Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Bristol Bay Coastal Mangement Program Vol. 2 Management Plan 1987
Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program Volume 2 - MANAGEMENT PLAN Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area Board June, 1987 BRISTOL BAY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN VOL. 2 BRI 026 G2 TSSUED TO HIGHSMITH 42-222 BRISTOL BAY COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Management Plan June, 1987 This document was produced under the direction of the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) Board: Perry Adkison, Chairman Dillingham Joe Clark, Vice Chairman Clark’s Point Ron Aaberg, Secretary/Treasurer Pedro Bay Randy Briggs Ugashik Wally Gust New Stuyahok Alice Ruby Dillingham Fritz Sharp Twin Hills Bristol Bay CRSA Staff: Tim Hostetler, Director Susan Flensburg, Planner ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The preparation of this document was financed in part by funds from the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. It was administered by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Division of Municipal and Regional Assistance. Coastal Resource Service Area TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 2 Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program Management Plan Tat Le ape erate arrears ste ote oreo ee eke efon gelc ero) eke toot oh Kater or ciiencyel ole BisyeteleuesererelateteVelel eseter sitar i TableorContents sccssacnehias anon sss Sasa aasec o966 5 1586 SQL Nessie seen aesK 4 ii Deiat Of eb ables) coerce oyereicieie al clelele cielel oc raver sheus te) ol ojolle (evel sl eke lotpis| aus) s)sralloasi oi ajlelsia|eraiaiatel =) ose 01 v MeisteOt MSDS ee ese oreo eee iar oi oie oi oto (ol soo oI SESIO Eel aie le For ar oNieke fay clots [e) of Jot fet ef elifefelat stele sche Vv Chapter, Divider Photo Descriptions a. «556.5 3500.5 sass nas acne Henne a Heels vnsies ose vi ACK MIOWled BeMTieNts | cers aroiae ote ato ot eels 21 Bese ete) lio ofol ons) alee! ogolcteneesiine =| ot pes <151 choke a¥eraireis yer aiiie =) vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO COASTAL MANAGEMENT Introductionurse smiser ee eee er ee eer reece broek rae 1-1 Coastal Management — A National Priority ...................-. 1-1 The Alaska Coastal Management Program .................0-05- 1-2 The Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program .................. 1-2 CHAPTER 2 THE BRISTOL BAY REGION INtrOGUCHON seria ele ioeie elec ie reiele ciel crerelelccelers tolierelsieneieisieteraiers 2-1 Physical Environment: fosdcm scant pases ae riser cipncciiiece 2-1 Biological Environment 2.615 s.cas 5,5. cera «sys ol aaieis scieiets «cos 16 1 aicak 2-4 Human Environment ............cccecscccscscccccccceccceces 2-7 SOGIOECONOMICS cramer sareeniansec seer acereece aoeen aaectlar als 2-10 CHAPTER 3 COASTAL BOUNDARIES AMEKOGUCHION: cere eroyee eel oie elect eres ke rejesslo) cieliacfelslaters sysrausie) siete sar ays2 3-1 Boundary Rationale! ceesinccs doer syeecs tell sie ers see's rokee el taliers 3-4 SUMMALY:.iscc006 cases chess naews tems owes nea dasccmansen sass 3-9 CHAPTER 4 ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES MntrOductiOn ove cee ere cies elotel eles o1elclele eictcielelctel slelelelcelelersisiceis sens s 4-1 [ssties hishiandiWaldlitelwaa-riascerieerine crescents. 4-1 IssuesiSubsistence aces icsesssccs tases saces sare ashen +. aatee ae s 4-2 ii CHAPTER 5 Issue: Settlement and Coastal Development ..................... 4-2 PECTS O21 be: 7 If @ 7: Ca a ge 4-3 Issues Mineralsiascce noe ee ee eee letelstereterelelelelciciocee tee 4-4 Issue: Transportation) 4.425 f24.c0.e5 c2.ammis saci sales sce store on) oes 4-4 Tssues EMer gy) iced cesses cic oi esis wie aie far es cig #1 205 2 fala] SY ous chahatsusea) sored 4-5 ASStle RECTECALION | Sac rrsee ea Serta ate onehes kel cher ke letsl chcletsl sy evctishe 4-5 Issue: History/Archaeology «0.255202 snes sae sda sciees saeern 4-6 ANALYSIS OF RESOURCES MMETOGUCHON! [eras cretecsre ote arsraiedste nat siene etsy ee fo el esieks of-llete of eoke) fof) eliete 5-1 Alaska Peninsula — Pacific Subregion ................. eee ee eee 5-1 Mining) |.acec asst sass seen searetelsrslots sislcielardSiece BS Paelts + 5-2 Transportation: Corridors - 30... 05s wees soos soma tieeie » 5-6 RECTCALION |S 5 sores ial IIe OL esses sheliekehal eve cic opeleheter eh] ereel + 5-7 Alternative EMergy | s.sjo.0.0%: 5 o2:0.cin os sisios a sHeina Pisiek jeans 5-8 Alaska Peninsula — Bristol Bay Subregion .................00005 5-8 Oillatid Gas |i ascsijnc ier so siete oes blebelelel ofatetolereyeretsts eh eleselel« 5-9 ‘Transportation Corridors | 5.2 ni..21..5 s/olie sis eriela cies sole « 5-15 Transmission Corridors .............e eee eee eee eee eee 5-16 RECrEatON fos 2S c ore maus saints cin Siore han fers) dotteyelsyotiyel shay ie ce 5-16 Nliamna’Dake!'Subregion saachiew seosccn see oerists ee soimets sees cel 5-16 Hydroelectric Development: 206 0.0020 oie oc cisiee secre eigiceis « 5-17 Land Settlement | .2.5.55.5:s0050 caste sme tisiene aqeacel yasen + 5-18 Recreatiom is ioc alcists sores sisi) eters} sfeletslaistereteleocianatsramie ay 5-20 Mining) seca neric waaic ce seen saat sae alaaier doce saicers a 5-21 NushagakiSubregion Gerry ce seis correct hetetetstcieie eletieietes sewrerste 5-21 Land'Settlement,| sini os scomess ei eeicielleietel o)</baaccrusie ame ies 5-22 Recreation!) t.52c 5 sees ns seer + aes 6 slots) sboloie rs! Sots aetieis ele 5-23 MINING ict bo ee ercpewee ese eide se eles Aes hase aaa ween as 5-24 Hydroelectric Development ............... 