possible. BLM conducts consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer, including a determination of eligibility, only when impacts to cultural resources cannot be avoided. This is done for two reasons: it reduces the amount of compliance work needed under sec. 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and usually allows an applicant to proceed in the timeliest fashion. Areas would be selected for baseline (non-sec. 106) inventory primarily on the basis of expectations about where development might occur, but with some consideration of where concentrations of cultural resources might be expected to occur. In general, destructive forms of data recovery, such as excavation and extensive testing would be avoided, and non- destructive forms of data recovery, such as surface mapping and limited testing, would be done only as necessary for sec. 106 purposes. Sites in the planning area would be designated for current research use, with those sites that are accessible to the public being also designated for public use. Sites would be designated for traditional use as the BLM learned about them. Presently no sites are designated for conservation for future use. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring e Continue to conduct inventory mandated by sec. 110 of NHPA as funds are available. e Monitor cultural resource sites in danger of alteration or destruction from natural or human- made causes. e Develop partnerships to achieve these ends. (b) Management Decisions e Ensure adequate compliance with sec. 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for all Bureau undertakings. e Increase our understanding of the resource base through inventory and data recovery. e Provide resources for current and future research needs. e Provide resources for public uses. Detailed Descriptions: 2-17 Chapter Il: Alternatives Cultural Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (c) Land Use Requirements All permitted activities would operate under guidelines and stipulations provided in Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. These procedures were developed through the EIS process and are based on current knowledge of resources in the planning area and current permitting procedures. Oil and gas leases would be subject to the Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations also listed in Appendix A. (4) Alternative B Alternative B differs from Alternative A chiefly in terms of emphasis. Decisions regarding avoidance versus mitigation would be made in favor of development interests, and priorities for baseline inventory would be developed based on anticipated development. Destructive forms of data recovery would be allowed to accommodate development. Most sites would be designated for current research use, and other uses would be allowed only to the extent compatible with development. (5) Alternative C This alternative places emphasis on conservation of cultural resources. In carrying out compliance under sec. 106, preference would be given to avoidance over mitigation. Priorities for non- sec. 106 baseline inventory would be developed on the basis of where the greatest concentrations of resources are known or expected to be. Destructive means of data recovery would not be carried out, but non-destructive methods of data gathering would be employed frequently to develop better information about the resource base. At a minimum, a representative sample of cultural resources would be designated for conservation for future use. (6) Alternative D Under Alternative D, the guiding philosophy for management of cultural resources would be one of balance. Decisions regarding avoidance or mitigation would be developed by trying to weigh the anticipated value of cultural resources against the value of development and the cost of mitigation to applicants. Priorities for baseline inventory would be developed as under Alternative A. Destructive forms of data recovery would be minimized, but non-destructive data gathering would be actively pursued both in response to development and where important sites are involved. A mix of use categories would be assigned to try to provide for all uses of cultural resources in the planning area. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-18 Detailed Descriptions: Cultural Resources seounosey Jeunying :suonduoseq peliejeq 61L-% SoAneUlayy :|| Ja}deuD Avoid or mitigate impacts to significant cultural resources resulting Table 2-3. Cultural Resources—Summary of Alternatives Whenever feasible, avoid impacts to cultural resources. Complete Determinations of Eligibility and sec. 106 Make decisions regarding avoidance or mitigation based on what is most acceptable to applicants Avoid impacts to cultural resources in all instances except when it is physically impossible to do Decide between avoidance and mitigation by weighing the relative value of from Bureau consultation only when impacts | or other development so. cultural resources and undertakings. cannot be avoided. interests. the effects on development interests. Prioritize areas for Priority assigned to broad areas | Same asA Priority assigned based on | Assign priorities for non- sec. 106 inventory. because of likelihood of development impacts. the value of the resource. Priority will be given to areas known to include important and/or numerous sites. inventory based on a combination of expected development activities and resource values. Determine the extent and nature of data recovery efforts. No destructive forms of data recovery (excavation and extensive testing) and only very limited collection of artifacts. Non-destructive data recovery (mapping and other forms of recordation) generally done only as necessary for sec. 106. Same as A, but destructive data recovery allowed to accommodate development. Conduct non-destructive data recovery in areas where development is anticipated. Destructive data recovery allowed only to address important research topics. Conduct non-destructive data recovery in areas of known or expected high resource values. Minimize destructive data recovery. Conduct non-destructive data recovery based ona combination of management needs and resource values. Designate sites on public lands as suitable for current research use and for conservation for future use. Designate most sites as suitable for current research. Assign sites to multiple use categories. Designate most sites as suitable for current research use. Allow other uses only to the extent that they do not restrict research use. Designate a representative sample of sites for current research use. Reserve most sites for conservation for future use. Designate most sites for current research use. Reserve a representative sample for conservation for future use. Designate sites on public lands as suitable for public and traditional use. Designate suitable sites for public use in areas having general public access. Designate sites for traditional use as they are made known to us. Same as A. Avoid public use designations where that might conflict with other resource development. Same as A. Avoid uses that would lead to destruction or major changes in sites. Same as A. SIB/dWY YesG BInsulued premeg-4nqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS g) Paleontological Resources (1) Goals e Preserve and protect significant paleontological resources and ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations. e Ensure that proposed land uses initiated or authorized by BLM avoid inadvertent damage to Federal and non-Federal paloeontological resources. e Promote stewardship, conservation, and appreciation of paleontological resources through educational and outreach programs. (2) Alternative A Under current management, the BLM manages paleontological resources in compliance with Federal regulations and in accordance with our internal program guidance (BLM 8720 Manual and Handbook). Paleontological specimens are protected by avoiding impacts to such specimens through project redesign, project abandonment, and/or mitigation of adverse impacts through scientific recovery and analysis. The Northwest MFP does not address management of paleontological resources. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring e Maintain an inventory of paleontological sites and localities. (b) Management Decisions e Require permits for individuals or institutions conducting paleontological investigations for vertebrate fossils on BLM-managed lands and insure that fossils remain in Federal ownership. e Prior to projects that may result in surface or sub-surface disturbance, conduct an inventory for vertebrate paleontological resources in conjunction with the inventory for cultural resources. e Comply with Federal regulations for the protection of paleontological remains by avoiding impacts to paleontological remains through project redesign, project abandonment, and/or mitigation of adverse impacts through scientific recovery and analysis. e Prepare paleontological resource awareness programs designed to enhance public appreciation of paleontological resource values. e Encourage scientific use of paleontological resources by university field schools. (c) Land Use Requirements All permitted activities would operate under guidelines and stipulations provided in Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. These procedures were developed through the EIS process and are based on current knowledge of resources in the planning area and current permitting procedures. Oil and gas leases would be subject to the Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations also listed in Appendix A. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-20 Detailed Descriptions: Paleontolocial Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS h) Visual Resources (1) Goals e Maintain the scenic qualities of the planning area. e Manage scenic values in accordance with the objectives established for Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes. (2) Alternative A Under continuation of current management, visual resources would be managed on a project- by-project basis as no VRM classes have been established. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring Under all alternatives, visual resources would be managed according to established guidelines for VRM classes as described in the Visual Resources section of Chapter Ill. Generally, VRM Class | is more protective of scenic values and VRM Class IV is less restrictive. The visual resource contrast rating system would be used during project-level planning to determine whether or not proposed activities will meet VRM objectives. (b) Management Decisions Mitigation measures would be identified to reduce visual contrasts, and rehabilitation plans to address landscape modifications would be prepared on a case-by-case basis. VRM classes would be established as shown on Maps 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3. There would be no areas managed as VRM Class | under any alternative. (c) Land Use Requirements All permitted activities would operate under guidelines and stipulations provided in Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. These procedures were developed through the EIS process and are based on current knowledge of resources in the planning area and current permitting procedures. All oil and gas leases would be subject to the Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations also listed in Appendix A. (4) Alternative B Under Alternative B, 91 percent of the lands would be managed as VRM class IV. Smaller areas, including the Squirrel River watershed and the Kigluaik Mountains would be managed as VRM II and Ill areas. There would be no VRM class I. (5) Alternative C Alternative C would have the most restrictive VRM classifications. Approximately 54 percent of the planning area would be managed as VRM class II. Class Il areas would include ACECs, the Squirrel River watershed, corridors along major rivers used as access corridors throughout the Detailed Descriptions: 2-21 Chapter II: Alternatives Visual Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS planning area, and the Kigluaik Special Recreation Management Area. Approximately 24 percent and 22 percent of the planning area would be managed as class II! and class IV respectively. There would be no VRM class |. (6) Alternative D Under Alternative D, 41 percent of the planning area would be managed as class III and 52 percent would be managed as class IV. A few areas including Mount Osborn RNA, the Ungalik River, the Kivalina River, and the Squirrel River would be managed as VRM class II (7 percent). There would be no VRM class I. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Table 2-4. Visual Resources—Summary of Alternatives Visual Resources Class I: 0 acres Class Il: 891,000 acres Class Ill: 5,444,000 acres Class IV: 6,798,000 acres Class I: 0 acres Class Il: 7,058,000 acres Class Ill: 3,178,000 acres Class IV: 2,897,000 acres Class I: 0 acres Class Il: 330,000 acres Class Ill: 804,000acres Class IV: 11,999,000 No VRM management classes assigned Chapter Il: Alternatives 2-22 Detailed Descriptions: Visual Resources 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N sanneuel|y :|| seadeyo 170°W 165°W 160°W 7 18 7 26 Wainwi 0 s? 4 9 \ 48 | 4 yw" < c* : 6 Point Lay!” 2 1 wy 44 4 1 2 3 Cape Lis! 6 61 59 J 58 | 57 58 6 54 ile le ate 7 10 47 g 45 43 " Point Hope, 1 10 34] a3 i 3 29 [28 | 27 | 35 Cape Thomp nl* | 2) ela to 18) 30 a Kivi i 2 20 10° Cap Krusenster National Monumen' Dy Ko je 7 Lr aT Kotzeg, | BN Ki A 7 ‘ Prefel7ts kT | 13 1 Si 4]sie ° 4 ai 38 | 37. “tT au 13 24} 95 igen mabe] 20 | 10 fv 17] 16/8 s 15 W} 13 1 1 ring Wi gig 7 8 61 5h4 3/2 5 . } 1 4 leg © s 42 | at 5 37 | 3g 35 | 34 4 33 | 32 [94] 3 28 / a7 a 2 1°) 18} a7 fas fT 5 8/2] afilepe 1 T1615] 4 2 3 4 39 35 7 5 Lee [31 fas Council 2 28 | 27 | 26 7 81) 20) 4g ” ° d 3} 42 lo ° Nvlsfelrts 12 so 10 " 12 7 Shi it 13 | 42, Norton Sound Unalal 165°W 160°W Visual Resource Management Classes [class 11 - 330,000 ac. Generalized Land Status Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska —— Road [_] ksP RMP Planning Area National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge 0 6 12 18 24 48 Miles GB class 111 - 804,000 ac. Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area State, Native, or referencing NAD83 Class IV - 11,999,000 ac. Map 2-1 Alternative B Visual Resource Management Private Land Source: USDOI-BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N SIF/dWY Yes eINsuIUsd psemas-ynqoy SeAeUayY :|| 4a}deyD 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W Cape Lisbutne/ go / Point Hope/ Cape Thompson: 165°W { Kivalina Yi Cape’ Krusenstern { National _ + — t— | fa] [ee] wef] faepo Norton Sound Lisw) 14 | 13] 42 Ta t+—+ } 12] re Shaktoolik © 160°W 160°W [22 21) 20) 19/18/47 1 7) 8Y 9 | 10/ 19) 12) 13 617) 8) 9) 10) 1) 12 10/14 12) 13) 14 9 10 " 2 B 4 ea : 1418) e) 7] 6} os] wll ilu ies 7 18 Visual Resource Management Classes and Acreage Within KSP RMP Planning Area [BB class 11 - 7,058,000 ac. BE class 111 - 3,178,000 ac. [|_| Class Iv - 2,897,000 ac. — ees Alternative C Generalized Land Status Ea = L__J National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge State, Native, or Private Land Visual Resource Management —— Road C_] KSP RMP Planning Area wy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI-BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 16 18] graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N SIB/dWx YesG e[NsulUad pemas-yngoy seanewayy :|| Jajdeyo 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W 460°W my a 0lUlUlté~«~ RS } 7 Re ae = 2/21) 20) 19) 18) 47 | 4 Wainwright 6 4 etoe: + a eaheactst : cE av gt? Iky¢ By ptt 5 ff 12 L eel ob dt : 4 } sed: Te 1 wt mis ) ss a we es © f % 30 Pe ‘ Bh oe 38/34 fss 32) PT {epee | Krusenstern National Monument__| 2 |7|28/ [a] 5] 2]a]m slaleleis 8 7 }— ce 6 Acreage within KSP RMP Planning Area ——J or Monument Wildlife Refuge Class II - 891,000 ac. r—— State, Native, or ! Private Land Class III - 5,444,000 ac. Class IV - 6,798,000 ac. N a orton Sound “ 3 ; ; + Ee a hy 0) 11 eet 16S 16 8 Unalakleet ® — he ep Se Wet sf” of +i % Be ae f | sa Pet 165°W 160°W Visual Resource Generalized Land Status —— Road ¥, ae Peninsula ale Management Classes and National Park, Preserve, KSP RMP Planning Area ureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI-BLM, 2004 Map 2-3 Visual Resource Management Alternative D The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N SIA/dWY YeIG eInsuluag puemas-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 2. Resource Uses a) Forest Products (1) Goals Manage forests and woodlands to sustain their health, productivity, and biological diversity. Consistent with other resource values, provide forest products for local consumption and opportunities for commercial harvests. (2) Alternative A Under continuation of current management, requests for forest resources would be considered on a case-by-case basis as permits were received. Forested lands would be managed for a sustained yield of forest products. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) Forest resources would be managed to ensure biodiversity, long-term productivity, and a wide spectrum of multiple uses, including scenic values, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and timber harvest. Forest product permitting would be subject to the Required Operating Procedures found in Appendix A. (a) Inventory and Monitoring Conduct baseline forest inventory of plan area to determine location of both commercial and non-commercial timber, as well as old growth stands. A comprehensive baseline inventory of forest resources in the plan area is needed to provide the location of timber stands, the age and size classes, and current health. Coordinate with USDI Forest Service (USFS) to conduct forest health inventory in the planning area to assess the extent and type of insect and disease outbreaks. (b) Management Decisions Issue permits to authorize harvest of personal use firewood and house logs consistent with 43 CFR 5400 on a case-by-case basis. Issue free use permits to harvest vegetative products for personal use consistent with 43 CFR 5500 on a case-by-case basis. Lands would be managed to maintain or achieve the following desired conditions for forest and woodlands: - Open/Closed White Spruce Forest: Occupy approximate historic range, recognizing range shifts may occur due to global climate change, and are in stable or improving condition. - Open/Closed Black Spruce Forest: Occupy approximate historic range, recognizing range shifts may occur due to global climate change, and are in stable or improving condition. Detailed Descriptions: 2-29 Chapter II: Alternatives Forest Products Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS - Black Spruce Woodland: Occupy approximate historic range, recognizing range shifts may occur due to global climate change, and are in stable or improving condition. e Approximately 8 percent of BLM-managed lands within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP area are forested. Much of this forest and woodland will not be aggressively managed because of lack of access, low productivity due to harsh climate, and little public demand. However, in areas where access, productivity, and public interest in forestlands support more focused management, the following guidelines will be applied: - Timber stands managed for commercial production of white spruce: These stands occur on floodplains and alluvial terraces on well-drained soils. They would be managed to maintain white spruce as the dominant tree species. This may require thinning to minimize early seral competition from other species. Beetle-killed trees within these stands would be salvaged where possible. - Timber stands managed for improvement of wildlife habitat: In mixed white spruce- paper birch/balsam poplar stands where wildlife habitat improvement is the primary objective, desired condition will be maintenance of white spruce with a component of paper birch or balsam poplar. These stands would have shrub-dominated early seral stages after harvest and/or wildland or prescribed fire, or after mechanical treatment of mature or beetle-killed white spruce. Timber stands of this type would be expected to return to late seral stage of mixed white spruce-paper birch/balsam popular after these types of disturbances. - Moose habitat: Desired condition is a mosaic pattern of upland spruce woodland cover types interspersed with a lower seral expression dominated by alder and willow. Upland woodland cover types are mixed with stream terraces and floodplains dominated by sedges and grasses and mixed age classes of alder and willow. - Caribou habitat: For summer range, similar to description for moose habitat. For caribou winter range, desired condition is uplands spruce woodland cover type where lichen plus various forbs and graminoids dominate the ground layer. - Dall Sheep habitat: Open high-elevation grass and forb-dominated plant communities with a minor shrub or tree component. (4) Alternative B Under Alternative B, forested lands would be managed to provide a variety of forest products including firewood, house logs, and other forest products. The feasibility of prescribed fire, wildland fire, or salvage logging in localized areas of beetle-killed spruce would be assessed. Requests for forest products would be considered on a case-by-case basis as applications were received. Small commercial logging and firewood sales would be considered, even in special management areas. (5) Alternative C Under Alternative C, forested lands would be managed to provide limited personal use firewood and house logs. Stands of beetle-killed spruce would be left to decay naturally. . Allow wildland fire to function in its natural ecological role. Requests for forest products would be considered on a case-by-case basis as applications were received. No commercial logging or firewood sales would be permitted. Additional restrictions on personal use harvest of forest products would apply in special management areas, such as ACECs and suitable rivers. Chapter Il: Alternatives 2-30 Detailed Descriptions: Forest Products Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Personal use firewood and house log gathering would be permitted in the Squirrel River SRMA if consistent with management objectives for the unit. (6) Alternative D Under Alternative D, forested lands would be managed to provide a sustained yield of firewood and house logs, and other forest products. The feasibility of prescribed fire, wildland fire, or salvage logging in localized areas of beetle-killed spruce would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Small commercial logging and firewood sales would be considered in some areas, including ACECs. Personal use firewood and house log gathering, and small sales vegetative contracts would be permitted in ACECs and the Squirrel River SRMA if consistent with management objectives for the unit. The preceding information is summarized in the following tables. Detailed Descriptions: 2-31 Chapter II: Alternatives Forest Products senjeweyy :|| se}deuo Table 2-5. Forest Products—Summary of Alternatives authorize personal firewood and house log harvest. Issue permits to Same as A. Same as A. Same as A. Products Consider applications for salvage logging of beetle-killed spruce on a case-by-case basis. Assess feasibility of prescribed fire or salvage logging in localized areas of beetle-killed spruce timber. Leave stands of beetle- killed spruce to naturally decay. Allow wildland fire to function in its natural ecological role. Compare benefits/risks of salvage logging with prescribed fire or wildland fire in localized areas of beetle-killed white spruce timber on a case-by-case basis. ce-S Address proposals for commercial sales on a case-by-case basis After baseline forest inventory, assess feasibility of commercial logging in selected areas. If feasible, limited commercial logging and firewood sales would be considered. Small sales vegetative contracts permitted (e.g., commercial harvest of mushrooms, Christmas trees, spruce cones, etc.) No commercial logging or firewood sales will be permitted within the plan area. Small sales vegetative contracts considered on a case-by- case basis. Same as B :suondyoseg paylejaq sjonpOld }S8J04 SIA/dW YeIG eInsulUed Puemag-yngoy sjonpold }Se104 :suolduosegq palejeq €e-~ SeAHeUlayy || Ja}deuD Table 2-6. Forest Products—Constraints on Specific Areas Squirrel River | Same as remainder of Consider commercial Same as column C. above, Same as column D. above, SRMA planning area as forest product sales on consistent with measures identified | consistent with measures described in column A a case-by-case basis in | in the Squirrel River SRMA, except | identified in the Squirrel River above. the Squirrel River that no commercial sales SRMA, except no commercial SRMA. permitted. logging or firewood sales permitted. ACECs/RNAs_ | No ACECs/RNAs No ACECs/RNAs Limited personal use firewood and | Same as column D. above, if house log harvest permitted, consistent with management consistent with management objectives for ACEC/RNA. objectives for ACEC/RNA. No commercial sales permitted. Wild and Personal use firewood No rivers determined No personal use firewood or house | No rivers determined suitable Scenic Rivers | and house log permits suitable log harvest allowed on rivers are allowed within the determined suitable for WSR Squirrel River WSR status. No commercial sales study area. permitted on rivers determined suitable for WSR status. SIF/dWY Hei ejnsulusd plemas-yngGoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS b) Livestock Grazing (1) Goals e Resolve conflicts between livestock grazing, wildlife, and subsistence. e Maintain and improve the quality of the range conditions. e Manage for a sustainable level of livestock grazing with deference given to maintaining habitat needed to support desired populations of wildlife. e Determine appropriateness of grazing of livestock for species other than reindeer. (2) Alternative A Under continuation of current management, livestock grazing would be managed on a case-by- case basis as permits were received. The type of livestock permitted would be limited to reindeer. Incidental grazing by pack animals associated with special recreation use permits would be considered on a case-by-case basis. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring e Work cooperatively with ADNR, ADF&G, NRCS, NPS, and the Federal Subsistence Program to monitor range conditions to provide the necessary information to manage herding activities. Monitor lichen utilization and condition in open and active allotments. Work with NRCS and others to assess range conditions. e Inventory habitat to determine priority for wildlife species on an as-needed basis. (b) Management Decisions e Decisions identifying lands available, or not available, for livestock grazing may be revisited through a plan amendment or revision if the grazing preference or permit on those lands has been voluntarily relinquished, or if there are outstanding requests to voluntarily relinquish the grazing preference. e If an evaluation of the Alaska Statewide Land Health Standards identifies an allotment or group of allotments where Alaska Statewide Land Health Standards cannot be achieved under any level or management of livestock use, then decisions identifying those areas as available for livestock grazing need to be revisited. e Develop allotment management plans for open and actively used allotments that include grazing systems and fire management. e Allow incidental grazing of pack animals associated with special recreation permits on a case-by-case basis consistent with the permitting process for special recreation use permits, Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A, and the Alaska Statewide Land Health Standards. e Screen new reindeer or livestock grazing permit applications for potential conflicts with wildlife and subsistence, and reject applications where significant conflicts are likely to occur. e Grazing permits would be subject to Required Operating Procedures listed in Appendix A. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-34 Detailed Descriptions: Livestock Grazing Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (4) Alternative B Under Alternative B, the entire planning area would be open to grazing. Types of livestock permitted would include both reindeer and bison. Incidental grazing by pack animals associated with special recreation use permits would be considered on a case-by-case basis. (5) Alternative C Grazing under Alternative C would be limited to the Seward Peninsula (Map 2-4). Two active grazing allotments and two vacant areas, McCarthy's Marsh and the upper Kuzitrin River, would be closed. Grazing allotment boundaries would be modified to exclude ACECs. The type of livestock permitted would be limited to reindeer. Permits for allotments where reindeer have been absent for 10 or more years due to emigration with caribou would not be renewed. Un- renewed allotments would be permanently retired from grazing. Incidental grazing by pack animals associated with special recreation use permits would be considered on a case-by-case basis. (6) Alternative D Under Alternative D, grazing would be limited to current use areas (Map 2-5). Two vacant areas, McCarthy's Marsh and the upper Kuzitrin River, would be closed. The type of livestock permitted would be limited to reindeer. Incidental grazing by pack animals associated with special recreation use permits would be considered on a case-by-case basis. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Detailed Descriptions: 2-35 Chapter II: Alternatives Livestock Grazing SOAeUlayy ‘|| Ja}de4D 9e-~ Table 2-7. Livestock Grazing—Summary of Alternatives Livestock Allow reindeer Same as A Allow reindeer grazing only in Allow reindeer grazing only in the Grazing grazing on a case-by the following allotments: following allotments: Sheldon, Karmun, case-basis within the Sheldon, Karmun, Goodhope, Goodhope, Buckland River, Mt. Wick, planning area. Mt. Wick, Weyiouanna, Davis, Weyiouanna, Davis, Kakaruk, Kougarok, Kakaruk, Kougarok, Koyuk, Koyuk, Ongtowasruk, Olanna, Shaktoolik, 13,133,000 acres Ongtowasruk, Olanna, Baldwin Peninsula, and Mt. Bend. open. Of this, about Shaktoolik, and Mt. Bend. (4,058,000 acres open. Of this, 8,163,000 acres are (3,323,000 acres open. Of this, | 2,948,000 acres are selected.) selected. 2,222,000 acres are selected.) Remainder of the planning area would be The remainder of the planning closed. area would be closed. Grazing by other Consider livestock Do not allow livestock grazing Same as C types of livestock not | grazing (bison) on (other than reindeer) within the authorized under the | the Seward planning area, except incidental MFP. Peninsula on a case- | grazing by pack animals that by-case basis are associated with a SRP. 5,219,000 acres open. Renew grazing Same as A Do not renew reindeer grazing | Same asA permits on a case- permits where reindeer have by-case basis, been absent for 10 or more considering conflicts years due to emigration with with wildlife and caribou. Permanently retire un- subsistence. renewed allotments. Renew grazing Same as A Identify allotments where Same as A permits on case-by- permits are not to be renewed case basis. within 1 year of plan approval. Grazing No ACECs No ACECs Close portions of grazing Grazing would be allowed within ACECs. management allotments w/in Nulato Hills, in ACECs and Kigluaik ACECs to grazing. :suolduosag paylejeq Bulzesd Y90}SeAI7 SIB/dWY Yeig ejnsulueg psemas-yngoy SOAIJEUIOYY :|| Ja}deyO Grazing on Map 2-4 BLM Lands Alternative C Reindeer Grazing on BLM Lands Note: Under Alternative B all BLM lands in the planning area are open to all forms of livestock grazing. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12. 24 = Viles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDO! - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be jiused for graphic display only. For official land status’ information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWe Yes einsulued psemas-ynqoy SOAeWery :|| 3a}deuD Grazing on Map 25 BLM Lands Alternative D Reindeer Grazing on BLM Lands Note: Under Alternative B all BLM lands in the planning area are open to all forms of livestock grazing. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 4... ee Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land statu} information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIa/dWe Yelg ensulusg puemas-yngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS c) Minerals Lands currently under selection by the State and Native corporations are segregated from locatable mineral entry and location, and from mineral leasing to avoid potential encumbrances on selected lands prior to conveyance. These lands comprise approximately 8,163,000 million acres out of the 13,133,000 million acres currently managed by the BLM. Therefore, decisions made within this land use planning effort to “open” areas for mineral exploration or development by revoking withdrawals would not go into effect unless lands are retained long-term in Federal ownership (i.e., not conveyed to the State or Native corporations). (1) Leasable Minerals (a) Fluid Leasable Minerals 1. Goals e The public lands and Federal mineral estate will be made available for orderly and efficient exploration, development, and production of fluid leasable mineral resources (includes oil, natural gas, tar sands, coal bed methane, and geothermal steam), unless withdrawal or other administrative action is justified in the national interest. e All fluid leasable minerals actions will comply with goals, objectives, and resource restrictions (mitigations) to protect other resource values in the planning area. 2. Alternative A Currently there are no mineral leases on BLM-managed lands within the planning area. Some BLM lands are closed to leasing because of State or Native selections, Public Land Order (PLO), or underlying ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals. Under Alternative A, no withdrawal review would occur and all ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would remain in place, pending some legislation or unrelated management direction. Map 3-26 shows areas open for mineral leasing, pending State or Native selections. For the purposes of analysis, it is assumed that under Alternative A no leasing would occur, as appropriate NEPA analysis must be completed and approved before Federal oil and gas lease sales can take place. However, where oil and gas is being drained from lands otherwise unavailable for leasing, there is implied authority in the agency having jurisdiction of those lands to grant authority to the BLM to lease such lands. e Areas open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form and BLM stipulations and required operating procedures: 2,821,000 acres, of which none is State- or Native-selected. e Areas open to leasing, subject to minor constraints such as seasonal restrictions: 0 acres (none). e Areas open to leasing, subject to major constraints such as No Surface Occupancy (NSO): 24,000 acres. These lands include those specified in PLO 6477 : Pah, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, Fish, and west bank of Noatak River. e Areas closed to leasing: 10,288,000 acres, which includes the Squirrel River Wild and Scenic River Study Area, areas closed by PLO, and those areas closed by ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals. Detailed Descriptions: 2-39 Chapter II: Alternatives Fluid Leasable Minerals Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 3. Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) a. Management Decisions Leasing would be subject to BLM standard lease terms and BLM-Alaska’s stipulations and Required Operating Procedures with the exception in Alternative B that seasonal lease stipulations for caribou would not apply (Lease #6 and #7). Lands under selection by the State and Native corporations would be segregated from mineral leasing. The categories and constraints identified below only apply on lands retained in long-term Federal ownership. Stipulations prescribed for Federal mineral development, in split-estate situations, apply only to the development of the Federal minerals. These stipulations do not dictate surface management. Wild river portions of Wild and Scenic River corridors would be closed to the operation of the mineral leasing laws. Wild and Scenic Rivers managed as scenic river areas could be available for leasing, exploration, and development, so long as these uses do not adversely affect free flow, water quality, or the river's outstandingly remarkable values. Consider all geothermal leasing, Plan of Operations for exploration, or applications for development on a case-by-case basis. 24,000 acres of Federal oil and gas leasable lands are subject to NSO per PLO 6477: 300- foot NSO setback in the Pah River, Shaktoolik River, Ungalik River, Inglutalik River, Tubutulik River, Kuzitrin River, Fish River and west bank of Noatak River. In areas open to leasing subject to major constraints such as NSO, geophysical, exploration, and other temporary activities would be allowed subject to the BLM-Alaska stipulations and ROPs. Through NEPA analysis done at the time of a lease sale, this RMP may be amended to change NSO constraints. Coalbed natural gas development would be authorized by the same process as oil and gas. Geothermal resources would be available for leasing in areas open to oil and gas leasing. Areas closed to oil and gas leasing are also closed to geothermal leasing. All areas closed to fluid mineral leasing would be closed to geophysical exploration. As described in BLM Manual 1624, Federal oil and gas resources (including coalbed natural gas) fall into one of four categories that become increasingly restrictive: - Open Subject to Standard Lease Terms and Conditions: These are areas where it has been determined through the planning process that the standard terms and conditions of the lease form are sufficient to protect other land uses or resource values. In these areas, the BLM-Alaska’s Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures (Appendix A) would also apply unless specifically excluded under a particular alternative. - Open Subject to Seasonal or Other Minor Constraints: These are areas where it has been determined that moderately restrictive lease stipulations may be required to mitigate impacts to other land uses or resource values. Category 2 leases frequently involve timing limitations such as restricting construction activities in designated big game habitats, or controlled surface use stipulations such as creating a buffer zone around a critical resource. - Open Subject to NSO or Other Major Constraints: These are areas where it has been determined through the planning process that highly restrictive lease stipulations are necessary to protect resources. Category 3 leases may prohibit the construction of Chapter II: Alternatives 2-40 Detailed Descriptions: Fluid Leasable Minerals Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS well production and support facilities. These areas can be subject to directional drilling, if technologically and economically feasible. - Closed to Leasing: These are areas where it has been determined that other land uses or resource values cannot be adequately protected, and appropriate protection can be ensured only by closing the land to leasing through either statutory or administrative requirements. b. Implementation Decisions Conditions of Approval (COA) for Applications for Permit to Drill would allow necessary impacts in order for development to be technically feasible or economically viable. Exceptions to lease stipulations and COAs would be allowed when site-specific analyses showed impacts to sensitive resources were within acceptable limits. Well spacing requirements for oil and gas resource protection would defer to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission guidance with consideration for surface resource values. 4. Alternative B Areas open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form, and BLM stipulations and ROPs: 13,109,000 acres, of which approximately 8,143,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. Under this alternative, Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations #6 and #7 (Appendix A) would not apply. Areas open to leasing, subject to minor constraints such as seasonal restrictions: 0 acres (none). Under this alternative, Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations #6 and #7 (Appendix A) would not apply. Areas open to leasing, subject to major constraints such as NSO: 24,000 acres. These lands include those specified in PLO 6477: Pah, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, and Fish rivers, and west bank of Noatak River. Areas closed to leasing: 0 acres (none). Map 2-6 shows areas that would be open for fluid mineral leasing, pending State and Native selections. 5. Alternative C Areas open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form, and BLM stipulations and ROPs: 1,764,000 acres, of which 1,428,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. Areas open to leasing, subject to minor constraints such as seasonal restrictions: 5, 353,000 acres of which approximately 3,592,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. Areas open to leasing, subject to major constraints such as NSO: 71,000 acres, 41,000 of which is State- or Native-selected land. These lands include portions of the following rivers that are outside of the closed areas: a) 300-foot setback as specified in PLO 6477; Pah, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, and Fish rivers, and west bank of Noatak River; b) 300-foot setback from bankfull stage on either side of tributaries of above mentioned rivers (including Boston Creek); and c) 300-foot setback from bankfull stage on both sides of the upper portion mainstems and tributaries of the following rivers: Agiapuk, Buckland, Squirrel, Omar, Kivalina, Pick, Kukpowruk, Ipewik, and Nilik rivers, Kiliovilik Creek (Upper Selawik), and Koyuk River including East Fork. Detailed Descriptions: 2-41 Chapter Il: Alternatives Fluid Leasable Minerals Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Areas closed to leasing: 5,945,000 acres, 3,096,000 acres of which are State- or Native- selected. These lands include: a) Nulato Hills; b) WACH insect relief/calving habitat; c) Squirrel River (PLO 5179); d) Kigluaik Mountains; e) McCarthy’s Marsh; and f) Upper Kuzitrin River. Map 2-7 shows areas that would be open to oil and gas leasing, pending State and Native selections. 6. Alternative D Areas open to leasing subject to the terms and conditions of the standard lease form and BLM stipulations and ROPs: 6,951,000 acres, 5,067,000 acres of which are State- or Native-selected. Areas open to leasing, subject to minor constraints such as seasonal restrictions: 6,144,000 acres, 3,069,000 acres of which are State- or Native-selected. These lands include: a) Squirrel River SRMA; b) caribou, waterfowl, and moose habitat in McCarthy's Marsh, upper Kuzitrin River; c) winter habitat for WACH in south Nulato Hills, and d) calving and insect relief habitat for WACH. Areas open to leasing, subject to major constraints such as NSO: 38,000 acres, 20,000 acres of which are State- or Native-selected. These lands include: a) 300-foot setback from bankfull stage on rivers identified PLO 6477 (see Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) on page 2-40); b) 300-foot setback from bankfull stage on Boston Creek, Koyuk River, Peace River, Agiapuk River, and upper Kivalina River. Areas closed to leasing: 0 acres. Map 2-8 displays areas that would be open to oil and gas leasing, pending State and Native selections. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-42 Detailed Descriptions: Fluid Leasable Minerals sjeoul ajqesee7 pin|4 €v-Z :suonduoseg payieyeq Seneuayy || Ja}deuD Closed to Fluid Mineral Leasing Table 2-8. Fluid Leasable Minerals—Summary of Alternatives Approximately 10,288,000 acres of Federal oil and gas leasable lands are currently 0 acres closed to leasing. 5,945,000 acres closed to leasing. Of this, 3,096,000 acres are selected. In addition to the area identified in 0 acres closed to leasing. BLM would recommend closed to leasing because of | Revoke all Alternative D, the following areas revocation of most ANCSA State or Native selections, ANCSA (d)(1) would be closed fluid mineral leasing if | (d)(1) withdrawals to allow underlying ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals. retained in Federal ownership: for leasing on land withdrawals, or other PLO. 1) WACH Insect relief/calving habitat retained in Federal This includes about 1 million 2) Squirrel River (PLO 5179) ownership. acres in the Nulato Hills 3) Kigluaik Mountains closed under PLO 6477. 4) McCarthy's Marsh 5) Upper Kuzitrin River 6) Nulato Hills Open with No 24,000 acres open subject to | 24,000 acres open | 71,000 acres open subject to lease 38,000 acres (of this Surface lease stipulations such as subject to lease stipulations such as NSO and site- 20,000 acres is selected) Occupancy NSO. stipulations such specific constraints described in BLM- | open to leasing (NSO) as NSO and site- | Alaska’s Stipulations and Required consideration subject to Stipulations and | Parts of PLO 6477 would be__| specific Operating Procedures. lease stipulations such as Similar Major retained. This PLO constraints NSO and site-specific Constraints implements a 300-foot NSO setback in the Pah River, Shaktoolik River, Ungalik River, Inglutalik River, Tubutulik River, Kuzitrin River, Fish River and west bank of Noatak River. No Federal leases currently occur on BLM-managed lands within the planning area. described in BLM- Alaska’s Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures. That part of PLO 6477 described in Alternative A would be retained. That part of PLO 6477 described in Alternative A would be retained. Additional 300-foot NSO setbacks would be established on the following rivers: 1) tributaries of the Pah, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, Fish, and Noatak rivers. 2) on both sides of the upper portion mainstems and tributaries of the following rivers: Agiapuk, Buckland, Squirrel, Omar, Kivalina, Pick, Kukpowruk, Ipewik, and Nilik rivers and Kiliovilik Creek (Upper Selawik), Koyuk River including East Fork. constraints described in BLM-Alaska’s stipulations and Required Operating Procedures including the following areas: 300-foot NSO setbacks on Boston Creek, Koyuk River, Peace River, Agiapuk River, and upper Kivalina River. That part of PLO 6477 described in Alternative A would be retained. SIB/dWe YesG Binsulusd Puemag-4NGoy sjesoulyy ejqesee7 pin|4 :suolduoseq payiejeq sonneuseyy :|| 4e}deuD vr-z pen with No Federal leases currently Oo 0 acres (0%) 5,353,000 acres, of which 3,591,000 6,144,000 acres, of which Seasonal or occur on BLM-managed lands acres are State- or Native-selected. 3,069,000 acres are State- other Minor within the planning area. or Native-selected. Constraints Big Game No Federal leases currently Oil and gas WACH winter range and muskox Minor constraints would Seasonal occur on BLM-managed lands | leasing habitat is subject to seasonal apply in the following Constraints within the planning area. stipulations #6 and | constraints. areas: #7 from Appendix | WACH calving and insect relief areas 1) Squirrel River SRMA; A would not apply | are closed. 2) McCarthy’s Marsh; under this 3) Upper Kuzitrin River; alternative. 4) Nulato Hills 5) WACH calving and insect relief habitat. Additional stipulations may be developed through Native-selected. activity plans for WACH habitats. Open Subject No Federal leases currently 13,109,000 acres, | 1,764,000 acres, of which 1,428,000 6,951,000 acres, of which to Standard occur on BLM-managed lands | of which acres are State- or Native-selected. 5,067,000 acres are State- Lease within the planning area. 8,143,000 acres or Native-selected. Stipulations are State- or SIS/dWY YelG einsulueg pemes-ynqoy SeAHeUayY || Je}deyD 170°W 70°N 68°N 66°N Bbotot p33] 32/5, 64°N 165°W 165°W Kivalina i Cape Krusenstern National _/ Monument_/ Ko ‘Zeb, r ¢ 4 2 iny—+ Ww 29 | 28 Norton Sound 4 Kotgebue a {0 | 19 [| 1 a7 Noy aR 1? Ne ]ry Unalakleet? F mh 160°W 160°W or UMIAT MERIDIA: 7} BY 9 | 10/ 19) 12] 13 5/877) 8/9/10] 1) 12 13/14 | age 16 [1 10} 11) 12) 13) 14 9 10 n 12 13 14 Z B18 14 7 8| 9/10] | 12/13/14 (188) 16 pA sl 7 : 7 18 Fluid Mineral Leasing Be Open with standard stipulations River: Open with no surface occupancy within 300 ft. of bankfull width The Noatak River 300 ft. setback applies to the west bank only. Selected lands have a segregation against oil and gas leasing and would only be open if retained in long-term federal ownership. Generalized Land Status National Park, Preserve, or Monument [ Wildlife Refuge State, Native, or Private Land —— Road | KSP RMP Planning Area Map 2-6 Alternative B Proposed Fluid Leasable Mineral Management Sey Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDO! - BLM, 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N SIB/dWY YeIG BINsuIUad PueMag-yNqoy SeAeulayy :|| Ja}deyD 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W 6 Cape Lisburhe_/ Point Hope Cape Thompson Kivalina | Cape Krusenstern National Monument ‘Shishmaref 38 / 37 42 41 4o BS Brevig Mis: Teller, Norton Sound 165°W Point Lay_® 19} 18 | 47] 9g] WW aT 15) 4/13/42] 44 " 12 73 ‘Shaktoolik’ 10 13/ 120th ao +f Unalakleet" 1 Ce 160°W 4 18 22] 21) 20) 19) 4 8 | 17 sega z ° g UMIAT MERIDIA 7 | 8% 9/10) 11] 12/43 z 8 Ss IC 27] to} 4 9 12} 13) 14/8 4 23 2 2 20 19 18 Zz 8 2 3 4 ‘s | | 6 fl | 7 } — tere’ 40/11/12) 13) 14 16 | 9 | 10) 11) 12/13 14/188! 46 7 Ed on ; 3 18 Fluid Mineral Leasing ae) Open with standard River: Open with no surface stipulations occupancy within 300 ft. of bankfull width The Noatak River 300 ft. setback applies to the west bank only. Open with minor constraints fee Closed Selected lands have a segregation against oil and gas leasing and would only be open if retained in long-term federal ownership. Generalized Land Status National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge State, Native, or Private Land Road KSP RMP Planning Area Map 2-7 Proposed Fluid Leasable Mineral Management Alternative C ¥ Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SI/dWY Yes einsulusg puemes-ynqoy saajeusayy :|| 4a}deuD 170°W 165°W Cape Lisburne, ¢° Cape. Krusenstern National Monument_/ 16] NJ —}-—+ ssw) 4/131 12] 44 1 t 10 Norton Sound 160°W 165°W Fluid Mineral Leasing Generalized Land Status W Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP a Open with standard River: Open with no surface National Park, Preserve, Bureau of Land Management - Alaska stipulations occupancy within 300 ft. or Monument Y Z relat The Nostak Riverton nl Wildlife Refuge — ches applies to the west bank only. State, Native, or Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area t Private Land Selected lands have a segregation against oil and gas leasing and would only be open if retained in long-term federal ownership. — Road [__] KsP RMP Planning Area Proposed Fluid Leasable Mineral Management Alternative D referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIS/dINY YeIG BINsuIUSg Plemeg-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (b) Solid Leasable Minerals 1. Goals e The public lands and Federal mineral estate will be made available for orderly and efficient exploration, development, and production of solid leasable mineral resources (includes coal and oil shale, and non-energy leasable minerals (potassium, sodium, phosphate, and gilsonite), unless withdrawal is justified in the national interest. e All solid leasable minerals actions will comply with goals, objectives, and resource restrictions (mitigations) to protect other resource values in the planning area. 2. Alternative A There are currently two preferential right coal leases in the planning area. Both are 10-year leases and were issued in 1999. Some BLM lands are closed to leasing because of State or Native selections or underlying ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals. Under Alternative A, no withdrawal review would occur and all ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would remain in place, pending some legislation or unrelated management direction. Map 3-26 shows areas open for mineral leasing, pending State or Native selections. For the purposes of analysis, it is assumed that under Alternative A no leasing would occur as appropriate NEPA analysis must be completed and approved before Federal lease sales can take place. Under Alternative A, all unleased BLM-managed lands in the planning area would be open to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral exploration. e Areas open to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting: 13,133,000 acres of which 8,163,000 acres are State- or Native- selected. e Areas closed to exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting: 0 acres (none). 3. Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) All BLM-managed lands within the planning area subject to leasing under 43 CFR 3400.2 would be open to coal exploration and study. The coal screening process (as identified by 43 CFR 3420.1-4) has not been conducted in this planning area therefore leasing is deferred. Interest in exploration or leasing of Federal coal would be handled on a case-by-case basis. If an application for a coal lease should be received in the future, an appropriate land use and environmental analysis, including the coal screening process, would be conducted to determine whether or not the coal areas are acceptable for development and for leasing under 43 CFR 3425. The Kobuk-Seward RMP would be amended as necessary. e Leasing would be subject to BLM standard lease terms and BLM-Alaska’s stipulations and Required Operating Procedures (Appendix A). e Coal and oil shale exploration and leasing would comply with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Land of 1947, as amended, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), coal regulations, and coal planning criteria. e The objective for management of the Federal coal resources in the KSP planning area is to provide opportunity for development of Federal coal consistent with the policies of the Federal coal management program, with environmental integrity, with national energy needs, and with related demands. With appropriate limitations and mitigation requirements for the protection of other resource values, all BLM-managed public lands and Federal coal Detailed Descriptions: 2-51 Chapter II: Alternatives Solid Leasable Minerals Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS lands in the KSP planning area, except for those lands identified as closed (see Table 2-9 on page 2-54), would be open to coal resource inventory and exploration to help identify coal resources and their development potential. e Should coal operations be developed on Federal lands, an agreement would likely be developed between the State and the Office of Surface Mining defining the regulatory role of the State in these mining operations (30 CFR 745). e Oil shale would be leased on a case-by-case basis. Currently regulations for a commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program do not exist. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the Secretary to promulgate regulations for a commercial oil shale leasing program and authorizes the Secretary to conduct lease sales in states that show an interest. e Non-energy leasable minerals exploration and leasing would comply with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Land of 1947, as amended, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946, non-energy leasable minerals regulations and planning criteria. e Non-energy leasable minerals would be leased on a case-by-case basis and subject to 43 CFR 3500. e Lands under selection by the State and Native corporations would be segregated from mineral leasing. The categories and constraints identified below would only apply on lands retained in long-term Federal ownership. e Stipulations prescribed for Federal mineral development in split-estate situations would only apply to the development of the Federal minerals. These stipulations would not dictate surface management. e Identify special conditions, if any, that must be met during subsequent more detailed planning, lease sale, or post-lease activities, including measures required to protect other resource values. e Only those BLM-managed public lands that have development potential may be identified as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing. Unless specifically closed to coal exploration, all unleased BLM-managed public lands within the planning area subject to leasing under 43 CFR 3400.2 would be open for coal exploration through the issuance of an exploration license. Coal exploration would be subject to BLM- Alaska’s stipulations and ROPs. Unless specifically closed to non-energy, all unleased BLM-managed public lands within the planning area subject to leasing under 43 CFR 3503 would be open for prospecting and exploration. Non-energy leasable minerals prospecting and exploration would be subject to BLM-Alaska’s stipulations and ROPs. 4. Alternative B Under Alternative B, all unleased BLM-managed lands in the planning area would be open to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting subject to BLM-Alaska Required Operating Procedures. e Areas open to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting: 13,133,000 acres of which 8,163,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. e Areas closed to exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting: 0 acres (none). Chapter II: Alternatives 2-52 Detailed Descriptions: Solid Leasable Minerals Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 5. Alternative C Under Alternative C, more than half of the BLM-managed lands in the planning area would be open to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting subject to BLM-Alaska Required Operating Procedures (Map 2-9). Approximately 45 percent of the planning area would be closed to provide additional protection to important wildlife habitats and anadromous streams. e Areas open to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting: 7,117,000 acres, of which approximately 5,018,000 acres are State- or Native- selected. e Areas closed to exploration: 6,016,000 acres, of which approximately 3,138,000 acres are State- or Native- selected. These lands include: a) All ACECs/RNAs; b) 300-foot setback per PLO 6477: Pah, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, and Fish rivers, and west bank of Noatak River; c) 300-foot setback from bankfull stage on either side of tributaries of above mentioned rivers (including Boston Creek); d) 300-foot setback from bankfull stage on both sides of the upper portion mainstems and tributaries of the following rivers: Agiapuk, Buckland, Squirrel, Omar, Kivalina, Pick, Kukpowruk, Ipewik, and Nilik rivers, Kiliovilik Creek (Upper Selawik), and Koyuk River including East Fork. 6. Alternative D Under Alternative D, most of the BLM-managed lands in the planning area would be open to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting subject to BLM-Alaska Required Operating Procedures (Map 2-10). About 60 percent of the BLM-managed land in the planning area would be closed to provide additional protection to caribou habitat in the Nulato Hills and several anadromous streams. e Areas open to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting: 12,074,000 acres, of which approximately 7,906,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. e Areas closed to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting: 1,059,000 acres, of which approximately 250,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. These lands include: a) northern Nulato Hills; b) 300-foot setback on the following rivers: Pah, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, and Fish rivers, and west bank of Noatak River; c) 300-foot setback from mean high water mark on Boston Creek, Koyuk River, Peace River, Agiapuk River, and upper Kivalina River. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Detailed Descriptions: 2-53 Chapter II: Alternatives Solid Leasable Minerals seul eiqesee pllos :suoldiosaq peyejeq senneusayy :|| se}deuD vS-% pen to coal Table 2-9. Solid Leasable Minerals—Summary of Alternatives Oo 13,133,000 acres 13,133,000 acres | 7,117,000 acres open (55%). Of this, 12,074,000 acres open exploration and open (100%) open (100%) 5,018,000 are selected. (92%). Of this, 7,906,000 non-energy acres are State- or Native- leasable minerals selected. prospecting Closed to coal exploration and non-energy leasable minerals prospecting 0 acres closed 0 acres closed 6,016,000 acres closed (45%). Of this 3,138,000 are State- or Native-selected. In addition to those lands identified in Alternative D, the following would be closed if retained in Federal ownership: 1) Kigluiak Mountain ACEC; 2) McCarthy’s Marsh ACEC; 3) Kuzitrin ACEC; 4) southern Nulato Hills 5) 300-foot setback on either side of tributaries of Pah, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, and Fish rivers, and west bank of Noatak River; 6) 300-foot setback on both sides of the upper portion mainstems and tributaries of the following rivers: Agiapuk, Buckland, Squirrel, Omar, Kivalina, Pick, Kukpowruk, Ipewik, and Nilik rivers and Kiliovilik Creek (Upper Selawik), Koyuk River including East Fork. 1,059,000 acres closed (8%). Of this, 250,000 acres are State- or Native- selected. The following areas would be closed if retained in Federal ownership: 1) northern Nulato Hills; 2) 300-foot setback on the Pah, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, and Fish rivers, and west bank of Noatak River as described in PLO 6477; 3) 300-foot setback on Boston Creek, Koyuk River, Peace River, Agiapuk River, and upper Kivalina River. SIS/dWY YeIG eInsulued Puemas-ynqoy SeAnewayy :|| a}deyo 170°W 165°W z S R Cape Lisburne, 61 Point Hope) z FR 8 M4 | 33) Cape Thompson Kivalina Cape. Krusenstern National | Monument Kotz e. bu 13 IL > Shishmare! / " $4. Z e 38 | 37, t a I 8 ja + | fe] 9} 18] 47] f——t I Th howd 4 asf ep a z 12 3 3 Shaktoolik Norton Sound Wainwright 160°W 22} 24 | 20) 19/ 18) 17} 1 70°N 7} 88 9 | 10) 19] 12] 13 68°N 28f IC 27] 40) 1 J 12} 13) 147 iN 13[ 14 | age] 16 (11 1 - 3 4 5 6 7 10) 11 2 13) 14 16 9 10 W 12 13, 4 4}5i6i7]\ 8 9} 10) 1} 12 13) 14] 18S! 46 7 18 165°W 160°W Areas of Solid Mineral Coal Resources Generalized Land Status ¥Y,. eat Peninsula Te Exploration / Prospecting ———) National Park, P ureau of Land Management - Alaska Coal Occurence ational Park, Preserve, SY 1 or Monument ae] Open ee) Closed V4 Coal Field Wildlife Refuge V7 C Aes State, Native, or YZ ‘oal District eS : River: Closed within 300 ft. LLL pevate Fane The N eel ed back poe je Noa’ iver . setbacl ; applies to the west bank only. CC) KSP RMP Planning Area Proposed Solid Mineral Exploration & Prospecting Map 2 Alternative C 0.6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 66°N 64°N SIS/dWY YeIG eInsuIUad premas-ynqoy SeAeUayy :|| se}deyo 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 165°W 160°W 160°W Coal Resources XQ Coal Occurence VY) Coal Field Coal District Areas of Solid Mineral Exploration / Prospecting —~ River: Closed within 300 ft. of bankfull width The Noatak River 300 ft. setback applies to the west bank only. Generalized Land Status National Park, Preserve, or Monument ] Wildlife Refuge {~~ State, Native, or |__| Private Land —— Road C KSP RMP Planning Area wv Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDO! - BLM, 2005 Map 2-190 Proposed Solid Mineral Exploration & Prospecting Alternative D The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 170°W 165°W - Co ] TT fNy { | lx 726 peer Talal ad | 16 19 | 18) 17 | 4 w. Wainwright 15 a — “| 8 I 14 oO s% 12 3 Pal 12 7 fp} Tat y 89 | 38/7) se) 10 Ko %4 | 33 | 32] 3 s 10 \ 20} 1 On cw 8 9 nie 16 8) 8 Zz wae 6 } 5 mf | i — —f ry g 2 ~~ . LT. / - y Cape Lisburnega& { T i 61 a 4 5 - 3 + + | 6 41 | 40 | 39 7 i ] 38 | 37 bee Point Hope] A fA | ols] sf 9 fae] 5/8 2) 28] 7] 26 ~” VY La 25 | 24 | 23 | 22| 21 | 20| 19 18/17 I16, a4} - 34 fag a ! ~t a 0 | mm I uh} Cape Thompson [eaters Fr i r JW 4) 13! 12) 49] 90 ° Ey x AT M. 20 22 Sitlefslalat2 t 3 _ I sad Pol 7 | BY 9 | 10 tt 2 al f lod Bort / zt i { | 5 Kivalina ob 30 | | 3 z - } ers 29 8 Y a i. 28 | | 25) 2B j i - B47 an 7 . wi . | 18 Jisw 14/13 Roe | IC 27] CapeZ | 24 f 6 4]3]2 : & K ] iwi 1R3e3;al slo : ts rusenstern {| JON | 12 | 13} 14 fe National a [| Ja Monument_/ Bf a [| 2 | sVer | 2 +H + 2 + 20 Kotebue, 5” = pel 2 Kotzez ° go} 19] BS 7 Ne finn t ke na | T)SEsfals] TT; Hobuk | 18 T T 4W 4 13} | 19 7 N 2 ba He 13/14 | ice | r | ] t+ 15 / W lay ay 15 - 10 f | Leis ata 5 13 14 geo 29 | . J 4 A eat: »Tt Ae 12 pry 1 t 112! af oo} sot { | 19 tse a | 7 LOL 1 98 [17/6 [eer ‘ { t zn Dbering eh 11] 10 ~ | | in t D | 8 4 3] 2) 9N ae if f ; ix 2 41516} 7/8] 9] 40] 1} 12 oe 6 STN } 4 len 2 45) 44 +f { - + is Y al aily f [3] Nati Ll] ts z rk | ea | Lf 6 a ~ nil 35 | 34 ] 7 } [4) T 6 8 + 3 has [35 aft > | 4 5 Brevig Mis; a Low) 29 [25 ES tA} { [3f | t m Ebel +t | +f | f Telia ‘| bad Easd ee | r a [ys] : I z TEL | 7 [s6 ft | 1 Tel [ " 15wi 4/13/42] 49] 90] 2 4 Aa tft} | TT $}2 tf 2 + f 1W af4 at TW 1 13 | 14 | age] 16 1 S St 2 ——}— at [ af ] 3 ot a T 35 7 { 3 %4 | 33 oo) as}—L_|Counell { 4 3 mood w, 29) 26 {6 5 | 7) f 4 - T t 9 2 7 . [ls | 10 J 7 6 e S's | 22 )"f 7 i iO) sf —T-- Si 4 8 7 f , { | 2/80ihe rs eee "2 e io +— : 10/ 9} 12] 13) 14 | BST a6 y tv} fo 10 9 , [| ] - 10 | 7 rt 7 r Shaktoolik & 2 eo Uv i 12 / Ps os 4 na ee te 2 3] 2 { [is i Norton Sound SMe] olel7 pets 4}ale aT. 213}alsle | ~f 718) 9} 40} 9} 42 16S, | ] wi 13) 14 x 16 18) 2 Unalakleet . cies 18 7 5 tT 19 at SIF/dWY Yelg ejnsulUag premes-yngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (2) Locatable Minerals (a) Goals e Maintain or enhance opportunities for mineral exploration and development while maintaining other resource values. (b) Alternative A Under current management, 30 percent of BLM-managed lands are currently open to mineral entry due to PLO 6477, which partially revoked the ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals. Parts of the Lisburne and Selawik Mining Districts are open to metaliferous mineral entry only (Map 3-29). State and Native selected lands are currently segregated. This plan will not affect segregations against mineral entry due to State and Native selection. Mining activities are currently taking place on some BLM-managed lands because valid existing rights or certain areas were excluded from ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals or State and Native selections. Under Alternative A, no withdrawal review would occur and all ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would remain in place. The Fairbanks District Office and Anchorage Field Office would continue to administer active claims through Plans of Operations, but potential for future exploration and development on BLM-managed lands would be limited. Map 3-29 shows areas open for locatable mineral entry, pending State or Native selections. e Areas open to mineral entry: 3,875,000 acres, of which 243,000 acres are State- or Native- selected. e Areas closed to mineral entry: 9,258,000 acres including the Squirrel River Wild and Scenic River Study Area and areas closed by ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals. (c) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) e Mining of locatable minerals would be subject to the surface management regulations found in 43 CFR 3809. Surface occupancy under the mining laws would be limited to uses incident to the mining operation. Bonding would be required in accordance with BLM policy. e Mining related disturbances would be rehabilitated, on active and inactive workings, as required by 43 CFR 3809 and in accordance with BLM policy. e All operations would require filing a Plan of Operations with BLM. The Plan would have to be approved prior to commencement of on-the-ground activities. Specific measures that would be utilized to minimize surface impacts and to facilitate rehabilitation and revegetation of mined areas can be found in Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. e Areas withdrawn from mineral location in which valid existing rights are being exercised would require the filing of a Plan of Operations. e Mining activities within withdrawn areas, including ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals, would require proof of a valid discovery for surface-disturbing activities (including occupancy) to occur. State- and Native-selected lands are currently segregated. This plan would not affect segregations against mineral entry due to State and Native selection. Detailed Descriptions: 2-59 Chapter II: Alternatives Locatable Minerals Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (d) Alternative B Under Alternative B, all ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would be revoked and the entire planning area would be open to locatable mineral entry and location subject to the 3809 and 3175 _ reguations and Required Operating Procedures. e Areas open to mineral entry and location: 13,133,000 acres, of which 8,163,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. e Areas closed to mineral entry and location: 0 acres (none). (e) Alternative C Under Alternative C, about 50 percent of the BLM-managed lands within the planning area would be closed to mineral entry and location to provide additional protection to sensitive areas. In areas identified for closure to mineral entry and location that are under an existing ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawal, the withdrawal would be retained until a new withdrawal for the stated purpose could be implemented. Areas not currently under an existing withdrawal would also be included in the new withdrawal for the stated purpose. e Areas open to mineral entry and location: 6,498,000 acres, of which 4,652,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. e Areas closed to mineral entry and location: 6,635,000 acres, of which 3,505,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. These areas include: a) WACH caribou insect relief habitat; b) Squirrel River SRMA; c) Kigluaik ACEC; d) McCarthy's Marsh ACEC; e) Upper Kuzitrin ACEC; f) Nulato Hills ACEC; g) 300-foot setback as specified in PLO 6477 on the Pah, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, and Fish rivers, and west bank of Noatak River; h) 300 feet on either side of tributaries of above mentioned rivers (including Boston Creek); i) 300 feet on both sides of the mainstems and tributaries of the following rivers: Agiapuk, Buckland, Squirrel, Omar, Kivalina, Pick, Kukpowruk, Ipewik, and Nilik rivers, Kiliovilik Creek (Upper Selawik), Koyuk River including East Fork. Map 2-11 shows areas that would be open to locatable mineral entry and location, pending State and Native selections. (f) Alternative D Under Alternative D, less than 1 percent of the BLM-managed lands within the planning area would be closed to mineral entry and location to provide additional protection to sensitive areas. In areas identified for closure to mineral entry and location that are under an existing ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawal, the withdrawal would be retained until such time as a new withdrawal for the stated purpose can be implemented. Areas not currently under an existing withdrawal would also be included in the new withdrawal for the stated purpose. e Areas open to mineral entry and location: 13,034,000 acres, of which 8,067,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. e Areas closed to mineral entry and location: 99,000 acres, of which 89,000 acres are State- or Native-selected. These areas include: a) Mount Osborn RNA; b) 300-foot setback from bankfull stage on either side of the Ungalik River as identified in PLO 6477; c) 300-foot setback from bankfull stage on both sides of Boston Creek and upper Kivalina River. Map 2-12 shows areas that would be open to locatable mineral entry and location, pending State and Native selections. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-60 Detailed Descriptions: Locatable Minerals sjeseuly 81qe}e007 :suolduosegq paiejeq L9-Z SOAeUayy :|| Ja}deuD Closed Areas Table 2-10. Locatable Minerals—Summary of Alternatives About 70% of the BLM lands are currently withdrawn from mineral entry and location due to ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals or State and Native selections. This plan would not affect 0 acres closed Revoke all ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals. Open all areas, subject to 3809 surface 6,635,000 acres closed (50%). Of this, 3,505,000 acres are are State- or Native- selected. Add the following to the list in D: 1) Squirrel River SRMA; 2) Kigluaik ACEC (includes the Mount Osborn RNA); 99,000 acres closed (1%). Of this, 89,000 acres are are State- or Native-selected. The following areas would be closed to mineral entry and location: 1) Mount Osborn RNA segregations against regulations. 3) McCarthy’s Marsh ACEC; 2) 300-foot setback on both mineral entry and location 4) Upper Kuzitrin ACEC; sides of the Ungalik River as due to State and Native 5) Nulato Hills ACEC; identified in PLO 6477 Selection. Mining 6) 300 feet on the: Pah, Shaktoolik, 3) 300-foot setback both activities are currently Inglutalik, Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, Fish, and west | sides of Boston Creek and taking place on some bank of Noatak River as specified in PLO upper Kivalina River. BLM-managed lands 6477; because of valid existing 7) 300 feet on either side of tributaries of All (d)(1) withdrawals outside rights or because certain above mentioned rivers; of these areas that exclude areas were excluded from 8) 300 feet on both sides of the mainstems mineral entry would be ANCSA (d)(1) and tributaries of the following rivers: modified or revoked to allow withdrawals or State and Agiapuk, Buckland, Squirrel, Omar, Pick, locatable mineral entry. Native selections. Kukpowruk, Ipewik, and Nilik rivers, Kiliovilik Creek (Upper Selawik), and Koyuk River (Map 2-12). including East Fork. (Map 2-11). Open Areas All BLM-managed lands 13,133,000 6,498,000 acres open 13,034,000 acres open not closed by PLO or acres open (99%). Of this 8,067,000 segregation (about 30% of BLM lands in plan area) (100%), of which 8,163,000 are State- or Native- selected. area are State- or Native- selected. SIA/dWY YelG eInsulueg psemas-yngoy s|eseulyy 21qQe}e007 || saydeyo SaneUsa}|\Yy c9-% :suonduosegq payiejoq Areas Open to Metaliferous Mineral Location Only Under current PLOs, 243,000 acres in the Lisburne and the Selawik Mining Districts are open to metalliferous location only. (Map 3-29) All lands presently closed to non- metalliferous location will be opened to entry and location for all locatable minerals. (Map 3-29) Lands in the Selawik Mining District currently closed to non-metalliferous location will be opened to entry and location for all locatable minerals. Lands in the Lisburne Mining District will remain closed to non-metalliferous entry and location. Lands presently closed to non-metalliferous location will be opened to entry and location except in the areas identified above as closed. SIB/dWY Yes Binsulusd psemag-4ngoy SeAnewayy :|| Je}deyD 170°W 165°W Point Lay Cape Lisburne Point Hope Cape Thompspi 17 | 46 SIN C4 Bp Kivalina) Cape Krusenstern National Monument ‘Shishmaret 13 Norton Sound 160°W 4 20} 19/18 | 17 | 16 GW: UMIAT MERIDIA, KATEEL/ RIVER MERIDIAN 10h }12] 43 awit ‘24 Kobuk Valley National Park 7 Selawik National Wildlife Refuge 10 21} 0f 9 Unalakleet 165°W 160°W 2 79 jiw] * 10} 11/92/43 | 44 Locatable Mineral Management Known Mineral Area Generalized Land Status as Open Placer Producing Area ee Closed Known Mineral River: Closed within 300 ft. Deposit Area of bankfull width The Noatak River 300 ft. setback applies to the west bank only. Note: Under Alternative B all BLM lands in the C_] planning area are open to locatable minerals. National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge State, Native, or Private Land Road KSP RMP Planning Area Map 2-11 Proposed Locatable Mineral Management Alternative C W Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 viiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWa Yes BiNsulued puemas-ynqGoy SeAeusayy || 4a}deyD 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W Cape Lisburne/ ¢ Krusenstern National Monument Norton Sound 160°W Wainwright ©) 2197 | 38} 95] of as ap Fs Unalakleet 165°W z 2 2 sow! 29 | 28 | 27| 28 | 26 | 24 | 231 22 | 21} | 0 18/17 | 16 tN : 45¥ 2 National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska 3 UMIAT ATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN 10) 11) 12/13 z 8 sw} 4 is Kobuk Valley ~ 7 Selawik National Wildlife Refuge Pac Koyukuk 5 = National y 2 Wildlife Refuge 40/11 / 12| 19) 14/85 z 3 160°W Locatable Mineral Known Mineral Areas Placer Producing Area Known Mineral Deposit Area River: Closed within 300 ft. of bankfull width — Note: Under Alternative B all BLM lands in the C_] planning area are open to locatable minerals. Generalized Land Status National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge State, Native, or Private Land Road KSP RMP Planning Area Proposed Locatable Mineral Management Map 2-12 Alternative D Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIS/dWY Yes eiNsulUsg premas-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 3) Mineral Materials (a) Goal Make lands, including Federally administered surface/minerals and split estate, available for mineral material disposal. (b) Alternative A Under current management, lands, including Federally administered surface/minerals and split estate, are available for disposal for salable mineral materials (sand, gravel, etc.) unless specifically closed by Public Land Order. Mineral material sales are considered on a case-by- case basis, with specific operating terms and conditions developed through the NEPA process, except for small sales (less than 50,000 cubic yards) which are categorically excluded. (c) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) e Mining of salable material would be subject to the Mineral Materials Disposal regulations found in 43 CFR 3600. Bonding would be required in accordance with BLM contract regulations. e All operations are required to file a Plan of Operations with BLM. The Plan would have to be approved prior to commencement of on-the-ground activities. e Plans of operations would incorporate the appropriate guidelines listed in the Required Operating Procedures (ROPs). e Mineral material sales on selected lands would require concurrence of the potential, future landowner and proceeds from the sale placed into escrow. e Free use permits would not be issued for resources on selected lands. e Material sales on certificated Native allotments are the purview of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and its successor agency. e Material sales on un-certificated Native allotments would not be permitted (43 CFR 3601.1- 2(b)). e Material sales on split estate would require concurrence of the surface owner. e Mineral materials sales are not permitted on pre-1955 mining claims (POL-167) and subject to non-intereference with the mining operation on post 1955 mining claims. (d) Alternative B Under Alternative B, approximately 13.1 million acres (100 percent) of BLM-managed lands, including Federally administered surface/minerals and split estate would be made available for salable mineral material disposal. Mineral material sales would occur in accord with the terms and conditions of the sales contract/permit, which would incorporate applicable Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. (e) Alternative C Under Alternative C, approximately 12,861,500 acres (98 percent) of BLM-managed lands, including Federally administered surface/minerals and split estate would be made available for salable mineral material disposal. Mineral material sales would occur in accord with the terms and conditions of the sales contract/permit, which would incorporate applicable Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. Sale of mineral materials from riverbed, ocean beach/lagoon and lakeshore would not be permitted. In addition, the following areas would be Detailed Descriptions: 2-67 Chapter Il: Alternatives Mineral Materials Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS excluded from mineral material sale or development: BLM-managed land in McCarthy's Marsh ACEC and Kigluaik ACEC (429,100 acres). (f) Alternative D Under this alternative, mineral materials would be managed in the same way as described under Alternative B. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Table 2-11. Mineral Materials—Summary of Alternatives All lands are available unless closed by PLO. Mineral Materials 13,133,000 acres open (100%) 12,861,500 acres open (98%) 271,500 acres closed (2%) Same as Alternative B Sale of mineral materials from riverbed, ocean beach/lagoon and lakeshore will be permitted on a case-by-case basis. Same as Alternative A Sale of mineral materials from riverbed, ocean beach/lagoon and lakeshore will not be permitted. Same as Alternative A Chapter II: Alternatives 2-68 Detailed Descriptions: Mineral Materials Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS d) Recreation Management (1) Goal On BLM-managed lands, improve access to appropriate recreation opportunities, ensure a quality outdoor experience, and enjoyment of natural and cultural resources, and provide for and receive fair value in recreation. (2) Alternative A This alternative would continue current management as identified in the Northwest MFP. The area would be managed for dispersed recreational use. Recreational activities would be monitored on a casual basis. Public use trail shelters may be constructed if funding is available. No special recreation management areas would be designated. Conflicts due to increasing recreational use levels in the Squirrel River and other areas would not be addressed. The Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) management plan would be implemented. The Salmon Lake Campground would continue to be maintained. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring e Inventory lands for recreational opportunities and monitor changes in use patterns. Priority areas for monitoring would include Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMA), rivers determined suitable for designation as wild or scenic, the Iditarod NHT, and identified recreation management zones within the Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). e Monitor special recreation permit holders and sport uses affecting game resources for their effect on recreation opportunity. e Monitor dispersed recreation within the planning area for any resource damage or user conflicts. (b) Management Decisions e¢ Implement the Iditarod NHT Management Plan. e Maintain the Salmon Lake Campground and access road. e Outside of SRMAs and Recreation Management Zones, applications for Special Recreation Permits (for commercial use) would be handled on a case-by-case basis. e Public use shelters would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Existing structures would be evaluated and if determined suitable, considered for public use shelters. New cabins may also be constructed. e The Squirrel River would be designated as an SRMA. (4) Alternative B Under Alternative B, most of the planning area would be an ERMA managed for dispersed recreational use. The vast majority of the planning area would be managed as semi-primitive non-motorized Recreation Opportunity Spectrum class. Public use shelters or other recreation facilities may be constructed on a case-by-case basis. The Iditarod NHT management plan would be implemented. Detailed Descriptions: 2-69 Chapter II: Alternatives Recreation Management Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS The Squirrel River would be designated as an SRMA (859,000 acres) and conflicts between users would be addressed by limiting the number of guides and outfitters allowed to operate in the area (Map 2-13). The number of visitor use days associated with guides and outfitters would be limited. (5) Alternative C Management under this alternative would be similar to Alternative B except for in the areas discussed below (Map 2-14). (a) Squirrel River SRMA The Squirrel River would be designated as an SRMA (859,000 acres). Conflicts between users would be addressed using a variety of methods: 1) the number of guides, outfitters, and air transporters would be limited; 2) the number of commercial and non-commercial visitor use days would be limited between August 1 and September 30; and 3) all visitors to the SRMA would be required to obtain a permit August 1-September 30. (b) Salmon Lake/Kigluaik SRMA The Kigluaik Mountains and Salmon Lake campground would be designated as an SRMA (290,000 acres). The SRMA would be managed as a semi-primitive motorized area, except those portions adjacent to the Nome road system, which would be managed as roaded natural. Existing facilities would be maintained, and new facilities, such as shelter cabins, trails and interpretive signs, to enhance visitor use and safety might be developed. Helicopter and fixed- wing aircraft use would be allowed to provide for recreation use unless user conflicts require mitigation. Limitations might be placed on visitor use levels through development of an activity- level plan. Transporters would not be required to obtain a permit if requirements under 43 CFR 2932.12(a) are met. (c) Extensive Recreation Management Area The remainder of the planning area would be an ERMA that would be classified as semi- primitive motorized and managed for dispersed recreational use. Within the ERMA additional management attention on commercial recreational use would be focused on the following areas, based upon current use levels, safety, resource impacts, operator tolerance, and quality of recreational experience: Koyuk, Inglutalik, Ungalik, Agiapuk, and Buckland rivers, Nulato Hills, Fish River/McCarthy’s Marsh, and Bendeleben Mountains (Map 2-14). Management actions in these areas might include limiting the number of visitor use days associated with Special Recreation Permits, requiring transporters to obtain a permit, and limiting development of facilities to enhance visitor use. (6) Alternative D Management under this alternative would be similar to Alternative B except for in the areas discussed below (Map 2-15). (a) Squirrel River SRMA The Squirrel River (859,000 acres) would be managed as semi-primitive motorized under the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum system. A Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) would Chapter II: Alternatives 2-70 Detailed Descriptions: Recreation Management Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS be developed to address recreational use, taking into consideration current use levels, safety, resource impacts, operator tolerance, and quality of recreational experience. Using a public process, the BLM would develop management objectives and strategies for the Squirrel River, such as: limitations on total number of visitor use days and number of commercial operators; instituting additional permitting requirements; instituting seasonal closures or limitations on OHV use; and determining the appropriate level of facility development. During the interim between approval of this RMP and the development of the RAMP, outfitters and guides would be managed at the 2004/2005 use level (10 guides). Other users (transporters and general public) would have no set limits on use during this interim period. (b) Salmon Lake/Kigluaik SRMA The Salmon Lake/Kigluaik SRMA would be managed the same as under Alternative C except that no limits on visitor use days would be implemented. The following table summarizes the preceding information. Appendix C summarizes overall management for proposed SRMAs. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Detailed Descriptions: 2-71 Chapter II: Alternatives Recreation Management juowebeuey uolee08y :suonduoseg peylejeq SOAneWaly ‘|| Ja}deuD CL-% Table 2-12. Recreation Management—Summary of Alternatives use. No major actions would be taken to enhance recreational opportunities or to limit visitor use days. guiding operations to 1,400 from August 1 to September 30. -No limits on VUD remainder of the year. -Develop appropriate method to allocate guiding permits, such as lottery, sealed bid, or ranking criteria. Would revise if commercial services board takes measures that effectively resolve the conflicts. -Density goals based on 1 camp per 10 river miles in river corridor and three per township in upland areas -Limit number of commercial guiding operations to 6. -Require air taxi operators to obtain permit and limit number of air taxi operators to 5 per year. -Develop appropriate method to allocate air taxi operator and guiding permits, such as lottery, sealed bid, or ranking criteria. Special No SRMAs 859,000 acres (7%) 1,149,000 acres (9%) Same as C Recreation currently Management | designated. Designate the following: | Designate the following: Areas 1) Squirrel River SRMA 1) Squirrel River SRMA (859,000 acres) 2) Salmon Lake-Kigluaik SRMA (290,000 acres) Squirrel No SRMA The Squirrel River The Squirrel River SRMA would be The Squirrel River SRMA would River SRMA | designated SRMA would be managed as semi-primitive motorized. be managed as semi-primitive managed as semi- Major actions include: motorized under ROS. The Squirrel primitive motorized. - August 1-September 30: require all users | Major actions include: River Major actions include: to obtain permit (maximum 2,000 visitor Develop Recreation Area watershed -Limit number of use days (VUD) during this time period). Management Plan (RAMP) w/in 5 would be commercial guiding -August 1-September 30: Allocate 840 years to address recreational use managed for operations to 10. VUD to commercial guiding and 1,160 taking into consideration current dispersed -Limit number visitor use | VUD to air taxi and non-commerical uses. | use levels, safety, resource recreational days for commercial -No limits on VUD remainder of the year. impacts, operator tolerance, and quality of recreational experience. Using a public process, develop management objectives and strategies, such as limitations on total number of visitor use days; limiting number of camps/river mile or per upland area; permitting requirements; limitations on number of commercial operators; seasonal closures or limitations on OHV use; and facility development. Interim management: Manage for 2004/2005 use levels of 10 guides. SIA/dWY YeIG einsulusd premeg-ynGoy juowapeuey UOeaIey :suonduoseq pelie}eq €L-7~ “IL saydeyo SOAeUAY Lake- Kigluaik Mountain SRMA designated No major actions would be taken to enhance recreational opportunities or to limit visitor use days. 1) Salmon Lake campground managed as roaded natural under ROS. Existing facilities may be enhanced to provide for increased visitor use. 2) Kigluaik Mountains: -managed as semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural. - permit facilities to enhance visitor use and safety. In portions of the SRMA, facilities would be limited to foot and pack animal trails, cross-country ski trails, and interpretative signs. -Helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft use would be allowed to provide for recreation use until user conflicts required mitigation; -May implement limits on number of visitor use days through activity-level plan. -Transporters would not be required to obtain a permit if requirements under CFR 43 2932.12(a) are met. Salmon No SRMA Same as A Salmon Lake-Kigluaik SRMA: Salmon Lake-Kigluaik SRMA: 1) Salmon Lake campground managed as roaded natural. Existing facilities may be enhanced to provide for increased visitor use. 2) Kigluaik Mountains managed as semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural. - permit facilities to enhance visitor use and safety. In portions of the SRMA, facilities would be limited to foot and pack animal trails, cross-country ski trails, and interpretative signs. -Helicopter and fixed wing aircraft use would be allowed to provide for recreation use until user conflicts require mitigation. -No limits on visitor use days -Transporters would not be required to obtain a permit if requirements under CFR 43 2932.12(a) were met. SIF/dWY Yeug einsulUsg puemeg-4nGoy juawebeueyy uoeaI00y “| 4aydeyo SOAIEWOyY pl-% :suonduoseq payieyeq Extensive The planning The ERMA will be ERMA will be classified as semi-primitive Same as B Recreation area would be | classified as semi- motorized and managed for dispersed Management | managed for primitive motorized and recreational use. Additional management Area | dispersed managed for dispersed attention will be focused on the following (ERMA) recreational recreational use. areas. use. Koyuk, Inglutalik, Ungalik rivers; Nulato Hills, Fish River/McCarthy’s Marsh, Bendeleben Mountains: - limit number of SRP user days (up to 120 VUD per area) based upon current use levels, safety, resource impacts, operator tolerance, and quality of recreational experience. -Require transporters to obtain a permit. -No facilities would be developed or permitted to enhance visitor use. Agiapuk and Buckland rivers: -limit number SRP user days (up to 100 VUD per area) based upon current use levels, safety, resource impacts, operator tolerance and quality of recreational experience. -No facilities would be developed or permitted to enhance visitor use. (Map 2-14) Iditarod Manage under | SameasA. In addition, | Same as B Same as B National existing acquire trail segments or Historic Trail | cooperative easements from willing (INHT) agreements sellers as funding and the INHT permits. Management Plan SIB/dWy Yes ejnsulusd psemag-4nqgoy SeAeusayYy ‘|| Jayedyo 70°N 170°W 165°W 160°W Wainwright Point Lay Norton Sound Unalakleet Poorman 8/9} 10) 19) 12/13 | 14/188) 46 15E 7 18 165°W 160°W Special Recreation Generalized Land Status —— Road Management Areas Bureau of Land Management _] KSP RMP Planning Area 7 Special Recreation Fish and Wildlife Service WL Management Area National Park Service Extensive Recreation ge Native Patent or IC Management Unit Native Selected ___ State Patent or TA State Selected Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 Proposed Special Recreation Management Areas Map 2-13 Alternative B The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 64°N SIF/dWY HeG B/Nsulusd PJEMSS-yNqGoy “|| 4aydeyo SONICS} Cape Lisburne. 17 | 4g |W 4 15 3/92 4] 40] @ 32 a _ 'Noatak National Preserve Noatak River. Krusenstern National Monument P {19/181 47] 36] Tt 7 sf ssw 41 18/42) a4 fap a} r Koyuk River ‘Qrary, Norton Sound Unalakleet 8 7 6 7 18 UMIAT MERIDIAN E KATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN 10/11) 12/ 13 aw} 1 a Kobuk Valley National Park Koyukuk National Wildlife 4 15 Poorman 8 {9 | 10) 11/12/13] 14) 168) 16 15E Special Recreation Management Areas WS Special Recreation SS Management Area Extensive Recreation Management Areas GD, Areas of Focused Management Py Extensive Recreation Management Unit Generalized Land Status @ —— Road Bureau of Land Management | KSP RMP Planning Area Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Native Patent or IC Native Selected State Patent or TA State Selected Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 Wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 Map 2-14 Alternative C Proposed Special Recreation Management Areas The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 64°N SIS/dWY YeIG einsuluad Puemas-ynqoy cI 4aydeyo, SeAeUa}y Wainwright 70°N Cape Lisburne. Point Hope 17 | 46 | BN 15) 4) 13) 42 uM) 11) 40 AT MERIDIAN . ofelrfete KATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN 31 Noatak National Preserve 10) 1) 12) 43 Noatak R Cape/ Krusenstern f 24 National a ¢ Kobuk Valley 41W Monument o National Park. 2 Ko "Zeb, e 31) aN 2 29/28) 27 | 3 . 72 Selawik National Wildlife Refuge : 10 4/3) 2/9"), iW. Bering Land Bridge L/! National : a ~ Koyukuk Preserve g National Wildlife 19) 18/47/46) N ssw 4] 13/12] 44 10/19} 12/43) 14/ 8S 14 Norton Sound 15 Poorman 9/10! 19/12] 13| 14/188) 46 ASE. Unalakleet 7 18 Special Recreation Generalized Land Status — Road ¥ Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Management Areas Bureau of Land Management | KSP RMP Planning Area Bureau of Land Management - Alaska Special Recreation Fish and Wildlife Service Management Area ee I es Viles National Park Service Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area Extensive Recreation . Management Unit = Native Patent or IC referencing NAD83 Native Selected I) State Patent or TA Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 State Selected i aie att APG gan The information displayed on this map should be used for Map 2-15 Proposed Special Recreation Management Areas graphic display only. For official land status information, refer Alternative D to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files SIF/dWY He4Ig BjNsulusd Psemas-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS e) Travel Management/OHV (1) Goals e Manage trails to provide access to public lands, recreation, and subsistence resources. e Manage the use of OHVs to minimize resource impacts and reduce user conflicts. (2) Alternative A Under this alternative, current management of OHVs would continue. No OHV designations would be in place as required by BLM Handbook and Executive Orders 11644 and 11989. Use of OHVs weighing more than 2,000 pounds would require a permit. No OHV management plans would be developed. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring e Inventory trails and conduct condition assessments on BLM-managed lands to identify existing trails and assess resource impacts. This information would be used in implementation-level designation of specific trails and to prioritize trail maintenance needs. e Monitor use to ensure OHV designations and regulations under 43 CFR 8341.1 are adhered to. e Priority areas for inventory and monitoring would include: SRMAs, RNAs, ACECs, and suitable rivers. (b) Implementation-level Planning Implementation level plans would be completed for areas designated as SRMAs and ACECs. These plans would include an inventory of trails in the area, and describe specific resource concerns or conflicts, as well as specific trail designations and limitations. The process used to develop these plans would include public participation and coordination with the State, Boroughs, Native corporations, and other Federal agencies. (c) Management Decisions e Determine OHV area designations of Open, Limited, or Closed to OHV activities. e Manage OHVs consistent with 43 CFR subpart 8341.1 Conditions of Use. e Develop informational brochures on OHV restrictions and designations. (d) Land Use Requirements Permitted activities and uses that involve cross-country use of vehicles exceeding the maximum GVWR, or in areas limited to existing or designated trails, would include stipulations that minimize impacts to resources. Specific operating procedures related to OHVs can be found in Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. Detailed Descriptions: 2-81 Chapter II: Alternatives Travel Management/OHV Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (e) Access 1. ANCSA 17(b) Easements The BLM would continue to review and reserve sec. 17(b) easements under the law and regulations to ensure legal access to publicly owned lands while the remainder of the ANCSA corporations’ land entitlements are conveyed. On-the-ground management of easements is the responsibility of the public landowner the easement accesses; i.e.. the BLM, National Park Service, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The State of Alaska accepts management of 17(b) easements accessing its lands on a case-by-case basis, but has not done so in this planning area. The BLM is committed to working with the landowner, State and other Federal agencies. Subject to availability of funds, personnel, and approval, the BLM would locate, mark, and monitor easements and help educate easement users to understand the rights reserved to the United States and the rights of the private landowner, with priority based on: e Easements accessing lands that will be permanently managed by the BLM or that are important to BLM programs. Easements receiving high use. Easements required to implement an activity or implementation plan. Easements where landowners support the activity allowed by the easement. 6 Easements where maintenance or education would mitigate environmental damage to the easement or BLM-managed lands. These criteria would be used to prioritize other discretionary actions, such as maintenance on 17(b) easements. Realignment of reserved 17(b) easements will be considered on a case-by- case basis to resolve on-the-ground issues. Authorization from the BLM is not usually necessary prior to use of a 17(b) easement. However, it must be kept in mind that 17(b) easements are reserved on specific routes for specific kinds of vehicles, sometimes with seasonal restrictions. For example, summer use of a winter-use-only easement, driving off an easement, or using a vehicle not allowed on the easement is a trespass against the Native corporation, not against the BLM. Some 17(b) easements are made discontinuous by private lands, usually Native allotments. Acquisition of easements across or around these lands would be from willing landowners on a case-by-case basis as the need or opportunity arose, and as funds allowed. 2. R.S. 2477 The State of Alaska recognizes approximately 650 R.S. 2477 routes statewide. The assertion of these routes has not been recognized by the United States and current BLM policy is to defer any processing of R.S. 2477 assertions except where there is a demonstrated, compelling, and immediate need to make a determination. In such cases, the Secretary of Interior would make the determination in consultation with the BLM. Land use planning does not affect valid R.S. 2477 rights or future assertions. R.S. 2477 ROWs that were determined valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, or recognized administratively by the Department of the Interior, would be noted to the Master Title Plats as appropriate. Chapter Il: Alternatives 2-82 Detailed Descriptions: Travel Management/OHV Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS All proposals for OHV management would be consistent with sec. 811(b) of ANILCA, which allows for “...appropriate use for subsistence purposes of snowmobiles, motorboats, and other means of surface transportation traditionally employed for such purposes by local residents, subject to reasonable regulation.” (4) Alternative B Under this alternative, the entire planning area would be designated as “limited” to OHV use. The limitations would consist of seasonal weight restrictions. Between June 1 and October 31° cross-country use of OHVs having a GVWR of 2,000 Ibs or less would be allowed. Between November 1 and May 31, cross-country OHV use would be allowed during periods of adequate snow/ice conditions with no weight restriction. Qualified subsistence users would have to comply with OHV designations. Both State- and Native-selected lands would have the same OHV designations as unencumbered BLM lands. No travel management areas are identified. (5) Alternative C Under this alternative, the entire planning area would be designated as “limited” to OHV use (Map 2-16). Between May 15 and October 31, OHVs would be limited to designated trails with a maximum 2,000 pound GVWR limitation. Use of OHVs off of designated trails would be allowed for subsistence harvests by qualified subsistence users. Between November 1 and May 14 cross-country use of OHVs weighing 2,000 pounds or less GVWR would be allowed during periods of adequate snow and ice conditions. Both State- and Native-selected lands would have the same OHV designations as unencumbered BLM lands. Within designated ACECs, additional OHV limits might be developed in area-specific plans based on resource values and management objectives for each unit. Limitations could include limiting use to designated trails, seasonal restrictions or closures, and weight limits. Travel Management Areas for Alternative C are shown in the following table. Table 2-13. Travel Management Areas for Alternative C Squirrel River | Limited OHV May 15-October 31: closed to OHV use SRMA designation -November 1-May 14: Cross-country use of OHVs weighing 2,000 (859,000 pounds or less GVWR would be allowed during periods of adequate acres) snow/ice conditions. -guides and outfitters would not be allowed to use OHVs May 15- October 31 Kigluaik ACEC | Limited OHV -May 15-October 31: OHVs would be limited to designated trails with designation a maximum 2,000 Ib GVWR limitation. -November 1-May 14: Cross-country use of OHVs weighing 2,000 pounds or less GVWR would be allowed during periods of adequate snow/ice conditions. WACH Limited OHV Deferred to activity plan calving/insect | designation relief ACEC Nulato Hills Limited OHV Deferred to activity plan ACEC designation McCarthy's Limited OHV Deferred to activity plan Marsh ACEC __| designation Detailed Descriptions: Travel Management/OHV 2-83 Chapter II: Alternatives Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Kuzitrin River Limited OHV Deferred to activity plan ACEC designation Remainder of | Limited OHV -May 15-October 31: OHVs would be limited to designated trails with BLM lands designation a maximum 2,000 Ib GVWR limitation. -November 1-May 14: Cross-country use of OHVs weighing 2,000 pounds or less GVWR would be allowed during periods of adequate snow/ice conditions. (6) Alternative D Under this alternative, the planning area would be designated as “limited” to OHV use (Map 2- 17). Outside of ACECs, RNAs or SRMAs, cross-country use of OHVs having a GVWR 2,000 pounds or less would be allowed yearlong. Use off of designated or existing trails would be allowed for subsistence harvests by qualified subsistence users. Interim management would apply to selected lands until conveyances were completed. Any lands selected by the State or Native Corporations would be managed as “limited” to OHV use that is consistent with the State’s current Generally Allowed Uses regulations (11 AAC 96.020 and 96.025), which limit OHVs to 1,500 Ibs "curb weight" and direct OHV users to stay on existing trails whenever possible and to minimize surface’ damage and disturbance of vegetation and soils. Travel Management Areas for Alternative D are shown on Map 2-15 and in the following table. Table 2-14. Travel Management Areas for Alternative D Squirrel River | Limited OHV | Deferred to activity plan. Develop a RAMP that will include appropriate SRMA designation limitations on OHV use in the Squirrel River. Limitations may include (859,000 limiting use to designated or existing trails, seasonal restrictions or acres) closures, and weight limits. State-selected lands would be managed consistent with the State’s Generally Allowed Uses. Salmon Lake- | Limited OHV | Deferred to activity plan. Initially under interim management for selected Kigluaik designation lands, OHV use would be consistent with the State’s current Generally SRMA Allowed Uses regulations. If substantial lands remain in BLM management after conveyances, an OHV management plan would be developed. Limitations may include limiting use to designated or existing trails, seasonal restrictions, seasonal closures, and weight limits. Remainder of | Limited OHV | -Cross-country use of OHVs having a GVWR of 2,000 Ibs or less would BLM lands designation be allowed yearlong. - Any lands selected by the State or Native corporations would be managed as “limited” to OHV use that is consistent with the State’s current Generally Allowed Uses regulations (11 AAC 96.020 and 96.025). -Additional OHV limits may be developed in area-specific plans based upon resource values and management objectives for each unit. Limitations may include limiting use to designated or existing trails, seasonal restrictions or closures, and weight limits. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Chapter Il: Alternatives 2-84 Detailed Descriptions: Travel Management/OHV :suonduoseq payiejeq AHOfuewebeuey eves, S8-z SoAneuseyy :|| Ja}deuD Assign OHV designations in the Planning Area Table 2-15. Travel Management/(OHV—Summary of Alternatives The planning area would remain undesignated (13,133,000 acres) The current MFP requires a permit for use of OHVs with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 2,000 Ibs. The planning area would be designated as “limited” (13,133,000 acres). June 1-October 31: Cross-country use of OHVs having a GVWR of 2,000 pounds or less would be allowed. November 1-May 31: Cross-country OHV use would be allowed during periods of adequate snow/ice conditions with no weight restriction. The planning area would be designated as “limited” (13,133,000 acres). May 15-October 31: OHVs would be limited to designated trails with a maximum 2,000 Ib GVWR limitation. November 1-May 14: Cross-country use of OHVs weighing 2,000 pounds or less GVWR would be allowed during periods of adequate snow/ice conditions. ACECs: Additional OHV limits may be developed in area-specific plans based on resource values and management objectives for each unit. Limitations may include limiting use to designated trails, seasonal restrictions or closures, and weight limits. The planning area would be designated as “limited” (13,133,000 acres). Yearlong: Outside of ACECs, RNAs or SRMAs, cross-country use of OHVs having a GVWR of 2,000 pounds or less would be allowed. ACECs, RNAs, and SRMAs: Additional OHV limits may be developed in area-specific plans based upon resource values and management objectives for each unit. Limitations may include limiting use to designated or existing trails, seasonal restrictions or closures, and weight limits. Allow the use of Qualified subsistence Use off of designated or existing OHVs for users would have to trails would be allowed for subsistence comply with OHV subsistence harvests by qualified purposes designations subsistence users. Same as C SIF/dWe Hed B[Nsulusq puemag-4nqoy AHOfuewebeuey jeAelL :suondioseg payiejeq “I 4aydeyo SeAewayy 98-2 Assign OHV Designations to State- and Native-Selected Lands in the Planning Area Selected lands within the planning area would remain undesignated. Selected lands would have the same OHV designations as unencumbered BLM lands (as described above). Selected lands would have the same OHV designations as unencumbered BLM lands (as described above). Selected lands within the planning area would be designated as “limited” During Interim Management: Any lands selected by the State or Native corporations would be managed as “limited” to OHV use that is consistent with the State’s current Generally Allowed Uses regulations (11 AAC 96.020 and 96.025), which limit OHVs to 1,500 Ibs "curb weight," and direct OHV users to stay on existing trails whenever possible and minimize surface damage and disturbance of vegetation and soils. (8,163,000 acres under interim management) Sign existing None None Existing/Designated trails would be | Same as C roads/trails marked within five years of plan approval. Monitoring Monitor use to Same as A Monitor use to ensure OHV weight | Monitor use to ensure OHV ensure OHV weight limits and regulations under 43 CFR subpart 8341.1 are adhered to. limits and regulations under 43 CFR subpart 8341.1 are adhered to. Additional monitoring and enforcement capability to keep use on designated trails. weight limits and regulations under 43 CFR subpart 8341.1 are adhered to. Additional monitoring efforts will be needed. SIF/dWY Yes B/Nsulusd puemag-4ngoy 66°N 68°N 70°N 64°N SaAHeuayy *|| Ja}deyo 170°;W 165°W 160°W Point Lay/° 29) 28 30.) 27 | 26 | 25) 24| 23| 22 | 24 20/19/18 ; 17 | 16 fr 7 z Cape Lisburne paiad National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska rit 3 st ; | as Point Hope - “4 | | My M 29 B Es fests oa z | saw) “| 28 | 27 | 28 | 25} 24{ 23] 221 21 | 201] 101 a0 a? 16 8 f Cape Thompson 9 c P F 12) tel a7 | 46 BN gw 4] a3) ral af aol 32 ei tlels UMIAT MERIDIAN KATEEL /RIVER |MERIDIAN| 31 _|Noatak National Preserve Noatak River. Kivalina Cape Krusenstern p ; is 24 National SS ‘ Kobuk Valley Monument , rf i National Park 1W. Shishmaref 31 / ON sow) 29 | 28 | 57 12 8 241 231 2 Tost oot Selawik National 7 a 6 [RT . Wildlife Refuge @ Bering of’ 1} 10 i | 2 Land rep : ’ Bridge hs | fa fone National | a Koyukuk {uy ' National Wildlife Brevig, CP White Mountain » DL 10) 11) 12) 43) 14 Norton Sound ; - Poorman, 9 | 10) 11/12/13) 14/168) 46 45 Unalakleet ’ 7 18 165°W 160°W OHV Designation Generalized Land Status — Road Ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Limited; National Park, Preserve, Cc] KSP RMP Planning Area Bureau of Land Management - Alaska Closed in summer, or Monument 2000 Ib. GVWR limitation 0 6 121824 48... in winter Wildlife Refuge ees |VilcS Limited; State. Nati Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area E | Designated trails in summer, a 6, Native, or referencing NAD83 | 2000 Ib. GVWR limitation Private Land in winter Source: USDOI-BLM, 2004 Note: Under Alternative B all BLM lands would be limited; 2000 Ib. GVWR limitation in summer. No weight restriction in winter. a The information displayed on thi hould be used f Map 2-16 Proposed OHV Management Classes on BLM Lands ee Alternative C to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWa HesJG BiNsulusd puemag-ynqGoy 170°W 165°W 160°W Wainwright ley Cape 29 pit |*} 2 [6] 2} 2] a }alwlalal wis = Point Lay!” R = 2 2/95] 4]'s5] a2] a1 FIN] op ai ~ | 28 | 27 | 28 | 26 | 24| 23] 22 211 20 18} 18 | 17 | 16 [1M [~ z Cape Lisburne_/¢ ~ National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska l 3 “ 2 2) 19) 18 17 685 8 i ou 4113/42] 44 0) 9 Rare AY MERIDIAN 32 SUG s bales Ban IVER /MERIDIAN s\| |” Noatak National Preserve |” Noatak River. 31 z 8 Cape en Krusenstern Pia ba J 2 National — sas = Kobuk Valley. Monument “aes fi National Park r 4 f bi 22 f Rive, 2 Fg 8 7 Selawik National f Wildlife Refuge Bering 40 Land Bridge National | - b Z Preserve ; National 8 Wildlife 64°N Norton Sound 5 Poorman. 9/10) 11) 12/ 13 | 14/168) 46 45E Unalakleet aM, 18 165°W 160°W OHV Designation Generalized Land Status —— Road ¥, ean eftond wanna ek . : of La nagement - Alaska Limited; National Park, Preserve, CJ KSP RMP Planning Area ureau nd Managemen’ Additional OHV or Monument limitations to be . 0 6 12 18 24 48 Wil determined in Wildlife Refuge —eee Wes future activity plan Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area State, Native, or Limited; Private Land pane referencing NAD83 Eg 2000 Ib. GVWR limitation Note: Under Alternative B all BLM lands Source: USDOI-BLM, 2004 would be limited; 2000 Ib. GVWR limitation in summer. No weight restrictions in winter. - The infc ition displayed on thi hould be d for Map 2-17 Proposed OHV Management Classes on BLM Lands grape dopey on: Ear fil ans tiorneon ofr Alternative D to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWe YesG BiNsuUag puemas-yngoy SeAneuayy :|| Ja}deyD Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS f) Renewable Energy (1) Goals Make BLM-managed lands available for development of renewable energy sources. (2) Alternative A Currently the BLM has no permits issued for these types of facilities. Two areas have been classified for hydropower, both on the Seward Peninsula south of Imuruk Basin. Salmon Lake was designated a power site in 1950 by Power Site Classification 403 as amended by PLO 2061. Power Site Reserve 726 designated Pass Creek as a Powersite Reserve in 1919. Both sites are selected by either or both the State and Native corporations. Requests for permits to develop renewable energy sources would be considered on a case-by-case basis. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Management Decisions As described in Chapter Ill, potential exists within the planning area for development of renewable energy sources. Currently, the BLM has no permits or leases issued for these types of facilities within the planning area. However, two sites have been classified for hydropower. Applications for permits or leases to develop renewable energy sources on BLM-managed lands would be considered on a case-by-case basis, subject to requirements described under Lands and Realty, Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) on page 2-92. (b) Land Use Requirements Permits for development of renewable energy would include stipulations that minimize impacts to resources. Specific operating procedures can be found in Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. Detailed Descriptions: 2-91 Chapter Il: Alternatives Renewable Energy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS g) Lands and Realty Actions (1) Goals e Meet public needs for use authorizations such as ROW, leases, and permits while minimizing adverse impacts to other resource values e Retain public lands with high resource values in public ownership e Adjust land ownership to consolidate public land holdings, acquire lands with high public resource values, and meet public and community needs e Acquire and maintain access to public lands where needed to improve management efficiency, facilitate multiple use, and promote the public’s enjoyment of these lands in coordination with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and private landowners (2) Alternative A Under Alternative A, the Lands and Realty program would continue in its current role of supporting other BLM programs, providing for land use authorizations, and supporting the BLM- Alaska State Office in conveyances. No specific lands would be identified for disposal, exchange, or acquisition. Land use authorizations such as FLPMA leases and permits would continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as would other unauthorized uses, such as trespass cabins. Withdrawal review would not occur for ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals or other smaller administrative withdrawals. Some uses would continue to be constrained by such withdrawals. There are two legislatively designated corridors within the planning area: from Deering to Nome-Taylor Highway (ANILCA Sec. 201(2); and Bornite to the Dalton Highway (ANILCA 201(4)(b). (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Land Disposals 1. FLPMA Sales Public lands meeting one of more of the following criteria could be disposed of through FLPMA sales: e A tract that was acquired for a specific purpose and that is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose. e A tract whose disposal would serve important public objectives. This could include, but is not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development. Disposal would proceed only when such objectives could not be achieved prudently or feasibly on other than pubic lands and when such objectives outweighed other public objectives and values (e.g., recreation and scenic values) that might justify maintaining such a tract in Federal ownership. e A tract that, because of its location or other characteristics, is difficult and uneconomic to manage and is not suitable for management by another Federal agency. Note: Lands identified for disposal under this authority that were selected by either the State or a Native corporation would have to be adjudicated before the BLM would entertain a sale. By identifying these lands for disposal, we are merely saying that if these lands become Chapter II: Alternatives 2-92 Detailed Descriptions: Lands and Realty Actions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS unencumbered by selections within the life of the plan, then they would then become suitable for disposal under this authority, having been properly identified through the planning process. Lands not to be disposed of include: e Lands withdrawn from the public land laws or segregated by State or Native selection. e Land within mining claims of record under sec. 314 of FLPMA. e Land specifically identified for retention. (b) Other Disposals 1. Recreation and Public Purposes Act e Selected lands identified for disposal under this authority would have to be fully adjudicated before BLM would entertain a sale. By identifying these lands for disposal, we are merely saying that if these lands become unencumbered within the life of the plan, then they would be suitable for disposal under this authority. e In most instances, BLM would first lease lands under this act and would only convey the lands after the project was constructed in compliance with an approved development and management plan. One important exception to this is tracts for proposed sanitary landfills, which would always be sold; not leased. e Application for tracts to be used as sanitary landfills would only be conveyed with a clause that would prohibit reversion to the Federal government. e Existing leases would be converted to patents if the lands were used for sanitary landfills. 2. Airport and Airway Improvement Act of September 3, 1982 Process Airport conveyances as requested by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Each conveyance would contain appropriate covenants and reservation requested by FAA. As a condition to each conveyance, the property interest conveyed would revert to the Federal government in the event the lands were not developed for airport or airway purposes or were used in a manner inconsistent with the terms of the conveyance. 3. Exchanges BLM will strive to process mutually benefiting public interest land exchanges. Exchanges are authorized in Alaska by FLPMA, ANCSA, and ANILCA. When considering public interest, full consideration would be given to efficient management of public lands and to important objectives including: protection of fish and wildlife, cultural resources, wilderness and aesthetic values, enhancement of recreational opportunities, consolidation of mineral and timber holdings for more logical and efficient management, expansion of communities, promotion of multiple-use values, and fulfillment of public needs. Exchanges would not be actively sought until State and Native entitlements were fulfilled. 4. Acquisitions Acquire private lands through purchase or exchange with willing owners. Acquisition would be pursued within areas identified for long-term Federal management and retention when such acquisition advanced the programs of the Secretary, including access. Consider acquisition of parcels along the Iditarod NHT through purchase or exchange with willing owners. When feasible, BLM would acquire less than fee title to property if management goals could be Detailed Descriptions: 2-93 Chapter Il: Alternatives Lands and Realty Actions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS achieved. BLM would acquire access for discontinuous 17(b) easements as the need and opportunity arose. (c) Land Use Authorizations 1. FLPMA Leases All FLPMA leases would be at fair market value. Cabins or permanent structures used for private recreation could not be authorized under this authority. Proposals to lease cabins used for commercial uses (Such as guiding or trapping) would be subject to the following criteria: e Proximity to other private property or existing authorized structures. e Proximity to existing transportation routes or systems. e Documentation of the profitability/reliance of the trapping lifestyle. 2. R&PP Leases R&PP leases would not be issued for sanitary landfill purposes. Existing leases for sanitary landfill purposes could be converted to patents without a reverter clause. 3. Permits Permits cover occupancy, use, or development of a site. Specific exclusion areas are listed in e Table 2-16 on page 2-97. In general: Cabin or permanent structure permits could not be issued for private recreation uses. Trapping shelters would be authorized by short-term (three years maximum) sec. 302 permits renewable at the discretion of the BLM and tied to the applicant’s ability to show actual use for profitable trapping purposes. Guide shelters would only be authorized in conjunction with Special Recreation Permits issued under FLPMA authority. The same criteria described above for cabin leases would be used during consideration of issuance of such permits. Military maneuver permits would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 4. Unauthorized Use, Occupancy, or Development Trespass cabins may become the property of the U.S. Government and be managed as administrative sites, as emergency shelters, or as public use cabins. Possible management actions on trespass cabins include: e Removal of the structure. e Relinquishment to the United States for management purposes. e Authorization by lease or permit for legitimate uses if consistent with identified area goals and objectives. e Under numbers 2 and 3, the criteria listed above for cabins under Lease and Permits would be used. Criteria for prioritizing unauthorized cases would be as follows: e Situations involving new trespass, public safety, public complaints. e Areas identified for long-term Federal management: highest priority, or other unencumbered lands. e Selected lands on which resources are being removed without authorization or where resource damage is occurring. e Other selected lands. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-94 Detailed Descriptions: Lands and Realty Actions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 5. Rights-of-way Rights-of-way (ROWs) would be located near other ROW or on already disturbed areas to the extent practical. 6. Selected Lands Regarding use authorizations, selected lands would be treated as follows: - Native-selected: Prior to issuance of a use authorization, the applicant would be required to obtain the non-objection of the Native corporation. If the corporation objected to the proposal, BLM would proceed with issuance only if the State Director deemed the proposal to be in the public good. - State-selected: In accordance with 906(k) of ANILCA, BLM would request concurrence from the State prior to issuance of any use authorization. BLM could then incorporate comments in the terms and condition of the use authorization if such comments comply with Federal laws and regulations. If the State objected, BLM would not issue the use authorization. If the proposal were on land which was not available within the meaning of the Statehood Act but which had been top-filed by the State pursuant to 906 (e) of ANILCA, a letter of concurrence would not be required. 7. Required Operating Procedures Land use authorizations would be subject to measures identified in the Required Operating Procedures in Appendix A. (4) Alternative B Alternative B, would be very similar to Alternative A in that most land use authorizations would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. No areas would be identified for permit or lease avoidance or exclusion. Tracts of land meeting the criteria outlined in Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives would be available for disposal except where prohibited by PLO or where lands were identified for retention. Once conveyances were completed, large blocks of BLM lands would be retained in Federal ownership (Map 2-18). BLM would consider acquisition of parcels along the Iditarod NHT through purchase or exchange with willing owners. Exchanges would not be actively sought out until land conveyances were completed. All BLM- managed lands would be available for occupancy permits except where prohibited by PLO. The Red Dog-Kuchiak Mine Corridor would be designated (Map 2-19). ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would be revoked throughout the planning area. The lands in the Squirrel River would be opened to mineral entry and leasing. No areas would be identified for ROW avoidance or exclusion. Communication site ROWs would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Hot springs leases would be considered. (5) Alternative C Under Alternative C, land use authorizations would be limited, particularly in ACECs and rivers determined to be suitable for designation as wild and scenic. No lands would be available for disposal through FLPMA sales, R&PP disposal, or other FLPMA disposals. FLPMA and R&PP leases would be authorized on a case-by case basis except in designated ACECs. Occupancy permits would not be authorized in ACECs or suitable rivers except for administrative sites, government use, or research. ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would be revoked except in those Detailed Descriptions: 2-95 Chapter II: Alternatives Lands and Realty Actions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS areas identified for withdrawal from locatable minerals (Map 2-11). In these areas, (d)(1) withdrawals would be retained until a new withdrawal for the stated purpose was completed. The Squirrel River would continue to be closed to mineral entry and leasing. ACECs and NSO areas on anadromous streams would be designated as ROW avoidance areas (Map 2-7). Communication site ROWs would be limited to existing sites. Hot springs leases would be prohibited. (6) Alternative D Under this alternative, land use authorizations would generally be allowable on BLM-managed lands and would be considered on a case-by-case basis subject to Required Operating Procedures. Any lands remaining in BLM management in the immediate vicinity of Nome and Kotzebue after conveyances were completed would be available for disposal through FLPMA sale. Specific tracts meeting the criteria outlined in Management Guidance Common to All Alternatives would be available for disposal under other disposal authorities except for those lands identified for retention. Once conveyances were completed, large blocks of BLM land would be retained in Federal ownership (Map 2-18). FLPMA and R&PP leases would be authorized on a case-by case except in designated ACECs and RNAs. Occupancy permits would not be authorized in ACECs, RNAs, or suitable rivers except for administrative sites, government use, or research. ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would be revoked except in those 2 areas identified for withdrawal from locatable minerals (Map 2-12). In these areas, (d)(1) withdrawals would be retained until a new withdrawal for the stated purpose was completed. The Squirrel River would be opened to mineral entry and leasing. The Nulato Hills ACEC would be designated as a ROW avoidance area (Map 2-21). Communication site ROWs would be limited to the three existing sites within the Kigluaik Mountains. In other parts of the planning area, communication site ROW would be considered on a case-by-case basis. As in Alternative C, hot springs leases would be prohibited. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-96 Detailed Descriptions: Lands and Realty Actions Ayeay pue spueq :suonduoseg payiej}eq L6-7% SOAHewa}y :|| Ja}deuD R&PP Disposal Table 2-16. Lands and Realty—Summary of Alternatives Lands may be disposed of following the petition/classifi-cation procedures in 43CFR 2740. Same as A No lands available for R&PP disposal Same as A FLPMA sales No lands currently Specific tracts meeting the No land available for FLPMA | Any tracts remaining in BLM identified for disposal. criteria outlined in sales ownership within the following Under PLO 6477 300- Management Guidance townships around Nome and foot setbacks on the Common to All Alternatives Kotzebue would be available Pah, Noatak, would be available for disposal for sale: Kateel, T17N, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, except where prohibited by R18W; T17N R17W; T18N Inglutalik Tubutulik, PLO or where lands are R17W; T11S, R33W; T11S, Kuzitrin, and Fish rivers | identified for retention. R34W. are withdrawn from sale. Other FLPMA No lands currently Specific tracts meeting the No lands will be available for | Same as B Disposals identified for disposal. criteria outlined in disposal Under PLO 6477 300- Management Guidance foot setbacks on the Common to All Alternatives Pah, Noatak, would be available for disposal Shaktoolik, Ungalik, except for those lands Inglutalik Tubutulik, identified for retention. Kuzitrin, and Fish rivers are withdrawn from sale. Lands Identified | None Once conveyances are Same as B Same as B for retention complete, retain large blocks of BLM land and the Iditarod NHT (Map 2-18) 9,089,000 acres for retention, of which 4,420,000 acres is selected SIA/dWY Yel Binsulusd psemag-4ngoy 86-2 Seneusayy *|| Ja}deyD :suonduoseg payiejyeq Ayjeey pue spuey er FLPMA and Considered case-by- Allow on a case-by-case basis | Allow FLPMA and R&PP Same as C R&PP Leases case. Leases are except were prohibited by leases on a case-by-case excluded from 300-foot | PLO. basis except where setbacks on the Pah, prohibited by PLO and in Noatak, Shaktoolik, ACECs/RNAs Ungalik, Inglutalik (approximately 5.6 million Tubutulik, Kuzitrin, and acres of ACECs) Fish rivers under PLO 6477. Occupancy Considered case-by- All lands available for permits | Make occupancy permits Same as C Permits case except were on a case-by-case basis available on a case-by-case prohibited by PLO. except where prohibited by basis except in PLO. ACECs/RNAs (approximately 5 million acres) and rivers determined to be suitable for designation as wild and scenic. Within ACECs and suitable rivers, occupancy permits may be issued for administrative sites, government use, or research. ANCSA (d)(1) ANCSA (d)(1) Revoke all (d)(1) withdrawals Revoke (d)(1) withdrawals Revoke (d)(1) withdrawals Withdrawals withdrawals in place on | and make the lands available except in those areas except in those areas selected lands. Closed to mineral location or leasing. to the full spectrum of the land laws. identified for withdrawal from locatable minerals. In these areas, (d)(1) withdrawals would be retained until a new withdrawal for the stated purpose is completed. identified for withdrawal from locatable minerals. In these areas, (d)(1) withdrawals would be retained until a new withdrawal for the stated purpose is completed. Rights-of-way corridors Two legislatively designated routes from Deering to Nome - Taylor Highway (ANILCA Sec. 201(2); Bornite to the Dalton Highway (ANILCA 201(4)(b) Same as A, plus designate Red Dog-Kuchiak Mine Corridor (as proposed by ASRC) Same as A. Same as A SIS/dWY YesG eiNsulusg premeg-ynGoy Ayjeay pue spueq :suonduoseg payiejaq 66-2 “|| saydeyo SOAeUayYy Rights-of-way exclusion or avoidance areas None designated Same as A Designate the following areas as avoidance areas (5,602,000 acres): 1) ACECs/RNAs 2) 300-foot NSO setbacks on rivers (not to preclude crossing of rivers.) 3) locatable mineral withdrawals on identified streams Designate the Nulato Hills ACEC (2,044,000 acres) as an avoidance area. Communication site ROW Considered case-by- case Same as A Limit to existing communication sites. Limit to the three existing sites within the Kigluaik Mountains. Consider elsewhere on case-by-case basis. Squirrel River Withdrawal Withdrawn for study as wild and scenic river. Withdrawal expires 11/17/2007. Unselected lands become subject to PLO 5179, which segregates against mineral entry and leasing. Open lands in the Squirrel River to mineral entry and leasing. Keep PLO 5179 in place Same as B Hot Springs leases Considered case-by case Same as A Prohibit leases Same as C SIB/dWe YEG BiNsuluad Pemag-7ngoy 66'N 68°N 70°N 64°N SeAnewayy || sa}deyD 170°w 165°W 160°W “pd 3 | 22/21) 20 19| 18 | 17 4. Gi 16 15 14 Point Lay. Cape Lisburne. Point Hope — as) ft Sow) "| 28} 27 | 28 | 25 | 24/23] 22} 2s | 20] 10 | 10 | ar tie BS 15 Cape Thompsoii UMIAT MERIDIAN KATEEL/RIVER |MERIDIAN: 5) 4/3) 2/3N _ |Noatak National Preserve ‘fafa % 7 | 8% 9/10] 11] 12] 43 Kivalina Gates of 2 F the4rctic 27 Cape Bx NP & P= oe NA2 F101) a2) 13) 4 2 Krusenstern a if a fa National é 4 Kobuk Valley. 1 Monument ‘ National Park 2 10 f 31 / aN 200 29/ 26) 7 Selawik National Wildlife Refuge ol 10 Bering Land Bridge a National 1. Koyukuk | National 1 = | Wildlife ~ : Refuge 19/18/47) 4g] IN Huslia’ Preserve 45) 14/13/12] 44 7% 10| | | 1] 88 4 aliofe Norton Sound i Tee «Poorman, 8/9 | 10) 11) 12] a9] 14/168) 4 : V7) Land that would Generalized Land Status — Road Ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP 7 : be retained Bureau of Land Management. ....-- Iditarod Trail Bureau of Land Management - Alaska Fish and Wildlife Service CJ KSP RMP Planning Area 0 6 1218 24 48 iq oe V'NCS National Park Service . Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area ie Native Patent or IC referencing NAD83 Native Selected Rey State Patent or TA State Selected Source: USDOI-BLM, 2004 Lands for Retention The information displayed on this map should be used for Map 2-18 5 graphic display only. For official land status information, refer Alternatives B, C, and D to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWY HeIg ejnsulusd psemas-4ngoy SeAneUlayy :|| Ja}deyo Proposed Transportation Corridor - Alternative B Arctic Slope Regional V/A Corporation Proposed “ Transportation Corridor Red Dog Mine Road CJ Planning Area Generalized Land Status Map 2-19 Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service (ge Native Patent or IC Native Selected PY state Patent or TA State Selected Planning Area Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12 24... ee Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status} information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SI3/dWu YeIG eInsulUed plemes-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 3. Special Designations a) Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas (1) Goals To highlight areas where special management attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, and scenic values, fish or wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes through designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) or Research Natural Areas (RNAs). (2) Alternative A Under this alternative, there are no designated ACECs or RNAs. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Management Decisions e Designation of an ACEC or RNA would not encumber selected lands within the proposed boundary. Selected lands would be managed to maintain the resource values of the lands until conveyance. The ACEC or RNA management prescription would not attach to conveyed lands. Following adjudication of all selections, special management area boundaries might need to be adjusted. e Additional site-specific actions or monitoring needed to manage ACECs would be made through ACEC-specific planning. e Over the short-term, the Kigluaik Mountains would not be designated as an ACEC or RNA. After conveyances were completed, if sufficient lands remained in BLM ownership, it would be designated. e Amining Plan of Operations would be required on any mining activity within an ACEC. (4) Alternative B Under this alternative, no areas would be proposed for designation as ACEC or RNA. (5) Alternative C Under this alternative, 5,591,000 acres would be designated as ACECs in five separate areas (Map 2-20). (a) Kigluaik Mountains The Kigluaik Mountains would be designated as an ACEC to include 298,000 acres, most of which is currently selected by the State. In addition to measures described in Appendix A: Required Operating Procedures, measures identified within the ACEC to protect scenic, Chapter II: Alternatives 2-104 Detailed Descriptions: ACECs and RNAs Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS cultural, botanical, and geological values would include the following (see also Table B-1 in Appendix B): 1) OHVs would be limited to designated trails May15 to October 31; 2) the area would be closed to locatable and leasable mineral entry, and mineral material disposal; 3) commercial recreational use would be limited; 4) the area would be designated as a ROW avoidance area; 5) communication site ROW would be limited to the existing sites; 6) once conveyances were completed, remaining lands would be retained in Federal management; and 7) the area would be closed to grazing. (b) Western Arctic Caribou Herd Calving and Insect Relief Habitat The WACH calving and insect relief habitats would be designated as an ACEC to include approximately 2,893,000 acres, 70 percent of which is currently State- or Native- selected. In addition to measures described in Appendix A: Required Operating Procedures, measures identified within the ACEC to protect caribou habitat would include the following (Table B-2 in Appendix B): 1) OHVs would be limited to designated trails May 15 to October 31; 2) the area would be closed to locatable and leasable mineral entry; 3) the area would be designated as a ROW avoidance area; 4) once conveyances were completed, remaining lands would be retained in Federal management; and 5) the area would be closed to grazing. (c) Nulato Hills The Nulato Hills would be designated as an ACEC to include approximately 2,044,000 acres, most of which is unencumbered BLM land. In addition to measures described in Appendix A: Required Operating Procedures, measures identified within the ACEC to protect caribou and anadromous fish habitats would include the following (Table B-5 in Appendix B): 1) OHVs would be limited to designated trails May 15 to October 31; 2) the area would be closed to locatable and leasable mineral entry; 3) commercial recreational use would be limited; 4) the area would be designated as a ROW avoidance area; 5) FLPMA and R&PP leases would not be allowed; 6) lands would be retained in Federal management; 7) the area would be closed to grazing; and 8) a fire management plan would be developed to protect lichen habitats for caribou winter range. (d) McCarthy’s Marsh McCarthy’s Marsh would be designated as an ACEC to include approximately 131,000 acres, most of which is currently selected by the State. In addition to measures described in Appendix A: Required Operating Procedures, measures identified within the ACEC to protect wildlife habitats and botanical values would include the following (Table B-3 in Appendix B): 1) OHVs would be limited to designated trails May 15 to October 31; 2) the area would be closed to locatable and leasable mineral entry; 3) the areas would be closed to mineral material sales; 4) commercial recreational use would be limited; 5) the area would be designated as a ROW avoidance area; 6) once conveyances were completed, remaining lands would be retained in Federal management; 7) the area would be closed to grazing; 8) a fire management plan would be developed to protect lichen habitats for caribou winter range; and 9) FLPMA & R&PP leases would not be allowed. (e) Kuzitrin River The Kuzitrin River would be designated as an ACEC to include approximately 141,000 acres, 89 percent of which is currently selected by the State. In addition to measures described in Appendix A: Required Operating Procedures, measures identified within the ACEC to protect wildlife habitats and botanical values would include the following (Table B-4 Detailed Descriptions: 2-105 Chapter II: Alternatives ACECs and RNAs Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS in Appendix B): 1) OHVs would be limited to designated trails May 15 to October 31; 2) the area would be closed to locatable and leasable mineral entry; 3) FLPMA & R&PP leases would not be allowed; 4) the area would be designated as a ROW avoidance area; 5) once conveyances were completed, remaining lands would be retained in Federal management; and 6) the area would be closed to grazing. (6) Alternative D Under this alternative, approximately 4.9 million acres would be designated as ACECs in five separate areas, and 84,000 acres would be designated as an RNA (Map 2-21). (a) Mount Osborn (Kigluaik Mountains) Under this alternative, instead of designating the Kigluaik Mountains as an ACEC, the Mount Osborn area would be designated as an RNA (84,000 acres). Because almost the entire area is currently selected by the State, the RNA designation would not attach until conveyances were complete or the selections were dropped. At that time, if there were sufficient land remaining in BLM ownership, it would be designated as a RNA. In addition to measures described in Appendix A: Required Operating Procedures and Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations, measures identified within the RNA to protect scenic, cultural, botanical, and geological values would include the following (Table B-1 in Appendix B): 1) The area would be designated as “limited” OHV designation. Until conveyances were ® completed, OHVs would be managed consistently with the State’s generally allowable uses. Once conveyances were complete or the selections were relinquished, an OHV management plan would be developed to outline limitations on OHV use; 2) the area would be closed to locatable mineral entry; 3) FLPMA and R&PP leases would not be allowed; 4) communication site ROW would be limited to the existing sites; 5) remaining lands would be retained in Federal management. (b) Western Arctic Caribou Herd Calving and Insect Relief Habitat The WACH calving and insect relief habitats would be designated as an ACEC to include 2,893,000 acres, approximately 70 percent of which is currently State- or Native- selected. In addition to measures described in Appendix A: Required Operating Procedures and Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations, measures identified within the ACEC to protect caribou habitat would include the following (Table B-2 in Appendix B): 1) OHVs would be limited to 2,000 pounds GVWR; 2) the area would be open to leasable mineral entry subject to seasonal restrictions and additional stipulations that would be developed through activity- level planning; 3) FLPMA and R&PP leases would not be allowed; 4) once conveyances were completed, remaining lands would be retained in Federal management; 5) the area would be closed to grazing; 6) an ACEC management plan would be developed to include more specific measures and leasing stipulations to protect caribou and their habitat from future development activities, such as ROW and leasable mineral exploration and development. This plan would be developed through a public process and provide opportunity for public input into proposed management actions. (c) Nulato Hills Under this alternative, four separate ACECs would be designated in the Nulato Hills, most of which is unencumbered BLM land. The northern part of the Nulato Hills would be designated as the Nulato Hills ACEC for caribou. The southern end of the Nulato Hills would be designated as the Ungalik River ACEC, the Inglutalik River ACEC, and the Chapter Il: Alternatives 2-106 Detailed Descriptions: ACECs and RNAs Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Shaktoolik River ACEC. The measures described in Required Operating Procedures and Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations in Appendix A, (Table B-5 in Appendix B), would apply to all four ACECs. Nulato Hills ACEC (1,081,000 acres): Additional measures identified within the ACEC to protect caribou habitat would include the following: 1) OHVs would be limited to 2,000 pounds GVWR; 2) the area would be open to leasable mineral entry subject to stipulations that would be developed through activity-level planning; 3) FLPMA and R&PP leases would not be allowed; 4) lands would be retained in Federal ownership; 5) lands not within existing grazing allotments would be closed to grazing; 6) an ACEC management plan would be developed to include more specific measures to protect caribou and their habitat. This plan would also include recommendations on fire management to protect lichen habitats from fire; and 7) the area would be designated as a ROW avoidance area. Ungalik River ACEC (264,000 acres), Inglutalik River ACEC (466,000 acres), and Shaktoolik River ACEC (234,000 acres): Additional measures identified within the ACEC to protect anadromous fish habitat would include the following: 1) OHVs would be limited to 2,000 pounds GVWR; 2) a 300-foot setback along the Ungalik River would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry; 3) FLPMA and R&PP leases would not be allowed; 4) 300-foot NSO setbacks for leasable minerals would be established on both sides of all three rivers and their tributaries; 5) lands would be retained in Federal management; and 6) lands not within existing grazing allotments would be closed to grazing. The preceding information is summarized in the following table and in Appendix B. Detailed Descriptions: 2-107 Chapter II: Alternatives ACECs and RNAs SVNUY Pue SOAOV SeAneulayy ‘|| Je}deyD 801-2 :suoyduoseq peyle}eq Table 2-17. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas—Summary of Alternatives Special No ACECs or No ACECs or Proposed ACECs: 5,591,000 acres (43%) | Proposed ACECs: 4,938,000 acres (38%) Areas RNAs currently | RNAs (Map 2-20) Proposed RNA: 84,000 acres Considered | designated proposed (Map 2-21) Kigluaik No designation | No designation | Designate the Kigluaik ACEC (382,000 If substantial lands remain BLM ownership Mountains acres) to protect scenic, cultural, botanical, | after conveyances are complete, designate and geologic values. the Mount Osborn RNA (84,000 acres) to -Mostly State-selected land north of Nome_ | protect scenic, geologic, and botanical values. -Mostly State-selected land north of Nome WACH No designation | No designation | Designate the WACH calving and insect Same as C. calving and relief habitat as an ACEC (2,893,000 As discussed under management common Insect Relief acres) to protect the calving grounds and to all alternatives, designation of an ACEC Habitat important insect relief habitats. would not encumber selected lands within -Mixture of unencumbered BLM, State- the boundary. and Native-selected lands west of NPR-A -Mixture of unencumbered BLM, State- and Native-selected lands west of NPRA Nulato Hills No designation | No designation | Designate the Nulato Hills ACEC Designate the following areas as ACECs: (2,044,000 acres) to protect core winter 1) Nulato Hills ACEC (1,081,000 acres) to range for the Western Arctic caribou herd protect core winter range for the WACH and anadromous fish habitat. 2) Shaktoolik River ACEC (234,000 acres) to protect anadromous fish habitat Mostly unencumbered BLM land east of 3) Ungalik River ACEC (264,000 acres) to the Seward Peninsula protect anadromous fish habitat 4) Inglutalik River ACEC (466,000 acres) to protect anadromous fish habitat. Mostly unencumbered BLM land east of the Seward Peninsula McCarthy’s No designation | No designation | Designate the McCarthy's Marsh ACEC No designation Marsh (131,000 acres) to protect caribou, moose, anadromous fish, and waterfowl habitat. -Mostly State-selected lands south of Bendeleben Mountains Upper No designation | No designation | Designate the Upper Kuzitrin River ACEC | No designation Kuzitrin (141,000 acres) to protect caribou, moose, River and waterfowl habitat. -Mostly State-selected lands adjacent to Bering Land Bridge NP SIB/dWY Ye einsulusd Puemag-4nqoy SoAnewayy :|| Ja}deup 170°W 165°W Cape Lisburne/ ¢° AS InseckRelie Kivalina Cape Krusenstern National Monument Shishmaref, 38 160°W UMIAT MERIDIAN ATEEL/ RIVER MERIDIAN 9/10) 11) 12) 43 a Kobuk Valley National Park. 2 wt Rive, 2 f eA 12 Selawik National Wildlife Refuge 10. National Preserve p 19/98/47) 46 | WW { ssw 4/93/92) 1 | 40] 1 McCarthy's. 2 3 4 Marsh 5 Norton Sound Unalakleet ¢ Koyukuk National Wildlife Proposed ACEC Desi d SG sracec > Existing ACEC in LZ Central Yukon Resource Area Generalized Land Status —— Road Bureau of Land Management ..---- Iditarod Trail Fish and Wildlife Service | KSP RMP Planning Area National Park Service ee Native Patent or IC Native Selected 19) state Patent or TA State Selected Note: Under Alternatives A & B there would be no ACECs within the planning area. Map 2-20 Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Alternative C Ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI-BLM, 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N SIB/dWY HEI einsulusd Puemag-4ngoy SeAeulal|y || 4a}deyD 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 470°W 165°W Cape Lisburne! SS Point Hope Cape Thompson" Kivalina Cape Krusenstern National Monument Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Norton Sound af7 160°W 10 28 | 27 26 | 25 | 24 | 23 22| 21 | 20] 49 | 181 17 | 16 | ON 48 UMIAT MERIDIAN aes KATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN Noatak National Preserve P) 19) 18) a7 | 46) 1N T ssw 14/13/92) ii 2 3 4 oe 12 3 Shaktoolik Qi aw) rey Kobuk Valley National Park Koyukuk National Wildlife Rio) 1] 12/99] wa | BShc6 2 Rub nae + .!_Poormary, 718} 9} 10) 11} 12] 19) 14 | 188) 4 15E : Central Yukon Proposed ACEC Generalized Land Status —— Road Wy pigy mae as ewes) of in Management —— Iditarod Trail wy Designated as Fish and Wildlife Service C_] KSP RMP Planning Area SSB National Park Service Existing ACEC in ee Native Patent or IC 7, Wl Resource Area Native Selected Note: Under Alternatives A and B ae. State Patent or TA there would be no ACECs within the planning area. State Selected ¥ Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 Wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI-BLM, 2005 Map 2-21 f Alternative D Proposed Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) Jie nonin cola ce oi sr iatos information graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIA/dWY YeIG e[NsuIUSd psemas-yngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS b) Wild and Scenic Rivers = (1) Goals e Pursuant to the BLM’s interim management policies, manage the Squirrel WSRA Sec. 5(a) study river to protect wild river values until fall 2007 while Congress considers the study's recommendation and finding that the river is not suitable for designation as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. e Identify and recommend for designation any rivers in the planning area that are suitable for designation as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. e Identify and develop protection strategies for outstanding river-related values in the planning area. e Protect water quality. (2) Alternative A Under this alternative, no rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Pursuant to the BLM’s interim management policies, the BLM would continue to manage the Squirrel River WSRA Sec. 5(a) study river to protect wild river values until fall 2007 while Congress considers the study’s recommendation and finding that the river is not suitable for designation as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. (3) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (a) Inventory and Monitoring Continue monitoring in cooperation with other programs to protect the outstandingly remarkable values in the Squirrel River study area through summer and fall of 2007. (b) Management Decisions Pursuant to the BLM’s interim management policies, manage the Squirrel River WSRA Sec. 5(a) study river to protect wild river values until fall 2007 while Congress considers the study recommendation and finding that the river is not suitable for designation as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. (4) Alternative B Under this alternative, no rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. (5) Alternative C Under this alternative, the rivers listed in Table 2-18 on page 2-115 and shown on Map 2-22 would be recommended as suitable for designation as wild under the Act. Detailed Descriptions: 2-113 Chapter II: Alternatives Wild and Scenic Rivers Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (6) Alternative D This alternative would be the same as Alternative B. The preceding information is summarized in the following table. Chapter II: Alternatives 2-114 Detailed Descriptions: Wild and Scenic Rivers SJOAIY DUDS PUE PII :suonduoseg palejeq SLL-% “|| 4aydeyo SOANEULOYY Squirrel River WSRA Sec 5(A) Table 2-18. Wild and Scenic Rivers—Summary of Alternatives Continue existing management to protect Same as A Same as A. Plus increase field patrols and level of monitoring of commercial operators, including Same as A study area outstandingly remarkable hunting guides and air-taxi operators. Establish values until Congress monitoring protocols for campsites. makes a decision on the non-suitability finding (2007) Protect Continue existing Same as A Monitor sensitive river areas. Withdraw sensitive Same as A outstandingly management high-value river corridor areas from mining and remarkable values surface occupation for oil and gas development. on rivers other than the Squirrel River. Eligible rivers None None Recommend the following rivers as worthy Same as B suitable for recommended additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers designation as suitable System: Kivalina River, Fish River (McCarthy's Marsh), Upper Buckland and Fish River (tributary of upper Buckland), Ungalik, Shaktoolik, Inglutalik, Koyuk/Peace/East Fork, Tubutulik, Agiapuk, Kiliovilik, and Nilik/Ipewik/Kukpik to be managed as wild river areas. Rivers determined | None No suitable Withdraw suitable river areas from mining and No suitable rivers suitable for rivers surface occupation for oil and gas development. designation Gage suitable rivers to establish instream flow baselines. Apply for water rights to protect instream flows in suitable rivers. Free-flowing rivers | Continue existing Same as A Prohibit dams and significant diversions throughout | Same as A management public lands in the planning area. Protect water Continue existing Continue Increase monitoring and enforcement of Clean Develop and quality in streams management existing Water Act. Develop and implement a water quality | implement a water management monitoring plan for suitable river areas. Consider if | quality-monitoring there are areas where ground-water monitoring or modeling would be appropriate to identify and anticipate effects on stream water quality due to draw-down or pollution of ground water. plan for high- value river areas. SIB/dWe Yes Binsulusd psemas-4nqoy senewoayy ‘|| sa}deyo Wainwright Point Lay Cape Lisburne cal 6 SN { sw 4/13/42) 44) 49 9 2 © Noatak River. 23 Cape. Krusenstern National Monument National Preserve fay atin sow 29/ 28 | 37 Norton Sound Unalakleet 165°W 460°W jonal Petroleum Reserve - Alaska lelstatat */ Noatak National Preserve | zo} 25} 27] 28] lal al | | 2 ros | 25 | 24 j 23} z2/ 21| 20] 49] 18) 17] 16 ae 20/19) 18 | 17/ 16 {tN stele 127 | 28 | 25 | 26} 23{ 22 | 24 i. 1845 1 vie River! A | jer ates _UMIAT MERIDI KAyEEL River MERIDIAN 10} 11 | 12/43 bcd iaed | Selawik National Wildlife Refuge t tsof | | 9N daw | PD TINT 6 | R 4 Bi 13 | 14 | el 18 [1 85 pene 11) 12/13) 14 —7 Ruby” 10 " 12| 13 4 1%} —t Poorman. 10} 11} 12] 13 | 14 168) 46 SE 7 8 Suitable for Wild & Scenic River Designation Generalized Land Status —— Road Bureau of Land Management C_] KSP RMP Planning Area Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service aa Native Patent or IC Native Selected State Patent or TA State Selected Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 1218 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 Map 2-22 Rivers Suitable for Wild and Scenic Designation Alternative C The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIA/dWH YeJG Blensuluag Puemas-yNqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 4. Social and Economic a) Public Safety (1) Abandoned Mine Lands and Hazardous Materials Management (a) Goals e Protect public health and safety and environmental resources by minimizing environmental contamination from chemical, biological and radiological sources on public lands and BLM- owned or -operated facilities. e Comply with Federal and State oil and hazardous materials management laws and regulations. e Maintain the health of ecosystems through location, assessment, cleanup, and restoration of contaminated sites. e Manage oil and hazardous materials related risks, costs and liabilities e Integrate environmental protection and compliance with all environmental statutes into all BLM activities. (b) Alternative A The BLM would continue to comply with Federal and State oil and hazardous materials management laws and regulations. As sites were discovered, they would be remediated. The Northwest MFP does not provide any guidance on hazardous materials management or abandoned mine lands. (c) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) e Work cooperatively with other Federal and State governmental agencies, Tribal governments, general public, Native corporations, industry, and advocacy groups to protect public health and safety and environmental resources. e Prioritize known sites for cleanup, making sites on lands awaiting conveyance a high priority. e Conduct remediation actions on identified sites in accordance with applicable laws and policy. e¢ Comply with all appropriate laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials. e Do not permit unauthorized storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste on public lands. e Respond to hazardous materials incidents and sites using standard operating procedures. e Develop appropriate stipulations and required operating procedures for BLM-permitted activities to minimize the probability of contamination of public lands with hazardous materials Detailed Descriptions: 2-119 Chapter Il: Alternatives Social and Economic Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 5. Subsistence a) Goals Maintain and protect subsistence opportunities. Determine how the management actions, guidelines, and allowable uses prescribed in response to the other issues will affect both subsistence opportunities and resources and the social and economic environment. e Maintain sufficient quality and quantity of habitat to support healthy populations of important subsistence species of fish and wildlife. e Through the Federal Subsistence Board and Office of Subsistence Management effectively manage subsistence harvests (by working with the local Regional Advisory Councils and subsistence users), including a strategy to implement/enforce a “rural priority” should one be necessary. e Ensure that rural residents engaged in subsistence use have reasonable access to subsistence resources on public lands. e To the extent possible, minimize displacing resources from traditional harvest areas (displacement that occurs as a result of permitted activity, such as oil and gas exploration, and extensive research projects, etc.). e Avoid and minimize user conflicts over multiple-use resources (i.e., sport, commercial, subsistence). b) Alternative A Under this alternative the BLM would continue to manage subsistence in accordance with sec. 802 of ANILCA. Before the BLM approves any action, the effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and needs would be evaluated in compliance with Sec. 810 of ANILCA. The Northwest MFP does not provide any specific direction on subsistence management other than compliance with sec. 810. However, the decision under wildlife to protect wildlife habitat and to mitigate impacts of other uses on wildlife provides support for the subsistence program. Under this alternative, most activities would be analyzed on a case-by- case basis and few uses would be limited or excluded. This alternative provides few constraints on activities that have the potential to negatively affect subsistence resources. c) Management Common to All Alternatives (A, B, C, and D) Subsistence is an atypical resource/program in that the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents on public lands in Alaska is assured by law [sec. 802(1) of ANILCA]. As a result, decisions made in this RMP will not affect the BLM’s role in administration of subsistence on Federal public lands. Under all alternatives, the BLM would continue to carry out or participate in the following administrative functions. Involve Subsistence Users in Issues Identification: Ten Regional Advisory Councils were established in sec. 100.22 of the Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska as an administrative structure to provide a “meaningful voice” for subsistence users in the management process. BLM field staff members, along with those Chapter II: Alternatives 2-120 Detailed Descriptions: Subsistence Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS of other agencies, meet twice each year with the Regional Councils to identify emerging issues in conservation, allocation, and appropriate regulation of subsistence harvests. Manage Land/Habitat, Assess Impacts to Subsistence: ANILCA sec. 810 establishes a distinct set of requirements for assessment of potential impacts to subsistence from Federal land decisions. These supplement the discussion of potential impacts to subsistence resources and uses found as part of conventional NEPA environmental reviews. Monitor Resource Populations Use for Subsistence Purposes: When these monitoring efforts are focused on key subsistence resources, they are a major contribution to the quality of subsistence management efforts. Develop Interagency Subsistence Management Regulations and Policies: With heavy reliance on Regional Council input and interagency coordination, the development of subsistence regulations is a multi-step process. Manage Subsistence Harvests: Although regulatory authority for subsistence management rests with the Federal Subsistence Board, implementation and enforcement of Federal subsistence hunting and fishing opportunities rests largely on local Federal agency field staff. Tasks include distribution of Federal regulation booklets, responding to questions, issuing Federal subsistence permits, contacting hunters in the field, and assisting in tallying permit and harvest reports. d) Management Common to All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) (1) Inventory and Monitoring Work cooperatively with State and other Federal agencies to inventory and monitor habitats and populations of important subsistence species to provide the necessary information to develop subsistence regulations and bag limits on Federal lands, as required by the Federal Subsistence Board. (2) Management Decisions ¢ Through the BLM-Alaska’s Stipulations and Required Operating Procedures (ROPs) create mitigation measures for permitted activities that serve to minimize impacts to subsistence. Mitigation may include avoidance of specific areas or limitations on season of use. e Work with the State and other Federal agencies to obtain information from local residents on the cultural significance and relative importance of BLM lands for subsistence purposes. e Require infrastructure be constructed in such a way that it does not impede access (i.e., pipelines, roads, buildings, etc.). e Create mitigation measures and/or required operating procedures for permitted activities so as to minimize displacement of subsistence resources. ¢ Seta limit on the number of hunting guide permits to be issued within the Squirrel River and upper Koyuk River. e Create “good neighbor” recreational guidelines. e Create non-extractive commercial use permit Stips and ROPs. e Through OHV designations, ensure reasonable access for subsistence use. Detailed Descriptions: 2-121 Chapter II: Alternatives Subsistence Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS C. Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternatives Table 2-19 summarizes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects under each alternative for all resources, where effects were found (refer to Chapter IV). Chapter II: Alternatives 2-122 Summary and Comparison Tables sejqe, uosuedwo5 pue Aewwns €Sb-S sanneuseyy :|| Ja}deuD Table 2-19. Summary and Comparison of Effects on Resources by Alternatives EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY Overall, impacts to air quality would be low and air quality should remain in attainment throughout the planning area. Smoke from wildland fire would have short-term effects on air quality and visibility. Mining may have localized impacts on air quality due to dust and airborne deposition of heavy metals. Impacts to air quality would be low and air quality should remain in attainment. Impacts would be higher than under Alternative A as the amount of mineral development would increase. However, the amount of locatable mineral development would still be low and impacts would be minor and localized. Oil and gas development would occur, potentially leading to air quality impacts from the emissions of hydrocarbons and byproducts of combustion or wind- borne particulates. In situ burning as part of a cleanup of spilled crude oil or diesel fuel would temporarily adversely affect air quality. Emissions in the general area of ongoing North Slope oil production have not been shown to violate air quality standards; emissions resulting from this alternative would be small compared to the emissions from Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil field production and would account for a minimal percentage of the emissions generated by current North Slope oil production. The level of impact would be similar to Alternative A. Impacts to air quality would be low and air quality should remain in attainment throughout the planning area. No oil and gas development would occur and other mining activity would be limited to a few small placer mines. The level of impact would be similar to Alternative B. Overall, impacts to air quality would be low, and air quality should remain in attainment throughout the planning area. Mining, and oil and gas development would occur at the same level as under Alternative B and impacts from these activities would be the same. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative air quality impacts may result from the emissions of hydrocarbons and byproducts of combustion. These impacts may be regionally additive (e.g., increased concentrations of specific pollutants) or synergistic (e.g., chemical reactions that form ozone), and could degrade air quality. Ambient air quality on the North Slope of Alaska, however, is relatively pristine even though oil and gas exploration, development, and production have been under way for more than 30 years. Oil and gas development under this plan would be small compared to Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk oil field production; projected emissions from the alternatives would account for only a small percentage of current and projected emissions on the North Slope. Development of regional roads and access would have impacts along the entire length of road, including increased airborne particulates, especially during construction. SIB/dWY YEG BjNsulusd Puemaes-4nqoy sonjeusayy :|| 4a}deuD vEL-~ sajqe | uosiedwog pue Aiewwnsg EFFECTS ON SOIL RESOURCES Given the low level of surface disturbing activities and recreational use, impacts to soils would be minor. Potential impacts from mining include disturbance and redistribution of gravel, overburden, and soil materials. The structure of the soil profile and the stability of the floodplain can be destroyed and require decades to recover. Where OHV trails traverse wetlands, repeated use may lead to thermokarst subsidence, water diversions, and ponding. Where trails cross streams, riparian soil may be altered or destroyed, increasing soil loss and sedimentation. Effects would be similar to Alternative A but, would occur over a larger area as mineral development would increase. Locatable mineral development would still be low and impacts minor and localized. Potential impacts of oil development include melting of permafrost (thermokarst), disruption of natural drainage patterns, increased erosion and sedimentation, and removal of gravel. Heavy traffic and digging associated with spill cleanup damages soil when the ground surface is not frozen. Impacts from cleanup when the tundra is unfrozen may be greater than the impact of the spilled oil. OHV designations would be less restrictive, allowing for the use of heavier vehicles during the winter. Impacts would be greater than under Alternative A but still small and localized, given the low level of OHV use. Given the low level of surface disturbing activities and recreational use, impacts to soils would be minor. OHVs would be limited to designated roads and trails. Impacts from OHV use would still occur but would be lower than under Alternative A. Impacts would be similar to Alternative B. Anticipated mineral development and associated impacts would be the same. Impacts from OHV use would be similar to Alternative A and somewhat less than under Alternative B as OHVs greater than 2,000 pounds GVWR would not be allowed. In addition, OHVs may be limited to existing or designated trails in some areas, further reducing the potential for impacts. Cumulative Effects: Effects to soil resources would largely result from surface disturbing activities that degrade the vegetative cover over the ice- rich permafrost soils, resulting in thermokarst erosion and subsidence. This is especially true in wetland soils, along the stream banks, and lakeshores, where water would accelerate the removal of the melting ice-rich soil, resulting in increased sediment erosion and changes to stream channel and bed morphology. Thermokarst erosion could also result from the cumulative effect of seismic and exploration activity when less than ideal snow conditions expose tussock tundra to surface disturbance during winter months. In oil spill cleanups, heavy traffic and digging are common, resulting in damaged soils. Oil-spill cleanup mitigates impacts on soils only if cleanup methods and operations are carefully controlled and they minimize surface disturbance. The impacts to soil resources from surface disturbing activities during oil-spill cleanup when the tundra is unfrozen may be greater than the impact of the spilled oil, as the area affected may not be limited to that area immediately adjacent to and covered by the spill. Impacts from thermokarst may take years to develop; it could be decades before the impacts to soils are ameliorated. Adherence to the Stips and ROPs for all permitted operations would prevent the unnecessary long-term disturbance to soils. Development of regional roads and access would have impacts including soil compaction and thermokarst erosion, stream diversions, impoundments, and increased sediments runoff. SIB/dWey Yeg einsulueg psemas-ynqoy sajqe| uosuedwod pue Awewwns SEL-e SOAeuayy :|| J8}deyD EFFECTS ON WATER RESOURCES Impacts to water would be localized and minor. Mineral development has the potential to impact water resources through disturbance to soils. Soil removal can increase stream sedimentation and turbidity and decrease stream channel stability. The stability of the floodplain can be destroyed and may require decades for recovery. Where OHV trails traverse wetlands thermokarst subsidence, water diversions, and ponding may occur. Where trails cross streams, riparian soil and vegetation may be altered or destroyed, increasing soil loss and sedimentation into aquatic habitats and resulting in diminished water quality. Impacts from other types of activities would be negligible under this alternative. Effects would be similar to Alternative A but, would occur over a larger area as mineral development would increase. Locatable mineral development would still be low and impacts minor and localized. Impacts from oil development include water withdrawal from lakes, removal or compaction of snow cover on lakes and rivers, contamination of water from temporary surface storage of drilling mud and cuttings, disturbance of stream banks or shorelines and subsequent melting of permafrost (thermokarst), blockages of natural channels and floodways that disrupt drainage patterns, increased erosion and sedimentation, and removal of gravel from rivers and lakes. Improper location of gravel-removal operations can result in alteration of stream channel or lake configuration, stream-flow hydraulics or lake dynamics, erosion and sedimentation, and ice damming and aufeis formation. A large oil spill would have negative impacts on water quality if the oil reached a tundra pond or river. Effects would be similar to Alternative A. Implementation of the ROPs would help mitigate impacts to water resources. Impacts from OHV use would be somewhat less as OHVs would be restricted to designated roads and trails during the snow-free period. This alternative has the most restrictive OHV designations. Effects would be similar to Alternative B. Implementation of the ROPs would help mitigate impacts to water resources. Impacts from OHV use would be somewhat less as OHVs weighing more than 2,000 pounds GVWR would not be allowed, and additional OHV limitations may be applied in ACECs and SRMAs. construction. Cumulative Effects: Overall, effects of oil spills on water resources on the North Slope, because the spills have been small and cleanup and rehabilitation efforts have generally been successful, have not been significant. Small spills could exceed the acute-toxic level a day or less and chronic criteria could be exceeded for less than a month. Development of regional roads and access would impact water resources. These impacts would occur along the entire length of road and include stream diversions, impoundments, increased sediments runoff, especially during SIA/dWY Yes B|NsulUS premas-yngoy Soneusayy :|| Ja}deyo 921-2 sajqe | uoswedwog pue Awewwns EFFECTS ON VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Mineral development may negatively impact vegetation by removing the vegetative mat, re-routing stream flow, covering vegetation with gravel, and compacting soils. Long- term surface disturbance increases the potential for introduction of noxious and invasive plants. OHV use may destroy the vegetation mat, compact soils, accelerate permafrost melt, and lead to soil erosion and ponded water, crushing plants and degrading their habitats. Livestock grazing may negatively impact vegetation by trampling, cratering to organics or mineral soil, and over- browsing. These impacts would be localized and minor. Impacts from other activities would be negligible. Effects would be similar to Alternative A but, would occur over a larger area as the level of mineral development would increase. Locatable mineral development would still be low with localized impacts. Potential impacts of oil development include: compression of the vegetation mat, broken shrubs and crushed tussocks from seismic activity; mortality of plants due to oil spills; compression of the tundra mat and localized die-off of plants under ice roads and pads; and destruction of vegetation on up to 417 acres from facility development. OHV designations would be less restrictive, allowing for the use of heavier vehicles slightly increasing the potential for impacts. More lands would be open to grazing and alternative forms of livestock would be considered. Overall, there could be a small increase in grazing pressure and trampling effects on riparian and tundra vegetation. The potential for introduction and spread of noxious and invasive weeds could increase somewhat. Impacts to vegetation from mineral development would be similar to Alternative A. Some areas would be closed to mineral entry and location, reducing the potential for impacts. Impacts from OHV use would be somewhat less than under Alternative A because OHVs would be restricted to designated trails. Impacts from grazing would be the lowest under this alternative. Grazing would be limited to a smaller area as four grazing allotments would be closed and grazing would be restricted to the Seward Peninsula. Impacts to vegetation from mineral development would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts from OHV use would be similar to Alternative A and somewhat less than under Alternative B as OHVs greater than 2,000 pounds GVWR would not be allowed. In addition, OHVs may be limited to existing or designated trails in some areas, further reducing the potential for impacts. Impacts from grazing would be limited to a smaller area as two grazing allotments would be closed, and grazing would be limited to the Seward and Baldwin peninsulas. Reindeer would be the only type of livestock allowed. Cumulative Effects: Increased levels of mineral development on State and private lands, combined with similar activities on BLM-managed lands could result in cumulative surface disturbance with adverse effects on riparian and tundra vegetation over the long-term. Dispersed recreation effects from gradual increases in amount and frequency of OHV travel, remote landing sites for bush aircraft, campsites, plus potential new recreation facilities and trails may have minor adverse and cumulative impacts to riparian and tundra vegetation on BLM-managed lands throughout the planning area. The potential for displacement of native vegetation by noxious and invasive weeds will increase as the level of surface disturbance to once-intact habitat rises. SIB/dWY Yel einsulusg psemas-yngoy sejqe) uosiedwo5 pue Auewwns LeL-% Seneusayy :|| Ja}deuD EFFECTS ON FISH Mineral development, road construction, fire, and OHV use may impact fish. Erosion into streams and rivers from surface disturbance leads to increased turbidity and sedimentation, which can inhibit feeding and spawning success. Activities associated with mining may increase erosion and disrupt water flow patterns, and has the potential to increase pollution in streams. Fire can cause increased siltation, higher water temperature, altered water quality, changes in nutrient input, and changes in permafrost, leading to altered hydrology. OHV impacts come from increased stream bank disturbance which decreases stream bank stability, and additional trails, which may gather runoff and rut, thereby leading to increased erosion and subsequent sedimentation into streams. These impacts would be localized and most likely minor. Effects from mineral development would be similar to Alternative A, but would occur over a larger area as the level of mineral development would increase. Locatable mineral development would still be very limited and impacts would most likely be minor. Impacts to fish from seismic activities include stress and damage to overwintering habitat. Impacts from pad, road, and pipeline construction associated with oil development include increased erosion and sedimentation, subsurface and surface flow disruption, and increased pollution in runoff. These impacts would be localized and would most likely not have population level effects. Given the small volume of oil typically involved in spills, as well as the safety requirements and stringent clean-up protocols, oil spills would most likely not have a measurable long-term impact on fish populations. Impacts from fire would be the same as Alternative A. Effects from mineral development and fire would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from OHV use would be somewhat less than under Alternative A because OHVs would be restricted to designated trails. Impacts to fish from mineral development would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts from OHV use would be similar to Alternative A and somewhat less than under Alternative B as OHVs greater than 2,000 pounds GVWR would not be allowed. In addition, OHVs may be limited to existing or designated trails in some areas, further reducing the potential for impacts. Impacts from fire would be the same as Alternative A. Cumulative Effects: A continuation of current water and land use practices, by private, State, and other Federal agencies would continue to affect fish habitat within the planning area. Higher intensity OHV use and mineral development or exploration on lands upstream from BLM-managed lands within a watershed could continue to be a concern due to sediment and water quality issues that influence the quality of fish habitat downstream from the source. Habitat improvement gains through more intensive management of recreation activities as proposed under Alternatives C and D could be offset or enhanced by regulatory sport-fishing changes made by ADF&G. Coordinating with regional planning actions and conducting interagency watershed planning efforts could help protect important fisheries values in watersheds such as the Kigluaik Mountains, Kivalina River, and Squirrel River. SIF/dWe YeIC eINsulUed Plemas-ynqoy SOAeUIayY :|| Ja}deyo 871-2 sejqe| uosuedwoy pue Aiewwns EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE Low levels of harvest of forest products, livestock grazing, mineral exploration, land use authorizations, and dispersed recreational and OHV use would have minor localized effects on wildlife. Impacts would include stress and disturbance of wildlife, and degradation of habitat. Impacts would not have population level effects. Increased mineral exploration and development would increase the level of impacts to wildlife and their habitat. Impacts from placer mining would be minor (up to 50 acres) but greater than under Alternative A. Oil and gas development (517 acres long term disturbance) would occur, resulting in impacts to wildlife and habitat, particularly caribou. Impacts from recreation would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts from OHV use would be similar to Alternative A but slightly higher as heavier vehicles may be used during the winter. Impacts from grazing would be increased as the area open to grazing would be larger and classes of livestock allowed would include both bison and reindeer, increasing the potential for disease transmission to wildlife. Impacts to wildlife would be the lowest under this alternative. No mineral development would occur thus there would be no impacts to wildlife. Impacts from recreation and OHV use would be reduced compared to Alternative A as OHVs would be restricted to designated trails. Within SRMAs, levels of recreational use would be limited, resulting in fewer impacts to wildlife. Impacts from livestock grazing would be the lowest of any alternative as several areas would be closed to grazing. Several ACECs would be designated to provide additional management emphasis in important wildlife habitats. Impacts would be the same as Alternative B except for impacts from livestock grazing which would be reduced. The lands open to grazing would be larger than under Alternative C but less than under Alternative A and B. Class of livestock allowed would be limited to reindeer, reducing the risk of disease transmission. Several ACECs would be designated to provide additional management emphasis in important wildlife habitats. Cumulative Effects: The combination of ongoing and future oil and gas development occurring on both State and Federal lands on the North Slope, oil and gas development in the northern portion of the planning area, and possibility of solid mineral exploration and development in the same region, would have cumulative impacts on the WACH. Depending on the location of development, these impacts may include: short or long- term disturbance to caribou calving habitat, insect relief habitat, and migratory routes; disruption of caribou movements; stress and disturbance impacts to caribou during all seasons of the year; possible reductions in herd productivity. Any new development would result in additive impacts to the herd. If significant activity occurred within the calving grounds or important insect relief habitat, these impacts could be significant. Construction of a road in the Howard Pass area would also affect caribou movements and if open to public use, would greatly increase access into caribou habitat. Privatization of State or Native Corporation lands has the potential to negatively affect wildlife and wildlife habitat by opening up areas to private development. Development of regional roads would have the potential to negatively affect wildlife, particularly caribou and other big game species. These impacts would include habitat fragmentation, increased access into wildlife habitats, increased disturbance impacts, increased potential for mortality (road kills), and possible alteration of behavior or movement patterns of wildlife. SIB/dWe WesC eInsulUag Puemas-ynqoy sejqe | uosuedwo5 pue Arewwns 671-2 SaAHeuayy || Ja}deuD EFFECTS ON FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY implementation. The biggest potential impact to Fire Management is in areas where fire exclusion is being attempted. Long-term fire suppression in the boreal forest results in additional biomass being added to the organic layer and the creation of large homogeneous stand of flammable fuels, usually black spruce. The end result is larger more severe fires that may be outside the range of natural variability. Attempts at fire exclusion impacts other resources long-term and with potentially high impact effects. For example, attempts at fire exclusion in the range of the WACH wintering range could result in significant portions of their range burning in one fire event, limiting the carrying capacity of their range. If fuels management projects are proposed in the future, the impact on the fire program would be in the form of time commitment for preparation and budgetary for Cumulative Effects: Wildland fire management is done on an interagency basis and across administrative boundaries. There are several areas in that are in the Full and Critical Management Options that are adjacent to BLM-managed lands. How fire is managed on these lands over the long- term a influence the effects of fires on adjacent BLM land. EFFECTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES Federal undertakings and unauthorized uses may cause irreversible disturbance and damage to cultural resources. Few impacts are anticipated from authorized activities due to the remoteness of most BLM-managed lands and the nature of most permitted activities. Mining activity is limited to small placer mines. Impacts to cultural resources from authorized uses would be avoided through project redesign or mitigated through data recovery. There is some potential for impacts from unauthorized activities, but it is difficult to estimate the extent, as the cost of monitoring is prohibitive. Impacts from uses other than mineral development would be negligible. Impacts from mineral development would be greater than under Alternative A. Development of oil resources would result in surface disturbance that could impact cultural resources (417 acres disturbed by construction of oil field facilities plus 50-100 acres disturbed through extraction of gravel) An additional 4,979 acres of short-term disturbance would result from gathering lines, delineation wells, and distribution pipeline. Most of these features would be built during the winter, minimizing surface disturbance, but drilling for Vertical Support Members and any sections of buried pipeline would have potential for disturbance or destruction of cultural resources. This development would occur in the northern part of the planning area, where numerous prehistoric sites are known to be located. Impacts to cultural resources would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to cultural resources would be the same as Alternative B. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts to cultural resources could occur through incremental degradation of the resource base from a variety of sources which reduce the information and interpretive potential of historic and prehistoric properties, or which affect traditional cultural values important to Native Americans. Much of the anticipated development within the planning area would occur on lands that are not covered by Federal cultural resource laws. As a result, there could be losses to the regional resource base that could potentially limit management options within the planning area. SIS/dWY YesG BjiNsulusd puemas-y4nqGoy SOAeUayYy || Ja}deyD O€L-Z sajqe| uosedwog pue Aiewwns EFFECTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Federal undertakings and unauthorized uses may cause irreversible disturbance and damage to paleontological resources. Impacts from authorized use would be mitigated through project redesign and specimen recovery. Geologic formations with exposures containing vertebrate and non-vertebrate fossils would be impacted from natural agents, unauthorized public collection, and vandalism. Impacts would stem almost exclusively from unauthorized uses and natural causes. Lack of knowledge about paleontological resources in the planning area, makes it is difficult to estimate the extent and nature of impacts. Impacts to paleontological resources from uses other than mineral development would be negligible. Anticipated development associated with leasable and locatable minerals, especially in the northern part of the planning area, could have adverse impacts on paleontological resources. Development of oil and gas resources would result in up to 517 acres of surface disturbance that could result in damage to paleontological resources. Given that this development would occur in the northern portion of the planning area, where almost all of the known paleontological occurrences on BLM-managed lands are located there is clear potential for impacts. Impacts to paleontological resources would be the same as Alternative A. Impacts to paleontological resources would be the same as Alternative B. EFFECTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts to paleontological resources could result from development on non-BLM managed lands and from natural am and unauthorized uses acai the area. Visual resources would be managed on a project-by-project basis as no visual management classes have been established. Surface disturbing activities such as fire, mineral development and OHV use, and authorizations that result in facility or infrastructure construction such as powerlines or roads can negatively impact visual resources. Few impacts are anticipated from authorized activities due to the remoteness of most BLM-managed lands and the nature of most permitted activities. Alternative B anticipates the greatest amount of resource development and adopts the least-restrictive VRM classes. Effects to visual resources could occur over a larger area than under Alternative A due to increased mineral development. Impacts from activities associated with the development of oil and gas would primarily be associated with the construction of support facilities. Gravel mining to support such development would have additional impacts. Impacts for visual resources from authorized activities may be higher under this alternative because it has the least restrictive VRM management classes. Alternative C anticipates the lowest level of resource development and adopts VRM classes that would be the most restrictive. Impacts would be the lower than under Alternative A because VRM management classes have been established. Impacts would be lower than Alternative B or D because more restrictive VRM management classes have been established and very little mineral development would occur. Impacts to visual resources would be similar to Alternative B but somewhat less because VRM management classes are slightly more restrictive. the visual resource management class. Cumulative Effects: Continued development of OHV trails, roads, recreational facilities, mining activities, overland explorations, and fire management may lead to changes to existing visual resources by altering basic visual elements of form, line, color and texture at the landscape level. These changes will influence the design of similar projects on adjacent BLM lands where repeating these basic elements is an objective of SIS/dNY Weld eInsulUed Puemag-yNqoy sajqe | uoswedwog pue Aewwns LEL-Z SEAeWayy :|| Ja}deyD EFFECTS ON WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS Due to the remoteness of BLM lands, and the low levels of authorized activities, wilderness characteristics would be maintained on the vast majority of BLM-managed lands. Impacts to wilderness characteristics would be minimal and site specific. Authorized activities may negatively affect wilderness characteristics. Activities that alter the viewshed, such as mineral development, would negatively affect naturalness. Activities that involve large numbers of people, aircraft, or vehicles would negatively affect opportunities for solitude, and or primitive/ unconfined recreation. Generally, these effects would be short-term, lasting only until the activity is over. Due to the remoteness of BLM lands, and the low levels of authorized activities, wilderness characteristics would be maintained on most BLM- managed lands. Impacts to wilderness characteristics would increase somewhat compared to Alternative A primarily due to the projected increase in mineral development. Oil and gas development would result in year-long human activity. Impacts would be the most intense at and around development and production facilities during construction. After construction, structures, human presence, and associated activity and noise would have adverse impacts on solitude, naturalness, or primitive/unconfined recreation. Because production would occur over a long period, impacts would be long-term. These long-term, adverse impacts are expected to be greatest within 2 miles of facilities. Impacts to wilderness characteristics would be similar to Alternative A but somewhat less as VRM management classes would be adopted and OHV use would be limited to designated trails. Under this alternative, 11 river systems would be determined suitable for designation as wild. Interim management of these rivers to maintain values would have a positive impact on naturalness. Management actions implemented in designated ACECs would have a positive impact on naturalness. Impacts to wilderness characteristics would be similar to Alternative B but may be somewhat less as more restrictive VRM management classes and OHV designations would be adopted. Management actions implemented in designated ACECs would have a positive impact on naturalness. Cumulative Effects: Short-term impacts, such as green trails and disturbance from noise and other activities would not accumulate. Impacts from long-term or permanent facilities such as roads, major trails, pipelines and gravel road/pads, would accumulate and would result in the long-term loss of solitude, naturalness, or primitive/unconfined recreation. Under Alternative B, long-term impacts would be expected to affect an area of approximately 108,000 acres, or 1% of BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Considering past, present and future development, total cumulative impacts could affect an area one to three times greater. This would depend on many factors, some of which are unforeseen at this time. Cumulative impacts the Squirrel River and other popular rivers in the planning area, will be more significant than impacts elsewhere. SIS/dWY Hes BiNsulusd puemas-yngGoy sonneusayy :|| Ja}deyo CEL-S sejqe| uosiedwog pue Aiewwns EFFECTS ON FOREST PRODUCTS Locatable and salable mineral development may result in minor to moderate impacts to forested lands in the East Ambler, Central Omar- Kiana, and South Seward Peninsula areas by clearing of trees as part of mine site development. Impacts would be minimal as little mining is anticipated. Recreational use will have low-level impacts on forests such as firewood harvest and use of standing dead or live trees for camp structures. OHV use will cause damage to low-growing tree seedlings and saplings, especially white and black spruce. Impacts to from subsistence include a slight increase of firewood and house log use, plus a low negative impact on tree seedling and sapling growth from OHV use, particularly snowmachine use. Under this alternative, forested areas could be allowed to burn or considered for protection from wildland fire to achieve specific forestry objectives. Risk of human-caused wildfire may increase slightly. Impacts from locatable and salable minerals would be similar to Alternative A but possibly greater in extent because slightly more mining activity is anticipated (additional 30-50 acres of disturbance). Impacts from OHV use would be similar to those occurring under Alternative A. Impacts from fire and fire management would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A, except that the application of wildland fire use would not be allowed. The overall impact to availability of forest products due to the difference in management practices would be minimal as prescribed fire could be used to meet specific forestry objectives. Impacts from mining would potentially be lower than Alternative A as areas closed to mineral entry would include proportionally more forested lands. Impacts from recreation would be the same as Alternative A, except use of firewood and standing dead or live trees may decrease slightly due to limitations on visitor use in some areas. More restrictive limits on OHV use would decrease the potential for negative impacts to seedlings and saplings. This change would be minimal as additional limitations would not apply to snowmachines. Management of the Nulato Hills ACEC would be beneficial to forest resources. Impacts from fire would be similar to Alternative A. The emphasis on allowing wildland fire to function in its natural ecological role, may reduce protection of forest harvest sites from fire. Opportunity for house log harvest may be slightly less. Opportunities for harvest of morel mushrooms may be slightly higher. Impacts from mining would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts from recreation would be the same as Alternative C. Due to the development of specific OHV limitations within ACECs and SRMAs the overall negative impact to tree seedlings and saplings and forest soils from OHV use may decrease slightly. Impacts from fire would be the same as Alternative A. Cumulative Effects: Ongoing spruce beetle damage and the potential for more intense wildland fires may shift forest stand composition towards a higher percent of young trees, and a more diverse mix of tree ages within stands. Early seral shrub-dominated plant communities may increase, interspersed with recovering forest communities. The overall amount of mature forest timber will likely decrease during the life of the plan. An increase in number and sophistication of OHVs will result in a small amount of continued damage to naturally revegetating or colonizing tree seedlings and saplings. As village populations rise the use of firewood and house logs will also increase. Increased mineral development on adjacent State and Native-owned lands may result in conversion of forested plant communities to tundra landscapes of sparse grasses, sedges, forbs, or shrublands. This could shift subsistence and wildlife use of forest product resources more strongly towards BLM-managed forest habitats. SIB/dW HeJG e|nsulusg psemes-yngoy sajqe| uosuedwoy pue Aiewwns €L-Z SeAeUsayy :|| Ja}deyD EFFECTS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING Most authorized uses would have negligible impacts on grazing. Subsistence activities have a minor impact as reindeer are occasionally killed by hunters looking for caribou. Fire management could impact reindeer range. Lichens, primary winter forage for reindeer, are slow to recover from fires. There may be an opportunity to reduce impacts to lichens through fire management. Social and economic conditions have the potential to strongly impact livestock grazing. Conditions may develop that are much more or much less favorable to herding. These conditions are largely unrelated to BLM management. The most important factor impacting reindeer grazing is the distribution of the WACH. When the caribou migrate north, reindeer are apt to migrate with them. Reindeer numbers have an inverse relationship with the number of caribou in the region. This is an impact outside of BLM’s control. Impacts from most other authorized uses and fire would be the same as Alternative A. Approximately 13.1 million acres of BLM managed lands throughout the planning area would be open for consideration of livestock grazing, which would include bison as a class of livestock. If supported by social and economic conditions, and the distribution of the WACH, the opportunity for grazing businesses could increase slightly over the life of the plan. Leasable mineral development could negatively affect grazing by destroying habitat and displacing free-ranging livestock, if livestock were to be in the area of development. There are currently no livestock in the portion of the planning area where development is forecasted, but under this alternative livestock grazing could be permitted in these areas. Impacts from activities other than grazing management would be the same as Alternative A. Opportunities for grazing businesses would be reduced compared to Alternative B as only 3.3 million acres of BLM-managed lands on the Seward Peninsula would be open to grazing. The remainder of the planning area would be closed. Reindeer grazing permit renewals and new applications would be rejected where significant conflicts with wildlife or subsistence are likely to occur. Permits for allotments that have not had reindeer for 10 or more years due to conflicts with caribou would not be renewed and the allotments would be permanently retired. Impacts would be similar to Alternative B, except bison would not be an allowable class of livestock. Opportunities for grazing businesses would be higher than Alternative C and lower than Alternative B. Grazing would be considered on 4.1 million acres of BLM- managed land on the Seward Peninsula. The remainder of the planning area would be closed. Reindeer grazing permit renewals and new applications would be rejected where significant conflicts with wildlife or subsistence are likely to occur. Allotments that have not had reindeer for 10 or more years would not be permanently retired. Cumulative Effects: There would be no cumulative impacts on grazing. SIA/dWY Yesg ejnsulusd puemas-ynqGoy sonneusayy :|| e}deuD EFFECTS ON FLUID LEASABLE MINERALS The lack of NEPA analysis and retention of ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would preclude oil and gas leasing. Under this alternative no oil and gas exploration and development would occur, rendering these resources unavailable for future generations. Alternative B provides the greatest opportunity for leasable mineral development. Approximately 13.1 million acres (+99% of BLM-managed land) would be open to mineral entry subject to the ROPs and Stips. Oil and Gas Stips #6 and #7 would not apply, suggesting zero acres would be open with minor constraints, such as timing or seasonal limitations. About 23,800 acres would be subject to NSO, the total of individual 300-foot setbacks on select rivers. Setbacks may limit exploration and development. The added cost of directional drilling could render the project uneconomical or it could be technically Under Alternative C, land restrictions would significantly diminish interest in the fluid mineral resources. Only 1.8 million acres (13% of BLM-managed land) would be open subject to the ROPs and Stips. About 5.4 million acres (41%) would be open subject to minor constraints on caribou winter range and muskox habitat. About 181,000 acres (1%) would be open to leasing subject to NSO, the total of individual 300-foot setbacks on select rivers. As in Alternative B, these NSO areas could limit exploration and development. Alternative D provides the second greatest opportunity for leasable mineral development. About 7 million acres (53% of BLM-managed land) would be open subject to the ROPs and Stips. About 6.1 million acres (47%) would be open subject to minor constraints. Some of the acreage subject to minor constraints includes lands that have a high oil and gas occurrence potential rating. These constraints would limit SIB/dWY Yeig einsulusg psemas-yngoy VEL-Z Approximately 5.8 million acres (44%) would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Closing these areas to leasing would preclude oil and gas development and render these resources unrecoverable. Given these constraints, no oil and gas development would occur under this alternative. unfeasible. Consequently, these resources would be unavailable for future generations. None of the planning area would be closed to oil and gas leasing. Areas with moderate to high potential for oil and gas which are State- or Native-selected, may be conveyed to the selecting entities. However, potential does exist for the leasing of oil and gas on BLM-managed lands. exploration and development during specific time periods and increase recovery costs. Approximately 38,000 acres (less than 1%) would be subject to NSO Impacts from NSO would be the same as Alternative B. Cumulative Effects: Impacts would be greatest under Alternatives B and D as no leasing would occur in Alternative A, and high potential areas are closed in Alternative C. There could be a reduction in lease value resulting from the application of stipulations and regulations and increased operating costs. Restrictions on Federal leases could impact leasing and development of adjacent non-Federal leasable minerals. An area on the cusp of showing economical development could become non-profitable by imposing restrictive guidelines, resulting in the displacement mineral activities to adjacent landowners. On the other hand, under Alternatives B and D leasing of Federal minerals, could encourage leasing of private or State minerals. Roads resulting from exploration and development could increase interest in exploration on BLM-managed lands. sejqe| uosuedwog pue Arewuing sajqe| uosuedwog pue Aewwns SEL-~ SOAneWayy ‘|| Ja}deyD EFFECTS ON SOLID LEASABLE MINERALS About 13.1 million acres (+99% of BLM-managed lands) would be available for coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting. Selected lands, unless specifically closed, are open to coal exploration. The only area not available for exploration would two existing coal leases. There currently are two preferential right coal leases in the planning area, both located within the Cape Beaufort Field. The leases expire in 2009 unless development was to occur. Further leasing under any of the alternatives would require additional NEPA analysis, including the coal screening process outlined in 43 CFR 3425. Alternative B is the same as Alternative A except exploration and prospecting would be subject to the ROPs. With no closure restrictions to the lands under this alternative, coal exploration and general resource inventories would be maximized to their full potential. Restrictions on exploration and development would diminish interest in such activities. About 7.2 million acres (55%) would be available for coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting subject to the ROPs. Closed lands encompass nearly 5.9 million acres (45%), including ACECs and a 300- foot setback on selected rivers. These closures would eliminate potential exploration in areas that possess geologic potential for coal and other non-energy leasable minerals. Consequently, these resources would be unrecoverable. Given these constraints, it is assumed that little to no coal exploration or non- energy leasable mineral prospecting would take place under this alternative. About 12.0 million acres (92%) would be available for coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting subject to the ROPs. About 1.1 million acres (8%) would be closed to coal exploration, including 300-foot setbacks on selected rivers and the Nulato Hills ACEC. These closures could have a negative effect on the exploration for non-energy leasable minerals by precluding access to a known energy resource. In areas where solid leasable minerals overlap with closures, the resource would be unrecoverable. However, areas of overlap are not considered to be substantial. Exploration and prospecting could occur under this alternative. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts to coal exploration and non-energy leasable mineral prospecting could occur through development of infrastructure by adjacent land owners. Infrastructure would be provided if coalbed natural gas exploration and development were to occur on non- BLM lands. Up to 11 coalbed natural gas wells could be drilled on non-BLM lands with the produced gas piped to a nearby village. SIB/dWe Yes einsulusd psemag-ynqoy SOAeuayy || Ja}deyD QEL-~ sejqe| uosuedwo5 pue Aewwns EFFECTS ON LOCATABLE MINERALS No withdrawal review would occur and current ANCSA (d)(1) withdrawals would remain in place on about 70% of BLM- managed lands. The potential for future exploration and development on BLM-managed lands would be limited. Once the conveyance process is completed, these withdrawals would continue to discourage mining interests and prevent exploration and evaluation of mineral potential. Much of this land has been unavailable for mineral assessment for more than 30 years. In the meantime markets for new commodities have developed, ore deposit theory has advanced significantly, and new mining and milling processes which are less expensive, more efficient and environmentally friendly have been developed. This alternative would have the fewest impacts on locatable mineral development. About 13.1 million acres would be opened to mineral entry. Revocation of withdrawals would result in increased exploration and development activity, pending State and Native conveyances. Development of mineral deposits on State and private lands could encourage exploration onto adjacent Federal land. Given the limited mineral potential on Federal lands, and mining operation locations mostly on private and conveyed lands, it is expected that no more than 5 new, small placer mines would develop over the life of the plan. It is further expected that no new hard rock mines on Federal land would develop to production, mostly due to the long (more than 20 years) development time needed to bring a hard rock mine from discovery to production. Administration of Notices and Plans of Operations, compliance, and mine reclamation would continue. Less potential exists for mineral exploration and development under Alternative C due to recommended withdrawals of ACECs, RNAs, and 300-foot setbacks along selected rivers. About 6.5 million acres would be open to locatable mineral entry. Some mining activity could continue to occur on valid existing claims, but new development would be doubtful based on proposed area-wide constraints. Restrictions would discourage further expenditure of funds in the planning area. The BLM would continue to regulate surface disturbing activities on valid Federal claims through Notices and Plans of Operations, and ROPs would be implemented. Before a plan of operations could be approved on withdrawn lands, a validity examination would have to be conducted to verify that there is a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit on the claims in question. About 13 million acres would be open to mineral entry. Impacts would be similar to Alternative B except for 99,000 acres proposed for withdrawal. This includes setbacks on three rivers and the Mount Osborn RNA. Potential for development of known graphite occurrences in the Kigluaik Mountains would be curtailed by withdrawal of this RNA. The Ungalik River contains known placer gold occurrences and the proposed setback cuts through a producing placer province. Potential for development of known mineral resources would be curtailed. Cumulative Effects: Impacts that are individually minor may cumulatively reduce exploration and production of commodities from BLM-managed land. Factors that affect mineral extraction and prospecting, such as permitting and permitting delays, regulatory policy, public perception, travel management, transportation, mitigation measures, proximity to sensitive areas, low commodity prices, taxes, and housing and other necessities for workers are mostly issues over which the BLM has no control. These factors result in additional costs and/or permitting delays that can individually or cumulatively add additional costs to projects. Lack of access could reduce the amount of mineral exploration and development that may occur. Mineral resources in other ownerships may not be developed if the adjacent BLM lands are withdrawn from mineral entry because the deposit may not be economically feasible to develop if only a portion is available for development. Overall, Alternative C would be the most restrictive to mineral development and could result in the most cumulative impacts. Alternative C proposes the most acres be withdrawn from mineral entry, the most areas limited or closed to motorized travel, and the highest protection to other resources to the preclusion of use of locatable mineral deposits, both placer and hard rock, on BLM-managed lands. SIA/dWY YesG eINsuIUed PueMeg-yngoy sejqe uosiedwog pue Arewwns LEL-% sanyeweyy :|| sa}deyo EFFECTS ON MINERAL MATERIALS Development of mineral materials sites would not be constrained except as restricted by interim management guidelines for selected lands. No unencumbered Federal lands would be closed to mineral material sales and permits. Impacts would be the same as Alternative A except the ROPs would apply to mineral material sales. Development of mineral materials sites on BLM-managed lands would most likely be severely constrained under Alternative C. Some Federal lands (271,500 acres) would be closed to mineral material sales and permits. More importantly limitations on the type of mineral material deposit that could be developed would amount to a de- facto closure of public lands to the operation of this program. Impacts would be the same as Alternative B. Cumulative Effects: Under Alternative C the closure of two ACECs to sale/permit of mineral materials as well as the additional restriction on types of mineral material deposits that may be mined would essentially close all BLM-managed land to mineral materials development and production. SIA/dWY YeIg eINsuIUeg premeg-yNGoy “|| 4aydeyo, SOAIEUOyY 8EL-Z sejqe| uoswedwog pue Aiewwns EFFECTS ON RECREATION MANAGEMENT No SRMAs would be_ | Under Alternative B, more land would be SRMAs would be designated in the As in Alternative C, SRMAs designated under available for mineral development which could | Squirrel River and Kigluaik Mountains. would be designated in the Alternative A. potentially affect recreation opportunity and Impacts to recreation in would be Squirrel River and Kigluaik Recreational experience. Given the limited amount of similar to those in Alternative B but Mountains. The opportunities would mineral development anticipated, effects would | would affect a larger area. The establishment of visitor use be primarily limited to | be minor. In the Squirrel River SRMA, the establishment of visitor use limits in limits in these areas would independent remote number of special recreation permits (SRP) specific areas would help ensure the help ensure the quality of backcountry issued would be limited, impacting the sport quality of recreation experiences for recreation experiences for experiences and hunter who relies upon guided hunts. Limiting | commercial and non-commercial users. | commercial and non- through guided tours. | use levels could also enhance the experience | However, establishment of visitor use commercial users. But may Semi-primitive for the sport hunter desiring a more primitive limits may limit recreational also limit opportunities. motorized recreation | experience. This could also negatively impact | opportunities for some as well as Specific limitations would be opportunities would commercial service providers by limiting their opportunities for commercial developed in RAMPs, making be maintained on potential client base. OHV designations development for others. Impacts to the impact somewhat lands currently allowing for the use of larger vehicles would commercial recreation in the Squirrel unknown at this time. OHV undesignated for benefit users wanting to use those types of River would be similar Alternative B but | designations would preserve OHV use. vehicles. It could also have negative impacts more restrictive. semi-primitive motorized on other users who prefer a more primitive OHVs would be limited to designated recreation opportunities in experience. trails, diminishing the opportunity for most of the planning area. free and unrestricted OHV use. Cumulative Effects: The planning area currently provides a diversity of recreation opportunities which are expected to continue over the life of the plan regardless of the alternative selected. The largest influence on recreation experience is use of OHVs. Without management and some limitations on OHV use, recreation experiences will trend towards semi-primitive motorized and roaded natural. However, much of the planning area is dominated by steep topography, wetlands, dense vegetation and remote settings with no road infrastructure, making it inaccessible to most OHVs. These areas will continue to provide for primitive recreation experiences, regardless of which alternative is selected. Helicopter-supported commercial recreation ventures and winter snowmachine use have the potential to alter experiences in some of these areas. There continues to be a need for facilities to provide positive recreation experiences for motorists traveling the Nome Road System. The State continually struggles with funding to support construction and maintenance of facilities such as waysides and outhouses. Facilities for remote and dispersed recreation safety and comfort (such as remote cabin facilities) are also in need. Alternatives C and D may address these needs, but without a well-funded State or Federal recreation program, this rapidly growing need would not be met. SIB/dWY YeIG BINsulUsg PIeMas-4nqoy sajqe| uosuedwog pue Arewwns 6E1L-~ seanewayy :|| dey EFFECTS ON TRAVEL MANAGEMENT/OHV There are no OHV designations in place in the planning area. Use of vehicles over 2,000 pounds GVWR requires a permit. The planning area would be designated as “Limited” to OHV use. The lifting of the 2,000 pound GVWR limit during the winter months will increase the potential for travel by allowing use of larger OHVs in an unrestricted environment. This is the only alternative where vehicles larger than 2,000 pounds could travel on BLM-managed lands without a permit. More lands would be open to mineral entry under this alternative, potentially creating improved access. Given the level of mineral development anticipated, these effects would be minor. The planning area would be designated as “Limited” to OHV use. OHV use would be restricted to designated trails during the snow- free period and keep the current maximum 2,000 pound GVWR limit during the winter. The current free and unrestricted OHV use in the planning area would be diminished. Proposed restrictions would impact users by strictly limiting OHV use where no limits have been in place before. There may be areas users will have difficulty reaching due to the lack of designated trails. In designated ACECs or SRMAs, further limitations may be placed upon OHV use. Non local users who visit the planning area primarily during the summer/fall months would be affected the most. This alternative would impact OHV and travel use more than any other alternative. The planning area would be designated as “Limited” to OHV use. A maximum 2,000 pound GVWR would apply yearlong. Selected lands would be managed consistent with the ADNR’s Generally Allowable Uses on State Lands. In designated ACECs, RNAs, and SRMAs further limitations may be placed on OHV use. The current fee and unrestricted OHV use would be somewhat diminished compared to Alternative A. Impacts from mineral development would be the same as Alternative A. Cumulative Effects: OHV use and travel in the planning area is somewhat restricted due to limits on State and BLM-managed lands, and land ownership patterns. There is limited public access to BLM-managed lands and there is little in this plan that will help alleviate this situation. While a small road system outside of Nome exists, it accesses largely private and State lands. Common to all alternatives, access to public lands could become more difficult as Native corporation entitlements are met and they exercise their private property rights. The BLM would maintain existing 17(b) easements and would extend those easements across Native-selected lands where trails currently exist to ensure reservation of easements when conveyance occurs. Future access is somewhat contingent on the resolution of State-recognized R.S. 2477 routes, particularly where they cross Native lands. Whether or not access routes to public land would be maintained in the long-term as a result of those determinations cannot be resolved in this planning effort. SIB/dWY Ye einsulusg puemas-ynqoy SOAeUayy :|| Ja}deuD OvlL-z sejqe) uosiedwo9 pue Arewwnsg EFFECTS ON LANDS AND REALTY Management of vegetation, fish, wildlife, special status species, cultural and paleontological resources may result in restrictions or additional mitigation, increasing the cost of projects. A permit is required for the use of vehicles exceeding 2,000 pounds GVWR. Historically, demand for these permits has been low. Lands proposed for disposal need to be inventoried for the presence of hazardous materials. The presence of contaminants may lead to modification or abandonment of a disposal action, or remediation in the form of cleanup and removal of the contaminants. Impacts would be similar to Alternative A. In addition, requirements to meet VRM management classes could increase project cost. VRM classes are the least restrictive under this alternative. More lands would be available for mineral development, potentially resulting in a greater demand for land use authorizations such as ROW. Possible commercial harvest of forest resources may increase the need for land use authorizations. However, given the level of development likely to occur, these additional impacts would be minor. ROPs and Stips would restrict land uses in certain areas. Emphasis for land acquisition would be the Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT). Impacts would be similar to Alternative A. VRM management classes are the most restrictive under this alternative. OHV use is most restricted under this alternative thus more permits would be required for the use of larger vehicles. ROPs and Stips would restrict land uses in certain areas. Emphasis for land acquisition would be the INHT. Impacts would be similar to Alternative A. Impacts from VRM would be less than Alternative C but more than Alternative D. Impacts from mineral development would be the same as Alternative B. ROPs and Stips would restrict land uses in certain areas. Emphasis for land acquisition would be the INHT. Cumulative Effects: Effects from disposal, acquisition, and exchange proposals described for BLM-managed lands in any alternative are minor compared to conveyances to Native corporations and the State of Alaska. The recently signed Alaska Lands Transfer Acceleration Act (P.L. 108- 452) will facilitate the conveyance process, with a target of completing conveyances by 2009. Once entitlements are met, land exchanges may be considered to consolidate land ownership patterns. The number of land use authorizations, particularly rights-of-way and permits, is a function of demand for these uses. Additional future development of adjacent Federal, State, and private lands would likely result in additional requests for and ae of land use authorizations for facilities such as roads, utilities, and communication sites. EFFECTS ON AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND RESEARCH NATURAL AREAS No ACECs or RNAs exist | No ACECs or RNAs in the planning area. are proposed. Five ACECs would be managed to protect relevant and important values (Appendix B). Impacts to these values are discussed under the various resource management programs such as Fish and Wildlife Management. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts could have a wide range of effects on the different resources that are intended to benefit from the various ACECs and RNAs proposed. These impacts largely stem from actions that are not guided by BLM management decisions. Values within certain ACECs could be diminished by cumulative impacts in the unlikely scenario in which numerous development projects occur within or | adjacent to them. Five ACECs and one RNA would be managed to protect relevant and important values (Appendix B). Impacts to these values are discussed under the various resource management programs such as Fish and Wildlife Management. SIA/dWY YelG einsulusg premeg-ynGoy sejqe | uosuedwo5 pue Aewwns LyL-z Seneusayy :|| Ja}deyo EFFECTS ON WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS The Squirrel River Study Area will be managed to monitor and protect wild river The Squirrel River Study Area will continue to be managed under interim The Squirrel River Study Area will continue to be Impacts would be the same as Alternative B. managed under interim management until released by Congress. Eleven river segments would be considered suitable for designation as wild. Outstandingly remarkable values in these rivers would be protected. Cumulative Effects: No cumulative eae are aaa under ae alternative. EFFECTS ON IDITAROD NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL In addition to continuation of current Impacts would be the management, BLM would consider same as Alternative B. acquisition of parcels along the INHT. There would be beneficial impacts from consolidation of trail ownership. VRM management classes would be established, further protecting the viewshed along the trail. values until fall of 2007, pursuant to BLM interim management policies, while congress considers the study recommendation finding the river area non-suitable for addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system. management until released by Congress. No other river segments would be considered suitable. Impacts would be the same as Alternative B. The Iditarod National Historic Trail (INHT) would continue to be managed under existing cooperative agreements and comprehensive management plan. OHV use, particularly during the snow-free season could impact the trail itself. If damage to the trail is sufficient to cause concern, trail improvement work may be undertaken. Potential impacts to the INHT would be avoided or mitigated to the extent possible. Cumulative Effects: No cumulative impacts are anticipated under any alternative. EFFECTS ON PUBLIC SAFETY (ABANDONED MINE LANDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT) Economic conditions can lead to the abandonment of mining activities, resulting in abandonment of potentially hazardous substances, solid wastes and petroleum products mine sites. These products and wastes result in potential environmental liabilities and physical hazards. Federal funds may be expended to clean up and remediate an abandoned site or reclamation claims being made against a bond if available. Any increase of human activity has the potential for increasing the likelihood of spills or unauthorized waste disposal activities. Additional future impacts to lands are associated with negotiation of alternative cleanup levels for existing hazardous materials management sites. Under this process, less stringent cleanup levels are authorized by the State. Often these may also include institutional controls such as a long-term monitoring program or land use restrictions based on contaminants that still may be present. Cumulative Effects: No cumulative impacts are anticipated under any alternative. SIB/dWY YeIG BjNsulusq psemas-yNGoy “II 4aydeyo SaAeUsey|\y CvL-% sage | uosuedwog pue Arewuwns EFFECTS ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS Income generated by In addition to BLM expenditures and livestock grazing, oil Impacts would be BLM expenditures and development will have economic effects, particularly in the North the same as reindeer grazing would Slope Borough. Within the Borough up to 60 new jobs could result Alternative A. have minimal effects on | during the oil field development stage. Up to 600 jobs could accrue to the regional economy. the rest of Alaska and 200 to non-resident workers. Up to 50 new jobs may be created due to locatable mineral development. Although, the benefit on the local economy would likely be low, since non-area residents may hold a majority of these jobs. These increases in employment will have a low effect statewide, as the addition to the 300,600 jobs comprising the total State employment for November 2005 (ADLWD 2005b) is only about 2 tenths of 1%. Royalties and tax revenue from leases and operations may partially offset revenue decreases the North Slope Borough experiences as other oil fields age. Impacts would be essentially the same as Alternative B. Cumulative Effects: Under Alternatives B and D, oil development in northwest Alaska, outside of NPR-A would generate a commutes from outside Alaska. Workers commuting to residences outside the State would not generate economic effects o employment or expenditure of income in the State and would have a negligible effect on the economy of the rest of the U.S. effect under any alternative. dditional revenue to the Boroughs, the State, and the Federal government. The cumulative gains in direct employment would include additive jobs in petroleum exploration, development, and production, plus oil-spill cleanup activities. The direct employment would generate indirect and induced employment and associated personal income for all the workers. As much as 30% of the North Slope workforce in the classification of oil and gas workers f indirect and induced Other developments in the planning area resulting from forestry, recreation, grazing, and mining are considered to have little cumulative economic SIS/d Wu Weld BInsulUag Puemas-ynqoy sajqe| uosuedwog pue Arewwng vl-~ SaAneuayy ‘|| 48}deuD EFFECTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Activities restricting subsistence Oil and gas development would likely result in long term Impacts would Impacts would practices, access, and resources temporary or permanent changes to the land and added facilities | be the same as be the same as would affect a large percentage of the | such as roads or activity sites. If these cause a relocation of Alternative A. Alternative B. local population. Arguably, creation of | subsistence resources such as caribou, local minority and low jobs and income provide positive income populations would be pressed to travel to follow the effects on the environmental justice resource. Mineral development would occur on a small scale and population. Under all alternatives the be very unlikely to cause any change in subsistence activity or effects of recreation, forestry, and effect environmental justice populations. | grazing would be similar. Cumulative Effects: Alaska lfupiat Natives, a recognized minority, are the predominant residents of northwest Alaska, the area potentially most affected by activities under Alternative B and D and other activities associated with cumulative projects on the North Slope and northwest Alaska. Environmental Justice effects on Alaska Natives could occur because of their reliance on subsistence foods, and potential effects that could impact subsistence resources and harvest practices. Potential cumulative effects from noise, disturbance, and oil spills on subsistence resources and harvest practices, and sociocultural patterns would focus on Ifiupiat communities throughout the planning area. Cumulative socio-cultural impacts have occurred on the North Slope and the Ifupiat culture has undergone a noticeable change. The influx of money from wage employment has added benefits and raised the standard of living, but has also given rise to an array of social pathologies, including increased alcoholism. Expanded oil and gas development in North Slope or northwest Alaska, would expand the extent of disturbance effects on subsistence species and harvest patterns. While each individual project would likely be a small incremental increase, the cumulative effect would eventually become more and more repressive to the subsistence lifestyle. In addition to potentially diverting, deflecting, or disturbing subsistence species, oil and gas development could affect subsistence harvest by causing subsistence hunters to avoid certain areas. The North Slope still has vast undisturbed areas, yet the general subsistence hunting environment continues to change in response to increased development. Transportation facilities and activities would also contribute to cumulative effects to subsistence resources and, consequently, to the Native population. A new permanent road connection from Nuiqsut and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska would also facilitate petroleum development, and could provide an additional public travel route to northwest Alaska. Contamination and oil spills could affect the food chain in the area of development and subsistence harvest. If this were experienced, the effects would fall largely on indigenous people. SIF/dWe Hed ejnsulusd psemag-ynNgGoy SenjeWayy ‘|| Ja\deup vrl-~ sajqe | uosuedwod pue Aiewwns EFFECTS ON SUBSISTENCE Impacts from authorized activities such as mining, leases, and permits, and OHV use may include temporary displacement of wildlife from harvest areas, access constraints, or increased competition for resources. These impacts would be minimal. Conflicts due to increasing recreational use levels would not be addressed. Wildlife used for subsistence purposes may be temporarily stressed or displaced. Direct impacts to subsistence use result from increased competition for resources by sport hunters and guides in heavily-used areas such as the Squirrel River, as well as other units in the planning area. Subsistence hunters may be reluctance to hunt in areas used either for development purposes or for intensive recreational activities. Subsistence users tend to shift away from their traditional harvest areas when too much activity from outside sources occurs. Impacts to subsistence would occur on a larger area than under Alternative A as more lands would be open to mineral entry and leasing, OHV designations would be slightly less restrictive, and more land would be open to livestock grazing. Oil development would occur under this alternative. Activities associated with exploration may cause temporary displacement of wildlife from traditional harvest areas or limitations on access to traditional use areas. Potential effects of development activities include direct and indirect habitat loss, and changes in local distribution of subsistence species, potentially making them more difficult and expensive to locate and harvest. These effects would continue until animals were habituated to development and associated structures. Access by subsistence users could be hindered by pipelines or other infrastructure. Subsistence users may be reluctance to harvest animals that have become habituated to development, due to health and other concerns. Limits would be set on commercial recreational use in the Squirrel River, thus lowering the potential impacts to subsistence users. Impacts to subsistence users would be similar to Alternative A for most authorized activities. Potential for impacts from grazing would be reduced as the area open to grazing would be the most limited under Alternative C. Limits would be set on recreational use in the Squirrel River and other areas, reducing impacts from recreation compared to Alternative A. OHV designations would be the most restrictive under this alternative, with OHVs limited to designated trails during the snow- free months. This would provide beneficial impacts to subsistence use, in that wildlife would not be displaced and wildlife habitat would not be degraded. OHV use off designated trails would be allowed for subsistence harvest by qualified subsistence users. Management of proposed ACECs would provide additional protection to wildlife habitats within these areas, reducing the potential for impacts to subsistence resources. Impacts from grazing would be similar to Alternative A. Impacts from mineral development would be the same as Alternative B. Impacts in the Squirrel River would initially be similar to those discussed under Alternative A. However, limits on recreational use levels in the Squirrel River would be established through a RAMP to be developed within five years of plan approval, which may result in a decrease in impacts to subsistence. Impacts to subsistence from travel management and OHV management would be same as Alternative B; however, there would be less of an impact to subsistence in designated ACECs, RNAs, and SRMAs where OHV use may be further limited. Use off designated trails would be allowed for subsistence harvest by qualified subsistence users. Cumulative Effects: Mineral development, privatization of land, and development of regional infrastructure would have cumulative impacts on subsistence. These activities have the potential to negatively affect wildlife resources, and thus subsistence. Development of regional infrastructure such as roads, may improve access for non-local hunters, increasin concentrate hunting efforts, depleting subsistence resources and potentially altering harvest. Ig competition for subsistence resources. Improved access may SIB/dIY YeIG eInsulUed psemag-yngoy Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Chapter Ill: Affected Environment A. How to Read This Chapter ............ccccecceesceseseceseecseeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeseeeseeeseeeeeeeeseeeeseeeeneeeeeeeseeeas 3-3 B. ROESOUICES ........ccccccceccceeseeceeeeeeseeesesueeeceeneeeeesaeeeecceaeeeceaaeeeseeeaeessesueeseeeeaeesecaeeeseeeeesseeeeeeeeeee 1. Air Quality .. 2. GeOlOgy........eeceeeeeeeeeee . a) Physiographic ReGiOns ............cecceeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeceaeeceaeeeeseeeeeeeteeseeeeeeenteeeneeeenee 3-6 3. Soil RESOUICES 20.0... eeceeecececeeeceeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeseeeeeaeeseeeeseaeeseaeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeieeseeeeseeeesneeeeeeneeeees 4. Water Resources a) Arctic Streams b) Coastal Streams C) Interior Streams... ce cceeceeeceeeceseeseeeeceeeceeeeaeceeeeeeceeeeeeaeeseeseeeseesereeeeseaeeeeeeeeeeeneeeeees d) Lakes and Ponds 5. Vegetation... ec eceeceeeseeeeseeeseeeeee a) Preliminary Vegetation Classification ......0....0.cccccsceeseceseeesneeeseeeseeeneeeseeesseeeneeseeeeees 3-27 b) Upland and Riparian Vegetation ..............eeceececeseceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeneeseeeseeeeeeeeseeeeees 3-30 c) Rare Plants Not Classified as BLM-Alaska Special Status Species . 3-32 d) Noxious and Invasive Plant Management..............:::::ceeeeeees 3-38 6. Fish and Wildlife... ccc ccccccceeeeeeceeeeeeeeeeeceeeeeceseeeeeaeceeseeeeeeseeseeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeeeneseeeeeees 3-47 A) FISH ooo. eee eeeeceeeeeeeeneeceeeseeeeeeeceeeeeeesaeesaeesaeeceeeeeeeeeeeseeeesaeeeeeeseeeseaeeseeeseeeeneeeeneeees 3-47 b) Wildlife ......0....... 3-54 7. Special Status Species . 3-71 a) Special Status Plants .0...0..0 cece cececeeeeeeeeceeeecneeeeeeeeeaeeeseeesseesseeeseeesseeseeeenneeeneeees 3-71 b) Special Status Fish .........ccccccceceeeceeceeeceeeeseeneeeeeeeeeeeseeseaeseeesaeeeesereeeeeneeneeeaeeneeeeeees 3-83 c) Special Status Wildlife......... 3-85 8. Fire Management and Ecology .. a) Fire History..........c cece 3-99 b) Fire Occurrence. 3-99 c) Fire Regimes...... 3-99 d) Fuel Condition. e) Fire Behavior... . f) Fire Policy ........... .3-104 g) Fuels Management... h) Smoke Management. -3-109 i) Fire Prevention........ 3-109 9. Cultural Resources. 3-117 a) Prehistory........ 3-117 b) History 3-120 c) Historical Themes in the Planning Area. -3-124 d) Known Sites... eee eeeeeeee 3-124 10. Paleontological Resources. 3-127 11. Visual RESOUICES ........ eects 3-128 a) Visual Resource Inventory Classes .... b) Visual Resource Management Classes. 3-129 c) Condition and Trend............. cee 3-129 12. Wilderness Characteristics. 3-133 a) Characteristics by Unit... eee .-3-133 b) Legislative History Relevant to BLM Wilderness .............:::ccsceesseesseeeeeseeeeneeeseeenes 3-135 3-1 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS C. RESOUrCE USES .......ccccccccesecesseceseeceseeeeeceseecseccececseeseccseeeseceaeecneeeeaeeeeeeenaeeenieeeneetsneeenaeene 3-137 1. Forest Products...... 3-137 2. Livestock Grazing ..........cccecceeescceeseceseeeeseesseesseecseeseesseeseseeseessaesessesessesecseseaeeeeueseneeeeseees 3-143 3. Mime ralls 0... eee ececeeeeeeseeeeeecseeeseceeeeeenseeeseseeceesesseesensaeesessaeeceeeseeeeeesseeeseseeeeeeeeees 3-146 a) Leasable Minerals. b) Locatable Minerals 7 C) Mineral Materials 2.2.0.0... cc ceceeeeseseeeseeeseeeccsesesesesesessesesseaessaeeseseaeesaseaeseaseaeseasenasenee 3-203 4. Recreation Management.............:ccsceecessessseeeeeseeseseeeeeceeseseeseseeesseseassseseaeseaseaesaseaeeeases 3-209 a) General Recreation b) Special Recreation Permits, Commercial Uses, and Fee Use Areas . c) Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 5. Travel Management/OHV ............. 3-217 a) Travel Managemenrt.............0..00 ..3-217 b) Off-highway Vehicle Managemernt............ 3-217 6. Renewable Energy...........:::cccceseeseeeteeeneees ..3-223 a) Photovoltaics (PV) b) Wind Resources... c) Biomass 3-224 7. Lands and Realty Actions .0..........cccceeescceseceseeceecneeceeeeneseeseeseseeaeseneeees 13-224 a) Land Use Authorizations. 3-224 b) Disposal Actions .......... ..3-226 C) ACQUISITIONS 0.2... eee eceeeeeeceseeesceeeeeseeaeesaeeeecscseeesesecsecsecaessascsasenessaseseseseesasaaeenessaeeaees 3-227 d) ACCESS COrridOrs.........ceceeeceeseesceeseeseeeeeeeceeeeceeseeseesecseceecsesseseaeseseseaseneseseesaseseseesaeesees 3-227 D. Special Designations ............cceeecceeceeeeeeseeeeeseeeeeeeeeneecneeeseseeeeseeesseeeeees 3-233 1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas... 3-233 A) ACECS ooeceeeccccececceceeeeseeeceeeseeaceecsesseesceecsecsecaesesecessesecasaceaseseaseaseesaseaseaseasenes 3-233 D) RNAS... ceeccceceeseeseeeceeeeeeeeeeseeeeeaceeesecsesseeecsucscsecscsasessesesseseesaeeaeeaseaseaseaseasaeeasees 3-236 2. Iditarod National Historic Trail ..3-238 3. Wild and Scenic Rivers............. 3-241 a) Laws, Regulations, and Policies ...............ccccccccesseseeseeseeeeeeeeseseeeeseesseeneesaeeaeeeneseeeenees 3-241 DB) BACKQrOUN ........ cc cecececceseesceeeeeeeeseeseeseceaecaeecscsetseeaecsessecseceseseseseceesesesesesaseaesasaeenees 3-242 c) Previous Study of the Squirrel River .. 3-244 E. Social and Economic ............::cceeeeeeees ..3-249 4. Public Safety 2.0... .cececcecceceseeseescescecseeecescsecseseeesnscsesscsaessssessessaseesieseesaesaseaseasseeaecaseasees 3-249 a) Abandoned Mine Lands..............cccceccesceessesecesesteeeeeeesceecesecsaseaeeaeesasaesseseseeaeeeseeseenaes 3-249 b) Hazardous Materials Management. .3-250 2. Social and Economic Conditions...... “ €) Social ANd ECONOMIC 1.0.02... ccceeeeceseeeseesceseeeseseeseeseeseesecseceesesesesesaseseseasenaseaseeaseaeeaees b) Environmental Justice .......... cc ceeccecceseesecseeeeeeeseessesecseeseseeesseseseseaseaaseasesaseasesaseseensens c) Socio-cultural Systems F. SubSIStENCE ooo... eee eee ceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeaeeeneeeceeeenseeseeees . 1. Traditional Subsistence Use Patterns in the Planning Area...............::ccccccseeseeeeeeeseees 3-276 2. Subsistence Patterns Today ...........ccceccecesscsseccseeseeeseeeeceseeesseeesseesseeseeeseseeseseseesesenseess 3. Federal Subsistence Management.. “ 4. Economics of Subsistence ........... cc cecceeeeesteeeeceseceeceseeeeesaeeeeeeenseeseseeseseeseseseaeseestsenseee® Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-2 Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Chapter Ill: Affected Environment e A. How to Read This Chapter This chapter provides background information on the various resources, resource uses, and programs within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area, and describes their condition and trend. The chapter is organized into four sections: Resources, Resource Uses, Special Designations, and Social and Economic Conditions. Each of these four sections is split further into resources or program areas. Each section includes a discussion of the presence, condition, and trend of the topic area. B. Resources 1. Air Quality Air quality throughout the planning area is pristine or nearly so, except for periods in the summer when forest fires may increase the airborne particulates or high winds may blow exposed sand and gravel from large river bars or dust associated with reindeer herding activities. Smoke from naturally-occurring forest fires may exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits for airborne particulates; however, little can be done to affect these impacts as smoke can originate from as far away as Canada or Siberia. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has statutory authority for air quality in Alaska. Written authority is required from ADEC for any controlled burn of 40 or more acres (see the Fire Management and Ecology section beginning on page 3-99 for more information on fire management). Rural villages often use diesel power generation stations and oil or wood for heating houses, uses that may cause local increases in particulates during periods of still air. Air quality within the planning area meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Alaska air quality laws and regulations. Concentrations of regulated air pollutants are far less than the maximum allowed levels. The EPA classifies the areas that comprise the planning area as attainment areas because they meet the standards of the Clean Air Act. The air resources of the planning area are constantly changing as winds and climatic systems move air masses across Alaska. Three internal or geographic factors that determine climate in Alaska are latitude, continentality, and elevation. To understand how these factors affect air quality, a brief discussion, taken largely from the Alaska Climate Research Center (2004), follows. The amount of solar radiation varies with latitude: the higher the latitude, the greater the range of seasonal variability. Areas at or north of the Arctic Circle (66°33’) experience long summer days when the sun does not set, but remain in darkness for much of the winter. These conditions create periods of relatively warm temperatures during the constant summer sunlight, Air Quality 3-3 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS followed by a long, very cold winter. In contrast, spring and fall are often very short periods of rapidly changing weather. These areas are said to have an Arctic climate. Continentality refers to the influence of the ocean waters and sea ice on climate. Those areas closest to the coast (e.g., much of the Seward Peninsula) are considered to have a maritime climate since proximity to the ocean limits diurnal and seasonal temperature variability, creates high humidity, and results in relatively high precipitation and wind. In contrast, areas of continental climate further inland (e.g., the upper Kobuk Valley) are not affected by the moderating influence of the ocean waters. They exhibit much larger daily and annual temperature variations, lower humidity, and relatively low precipitation and wind. Sea ice can alter this pattern by limiting the moderating effects of open water during the winter, creating more extreme continental conditions once the ocean has frozen over. These areas may be referred to as transitional, with a maritime climate in the summer and early fall, and a continental or Arctic climate in winter and early spring. The normal effect of elevation is a decrease in ambient temperature with increasing elevation. While this is true in the summer, areas of low elevation, such as large river valleys, often exhibit extremely low temperatures during the winter. The low temperature inversion occurs during cold, clear, calm weather when radiative cooling in the atmosphere traps pockets of cold air near the ground. Hills that are only a few hundred feet high may be 20-30° F warmer than the valley bottom. This can occur in the planning area wherever topography and wind (or lack thereof) are favorable to forming inversions. While seldom a problem in the coastal, urban areas of Nome or Kotzebue, these inversions in the Interior can be long lasting (up to several weeks) and can trap smoke and other pollutants, often resulting in exceedances in air quality standards in major urbanized basins such as Fairbanks. While these internal factors generally produce more or less predictable long-term weather patterns, there are a number of other factors that result in significant climatic variability, including the position of the polar jet stream, winds over the north polar region, and water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. The following discussion is taken largely from Papineau’s Understanding Alaska’s Climate Variation (2004). The polar jet is a mass of strong upper-level winds that circulate from west to east across the North Pacific. The position of these winds, often simply called the jet stream, is important because air temperatures are often 10-20° F cooler to the north of the polar jet than air to the south. While the path of the polar jet often follows a seasonal pattern (north of the Alaska Peninsula in summer and south towards the Gulf of Alaska in winter), the jet can shift large distances in a few days, altering storm tracks and producing major weather changes. At other times, the jet may remain stationary for several weeks or more, blocking weather changes. During the winter, this can produce extremely cold, calm weather in Interior Alaska. In 2004, this weather pattern resulted in a warm dry summer and major forest fires, with resulting smoke blanketing central Alaska from the Canadian border to the Seward Peninsula. The winds over the North Polar Region at an elevation of 20-30 miles blow in a counter- clockwise direction. Variation in the strength and position of these winds is termed the Arctic Oscillation. These variations can alter storm track winds in the lower atmosphere, changing the position and strength of local or regional weather patterns. The greatest effects have been noted in the western Arctic. Probably the most publicized external factors in climate variation are long-term fluctuations in water temperature in the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a roughly 20- Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-4 Air Quality Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS year fluctuation in sea-surface temperatures in the North Pacific Ocean. A similar variation in the central and equatorial oceans is termed El! Nifio/La Nifia. A period of warmer than normal water temperature is a positive PDO or El Nifo, while a period of cooler than normal water temperature is a negative PDO or La Nifia. While a positive PDO or El Nifio is generally characterized by warmer than normal temperatures and higher precipitation in Alaska, the specific effects of El Nifio depends on the phase of the PDO. Generally, a negative PDO or La Nifia produces cooler and drier than normal conditions. Rarely, a La Nifia will occur during a positive PDO, where the effects can be highly variable in different regions of the state. Another factor that affects air quality is airborne particulates from outside Alaska. During the winter and spring, winds transport pollutants from industrial Europe and Asia across the Arctic Ocean to Arctic Alaska (Rahn et al. 1982). These pollutants cause a phenomenon known as Arctic haze. The haze is mostly comprised of sulfates mixed with carbon, and of other by- products from coal burning and metal smelting (ADEC 2002). Despite this seasonal long- distance transport of pollutants into the Arctic, the planning area is still considered an attainment area because it meets the standards of the Clean Air Act. A final factor in climate variation is climate warming. The mean annual temperature in Alaska has increased 2.5° F for the period of 1971 to 2000 (Alaska Climate Research Center 2004). It is uncertain whether this increase is a result of phase shift in one or more of the external weather factors, such as the PDO and El Nifio/La Nifia cycles, or whether it is due to an increase in greenhouse gases, combustion products of fossil fuels that trap a greater amount of solar radiation (Papineau 2004). In summary, the air quality in the planning area is pristine or nearly so, largely due to the lack of large cities or industrial development. While certain internal geographic factors determine the three climatic regions within the planning area, various external weather factors can significantly alter these expected patterns. The observed increase in temperatures during the last 30 years may be a result of phase shift in one or more of the external weather factors or to an increase in greenhouse gases that trap a greater amount of solar radiation. Air Quality 3-5 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Geology a) Physiographic Regions The planning area includes terrain ranging from coastal lowlands to mountainous regions with greater than 3,000 feet of local relief (Wahrhaftig 1965). Continuous permafrost underlies the majority of the planning area to an estimated depth of 1,000 feet (Map 3-2). Thermokarst topography and other cryogenic processes present within the planning area include tussock tundra, thermokarst lakes, pingos, and patterned (polygonal) ground. An active layer exhibiting seasonal thaw up to 4 feet thick is present at the surface. Wahrhaftig’s description of Alaska’s physiographic provinces remains the authoritative reference, portions of which are selected below. (1) Arctic Coastal Plain The Arctic Coastal Plain Province extends south from the Arctic Ocean, rising gradually to a maximum elevation of 600 feet. The smooth plain is underlain by permafrost and permafrost landforms are ubiquitous. The area is poorly drained, with numerous lakes and marshy areas. A scarp 50-200 feet tall locally separates the Arctic Coastal Plain Province from the Arctic Foothills Province to the south. The Arctic Coastal Plain is underlain by Quaternary to Tertiary sedimentary units. (2) Arctic Foothills The Arctic Foothills Province occupies the area between the Arctic Coastal Plain Province and the area north and west of the Western Brooks Range (as part of the Arctic Mountains Province). Rolling plateaus and low linear mountains rise from 600 feet in the north to over 3,000 feet in the south. Upland tundra plateaus are typically dissected by north-flowing braided streams. Although not covered by glaciers, the area is entirely underlain by permafrost and exhibits frozen ground morphologies. The Arctic Foothills Province bedrock consists of Quaternary to Devonian sedimentary units and mafic intrusives, with structural over-thrusting to the north. (3) Arctic Mountains (Western Brooks Range) The Baird and De Long mountains and the intervening lowland occupied by the Noatak River comprise the Arctic Mountains Province in the planning area. Sharp, glaciated peaks in mountainous areas rise abruptly to 2,500-4,500 feet in altitude and are cored by Paleozoic metasediments (Baird Mountains) and Devonian to Cretaceous sediments (De Long Mountains). Massive diabase dikes intrude the De Long Mountains and are prominent cliff- forming features. Structural trends are predominantly east-west to northeast-southwest. The Noatak River Valley and adjacent rolling uplands host numerous morainal and thaw lakes. Primary drainage for the province is via the south-flowing Noatak River; the south slopes of the Baird Mountains drain into the Kobuk River. A small area near Ambler and Kobuk in the eastern portion of the planning area is covered by intensely glaciated ridges along the abrupt southern front of the Brooks Range. Ridges in the Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-6 Geology Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Ambler area are composed of Mesozoic metamorphosed basalts (greenstone), while intervening valleys are underlain by folded Cretaceous sediments. (4) Bering Shelf The Bering Shelf Province occupies a limited (less than 250,000 acres) portion of the planning area adjacent to the coastal village of Shaktoolik on Norton Sound. The Bering Shelf Province is extensively covered by quaternary sand and silt. Local bedrock exposures range from Cretaceous and Tertiary volcanic units (chiefly basalts) to older Paleozoic crystalline rocks. The Bering Shelf Province, along with the Seward Peninsula and Western Alaska provinces, was part of the ice-free Beringia Corridor that connected Alaska to northeast Asia during the last glaciation. (5) Seward Peninsula The entire Seward Peninsula Province is contained in the Seward Peninsula area, and as such represents the largest portion of the planning area. The Seward Peninsula Province is approximately 200 miles wide in an east-west direction, 140 miles long in a north-south direction, and is bordered on the west by the Bering Strait Province and to the east by the Western Alaska Province. The Seward Peninsula Province consists of an extensive upland area with interior basins and coastal lowlands. The uplands portion ranges from mainly broad- sloping hills up to 2,000 feet in altitude; isolated groups of glaciated peaks below 4,700 feet in elevation are concentrated in the south. Interior basins are drained through narrow canyons which cut the uplands, transitioning into meandering streams which cross the lowlands to the ocean. Paleozoic bedrock is predominant on the Seward Peninsula, consisting of metasediments and metamorphosed volcanic rocks, all cut by later granitic intrusives. Quaternary lava flows occupy the north-central portion of the province. (6) Western Alaska The Western Alaska Province covers the southeast-quarter of the planning area. The province is dominated by the Kobuk-Selawik Lowlands and Nulato Hills, and numerous smaller lowland and hill areas. Most of the area drains into Kotzebue Sound via the Kobuk and Selawik rivers, although streams draining the western slopes of the Nulato Hills discharge to Norton Sound. Thaw lakes are common in lowland areas. Local relief in the Nulato Hills area is 500-1,500 feet, with peaks that reach to 2,500 feet in elevation. Most of these low, rolling hills have been spared from recent glaciations and were part of the ice-free Beringia Corridor linking North America and Asia. The Nulato Hills are cored by tightly folded Cretaceous sediments and minor volcanics. The Selawik Hills, which rise abruptly from the Kobuk-Selawik Lowlands to as much as 3,300 feet in elevation, have gently sloping to flat summits. Geology in the Selawik Hills is typified by Paleozoic and Mesozoic metavolcanic and granitic rocks. Geology 3-7 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Soil Resources The soil information for the planning area and Map 3-1 was largely derived from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service’s Exploratory Soil Survey of Alaska (Rieger et al. 1979). That exploratory soil survey resulted from the need for general soil information to be used for land use planning. Exploratory survey and field mapping was initiated in 1967 and completed in 1973. Field mapping was done at a scale of 1:500,000, while most topographic maps are available at a scale of 1:250,000 or better. Largely derived from existing soil maps and reports, supplemental field observations were made from the air to identify and map distinctive landscape patterns. Soils within each landscape segment were described and classified; relationships between the soils, the native vegetation, and landforms were noted; and the proportion of the area occupied by each major type of soil was estimated. It is important to recognize that this exploratory survey did not provide the level of information required for intensive use of a particular area, as would be available in a more detailed soil survey. A dominant factor in defining soils is the presence or absence of permafrost. Permafrost is defined as soil, sand, gravel, or bedrock that has remained below 32° F for two or more years (Muller 1945). Almost continuous throughout the planning area, permafrost can exist as massive ice wedges and lenses in poorly drained soils or as a relatively dry matrix in well- drained gravel or bedrock. During the short Arctic summer, these soils thaw, forming a shallow unfrozen zone termed the active layer. Permafrost forms a confining barrier that prevents infiltration of surface water and keeps the active layer of soils saturated. Permafrost also provides the structural integrity to hillsides and stream channel banks. Map 3-2 shows the distribution of permafrost in the planning area. While permafrost is an integral component of the soils of the planning area, any surface disturbance, including forest fires, that removes the overlying vegetation can initiate melting of ice-rich permafrost and result in surface subsidence (termed thermokarsting), drastically altering the surface topography, hydrological regime, and temperature of the underlying soils. As permafrost begins to thaw near the surface, it warms to greater depths, forming thaw ponds, gullies, and beaded streams. The hydrologic and thermal regime of the soil is the primary factor controlling the vegetation. These changes to the thermal regime of the soil initiate a long process of recovery with perhaps 20-50 years of cumulative impacts (Hinzman et al. 2000). As noted on page 3-5 in the Air Quality section, the mean annual temperature in Alaska has increased 2.5° F for the period of 1971 to 2000 (Alaska Climate Research Center 2004). Romanovsky et al. (2004) have shown that the permafrost temperatures and active-layer thickness along a transect of sites in Arctic and northwestern Alaska have increased. The largest changes occurred near the coast, as compared to sites further inland. This suggests that either coastal areas are more sensitive to change or that the forces driving the process of warming are greater in coastal areas. Any long-term climate warming may accentuate these processes. Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) are geographically-associated land resource units classified by the dominant physical characteristics: land use, elevation and topography, climate, water, soils, and vegetation. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) recently revised the MLRA map of Alaska in 2003 (NRCS 2003). Ten MLRAs have been identified in the planning area: Yukon-Kuskokwim Highlands; Upper Kobuk and Koyukuk Hills and Valleys; Interior Brooks Range Mountains; Nulato Hills-Southern Seward Peninsula Highlands; Seward Peninsula Highlands; Northern Seward Peninsula-Selawik Lowlands; Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-8 Soil Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Western Brooks Range Mountains, Foothills, and Valleys; Northern Brooks Range Mountains; Arctic Foothills; and Arctic Coastal Plain. Each MLRA has a unique pattern of topography, climate, vegetation, and soils. A brief description of each of these areas follows. The Yukon-Kuskokwim Highlands MLRA is present in only a small, eastern portion of the planning area. The area includes hills and low mountains between the central Yukon River and Bristol Bay. The deep, narrow valleys separate the ridges to the north, while more rolling hills interlaced with streams, sloughs, lakes, and marshes occupy the southern area. The fine- grained alluvial sediments, rich in organic materials, and coarse alpine soils are generally shallow over ice-rich permafrost. The well-drained south-facing hill sides and river terraces may be permafrost free. The Upper Kobuk and Koyukuk Hills and Valleys MLRA occupies most of the upper Kobuk Valley and surrounding uplands. This area includes mostly rounded to steep hills and narrow valleys. Soils are derived from silty, colluvial sediment and loess blown from the floodplains of the larger rivers. Permafrost is almost continuous and shallow, and is more pervasive on lowlands and north-facing slopes than on well-drained southern exposures. The Interior Brooks Range Mountains MLRA occupies a small, northeastern portion of the planning area. Most of the soils consist of silty, colluvial, and residual materials weathered from fine-grained sedimentary rocks. A few soils were formed from coarse-gravel glacial drift. While the soils on south-facing slopes and gravelly moraines are often well-drained, ice-rich permafrost underlies saturated soils on valley bottoms, low toe slopes, and north-facing hillsides. The Nulato Hills-Southern Seward Peninsula Highlands MLRA occupies the broad valleys and rolling plateaus of the southern Seward Peninsula, eastern Norton Bay, and Nulato Hills. Large marshy areas, such as McCarthy’s Marsh and the Koyuk River basin, are interspersed between rugged mountainous uplands. These upland soils are formed in thick colluvial and glacial deposits, gravelly and stony residual materials, and partially weathered bedrock. Most upland soils are shallow over permafrost with solifluction lobes, polygonal ground, and other frost-scarred features common. The finer-grained valley sediments are rich in organic materials and are generally shallow over ice-rich permafrost. The Seward Peninsula Highlands MLRA occupies most of the central and eastern Seward Peninsula and Selawik Hills. Wide river valleys and floodplains are separated by low, rounded to rugged hills. Lakes, ponds, and marshes are common. The finer-grained valley sediments are rich in organic materials while the upland soils are formed from coarser colluvium and weathered bedrock. Most soils are shallow over permafrost. The Northern Seward Peninsula-Selawik Lowlands MLRA encompasses the Baldwin Peninsula, Kobuk River Delta, Selawik Lowlands, and the northwestern Seward Peninsula. These nearly-level plains are covered with numerous shallow lakes and meandering rivers and the elevation seldom exceeds 100 feet. Most of the soils are fine-grained alluvial sediments over shallow permafrost. The Western Brooks Range Mountains, Foothills, and Valleys MLRA occupies much of the Baird and De Long mountains in the planning area. Most of the soils consist of silty, colluvial, and residual materials weathered from fine-grained sedimentary rocks. A few soils were formed from coarse-gravel glacial drift. While the soils on south-facing slopes and gravelly moraines Soil Resources 3-9 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS are often well-drained, ice-rich permafrost underlies saturated soils on valley bottoms, low toe slopes, and north-facing hillsides. The Northern Brooks Range Mountains MLRA occupies a narrow strip that comprises the highest portion of the Brooks Range in the planning area. Soils are exceedingly thin or absent. Soils are derived from wind blown silt, coarse colluvial and weathered bedrock, and glacial drift. Virtually the entire area is underlain by permafrost. The Arctic Foothills MLRA occupies most of the northwestern part of the planning area. Broad sloping valleys separated by steep ridges, hills, and knolls dominate the landscape. Elevations range from near sea level to about 3,000 feet on hills and ridges near the Brooks Range. Permafrost underlies all areas. The dominant soils in valleys and slopes were formed from loamy colluvial sediment. Most of the soils on hills and ridges consist of very gravelly material weathered from sedimentary rock. A few soils near the Brooks Range were formed from coarse-gravel glacial drift. The Arctic Coastal Plain MLRA is the most northern part of the planning area. The landscape is dominated by nearly level, low tundra, dotted by shallow thaw lakes. Very poorly-drained fibrous peat soils (commonly under a cover of sedges) occupy broad depressions, shallow drainage ways, and lake borders. Permafrost underlies all areas creating patterned features such as polygons, hummocks, frost boils, and pingos. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-10 Soil Resources JuaWUOdAUA papeyy :|}| Ja}deyD 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W Wainwi 160°W 22} 21} 20) 19/ 18/17 right = g Cape Lisburne, TT Ses Arctic Foothills Point Hope ‘Northern Brooks. Cape Thompson we Ey pangs Mountains 17 a “as 16 ewi 141] 13 ain sata 32, 3 ol = 8 26} IC 27 CapeZ | N Krusenstern tol | 12/13 | 14 National | Western Brooks, Monument_ | Range Mountains, Interior,Brooks Foothills*and Valleys Range Mountains a 20 _* Northern Seward Peninsula- ~ at | “| Selawik:Lowlands [Shjehonarss Upper, Kobuk ai and Koyukuk Hills ‘and, Valleys a2lal t + [2 jf 21 20/19) 48 | 47 16 ny 4{ Si e}7} ea} o]w) a} 12 Interior Alaska 2 Lowlands z Seward Peninsula Highlands Yukon-Kuskokwim 8 Highlands 13) 14 5E. 16 | Nulato Hills- Southern 1 Seward Peninsula Highlands [10 10/11) 12) 13) 14 " va 9 12 10 a3 Shaktoolik a 12 fd 13] 42 fe Norton Sound “eae Te] 8/9} 10) 4/42/13 | 14/168) 36 Unalakleet 7 = & 18 165°W 160°W Major Land Resource Area et Road Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP , Arctic Coastal Plain Arctic Foothills Seward Peninsula Highlands KSP RMP l Seward Peninsula Highlands Interior Alaska Lowlands Upper Kobuk and Interior Brooks Koyukuk Hills and Valleys Range Mountains ee Western Brooks Range Mountains, Foothills, and Valleys Northern Seward Peninsula- [ll Yukon-Kuskokwim Highlands Selawik Lowlands ee Northern Brooks Range Mountains Nulato Hills-Southern Planning Area Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 1218 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2002 Map 3-1 Major Land Resource Areas The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIS/d WY YesG BInsulUsg premes-yngoy 170°W 165°W 160°W o —— a m 7 1 2 ae el 26 2/21} 20 119) 48 | 17 © "6 5 15 I: . * J 6 4 s% 2 } i 3 . " 2 v 10 " ~o" 32 wlate 10 cw } _ 25 | 24 | 23 Jan fav [20 | 18 | a8 1 a7 138 ots é 4 8 Point Lay! 7 er! 7 | | 5 ; eM 6 f 5 { { 4 rt f 7 3 i an 4| ot f, 40 | 39 | 3g zi 7 3 L a 37 136 | 35 34 Slater ats : ° 2 | 28 } 25 Jae fos (za [ar la li tie 18 Cape Lisbu fest u Fs 8 1™} <2 F IC 27] Cape? hh) [eee ww) t R23 Krusenstern_/ Ais fs Pil nla tralia National _ Py Monument_/ t. 48 2 on ian [ | us ae i L - 53 } 1 Kotz et 9 20 ; Cby oy, 19 tj TT 1 5\4 2] 7. 3 1 ~ 16 : t 4 | 6 . fa j i 5 Z pole | ore ~ T 4 8 | el b/s Ts + : 3 das “ad | 1+ Pp fe [ary tL [ssw ~ 10 wi S{8 [edz lelejwla lel glu N46 Tir (4s wy 44 ad | } 6 ub J Loy 5 e 5 = 4 2 3 f 32 2 J qwit}2}3 si = 107A 13} 14 |e) 16 ft 2 1 5 2 4 = . 4 ; 5 6 3 Taz r iq {9 os ee Sache ie 7 + 1 ~ m2) a) ae ott + fo ? 2\3 }ags[o 10/11/1213) 14 6 t \ rm T+ rr ahh T } p—~. 10 z ~ 5 |} fey t+ * 10 & Tt I 1 Shaktoolik - 7 2 A a 2 hb - i =ha 13 Fa2] 8 Norton Sound Len tee fel Te Le ot2 5 rH pau! U4 15 £8] 7 [elo fof) ray tl N08l 16 pas Unalahoet Li a 7 l [ Fy 9 = 165°W 160°W Permafrost BLM and Selected Land Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska Mountainous Area underlain by continuous permafrost Mountainous Area underlain by discontinuous permafrost Lowland and Upland Area underlain by thick permafrost Lowland and Upland Area underlain by moderately thick to thin permafrost Lowland and Upland Area underlain by discontinuous permafrost —— Road CJ KSP RMP Planning Area Map 3-2, Permafrost 0 6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - USGS, 1996 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. jUaWUOLIAUA peyeyy :||| Ja}deuD 70°N 68°N 64°N SIS/dWY YeIG eINsuluad Psemag-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 4. Water Resources Water resources of the planning area consist largely of surface water streams, lakes, and ponds, while groundwater and springs are generally limited. Climate and permafrost are the dominant factors limiting water availability. Several communities within the planning area depend on rivers, lakes, or springs for municipal water sources. These are shown on Map 3-4. The region’s climate reflects a combination of continental and maritime factors, as described in the Air Quality section on page 3-4. Because winters are long, most streams and lakes are frozen for much of the year. Summers, while short and relatively cool near the coast, are often longer and warmer inland. Generally, the planning area is snow-covered from October to May. In coastal areas, prevailing winds blow cold air off the largely frozen Bering and Chukchi seas, often creating blizzard conditions that drift and compact the snow. A little less than half of the total annual precipitation occurs as snow during the winter months (NRCS 2004). Late winter snowpack in the planning area is greatest in the foothills south of the Brooks Range and decreases northward to the coast (Sturm 2001). Snowmelt is a dominant factor in Arctic hydrology because it contributes the majority of the annual runoff for lakes and streams. While rainfall is usually light during the short summers, heavier rainstorms can occur in July and August, especially in the southern and western foothills of the Brooks Range, Nulato Hills, and Seward Peninsula. The average annual precipitation in the planning area is shown in Map 3-3. The absence of significant groundwater resources in the planning area is due largely to the presence of permafrost (Dorava 1995, Dorava and Brekken 1995). Permafrost forms a confining barrier that prevents infiltration of surface water, helps maintain a saturated layer of surface soils, and generally restricts groundwater sources to shallow, unfrozen material beneath deep lakes and rivers or saline waters from very deep wells. Melting of ice-rich permafrost can cause surface subsidence, termed thermokarst, resulting in thaw lakes, ponds, or beaded stream channels. For more information on permafrost, see the permafrost discussion beginning on page 3-8 in the Soil Resources section. While groundwater is not extensive in the planning area, lakes and rivers deeper than about 6 feet remain unfrozen at depth most winters, creating a layer of unfrozen sediments (taliks) beneath (Sloan 1987). When the sediments consist of porous materials, such as sand or gravel, an aquifer suitable for pumping groundwater may exist. Nelson and Munter (1990) describe taliks beneath deep river pools of Arctic rivers as a series of discrete units separated by permafrost barriers. The barriers result from the riverbed freezing beneath shallow riffles. This indicates that the supply of groundwater is directly related to the size of the pool in the river. Landsat-imagery analysis has located numerous groundwater springs in the planning area by identifying the large overflow icings (aufeis) created downstream from the spring during the winter. Some of these springs were examined by Childers et al. (1979) and were found to have good water quality comparable to the surface waters of the area. Springs are important as they are the major source of flowing water during the long winter in Arctic Alaska. These springs support an abundance of aquatic organisms, often well out of proportion to the relatively small size of the spring (Childers et al. 1979). Nome derives most of its drinking water from springs north of town near the base of the Anvil Mountains (Dorava 1995) (Map 3-4). Water Resources 3-15 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS While hydrologic data for the planning area are sparse (Brabets 1996), all streams share somewhat unique streamflow characteristics. Flow generally is limited or nonexistent most of the winter. Streamflow begins in late May or early June as a rapid flood event termed break-up, which, combined with ice and snow damming, can inundate extremely large areas in a matter of days. More that half of the annual discharge for a stream can occur during a period of several days to a few weeks (Sloan 1987). Most streams continue to flow throughout the summer but at relatively low discharges. Runoff is confined to the upper organic layer of soil, as the mineral soils are saturated and frozen below a shallow, unfrozen zone termed the active layer (for more information on permafrost and the active layer, see the permafrost discussion beginning on page 3-8 in the Soil Resources section). Rainstorms sufficient to cause flooding are generally limited to rivers that originate in the foothills south of the Brooks Range, Nulato Hills, and Seward Peninsula. Physiographic boundaries can be used to divide streams in the planning area into three types: Arctic, coastal, and interior. The presence of sea ice during the winter and spring, however, can alter the boundaries between the continental and maritime climatic zones. a) Arctic Streams Arctic streams are often grouped by their physiography and the location of their headwaters into three categories: coastal, foothills, or mountains (Sloan 1987). Most of the Arctic coastal plain and lower foothills can best be characterized as a mosaic of tundra wetlands. Because permafrost prevents water from entering the ground and low relief limits runoff, the coastal plain is covered with lakes, ponds, and generally slow-moving streams. Many of the smaller drainages are choked with aquatic vegetation. Shallow-water tracks may result from snowmelt flooding the permafrost terrain, often conveying significant discharge where surface relief is limited (Hinzman et al. 1993). The peak flow is the highest per unit of area is always due to snowmelt runoff (Sloan 1987). The Arctic foothills that comprise the northern portion of the planning area are characterized by a series of low, tundra-covered hills and flat-topped ridges that seldom exceed 1,000 feet in elevation. Arctic streams that originate in these foothills are somewhat steeper and consequently have more gravel-bar and cut-bank features than those of the coastal plain. These streams tend to break up earlier, freeze up later, and have a slightly higher runoff. Several of the larger rivers in the planning area originate in the Brooks Range and flow north towards the Arctic Ocean. These rivers exhibit the steepest gradient, and therefore the greatest range of geomorphic features: steep cut-bank cliffs, deep pools, boulder riffles, and braided channels flowing across extensive gravel flats. Data for many of these Arctic streams are summarized in Childers et al. (1979). b) Coastal Streams True coastal streams (those that are largely in a maritime climate, as described on page 3-4 in the Air Quailty section), are limited to the southern Seward Peninsula. Coastal streams are more strongly affected by rainfall than by snow and ice, such that most peak flows are generally due to rainfall in late summer or early fall. These streams are generally smaller than interior streams, but they have proportionally larger winter flows than streams that originate in the interior. Coastal streams provide important aquatic habitat for anadromous and resident fish populations (see the Fish section beginning on page 3-47 for information on the species present Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-16 Water Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS in the planning area). Data for these streams can be found in Dorava (1995), Dorava and Brekken (1995), and numerous BLM fisheries inventories as described in the Fish section beginning on page 3-47. Many of the coastal streams north of the Seward Peninsula are considered transitional with the Arctic streams as the sea ice creates more extreme weather during the winter and spring, limiting winter flows and increasing the magnitude of snowmelt runoff. c) Interior Streams Interior streams in the planning area originate in the southern and western foothills of the Brooks Range, the Nulato Hills, and the other low hills south of the Noatak River and Kobuk River valleys. These streams have limited to moderate winter flow, with large increases at break-up in the spring. The peak flow for most years is due to snowmelt runoff. Streamflow is moderate for most of the summer, with an occasional rise due to rain storms. While the larger rivers such as the Kobuk and Noatak support anadromous and resident fish populations, many smaller interior streams lack sufficient winter flow to support over-wintering fish populations. Water quality of interior streams is generally very good (Brabets 2001, Childers and Kernodle 1981, 1983). d) Lakes and Ponds Lakes and ponds are the most common feature on the Arctic coastal plain, in the lower valleys of the Kobuk, Noatak, Selawik, Kuzitrin, Fish, and Buckland rivers, and in McCarthy’s Marsh and the Pah River Flats. Unlike streams, which only hold large quantities of water during break- up, lakes store water year-round and are the most readily available water source in the planning area (Sloan 1987, Dorava and Brekken 1995). Most lakes and ponds originate from the thawing of ice-rich sediments (Sellman et al. 1975). This results in a continuum known as the thaw lake cycle, wherein lakes form, expand, and then drain in response to perturbations of the permafrost terrain. On the North Slope, these lakes and ponds often are elongated with a strong north- south orientation. This results from preferential erosion due to wind generated waves, leeward end currents, and associated higher water temperatures that melt the ice at the narrower ends of the lakes (Carson and Hussey 1960). Since waterbodies with depths less than about 6 feet generally freeze to the bottom most winters, lake depth is the primary factor in winter water supply. Most deep lakes are less than 20 feet deep as the depth of thaw lakes appears to be controlled by the ice volume and porosity in the original sediments, which decrease with increasing depth (Sellman et al. 1975). Deep lakes, because they do not freeze to the bottom, provide an overwintering area for fish and aquatic invertebrates and are the most readily available winter water supply. Kotzebue derives most of its drinking water from lakes southeast of town (Dorava and Brekken 1995). Limited water quality data for McCarthy’s Marsh and the Kuzitrin River wetlands can be found in Brown and Jandt (1992). In the ten ponds sampled in 1990 and 1991, pH ranged from slightly acidic to slightly basic and hardness was relatively low, similar to the values shown for the unnamed lakes in Table 3-1. A map of water resources of the planning area (Map 3-5) shows major rivers, watershed boundaries, and stream survey (gauging) sites. The data for BLM watershed inventories from 2004 and 2005 is listed in Table 3-1, while the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) data is available on the Web at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis/current/?type=flow. Water Resources 3-17 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment juaWUOUIAUA pepeyYy ||| Ja}deyo 8L-€ saoiunosay Ja}e/\\ Table 3-1. Water Resources Data for Selected Rivers in the Planning Area (2004-05) Squirrel River at Omar River 67.1237 -160.9885 | 8/26/2004 e 2000 9.5 7.6 | 292 0.8 172 2 Timber Creek 67.2660 -160.7302 | 8/26/2004 148 9.0 7.4 | 297 0.5 160 Middle Fork 3 Tributary Squirrel River 67.3433 -161.3009 | 8/26/2004 225 12.0 7.7_| 250 0.1 148 4 West Fork Tributary Squirrel River 67.2820 -161.7296 | 8/26/2004 316 13.0 7.6 | 300 0.2 184 5 Kukpowruk River 68.5512 -163.3322 | 8/28/2004 147 6.5 7.7 | 390 0.4 220 6 Ipewik River 68.5868 -164.1376 | 8/28/2004 138 9.0 7.9 | 457 0.2 248 7 NE Tributary Kukpuk River 68.3659 -164.3325 | 8/28/2004 29 12.0 7.7 | 450 132 224 8 West Fork Tributary Wulik River 68.0676 -163.5209 | 8/28/2004 213 10.0 7.8 | 305 0.1 162 9 Ikalukrok Creek (USGS site) 68.0492 -163.0287 8/28/2004 169 10.0 7.6 | 580 0.4 312 Middle Fork 10 Tributary Kivalina River 68.1114 -164.0232 | 8/30/2004 150 9.5 7.7_| 266 1.2 164 rr NW Tributary Kukpuk River 68.2682 -164.8559 | 8/30/2004 103 7.0 7A | 422 18.5 208 12 Singoalik River 68.0210 -164.8776 | 8/30/2004 29 9.5 7.9 | 285 1.2 176 43 Kivalina River above East Fork Tributary | 68.0557 -164.2775 | 8/30/2004 156 9.0 7.6 | 281 2.5 160 14 East Fork Tributary Kivalina River 68.0308 -164.1232 | 8/30/2004 222 6.0 7.4 | 242 2.1 134 15 Ungalik River 64.8013 -160.4490 | 8/31/2004 618 8.5 8.6 | 219 1.3 128 16 Inglutalik River 65.0840 -160.3643 | 8/31/2004 426 10.0 8.4 | 324 1.3 200 47 East Fork Koyuk River 65.2564 -160.5988 _| 8/31/2004 131 8.0 8.2 | 300 1.2 184 18 West Fork Buckland River 65.7143 -160.5552 | 8/31/2004 412 11.0 7.3 | 148 2.6 104 SIB/dWY Yes einsulusd Psemasg-nqoy seounosay Ja}e\\ 6L-€ JUSWUOLIAUA payeyy :||| adeyD Fish River near 19 Buckland 65.9130 -160.4725 | 8/31/2004 185 10.0 7.4 | 30 4.3 68 20 Agiapuk River 65.3670 -165.6605 | 8/10/2005 715 12.0 7.4 | 354 1.7 176 21 Pilgrim River 64.9170 -164.9585 | 8/12/2005 558 15.0 7.3 | 145 1.5 68 22 Niukluk river 65.1007 -164.0518 | 8/12/2005 503 15.0 7.3 | 102 1.0 44 23 Libby River 65.1153 -164.2528 | 8/12/2005 74 14.0 7.2 | 62 0.8 24 24 Fish River 65.2213 -163.1982 | 8/13/2005 134 7.0 7.2 | 78 1.0 36 25 Boston Creek 65.2057 -163.3303 | 8/13/2005 374 12.0 7.3 | 167 0.7 80 26 Etehepuk River 64.9125 -162.7946 | 8/13/2005 190 15.0 7.4 | 173 0.8 80 27 Upper Kivalina River | 68.2739 -163.9127 | 8/14/2005 80 10.0 74 | 315 1.2 144 28 Upper Wulik River 68.3266 -163.0974 | 8/15/2005 216 12.0 7.4 | 433 1.0 228 Middle Fork 29 Tributary Kivalina River 68.2202 -163.8239 | 8/15/2005 309 13.0 7.5 | 305 0.9 156 30 Sooner River 68.5352 -163.3440 | 8/16/2005 141 12.0 7.3 | 480 0.9 224 31 Kokolik River 68.7954 -162.0726 | 8/16/2005 306 13.0 7.5 | 548 0.9 280 32 North Fork Buckland River 65.7678 -160.0037 | 9/3/2005 ND 5.0 7.0 | 52 2.3 32 33 South Fork Buckland River 65.6813 -159.8057 | 9/4/2005 ND 6.0 7.6 | 354 2.2 192 34 Upper Tagagawik River 65.6177 -158.9841 | 9/4/2005 ND 6.0 7.3 | 260 1.0 152 35 Unnamed Lake #1 near Kivalina River 68.0041 -163.9938 | 8/14/2005 ND 20.0 6.6 | 45 5.4 20 36 Unnamed Lake #2 near Squirrel River _| 67.3228 -161.7872 | 8/14/2005 ND 22.0 6.9 | 55 2.2 32 37 Unnamed Lake #3 near Squirrel River | 67.2207 -161.0043 | 8/15/2005 ND 21.0 7.0 | 27 1.6 16 Note: These sites are shown on Map 3-5. ND = not determined. e = estimated SIA/dWY YeAC eINsulUsg Puemas-ynqoy JUSWUOIAUZ pepe :||| Jadeyo 170°W 165°W 160°W am r 18 so a Re se far | x 2 8 at ba 4 | 15 | 4 o a @ 12 “ as Ik | 13 S - EE Pr CJ 2 V 10 + " wey 28 | 27 | 26 H fey —_} 2 yw " 1M | 23 Jaz fan [20 [10 | 18 [7 [a0 ¢ ae : 6 = BR, z f ; a ; [ 1 poate t f ; | { J LIF 4 | 35 2 4 % | | laste lates aitatats . fu, " 26 | 28 } 24 1 23 | 22 [21 | 20 [set 18 | 17 Lee a t ee Cape Lisburpe_ ig) [7 i Th | - P bi J — 3 61) 4 | . i i i a 6 + f : 41 [40] 39 )38 far as - 7 l eo 4 Point Hope 7G ls pip |=] 2 |x fala [lay 18 ie) 17 8 “1h ; {ff n Cape Thompspmr a tt me’ ist) 4) i 2 | 4 u ae E 1A a 32 Ueletatrleps 4a}af2 x 1 7 | nat to 2{3la 7 | Bf © | 10 nf 8 t # E PK [31 J Kivalina } a | acme + 2B 2 in = 3 arity * a Pa +t | > 'S fisw) 4/43 IC 27] Cape | 24 Sislalata Krusenstern_/ wet" Keg ss | 5 Je oly | i2|i3| National | [ 24 Monument_! a A 2 t ey 2 Ty a C Kotzebue r = 2 2 aren 1) 9 a °bu6 jj pnt . {ew 7 hae f Sg 1 1 514 2 : 18 fof mm) } | Br 4W 2 foie 1+ - 16 15E jf 4 18 z Shistimares op CTT { & yf eS 8 i {3 fs 1 f + - T + Le 13 = v5 1 + 10 415 | et7 ie lolol izisalu Nhe irr w/a) i ona i ~~ a 6 Brevig Missprse | fa x ac Br Bae «| fe fy2 aa : { f S{2}wit|2ista t— fesbee | - : a & j 2: au 1 13} 14 | Re) 16 [1 ME 2 1 { 39. 3 + 2 } 4 | 3 Ju 7 iN ~ | J $ PO A3 Jaz 7 6 Nom es a a S)atela 0 rere } 7 wy a ea y — } | + wt 3] 4gs ie wo] 12] 13) 14 [8S 6 1 x 444} I~} ie { 1+ pt 10 BS P. 2 4. Jt 12 10 3 + “Tar ™ ke | i Shaktoolik! { {| 12 + Be 14 13 ped Be 4 Norton Sound RS A re ey ire, 7 ry ct py [284s fel lele lwlalarale ies 16 8 ‘ a a i ' 3 ] 165°W 160°W Annual Average Precipitation (inches) BLM and Selected Land ¥Y Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP i i ureau of Land Management - Alaska 0-3 18-20 B f Land M. t - Alask: Mss | MB o-2 a - 1- ; ee [7] kse rau Pienning ares QS 1218 2S" hles 6-7 24-25 Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area ea 8-10 Pd 26 - 27 referencing NAD83 Ms) EM 2-20 Mu. ©=©=— HB 31-33 Source: USDOI - USGS Mc. The information displayed on this map should be used for M: S ini i graphic display only. For official land status information, refer oe 3-3 Average Annual Precipitation to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N SIB/dWY YeIG einsulued premas-ynqgoy JuaWUO.AU papeyy :||| Ja}deyo 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W Cape Lisburne Point Hope FF zal - / 33 ] ‘ 3 LX | 29 [ Cape Thompson Kivalina 25 yi} Cape Krusenstern National Monument ‘Shishmare' 38 | 37 Norton Sound 165°W eb! 9) 87 [56 [aR] 160°W { y (PNT |_| Ets x 7 26 2a # [21] 20} 19] 18] a7) x Wainwright 5 = 18 | 14 15 4 Jey. Cape cod 2 Kk | 2 root T Wt 1" 12 45. 43} ag ai: 1 7 1 © Bis | 39 10 it 8 Lt 3T | om 9 | 35 | 34) 33/32) Via —t ie i 10 7 + 26 | 25 tT aaa 24 | 23 | 22 21 | 20 | sof a8 17] 10 [8 6 t+} Point Lay” 2 Lysw) 14} 13 | = ia pete Tt 4H t+ CH | Seer | + —S | = i jj joe $+} o 160°W wlolyie ZNiols see. sretst= act pede] | | |] shal i | UMA 1D1 2 pais 7) ah 9 [10] | 12] 13 iC 27 4} 3} 2! { wi) 1 R23 I 4/5/68 9 Fol | 12/13) 4 2 po Cats im or 4 { [a] +{t= | = : . 1 }19 Ley i 18 5 | 6 WH - r T 13 f 14 E. eelae 18 4 13 ete " 10 3hais 8] 7) 8) 9) 10) 9] 12 4 YN! 16 Pst | 6 5 4 3 Cat 2 tf2lala s 10 19} 14 | INS 96 1 a Ss SE 2 1 “4 2 3 4 | > 5 4 6 6 6 F a | 7 tfeals + j e 4gs|6 10/11 | 12/13] 14/2546 ol [é S Ww T 10 12 W | ~ 12 4 | Js } z 18 fait 18 Municipal Water Sources Protection Zones Zone A Zone C Time of Travel: Several Months Time of Travel: 5 Years Zone B Zone D Time of Travel: 2 Years Time of Travel: 10 Years Protection zone data is based on a uniform flow model. Public Water System information has been provided by the Drinking Water & Wastewater program of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. The information provided is a data snapshot as of October 24, 2003. There may be errors in well location information as well as owner contact information. Generalized Land Status BLM and Selected Land National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge State, Native, or Private Land Road KSP RMP Planning Area Ul | Map 3-4 Municipal Water Sources Ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 vliles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska - DEC 2003, USDOI - BLM 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 66°N 64°N SIF/dWY YesG e[NsulUeg premeg-ynqoy JUSWUOJIAU payeyy :||| sa}deyo Cape Lisburne Cape Thompson Cape Krusenstern National Monument 119050202 Norton Sound Wainwright 19050304 Shaktoolik obuk Valley ational Pai 19040608) USGS Hydrologic Unit Level 3 HE 190406 SN) 190504 WH) 190501 SP 190601 Level 4 HUC Units ae 190502 are labeled on the map. WD 190503 BLM Hydrologic Sample Sites A. River Sample Site Lake Sample Site Note: Site specific data is listed in the table "Water Resources Data for Selected Waterbodies in the Planning Area (2004-05)" [__] ksP RMP Planning Area ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - USGS, USDOI! - BLM 2005 Map 3-5 USGS Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIA/dWY HeIG BINsulusg puemag-4NGoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Vegetation The 13 million acres of BLM-managed land within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula planning area contain a diverse mix of habitats spanning coastal and interior landscapes. The region is characterized by vast expanses of tussock tundra and shrublands. Portions of major river corridors and protected south-facing slopes support open boreal forest conifer and hardwood species, especially in eastern sections of the planning area. Many wind-scoured mountain ridges and slopes that appear barren host alpine plant communities of ground-hugging mat and cushion plants and small pockets of alpine meadow. a) Preliminary Vegetation Classification Most of the 31.6 million acres of the planning area have been mapped at a 30 meter (98 foot) resolution as a result of the combined efforts of a BLM-Ducks Unlimited partnership, the USDA NRCS (Seward Peninsula), and the National Park Service (Noatak National Preserve, Kobuk Valley National Park, and Cape Krusenstern National Monument). However, about 12 percent of the planning area has not been mapped to this fine scale (unmapped areas include Point Hope, Cape Lisburne, Point Lay, and the western Brooks Range). In addition, work is still in progress to consolidate differing vegetation categories among the three Federal agency land cover classifications. Therefore, the vegetation classification for the planning area is based on statewide mapping coverage of one kilometer resolution (Fleming 1996). The broad scale vegetation classification for the planning area consists of 13 vegetation types plus categories for Water, and Glaciers and Snow. The statewide vegetation classification includes four forest types and one shrubland type that are not found in the planning area, plus a category for Ocean Water. The 13 vegetation types are sorted under three groups according to the life-form of the dominant species: Forest (five vegetation types), Shrublands (five vegetation types), and Herbaceous (three vegetation types). Acres and percentages of each of these vegetation types are listed in Table 3-2. Map 3-6 illustrates the vegetation distribution across the planning area. Vegetation 3-27 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-2. Vegetation Types Within the Planning Area Open and Closed Spruce Forest 1,482 ; 1,235 ; Open Spruce and Closed Mixed Forest Mosaic 10,872 .04 9,637 .07 Open Spruce Forest/Shrub/Bog Mosaic 1,246,395 | 4.18 533,500 4.08 Spruce Woodland/Shrub 1,017,329 | 3.42 448,496 3.43 Spruce and Broadleaf Forest 3,706 .01 None --- Alpine Tundra and Barrens 1,178,441 3.96 552,033 4.23 Dwarf Shrub Tundra 1,077,128 | 3.62 618,257 4.73 Low Shrub/Lichen Tundra 139,861 A7 122,317 -94 Tall and Low Shrub 8,981,750 | 30.15 4,736,021 36.26 Tall Shrub 577,730 1.94 375,353 2.87 Total 11,954,910 | 40 6,403,981 | 49 Wet Sedge Tundra 97,853 33 13,343 10 Tussock Sedge/Dwarf Shrub Tundra 10,231,645 | 34.35 3,930,458 | 30.09 Moist Herbaceous/Shrub Tundra 5,225,764 | 17.54 1,721,830 | 13.18 Total 15,555,262 | 52 5,665,631 | 43 Note: Acreage calculations in this table are based on a raster dataset with 1 kilometer pixel resolution, resulting in acreage totals that are slightly lower that shown elsewhere in this document. Acres rounded to the nearest 1 acre. (1) Forest Vegetation Types Forested terrain covers approximately 8 percent of the BLM-managed lands within the planning area. The six main areas in the planning area characterized by forested landscapes are the southeast corner of the Seward Peninsula, the Nulato Hills, the Selawik River, the Kobuk River, the Squirrel River, and the lower Noatak River. Forest communities in the planning area are primarily open-canopied woodlands dominated by white spruce (Picea glauca). White spruce will tolerate a wide range of site conditions, but grows best on well-drained soils of gentle, south-facing slopes or deeper soils of protected river valleys. Stands of black spruce (Picea mariana) occupy low, poorly drained areas with fine-grained soils, or occasionally dominate stands of regrowth after fire. Paper birch (Betula papyrifera) is scattered in small groves in some areas at protected sites with porous, deeper soils. Balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) stands form narrow, linear units along stable river banks or isolated groves along upland creek banks. Small, stunted quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) are occasionally found in the most interior portions of the planning area on dry, warmer soils of south-facing slopes or low hilltops. Mixed forest types are also common, composed of varying amounts of deciduous trees (paper birch, balsam poplar, and aspen) scattered in with spruce. Vegetation types within the Forest classification that are located in the planning area are: Open and Closed Spruce Forest, Open Spruce and Closed Mixed Forest Mosaic, Open Spruce Forest/Shrub/Bog Mosaic, Spruce Woodland/Shrub, and Spruce and Broadleaf Forest. The Spruce Woodland/Shrub community often has conspicuous amounts of lichen as ground cover and provides important habitat for caribou during migration. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-28 Vegetation Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (2) Shrubland Vegetation Types Shrubland communities cover approximately 49 percent of BLM-managed lands within the planning area. Compared to the five tree species comprising Forest communities, at least 51 species have a shrubby growth habit (multiple, woody stems). Willow (Salix, 17 species), alder (Alnus, two species), and dwarf birch (Betula, two species) are the most common and abundant shrubs, though numerous other shrub species occur, many in the heath family (Ericaceae, 16 species) and rose family (Roseaceae, six species). Shrubs in the planning area may range from a mere one-quarter inch high to almost 10 feet tall. Prostrate shrubs such as mountain avens (Dryas spp.), skeletonleaf willow (Salix phlebophylla), and alpine azalea (Lois/euria procumbens) form low mats on exposed mountain slopes and ridges. Dwarf shrubs such as Labrador tea (Ledum palustre) and low-bush cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) may be a dominant component of various tundra plant communities, growing intermingled with sedges and grasses, forbs, and lichens and mosses. Low to medium height shrubs such as resin birch (Betula glandulosa) and American green alder (A/nus crispa) can blanket lowland or subalpine slopes with open or dense thickets, while river and stream banks may be heavily grown with low to medium height willows such as diamondleaf willow (Salix pulchra) or Richardson willow (Salix richardsonii). The most common and abundant tall shrub in the planning area is feltleaf willow (Salix alaxensis), which often dominates extensive river floodplains and river banks. Vegetation types within the Shrubland classification located within the planning area are: Alpine Tundra and Barrens, Dwarf Shrub Tundra, Low and Dwarf Shrub, Low Shrub/Lichen Tundra, Tall and Low Shrub, and Tall Shrub. (3) Herbaceous Vegetation Types Herbaceous plant communities cover approximately 43 percent of the BLM-managed lands within the planning area. Herbaceous plants can be annual or perennial; they have no woody parts. Included in this broad category are both vascular plants (seed forming) and non-vascular plants (spore forming) such as ferns, horsetails, mosses, and lichens. True grassland communities are important ecosystems in the western United States but are relatively rare in Alaska. Within the planning area, grassy meadows are sometimes found at lake margins, in recently drained lake beds, recently disturbed areas, floodplains, and coastal beaches. These communities are frequently dominated by bluejoint grass (Calamagrostis canadensis), beach ryegrass (Elymus spp.), or native fescues (Festuca spp.). In contrast, tundra herbaceous communities cover large areas in Alaska, including the planning area. Wet, lowland tundra is found mainly on coastal plains and low-lying river deltas. The dominant type of plant community is a wet sedge meadow of tall cottongrass (Eriophorum angustifolium) and water sedge (Carex aquatilis). Drier portions of lowland tundra are characterized by tussock cottongrass (Eriophorum vaginatum), a tussock-forming sedge. Moist or dry upland tundra is also often dominated by extensive areas of tussock cottongrass. Interspersed with sedges in all these herbaceous communities are varying amounts and species of forbs, grasses, rushes, dwarf and prostrate shrubs, mosses, and lichens. Lichen tussock tundra (an ecological site component of the broader category Tussock Sedge/Dwarf Shrub Tundra) is very important habitat for caribou and reindeer during winter months and migration, as it normally has a range of 25-50 percent lichen cover (Swanson et al. 1985). Vegetation 3-29 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Vegetation types within the Herbaceous classification that are located within the planning area are: Wet Sedge Tundra, Tussock Sedge/Dwarf Shrub Tundra, and Moist Herbaceous/Shrub Tundra. b) Upland and Riparian Vegetation The vegetation in the planning area is primarily in a natural state, with widespread healthy plant communities present in various seral stages from early succession to climax, showing adaptation to natural disturbances. Natural disturbances include fire, insects and disease, ice scour, flooding, erosion, and grazing/browsing by wildlife. Roads are few and short; villages are few, small, and scattered; areas with mining activity are small and isolated; and grazing pressure from livestock (reindeer) is currently light. Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is generally confined to areas near villages, Native allotments, and a few recreation use areas (e.g., the Squirrel River Valley), though snowmachine travel is widespread. Determining the appropriate level of fire protection for forest, shrubland, and herbaceous communities with substantial lichen components is an important consideration. Caribou- and reindeer-preferred lichen species, especially Cladina, Cladonia, and Cetraria, grow very slowly, requiring 50-100 years or longer to regain optimal cover and biomass after fire (Swanson 1996). Currently the winter, migration, and peripheral ranges of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WACH) are classified with a Fire Management Option of Limited. Lands with a Limited designation generally receive a lower priority for initial attack resources, and responses are typically associated with surveillance to determine if specific values are threatened (more information on Fire Management Options and how they are applied begins on page 3-107). Based on WACH historic and current seasonal range maps developed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) (Dau in prep) in 2000 and merged with BLM Alaska Fire Service fire history data from 1950 through 2004 (BLM 2005a), 18.8 percent of the WACH winter range has burned at least once since 1950, and in some areas more than once (Map 3- 7). Using these same ADF&G and Alaska Fire Service datasets, 11.5 percent of the WACH outer range (extending well into the Seward Peninsula) has burned one or more times. In contrast, less than one percent of calving and summer ranges on the North Slope have burned, as the wet tundra and infrequent lightning strikes there result in very few fires. Only 5.9 percent of the WACH migratory range has burned one or more times. Forest health issues are beginning to emerge in the south and southeastern portions of the Seward Peninsula. A spruce beetle infestation (Dendroctonus rufipennis) was documented by the BLM in August 2003 when areas of conspicuous beetle-killed spruce were observed and aerially photographed in the upper Tubutulik River region on the east side of the Darby Mountains (Sparks 2003). In 2004, the annual statewide aerial survey conducted by the USDA Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Division of Forestry, reported 81,389 acres of beetle-killed spruce on Elim Native Corporation lands along the coast and inland from Moses Point to Mount Kwiniuk (Map 3-23). This outbreak appeared to have peaked within the last few years, with current activity being very light. USDA Forest Service and ADNR Division of Forestry personnel estimated a near total loss of the forest resource in that area (Wittwer 2005). The 2004 statewide aerial survey also documented an area of light to moderate spruce beetle activity north of the village of White Mountain along the Fish River. Mapping showed 8,681 acres of beetle-affected spruce, with the majority characterized as light intensity (Wittwer 2005). Smoke from tundra wildfires in McCarthy’s Marsh prevented additional survey in this region during the summer of 2004. Please refer to the discussion on spruce Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-30 Vegetation Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS beetles beginning on page 3-137 in the Forest Products section for additional information on spruce beetle activity on the Seward Peninsula and other locations within the planning area. Lichen-rich plant communities, an important habitat in the planning area, are subject to increasing grazing pressure from the WACH as the herd continues to grow steadily in size and expand its seasonal range. Twenty permanent vegetation transects in caribou winter range in the Buckland River Valley, Selawik Hills, and the northern Nulato Hills were established by the BLM in 1981 when herd size was 140,000. In 1995, when herd size had increased to 450,000, sampling of the transects showed a 14 percent decline in lichen cover from 1981 levels (Jandt et al. 2003). In 2003, herd size had risen to 490,000 (Dau, in prep). This downward trend in lichen cover is based on the average lichen cover from 20 164-foot long transects established in 1981, and compared with average lichen cover from 18 of these transects relocated in 1995. Realizing that there were only 18 permanent transects deployed over the approximately 11,405,000 acres of caribou winter range, seven more were added in 1996, for a total of 25. Even though the actual area sampled is small, the transects are spread reasonably well through representative habitats the WACH uses during the winter months in the Buckland River Valley, Selawik Hills, and northern Nulato Hills. Growth and eventual decline of the WACH will continue to have an influence on vegetation in the planning area, but fluctuations are a part of the natural cycle played out over hundreds of years. For more information on the WACH, see the caribou discussion beginning on page 3-56 in the Wildlife section. Monitoring of reindeer grazing allotments on the Seward Peninsula by the BLM and the NRCS from the late 1980s through 2004 has occasionally documented specific locations of limited acreage with moderate to severe impacts on vegetation from reindeer. This damage includes trampled and fragmented lichens, cratering (see Glossary) to organics or mineral soil, and heavily browsed willows and dwarf Arctic birch (Meyers 1995, 1996, 1997a). However, given sufficient years of rest from grazing those areas will recover fully (Swanson et al. 1985). An improvement in condition is apparent at some of these same and nearby sites (Meyers 2003b, Meyers 2004d) due to the steady drops in size or complete absence (on some grazing allotments) of Seward Peninsula reindeer herds (Finstad et al. 2005, Meyers 1997b). Since 1987, reindeer numbers on the Seward Peninsula have decreased by 75 percent (Finstad et al. 2005) due to mixing with caribou herds, leaving their usual grazing ranges, and often dying partly due to animal and human predation (Fitzgerald 2002). Over 16,000 reindeer have disappeared since 1987, with some herders losing 45-85 percent of their animals, while six herders have lost all of their reindeer (Fitzgerald 2002). Thus most reindeer allotments on the Seward Peninsula have been lightly grazed or ungrazed by reindeer during the last 10-15 years. No riparian condition surveys have been conducted by the BLM in the planning area due to lack of adequate funding and personnel to target 13 million acres of BLM-managed lands within the 31.6 million acre planning area. However, recent aerial and ground reconnaissance surveys of water quality and channel morphology within the planning area have noted that riparian conditions are generally undisturbed and functioning well (See Table 3-1). Studies done in the Kobuk and Noatak river basins of the planning area indicate water quality and riparian stability of these major drainages are generally excellent, although further monitoring was recommended (Brabets 2001, Childers and Kernodle 1983, Childers and Kernodle 1981). Additionally, one region directly adjacent to the southern boundary of the planning area, the Unalakleet River drainage, has been assessed by the BLM Anchorage Field Office. Results of their summer 2000 aerial photography survey showed that all streams in the Unalakleet River drainage were in proper functioning condition (Scott 2000). Vegetation 3-31 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS c) Rare Plants Not Classified as BLM-Alaska Special Status Species The BLM-Alaska Special Status Species (SSS) list includes 32 sensitive plant species found within Alaska, all of which are ranked S1, S2, or S2S3 by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP). These species are listed in Table 3-5 on page 3-72 and referenced on Map 3-8, and descriptions of the rankings are listed in Table 3-6 on page 3-73. Many species on this list do not occur within the planning area. Conversely, other rare plants not on the current BLM-Alaska SSS plant list were evaluated as important to include in the RMP analysis. These species will also be included in the periodic review process of the BLM-Alaska SSS plant list. The following section describes individual species of rare plants, including S1-S2S3 species to be considered for addition to BLM-Alaska SSS list, and S1-S2S3 species with a reasonable potential to occur on botanically unexplored portions of BLM-managed lands within the planning area. Descriptive paragraphs cover species locations, brief habitat data, population numbers, and trends (if known), any known threats, and rare plant rankings. See Table 3-3 for a list of the rare plant species described in the text, showing their scientific and common names plus ANHP- assigned ranks. Table 3-3. BLM-Alaska Sensitive Plant Species and Other Rare Plant Species Known to Occur Within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area Artemisia globularia var. purple wormwood G4T1T2Q |Yes lutea S182 Artemisia senjavenensis __| yellow-ball wormwood | G3S2S3 _ |Yes Beckwithia glacialis ssp. Alaskan glacier G4T3T4 |Yes Recent taxonomic change alaskensis buttercup S2 tentatively shows this taxon as Ranunculus glacialis. Cardamine microphylla small-leaf bittercress G4T3T4_ |No ssp. blaisdellii S283 Carex heleonastes Hudson Bay sedge G4 $2S3_|No Douglasia beringensis Bering dwarf primrose | G2 S2 Yes Gentianopsis detonsa sheared gentian G3G4T? |No ssp. detonsa $1 Oxytropsis arctica var. Barneby’s milkvetch G4?T2 Yes barnebyana S2 Oxytropis kobukensis Kobuk locoweed G2 $2 Yes Endemic to sand dune habitat in Kobuk Valley National Park. Pedicularis hirsuta hairy lousewort G5?S1__|Yes Potentilla fragiformis strawberry cinquefoil | G4?S1__|No Potentilla stipularis stipulated cinquefoil G5 S1 Yes Primula tschuktschorum Chukchi primrose G2G3 No S283 Ranunculus auricomus goldilocks buttercup G5$1S2_|No Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-32 Vegetation Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Ranunculus glacialis ssp. | Glacier buttercup G4T3T4_ |No camissonis $2 Rumex krausei Cape Krause sorrel G2 S2 No Present on initial draft BLM Alaska SSS list — omitted from final in error. Saussurea triangulata Waring Mountain G1S1 No Shown as Saussurea sp. 1 saw-wort on ANHP tracking list. Smelowskia johnsonii Johnson's smelowskia | G1 S1 No Trisetum sibiricum ssp. Siberian oatgrass G5T4Q No litorale $2 Cardamine microphylla ssp. blaisdellii (small-leaf bittercress). This small member of the mustard family is a Beringian endemic initially discovered on the Seward Peninsula and the adjacent Chukotka Peninsula, Russia. Recent botanical inventories have pushed its known range both east to the Jade and Angayucham mountains in the upper Kobuk River valley on National Park Service (NPS) land (Parker 2004a), and south to Debauch Mountain and the North Fork, Unalakleet River, on BLM lands in the southern Nulato Hills in 1997 and 1998 (Parker 1999) (Map 3-8). It is usually found in sheltered, herbaceous alpine snowmelt areas. Information on population size, trend data, and potential threats is not available. Ranking: ANHP — G4T3T4/S2S3. Carex heleonastes (Hudson Bay sedge). This rare northern sedge is found in peat bogs and seeps, with large gaps in its circumpolar distribution across Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Eurasia. It has been collected at only one location within the planning area, on Native lands near the airstrip at Pilgrim Hot Springs, in southcentral Seward Peninsula (UAF 2005b) (Map 3- 8). Other collection sites in Alaska include Nutuvukti Lake (near the headwaters of the Kobuk River), eastern Brooks Range, southcentral Alaska Range, and northwestern Kenai Peninsula (UAF 2005b). Information on population size, trend, and potential threats is not available. Ranking: ANHP — G4/S2S3. Gentianopsis detonsa ssp. detonsa (sheared gentian). Known distribution is restricted to five locations in coastal northwest Alaska (all within the planning area) (Map 3-8) and to approximately three locations along the Arctic coast of Canada’s Northwest Territories. It blooms briefly, with deep purple petals, along silty shorelines of brackish lagoons and estuaries, or in moist loams of back beach swales and shoreline meadows. G. detonsa ssp. detonsa occurs as small isolated populations at Sheshalik spit (west of the Noatak River delta), Kotzebue, Arctic Circle lagoon (Baldwin Peninsula), Kiwalik spit at the mouth of the Kiwalik River, and just east of the mouth of the Goodhope and Cripple rivers, on the north coast of the Seward Peninsula. However, in an exceptionally good year, one particular site at Sheshalik spit may produce several thousand individuals (Uhl 2000). These locations are a patchwork of State- and Native-selected lands, Native allotments, and NPS lands (Map 3-8). In July 1995 a BLM/Fish and Wildlife (FWS) field crew estimated approximately 60 individuals in a two-mile stretch of lagoon shoreline at Arctic Circle lagoon (Native- and State-selected, and private land) (Meyers 1995b). In August 2000 about 50-60 individuals were discovered on a low Vegetation 3-33 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS vegetated beach ridge just east of the mouth of the Goodhope and Cripple rivers within the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve (Meyers 2000a). Over 100 years of contemporary human habitation at Kotzebue has resulted in the gradual filling in (through the construction of gravel pads, roads, and airport) and compaction of wetlands once prominent at the northern tip of the Baldwin Peninsula. The tiny remnant stands of a few individuals in disturbed habitats around Kotzebue may have originally been larger. Human activities during the last 16 years in Kotzebue have adversely impacted the few remaining plants there (Meyers 2004b). The lagoon/estuary/ocean shoreline habitat periodically exposes G. detonsa ssp. detonsa populations elsewhere to ice scour and beach erosion. Ranking: ANHP — G3G4T?/S1. Potentilla fragiformis (strawberry cinquefoil). Uncertain taxonomy and misplaced collections resulted in several early Alaska collections (1891-1963) of Potentilla fragiformis (UAF 2004) from St. Paul and St. Lawrence islands not being represented in Hulten’s monumental Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories (1968). His range for this species was confined to the Russian Chukotka Peninsula and southwestern Russian coast, although he indicated the total range was unclear. The current known range for P. fragiformis has been broadened to include not only the Bering Sea islands mentioned above but also locations within the planning area: the northeast coast of the Seward Peninsula (Kiwalik Spit) and farther northwest (Sheshalik Spit, Cape Krusenstern, and Kivalina) (Map 3-8), based on reevaluation of those early collections, and recent fieldwork in 2001-04 by UAF Herbarium, NPS, and BLM (Parker 2004a). None of these sites are located on BLM-managed land. No information is available on population sizes, trends, or potential threats. Ranking: ANHP — G4?/S1. Primula tschuktschorum (Chukchi primrose). This Beringian endemic is generally restricted to the Bering Strait region, found in moist alpine or lakeshore habitats on the Seward Peninsula, on St. Lawrence Island, and on the Chukotka Peninsula (Map 3-8). However there are also a few disjunct populations in the Bristol Bay area. Within the planning area, Primula tschuktschorum occurs on NPS and Native corporation lands, as well as on BLM-managed lands. The large Kuzitrin Lake populations are on NPS lands, except for the saddle on Mount Boyan, which is the boundary between NPS land to the north and BLM lands to the south (Map 3-8). Kuzitrin Lake and surrounding mountain slopes in central Seward Peninsula have the largest known Alaska population of P. tschuktschorum (Carlson 2004). In 1995 the population along the southeast shore of Kuzitrin Lake numbered “...thousands of individuals,” but most of the flower heads had been nipped off by Canada geese (Kelso 1995). There were also signs of browsing by caribou/reindeer. When Matt Carlson (a University of Alaska Anchorage/ANHP. plant conservation biologist) and his field crew visited Kuzitrin Lake in June 2004, they discovered only 500-1,000 P. tschuktschorum remaining along the southeast lakeshore. They saw very little seedling recruitment. A more common species of primrose, Primula eximia, had apparently greatly expanded its shoreline numbers over the same nine year period. However, additional subpopulations of P. tschuktschorum grow on adjacent north-facing slopes and saddle of Mount Boyan, numbering roughly 7,000 in all. These subpopulations at higher elevations had not been grazed (Carlson 2004). Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-34 Vegetation Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS A population of P. tschuktschorum recently discovered in 2004 by a BLM/NRCS range management crew on the northwest slope (elevation 2,420 feet) of Mount Bendeleben in southcentral Seward Peninsula consisted of roughly 400-500 healthy individuals, most of which had mature capsules (Meyers 2004c). The P. tschuktschorum were growing in a wet seep about 600 feet long, among numerous Eriophorum angustifolium (cottongrass) plants. Signs of reindeer and/or caribou use were quite evident: heavily grazed lichen, recent and older hoof prints in damp and dried mud, several pellet groups, and one shed antler. Similar to higher elevations at the Kuzitrin Lake site, there was no evidence of herbivory on the Primula. It was speculated that migrating caribou or reindeer may select this site in spring to graze on Eriophorum flower heads, when the herbaceous Primula tschuktschorum would not be available. Late fall or winter visits by migrating caribou or reindeer would encounter largely withered Primula, but the lichen would be readily available (Meyers 2004c). Kelso (1989) considered P. tschuktschorum “rare” (seen at one to two sites) on frost boils in the 9.3 square mile Cape Prince of Wales/Cape Mountain area inventoried at the western tip of the Seward Peninsula. Heavy grazing pressure on the largest known P. tschuktschorum population at Kuzitrin Lake is cause for concern. However, adjacent alpine sites on Mount Boyan and on northwest Mount Bendeleben seem to be secure at present. Size and trend data are not available for additional Bering Strait populations in the Kigluaik Mountains or surrounding lowlands, nor for St. Lawrence Island or Bristol Bay. Ranking: ANHP — G2G3/S2S3. Ranunculus auricomus (goldilocks buttercup). This bright yellow-flowered buttercup collected in 1998 on Debauch Mountain in the southern Nulato Hills (BLM-managed lands) turned out to be new to North America (Map 3-8). The lush alpine meadow hosted only a few individuals, supplying the first known record of this northern Eurasian species in North America, collected by a UAF Herbarium/BLM/NPS/ANHP field crew (Parker 1999). This species had actually been collected twice before on the Seward Peninsula, but misidentified, at Serpentine Hot Springs (1987) and Bluff (1988) (Parker 1999). Recent botanical inventory during 2002 and 2003 has located additional populations on the Seward Peninsula in the Kigluaik Mountains and Penny River uplands, plus a northern outlier in the Igichuk Hills adjacent to the lower Noatak River (UAF 2004) (Map 3-8). All known collections are within (or very closely adjacent to) the planning area. Small populations of sparsely scattered individuals were found at the two sites in southern Nulato Hills, and in the Igichuk Hills north of the Seward Peninsula. Information is not available on population sizes at the other four known locations. No trend data are yet available. No known threats, although these populations are somewhat vulnerable due to small population sizes. Ranking: ANHP — G5/S1S2. Ranunculus glacialis ssp. camissonis (glacier buttercup). This unique Alaska buttercup has pink to red petals instead of the usual yellow or white. A Beringian endemic, it is known from only a few highly disjunct localities in Alaska. On the Seward Peninsula it has been collected at Cape Mountain, Feather River, and the Bendeleben Mountains (UAF 2005b) (Map 3-8). The central Bendeleben Mountains collection site is at the Minnie Creek/Boston Creek mountain divide, with BLM-managed lands to the south and NPS lands (Bering Land Bridge Vegetation 3-35 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS National Preserve) to the north. Outside the planning area, it was recently found (2001) on the north shore of Desperation Lake (Brooks Range) (Parker 2001a). It has also been documented in the Yukon-Tanana Uplands on Lime Peak and Mount Prindle (Parker et al. 2003). Moist to wet alpine meadow is the most common habitat type. Information on population size, trend, and potential threats is mostly not available. However Parker et al. (2003) noted that only a few individuals were observed at each of the Yukon- Tanana Uplands sites on Lime Peak and Mount Prindle. Kelso (1989) listed this species as “common” in the 9.3 square mile area of Cape Prince of Wales/Cape Mountain inventoried, but described “common” as being seen in more than five sites in this area. No information was given on population numbers. Ranking: ANHP — G4T3T4/S2. Rumex krausei (Cape Krause sorrel). This small Arctic sorrel (a member of the buckwheat family) is endemic to northwest Alaska and southeast Chuktoka Peninsula in Russia. All eight currently known locations in Alaska are within the planning area: Cape Dyer, Cape Thompson, Ogotoruk Creek, Mount Noak, Hugo Creek, and the North Fork of Squirrel River, plus Lost River (UAF 2004) and Sinuk River (Meyers 2005c) on the Seward Peninsula (Map 3-8). Rumex krausei is found at subalpine to alpine sites in wet meadows, on solifluction slopes, Dryas terraces, or wet seeps with rock and exposed mineral soil, often on calcareous soils and gravels. The two Squirrel River populations on the North Fork (State-selected land) are quite small, one with approximately 13 individuals (Meyers 1994), and the other with 61 individuals (Meyers 1996b). The Sinuk River population is fairly large, consisting of at least several thousand individuals. The population was recently discovered on wet and sandy, calcareous outwash plains near the base of low mountains approximately five miles northwest of the lower Sinuk River on State- and Native-selected lands during a June 2005 rare plant survey conducted by the BLM, UAF Museum Herbarium, and ANHP (Meyers 2005c). Information on other population sizes, trend, and threats is not available. Ranking: G2/S2; not on BLM-Alaska SSS plant list. However, it was shown on earlier drafts, and will be proposed for restoration to the list during annual review. The Atlas of Rare Endemic Vascular Plants of the Arctic places Rumex krausei in the IUCN category of Lower risk/Near threatened, for species that do not qualify for conservation dependent, but are close to qualifying for vulnerable (Talbot et al. 1999). Saussurea triangulata (Waring Mountain sawwort). Even though this purple-flowered member of the aster family does not occur on BLM-managed lands, it does occur within the planning area. It is included here due to its extreme rarity and the potential to turn up in similar habitat on BLM-managed land. In late June 2000 a field crew of botanists from the UAF Herbarium, BLM, and FWS discovered a small population of a puzzling Saussurea in the western Waring Mountains that turned out to be new to North America (Parker 2001b). During late June 2002 a second population was found, about four miles away from the original site (Parker 2004c). These populations occur in subalpine shrub meadow in an area of the Selawik National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) managed as wilderness (original population), and a little farther northeast across the crest of Waring Mountains into Kobuk Valley National Park (second population) (Map 3-8). Russian and American botanists believe this species is a distant disjunct from populations of Saussurea triangulata in the Russian Far East (but not on either Kamchatka or Chuktoka peninsulas) and in northern Korea (Parker 2003). Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-36 Vegetation Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Both localities have small but healthy populations. Two hundred and fifty-two mature, flowering plants and numerous vegetative individuals were counted in an area approximately 35 by 55 feet in the Selawik NWR in August 2000 (Meyers 2000b). The second population was much smaller, less than a dozen stems, not yet flowering in late June 2002, in a single patch about 2.5 feet in diameter (Parker 2004c). Information on population trends and demographics is not known. There are no known threats. Ranking: ANHP — G1/S1. Smelowskia johnsonii (Johnson’s smelowskia). Only three collections have been made in Alaska of this densely white-hairy member of the mustard family. Over a span of 13 years (1959-72), it was collected at Flint Mountain in the Cape Thompson region, and Ukinyak Creek, Lisburne Hills on Cape Lisburne Peninsula of northwest Alaska, and near the coast at Lost River, on the western Seward Peninsula (Mulligan 2001, UAF 2004) (Map 3-8). This rare plant has not been documented on BLM lands. However, it is described here in recognition of its potential to occur on nearby BLM-managed lands in northwest Alaska. Smelowskia johnsonii was not recognized as a distinct taxon until validation as a new species in 2001 (Mulligan 2001). Smelowskia johnsonii was reported as uncommon in occurrence on limestone talus slopes and ridges of Flint Mountain and surrounding hills in 1959 (Johnson et al. 1965). This species was treated as S. borealis var. jordalii. Viereck and Bucknell observed it in July 1960 to be scattered on steep limestone talus slopes above Ukinyak Creek, and identified it as Smelowskia borealis (UAF 2005b). No details are available concerning the July 1972 collection by Lenarz at Lost River except that it was growing in a Dryas fellfield. There are no known threats. Ranking: ANHP —- G1/S1. Trisetum sibiricum ssp. litorale (Siberian oatgrass). This rare grass is circumpolar Arctic in distribution, and has been found at three locations within the planning area: Ogotoruk Creek and Cape Thompson on the northwest Arctic coast, and at Teller, on the western Seward Peninsula (none of these are on BLM-managed land) (Map 3-8). It was first discovered in 1959 growing at Ogotoruk Creek, “...scattered in bare gravels, in mounds of earth surrounding ground squirrel burrows, in snow beds and on solifluction slopes” (Johnson et al. 1965). Additional localities within Alaska are the Kongakuk River (Arctic NWR), Mount Schwatka and Lime Peak (White Mountain NRA), and southeastern interior Alaska (Parker et al. 2003). This species is widespread in Arctic Russia (Tolmachev and Packer 1995). No population figures are available; however, Johnson et al. (1965) reported Trisetum sibiricum as scattered in occurrence at Ogotoruk Creek, typically found in a variety of habitats but never very abundant. Parker et al. (2003) documented T. sibiricum ssp. litorale as rare in occurrence along a small drainage below Mount Schwatka in disturbed, moist shrub heath. There are no known threats. Ranking: ANHP — G5T4Q/S2. Vegetation 3-37 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS d) Noxious and Invasive Plant Management The BLM’s noxious and invasive plant management program is based upon Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM 1996), the BLM’s strategy to prevent and control the spread of noxious weeds on BLM lands through cooperation with all partners. The goals of this plan include generation of internal and external support for noxious weed control, development of baseline data on the distribution of weeds, provisions for noxious weed management in all BLM-funded or authorized actions, and implementation of on-the- ground operations. BLM management actions are generally tiered to State noxious plant laws and regulations. The State provides statutory support for management activities through Alaska Statute (AS) 03.05.010 and AS 44.37, which authorize the ADNR, Division of Agriculture, to prevent the importation and spread of pests that are injurious to public interest and for the protection of the agricultural industry. Statutory support is expanded in Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) Title 11 Chapter 34 with regulations for noxious weed control and rules for the establishment of quarantines, inspections, noxious weed lists, and control measures. However, funding has not been provided to allow for implementation of these legislative actions in Alaska. The terms “non-native,” “exotic,” “weed,” “noxious,” and “invasive” can be defined in numerous ways. The terms “non-native” and “exotic” are used interchangeably and refer to a species of foreign origin. A “weed” is generally defined as a plant growing wild in a location where it is undesirable. Most weeds are non-native, but not all are noxious or invasive. “Noxious” is a legal classification rather than an ecological term. Government agencies may designate a species as “noxious? if it directly or indirectly imposes economic or ecological effects to agriculture, navigation, fish and wildlife, wildlands, or public health. Federal laws require that certain actions be taken to manage listed, noxious species. A species may be designated as noxious in one state but not another. Some species are more invasive than others. The invasiveness of a species is determined by its genetic makeup, which enables it to exploit a habitat “niche,” and its lack of natural enemies such as insects, diseases, and/or pathogens. Species meeting these criteria are often referred to as invasive, and may or may not also be classified as noxious. There are several lists of noxious plant species applicable to Alaska including the list in the AAC, the Federal Noxious Weed List, the Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plant Management Draft Worst Weeds List, and a list for Alaska’s Weed Free Forage and Mulch Certification program. These lists have varying objectives, were developed over a wide time frame, and vary in the specific plants they include. The list of prohibited and restricted species found in 11 AAC 34.020 was developed to limit the amount of weed seed found in commercial seed products. Its focus was on agriculture, and it was developed more than 15 years ago. This list has not been updated to reflect current concerns about noxious and invasive plant species and their effects on natural ecosystems. The Federal Noxious Weed List was developed by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and its primary focus is to prevent the importation of additional invasive species (7 CFR 360). Plants on the Federal list must meet its definition of quarantine pest: “A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.” Due to this strict requirement, the Federal list does not include the species that are already commonly found in Alaska. The Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse is a statewide database first developed in 2002. It is a collaborative effort between the BLM, USDA Forest Service, NPS, USGS, and UAF Cooperative Extension Service to develop regional information on the distribution and Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-38 Vegetation Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS abundance of non-native plant species in Alaska. A list of non-native species known to occur in Alaska can be generated from the database (BLM 20044), but this list is not inclusive as it is limited by the data that has been entered into the database and the limited amount of inventory completed in the state. The BLM is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment, Endorsement, and Support of the Alaska Committee for the Management of Noxious and Invasive Plants (CNIPM 2001). The purpose of this committee is to work for the statewide management of noxious and invasive plant species in Alaska. The signatories work together within the scope of their respective authorities to achieve sustainable, healthy ecosystems that meet the needs of society. CNIPM has developed a Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious and Invasive Plants in Alaska (CNIPM 2001). The BLM participated in development of the plan and has been implementing actions from this strategic plan in parts of the Fairbanks District. One action identified in the plan is the development of a statewide list of noxious and invasive plant species. There are numerous exotic (non-native) plant species that occur within the planning area but the extent of their occurrence on BLM-managed lands is unknown as no formal inventories have been conducted. Lack of inventory is primarily due to lack of funding and personnel and the low priority assigned to inventory in the planning area relative to other BLM lands in Alaska. The BLM has been conducting noxious and invasive plant inventory in Alaska for the past four to five years. To date, inventories have focused on areas near major population centers, along the road system, and in conservation areas. A very limited inventory was done in Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and Cape Krusenstern National Monument, but no non-native species were found (McKee 2004). Since many of these non-native plant species have been present in Alaska for decades, a list of probable species within the planning area can be generated by referring to Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories: A Manual of the Vascular Plants (Hulten 1968). Species that are known to occur within the planning area are shown in Table 3- 4. It appears that most of these non-native species occur in disturbed areas such as roadsides and communities. Cold tundra soils and a thick vegetative mat make most of the planning area inhospitable to non-native species. The greatest threat for invasion or establishment of these species occurs with surface disturbing activities, particularly areas subject to repeated disturbance (Densmore et al. 2001). Gravel or fill dirt may be contaminated with seeds and seeds may be transported into uncontaminated areas on vehicles, construction, or mining equipment. Raised roadbeds, gravel pads, or the removal of the vegetative mat create a more hospitable environment for non-native plants to become established due to warmer soil, increased availability of light, and decreased competition from other plants. Most of the non- native plants documented in the planning area thus far (Table 3-4) are common in Alaska, occur only in disturbed areas, and are not highly invasive into undisturbed habitats. Most of these species have come from Europe or Asia, and were usually imported either intentionally for their perceived value to humans, or inadvertently as contaminants in other products. Vegetation 3-39 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-4. Non-native Plant Species Known to Occur in the Planning Area Bromus hordeaceus Downy brome Nome Bromus inermis Smooth brome Nome Bromus tectorum Cheat grass Nome Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's purse Kotzebue Chenopodium album Lambsquarters Kobuk River delta Crepis tectorum Narrowleaf hawksbeard Kotzebue Deschampsia elongata Slender hairgrass Nome Hordeum jubatum Foxtail barley Kotzebue, Nome Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass Kotzebue, Nome Lolium perenne Perennial ryegrass St. Michael Matricaria matricarioides Pineapple plant Kotzebue, Nome Medicago lupulina Black medic Nome Phleum pratense Timothy Nome Poa compressa Canada bluegrass Nome Poa pratensis Bluegrass Pt. Hope Senicio vulgaris Common groundsel Nome Stellaria media Common chickweed Kotzebue, Nome Taraxacum sp. Dandelion Kotzebue Thlapsi arvense Field pennycress Kotzebue Trifolium repens White clover Nome Tripleurospermum Kotzebue, Bering Land Bridge National phaeocephalum Wild chamomile Preserve, Seward Peninsula Source: Hulten 1968, Meyers 2001, Meyers 2004a, Meyers 2005a, Meyers 2005b, and Meyers 2005d. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-40 Vegetation JUBWUOJAUZ pepeyy :||| Jadeyo 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N Point Lay Cape Lisburne/ ¢ k Point Hope) © a 34 | 33" ey \ aan Cape Thompson QS 7 17] 16/36 14 45) thal aT iol o 32 31 ~ Noatak Noatak River. Kivalina & Cape Krusenstern National Monument ‘Shishmare' 37 Norton Sound Unalakleet @ 165°W Wainwright ; \ y aia tS 20 Wi 26 $ s 125 [54.2428] 22] 20 | 20] 19] 90] a7 | ah TN 16 a 16 5 4 2 National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska 3 eT lels National Preserve‘ 4 | 1 yt 'Kobuk Valley National Park. 2 160°W {iRiver 2) National Wildlife 4 5 Poorman 9} 10) 11) 12) 13) 14/168! 46 ASE. 7 8 Vegetation Type and Acreage Within Planning Area Shrubland Herbaceous Alpine Tundra & He] Wet Sedge Barrens - 1,178,441 ac. Tundra - 97,853 ac. Tussock Sedge/Dwarf Shrub Tundra - 10,231,645 ac. Moist Herbaceous/Shrub Tundra -5,225,764 ac. Other Forest Open Spruce & Closed Mixed Forest Mosaic - 10,872 ac. aes Open & Closed Spruce Forest - 1,482 ac. Open Spruce Forest/Shrub/ Bog Mosaic - 1,246,395 ac. Spruce & Broadleaf Dwarf Shrub Tundra - 1,077,128 ac. Low Shrub/Lichen Tundra - 139,861 ac. Tall & Low Shrub - Forest - 3,706 ac. 8,981,750 ac. Glaciers & Snow - ee Spruce Woodland/ Tall Shrub - 10,131 ac. Shrub - 1,017,329 ac. 577,730 ac. BR Water - 282,193 ac. Vegetation and Land Cover Types (1 Kilometer Resolution) —— Road KSP RMP Planning Area Ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2003 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SId/dWey Yes einsulusg premeg-ynqoy “Il saydeyo JUBLWWUOIIAUA papseyy 170°;W 165°W Point Lay Cape Lisburne National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska . Calving Grounds Point Hope Cape Thompson’ Kivalina Cape Krusenstern National Monument National y Preserve Winter Range ~ bo : be ‘oe , ite Mountain Norton Sound Unalakleet @ Colville Rive Kobuk Valley National Park National Wildlife Refuge Husli: 165°W 160°W Burn Perimeters Within Caribou Seasonal Ranges — Road and Acreage Within KSP RMP Planning Area : (acres rounded to the nearest thousand) 9 C_] KSP RMP Planning Area Fire scar within caribou calving grounds - 1,000 ac. Fire scar within caribou migratory area - 346,000 ac. Fire scar within caribou peripheral range - 395,000 ac. Fire scar within caribou summer range - 4,000 ac. Fire scar within caribou winter range - 2,148,000 ac. Western Arctic Caribou Herd Seasonal Ranges and Fire Perimeters 3-7 Fie) axe 2 | s | w Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM 2004, State of Alaska - ADF&G 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWY HeIQ BiNsulusd PJEMAaS-4NGoy JUBWUOJIAU pajsyy :||| sa}deyD 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W Cape | Krusenstern__| | National _/ Monument Norton Sound pap Lasw) 44 / 43 oi Unataieet L_ | 160°W 22} 21) 20/ 19/ 18| 17 TY BY 9 | 10) 1) 12] 13 718} 9) 10) 19] 12 10) 14) 12) 13) 14 9 10 " 12 13 4 9} 10) 14/12/13 | 14/188! 46 7 18 165°W 160°W Rare Plants BLM - Alaska ; Ke i O Cardamine microphylla ssp. blaisdellii © Sensitive Plant Ceneralized Land Status ‘obuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP O Carex heleonastes : Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management - Alaska © Gentianopsis detonsa ssp. detonsa Note: Tightly clustered . aa - @ Potentilla fragiformis plan ee / Fish and Wildlife Service 0 6 1218 24 48 stiles . en mover in . . a @ Primula tschuktschorum order to be seen 7 ' National Park Service an : @ Ranunculus auricomus hi Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area this map. ae Native Patent or IC referencing NAD83 @ Ranunculus glacialis ssp.chamissonis @ Rumex krausei O Saussurea triangulata Road O Smelowskia johnsonii KSP RMP O Trisetum sibiricum ssp. litorale Planning Area Native Selected Ee State Patent or TA State Selected Rare Plant Species Designated by Map 3-8 Alaska Natural Heritage Program Source: Alaska Natural Heritage Program, USDOI - BLM 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 64°N SIA/dWY Hed einsulueg puemas-ynqgoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 6. Fish and Wildlife a) Fish (1) Fish Species Present in Planning Area The freshwater streams and lakes within the planning area contain all five species of Pacific salmon present in Alaska: Chinook or king (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), sockeye or red (O. nerka), coho or silver (O. kisutch), chum or dog (O. keta), and pink or humpback (O. gorbuscha). Other important fish utilized for subsistence or commercial harvest are Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), Arctic char (S. alpinus), sheefish or iconnu (Stenodus leucichthys), burbot (Lota lota), round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum), humpback whitefish (Coregonus pidschian), and Bering (C. /aurettae), least (C. sardinella), and possibly Arctic (C. autumnalis) ciscoes. Northern pike (Esox licious) and Arctic grayling (Thymallus articus) are popular sportfish. Other resident fish found in the planning area but incidental economically include nine-spined stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), slimey sculpin (Cotus cognatus), long-nosed sucker (Catostomas catostomas), and Alaska blackfish (Dallia pectoralis). (2) Fish Habitat Description The topography of the planning area is characterized by relatively narrow coastal plains with extensive upland areas to 5,000 feet. The north side of the Kuzitrin River Basin essentially forms the boundary between the Chukchi Sea drainage to the north (Kotzebue Sound) and the Bering Sea drainage to the south (Norton Sound). The vegetative communities are dominated by tundra, with taiga communities (composed mainly of white and black spruce) occurring in the Nulato Hills and the southeastern Seward Peninsula east of Golovin Bay. Riparian species vary from low willow to white spruce forests dependant on general location and site-specific microhabitat conditions. The planning area contains numerous anadromous fish streams listed in the Anadromous Stream Catalog (ADF&G 1997) as shown in Map 3-9. Most BLM-managed lands in the planning area are undisturbed and are located in upper river drainages. Public lands in the planning area provide important spawning, rearing, and overwintering habitat for resident and anadromous fish. These streams provide adequate spawning substrate, stream flows, deep pools, and thermal regimes to support healthy fish populations. Commercial, subsistence, and sport fisheries intercept fish that are bound for BLM-managed lands. Although estimates have not been made for Kotzebue Sound and the Imuruk Basin, the BLM’s Norton Sound Aquatic Habitat Management Plan (BLM 1988a) estimated that 70 percent of the fish caught in Norton Sound were spawned on BLM-managed lands. In Kotzebue Sound, the Squirrel and Kivalina rivers are the major drainages comprised of significant amounts of public land. Both chum and pink salmon are found in the Squirrel River. Chum salmon are the most numerous and the most important economically because they contribute to subsistence fishing that occurs in the Kobuk and Squirrel rivers (ADF&G 2003) and to the commercial fishery in Kotzebue Sound (Lean et al. 1993). A commercial chum fishery existed in 2004 and 2005 as a result of efforts by the Kotzebue Sound Fisheries Association, who purchased 51,000 and 73,000 fish in those respective years. Field information indicates Fish and Wildlife: Fish 3-47 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS that known chum salmon spawning areas are located along much of the main river. Major spawning areas have been identified along the main stem between Timber and Klery creeks above the Omar River, and on the lower portion of the North Fork of the Squirrel River (ADF&G 1997). Anecdotal information indicates that the chum salmon tend to spawn in spring-fed sloughs which turn green with algae due to the influx of nutrients from the salmon carcasses (Lean 2003). During annual aerial monitoring surveys, ADF&G observers have noted a few hundred pink salmon spawning in the main river below the mouth of the Omar River. In addition, large schools of whitefish have been observed in the calm, deep-water pools of the Omar, and northern pike have been found as far upriver as the mouth of the Omar River (Lean and Hartle 1989). The Kivalina River provides important spawning and rearing habitat for world class Dolly Varden. Most of the spawning occurs at or just downstream of spring areas (Decicco 2005), as shown in Map 3-10. Springs located in the upper drainage may also provide spawning habitat, but they have not been inventoried due to budget constraints. In Norton Sound, the Nulato Hills on the eastern side of the basin divide the Yukon River drainage from Norton Sound. Interspersed between the mountainous areas on the Seward Peninsula are several large marshy areas including the Koyuk River Basin, Death Valley in the Tubutulik River Basin, McCarthy’s Marsh in the Fish River Basin, the Kuzitrin River lowlands, and the Imuruk Basin. These marshy areas act as important habitat for growth due to the increased water temperatures found in the low gradient portions of these drainages. Higher water temperatures increase growth rates in salmonids until water temperatures reach 50 °F, at which point the increased metabolic rate decreases growth rates (Martin 1985). These marsh areas provide a preferred microhabitat that enhances growth during the early summer. The rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds of the planning area are important producers of fish for subsistence, commercial, and sport fisheries. Many of the streams that are important spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous fish occur on BLM-managed lands. The planning area has an estimated 10,000 miles of streams on BLM-managed lands alone, and there are thousands of acres of lakes of many types (e.g., thaw, oxbox, glacial) that support resident and anadromous species. Cursory surveys conducted by the BLM on some of the area streams and lakes since 1978 (Kretsinger 1987, Webb 1978a, 1978b, 1978c, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1986a, and 1986b) indicate most streams and lakes within the planning area are in pristine, untouched condition; however, many of these drainages have not been extensively inventoried for fishery values due to lack of funding. Other than aerial surveys to determine fish escapement conducted by ADF&G (Lean and Hartle 1989) and a handful of salmon counting camps that estimate the number of returning adult salmon to various streams in Norton Sound, little is known about exact species composition and habitat use. Cursory surveys have been conducted by the BLM on some of the area streams since 1978. (3) Factors Affecting Fish Habitat and Production Although most of the fisheries habitat within the planning area exists in an undisturbed state, there are some areas that have been impacted by various developments. Road construction, gold mining, and gravel mining are activities that have negatively affected fisheries habitat in the past. Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1980) studied the effects of stream and riparian gravel mining on certain Seward Peninsula streams for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Introduction of sediment into streams from mining caused the greatest impacts on fish, with increased silt clogging spawning gravels and suffocating developing fish eggs. Road construction may also adversely affect fish by limiting upstream access to tributaries by rearing juvenile fish if culverts Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-48 Fish and Wildlife: Fish Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS are not properly engineered or installed (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1980). These disturbances continue to various degrees, with gold mining activity possibly increasing with the rising price of gold, although very few Federal claims remain within the planning area. Some drainages, mostly on State land, including the Nome and Solomon rivers, have sustained fish habitat damage due to historic mining, while some gravel pits have been rehabilitated to provide rearing ponds, particularly for coho salmon in the Nome River drainage (Webb and McLean 1991). Many factors influence the productivity of a resident fish population, including water temperature, streamflow, food availability, adequate spawning and rearing habitat, spawner- recruit ratio, and fishing pressure. Anadromous species complicate matters by introducing ocean conditions which may limit production as well: sea surface temperature; phytoplankton, zooplankton, and larval fish abundance; ocean currents; and marine survival. Inter- and intraspecies competition also play a role in determining how many fish a fishery or watershed produces. Fisheries habitat on BLM-managed lands in the planning area is mostly undisturbed and should not be limiting to the production of resident and anadromous fish. Fish and Wildlife: Fish 3-49 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment JUBWUOIAUA peyayy :||| Ja}deyo 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W Point Hope) [34] 33 Cape Thompson ¥ T [30 / “4 Kivaliina’ Cape Krusenstern National Monument | Norton Sound 165°W Tis Shaktoolik | 4 160°W 160°W 2) 2) 20/19) 18) 17) 4 7} 8B 9/10) 19) 12) 43 8} 7) 8) 9/40) 9) 12) 43) 14 10/11 12) 13) 14 a 45 lose lyf 16} 16! LT Tse} stat slelvtele 10) 11/12/19 14 8S gee Th lyase * : Anadromous Generalized Land Status Fish River Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Be Native Patent or IC Native Selected og State Patent or TA State Selected —— Road one-one Iditarod Trail ics KSP RMP Planning Area Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI-BLM, State of Alaska - ADF&G Map 3-9 Anadromous Fish Rivers The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N SIS/dWY Yes BINsUIUag PreMas-4NqGoy jUsWUOLIAUZ peypeyy :||| Ja}deyD Kivalina River Map 3-40 Dolly Varden Spawning Dolly Varden Spawning Areas Spawning Suspected Generalized Land Status Bureau of Land Management te Native Patent or IC Native Selected _ State Patent or TA State Selected Red Dog Mine Road C] Planning Area KSP RMP Planning Area Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska — Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status, information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIS/dWY Hejg Binsuludsd puemas-yngGoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS b) Wildlife Given the physiographical extent of the planning area, habitats are quite varied and support a diversity of wildlife. These habitats and the wildlife species that rely on them extend across administrative boundaries to other Federal, State, and private lands both within and outside the planning area. Public land ownership is scattered with intermingled private and State lands, though large blocks of public land are present in some areas. Habitats within the planning area have been subjected to limited disturbance in the past and are considered to be in a mostly natural and nearly pristine condition given the roadless nature of the area, difficulty in accessing the area, and the low number of permitted activities occurring on BLM-managed lands. The planning area includes the majority of Game Management Unit 22, all of Unit 23, and the far western portion of Unit 26A (Map 3-11). Only those wildlife species considered important as a subsistence resource, economically important to the region, or otherwise requiring management emphasis will be addressed in this chapter. (1) Muskoxen Muskoxen are indigenous to northwestern Alaska but disappeared before or during the nineteenth century. Muskoxen were reintroduced to northwestern Alaska in 1970 on both the Seward Peninsula and near Cape Thompson (Map 3-11). Since that time, the Seward Peninsula population has grown rapidly and extended its range to occupy suitable habitat throughout the peninsula. The Cape Thompson population has grown more slowly and occupies habitats within 15-20 miles of the Chukchi Sea coast (Dau 2003d). The Seward Peninsula population is well established as far east as the Buckland River and Darby Mountains, and is currently expanding further east into the Nulato Hills and the Selawik and Yukon river drainages. Muskoxen have been found only once east of the Darby Mountains during the spring (March) census period (Persons 2003a). Much of this area is heavily forested and accumulates more snow than the open tundra areas further north and west, limiting suitable winter habitat. There have, however, been reports of muskoxen in the Koyuk River drainage, near Elim, and near Granite Mountain during the summer and one report of three muskoxen near Koyuk during the winter of 2002 (Persons 2003a). The 2005 population was estimated at 2,387 animals. Population density is highest on the western Seward Peninsula (Persons 2003a). The Cape Thompson population ranges from the mouth of the Noatak River to Cape Lisburne within 15-20 miles of the Chukchi Sea (Dau 2003d). Coastal winds tend to diminish snow depths on exposed ridges during the winter and keep ambient temperatures lower during the summer. The quality and quantity of winter forage in this area is low and may have limited the growth rate of the population. The Cape Thompson population grew by an average of 8 percent per year from 1970 to 2000 compared to a 14 percent per year growth rate in the Seward Peninsula population during the same time frame. In 2000, the Cape Thompson population was estimated to be 424 animals (Dau 2003d). In addition to these two relatively discrete populations, widely scattered muskoxen occur in groups of one to four individuals throughout most of Unit 23. Small, widely scattered groups can be found throughout the Noatak and Kobuk river drainages almost to Walker Lake, and in the Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-54 Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Selawik River drainage including the middle Tagagawik River (Dau 2003d). Most of these animals are bulls, but mixed sex groups have recently been observed in the Selawik River drainage (Dau 2003d). Favored habitat includes wind blown ridges during the winter and riparian areas during the summer. When snow depth is greater than 12 inches, muskoxen move to areas where snow cover is minimal such as exposed ridges. Vegetation in these areas is typically sparse. During the winter muskoxen survive on body-fat reserves and minimize movement to conserve energy. In the summer forage is plentiful and muskoxen build fat reserves. Recommendations from the Seward Peninsula Muskox Cooperators Group guide management of muskoxen on the Seward Peninsula. ADF&G management goals and objectives for muskoxen in Units 22 and 23 include the following (Persons 2003a): e Allow for continued growth and range expansion of muskoxen into historic habitats, e Provide for a limited harvest on a sustained yield basis, consistent with existing State and Federal laws. e Provide for non-consumptive uses, particularly along the Nome road system. e Work with local reindeer herding interests to minimize conflicts between reindeer and muskoxen. e Protect and maintain the habitats and other components of the ecosystem upon which muskoxen depend. e Encourage cooperation and sharing of information among agencies and users of the resource in developing and executing management and research programs. e Census populations at two to three year intervals to document changes in population and distribution. e¢ Cooperatively manage State and Federal hunts. (2) Moose Moose are an important subsistence resource and are widely distributed throughout the planning area in suitable habitats. They are not found in areas of extreme habitat such as unvegetated mountains, deep lakes, or marine environments. Moose are most abundant in areas that contain willow and birch shrubs, and along large rivers. In general, their distribution is determined by requirements for food and cover and by seasonal snow depths. Moose were first documented in the eastern part of the planning area in the 1920s. By the 1960s they occupied most areas of suitable habitat within the planning area. Moose habitat is found in Units 22, 23, and 26A (Map 3-11). Populations grew rapidly in Units 22 and 23, eventually peaking in the 1980s. Between 1988 and 1992 moose populations in these areas stabilized or began to decline (Dau 2004a, Persons 2004). Moose have been well established in Unit 26A since about 1940 (Carroll 2004a). Currently, moose populations are low or declining in Units 22A, 22B, 22D, and possibly 22E. Populations in Units 22A, 22B, and 22D have declined by as much as 50 percent since the late 1980s. A census of the Unalakleet drainage (Unit 22A) resulted in a population estimate of only 75 moose, a significant decline from a previous census of 325 moose in 1989. Other surveys indicate either very low recruitment rates or low population levels in other parts of the unit, indicating that the population is well below ADF&G’s management goal of 600-800 moose in Unit 22A. Moose populations in Units 22B and 22D have declined since the late 1980s and are well below ADF&G’s population management goals of 1,000-1,200 moose and 2,000-2,500 moose, respectively. Moose populations in western Unit 22B declined by about 50 percent from an estimated 1,894 moose Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife 3-55 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS in 1987 to 797 moose in 1999. Although no census data exists for eastern Unit 22B, recruitment surveys in this area indicate low recruitment rates. A 2002 census in Unit 22D resulted in an estimate of 1,594 moose, a decline of 45 percent since the population was first censused in 1988 and a 13 percent decline since 1997. In Unit 22C, the moose population has grown steadily over the past decade and was estimated at 557 moose in 2001. This is well above the population management goal of 450-475 moose, and there is concern that the population may exceed the carrying capacity of the winter range. The first stratified census of Unit 22E was completed in 2003 and the population estimate of 504 moose was higher than expected. This may have been the result of unusually sparse snow cover that allowed the moose to remain on their summer range rather than an actual increase in population level (Persons 2004). Before the 2003 census, available data indicated that the moose population in the unit was declining and management changes had been implemented to reduce harvest (Persons 2002). Observations by the public and ADF&G staff indicate that moose populations are declining throughout Unit 23. This decline appears to be the most pronounced in the Noatak drainage and on the Seward Peninsula (Dau 2002a). Populations may be stable in the Selawik drainage (Dau 2004a). Interpreting moose data in Unit 23 is difficult due to changes in census area boundaries, the small size of the census areas, and the limited number of censuses that have been completed. To counter these problems, ADF&G substantially increased the size of census areas in Unit 23 beginning in 2001 (Dau 2004a). A few moose probably occur in the extreme northern part of the planning area during the summer but not in significant numbers. In Unit 26A moose are primarily found in the Colville River drainage, which is outside of the planning area. The Colville River population was stable and slowly increasing from 1970 to 1991, with populations ranging from 1,219-1,535 moose. A 1995 census indicated a 51 percent population decline between 1991 and 1995. Trend counts indicate that the population has been increasing since 1996. The most recent population estimate was 576 moose in 2002 (Carroll 2004a). Moose winter habitat condition in the planning area is not known to be a limiting factor to moose populations. However, monitoring of browse has been very limited. Moose habitat quality limits distribution and numbers of moose within the planning area. Some parts of the planning area are marginal moose habitat and will never support high numbers of moose. Fire is a natural feature of the landscape within the planning area. It has not been suppressed to the extent that substantial changes in habitat quality have occurred. (3) Caribou The Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WACH) ranges throughout the planning area, calving in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) just east of the northern portion of the planning area, and wintering in the Nulato Hills and eastern Seward Peninsula on the south. This herd ranges over about 140,000 square miles in northwestern Alaska (Map 3-12). Within the planning area, approximately 46 percent of the total WACH range, 61 percent of the insect relief area, 69 percent of the calving grounds, and 54 percent of the winter range is on BLM-managed land. In the early 1970s, the WACH population was estimated at 243,000 animals. By 1976, the population had declined to an estimated 75,000 animals. From 1976 to the present, the herd has grown substantially. Census data from 1996 and 1999 resulted in population estimates of Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-56 Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 463,000 and 430,000 caribou, respectively (Dau 2003b). A census completed in 2003 resulted in the current estimated population size of 490,000 caribou (Dau in prep). Animals from the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Herd (TLH) may also be found witin the planning @& area. The primary range of the TLH is the North Slope west of the Colville and Itkillik rivers, with the peripheral range sometimes extending as far south as the Nulato Hills of the Brooks Range and as far east as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Most of the herd’s range, including the calving range is in the northern portion of the NPR-A. The TLH caribou winter in various locations from near Teshekpuk Lake to the Chukchi Sea coast to south of the Brooks Range. The most common wintering area is around Atqasuk (Carroll 2003c). In some years, TLH caribou may winter within the planning area. For example, In 1996-1997 most of the herd wintered south of the Brooks Range, between Cape Lisburne and the Seward Peninsula (Carroll 2003c). In 1984, the first photocensus of the TLH counted 11,822 caribou (Carroll 2003c). Other photocensus estimates in 1985 (13,406 caribou), 1989 (16,649 caribou), and 1993 (27,686 caribou) documented a steady increase in the TLH. This was followed by a decrease in the herd estimate in 1995 (25,076 caribou). The estimate again increased in 1999 (28,627 caribou) and in 2002 (45,166 caribou). It is most likely that the 1999 photocensus and possibly the 1995 census undercounted the population, and the herd has gradually increased through the 1990s (Carroll 2003c). Caribou migrate seasonally between their calving areas and summer and winter ranges to take advantage of seasonally available forage. In general, the winter diet of caribou consists predominantly of lichens, with a shift to vascular plants during the spring (Thompson and McCourt 1981). Composition of plant fragments in caribou fecal pellets collected in the winter range of the WACH averaged 83 percent lichen (Jandt et al. 2003). Eriophorum buds (tussock cottongrass) appear to be very important in the diet of lactating caribou cows during the calving season (Thompson and McCourt 1981, Eastland et al. 1989), while orthophyll shrubs (especially willows) are the predominant forage during the post-calving period (Thompson and McCourt 1981). Calving ground locations may shift gradually over years or change abruptly due to environmental conditions. Since the mid-1970s, the WACH has calved primary in the Utukok Hills, north and east of the planning area (Dau 2003b). Since the late 1980s calving has been more dispersed and not confined to the Utukok Hills (Dau 1999). Typically, most pregnant cows reach the calving grounds by late May. Severe weather and deep snow can delay spring migration, with some caribou calving en route. Unusual distribution of WACH caribou cows in 2000 and 2001 due to a late break-up (Dau 2003b) illustrates the importance of maintaining free access to calving grounds and providing an adequate buffer around traditional calving areas for years when unusual environmental conditions delay migration. Insect-relief areas become important during the late June to mid-August insect season. Insect harassment reduces foraging efficiency and increases physiological stress. Caribou use various coastal and upland habitats for relief from insects, including sandbars, spits, river deltas, some barrier islands, mountain foothills, snow patches, and sand dunes; in general, areas where stiff breezes prevent insects from concentrating. Dau (2003b) provides a description of the general movements of the WACH after calving. By mid-June cow/calf groups move west from the calving grounds toward the Lisburne Hills. In late June when the mosquitoes begin to emerge, bulls and nonmaternal cows move to the western North Slope and De Long Mountains. In early July, oestrid flies emerge and insect harassment intensifies, causing WACH caribou to Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife 3-57 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS form large aggregations that may include more than 100,000 individuals. At this time, WACH animals begin to move eastward through the Brooks Range toward Anaktuvuk and Howard passes. As insects diminish in early to mid-August, the caribou disperse. Some move onto the North Slope, going as far as Cape Lisburne and Barrow, while others remain in the mountains. The fall migration begins in mid-August and extends until mid- to late November. At this time, migratory movements cease and the animals become relatively sedentary until spring migration. Radio telemetry data indicates that the vast majority of the WACH uses the western North Slope and Brooks Range during the summer. In recent years, several thousand caribou (primarily bulls and immature cows) have summered on the Seward Peninsula (Dau 2003b). The winter range of the WACH has changed over time and varies from year to year. The area identified on Map 3-12 represents areas where most of the herd has wintered in most years since the mid-1980s. Before the mid-1970s a substantial portion of the WACH wintered north of the Brooks Range or near Wiseman and Anaktuvuk Pass. Since the mid-1970s the primary winter range of the WACH has been south of the Brooks Range along the northern fringe of the boreal forest. While most of the herd migrates south of the Brooks Range, some caribou winter on the Arctic coastal plain most years (Dau 2003b, BLM 2003b). Using radio-collar locations, Dau (2003b) has described the recent winter distribution of the herd in more detail. Between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s a large portion of the WACH consistently wintered in the Nulato Hills. In the last decade, the WACH began shifting its winter range west from the Nulato Hills to the Seward Peninsula. Before the 1996-97 season, less than 9 percent of the herd wintered on the peninsula in any given year. However, in that 1996-97 season, more than 50 percent of the herd wintered on the peninsula. The WACH has also become more dispersed during the winter in recent years. Prior to 1996 more than 50 percent of the herd generally wintered in a single geographic area, usually the Nulato Hills. Since that time, however, the herd has wintered in three to four geographic areas each year, none of which are used by more than 50 percent of the herd. Wintering areas identified by Dau (2003b) include: North Slope west of the Colville River; foothills of the Brooks Range west of the Utukok River; foothills of the Brooks Range east of the Colville River; Kobuk drainage below Selby River, lower Squirrel drainage, Selawik drainage, and Buckland drainage; Kobuk drainage above Selby River including the central Brooks Range and the Noatak drainage north of Douglas Creek; Koyukuk drainage south of the Brooks Range; Seward Peninsula; Nulato Hills; and Noatak drainage south of Douglas Creek, upper Squirrel drainage, Wulik and Kivalina drainages, and Lisburne Hills. The current quality of caribou habitat within the planning area is mostly unknown, with the exception of the Buckland River Valley and the northern Nulato Hills, where the BLM has been monitoring caribou winter range since 1981. The last time these habitat transects were monitored, they showed a 14 percent decline in the percent cover of lichen (Jandt et al. 2003). However, this apparent decline is based on only 20 transects within the 140,000 square mile range of the herd (for more information on vegetative cover in these areas, see the discussion on lichen communities beginning on page 3-31 in the Vegetation section). Given the remoteness of the area and lack of development and other resource uses within the range of the herd, habitat is thought to be in a natural condition in most areas. The large size of the WACH has reduced the availability of lichen in some areas. On the Seward Peninsula, lichen cover has decreased in some localized areas due to grazing by domestic reindeer. Most of the reindeer allotments within the heavily used caribou areas on the eastern Seward Peninsula (Buckland River, Baldwin Peninsula, Shaktoolik, Koyuk River, and McCarthy's Marsh) have been mostly ungrazed by reindeer since the mid- to late1990s. Although there may have been Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-58 Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS small numbers of stray reindeer remaining at this time, they were scattered and most of the herders were not actively managing their animals. In 1982, the Buckland River allotment boundary was adjusted to exclude grazing from the eastern half of the allotment (BLM 1992). The last reported gather for this allotment was in 1994 when 61 reindeer were gathered (Kawerak Inc. 2005). In 2001, the permittee for the Baldwin Peninsula Allotment reported that he no longer had any reindeer on public land (BLM 2001b). The McCarthy’s Marsh allotment has not been permitted for livestock grazing since 1984 (BLM 2003a). In 2001, the permittee for the Koyuk River Allotment stated that he had no reindeer remaining (BLM 2002b). In 1994, there were about 1,400 reindeer remaining on the Shaktoolik River allotment. Since that time, most if not all have emigrated with migrating caribou (BLM 2002a). Dau (2003) identified the portion of the De Long Mountains and its northern foothills west of and including the upper Utukok and Kugururok drainages as critical insect relief habitat for the WACH. During the first half of July, the WACH forms huge aggregations near the Chukchi Sea coast and on barren ridgetops in the westernmost portion of its summer range. During this time, virtually the entire herd moves from the Lisburne Hills/Cape Thompson area eastward toward Howard Pass. Any development that would affect WACH movements at this time of year would essentially impact the entire herd. The following management objectives for the WACH are identified in the Western Arctic Caribou Herd Cooperative Management Plan (Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group 2003): e Encourage cooperative management of the herd and its habitats among State, Federal, and local entities and all users of the herd. e Recognizing that caribou herds naturally fluctuate in numbers, manage for a healthy population using strategies adapted to population levels and trends. e Assess and protect important habitats of the WACH. e Promote consistent, understandable, and effective State and Federal regulations for the conservation of the WACH. e Seek to minimize conflict between reindeer herders and the WACH. e Integrate scientific information, traditional ecological knowledge of Alaska Native users, and knowledge of all users into management of the WACH. e Increase understanding and appreciation of the WACH through use of scientific information, traditional ecological knowledge of Alaska users, and knowledge of other users. (4) Dall Sheep Within the planning area, Dall sheep populations are found at low densities in the Baird Mountains, Wulik Peaks, and De Long Mountains (western Brooks Range) in Units 23 and 26A. Sheep in this area are at the northwestern margin of their range in Alaska and may be more prone to population changes due to adverse weather than in other parts of the state (Dau 2002b). Although all three sheep populations are found within the planning area boundary, only asmall portion of the Baird Mountains population occurs on BLM-managed lands. The current condition of Dall sheep habitat in the Baird Mountains has not been quantified. The remote nature of the area, inaccessibility of the habitat, and limited number of commercial or permitted activities in the area make it very likely that the habitat is in a natural condition. The majority of the high quality habitat is located on NPS land. As the NPS has a greater ability to regulate public and commercial uses, the habitat is expected to remain in a mostly natural condition (Shults 2004, NPS 2005) (Map 3-11). Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife 3-59 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Small groups of sheep regularly occur on BLM-managed land in the Squirrel River drainage (Baird Mountains). Robinson (1987) estimated that 371,000 acres of BLM land in this area was suitable sheep habitat. Singer and Johnson (1984) speculated that sheep found along the crest of the Baird Mountains (the boundary between BLM and NPS lands) might be transient animals that disperse from higher density areas to the north. According to Dau (2002b), the Baird Mountain sheep population last peaked in 1989 when there were an estimated 981 sheep. Severe winters resulted in a population decline, and the population reached its lowest level in 1996 at about 33 percent of the 1989 level. Lamb production was relatively low until 1995, at which time production increased to pre-1991 levels leading to a corresponding increase in population. The population in 2001 was estimated at 616 sheep (Dau 2002b). Noatak National Preserve, an NPS unit, is currently developing management objectives for sheep in the Baird Mountains. The focus of these management objectives would be to limit harvest to a conservative level and base harvest on a running average of population size in order to avoid annual reevaluations of harvest (Shults 2004). (5) Brown Bear Brown bears are widely distributed within the planning area. When not hibernating, they occupy all available habitats within their home range to take advantage of seasonably available food sources. Population densities vary depending on the productivity of the environment. Because brown bears range over large areas with no affinity to a particular habitat, they should be considered creatures of the landscape rather than of a specific habitat type. Another aspect of bear habitat is the availability of prey species. Declining moose and fish stocks in the planning area may adversely affect bear populations. The current condition of brown bear habitat in the planning area has not been quantified. For the most part, the habitat is in a natural condition. Most of the BLM-managed lands in the planning area are roadless and are far from villages. BLM has not permitted many activities within the planning area that would have resulted in surface disturbance or changes to the habitat. No threats to the quality of habitat are known. Habitat suitability varies within the planning area, though bear densities are generally higher on the southern Seward Peninsula than in other areas. A census completed in the early 1990s resulted in a density estimate for Units 22C, 22D, 22E and eastern 22B at one bear per 27 square miles (Persons 2003b). This estimate varied greatly within the study area, with the highest density of bears found in western Unit 22B (one bear per 20 square miles) and the lowest in Unit 22E (one bear per 39 square miles). According to ADF&G, bear densities in Unit 22 have increased since 1991 and are currently higher than the densities found during the study (Persons 2003b). The only brown bear census in Unit 23 occurred in 1987 near the Red Dog Mine Road. This study resulted in a density estimate of one adult bear per 27.5 square miles (Ballard et al. 1991). There is no other quantitative data to estimate population trend. Residents of Unit 23 believe that brown bear populations have increased since the 1940s and 1950s (Dau 2003a). Beginning in 2002, ADF&G has received some reports from guides and local residents that bear numbers are decreasing in the Noatak drainage (Dau 2003a). In 1998, bear densities were estimated for broad habitat zones in Unit 26A using subjective comparisons to areas of the North Slope with known bear densities. Densities were estimated at 0.5-2 bears per 386 square miles on the coastal plain (<800 feet elevation), 10-30 bears per 386 square miles in the foothills, and 10-20 bears per 386 square miles in the mountains (Carroll 2003a). Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-60 Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS ADF&G has established the following management goals for brown bears in Units 22, 23, and 26A (Dau 2003a, Persons 2003b, Carroll 2003a): e Maintain the population at levels estimated during the 1991 census in Unit 22. e Maintain a population that sustains a three-year mean annual reported harvest of at least 50 percent males. e Maintain a minimum density of one adult bear per 25.7 square miles in the Noatak drainage (Unit 23). e Maintain the existing brown bear population in Unit 26A (approximately 800 bears). (6) Black Bear In Alaska, black bears occur over most of the forested areas of the state. They are not found on the western Seward Peninsula or north of the Brooks Range (ADF&G 1994a). Similar to brown bears, biological pressures dictate what areas of the black bears home range are preferred at different times of the year. When not hibernating, black bears occupy all available habitats within their home range, taking advantage of seasonably available food sources. The current condition of black bear habitat in the planning area has not been quantified. For the most part, the habitat is in a natural condition. The portion of the planning area that supports black bears is roadless and remote from most communities. There have been few permitted activities in the area other than special recreation use permits for guided hunting. No threats to the quality of habitat are known. Habitat suitability varies within the planning area, with black bears found primarily in the forested areas in the eastern portion of the planning area. No density estimates are available for black bear populations as there are not enough bears in the area to warrant monitoring by ADF&G. Community harvest assessments show that black bears are harvested in low numbers by residents of Noorvik, Kiana, Selawik, and Shungnak, indicating that they are found as far west as the traditional hunting areas for these communities. The percentage of households in these communities attempting to harvest black bears between 1998 and 2003 ranged from 4 to 20 percent. Noorvik reported the highest harvest level at 14 black bears in 2002 (Georgette et al. 2004). (7) Gray Wolf In general, wolves are found throughout the planning area wherever adequate numbers of prey species are found. In most of Alaska, moose and/or caribou are their primary food. During summer, small mammals including voles, lemmings, ground squirrels, snowshoe hares, beavers, and occasionally birds and fish supplement their diet (ADF&G 1994b). Wolf numbers in the planning area have fluctuated over the past century based on availability of prey species, government-sponsored wolf control programs, and hunting regulations. Wolf numbers generally increased after Federal wolf control programs were discontinued in the 1960s, aerial wolf hunting was banned in 1970, and land-and-shoot aircraft hunting was banned in 1982 (Carroll 2003b, Dau 2003c, Gorn 2003). Research has never been conducted in Unit 22 to assess wolf distribution and population trend. Estimates of wolf distribution, population trend, harvest, and human use data are obtained from sealing certificates and observations by staff, reindeer herders, and other local residents (Gorn 2003). In 1990, Ballard (1993) estimated a density of one wolf per 50 square miles in the middle Kobuk River. Extrapolating this density to all of Unit 23 results in a very rough Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife 3-61 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS population estimate of 869 wolves (Dau 2003c). Wolf abundance in the Nulato Hills and Seward Peninsula is dependant upon the presence of caribou, with abundance increasing from October to May when caribou are present. As caribou have extended their winter range west, wolf numbers have also increased (Gorn 2003). Reports from local residents, statewide trapper surveys, and observations by ADF&G staff indicate that wolf numbers have increased on the Seward Peninsula west of and including the Buckland River drainage (Gorn 2003, Dau 2003c). Wolf numbers also appear to have increased in the Kobuk River drainage and decreased slightly in the Noatak River drainage (Dau 2003c). Within Unit 26A, most wolves are found in the Brooks Range and foothills and in the Colville River drainage (Carroll 2003b). In 1993, an estimated 240-390 wolves in 32-53 packs were resident in Unit 26A (Carroll 2003b). ADF&G has the following management goals for wolves in Units 22, 23, and 26A (Carroll 2003b, Gorn 2003, Dau 2003c): e Maintain viable wolf populations in Units 22, 23, and 26A. e Provide hunting and viewing opportunities in Unit 23. e Minimize adverse interactions between wolves and the public. e Involve the public in development of a wolf management plan in Unit 26A. (8) Furbearers Furbearers include those species of mammals that are routinely sought after by licensed trappers who place commercial value on the animals’ pelts. Furbearers found in the planning unit include beaver, red fox, Arctic fox, lynx, marten, mink, muskrat, river otter, coyote, wolverine, and wolf (for more information on wolves, see the Gray Wolf section above beginning on page 3-61). Most furbearer harvest in the planning area is by subsistence and recreational users, or is done opportunistically by local residents while engaged in other activities. There are few professional trappers operating in the planning area (Gorn 2004, Dau 2004b, Carroll 2004b). Definitive species population and distribution information is not available, and consequently, ADF&G wildlife biologists rely upon annual trapper harvest reports and opinions, information from local residents, and field observations by ADF&G personnel to gauge furbearer status and trend information. The price paid for animal pelts is the greatest determining factor in trapper harvest effort, and subsequently, in the number of pelts sealed per species per year by ADF&G (Carroll 2004b, Dau 2004b, Gorn 2004). Wolverines are reported to be common throughout Unit 22 and their numbers are stable. The reported harvest of 71 wolverines from Unit 22 in 2000-01 is the highest ever reported for the unit (Gorn 2004). Based on observations by local residents and ADF&G staff, wolverine numbers appear to be stable in Unit 23. Most of the harvest occurs within 50 miles of communities and therefore, wolverines are most abundant in remote portions of the unit (Dau 2004b). Community harvest assessments show that almost all of the surveyed communities within the planning area harvest some wolverines (Georgette et al. 2004). Hunters have reported that wolverines seem more abundant in recent years in Unit 26A; however, there have been no recent population surveys. In 1984 density was estimated at one wolverine per 54 square miles throughout Unit 26A (Carroll 2004b). River otters are found in most of the major drainages in Unit 22. Information from trapper surveys in 2000-01 indicates that otters were common and their numbers stable in most of the unit. From 1993 to 2002, reported harvest of river otters through sealing certificates ranged from 2-22 (Gorn 2004). In Unit 23, river otters were taken primarily by recreational trappers. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-62 Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS From 1993 to 2002, reported harvest of river otters through sealing certificates ranged from 0-10 annually (Dau 2004b). River otters are not commonly found in Unit 26A (Carroll 2004b). In Unit 22, beavers are most common in subunits 22A, 22B, 22C, and 22D, and appear to be increasing in subunit 22E (Gorn 2004). In Unit 23 beaver numbers are high in both the Selawik and Kobuk river drainages and they are expanding their populations both north and west. Beavers now occur as far north as the upper Kugururok River and as far west as Rabbit Creek and in the vicinity of Point Hope (Dau 2004b). Residents of Units 22 and 23 are concerned about the increase in beaver populations as these large rodents are considered a nuisance. Some of the concerns associated with increased beaver populations are damming of waterways, inhibiting movement of both salmon and people, increased risk of Giardia in drinking water, and blocking of culverts along the road system (Persons 2001, Dau 2004b). The number of beavers reported harvested through sealing certificates in Unit 22 from 1993 to 2002 ranged from 1 in 2002 to 70 in 1996 (Gorn 2004). The sealing requirement for beaver pelts was eliminated in 1999, making sealing certificates for beavers a less reliable source of harvest information (Gorn 2004, Dau 2004b). ADF&G no longer reports beaver harvests for Unit 23 because of the elimination of that requirement. Mink and martins are most common in Units 22A and 22B where the habitat is more favorable (Persons 2001). The best martin habitat in Unit 23 is in the upper Kobuk River drainage (Dau 2004b). From 1990 to 1991 martins appeared to be expanding their habitat west in Unit 23. During this time, they occurred as far west as the lower Noatak River and were locally abundant in the upper Squirrel River drainage. Since that time, martins appear to have declined in the western coastal portion of the unit (Dau 2004b). Mink inhabit areas throughout Unit 23 but little is known about their abundance or population trend (Dau 2004b). Both red and Arctic foxes are found in the planning area. Red foxes are abundant in the Nome area and common in many parts of Unit 22 (Gorn 2004) and Unit 23 (Dau 2004b). Red foxes are fairly abundant in the interior regions of Unit 26A and Arctic foxes are abundant on the coastal plain (Carroll 2004b). Both red and Arctic fox numbers were very high in 2000-01 (Dau 2004b, Gorn 2004). Rabies is a problem in both red and Arctic foxes. There is no sealing requirement for these species so no harvest information is available (Carroll 2004b). Muskrats occur throughout Unit 23 and spring muskrat hunting used to be an important subsistence activity in the area. No specific information is available on abundance, population trend, or harvest levels (Dau 2004b). Since these species occupy a wide variety of habitats, it is difficult to generalize on habitat condition. However, most of the BLM-managed land is in a natural state, permitted activities are minimal (limited mainly to special recreation permits for guided hunts with occasional permits for overland movement of mining equipment or projects such as a remote weather station or research project), and no specific threats to the quality of the habitat are known. ADF&G management goals for furbearers for Units 22, 23, and 26A, while recognizing that populations fluctuate in response to environmental factors, are to: e Maintain populations capable of sustained yield harvests in Unit 26A. e Maintain populations capable of 1986-97 harvest levels in Unit 23. e Maintain viable numbers of furbearers in Unit 22 (Carroll 2004b, Dau 2004b, Gorn 2004). Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife 3-63 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (9) Migratory Birds According to ADF&G, 471 species of bird have been positively identified in Alaska (ADF&G 2004). Many of these species occur in the planning area, including some rare western Alaska species and Asian accidentals. Numerous species of raptors inhabit the planning area including golden eagle, peregrine falcon, osprey, gyrfalcon, northern harrier, American kestrel, merlin, sharp-shinned hawk, northern goshawk, rough-legged hawk, great horned owl, great gray owl, snowy owl, northern hawk owl, short-eared owl, and boreal owl. Many of these species are uncommon to rare due to a lack of suitable habitat. Those species dependant upon forested habitats are generally most common in the eastern portions of the planning area. Wetland habitat within the planning area is used by populations of waterfowl, including ducks, geese, swans, loons, grebes, cormorants, and shorebirds. These species occupy a wide variety of habitats including coastal wetlands, ponds and lakes, and inland streams. McCarthy's Marsh and the upper Kuzitrin River located on the Seward Peninsula provide important habitat for waterfowl. These areas include about 154 square miles and 183 square miles of wetland habitat, respectively (Jandt and Morkill 1994). Based on ground brood counts between 1989 and 1993, the average number of duck broods per square mile in McCarthy’s Marsh and the upper Kuzitrin River were 25 and 28, respectively (Jandt and Morkill 1994). Although these areas are small, waterfowl production on a per unit basis was comparable to the Koyukuk and Yukon Delta NWRs, both important waterfowl brood areas in Alaska. On the Seward Peninsula study areas, American wigeon, mallard, green-winged teal, northern shoveler, and northern pintail were the predominate dabbling ducks found. Greater scaup, long- tailed duck (previously known as oldsquaw), and black scoter were the most common diving ducks. Other species observed during the surveys included tundra swan, red-necked grebe, Arctic loon, common loon, yellow-billed loon, pacific loon, greater white-fronted goose, Canada goose, and sandhill crane (Jandt and Morkill 1994, Anderson and Robinson 1991). Because of the variety of habitats preferred by the varying species of birds that migrate to Alaska each year, migratory birds are known to occupy every habitat type within the planning area including riparian, wetland, forest, shrub, and tundra. In landscapes dominated by tundra, riparian corridors consisting of tall willow and alder shrubs support the highest diversity of landbirds (BPIF 1999). Little is known about the population trends of Alaskan landbirds, but Alaskan habitats are still relatively undisturbed (BPIF 1999). In 1990, U.S. Partners in Flight was organized as a coordinated, cooperative conservation initiative focusing on reversing downward trends of declining non-game landbird species. The group is a coalition of government agencies, conservation groups, academic institutions, private businesses, and citizens. In 1992, the Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group was formed under the umbrella of the Western Working Group of the U.S. Partners in Flight program. Members include the BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), NPS, Forest Service, USGS, and ADF&G. The purpose of the Boreal Working Group is to develop and coordinate a network of integrated research, monitoring, and educational programs specific to neotropical landbirds that breed in Alaska (BPIF 1999). The Boreal Partners in Flight Working Group (1999) has identified the following priority species for western and northern Alaska: gyrfalcon, snowy owl, gray-cheeked thrush, varied thrush, blackpoll warbler, golden-crowned sparrow, Smith’s longspur, McKay's bunting, rusty blackbird, and hoary redpoll. Many of these depend upon shrub habitats, which is likely the most Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-64 Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS important landbird habitat in western Alaska (BPIF 1999). The Boreal Working Group developed a Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic Regions in 1999 The overall goal of the Landbird Conservation Plan is to keep landbirds well distributed across the landscape in Alaska. The primary conservation action recommended within the planning area is broad scale monitoring of priority species. No imminent threats have been identified for these species. Because migratory birds occupy a wide variety of habitats, it is difficult to generalize on habitat condition. However, most of the BLM-managed land is in a natural state, permitted activities are minimal, and no specific threats to the quality of the habitat are known. Those migratory bird species that are special status species (threatened, endangered, or BLM sensitive) are discussed in more detail in the Special Status Wildlife section beginning on page 3-85. Fish and Wildlife: Wildlife 3-65 Chapter III: Affected Environment JUBWUOJIAUA pepe :||| Ja}deyo Cape Lisbur 6] LM] 33 Cape Thompson Cape/ Krusenstern National _| Monument_/' + Kotz eb “le ] 12 [Rr Shaktoolik © [2 Norton Sound fare aye Unalakleet ° fot 34 5) 8} 7} 8} 9] 40] 9] 12] 13] 10188) v6 18] 7 18 Species Distribution oT Game Management Unit VZZ Dall Sheep TT ey EB Moose [__] ksp Rump Planning Area Muskox P Cape Thompson WA Population Seward Peninsula Wi. Population Map 3-11 Moose, Muskox, and Dall Sheep Distributions Ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska- ADF&G, AK Natural Heritage Program The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWY Ye BinsulUusg premes-ynqoy JUBWUOIIAUA payeyy :||| Ja}deyo 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W Oo S @ oR \ 45 wy 44 1 43 \ 8 co 6 : 5 Point Lay hs } { Cape Lisburne ge i j 61 7 2 4 . 4 Point Hope XS M33) Cape Thomipsan- 7 30 | LS — Kivalina Tot a }ay 25 fet ee "8 fas) 14 | 48 Cape? | 24 Krusenstern_/ National Monument Kotzebue top Kotzez 20 | 19 5 fiw ve 4 fisw Me { 1 i, 13 ‘as J 4 Mis ‘Shishmaret \ 4 | 38 } 37 } ln | 34 FF i] 249s ~ t rab2 [21 [20 bots te tft ~ - 16 Ie ne 5 W, °F Poms A Deering rnd 1 { 45 Wi 44 48 a e af" | 40 | 39 Norton Sound 165°W 12 13 Shaktoolik A 160°W iC 27] tol | a2 t9| 14 24 ape 2 ki ey-| 24 iy 2 oo Lf! tis Pi te, | fe 13) 14 Western Arctic Caribou Herd Wa Critical Caribou UZA Insect Relief — —— Road Cc] KSP RMP Planning Area Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska- ADF&G 2005, AK Natural Heritage Program Map 3-12 Caribou Distribution The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N SIA/dINY YesG BINsulUsg plemes-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 7. Special Status Species Special Status Species (SSS) include species from three different categories: e Those that have been proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, are officially listed as threatened or endangered, or are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), e Those listed by a state in a category such as threatened or endangered, implying potential endangerment or extinction, and/or e Those designated by the BLM State Director as sensitive. BLM policy is to conserve proposed and listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend, and to use existing authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. For candidate species, BLM policy is to conserve candidate species and their habitats to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM do not contribute to the need for the species to become listed. State laws protecting State-listed species apply to all BLM programs and actions to the extent they are consistent with Federal laws. At a minimum, sensitive species are managed the same level of protection as candidates species (BLM 2001a). Sensitive species are designated by the BLM State Director, usually in cooperation with State agencies or State Natural Heritage Programs. A designation of sensitive is generally applied to species that occur on BLM-managed lands and for which the BLM has the ability to affect conservation through management actions. In Alaska, the designation as a sensitive species usually indicates a complete inventory of species distribution has not been completed. The list of sensitive species is periodically reviewed and updated per BLM manual direction (BLM 2001a). The BLM-Alaska Sensitive Species list was last issued in October 2005 (BLM 20051). Other species that are not Federally or State listed, or that are not on the BLM sensitive species list may still be considered rare, unique, under consideration for future addition to the sensitive species list, or of special concern for some other reason. However, because some species in these categories do not fit the definition of SSS as described above, they are addressed under the appropriate Vegetation (beginning on page 3-27), Fish (beginning on page 3-47), or Wildlife (beginning on page 3-54) sections. a) Special Status Plants (1) Threatened and Endangered Species Alaska has only one Federally listed plant species. The endangered Aleutian shield-fern (Polystichium aleuticum) grows in moist, rocky alpine terrain on Adak and Atka islands. This small fern is endemic to the central portion of the Aleutian Island chain, and actually has not been relocated on Atka since its original collection in 1932. It is not expected to occur within the planning area. (2) BLM Sensitive Species Of the 32 plant species currently shown on the BLM-Alaska Sensitive Species List, only eight have been documented within the planning area (Table 3-5). However, ongoing botanical inventory by various Federal, State, university, and private groups plus opportunistic fieldwork Special Status Species: Plants 3-71 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS discovery means that new species and new collection locations are found every year. The BLM-Alaska Sensitive Species List undergoes periodic review, with the potential to add new rare species or remove species as larger, more secure populations are discovered, or taxonomic questions resolved. Information is fairly good on planning area distribution of the eight plant species identified as sensitive. Data on population size and trend is limited. Sources used to verify sensitive or rare plant species occurrence within the planning area included: e ARCTOS Database, UAF Museum Herbarium ANHP database UAF Herbarium (Northern Plant Documentation Center) Alaska Rare Plant Field Guide (Lipkin and Murray 1997) Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories (Hulten 1968) Various gray literature reports on floristic inventories, many written by Carolyn Parker, at the UAF Herbarium e Personal field notes and observations Table 3-5. BLM Sensitive Plant Species in Alaska Artemisia aleutica Aleutian wormwood Absent Artemisia globularia var. lutea purple wormwood Present Artemisia senjavinensis ellow-ball wormwood Present Aster pygmaeus Pygmy aster Absent Beckwithia glacialis ssp. alaskensis Alaskan glacier buttercup Present Botrychium ascendens moonwort Absent Claytonia ogilviensis Ogilvie Mountains springbeauty _|Absent Cochlearia sessilifolia sessile-leaved scurvy grass Absent Cryptantha shackletteana Shacklette's catseye Absent Douglasia beringensis Bering dwarf primrose Present Draba aleutica Aleutian whitlow-grass Absent Draba kananaskis tundra whitlow-grass Absent Draba micropetala alpine whitlow-grass Absent Draba murrayi Murray's whitlow-grass Absent Draba ogilviensis Ogilvie Mountains whitlow-grass_|Absent Erigeron muirii Muir's fleabane Absent Eriogonum flavum var. aquilinum Yukon wild buckwheat Absent Erysimum asperum var. angustatum narrow-leaved prairie rocket Absent Lesquerella calderi Calder's bladderpod Absent Ligusticum caldera Calder's licorice-root Absent Mertensia drummondii Drummond's bluebell Absent Oxytropis arctica var. barnebyana Arctic locoweed* Present Oxytropis kobukensis Kobuk locoweed Present Pedicularis hirsuta hairy lousewort Present Pleuropogon sabinei nodding semaphore grass Absent Poa hartzii var. alaskana Alaska bluegrass Absent Podistera yukonensis Yukon podistera Absent Potentilla stipularis stipulated cinquefoil Present Salix reticulata ssp. glabellicarpa Smooth-fruited netleaf willow Absent Saxifraga aleutica Aleutian saxifrage Absent Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-72 Special Status Species: Plants Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Senecio moresbiensis mountain avens Absent Smelowskia pyriformis pear-shaped candytuft Absent Source: IM AK-2004-028 *Formerly a category 2 candidate species During the last 12 years (1992-2004) botanical inventory has focused on two main regions within the planning area where the BLM manages large blocks of public lands: the Squirrel River to the north and the central/southern Nulato Hills to the south. Fieldwork in the Squirrel River (1992-96) initially targeted the floodplain and riparian corridor along the main stem of the river, and then shifted to upland and alpine areas adjacent to the major south-flowing tributaries. Fieldwork in the Nulato Hills was conducted primarily in alpine habitats (1997-98). Valuable new information on location and population size of sensitive and other rare plants was documented, as was the occurrence of many range extensions and connections. Smaller BLM parcels in the Seward Peninsula have been botanically explored by BLM botanists, natural resource specialists, and wildlife biologists to a certain extent, including the Kigluaik Mountains, Sinuk River uplands, South Fork Buckland River, Wrench Lake area, McCarthy's Marsh, and Clear Creek Hot Springs. Botanical collections have been made at specific sites on the Baldwin Peninsula and Pah River flats, north of the Seward Peninsula. Opportunistic plant collections have been made during reindeer and caribou habitat assessments and during compliance visits to mine site/gravel sale sites or recreation impact river surveys. Ranking System BLM-Alaska has relied on the ranking system developed by the ANHP and The Nature Conservancy, plus an international network of natural heritage programs and conservation database centers that assess state and global rarity, for assistance in developing sensitive species lists for Alaskan plants, birds, mammals, and fish. A brief overview of the global and state ranking criteria is given below. Table 3-6. Global and State Ranking Criteria G1 Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (1-5 occurrences, or very few remaining individuals), or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction. Considered critically endangered throughout its range. G2 Imperiled globally because of rarity (6-20 occurrences) or because of other factors demonstrably making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. Considered endangered throughout its range. G3 Either very rare and local throughout its range or found locally (even abundantly at some locations) in a restricted range (21-100 occurrences). Considered threatened throughout its range. G4 Widespread and apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G5 Demonstrably secure globally, though it may be quite rare in parts of its range, especially at the periphery. G#G# | Global rank of species uncertain, best described as a range between the two ranks. G#Q Taxonomically questionable. G#T# _| Global rank of the species, and global rank of the described subspecies or variety Special Status Species: Plants 3-73 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS G? Unranked. $1 Critically imperiled in state because of extreme rarity (1-5 occurrences, or very few remaining individuals), or because of some factor of its biology making it especially vulnerable to extinction. Considered critically endangered throughout the state. $2 Imperiled in the state because of rarity (6-20 occurrences), or because of other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state. $3 Rare or uncommon in the state (21-100 occurrences). SP Occurring in nearby state or province; not yet reported in state, but probably will be encountered with further inventory. S#S#__| State rank of species uncertain, best described as a range between the two ranks. S? Unranked. ? Inexact. Q Questionable taxonomy. Source: Lipkin and Murray 1997 Map 3-13 shows all special status plant locations in the planning area, regardless of land ownership. BLM Sensitive Species This section describes the BLM-Alaska sensitive plant species occurring in the planning area. Discussions cover species locations, brief habitat data, population numbers and trends (if known), any known threats, and rare plant rankings. See Table 3-5 on page 3-72 for a list of the sensitive plant species described in the text, showing their scientific and common names and ANHP.-assigned ranks. Descriptions of other rare plant species that occur in the planning area but are not designated BLM sensitive species are included in the Vegetation section under Rare Plants Not Classified as BLM-Alaska Special Status Species beginning on page 3-32. Artemisia globularia var. lutea (purple wormwood). This short, bright yellow-flowered member of the aster family is endemic to the southwestern Seward Peninsula and to adjacent islands in the Bering Sea (St. Matthew, St. Lawrence, and Pribilof islands). It is found at low elevation alpine habitats, often on dry slopes among granite scree or boulders, in gravels along stream banks, or on exposed moist acidic tundra with dwarf willow, forbs, and sedges. This species has been found in four locations in Alaska, one of which is within the planning area. Three islands in the Bering Sea are the principal locations: St. Lawrence and the Pribilof islands are Native corporation owned, and St. Matthew Island is part of the Alaska Maritime NWR. However, the Crete Creek collection site on the western flank of the Kigluaik Mountains is on low priority State-selected lands, with underlying BLM management (Map 3-13). On St. Matthew Island, collection dates range from 1954 to 1982. Collection dates span from 1982 to 1993 at Crete Creek. No information is readily available on population size or trend, but the presence of relocatable populations over periods of 28 and 11 years indicates persistence over time. Threats to these four populations include natural disturbances, reindeer grazing, and human trampling. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-74 Special Status Species: Plants Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Ranking: ANHP — G4T1T2Q/S182; currently on BLM-Alaska SSS plant list. The Atlas of Rare Endemic Vascular Plants of the Arctic, developed by the international Conservation of Flora and Fauna program in 1999, places A. globularia var. lutea in the IUCN category of Lower Risk (taxa that do not satisfy the criteria of critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable) (Talbot et al. 1999). Artemisia senjavinensis (yellow-ball wormwood). This low-growing, yellow-flowered sagebrush relative is endemic to the Seward Peninsula and southeastern Chukota Peninsula in Russia. Found at a range of elevations, from rocky coastal headlands to alpine scree slopes and ridge tops, it favors dry calcareous sites and limestone outcrops. The Seward Peninsula is a patchwork quilt of land ownership, and the known populations of Artemisia senjavinensis (yellow-ball wormwood) reflect this. This sensitive plant species is found on Native corporation patented, interim-conveyed, and selected lands, on State-selected lands, on dual-selected lands, and on military withdrawal lands. All of the selected lands are currently under BLM management, and some proportion will likely remain so. Approximately one-half of the known locations of A. senjavinensis occur on State-selected or Native corporation land (Map 3-13). Information on population size, trend, and potential threats is not available. However, Artemisia senjavinensis has been collected from close to 30 sites on the Seward Peninsula, including the Kigluaik Mountains, Anvil Mountain, southwest of Council, Bluff, northeast of Cape Rodney, Lost River, Wales, and Tin City, from 1954 to 2003, so it is assumed the species is persisting in a sound ecological condition. Ranking: ANHP — G3/S2S3; currently on BLM-Alaska SSS plant list. Beckwithia glacialis ssp. alaskensis (Alaskan glacier buttercup). (Most recent taxonomy is tentatively Ranunculus glacialis).' This short, white-flowered buttercup (petals often tinged with red) represents a remarkable disjunction from the European Alps, being found in only two areas in North America — eastern Greenland and the Kigluaik Mountains of the southern Seward Peninsula (Map 3-13). It has been found at seven locations within the Kigluaik Mountains, typically on steep, south-facing scree slopes mantled with small flat pieces of schist and shale (Murray and Lipkin 1998, Talbot et al. 1999). This species appears to tolerate substrate ranging from acidic to neutral to slightly basic. This sensitive species plant has been found in Alaska only in the Kigluaik Mountains. The Kigluaik Mountains are State-selected, with BLM management in the interim. The State has assigned low priority to these selections, and it is quite likely that most or all of the Kigluaik Mountains will remain under BLM management. Murray and Lipkin (1998) found hundreds of plants at each of seven locations in the Kigluaik Mountains, and estimated they saw many thousands of B. glacialis ssp. alaskensis during their floristic survey of the area. These are ' Due to the dynamic nature of plant taxonomy, recent molecular work in Austria with Alaska plant material indicates the species shown as Beckwithia glacialis ssp. alaskensis on the 2004 BLM-Alaska SSS list is now tentatively understood to be Ranunculus glacialis (Murray and Lipkin 2005). Because the widely referenced Rare Plant Field Guide to Alaska Plants (Lipkin and Murray 1997), the Atlas of Rare Endemic Vascular Plants of the Arctic (Talbot et al. 1999), and the 2004 BLM-Alaska SSS list use the Beckwithia nomenclature, Kobuk-Seward Peninsula planning documents will continue to use Beckwithia glacialis ssp. alaskensis. Special Status Species: Plants 3-75 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS remote locations, judged to be protected by their isolation (Murray and Lipkin 1998). No information is available on population trend. Ranking: ANHP — G4T3T4/S2; currently on BLM-Alaska SSS plant list. The Atlas of Rare Endemic Vascular Plants of the Arctic places B. glacialis ssp. alaskensis in the IUCN category of Vulnerable (taxa not critically endangered or endangered but facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term future) (Talbot et al. 1999). Douglasia beringensis (Bering dwarf primrose). An East Beringian endemic species (e.g., restricted to western Alaska), the compact pink-flowered member of the primrose family was new to North America when it was discovered at Trail Creek, Seward Peninsula in 1992 (Kelso et al. 1994). Since then additional populations have been found in northcentral and southwestern Seward Peninsula (Crossfox Butte and Sinuk River uplands, respectively), the central and southern Nulato Hills, and the Lime Hills in southwestern Alaska. Only the Lime Hills populations are outside the planning area. (Note: a small, poorly preserved specimen that may be this species was collected in the Kokrines Hills northeast of Galena in 1979.) (Map 3- 13). Small populations of Douglasia beringensis have been found on NPS and State-selected lands in northcentral and southwestern Seward Peninsula. Larger populations of several thousand individuals have been documented on BLM lands in the central and southern Nulato Hills. Outside the planning area, two small populations were discovered on BLM-managed lands in the Lime Hills in southwestern Alaska. The Seward Peninsula and Lime Hills populations are small, and grow on limestone outcrops in alpine habitats. Three of the Nulato Hills populations are larger, varying from 100-2,000 individuals to several thousand plants, and are found on acidic substrates in fine to coarse alpine screeslopes (Parker 1999). No information is available on population trend or threats, although most of the populations inhabit remote mountainous terrain. Ranking: ANHP — G2/S2; currently on BLM-Alaska SSS plant list. Oxytropis arctica var. barnebyana (Barneby’s locoweed). Taxonomic uncertainty and difficulties delayed conclusive identification of scattered collections of white-flowered Oxytropis made from northwest Alaska during 1989-2003, and made comparison with the original Kotzebue area population collected in 1966 and named by Dr. Stanley Welsh in 1968 more difficult. A status survey conducted in 1984 for the FWS established the Oxytropis arctica var. barnebyana (known affectionately as OAB) subpopulations in Kotzebue as totaling 1,487 individuals (Lipkin 1985a). OAB was treated as a Category 2 candidate species under the ESA and each new version of the Alaska rare plant field guide treated OAB as a rare and vulnerable species with a single population locus in Kotzebue (Murray 1980, Murray and Lipkin 1987, Lipkin and Murray 1997). The series of conservation measures taken over the years is briefly described below, under Conservation Agreement for Oxytropis arctica var. barnebyana. OAB has been documented in five main locations in northwestern Alaska: Kotzebue (USAF withdrawal), Squirrel River (BLM), Noatak National Preserve (NPS), Cape Krusenstern National Monument (NPS), and Bering Land Bridge National Preserve (NPS) (Map 3-13). The largest known populations occur on BLM-managed lands in the Squirrel River. A BLM/FWS crew Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-76 Special Status Species: Plants Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS conducted a survey of OAB at the North Fork and No Name Creek,” Squirrel River drainage, in July 1996 and made a population count of 15,782 individuals for the area they surveyed (Moran 1997). The habitat most often occupied by OAB in northwest Alaska is mid to upper floodplain terraces, but it is also found on older vegetated beach ridges and well-drained upland meadows. Given the opportunity, OAB may colonize gravel pads and less traveled gravel roadsides, as it has done in a few locations one to three miles south of Kotzebue. Results of DNA analysis of OAB conducted from 1997 to 2001 suggested that the original population found by Welsh in 1966 was not distinct from other populations Alaska, such as those in the Squirrel River (Jorgensen et al. 2003). This was encouraging news, since the Kotzebue population was increasingly threatened and had suffered some unavoidable habitat loss. Genetic analysis performed to this point provide no support for special conservation status for OAB (Jorgensen et al. 2003). However, known sites for OAB in Alaska still number approximately 13, well within the 6-20 range of known populations used by ANHP for their S2 ranking. The Kotzebue OAB population remains vulnerable to continued municipal development and infrastructure expansion. As previously stated, a completed status survey of OAB in 1984 documented the Kotzebue population as totaling 1,487 individuals in several subpopulations (Lipkin 1985a). By July 1995 when a BLM/FWS field crew conducted a census of the Kotzebue OAB population they discovered a significant increase to approximately 8,391 flowering and vegetative plants (Willeck 1996). A BLM botanical inventory during July 1995 discovered and made collections from a large population of white-flowered Oxytropis on BLM-managed lands at No Name Creek, Squirrel River (Meyers 1995a). During July 1996 a BLM/FWS field crew carried out an inventory and population estimate for the white-flowered Oxytropis at both No Name Creek and the North Fork, in the Squirrel River drainage. They estimated a total of 15,782 individuals (Moran and Meyers 1996). As of December 2004, no further census work has been conducted for the Kotzebue or Squirrel River populations of OAB. The prevalence of natural conditions in the Squirrel River and occasional site visits during other BLM fieldwork indicate no major changes have occurred in OAB population numbers in the Squirrel River drainage. However, the years 1996-2000 were hard on the Kotzebue OAB population because of habitat and biomass losses due to Congressionally-mandated restoration at U.S. Air Force (USAF) Long Range Radar Site (LRRS) and White Alice Communication Site gravel pads three miles south of Kotzebue. Having the OAB Conservation Plan in place moderated the losses but could not prevent them. In addition, pond dredging and gravel stockpiling by a local Native village corporation adjacent to and within OAB beach ridge habitat just south of Kotzebue negatively impacted OAB numbers, even though some mitigation activities were carried out. BLM, FWS, and ADNR Plant Materials Center personnel plus local volunteers worked diligently on mitigation measures for OAB from 1995-2002: mapping, staking, and flagging threatened OAB populations; transplanting; seed collection; greenhouse grow out in Palmer and planting of seedlings in Kotzebue; broadcast of seed; and survivorship monitoring (Moore 2004, Meyers 2003a). The population trend for the generally remote populations of OAB in the central and northern Seward Peninsula, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Squirrel River, and mid and upper ? No Name Creek is a local name for unnamed tributary to the Squirrel River immediately adjacent to and west of the North Fork. Special Status Species: Plants 3-77 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Noatak River drainage is estimated as stable. However, it is likely that OAB population numbers in the Kotzebue area have decreased from their 1995 levels due to habitat and biomass loss described above. As of September 2002, the OAB subpopulation found on low beach ridge habitat just south of Kotzebue (an area locally known as “south tent city”) showed signs of competitive decline in vigor and number of plants. In the course of natural succession several species of willow and dwarf ericaceous shrubs are starting to overtop, shade, and crowd the lower-growing OAB rosettes (Meyers 2002). However, given time and the current low levels of disturbance at the large empty gravel pads at the USAF LRRS three miles south of Kotzebue, the vigorous colonization characteristic of OAB should allow that species to regain lost population numbers in the Kotzebue area. Ranking: ANHP — G4?T2/S2; currently on BLM-Alaska SSS plant list. The Atlas of Rare Endemic Vascular Plants of the Arctic places OAB in the IUCN category of Lower risk, Near threatened, for taxa which do not qualify for conservation dependent, but which are close to qualifying for vulnerable (Talbot et al. 1999). (Note that CAFF uses the synonym Oxytropis sordida ssp. barnebyana.) Conservation Agreement for Oxytropis arctica var. barnebyana In April 1996 a five-year Conservation Agreement was signed by FWS and USAF to conserve, protect, and conduct mitigation practices for the population of Oxytropis arctica var. barnebyana at the Kotzebue LRRS. The BLM, ADNR Plant Materials Center, and UAF were partners in this effort. After the original Conservation Agreement expired in 2001, USAF supplied additional funding through their project Propagate Oxytrope Kotzebue, which ran from 2001 to 2003 for further mitigation measures. In cooperation with the UAF Herbarium, BLM wrote a proposal for DNA analysis of the Kotzebue and Squirrel River O. arctica var. barnebyana populations, for further clarification of taxonomic uncertainties concerning this species. The proposal was funded by USAF in March 1998, and became part of Master’s thesis research to examine taxonomic and biogeographic questions involving the Oxytropis campestris and O. arctica complexes in Arctic and interior areas of Alaska (Jorgensen et al. 2003). During the years spanning 1995 to November 2004 OAB conservation and mitigation efforts carried out by BLM and other Conservation Agreement partners have included: mapping, staking, and flagging threatened OAB populations; transplanting; seed collection; population census of Kotzebue and Squirrel River populations; search for additional populations on the Baldwin Peninsula south of Kotzebue; greenhouse grow-out in Palmer and planting of seedlings in Kotzebue; broadcast of seed in Kotzebue; survivorship monitoring in Kotzebue; and informal consultations and site visits with interested municipal, State and Federal agencies, Tribal organizations and private groups on the status and location of OAB populations in Kotzebue and elsewhere in northwest Alaska (Moore 2004, Meyers 2003). Oxytropis kobukensis (Kobuk locoweed) occurs in very specialized habitats within the planning area, all on NPS-managed lands (Map 3-13). O. kobukensis is restricted to three active dune fields found along a 25-mile stretch of the Kobuk River from Kavet Creek to Onion Portage, and to portions of stabilized, vegetated sand sheets surrounding these dunes. The Great Kobuk Sand Dunes, the Little Kobuk Sand Dunes, plus the Hunt River dunes are all on the south side of the Kobuk River, within Kobuk Valley National Park. Botanists have searched small remnant dune fields near the active Kobuk River dunes and other dune fields scattered across the state, but have not found any additional populations of O. kobukensis. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-78 Special Status Species: Plants Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Oxytropis kobukensis is a narrow endemic, restricted to sand dune-associated substrates in the Kobuk River valley. Status survey field work in 1984 documented five populations, several of which were quite large, containing many thousands of individual plants. Total population was estimated at possibly over one million, and perhaps as many as several million (Lipkin 1985b). Information on population trend is not readily available, but in 1984 the plants were healthy, propagating vegetatively (with only a few seedlings seen), and producing fairly abundant flowers and fruits. Main causes of mortality were judged to be from wind excavation or burial, both characteristic of sand dune habitats. Populations at the major sites appeared stable, with vegetative reproduction adequate to maintain the population (Lipkin 1985b). No current threats exist, and all populations remain under the protective management of the NPS. Long-term, climatically-driven cycles of dune expansion or contraction could potentially affect population size and health in the future. Ranking: ANHP — G2/S2; currently on BLM-Alaska SSS plant list. Potentilla stipularis (stipulated cinquefoil). This Asian disjunct and yellow-flowered member of the rose family has been collected at only six locations in north and northwest Alaska (Map 3- 13). For some years the earliest collection near Umiat (pre-1968) was the only site known in the state. In 1980 and 1996 Potentilla stipularis was discovered on BLM land (now State-selected) at two sites on the West Fork of the Buckland River. In 2001 and 2002 botanical inventory in the Noatak National Preserve by UAF Herbarium personnel, with some assistance from BLM, found P. stipularis growing in a total of three locations in the Anisak River/Desperation Lake areas and along the crest of the western Brooks Range (headwaters of Kagvik Creek), outside the planning area. P. stipularis often grows on moist, vegetated floodplains or low river banks, in grassy meadows on riparian terraces or in moist Dryas-heath tundra adjacent to lakeshores or alpine creeks. It has been collected from two sites in the Buckland River drainage on State-selected access corridors within larger blocks of BLM land. In August 1996, at the West Fork of Buckland River, a BLM field crew counted a small population of 59 healthy, post-flowering and post-fruiting individuals in a roughly 20 by 80 foot patch in a grassy meadow ringed by willow and alder (Meyers 1996a). It was reported as “abundant” along banks of the West Fork, Buckland River in 1980 (Lipkin 1995). Otherwise, population sizes and trends are largely unknown. The original, pre-1968 collection (for a long time the only known location in Alaska for P. Stipularis) is in the vicinity of Umiat, within the NPR-A, on the west side of the Colville River (Lipkin 2005, Hulten 1968). With the exception of Umiat, these are remote to infrequently visited areas. Several populations are adjacent to large rivers, which could be periodically impacted by natural disturbances such as flooding, bank erosion, and ice scour. Ranking: ANHP — G5/S1; currently on BLM-Alaska SSS plant list. Pedicularis hirsuta (hairy lousewort). This pink-flowered member of the figwort family is known from only one location in Alaska, although it is more common in the Arctic of eastern Canada, Greenland, Arctic Asia, and northern Norway. It is similar to the widespread and abundant Pedicularis lanata, found across Arctic Alaska, Arctic Canada, and Greenland, and may have occasionally been overlooked in Alaska due to its resemblance to the more common species. It was collected in July 1992 by Alaskan and Soviet botanists from the lower, north- facing slopes of Mount Boyan, south of Kuzitrin Lake in southcentral Seward Peninsula, on Special Status Species: Plants 3-79 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment jualWUOIAUA papeyy ||| Je}deyo 70°N 68°N 66°N Point Lay: Cape Lisburne, Cape Krusenstern National Monument Norton Sound 165°W 17 | 46 BN | smi 4/43/92) a] Pot | 2 £50 6/5 [21 | 20} 19 18/ 17 |16 8S | 24 | 23 | 22 Aad re Testo %'Noatak National Preserve Noatak River: wi 1 vy 'Kobuk Valley National Park Rive, wi x 12 Selawik National 4 Unalakleet 160°W Wildlife Refuge 10. ON 2 haw 8S gel’ o Ruby 10 R10) 19/12) 13) 14 " 12 3 “4 6 | Poorman 8} 9/10] 11) 12/13 | 14/168! 46 M15E | 7 } 18 BLM - Alaska Sensitive Plant Species Artemisia globularia var. lutea Artemisia senjavinensis Beckwithia glacialis ssp. alaskensis O- Rare Plant Note: Tightly clustered plant locations have been moved slightly in order to be seen on Douglasia beringensis this map Oxytropis arctica var. barnebyana — Road Oxytropis kobukensis KSP RMP Pedicularis hirsuta Potentilla stipularis Planning Area C@@e00000 Generalized Land Status _ Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service a Native Patent or IC Native Selected State Patent or TA State Selected Map 3-13 BLM-Alaska Sensitive Plant Species Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 Wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: AK Natural Heritage Program, USDOI - BLM 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIS/dWY YeIG BINsuIUsg puemas-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS b) Special Status Fish (1) Threatened and Endangered Species There are no threatened, endangered, or candidate fish species present within the planning area. (2) BLM Sensitive Species At least six of the Kigluaik Mountain’s 50 lakes located 30 miles north of Nome contain populations of Arctic char (Kigluaik Arctic char) that were designated as a BLM Sensitive Species due to their unique genetic makeup, body form, slow growth, and susceptibility to overharvest (Kretsinger 1987, Webb 1999). These lakes are Fall Creek (upper, middle, and lower), Crater, Snow Creek, and Gold Run, as shown on Map 3-14. This lake habitat comprises approximately 500 acres (Kretsinger 1987, Webb 1999). The fish are present in the nutrient- poor alpine lakes of the Kigluaik Mountains, which are ice-covered nine months of the year. The cold water and limited forage base afforded these fish result in slow-growth and long-lived fish. Genetic analysis performed by the BLM on fish collected from Fall Creek and Crater lakes indicate the fish were more closely related to European fish, as opposed to other Alaskan, Russian, or British Columbian stocks (Webb 1999). Although genetic samples were collected and meristic measurements were recorded by the BLM, and species presence in some of the lakes has been documented (Webb 1999), no population estimates have been made due to budget constraints, though baseline studies are scheduled to begin in 2006 at Fall Creek and Crater lakes. Recreation use in the Kigluaik Mountains is increasing based upon the number of hikers and OHV users who visited the Glacial Lake sockeye salmon counting camp from 2000 to 2005, and increased fishing pressure on char-bearing lakes is likely. Table 3-7. Fish Special Status Species Occurring in the Planning Area Scientific Name Common Name Occurrence in Planning Area BLM Sensitive Species Salvelinus alpinus Kigluaik Arctic char Limited to lakes in the Kigluaik Mountains Special Status Species: Fish 3-83 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment juswuoAU pepeyy :||| Ja}deyo Lakes Likely Map 3-14 Containing Arctic Char Lake Likely to Contain Arctic Char Lake Unknown to Contain Arctic Char Lake Unlikely to Contain Arctic Char Generalized Land Status igad Bureau of Land Management wa Native Selected State Patent or TA State Selected Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 es |Mi/CS Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWY Ye ejnsulusd premag-4ngoy c) Special Status Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (1) Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species There are two threatened species, Steller’s eider and spectacled eider, and one candidate species, Kittlitz’s murrelet, in the planning area (Table 3-8). There is no designated critical habitat within the planning area, although there are two designated Critical Habitat units off the coast of the planning area. Table 3-8. Wildlife Special Status Species Likely to Occur in the Planning Area Polystricta stelleri Steller’s eider Casual Somateria fischeri Brachyramphus brevirostris Spectacled eider Kittlitz’s murrelet Rare Rare to uncommon Branta bernicla Black brant Common/uncommon Calidris canutus Red knot Uncommon/common Catharus minimus Gray-cheeked thrush Common breeder Cepphus grylle Black guillemot Uncommon/rare Clangula hyemalis Old squaw Abundant breeder Contopus cooperi Olive-sided flycatcher Rare breeder Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan Casual Dendroica striata Blackpoll warbler Common breeder Falco peregrinus tundrius Arctic peregrine falcon Uncommon Gavia adamsii Yellow-billed loon Uncommon Gavia stellata Red-throated loon Common to abundant Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin duck Uncommon breeder Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit Casual/accidental Lynx canadensis Canada lynx Common Melanitta nigra Black scoter Common breeder Melanitta perspicillata Surf scoter Common/uncommon Numenius tahitensis Bristle-thighed curlew Rare breeder Plectrophenax hyperboreus McKay's bunting Uncommon/rare Somateria spectabilis King eider Rare migrant/breeder Tryngites subruficollis Buff-breasted sandpiper Very rare migrant (a) Steller’s Eider Steller’s eider probably occurs within the planning area only as a migrant or rare summer visitor (Map 3-15). A few non-breeding birds may summer in Norton Sound and other areas off the coast of the Seward Peninsula (Kessel 1989). The Alaska breeding population is listed as threatened (Federal Register 1997). Current breeding distribution encompasses the Arctic coastal regions of northern Alaska from Wainwright to Prudhoe Bay up to 56 miles inland, and Arctic coastal regions of Russia (Federal Register 1997). Eiders have been documented near Point Lay during aerial surveys on the North Slope between 1986 and 2002 (FWS 2002). Special Status Species: Wildlife 3-85 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Historically, Steller’s eider was a common breeder in the Yukon-Delta but is now rarely found in the area. They apparently nested in low numbers on the Seward Peninsula in the late 1800s (Kessel 1989). Preferred nesting habitat is tundra with numerous ponds of various sizes. They are not as closely tied to the coastal areas as the other eider species. A recovery plan has been developed for the species but the limited distribution of eiders within the planning area and the limited amount of BLM-managed land in the area eiders are most likely to occur make implementation of recovery actions within the planning area unlikely. (b) Spectacled Eider The spectacled eider is listed as a threatened species throughout its range in Alaska (Federal Register 1993b). Historically, spectacled eiders nested discontinuously along the coast of Alaska from Nushagak Peninsula on Bristol Bay to Barrow and east nearly to the Yukon border. Today, almost all spectacled eiders of the North Slope population breed north of 70° latitude between Icy Cape and the Shaviovik River (Federal Register 2001), generally within 43 miles of the coast. The primary breeding areas are located outside of the planning area. Small numbers of spectacled eiders may nest within the planning area near Point Lay (Map 3-15). Spectacled eiders molt in Norton Sound and Ledyard Bay. Both of these areas are designated as Critical Habitat (Federal Register 2001) and are located off the coast of the planning area. Norton Sound is the principal staging and molting area (July-October) for nesting females and juveniles from the Yukon-Delta population. Up to 4,030 spectacled eiders have been observed in Norton Sound at one time (Federal Register 2001). Ledyard Bay is one of the primary molting grounds for female spectacled eiders nesting on the North Slope. Aerial surveys in 1995 found 33,192 spectacled eiders in Ledyard Bay (Peterson et al. 1999). Post breeding migration corridors are offshore in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. Adult males are at sea for approximately 11 months of the year while adult females spend eight to nine months of the year at sea (Peterson et al. 2000). The recovery plan for the spectacled eider (FWS 1996) identifies recovery criteria and preliminary management actions needed for delisting. Because of the lack of basic information on spectacled eider distribution, abundance, and population ecology, interim recovery efforts focus on collecting this basic information and targeting known sources of mortality. The limited distribution of eiders within the planning area and the limited amount of BLM-managed land in the area eiders are most likely to occur make implementation of preliminary recovery actions within the planning area unlikely. The following specific guidelines for activities within the breeding range of spectacled eiders have been developed as part of the recovery plan (FWS 1996). Habitat in the project area should be assessed to determine if eiders are likely to use the area for nesting or brood rearing. The following activities should be prohibited within 656 feet of spectacled eider nest sites: Ground level activity (by foot or vehicle) from May 20 through August 1. Construction of permanent facilities, placement of fill, or alteration of habitat. Introduction of high noise levels within 656 feet of nest sites (from activities at potentially greater distances), May 20 through August 1. These may include but are not limited to airports, blasting, and compressor stations. (c) Kittlitz’s Murrelet Kittlitz’s murrelet is a Beringian species that nests along most coastal regions from southwestern to western Alaska (Day et al. 1999). In 2001, the FWS was petitioned to list the Kittlitz’s murrelet as a threatened or endangered species with designated critical habitat. It was Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-86 Special Status Species: Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS listed as a candidate species on May 4, 2004 (Federal Register 2004). The scarcity of breeding records makes determination of exact breeding range difficult. In Alaska, the majority of the summer populations are found in three locations: Southeastern Alaska, Prince William Sound, and Cook Inlet (Day et al. 1999). In western Alaska and Bering Sea islands, Kittlitz’s murrelet breeds on the Seward Peninsula westward from Nome to Wales and possibly at Sledge Island (Kessel 1989). Kessel classifies it as a rare breeder on the western half of the Seward Peninsula (Map 3-15). Summer sightings between Nome and Cape Woolley suggest nesting in the Kigluaik Mountains. It also nests north of Kotzebue, from Kivalina to Cape Thomson in the foothills of Brooks Range, and as far north as Cape Lisburne and the Lisburne Hills. In northern Alaska, suitable habitat is lacking north of Cape Beaufort, so the species occurs rarely and probably does not breed north of that location (Day et al. 1999). Nesting habitat consists of unvegetated, scree slopes or steep, rocky slopes; rarely on cliff faces (Day et al. 1999). Nesting sites are most often inland, up to 16 miles from the coast (Kessel 1989). The winter marine range is poorly known. Few sightings of the species during the winter indicate they probably winter at sea. There is no reliable population information at this time. Indications are that a substantial proportion of the world population died as a result of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989; one estimate of this mortality was 5-10 percent (Van Vliet and McAllister 1994). This species is sparsely distributed within the planning area. It would be very difficult to inventory nesting habitat in a cost effective manner. There are no known risks to the habitat or species within the planning area. (2) BLM Sensitive Species Nineteen birds and one mammal identified as BLM sensitive species occur within the planning area on more than an accidental basis (Table 3-8). Information on distribution, habitat condition, and population trends for most of these species is limited (Map 3-16 and Map 3-17). Only those species occurring in the planning area on more than an accidental basis are discussed below. Red-throated loon (Gavia stellata) is a non-resident breeder throughout the planning area. Kessel (1989) identified it as a common breeder on the Seward Peninsula. It is most abundant in coastal lowlands, but occurs where suitable wetlands are present. According to Barr et al. (2000), red-throated loons prefer tundra and coastal habitats but may be found in the mountains up to 3,280 feet and in some forested regions. In Alaska, red-throated loons declined by 53 percent from 1977 to 1993. Most of the decline appears to be in western tundra (Groves et al. 1996, McCaffery 1998). Possible mortality factors in Alaska include subsistence hunting and entanglement in fishing nets. Mammalian and avian predation is a common cause of mortality of eggs and chicks. Egg predation by Arctic foxes may be high in years with low rodent populations. Competition with larger loon species for nesting sites may also be a factor (Barr et al. 2000). Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii) is a relatively rare bird in the Arctic tundra regions of North America. A petition to list the species is currently under review by FWS. The yellow-billed loon breeds sparsely in lowlands around Kotzebue Sound north to Point Hope and in large numbers on the North Slope of Alaska (North 1994). Kessel (1989) classifies it as an uncommon migrant and breeder on the Seward Peninsula while being more common on the northern half of the Special Status Species: Wildlife 3-87 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Peninsula. Earnst (2004) shows yellow-billed loons breeding in McCarthy’s Marsh, Selawik NWR, Imuruk Basin, and southern Norton Sound (Map 3-15). This species winters in southeast Alaska. Nests are usually located in low lying, tundra near the coast. Preferred nest sites are located near large, low rimmed lakes or slow moving rivers. They are occasionally taken by subsistence hunters and frequently drown in fishing nets (North 1994). There is potential for impact to this species from oil development in breeding areas on the North Slope. The wetlands of Seward Peninsula and Selawik NWR were surveyed in 1992-93 and 1996-97 using standard waterfowl breeding pair survey methods. Surveys of the two areas combined, which encompassed all likely yellow-billed loon breeding habitat in western Alaska from the Seward Peninsula north to Point Hope, yielded a population index of 730 + 126 yellow-billed loons (Earnst 2004). When combined with an estimate of 50 loons on St. Lawrence Island (Fair 2002), the total population index for yellow-billed loons in western Alaska was 780 individuals. In March 2004, a consortium of environmental groups petitioned the FWS to list the yellow-billed loon under the ESA (Center for Biological Diversity 2004). The FWS is currently considering the petition for listing and will make a finding in the near future. Trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator) are uncommon in the planning area, occurring primarily in central and southern Alaska (Mitchell 1994) (Map 3-16). They are normally found in forested areas but are casual breeders west of the taiga of interior Alaska (Hansen et al. 1971). Kessel (1989) cites one record of trumpeter swan eggs collected on the Seward Peninsula in 1902. Breeding swans prefer secluded wetland areas containing extensive areas of shallow lakes with abundant emergent vegetation. Adjacent waters and marshes are important for foraging. They have been relatively unaffected by human development in Alaska and during a 1990 census were found to number over 13,000 statewide (Mitchell 1994). Black brant (Branta bernicla) breed in coastal areas in the northern half of the planning area (Reed et al. 1998) and are common migrants and rare breeders on the Seward Peninsula (Kessel 1989) (Map 3-16). The Alaska population winters along the Pacific coast from Alaska south to Baja California (Reed et al. 1998). Many migrants fly over the Seward Peninsula. Black brant often nest in colonies near salt marshes or on broad estuarine deltas supporting low vegetation. To avoid predators they often builds nest on islands in small ponds or river deltas, on small offshore islands, or on gravel spits. Many failed and non-breeding black brant migrate to the Arctic coastal plain to molt. According to Reed et al. (1998) subsistence hunting is one of the most important factors regulating population size in combination with predation by foxes. Statewide in Alaska, total subsistence harvest of brant in 1994 was approximately 10,000 birds (Reed et al. 1998). Population decline in Alaska since the 1960s is primarily attributed to reductions in the nesting population in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta during the 1970s and early 1980s. Although the number of nests has increased since the 1980s, numbers still appear to be below historic levels. Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) is an uncommon breeder on the Seward Peninsula where it is widely distributed along clear, shallow, rapidly flowing creeks and rivers (Kessel 1989). This widespread species is also known to breed along glacial lakes, in tundra ponds, and perhaps rarely on offshore rocks in marine waters. It is found throughout much of Alaska, south of the Brooks Range and west to the Seward Peninsula (Robertson and Goudie 1999) (Map 3-16). Harlequin ducks have been recorded over most of Alaska except the Arctic coast (Johnsen and Herter 1989). Most harlequins apparently migrate along the western coast of Alaska to and from wintering grounds further south. Because of their range and habitat preferences for more remote and harsh environments, harlequin duck populations and their Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-88 Special Status Species: Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS preferred habitat in Alaska have been relatively unaffected by human disturbances and encroaching developments (ADF&G 1994c). Long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis), also called oldsquaw, is one of the most common waterfowl on the Seward Peninsula (Kessel 1989). They are widely distributed throughout coastal and interior lowlands, including McCarthy's Marsh and Imuruk Basin. They nest along lagoon shores, in river estuaries, or about freshwater lakes and ponds. In Alaska, deep Arctophila dominated ponds are used early in the season. During breeding, shallow ponds and braided streams are used (Robertson and Savard 2002). After breeding, most adults and fledglings move to coastal ponds and lagoons, or protected marine waters to molt. They commonly winter in the Aleutian Islands and southern Bering Sea. According to Hodges et al. (1996) the breeding population in Alaska has declined 75 percent since 1977 and continues to decline (Conant et al. 1999). Factors contributing to the decline may include subsistence harvest and ingestion of lead shot. Twenty percent of females nesting on the Yukon- Kuskokwim Delta were exposed to ingested lead (Robertson and Savard 2002). There is documented decline in long-tailed duck numbers in Waterfowl Production Units (WPUs) surveyed by the FWS in Alaska, particularly in the tundra habitat zone of western Alaska (Kotzebue Sound, Seward Peninsula, Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, and Bristol Bay) (Conant and Groves 1998). Black scoter (Melanitta nigra) is common and widely distributed throughout the planning area, breeding on the Seward Peninsula, Kotzebue Sound, and Arctic coastal plain. Molting occurs south of the planning area on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Black scoters winter in the Aleutian Islands and along the southern coast of Alaska. Nesting habitat includes upland areas with small ponds and at the transition zone between the uplands and coastal lowlands (Kessel 1989). FWS North American Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey (NAWBPS) indicates members of the scoter group have been in a slow steady decline since initiation of the survey in 1957 (Hodges et al. 1996). In a review of data from 1977 to1997, the FWS noted that the slow decline was most dominant in the component of scoters observed in the WPUs composed of tundra habitat (Bristol Bay, Yukon Delta, Seward Peninsula, and Kotzebue Sound) (Conant and Groves 1997). This decline is due to a combination of factors including lead shot poisoning, contaminants in the food chain, and hunting. The 10-year average harvest of black scoter on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is 6,100 compared to the most harvested species northern pintail at 9,600 and mallard at 6,800. Northern pintails and mallards have populations in Alaska of 946,000 and 836,100, respectively, while black scoter may number as low as 100,000-300,000 (Goudie et al. 1994, Bordage and Savard 1995, Conant and Groves 1998). Considering that black scoter harvest on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is only slightly lower than harvest of northern pintails and mallards, species with nearly three times larger populations, a greater percentage of mortality in the black scoter population in Alaska may be attributed to hunting than in these other species. Within the planning area, the surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) breeds along the western coast of Alaska from Kotzebue Sound to Wales (Savard et al. 1998). Kessel (1989) characterized them as uncommon summer visitors and rare breeders on the Seward Peninsula but locally common in Kotzebue Sound. These confirmed breeding areas may not represent the full extent of breeding distribution due to limited studies, difficulty in distinguishing between female surf and white-wing scoters when surveying, and the secretive breeding behavior of the species. Non-breeders and immature scoters summer along marine coasts in littoral areas, bays, and estuaries. Mixed flocks of males, non-breeders, and immatures occur on Kotzebue Sound throughout the summer but are rare in Norton Sound (Kessel 1989). They winter in coastal areas along the Aleutian Islands and south to Baja California. Aerial surveys in Alaska from Special Status Species: Wildlife 3-89 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 1957 to 1992 indicate long-term decline in breeding populations (Henny et al. 1995). Caution is required for interpreting trend data because surveys are not well adapted for estimating scoter numbers (Savard et al. 1998). King eiders (Somateria spectabilis) occur within the planning area in low numbers (Map 3-16). These eiders are rare visitors to Seward Peninsula during the summer and winter, but may migrate through the area in large numbers (Kessel 1989). They breed along the Arctic coast from Cape Lisburne east to Canada (Suydam 2000) and are known to breed on Cape Thompson in the Maritime NWR. Kessel (1989) cites one breeding record for Cape Espenberg on the Seward Peninsula. Nesting occurs in a variety of tundra habitats. Distance from the coast varies, but the species commonly nests inland in areas of scattered lakes and ponds. They tend to nest farther inland than common or spectacled eiders. Molting areas are mostly unknown but are presumably in marine environments (Suydam 2000). During the summer, small groups of non-breeders molt in the Safety Sound-Cape Nome area and in the vicinity of Sledge Island (Kessel 1989). The species winters primarily in the Bering Sea, south of St. Lawrence Island, and along the coasts of the Aleutian chain (Suydam 2000). Based on migration counts at Point Barrow, the western Arctic population of king eiders appears to have declined by 55 percent between 1976 and 1996 (Suydam et al. 2000). Bristle-thighed curlew (Numenius tahitensis) breeds on the north central Seward Peninsula and in the southern Nulato Hills and northern Yukon Delta, and is not known to breed outside of western Alaska (Marks et al. 2002) (Map 3-16). There are sporadic June records of individual birds in the Mulgrave Hills and western Baird Mountains north of Kotzebue, and small flocks of birds in late summer on the shores of Cape Krusenstern (Marks et al. 2002). Recent surveys of these locations during peak breeding failed to detect curlews (Marks et al. 2002). Curlews winter on islands in the Pacific Ocean. Primary staging area is the Yukon Delta with small groups staging along coastal areas of the Seward Peninsula (Kessel 1989). Nesting habitat is characterized by rolling hills covered with upland tundra, drainages with medium to tall shrubs, and higher elevation ridges and slopes with dwarf vegetation or bare ground. Comprehensive surveys of known breeding range from 1988 to 1992 yielded about 3,200 breeding pairs about 40 percent of which were on the Seward Peninsula (Marks et al. 2002). Buff-breasted sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) is identified by Kessel (1989) as a very rare migrant on the Seward Peninsula and this status probably applies to the rest of the planning area as well. The primary breeding range of the species is the north slope of Alaska east of Barrow and into Canada. It winters in South America, apparently migrating north primarily along the central flyway through the United States and Canada. During the fall migration, some juveniles may migrate along the west coast of North America (Lanctot and Laredo 1994) and there are a few records of migrants on the Seward Peninsula in the spring and fall (Kessel 1989). This shorebird prefers dry ground on tundra ridges during breeding season and the drier areas of tidal flats during migration. Threats to the species range-wide include disturbance at nest sites, predation, contaminants, and loss or degradation of habitat along migration routes and in winter range (Lanctot and Laredo 1994). Black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) is circumpolar in distribution. It is an uncommon breeder in western Alaska at Cape Thompson and a regular summer visitor to St. Lawrence Island with fewer than 2,000 breeding individuals found along the Alaska coast and offshore islands (Butler and Buckley 2002). This species is probably a rare visitor to the coastal portions of the planning area south of Cape Thompson (Kessel 1989). Guillemots generally breed along rocky marine coast of offshore islands in shallow water and forage in nearshore waters (Butler and Buckley Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-90 Special Status Species: Wildlife Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 2002). They winter in marine habitats near the breeding range but retreat from areas of solid sea ice. Lack of historic data makes determination of any population trend difficult. Red knot (Calidris canutus) breeds in northwestern and northern Alaska including the Seward Peninsula, De Long Mountains, and Point Barrow (Kessel 1989, Harrington 2001). Kessel (1989) characterizes the red knot as an uncommon breeder and fall migrant on the Seward Peninsula (Map 3-16). It nests in the upland areas on high, exposed ridges in dwarf shrub habitats. Red knots winter along the Pacific coastline from northern California to South America. Surveys conducted between 1989 and 2000 throughout the Seward Peninsula and eastern Baird Mountains show extensive nesting by knots that represent at least a few thousand nesting birds (Harrington 2001). Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrinus) can be found in low numbers throughout the planning area, nesting in areas with suitable habitat and migrating throughout the region. Nesting habitat generally consists of bluffs or cliffs adjacent to water. Kessel (1989) characterizes the peregrine as a rare migrant and breeder on the Seward Peninsula. Checklists for NPS units and Fish and Wildlife Refuges within or near the planning area list the peregrine variously as a rare vagrant to an uncommon breeder. Peregrine falcons were listed as endangered in 1970. The Arctic peregrine was delisted in 1994 (Federal Register 1994). The ESA requires a minimum of five years of monitoring after delisting to ensure that species maintain a non-threatened status. Monitoring of Arctic peregrine indicates that populations have increased or remained stable since delisting (White et al. 2002). Gray-cheeked thrush (Catharus minimus) is a common breeder throughout the planning area. It is one of the most common passerines on the Seward Peninsula (Kessel 1989). In Alaska, they favor habitats with a closed canopy of mid-sized shrubs with a dense woody undergrowth of dwarf shrubs. Suitable habitat occurs in a wide variety of habitats including riparian alder and willow thickets, open woodlands, scattered spruce forests near timberline, edge of coastal tundra, alder patches in tundra, and coastal hillsides (Lowther et al. 2001). This species is generally not found in habitats with shrubs less than 3.6 feet in height. They tolerate forest canopy if low shrub cover exists. Breeding bird survey data for gray-cheeked thrush shows that they occur primarily in upland tall shrub and riparian habitats on the Seward Peninsula (Cotter and Andres 2000). Little information is available on population status or trend in western Alaska. Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) is an uncommon breeder in the coniferous forest of interior Alaska and may occur rarely on the eastern end of the Seward Peninsula (Kessel 1989). It probably occurs in low numbers in the forested regions on the eastern edge of the planning area (Map 3-17). Common features of nesting habitat are tall trees and snags often near water. This species is most often associated with forest openings and edges, or open to semi-open forest stands (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). In Alaska, they are frequently associated with relatively open boreal forest (Kessel and Gibson 1978). Over the past 30 years, the species has declined significantly throughout its range in North America. Breeding bird surveys indicate an overall annual decline of 3.9 percent from 1966 to 1996 (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). In Alaska, breeding bird survey data on olive-sided flycatchers is limited and consequently, no conclusive trend analysis is possible. However, the widespread negative trends detected elsewhere in this species’ range certainly suggest that populations of this species in Alaska might be experiencing similar trends. Factors in the decline may include habitat loss or alteration in both wintering and breeding grounds, changes in availability of prey species, exposure to pesticides, and exclusion of fire (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). One of the flycatcher’s primary wintering habitats, mature evergreen forests in the northern and central Special Status Species: Wildlife 3-91 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Andes, is one of the most heavily altered habitats in South America. Andean valleys are almost completely deforested and 85 percent or more of the montane forests have been cut (Handel et al. 1998). These factors may be exacerbated by a very low reproductive rate Blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata) is a fairly common breeder within the eastern half of the planning area (Map 3-17). Kessel (1989) found that they were common on the eastern half of the Seward Peninsula. In the interior, they nest primarily in black spruce forest. In the western part of their range they occur regularly in spruce-alder-willow thickets in riparian areas or the transition between tundra and taiga (Hunt and Eliason 1999). On the Seward Peninsula they occur primarily in tall-shrub thickets of willow and alder (Kessel 1989). Breeding bird survey data for the western United States and Canada is not sufficient to determine trend because of remoteness of breeding habitat (Hunt and Eliason 1999). McKay’s bunting (Plectrophenax hyperboreus) winters in western Alaska along the Bering Sea coast from the Kotzebue area south to Cold Bay (Lyon and Montgomerie 1995) (Map 3-17). Most records are from mid-December to mid-March when they flock with snow buntings. They breed only on a few islands in the Bering Sea. They breed on vegetated and rocky tundra, especially on coastal lowlands. The species winters on beaches, open tundra, fields, or anywhere exposed vegetation is present (Handel et al. 1998). There are no known imminent threats to this species; however, its small population size and restricted range increases its vulnerability. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is the only indigenous wild cat of Alaska. Once found throughout northern North America, lynx are now federally listed as a threatened species in the northern Rocky Mountains of the Lower 48; consequently, BLM in Alaska considers the Canada lynx a sensitive species. In Alaska, Canada lynx are still considered a legal furbearer and are actively sought by trappers. Lynx are found throughout the planning area where suitable habitat and snowshoe hare populations exist. Lynx populations are inextricably dependent upon the availability the snowshoe hare, and to a lesser extent by the availability of other small game populations. Lynx inhabit Alaska’s forested regions including spruce and hardwood forests from sea level to subalpine zones, but they fare especially well in areas that have recently experienced wildfires. In this mosaic habitat type of old black spruce forest and young resprouting vegetation, the prey species that lynx favor are more easily found foraging on the new, succulent growth (ADF&G 1994d). Canada lynx are present within Game Management Units 22 and 23 in small numbers, as indicated by the annual trapper interview/survey. No quantitative population information is available (Dau 2004b, Gorn 2004). Within Unit 22, lynx appear to be most abundant in Unit 22A. In Unit 22B survey respondents reported lynx were also common and numbers are likely increasing. Lynx are scarce, but probably increasing, in Units 22C and 22D (Gorn 2004). In Unit 23, lynx are found at moderate to high densities in localized areas with high snowshoe hare populations (Dau 2004b). Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-92 Special Status Species: Wildlife juawUoAUy peyeyy :1|| Ja}deuo, Selawik National ildlife Bering Wildlife Refuge Land Bridge National Preserve Norton Sound 165°W Threatened, Endangered, C] KSP RMP Planning Area and Candidate Species Stellers eider - Threatened KAN Kittlitz's murrelet - Candidate ZZ Spectacled eider - Threatened | Yellow-billed loon - Sensitive U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been petitioned to add Yellow-billed loons to the Threatened & Endangered Species List Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species wy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska- ADF&G, AK Natural Heritage Program The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer Map 3-15 < to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWe YeIG eINsulusg premas-yngoy JUBWIUOJIAU payayy :||| Ja}deyo 170°W Cape Lisburne Point Hope 165°W SS N Kivalina S Krusenstern National Monument Norton Sound “Ss ER 165°W PRESEN [BREE Deering Shaktoolik Unalakleet @ 160°W 160°W Wainwright @ 70°N National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska Colville Rive 68°N Koyukuk z National ~ ys Wildlife Refuge 64°N Waterfowl and Shorebird Species boa Black brant KS King eider A Red knot fees RSs Trumpeter swan Bristle-thighed curlew Harlequin duck Black guillemot range is too small to see on this map, it is found in coastal areas south of Cape Thompson. Long-tailed duck, black scoter and surf scoter are found throughout the planning area. —— Road cy KSP RMP Planning Area All species ranges have been clipped to the planning area boundary. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska- ADF&G, AK Natural Heritage Program Map 3-16 BLM Sensitive Species: Waterfowl and Shorebird Occurrences The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWay eG einsulusd Pyemas-4NGoy jUsWUOJIAUA pepeyy :||| se}deyo 170°W 165°W Cape Lisburne [) Krusenstern National Monument Norton Sound 165°W Shaktoolik QN Unalakleet 160°W 160°W National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska olville Rive Kobuk Valley National Park Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge Passerine Species nn KSP RMP Planning Area Blackpoll warbler [__] Olve-sided flycatcher al Mackay's bunting Gray-cheeked thrush occurs throughout the entire planning area W Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0. 6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska- ADF&G, AK Natural Heritage Program BLM Sensitive Species: Map 3-17 4 “ Passerine Bird Occurrences The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIA/dINY YeIG BINsulUeg premas-yngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 8. Fire Management and Ecology Fire is a very important natural mechanism of change in the planning area. Wildland fire is an essential ecological process that maintains and achieves vegetative desired conditions. The vegetation communities in the planning area have evolved with fire, giving those communities their current composition and structure. Many vegetative species are fire dependent or are ina “fire dependent ecosystem.” While the distribution and dominance of a particular species in any given area may have changed as climate has fluctuated, fire-dependant species have been represented in the planning area for at least the last 6,500 years. Fire has been a mechanism of change from the time the boreal forest was established in its current form. There are also species of animals that prefer early and mid-seral stage forests. a) Fire History A fire history dataset for the planning area is housed and updated yearly by the BLM’s Alaska Fire Service. The dataset contains the perimeters for large fires reported by the BLM from 1950 to the current year. For fires for which no perimeter is available, the fire point of origin is annotated and the fire size noted in the dataset. Most of the missing perimeter maps are in the dataset for 1950 to 1987. This dataset includes fire perimeter maps for fires reported to be equal to and greater than 1,000 acres. For 1988 through the current year, the dataset contains wildland fire perimeters for fires equal to and greater than 100 acres. The reported numbers of wildland fires and acres burned in the planning area from 1950 to 2004 are 876 fires and 3.2 million acres, respectively (BLM 2005a) (Map 3-18). b) Fire Occurrence The majority of the wildfires occurring in the planning area are caused by lightning. In mid-June through late July thunderstorms cross the planning area starting wildland fires when environmental conditions are right. Lightning can occur as early as April and as late as September, though 99 percent of all lightning strikes occur May through August, with 91 percent occurring in June and July. A total of 876 fires occurred in the planning area from 1950 to 2004. Of these fires, 412 had their point of origin on BLM-managed lands, and 89 were human-caused (the remaining 787 were lightning-caused). Of the 412 fires occurring on BLM-managed lands, only 20 were human-caused (BLM 2005a). Human-caused fires can occur any time an area is free of snow and environmental conditions are dry enough to sustain an ignition. Human-caused fires typically occur near villages and towns, along roads, or near rivers. Due to land ownership patterns, human-caused fires in the planning area rarely occur on BLM-managed lands. c) Fire Regimes Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is an standardized interagency tool for determining the degree of departure from reference condition vegetation, fuels, and disturbance regimes (Hann et al. 2003). The boreal forest has evolved and adapted to periodic wildland fires. Fire regime categories are based on natural conditions without influences by modern humans, and also Fire Management and Ecology 3-99 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS include the influences of aboriginal burning. Fire regime describes the patterns of fire occurrences, frequency, size, severity, and sometimes vegetation and fire effects, in a given area or ecosystem. A fire regime is a generalization based on fire histories at individual sites. Fire regimes can often be described as cycles because some parts of the histories are usually repeated, and the repetitions can be counted and measured (such as fire return interval). To comply with the national FRCC program requirements, the vegetation types in the planning area have been categorized into biophysical settings (BpS), described in Hann et al. (2003). Biophysical settings are the primary landscape delineations for determining the natural fire regime and fire regime condition class. These units are land delineations based on geographic area, physical setting, and vegetation community that can occupy the setting. Physical characteristics include climate, geology, geomorphology, and soils. Vegetation includes native species and successional stages found under the best understanding of the historic range of variation, including disturbances. In addition to these attributes, each biophysical setting also has distinct ecological processes associated with it (notably fire frequency, severity, and size) and hence provides a cogent, robust concept for displaying FRCC (Hann et al. 2003). Figure 3-1. Estimated Fire Return Intervals for Interior Alaska WB = 101-150 yr AL gy = 151-200 yr tl cg (iia Gl = 201-250 yr E xf | ia Gh = 251-300 yr Source: Rupp 2002. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-100 Fire Management and Ecology Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-9. Fire Regimes in the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area I 0-35 years Surface fire None represented in planning area ll 0-35 years Stand replacement None represented in planning area Ul 35-100+ years Mixed Persistent Shrub North Black Spruce Interior IV 35-100+ years Stand replacement Tussock Tundra 1 Dry Herbaceous Meadow Upland White Spruce Interior Riparian Spruce Hardwood Tussock Tundra 2 Dwarf Shrub Tundra Mesic Herbaceous Meadow Non-forested Wetland Vv 200+ years Stand replacement Source: Hann et al. 2003. The vast majority of the planning area (approximately 90 percent) is in Fire Regimes IV and V (Table 3-9). The planning area is dominated by treeless vegetation types. The biophysical settings have been combined into three categories: Treeless Biophysical Settings, Black Spruce Interior, and Riparian Spruce Hardwood/Upland White Spruce. These categories are described in more detail below. (1) Treeless Biophysical Settings There are several biophysical settings represented in the planning area that do not support trees, including Tussock Tundra 1, Tussock Tundra 2, Dwarf Shrub Tundra, Dry Herbaceous Meadow, Mesic Herbaceous Meadow, Persistent Shrub North, and Non-forested Wetland. These treeless types have surface fuels, an organic layer, and may have an associated shrub community. They tend to have deep organic layers at lower elevations and thinner organic layers at higher elevations. Though little is known about fire and its effects in these biophysical settings, fire is still an important mechanism of change in these areas. Fire recycles old vegetation and releases nutrients. Most of the fires occurring in these biophysical settings are stand replacing; however, they tend to burn in a mosaic pattern, leaving pockets of older vegetation interspersed within the burned areas. These biophysical settings are found throughout the planning area. They dominate the foothills of the Brooks Range, the Brooks Range itself, the Arctic coastal plain, and the Seward Peninsula. In the planning area, these biophysical settings are found above treeline and in low- lying areas on poorly drained permafrost sites that are usually surrounded by black spruce. For these biophysical settings, the estimated fire return interval increases as you move west and/or north in the planning area. It also increases as elevation increases. The only place this does not hold true is the interior portion of the Seward Peninsula, where the estimated fire return time is 35-100 years. The fire return on the Arctic coastal plain and in the Brooks Range is very long — measured in thousands rather than hundreds of years. Tussock tundra not on the Arctic coastal plain or at high elevation (Tussock Tundra 1) has a fire return of 35-100 years. The rest of the communities have long fire returns of 200+ years. Fire Management and Ecology 3-101 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (2) Black Spruce Interior Black spruce is the climax indicator species and the dominate tree species in the Black Spruce Interior biophysical setting. It is found throughout the central and eastern portions of the planning area. It occurs primarily on poorly drained lowland sites or north facing slopes that are usually underlain by permafrost. It is usually associated with a feathermoss understory containing dwarf birch, Labrador tea, and other plants. There are some areas within the planning area that are an open woodland type of black spruce. In these areas lichens are the dominate understory species. The fire return interval in Black Spruce Interior is about 80-100 years. (3) Riparian Spruce Hardwood/Upland White Spruce White spruce is scattered throughout the planning area along rivers and streams and in the uplands on south facing slopes. It occurs on warm well-drained sites or on depositional sites. It is also the treeline species in the northern parts of the planning area. It is usually mixed with one or more hardwood species. In the uplands, the dominate forest floor species are feathermoss with scattered herbaceous plants. In riparian areas, forest floor species are characterized by feathermoss, with a large amounts of alder, rose, equisetum, high bush cranberry, and other plants. The fire return interval is 150-200 years on upland sites and 300+ on riparian sites. d) Fuel Condition Fire Regime Condition Class is further defined by a relative measure of the degree of departure from the natural fire regime. There are three classes of departure (the condition class) for each fire regime. Condition Class 1 is defined as being within the natural range of natural variability of vegetation characteristics. Condition Class 2 is a moderate departure from the natural fire regime, and involves a moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components. In this class the fire return intervals have departed from natural frequencies by one or more return intervals. This can be either an increase or decrease in the fire frequency. There are moderate changes in one or more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics, fuel composition, fire type, or other associated disturbances. Condition Class 3 is a high departure from the natural fire regime. In this class fire regime has been substantially altered from its natural range and there is a high risk of losing ecosystem components. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by multiple fire return intervals. Dramatic changes can occur in one or more of the following ecological components: vegetation characteristics, fuel composition, fire type, or other associated disturbances. e) Fire Behavior In Alaska, the BLM uses the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS) for both fire danger and fire behavior predictions. This system is a seamless system that addresses organic layer consumption. The vegetation in the planning area has been classified into established CFFDRS fuel types: Spruce Lichen Woodland (C-1), Boreal Spruce (C-2), Boreal Mixedwood, (M-1/M-2) and Matted or Standing Grass (O-1). M-1 and M-2 are the leafless and green stages of the boreal mixwood fuel type. There are two grass types contained in O-1: Matted grass (O-1a) and standing grass (O-1b). Within this analysis, no distinction is made between the standing and matted grass fuel types (Map 3-19 and Table 3-10). Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-102 Fire Management and Ecology Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-10. Fuel Types in the Planning Area M O-1 91.5 atted or Standing Grass Generally low to moderate Boreal Spruce C-2 4 Often moderate to extreme Spruce Lichen Woodland C-1 3.5 Generally moderate to high Boreal Mixedwood M-1/M-2 0.1 Low to moderate Water, glaciers, and snowpack N/A <1.0 None (1) Matted or Standing Grass — O-1 The planning area is dominated by the O-1 fuel type. Approximately 91.5 percent of the planning area is represented by this fuel type. The fire behavior would usually be described as low to moderate burning intensity with low to moderate rates of spread and flame lengths. However, under extended drought conditions with strong winds and low relative humidities, this fuel type can exhibit high to extreme rates of spread and high intensity burning. Tussock tundra communities may burn with a higher intensity, rate of spread, and flame length if there is a large component of dead standing grass contained within them. The severity of burn depends on the amount of moisture in the organic layer. Most fires will be low severity surface fires; however, long period of dry conditions can produce fires that remove some to the entire organic layer, resulting in moderate to high severity fires. (2) Boreal Spruce — C-2 A little more than 4 percent of the planning area is in C-2 fuel type. This is the most volatile and problematic fuel type in the planning area. Found mainly on the Selawik NWR, this fuel type is made up of moderate to very dense stands of black spruce with a very deep organic layer. It usually has a large component of volatile shrub species, such as dwarf birch or Labrador tea in the understory. Organic layer depth is usually around one foot, but can be as deep as two feet. This fuel type routinely exhibits moderate to extreme burning intensities and flame lengths, and moderate rates of spread. The fuel type burns as a dependant crown fire and almost always has a portion to the entire canopy involved. While it does not exhibit the extreme rates or spread of the grass fuel models, it will move at speeds up to two miles an hour. Combined with the intensities and flame lengths generated, this fuel type can be very volatile even under what would otherwise be considered moderate environmental conditions. Upland white spruce is also placed in this fuel type. While it does not burn as often and needs drier condition to burn, it may exhibit the same extreme fire behavior as black spruce. Fires in riparian white spruce are very rare; during most burning conditions these communities slow the fire’s progress. To burn, white spruce require extreme drought or stand degradation due to disease or over maturity. (3) Spruce Lichen Woodland — C-1 The C-1 fuel type is the less volatile cousin of the C-2 fuel type. It has a black spruce component with the trees more widely scattered and the organic layer shallower than in the C-2 fuel type. The organic layer is commonly two to four inches in depth. It usually does not have the volatile shrub species in its understory. About 3.5 percent of the planning area is the C-1 fuel type. This fuel type is found in the southern portions of the Seward Peninsula and the western Kobuk Valley. It exhibits moderate to high burning intensities and flame lengths and Fire Management and Ecology 3-103 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS will generate slightly faster rates of spread than the C-2 fuel model. Rates of spread are moderate to high. It will also involve the crown, but because of fewer trees, the intensities and flame lengths are lower than in the C-2 type. Fires also range in severity from just surface fuel consumption to severe fires that consume the entire organic layer. (4) Boreal Mixedwood — M-1/M-2 Less than 0.1 percent of the planning area is in the M-1/M-2 fuel type, a mix of hardwoods and spruce. Hardwoods found with white spruce are either aspen or birch. Aspen and black spruce can be found on colder sites. Surface fuels are primarily leaf litter. This fuel type is prone to surface fires before green-up. Early season fires may or may not kill the trees. In late summer when drought conditions exist, fires have a smoldering phase that consumes the entire organic layer after the surface fire passes. These fires usually kill and tip over all the trees in the fire area. Fires do not burn in this fuel type after green-up or when drought conditions are absent, and during these conditions, boreal mixedwood areas may be used as safety zones for firefighters. Within the planning area, this fuel type is only found on the Selawik NWR. The remaining 1 percent of the planning area is made up of non-burnable areas of water, glaciers and permanent snowpack. f) Fire Policy The overriding priority for all wildland fire actions in the planning area is firefighter and public safety. If an action on a wildland fire endangers firefighters or the public and cannot be mitigated, it will not be carried out. Once people have been committed to an incident, these human resources become the highest value to be protected. DOI Departmental Manual 620, Wildland Fire Management (DO! 1998), directs the BLM to provide fire suppression services on all DOl-managed and Native lands within Alaska. The BLM has implemented this direction by creating the Alaska Fire Service (AFS). AFS is authorized to provide safe, cost-effective emergency wildland fire suppression services in support of management plans on DOI-administered land and on those lands that require protection under ANCSA, as amended. AFS executes these services within the framework of approved fire management plans or within the mutually agreed upon standards established by the respective land managers/land owners (DOI 1998). Fire suppression operations within the planning area are the responsibility of the AFS Galena Zone Fire Management Officer. The Galena Zone is headquartered in Galena during the fire season, and is housed on Fort Wainwright the rest of the year. All other fire management activities such as fire planning, education and prevention, use of prescribed fire, establishing emergency suppression strategies, and setting emergency suppression priorities are all the responsibility of the Fairbanks District Office. The Fairbanks District Office maintains the overall fire management responsibility and accountability for activities occurring within the planning area (DOI! 1998). Fire is an essential mechanism of change in the boreal forest resulting in multiple resource benefits. The current policy for the planning area is application of the appropriate management response considering firefighter and public safety, resources benefits, values at risk, and suppression cost. The current policy does not distinguish between any naturally-occurring fires. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-104 Fire Management and Ecology Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS The Northwest Management Framework Plan (MFP) (BLM 1982) contains little guidance on fire management. There are no fire management goals or objectives, and there is only one decision about wildland fire suppression: “Allow fire under prescribed conditions.” The rationale for this decision is that, “[flire suppression cost frequently exceeds the value of resource values protected. Fire management plans which consider both positive and negative effects of fire must be developed within constraints of the Departmental policy.” The MFP makes one recommendation regarding wildland fire and fuels management, and that is to: “[a]llow fire under prescribed conditions,” with the rationale of, “[b]y allowing natural or prescribed fires to burn, it may be possible to reduce suppression costs while providing benefit to wildlife.” The MFP contains no guidance on fire prevention. In order to comply with the National Fire Plan and the 2001 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (IFWFPR Working Group 2001), the BLM amended the fire management direction in the Northwest MFP in July 2005. The Land Use Plan Amendment for Wildland Fire and Fuels Management for Alaska (BLM 2004b, 2005c) identifies land use and resource objectives, wildland fire suppression options, and fuels (vegetation) management activities that achieve those objectives. The amendment is applicable to all BLM- managed lands in Alaska until such time as new RMPs are completed. Fire management options emphasize the protection of human life and site-specific values and also recognize fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent of the Alaskan ecosystems. Firefighter and public safety are identified as the number one priority in all fire management activities. The amendment also reinforces BLM-Alaska’s commitment to support the interagency wildland fire program, consider the latest available technology and methods, and support scientific research to study fire effects and improve business practices. Between 1980 and 1988, the BLM participated with other Federal and State land management agencies and Native groups in completing 13 interagency fire management plans. Alaska interagency fire management plans for the following planning areas are applicable to this RMP: e Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan: Kobuk Planning Area (1984) Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan: Seward/ Koyukuk Planning Area (1984) Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan: Yukon/Togiak Planning Area (1984) Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan: Arctic Slope Planning Area (1986) This set of plans provided a statewide, coordinated, cost-effective, landscape scale approach to fire management. Each plan contains a description of the local environmental and socioeconomic conditions, natural and cultural resources, fire history and behavior, and local subsistence activities. The plans also provided a consistent interagency approach to operational procedures and the identification and prioritization of values-to-be-protected. The four management options defined in the plans (Critical, Full, Modified, and Limited) are flexible enough to allow different agencies to manage fire on their lands according to policies and mandates exclusive to their agencies. In 1998 the 13 original plans were consolidated into one document, the Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (AIWFMP 1998). This consolidated plan updated language in the original plans, eliminated the boundaries of the 13 original plans, and combined common elements into a single operational document. Area-specific documentation still resides in the original planning documents. To meet Federal fire planning requirements, comply with 2001 Federal fire policy, and address national fire program analysis requirements, BLM-Alaska completed its Wildland Fire Fire Management and Ecology 3-105 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Management Plan in September 2005 (BLM 2005m). This plan is based on the Land Use Plan Amendment for Wildland Fire and Fuels Management for Alaska (BLM 2004b, 2005c), the Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (AIWFMP 1998), and the policies and standards outlined in the 2001 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (IFWFPR Working Group 2001). The four management options (defined in Table 3-11 and displayed on Map 3-20) defined in the original interagency fire management plans and further described in the Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (1998) and the BLM’s Wildland Fire Management Plan are utilized statewide by all Federal, State, and Native land managers. Options are assigned on a landscape scale across agency boundaries. BLM Field Office staffs have selected management options based upon an evaluation of their legal mandates, policies, regulations, resource management objectives, and local conditions. Local conditions include but are not limited to population density, fire occurrence, environmental factors, and identified values. Fuel type, access, topographic features, fire regime and political boundaries are considered for determining management option boundaries but are not necessarily determining factors for landscape scale management option designations. The intent in assigning these management options is to have designations that are ecologically and fiscally sound, operationally feasible, and sufficiently flexible to respond to changes in objectives, fire conditions, land-use patterns, resource information, and technologies. The designation of a management option pre-selects initial strategies (appropriate management response) to a wildland fire; responses range from immediate and aggressive suppression to periodic surveillance. The map atlas at the local fire suppression office and the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center is the official record that delineates fire management option boundaries and site-specific designations. AFS maintains the statewide management option data and an updated GIS file is available annually by May 1. BLM Field Office staffs are responsible for updating and reviewing management option and site designations annually. More detailed policy, objectives, operational considerations, operational procedures and other information for each fire management option are contained in the Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (1998). Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-106 Fire Management and Ecology Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-11. Fire Management Options Protect areas where there is a threat to human life, inhabited property, designated physical developments, and structural resources designated as National Historic Landmarks. Highest priority for assignment of available suppression resources to exclude fire from the area or site. Full Protect cultural and historical sites, Priority is below Critical for available suppression uninhabited private property, natural | resources to suppress fires at the smallest resource high-value areas, and other | reasonably possible acres. high-value areas that do not involve the protection of human life and inhabited property. Limited Allow fires to burn under the Surveillance to observe fire activity and to influence of natural forces within determine if site-specific values or adjacent predetermined areas to accomplish higher priority management areas are land and resource management compromised. Site-specific actions when objectives. Estimated costs of necessary to protect human life and site-specific suppression efforts are a factor. values. Modified Balance acres burned with Priority for assignment of available suppression suppression costs and accomplish land and resource objectives. Strategies are based on an annual conversion date. resources is below Full. Suppression efforts vary: when risks of large fires are high, the initial response to a fire is analogous to Full without the intent to minimize acres but to balance acres burned with suppression costs. When the risks are low, the appropriate response to a wildland fire is analogous to Limited. Option designations are based on the land manager and landowner(s) values to be protected as well as land and resource management objectives. These management strategies are currently implemented in the planning area. Management options are reviewed yearly and adjustments are made to ensure resource goals and objectives are being met. Critical 32,000 1,074 Majority is in and around villages; under the ownership of village and regional corporations; Table 3-12. Current Fire Management Options in the Planning Area protects areas of human habitation Majority surrounds critical management option areas near villages; ownership of those lands is mostly village and regional corporations; high resource values. Full 2,000,000 466,000 Low resource value; surrounds Full option; few Modified values at risk 13,200,000 3,200,000 Low resource value; areas where fire is considered Limited beneficial; few values at risk 15,100,000 7,500,000 Fire Management and Ecology 3-107 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS In order to prioritize assignment of suppression forces and determine the appropriate actions to be taken within the landscape-scale management option classifications, site designations of Critical, Full, Avoid, and Non-sensitive have been established for structures, cultural and paleontological sites, small areas of high resource value, and threatened and endangered species habitat in order for the resource staff to give suppression agencies more specific guidance for small sites. Sites designated as Critical and Full are to be protected from degradation from fire and are prioritized in a manner similar to landscape scale designations. A Critical site is either a national historic landmark or a permanent year-round residence. A site can be designated Full if it meets one or more of the criteria listed in the BLM Policy for Structure Protection (Appendix E). Sites designated as Non-sensitive are acknowledged as known to BLM staff, but require no additional suppression efforts or restrictions. A Non-sensitive site is a site the Fairbanks District Office has decided, through application of policy, not to protect. A Non-sensitive designation does not warrant risks to firefighters. Sites designated as Avoid are areas where fire suppression efforts should be avoided and effects from suppression efforts minimized. All aircraft should be restricted from these areas. An Avoid site may identify endangered species or their habitat or a prehistoric site. Fire suppression activities at these sites would be detrimental to the values associated with each site. These four categories of sites receive protection priority as would a fire in one of the Fire Management Options. Critical sites are the first priority for protection, while Full sites are second priority. No protection is afforded Non-sensitive or Avoid sites. There is no Site Designation that corresponds to the Modified or Limited Fire Management Option, though any of the four Site Designations may be located within any of the four Fire Management Options (e.g., a Critical Site Designation located within a Limited Fire Management Option, or an Avoid Site Designation within a Critical Fire Management Option). Designations are recorded on the map atlas in the fire dispatch office; it is the joint responsibility of the BLM Field Office staff and the suppression staff to keep the atlas current. Site designations are subject to annual review and updating. When a structure is discovered during fire management activities, the Field Office representative is notified immediately. Under normal circumstances during suppression operations, the suppression agencies are not responsible for and will not provide protection to unauthorized structures unless they meet one or both of the following criteria: e lItis necessary to preserve structures to save human life. e The structure is evaluated and determined to be eligible for consideration for the National Register of Historic Places. The BLM Policy for Structure Protection (Appendix E) serves as guidance to AFS and the Alaska Division of Forestry concerning structure protection priorities in relation to wildland fire monitoring and suppression activities on BLM-managed lands in Alaska. As with all other aspects of fire management, safety of fire suppression personnel and the public is the number one priority of the policy. The policy provides criteria for protection of all structures, and criteria for establishing historic value for structures if those values had not been determined prior to a fire event. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-108 Fire Management and Ecology Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Under the authority granted by ASS 41.15.010, the State is responsible for determining the Fire Management Option and Site Designation (i.e., the protection level) for inholdings or lands adjacent to BLM-managed lands that are fee simple titled (i.e., private property). The BLM sets the protection level of private possessions (cabins or personal belongings) of BLM permit uu holders or other occupants on public land managed by the BLM. The BLM'’s fire trespass procedures in Alaska follow the interim guidance in the Draft Fire Trespass Handbook issued in August 2005 (BLM 2005d) and are supplemented by the BLM Alaska State Fire Trespass Operating Plan (BLM 2005b). AFS is responsible for notifying the Field Office immediately when a fire is suspected of being human-caused; the Field Office is responsible for investigation and case pursuit. At the Field Office staff's request, AFS may assist or facilitate an investigation. AFS maintains fire records, tracks associated fire costs, and produces a final fire cost for each fire. g) Fuels Management No prescribed burns or other fuels treatment projects have been implemented in the planning area on BLM-managed lands, nor are any fuels treatment projects currently being planned. Manual, mechanical, and prescribed fire projects are allowed in the planning area to either protect natural, biological, or cultural resources or to meet the desired future condition of any natural or biological resource. Fuels treatment projects require activity level plans and an environmental analysis. An ANILCA Section 810 analysis may also be appropriate. At present, Wildland Fire Use is permitted in the planning area, but has not been implemented. h) Smoke Management Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is responsible for declaring air episodes and issuing air quality advisories, as appropriate, during periods of poor air quality or inadequate dispersion conditions. ADEC is a member of the Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group. During periods of wildland fire activity, the Multi-agency Coordinating Group, a sub- group of the Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group, addresses air quality and smoke management issues. As ADEC develops a State Implementation Plan for regional haze, changes may be necessary to address additional fire tracking and emission management needs based upon policies and guidelines developed by the Western Regional Air Partnership. Under State law, all agencies, corporations, and individuals that burn 40 or more acres of land require written approval from ADEC prior to burning. The Enhanced Smoke Management Plan being developed by ADEC will outline the process and items that must be addressed by land management agencies to help ensure that prescribed fire activities minimize smoke and air quality problems. The Enhanced Smoke Management Plan will also address elements required by the EPA’s Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fire (EPA 1998). i) Fire Prevention Human-caused fires are not a significant problem in the planning area in that they do not occur with much frequency. Of the 876 fires that have occurred between 1950 and 2004, only 89 were caused by humans. Most human-caused fires occurred near villages and towns. Only 20 human-caused fires have occurred on BLM-managed lands since 1956 (BLM 2005a). A rural Alaska version of the Firewise program is currently being developed by an interagency group Fire Management and Ecology 3-109 Chapter III: Affected Environment jUaWUOIIAU papeyy :||| Jadeyo Point Lay i; Cape Lisburne, a Point Hope) © 4) aay Cape Thompson’ Ne Kivalina Cape“ J Krusenstern National Monument 12 3 Shaktoolik & Norton Sound 165°W 160°W Burn Perimeters From Past Years — Road ¥ Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP and Acreage Within KSP RMP Planning Area [_] ksP RMP Planning Area Eureatl_of Pane Management =Slesk2 2000 - 2004 - 90,024 ac. 0.6 1218 24 48 Miles 1990 - 1999 - 232,754 ac. ——————— Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area 1980 - 1989 - 23,770 ac. referencing NAD83 1970 - 1979 - 2,093,572 ac. 1960 - 1969 - 44,072 ac. 1950 - 1959 - 707,319 ac. Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 aa | The information displayed on this map should be used for Map 3-18 Fire History graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWY Yes einsulueg premes-yngoy JUBWUOIIAUZ pepaeyy :||| Jaldeyo 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N Acreage Within KSP RMP Planning Area 01 - 27,504,065 ac. [7] mma - 14,579 ac. ee Ota/O1b - 6,117 ac. Glaciers & Snow - 10,131 ac. .—— B wrater - 282,193 ac. WN 2 - 1,247,877 ac. [-_] ksP RMP Planning Area 170°W 165°W 160°W [vw 130 Whe@ 7 | pf t6he Wainwright 18 - | “ Iey@ ge” t+ at | oF 1 las) 44 | 43] 4 LHI 39 | 30 ow a 1 3} 98} 96] e633] a] ats 0 \* 7 a re] : : Point Lay” [7 f 6 f 5 4 i 7 3 | 2 } Any 6 / 4 Cape Lisburne i . 61] 3 4 Point Hope) 4/39 a | Cape Thompson 30 / 2 6 F 7 31 nal we CoE 7 | 84 9/10] 11) 421 431 & | 32 ‘ hd foal ~ wet + 3 ~ — St Kivalina’ S pe iG 8 30 Sot eH ! 2 Rout 2 = meg a = - x 7 oa Kad as Pa Ss 28 e 14) 43 L. aed iC |27] CapeZ | 24 shal s) bee ht NPS Krusenstern_/ Sits 100 | 12) 19] 14 National Ee oe Monument rae 2 j Vey) 21 2 K b , {| 20 L a otebue ert 2 Kotze, 20 | 19 | tant 19 ed Ye _ | ror Lis) 19 SG tt $i4 2 18 7 Tt aw} 1} 2 { 14 Shishmare' ; NT +—~+—f 8 36 | a7 / ie I S| 34 | a3 { 19 14 f i | 2] 23/2 cea a2] 19] 90/7] ve fat | ee 45w) Deering T 3 8 a Beds 10 we 418 {877} 8 | 9 | 10] 1] 12 4 AN) 16 wy «. 45) 44 is 6 ayn hace fag : i | Brevig Mis; len hee 4 Teller. . 2 4 39 - oto 3 | 92 Nome™ 9 } 12 10 | a | Ji2 Ts Shaktoolik 13 | 12 [ant aor Norton Sound ] pot k 2 i, Ce W 574i sfel7]elol win al 14/168) 46 rr) Unalakleet —~ "8 (a I “Ta ccs th 0 18 165°W 160°W CFFDRS Classes and —— Road Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 Map 3-19 Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System - Fuels The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 66°N 64°N SIF/Wded Welg BiNsulUag premas-yngoy JUBWUOIIAU paypeyYy :||| Ja}deyD 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N Cape Lisburne, Point Hope Cape Thompson’ 165°W 6 \ Kivalina Cape Krusenstern National Monument Norton Sound ow Point Lay: 20 19) Nae ON | 19] 18/7) 10 [8 Fire Management Protection Level and Acreage Within KSP RMP Planning Area BEB critical - 32,308 ac. [I Fut - 1,999,049 ac. | | Modified - 15,136,949 ac. BE Limited - 13,188,836 ac. aE ROM Cc] KSP RMP Planning Area Map 3-20 Existing Fire Management Options Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0. 6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIA/dWY YesG e[NsulUed premas-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 9. Cultural Resources a) Prehistory There are many unknowns in Alaskan archaeology, but enough is currently known about northwest Alaska that there is a generally accepted cultural chronology for the region. There are some differences between the northern part of the planning area and the Seward Peninsula, but this chronology can nonetheless provide a framework for understanding the prehistory of the area. Anderson (1984) and Dumond (1984) present similar formulations of this sequence, the former for northern Alaska and the latter for the Bering Sea area. A composite of the two chronologies is shown in the figure below. Figure 3-2. Cultural Chronology for Northwest Alaska Date Stage Tradition/Culture Period Eskimo 5 1900 —F Thule 1500 4 Vv Thule 4 Tradition Birnirk 1000 + | 500 Norton Arctic A.D. cae BCT IV Tradition Small ; 500 Tool | fF Tradition 1000 Arctic Small i Tool Tradition] 2000 —___] 3000 4 Northern Northern ll Archaic Archaic 4000 + Tradition | Tradition 2 5000 —~————_}—J 2 6000 4 7000 — | Paleo-Arctic | Paleo-Arctic 8000 — Tradition Tradition 9000 4 1 Source: derived from information in Anderson (1984) and Dumond (1984). Cultural Resources 3-117 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (1) Paleo-Arctic Tradition The earliest archaeological sites known to occur in the planning area are assigned to the Paleo- Arctic Tradition, first defined from Onion Portage, a large stratified site on the Kobuk River (Anderson 1970). There are only a few sites within the planning area that can be securely assigned to this period, and none of them are located on BLM-managed lands. There are few known Paleo-Arctic sites in Alaska, so it is very difficult to describe the way these people lived. Anderson (1984) sees this period as one in which people were primarily adapted toward tundra hunting. The Paleo-Arctic Tradition spans a period of 3,500 to 4,500 years, from about 9500 BC to 5000-6000 BC, as shown in the previous figure. (2) Northern Archaic Tradition The next defined tradition in northwest Alaska is the Northern Archaic, based on morphological similarities with artifacts from outside of Alaska. The relationship of this tradition to the earlier one is not clear, but the Northern Archaic is often interpreted as representing the movement into Alaska of new peoples at about the same time as the boreal forest spread into new areas of the state. As with the earlier Paleo-Arctic Tradition, there is only limited information on how these peoples lived. There are only a few sites belonging to the Northern Archaic Tradition in the planning area; all of them in the northern portion of the area, and none of them on BLM-managed lands. (3) Arctic Small Tool Tradition/Denbigh Flint Complex The next entity in the chronology of northwest Alaska is the Arctic Small Tool tradition, which is characterized by some of the finest stone tools known from the state. In Anderson's formulation the tradition spans the period between about 2500 BC and AD 1000, and begins with the Denbigh Flint Complex which is followed by Choris, Norton, and Ipiutak (1984). Dumond (1984), on the other hand, defines a much briefer Arctic Small Tool Tradition, lasting from just before 2000 BC to a little after 1000 BC. In Dumond’s formulation, the Arctic Small Tool tradition consists only of Denbigh, and subsequent materials are classified as a separate Norton tradition. In any case, the Arctic Small Tool tradition first appears about 2500 BC, is widespread in Arctic and subarctic North America, and represents the first extensive occupation of Arctic regions in the new world (Dumond 1984). The Denbigh Flint Complex was first defined from excavations at Cape Denbigh (Giddings 1964), on Norton Sound, and has also been discovered at the Cape Nome site (Bockstoce 1979), Cape Espenberg (Giddings and Anderson 1986), and from the Choris type site, just north of the Seward Peninsula (Giddings and Anderson 1986). Schaaf (1988) reports locating a Denbigh site near Kuzitrin Lake in the interior of the Seward Peninsula. Little is known about Denbigh Flint Complex peoples. The number of Denbigh sites that have been excavated is small, and artifact collections have mostly been limited to stone implements and detritus. Nevertheless, the locations of known sites and the types of artifacts recovered indicate a people that were at home on both the coast and in the interior, and who hunted marine mammals and caribou. At present, known coastal sites appear to be seasonal, probably Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-118 Cultural Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS spring hunting camps, and it is presumed that Denbigh peoples spent most of the year in the interior (Giddings 1964, Giddings and Anderson 1986). (4) Arctic Small Tool Tradition/Norton Tradition A people whose artifacts bear strong resemblances to those of Denbigh occupied western and northern Alaska followed the Denbigh Flint Complex. As mentioned above, there is disagreement as to the degree of continuity between Denbigh and the subsequent cultures. There is also a difference in the terms applied to the cultures. South of the Seward Peninsula the term "Norton" has been applied to the entire sequence, and the archaeological remains are generally seen as more homogenous than in the north. In the north, the sequence has long been divided into three separate cultures labeled "Choris," "Norton," and "Ipiutak.” Whatever terms are applied, beginning about 1500-1000 BC the area was inhabited by peoples who appear to be more oriented toward the coast and marine resources than were the Denbigh peoples. Large coastal villages have been discovered at Cape Nome, at Point Hope, and near Unalakleet, and smaller winter settlements are also known from the Choris Peninsula. We know much more about the peoples of this period than we do about those from the earlier Denbigh/Arctic Small Tool tradition period. Not only have several houses been excavated, but the archaeological record for these peoples is richer and more extensive. They are represented not only by stone implements and their by-products, but also by a range of organic tools and faunal remains, which allow a fuller picture of the lives of the people who made them. During this period we see the first large winter coastal settlements, and faunal remains and artifact types document the importance of marine resources. This period also sees the first evidence of fishing as an important subsistence activity, although it may become much less important during the later part of the period. Peoples of this period made pottery and carved implements of bone, antler, ivory, and wood. Houses were of several different forms, but were all semi-subterranean pit houses similar in many respects to those known from historic Eskimo settlements. Villages seem to have been located mostly in coastal areas, with short-term use of the interior, primarily for the hunting of caribou. In many respects, the peoples of this period appear very similar to modern Eskimo cultures in terms of their subsistence and settlement patterns. (5) Birnirk At the end of Norton times there appears to have been a period during which no one inhabited the coastal areas of northwest Alaska, or at least not in numbers sufficient to leave a significant archaeological record. At least one author has interpreted this hiatus as the result of climatic changes that reduced or eliminated salmon runs followed by a decline in the caribou herds (Bockstoce 1973, 1979:90). Following the break in the archaeological record, a new culture, referred to as Birnirk, appears at scattered locations in northwestern Alaska. Bockstoce interprets the distribution of Birnirk sites as an indication that Birnirk peoples specialized in the hunting of marine mammals, and suggests that improved harpoon technology, especially use of the inflatable float, gave them the ability to exploit these resources more efficiently than Norton peoples (Bockstoce 1979:91-92). Cultural Resources 3-119 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (6) Thule The marine mammal hunters of Birnirk were followed by the Thule culture, clearly antecedent to modern Eskimos, and possibly developing out of Birnirk. In the years after about AD 1000 the people of this tradition spread quickly across Arctic Alaska, Canada, and into Greenland, and also along the subarctic Bering Sea coasts of Alaska. Thule peoples continued the strong orientation toward marine resources that characterized their predecessors. Whaling was an important subsistence activity in many coastal areas, and the hunting of smaller sea mammals and caribou continued. In certain areas, notably the Kobuk River and the central Brooks Range, subsistence patterns developed that were more dependent on inland resources such as salmon and caribou. Over time, local variations developed in groups belonging to the Thule tradition. At the Nukleet site at Cape Denbigh, Giddings excavated remains that document more or less continuous occupation from the twelfth to the eighteenth centuries, and which show a subsistence pattern involving roughly equal reliance on sea mammals, fish, and caribou (Giddings 1964). Bockstoce (1979) hypothesizes a similar pattern at Cape Nome, but with greater use of walrus and less of beluga and birds. In general, it appears that Thule times represent the spread of mostly coastal-oriented peoples into what was largely unpopulated portions of the Arctic and subarctic, followed by adaptation to local conditions. This trend continued until the historic period when contacts with European and American culture initiated major changes in the cultures of the region. b) History It is useful to organize the history of the planning area into three general periods based primarily on the nature of contacts between Euroamericans and Alaska Natives. The first period lasted from about 1732 to 1850, and was characterized by a few short visits by Euroamerican explorers. The second period, from about 1850 to 1900, involved more extensive contact as ships began to overwinter in the area and non-Alaska Natives began to be present for extended periods of time. The final period, from about 1900 on, is the post-gold-rush era, characterized by permanent Euroamerican settlements and more or less continual interaction between the two cultures. (1) Early Contact Vitus Bering is often credited with “discovering” Alaska and the strait that bears his name, but the inhabitants of Siberia had considerable knowledge of Alaska prior to Bering’s voyages. The primary source of this knowledge was the Chukchi peoples of Siberia, who interacted with the Eskimo inhabitants of Alaska through trade and warfare (Ray 1975). Trade was an important aspect of life in aboriginal Alaska, and an important trade fair was held on a regular basis in the Kotzebue area. Groups from as far away as the Diomede Islands and the north slope of the Brooks Range would travel to the Kotzebue area for the trade fair (Spencer 1959). The first recorded non-aboriginal visit to any location within the planning area occurred in 1732 when the Russian explorers Mikhail Gvozdev and lvan Federov landed on Alaskan soil, probably somewhere near Cape Prince of Wales (Holland 1994). Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-120 Cultural Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Captain Cook visited the area in 1778, exploring Norton Sound, naming several geographic features, and noting a small village, probably at the mouth of the Kwik River just west of Bald Head (Ray 1975). Cook's party traded for food with Alaska Natives near Bald Head and Cape Denbigh, leaving the area after a stay of about 10 days. Two explorers passed through the Bering Strait area in 1791. Ivan Kobelev visited the Diomede Islands, Wales, and King Island in June, and an expedition in the charge of Joseph Billings visited Cape Rodney, about 40 miles northwest of Nome, in July (Ray 1975). The Billings expedition produced the first detailed recorded description of the inhabitants of the area. In 1816 the Russian Otto von Kotzebue visited the planning area, “discovering” Shishmaref Inlet and continuing into Kotzebue Sound. The expedition named several features in the area, including Cape Espenberg, Eschscholtz Bay, and Cape Krusenstern (Holland 1994). Another explorer who visited the area during this earliest period of contact was Frederick William Beechey, who arrived in Kotzebue Sound in July 1826 on HMS Blossom, intending to meet with an overland expedition led by Sir John Franklin. Members of the crew explored the area, naming Hotham Inlet and recording the Buckland River. In 1827 the Beechey expedition visited the west coast of the Seward Peninsula, visiting Cape Rodney, and “discovering” Port Clarence and Grantley Harbor (Ray 1975). (2) Sustained Contact Contacts between Euroamericans and Alaska Natives increased after about 1850. In 1848 Thomas Roys became the first whaler to pass through the Bering Strait and to take whales in the Chukchi Sea (Bockstoce 1986). The success of this voyage led almost immediately to the era of Arctic Whaling, and by 1851 some 250 ships had been involved in hunting whales in northern Alaska waters (Ray 1975). Whalers had a significant impact on the Eskimos of the North Slope, but mostly passed through the Bering Strait area without much contact until they began using steam ships. In 1884 a coaling station was established at Point Spencer, and following that, a number of steam whaling ships would gather each summer to meet ships bringing supplies to the fleet. This drew Eskimos from the surrounding area who gathered to trade with the whalers (Ray 1975). In 1845 Sir John Franklin with two ships, the HMS Erebus and Terror, was sent by the Admiralty to explore the Canadian Arctic for the Northwest Passage. The expedition disappeared with its entire complement of nearly 130 men. Between 1847 and 1880 numerous search parties were sent to the Arctic to try to locate the Franklin expedition or evidence of their passing (Holland 1964). Several of these parties visited the Bering Strait region, in the hope that Franklin might have successfully navigated the Passage, resulting in a sustained presence in northwest Alaska between 1851 and 1854. Ships sailed into Kotzebue Sound and the Norton Sound area, and several ships spent the winter at Port Clarence (Ray 1975). In 1851 a party traveled overland from the Plover at Port Clarence to St. Michael, passing through Fish River, Golovnin Bay, and Shaktoolik, and returning by way of Egavik, Shaktoolik, Golovin, White Mountain, Casedepaga, and Kauwerak (Ray 1975). In 1853 a small party from the supply ship Rattlesnake made the trip from Port Clarence to Kotzebue Sound, producing the earliest recorded account of people in the interior of the Seward Peninsula (Ray 1975). In the years 1865-1867 the attempt to construct a telegraph line across Alaska and the Bering Strait resulted in additional contacts. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the attempt produced Cultural Resources 3-121 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS the first Euroamerican settlements in the planning area. Base camp for the telegraph expedition was first established in St. Michael in 1865, with a smaller group established at Port Clarence in 1866 (Ray 1975). This Port Clarence group was under the command of Daniel B. Libby (Ray 1975). A party associated with the telegraph expedition is credited by Brooks (1908a) with the first significant inland exploration and with the discovery of gold on the Niukluk River. Beginning in 1879 and continuing well into the twentieth century, the U.S. Revenue Marine Service began regular patrols of Alaskan waters. The purpose of the voyages was to watch over trade with Alaska Natives and to provide aid to commercial vessels in the event problems developed. For much of this period the cutter Bear and its captain Michael A. Healy became frequent visitors to ports on both sides of the Bering Strait (Holland 1994). The initial discovery of gold on the Seward Peninsula in the 1860s produced no rush to the north, and in fact appears to have had no immediate effect on the history of the area at all. Indeed, the first attempts to extract minerals from the Seward Peninsula had nothing to do with gold or the Niukluk River, although they would occur in the same general area. In 1880 reports of rich silver ores from the Omilak Mine near the Fish River were published in San Francisco, and in 1881 a small mining company was formed to exploit them (Ray 1974). Over the next decade several attempts were made to develop a mine at Omilak, none of them very successful. Only a few hundred tons of ore were ever mined, and some of this never made it to market as a result of ships going astray (Ray 1974). One employee of the Omilak silver mine was to play a role in the subsequent history of the region, however. John Dexter began prospecting on the Niukluk River in 1891 and continued in 1892. He established a trading post at Cheenik on Golovnin Bay, and supported at least one other prospecting effort into the Niukluk River (Castle 1912). Although these various expeditions are reported to have resulted in the discovery of gold, the discoveries were apparently not significant enough to justify further development. Dexter's trading post developed into something of a center for developments in the region, and a Swedish Evangelical Mission and Protestant Episcopal Mission were both established there. Exploration continued during this period, one significant example being the parties led by George Morse Stoney in 1883 through 1886. Stoney explored the length of the Kobuk River, wintering in 1885-86 at a place he named Fort Cosmos. During that winter parties from Fort Cosmos explored a large area in northwest Alaska, including the Kobuk, Noatak, upper Alatna, and upper Colville rivers, and much of the surrounding terrain (Holland 1994). (3) Intense Contact Significant quantities of gold were discovered in the interior of the Seward Peninsula in 1898, leading to the establishment of Council and the beginnings of the rush to the region. After 30 years away from Alaska, Daniel Libby returned to the area in 1897, intent on relocating the streams where he had seen gold during his days with the telegraph expedition (Cole 1984). With his three partners, Louis Melsing, H. L. Blake, and A. P. Mordaunt, he arrived at Dexter's trading post in the fall of 1897. By spring of the following year, the Libby party had discovered gold on Melsing and Ophir creeks, and with N. O. Hultberg, a missionary from Cheenik, P. H. Andersen, a mission teacher, and Dr. A. N. Kittlesen, assistant superintendent of the reindeer station at Port Clarence, had formed a mining district and staked out the townsite of Council City (Cole 1984). Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-122 Cultural Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Later in 1898 a group of men who had met at Council traveled west to the Snake River, where they staked claims that would begin the great rush to Nome. Although there is confusion about who may have first discovered gold in the Nome area, the first claims to be staked were laid out by the three "lucky Swedes" Jafet LIndeberg, John Brynteson, and Eric Lindblom. Through the winter of 1898-99 there was modest interest in the new find at Nome, with men traveling to the area from St. Michael and the diggings on the Yukon, but with little excitement in the outside world. Brooks estimated the population of Nome to have been about 250 by May of 1899, growing to 400 by June (1908a). The first serious mining took place in the summer of 1899 and the results were spectacular. One source estimates that nearly $800,000 worth of gold was removed from only two creeks (Trezona 1900). (At today’s price for gold, the return from these two streams would be worth in excess of $15 million.) Once word of the mining that took place in the early part of the summer of 1899 reached the outside world and confirmed the richness of the ground, interest in the area increased. Many of the miners along the Yukon joined the first rush to Nome, along with several shiploads of hopefuls from the outside world, increasing the population to nearly 3,000 (Brooks 1908a). This same summer gold was discovered on the beaches near Nome, where it could be profitably mined by one or a few individuals with simple technology. As word of this spread, a large part of the population took up beach mining with shovel and rocker, removing an estimated $1 million in less than two months (Brooks 1908a). Tales of the easy pickings on the beaches, in conjunction with the millions taken from a few creeks, laid the ground for the major rush of 1900. When the sea lanes opened to Nome in 1900 hopeful stampeders flooded into the area. According to one source, 15,000 people arrived at Nome within a period of two weeks (Harrison 1905). Brooks (1908a) states that more than 50 vessels had landed at Nome by the first of July, and that the first and second sailings had brought over 20,000 people to the area. Whatever the exact figures, the overall effect was that nearly overnight a large community developed where less than two years previously there had been only vacant tundra. While many of these hopeful miners concentrated on the beaches in the hopes of quickly striking pay dirt, other prospectors spread out throughout the peninsula, and 1900 saw the first discovery of gold in the Bluestone and Kougarok valleys (Brooks 1908a, 1908b). By 1901 miners were working in the Agiapuk area (Nome Nugget 1901a) and the initial discovery of gold in the Candle area had been made (Nome Nugget 1901b). By the end of 1901 there were 200- 300 people living in the Candle area (Nome Nugget 1901c). By no later than 1904 there was regular commercial travel between Nome and Council (Nome Nugget 1904) and by 1907 railroad had been constructed from Nome to Shelton in the Kugarok country, providing improved access to the interior of the peninsula (Nome Daily Gold Digger 1908). The gold rush.was not nearly as significant in the northern portion of the planning area. An abortive rush to the Kobuk River in 1898-99 resulted in several hundred miners spending the winter in the area. By the following year, however, almost all had left (Burch 1998). In 1909 placer gold was discovered on Klery Creek, a tributary of the Squirrel River (Smith 1911). While prospecting continued along the Kobuk River and its tributaries, the Squirrel River placers remain the only historically-significant mineral development in the northern part of the planning Cultural Resources 3-123 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS area. A supply depot was established near the mouth of the Squirrel River at about this time, and grew into the current community of Kiana (Burch 1998). Reindeer were first introduced to the Seward Peninsula by the Reverend Sheldon Jackson, General Agent for Education in Alaska, in 1892 (Stern et al. 1980). Between 1892 and 1914 reindeer were primarily owned by the government, missions, and individual Lapps and Eskimos. Non-Alaska Native ownership increased between 1914 and 1939, especially by the Lomen family, who shipped significant quantities of reindeer meat to markets in the continental U.S. The Reindeer Act of 1937 restricted ownership to Alaska Natives and by 1940 all herds and improvements owned by non-Alaska Natives had been purchased. Reindeer herd populations in Alaska reached a high of about 640,000 in 1932, dropping to around 250,000 in 1940 and to only 25,000 in 1950 (Stern et al. 1980). Missionaries began to be active in the planning area beginning around 1890. Early missions were established at Golovin, Teller, Point Hope, Wales, and Kotzebue (Ray 1975, Burch 1998). When Sheldon Jackson began importing reindeer, he often selected missions as recipients of the animals, and between 1894 and 1901 herds were established at the missions at Wales, Golofnin Bay, Teller, and Kotzebue (Stern 1980). Jackson also funneled government education funds through mission schools (Mishler 1986). Missions thus became early and concentrated agents of culture change, combining access to new material culture with the opportunity for education and exposure to new spiritual ideas. Missionaries spread out from the initial missions, establishing missions and schools in surrounding areas. Often, the mission and its school became the nucleus around which permanent communities developed. Such is the case with the current communities of Kobuk, where a mission was established in 1903 (Burch 1998) and Selawik, where a mission was established in 1908 (Burch 1998). Those missionaries who adapted to life in northwest Alaska and who stayed for an extended period made a significant impression on Alaska Natives. One example is Father Bellarmine Lafortune, who came to Nome in 1903 on a temporary assignment and stayed until his death in 1945. His spiritual leadership of the King Islanders and his role in the development of the orphanage at Pilgrim Hot Springs make him an important and enduring historical figure on the Seward Peninsula (Renner 1979). c) Historical Themes in the Planning Area This brief sketch of the history of the planning area suggests several historic themes that might apply. Mishler (1986) proposed six themes for northwest Alaska in a thorough review of the area completed for state land use planning. These themes were 1) Exploration and Discovery, 2) Commercial Whaling, 3) Mining, 4) Missionization and Education, 5) Reindeer Herding, and 6) Transportation and Communication. These themes apply equally well to Federal lands in northwest Alaska, although material remains representative of all themes are not likely to be found on BLM-managed lands. d) Known Sites The following discussion is based on an analysis of known cultural resources in the planning area derived from information in the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) database, and on land status as provided by the Fairbanks District Office’s GIS layers. There are two major limitations to the accuracy of the data generated by both of these systems. First, there are a Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-124 Cultural Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS number of sites within the AHRS whose exact location has never been verified. Many sites in the system were entered from published literature, and early reports often omitted precise site locations. Other database entries were based on information gathered from oral interviews, and these verbal descriptions of location have often not been verified. Second, due to the sheer amount of data involved, BLM’s GIS tracks land status only down to the level of individual sections. If there is any non-BLM land within a given section, that entire section will display with ownership other than BLM based on a pre-determined, prioritized list of landowners. This “generalized” land status has the potential to affect the accuracy of site ownership. When the generalized land status coverage is produced, each PLSS section in the state is queried against the Alaska Lands Information System (ALIS) to determine which major land holders have surface management responsibility for any lands in that section, then a prioritizing filter is applied. The first land owner/manager on this prioritized list that has surface management responsibility is the generalized land status for the entire section. AHRS data and BLM GIS data can be used to generate a general idea of the current status of cultural resources in the planning area. This data is the latest available and can be treated as a very good estimate. There are approximately 2,000 known historic or prehistoric sites located within the planning area boundary. Of these, less than 300 are located on land currently managed by the BLM. Table 3-13 shows the known BLM-managed sites in the planning area, organized by land status and chronological period. Table 3-14 shows known sites organized by cultural affiliation. A few observations can be made from the information in these tables. Over 80 percent of all known sites are situated on lands selected by the State or by Native corporations. While this figure may be somewhat inflated as a result of the way land status is determined in GIS, one of the major factors that will influence management of cultural resources in the planning area over the next decade is the on-going resolution of land status. Both the State and Native corporations have selected more lands than will eventually be conveyed to them, and as the conveyance process proceeds, it is likely that some of the sites currently on selected lands will return to BLM management. Final ownership of cultural resources in the planning area should be carefully monitored to determine if new management opportunities become available. Table 3-13. Known Cultural Resource Sites in the Planning Area by Land Status and Chronological Period BLM 35 14 3 52 Native-selected 70 52 11 133 State-selected 52 30 8 90 Total 157 96 22 275 Table 3-14 displays some other important aspects of the cultural resource base in northwest Alaska. This table contains totals for all of the sites or components of sites for which a cultural affiliation has been identified. Because some sites contain more than one component, the numbers are somewhat different from the previous table. Note that half of the known sites on BLM-managed lands cannot be associated with a particular culture or archaeological assemblage. This is primarily the result of a large number of sites that lack diagnostic artifacts. Surface lithic scatters, tent rings, cairns, hunting blinds, and rock caches are examples of the Cultural Resources 3-125 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS kinds of sites that often lack any association with materials that can be assigned to a known archaeological assemblage or that can be used to date the site. Table 3-14. Sites or Site Components by Cultural Affiliation Known Denbigh 2 Choris 6 Norton 5 Ipiutak 2 Eskimo* 93 Euroamerican | 37 Total Known 145 Total Unknown 145 Total 290 *In this table, the term “Eskimo” includes Birnirk, Thule, and recent Eskimo sites. Of the 145 sites that can be placed in the chronology for the region, almost 90 percent are attributed to late prehistoric or historic Eskimo or Euroamerican cultures. This means that the earliest steps in the regional chronology are represented by only a handful of sites. In fact, because some of the information in the previous table is derived from sites with more than one component, the 15 occurrences from Denbigh, Choris, Norton, and Ipiutak actually come from only seven known sites. In other words, while there is an accepted chronology for northwest Alaska that spans 11,000 years, we currently know of no sites representing the first 7,000 years on BLM-managed lands, and we know of only seven sites that represent the next 3,000 years. Almost all known sites on BLM-managed lands in the planning area fall within the last 1,000 years of the regional chronology. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-126 Cultural Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 10. Paleontological Resources Little work has been done to inventory paleontological materials on BLM-managed lands in northwest Alaska. The BLM has conducted no program of baseline inventory, nor any compilation of existing information, for almost 20 years. In 1986, the BLM contracted for a compilation of data on paleontological resources on BLM-managed lands (Lindsey 1986). This discussion is based on information from these two compilations. There are 171 occurrences of paleontological resources on BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Of these, all but 20 are located in the northern part of the area. There are 93 recorded occurrences in the DeLong Mountains-Point Hope area, 58 in the area drained by the Kobuk and Selawik rivers, and only 20 in the Seward-Peninsula-Norton Sound area. The distribution and nature of fossil occurrences in the planning area are undoubtedly a function of the severely limited amount of inventory that has been conducted and should not be taken as representative of the area. For example, Pleistocene fossils are known to occur in numerous coastal and riparian contexts on non-BLM-managed lands in the planning area, yet such materials are almost completely absent from the small collection originating on BLM-managed lands. Paleontological Resources 3-127 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 11. Visual Resources The BLM’s Visual Resource Management (VRM) program attempts to balance the uses of public lands with the protection of areas containing high scenic values. Scenic quality is an essential component of most recreation activities. The public enjoys a wide variety of outdoor activities that depend on high quality visual resources. The BLM is responsible for managing the negative impacts that surface-disturbing activities can have on the visual resources of public lands. VRM ensures that scenic values are maintained, while allowing for multiple uses to occur on public lands. a) Visual Resource Inventory Classes The visual resource inventory process provides the BLM with a means of determining visual values. The inventory consists of a scenic quality evaluation, sensitivity level analysis, and a delineation of distance zones. Based on these factors, BLM-managed lands are placed into one of four visual resource inventory classes which represent the relative value of the visual resources. Class | is assigned to those areas where a management decision has been made to maintain a natural landscape. These would include areas such as congressionally-designated wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, the wild sections of National Wild and Scenic Rivers, and other congressionally- and administratively-designated areas where the decision has been made to preserve a natural landscape. Classes Il, Ill, and IV are assigned to areas of the planning area based on a combination of scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance zones. Generally the lower the class number, the more sensitive the area is to visual intrusions. Class | Objective: Preservation of the landscape is the primary management goal in Class | areas. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. Class Il Objective: The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. Activities or modifications of the environment should not be evident or attract the attention of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Class Ill Objective: The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes caused by management activities may be evident but not detract from the existing landscape. Class IV Objective: The Class IV objective is to provide for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. Changes may attract attention and be dominant landscape features but should reflect the basic elements of the existing Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-128 Visual Resources Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS landscape. A Class IV rating is generally reserved for areas where visual intrusions dominate the viewshed but are in character with the landscape (areas such as rural communities, multiple subdivisions, mining, and oil and gas developments). The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. b) Visual Resource Management Classes The inventory classes discussed above do not establish management direction. Inventory classes are informational in nature and provide the basis for considering visual values during land management planning. During the planning process, the class boundaries are adjusted as necessary to reflect the resource allocation decisions made in the RMP, resulting in proposed visual management classes as shown in the alternatives in Chapter II (Map 2-1, Map 2-2, and Map 2-3). The maps vary by alternative and the information is not currently applied since as noted below, no management classes currently exist. Under existing management, no VRM classes are assigned to the planning area. Although VRM is not addressed in the current MFP, permitted activities in the planning area are generally required to minimize impacts to visual resources. Using the VRM Contrast Rating Sheets, mitigation measures include such things as revegetation or recontouring of disturbed areas, using natural barriers as screening, and using materials and colors that blend into the environment. c) Condition and Trend During the summer of 2004 the BLM conducted a VRM field inventory that consisted of four overflights and driving the Nome road system (Dilts and Westcott 2004). VRM inventory classes were developed for all lands within the planning area through the spatial analysis of overflight information using GIS software, on-the-ground observations and photographs, scenic quality ratings, distance classes, viewshed analysis, sensitivity classes, and specialist input. Visual Resource Inventory classes are shown on Map 3-21 and displayed in Table 3-15. Areas of high visual sensitivity include the road system out of Nome, areas with high levels of recreational use, Native allotments, and villages. Travel routes used in the inventory included the Nome-Teller Highway, Nome-Taylor Highway, Nome-Council Road, and selected rivers. Other major travel corridors include navigable rivers and inter-village winter trails. Winter trails are used in the winter when most of the landscape features are covered with snow. There is little public land in the vicinity of most villages in the planning area. Areas of high recreational use are primarily limited to the Squirrel River and lands near the Nome road system. Much of the access into public lands is via small fixed-wing aircraft. Visual scars only visible for short distances from the roads, trails, or rivers may be highly visible from the air. There are no VRM Class | areas in the planning area. Class II and Ill areas are found in the mountainous areas such as the Squirrel River, Brooks Range, Nulato Hills, Bendeleben Mountains, and Kigluaik Mountains. The remainder of the planning area is Class IV. Visual Resources 3-129 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-15. VRM Inventory for the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area | 0 0 I 3,760,000 28 Ul 790,000 6 IV 8,690,000 66 Note: Acres rounded to the nearest ten thousand. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-130 Visual Resources 7 a 160°W T | WW a ci % 26 22 | 21 | 20) 19 18 | 17 | 4 6 T ° 2 0 s¢ \ o* y* ct 2 2 Cape Lisburne, | [ a + 61 a y r ut 59 5 10 r + { " Point Hope. wy a 2 [ / z 4] 33 ~~ 2 an 2 Cape Thompsoi We 30 | i . Kivaling é pa LJ i ls] t Cea] . oy 8 i a d |] . alt s " s e417 3 } | : dey ee Eh >> cape7 pt | SS S18} ais poqesh a ots ar reson cat HE Fi 4} sie 9 F101 | 12 3] ue National me — 3 Monument_/Q) 7 , E si 2 4 ive>) 24 a — “7 ) ' Ambler t A Kotzebue we) ; =e aE Kotzez pol ' | BT 17 Ne [army . de 4 150) %1 re : i | | | al Wig (Sy 1 oT a 8i7leé 5 Koby t s + {4 i a ia 342 fiwi [2 fs oN i 7 es ry Ww. 4 9 13/14) 0% | } | —~ e 16 i | x Tt a z yerfee Coe z : : I + 13, - EK 12 7 ? oF ela | | » {" 10 T 3 [2 [Ml 3fi4 | i mhdac 5/6]7/\68 ni nT 6 i : 9} 10) 11) 12 “4 6 : E % 15 E: mag ery H ssw 48 : } 21 ate TR a SJ 5 Brevig Misgi Telle’ 3 fel a7 16] NY T t rs : sow) 14/ 3/12) 1 f 40 . a —t zee ; | cy | wwi t} 2} 3}4 A 8 1 1 = i 6 : 39; ; PEM recht | By SB )s2 | 3; as }-—-_[Counelt 3 ‘Sead w 29 / 28 : zi If df] a [2 ta . > 10] le ps e 3} 1214 Nome : oh s 5 ] ae 2 456 10/11 | 1 Cc. é ¢ Pt } \ i 12 t # a | [ | |a Shaktoolik & i d 5 } | 12 | | | +3] | [my f 13/1264 [ r " Norton Sound + afata : 3/415{6171 6] 9} % 11} 12 | 33 | 14/165! 16 ‘8 L 46 i Unalakleet ; ci =" 5 tHe } 19 AO - - ole 160°W Generalized Land Status National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge {) State, Native, or | Private Land Visual Resource Management Inventory Classes —— Road 7 KSP RMP Planning Area YW Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI-BLM, 2004 Map 3-21 Visual Resource Management Overall Inventory Classes The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. JUBWUOJIAUA payayy ||| JaldeyD SIS/dWY Yed eInsulued premas-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 12. Wilderness Characteristics There are no Congressionally-designated wilderness areas in the planning area; however, @ almost all BLM-managed lands within the planning area, especially those removed a short distance from villages, possess wilderness characteristics of solitude, opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, and for the most part are natural. Residents travel extensively by motorized vehicle (primarily snowmachines and four-wheelers) over parts of the planning area and occupy seasonal dwellings or fish camps outside of villages. These motorized uses are generally for subsistence purposes and are authorized per Section 811 of ANILCA. Other than the Nome road system and the Red Dog Mine Road, there are virtually no roads outside of the villages. Some mining is ongoing, mostly on State land. Mining is the major land impact other than ongoing subsistence activities and dispersed recreational use. The overall impression of the planning area is that it is a natural area, untrammeled by humans, with very few obvious signs of modern humanity's influence or presence. Visitors and residents can easily find opportunities for solitude. a) Characteristics by Unit For the purposes of discussion of wilderness characteristics, the planning area was divided into the following nine units: De Long, Noatak, Squirrel River, Upper Kobuk, Nulato Hills, Deering, Shishmaref, Wales, and Southern Seward Peninsula. A general summary of wilderness characteristics in each unit follows (Map 3-22). (1) De Long Unit This area is located in the northern portion of the planning area, west of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). It includes portions of the De Long Mountains, the Brooks Range foothills, and the North Slope. There are three coastal villages adjacent to this unit: Point Hope, Point Lay, and Kivalina. The unit includes approximately 3.1 million acres of BLM- managed land, 75 percent of which is currently selected by the State and Native corporations. The area is roadless, natural outside of village influence, and provides opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. (2) Noatak Unit This area is located north of Kotzebue. It is bounded on the east by the Noatak National Preserve and on the west by the Cape Krusenstern National Monument. It includes approximately 287,000 acres, 99 percent of which is currently selected. The village of Noatak is adjacent to the unit. This area includes the lower portion of the Noatak River and uplands. The area is roadless, natural outside of village influence and provides opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. (3) Squirrel River This area is located northeast of Kotzebue. It is bounded on the west and north by the Noatak National Preserve, on the east by Kobuk Valley National Park, and on the south by Selawik National Wildlife Refuge. The village of Kiana is located on the southern edge of the unit. This Wilderness Characteristics 3-133 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS area includes approximately 1.1 million acres of BLM-managed land. Of this acreage, 58 percent is currently selected. This area includes the Squirrel River valley and portions of the Baird Mountains. The area is roadless, natural outside of village influence, and provides opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. (4) Upper Kobuk This unit is located in the far eastern part of the planning area. The unit is surrounded by the Selawik NWR, Kobuk Valley National Park, State land, and Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. There are three villages within the unit: Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk. The unit is approximately 1.3 million acres in size, and approximately 57 percent of the land is currently selected. The area is roadless, natural outside of village influence, and provides opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. (5) Nulato Hills @ This area is on the southeastern edge of the panning area. The Selawik NWR bounds the northeastern edge of the unit and there is a large block of State land located to the west. There are two villages within this unit: Buckland and Shaktoolik. Kotzebue is located to the northwest. The area includes approximately 3.4 million acres, 41 percent of which is selected. The area is 2 roadless, natural outside of village influence, and provides opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. (6) Deering Unit The Deering Unit is located on the northeastern Seward Peninsula. The unit is surrounded by the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, State lands, and the Chukchi Sea. The village of Deering is located within this unit. The unit is approximately 128,000 acres, 99.8 percent of which is currently selected. It is split into three smaller subunits by private land. The area is roadless, natural outside of village influence, and provides opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. (7) Shishmaref Unit This unit is located on the northern edge of the Seward Peninsula and is surrounded by the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and the Chukchi Sea. It encompasses approximately 76,000 acres, 99 percent of which is selected. It is primarily flat, coastal tundra. The village of Shishmaref is located north of the unit. The area is roadless, natural outside of village influence, and provides opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. (8) Wales Unit This unit is located on the northwestern edge of the Seward Peninsula and is surrounded by the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, State land, and Native corporation land. It encompasses approximately 171,000 acres, 60 percent of which is selected. The village of Wales is located on the edge of the unit. The area is roadless, natural outside of village influence, and provides opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-134 Wilderness Characteristics Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (9) Southern Seward Peninsula Unit This unit encompasses the entire southern half of the Seward Peninsula and includes about 3.6 million acres, 71 percent of which is selected. Nome and several coastal villages are located near the unit. The road system out of Nome crosses the unit with about 200 miles of road. There is very little BLM-managed land adjacent to the roads. The BLM land within the unit is scattered in large blocks among State and Native corporation land. The northern edge is bounded by Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and State land. The Elim Reservation bounds the southeastern edge of the unit. The unit includes various landforms including the Kigluaik, Darby, and Bendeleben mountains, coastal lowlands, marshes, and several large rivers. Outside of the road system in the Nome area, the area is roadless, natural outside of village influence, and provides opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. In general, risk of losing the wilderness character of the planning area is minimal, given the remoteness of the area, rough terrain, and lack of projected development. b) Legislative History Relevant to BLM Wilderness The Wilderness Act of 1964 established a national Wilderness Preservation System in the United States. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 established principles and procedures for management of public lands, as well as a process to inventory and study lands potentially suitable for wilderness designation. In accord with FLPMA, the BLM initiated plans (Management Framework Plans) for lands in Alaska in the early 1980s. However, a wilderness inventory was not completed due to a congressional freeze on funds slated for wilderness reviews in Alaska. In 1981, Interior Secretary James Watt issued a departmental memo prohibiting the BLM from initiating wilderness studies. Twenty years later, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt rescinded this direction and enabled the BLM to review potential wilderness areas in Alaska. In 2002, the BLM was instructed to address wilderness as a component in any future land use plan. On April 11, 2003, Interior Secretary Gale Norton issued a letter regarding wilderness proposals in Alaska. It stated that during the land use planning process, the BLM should consider specific wilderness study proposals that receive broad support among Alaska’s elected officials. Without this support, wilderness proposals should not be considered in the planning process. Referencing Secretary Norton’s letter, the State of Alaska through the ADNR sent a letter to the BLM expressing their desire that the BLM not consider wilderness study proposals in the Kobuk- Seward Peninsula RMP (ADNR 2004). To this end and per the Secretary’s instructions, some areas may be considered for management under other designations such as Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) or Research Natural Area (RNA). As a result of Secretary Norton's direction on the wilderness process in land use plans in Alaska and the resulting State of Alaska letter stating their opposition to any further wilderness proposals being addressed in the plan, the BLM will not conduct any further impact analysis on wilderness in this EIS. Wilderness Characteristics 3-135 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment ‘I saydeyo JUSWUOJIAUR papayy *8 28/27 | 26] 28] 24] 23] 22) 21) Taelt™ WY; 2 [ao}s9} 19) 7/16 Wilderness Map 3-22 Characteristics Cape Lisburnég’ a +. p29 |28 ar | 2625 sitata 21/3) 13) wl I 18/1 Wilderness Characteristics Unit 10 Generalized Land Status Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service . a Native Patent or IC ; Native Selected State Patent or TA State Selected (7) Shishmaref f (6) Deering.” 3 Unit SP RMP 4] 5 Husliae: { [at 2 1 2)3)4/5 6] 7/8] 9} 10/14 12/13) 4) oe oa Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Ss Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12 24 ea (Wiles 16/17 pole (9) Southern Seward Peninsula. Unit Pigott [5] 29loglo7 T Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 sf if Bh _Koyukuke 9 V2) 3}4) 5/6 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status} information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWe Yes eINsulUad premag-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS C. Resource Uses 1. Forest Products Siberia, Scandinavia, northern Canada, and Interior Alaska are the primary locations for the green mantle of subarctic forest wrapping the earth. Forested lands within the planning area are part of this band of northern forest, known collectively as the boreal forest or taiga. Only the hardiest of tree species can withstand the combination of short growing season, cold and shallow soils, plus frigid and dry, often abrasive winter winds. Boreal forest in the planning area is characterized by closed, open, and woodland evergreen forests of white and black spruce. Mixed forest types are also common, composed of varying amounts of deciduous trees (birch, balsam poplar, and aspen) scattered in with spruce. Forest communities in the planning area are primarily open-canopied woodlands dominated by white spruce (Picea glauca). White spruce will tolerate a wide range of site conditions, but grows best on well drained soils of gentle, south-facing slopes or deeper soils of protected river valleys. Stands of black spruce (Picea mariana) occupy low, poorly drained areas with fine- grained soils, or occasionally dominate stands of regrowth after fire. Paper birch (Betula papyrifera) is scattered in small groves in some areas at protected sites with porous, deeper soils. Balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera) stands form narrow, linear units along stable river banks. Small, stunted quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) are occasionally found in the most interior portions of the planning area on dry, warmer soils of south-facing slopes or low hilltops. Within the planning area, forest lands cover only 8 percent of BLM-managed lands, just under one million acres (USGS 1997). There are five main regions within the planning area characterized by forested landscapes: the southeast corner of the Seward Peninsula, the Nulato Hills, the Kobuk River valley, the Squirrel River valley, and the lower Noatak River corridor (Map 3-24). BLM has not conducted an inventory of forest resources for the planning area. A study done by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs in the early 1970s at the Norton Bay Native Reserve (now known as Elim Native Corporation lands) indicated net annual growth on more productive forested sites ranged from 4-9.9 cubic feet per year (Zufelt 1973). A 1960s statewide inventory by the USDA Forest Service (Hutchison 1967, Selkregg 1976) concluded that for wooded areas of northwest Alaska 13 percent of tree growth can be classified as commercial, specifically an annual growth of at least 15 cubic feet per acre. For the planning area this works out to approximately 126,200 acres of potentially commercial timber. At a suggested rotation period of 120 years (Hutchison 1967) the low volume, low productivity, scattered timber stands, and long distances involved in log transport in the planning area make commercial logging ventures impractical, while the potential to incur adverse environmental impacts is large. Natural impacts to forest communities in the planning area include wildfire, insect pests, wind thrown trees (with shallow permafrost soils a contributing factor), and trees snapped off at 5-10 feet above the base due to high winds. Forest health issues are beginning to emerge in the south and southeastern portions of the Seward Peninsula. A spruce beetle infestation (Dendroctonus rufipennis) was documented by the BLM in August 2003 when areas of conspicuous beetle-killed spruce were observed and aerially photographed in the upper Tubutulik River region on the east side of the Darby Mountains (Sparks 2003). In 2004, the annual statewide aerial survey conducted by the USDA Forest Service and the ADNR, Division Forest Products 3-137 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS of Forestry, reported 81,389 acres of beetle-killed spruce on Elim Native Corporation lands along the coast and inland from Moses Point to Mount Kwiniuk (Map 3-23). This outbreak appeared to have peaked within the last few years, with current activity being very light. USDA Forest Service and ADNR Division of Forestry personnel estimated a near total loss of the forest resource in that area (Wittwer 2005). The 2004 statewide aerial survey also documented an area of light to moderate spruce beetle activity north of the village of White Mountain along the Fish River. Mapping showed 8,681 acres of beetle-affected spruce, with the majority characterized as light intensity (Wittwer 2005). Smoke from tundra wildfires in McCarthy’s Marsh prevented additional survey in this region during the summer of 2004. Earlier aerial surveys flown over the Seward Peninsula and other portions of the planning area in 1991, 1999, 2000, and 2002 by the USDA Forest Service and ADNR Division of Forestry mapped small patches of light spruce beetle activity in the Tubutulik River drainage (1991), South Fork of the Buckland River (1999), and lower Fish River (2002), plus low to moderate spruce beetle damage of limited acreage (52 acres) along the upper Kobuk River in 2000 (Map 3-23) (U.S.D.A. Forest Service 1991, Wittwer 1999, Wittwer 2001, and Wittwer 2003). One system used by State and Federal foresters and entomologists to rate spruce beetle activity describes a light spruce beetle infestation as 1-5 dead trees per acre, moderate as 6-10 dead trees per acre, and severe as more than 10 dead trees per acre (Wittwer 2005, Zogas 2005). On July 28, 2005, BLM personnel from the Fairbanks District Office and NRCS personnel from the Homer Office conducted an informal aerial and ground survey of BLM-managed lands along the Tubutulik River in the southeastern corner of the Seward Peninsula to estimate the extent of beetle-killed white spruce forest (Meyers et al. 2005). Approximately 45,850 acres were surveyed by helicopter, with two landings made to examine individual trees more closely. A “TracBack” feature on a Garmin III Plus GPS unit was used to create a record of the area covered. The area surveyed followed the Tubutulik River from the mouth to the headwaters, plus adjacent uplands to the east between the Tubutulik River and June Creek. Gray, standing dead trees were an obvious component of the valley bottoms and hillsides. In some places gray and red trees were observed (red indicating more recent death of the tree). Based on both ground and aerial observations the affected trees ranged in size (diameter and height), indicating the beetles were attacking trees of all sizes (from 4.5-12 inches diameter at breast height), not just the largest trees. During informal aerial observations, dead trees ranged from patches of approximately one acre in size with all standing dead, to one dead tree in every five trees, one in every 10 trees, one in every 20-30 trees, or one dead in every 30-40 trees. Lower slopes and flats seemed to have a lower incidence of dead trees, and the higher slopes and heads of valleys a greater percent. This may have been tied at least partly to moisture: drier soils on upper slopes may have increased drought stress, making the trees more susceptible to beetle attack. Examination of trees on the ground in two locations showed that the beetle infestation was ongoing, as trees with dead, reddish-brown needles of current growth (but otherwise green-needled), with beetle bore holes and evidence of increased pitch production stood next to dead, gray-limbed trees with bark flaking off in large patches. Based on the informal survey of the Tubutulik River and adjacent uplands it was estimated this area has sustained a moderate to severe level of spruce beetle activity (Meyers et al. 2005). With standing dead and fallen timber of beetle kill origin letting in more light, early seral species such as grass (Calamagrostis canadensis, and others) may colonize, providing a source of flash fuels that could support larger and more intense fires than normally expected for the southeastern Seward Peninsula. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-138 Forest Products Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Demand for Forest Products The BLM forest resource program in northwest Alaska is basically in custodial management. Little demand exists for forest products from BLM administered lands. Most lands with forest resources are located in remote areas with poor or non-existent access. Many of the timber stands are several hundred miles from the nearest road. The Kobuk-Seward Peninsula planning area is a sparsely timbered region of Alaska, and contains vastly more tussock tundra, shrublands, and thinly vegetated alpine land cover than it does woodland and forests. Many riparian corridors with accessible timber have been conveyed to village or regional Native corporations, and in some cases the State, leaving little easily accessible timber under BLM jurisdiction. The forestry program managed by BLM in northwest Alaska has focused mainly on processing a low volume of permits for personal use house log and firewood, and a single Christmas tree sale. Forestry management issues may be more related to habitat management rather than demand for forest products. Since 1980 the BLM has issued nine free use authorization permits for house logs and firewood and one small sales vegetative contract for Christmas tree harvest in the planning area. Two free use permits granted in 1994 for a total of 220 house logs and the small sales contract for 10 Christmas trees in 2004 have been the most recent actions. From 1978-1980 two timber sales were conducted in the planning area, totaling 7,405 linear feet. Also during 1978-80 two free use permits were issued for 80 house logs and 1,000 board feet of sawtimber, plus four free use permits for a total of 500 cords of wood and 460 house logs. However, the lands harvested for timber during 1978-1980 are no longer under BLM management. Current authorized use of forest products in the planning area during the last 14 years has been less than 10 free use permits, plus one small sales vegetative contract. The amount of unauthorized use is difficult to monitor or estimate, given the size and remoteness of the area and current level of staffing. It is estimated that the amount of authorized and unauthorized use is well below that which the resource can sustain. Incremental increases of individual use products like firewood and house logs can be expected as rural population numbers in the planning area increase over time. The remote nature of forested lands coupled with changing land ownership patterns has resulted in a situation where little is known about the resource. The first step in management is inventory. In order to adequately determine the condition and quantity of the forest resource, a basic inventory should be conducted. The inventory should provide location of timber stands, their age, size class, and species composition, plus current and predicted health (including insect infestation level and disease potential). Pockets of old growth white spruce, which may have escaped fire for 200-300 years or more, should be noted. These old growth stands often have abundant and unique arboreal lichens (examples of significant range extensions) and are of scientific interest and research potential (Juday 1985, Meyers 1995d, 1997c). Their presence increases the diversity of forested plant communities in the planning area. Without a comprehensive, baseline timber survey professional management of the resource will be limited. No prescribed burns or fuels treatments have been conducted in the planning area in the past. The forest inventory recommended for the planning area would provide baseline information needed to assess future management direction for forest resources, including a possible need for more intensive management to enhance wildlife habitat or reduce hazardous fuels. Guidance and authorities provided by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 would be utilized to structure hazardous fuels reduction and forest health improvement treatments identified as necessary. Forest Products 3-139 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment jUaWUOLIAUA papeyy ‘||| Je}deyD Deerin ao, TQ otzebue ts Buckland Kiana e ‘Amblere Koyukuk e Nulato e Kobul Shungnak e Ke gate, Galena rt Spruce Bark Map 3-23 Beetle Damage Forest Health Conditions Flights Survey Year 2004 Note: Outlines have been enlarged to make small areas visible on map. Due to the size of statewide survey area, not all locations can be flown each year. Generalized Land Status National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12 24 —e_e Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDA Forest Service & Alaska DNR, 2005 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status| information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files SIA/dWY YesG einsulueg premes-ynqoy | zaydeyo JUaWUOIIAU peyeyy : 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W Point Hope | Ny sw 44 Brevig Mis: Teller { L4] 33 Cape Thompson 165°W 165°W pr Kivalina / 6 Cape~ | Krusenstern_/ National | Monument. T l te Kotgebue | Kotzeg,, e Norton Sound | | ne 160°W 22 21} 20 | 19! 