2. cece eee eee 5-24 Commercial Fish Processing ...............ecceeeeeeees 5-24 TogiakiSubregion| sa-c sviccs sss eor sce sete yee tsicte | sowie os 5-25 Offshore Oil and Gas assertion ieee rt: 5-25 Mining | oe jcee ane ees meee e Inabs sImeN JaGe waaEE came 9 5-26 CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 8 RECheatiONcyoam sdsee Tames ameter sleet ace aeeraeace 5-26 Fish. Processing: 222.22 iancanmaes nyees tok aatensoccnehs ain 5-26 DISTRICT POLICIES BIE ORUCHON | ce. 25 iste fos eter eile coe ieiei se s sroze sisi sistein nines na ter eae 6-1 SUBJECt USS sass. 25 sore Sek oi ro, Poyarer Laeger eet bois ole! el siiede cielo si sew iors 6-1 POliches) 6: 2i5p- Sse yers bed chapel a siehew Sae Gho Niels tosehaialoueds relia esas eet Mayo aie 6-4 Coastal Development’ 5.0.5.0... o's o> esis solve vesiss cea sin 6-7 Geophysical! Hazards) i. 5a. one eiacec ena eeer cook ee 6-8 ROCTOALION | oie oe 3525) oceie 05 ors orsiei «ois; erae en) sore eer arere ei reverse evr 6-8 Energy Haciligies! ie cxiteprcyo lose ote) o'elheleheserefs oes Sees) oiniete ouch 6-9 ‘Twansportation.and Utilities) 5 sis < icin «detec sctews eens uc 6-11 Bish, and:Seafood Processing, «4... 0002 seme esse scceescs 6-12 Mimber Harvest; 26 ou cists jy tos 0 /steie euesercueicdebecensie scueuers + 10 6-12 Mining ;* ). sis ehbcee tases Sones sees vase osnumo aes .ssie 6-13 SSURDSISLENCOE) oy aus ts ior ekeh cies) 0) oie tore) alee lo) etojeleres o)icieiey ole eer eve isle apsrcirs 6-14 Mabitats) scien sets asses ets toe eidee done eee sen 6-14 Air, Land, iand:Water Quality, 3 /)0sso(..cc0< socnoneere 151% 6-15 Historic and Archaeological Sites ................0eeeeee 6-16 Properiand Improper Uses! 2 6:/naivs ssc orl soeine sone aoe Ser 6-16 IMPLEMENTATION Amite ct ery |, 5 a5 Sy P5 lo ns Mn ashy « OPARozol oho io en anckegeter's cies eusite ss sia Sione 7-1 Determining Consistency, 56 si. c0.05% fone cece sone cnsees sce 7-1 Consistency Determinations for Federally Regulated or Supported Activities .................0.. 7-1 Consistency Determinations for State Regulated or Supported Activities .................... 7-3 Classification of Permits for Consistency ofProjects\with the ACMP) Giacn. usecr cou neeen seems - 7-7 Local Consistency Review:PIocess: ..3. /s06scc0s sce nooo snnee so 7-8 Compliance and Enforcement ............. 0. cece cece eee e ee eee 7-9 Program Amendments, o7</s\tia ayer s/sceresicrarosers stnctectowur some secret +4 7-9 Regional Clearinghouse ............cccceccccccccccecccseccess 7-9 AREAS MERITING SPECIAL ATTENTION ANTLOGUCTION!) faa siitersraints ollie ele leiore lei tereieteyel of Ase slaeters)eetere sxeneiere ese 8-1 Suggested@AMSA) io). locw ste iclsasasis sider saiore sane.s tines sme et aa 8-2 Togiak: Fishing Grounds AMSA %5).i0;5 sce s ost s sins scien 8-2 Nushagak/Mulchatna AMSA ............--se sees eeeeee 8-5 iv SOURCES ..... APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Map 1 Map 2 Map 3 Map 4 Map 5 Map 6 Map 7 Map 8 APPENDICES WEIS Soils le! SF a)is te gheleliaiela) eile fe: cl giciiatelatelste/ejisiere. sse}ies sisais 61 House] sisi piss, Wai fole 431 S-1 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROGRAM ..............00000005 A-l ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REGULATIONS: STATE CONSISTENCY REVIEW PROCESS ............ B-1 STANDARDS OF THE ACMP ...............00000eeeee B-9 SELECTED STATE REGULATIONS ......... 0.0... cece eee eee C-1 LIST OF TABLES POPULATION IMPACTS IN THE ILIAMNA SUBREGION FROM SETTLEMENT ..........cscssccdecsseccccccsccccces 5-19 POPULATION IMPACTS IN THE NUSHAGAK SUBREGION FROM SETTLEMENT .............. 0. ccc cece eee ee eeees 5-22 LIST OF MAPS The Bristol Bay Region ............ 0. ccc cece e eee e eee e eee eeee 2-2 Coastal Boundaries ........... cece cece eee Map Pocket Alaska Peninsula Subregions ............ 0... ccc eee eee eeeeee 5-2 Tliamna:Lake Subregion: « . is 0ci5scs005 does o00% 00008 cases anes 5-18 Nushagak Subregion ............. 0. cece eee cere eee 5-22 Togiak Subregion) 6 ecisscc aaccteisinenvcinctien faces see et sein 5-26 Togiak Fishing Grounds AMSA ............. 2. cece eee eens 8-2 Nushagak/Mulchatna AMSA .......... 