18 | 17 | 16° z 2 n 12 = UMIAT MERIDIAI 3|2]3 Abate hy 7} 8% 9/10) 11) 12 as 13 an 2 = S 8 2B 7 5) 4 3/2 iwi thal 3 Z 8 10] 11/42) 13) 14 9 10 ” 12 13 4 2/6 2s 41 8/6} 7] 0] 5 10] 10) 12] 13] 1015) 96 7 = 3 Generalized Vegetation Categories —— Road [__] ksP RMP Planning Area Ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 1218 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2003 Map 3-24 Generalized Vegetation (1 Kilometer Resolution) | the information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIS/dWY YeIG eInsulusd premag-4NGoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 2. Livestock Grazing Sheldon Jackson initially introduced reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) into Alaska from Siberia in 1891. Reindeer herding was heralded as a way to develop an economic base and a reliable food source for the rural residents of the Seward Peninsula, as caribou populations had declined due to market hunting and natural fluctuations. Scandinavians were brought in later in that decade to teach and work in the herding industry. The first shipment of reindeer meat to the Lower 48 was in 1911. Over 33,000 reindeer were counted during that year. Reindeer research was conducted from 1920 to 1935 by the U.S. Biological Survey and the FWS. The number of reindeer in Alaska peaked in 1932, with an estimate of over 640,000 head. Of these, 127,000 resided on the Seward Peninsula. The Reindeer Act of 1937 restricted ownership of reindeer herds to Alaska Natives. In 1940 the government bought 84,000 head from non- Alaska Native owners. By 1950, the number of reindeer in Alaska was estimated to be 25,000 individuals. Overgrazing, predation, and less active herding were all thought to have contributed to the decline. Brucellosis was introduced to caribou and other ungulates in Alaska via the original reindeer introductions. The term “range” is used to indicate Federal lands available for the grazing of reindeer and livestock. The entire Seward and adjacent Baldwin peninsulas are broken up into different grazing allotments; there are no other grazing allotments in the planning area. However, there is nothing in the current MFP that disallows grazing in other parts of the planning area. There are currently 15 reindeer grazing allotments covering 12.6 million acres. There are two vacant areas (the northern portion of the Menadelook allotment in the upper Kuzitrin River watershed and McCarthy’s Marsh) covering 1 million acres, and two areas not designated for grazing (Nome and Elim) covering 0.3 million acres. Specific acreages of each allotment is shown in Table 3-16. Map 3-25 portrays the locations of the allotments within the planning area. Extensive incursions onto the Seward Peninsula by the enormous WACH have been devastating for reindeer herders. The WACH consists of approximately 490,000 caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti). Reindeer on all of the eastern allotments have mixed with the WACH and subsequently emigrated with the herd on its annual spring migration. There are currently no active herders on the eastern side of the Seward Peninsula. All but the westernmost herders have been strongly affected by the WACH’s extensive incursions on to the peninsula. Reindeer have run off with members of the WACH for decades at least, but this emigration was constrained mainly to the northern and easternmost herds. There were a total of about 7,500 reindeer corralled by the only five active herders in 2004. The UAF Reindeer Research Program and the Kawerak Reindeer Herders Association estimate that only 80 percent of a herd is typically rounded up for a particular corralling. Therefore, there may have been as many as 9,000 reindeer on the Seward Peninsula in 2004. Livestock Grazing 3-143 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-16. Grazing Allotments in the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area Sheldon 1,695,000 Karmun 1,229,000 Goodhope 1,130,000 Hadley 1,110,000 Grey 1,047,000 Weyiouanna 1,000,000 Davis 956,000 Kakaruk 838,000 Noyakuk 762,000 Henry 707,000 Ongtowasruk 599,000 Olanna 524,000 Sagoonik 400,000 Walker 360,000 Menadelook 301,000 * Includes State and National Park Service lands. Since the allotments contain intermingled Federal, State, and private lands, grazing is managed jointly by the BLM, NPS, and ADNR under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The herder also obtains permits for the use of private lands through the Native corporations. Besides reindeer emigrating off the Seward Peninsula, reindeer herding also faces the problem of hunters and predators killing reindeer. ADF&G and the UAF Reindeer Research Program have tried to mitigate the problem associated with emigration and hunters by using satellite collars on reindeer and caribou to allow the herders to try to move their herds away from the movements of the WACH. This information could by used by the Reindeer Herders Association to anticipate expansion of reindeer herds if and when the WACH’s population decreases and range shrinks correspondingly. Inquiries have been received about the possibility of grazing other species, such as bison (Bison bison), on the Seward Peninsula. Grazing by other forms of livestock is not currently occurring within the planning area, nor was it addressed in the MFP. Another potential use of the range resource is grazing of pack animals associated with special recreational permits (SRPs). To date, the BLM has not authorized this type of use and there are currently no commercial operators using pack animals in the planning area. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-144 Livestock Grazing JUSWUOIIAUA payeyy *||| Ja}deyD 1 : Goodhope 10 Peninsula 31 9N DW) 29) 25 ar | 5 8 sete River McCarthy's Marsh 6s Grazing Map 325 A tiotments Generalized Land Status Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service (eee Native Patent or IC Native Selected State Patent or TA State Selected ~ y Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP \. J Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12. 24 ae Viles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status} information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWa Beg Binsulusd puemas-4nGoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Minerals a) Leasable Minerals (1) Oil and Gas The Kobuk Seward planning area contains parts of three basins: the Colville, Kotzebue/Hope, and Selawik basins. At present there are no active Federal oil and gas leases within the planning area. A total of five hydrocarbon wells have been drilled within the boundaries of the planning area. Areas currently open to mineral leasing are shown on Map 3-26. (a) History and Development 1. Colville Basin The Colville Basin is one of two basins in Alaska (the other being the Cook Inlet Basin) where hydrocarbons are being produced. While oil out of Prudhoe Bay has been produced for many years, exploration has made it only halfway through the Colville Basin and is primarily focused in the north along the Barrow Arch. Several wells have been drilled within the portion of the Colville Basin that encompasses the planning area. Eagle Creek #1 was drilled by Chevron in February 1978 and completed in December 1978. It reached a total depth of 12,049 feet in the Lower Cretaceous. The purpose of the test hole was to test structures in allochthonous rocks of the Brooks Range foothills (Moore and Potter 2003). Gas was recovered in drill stem tests from sandstones within the Nanushuk or Torok formations. The well was plugged and abandoned. Tungak Creek #1 was drilled by Unocal in December 1981 and completed in March 1982. The well reached the Torok Formation at its total depth of 8,212 feet. The well encountered pooled gas at depth. Gas quantities are similar to those encountered at Wolf Creek, Gubik, Meade, and Square Lake within NPR-A. Akulik #1 was drilled by Chevron Inc. in April 1981. The well was drilled to a total depth of 17,038 feet. Gas was recovered in drill stem tests from sandstones within the Nanushuk or Torok formations. The well was plugged and abandoned. 2. Kotzebue/Hope Basin Two hydrocarbon test wells, Cape Espenberg and Nimiuk Point, were drilled in the Kotzebue/Hope Basin. Both were drilled in the mid-1970s by the Standard Oil Company of California (SOCAL). Cape Espenberg #1 was drilled in 1975 to a total depth of 8,373 feet. The drill hole did not encounter anything that would classify as an oil or gas show, but small indications of methane associated with coalbeds were present in the mudlog. Four formation tests were conducted but recovered only salt and no hydrocarbons (Troutman and Stanley 2002). Nimiuk Point #1 was drilled five miles west of the Selawik NWR boundary. The well was bored in the same locality as the conceptual Early Sequence Play. It reached a total depth of 6,311 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-146 Minerals: Leasable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS feet. The well proved largely unsuccessful. A formation test was run between 3,537 and 3,755 feet in which a short blow was observed, but no gas was observed at the surface, making the test inconclusive. Gas zones identified by geophysical well logs were present from 1,130-1,132 feet, and from 1,158-1,160 feet, but were determined to be too thin to hold economic quantities of gas, if they in fact do contain gas. The well was abandoned as a dry hole (Troutman and Stanley 2002). A hole was drilled at Kotzebue in 1950 to test for fresh water. The hole ran into some high pressure gas at 238 feet, which lifted the heavy string of tools several feet into the air, showering the area with mud. The gas continued to flow for more than 24 hours. The gas may have been biogenic, formed from decaying organic matter (Troutman and Stanley 2002). In 1973 SOCAL discovered gas at a depth of 90 feet in a seismic shot hole on the Kobuk River Delta, 33 miles southeast of Kotzebue. Samples were taken and results indicated the gas to be 66 percent methane, 26 percent nitrogen, 6 percent oxygen, 2 percent carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of ethane and higher alkanes. A similar gas show was discovered five miles east in the delta at a depth of 65 feet and with similar lab results (Troutman and Stanley 2002). Oil seeps have been reported within the basin and in the Seward Peninsula area over the years, but these findings were either not investigated by USGS, or, if investigated, have not been confirmed. Additionally, four wells were drilled on the Seward Peninsula near Nome on two separate occasions in 1906 and 1918. The wells were located along Hastings Creek and were very shallow (the deepest reached a total depth of 210 feet). The two wells drilled in 1906 had shows. One well that reached a total depth of 122 feet had a gas show and the other well had an oil show. The gas is believed to be derived from alluvial deposits. The oil show is difficult to explain as the wells were drilled in basement rocks composed of schist and granite. The wells were drilled in response to oil-like films observed on the nearby lagoons and the films brought onshore attached to beach foams (Miller et al. 1959). 3. Selawik Basin Oil and gas activity within the Selawik Basin has been minimal. The area has been geologically mapped by the USGS during the late 1950s and early 1960s, with some additional recent mapping within select areas. There have been no oil or gas wells drilled in the basin. (b) Occurrence Potential Several geologic elements are necessary for oil and gas to accumulate in sufficient quantities. These elements include an organic-rich source rock to generate oil or gas, the combined effects of heat and time, a porous and permeable reservoir rock in which to store the petroleum, and some sort of trap to prevent the oil and gas from reaching the surface. Traps generally exist in predictable places such as at the tops of anticlines, next to faults, in the updip pinchouts of sandstone beds, or beneath unconformities. Map 3-27 shows the occurrence potential for oil and gas throughout the planning area; however, there is no implication that these resources can be developed economically. The USGS conducts estimates of oil and gas resources in the United States based on the concept of a “play,” which is defined as a set of oil and/or gas accumulations sharing similar geographic boundaries and geologic attributes, such as source rock, reservoir type, and trap (Beeman et al. 1996). Of the three basins that partially fall within the planning area, only one, the Colville Basin, has been identified as containing plays. By definition, plays defined by the USGS are to be considered high potential for future oil and gas exploration. Minerals: Leasable 3-147 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (c) Development Potential Actual development activity within the planning area will be determined by accessibility to resources, including the perceived impact of lease stipulations by the petroleum industry; exploration and development costs; the success rate of wells drilled in the future; commodity prices; and production rates required to provide an economically viable return on investment. 1. Topset Play The Topset Play’s primary reservoir rocks consist of sandstone and conglomerate from the Mid- to Upper-Brookian Sequence (Upper Cretaceous to Cenozoic). Porosity in the western play area ranges between 10 and 20 percent. Source rocks occur below the play interval (9,000 feet) within the Hue Shale, the Kingak Shale, and the Shublik Formation. According to Magoon et al. (1996), between 8 and 60 oil accumulations of one million barrels or more could be present in the play. Additionally, 2-90 gas accumulations with a calculated mean of 127.6 billion cubic feet could occur in the play. The overall area of the play covers roughly 26,400 square miles (Magoon et al. 1996). A total of 138,748 acres of the play are contained within the planning area. 2. Turbidite Play The Turbidite Play is comprised of rocks from the Lower- to Mid-Brookian Sequence (Cretaceous age). Reservoir rocks are primarily toe-of-slope or basin-plain turbidites from the Torok and Canning formations. Sandstone bodies are thin and laterally discontinuous with reservoir thicknesses that could potentially reach 100 feet or more. Porosity ranges from 5-30 percent, with the higher value associated with eastern play rocks. Source rocks include the gas-prone Torok and Canning formations and oil-prone Hue Shale, Pebble Unit Shale, Kingak Shale, and the Shublik Formation. According to Magoon et al. (1996) resource potential of undiscovered oil accumulations (one million barrels or more) is estimated to occur between 10 and 110 locations. Between 5 and 80 undiscovered gas accumulations are estimated to occur with a calculated mean of 108.9 billion cubic feet. Total play area covers roughly 30,500 square miles (Magoon et al. 1996). A total of 298,169 acres of the play are contained within the planning area. 3. Ellesmerian-Beaufortian Clastics Play The Ellesmerian-Beaufortian Clastics Play consists of stratigraphic and structural traps of Permian to Early Cretaceous age. Reservoir rocks include sandstones of the Echooka, Ivishak, and Kuparuk formations, Sag River Sandstone, Kemik Sandstone, and unnamed sandstone units in the Kingak Shale, all of which were deposited in shallow marine environments. Within the planning area, porosity is estimated to be less than 10 percent. Source rocks include the Kavik Shale, Shublik Formation, Kingak Shale, the pebble shale unit, and the Hue Shale. The shales are primarily overmature within the planning area. Oil potential is unknown and unestimated. Magoon et al. (1996) estimates between 10 and 140 gas fields with a calculated mean of 108.9 billion cubic feet (1996). Total play area covers approximately 35,000 square miles (Magoon et al. 1996). A total of 234,050 acres of the play are contained within the planning area. 4. Fold-Belt Play The Fold-Belt Play primarily contains anticlinal traps in sandstone reservoirs within the Brooks Range fold and thrust belt. Potential reservoirs are sandstones representing deltaic, shallow- Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-148 Minerals: Leasable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS marine, and turbidite environments. Porosity ranges from 5 to 30 percent, with the lower porosity rate more representative of the western portion of the play. Source rocks include several gas prone shales of the Nanushuk Group, as well as the Canning, Sagavanirktok, and Torok formations. They also include the oil-prone shales of the Hue Shale, Pebble Unit Shale, Kingak Shale, and Shublik Formation. The oil-prone rocks range from mature to overmature. Additionally, oil is less perspective in this play due to the Hue Shale thins to the west. Magoon et al. (1996) estimate between 1 and 20 of one million barrels or more. Undiscovered gas occurrences could result in 10-150 accumulations with a calculated mean of 212.7 billion cubic feet. The overall area of the play covers roughly 36,500 square miles (Magoon et al. 1996). A total of 3,374,677 acres of the play are contained within the planning area. 5. Lisburne Play The Lisburne Play is a hypothetical play that consists of structural and stratigraphic trapped carbonate or clastic reservoirs in the Lisburne Group. Potential reservoir rocks in the planning area would probably be limestone or sandstone. Limestone porosity is estimated at less than 5 percent. The sandstone is a marginal reservoir in that it may be cemented partially or completely with calcite. Source rocks beneath the planning area could include a marine shale in the overlying Sadlerochit Group, marine shale and limestone in the Lisburne Group, and marine to lacustrine shale and coal in the underlying Endicott Group. Undiscovered oil potential was not determined; however, between 1 and 100 gas accumulations could be present with a calculated average of 287.6 billion cubic feet. The overall area of the play covers approximately 57,000 square miles (Magoon et al. 1996). A total of 4,180,072 acres of the play are contained within the planning area. 6. Lisburne Unconformity Play The Lisburne Unconformity Play is a hypothetical play that consists of stratigraphic traps that developed as a result of differential erosion on the Permian or Lower Cretaceous unconformities that lie at the top of the Lisburne Group. Reservoir rocks are primarily limestone. Source rocks are gas-prone marine and non-marine shale. Oil and gas accumulations for the play was not quantitatively assessed. The overall area of the play covers approximately 60,350 square miles (Magoon et al. 1996). A total of 4,180,072 acres of the play are contained within the planning area. 7. Endicott Play The Endicott Play is a hypothetical play comprised of both structural and stratigraphic traps in sandstone reservoirs within the Mississippian-aged Kekiktuk Conglomerate. Reservoir rocks are comprised of fluvial to shallow-marine quartzose sandstone and conglomerate within the Kekiktuk Conglomerate. Porosity is estimated to be less than 10 percent. Source rocks include coal and lacustrine shale within the Kekiktuk and marine shale in the Kayak Shale. The overall area of the play covers roughly 57,000 square miles (Magoon et al. 1996). A total of 4,180,072 acres of the play are contained within the planning area. 8. Western Thrust Belt Play The Western Thrust Belt Play is a hypothetical oil and gas play that consists primarily of structural traps in Mississippian and Pennsylvanian carbonate reservoirs in the Brooks Range fold and thrust belt. Reservoir rocks include greywacke sandstone of the Jurassic and Cretaceous and fractured chert and silicious shale of the Mississippian and Jurassic. A potential source rock is the marine shale of Mississippian to Cretaceous age. Traps in the play Minerals: Leasable ; 3-149 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS are large anticlinal structures composed of multiple thrust sheets of carbonate rocks. According to Magoon et al. (1996), undiscovered oil potential projects between 1 and 45 accumulations of one million barrels or more; undiscovered gas occurrences could result in 10-150 accumulations with a calculated mean of 278.1 billion cubic feet; and total play area covers approximately 16,000 square miles (Magoon et al. 1996). A total of 2,472,913 acres of the play are contained within the planning area. (2) Coal All or parts of five coal fields reside inside the planning area, as shown on Map 3-28. A coal field as defined in this document is an area that has high resource potential and contains one or more known coal beds of mineable thickness and quality. This does not imply that coal within these fields is economical to mine. There are currently two preferential right coal leases in the planning area. Both are 10-year leases and were issued in 1999. Coal is classified by rank in accordance with the standard specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials. Coal in the planning area ranges the entire spectrum of rank from lignite to anthracite. The predominant type is subbituminous to bituminous. It is likely that some of these coal resources will be developed within the next 15-20 years. (a) History and Development Two Federal coal leases were issued in the planning area in 1999 in the Beaufort Field. Both leases were issued as a result of the Preference Right Lease Application, which meant that a discovery of coal was made through a prospecting permit issued prior to August 4, 1976. These preferential right leases will terminate in 10 years without diligent development. Currently, the two leases are not producing coal. 1. Cape Beaufort Field The Cape Beaufort Field is located on the northern coast of Alaska east of Cape Lisburne to the Kukpowruk River south of Point Lay. Most of the coal within the Cape Beaufort Field is from the Nanushuk Group of Early to Late Cretaceous age and bituminous in rank. 2. Lisburne Field The Lisburne Field runs from Niak Creek, five miles south of Cape Lisburne, 45 miles south to Cape Thompson. The Mississipian-age Kapaloak Formation coals are high quality semi- anthracite in rank. The average coalbed thickness does not exceed four feet. The structural complexity of the area makes it difficult to determine a resource estimate for the field. 3. Kukpowruk Field The Kukpowruk Field is located northeast of Deadfall Syncline in the Cape Beaufort Field toward the western boundary of NPR-A. Composition and quality of the coal is similar to that of Beaufort Field coal. Coal seams vary from 1-22 feet in thickness and are oriented horizontal to vertical depending on the location. Strippable reserve estimates are 20 million short tons for Kukpowruk Field. Total estimated resources are approximately three billion short tons (Merritt 1988). Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-150 Minerals: Leasable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 4. Chicago Creek Field The Chicago Creek Field, also known as the Kugruk River Field, is located on the northwestern part of Seward Peninsula and occupies an area of less than 40 square miles (Merritt 1986). The coal field lies in a north-south trending linear trough that may be as great as two miles wide. Identified resources of the Late Tertiary lignite are 4.7 million short tons within 300 feet of the surface. 5. Kobuk Basin (East and West Kobuk Fields) The Kobuk Basin is comprised of the East and West Kobuk Fields and several other coal occurrences. Most exposures are located along the drainages within the basin including the Singauruk River, Hunt River, lower Ambler River, lower Kogoluktuk River, and the Lockwood Hills. The coals are mid to late Cretaceous and bituminous in rank. Coal seams tend to be less than three feet thick. (3) Geothermal Geothermal energy consists of heat stored in rocks, and, to a lesser extent, in water or steam- filled pores and fractures. Water and steam transfer geothermal heat by convection to shallow depths within the earth’s crust. This heat may then be tapped by drilling. Geothermal heat may also escape at the surface in geysers, thermal springs, mud volcanoes, and vents (usually volcanic) called fumaroles. Geothermal leases are issued through competitive bidding for Federal lands within a Known Geothermal Resource Area (KGRA), or are issued noncompetitively for Federal lands outside of a KGRA. KGRAs are areas where the BLM determines that persons knowledgeable in geothermal development would spend money to develop geothermal resources. Pilgrim Hot Springs is a KGRA, one of three in Alaska, and the only KGRA in the planning area. In addition to the KRGA, the DGGS (Motyka et al. 1983) has identified within the planning area a “region favorable to the discovery at shallow depth (less than 1,000 meters) of thermal water of sufficient temperature for direct heat applications.” The area includes 11 hot springs and extends from Pilgrim Hot Springs in the southwest to Serpentine Hot Springs in the northwest, then east across the Seward Peninsula to Hogatza, then southwest to Norton Bay and west to Pilgrim Hot Springs. This area is shown on Figure 9 in the Leasable Mineral Occurrence and Development Report (BLM 2005n). (a) History and Development Pilgrim Hot Springs, formerly known as Kruzgamepa Hot Springs, is located on the Seward Peninsula approximately 40 miles northeast of Nome and one-third of a mile south of the Pilgrim River. Access is by air to a small, gravel airstrip or by four-wheel drive vehicle. The Nome- Taylor Highway is seven miles to the east. The hot, saline water rises to the surface in an abandoned river channel within the Pilgrim River valley. The springs area has a sandy surface soil and is permanently thawed by the hot water. Water temperature averages roughly 156° F, with a maximum of 190° F. The water runs clear with only a slight odor of hydrogen-sulfide (USGS 1971). Two 164-foot test wells were drilled in 1979 with artesian aquifers encountered between 66 and 98 feet. In 1982 Woodward-Clyde Consultants drilled four additional test wells as well as perforated and tested the two previous wells. The four wells were drilled within a temperature Minerals: Leasable 3-151 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS contour where soils at a 15-foot depth exceeded 140° F. By conducting analysis based on downhole data, a heat source was located near a depth of 4,875 feet. A fracture has been determined as the conduit that carries the superheated water vertically from 4,875 feet to a depth of 50 feet (Economides 1983). The water then enters an aquifer system and seeps to the surface (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1983). (b) Occurrence Potential Potential geothermal resources in the planning area may be found in a swath that extends along the entire western part of Seward Peninsula narrowing to the east-northeast and the Purcell Mountains. There are six thermal springs within the planning area. Thermal springs are produced by subsurface hydrothermal systems, which transfer heat to the surface through fluids as opposed to transferring heat through solid rock. (c) Development Potential Currently, there is no production from Pilgrim Hot Springs. The development potential is low, but could rate higher if there is an increase in demand for alternative energy sources. The geothermal resource at Pilgrim Hot Springs could provide power to Nome or aid in mineral development on the Seward Peninsula. Powerlines could be routed through the Cobblestone River Valley, crossing the Kigluaik Mountains at Mosquito Pass then south to Jensens Camp before following the road back to Nome. Distance is about 55 miles (Economides 1983). (4) Coalbed Natural Gas Coalbed natural gas (CBNG) exploration in Alaska has been focused around the Matanuska- Susitna Valley in southcentral Alaska. Coalbed natural gas is gas composed primarily of methane that was produced by the coals during the coal-forming process and is held within the coals by hydrostatic pressure created by the presence of water. In order to produce coalbed natural gas, the pressure within the coal needs to be reduced to release the gas. This is accomplished by pumping water from the coals. Commonly the water is pumped to ground surface, but new technologies allow for the water and gas to be separated downhole. The gas naturally rises to the surface while the water is pumped further downhole to a deeper injection zone. The gas flows through the coals to the well bore where it is captured for use. (a) History and Development Methane within coals has long been recognized as a hazard when mining the coals. It wasn’t until the 1980s that coalbed natural gas was thought of as a potential reservoir target, even though producers often drilled through coal seams on their way to deeper targets. During the late 1990s coalbed natural gas production increased dramatically nationwide to meet the ever growing energy demands. Today coalbed natural gas accounts for 17 percent of total gas production within the United States. The most likely location within the planning area for coalbed natural gas to occur is in the Colville Basin (as discussed under Oil and Gas on page 3-146). As many as 150 coal beds with thicknesses ranging from 5 to 28 feet, with a maximum of 40 feet, have been documented along the North Slope. The uplift of the Barrow Arch eroded many of the shallow coal beds to the north. Coal beds thicken to the south and outcrop more in the western part of the Colville Basin. Currently, no coalbed natural gas wells have been drilled in the planning area; however, oil and gas wells drilled in the area show gas kicks in the shallow coal zones penetrated. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-152 Minerals: Leasable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (b) Occurrence Potential Two factors indicate the potential presence of coalbed natural gas in a coal: 1) thick, laterally continuous subsurface coal deposits, and 2) thermal maturity (rank) of the coal. The only way to determine if coal contains coalbed natural gas is to drill and sample the coal. The Colville Basin is the most likely location within the planning are for coalbed natural gas because the basin contains thick, laterally continuous coals that are thermally mature (sub-bituminous to bituminous). The Colville Basin is ranked high for coalbed natural gas occurrence. (c) Development Potential It is unlikely that interest in the western Colville Basin for commercial coalbed natural gas will increase over the life of this RMP; however, coalbed natural gas as a low-cost, alternative energy source for local village use may increase. This is especially true as oil prices continue to increase, causing the cost of not only purchasing diesel fuel to increase, but also the cost of transporting the fuel to villages. Minerals: Leasable 3-153 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Jaydeyo > a ® 3 2 O Q m Ss s. 5 ° 3 3 @ 3 = 170°W 70°N Cape Lisburne 68°N 66°N 64°N 165°W 165°W 17) 6 BN 15w 4193/12) 44] 40 9 160°W Wainwright 7 Noatak National Preserve Krusenstern National Monument Kotze, Bering Deering Land ms Bridge National Buckland; 1 = batidies a a eB Norton Sound Unalakleet 160°W = 2 tt KATEEU RIVER MERIDIAN z 8 twit vey Kobuk Valley National Park . 2 \ Rive.” 21 G 12 Selawik National Wildlife Refuge atapaten 1 zZ National y ® Wildlife, 10/11 “4 % Poorman. 9/10) 11) 12/ 13 14 |S) 46 16E 17 z & 18 Lease Status on BLM Lands Generalized Land Status —— Road age Closed National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge Open | Closed by State and ' Native Selection Rivers: Open with no surface occupancy within 300 ft. of bankfull width Map 3-26 Federal Mineral Leasable Status State, Native, or Private Land [__] ksP RMP Planning Area Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP 4 Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWY Yes eInsuluad Puemag-yNGoy JIAUQ papayy :||| sa}deyo jU9WUO. 170°W | s ! 1 lomon X LS 165" Cour ao fe Mi 165°W fi % au In T ~ KS \ \ NO 160°W 160° iy e Soom IXY Oil and Gas Basins Leas: HB ciosea pen Native uf CN \ Sta Cc q e tus on BLM Lands Selections occupancy within of bankfull width. National Park, Preserve, or Monument Private Land Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Map 3-27 Oil and Gas Basins graphic display only. For official land status information, refer JUSWUOIIAUA pepeyy :||| sa}deuD 170°W 165°W Cape Lisburne @& Krusenstern National Monument Norton Sound 160°W Noatak National Preserve Noatak River ‘ Deering Shaktoolik Kobuk Valley National Park Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge a Huslia@ Koyukuk R, Se Unalakleet 165°W 160°W Coal Resources Generalized Land Status — Road Y, Se Peninsula ie Coal Field Paslvbontel Preserve, C_] KSP RMP Planning Area ureau of Lan janagement - Alaska J Coal Occurence Wildlife Refuge ee Oh ess Miles [_] ©oal pistrict Map 3-28 Coal Resources Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N SIA/dWY YeIG eiNsuIUsg premas-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS b) Locatable Minerals (1) Mining-related Surface Disturbance and Reclamation Requirements Surface disturbing activities under the jurisdiction of 43 CFR 3809 regulations are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Occupancy related to mining is regulated under 43 CFR 3715. The intent of the 3809 regulations is to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of surface resources and to ensure reasonable reclamation of disturbed sites on Federal lands. The intent of the 3715 regulations is to ensure mining claim occupancy is on a level commensurate with and reasonably incident to the present level of the mining activity and remoteness of location of a particular claim or claims. According to 43 CFR 3809, casual use employing non-mechanized equipment does not require notification to the BLM. Submission of a notice is required 15 days prior to any surface- disturbing exploration activities using mechanized equipment or explosives when the cumulative disturbance is less than five acres. Notices and casual use are not Federal actions and thus do not require environmental analysis or approval by the Authorized Officer (AO). Notices are reviewed and measures applied (standard stipulations) to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. Production activities or exploration activities disturbing more than five acres require a Plan of Operations, Reclamation Plan, and environmental analysis. Plans of operations require specific approval by the BLM prior to commencing work. Construction of new access requires consultation with the AO. Notices and plans of operations are filed using the State of Alaska's Alaska Placer Mining Application (APMA) form submitted to the ADNR, Division of Mining Land and Water (Map 3- 30). By Memorandum of Agreement these filings are distributed by the State to all agencies involved in the regulation of mining activities. While the State does not require bonding for mining activity under five acres, new notices and plans on Federal mining claims must be bonded regardless of acreage of disturbance or proposed disturbance. The BLM accepts bonding through the Statewide Bond Pool, a reclamation bonding program administered by the State. Ongoing notice of operations are grandfathered and not required to conform to Federal bonding regulations. The BLM is required to conduct inspections at least once a season on notices and twice a season on plans of operations to ensure compliance and to check for unauthorized use. Generally there is no road access to mining operations in the planning area. Inspections are carried out by OHV, fixed-wing aircraft, or helicopter support. Under notices of operations, operators reclaim their surface disturbance at the end of the mining season except for the camp footprint and other improvements such as tailing ponds and bypasses that will be utilized in the following season's operations. Seasonal shutdown is dictated by Alaska's climate. If un-reclaimed acreage is left to accumulate beyond five acres, the mining activity is moved into the plan category, which then requires an environmental assessment, BLM-approval to operate, and reclamation bonding, if not already bonded. The filing of multi-year plans is acceptable to the BLM. Minerals: Locatable 3-161 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS After filing and reclamation requirements were instituted in 1980, the number of filings rose steadily to a high of 34 notices and 10 plans in 1984 within the present-day planning area, and declined almost as quickly. By 1997 the area was carrying 13 notices and four plans. Each year one to two new notices would start up and the same number or greater would be closed out. For the past three years BLM has been left with one active notice and three inactive/abandoned notices/unapproved occupancies along with one inactive plan and one plan level record of non-compliance and unapproved occupancy. (2) Mining Claim Occupancy Regulations found at 43 CFR 3715 state “The purpose of this subpart is to manage the use and occupancy of the public land for the development of locatable mineral deposits by limiting such use or occupancy to that which is reason-ably incident. The BLM will prevent abuse of the public lands while recognizing valid rights and uses under the Mining Law of 1872 and related laws...” These regulations were enacted in 1996 to prevent occupancy of public land under the guise of mining when no justifiable reason or significant amount of mining is occurring. The occupancy must be “reasonably incident to mining” (not undue or unnecessary) and the occupancy must be needed to sustain regular work, to protect property, or other justifiable reason. It must also lead to the extraction and beneficiation of minerals, involve observable activity and use appropriate operable equipment. Generally, if adequate housing within a reasonable distance is available the occupancy is not justified (unless property must be protected). These regulations have proved difficult to apply in Alaska where mining claims are remote, inaccessible, and seasonal shutdown is dictated by the severe climate. BLM has four types of enforcement actions it takes under the regulations found at 43 CFR 3715. These include: 1) immediate suspension, 2) cessation order, 3) notice of non-compliance, or 4) other (if the occupancy is not incidental to mining, an application for use under another regulation may be required, and trespass under a different regulation may be pursued). (3) Other Factors Affecting the Development of Locatable Mineral Resources (a) Land Ownership Major landowners within the planning area include three regional Native corporations, the State, the Federal government, and privately owned lands (primarily patented mining claims). Federal ownership is subdivided into National Park Lands administered by the NPS, Wildlife Refuges managed by the FWS, and public domain lands administered by the BLM. A significant amount of the BLM-managed lands remain in selected status awaiting conveyance to the State or Native corporations. Both the State and the regional Native corporations recognized the value of retaining potentially valuable mineral deposits and made their selections accordingly. Only since 1980 when the BLM instituted requirements to file mining plans and notices of surface disturbing operations related to mining development and instituted reclamation requirements did the effectiveness of this selection strategy employed by the State and Alaska Natives become apparent. Filings received by the BLM were consistently on lands under selection and interim management by the Federal government. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-162 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Of the 30.5 million acres within the planning area, approximately 16 percent (5.0 million acres) are managed by the BLM. Most, but not all, of these lands are open to mining (Map 3-29). An additional 17 percent (5.3 million acres) have been Tentatively Approved (TA'd) or patented to the State and are open to mining under State Statutes. Selected lands (both State- and Native- selected) account for 27 percent of the planning area (8.1 million acres). Mining (under Federal jurisdiction may occur on selected lands where Federal mining claims were located prior to withdrawal for selection purposes under ANCSA. Most of these lands will go to the selecting entity, but, because of overselections, some will come back to Federal management. FWS, NPS, and military lands, comprising 21 percent of the planning area (6.4 million acres), are not open to mining. Private lands (including interim conveyed Native lands) account for 19 percent of the planning area; some of these lands may be open to mining at the discretion and terms of the Native corporation or private landowner. In summary, approximately 60 percent of the lands in the planning area (BLM-managed, selected lands, and State lands) are conditionally open to mining. Some mining on private land (19 percent) could be permitted at the discretion of the landowner. At least 21 percent of the planning area under management of the NPS, FWS, and the Military are closed to mining. (b) Mining Claim Status On unpatented Federal mining claims on lands conveyed to Native corporations it was left to the Native corporation and the claimant to determine what rights the claimant would retain under the new land owner. For unpatented claims on lands TA’d or patented to the State, the claimant had the option of converting to State mining claim or protesting the conveyance and remaining a Federal claim under Federal jurisdiction. Initially most claimants retained their Federal status as Federal claims, keeping the right to go to patent. A moratorium was placed on the ability to file for patent in 1995 and has remained in place since. This has led to overstaking of State claims by claimants of their Federal mining claims on TA’d, and even selected lands and filing of requests for priority conveyance of these lands to the State. These actions, combined with a requirement in 1994 of $100/claim annual rental fee paid to the Federal government resulted in a large decrease in the number of active Federal mining claims. (c) Mineral Assessment Efforts Following the gold rushes at the turn of the nineteenth century, the pace of mineral development slowed due to the lack of developed infrastructure, changing economic conditions, world wars, and political factors introduced by the passage of ANCSA in 1971 and ANILCA in 1980. These two legislative acts closed hundreds of thousands of acres to further mineral exploration and development other than a few active mineral development operations which immediately preceded the passage of the ANCSA in 1971 and were grandfathered in. The last major attempt to assess the mineral potential of the region (limited to the Seward Peninsula) was done by the Mineral Industry Research Lab of UAF in 1966. Due to the complex land ownership pattern and political restrictions on further development activities on these lands, exploration and development have been limited largely to private lands, mostly mining properties patented in the early 1900s and Native lands conveyed early in the process. In recent years, interest has increased, due to the State’s conduct of airborne geophysical surveys of State land and adjoining Federal land. Only since 1995, have mineral development interests been encouraged by the State's conduct of airborne geophysical surveys on these lands. In the fall of 2004 the BLM wrote a Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report (BLM 2005f) and let a contract to the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS) to update and review the currently available data on mineral resources in the planning area. Once the mineral potential report was finalized, a Reasonable Foreseeable Development Minerals: Locatable 3-163 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Scenario (BLM 2005g) was written to address the likelihood that a particular mineral occurrence is likely to be explored or developed within the next 10-15 years. (d) Commodity Prices and the Business Cycle Mining activity at its most elemental level is predicated on metals commodity prices and perceived trends based on historic records. Throw into this mix the speculation factor, uncertain land status, an increasingly strict domestic regulation climate, and the high capital cost of going to production, and mining becomes a high risk industry. From 1989 to present is a relatively short period of time to say much about commodity trends particularly when the price graph is fraught with large, short duration peaks and valleys. Figure 3-3. Base Metal, Nickel, and Tin Prices and Labor Costs 1970-2004 $20.00 5 $19.00 $18.00 $17.00 $16.00 $15.00 $14.00 $13.00 $12.00 $11.00 $10.00 $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 ~ Annual Commodity Prices (Copper, Lead, Zinc, Nickel and Tin) with Labor Costs 1970 - 2004 —* Labor Cost | = Pb (S/Ib) |__ Zn (S/Ib) >< Cu ($/Ib) —*- Ni ($/Ib) —* Sn ($/Ib) 1970 - 2004 Commodity prices of particular interest in the region from around 1970 onward generally increase at about the same rate or somewhat less than the inflation rate (cost of doing business). This is particularly true for base metals (copper, lead, and zinc), as well as for nickel, though, as the graph illustrates, there are more upward and downward short duration spikes. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-164 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Figure 3-4. Precious Metal, Labor, and Equipment Costs 1970-2004 $850.00 $800.00 $750.00 $700.00 Precious Metals Average Annual Price and Labor and Equipment Costs 1970-2004 — Au ($/troz) me é ; —= Ag ($/troz) $650.00 = i | Pt ($.troz) $600.00 —< Labor Cost) $550.00 $500.00 $450.00 $400.00 $350.00 + $300.00 $250.00 $200.00 $150.00 $100.00 $50.00 $0.00 —« Eqpt Cost | J} 1970 - 2004 Precious metals, gold and silver, prices show a sharp upward spike around 1980 and then drop precipitously around 1985 where they have leveled off. Likewise the price of tin with its 10-year steady upward climb to peak in 1980 shows a relentless decline with a sharp downward spike in 1985, marking the end of the International Tin Council which had been successful in stabilizing tin prices worldwide since 1921. In Alaska, and in this region in particular, remote locations and lack of infrastructure to bring in mining equipment and transport the mineral commodity to market limits development and production to only the unusually large (on a world wide scale) mineral deposits. Even that limited development has been predicated on assistance from State development oriented programs such as Alaska Industrial Development Authority, special congressional legislation that excluded mineral deposits from in Federal enclaves that preclude mineral development, and in the case of Native lands, the desire of the Alaska Natives of the region to develop mineral resources as a source of jobs and a cash economy. Outside this, the "smaller" mineral deposits go begging and are traded from one mineral exploration company to another on a four to five year cycle. Many of these smaller desposits would be a mineable deposit in the Lower 48 where infrastructure (roads, rails, ports, and power) is already in place. (4) Recent Activity There is no one universally agreed upon way to gauge or characterize the level of mining activity and mineral potential of a region. The ADGGS sends out an annual survey form, the results of which are used to tabulate in both narrative and tabular form such things as Minerals: Locatable 3-165 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS expenditures for exploration, development, and mining as well as annual production and new claim location numbers by quadrangle. The data from these survey forms is generalized for publication into broad geographic areas to maintain confidentiality of individual respondents. Since gold and other mineral commodities are bought and sold on the open market, there is no requirement to report production. Publicly traded companies are required to report their activities to the Securities and Exchange Commission but this information is not tabulated, published, or made readily available to the public. Daily commodity spot prices are available in the newspaper and selected trade journals. Commodity prices are tabulated and current as well as historical prices are readily available on the internet. For example the monthly average spot price of a commodity could be charted over a period of years (5 years, 10 years, or 20 years depending on what the researcher considers a complete business cycle) to forecast long-term growth or decline. This, however, is a simplistic approach as it does not take into account numerous other factors unique to a geographic mining region. Such things would include cost of equipment and supplies, availability of access, cost of transportation and labor, and labor supply to name afew. Information on numbers of mining claims staked and mining claims relinquished can be obtained from Federal and State land management agencies, particularly the ADNR Division of Mining, Land and Water for State claims as well as the BLM for Federal mining claims. These figures are not generally tabulated but can be researched from the public records. Another type of approach, the one adopted here, is through a recent database put together by the State that tracks specific information fields found on the APMA. The location and level of recent activity is gauged by filings of mining notices and plans of operations from 1982 through the 2004 mining season. Figure 3-5. Summary of Mining Surface Disturbance (excluding Red Dog) by Land Ownership in the Planning Area 19% @ State @ Federal OPrivate 75% This database was obtained from the ADNR land records and converted to a to a shape file for use in ArcGIS. What this database does not capture are mineral exploration programs initiated by regional Native corporations on Native-selected lands. These programs are permitted by the BLM under interim management policies by miscellaneous land use permits as selected lands are not open to mineral entry and location. This is a relatively minor issue as there have been less than a half dozen of these permits issued since 1982 and lands conveyed to the Native corporation may or may not be available to mineral exploration and development depending on the determination of the landowner. The pie chart in Figure 3-5 excludes the 1,800 acres Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-166 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS currently impacted at the Red Dog Mine. Inclusion of this acreage would dramatically skew the percentages in favor of private development, with State at 7 percent, Federal at 2 percent, and private at 91 percent. In the following narratives that describe the management situation of each of the high locatable mineral potential (HLMP) areas, mining activity highlights are taken from the State's annual publication that summarizes, by broad region, the questionnaires sent out to mining interests operating in the state. For surface disturbance acreages by land status and creek drainage the following narrative incorporates information from the geo-referenced APMA database, BLM land status records, and the Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report for Locatable and Salable Minerals (BLM 2005f). The HLMP areas are grouped by geographic location. Each area summary consists of a section summarizing land ownership, mineral deposit model characterization, and a summary of recent activity in the area. Figure 3-6. HLMP Surface Disturbance by Land Ownership 1989-2004 2000.0 1800.0 1600.0 1400.0 1200.0 @ State @ Federal OPrivate 1000.0 800.0 Acres Disturbed 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 Ambler River Darby Mountains East Seward Peninsula Imnachuk Kougarok Red Dog Teller Shaktoolik Wales High Locatable Mineral Potential Area Note: See also Table 3-17 showing HLMP acreage by land ownership. Minerals: Locatable 3-167 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-17. HLMP by Land Ownership Ambler River 1.0 0.7 0.3 Darby Mountains 2.0 0.0 0.0 East Seward Peninsula 62.4 0.0 32.0 Imnachuk 0.0 2.0 1.0 Kougarok 43.5 6.5 102.6 Nome East 23.0 0.0 2.7 Nome West 67.2 17.5 650.4 Omar-Kiana 0.0 7.0 0.0 Red Dog 2.5 28.2 1801.3 Teller 0.0 5.0 6.5 Shaktoolik 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wales 1.0 1.0 1.0 202.6 | 67.9 2597.8 Note: See also Figure 3-6 showing HLMP surface disturbance by land ownership from 1989 to 2004. The State's APMA database contains many duplicate records that had to be sorted manually and consolidated. For a single application and permit each applicant and each section of a township applied for is entered as a separate record. In the following tables, the land status column represents land status of the lands underlying the mining activity at the time of filing. The next column is the estimated surface disturbance acreage anticipated by the operator or claimant for that season. In some instances the application is merely a paper filing, meaning that the applicant makes application to disturb a certain acreage but never gets out on the ground. In following years, the same applicant may submit the same acreage and again fail to do the work. It is not possible to tell from the database when or how often this occurs. The next three columns break out actual surface disturbance according to whether the activity occurred on State mining claims, Federal mining claims (on public domain lands or tentatively approved State lands where claimant chose to retain the Federal mining claim) and private lands (mostly patented mining claims or on conveyed Native lands). These numbers are also generated by the applicant for the purposes of reclamation bonding and but are verified by the Federal or State jurisdictional agency. As the APMA data input is generated by the claimant or operator and not closely verified in the field, the accuracy of any individual number is suspect, but summary data does provide a useful tool to describe general activity levels and trends of areas under management of Federal and State mining regulators and accurately reflect the ongoing management situation. Based on surface disturbance acreages tabulated by HLMP the most active areas are, in order, the Red Dog, Nome West, and the Eastern Seward Peninsula areas. The top two areas, mining activity is very nearly exclusively limited to private lands. The acreages in these two areas represent the Red Dog Mine on conveyed Native lands and the Alaska Gold Company's dredging and open pit operations on patented Federal mining claims. The third most active area, Eastern Seward Peninsula, the activity has occurred on State lands. The activity on Federal mining claims represents mining plans and notices that were filed on Federal claims on State-selected lands. In no areas where significant mining activity has occurred in the past 16 years has mining occurred primarily on Federal lands. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-168 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Mineral resource development and mining since 1989 in the planning area has occurred primarily on private lands and secondarily on State lands. This can be attributed to the patenting of large numbers of Federal mining claims staked during the gold rush era and to the State and Native corporations targeting of mineral resources for selection under ANCSA. (5) Potential Areas In the following sections, the term BLM land refers to public domain land, excluding selected lands. Although State- and Native-selected lands are still BLM land, they are segregated from mineral entry. (a) Northern Seward Peninsula Region Some of the oldest rocks (Proterozoic to middle Paleozoic) in the planning area are limestone and shale units thought to represent continental shelf and marine slope sediments originally deposited along the passive margin of North America. These rocks are similar in composition and age and are thought to have been deposited as a single belt including the Arctic Alaska and Seward lithotectonic terranes. The Northern Seward Peninsula Region includes the following high locatable mineral potential areas: Wales, Shishmaref, Kougarok, and Imnachuk. 1. The Wales HLMP Area From 1989 through the 1991 mining season three locations in the area were filed for under the APMA process. On Cape Creek one acre was recorded in 1989 for surface disturbance on unpatented Federal mining claims overlying Native-selected lands. This placer tin mining operation was quite successful in the late 1970s and 1980s and received patent in 1983 to most of their Federal claims on which they were working. This operation used a dragline to strip the overlying creek gravels, a dozer to push up tin bearing gravels, and a loader to tram these gravels to a slusher pile which fed an elevated combination sluice and jig wash plant. Tin concentrates (up to 70 percent tin) were packed in 55 gallon drums weighing approximately 1,500 pounds each and the drums lightered by a landing craft to offshore barges for transport to Seattle, Washington, and then overland to a smelter in Texarkana, Texas. The second location was filed on by Kennecott Exploration in the area around Potato Mountain to evaluate the hard rock tin and gold potential on selected Native lands. The third location filed on by Placer Dome, Inc. was filed for the Lost River area in support of an ongoing mineral patent examination of lode mining claims. A core drill was set up in one location to target a geophysical anomaly on one of the claims under patent application. Surface disturbance for each of these two location was estimated at one acre each and listed as Federal lands (Federal mining claims at the Lost River location) though the underlying lands were actually Native-selected lands and conveyed Native lands, respectively. There are no BLM-managed or State-selected lands in this HLMP. Minerals: Locatable 3-169 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-18. Wales HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary Cape Ck | Teller | C-6 | Mining 1989 tt 10 |00 |oo0 |o0 Joo Potato Exploration Private Nidlineein Teller | C-6 Hardrock 1990 as 1.0 0.0 |00 |0.0 | 0.0 Lost Exploration Private River Teller | B-5 Hardrock 1991 Land 1.0 0.0 |0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 Abbreviations: St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; dst = disturbance; Cr = creek; no entry in the Last Year column means operations only lasted for 1 year. Mining of placer tin from Cape Creek continued in 1989 and ceased operations thereafter, presumably due to declining resources available and soft price of tin. This small Alaskan corporation has mined on this drainage nearly continuously since 1969. The core of this claim block is patented Federal mining claims. Prior to that the area of Cape Mountain and Cape Creek was mined sporadically since 1935 for both hard rock and placer tin resources. In 1990 Kennecott Copper Corporation undertook to conduct hard rock mineral exploration on Native lands around Potato Mountain to evaluate the hard rock tin potential of the tin granite there. The third operation, by Placer Dome US was the drilling of an unpatented mining claim at Lost River in support of a mineral patenting application. In addition, though APMA records are not available prior to 1989, hard rock exploration is also known to have occurred on State and Native lands west of Baltuk Creek. Unique to Alaska and North America, mineral interests in this area are tied to the price of tin. Cape Mountain, Tin Creek, and Lost River are the only locations in North America where significant quantities of tin have been produced as the primary product. Also USGS commodity summaries report that unique to tin has been its long history of commodity "agreements" dating back to 1921. These agreements were usually structured between producer countries and consumer countries on a complex global basis. Through these agreements the International Tin Council (ITC) supported the price of tin during periods of low prices by buying tin for its buffer stockpile and was able to some degree to restrain and partly take advantage of the historically high tin prices. The sharp recession of 1981-82 proved to be quite harsh on the tin industry. The ITC was able to avoid truly steep declines through accelerated buying for its buffer stockpile but eventually reached its credit limit in late 1985. This long standing "agreement" process then collapsed. Beginning In 1973 the price of tin (USGS Minerals Yearbook summary) climbed from the $2.00 per pound price toward a peak of $8.46 per pound in 1980. Mining activity in the area flourished. From 1981 to 1985 tin prices slowly declined and dropped sharply below $4.00 per pound in 1985. There was a brief rebound taking the price above $5.00 per pound and since then the price has flattened to around $4.00 per pound. From 1989 to 2004 tin prices drifted from just under $4.00 per pound to a low of $1.95 per pound, rebounding to $4.12 per pound in 2004. In this area developed resources were mined out during the late 1970s to late 1980s and current commodity prices and trend have apparently not been sufficient to encourage further significant exploration or development. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-170 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Mining Activity Highlights e In 1989 tin production dropped, Lost River Mining Co., Cape Creek Mine dropped off 35 percent (180,000 pounds). One of the largest producers of tin in the United States for the past 15 years exhausted their reserves and dismantled operations. e In 1989, BSNC Lode tin exploration Cape Mountain, Potato Mountain, Brooks Mountain, Lost River, and Black Mountain. Gold veins around Rock Creek and Mount Distin. e For the 1990 mining season Kennecott Exploration drilled two holes on the Potato Mountain tin deposit. e In 1993 Lost River Mining trenched for more tin on Cape Creek. 2. Shishmaref HLMP Area There is no recent activity or APMA filings for the Shismaref HLMP area. This area contains tin granite intrusives whose lode potential was explored in the early 1900s but never developed like the Cape Mountain Deposit, presumably due to the distance to tidewater and lack of transportation access. Placer tin possibilities also exist and mining occurred on creeks draining Ear Mountain in the early 1950s but did not continue, probably due to increasingly unfavorable economics after World War II. There are no BLM or State-selected lands in this HLMP. 3. Kougarok HLMP Area There are no BLM lands in this HLMP area. There is an isolated tract of State-selected land, approximately one township in size, containing no known, significant mineral deposits in the middle of the area and at the eastern protrusion of this HLMP area. The eastern protrusion of State-selected lands are located in the Boulder area, upland tributaries west of the Noxapaga River. In addition there are some square mile sized parcels of Native-selected lands at the south end of the area. They do not contain any known, significant mineral deposits. Over a 16-year period from 1989 through 2004, mining and mineral exploration, exclusively for placer gold, has occurred over a total acreage of at least 145.9 acres (171.0 acres applied for but only 145.9 can be strictly accounted for) of this high mineral potential area. By land ownership this acreage breaks down into 36.8 acres State land, 6.5 acres Federal land within unpatented Federal mining claims, and 102.6 acres of private land (patented mining claims). Most of this mined acreage is on Washington Creek and the Kougarok River and mined by a family-operated 2.5 cubic foot bucket-line dredge. Prior to these Federal mining claim being patented these claims were located on State-selected lands. The remaining operations in this area are bulldozer-loader-wash plant operations in open cuts along river and creek flood plains operated by individuals and small, independent Alaskan mining companies. Minerals: Locatable 3-171 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment JUBWUOJIAUZ pepeyy :|}| sa}deup eLL-€ giqejyeoo7 :sjesoull\ Table 3-19. Kougarok HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary Washington Ck | Ben C-6__| Suction Dredge 1989 | 1997 | Federal & PrivateLand | 19.0 [0.0 |0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 Macklin Ck Ben D-6_| Mng/Expl/Let Intent | 2000 | 2003 _| State Land 0.0 6.0 [0.0 |0.0 | 6.0 Skookum Ck Ben B-5 | Mng/Expl/Let Intent | 1992 Federal Land 1.0 0.0 {00 |0.0 | 0.0 Black Ck Ben C-5 | Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1992 | 1993 | Federal Land 1.0 0.0 {00 {00 |0.0 Coarse Gold Ben C-6__| Mining/Exploration 1989 | 1990 | State Land 4.0 0.0 {0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 Dick Ck Ben D-6__| Mng/Expl/Let Intent | 1989 | 2004 | State Land 23.0 | 21.0 |0.0 | 0.0 | 21.0 Boulder Ck Ben B-5 | Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1989 | 1993 | Federal Land 4.0 0.0 |00 |00 |0.0 Noxapaga R Ben C-5 _| Expl/Let Intent 1995 | 2004 | Federal Land 4.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 Humbolt Ck Ben D-5__| Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1994 | 1993 | Federal Land 2.0 0.0 {00 |00 | 0.0 Auburn Ravine Sol D-5 | Exploration 2001 State Land 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Boulder Ck Ben C-5 __| Expl/Let Intent 1993 | 2004 | Federal Land 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 Garfield Ck Ben B-5__| Exploration 2001 | 2004 | State Land 1.0 45 |00 |00 |45 Kougarok R Ben C-6_| Expl/Let Intent 1990 | 1994 | State & Federal Land 0.0 0.0 {00 |0.0 | 0.0 Kougarok R Ben B-6__| Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1990 | 1994 | State & Federal Land 0.0 0.0 |00 |00 | 00 Kougarok R Ben C-6_| Exploration 1990 State Land 0.0 0.0 |00 |00 |0.0 Kougarok R Ben B-6__| Expl/Let Intent 1997 Private Land 0.0 0.0 {0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 Kougarok R Ben C-6 | Expl/Let Intent 2000 State Land 0.0 0.1 0.0 |00 | 0.1 Kougarok R Ben C-6 _| Mining/Let Intent 1989 | 2004 | State/Fed/Priv Land 89.0 |0.0 |00 | 93.3 | 93.3 Arctic Ck Ben C-6__| Exploration 1990 State Land 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atlas Ck Ben B-6__| Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1995 State Land 4.0 0.0 |00 |0.0 | 0.0 Harris Ck Ben C-6_| Expl/Let Intent 1995 State Land 0.0 0.0 {00 |00 | 0.0 Coffee Ck Ben B-6__| Expl/Let Intent 1995 | 2001 | Private Land 1.0 0.0 (00 |07 | 07 Coffee Ck Beaver | B-6 | Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1993 | 1999 | Private Land 16.0 {00 |00 |86 | 86 Quartz Ck Ben B-6 Expl/Let Intent 1996 | 2006 | State & Private Land 4.0 6.8 0.0 0.0 6.8 Windy Ck Teller | C-1__| Expl/Let Intent 1998 State Land 0.0 0.2 (00 |00 | 0.2 Windy Ck Ben B-6__| Exploration 2000 | 2004 | State Land 2.0 45 |00 |00 |45 Star Ck Teller | C-1__| Exploration 2001 | 2005 | State Land 0.0 0.3 [00 |00 |0.3 Abbreviations: St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; dst = disturbance; Ck = creek; R = river; Ben = Bendeleben; Sol = Solomon; Expl = exploration; mng = mining; Let Intent = letter of intent; no entry in the Last Year column means operations only lasted for 1 year. SIB/dWY Weld BInsuIUed PseMas-yNqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS In Table 3-19, there are multiple entries for the same drainage. This is due to the fact that each row of the table represents a separate APMA filing and there are multiple operations on the same drainage. Between 1989 and the present, 27 separate mining operations, mostly for placer gold resources were in operation on 18 creeks and rivers in this area. Five of these @ owner/operators can be categorized as small Alaskan corporations. These include N.B. Tweet and Sons, Goldstream Exploration, LLC Lohman Mining and Commercial Company, Thurman Oil and Mining Inc., and Navigator Exploration Company. The remaining operations were conducted by individuals as small family businesses. Except for the small bucket-line dredge operating on the Kougarok River below Taylor, mechanical mining consisted of small to medium size open cut mining using elevated wash plants fed by dozers and loaders. The largest mining operation, the bucket-line dredge, is reported to have mined 93 acres between 1989 and the end of the 2004 season, just less than six acres per year. The remaining operations disturbed 1-10 acres over their permitted lifetime or about 1.5 acres per year. Except for Black, Skookum, and Boulder creeks, mining operations were conducted on State and private lands. Once Federal mining claims on the upper Kougarok River were patented in the early 1990s their status changed to private lands. Humbolt Creek is located within the Bering Land Bridge National Monument and exploration activity there was for verification of discovery purposes as surface disturbing activities on NPS lands can only be permitted if discovery can be demonstrated. The level of activity documented between 1989 and present occurred during a declining commodity market. Unfortunately, placer mining application data are not available for the 1980s when the commodity market was booming, with the price of gold strongly spiking in 1982. The lode resources that contributed the placer values have not been explored in this region. The upper Kougarok River and major tributaries were mined by bucket-line dredge since gold rush days and one dredge continues to this day on private lands. The Coffee Dome and Boulder town sites were busy through the 1980s and into the early 1990s. These operations consisted of small and medium size stationary wash plants processing materials from alluvial open pits. Mining Activity Highlights e In 1989 Kougarok Mining Limited conducted drilling in the middle reach of the Kougarok River. e In 1990 and 1991, N.B. Tweet and Son and others continued to mine the upper reaches of the Kougarok River, Washington Creek, and Macklin Creek above the confluence of Henry Creek. This mining continued seasonally through 2004. e In 2000 mining season Quaterra mining company staked State mining claims, Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide (VSM), in the area reported to be 110 miles northeast of Nome. e In 2001, there was a lot of tin-tantalum exploration on the Seward Peninsula. e In 2002, follow up core drilling of the tin-tantalum prospect in the Kougarok area 67 miles north of Nome was accomplished. 4. Imnachuk HLMP Area This HLMP area contains no uncumbered BLM, State-selected, or Native-selected lands. Between 1990 and 1992 mineral exploration, presumably for placer gold was conducted by a private individual on the Imnachuk River. Proposed surface disturbance was estimated to not exceed two acres. This exploration occurred on Federal mining claims on Native-selected Minerals: Locatable 3-173 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS lands. These Federal placer mining claims were under mineral patent application filed by GEM Exploration, Inc. Interest in pursuing the application waned and in the mid 1990s the application lapsed. These lands have since been conveyed, and the mining claims have come under the jurisdiction of the NANA Regional Native Corporation. Table 3-20. Imnachuk HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary Inmachuk Exploration River Let Intent 1992 | Land Abbreviations: St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; dst = disturbance; Ben = Bendeleben; Let Intent = letter of intent. Exploration for placer gold and test mining was conducted between 1990 and 1992 on unpatented Federal mining claims that were subsequently conveyed to the Native corporation at which point, mining interest ceased. The area is one of significant historical mining activity largely for placer gold values. In addition, exploration was done on hard rock base and precious mineral shows in the rocks of the valley hillsides. One old time miner worked into the 1980s 6 using shaft sinking and drifting to mine placer resources until his death. Mining Activity Highlights e In 1991, Jack Hoogendorn continued his 17th year of underground mining of gold beneath Pliocene basalt flows in the Inmnachuk District. e In 1991, NANA Regional Corporation through its partner Kennecott Exploration was active in lead/zinc/silver/gold exploration on its lands in the Imnachuk River District as well as the Candle and Ambler Mineral Belt. This work continued through the 1992 season. Exploration targeted the polymetallic mineral occurrences in the Imnachuk River area as well as in the Candle District. e During 1992 NANA/Kennecott Exploration followed up on previous work which targeted polymetallic mineral occurrences in the Candle and Imnachuk areas. 5. Imnachuk Medium Locatable Mineral Potential (MLMP) Area In 1996, Kennecott Copper Corporation conducted hard rock mineral exploration in the upland area between Chicago Creek on the Kugruk River and the Utica Landing area of the Imnachuk River (Virginia Creek as listed above) on NANA Corporation lands. Operations were conducted in partnership with the Native Corporation to assist in evaluation of mineral resources on these lands. Presumably the mineral occurrences here are related to the hard rock shows investigated by the placer miners of the Imnachuk MLMP area. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-174 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-21. Imnachuk MLMP Surface Disturbance Summary $ Virginia Exploration Private Ck Let Intent 1996 | Land Abbreviations: Ck = creek; St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; dst = disturbance; Ben = Bendeleben; Let Intent = letter of intent. Mining by bucket-line dredge and stationary wash plants on the alluvial flood plain was big in the 1930s and included some development of lode potential in the uplands of the drainage basin. Except for a single operator doing shaft mining this industry did not come back after World War Il. The operator died in the early 1980s and these lands were conveyed to a Native Corporation, ending the active mining activities in this area. Mining Activity Highlights e In 1995, Kennecott Exploration/NANA conducted polymetallic and base metal exploration activities in the Deering area on Native lands. (b) Southern Seward Peninsula Region Some of the oldest rocks (Proterozoic to middle Paleozoic) in the planning area are limestone and shale units thought to represent continental shelf and marine slope sediments originally deposited along the passive margin of North America. These rocks are similar in composition and age and are thought to have been deposited as a single belt including the Arctic Alaska and York lithotectonic terranes. The Southern Seward Pensinsual Region includes the following HLMP areas: Teller, Nome and Nome West. 1. Teller HLMP Area There are no unencumbered BLM or State-selected lands in this HLMP. There are three isolated tracts of BLM land immediately adjacent to the HLMP. However, these BLM parcels do not contain any known, significant mineral occurrences. The APMA database lists three locations that have been active for the 1991-2004 mining seasons: Alder Creek, Gold Run Creek, and Tuksuk Channel. No surface disturbance is listed for either Alder Creek (Federal land) or Tiksuk Channel (State land). A total of 10.5 acres is listed for suction dredging activities on Gold Run Creek, five acres on Federal mining claims and 5.5 acres on Native Corporation lands. This is however a misclassification of the actual land status. Federal mining claims were extinguished in 1996 and these lands were turned over to the land owner, Bering Straits Native Corporation. The claimant did not understand the change in ownership and continued to file as though he was still operating on Federal mining claims on Gold Run Creek. It is likely that much less than 10.5 acres on Gold Run Creek were actually suction dredged by the claimant or his lessees. Minerals: Locatable 3-175 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-22. Teller HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary Mining/Let Federal Alder Ck | Teller | A-3 | Intent 1992 Land 0.0 0.0 |00 | 00 | 0.0 Mining/Rec Federal Gold Run | Teller | A-3_ | Plan 2000 Land 2.0 0.0 |20 {00 | 2.0 Gold Run Suction Federal Ck Teller | A-3_| Dredge 2000 Land 0.0 0.0 {1.0 |00 | 1.0 Gold Run Suction Federal Ck Teller | A-3_ | Dredge 2001 Land 0.0 0.0 |0.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 Gold Run Suction Federal Ck Teller | A-3_ | Dredge 2002 Land 0.0 0.0 {1.0 |00 | 1.0 Gold Run Suction Private Ck Teller | A-3__| Dredge 2004 Land 0.0 0.0 (0.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 Gold Run Suction Federal Ck Teller | A-3_ | Dredge 1991 | 1999 | Land 0.0 0.0 {1.0 |00 | 1.0 Gold Run Mining/Let Private Ck Teller | A-3 | Intent 1998 Land 4.0 0.0 |00 |45 | 45 Tuksuk State Channel _ | Teller | A-2_ | Exploration | 1990 Land 0.0 0.0 |0.0 |00 | 0.0 Abbreviations: Ck = creek; St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; Let Intent = letter of intent; dst = disturbance; Rec Plan = reclamation plan; no entry in the Last Year column means operations only lasted for 1 year. In reality the above listings represent only two separate locations. The multiple listings for Gold Run/Alder Creek are preserved to show different operators in different years. The limited mining that actually occurred, was by small scale suction dredging of the creek bottom. The second location, Tuksuk Channel is a tidally influenced channel between Imuruk Basin and Grantly Harbor, two inland lakes. The claimant was the same as on Gold Run Creek and presumably was using his suction dredge to assess placer gold potential of areas of this channel. According to the available records from 1998 through the 2002 mining season, a total of 6.5 acres of State lands were disturbed using small scale suction dredging methods. In the 1980s there was a medium scale placer mine operating on Eagle Creek, southwest of Teller. These records are not included in the APMA database but at least three shallow mining cuts were taken out along the creek, each in excess of 600 feet in length and up to 300 feet wide. Mining was by small dozer and scraper operations feeding a sluice box set on bedrock grade. These operations ceased in the late 1980s. Small scale wash plant mining operations followed up on historic dredge and scraper mining operations of the gold rush era around the northeast end of Grantley Harbor until the early 1980s. 2. Nome HLMP Area As this HLMP is so heavily impacted by mining activity, it is split into two parts: the Nome East HLMP and the Nome West HLMP. a. Nome East HLMP The Nome HLMP covers a vast area of the southern Seward Peninsula and has received much attention by prospectors and miners beginning with the Nome Gold Rush at the turn of the 19th Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-176 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Century. An expansive system of roads and trails, supplemented in the early days by railroads, assisted the development of the largest number of mineral deposits in the planning area. There are only a couple of small, isolated tracts of unecumbered BLM lands scattered though the eastern edge (east of Council) of the Nome HLMP area. There is a large block of State- @ selected lands in the northwest corner of the area (the Kigluaik Mountains), but these selected lands contain only two significant known mineral occurrences. There are also large tracts of Native-selected lands: one particularly large block northeast of Nome and another block east of Solomon. The block east of Solomon contains three significant, known mineral deposits. Minerals: Locatable 3-177 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 10] 00] OO] FO] OL] puerTaeis 8661 juaqu] 9 V1dxy G-O | YoWo|OS JON uoWO|OS ol oo] oof 90] OO] pueraeis| to0z | o00z yuu] oTidxy ga] uowojog 40 MOIIM On 60} oO; OO] 60] oz| puezaeis| seer | 2661 quaquy a VidxXg 9-d | uoWojos 49 a1eIS Ol; oo; OO] OF} OO] pueTaes| coo | 2661 jua}U] 19 7/1dxS/Buy g-a| uowojos 49 @s009 GZ| 00] 00] Gz} OG| puezaers| cooz | 2661 uoqesojdx3/Bului g-d| uowojog | 49 J8pinog oo! oO; OO] OO; oz] puetaeis| 72661 | 9661 yUa}U] 7/IGxy 49OIPIH rd ueg | 40 pax0019 or{ oo] oo] oF] OO| pueraeis | zooz | 9661 uoqeso|dxy yooupreH 9-d| uowojog | Jeary WwuBId oo! oo; OO] OO; OF] puetaeis| 2661 | Sé6L yuu] T/IdXg ov uag @UON orl oo; oo] OF] ov] puertaeis | e661 | Sé6r yua}U] 7/Idxy 4OOIPIH rv ueg 49 UOIgIY o0| oo; oo; OO| Ov ayeAlld L661 uonesojdxa/Buruiy, vO | UOWO|Og 40 sjaiueq ro! oo; oof; FO] o¢€| puetaeis| oo0z | c66r quaqu] oVidxa/Buy ga] uowojog 49 wngny 00/ oo; oo; OO] Ov ayeAlld e661 qua}u] yeTIdxS/Bu vO | uowojog | (Yyoeeg) VN 00! oo; oof OO| Corl puetaeis | 9661 | e66L quaUy eo T/IdxS/Buy 9-d | uoWojog 4 UOl| gv| oo; oo| gbv| Oor| pueraeis | Looz | sééL }U9}U] 197/BuIUI 9-G | uOWO|oS 39 ewiog 00] 00]; 00} OO| O1L| puetaeis| 1é6r | 686r uonesojdxa/Buiui 9-G | uOWo|og 4D ewiog 00! oof oof oo| OF jesepes | veel | e66l qua] 9 V1dxy 9-G | UOWO|Og 39 ewog 00] oo] 00] 00; Oo; pueTaeis 9661 juaquy yo7/1dxy 9-@ | uoWOoIOS 4 awiog oo; oo; oo] Oo; OOF jesepay | C66) | 686L quayuy 9 V1dxg 9-G| uoWo|OS 4 ewiog oo! oo; oO] OO; Oc] puetaeis 6861 uoqesojdx3/Buluiy g-a| uowojog | 49 aulysung 00| 00] 00] oo; O€| puezaes 6861 uonesojdx3/Bu1uiy, g-d | uowojog 49 88005 00] oo] 00] oo; Ov| puetaeis | o66r | 686r uoqesojdxs/Buruiy g-a | uoWwojog 4 Od] oo! oo; oof OO}; OZ] puetaes L661 uonesojdx3/Burui 9-a | uoWO|og 49 Ol] 00| 00] 00;| OO; OF| puetaeis 6861 uonesojdx3/Bului p-a| uowojog | woyog plop orl oo] oo| OF] OOL| puetaeis| Geel | Zé6r yu9}U] }OT/BuIUIW/Idxy a ueg | 40 pax001D 00| 00] oof oO; OF| pueTaes Z66) }U9}U] }O7/BuII 9-d| UuoWojog | 49 wesBaje) oo! oo] oo; oo| os ayeAlld L661 uonesojdx3/Buiul €-a | uowojog | 49 opelog 13 oo| oo] oo; oo; Oz| puetaieis| o66l | 686r uonesojdx3/Buiuiy 9-d | uoWojog 30 a1bey 00/ 00] 00; OO; OF{ puetaes 8861 Buu, 9-G | UoWo|Og 40 a[6e3 00{ 00] oof oo; OG| puetareis| Geel | L66r jua}u} 7/1dxa/Buyy g-d| uowojog | 4D Mom Asewuuing aoueqinjsig a9eying dIN71H }Se4 OWON “Ez-¢ BIGeL Minerals: Locatable 3-178 Chapter III: Affected Environment ajqeyeoo7 :sjeseuly\ 6LL-€ JUaWUOJIAUA pepeyy *||| 3adeYyO 1998 | 1999 | StateLand_ | 0.0 1.0 [00 |00 | 1.0 Lower Willow __| Solomon D-5 Expl/Let Intent Canyon Ck Solomon D-5 Suction Dredge 2000 | 2002 | StateLand | 0.0 1.0 {00 | 0.0 1.0 Solomon River Solomon C-5 Expl/Reclamation 2000 Private Land | 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Solomon River Solomon C-5 Exploration 2001 Private 0.0 0.0 |0.0 | 0.1 0.1 State & Sherrette Ck Solomon D-6 Exploration 2001 | 2004 | Private 0.0 1.5 0.0 2.5 4.0 Federal American Ck _| Solomon D-5 Expl/Let Intent 1989 | 1993 | Land 16.0 | 0.0 0.0 {00 | 0.0 Norton Sound _| Solomon C-4 Suction Dredge 1998 | 2002 | StateLand_ | 0.0 1.5 |00 | 0.0 1.5 Norton Sound | Nome C-2 Suction Dredge 1997 State Land 0.0 0.0 | 0.0 0.0 0.0 Abbreviations: Ck = creek; St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; dst = disturbance; Ben = Bendeleben; Expl = exploration; Mng = mining; Let Intent = letter of intent; no entry in the Last Year column means operations only lasted for 1 year. SIB/dWY YesG B[NsuIUed Psemag-yngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS In the eastern part of the Nome HLMP area, 39 mining operations are listed from 1989 to present. Three of these operations represent suction dredging of offshore mining lease holdings. The overwhelming majority of the upland operations are located on State lands with only a couple on private (patented) lands. The six mining operations listed identified as being on Federal lands occurred in the early 1990s and represent mining activities on selected lands that were subsequently conveyed out of Federal ownership. In total 126 acres in the Eastern Nome HLMP were under permit for mining from 1989 through the 2004 mining season. Alaskan mining companies operating in the East Nome area include Quaterra Alaska Inc. on Pilgrim River, Alaska Eldorado Gold Company on Dome Creek, Goldstream Exploration, LLC on Little Willow Creek and the Solomon River, and Thurman Oil and Mining on the Solomon River. Teck Cominco American, Inc., an international mining corporation, conducted hard rock exploration activities on State land in Albion Creek, Crooked Creek, and Pilgrim River. The most active mining area during the 1990s to present is the Iron Creek/Dome Creek drainage. Eight mining operations are listed with a total of 53 acres under permit. The largest operations (10 acres or more) were located on Crooked, Dome, Iron, and American creeks. These operations averaged less than two acres of disturbance per year of operation. Owner/operators were private individuals operating as a family business except for the activity on American Creek which was done under the auspices of the Gold Prospectors Association of America (GPAA). The GPAA also operated their business on private lands on Sherette Creek. The GPAA is a quasi mining business that offers vacation packages to persons interested in e gold panning and prospecting. Mining Activity Highlights e In 1992 Cook Inlet Regional Native Corporation (NPMC) conducted mineral exploration of the Big Bar prospect in Bendeleben Mountains. e In 1995, Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC) and Kennecott Exploration conducted mineral exploration activities on Native lands north of Nome. These locations had been previously explored by others from 1987 through 1992. e¢ Cominco American staked what they interpret as a high grade mesothermal quartz- carbonate-gold occurrence on State land in the Stewart River drainage. e In 1996 Kennecott Exploration and BSNC conducted trenching on Native land around Mt. Distin. e Thurman Oil and Mining drilled 52 holes for placer gold on patented mining claims at Dahl Creek. e In 1997 Intercontinental Mining conducted 6,000 feet of core drilling at the Big Hurrah Mine. Exploration continued through 1997 along Mt. Aurora and Mt. Distin trends (State and Native lands). e Kennecott Exploration interest in BSNC's lease properties at Mt. Distin, Fred, and Steep creeks and Energizer initiated in 1996 continued through 1998. Additional hard rock property targets included Bulk Gold (23 miles north of Nome), Wild Bunch (Candle), and Think Zinc (54 miles northeast of Nome) properties. e In 2000 exploration activity continued at Mt. Distin and vicinity. e The year 2002 brought a drop in exploration interests in the area. Quaterra dropped their interest in the Think Zinc, Sinuk River, and Rocky Mountain Creek properties, retaining Big Bar in the Bendeleben Mountains (State or Native lands). e In 2003 the ADGGS released maps of their geophysical surveys in Council Area. Altar Resources explored areas north of Nome and in the Council area and through a joint venture with BSNC explored mineral potential along Ophir Creek. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-180 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS b. Nome West HLMP Over a 16-year period (1989-2004) mining and mineral exploration for placer and hard rock minerals has occurred on 31 creek drainages involving a total of approximately 1,621 acres of surface disturbance within the Nome West HLMP. Hard rock exploration has occurred in at least six locations in this area involving 22.5 acres of surface disturbance primarily on private and State lands. Major mining companies involved in this work include Teck Cominco American, Consolidated Aston Resources, Ltd., Tenneco Corp, Aspen Exploration, Resource Technologies Group, Nova Natural Resources Corp, Alaska Gold Company, and Rio Fortuna Exploration Corp. By land ownership the surface disturbance acreage breaks down into 58.4 acres on State lands, 29 acres on Federal land (unpatented Federal mining claims) and 1,533.6 acres on private lands (patented mining claims and conveyed Native lands). Hard rock exploration here has expanded beyond the surface geochemical sampling and geophysical surveys. Systematic trenching, reverse circulation, and core drilling are being used to outline mineralized zones, drill geophysical targets, and collect large samples for metallurgical testing. Three of these operations have filed multiyear APMAs, one of which extends out through the 2008 mining season. The individual miner and family owned business mining operation is present here, as in other areas but provides a background to the large operations of the Alaska Gold Company. Two medium size bucket-line dredges have been in operation annually from 1989 to 1997. Dredging near the Nome airport on Submarine Beach resulted in the disturbance of 156 acres between 1989 and 1994. A second medium size bucket-line dredge, also operated by Alaska Gold Company on Third Beach just east of Beltz, has disturbed 130 acres between 1989 and 1997. Beginning in 1992 the Alaska Gold Company began phasing out its dredging operations and switched over to more conventional open pit, drilling, and blasting operations on Center Creek along the northwest edge of Nome. By 1999, the last year of operation, approximately 303 acres of private land (patented mining claims) were disturbed and reclaimed. The other major placer gold mining operation that operated on lands under lease from the Alaska Gold Company just north of Beltz at the foot of Anvil Mountain, disturbed and reclaimed 255 acres during 1989 through 1991. This operation stripped overburden mechanically and used excavators to load 255 ton haul pack trucks to load pay into a stationary wash plant. Another operation preceded Tanner's operation, using scrapers to mechanically strip and haul pay gravels to their stationary wash plant. It had a similarly sized footprint and was located adjacent to Tanner's excavations. Since these operations occurred before 1989, they are not incluced in the APMA database. Minerals: Locatable 3-181 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 00] OO] OO] OO] Oz] puezaenud] 2661 | 6861 juaju] eT/HuMI | 1-9 WON Jey00y Om g 1es0pa4 00! oo] OO| 00] OOEl | pueTaenig | 2661 | 686L ueig soy/BuiulW | L-O OWON yoeag Puy oo] oo] oo| oo; Ogg] pueqaenta | peel | 686r ugg ooy/BulUIW | 1-0 SWON yoeeg auuewqns 00{ oo! oO; OO] OOz| pueTaenud]| L66L | 686L uonesojdxa/Buuiw | 1-0 aWON 4O WAU Or] orl OOf OO] OF] pueTaerug | 666) quaqul IdXy | 1-9 @WON JOAy ayeUsS Gy| vl oo] OO] OF] puetaenug 700Z ugg soy/BuluIW | 2-9 aWON | Jeary addug ezcz| evr} OO] o8| OZL| aeruaareis | 200z | Z00z quaqu] eTidxg | L-G @WON 4 B1e1D 8z| oo; ov] ge] OO] seAugareIs | S00z | 666L uoqesojdxy yoopreH | b= OWON TONY OxeUS Go| oo; OoO| Go| Oo| pueTaeis €00Z uoqeso|dxy yoopseH | —L-G SUWION 40 OpiAig cyp| Gbv| 00] OO| OF] pueTaenug €00Z ue|q oay/BuiulW | Z-O awoN | Jeary ajddup vor| vor! OO] OO] oO€| pueqTajenug €002 ue|g oey/idxa/BuW | 1-9 OWON 40 WAU get| ect} o0| o€| O1L] pueqeeaug | go0z | zooz quaju] e/Huuw | 1-0 WON 40 1810215 Olz| Ot} OO] Ol] O6| pueTaeAug z00Z ue|g ooy/idxa/BuW | 1-0 WON 40 Aig Oz| oo; OO] Oz| OO| puelaeis Z00Z uoneioj|dxy yOopIeH | __-1- SUION 30 epiAiq os| oo; OO] OS] OOS] pueTaeis z00Z uonesojdxg yooupieH | 1- SWON | 40 UW ADOy 6lz| voz; oo; St| oor] puetaerug | zo0z | 666L uelg 9ou/idxa/BUW | 1-0 OWON 40 uy o6| 06] OO] 00] O6| pueTaenug | 100z | 100z uelg oy/Buui | 1-0 OWON BUON o9| ost} OO] OO] OG] puelTaenug L00z abpaig uoyong | z-0 aWON | Jeary addug Ovl oo; oo| Ov] OF] puelaeis| 100z| 666r quaju] VIdxg | L-G aWON 49 epinid o61| o6t| OO] OO] Og] pueqTaenug 100z ue|g day/BuluIW | 1-O @WON 40 addin GZt| GzZt| OO] OO| OF] pueTaeAug 100z ue|q soy/idxa/Buy [1-0 aWON 4 [Au oez| ozt| OO] Ol] COOL | pueTaeAug 100z uonelojdxa/Buuiy | 1-9 SUWION 40 Iu re! oo] bel oo| 00 jesepay | 000z | 666) yuu} VIGX | L-O @WON 49 aujogsO ov] OO} OO] Ov] O1| pueraeis | Looz | 666r quaqul eVidxg | 1-G OWON 40 @pinid re| vsl oo] OO] o€| pueqajenug 000z abpaig uoyong | 2-0 awon | Jeary ajddug oez| oez| OO; OO| o6| pueTaenug 000z ugg oay/buluIW | 1-9 WON 90 aidduy 9rt| Ob} OO; OO| Ov | pueTaeAUg 000z ue|g ooy/buuIW | 1-9 OWON 40 IAuy Got| sor| oo] oo| ov| puetaenug 000z ueig ooy/idxa/BuW | 1-0 OWON 4 WAU svy| oo]; oo| 8r| OO] areruagareis | o00c | 666r quaquy joidxg | 1-d OWON unsiq Ww Asewiwing aoueqin}sig eoejing qINTH }S8M WON “pz-€ BIGeL Minerals: Locatable 3-182 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment ajqeyeoo7 :sjeseuly\y e8l-€ jUsWUOLIAUZ peep ||| Je}deuD Dry Ck C-1 1991 Private Land | 1.0 0.0 {0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Nome Exploration Snake River Nome D-1 Expl/Let Intent 1991 | 2000 | State/Private | 8.0 3.6 |00 | 60 9.6 Anvil Ck Nome C-2 _| Mining/Rec Plan 1992 | 1994 | PrivateLand | 18.0 |0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Rock Ck Nome C-2 | Mining/Rec Plan 1992 | 1993 | PrivateLand | 7.00 |0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Oregon Ck Nome C-2 | Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1992 | 1996 | PrivateLand | 12.0 [0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Center Ck Nome C-1__| Mining/Rec Plan 1992 | 1997 | PrivateLand | 210.0 |0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Dexter Ck Nome B-1 Mining/Let Intent 1992 | 1999 | PrivateLand | 27.0 [0.0 |0.0 | 81 8.1 Anvil Ck Nome C-1__| Mng/Expl/Rec Plan 1992 | 1999 | PrivateLand | 36.0 [0.0 |0.0 | 32.5 | 32.5 Speciman Gich__| Nome C-1 Mining 1989 | 1990 | PrivateLand | 40.0 | 0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Specimen Gich_| Circle C-1 Mining/Rec Plan 1989 | 1999 | PrivateLand | 85.0 [0.0 |0.0 | 23.0 | 23.0 Clara Ck Nome D-1 Exploration 1989 | 1990 | State Land 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Basin Ck Nome C-1 Mining/Let Intent 1989 | 1997 | PrivateLand | 10.0 [0.0 |0.0 |00 0.0 Buster Ck Nome C-1__| Mining 1989 | 1991 | Private Land | 3.0 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Daniels Ck Solomon C-4 _| Mining/Exploration 1991 Private Land | 2.0 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Tripple Ck Nome C-1__| Mng/Expl/Rec Plan 1993 | 1998 | PrivateLand | 65.0 |0.0 | 0.0 | 108.0 | 108.0 Hastings Ck Nome B-1 Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1990 | 1994 | Private Land | 4.0 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Rock Ck Nome C-1 Expl/Let Intent 1990 | 1994 | Private Land | 2.0 0.0 |00 | 00 0.0 Cripple River Nome C-2 | Suction Dredge 1990 | 1999 | PrivateLand | 23.0 [0.0 |0.0 | 65 6.5 Divide Ck Nome D-1__| Expl/Let Intent 1995 | 2001 | State Land 5.0 5.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 5.0 Ashland Ck Nome C-2__| Expl/Let Intent 1995 | 1998 | Private Land | 0.0 0.0 (00 | 02 0.2 Dry Ck Nome C-1 Mng/Expl/Rec Plan 1996 | 1999 | PrivateLand | 66.0 | 0.0 |0.0 | 147.0 | 147.0 Sinrock River Nome D-2 Expl/Let Intent 1996 | 1997 | State Land 2.0 0.0 |00 | 00 0.0 Submarine Beach Nome C-1 Reclamation Plan 1996 | 1998 | PrivateLand | 105.0 |0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Washington Ck_| Nome C-1__| Expl/Let Intent 1998 | 1999 | Federal 1.0 0.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 3.3 Osborne Ck Nome C-1 Expl/Let Intent 1997 | 1999 | Federal 3.0 0.0 |7.1 | 0.0 7.1 American Ck Nome D-2__| Mining/Let Intent 1997 State Land 1.0 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 0.0 Center Ck Nome C-1__| Mining/Rec Plan 1999 | 2001 | PrivateLand | 93.0 /|0.0 |0.0 | 925 | 92.5 Abbreviations: Ck = creek; St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; dst = disturbance; Ck = creek; Glch = gulch; Mng = mining; Expl = exploration; Rec Plan = reclamation plan; Let Intent = letter of intent; no entry in the Last Year column means operations only lasted for 1 year. SIB/dWY YWesG eINsulUsd PueMag-yngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Between 1989 and present 57 operations were permitted within the Nome West HLMP area, accounting for approximately 1,189 acres. By far the largest operation, an open pit placer mine operated by Alaska Gold Company on their private lands on Center Creek mined 210 acres from 1992 through 1997 using drill and blast techniques. The second largest mining operation, also Alaska Gold Company, mined 130 acres of ground along Third Beach, on patented mining claims. This was accomplished by bucket-line dredge operating seasonally from 1989 through 1997. The third largest mining operation, again Alaska Gold Company mined 105 acres between 1996 and 1998 on Submarine Beach using drill and blast open pit mining methods. In addition there were nine other placer mining operations that mined between 14 and 85 acres each. These were located on Anvil Creek, Specimen Gulch, Tripple River, Dry Creek, and Cripple River. All of these large operations were on the coastal plain or river drainages flowing across the plain, and were located on private, patented mining claims. The second largest center of activity was on Rock Creek, a tributary to the Snake River in the foothills behind the Nome Coastal Plain. Exploration and development of hard rock resources was carried out by a combination of BSNC, Addwest Minerals Inc., Tenneco Mining Corporation, and Aspen Exploration Corporation. This development is taking place largely on private (patented mining claims and Native lands) lands and some Federal claims on selected lands. At the time of this writing, the operator on this property, Nova Gold, the successor in interest to the Alaska Gold Company, plans to bring this hard rock property into production in e 2006. Continuing up the Snake River from Rock Creek on Mt. Brynltsen are the active hard rock exploration operations of Hawley Resource Group, Inc., Consolidated Aston Resources, Ltd., and Kennecott Exploration Company on Mount Distin. These lands are owned by the State and BSNC as are the lands just to the north of this location on Divide Creek which are being explored for their hard rock potential by Teck Cominco American, Inc. and Rio Fortuna Exploration Company. Quaterra Alaska, Inc. continued hard rock exploration on State lands of Rocky Mountain Creek between 1994 and 2000. The remainder of the mining permits in this area went to individual miners mining placer gold resources on largely private lands from historic mining locations that have continued to produce for over a century of mining activity. Perhaps the most visible and typical of these operations was Steve Pomeranke’s State mining operations on Tripple Creek where mining cuts were opened to aggregate 20 acres of now reclaimed surface disturbance between 1993 and 2001. The only Federal mining operations in the area are on Washington and Osborne creeks. These involved exploration and prospecting from 1997 through 2000 with a dozer and backhoe feeding a mobile test plant for purposed of mineral patenting. Of passing interest and significant local economic importance are the numerous off shore suction dredge mining operations. Particularly since the State has set aside an area of offshore mineralized lands for recreational dredging opportunities, the few hardscrabble tents pitched on the Nome Beach east of the seawall has developed into a significant, seasonal enterprise. Some 29 operators on both offshore mining lease holdings and within the designated recreational dredging area off the East End of Nome have received permits for offshore dredging from 1997 through 2004. Now instead of the two to three camps with individuals shoveling sand into rocker boxes or sluices connected to small water pumps, its common to see three to four bright yellow suction dredges with underwater divers floating off shore on calmer days. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-184 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Exploration, development, and medium to large scale placer mining occurred throughout this geographic area mainly due to access development by the gold rush era miners. Proximity to tidewater and developed port facilities made it easy to import large scale mining equipment, trucks, and Euclid scrapers. The availability of unmined, patented mining holdings of the USSR&M Mining Company (also known as the Alaska Gold Company and now Nova Gold) and their willingness to negotiate reasonable lease mining agreements encouraged additional mining. The Alaska Gold Company operated two large scale bucket-line dredges into the early 1990s before going to year around open pit, drill, and blast operations. These mining operations ceased in the late 1990s as interest in lode gold prospects on patented holdings of the Alaska Gold Company grew. It is now expected that Nova Gold will put its Rock Creek Property in production in 2006. Two future developments that look particularly promising are the Rock Creek deposit being developed by Nova Gold and Mt. Distin being explored by Kennecott Exploration/BSNC. These mineral properties are located on State lands and State/Native lands respectively. Mining Activity Highlights e In 1989, West Gold, in preparation for commencing offshore bucket-line dredging operations (the Bima), conducted offshore design and environmental studies. The Alaska Gold Company continued its thaw field drilling to develop reserves ahead of Dredges 5 and 6. BSNC and Kennecott Exploration conducted lode tin exploration activities at Cape Mountain, Potato Mountain, Brooks Mountain, Lost River, and Black Mountain. Exploration of the gold veins at Rock Creek and Mt. Distin was carried out. e In 1989, exploration drilling and trenching continued in the Rock Creek and Sophie Gulch locations. Placer Dome/Golden Creek's Joint Venture conducted intensive exploration of the mesothermal gold occurrence in this area by doing additional core drilling to bring the total to 60,000 feet of core drill since 1987. In addition bulk sampling of the gold-quartz veins of Rock Creek was taken for metallurgical testing. Published results of this testing indicated a 92 percent recovery free milling with grinding/floatation. Lost River Mining conducted exploration rotary drilling for placer gold and tungsten on Anvil and Tripple creeks. e Tenneco Inc. conducted geochemical exploration activities in 1990 putting in a soil grid at Rock Creek on State and patented mining claims. At the end of the season Tenneco withdrew from the property. The Alaska Gold Company continued its development thaw field drilling in front of its dredges on patented mining claims and continued dredging with its bucket line dredges. BHP-Utah International continued its Mt. Distin core drilling and geochemical sampling programs. BSNC began actively advertising opportunities for joint venture partners with local corporations interested in exploring for rare earth minerals and gold. The Bima offshore bucket-line dredge permanently suspended its operations at the end of the 1990 season. e During the 1991 season Aspen Exploration ran test mining trials at the Rock Creek- Sophie Gulch property. Anvil and Windfall Mining placer mining operations on private land near Beltz (leased from Alaska Gold Co.) ceased. e In 1992, BSNC announced that at its Mt. Distin property the gold values are thrust fault controlled gold and reduced its State holdings. It was announced that Alaska Gold Co. plans to make this the last season of bucket-line dredging and would begin year round open cut mining the next season. e In 1993, Kennecott Exploration with BSNC and Hawley Resource Group discover a gold- polymetallic prospect they call Twin Mountain located just west of Snake River on State Minerals: Locatable 3-185 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS land. Alaska Gold Co. dredge operation with a single dredge continues, and open cut preparation begins at the expense of no thaw field expansion. e The geophysical maps produced in 1994 by the ADGGS airborne geophysical surveys done in 1993 spark interest in the Snake River drainage. Teck Cominco American conducts active mineral exploration on what is considered a massive sulfide deposit on Rocky Mountain Creek. On-Line Exploration conducted mapping and sampling activities of the industrial mineral, graphite, as it occurs on the Federal mining claims of N.B. Tweet and Sons Dredging occurrences. Lost River Mining and Steve Pomeranke continue trenching and sampling Tripple Creek. Alaska Gold Co. continues stripping for open cut mining. Alaska Gold Company’s Dredge 6 was mothballed in 1994 and 1995 will be Dredge 5's last year of operations. Dan Walsh opened a mining cut on the bench placers of Dexter Creek and Bert Pettigrew continued mining on Anvil Creek. e In 1995, Alaska Gold Co. used open pit mining as their sole mining method. Drilling and blasting and stripping overburden and stockpiling pay gravels that occurred over winter changes over to sluicing stockpiled pay in the summer. AGC’s bucket-line dredges are mothballed. At Rock Creek drilling, trenching, and ground geophysical surveys continued. The mineral exploration activities of Kennecott Exploration and BSNC at their Aurora Creek property continued. This property is identified as a lead, zinc, barite, gold massive sulfide occurrence. e In 1996, Alaska Gold Co. conducted a reverse circulation drilling program to develop resources for its open pit mine just outside the Nome town site. Nova Natural Resources Corp. conducts sub sea dredging operations offshore of Nome. Lost River Mining Corp. continues mining placer gold on Tripple Creek. e In 1999, Nova Gold and Kennecott Exploration conducted a drilling program on Anvil Creek and later in the season announced that it has developed a two million ounce placer gold deposit on patented claims. e In 2000, Nova Gold at their Rock Creek property conducted bench and pilot scale metallurgical testing. Mineral exploration activities for lode gold mineralization continued on BSNC lands in the Nome area. e In 2002, Nova Gold announced their decision to bring Rock Creek to production within the next three years. Pre-production work by Nova Gold in 2003 consisted of 36,000 feet of infill drilling and they are proceeding with the feasibility study to bring Rock Creek into production. (c) Eastern Seward Peninsula Region Older basement rocks in the area are largely covered by Cenozoic sedimentary and sub-aerially erupted volcanic rocks. Older basement rocks consist of upper Paleozoic and Mesozoic marine sediments and mafic volcanics intruded by Cretaceous intermediate to felsic intrusives. High Locatable Mineral Potential Areas within this region include: Darby Mountains and Western Alaska. 1. Darby Mountains HLMP Area This HLMP area contains only small isolated tracts of unencumbered BLM land in the northwest and northeast corners of the area and a thin edge along the east central edge. No known, significant mineral deposits occur on these BLM lands. The bulk of the area, the northern Darby Mountains and eastern Bendeleben Mountains, is State-selected. Over a 13-year period (1989 through 2001) mining and mineral exploration, principally for placer gold, occurred over a total of 22.8 acres. By land ownership this acreage breaks down into 16 Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-186 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS acres on unpatented Federal placer mining claims on State-selected lands plus two acres of State land, and 4.8 acres of State land. The 18 acres on the Tubutulik River were mined by an individual for placer gold on mixed Federal and State claims between 1989 and 1993. The 4.8 acres of State land was prospected for hard rock minerals by Greatland Exploration. No e@ applications have been filed in recent years. Table 3-25. Darby Mountains HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary S.Fork Hardrock State Omilak Ben | A2_| Expl 1997 | 2001 | Land 0.0 2.0 | 0.0 |0.0 | 2.0 Federal Tubutulik Mining/Expl/ & State River Sol D1 Rec Plan 1989 | 1993 | Land 13.0 |0.00 |00 |00 | 0.0 Abbreviations: Ck = creek; St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; Dst = disturbance; Ben = Bendeleben; Sol = Solomon; Expl = exploration; Rec Plan = reclamation plan. Mining interest here is primarily exploration. The GPAA accounts for much of the interest with recreational mining on patented holdings around Omalik Mine (a lead-silver lode) and associated gold placer values of associated mineralization. Greatland Exploration Ltd. staked a large claim block north of the Omalik Mine for molybdenum and rare earth interests in the Darby Mountains south of Omalik which encouraged prospectors for a time. Mining Activity Highlights e In 2002 Greatland Exploration Ltd. conducts mineral exploration of the Omalik Mine property. 2. Western Alaska HLMP Area The bulk of this HLMP area is patented and tentatively approved State lands with the northern and southern points conveyed Native lands. The BLM retains only a couple townships north of Koyuk and east of Haycock. No known, significant mineral deposits are located on these BLM lands. Over a 16-year period (1989-2004) mining and mineral exploration, principally for placer gold has occurred over a total acreage of 559.5 acres. By land ownership this acreage breaks down into 119.5 acres on Federal land (unpatented Federal placer mining claims), 291.0 acres on State land and 149.0 acres on private (patented mining claims) land. Most of the mining has been done by private individuals and small family businesses. Acreage numbers represent placer gold mining and exploration as hard rock exploration applications listed no surface disturbance. Hard rock exploration for nickel, platinum and other platinum group elements (PGE) was recently conducted on the Peace River by an out-of-state consortium, Pt-PD Corporation. Hard rock exploration also was conducted by NANA Regional Corporation in conjunction with Kennecott Exploration on Virginia Creek presumably to evaluate mineral potential of Native-selected lands. Minerals: Locatable 3-187 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment jUsWUOLIAUR pey~eyy :||| ~aIdeUuD 88L-€ aiqeyeo07 :s|eieul|\ Table 3-26. Eastern Seward Peninsula/Western Alaska HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary Bear Ck Candle C-5__| Mining/Rec Plan 1989 1992 | State& Federal | 47.0 |0.0 |00 [00 |0.0 Bear Ck Candle C-5__| Reclamation Plan 1989 1998 | State & Federal 107.0 |7.5 |00 |00 | 7.5 Candle Ck Ben D-1__| Mining/Let Intent 1989 1993 | State Land 3.0 0.0 |00 |00 | 0.0 Candle Ck Ben D-1 Mining/Rec Plan 1989 2003 | Federal & Private | 47.0 |5.0 |0.0 | 13.5 | 18.5 Candle Ck Ben D-1 Expl/Let Intent 1993 1994 | State & Private 1.0 0.0 |0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 Candle Ck Candle D-6 | Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1989 2000 | Private 38.0 [0.0 |0.0 | 10.2 | 10.2 Candle Ck Candle D-6__| Expl/Let Intent 1996 State Land 1.0 0.0 |0.0 |0.0 | 0.0 Candle Ck Ben D-1__| Mining/Rec Plan 1997 1999 | Private 10.0 |00 |00 |40 | 4.0 Candle Ck Candle D-6__| Mining/Let Intent 1989 2003 | Private 16.0 |00 |00 |43 | 43 Cub Ck Candle C-5__| Mining/Rec Plan 1995 1998 | State Land 63.0 |0.0 (00 [00 |0.0 Glacier Ck Ben C-1 Mng/Expl/Let Intent 2000 2001 | State Land 4.0 80 |00 |00 | 80 Glacier Ck Ben C-1 Mng/Expl/Rec Plan 1994 2001 | State Land 120 |40 |00 |0.0 | 4.0 Gold Run Ck Ben C-1 Mining/Rec Plan 1993 2004 | State Land 31.0 | 13.4 |0.0 | 0.0 | 13.4 Jump Ck Ben D-1 Exploration 1990 Federal 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Jump Ck Ben D-1 Expl/Let Intent 1993 1995 | State Land 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kiwalik River Candle D-6 | Min/Recl Plan 1989 1993 | State & Federal 54.0 |0.0 [00 |00 | 0.0 Kugruk River Ben C-1 Expl/Let Intent 1992 1994 | State & Federal 2.0 0.0 |00 |00 | 0.0 Kugruk River Ben C-1__| Expl/Let Intent 1994 State Land 1.0 0.0 |00 |00 | 0.0 Lime Ck Ben C-1 Expl/Let Intent 1995 State & Federal 1.0 0.0 {00 |00 |0.0 Limestone Ck Ben D-1 Mng/Expl/Let Intent 1992 State Land 1.0 0.0 |00 |00 | 0.0 Mud Ck Candle D-6__| Mining/Let Intent 1989 2004 | State Land 20.0 | 23.5 |00 |00 | 23.5 Peace River Candle A-5 Expl/Reclamation 2001 2005 | State & Federal 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Quartz Ck Candle B-5__| Mng/Expl/Rec Plan 1992 1993 | State Land 8.0 0.0 {00 |00 | 0.0 Sweepstakes Ck | Candle B-5 Mining 1989 1990 | State Land 14.0 [00 |00 |00 | 0.0 Sweepstakes Ck | Candle B-5 | Mining 1989 State Land 20.0 {0.0 [00 {00 |0.0 Abbreviations: Ck = creek; St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; Dst = disturbance; Ben = Bendeleben; Mng = mining; Expl = exploration; Rec Plan = reclamation plan; Let Intent = letter of intent; no entry in the Last Year column means operations only lasted for 1 year. SIS/dWY YeIG BINsuIUed plemag-yNgoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Mining resumed on placer gold properties opened during gold rush times and were facilitated by the availability of patented mining ground. The Kugruk River south of Chicago Creek was very busy in the mid 1980s fueled by the enormous jump in the price of gold in 1980. On these State lands the regulatory environment was quite favorable and access trails and airstrips developed in the early days facilitated access to these properties from both Candle and Deering. The more-than-5,000 foot Granite Mountain airstrip constructed by the military for its White Alice Site and surplus of the earth moving construction equipment encouraged development and mining of historic mines in the area. Very recently the Haycock area, long known for its placer platinum shows along with the placer gold has attracted the interest of mining companies looking for platinum and PGE minerals. Mining Activity Highlights e In 1989, BHP-Utah International conducts geochemical exploration (soil grids) of its Kelly Creek Property. In advance of planned placer mining operations, access trails and equipment pads are put in from Candle to Mud Creek and the Kiwalik Flats. e In 1990, the Berg/Wetelsen partnership, owners of the Independence Mine, conduct core drilling, geochemical, and geophysical surveys on the property. e The 1991 season is the third and final year of operations of the Kiwalik Flats placer gold mining operation near Candle. e Mining operations on the Candle Bench patented mining claims continues as does mining on Mud Creek initiated in 1989. e In 1992, NANA Regional Corporation in partnership with Kennecott Exploration targets exploration of polymetallic mineral occurrences on its lands in the Candle area and the Imnachuk River area to the west. e Overburden stripping and development churn drilling is conducted in the vicinity of the Independence Mine on the upper Kugruk River, on Lime Creek tributary to Candle Creek, and on patented claims on Candle Creek itself. e The year 1992 was noted for its abnormally short mining season and disappointing production levels for mining operations on Candle and Mud creeks. e In 1993 the Berg/Wetelsen partnership conducts rotary drilling for placer gold development at Candle. e In 1994, Kennecott Exploration continues its hard rock exploration activities out of Candle on BSNC land. e Hard rock mineral exploration in 1998 targets the Bulk Gold (23 miles north of Nome), Wild Bunch (Candle) and Think Zinc (54 miles northeast of Nome) properties. e At the southern end of the HLMP Pt-Pd Exploration Co. conducted geochemical exploration with a track mounted soil auger in the Dime Creek area, continued from 2000. (d) Eastern Norton Sound Region This lithotectonic terrane consists of upper Jurassic to upper Cretaceous andesitic volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks which are interpreted as representing an island arc type assemblage formed on an overriding plate of a subduction zone operating outboard of the stable North American continental margin. The Eastern Norton Sound Region includes the Shaktoolik HLMP area. Minerals: Locatable 3-189 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 1. Shaktoolik HLMP Area BLM-managed lands here surround the upper Ungalik River corridor (State- and Native- selected). Two significant, known mineral occurrences lie along the lower Ungalik River. From 1989 through 1993 a small, two cubic foot steel hulled stacker bucket-line dredge operated on the lower Ungalik River. These Federal mining claims are located on conveyed Native lands and were segregated from conveyance by the filing of a mineral patent application. Total surface disturbance for these 56 claims segregated by the application for the five years of APMA filings amounts to 13 acres. The dredge most likely did not even operate during these years and the same acreage was filed for each year. The dredge was not observed to have moved from its location until approximately five years ago when the Ungalik River eroded the berm of the dredge pond, flooded the pond and sank the dredge. The mining camp is located on patented placer mining claims and access is by air to a short strip leveled in the dredge tailings of the Ungalik River adjacent to the 1950s or earlier era mining camp. Of the 56 original claims in the patent application nearly half of them were lost when the applicant tried to amend the locations after the lands were withdrawn by selection of these lands by Alaska Natives. The applicant reconsidered that these staked as placer claims were actually on lode gold mineralization (a residual deposit at least). Interest in pursuing the application waned and the applicant was not able to follow through with the application. Table 3-27. Shaktoolik HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary Ungalik Mining/Let River Bay Intent 1993 | Land Abbreviations: St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; dst = disturbance; Let Intent = letter of intent. Small scale bucket-line dredge mining on the lower Ungalik River ceased in the late 1970s due to aging of the dredgemaster and declining interest of individuals of the family business though patented upland properties contain encouraging residual lode gold values. Mining Activity Highlights e In 1991, the Bliss bucket-line dredge was reported as not operational, its last operations being in 1987 or 1988. (e) Upper Kobuk River Region As subduction continued outboard of the stable North American continental margin basalt, gabbro, and oceanic sediments (Angayucham) were thrust on the Koyukuk-Yukon Terrane. This mid-Cretaceous collisional event eventually closed the intervening sea between the Arctic Alaska and Koyukuk Yukon Terranes metamorphosing these basalts, gabbros, and oceanic sediments to greenstone facies and elevating them to the highest structural unit of the Brooks Range. Mississippian age ophiolites are comprised of mafic to ultra-mafic assemblages of pillow basalt, chert, diabase, and gabbro locally interbedded with clastic marine sediments. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-190 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Relatively unmetamorphosed Paleozoic marine sediments are exposed in the near surface along a thrust fault which delineates the northern front of the Brooks Range and extends to the Chuckchi Sea just north of Kivilina. The Upper Kobuk River Region includes the Ambler high locatable mineral potential areas. 1. Ambler HLMP Area Over a 16 year period (1989 through 2004) mining and mineral exploration, principally for placer nephrite jade, occurred over a total of 12 acres. This acreage breaks down into 10.3 acres on Federal land (Federal mining claims on Native-selected lands), one acre on State lands and 0.3 acres on private lands. The 10 acres of mining/exploration which occurred in 1989 under an application filed for NANA Regional Corporation on Dahl and Promise creeks was for the purpose of evaluating the nephrite jade potential of Federal mining claims under mineral patent application of Stewarts Jade Company. The Federal claims under this patent application were subsequently sold to NANA Regional Corporation and reverted to private Native land. The remaining 2 acres of disturbance: 1.0 Federal, 0.7 State, and 0.3 private (Native) resulted from exploration for hard rock mineral potential in the Ambler River drainage uplands by Kennecott Exploration. Table 3-28. Ambler HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary Expl/Let State Ambler R | AmblerR | A1 Intent 1998 | 2003 | Land 0.0 1.0 |00 |0.0 | 1.0 Federal Dahl Ck | Shungnak | D2__| Mining 1989 | 1990 | Land 10.0 | 0.0 {00 |00 | 00 Promise Federal Ck Ambler R_| A3_| Mining/Expl | 1990 Land 0.0 0.0 |00 |00 | 0.0 State/Fed/ Sub Private Arctic Ck_| Ambler R_ | A1 Exploration | 2004 Land 1.0 0.0 |07 |03 | 1.0 Abbreviations: St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; Dst = disturbance; R = River; Ck = creek; Expl = exploration; Let Intent = letter of intent; no entry in the Last Year column means operations only lasted for 1 year. Minerals: Locatable 3-191 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Placer gold was mined from the streams of the Cosmos Hills though the main interest of the small mineral was in the nephrite jade boulders to be found in the alluvial deposits of these same streams. Kennecott Exploration's development of the Bornite property which was subsequently patented was stunted by catastrophic shaft flooding by artesian waters. Once this technical problem was solved, the economics and interests of Kennecott Exploration had changed. The surrounding lands changed to Native ownership. The new landowner has bought out surface and underground interests in the property and is presumably holding them for future development into an economic base for its Alaska Native population. Lack of access either to tidewater (which is difficult geography to negotiate) or to the haul road (stymied by land ownership patterns and political interests) is a major disincentive. Mining Activity Highlights e During the 1989 season Stewarts Jade Company carried out an exploration program to evaluate the placer gold potential in the Dahl/Promise creeks area. NANA Regional Corporation, which owns the Empire Jade Mine at Jade Mountain, acquired Stewart Jade holdings at Dahl and Promise creeks. e In 1990, Teck Cominco American conducted core drilling at the Smucker and Sun properties located in the Baird Mountains north of Bornite. e In 1991, mineral exploration companies concentrated their efforts in the Ambler Mineral Belt and in historic placer mining areas there as well as the Noatak lead-zinc province southwest of the Red Dog Mine. NANA Regional Corporation is active in lead/zinc/silver/gold exploration in the Ambler District as well as the Candle-Ilmnachuk River district to the southwest. Mineral exploration in the Ambler Mineral Belt caused renewed interest in the Bornite deposit and the volcanogenic massive sulfides occurrences Arctic, Sun, and Smucker north of the Cosmos Hills as well as the Omar- Frost VMS occurrence north of Kiana. e Geophysical surveys are conducted in 1995 by Kennecott Exploration across the Ambler Copper belt and at Bornite in particular. e In 1996, Kennecott Exploration continued its geophysical survey work of the Ambler copper belt and also the Candle area with airborne geophysical surveys. e In 1997, Kennecott Exploration with NANA Regional Corporation completed 5,000 feet of core drilling at Bornite. Kennecott Exploration continued its exploration work for NANA Regional Corporation in the Ambler copper belt. This work is continued for the 1998 mining season focusing on Bornite and the Arctic deposit as well as in the Red Dog Mine area to the northwest. (f) Kallarchuk Hills Region The Kallarchuk Hills, part of the Baird Mountains physiographic terrane, are composed of Paleozoic schist, quartzite, and limestone in an anticlinorial structure. The Kallarchuk Hills Region includes one high locatable mineral potential area, Omar-Kiana. 1. Omar-Kiana HLMP Area Much of the lands within the area are State-selected and BLM retains lands along the Omar River, a tributary of the Squirrel River. There are no known, significant mineral deposits on BLM land. Significant mineral deposits are mapped along Klery Creek, the next tributary to the Squirrel River east of the Omar. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-192 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Though not listed in the APMA database, placer mining on Kleary Creek did occur in the late 1980s at the confluence of Jack Creek and at a location between Jack and Rocky creeks. Surface disturbance related to these mining activities totaled nearly 17 acres. A third area of placer mining occurred on Weise Creek, a tributary to Timber Creek and just over the drainage divide from the headwaters of Klery Creek. Table 3-29. Omar-Kiana HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary Mining Wiese Baird Exploration/Let Federal Creek Mtns _| B-3 | Intent 1989 | 1997 | Land 7.0 0.0 |00 |00 | 0.0 Abbreviations: St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; Let Intent = letter of intent. Placer gold occurrences in this area, characterized by the developed mining activities on Klery Creek are characterized as elemental gold and PGE alloys in grains and rarely nuggets found in Cenozoic alluvial deposits. The gold is thought to have been formed during hydrothermal activity in the quartz veins in the country rock and subsequently liberated by weathering and erosion, concentrated during transport, and trapped in fractured bedrock, which formed natural rifles. These placer gold occurrences are generally restricted the schist bedrock which underlies the eastern edge of the area. West of Klery Creek which flows along the boundary of the schist the bedrock changes to limestone. The Omar-Frost prospect and copper occurrences of the medium potential LMP area which are scattered around the Squirrel River drainage divide occur. Massive base metal sulfides and arsenic sulfosalts occur in the limestone/dolomite host rocks as massive replacements, breccia fillings, or stockworks. Diagenetic pyrite or another source of sulfur precipitates the base metals in areas of high porosity and fluid flow. This method of ore emplacement is similar to the method of formation of the Bornite deposit at Ruby Creek in the Cosmos Hills. This HLMP area, as well as a portion of the MLMP area to the northwest, are within BLM public domain lands that are currently closed to mineral entry and location. Small scale placer wash plant operations occurred here in the mid to late 1980s. In the early 1900s a small bucket-line dredge mined areas of Klery Creek of which these recent miners took advantage. Lessee/owner relations caused the demise of these operations and the increasingly complex regulatory environment as well as conflicting local and national land use interests have discouraged continued mining efforts of late. Mining Activity Highlights e Beginning in the 1992 mining season stripping and mining on Weiss Creek by Timber Creek Mining Company was accomplished. e In 1993 and 1994, Ambler Mineral Belt hard rock exploration activities spilled over onto the Omar and Frost volcanogenic massive sulfide occurrences. e During the 1995 mining season Amigaq Copper Mine Inc. conducted mineral exploration activities in the Squirrel River drainage. Minerals: Locatable 3-193 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (g) De Long Mountains Western Brooks Range Region Some of the oldest rocks (Proterozoic to middle Paleozoic) in the planning area this limestone and shale unit is thought to represent continental shelf and marine slope sediments originally deposited along the passive margin of North America. These rocks are similar in composition and age and are thought to have been deposited as a single belt including the Seward and York lithotectonic terranes. Crystalline basement rocks along the southern flank of the Brooks Range and Baird Mountains comprise a structurally complex thrust and fold package of blueschist facies metamorphosed marine shelf sediments. The De Long Mountains-Western Brooks Range Region includes both the Red Dog high locatable mineral potential area and the Red Dog medium locatable mineral potential area. 1. Red Dog HLMP Area BLM-managed lands in this area are scattered, square-mile parcels in the northeastern part. The significant and producing Red Dog Mine is located on State patented and private (Native corporation) lands. For the 10-year period between 1995 and 2004 two hard rock exploration operations have been active. Teck Cominco American has been conducting deep core drilling on its properties in the Ikalukrok Creek drainage just north of Red Dog and its helicopter transported drill rigs have disturbed a total of 4.3 acres: 2.5 on State lands, 0.5 on Federal lands (unpatented Federal mining claims on State-selected lands) and 1.3 acres of private land (conveyed Native lands). Mining claims in this area consisted of a core of less than a dozen Federal claims surrounded by State claims. The claimants converted these Federal holdings to State claims in 2001 once core drilling indicated that significant Red Dog style mineralization underlay the area. Some 24 miles west of Red Dog a second significant mineralized area underlies Federal mining claims of GCO Minerals, Teck Cominco, and Kennecott Mining companies. Surface disturbance and footprint acreages for mines such as Red Dog are not available in the APMA database as these large mines are permitted individually by the ADNR, Division of Mines. As of 2004 the Red Dog Mine reports approximately 1,800 impacted acres. Within that total the pit is currently at 220 acres, tailings impoundment at 540 acres, waste dump at 300 acres, mill and other facilities at 45 acres, and subore stockpile at 11 acres. Over the life of the mine, the pit alone is expected to expand three times its present size. This does not include the haul road or the port facility, both of which are State owned. In the late 1980s GCO Minerals developed a 5,000 foot gravel runway on State-selected lands in the uplands adjacent to the Wulik River and established a 28 acre permanent drill camp and drill core repository, the footprint of which includes the mineralized deposit outcrop. Operations ceased at this camp before 1989 but it has been maintained as a base of operations for mineral exploration on these claims and on surrounding lands by the mining companies mentioned above. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-194 Minerals: Locatable aiqeyeo07 :sjeieuly\y S6L-€ JUSWUOLIAU payeyy ‘||| Ja}deuD Table 3-30. Red Dog HLMP Surface Disturbance Summary De Long State/Fed/ Ikalukrok Ck Mtns D-2 Expl/Let Intent 2000 | 2003 | Private Land 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 De Long State/Fed/ |kalukrok Ck Mtns D-2 Expl/Let Intent 2001 | 2005 | Private Land 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 De Long State/Fed/ Ikalukrok Ck Mtns D-2 Expl/Let Intent 2003 | 2005 | Private Land 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 De Long State/Fed/ Ikalukrok Ck Mtns D-2 Expl/Let Intent 2004 | 2005 | Private Land 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 De Long State/Fed/ Ikalukrok Ck Mtns A-2 Expl/Let Intent 1995 | 2003 | Private Land 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 De Long Wulik River Mtns A-2 Exploration 2001 Federal Land 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 De Long Hardrock Wulik River Mtns A-2 Exploration 2002 Federal Land 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 De Long Hardrock Wulik River Mtns A-2 Exploration 2003 Federal Land 1.0 0.0 13.0 | 0.0 13.0 De Long Hardrock Wulik River Mtns A-2 Exploration 2004 Federal Land 3.0 0.0 13.0 | 0.0 13.0 Abbreviations: St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; Dst = disturbance; Ck = creek; Expl = exploration; Let Intent = letter of intent; no entry in the Last Year column means operations only lasted for 1 year. SIS/dWY HeIG ejNsulusd Puemas-y4nNqGoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Development of this area was the direct result of the conveyance of lands (and mineral deposits) to the NANA Native Corporation that wanted the development to provide a solid economic base for the regions’ Alaska Native population. The producing mine with developed access to tidewater and port construction facilitated by the State has encouraged exploration and development of satellite mineral deposits on surrounding State lands. Marginal operations for many years were hedged by futures commodity prices and for the past several years increased production capacity of the mill along with increases in commodities prices expand reserves, encouraged development of recently located satellite deposits. Mining Activity Highlights e In 1989, Teck Cominco conducted limited drilling at Red Dog. e NANA conducted reconnaissance geological mapping and sampling of ANCSA lands in the western Brooks Range. e In November of 1989 Red Dog transitions to production. e In 1990, Cominco American, the operator of the Red Dog Mine conducts core drilling at Red Dog and in discussion with GCO Minerals, Cominco positions itself as a partner in the LIK property 25 miles west of Red Dog Mine. e During 1994 NANA-Teck Cominco mineral exploration crews conduct hard rock exploration in the Brooks Range. e During 1995 Teck Cominco discovered a second ore body on private lands at Red Dog, the Aqqaluk deposit. They also completed a major mill upgrade adding production capacity. e Development drilling by Teck Cominco in 1996 focused on the Aqqaluk deposit at Red Dog. e In 1998, mineral exploration continued at Red Dog and the immediately surrounding area. e In 1999, Teck Cominco announced a new zinc-lead-silver deposit (Anarraaq) located six miles north of the Red Dog Mine on State lands. e In 2000, Teck Cominco conducted gravity surveys around the Red Dog Mine. e In 2001, Teck Cominco announced drilling results for the Anarraaq deposit. e In this same year Kennecott Exploration conducted regional mineral exploration in the Wulik River drainage on Arctic Slope Regional Native Corporation-selected land. e In 2002, Kennecott Exploration conducted core drilling at the LIK deposit. 2. Red Dog MLMP Area While this location falls outside the high locatable minerals potential area it does represent significant exploration activity in the medium potential area surrounding the Red Dog HLMP. The APMA database lists hard rock exploration activities on Tutuk Creek by Teck Cominco American from 1996 through 1998 and no surface disturbance. Helicopter exploration has identified significant mineral potential here but lack of access and isolated, remote location discourage an increase in the level of work. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-196 Minerals: Locatable Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-31. Red Dog MLMP Surface Disturbance Summary Expl/Let State N/A Noatak | D-3 | Intent 1996 | 1998 | Land 0.0 0.0 |00 |00 | 0.0 Abbreviations: St = State; Fed = Federal; Pri = private; Dst = disturbance; Expl = exploration; Let Intent = letter of intent Mining Activity Highlights e During the 2000 season Quaterra Resources Inc./NANA conducted mineral exploration of the mafic/ultramafic rocks around Asik Mountain looking at the PGM occurrence there. Minerals: Locatable 3-197 Chapter III: Affected Environment jUaWUOJIAU pepeyy :||| Ja}deyo Cape Lisburne Point Hope Cape Thompson 165°W Kivalina & Krusenstern National Monument Kotze 7eby, Norton Sound | Noatak River lat Py | Unalakleet 160°W ee ey f. | 5 | 24 | 23} 22/ 21 20] 19 18| 17 | 46 eae rer { | 21) 20 Tar toe 88 | 2 | 20} 18) 10 | 17 [eg LUMIAT MERIDIAN ATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN x rl % we oR anti ee A gna National ~~ Wildlife - Refuge Hust oe L¢ bee | yan MeL ‘ge| 16 (1 14) 5 + Poorman ) 13 | 14/168) 4g AA AIG EL 7 18 Locatable Mineral Status PO) closed to All ~) Open to Metalliferous f Closed by State and \ Native Selections Hardrock and Placer Known Mineral Occurences Alaska Minerals Information System Site Mineral Industry Location Site Generalized Land Status National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge State, Native, or Private Land —— Road [__] ksP RMP Planning Area Map 3-29 Existing Locatable Mineral Status Including Hardrock and Placer Known Mineral Occurences ¥ Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0.6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWY YeG ejnsulusg premeg-yngoy JUaWUOJIAU payayy :||| Ja}deyo 170°W 165°W 160°W a aa el Tere ls 26 l co 22] 2 19/18) 97) 1 © Wainwright 6 { { 4 iid sores ‘ cS rn o Icy Cape: k Ae 4 . 5¢ | j 2 4 ht ae any " at Ey [Je , sw 4) 43) 4 x : : Behr tas o Ad flslalsls lo fapep ghee Tie - 7] +t fas 4128 | 25 | 24 | 23] 22] 21 | 20] 10] 10 7/8 oc ‘ gt { Ey 8 Deter ee SW PtH p a be: y Se z Point Lay: I TE Pare 6 ! os ie ofa 22S aa aoe eee fot | 4 2 1H —| [ [Ta lew! Peelet = 4 Ty 3 pT 4 a0 | 39 2 F ey ole]#|s]=|sfafafaimtatets 2 2 | ret ta re 24 | 23 | 22} 20 ait 17} 16 tN HE AS HHT Cape Lisburne, | ty rve - Alas Ly ae r \ 4 a 6 1 ‘ q Fy s7 + 4 f TPS | 54 3) a T Ld 10 1" ll Point Hope 2% | 24) 23 | 22 21 | 20 19 | 18 17 (16 8 «| aT iio ONL, Seer Cape Thompson | 7} 8Y 9 | 10) 19) 12) 43 ao t / Kivalina = } 2 8 bachacae + 28} rt ic 27 Li | 0% | a Cape. ot “1 “{3] 2h) hot 3 palste Bi Krusenstern { | ca Of 2 J rol | 12) 13/4 National [fers mE Monument ae a ! " 2 A + +h 1 4 Lo Wer 2 + 'T 2 I ] Al pe Seer es Kotzebue, 5"= , = a0 K Kian) : 19 | 43 Olzeg, 17 Ne JN, a em TN Lis wil tol 9 7 ey 1 Hatt EE OE Pit 3}alm nie i a fh 4 | je 1“jawi tf 2pafa TN 3 1 ] TH+ fa 13] 14 | oe 4 ry - has { ‘a f 7 Shishmare " | + : [fu ba gs 10 } 4 ‘ be 10 617) 8) 9) 10) 1) 12 14 a 16 Y 7 is oa gs 6 8 1 10/11 me 9 z 12 7 F 10 5 7% 1 = | oheat Shaktoolik a i hod as ¢ | jt x T 14 i i f ee te +t 2 | Norton Sound “fet tT ri as ea et ta iW. 2}3{4isiel7]e]ol1 11 | 12 13| 14/188) 16 7 19) Unalakleet® | In] [*]_ bE 18 be ers i me 19 18 | 165°W 160°W Annual Placer Generalized Land Status — Road Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Mining Application Bureau of Land Management - Alaska (Kateel Meridian Only) Locatable Mineral Status National Park, Preserve, or Monument ar Sie ssa ES Closed to All Open to Metalliferous Only Open to All Closed by State and Native Selections Wildlife Refuge State, Native, or Private Land [__] ksP RMP Planning Area Map 3-30 Annual Placer Mining Application Filings 1989 - 2004 Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area 0 6 12 18 24 48 wiles referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, USDOI - USGS The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SI3/dW¥ Yesg einsulUsg premag-4ngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS c) Mineral Materials (1) Mineral Materials Program Congress set aside minerals that cannot be reserved by a mining claim, but can be purchased from the government on a per ton or per cubic yard basis. These are known as mineral materials or common variety minerals, and include such things as sand, building stone, gravel, rip-rap, shot rock, pumice, cinders, and clay. The BLM’s policy is to make mineral materials available to the public and local governmental agencies whenever possible and environmentally acceptable. Mineral material is sold to the public at fair market value, but is given free to States, counties, or other government entities for public projects. Mineral materails on Federal mining claims located prior to 1955 are not avvailable for sale by the Federal Government (Public Law 167). On lands selected by the State or a regional Native corporation, mineral material sales contracts or free use permits cannot be issued without concurrence of the State or Native entity (Instruction Memorandum AK-76-237, dated Nov. 9, 1976). Similarly for sales on un-certificated Native allotments regardless of underlying land ownership the process required concurrence. This represents a recent departure from regulation 43 CFR 3601.12(b) based on a interpretation that the trust land exception to the general FLPMA definition of public lands does not apply to lands subject to an unapproved allotment application (solicitors opinion, Hopewell, 5/16/2001). Monies collected from these sales are placed into escrow for the benefit of the future land owner. Certificated allotments are the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and until recently involved the BLM in a technical advisor role by MOU dated March 17, 1985. Materials obtained free of charge cannot be bartered or sold. Before they are opened, all sites must have an approved Plan of Operation, a Reclamation Plan, and environmental analysis. Small sales of mineral materials (less than 50,000 cubic yards and under five acres of surface disturbance) are categorically excluded from the NEPA process. Except for State or municipal entities a performance/reclamation bond is required. (2) Mineral Material Sales 1980 to Present Between 1980 and 2004 the BLM serialized a total of 32 mineral materials actions within the planning area. This includes one competitive material sale, one material site right of way grant, 19 negotiated material sales, four free use permits, and seven unauthorized use actions. Material sales generally were handled as cash sales and the length of the contract was two to three years. These sales particularly were located close to villages in the planning area. The purpose of the sale was usually to construct/improve village airstrips. In the mid 1980s ADOT was actively upgrading village airstrips to 4,000 feet and crosswind runways, where needed, and installing gravel aprons and shelter facility for waiting passengers and itinerant pilots. A second round of these types of improvements also occurred in the mid-1990s, but by then mineral materials were obtained from conveyed Native lands surrounding the village. Secondarily these materials were and are used for house pad construction, village roads (to airstrip or landfill) or dikes, and groynes for flood control. Minerals: Mineral Materials 3-203 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-32. Serialized Mineral Material Actions in the Planning Area 1980-2004 FFO | 85617 | 1,000 $500.00 $0.50 MS 1980 KIC, Kotzebue Crete Ck, FFO | 71302 | 100,000 $50,000.00 * | $0.50 * | MS/RW__| 1981 Teller Hwy FFO | 72991 | 390 $195.00 $0.50 * | MS 1981 Ambler FFO | 72992 | 57,180 $28,590.10 $0.50 * | MS 1981 Shaktoolik FFO | 72995 | 70,000 $18,630.90 $0.27 MS 1981 Dahl Ck FFO | 73173 | 60,283 $40,300.00 $0.67 MS 1981 Deering _ FFO | 72994 | 45,038 $22,519.10 $0.50 * | MS 1982 Shungnak FFO | 78718 | 11,500 $5,750.00 $0.50 * | MS 1982 Noatak FFO | 80102 | 20,000 $10,000.00 * | $0.50 * | FUP 1982 Shungnak FFO | 81049 | 20,000 $10,000.00 * | $0.50 * | FUP 1982 Kiana FFO | 81224 | 16,250 $8,125.00 $0.50 * | MS 1982 Red Dog Mine Kotzebue FFO | 81245 | 0 $0.00 $0.50 * | UU 1982 NANA FFO | 79122 | 640 $320.00 $0.50 * | UU 1983 Kotzebue KIC Hastings Ck FFO | 79140 | 13,724 6,862.50 $0.50 * | UW 1983 Green Const Crete Ck, FFO | 81315 | 59,576 $29,787.86 $0.50 * | MS 1983 Teller Hwy Tisuk R, Teller FFO | 81316 | 101,151 50,575.33 $0.50 * | MS 1983 Hwy FFO | 81317 | 13,800 $6,900.00 $0.50 * | UU 1983 Nome FFO | 81442 | 700 350.00 $0.50 * | MS 1983 Shungnak FFO | 81473 | 31,500 $15,750.00 $0.50 * | MS 1983 Kobuk Fox Ck, Pilgrim FFO | 81494 | 60,000 $30,000.00 * | $0.50 * | FUP 1983 Springs FFO | 81682 | 182 910.00 $0.50 * | MS 1983 Kotzebue FFO | 83354 | 900 $450.00 $0.50 * | UU 1984 Koyuk FFO | 83938 | 15,776 7,887.75 $0.50 * | MS 1984 Dahl Ck FFO | 86869 | 375,119 243,827.30 $0.65 MS 1990 Red Dog Mine Rocky Mtn Ck, FFO | 88233 | 45,000 $0.00 $0.50 * | FUP 1992 Kougarok Hwy FFO | 88522 | 126,154 82,000.00 $0.50 * | MS 1993 Red Dog Mine 53.8 Kougarok FFO | 91373 | 1,439 $1,069.25 $0.50 MS 1995 Rd FFO | 91480 | 72,231 46,950.00 $0.50 * | MS 1996 Red Dog Mine Grand Central FFO | 91826 | 145 $72.50 $0.50 * | UU 1996 Bridge Feather R, FFO | 91983 |0 $0.00 $0.50 * | UU 1996 Teller Hwy FFO | 93270 | 11,155 $15,059.25 $1.30 MS 2001 Shaktoolik Wesley Ck, FFO | 94203 | 2,220 $5,550.00 $2.50 MS 2004 Teller Hwy * Estimate (case file destroyed) Abbreviations: FUP = Free Use Permit; MS = Material Sale; MS/RW = Material Site/Right-of-Way; UU = Unauthorized Use; Ck = Creek; Hwy = Highway; Rd = Road; R = River Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-204 Minerals: Mineral Materials Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS During this same time period the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was also actively working with certificated Native allotment owners to sell mineral materials from their allotments, particularly in the Kotzebue area. The BLM was only peripherally involved in these sales since by agreement the BLM is only responsible to review mining plans, estimate royalty payments and bond amounts, and provide contract conditions and stipulations for sales proposed on certificated Native allotments. The BIA through its contractors issued the sales contract and tracked production. This Memorandum of Agreement lost its applicability in the late 1990s and the BIA took over its own administration of these contracts. Since the early 1990s materials sales dropped off principally due to the conveyance of Native lands surrounding the villages. From there only occasional sales occur on un-certificated Native allotments, the proceeds from which go into escrow for the Native allottee, or occur as unauthorized use actions initiated by ADOT for Nome road maintenance in areas where current land status is complex. Since BLM policy does not permit the trespassing of governmental entities, these unauthorized use activities are converted to material sales after the fact. Small scale construction projects that consume mineral materials are typically located in or immediately adjacent to a village, which is generally the location of the need. Under ANCSA these lands are dedicated to the Native corporations. By the mid-1980s the conveyance process of these village lands was largely completed. Sales generated in the early 1980s were handled under interim management policies of the BLM. Once the lands were conveyed or tentatively approved, the disposition of mineral materials became the jurisdiction of the Native corporation or State. On State-selected lands, particularly in the Nome area which has a rather extensive road network for a community of its size with a continuing need for highway maintenance needs, mineral material needs were largely satisfied by issuing material site rights-of-way which were administered by the State and title granted to the State upon conveyance. (3) Major Construction Projects Developing Infrastructure Nome is the primary commercial hub for the region due to its developed marine terminal and extensive airport facilities. Kotzebue is secondary to Nome only due to limitations imposed by its shallow marine environment which limits shipping. Like Nome in the early 1980s Kotzebue and other tidewater villages has to lighter container shipments from oceangoing barges which stand offshore to shallow draft barges for delivery to dry land. Nome's construction of a jetty out into Norton Sound and active dredging of its port facilities starting in the early 1980s allows docking of ocean going ships and barges and direct off loading of containers to truck tractors for delivery to warehouse and shipping customers. Construction of this jetty required large quantities of rip-rap and gravel which were conveniently at hand. The first major construction project in the region, the Nome seawall was completed in 1951. That was followed by upgrade of the unimproved gravel roads from Nome to Teller, to Council and to the Kougarok Mining District completed in the mid-1970s. The 1980s ushered in an era of large scale infrastructure development throughout the region which continues today. What follows is a brief listing of projects undertaken since 1980 which require large amounts of mineral materials (rip-rap, sand and gravel, sand, shot rock, and their screened by-products): e Nome Seawall - construction completed 1951 requires annual maintenance dredging e Nome jetty - construction, periodic maintenance, and upgrades e Bima dredge dock e Nome water and sewer upgrade - required maintenance Minerals: Mineral Materials 3-205 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Nome small boat harbor and port - bid award 1999 construction nearly complete Airport improvement and expansion projects in the villages Nome airport runway extension and repaving work Nome mail handling facility Nome power plant relocation Kotzebue airport apron expansion Kotzebue Regional Health Center (Maniilaq Health Center) Housing complexes for hospital personnel and teachers in Kotzebue. Red Dog Port facility and haul road Red Dog Mine facilities Nome-Council road upgrade Nome-Kougarok road upgrade Four mile road connects between reservoir and military site, Kotzebue. DOT road construction Teller Highway to Rock Creek Mine Erosion and flood control - Shishmaref, Kivilina and others (4) Continuing Need for Mineral Materials for Construction Activities While the BLM's role in providing mineral materials for construction projects in the planning area has dwindled due to loss of ownership of resources proximate to developing areas, the need for these materials has continued to grow. In the Nome area alone nearly 300 miles of unpaved highway has been constructed mostly to interstate standards and needs to be maintained. In the late 1980s lengthening of the Nome seawall to protect against flooding, the construction of the causeway for dockside off loading of groceries, supplies and equipment destined for regional customers, airport construction and improvement in Nome and villages throughout the area, Nome small boat harbor construction, wetland filling and gravel pad construction for Kotzebue regional hospital facilities, tailings dam construction at the Red Dog Mine, the Red Dog Port facility construction, and 52 mile haul road construction and maintenance are a few major projects to date. For the years 1987 through 1990 regional sand and gravel needs ranged between 4.8 and 2.8 million tons annually ($19 million and $9.4 million, respectively). In 1995 and again in 2002 mineral materials private sales again exceeded 1 million tons. The lowest year was in 2002 when only 188,000 tons were produced. Annual production data for the region is taken from tabulated data collected by the ADGGS and published in their Annual Alaska's Mineral Industry Special Reports. Data is solicited by voluntary questionnaire and summarized by regions as determined by the ADGGS. Of these regions of Alaska the planning area encompasses the western part of the Northern Region and the western part of the Western Region. In ADGGS's Northern Region the bulk of the mineral material reported comes from developments in the North Slope oil fields and along the Dalton Highway. The Western Region encompasses activities in the interior such as large scale mining activities at McGrath and Illinois Creek. Consequently in some instances it is difficult to separate production form these areas outside the planning area based on the narrative in the Alaska’s Mineral Industry Special Report. The following graph is the result of this effort to compare BLM's contribution of mineral material resources against State and private sources. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-206 Minerals: Mineral Materials Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Figure 3-7. Annual Mineral Materials Production 1980-2004 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 Short 3 900,000 Tons BUS BLM Private & State 2,000,000 - 1,000,000 1° 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1980 - 2004 Principal sources satisfying these needs are found on Native, State, and private lands. The Bering Straits Native Corporation in partnership with private enterprise operates a world class rip-rap quarry at Cape Nome and export to other tidewater villages along Alaska's western coast as well as other Pacific Rim countries. NovaGold in Nome sells tailings locally off mined patented mining claims on the Nome coastal plain and are currently studying the feasibility of shipping mineral material resources by barge to Seattle and San Francisco areas. Construction and maintenance projects associated with the Red Dog Mine are supplied by State and Native mineral material sources. Point Hope and Kotzebue are the only locations without a large, developed mineral material resource. Kotzebue, situated on the gravel spit of the tip of the Baldwin Peninsula continues to scrape gravels from their backyard to place in their front yard despite the untapped potential resources along the shoreline and bluffs of Selawik Lake. Native and commercial construction companies have developed to fill the need for construction materials proximate to project locations. Mineral material sources are developed on Native and State lands as the conveniently accessible lands are under their ownership. The BLM retains only a dwindling role as an interim manager. Principal mineral material suppliers in the planning area include: e NANA Regional Corporation and KIC in the Kotzebue Region State of Alaska, numerous locations onshore and offshore suction dredging NovaGold (Alaska Gold Company) Nome area Martinson Gravel and Crane, Nome Bering Straits Regional Corporation and Sitnasauk Village Corporation Nome and vicinity Cape Nome Products (Knik Construction and Sound Quarry, Inc.) at Cape Nome Quarry e Drake Construction, Nimiuk point source, Kotzebue area projects e UIC Construction, Barrow - projects in Kotzebue Minerals: Mineral Materials 3-207 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (5) Commodity Value and Market Share By tonnage produced between 1980 and 1994 approximately 4 percent of the mineral materials came from BLM administered sales. Private and State sales over that same time period accounted for 96 percent of the market. While sales contracts issued by BLM are generally for two to three years if all production (and value) are entered in the year for which the permit was issued or trespass resolved our biggest year was 1993 where we sold $274,215 worth of mineral materials followed by 1990 when $243,827 was collected. Over the 25 year period revenues average just over $34,000 per year on the average. It should be also noted that the revenues received from these BLM actions were all placed into escrow accounts to the Native entity or State as these action occurred on selected lands under interim BLM management. In contrast mineral material sales from private and State lands in the planning area average just over $5 million per year. The big year for these sales was in 1987 where mineral materials value exceeded $19.7 million. In 1983 and 1984 sales exceeded $11.7 million and in 1988 and 1990 sales exceeded $9.4 million. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-208 Minerals: Mineral Materials Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 4. Recreation Management a) General Recreation The recreational program within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula planning area provides for remote outdoor experiences in a largely primitive environment. Only one public campground (Salmon Lake) exists within the planning area. The recreational program is responsible for management of the public’s recreational use and enjoyment of BLM administered lands. Due to the remoteness, and harsh Arctic/subarctic conditions within the planning area, public use has been limited. Infrastructure within communities, particularly access, has also been a limiting factor in realizing recreational opportunities. Several areas within the planning area may benefit from an increased level of BLM management. These areas have either conflicts between recreational users or offer unique recreational opportunities. The major recreation activities in the planning area includes hunting, fishing, trapping, gathering of edible plants and berries, hiking and backpacking, photography, camping and picnicking, wildlife viewing (predominantly bird watching), river rafting, boating, and driving OHVs (primarily snowmobiles). Although the majority of visitors to the planning area are Alaskan residents who live adjacent to BLM managed lands, an increasing number are from out of state and abroad. These visitors are drawn to the area for its recreational opportunities in an Alaskan wilderness setting. The majority of visitor use, particularly from out of state and abroad visitors, occurs during the early summer and fall months from May through the end of September. Two major sporting events, the Iditarod Dog Sled and the Tesoro Iron Dog Snowmobile races, draw the majority of visitors to the planning area during the spring. The western Seward Peninsula offers high quality bird watching opportunities including rare western Alaska species, Asian accidentals, and representative northern Alaska bird species. A tourism report by ADOT (ADOT&PF 2004) for the Nome Area indicates that 25 percent of visitors coming to Alaska are interested in birding. Nome has become increasingly well known as a birding destination in the last 15 years and many of these visitors take advantage of the Nome area road system through independent tours. Total numbers of birders visiting the Nome area is uncertain. The Nome Convention and Visitors Bureau documented 228 birders on package tours in 2002. It has been estimated that 500-1,000 birders may visit Nome annually (ADOT&PF 2003). The planning area has the only recognized National Historic Trail in Alaska, the Iditarod, which crosses the southern portion of the planning area between Unalakleet and Nome (Map 3-32). The Iditarod is used for casual recreational use, inter-village travel, and a variety of commercial events and group activities. One Wild and Scenic River, the Unalakleet River, abuts the planning area to the south. Some visitors are drawn to this river from within the planning area, particularly from Nome to take advantage of its ttemendous fishing opportunities. There are commercial fishing guides working the river that offer world class recreational experiences. An environmental impact statement and suitability study was conducted by the BLM on the Squirrel River for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic River System. The final report was submitted to Congress in December of 2004. The BLM recommended against a wild and scenic designation. Public services provided by the BLM for recreation have been limited. Services have consisted of: maintenance of the Salmon Lake Campground (trash and waste disposal); the marking and Recreation 3-209 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS maintenance of the Iditarod Trail largely by the efforts of the Iditarod Trail Blazers; the marking of some of the designated public easements reserved through private Native owned lands via section 17(b) of ANCSA; and the creation of three recreational brochures (Squirrel River, Kigluaik Mountains, and Iditarod National Historic Trail). Brochures and public informational resources (land status and permit assistance) are available at two remote, single staffed field stations, one located in Nome and one in Kotzebue. A number of shelter cabins exist through 2920 land use authorizations. Some unauthorized structures also exist on BLM-managed lands. Two structures, one at Wagon Wheel and one at the Squirrel River, are used as public shelter cabins. Unauthorized structures on BLM-managed lands are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Annual dispersed visitor use for the planning area is estimated at 2,000 visitor user days for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 (BLM 2005k). Dispersed recreational opportunities exist throughout the planning area. Budget constraints and uncertainty of land status (State and Native selections) have thwarted a comprehensive effort to enhance recreational opportunities by BLM. There is an opportunity to increase recreational use near Nome by taking advantage of the infrastructure that currently exists (BLM campground, road, and public/private services available). Two areas of promise are the Kigluaik Mountains/ Salmon Lake area as well as the Bendeleben Mountains. In other areas such as the Squirrel and Koyuk river areas, current use (primarily commercial guiding) has created conflicts with various user groups and the local resources which may require the BLM to actively manage the recreation program to limit such conflicts. Some areas have unique habitat features which may also benefit from increased recreational management in an effort to continue existing natural conditions on the landscape. This habitat includes essential fish rearing, big game browse areas (primarily moose and caribou), and healthy numbers of prized non ungulate wildlife species (grizzly bear, wolves, and wolverine). These areas would include the Fish River/McCarthy’s Marsh area, Buckland and Tagagawik River areas and the Agiapuk, Ungalik, Inglutalik, and Shaktoolik rivers. This listing is certainly not inclusive as nearly every major river within the planning area exhibits many of these habitat features. However, commercial recreational use levels and changing hunting and fishing regulations under State law as well as Federal subsistence management and fish crashes in Norton Sound have elevated the awareness of these identified areas. b) Special Recreation Permits, Commercial Uses, and Fee Use Areas Section 4(c) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act allows for the issuance of special recreation permits for “uses such as group activities, recreation events, motorized recreation vehicles, and other specialized recreation uses.” The issuance of such special recreation permits is not mandatory; the Act states that such special permits “may be issued in accordance with procedures and at fees established by the agency involved.” Commercial recreational use is authorized through 43 CFR 2930, Permits for Recreation on Public Lands. A final rule and a proposed rule (dealing with term lengths of permits) were published in the Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 190, pages 61732-61745 on October 1, 2002. A final rule for the term length was published February 6, 2004 and became effective on April 1, 2004. This final rule allows BLM, in its discretion, to issue a 10-year Special Recreation Permit (SRP). Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-210 Recreation Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Commercial recreational use varies from year to year but generally 12-14 SRPs are issued or reauthorized for hunting/guiding activities. Roughly half of the hunting/guiding permits are authorized in the Squirrel River area and the other half in the Nulato Hills and upper Koyuk River area. Two world class competitive events (the Iditarod and Iron Dog races) occur within the planning area and are also permitted. Other smaller snow machine and dog sled events occur within the planning area on existing trails. The planning area has seen an increase in commercial recreational use, due largely to BLM lands being available to big game guides and through closures to moose hunting by non- residents in adjacent areas. BLM lands in the Squirrel River are surrounded by lands managed by the NPS and FWS that limit guide and outfitter use. BLM lands also carry somewhat healthy moose populations and the largest caribou herd in Alaska, making them ideal for both guided and unguided hunts. There are currently no limits on the number of recreational permits that can be issued within the planning area. Current management does not require companies offering transporter services to access BLM lands for recreational use to obtain a permit. The level of commercial hunting operations permitted by the BLM, in conjunction with transported resident and non resident hunters and local subsistence and sport use has caused significant adverse public reaction within some BLM-managed lands within the planning area. In the Squirrel River, the increased level of recreational use and the associated harvest of wildlife (moose and caribou primarily) caused BLM to attempt to create an integrated activity plan (IAP) to address recreational use levels. Although a draft IAP was completed in the mid 1990s the plan was never adopted. The level of use by non-local and non-resident hunters in Game Management Unit 23 has increased substantially since 1989. For example, the average number of non-resident moose hunters in Unit 23 from 1979 to 1988 was 60, compared to 136 for 1991-2000 (Dau 2002a). During the same timeframe, non-local resident moose hunters in Unit 23 increased from an average of 93 to 158 (Dau 2002a). Hunting of WACH caribou by non-local hunters is concentrated in Unit 23. According to Dau (2003b) since the 1998-99 regulatory year, 73 percent of all non-local hunters pursuing caribou (from the WACH) hunted in Unit 23. An average of 91 percent of this non-local hunting effort occurred in late August through September, the same time frame as the non-resident moose season. From 1998 to 2001 the average number of non-local and non-residents caribou hunters in Unit 23 was 440. The Unit 23 User Issues Group, with a broad base of stakeholders, and funded by ADF&G, was initiated in January 1999 in Kotzebue. This group met seven times in Kotzebue, Kiana, and Shungnak through August 2000. During this process two areas were identified as of highest concern, the upper Kobuk River and the Squirrel River. The group felt that during the 10 years prior to 1999 there had been increasing numbers of sport hunters coming to northwest Alaska. Local people saw this as a threat to subsistence opportunity and culture. Commercial operators were concerned with maintaining their economic livelihood. Recreational visitors/hunters/fishers wanted to maintain a high quality recreation opportunity. All involved agreed that the pattern of more people and fewer animals is likely to continue in northwest Alaska, and that this region is feeling the overflow of use from more developed parts of Alaska, the Lower 48, and Europe. Unfortunately in late 2000 ADF&G funding ran out, and they were unable to hire a planner to continue with this process, as they had hoped to do. The issue of rising use levels continues to be a concern. Rising levels of hunting pressure has caused the ADF&G to limit non resident moose harvest tickets for the first time in 2005 to 12 harvest tickets for the Squirrel River. Resident hunters are now required to obtain a permit tag Recreation 3-211 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS within the game management unit. These proactive approaches taken by the State are an attempt to reduce hunting pressure. Residents of the area have expressed concern over use levels changing animal behavior and migration patterns, waste of game meat, OHV use, overcrowding, and increased pressure on subsistence resources. There have been several documented cases of conflicts between subsistence and non-local hunters. In 2004, the tribal governments of Koyuk and Shaktoolik protested a BLM decision to grant a commercial use permit to a hunting guide within the Koyuk and Shaktoolik rivers. Conflicts over commercial recreational sport hunting were the root of the protest. While the BLM recognizes and acknowledges the State’s role in game management, it must also recognize the direct correlation between permitting guides and transporters who make a profit off of BLM-managed lands and the conflict over increased recreational use that the guides and transporters cause. These conflicts are causing a loss of quality recreational opportunities. Though section 4(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act authorizes Federal agencies that provide specialized outdoor recreation sites, facilities, equipment, and/or services at Federal expense to charge for the use, there are no fee use areas within the entire 13 million acre planning area. There is one public campground at Salmon Lake, which is accessible by a State maintained gravel road 40 miles north of Nome. Facilities at the campground include a one mile spur road to acommon camping area containing six camping sites with fire pits and picnic tables, a natural boat launch at the shore of Salmon Lake, and an outhouse. The BLM provides trash and sewage disposal within a limited budget. Generally the campground is opened shortly after the Nome-Kougarok Road is plowed free of snow (early June) and remains open until mid October, depending upon snow and road conditions. The Salmon Lake area offers outstanding recreational opportunities. It is the spawning grounds for the most northern run of sockeye salmon in the United States. Opportunities exist to enhance the campground facilities within the framework of a larger recreational area of nearby BLM-managed lands with remarkable scenic value, the Kigluaik Mountains. Features of interest within the Kigluaik Mountains include carbonate rock habitats that support rare plants, well developed periglacial features, classic glacially sculpted erosional and depositional landforms, small glaciers and moraines, exposed, highly metamorphosed rocks from deep in the earth’s crust, and limited gyrfalcon and snow bunting populations and habitat. One of the plant species of interest, Artemisia senjavinensis, is a BLM sensitive species. Garnet peridotite found on the surface of Mount Osborn probably formed at more than 28 miles deep in the earth’s crust. This may be the deepest crustal rocks now in surface exposure in North America. Glaciated valleys offer excellent winter and summer hiking opportunities. Some lakes supports a unique population of Arctic char and Crater Lake is the source of a water pipeline built to develop the gold placers of the Nome mining districts. This 30 inch pipeline made of redwood slats held together with iron hoops gives a glimpse of the rich mining history of the Seward Peninsula. Much of this pipeline remains after nearly 100 years. Abrupt mountain peaks over 3,000 feet are readily accessible and some canyons near Mosquito Pass have cirque lakes which offer outstanding photo opportunities. A variety of unique wildlife and vegetation also exists. The Kigluaik Mountains have been seeing increased visitor use in recent years. Helicopter charters are now available out of Nome to view some of the spectacular vistas. The area is readily accessible from the Nome Road system. Various economic development groups in Nome have discussed increasing tourism potential as a way to stimulate the economy and the Kigluaik Mountains in conjunction with the facility at Salmon Lake Campground offers an opportunity to assist in reaching this goal. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-212 Recreation Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS As discussed previously on page 3-210 under the General Recreation section, recent annual dispersed visitor use for the planning area is estimated at 2,000 visitor user days (BLM 2005k). SRPs add substantially to disperse visitor use from events such as the Iditarod Trail sled dog and Iron Dog snowmobile races, as well as commercial guiding. Exact numbers of visitors is unknown and difficult to collect. Individuals and organizations that obtain an SRP are required to provide the BLM with “user day” information. The BLM does not have a system in place for tracking dispersed visitor use by the local population, transported visitors (predominately non- guided hunters), or independent travelers. c) Recreation Opportunity Spectrum As part of this planning effort, the Fairbanks District Office classified existing recreation opportunities available across the planning area using ROS classes. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a framework for classifying and defining different classes or types of outdoor recreation environments, activities, and experience opportunities. The classification describes the recreational opportunities that currently exist on BLM-managed lands across the landscape (Map 3-31 and Table 3-33). Table 3-33. ROS Class Acreages and Descriptions Primitive 173,000 acres (1.3%) of fairly large size. Concentration of users is low and no conflicts with users are evident. Sights and sounds of road systems are nonexistent and area is remote. Human-built structures are few and far between, or are inconspicuous. Vegetation and soils remain in a natural state. Example: Higher elevations of the | Kigluaik Mountains. Area is characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment Semi-Primitive | Non-Motorized 0 acres (0%) Area is characterized by a predominantly unmodified natural environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other area users. Area is generally free of motorized trails and roads. Sights and sounds of transportation systems (mainly air) are encountered. Local | Vegetation and soils are predominantly natural but some impacts | exist. traditional subsistence use is evident but impacts are fairly minimal. | Semi-Primitive Motorized 12,927,000 acres (98.45%) Recreation Area is characterized by a predominantly unmodified natural environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Area is accessible to specialized OHVs but is generally not accessible to most four- wheel drive vehicles. Sights and sounds of the road system may or may not be dominant. Some portions of the area may be distant | from road systems, but all portions are near motorized trails. Vegetation and soils are predominantly natural but localized areas of disturbance may exist. Local traditional subsistence use is evident but environmental impacts are minimal. Example: Ivan Hoe/Guy Rowe Creek. 3-213 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Roaded Natural 33,000 acres (0.25%) Area is characterized by a generally natural environment with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the environment. Concentration of users is low to moderate, and rustic facilities may exist for user convenience and safety. The area is accessible to conventional motorized vehicles and roads are | maintained on a rular basis. Sights and sounds of the road system are evident and traffic levels may be highly variable. Areas of localized vegetation and soil impacts exist. User concentrations are low to moderate but may be high in popular recreational sites such as waysides, trailheads, and water access points. Example: Nome-Teller Road, Feather River to Tisuk River, Pilgrim Hot Springs Road, Salmon Lake Campground. | Rural 0 acres (0%) | designed for use by a large number of people. Areas typically are Area is characterized by a substantially modified natural environment. Resource modification and utilization practices are obvious. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident and concentration of users is moderate to high. Some facilities may be readily accessible to conventional motorized vehicles and are in areas where other camp structures are fairly common. Traffic levels are fairly constant. Areas of modified soil and vegetation exist. Urban 0 acres (0%) Area is characterized by a highly modified environment, although the background may have natural elements. Vegetation is often exotic and manicured. Soils may be protected by surfacing. Sights and sounds of humans predominate. Large numbers of users should be expected. Modern facilities may exist for the convenience and comfort of large numbers of people. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-214 Recreation saydeyo > a o Qo Q a a m 3 s. = 3 3 3 ® 3 2 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W Cape Lisburne! S | Point Hope 61 wy ss Cape Thomps 165°W Cape. Krusenstern National Monument Tt Norton Sound fo] 7-F Gotte UAL 12 eK) Shaktoolik 8/2040 9 Unalakleet 160°W 160°W E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10/11 / 42| 13) 14 / ee 6 ~ 19 ‘| 10 a 2 13 4 9) 10) 14/12/13) 14/188) 16 A" 30] ¥ a7 18 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes | | Primitive ieee | Semi-Primitive Motorized ee | Roaded Natural Generalized Land Status Figs National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge | | State, Native, or Private Land — Road [__] ksP RMP Planning Area Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP © Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI-BLM, 2005 Map 3-31 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N SIA/dWY YeIG einsulueg puemas-yngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 5. Travel Management/OHV a) Travel Management Due to the lack of roads, access to BLM-managed lands is limited to human power (foot, skis, snowshoes, bicycle); remote landings by small planes capable of landing on river gravel bars, remote landing strips or adjacent hillsides; helicopters, snowmobiles, or dog teams; river boats; and off-highway vehicles (OHVs). (1) Roads There are three major roads leading out of Nome maintained by ADOT totaling nearly 250 miles (Map 3-32). Lesser secondary roads also exist on the Seward Peninsula, which are largely not maintained. These include the Pilgrim Hot Springs Road, Buster Road, Bunker Hill-Kougarok, Candle Creek Road, Tin City-Goodwin Road, Lost River-U.S. Tin Road, Shovel Creek Road, Big Hurrah Road, Casadepaga Road, Deering-Inmachik Road, and Snake River Road. Lands accessed along the three major roads and secondary road systems are primarily in State and private ownership. However, these roads do provide a level of access not found elsewhere in the planning area. Except for local roads within communities, there are no other publicly maintained roads within the planning area either within or adjacent to BLM-managed lands. (2) Trails, R.S. 2477 Routes, and 17(b) Easements Other than specific 17(b) easements reserved through Native corporation lands and the Iditarod National Historical Trail, there are no designated BLM trails within the planning area. The State has numerous R.S. 2477 rights of way assertations pending. A significant number of winter trails exist. There are 965 miles of trails within the Northwest Arctic Borough and some 1,326 miles of trails within the Seward Peninsula/Norton Sound area that have been identified by ADOT (Map 3-32). The majority of these winter trails are inter- or intra- community access trails. In many instances, trails used for these purposes are not marked. (3) Airstrips All communities within the planning area have established air strips owned and maintained by the State. No remote, public airstrips have been developed by the BLM. Access on BLM- managed lands by air is limited to remote landings by small planes capable of landing on river gravel bars, remote landing strips, or adjacent hillsides. b) Off-highway Vehicle Management Under Section 202(c) (3) (E) of the Sikes Act, the Secretary of Interior was instructed to “require the control of off road vehicle traffic” on public lands. Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 established policies and provided procedures to ensure that the use of off road vehicles on public lands (excluding Indian lands, lands under the custody and control of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and lands under control of the Secretary of Defense) would be controlled. The definition of off road vehicles excluded any registered motorboat, and fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle when used for emergency purposes, any combat or Travel Management/OHV 3-217 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS combat support vehicles when used for national defense purposes, and any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by permit, lease, license or contract or official use by an employee, agent, or designated representative of the Federal Government or one of its contractors in the course of his employment, agency, or representation. The Executive Orders required closure of lands to OHV use if the use is “causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat or cultural or historic resources.” Federal Agencies were given six months to promulgate regulations to enforce the Executive Order(s). Under 43 CFR 8360, Visitor Services, the Authorized Officer of BLM has the authority to close or restrict lands under BLM jurisdiction (43 CFR 8364.1). Rules of Conduct on public lands are governed under 43 CFR 8365 and address sanitation, occupancy and use, public health, safety and comfort, property and resources, supplementary rules, state and local laws, and developed recreation sites and areas. All BLM-managed lands are required to have OHV designations (43 CFR 8342.1) and must be designated as open, limited, or closed. “Open” designations are used primarily for sites selected for intensive OHV recreation, where there are no compelling resource protection needs, user conflicts, or public safety issues that warrant limiting cross-country use. Open areas are where all types of vehicle use is permitted. On lands that are designated as “limited”, the area is restricted for certain times, areas, and/or to certain use. The restrictions can be of any type but generally fall within the following type of categories: number of vehicles; types of vehicles; time or season of use; permitted or licensed use only; use on existing roads and trails; or use on designated roads and trails. Weight class of OHVs has often been used in Alaska to limit use especially in rural areas where ANILCA subsistence use is protected. The authorized officer of BLM must provide information to the public on OHV designated areas and any restrictions placed within areas designated. Lands designated as “closed” are closed to OHV use except for use approved by the authorized officer of the BLM. Currently, the planning area is undesignated. Although, the Northwest MFP institutes a maximum 2,000 pound gross vehicle weight limit (GVW) without a permit. The current State policy on casual (non-permitted) OHV use on State lands is addressed by direction in the AAC at 11 AAC 96.020 and 96.025, “Generally Allowed Uses on State Land.” Use of highway vehicles with a curb weight up to 10,000 pounds or recreational-type vehicles (i.e., OHVs) with a curb weight of less than 1,500 pounds is allowed on or off an established road easement if use off the road easement does not cause or contribute to water quality degradation, alteration of drainage systems, significant rutting, ground disturbance, or thermal erosion. To prevent damage to wetlands, stream banks, and other areas with poorly drained soils, prevent erosion and wildlife disturbance or displacement, and provide access to public lands, the ADNR may designate certain State lands as “Special Use Lands.” Restrictions to protect resource values or manage use, in addition to the Generally Allowed Use restrictions, are administratively implemented through regulations implementing a Special Use Land Designation. OHV use is a nationally recognized, major recreational activity on BLM-managed lands. Regionally, OHV use is increasing. The popularity of the Iditarod Dog Sled and Iron Dog races is drawing visitors to the planning area. Many visitors are enjoying the area’s winter trail systems. Population increases and higher disposable income rates of residents within the planning area will add further OHV use. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-218 Travel Management/OHV Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Local residents are heavily engaged in subsistence activities and the public lands adjacent to communities throughout the planning area provide ideal opportunities for harvesting renewable resources. Local OHV use is predominately for subsistence harvesting. Snowmobiles are the primary means of transportation within the scattered isolated communities encompassed within the planning area during the winter months (November-May). OHVs, mostly all terrain vehicles, are used in the summer and fall months. Motor boats are commonly used in rivers. Primary inter village trails are along 17(b) easements. Game movements and location of traditional fishing, hunting, trapping, and gathering areas influence access outside of recognized easements. Summer OHV use is centered on personal recreation, and subsistence based gathering (fish, berries, greens, roots) usually occurring from early June through August. In September, use shifts from recreation-based to use in support of hunting. The beginning of the subsistence, sport, and commercial hunting season brings an increase in OHV use of BLM-managed lands. No OHV use monitoring has been established except for annual inspections of guiding operations within the Squirrel River. OHV use in the Squirrel River has been rising to support of commercial guiding operations. Types of OHVs used in the planning area take many forms but the vast majority are the standard “4-wheelers.” Larger OHVs (“six wheelers” and Argos) and tracked vehicles are used infrequently. Use of OHVs larger than 2,000 pounds GVW has been targeted by law enforcement and actions have been taken in the past to stop such use on BLM administered lands in the planning area. Winter snowmobile use within the planning area offers mainly backcountry and hill climbing experiences, with packed trails limited to major travel routes. Most winter activity is subsistence based hunting and trapping. Recreational activities are also supported by snowmobile. Organized events that center on snowmobile use are gaining popularity in the planning area such as the Iron Dog race, and events centered on the Iditarod Trail. This overall increase in use has made quiet winter recreational experiences harder to find except for very remote mountain peaks. Mountainous terrain is limited in the planning area and almost all areas can be accessed by aggressive snowmobile use. The increase is tempered by the remoteness of the area and small resident population base. Snowmobiles and OHVs are now capable of reaching backcountry wildlife habitat that was previously inaccessible. No inventory of trails on BLM-managed land currently exists within the planning area and aside from recognized easements and a few trails in support of commercial guiding, trail use, and its potential effect on the environment are largely unknown. Continued summer OHV use in a wet environment, dominated by tundra and muskeg vegetation often leads to muddy bogs that become greater obstacles as thermal erosion from vegetation stripping and continued use occurs. This results in users creating detours around the mud holes, creating a braided trail pattern. These widened trails not only leave a visual scar on the landscape, they also contribute to vegetation and soil damage (Meyer 2002). Travel Management/OHV 3-219 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment JUBWUOIIAUZ pepepyy :||| se}deyo 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W. Cape Lisburne., Point Hope | Cape Thompson 165°W 165°W Kivalina’ Cape f Krusenstern_| National Monument Norton Sound 160°W 19/18) 17} 1 29 | 28 : 27 | 28 | 25 24 | 23) 22) 24 | 20 19| 10 | 17 he 0 as " JAT MERIDIA T | 8G 9 {10/11} 12] 13 'S Ic & 12) 13) 14 10) 11) 12 10/14 { 12) 13) 14 9 10 " 121 8 sf [4 10} 11/12 | 19) 14/168 : “ : see) ——— 17(b) Easement* State-recognized R.S. 2477 Route* =—= Winter Trail Generalized Land Status Winter trails are from the Northwest te Alaska Transportation Plan (DOT) and are approximate locations. * Have not been inventoried; may not be on the ground condition Map 3-32 R.S. 2477 Routes, 17(b) Easements, and Winter Trails Bureau of Land Management - Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service Native Patent or IC Native Selected State Patent or TA State Selected —— Road Iditarod Trail [__] ksP RMP Planning Area Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM 2005, State of Alaska - DNR, State of Alaska - DOT 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N SIB/dWe YesG einsulusd Psemas-ynqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 6. Renewable Energy Consideration of renewable energy sources available on the public lands has come to the forefront of land management planning as demand for clean and viable energy to power the nation has increased. To date there has been no demand for development of renewable energy projects on BLM-managed lands within the planning area. In cooperation with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), BLM assessed renewable energy resources on public lands in the western United States (BLM and DOE 2003). The assessment reviewed the potential for concentrated solar power, photovoltaics, wind, biomass, and geothermal on BLM, BIA, and USDA Forest Service lands in the West. Unfortunately, Alaska was not included in this report. Following is a brief discussion on renewable energy in the planning area. a) Photovoltaics (PV) Photovoltaic (PV) technology makes use of semiconductors in PV panels (modules) to convert sunlight directly into electricity. Criteria used for determining potential include amount and intensity of sunlight received per day, proximity to power transmission lines, and environmental compatibility. To date, the Fairbanks District Office has not authorized any PV facilities for commercial power production, nor has any interest been expressed by industry in developing such facilities on BLM-managed lands within the planning area. b) Wind Resources There is increasing interest in wind energy development in Alaska. The Alaska Energy Authority and rural utilities are considering the development of wind power projects at many villages. There is an ongoing program to assess wind energy resources in western and southwestern Alaska and to develop a high-resolution wind map for this area (http://www.aidea.org/Wind.htm). Development of this map will increase understanding of Alaska’s wind resource and allow communities to more easily apply for U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) wind energy funding programs. In February 2005, the Governor of Alaska established a Rural Energy Action Council to report on short-term proposals to reduce the cost of energy in the bush. One issue the Council will address is acceleration of wind turbine generator installations. The potential to use wind as a supplemental energy source for local communities within the planning area is high. According to DOE the coastal areas of northwestern Alaska have excellent potential for wind energy (DOE 2001b). Most of the communities in the planning area rely on diesel-powered generating stations. The cost of generating electricity in this manner is very high. Using wind turbines along with diesel generation can save significant amounts of fuel. Several communities in the planning area including Kotzebue, Wales, and Selawik already use wind energy to supplement diesel-powered generating stations. The potential of a large wind farm within the planning area is low. The population in the area is low and infrastructure to transport electricity outside of the region does not exist. The potential for development of wind energy on BLM-managed lands is also low. The best sites are near the coast and to be effective, need to be close to communities. Most of the land around villages is owned by Native corporations and the BLM manages very little land along the coast. Renewable Energy 3-223 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS c) Biomass The biomass program is the use of is the use of organic matter waste products for production of products such as paper and pulp, value-added commodities, and bio-energy or bio-based products such as plastics, ethanol, or diesel. There is some interest in biomass in Alaska. The State has sought DOE funding to investigate fish oil and diesel blends, conversion of wood residues to fuel grade ethanol, conversion of fish and wood waste to Btu gas, and replacement of oil-fire boilers with wood-fired boilers to reduce energy costs in rural communities. Most of these projects are situated in southeastern Alaska where there is commercial timber and a large commercial fishery. The National Energy Policy recommends development of a strategy to encourage the use of biomass from public lands as a source of renewable energy. The potential for the use of biomass from public lands within the planning area is very limited. Only 8 percent of the planning area is forested and there are no commercial logging operations. No vegetative treatments have been conducted in the past and the probability of future treatments is low. The area is roadless, making the economics of accessing the low amount of biomass available questionable. There is no known market for these types of products in the region. Lands and Realty Actions Land actions constitute resource allocations, and, as such, are made through a variety of means but generally fall into five broad categories: use authorizations, disposal actions, acquisitions, exchanges, and withdrawals. Each proposal or application for a lands action is considered on a case-by-case basis and is either authorized or rejected. Generalized land status for the planning area is shown on Map 1-1 and Map 3-33. The primary objective of the lands program in the planning area is to provide the public with the land it needs for rights-of-way, land use permits, leases, and sales. The secondary objective is to provide support to other programs to protect and enhance the resources. Overlaying these first two objectives is the need to support the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration process, which involves the survey and conveyance of lands to the State, Native corporations, Native allottees, and other inholders. The final goal of all these objectives is a balance between land use and resource protection that best serves the public at large. a) Land Use Authorizations (1) Unauthorized Use/Trespass It is the responsibility of the BLM to protect the public’s best interest in regards to BLM-managed lands. Over the years, individuals have built structures for various purposes (e.g., occupancy, commercial uses, and recreational uses) on public land without authorization. The BLM attempts to manage this problem through a program of detection, control, and abatement. The size of the planning area makes a complete inventory difficult and a number of trespasses have been identified. Once a trespass has been identified it is handled in one of three ways: Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-224 Lands and Realty Actions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS If the structure is used for allowable purposes as defined by Sec. 302 of FLPMA, and is compatible with other resource management objectives, the trespass can be controlled by authorizing it under a specific set of conditions. If the structure is not allowable under FLPMA, but is compatible with other resource objectives, it could be transferred to Federal ownership and maintained as a public use cabin or for administrative purposes. If the structure is not allowable under FLPMA and is either unsuitable for public use or is incompatible with other management objectives, it is removed. (2) Use Authorizations Use authorizations respond to public demand for specialized and more or less temporary uses of the public lands. Examples are right-of-way (ROW) grants, airport leases, Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) leases, and all FLPMA leases, permits, and easements. These do not cause the lands to leave the public domain, although they may restrict or benefit certain uses. They may be set for a period of time or may be open-ended. They tend to cover small, scattered areas and cannot be anticipated through the planning process. (a) Airport Leases The Act of May 24, 1928, as amended, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease for use as a public airport any contiguous unreserved and unappropriated public lands not to exceed 2,560 acres in area. In accordance with the regulation, those lands leased for airport purposes will not be subject to appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws. There are no pending airport lease applications. (b) R&PP Leases The Act of June 14, 1926, as amended, commonly known as the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease public lands other than those that are 1) lands withdrawn or reserved for national forests, national parks and monuments, and national wildlife refuges, 2) Indian lands and lands set aside for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and 3) lands which have been acquired for specific purposes under conditions set forth in 43 CFR 2740 and 2912. Under these regulations, lands leased for R&PP are segregated from entry under the public land laws, including the mining laws (43 CFR 2091.3-2). There are no R&PP leases issued or pending. (c) FLPMA Leases and Permits Sec. 302 of FLPMA contemplates a wide variety of land uses for lease and permit including, but not limited to, habituation, cultivation, and the development of small trade or manufacturing concerns. In general, leases are for long-term land uses while permits are used to authorize short-term land uses or uses with little impact. This section of the Act is implemented by regulations in 43 CFR 2920 and BLM Manual 2920, which define these uses further to exclude private recreational habitation such as seasonal use cabins. All such proposals are to be reviewed under the criteria established by FLPMA on a case-by-case basis and require a site specific environmental assessment. There are a few permits and no leases authorized in the planning area. Lands and Realty Actions 3-225 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (d) FLPMA Easements A FLPMA easement is an authorization for a non-possessory interest in lands that specifies the rights of the holder and the obligations of the BLM to use and manage the lands in a manner consistent with the terms of the easement. For example, easements may be used to assure that uses of public lands are compatible with non-Federal uses occurring on adjacent or nearby land. There are no FLPMA easements authorized or pending in the planning area. b) Disposal Actions Discretionary disposal actions are usually initiated in response to public requests or applications. These actions result in a transfer of title, and the lands leave the public domain. Examples are exchanges, airport conveyances, R&PP sales, and FLPMA sales. Disposals such as airport conveyances and most R&PP sales include reversionary clauses if the land is no longer used for the purpose conveyed. FLPMA sales and exchanges are generally absolute. Non-discretionary disposal actions such as Native and State conveyances, and Native allotments are not subject to the planning process. (1) Airport Conveyance The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of September 3, 1982, and 43 CFR 2640 authorize and regulate the issuance of conveyance documents for lands under the jurisdiction of the DOI to public agencies for use as airports and airways. Under the regulations those lands proposed for conveyance are segregated from appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws. Furthermore, airport patents contain provisions allowing for reversion of the lands to the United States under certain circumstances. The only pending airport conveyance in the planning area is at Kotzebue. (2) R&PP Sales The Act of June 14, 1926, as amended, commonly known as the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey those public lands other than 1) lands withdrawn or reserved for national forests, national parks and monuments, and national wildlife refuges, 2) Indian lands and lands set aside for the benefit of Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos, and 3) lands which have been acquired for specific purposes, under conditions set forth in 43 CFR 2740. Though minerals remain reserved to the United States, there is no provision for mineral entry or development on R&PP patents. R&PP patents contain provisions allowing for reversion of the lands to the United States under certain circumstances; in some cases the reversionary clause is limited to 25 years. There are no pending sales. There are two patented R&PPs with reversionary clauses in the planning area: a Boy Scout camp and a Girl Scout camp in the Nome area. (3) FLPMA Sales Section 203 of FLPMA establishes criteria under which public lands may be considered for disposal. In general, all such proposals are to be reviewed under the criteria established by FLPMA on a case-by-case basis and will require a site specific environmental assessment. There are no pending FLPMA sales. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-226 Lands and Realty Actions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS c) Acquisitions FLPMA authorizes the acquisition of real property where it is consistent with the mission of the department and departmental land use plans. No acquisitions have been made or are pending in the planning area. (1) Exchanges Sec. 1302(h) of ANILCA authorizes the Secretary of Interior to exchange public lands or interests (including Native selection rights) for non-Federal lands and interests. No exchanges have been made or are pending within the planning area. (2) Withdrawals A withdrawal is a formal action that sets aside, withholds, or reserves Federal lands by administrative order or statute for public purposes. The effect of a withdrawal is to accomplish one or more of the following: e Segregate and close Federal land to the operation of all or some of the public land laws and one or more mineral laws, e Transfer total or potential jurisdiction of Federal land between Federal agencies, and e Dedicate Federal land for a specific public purpose. Millions of acres in the planning area are withdrawn by public land orders issued pursuant to Section 17(d)(1), 17(d)(2) of ANCSA. In addition various withdrawals have been made under Sections 11 and 14 of ANCSA for Native selections, and under 17(d)(1) for state selections. The withdrawals are a series of public land orders issued since 1972 that placed a protective withdrawal on Federal lands for the purpose of study and review, and to facilitate conveyances. Public Land Order (PLO) 6744 on October 5, 1983, addressed most of these withdrawals in the planning area south of the North Slope Borough. However, selected lands and lands under the Koyuk and Squirrel Wild and Scenic River study areas were not included in the PLO. Any underlying withdrawals remaining in effect will need to be addressed once conveyance to State and Native corporations are completed. In the case of the wild and scenic rivers, the Koyuk was determined not suitable, and the legislative withdrawal for the WSR study expired. PLO 5180 segregates these lands against mineral entry (except metalliferous minerals) and leasing. The Squirrel River has been recommended to Congress as not suitable, and the study withdrawal will expire on November 17, 2007 if Congress takes no action. Unselected lands in the study corridor are subject to PLO 5179, which segregates against mineral entry and leasing. In addition, there are hundreds of acres of administrative, recreation, power site, military, and other withdrawals in place, many of which were created for a specific purpose that may now be obsolete. A listing of all withdrawals can be found in the tables following this section. d) Access Corridors There are two legislatively designated access routes in the planning area. ANILCA Sec. 201(2) designates a winter route on an existing trail between Deering and the Taylor Highway. Lands and Realty Actions 3-227 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS ANILCA Sec. 201(4)(b) designates access between Bornite and the Dalton Highway. The majority of these routes are not on public land. Table 3-34. Withdrawals Affecting BLM Land (d)(1) PLO 5169 FF-086061 (d)(1) PLO 5170* FF-016298 (d)(1) PLO 5171 FF-016299 (d)(1) PLO 5179* AA 061299 (d)(1) PLO 5180* FF 016304 (d)(1) PLO 5184* FF 085667 (d)(1) PLO 5186 AA 061005 (d)(1) PLO 5187 FF 086064 (d)(1) PLO 5353 AA 066614 Hot Springs PLO 399* AA 064725 Squirrel River ANILCA 604(a) FF 085186 Pass Creek PSR_| PSR 726 FF 085798 Salmon Lake PSC PSC 403 AA 006202 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-228 *Partially modified by PLO 6477 (1983) which opened most unselected lands south of the N. Slope Borough to the land laws. Lands and Realty Actions suonoy Ayeey pue spueq 672-€ JUBWUOJIAUA pepeyy *||| 4a}deyO Table 3-35. Withdrawals for Other Agencies Excluding ANILCA F 022956 | DOD PLO 2020 Kivalina National | 0.54 Closed to all forms of appropriation except Maintain Guard (NG) mineral leasing and mineral materials disposal F 022958 | DOD PLO 2020 Koyuk NG 0.58 Closed to all forms of appropriation except Maintain mineral leasing and mineral materials disposal F 022963 | DOD PLO 2020 Noatak NG 0.50 Closed to all forms of appropriation except Maintain mineral leasing and mineral materials disposal F 031044 | DOD EO 1036 Nome Army Site | 3.51 Closed to all-reserved for US Army Telegraph | Maintain site F 022965 | DOD PLO 2020 Shishmaref NG 0.55 Closed to all forms of appropriation except Maintain mineral leasing and mineral materials disposal F 031968 | FAA PLO 3830 Kotzebue Airport | 140 Closed to all forms of appropriation except Maintain mineral leasing FF 000480 | FAA ANS 197 Kotzebue Airport | 34.16 Closed to all forms of appropriation except Maintain mineral leasing and mineral disposal F 024760 _| FAA PLO 2642 Nome ANS 1.38 Closed to all-air navigation site Maintain F 027227 _| FAA PLO 2854 Nome VORTAC _| 64.92 Closed to all-air navigation site Maintain F 022957 | DOD PLO 2020 Kotzebue NG 0.35 Closed to all forms of appropriation except Reported to GSA mineral leasing and mineral materials disposal F 031049 | GSA EO 4/16/03__| Nome Customs _| 1.13 Closed to all-reserved for U.S. Customs Site Maintain FF 082011 | USAF PLO 1876 Tin City Navy 6.31 Closed to all forms of appropriation except Reported to GSA mineral material disposal FF 000384 | PHS PLO 4497 Kotzebue 14.10 Closed to all forms of appropriation except Maintain Hospital mineral leasing F 013247 | U.S. Air | PLO 1534 Anvil Mountain 11.74 Closed to all-reserved for military purposes Maintain Force USAF F011996 | U.S. Air | PLO 2034 Cape Lisburne 1,091 Closed to all-reserved for military purposes Maintain Force F 014487 | U.S. Air | PLO 1664 Granite 223.59 Closed to all-reserved for military purposes Maintain Force Mountain USAF F010085 | U.S. Air | PLO 883 Kotzebue USAF | 508.29 Closed to all-reserved for military purposes Maintain Force F 012723 | U.S. Air | PLO 1571 Point Lay 1,432.46 | Closed to all-reserved for military purposes Maintain Force F 010087 | U.S. Air | PLO 1672 Tin City USAF 6.31 Closed to all-reserved for military purposes Maintain Force SIS/dWY YesG einsulued puemeg-yngoy jUsWUOLIAUZ pepeyy :||| JaIdeyD O€7?-€ suonoy Ayjeey pue spue7 AA066625 | U.S. EO 4257 Grantley Harbor | 70 Closed to all-reserved for lighthouse purposes | Maintain Coast | #16 Guard F 027632 | U.S. PLO 2650 Pt Spencer Light | 2,482.54 | Closed to all-reserved for lighthouse purposes _ | Maintain Coast Guard F 031043 | U.S. EO 4257 Sledge Island 700 Closed to all-reserved for lighthouse purposes | Maintain Coast #42 Guard F012716 | US. PLO 1571 Cape Sabine 454.42 Closed to all-reserved for military purposes Maintain Navy F012722 | US. PLO 1571 Icy Cape 156.06 Closed to all-reserved for military purposes Maintain Navy SIS/dWu Weld eInsulued plemes-yngoy JUSWUOJIAU payayy :||| se}deuD Point Lay® Cape Lisburne Krusenstern National Monument Shishmaref 19/48 / a7] 46] NT oot f 4 sw 4/93) 92) 9 Norton Sound | 2} 21} 20) 19/18) 97) 46 1 pm Sd OL IT P90 ie 22) 21 | 20) 19 18 | 17 16.88 —t 1 {10} 11) 12/43 Poorman.) _ 12 | 13| 14 /16S/ 16 isse! 4 Native Allotment Generalized Land Status —— Road Bureau of Land Management | KSP RMP Planning Area Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service es Native Patent or IC Native Selected State Patent or TA State Selected Map 3-33 Native Allotments and Land Status v Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 6 12 18 24 48 Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWa Yelg einsulusd Puemas-}ngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS D. Special Designations 1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Research Natural Areas a) ACECs (1) Background Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) are a designation unique to the BLM. BLM regulations (43 CFR Part 1610) define an ACEC as an area “...within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards.” While an ACEC may emphasize one or more unique resources, other existing multiple-use management can continue within an ACEC so long as the uses do not impair the values for which the ACEC was designated. Section 202 (c)(3) of FLPMA mandates the BLM to give priority to the designation and protection of ACECs in the development and revision of land use plans. BLM manual 1613 describes the process followed to nominated ACECs and screen areas for their suitability for ACEC designation. Currently, there are no designated ACECs within the planning area. (2) Nominated Areas During the scoping process for the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula RMP, the Fairbanks District Office actively solicited nominations and comments from the public on areas that should receive consideration as ACECs. A total of eight nominations were received from the public and BLM specialists (Map 3-34). Several of these nominations are in areas that overlap. The nominations were as follows: ° Nulato Hills ACEC — nominated by Western Arctic Caribou Herd (WACH) Working Group Inglutalik Watershed ACEC — nominated by the Alaska Coalition Ungalik Watershed ACEC — nominated by the Alaska Coalition Shaktoolik Watershed ACEC — nominated by the Alaska Coalition Kigluaik Mountains ACEC — nominated by BLM specialists Upper Kuzitrin River ACEC — nominated by BLM specialists McCarthy’s Marsh ACEC — nominated by BLM specialists Western Arctic Caribou Insect Relief and Calving Grounds — nominated by the WACH Working Group ° This Working Group is a regional organization of representative stakeholders with a direct interest in the care and management of the WACH. Establishment of the Working Group was facilitated by ADF&G and several Federal agencies. Resource agencies including ADF&G, FWS, BLM, NPS, and BIA support the Working Group in a non-voting capacity. ACECs and RNAs 3-233 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (3) Potential ACECs Based on interdisciplinary review, the following areas met both the relevance and importance criteria and will move forward for additional consideration as alternatives within this Environmental Impact Statement. For more specific information on specific measures proposed for these areas, see the detailed alternative comparison tables in Appendix B. (a) Nulato Hills The Nulato Hills are regionally significant. The area is a critical wintering area for the WACH. As of July 2003 this herd numbered at least 490,000 caribou which makes it one of the largest caribou herds on the continent. Although caribou are known for their wandering lifestyle and ever-changing distribution, the Nulato Hills were a critical portion of WACH winter range during the mid 1980s to mid 1990s, and has received heavy use during some winters since that time. Winter in the subarctic is a nutritionally demanding time for caribou. If energy reserves cannot be maintained at a sufficient level during this critical period, caribou cows may abort their pregnancies. This can have serious repercussions on the population dynamics of the herd and therefore the ability of rural residents to be successful in their subsistence lifestyle. The herd is one of the most important subsistence resources in the entire northwest portion of the state. Approximately 40 villages utilize the herd for subsistence purposes, with 15,000- 20,000 animals being harvested annually. The Nulato Hills offer considerable territory that has not been inventoried botanically. However, surveys covering a small portion of the Nulato Hills conducted during 1996, 1997, and 1998 by BLM and UAF Herbarium botanists discovered five plant species that are currently tracked by the ANHP as rare within the state. Three of these rare plants are listed as BLM-Alaska sensitive species (Douglasia alaskana, Douglasia beringensis, and Potentilla stipularis). The remaining two rare plant species (Cardamine microphylla ssp. blaisdellii and Ranunculus auricomus) will be considered for addition to the BLM-Alaska sensitive species list during future reviews of the list. The proposed Nulato Hills ACEC also encompasses salmon habitat in the Inglutalik, Ungalik, and Shaktoolik watersheds. (b) Inglutalik, Ungalik, and Shaktoolik watersheds Salmon is a critical subsistence resource in the planning area. There are currently three designated ACECs focused on important salmon habitat in the Central Yukon RMP that are immediately adjacent to the planning area: Inglutalik ACEC, Ungalik ACEC, and Shaktoolik ACEC. The upper headwaters of these three watersheds are designated as ACECs in the adjacent planning area. The purpose of these designations is to protect salmon habitat. Since the majority of the salmon habitat in these three rivers is within the planning area, these areas will move forward for additional consideration as ACECs in the alternatives of this plan. These rivers support populations of Dolly Varden, Arctic grayling, salmon (chum, coho, pink, and, to some degree, Chinook), and whitefish. They provide important habitat for both resident and anadromous fish. The fisheries in the Ungalik, Inglutalik, and Shaktoolik are among the richest in the region. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-234 ACECs and RNAs Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (c) Kigluaik Mountains The Kigluaik Mountains contain unique cirque lakes and associated fish populations, rare plants, sensitive plant communities, Eurasian bird species, and unique geological features. Populations of genetically isolated Kigluaik Arctic char have been identified in several lakes. Glacial Lake is an important spawning ground for red salmon. Two RNAs (Windy Cove and Mount Osborn) have been proposed within this area. Windy Cove includes one of the last segments of tidewater shoreline of the northern Seward Peninsula remaining in public ownership. The Kigluaik fault is the most active and most-recently active of the Seward Peninsula faults. Highly metamorphosed rocks reveal the deepest crustal rocks now exposed at surface in North America. Within the proposed Mount Osborn RNA are calcareous screes and limestone outcrops, providing alpine habitat for Artemisia senjavinensis, a rare plant endemic to the Seward Peninsula and a BLM sensitive species. Three other rare plants are found within the larger area of the proposed Kigluaik Mountains ACEC: Beckwithia glacialis ssp. alaskensis (also a BLM-Alaska sensitive species), plus Ranunculus auricomus and Primula tschuktschorum, both of which are tracked by the ANHP. The goldilocks buttercup (Ranunuculus auricomus) was discovered as new to North America in 1998 In addition to the important fish, botanical, and geological resources, the Kigluaik Mountains offer some of the most scenic vistas in the planning area. At 4,714 feet, Mount Osborn is the highest point on the Seward Peninsula. The whole range is full of precipitous peaks, picturesque cirques, and wild-running waterways. The Kigluaik Mountains are a storehouse of classic periglacial and glacially sculpted erosiional and depositional geomorphic features. This area is highly accessible to the communities of Nome and Teller, which raises the fragile and unique area’s vulnerability to change. (d) Upper Kuzitrin River The upper Kuzitrin River is an important wintering area for moose on the Seward Peninsula and is also frequently utilized by wintering caribou of the WACH. Moose and caribou are some of the most important subsistence resources on the Seward Peninsula. Winter in the subarctic is a nutritionally demanding time for ungulates. If energy reserves cannot be maintained at a sufficient level during this critical period, cows may abort their pregnancies. This can have serious repercussions on the population dynamics of moose and caribou and therefore the ability of rural residents to be successful in their subsistence lifestyle. The upper Kuzitrin River provide important habitat for waterfowl. Based on ground brood counts between 1989 and 1993, the average number of duck broods per square kilometer in the upper Kuzitrin was 10.9. American wigeon, mallard, green-winged teal, northern shoveler, and northern pintail were the predominate dabbling ducks found. Greater scaup, oldsquaw, and black scoters were the most common diving ducks. Other species observed during the surveys included tundra swan, red-necked grebes, Arctic loons, common loons, yellow-billed loons, pacific loons, white-fronted geese, Canada geese, and sandhill cranes (Jandt and Morkill 1994, Anderson and Robinson 1991). (e) McCarthy’s Marsh McCarthy's Marsh a critical wintering area for moose on the Seward Peninsula and is also frequently utilized by wintering caribou of the WACH. Moose and caribou are some of the most important subsistence resources on the Seward Peninsula. Winter in the subarctic is a nutritionally demanding time for ungulates. If energy reserves cannot be maintained at a sufficient level during this critical period, cows may abort their pregnancies. This can have ACECs and RNAs 3-235 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS serious repercussions on the population dynamics of moose and caribou and therefore the ability of rural residents to be successful in their subsistence lifestyle. The marsh also supports a wide array of bird species during the short summer months. It provides important habitat for waterfowl. This includes the yellow-billed loon, a BLM sensitive species. Based on ground brood counts between 1989 and 1993, the average number of duck broods per square kilometer in McCarthy's Marsh was 9.7. American wigeon, mallard, green- winged teal, northern shoveler, and northern pintail were the predominate dabbling ducks found. Greater scaup, long-tailed duck (previously known as oldsquaw), and black scoters were the most common diving ducks. Other species observed during the surveys included tundra swan, red-necked grebes, Arctic loons, common loons, pacific loons, greater white-fronted geese, Canada geese, and sandhill cranes (Jandt and Morkill 1994, Anderson and Robinson 1991). (f) WACH Insect Relief and Calving Grounds The WACH critical insect relief habitat and calving grounds are regionally significant. The area has more than locally significant qualities which give it special worth and meaning. There is cause for concern due to the potential for future development in the area. The area is a critical insect relief zone for the WACH, one of the largest caribou herds on the continent and a very important subsistence resource in northwestern Alaska. This area has been utilized consistently by caribou since the WACH has been tracked by ADF&G. Most of the calving area is located within the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska (NPR-A). The ACEC is adjacent to high quality coal reserves and there is potential for future development of infrastructure to support development of coal resources. Calving is when caribou are most sensitive to disturbance. Caribou are most prone to predation within the first month of life. Post-calving aggregation is also a demanding time for caribou. If energy reserves cannot be maintained at a sufficient level during this important period, caribou calves may suffer nutritionally and productivity of the herd may be affected. This can have serious repercussions on the population dynamics of the herd and therefore the ability of rural residents to be successful in their subsistence lifestyle. Caribou are plagued by numerous insect pests, such as warble flies, mosquitoes, and nose bots, during this period. They seek windy spots, ground devoid of vegetation, and snow fields to reduce intense insect harassment. In addition to caribou habitat, the ACEC potentially includes habitat for Kittlitz’s murrelet, yellow-billed loon, and red knot which are all BLM sensitive species. b) RNAs (1) Background According to 43 CFR Subpart 8223, a RNA is “an area that is established and maintained for the primary purpose of research and education.” The land must have at least one of the following characteristics: A typical representation of a common plant or animal association, An unusual plant or animal association, A threatened or endangered plan or animal species, A typical representation of common geologic, soil, or water features, outstanding or unusual geologic oil, or water features, or e The area must be of sufficient number and size to adequately provide for scientific study, research, and demonstration purposes. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-236 ACECs and RNAs Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Currently, there are no designated RNAs in the planning area. In 1985, four areas were investigated for their potential as Natural Area (RNA): 1) Clear Creek Hotsprings, 2) Camp Haven Gap, 3) Mount Osborn, and 4) Windy Cove. Consideration for designation was postponed until the BLM developed a new land use plan for the area. (2) Nominated Areas During the public scoping process, the following areas were nominated for consideration as RNAs (Map 3-34). Two of these areas, Mount Osborn and Windy Cove, are within the Kigluaik Mountains, an area nominated for ACEC designation. e Clear Creek Hotsprings — nominated by the Alaska Coalition e Camp Haven Gap - nominated by the Alaska Coalition e Mount Osborn — nominated by the Alaska Coalition e Windy Cove — nominated by the Alaska Coalition (a) Mount Osborn It was determined that Mount Osborn meets the criteria of an RNA and should be considered for designation in alternatives in this draft RMP. Features of interest in Mount Osborn RNA include carbonate rock habitats that support rare plants, small glaciers and moranes, well developed periglacial features and classically sculpted glacial erosional and depositional geomorphic features, and exposed, highly metamorphosed rocks from deep in the earth’s crust. One of the plant species of interest, Artemisia senjavinensis is a BLM sensitive species. The proposed RNA includes the core of the glaciated mountains, the summit of Mount Osborn and the glaciated Grand Central Valley. Garnet peridotite found on the surface of the RNA probably formed at more than 28 miles deep in the earth’s crust. This may be the deepest crustal rocks now in surface exposure in North America. The boundary of the RNA was modified to include several lakes that support Kigluaik char and additional geologic features of interest. The Mount Osborn RNA is entirely encompassed by the proposed Kigluaik ACEC. (b) Windy Cove Windy Cove meets the criteria for designation. However, the area of most scientific interest is high priority Native selections and will likely not remain in public ownership. In addition, the area was not large enough to adequately provide for scientific study and research. For these reasons, it will not be considered for designation as a RNA. The upper portion of the proposed Windy Cove RNA is encompassed by the Kigluaik ACEC and the expanded Mount Osborn RNA which are considered for designation under alternatives of this plan. (c) Clear Creek Hot Springs It was determined that Clear Creek Hot Springs should not be considered for designation as an RNA. Clear Creek Hot springs meets the criteria for designation however, the parts of the nomination with the highest values (hot spring vents) will not remain in public ownership. (d) Camp Haven Gap It was determined that Camp Haven Gap should not be considered for designation as an RNA. It was determined that high priority state selections would limit the potential for future designation, and the values of the area were not unique enough to warrant RNA designation. ACECs and RNAs 3-237 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Iditarod National Historic Trail The planning area has the only recognized National Historic Trail (NHT) in Alaska, the Iditarod which crosses the southern portion of the planning area between Unalakleet and Nome (Map 3- 32). The Iditarod is used for casual recreational use, inter-village travel, and a variety of commercial events and group activities such as the Iditarod Sled Dog Race. The Iditarod NHT was designated as such in 1978. It is a complex trail system stretching approximately 1,000 miles from Seward in the south to Nome on the Bering Sea. It crosses lands owned by numerous Native corporations, municipal governments, the State, and several Federal agencies. The Iditarod NHT is managed under a comprehensive management plan prepared by the BLM, the Federal agency appointed as coordinator of the trail. The plan establishes guidelines to promote the preservation, use, and enjoyment of the trail. It also identifies all the trails and sites making up the historic trail system. Iditarod National Historic Trail Inc. is a non-profit, volunteer organization that provides guidance on several aspects of trail management including design of trail markers, cooperative agreements, and competitive events. The Iditarod Trail Blazers and other volunteers provide trail maintenance and construction assistance. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-238 Iditarod National Historic Trail JUBWUOJIAU payeyy *||| se}deuD, 170°W 160°W ‘pd TN] een 7 4 10 WEE 27 2 p — 23 | 22 | 21| 20} 4 j om 9 | 18 | 17 | eRe = 2 Wainwright 15 ag. 14 a6 6 ley Cape A + a 5? 12 Atqasuk 8 1" Be ( 10 nm on 10 ow on ka? | 28 | 25 24] 23] ze | 21 | 20 | 19 | 10] a7] 10 [2h 7 Lz 6 - a 4 6 ; 5 ; 4 , 3 ww} 29 | 28] 27 | 26| 28] on ao y : : 21 | 20) 19) 18 | 17 | 16 2 4| Cape Lisburne/ National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska 5 3 zl Colville River. ‘ r ‘ | 7 5 i Point Hope 2 [ 28 | 27 | 26} 25| 26 25] 22| 21] 20 | 10 | 48 | a7 16 88 8 UMIAT MERIDI KAJEEU RIVER MERIO! 1/40 OPE hy TAN 8} 5/4/35) 2]5N Noatak National Preserve 9} 10) 11) 12) 13 Kivalina 68°N peat a Krusenstern 4 National Kobuk Valley. Monument National Park 31 |W ~ w/ 29 ow 29/ 28 | > 8 7 Bering BA Deering Land Bridge ones ; National ; oyoynk thee : Wildlife 3 i a bal OY rs 2 Refuge Kuzitrin P19) 18) 37 iH Huslia River, ‘8 lisw, 14/13) 42 ae Galena *prsy Busine -4 Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 64°N 41 - Unalakleet River Watershed 2 - North River Watershed 3 - Shaktoolik River Watershed 4 - Ungalik River Watershed 5 - Inglutalik River Watershed 6 - Kateel River Watershed Norton Sound Nominated Research Native Selected a \ Unalakleet @=-. 