0... cece cece eee eee 8-6 CHAPTER DIVIDER PHOTO DESCRIPTIONS Chapter Title Photo Description and Credits 1 Introduction to Coastal Management The Bristol Bay Region Coastal Boundaries Issues, Goals, Objectives Analysis of Resources District Policies Implementation Areas Meriting Special Attention Sources Appendices Commercial driftnet vessels tied up at a can- nery wharf in Egegik (Mark Weber photo) A view from the west bank of the Wood River looking north to the Muklung Hills (Mark Weber photo) One of the many onshore fish processing facilities in the Bristol Bay region (Mark Weber photo) Subsistence activity at the Lewis Point fish camp on the Nushagak River (Mark Weber photo) Walrus haulout area on Round Island, a part of the Walrus Islands State Game Sanc- tuary (Tim Hostetler photo) Russian Orthodox church located at the village of Nushagak. Destroyed as a result of a grass fire in 1984 (Mark Weber photo) An old sailing vessel that had been refitted for motorized use in the Bristol Bay fishery (Mark Weber photo) The Ekwok Lodge located two miles down river from the village of Ekwok (Fritz Johnson photo) A dog team preparing to leave the village of Dillingham in the 1940’s (Dave and Mary Carlson collection) A double ender sailing vessel used in the Bristol Bay salmon fishery until 1951 (Alaska Historical and Transportation Museum photo) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document is the management plan of the Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program (BBCMP). It is one of five documents produced under the direction of the Bristol Bay CRSA Board, located in Dillingham. Released in January of 1983, ‘‘An Introduction to Coastal Management in Bristol Bay’’ provided an explanation of the program. In April of 1984, the two volume public hearing draft program, consisting of a resource inventory (Volume 1) and management plan (Volume 2), was produced. The conceptually-approved program was released in October of 1984. Current CRSA Board members are listed on the title page. It is important to recognize past CRSA Board members who were instrumental in the development of this coastal program: Gary Carlos, Tom Hawkins, William Johnson, Jerry Liboff, and Greg Moxie. Their numerous hours spent discussing the issues, goals, and policies that this document contains are much appreciated. Greg Peters and Tim Hostetler, staff to the CRSA Board, were responsible for the organiza- tion and production of this document. Greg Peters, director of the Board from 1981 to 1985, was the major author of the policies contained in chapter 6. The firm Northern Resource Management of Anchorage participated in the research of information contained in chapter 5. Maps 1-6 are the work of Yeti Map Studio of Redmond, Washington. Maps 7 and 8 were prepared by Fritz Johnson and Mark Weber of Mosquito Press, located in Dillingham. The typeset and printing of this document was produced by Resource Analysts of Anchorage, in association with Fineline Graphics. Several state agencies were invaluable in providing information and reviewing the products of the Bristol Bay CRSA Board. Individuals deserving special thanks include: Dick Mylius, Depart- ment of Natural Resources; Mike Black, Department of Community and Regional Affairs; Glenn Seaman, Department of Fish and Game; and Amy Kyle and Jan Mills of the Division of Governmental Coordination, Office of the Governor. Finally, the Bristol Bay CRSA Board wishes to express its gratitude to the many residents of the villages of the Bristol Bay region who participated in the development of this coastal manage- ment program. Their assistance will be instrumental in the implementation of the BBCMP. vii Introduction to Coastal Management CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Coastal Management Introduction The Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program (BBCMP) represents the culmination of over five years of work by the Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area Board, village residents, state, federal, and local officials. It provides the guidance to government agencies and the private sector in the use of land and water in the coastal areas of Bristol Bay. This chapter provides a brief overview of the federal and state legislation that created the authority for the development of this program. Chapter 2 provides a general description of the physical, biological, and human environments of the Bristol Bay region (a detailed inventory of the region’s resources, including maps at scale of 1:1,000,000 is contained in Volume 1 of this program). Chapter 3 contains a discussion of the coastal boundary and the rationale for its designation. Chapter 4 outlines important regional land use issues and includes the goals and objectives of the program. A detailed analysis of the physical and human resources of the region is contained in Chapter 5, including a discussion of future land and water uses and potential impacts. Chapter 6 contains the policies which will guide future land and water use in the region. It also describes how these policies will be put into effect. This chapter is the foundation of the program and should be carefully consulted since consistency determinations will be based on these policies. Chapter 7 spells out the process for determining whether a project is consistent with the program. Chapter 8 identifies potential Areas Meriting Special Attention (AMSA). These are areas that possess unique physical, biological, or developable characteristics, and which may require more detailed planning. Appendix A documents the public participation pro- gram that accompanied development of the program. The regulations of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) are contained in Appendix B. Coastal Management — A National Priority The coastal areas of the United States have long been utilized for a wide variety of purposes. Historically, the attitude of the public had been that coastal resources were inexhaustible, and therefore did not warrant specific management. The 1960’s, however, brought an awareness that increasing and conflicting uses were causing irreparable harm to both the biological and physical systems associated with these coastal areas. In response to this, Congress enacted in 1972 the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), expressing for the first time a national in- terest in protecting coastal areas. This is to be accomplished through comprehensive state coastal management programs which adhere to national standards. Federal funding was provided to coastal states as an incentive to develop such programs. As a further inducement, Congress 1-1 mandated that once a state’s program receives federal approval, federal actions must be ‘‘con- sistent’’ with the state program. The Alaska Coastal Management Program With the passage of the Alaska Coastal Management Act (ACMA) in 1977, Alaska’s dedica- tion to coastal management was confirmed. This is not surprising, considering the state’s abun- dant coastal resources and 33,000 miles of coastline — equal to that of the entire continental USA. In addition, the opportunity to gain more control over federal actions through the con- sistency provision was extremely attractive. In order to implement the ACMA, the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) was developed in 1978 and approved by the federal Department of Commerce in August of 1979. The ACMA has several purposes which are summarized below: ¢ Preserve, protect, develop, use, and where necessary, restore or enhance the coastal resources of the state for this and succeeding generations; ¢ Encourage coordinated planning and decision making in the coastal area among levels of government and citizens using the coastal resources of the state; © Develop a management program with policies, objectives, and procedures to guide and resolve conflicts among public and private use of the resources impacting the coastal land and water of the state; e Assure the participation of the public, local governments, and agencies of the state and federal governments in the development and implementation of a coastal management program; © Utilize existing governmental structures and authorities, to the maximum extent feasible, to achieve the policies set out in this section; e Authorize and require state agencies to carry out their planning responsibilities and to take actions affecting the use of the resources of the coastal area in accordance with the policies set out in this section. The Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program Due to Alaska’s enormous size and cultural diversity, the development of a state-wide coastal management framework was no easy matter. A method to allow local areas to participate in coastal planning had to be established. This was accomplished by allowing cities and boroughs to develop district programs. However, much of the state’s coastal area is located in the unorganized borough and therefore lacks the usual land use control mechanisms. The ACMA deals with this situation by creating special districts known as coastal resource service areas (CRSA). These districts are based on the rural education attendance area (REAA) model, and allows residents in coastal areas to organize a CRSA, elect a board, and prepare a local coastal management program. Bristol Bay residents voted to organize such a district in October 1981, 1-2 and a board was elected shortly thereafter in January 1982. The City of Dillingham opted to participate in coastal planning for the region as a whole, whereas the Bristol Bay Borough has developed its own program. Prior to assuming the status of law by being incorporated into the ACMP, the BBCMP had to be approved by the CRSA, state, and federal government. It was conceptually-approved by the Bristol Bay CRSA Board in September of 1984. In February of 1985, the BBCMP was unanimously approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council (CPC) and submitted to the Federal Department of Commerce (through the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Manage- ment) for incorporation into the ACMP as a routine program implementation. On March 15, 1985, the OCRM determined that the BBCMP was a significant amendment to the ACMP because of the expanded inland