26+ 7 - Gisasa River Watershed 5 “J 8 - Nulato Hills T & E 165°W r L | ACEC & RNA Generalized Land Status — Road wy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP | | = ; Bureau of Land Management | Bureau of Land Management - Alaska | 9 Nominated ACEC [__] ksP RMP Planning Area | | Fish and Wildlife Service 0 6 1218 24 48 nls | | eae i Pee Ta eT Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area | entral Yukon ; | | Resource Area Ca Native Patent or IC referencing NAD83 | | | | Natural Area > State Patent or TA Source: USDOI-BLM, 2005 State Selected | fi isplayed i id for ap 33a Nominated Research Natural Areas (RNA) and me ton een ap can Existing Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWe YeJG eINsulusg puemas-4Nqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 3. Wild and Scenic Rivers This document will provide the review of eligibility and suitability of rivers within the planning area as required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and BLM planning guidance. This Existing Environment section will cover the legal requirements and review process, and list those rivers found legally eligible as potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The decision on suitability, or which rivers should actually be recommended to congress for inclusion in the national system, will be one of the outcomes of the complete planning process. a) Laws, Regulations, and Policies (1) Laws and Policies Congress has directed the Federal Government to consider potential additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System during land use planning as described below. (a) Policy Protecting Certain Rivers Section 1(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq. (2001) states: It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. (b) Direction to Evaluate Rivers While Planning Section 5(d)(1) of the WSRA requires: In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the Congress shall consider and discuss any such potential. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make specific studies and investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic and recreational river areas within the United States shall be evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential alternative uses of the water and related land resources involved. (2) Regulations Although the WSRA requires the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to develop regulations to implement the Act, only Agriculture has done so. That said, the requirements of the act are recognized in many parts of the CFR. A listing of the most important CFR citations for wild and scenic rivers flowing through BLM-managed lands follows: e 43 CFR 8350, Subpart 8351 — Designated National Area e 40 CFR 6.302 — Wetlands, floodplains, important farmlands, coastal zones e 36 CFR 292.47 — Mining activities e 43 CFR 8351.2-1-- Sec. 8351.2-1 Special rules e 43 CFR 3400.2-- Sec. 3400.2 Lands subject to leasing e 18 CFR 292.208-- Sec. 292.208 Special requirements for hydroelectric small power production Wild and Scenic Rivers 3-241 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 32 CFR 651-- Part 651—Environmental Analysis of Army Actions (AR 200-2) 30 CFR 761.11-- Sec. 761.11 Areas where surface coal mining operations are prohibited 43 CFR 36—Part 36 — Transportation and Utility Systems 43 CFR 3800—Part 3800 — Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws 50 CFR 100—Part 100 — Subsistence Management Regulations For Public Lands in Alaska 43 CFR 3400—Part 3400 — Coal Management: General 43 CFR 8351.0-1-- Sec. 8351.0-1 Purpose 43 CFR 8351.0-2-- Sec. 8351.0-2 Objective 43 CFR 8351.0-3-- Sec. 8351.0-3 Authority 43 CFR 2568.100-- Sec. 2568.100 What is a CSU? 43 CFR 2547.6-- Sec. 2547.6 Lands not subject to disposal under this subpart 43 CFR 8360.0-3-- Sec. 8360.0-3 Authority 43 CFR 8340.0-3-- Sec. 8340.0-3 Authority 43 CFR 3809.415-- Sec. 3809.415 How do | prevent unnecessary or undue degradation while conducting operations on public lands? 43 CFR 3206.11-- Sec. 3206.11 What must BLM do before issuing my lease? 43 CFR 2710.0-8-- Sec. 2710.0-8 Lands subject to sale 43 CFR 3809.11-- Sec. 3809.11 When do | have to submit a plan of operations? 43 CFR 8360-- Subpart 8360--General eeoee5e3weee eoee5ee b) Background The Federal government has been directed by congress to identify and recommend worthy additions to the national wild and scenic rivers system during land use planning efforts, as described above. The task of making recommendations on the suitability or non-suitability of rivers as worthy additions to the national wild and scenic rivers system requires agreement on the meaning of several terms used throughout this EIS. The BLM has made every effort to remain consistent to the definitions supplied below. (1) Definitions (a) Eligibility Eligibility is mentioned once in the WSRA (in Sec. 5(d)(1)) but is not defined there. Nevertheless, the term has become synonymous with an initial screening of potential rivers during a wild and scenic river study process (Diedrich and Thomas 1999, BLM 1993). In order to be eligible for designation as a component of the national wild and scenic rivers system, a river must be free-flowing and possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values (see below). An eligible river meets the bare minimum legal requirements for inclusion in the national system, but requires further scrutiny to determine if it is suitable as a worthy addition to the national system. Eligibility is, in legal terms, a determination made by the facts of the matter, and not a planning decision. (See the definition of suitability on page 3-243.) (b) Free-flowing Section 16(b) of the WSRA contains a good definition of the term: “Free-flowing,” as applied to any river or section of a river, means existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-242 Wild and Scenic Rivers Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system shall not automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion: Provided, That this shall not be construed to authorize, intend, or encourage future construction of such structures within components of the national wild and scenic rivers system. At this writing, all the rivers in the planning area are free-flowing. (c) Outstandingly Remarkable Values An outstandingly remarkable value (ORV) must be a unique, rare, or exemplary feature that is significant at a comparative regional or national scale. Such a value would be one that is a conspicuous example from among a number of similar values that are themselves uncommon or extraordinary. Only one outstandingly remarkable value is needed for eligibility. For the purposes of this report the BLM considered both a regional scale (the planning area) and the national scale. While the spectrum of resources that may be considered is broad, outstandingly remarkable values are directly river-related. That is, they should 1) be located in the river or on its immediate shorelands (generally within one-fourth mile on either side of the river), 2) contribute substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem, and/or 3) owe their location or existence to the presence of the river. (d) Suitability One of the outcomes of this EIS will be decisions on the suitability or non-suitability of the rivers within the planning as worthy additions to the national wild and scenic rivers system. In contrast to eligibility, which is based on a factual description of the existing situation, suitability is a decision based on weighing various elements through the planning process. Details on the process used to make suitability decisions are given below. Rivers that are found suitable through the planning process should be recommended for designation by congress. During consideration by congress, rivers determined to be suitable would be managed to protect free- flow, water quality, and identified outstandingly remarkable values. We will examine the potential effects of congressional designation of several rivers as we assess the impacts of the range of alternatives in this document. (2) Key Elements of Suitability Determinations The decision on suitability will be made after answering the following questions: e Should the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and ORVs be protected, or are one or more other uses important enough to warrant doing otherwise? e Would the river's free-flowing character, water quality, and ORVs be protected through designation? e Would designation the best method for protecting the river corridor? The benefits and impacts of WSR designation must be evaluated, and alternative protection methods considered. e Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any non-Federal entities who may be partially responsible for implementing protective management? Wild and Scenic Rivers 3-243 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (3) Factors Considered in Suitability Determinations The WSRA lists several factors that must be addressed in reports on suitability or non- suitability: e Current status of land ownership and use in the area. This factor is covered in Chapter |, Planning Area section, of this EIS. e Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water which would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the national wild and scenic rivers system. This factor is covered in Chapter II, Resource Uses section, and Chapter IV. e Federal, State, local, Tribal, public, or other interests in designation or non-designation. This factor is covered in this section and in Chapters II, IV, and V. e The Federal agency that would administer the river, if it were designated. For the purposes of this EIS, it is assumed that BLM would be the federal agency administering any designated rivers. e The extent to which the costs of river management would be shared by State and local agencies, if it were to be designated. For the purposes of this EIS, it is assumed that the Federal government would bear all costs of river management for any designated rivers. e The ability of the BLM to manage and/or protect the river as a wild and scenic river area. This factor is discussed in Chapters II and IV. e Historical or existing rights which could be adversely affected by designation. This factor is covered in Chapters Il, Ill, and IV. e The estimated cost to the United States, if the river were to be designated. This factor is covered in Chapters II and IV. ; c) Previous Study of the Squirrel River ANILCA amended the WSRA to designate the Squirrel River for study as a potential addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system. More specifically, this amendment directs the Secretary of the Interior to “study and submit to the President a report on the suitability of nonsuitability [of the Squirrel River] for addition to the national wild and scenic rivers system.” BLM has completed the study and forwarded a report to the President that found the Squirrel River to be non-suitable for addition to the national system. The Squirrel River will not receive further consideration as a potential addition to the national system in this planning effort. Since all the rivers in the planning area are free flowing, identifying eligible rivers according to the WSRA rest on the existence of outstandingly remarkable values. Throughout the scoping process, in public meetings, and in planning team deliberations, the planning team identified the presence of outstandingly remarkable values. Previous planning and inventory efforts were reviewed. Certain rivers were mentioned in public comments as having outstandingly remarkable values including: the Kivalina, Wulik, Tubutulik, Inglutalik, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Koyuk, Agiapuk, and Fish rivers. This area of Alaska has many rivers that, taken in a national context have outstanding and culturally important fisheries resources. It may seem repetitive to list 11 streams, all with outstanding fisheries values, but in the context of the entire coast of the United States, these streams to seem outstanding in this regard. The rivers determined to be eligible through the scoping process are listed, along with their outstandingly remarkable values, in Table 3-36 and displayed on Map 3-35. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-244 Wild and Scenic Rivers Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-36. Eligible Rivers within the Planning Area Kivalina River Fish habitat, water quality for subsistence production and domestic use Inglutalik River Fish habitat, scenery, primitive recreation Fish River (McCarthy's Marsh) Fish habitat, moose habitat, caribou habitat, waterfowl habitat Upper Buckland and Fish River | Fish habitat Ungalik River Fish habitat, scenery, primitive recreation Shatoolik River Fish habitat, scenery, primitive recreation Koyuk/Peace/East Fork River recreation, fish habitat Tubutulik River Fish habitat Agiapuk Fish habitat Kiliovilik Fish habitat Nilik/Ipewik/Kukpik Fish habitat Wild and Scenic Rivers 3-245 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment | 4a}deyo JUSLUUOJIAU paysayy : 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W Cape Lisburne/¢ Point Hope, Cape Thomps¢ii Krusenstern National Monument Shishmaret, 31 | ON Ww) 29/ 26 | 97 8 Bering Land Bridge National Preserve 7 gh, Brevig Cp ‘ ; 5 ral i ny 7 nt ay b pl *] 3 Cofincll 9) fe 27! 26 Teed Vite Mauntain Ly GoMe u by Norton Sound Generalized Land Status aeal Late] BLM and Selected Land [a] Inventoried River National Park, Preserve, or Monument Wildlife Refuge State, Native, or Private Land alta f ia iP 165°W i Ly 22 | 21 | 20] 19 pal Hey Cape, 160°W A 20 19 y 161 18/174 Wainwright 15 4 a AP 12 " 39 | 38 10 Pity 16817 | 46 |8N ssw 14/13) 42) 4; 2 a1 Noatak National Preserve Noatak River. Deering 7 : q wd Buckland} 1B Bakdies °| A —— Road Pu KSP RMP Planning Area 7 36 | 38 | 34/33] 32 | VION OWN | 28 | 27 | 26 | 25/ 24 | 23| | 36 | 3 3 | 94} 33] 22] 34 [TNT ST og ow 27 | 26 | 25 | 24 23) 2) 21/ 20] 19| 4 2 National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska 3 4 Colville Rive 5 6 7 as 31 |sow) 29 28 | 27 | 28 | 25] 26 | 23 | 22} 21 | 20 | 49 9 as 18 | 17 16 17 116 8 "1 12 u UMIAT MERIDI ; DIAN Obstet KATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN 6) 5/4)3]2)8N 32 3 iw} 1 2 Kobuk Valley. National Park ite Rive 21 an te? @ Selawik| gs Kn} 12 Selawik National Wildlife Refuge ~ 10 4}a]2[ONt, 1. Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge Husliat to} 1/12/13) 14/8 6 Poorman, 10| 11/12 13) 14 | 168 15E 7 18 - —— Ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP | Bureau of Land Management -Alaska_ | 0 6 12 18 24 48 wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: USDOI - BLM, 2004 Rivers Inventoried for Wild and Scenic Value Map 3-35 The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N SIS/dWY YeIG eInsulusg puemas-yngoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS E. Social and Economic 1. Public Safety a) Abandoned Mine Lands The BLM’s Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program is a relatively new program that was designed to address water quality issues originating from the vast numbers of abandoned mine sites through a large and programmatic approach incorporating multiple BLM programs to the one specific issue. The program will be phased out in the near future as the numbers of adversely impacted watersheds by past mining activities are cleaned up throughout America. Old mine workings are found throughout Alaska on lands administered by the BLM, USDA Forest Service, FWS, NPS, the State, Native Village and Regional corporations, and private lands patented under the 1872 Mining Law. These mineral rich mining districts had no environmental protection from early mining practices. Federal land management agencies had no requirements for performing reclamation at the time when most of the mines were abandoned on public lands. Their closures were often inadequate or non-existent. Low mineral prices and exhausted lodes have left many abandoned mine adits, shafts, and pits. (1) Goals The BLM’s Strategic Plan calls for remediating 375 AML sites nationwide. The BLM’s 10-year goal (1996-2006) is to eventually evaluate every known AML site on public lands and address all environmental and physical safety hazards present. BLM-Alaska will continue to assess and characterize all known AML sites on their existing inventory as well as sites that were missed during the initial inventory. The BLM's priority setting process for reclamation of environmental contaminated sites is based on risk assessments that address threats to human health and the environment. Abandoned mine land sites that impact water quality are usually a greater concern and receive a higher priority for reclamation than sites that do not impact water quality. The Hazardous Materials Management Program addresses issues of environmental quality degradation due to chemical, biological and/or radiological pollution, and/or contamination in coordination with other cleanup activities located on the abandoned mine, such as the reclamation of mine tailings and river geomorphology by the AML program. The BLM’s priority setting process for addressing physical safety threats to the public are AML sites where: 1) a death or injury has occurred, and the site has not already been addressed, and 2) where the mine is situated on or in immediate proximity to developed recreation sites and areas with high visitor use. BLM policy requires managers to exercise discretion and consider potential impacts to physical safety and environmental risks at AML sites in future recreation management area designations, land use planning assessments, and all other applicable use authorizations. Public Safety 3-249 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (2) Hazards/Risks There may be some hazards and risks to human health and the environment at abandoned mine sites. Some of the threats to human health and the environment are a result of heavy metal contamination, metal contaminated tailings impoundments, stored chemicals and gases, leaking containers, equipment, old buildings, abandoned explosives, petroleum, and improper managed waste(s). An alteration or loss of natural habitat for many native wildlife species can occur because of changes in vegetation or aquatic habitat as a result of soil loss or changes in the chemical composition of soils near AML sites. Abandoned mines may also impact surface and ground water flows and water quality. Impacts to water quality are generally the result of contaminated sediments or metal salts that can affect human health, fisheries, wildlife, and vegetation. Air pollution from contaminated dust can occur on tailings impoundments and waste rock piles near abandoned mill sites. There may also be releases or potential releases of hazardous substances from waste materials and acid drainage beyond AML sites. Physical safety risks associated with abandoned mines are open features including adits, shafts, pits, and high-walls, and unstable and decayed support structures in mines and buildings. (3) Reclamation Activities Because of the multiple hazards, risks and potential impacts to human health and safety and the environment through multiple mediums (e.g., soils, surface waters, wildlife), the program coordinates with other programs that are specialized in a certain field (i.e., the Hazardous Materials Management Program addresses issues of chemical, biological, and/or radiological pollution and contamination; the Fisheries program addresses issues of impacts on fisheries habitat; and the Cultural and Historical program addresses issues of cultural and historical importance). (4) Current Activities in the Planning Area Two AML sites were cleaned up in the planning area through the AML program: an abandoned mine on the Tubutulik River near Elim, and the Quartz/Dahl Creek site on the Nome-Taylor Highway. Remediation of both sites has been completed. The Quartz/Dahl site was conveyed to the State. Current status of the Tubutulik site is unknown. b) Hazardous Materials Management The Hazardous Materials Management Program is responsible for coordinating efforts addressing hazard(s) management and resource restoration on BLM-managed lands. These efforts are executed through the balance and guidance of numerous laws, regulations, and policies related to pollution activities, contaminated sites, and the environments affected by pollution and/or contamination issues such as the natural environment and human health and safety. The program typically takes into consideration multiple fields in conducting remediation and restoration efforts, such as scientific data (physical, biological, and chemical), legal, economic, political, historical, cultural, and personal perceptions (personal/cultural/social benefits from a site/area). Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-250 Public Safety Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS The goals of the BLM-Alaska Hazardous Materials Management program are: e To protect public health and safety and environmental resources by minimizing environmental contamination from chemical, biological, and radiological sources on public lands and BLM owned or operated facilities; e Tocomply with Federal and State oil and hazardous materials management laws and regulations; e To maintain the health of ecosystems through assessment, cleanup, and restoration of contaminated sites; e Tomanage oil and hazardous materials related risks, costs, and liabilities; and e To integrate environmental protection and compliance with all environmental statutes into all BLM activities. (1) Potential Sources of Hazardous Materials There are currently 14 known contaminated sites in the planning area administered by the BLM's Hazardous Materials Management Program (Map 3-36). Most sites are or were at one time involved and/or connected to past and present mining activities, while the remaining sites are associated with various activities (Federal, military, State, and/or industry) that took place in the past. Due to budget constraints and BLM priorities, remediation efforts of numerous sites have not been started. A few sites, Feather River Dump and Ungalik in particular, are identified to have site characterization conducted in the near future. Remediation efforts in the planning area include the completion of the Dahl/Quartz Creek site for conveyance to the State of Alaska (August 2004) and the removal of pollution sources at the Ungalik site. It is anticipated that additional sites will be identified, followed by remediation efforts. Additionally, it is anticipated that numerous potentially contaminated sites have already been conveyed to the State, regional Native corporations, village corporations, and/or tribal governments. There are potential sources of pollution that are outside the boundaries of BLM-managed lands but may affect BLM-managed resources. Potential sources include abandoned and active military facilities and operations, mining activities and sites (abandoned and active), oil and gas activities and sites, illegal activities, and atmospheric deposition. Because the BLM does not have jurisdiction over resources and/or activities outside its management, the BLM is involved in coordination efforts with other institutions to minimize potential adverse effects to BLM-managed resources. If a potential pollution source does affect BLM-managed resources, the BLM has authority to take actions against responsible parties in order to remedy adversely affected resources. For further information pertaining to responsible parties, see the discussion on potential responsible parties (PRPs) on page 3-254. The hazardous materials that may be encountered as a result of various activities are listed in the following table. Public Safety 3-251 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-37. Activities and Associated Hazardous Materials active) Mining (abandoned and Chemicals associated with processing ore or used in laboratories (e.g., cyanide) Explosives such as dynamite, ammonium nitrate, caps, and boosters Heavy metals (ore, product, and waste) Asbestos Petroleum (crude, products, and wastes) Contaminated environmental media Military operations and facilities (past and present) Unexploded ordinances (UXOs) Aircraft wreckage Formally used Defense sites (FUDS) Other military sites not identified as FUDS Contaminated environmental media Illegal activities (past and present) Unauthorized landfills Dumping of barrels or other containers with oil and hazardous substances on public land Drug labs Contaminated environmental media Oil and gas activities (past and present) Hydrogen sulfide gas Oil spills Other chemical spills Contaminated environmental media Facilities on public land either Federal or private (under a right-of-way) (past and present) Leaky storage tanks (above ground and underground) Asbestos Contaminated environmental media Facilities off public land (past and present) Same examples as for facilities on public land above Atmospheric deposition Heavy metals (e.g., mercury, selenium, lead, zinc) Contaminated environmental media (2) Potential Effects and Risks to Environments Potential effects and risks to environments due to polluting activities and contaminated sites/areas are widespread and touch nearly every program within the BLM. In an attempt to simplify the identification of potentially affected environments two types of effects are identified: environmental media and human activities. Environmental media is a generic term given to cover all basic environmental elements such as air, surface water, subsurface water (groundwater), and surface soils (topsoil). Generally, if one environmental medium is affected through pollution activities and becomes contaminated, another environmental medium is at risk of being contaminated as well. Human activities are any and all possible activities a “person” may desire to conduct on public lands within the planning area. Human activities need not be economically quantifiable to be identified as an activity that takes place on public lands. (3) Environmental Media Due to pollution activities and the result of contaminated sites and/or areas, a variety of environmental media are at risk and potentially affected in the present and future for a variety of reasons. The primary effect pollution and contamination has on environmental media is the Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-252 Public Safety Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS degradation of environmental quality. A summary of potential affects and risks to environmental media is listed in Table 3-38. If an oil spill occurred on the ground near a river, for example, the surface soils would be affected. In a matter of time the subsurface soils and surface waters could be affected. Once those media are affected, the subsurface waters can become affected. Additionally, vegetation and animals that come into contact with the ground surface and/or the surface waters are also at risk of being affected. For identification of the current conditions and trends of environmental media in the planning area, see the applicable sections within this chapter. Table 3-38. Potential Effects and Risks to Environmental Media ><|><|><| ><] ><] >< >| ><| ><] ><] ><] >< >< | ><| ><] ><] ><] >< <|><|><|><| ><] >< ><] >< [><] ><] >< [>< (4) Human Activities Due to pollution activities and the result of contaminated sites and/or areas, a variety of human activities are potentially affected and placed at risk in the present and the future for a variety of reasons. Table 3-39 summarizes potentially affected human activities from pollution activities and/or contaminated sites/areas. The primary effect pollution and contamination may have on human activities on public lands is the restriction of access and use of any type that may potentially affect the contaminated site (and potentially affect human health and safety) until the site/area is remediated and the BLM determines that a “No Further Action is Needed” action is appropriate. For identification of the current conditions and trends of human activities in the planning area, refer to the other program sections within this chapter. Public Safety 3-253 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-39. Potential Effects and Risks to Human Activities Subsistence Human health and safety Alteration of traditional activities Environmental injustice(s) Cultural landscapes/places Human health and safety Alteration of traditional activities Environmental injustice(s) Permitted commercial activities | Human health and safety Economic loss(es) Private/personal activities Human health and safety Economic loss(es) Alteration of personal choice(s) Environmental injustice(s) Recreation Human health and safety Non-economic loss(es) Alteration of personal choice(s) Environmental injustice(s) Research Human health and safety Economic loss(es) Information loss(es) Land Conveyance Not meeting 2009 deadline Restricting access and use to contaminated sites/areas Fire Protection Human health and safety Economic loss(es) Any person who qualifies as a PRP may be held liable for some portion of or all of the costs incurred by the BLM, the DOI, or other regulatory entities for cleaning up a hazmat site. These costs include all monies spent for site investigations, sampling, engineering evaluations, pilot studies, alternative remedy analyses, contractor costs, labor costs, enforcement costs, and other activities (not inconsistent with the process outlined in the National Contingency Plan) undertaken to address the release site. The BLM'’s policy is to identify PRPs who are or may be liable for hazardous substance releases to the environment affecting BLM-managed resources and pursue all viable parties for the assessment, remediation, and reclamation of the impacted area(s) and resources. If the PRP does not respond in a reasonable amount of time and/or with reasonable effort, the BLM may then clean up the release and pursue cost recovery. If there is no viable PRP present, the BLM will prioritize the site and fund the removal/remediation to mitigate the threat to human health and safety and the environment. (5) Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration The objective of the DOI’s Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program is to restore natural resources injured as the result of oil spills or hazardous substance releases into the environment. In partnership with other affected State, Tribal, and Federal trustee agencies, damage assessments provide the basis for determining the restoration needs that address the public's loss and use of these resources. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-254 Public Safety Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS The program assesses the damages and injuries to natural resources entrusted to the DOI and negotiates legal settlements or takes other legal actions against the responsible parties for the spill or release. Funds from these settlements are then used to restore the injured resources at no expense to the taxpayer. Settlements often include the recovery of the costs incurred in assessing the damages. These funds are then used to fund further damage assessments. Public Safety 3-255 Chapter III: Affected Environment JUSWUOIIAU payepyy :||| 4a}deyD 70°N 68°N 66°N 64°N 170°W 165°W Cape Lisburneffay Kivalina Cape Krusenstern National Monument Bering Land Bridge National $3 32 / 34 JN fase ow 29/28 | TZ] 751% | 29] 221 4 31/88 Counce| sow, 29 | 28 | 27 |. Norton Sound 165°W pat Deering 160°W 20) 19/ 18 17 Key Cape 20/19) 18/17 Point Lay: 4) | 40] 30 39 | 38 | 37 | 96 % 38 | 34) 33 32 s ww) 29 | 28 | 27 | 26 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 22) 21 20} 19 | 18 | 17 [16 88 185 8 17 | 4g 8H agWi 4/13.) 42) 44 UMIAT MERIDIAN OTe KATEEL RIVER MERIDIAN ef7 61 S5iajal2 Noatak National Preserve 24 Kobuk Valley National Park. 2 uk Rive, 2 7 ‘ Selawik National it : Wildlife Refuge > 10 8 i ‘ 4/3] 2/]9N 1W 1 andie® © A 4 National Wildlife Refuge 4 2 9/8) a7) wefan Hustia “ ssw 4/13/42] 44 1 2 15 Poorman, 10} 11/12/13 | 14/168) 46 15E Unalakleet 7 18 160°W - Hazardous Material Site O Military Site X_ Radioactive Site Solid Waste, A Abandoned Mine, or AK-DEC Site Generalized Land Status Bureau of Land Management Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service ee Native Patent or IC Native Selected State Patent or TA State Selected —— Road ww Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska [__] ksP RMP Planning Area | 0 6 12 18 24 48 wiles | Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 | Source: Alaska Community Action on Toxins (US EPA), State of Alaska - DEC, USDOI - BLM 2005 Map 3-36 Potential Hazardous Material Sites L. a The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files J SIF/dWe Yesg einsulusd PseEMaS-4NGoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 2. Social and Economic Conditions This section summarizes demographic and economic trend information, and describes key industries in the planning area that could be affected by BLM management actions. Local industries most likely affected by BLM land management policies and programs are travel, tourism and recreation, reindeer grazing, and mineral exploration and mining. a) Social and Economic (1) Regional Overview The planning area includes the Northwest Arctic Borough, the Nome Census Area, and the far western portion of the North Slope Borough. Nome and Kotzebue have the largest population and are “gateway communities,” trade and transportation centers for the region. Point Hope (population 757) is the second largest city in the North Slope Borough and the fourth largest town in the planning area. It is also a “community of place,” primarily as a subsistence whaling center, formerly a nineteenth century commercial whaling center. Twenty-two other villages are within the planning area. These villages range in population from 109 (Kobuk) to 772 (Selawik). Solomon is also included as it is an ANCSA Village Corporation, although its 2000 population was four individuals, and detailed census information is unavailable. All of the villages in the planning area are dependent upon resources for subsistence. Subsistence is probably the “interest” of most universal significance in the planning area. Nome and Kotzebue have commercial airline service connecting cities outside the region. Regional air service provides the only year-round access to villages in the planning area. Although there are about 200 miles of roads and old rail beds in the Nome area, only Nome and Teller share access along a system built originally to connect mining sites. Many of the villages and towns are incorporated and collect sales tax ranging from 1 percent in White Mountain to 6 percent in Kotzebue. Nome and Kotzebue also collect hotel bed tax and liquor tax, and Nome collects property tax. Northwest Arctic Native Association (NANA), Bering Straight Native Corporation, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation were formed under ANCSA as were Native village corporations within the planning area. The planning area can be characterized as a mixed subsistence-market economy. Villages such as Selawik and Kobuk fit this description closely, while Nome and Kotzebue have become closer to the classic industrial-capitalist character. Recent change agents in the planning area include the opening and operation of the Red Dog Mine, the passage of ANCSA, and the passage of ANILCA, including creation of four conservation units in the area: Noatak National Preserve, Kobuk Valley National Park, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, and Selawik NWR. These events directly resulted in employment and income in the planning area. With the growth of major population centers (southcentral Alaska and Fairbanks), visitation and use of area resources has increased dramatically in the last 20-30 years. Population in the area has grown over the last three decades, although migration from the area has also increased. Social and Economic Conditions 3-259 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Increasing incomes and desire for basic amenities often not available in Bush villages inspire out-migration. In the Nome Census Area, for example, almost one-third of all housing lacked complete plumbing, and almost one-third lacked complete kitchen facilities. Energy is very expensive in the region. Market basket surveys conducted by the UAF Cooperative Extension Service in 2004 reported Nome area electricity 72 percent more expensive than Anchorage, and 140 percent higher than the United States average; heating oil 41 percent higher than Anchorage; unleaded gasoline 64 percent higher than Anchorage; and propane 104 percent higher than Anchorage (UAF 2005a). Census 2000 reported that almost 51 percent of workers in the Northwest Arctic Borough walked to work, and almost 23 percent used “other means,” referring to personal modes of transportation other than motor vehicles or public transportation. Diesel and a small amount of wind generation provide electricity in local areas. Similarly, food costs are much higher in the planning area than urban centers in Alaska. The market basket for a family of four in Nome cost 2.2 times that of Anchorage and 1.4 times that same basket in Fairbanks in December 2004. Data used in this analysis are from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Sonoran Institute’s Economic Profile System. (2) Community Profiles Community profiles for all villages, towns, and cities in the State, in both summary and detailed report forms, are available at the Alaska Department of Commerce and Community Development, Community Database Online at http:/www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.htm. More detailed information on planning area communities can be found at this site. (3) Demographics The population of the Northwest Arctic Borough, the Nome Census Area, and the communities of Point Lay and Point Hope (within the North Slope Borough) totals 17,686 (ADLWD 2004). According to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the population of the northern region encompassing the two boroughs and one census area is approximately 75 percent Alaska Native, primarily indigenous Ifupiat and Yup’ik people (Fried and Windisch-Cole 2005). In comparison, Alaska Natives comprised 16 percent of the state’s population, which is a larger percentage of Native Americans than in any other state. The balance of the race distribution in the area and the state is primarily white, comprising as much as 70 percent of the state population. Although the Alaska Native population has doubled in the last 30 years, the population growth in the northern region communities has slowed to about 1.5 percent per year in the 1990s. Table 3-40, Table 3-41, and Table 3-42 show historic population for communities and boroughs in the planning area. Alaska Natives are migrating to urban population centers including the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and Anchorage. The growth rate of the Native population in the Fairbanks North Star Borough is relatively low at 7.2 percent for the decade, which is half the growth rate for the state. Table 3-40 below displays the growth of the Alaska Native population for the state and selected communities. Overall, the population growth in the three boroughs/census areas touching the planning area is very similar to the population growth rate for the state, though it is far below the population Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-260 Social and Economic Conditions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS growth rate of southcentral Alaska. Most interesting, the northern region’s (comprised of the three north-northwest boroughs and the Nome Census Area in the state) median age was 25.5 years, nearly 8 years younger than the state median of 33 years (Fried and Windisch-Cole 2005). Out-migration is evident with 6.6 to 8.7 persons per year per 1,000 population leaving the Northwest Arctic Borough and the Nome Census Area during 1990-2003. This is similar to the out-migration of the Fairbanks North Star Borough (-11.5/1,000/year), and similar to most of rural Alaska. Net positive migration was reported in Juneau, Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (with the highest rates at 25.5/1,000/year) during the same reporting period (ADCCED 2005). Table 3-40. Growth of Alaska Native Population Alaska 85,698 98,043 14.4 Anchorage 14,569 18,941 30.0 Fairbanks 5,330 5,714 7.2 Matanuska-Susitna Valley 1,939 3,264 68.3 Nome Census Area 6,148 6,915 12.5 North Slope Borough 4,336 5,050 16.5 Northwest Arctic Borough 5,209 5,944 14.1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1999, 2000. Table 3-41. Population per Community, Historic U.S. Census Data Ambler 70 169 192 311 309 Brevig Mission cas 123 138 198 276 Buckland 87 104 177 318 406 Council 0 35 19 8 0 Deering 95 85 150 157 136 Elim 145 174 211 264 313 Golovin 59 117 87 127 144 Kiana 253 278 345 385 388 Kivalina 142 188 241 317 377 Kobuk 62 54 54 69 109 Kotzebue 2,054 1,696 1,290 2,751 3,082 | Koyuk 129 122 188 231 297 Noatak 275 293 273 333 428 Nome 2,316 2,488 2,544 3,500 3,505 Noorvik 384 462 492 531 634 Point Hope 324 386 464 639 757 Point Lay 0 0 68 139 247 Selawik 0 0 0 596 772 Shaktoolik 348 429 535 178 230 Shishmaref 187 151 164 456 562 Shungnak 135 165 202 223 256 Social and Economic Conditions 3-261 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Solomon 0 0 4 6 4 Teller 217 220 212 151 268 Wales 128 131 133 161 152 White Mountain 151 87 125 180 203 Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. Table 3-42. Population of Selected Boroughs Fairbanks North Star Borough 43,412 45,864 53,983 77,720 82,840 Anchorage Municipality/Borough 82,833 126,385 174,431 226,338 260,283 Northwest Arctic Borough 3,560 4,434 4,831 6,113 7,208 North Slope Borough 2,133 2,663 4,199 5,979 7,385 Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. Figure 3-8. Comparison of Per Capita Income (2000) United States Alaska Nome Census Area Northwest Arctic Borough Point Hope Point Lay Anchorage Fairbanks $15,476 $15,286 $19,814 $27,314 $5,000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Chapter III: Affected Environment $10,000 3-262 $15,000 Dollars $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 Social and Economic Conditions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-43. Employment by Sector Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, mining 14.3 1.5 3.0 7.3 4.9 Construction 4.5 3.0 9.7 24.0 7.3 Manufacturing 0.2 0.9 0 0 3.3 Wholesale trade 0.3 0.1 0 4.2 2.6 Retail trade 6.8 9.6 7.2 5.2 11.6 Transportation, warehousing and utilities 11.1 10.3 12.2 11.5 8.9 Information 1.6 2.3 0 0 2.7 Finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing 3.0 2.3 0 0 4.6 Professional scientific, management, administrative and waste management 1.7 1.8 0.4 3.1 7.6 Education, health and social services 33.4 38.1 36.3 25.0 21.7 Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 3.3 7.9 5.1 0 8.6 Other services 7.5 5.8 2.5 0 5.6 Public administration 12.4 16.4 23.6 19.8 10.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. (4) Employment and Income As elsewhere in rural Alaska, public employment is very important to the economy of the planning area. The largest employers in the region are the Northwest Borough School District, Bering Strait School District, and Borough government and school districts in Point Lay and Point Hope. The Red Dog Mine run by Teck Cominco Alaska is the largest private source of employment in the planning area and the third largest employer in the Northwest Arctic Borough. Teck Cominco Alaska provided 412 direct jobs to employees and contractors in 2003. This is slightly over 14 percent of all wage and salary employment, and 22 percent of non-government employment in the Borough. Employees of Teck Cominco Alaska live in 11 villages in the planning area, as well as in various locations outside the planning area. Over 50 percent of mine workers are NANA shareholders. Those directly employed by Teck Cominco Alaska receive free transportation to the job site from their residence within the state. As a result, only about 140 employed NANA shareholders live in the planning area. The mine operation also resulted in the Borough’s largest source of revenue through Payments in Lieu of Taxes of $5.9 million in 2003 (Schaffer 2005). Free range reindeer management is an industry that has become unique to the Seward Peninsula. Although reindeer were introduced in several Alaskan locations under the impetus of Sheldon Jackson in the 1890s, the only currently active herding occurs within the planning area. In 1996, the UAF Agriculture and Forestry Experimentation Station estimated that 14 herds grossed $1.1 million in income in 1996; however, BLM data indicate that the number of herders and size of herds has dropped since that time. There were a total of approximately 7,500 Social and Economic Conditions 3-263 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS reindeer corralled by the only five active herders in 2004. As free range grazers, the reindeer move throughout the intermingled State, private, and various Federal agency lands. This makes it difficult to determine the exact income derived from grazing on BLM-managed lands. The BLM does not charge a fee for the right to graze. ANCSA corporations, subsidiaries, and non-profits, and various tribal organizations have invested in services and provide employment for local residents and shareholders. The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation provides diverse employment including oil field services and construction. The Arctic Slope Native Association provides health service, social services, and hospital management. Ilisagvik College is a independent non-profit foundation. Maniilaq Association is a regional non-profit organization providing health, social services, public assistance, training, and a 25-bed hospital. Kawerak provides social and educational services for Alaska Natives, and is the third largest employer in the Nome area with 217 employees. Maniilaq Association is the second largest employer in the Northwest Arctic Borough. Norton Sound Health Corporation is a non-profit tribal health consortium of 20 Alaska Native communities employing over 400 people. The Nome area benefits from a small but viable commercial fishery targeting salmon, halibut, crab, and herring. Although providing only a very small portion of fish harvest value in the state of Alaska, it provided $828,498 in 2003. Independent placer mines employ small numbers in the area. However, Nova Gold has identified two deposits estimated to hold one million ounces of gold. Neither of these deposits is located on BLM-managed lands. Production may begin in 2006. Kikiktagruk Ifupiat Corporation (Kotzebue’s village corporation) is a large employer in the visitor industry. NANA Management Service operates Nullaguik Hotel and Tour Arctic Corporation. NANA also operates hotels in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Non-resident employment is similar to that in other areas of the state except in the North Slope Borough, where the percentage of non-local and non-Alaskan residents is very high. Private sector non-resident employment ranges from a low of 11 percent in Nome, to 13 percent in the Northwest Arctic Borough, to 28 percent in the North Slope Borough. The North Slope Borough workforce is comprised primarily of oil field-related jobs. Non-local Alaska residents also comprise a significant portion of the workforce in the planning area: only 10 percent in the Nome area, but 22 percent in Northwest Arctic Borough, and 58 percent in the North Slope Borough (Hadland and Wink 2005). Unemployment in the planning area is considerably higher than in urban centers in Alaska and higher than the state average. According to State of Alaska data for 2003, unemployment ranged from a low of 15.2 percent in the Nome Census Area to 23 percent in Northwest Arctic Borough, while the state average was 8 percent (Fried and Windisch-Cole 2005). According to Economic Profile System data, there is no significant seasonal fluctuation in the rate of unemployment (Sonoran Institute 2005). Labor force participation rates are low as is typical in Bush Alaska. Census data shows that White Mountain has the lowest participation rate in the planning area, with over 60 percent of the population not in the labor force in 2000. This percentage underscores the relative scarcity of jobs and emphasizes the role and importance of subsistence activities. The educational attainment curve lags in Bush villages. Over 60 percent of residents of Alaska have some college, while in the planning area between 60 and 70 percent of residents Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-264 Social and Economic Conditions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS completed high school or less. The difference may be exaggerated by the out-migration of more highly educated, and therefore, employable residents. Per capita income in the planning area ranges from above the Alaska average in Nome and Kotzebue, to under $8,000 per year in smaller villages (see Figure 3-8 on page 3-262, and Table 3-46 on page 3-269 in the Environmental Justice section). Per capita income reflects the relatively lower age of the planning area population. Only in the regional centers does per capita income begin to respond to the high cost of living. The extent of individuals considered at or below poverty level has improved since 1990. Poverty level and change for the three boroughs has been reported by the Alaska Department of Commerce. In the Northwest Arctic Borough 17.4 percent of individuals were below poverty level in 2000, whereas 18.4 percent were below the level in 1990. In the Nome Census Area 17.4 percent of individuals were below poverty level in 2000, whereas 22 percent were below the level in 1990. In the North Slope Borough, 9.1 percent of the population was below poverty level in 2000, whereas 8.6 percent were below the level in 1990. In comparison, 9.4 percent of individuals in Alaska were below the poverty level in 2000. There is definite income outflow evident in the Northwest Arctic Borough, which experienced an increase from 5.5 percent in the 1980s to 24.5 percent in 2000. The Nome Census Area has experienced little outflow and little change as income outflow has dropped from 3.5 percent to 2.6 percent (Sonoran Institute 2005). Figure 3-9. Percent of Private Sector Workers Who Are Local Residents Wade Hampton Nome Ce Fairbanks: Kenai Anchorage Nat-SU el Juneau % ™ mh a 7% ore we ate Source: Almska Department of Labor and Werkiorca Development Fisecarch and Analysis Section Source: Hadland et al. 2005. Social and Economic Conditions 3-265 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS (5) Revenue Local government revenue in the planning area is influenced by exemption of ANCSA village corporations and regional corporations from certain forms of property taxation. Villages and boroughs are empowered to levy and collect tax revenues if they are incorporated political subdivisions. Several villages or towns in the planning area levy sales taxes and specific use or product taxes. The North Slope Borough and city of Nome collect property tax, and the Northwest Arctic Borough collects a payment in lieu of property tax by agreement with Teck Cominco Alaska and the NANA Regional Corporation. Table 3-45 on page 3-267 lists collections by those villages and boroughs that levy taxes. The columns labeled “Other Tax” aggregate collections for items such as liquor, tobacco, bed use, and fish. The North Slope Borough collections and revenue are greatly enhanced by North Slope oil field property taxes. This greatly skews the per capita revenues compared with the rest of the state. Point Hope and Point Lay are the only villages in the planning area that are within the North Slope Borough, and they collect no taxes. Anchorage, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and the city of Fairbanks are included in the table for comparison purposes. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-266 Social and Economic Conditions 192-€ SUOI}IPUOD d!WOUDDZ pue jel00S JUSWUOJIAUZ peyayy :||| a}deuo Table 3-45. 2004 Per Capita Tax Revenues in Dollars Northwest Arctic Borough 4,900,000*** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A North Slope Borough 199,804,529 N/A N/A 199,804,529 7,228 27,643 Anchorage 322,352,907 N/A 19,681,861 342,034,768 273,565 1,250 Fairbanks North Star Borough 71,382,439 N/A 1,375,192 72,757,631 82,131 886 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 55,571,134 N/A 716,992 56,288,126 67,526 834 Fairbanks, City” 8,685,154 N/A 3,748,522 12,433,676 29,002 429 Kotzebue 0 2,423,193 61,754 2,484,947 3,070 809 Nome 2,410,511 3,484,362 94,741 5,989,614 3,414 1,754 Noorvik 0 109,032 N/A 109,032 648 168 Deering 0 19,120 N/A 19,120 131 146 Koyuk 0 34,788 N/A 34,788 341 102 Brevig Mission 0 29,781 N/A 29,781 313 95 Elim 0 29,031 N/A 29,031 342 85 Selawik 0 63,565 N/A 63,565 820 78 Ambler 0 22,470 N/A 22,470 291 77 Teller 0 15,098 N/A 15,098 242 62 Kiana 0 24,937 N/A 24,937 408 61 Shishmaref 0 34,129 N/A 34,129 594 57 Buckland 0 20,602 N/A 20,602 409 50 White Mountain 0 10,472 N/A 10,472 214 49 Average statewide per capita revenue (excluding the North Slope Borough) 1,224 Average statewide per capita revenue (including North Slope Borough) 1,518 Source: ADCCED 2005. Only those municipalities that levy a sales, severance, property, or other type of local tax are included in this table. _.Both the city of Fairbanks and the borough in which it is located levy taxes. Figure represents Payment in Lieu of Taxes (Schaffer 2005). SIS/dINY YeIG BINsulUsg puemag-4nqoy Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS b) Environmental Justice lfiupiat and Yup’ik Natives are the predominant minority population of the planning area. Demographic characteristics for communities within the planning area are presented in Table 3- 46 on page 3-269. Data shows that all villages and towns have very high minority populations, all in excess of 50 percent. These same locales have high percentages of individuals and households with incomes below poverty level, although there is wide variability between villages. The work force participation percentage for all communities in this area is consistently lower than the participation rate for the state as a whole. Environmental Justice is an initiative that culminated with President Clinton’s February 11, 1994, EO 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low- Income Populations,” and an accompanying Presidential memorandum. The EO requires that each Federal agency consider environmental justice to be part of its mission. Its intent is to promote fair treatment of people of all races, so no person or group of people bears a disproportionate share of the negative environmental effects from the country’s domestic and foreign programs. While the EO focuses on minority and low-income populations, the EPA defines environmental justice as the “equal treatment of all individuals, groups or communities regardless of race, ethnicity, or economic status from environmental hazards” (Envirosense 1997, U.S. Department of Energy 1997). Specific to the EIS process, the EO requires that proposed projects be evaluated for “disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects on minority populations and low income populations.” Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” requires the BLM to consult with Athabaskan and other tribal governments of the planning area on Federal matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities. The EPA’s Environmental Justice guidance of July 1999 stresses the importance of government-to- government consultation. As one way to foster tribal participation, the BLM held scoping meetings in seven villages in the planning area. Scoping meetings and alternative development meetings were held during development of the draft plan and draft EIS. Nine scoping meetings were held during January through April 2004 at communities in the planning area, and Fairbanks and Anchorage. During this scoping process, the BLM received feedback on potential Environmental Justice concerns of the local residents. Major concerns expressed at these meetings included: e The Native community wants continued access and opportunity for subsistence hunting, but is concerned about impacts to subsistence activities, mostly related to increased recreational or sport hunting and fishing activities. e Management of the WACH’s important habitats and migration routes. e Amore detailed discussion of public concerns is provided in the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Resource Management Plan Scoping Report (August 24, 2004). e Subsistence activity is an important source of food and material which offsets high cost of living and high unemployment. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-268 Social and Economic Conditions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Table 3-46. Environmental Justice Data from the 2000 Census Alaska $22,660 19.0 ; . 6.1 Ambler $13,712 84.8 14.3 19.0 20.6 26.6 Brevig Mission $7,278 90.6 48.4 43.3 1.3 46.4 Buckland $9,624 95.8 11.9 7.9 21.8 35.5 Deering $11,000 93.4 5.8 0 9.9 41.8 Elim $10,300 92.7 7.9 8.0 14.4 44.6 Golovin $13,281 84.0 4.3 0 2.4 32.1 Kiana $11,534 92.5 11.2 5.6 6.4 44.8 Kivalina $8,360 96.6 26.4 25.4 11.9 53.2 Kobuk $9,845 93.6 28.6 32.0 0.0 44.6 Kotzebue $18,289 71.2 13.1 9.2 6.9 29.9 Koyuk $8,736 91.9 28.0 29.3 20.0 42.2 Noatak $9,659 93.7 22.0 25.0 14.0 45.0 Nome $23,402 51.0 6.3 5.4 74 32.0 Noorvik $12,020 90.1 7.6 9.4 10.1 48.2 Point Hope $16,641 87.1 14.8 13.9 16.6 34.7 Point Lay $18,003 82.6 7.4 11.4 2.9 27.5 Selawik $8,170 94.8 34.4 34.6 15.2 55.6 Shaktoolik $10,491 94.3 6.1 0 16.6 40.1 Shishmaref $10,487 93.2 16.3 16.2 9.5 42.3 Shungnak $10,377 94.5 35.8 21.7 16.0 33.9 Teller $8,618 92.5 37.7 33.9 6.1 58.3 Wales $14,877 83.6 18.3 17.2 13.3 29.5 White Mountain $10,034 83.7 22.4 16.3 7.0 62.8 “Native Alaskan/Native American is the dominant minority. The poverty level is $8,794 for individuals and a family of four is listed at $17,603 nationally (2000). Sources: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html and U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Social and Economic Conditions 3-269 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS c) Socio-cultural Systems Unlike the socio-economic section, in which the current demographics of the region are discussed in terms of economics (e.g., population, employment, per capita income), this section focuses on the cultural differences that exist in the planning area. A socio-cultural system is a complex cultural structure consisting of a definable population within a determinable territory, characterized by shared and interrelated ways of life including beliefs, norms, values, and technologies, which are shared within the population and passed on from generation to generation. This system comprises the fundamental traditions, ideas, behavioral patterns, and tools that humans use to adapt to their surroundings, and forms the basis of each unique way of life and culture. The planning area is the traditional home of the Ifupiat Eskimo, an indigenous people who have lived in the area for at least the past 2,000 years (Anderson 1984). Today, the Ifiupiag culture continues to flourish and succeed, despite over a hundred years of pressure in the form of continuous contact with mainstream American culture. The following sections describe the historical sociocultural circumstances of the IAupiat before contact, an overview of the primary motivators of change that has occurred since contact, and a description of the sociocultural context as it exists today. (1) Culture History: Traditional Social and Political Organization In the past, the entire planning area was populated by several* autonomous groups, each of which occupied a specific region that included at least one permanent winter village. These autonomous groups have been variously called regional groups, tribes, societies, and nations in the anthropological literature (Burch 1975, 1980, 1998; Ray 1984). Burch (1998) however, provides the most compelling rationale in referring to these prehistoric populations as nations, in that they 1) had dominion over separate territories, 2) regarded themselves as separate peoples, and 3) engaged each other in war and trade, all aspects that define them as analogous to modern nations. Each Ifupiaq nation had its own unique designation, with most consisting of a territorial or place name designation coupled with the suffix -miut, meaning “people of.” For example, the Ifupiat who live in the Shishmaref area are also known as Tapqaamiut and Qigiqtaamiut, both ethnonyms that refer to place names affiliated with the area, Tapqaq being the entire northwestern coast of the Seward Peninsula, and Qigiqtaq referring to the village of Shishmaref itself (Koutsky 1981, Simon 1998). Many communities located in the planning area have an IAupiag name in addition to the common name found on maps, and most of the current villages can be directly correlated to a historic Ifupiag nation. Most of the historic IAupiaq Nations had a similar settlement pattern, consisting of several communities that were populated in either the spring for a duration until summer, or in the late fall for a duration through the winter, and were located in the same general area from year to year (Burch 1998, Ray 1964). Most of these settlements were small, consisting of only two to five houses, but each nation also had a few regional settlements that were more densely populated and served as the primary destination for such events as Trade Fairs, Messenger “The number of autonomous groups varies according to different authors. See Ray 1967, 1975, 1984; Burch 1990, 1998; and Simon 1998. Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-270 Social and Economic Conditions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Feasts, or other festivals and holidays. During those times when the spring or winter settlements were not occupied, most residents traveled with their families to locations of abundant resources (which frequently changed from year to year), where they camped in temporary shelters. The total number of the more or less permanent settlements varied by nation, as populations aged, merged, or split. Burch (1998) estimates that some nations, such as the Akunigmiut who occupied the central Kobuk River area, had as few as eight permanent settlements, while others nations had as many as 20. Because of the ability to harvest and store an abundance of food, the few lfiupiaq Nations of the planning area who participated in whaling were able to concentrate themselves into a single settlement for at least part of the year (Burch 1990, 1998). Like settlements, pre-contact population estimates varied by nation, with the lowest being 264 and the highest 792. A total pre-contact population estimate for the entire planning area ranges betweens 6,700 and 8,200 residents (Burch 1998, Ray 1964). Politically speaking, the IAupiaq Nations did not have a formal government, characterized by a “chief” or other political position that had the responsibility for making decisions for the entire population. Instead, the basic socio-political unit of the group was the household, with household being defined as all of the people living together under one roof, and frequently consisted of extended families containing three or more generations. Ellanna (1983) describes the social organization of the Bering Strait region, stating that the domestic family unit or household traditionally contained membership beyond that of the nuclear family, including multiple wives, grandparents, and married siblings and their families. Kinship categories included those related by blood, by marriage, by adoption, and other socially defined categories that extend through generations. Kin relationships were and are considered very important, and, in the past, people without kinsmen were frequently perceived as dangerous or as a stranger (Bogojaviensky 1969, Ellanna 1983). Ultimately, kinship was the means by which the rules of interpersonal behavior, such as alliances, obligations, and responsibilities, were defined. The other primary socio-political unit of importance was the qargi (also referred to as karigi, kashim, kashigi, and kazgi), or communal men’s house (Burch 1990, 1998; Ellanna 1983; Ray 1964). The qargi was a large, centrally located gathering place, similar to a community hall, and the presence of a qargi defined whether a settlement was permanent (used repeatedly from year to year). During the day, men would use the qargi for a variety of activities, including carving, relating hunting tales, or educating young men. The qargi was also considered a forum for economic alliances, as it was where many community-wide ceremonies or feasts with neighboring groups took place. Politics, both within and outside the community, were discussed and decided upon in the qargi. Affiliation to a qargi was closely associated with kinship, hunting partnerships (such as skinboat crew participation in whaling communities), and other important political alliances, such as trade partnerships or war parties (Ellanna 1983). (2) Major Historical Changes in Northwest Alaska in the 20th Century Changes that took place in the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Planning Area during the 20th Century can be broken down into three separate but related categories: Economy, Social Life, and Politics. It is safe to say that every major change experienced by the nations of the region is a direct result of foreign, primarily Euroamerican, contact. Social and Economic Conditions 3-271 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS By the late 19th century, commercial whaling was the economic activity of most importance in the far north, especially along the northwest and northern coast of Alaska. Whale oil was sought for the tanning of leather, as lamp oil and lubricant, and baleen, or “whalebone” was used to make corset stays and buttons (Chance 1990). Trade with the Ifupiat primarily occurred by independent traders who followed the whalers to provide them with goods and services. This trade included ammunition, flour, black tobacco, matches, lead, and molasses for whalebone (baleen), caribou meat, and fur clothing. Although outlawed by the American government, whiskey was also a popular trade item. At the main whaling stations of Point Hope and Point Barrow, whaling was such a profitable enterprise that many Alaska Natives worked for white crews, or began commercial crews of their own. In 1908, it was reported that in Barrow several IAupiat crews were able to pay their men wages equal to those of the white crews, basically $200 for the six-week season (Chance 1990). Whaling continued after the turn of the century, but by 1908 the decimation of whale stocks, the advent of synthetic whalebone and the rise of the petroleum industry all resulted in the end of whaling as a commercial enterprise. Chance (1990) describes the impact of whaling and trade from 1848 to the turn of the century as dramatically changing the IAupiat economic and social life: “With newly obtained repeating rifles, IAupiat and whites together had so reduced the number of sea and land mammals that the old subsistence economy was severely jeopardized. The introduction of whiskey as a trade item disrupted and demoralized village life. The spread of new diseases such as measles, smallpox, and influenza, to which the Ifiupiat had no immunity, took a devastating toll.” The presence of trading posts and access to white commodities, in addition to missionization, resulted in a slow change from a nomadic existence to a more sedentary one. Missionization began in Northern Alaska in 1890, and by 1910 nearly every Alaska Native was Christian (Burch 1994). Many of the Alaska Natives in Southwestern Alaska had been converted by the Russians and practiced Russian Orthodox. However, when Alaska was transferred to American control a new wave of missionaries entered the last frontier to spread their version of Christianity. The Reverend Sheldon Jackson was appointed General Agent of Education for Alaska in 1885. Jackson established missions of various denominations at Barrow, Point Hope, Wales, and Unalakleet by the fall of 1890, each of which included a school, a nursing station, and a church. In 1896, missionaries Johnson and Uyaraq visited a massive trade fair in the Kotzebue area that had brought together over 1,000 Ifupiat from the surrounding area for several weeks (Burch 1994, 1998). The impression made by the two missionaries was such that when Sheldon Jackson passed through on his inspection of the school the Alaska Natives asked him to establish a mission in the area, which he did in 1897. The missionaries at Kotzebue preached against the use of alcohol and tobacco, challenged the Native shamans, persuaded people to abandon ancient burial customs, promoted Christian marriage and attacked polygyny, and ordered a halt to Native dancing (Flanders 1991). Missionization is acknowledged as the most influential historical change for the Ifiupiat, due to the active agenda of westernization. Charles Brower et al. (1994) assert that the missionaries at Barrow were the primary driver of culture change for the Ifiupiat by making the people of Barrow move out of their comfortable semi-subterranean homes and into drafty frame houses, keeping the residents in the village year-round so that their children went to school, and disallowing the practice of shamanism. However, in Northwest Alaska, a case has been made Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-272 Social and Economic Conditions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS that the role of the anatguk, or shaman, has simply been transformed, and is still found in lfiupiat communities today (Ganley 1996). Another important contribution to the change in traditional IAupiat lifestyle was the introduction of reindeer during the 1890s. Sheldon Jackson saw reindeer as being the solution to providing the Ifupiat with a large, permanent wealth-producing industry while at the same time addressing the problem of the decline in subsistence resources in the north (Chance 1990, Koskey 2003, Simon 1998). Approved by the American government, over the next ten years herds were imported, and Chuckchi, Lapp, and Saami herders were brought over to teach the Alaskans the reindeer trade. Herds were supervised by the missions, and later by the schools. A man began as an apprentice and was loaned a small herd, which he paid back as the herd multiplied. Between 1892 and 1902, 1,250 reindeer were imported to Alaska from Siberia, and by 1932 they had increased to over 600,000 (Chance 1990). Over the next two decades, the amount of reindeer declined to such an extent that by 1940 only 200,000 remained, and by 1950 the number was reduced to 25,000. There are several reasons for this decline, including disease and predation, changes in government administration and policies, new opportunities for the lfupiat to gain a cash income, and changing attitudes of the Ifupiat to subsistence hunting and wage labor. Today, reindeer herding still occurs in a limited area on the Seward Peninsula (see Livestock Grazing section beginning on page 3-143). Trapping, especially for fox fur, became an important enterprise for the IAupiat during the 1920s. Pelts often sold for between 50 and 100 dollars, and people needed money to buy what were now considered essentials: flour, tea, cloth tents, iron tools, and tobacco. The new commitment to trapping also brought about a number of changes to the social life of the Ifupiat, due to the replacement of traditional hunting patterns based on strong cooperative ties linking several related hunting partner families, with a trapping pattern characterized by a more individualistic enterprise, involving, at most, two families (Chance 1990). With missionization, and more importantly, with the coming of whalers, prospectors, and trappers, came disease. In 1900, more than 200 inland Eskimos died of influenza after trading in Barrow, due to the visit of a whaling ship. Not two years later at least 100 Barrow people died of a measles epidemic (Chance 1990). In Wales in 1918, over two-thirds of the population died in one week after an Ifiupiag man with influenza arrived in town, and in Teller over 197 adults died from the same illness. So much death, especially of adults, led to a more rapid decline of doing things in the traditional way. During the 1930s, a number of new social policies established by the United States Government continued the conversion of the Ifupiat to a more cash based lifestyle. These included old-age pensions, Aid for Dependent children allotments, and other relief funds. The establishment of Post Offices in every community with a school provided jobs in the form of postmasters, secretaries, and janitors (Hughes 1965). In the 1940s numerous Alaska Natives joined the military, both as defenders of the country in the Army or Navy, and as defenders of the state in the Alaska National Guard. After the war a number of new economic opportunities appeared. Oil exploration on the North Slope brought with it a number of jobs, as did the installation of numerous military bases and communication outposts. Chance (1990) describes numerous features of change in the social life of the IAupiat due to the change toward reliance on cash. Small things like a switch to bottle feeding of infants, and the wearing of diapers occurred. Larger changes, such as the undermining of women’s autonomy due to the incorporation of the western view of womenhood, Social and Economic Conditions 3-273 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS the distancing of teenagers from their parents due to the adoption of popular American culture, and changes in marriage and courtship due to the new economic environment occurred (Chance 1990). Similarly, the problems of alcoholism and drug abuse, the high rates of suicide in the villages, and death due to heart attacks, as a result of high cholesterol with the substitution of American foods such as Crisco for seal oil, are all a direct result of acculturation. The mid-to-latter half of the 20th century has been extremely important in the history of Northwest Alaska and Alaska in general. In 1931 the BIA was established, which provided Alaska Natives with a variety of human services and programs, from health care to education and welfare payments. In 1934, the establishment of the Indian Reorganization Act, and its amendment in 1936, gave Alaskan Native communities the right to organize their tribal governments under Federal constitutions and to establish Federally chartered businesses and cooperatives (Case 1984). This meant that Alaska Natives have had to become extremely familiar with American government and political procedure, in order to be successful. In 1958, the Statehood Act added to the levels of government regulating small communities, but also allowed for the creation of municipalities at the local and regional level. ANCSA permitted the conveyance of some 44 million acres of land to Alaska Native corporations along with a cash payment of over $1 billion, in exchange for the alleged extinguishment of aboriginal Native claims in Alaska. The Alaska Native Allotment Act (actually established in 1906) and ANILCA, passed in 1980, gave individuals and family groups the right to land, although not specifically ownership per se (Case 1984). (3) Local and Regional Sociopolitical Organization Today For the Ifupiat, kinship networks and the role of the family are just as important today as they were before contact. Although living in nuclear family units comprised of parents and children is more customary than the extended family households of the past, relatives are still the fundamental pool from which partnerships, support, and aid are sought, and to which obligations are due. Kin networks continue to be the basis of alliance and affiliation in modern Ifupiaq culture. All of the communities in the planning area have a two-branch political system, the local municipal government of the city (or the “city office”), and the local tribal government, consisting of the Native village Tribal council (formerly the IRA Traditional Council). For example, the two local government offices in Shungnak include the city of Shungnak and the Native Village of Shungnak, each with their own responsibilities for the community. Municipal services, such as water and sewer, electrical and power, public safety, and cable TV, are handled by the City Office. Social services such as child care, language revitalization programs, or Elder Councils, including any issue that has the potential to affect the tribe or the IAupiag culture, are handled by the Native village. These include issues about land, hunting, subsistence, livelihood, local research (biological and social), and other important social concerns like local hire, substance abuse, and the importance of maintaining traditional IAupiat values. The passage of ANCSA resolved land claims between the indigenous Alaska Natives, the State, and the Federal government. Under ANCSA, Alaska was divided into 12 regions, with each region having a for-profit corporation responsible for managing the land entitlement and money derived from ANCSA. A thirteenth corporation was also created for those Alaska Natives living outside of the state. Three regional corporations are present in the planning area: the Bering Straits Regional Corporation based in Nome, the NANA Regional Corporation based in Kotzebue, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation based in Barrow. The regional Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-274 Social and Economic Conditions Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS corporations in Alaska today are some of the most successful businesses in the state, holding diverse investment portfolios including properties such as hotels or apartment complexes, industries such as oil and gas or construction, and stocks or other capital investment. Most of the communities in the planning area also have a local for-profit village corporation. Village corporations are responsible for managing the land and money each individual community received with the passing of ANCSA, and are also able to bid on contracts, create investments, and engage in other for-profit activities for their shareholders. Every Ifupiaq resident living in the planning area in 1971 qualified for 100 shares each of their regional and local village corporation. Every year in which a profit is made, local and regional corporations distribute dividends to their shareholders, similar to the traditional system of reciprocity in which resources are shared within regions and communities. The three regional corporations of the planning area also have an associated non-profit social services entity: Kawerak on the Seward Peninsula, the Maniilaq Association in the Kotzebue area, and the Arctic Slope Native Association in Barrow. The non-profit organizations primarily provide health, social, and tribal services to the resident communities of the region, including educational and cultural preservation opportunities for regional shareholders. It should be noted that the regional corporations, village corporations, and regional non-profits are all “owned” by the indigenous population of each region, not the populations at large. Additional Alaska Native non-profit organizations which serve to represent a variety of indigenous issues are also located in the three regional centers of Barrow, Kotzebue, and Nome. Examples of these include the Bering Straits Foundation, dedicated to the preservation and protection of the cultural heritage of the region, including cultural sites and property management; and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, formed in 1977 to represent the whaling communities, and protect and preserve the subsistence hunt of bowhead whales. Additional non-profit entities that are subsumed within the overarching regional nonprofits, such as the Eskimo Walrus Commission or the Reindeer Herders Association, serve specific roles relative to maintaining the traditional way of life of Alaska Native residents in the planning area. Two additional regional governments are also present in the planning area, the Northwest Arctic Borough, with its main offices in Kotzebue, and the North Slope Borough, with its main offices in Barrow. The Northwest Arctic Borough was formed in June 1986, is a home rule borough and the local political subdivision of the State. The borough is comprised of 11 communities in northwest Alaska, has an 11 member assembly, a 7 member planning commission, and a 15 member staff. Borough formation has allowed these 11 communities to work cooperatively to receive state funds for transportation infrastructure, telecommunications systems, and other services for the benefit of the people of the region. The North Slope Borough was formed in 1972, and is the largest home rule borough in the country, comprising 86,000 square miles. The borough consists of eight communities located north of the Brooks Range, two of which (Point Hope and Point Lay) are located in the planning area. Though officially members of the North Slope Borough, many municipal services such as health care that are provided to Point Lay and Point Hope originate from the Northwest Arctic Borough given the proximity of these communities to Kotzebue. Social and Economic Conditions 3-275 Chapter Ill: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Subsistence Subsistence in Alaska is the traditional way of life of Alaska Natives, and, under the terms of the Federal subsistence provisions in ANILCA, for other rural Alaskans as well. While many hold the view that subsistence is simply the taking of fish and game resources for nutrition, in actuality it is about the harvest, processing, distribution, and consumption in a traditional way that can not be separated from other aspects of the Alaska Native culture. Subsistence is the connection that the Ifupiat have with the land, weather, and resources of the planning area, and, as such, it comprises the core of IAupiat culture as much today as it did in the past. State and Federal law define subsistence as the “customary and traditional uses” of wild resources for food, clothing, fuel, transportation, construction, art, crafts, sharing, and customary trade. Subsistence uses are central to the customs and traditions of the indigenous cultural groups in Alaska, including the Ifupiat. Subsistence hunting and fishing are important sources of employment and nutrition in almost all rural communities, and the opportunity to engage in a subsistence lifestyle is guaranteed for rural residents by ANILCA. Traditional Subsistence Use Patterns in the Planning Area The majority of the resources exploited in the planning area are seasonal, which means that there are periods of scarcity and abundance during the yearly cycle. To take full advantage of the resources of the area, settlements were moved with the seasons. For example, in the Shishmaref area, the people followed a sedentary seasonal subsistence pattern, distinguished by a cycle of economic pursuits and movements within a specific geographic region. “Each year at freeze-up, members returned from small, scattered settlements to a central base, or home village, usually located on the coast. The people remained at their home villages through the winter, engaged in subsistence activities. In the spring they relocated to inland areas and moved up rivers and streams to pursue the seasonal resource” (Koutsky 1981). Three traditional subsistence patterns have been defined by Ray (1983) for the Bering Strait Region of Alaska. The first is designated the Whaling Pattern and consists of whale, walrus, and seal hunting and fishing. The second is the Caribou Hunting Pattern and included caribou hunting, fishing, and some small marine-mammal hunting of seal and beluga. The third is the Small Sea Mammal Pattern consisting of the harvest of seal, beluga, fish, and caribou. These subsistence patterns have three important aspects: 1) the seasonal mobility of the inhabitants for food gathering purposes, 2) the flexibility of the food quests and the variety of principle foods utilized in one subsistence area, and 3) the many alternatives offered in all subsistence patterns, especially the Small Sea Mammal and the Caribou Patterns (products not available within the patterns were usually obtainable through trade) (Ray 1983). On the Seward Peninsula, most of the communities conformed to Ray’s Small Sea Mammal Pattern. A seasonal year for most Seward Peninsula pre-contact nations, began in the winter with people returning to their home village which was usually located in an area with good winter resources. At this time, people went seal hunting on the ice, fishing for tomcod, flounder, and bullheads, and snared small mammals and ptarmigan. A successful early winter hunt, supplemented by food in storage, allowed long trips for visits with relatives in other villages and for seasonal festivities. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-276 Subsistence Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS Ugruk, or bearded seal, hunting occurred in the early spring. When the ice began to break up, people traveled to their ugruk hunting camps on the coast, and if they were lucky, they also harvested walrus and beluga whales. Ground squirrels and hares were also snared at this time. During the summer, most people moved to fishing camps located along the rivers, when they gathered and processed fish, greens, migrating waterfowl, and eggs. Small animals were also snared, and berries were picked when they became ripe. In the fall cooperative hunts were organized to take advantage of the migrating caribou herds that passed through the area. The only community on the Seward Peninsula to participate in whaling (conforming partially to Ray’s Whaling Pattern) is Wales, a result of its close proximity to the migration route of bowhead whales through Bering Strait. Whaling occurred primarily in spring, and required a well-organized cooperative effort on a yearly basis. In the Kotzebue-Northwest Area, defined by most researchers as the area north of Seward Peninsula, most communities either conform to Ray’s Small Sea Mammal Pattern or the Caribou Hunting Pattern, depending for the most part on a community’s proximity to the ever- changing migration routes of the WACH. As was mentioned above, the flexibility inherent in any subsistence strategy that follows the seasonal availability of a variety of resources results in the adaptability of a community to focus on those resources that are the most abundant in any given time or place. The generic traditional seasonal round for the Kotzebue Sound-Northwest Area is described as follows. During breakup, most people occupied small settlements on the outer coast. As breakup proceeded men hunted ringed and bearded seals, first individually in kayaks, and then in crews using umiaks as the large pans of ice began to separate. While the men were hunting, the women dried meat and skins, making sealskin rope and storing the dried meat and blubber in pokes. Food eaten during the spring consisted of fresh and just-dried seal meat, supplemented by eggs and waterfowl that were snared and shot in the lakes behind the beach. People who needed to put new covers on their boats did so during the spring. When all of the ice was gone, people packed up their boats and headed south, joining other travelers in boats along the way, all of them heading for Sheshalik and the great trade fair (located to the north of Kotzebue, near the mouth of the Noatak River). Time was spent hunting ducks and geese, an occasional stray beluga, and fishing for salmon and whitefish. In early August the trade fair was over, causing most of the foreigners to leave for home. The local residents at this time stayed where they were, spreading out along the northern shore of Kotzebue Sound and the western side of Kotzebue (Baldwin) Peninsula, and began harvesting salmon in earnest. Whitefish were caught as the salmon run ended. Women fished, dried fish, and picked greens, Eskimo potatoes (Hedysarum alpinum), and berries. Burch (1990) states that most of the men went caribou hunting, using both snares and bows and arrows, and also got a number of bears using spears. Hunters returned about the middle of September, at which time families returned to their fall winter settlements. As the water began to freeze, attention focused on fishing for tomcod, Arctic cod, sculpin, and flounder using hooks in holes in the ice. Some people set nets made of willow bark in lagoons or lakes for whitefish. Others went out and began netting sheefish under the ice, but because of a taboo that didn’t allow bringing these fish home until midwinter, they were usually left in a pile Subsistence 3-277 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS in the ice until then. Other fall subsistence activities include hunting caribou, snaring ptarmigan, and setting traps for furbearing mammals. During the winter, Kotzebue seems to have been better off than most of the other communities/villages south on the Seward Peninsula, and north up the coast. The reason given for this is the fact that fish could be harvested year round in the Kotzebue area (Burch 1990). Ptarmigan and caribou were still around, and seals could be caught off the northern shore of Kotzebue Sound. The months of November to January were considered the holiday season. Activities mostly included dances and feasts, with people moving back and forth from village to village. The communities of Point Hope, Wales, and Kivalina are the three communities in the planning area that practiced Ray’s Whaling Pattern in the past, and all three are considered active whaling communities today. Whaling is a communal effort, and it is customary for an entire village to participate in the process. In this way, whaling requires the role of a lead organizer, someone to ensure that labor is properly utilized and that prescriptions are followed to ensure a successful hunt. This role is filled by the umialik, or boat captain, who had the responsibility of providing all of the needed gear, materials, and supplies. The status of umialik is achieved through wealth or having access to the raw materials needed to construct a boat, lookout camp, and provide food for the crew, as well as through prestige, which is successful leadership denoted by making sure that the proper respect is shown to ensure a safe and successful hunt. While whales provide a large amount of food that could be shared by an entire community and sustain them on a year-round basis, the act of whaling required supplies and equipment derived from a wide variety of resources including caribou skins for sleeping pads, small seal skin floats, antler for harpoon heads and foreshafts, and walrus or bearded seal skins for boat covers, to name just a few. As a result, while whaling allowed for a relatively more sedentary lifestyle where entire nations would come together twice in a year to harvest whales, whaling communities also practiced a seasonal round of harvesting, traveling to where the resources could be harvested or obtained through trade. A typical year for whaling communities begins in the spring, when whaling crews and their wives would begin to go through the gear in order to see what needed to be replaced, mended, or created anew. As soon as leads, or areas of open water, began to appear in the ice, lookouts would be posted and camps would be established on the ice after the sighting of the first whale, usually in March or April. Spring whaling in the communities of the planning area would be over by the beginning of May, at which time hunters, still working as a crew as during whaling, would focus their efforts on walrus and bearded seals (Spencer 1959, 1984). During summer, the whaling crews tended to break up, and travel inland in family units, to either hunt caribou or harvest fish, or both. Late summer was a time to come together at trading centers and exchanging needed commodities such as seal oil, caribou skins, and other resources not readily available. During the fall people returned to their established sedentary villages, and shore-based whaling occurred, especially if spring whaling was not that successful, and if the conditions were right (Foote 1960). Once winter set in, men would hunt small seals on the ice at their breathing holes, and fishing would occur through the ice in rivers or lakes near the village. Like the other subsistence patterns, winter was also a time of festivity and feasting, a time for communities to come together and celebrate the success of the past year, and ensure a continued bounty. Chapter Ill: Affected Environment 3-278 Subsistence Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 2. Subsistence Patterns Today For the most part, the resources that were utilized by the residents of the planning area in the past are still utilized by the residents of today, albeit harvested with modern technology. The primary sea mammal resources of the planning area consist of bowhead whale, beluga, bearded seal, ringed seal, harbor seal, and walrus (Map 3-39, Map 3-42, and Map 3-45). Migratory waterfowl are still the primary fresh meat of the spring, and fishing occurs year-round. Caribou, and lately, moose and musk-oxen comprise the primary large land mammals actively hunted in the planning area. Additionally, small mammals such as ground squirrel, Arctic hare, snowshoe hare, and muskrat are used both for their meat or fur. Other animals presently harvested from the planning area include porcupine, martin, red fox, white fox, wolverine, weasel, mink, river otter, wolf, lynx, marmot, ground squirrel, hare, grizzly bear, polar bear, and mountain sheep (Map 3-37, Map 3-40, and Map 3-43). According to Burch (1990, 1998), elders of the Kotzebue region consider fish to be the most important resource of the area, an assertion that is reflected in the large per capita harvest of this resource (see Table 3-47). Whitefish is located throughout the lagoon, and salmon runs occur on both the Noatak and Kobuk rivers. Char migrate through the Sound during the summer, heading for the Agashashok and Noatak rivers. Fresh water fish include blackfish, suckers, grayling, and pike, and ocean varieties include tomcod, blue cod, flounder, smelt, sculpin, capelin, and herring (Map 3-38, Map 3-41, and Map 3-44). Although most residents of the planning area live a sedentary life in organized communities, hunters and fishers still travel great distances to subsist. The incorporation of new technologies such as snow mobiles, OHVs, and gas-powered boats allow hunters access to larger areas of land with less time and effort. In this way, it is possible to work within a wage-based economy, while still practicing a subsistence lifestyle. Likewise, it is still customary for most communities to relocate to seasonal camps for specific activities, such as the putting up of bearded seal meat or fish, even if these seasonal camps are only located a short distance from the permanent village. Additionally, as part of the land claims settlement of ANCSA, many of the residents of the planning areas have allotments, or small tracts of private land located in their traditional harvest areas within their region. Travel to, and extended stays at, family allotments is still a yearly occurrence throughout the planning area. During the scoping process for the current plan, the BLM received numerous comments related to subsistence, specifically, that subsistence use of resources is the priority for all communities in the planning area, and that the protection of this use from other uses or from resource development is integral to the well-being of the Ifupiat who live within the planning area. One major concern that arose during scoping was the issue of competition between subsistence hunters and sport hunters. Some areas within the planning area, such as the Squirrel River corridor, have become especially attractive to sport hunters who fly in from cities that do not have a Federal rural subsistence priority such as Anchorage or Fairbanks. This increase in competition for resources has resulted in subsistence hunters being marginalized within the area. Many comments received during scoping identified locally important subsistence use areas such as the headwaters of the Koyuk, Ungalik, and Inglutalik rivers; Nulato Hills; and Norton Bay. Norton Bay was also identified as an area that is important for subsistence on a statewide level. This area supports fish and wildlife resources that migrate to other areas of the state. Although the highest subsistence use areas were selected by the Native corporations to protect Subsistence 3-279 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS those lands, all of the Federal lands outside of Native corporation boundaries in the Nulato Hills are also important for subsistence use. Table 3-47 lists the most complete harvest information by community currently available for the planning area. It should be noted that for many of the communities, harvest information is lacking. It is important to note that this lack of data is not a reflection of the importance of subsistence resources to residents or communities. For many of the other communities, the numbers represented in the table from the mid-to-late 1980s still represent the most current numbers for the area. Data on subsistence harvest in the planning area is lacking simply because research in this area has been slower to become initiated, this region has experienced less pressure for industrial activity or other development, and there is less user-conflicts than areas located on or near the main road corridors. Table 3-47. Resources Harvested and Reported Per Year Ambler 15.02 ND ND ND ND Brevig Mission 18.93 190.86 326.81 25.54 15.78 Buckland 15.28 ND ND ND ND Deering 23.61 33,681 221.10 189.46 9.44 Elim 10.71 ND ND 123.24 ND Golovin 24.61 242.87 191.35 105.48 29.47 Kiana 6.10 ND ND 187.30 ND Kivalina 10.79 253.29 318.02 165.25 14.03 Kobuk 19.8 ND ND ND ND Kotzebue 3.52 237.72 157.71 177.46 16.23 Koyuk 17.63 ND ND 174.76 ND Noatak 4.48 179.49 47.67 224.40 4.85 Nome 5.13 ND ND ND ND Noorvik 16.79 ND ND ND ND Point Hope ND ND ND ND ND Point Lay 48.40 24.74 637.41 177.71 1.85 Selawik 7.35 ND ND 298.47 ND Shaktoolik 16.91 ND ND 144.36 ND Shishmaref 27.64 157.53 441.45 150.38 12.86 Shungnak 10.5 369 1.5 249.2 10.2 Teller 6.54 ND ND ND ND Wales 11.62 98.72 580.33 25.53 4.69 White Mountain 32.53 ND ND 102.53 ND Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Community Profile Database—most representative reporting year; Magdanz et al. 2004. ND = no data Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-280 Subsistence Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS 3. Federal Subsistence Management Title VIIl of ANILCA establishes both a conservation mandate (conserve healthy populations), and an allocation mandate (priority for non-wasteful subsistence uses by rural residents) for subsistence on public lands in Alaska. These mandates are implemented through the Federal Subsistence Program, which is comprised of the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB), 10 Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), and interagency staff specialists. The Federal Subsistence Program provides for the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for: e Direct personal or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; e¢ The making and selling of handicraft articles out of nonedible by-products of fish and wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; and e Barter, sharing, and customary trade. ANILCA Title VIII also ensures reasonable access by rural residents to subsistence resources on public lands, and mandates a priority for subsistence use over the taking of fish and wildlife for other purposes (such as commercial or recreational use). The FSB consists of the Regional or State Directors for the FWS, BLM, USDA Forest Service, NPS, and BIA, and is chaired by a subsistence user representative appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The FSB is tasked with management of subsistence resources on public lands relative to population health and maintenance, including setting bag limits, seasons of harvest, means of taking, regulatory and public processes, and providing a rural priority. Under Alaska’s Federal subsistence regulations, which only apply to Federal public land, a person must be a rural Alaskan resident to harvest fish and wildlife. All communities and areas within the planning area are designated as rural, therefore, all permanent full-time residents of the planning area are eligible subsistence harvesters. Under these regulations, seasonal residence does not constitutes a primary permanent residence, and is therefore not sufficient to qualify a person as a rural resident. The FSB also determines which communities and areas have customarily and traditionally taken specific fish and wildlife populations. These customary and traditional use determinations are listed along with seasons and harvest limits for each management unit in the Federal regulations. If there is a positive determination for specific communities or areas, only those communities and areas have a Federal subsistence priority for that particular species in that management unit. If no customary or traditional use determination for wildlife/fish population in a management unit has been made by the FSB, then all rural residents of Alaska may harvest fish or wildlife from that population. The FSB may determine that there is no customary and traditional use of a specific fish or wildlife population. This means there is no Federal subsistence priority and, therefore, no Federal subsistence seasons or bag limits for that area and population. The planning area has within its borders more than 20 Federal qualified subsistence communities, and encompasses wholly or in part three Game Management Units. Each management unit or subunit has multiple species, multiple populations, intense allocation claims by commercial, sport and subsistence user groups, intensive inter and intra community competition for subsistence resources, and multi-cultural user groups. Subsistence 3-281 Chapter III: Affected Environment Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS The BLM is responsible for administering the Federal Subsistence Program on BLM public lands in the planning area, including data collection and analysis, and implementing and enforcing regulations. The overall objective is to provide for rural subsistence use, while maintaining healthy populations of subsistence resources within the bounds of recognized fish and wildlife management principles. DOI goals are found in Department of Interior Strategic Plan 2003-2008. No specific goals exist for subsistence; however, mention is made of the unique trust responsibility and relationship that exists between the DOI and the 562 Federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments. The strategic plan states that: “Each possesses a right to tribal self determination and self-governance, in accord with their sovereign authority. The Department represents the Federal side of that relationship. Our responsibilities are to work with Tribal groups and governments to improve and protect their land and natural resource assets, manage Indian trust accounts, fulfill treaties and the mandates of Federal law, and help create educational opportunities and improve the quality of life (DOI 2003).” BLM’s national goals are outlined in the Bureau of Land Management Strategic Plan 2000-2005 (BLM 2000) The mission goals related to subsistence are to preserve natural and cultural heritage resources, understand and plan for the condition and use of the public lands, and restore at-risk resources and maintain functioning systems. Economics of Subsistence In the previous section (Subsistence) we note the significance of the harvest of natural resources for personal use. In this section we examine the value of the harvest. Table 3-49 shows that where data is available, every community participates in all traditional subsistence harvest activities. This table displays the only relatively recent reliable data available on the subject. Data gaps appear, but where the data is complete, it is relatively consistent. Census data from 1990 is used, as the data is from various years, it is closest to the 1990 census. The value per pound of resource is taken as an average of $4.00 based upon valuations published by Colt (2004) and Wolfe (2000). It is important to note these valuations are not adjusted for local cost. The market basket cost of food in the planning area is much higher than urban communities in Alaska, and still higher than most communities in the United States. Table 3-48 shows the UAF Cooperation Extension Service market basket cost for a family of four (two children 6-11 years of age) for a week in December 2004. Table 3-48. Market Basket Comparison Market basket cost $233.19 $107.37 $98.70 Source: http://www.uaf.edu/coop-ext/index.htmlAlaska Food Cost Survey UAF Cooperative Extension Service, January, 2005 (http:/www.uaf.edu/coop-ext/fcs/2004q4data.html) The market basket is more than twice the cost of comparable goods in either location compared. UAF Cooperative Extension Service supplies data collected quarterly in 21 Alaskan communities. Nome is the only community in the planning area where market basket data is Chapter III: Affected Environment 3-282 Subsistence Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP/EIS collected. The significance is that the value of subsistence resources to villages in the planning area may be understated by the accepted valuation. Subsistence 3-283 Chapter III: Affected Environment juaWUOLIAUZ pepeyy :||| sa}deyD 8c-€ Table 3-49. Subsistence Resource Harvest and Economic Significance Ambler 311 4,955 ND*** ND ND ND NA* NA Brevig Mission 198 3,473 35,016 59,958 4,685 2,895 536 $2144 Buckland 318 5,787 ND ND ND ND NA NA Deering 157 3,481 33,681 32,603 27,937 1,392 634 $2525 Elim 264 2,870 ND ND 38,540 ND NA NA Golovin 127 4,158 41,038 32,332 17,823 4,979 790 $3160 Kiana 385 2,415 ND ND 71,351 ND NA NA Kivalina 317 3,708 87,068 109,339 56,803 4,823 810 $3240 Kobuk 69 2,020 ND ND ND ND NA NA Kotzebue 2751 12,852 867,354 575,419 647,478 59,207 786 $3144 Koyuk 231 4,969 ND ND 48,402 ND NA NA Noatak 333 1,698 68,068 18,078 85,099 1,838 525 $2100 Nome 3500 18,014 ND ND ND ND NA NA Noorvik 531 10,400 ND ND ND ND NA NA Point Hope 639 ND ND ND ND ND NA NA Point Lay 139 5,836 2,983 76,853 21,426 223 790 $3160 Selawik 596 4,088 ND ND 210,190 ND NA NA Shaktoolik 178 3,692 ND ND 33,923 ND NA NA Shishmaref 456 15,481 88,216 247,212 84,215 7,204 956 $3824 Shungnak 223 4,345 ND ND 87,914 ND NA NA Teller 151 1,964 ND ND ND ND NA NA Wales 161 1,770 15,043 88,431 3,890 714 610 $2440 White Mountain 180 7,139 ND ND 21,653 ND NA NA SIS/dIY YeIC BINsulUsd Premag-ynqoy gous}sisqns *Pounds harvested per community. **NA = not applicable due to inconsistent or absent data **ND = No data available Source: ADF&G Subsistence Division Community Profile Database http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/publctns/cpdb.cfm JUSWUOLIAU payeyy :||| 38}deYyD Point Hope Shishmaref Wainwright Atqasuk @ Subsistence Use Areas - Mammals Map 3-37 Northwest AK Communities Subsistence Use Areas Large Mammals (by community)- Bear, Caribou, Moose, Sheep Noorvik Point Hope (ZA Kiana io Point Lay SY Noatak | Kivalina This map contains the best available data for communities located within the planning area If a community is not in the map legend, no known spatial data exists. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12 24 axe Wiles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD8&3 Source: State of Alaska- ADF&G The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status] information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SI3/dW YeIG BINsulUad premeg-ynqoy JUBWUOJIAUQ papeyy :||| Ja}deuo Cape Lisburne. Point Hope Kivalina Atqasuk © Subsistence Use Map 3-38 Areas - Fish Northwest AK Communities Subsistence Use Areas Fish (by community) Kiana 22] Noorvik ti Point Lay Bia Point Hope Fy Kivalina This map contains the best available data for communities located within the planning area. If a community is not in the map legend, no known spatial data exists. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12 24 =e Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska - ADF&G The information displayed on this map should be lused for graphic display only. For official land status information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIA/dWY YesG eInsulueg psemes-yngoy juawUOLAUA pepeyy :||| Ja}deyD [Vales Cape Lisburne Shishmaref Colville River SS A Atqasuk @ Te] Shungnak Subsistence Use Areas - Map 3-39 Marine Mammals Northwest AK Communities Subsistence Use Areas Marine Mammals (by community)4 Seal, Walrus, Whale ] Point Lay Noorvik EM22 Point Hope |. Kivalina GF Kiana Noatak This map contains the best available data for communitities located within the planning area If a community is not in the map legend, no known spatial data exists. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12 24 ae Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska - ADF&G The information displayed on this map should be lused for graphic display only. For official land status information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIFS/dWY HeIG ejnsulusd pyeMas-ynNGoy juswWUOLIAUZ pepeyy *||| se}deyo Shishmaref, Kivalina Shaktoolik Subsistence Use Map 3-40 Areas - Mammals Seward Penninsula Communities Subsistence Use Areas Large Mammals (by community) Bear, Caribou, Moose, Sheep Ze Deering Brevig Mission Nome Buckland Shishmaref This map contains the best available data for communities located within the planning area. If a community is not in the map legend, no known spatial data exists. oe Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP = S 4 Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12 24 ae Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska - ADF&G The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land statu information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIB/dWe Be B/Nsulusd PlemMasg-4Nqoy JU@WUOIIAU pe}eyy :||| Ja}deyo fj oh i Brevig Mi: @. { f 0 a Tell R_-s ~ Si . 7 : a ES Vai Shaktoolik’ Subsistence Use Areas - Fish Map 3-41 Seward Penninsula Communities Subsistence Use Areas Fish (by community) Deering Brevig Mission Nome Buckland | Shishmaref This map contains the best available data for communities located within the planning area If a community is not in the map legend, no known spatial data exists. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12. 24 _—e__ Viles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska - ADF&G The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land statug information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIA/dWY YeIG einsulusg puemas-yngoy JUaWUOLIAUW papeyy :||| Ja}deuo Buckland & Kiana Subsistence Use Areas - Map 3-42 Marine Mammals Seward Peninsula / Communities Subsistence Use Areas Marine Mammals (by community)-| Seal, Walrus, Whale Buckland Deering VA Brevig Mission Shishmaref This map contains the best available data for communities located within the planning area. If a community is not in the map legend, no known spatial data exists. Road | Planning Area KSP RMP Planning Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12. 24 _— Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska- ADF&G The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files SIB/dWY YesG BINsulUsg plemas-ynqoy JUaWUOJIAU pepeyy :||| se}deyo Subsistence Use Areas - Mammals Map 3-43 Upper Kobuk/ Selawik River Communities Subsistence Use Areas Large Mammals (by community)- Bear, Caribou, Moose, Sheep Selawik (] Kobuk IN Shungnak Ambler This map contains the best available data for communities located within the planning area| If a community is not in the map legend, no known spatial data exists. KKK SORES SRN SOO ga BSS ~ J e ROSOK <8 yf ey Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP OY <OS Bureau of Land Management - Alaska SS LEEKS x XSL KO SBR 0 12 24 % h << > i = fo EF : SSS 59 NJ eae Miles t ye i PN a ra . a . é , Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area Candle Buckland SESS 3 aN referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska- ADF&G The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status} information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWe Yes einsuluag puemag-yngoy JUBWUOJIAUA pepeyy :||| Ja}deyo Subsistence Use Areas - Fish Map 3-44 nner Kobuk/ Selawik River Communities Subsistence Use Areas Fish (by community) Ambler Kobuk Selawik Shungnak This map contains the best available data for communities located within the planning area. If a community is not in the map legend, no known spatial data exists. Road | Planning Area IKSP RMP Planning Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12. 24... ae Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska - ADF&G The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status, information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SI3/dWe Yes ejnsulusg psemes-ynqoy JUaWUOJIAUA pepeyy :||| Ja}deyo hishmaref _ Noatak River Kiana oo e five" bler. Kobuk e Shungnak Subsistence Use Areas- Marine Mammals Map 3-45 Upper Kobuk/ Selawik River Communities Subsistence Use Areas Marine Mammals (by community)- Seal, Walrus, Whale Selawik My Shungnak (ZA Kobuk Ambler This map contains the best available data for communities located within the planning area If a community is not in the map legend, no known spatial data exists. Kobuk-Seward Peninsula Draft RMP Bureau of Land Management - Alaska 0 12 24 _—e__« Miles Projection: Albers Conic Equal Area referencing NAD83 Source: State of Alaska - ADF&G The information displayed on this map should be used for graphic display only. For official land status; information, please refer to Cadastral Survey Plats, Master Title Plats, and case files. SIF/dWY HeJG ejnsulusd puemas-ynGoy