boundary and national interest concerns over several energy policies directed at offshore oil and gas exploration and development. This decision fur- ther required that an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the impacts of the program be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In May of 1985, OCRM made a preliminary determination that the BBCMP constituted an approvable program, but that this finding could be changed based on further analysis and public comment received during the NEPA review process. In December of 1985, prior to release of the EA, the OCRM denied approval of the program based on three energy facilities policies. In conjunction with the state’s Division of Governmen- tal Coordination and OCRM,, the Bristol Bay CRSA modified these three policies which were subsequently approved by the CPC on May 22, 1986. The EA was finally released in Octover of 1986 with a finding of ‘‘no significant impact’’. Following the public review period, the OCRM found the BBCMP to be approvable under the CZMA. With the filing of the program by the Lieutenant Governor on February 17, 1987, the BBCMP became a part of the ACMP and assumed the status of law. 1-3 Bristol Bay Region CHAPTER 2 The Bristol Bay Region Introduction The Bristol Bay region is one of the most physically and culturally diverse areas of Alaska. Located south of the Yukon-Kuskokwim River Delta and west of the Aleutian Mountain Range, the varied nature of the region is primarily due to its enormous size — approximately 40,000 square miles (see Map 1). The area is noted for its abundance of fish and wildlife resources, par- ticularly salmon. A variety of geologic processes have shaped the region’s physical features, which range from mountains and volcanoes to coastal lowlands. The cultural makeup of Bristol Bay is also varied, with the three major ethnic groups in Alaska — Eskimo, Aleut, and Athabascan Indians — represented, along with a sizable portion of residents of Scandinavian and Italian descent. This chapter is intended to provide the reader with an overview of the land, people, and economy of the Bristol Bay region. For each topic discussed, more information, including maps and sources, may be obtained by consulting Volume 1 of this program, the Bristol Bay Resource Inventory. Physical Environment CLIMATE The Bristol Bay region contains three different climatic zones: continental, maritime, and tran- sitional. Thus, weather may vary greatly from one area to another. The continental climate zone is located in the interior of the region from the upper Wood- Tikchik Lakes area east to the Aleutian Range. It is characterized by temperature extremes that produce relatively warm summers and cold winters. Maximum temperatures average 60 degrees F in the summer, while average minimum temperatures of minus 20 degrees F occur in the winter. Precipitation usually averages less than 20 inches per year, although increases occur in mountainous areas. The maritime zone of the region is confined almost exclusively to the Pacific Ocean side of the Alaska Peninsula. Due to the maritime influence, temperatures are moderate; maximum summer temperatures are in the 50 to 60 degree F range, and minimum winter temperatures in the mid 20 degree F area. Precipitation is much greater in this climatic zone, with the high range in excess of 100 inches per year. Winds average between 10 and 20 knots, but extreme 2-1 speeds of 100 knots have been recorded. The transition climatic zone, encompassing a majority of the Bristol Bay region, contains weather conditions that vary between those of the continental and maritime climatic zones. Temperature, precipitation, and wind all depend upon their location relative to the continen- tal or maritime areas. TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY The Bristol Bay region contains a wide variety of landforms, ranging from coastal lowlands to volcanoes. The Kilbuck and Ahklun Mountains in the northwest, the Nushagak Hills, Taylor Mountains, and Big River Hills in the north, and the Aleutian-Alaska Mountains in the east all serve as mountainous borders to the rest of Alaska. They surround the Nushagak and Kvichak River basins. The Nushagak River basin contains the Wood-Tikchik Lake system, a series of long glacial lakes bracketed by 3000 to 5000-foot mountains in the west and low glacial deposits in the east. Low, undulating glacial deposits characterize the landforms of the lower drainage, with many shallow lakes and ponds occurring near the coast. The Kvichak River basin drains the northeastern portion of the region including Iliamna Lake, the largest lake in Alaska. The Alaska Peninsula consists of coastal lowlands on the Bristol Bay side which rise toward the Aleutian Range on the Pacific side. As with the lower Nushagak River basin, these coastal lowlands are dotted by many small lakes and ponds. The rivers that meander through these lowlands empty into large bays. Conversely, the rivers on the Pacific side of the Alaska Penin- sula have fairly steep gradients and are fast flowing. The broad Chignik River valley is a notable exception. The Aleutian Mountain Range thrusts directly out of the Pacific Ocean to elevations of 1000 to 4000 feet. Many rocky islands and seacliffs exist in this offshore area. Towering volcanic peaks are interspersed throughout the length of the Aleutian Range. Some of the largest are Iliamna (10,106 feet), Veniaminof (8,225 feet), and Dennison (7,569 feet). The bedrock of the mountains on the west, north, and northeast of Bristol Bay consists primarily of sedimentary rocks and interbedded volcanic rocks. Occasionally, these have been intruded into by igneous rocks. The sedimentary rocks are typically greywakes, siltstones, shales, and some limestone. The Aleutian Range is dominated by more recent volcanic rocks. Nearly all of the present landforms, excluding mountains and volcanoes, have been the result of glacial activity that occurred between 10,000 and 20,000 years ago. Tills (mixtures of unsorted gravel, sand, and clay) and outwash sands and gravels predominate and are the basis for the rolling hills of the lowland region. More recent fine-textured alluvium is present along streams and river channels. ‘ GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The region possesses several natural hazards, with the most potentially severe ones related to the seismically active Aleutian Trench. This trench, situated off the southern coast of the Alaska 2-2 Yukon Delta e Lake Clark Nation; A of vw ¢ Park and Preserve Wildlife Refuge er § x as é S Nondalton « aa ee <= + ~ " Pedro Bay % State elliamna A . Koliganek” Newnaten Ry ore = Park nd : Se New Stuyahok ya . ¥ ik it Kokhanok 3 Ekwok , ; a Aleknagik ¥ igiugig & an 2 Levelock —I Togiak, Twin Hills 3 : je > “Dillingham | = Manokotak ’ . Portage Creek {Clarks Point ‘ana «Naknek . South ¢ : Naknek King Naknek Lak Salmon National a Becharof. Park and Preserve Egegik * ] A | 7 Wildlife Refuge a achik PACIFIC Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge o KIOMETERS *PortHeiden Aniakchak 4 | National Mi it 0 a 50 ‘ational Monument OCEAN and Preserve | Alaska Peninsula Chignik Lagoon, Chigni National “Grignik Map 1 — Bristol Bay Region Wildlife Refuge ee undary Wvanot Bay Perryville 2 . Peninsula, is the result of the convergence of two tectonic plates; the movement of these two plates is the reason for the seismic and volcanic activity in the region. Earthquakes can be anticipated in areas where large earthquakes have occurred in the past and their probable recurrence period has lapsed (seismic gaps). Areas of known earthquake activity can expect a recurrence every 80 to 140 years. In accordance with this theory, experts feel an area along the Aleutian Trench, near the Shumagin Islands, is a likely candidate for a major earthquake. Volcanic activity in the Bristol Bay region is also a very real geophysical hazard. The Novorupta Crater, in present day Katmai National Park, erupted in 1912 in the largest volcanic eruption in North America during historic times. A more recent example of this hazard was demonstrated in 1983, when the Alaska Peninsula volcano Mt. Veniaminof erupted spewing ash, smoke, and lava. Another hazard related to seismic activity is the tsunami, more commonly referred to as the tidal wave. The displacement of the seafloor during some earthquakes can produce a massive wave which radiates outward from the location of the displacement. The south side of the Alaska Peninsula, due to its close proximity to the Aleutian Trench, is most likely to incur damage from a tsunami. Other geophysical hazards that exist in the region are sea ice, storm surges, slope failure, flooding, and erosion. The possibility of these hazards occurring is primarily dependent upon local conditions and should be considered in any developmental activity. GEOLOGIC RESOURCES Hardrock minerals, oil, gas, and coal are the major geologic resources in the region. Mineral potential, whether in the form of lode or placer deposits, is considered to be fair to good in the region. Based upon limited exploration, gold, silver, copper, molybdenum, lead, zinc, and coal appear to be the minerals most prevalent. The only mining activities currently taking place in the region are placer operations in the upper Mulchatna River area and on Portage Creek at Lake Clark. The potential for oil and gas in the Bristol Bay region has long incited industry interest. To date, though, all of the 26 wells that have been drilled on the Alaska Peninsula between 1902 and 1981 have been plugged and abandoned. A 1982 assessment by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) concluded that gas is more likely to be discovered than oil. The coastal lowlands, encompassing the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska Peninsula from the Naknek River to the Sandy River, are ranked in the top 10 percent of all unproved areas evaluated for oil and gas potential in Alaska. This is the highest ranked area in the region. The DNR conducted an oil and gas lease sale for state lands in this area in September, 1984. 2-3 The other area of onshore potential in the region is located on the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, from Katmai National Park to Aniakchak National Monument. The DNR resource inventory placed portions of this area in the top 21 percent of unproved areas evaluated for oil and gas potential. The oil and gas basins on the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska Peninsula extend offshore beneath the state-owned tide and submerged areas and the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Data, although limited, indicate that these offshore areas have good potential for oil and gas discoveries. OCS lease sale 92 for the North Aleutian Basin is currently in litigation, and OCS lease sale 117 is scheduled for May 1990. Sand and gravel are also an important geologic resource in the Bristol Bay region. Generally, this resource is located along the river drainages of Bristol Bay. The coastal setting of many of the region’s villages reduces the availability of upland sand and gravel sources. Exceptions to this occur around Iliamna Lake, where upland gravel deposits are more common. Biological Environment The Bristol Bay region is internationally recognized for its fish and wildlife resources. These re- sources range from anadromous and freshwater fish to marine and terrestrial mammals to sea- birds and waterfowl. Following is a brief description of these biological resources; a more detailed description of these resources is available in the Bristol Bay Resource Inventory (Volume 1). SALMON The region contains all five species of Pacific salmon — red, king, silver, chum, and pink. The red salmon serve as the primary commercial species, accounting for 88 percent of the Bristol Bay fishery’s 1983 catch. Major runs take place in the Togiak, Nushagak, Kvichak, Naknek, Egegik, Ugashik, Meshik, and Chignik river drainages. King and silver salmon are also harvested commercially, although sport fishing for these two species is gaining in importance. The Nushagak River supports the largest run of these species. Pink and chum salmon are also of commercial importance, particularly on the Alaska Peninsula. All five species are utilized extensively for subsistence purposes. HERRING Bristol Bay contains the largest stocks of herring found in Alaska. Spawning takes place on both the north and south shores of the Bay. In recent years herring have become a commercially im- portant species. The vicinity of Togiak Bay is the site of the largest commercial harvest in the State. 2-4 BOTTOMFISH AND SHELLFISH Various species of bottomfish and shellfish inhabit the waters of Bristol Bay and the Pacific Ocean south of the Alaska Peninsula. Halibut are found throughout these waters, although commercial fishing is prohibited in Bristol Bay proper due to its status as a nursery area. Yellowfin sole, Pacific cod, and walleye pollock are other bottomfish species found in the marine waters. Shellfish include cockles; softshell, butter, surf, and razor clams; king, tanner, dungeness, and hair crabs; and shrimp. An extensive clam bed exists off the north shore of the Alaska Penin- sula, with smaller concentrations in the bays on the Pacific side. King crab are most abundant in the outer reaches of Bristol Bay and exist in smaller numbers on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula. Tanner crabs inhabit the entire outer continental shelf area from the nearshore zone to 280 fathoms. Dungeness are found in shallower waters on both sides of the Alaska Penin- sula. Shrimp are also distributed throughout the outer continental shelf areas. MARINE MAMMALS Marine mammals are found throughout the marine waters of the Bristol Bay region. Sea otters, sea lions and seals (harbor, ringed, bearded, and ribbon) inhabit the nearshore waters on both sides of the Alaska Peninsula. The south side generally has larger and more stable populations. Walrus haul out at numerous areas throughout the region and the largest concentration in the world is located on Round Island in northern Bristol Bay. Beluga and gray whales reside or migrate through the estuarine waters of northern and eastern Bristol Bay. Significant concen- trations of belugas occur at the mouths of the Snake, Igushik, Wood, Nushagak, and Kvichak rivers. The endangered gray whale migrates through Unimak Pass along the north side of the Alaska Peninsula before heading north to Nunivak and St. Lawrence Islands. FRESHWATER FISH Freshwater fish are extremely abundant in the lakes, rivers, and streams of the region. Arctic char and Dolly Varden are widespread, and native rainbow trout exist in every major river drainage north of Becharof Lake. Steelhead trout, an anadromous rainbow trout, are present in only a limited number of stream systems south of Port Heiden. Lake trout are found in deep lakes in the mountainous areas of the region, while Arctic grayling inhabit the drainages north of Port Heiden. Other freshwater fish located in the region are northern pike, burbot, and whitefish. TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS The excellent wildlife habitat in Bristol Bay has resulted in large populations of land mammals. Caribou, moose, brown bear, wolf, and furbearers all inhabit the region. There are two major caribou herds within the region: the Mulchatna and Alaska Peninsula 2-5 herds. The Mulchatna herd — located in the Mulchatna, Nuyakuk, and upper Nushagak river drainages — is one of Alaska’s thirteen major herds, and consists of approximately 20,000 animals. Another major herd is located on the Alaska Peninsula. A key subherd of this Alaska Peninsula herd is located between the Naknek River and Port Moller. This subherd contains between 15,000 and 20,000 animals. Moose range widely throughout the region, with the exception of the northwestern portion of the CRSA. They are generally restricted to willow and alder-lined streamsides. Highest concen- trations are found near Black and Chignik Lakes, Chignik River, and Pacific coast watersheds. The region contains between 5,000-8,000 brown bears, which represent the largest population in Alaska. Bears are found in all habitat types, but are most concentrated in the coastal lowlands and mountain valleys. The availability and quality of food, particularly salmon, are respon- sible for the large size and abundance of bears. There are a small number of wolves that range throughout the region. Furbearers include beaver, river otter, mink, short-tailed and least weasel, muskrat, and red and Arctic fox. Widespread, yet less common, are wolverine, lynx, and marten. BIRDS The Bristol Bay region supports large concentrations of seabirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors. The high concentrations of these birds are due to the productive marine waters, estuaries, and lagoons that exist in the region, along with the protection these habitats provide. The rugged cliffs of northern Bristol Bay and the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula provide excellent nesting habitat for seabirds. Common species include: common murres; black-legged kittiwakes; tufted and horned puffins; pelagic, red-faced and double-crested cormorants; glaucous-winged gulls; pigeon guillemots; parakeet auklets; and Aleutian terns. Millions of waterfowl and shorebirds from the Pacific Ocean, North America, and Asia are funneled through Unimak Pass to the rich coastal environment of Bristol Bay. The bays and lagoons of the region provide plentiful food, particularly eelgrass, along with protected rest areas for the migration of geese and ducks. Along with tundra swans and black brant, there are four species of geese: snow, emperor, and white-fronted geese, along with the subspecies of lesser Canadian, and cackling Canadian geese. The extensive wetlands of the region produce nearly 600,000 ducks each year. Common species of dabbling ducks are northern pintails, mallards, American wigeon, green-winged teal, and northern shovelers. Species of diving ducks that migrate through the region include: greater scaup, oldsquaw; surf, white-winged and black scoters; Barrow’s and common goldeneyes; and red-breasted and common mergansers. A number of species of raptors inhabit the region. At least 1,000 adult bald eagles nest along 2-6 the rivers, lakes and coastline, with most concentrated along the south side of the Alaskan Penin- sula. Other raptors taking advantage of the region’s large waterfowl, shorebird, rodent, and fish populations include: Peale’s peregrine falcon; goshawk; rough-legged, sharp-shinned, red- tailed and marsh hawks; osprey; merlin; gyrfalcon; and golden eagle. Short-eared, great horned, snowy, boreal, and northern hawk owls are also present. VEGETATION A mixture of lichen-shrub tundra, shrubs and grass, and open heath or grass cover over half (about 56 percent) of the Bristol Bay region. Wet bogs and meadows, or marshes and very wet bogs, blanket about seven percent of the region. The northern portion of the region contains both tundra areas and forests. Deciduous trees (birch, cottonwood, willow) account for approximately ten percent of the area, while coniferous forests (black and white spruce) exist on about five percent of the land area. Forested areas occur along major lakes and rivers of the Nushagak and Wood River systems, and at the eastern ends of Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark. The alpine areas are covered with lichen and snow, or are barren. In contrast to the northern portion of the region, the Alaska Peninsula south of the Naknek River is essentially treeless and moist tundra predominates. Human Environment PREHISTORY The earliest archaeological materials discovered in the Bristol Bay region date back approximate- ly 9,000 years to the Paleo-Arctic tradition. During that time, three major groups of people in- habited the region — Aleuts, Indians, and Eskimos. The Aleuts resided at the western end of the Alaska Peninsula. The Tanaina Athabascan In- dians lived in the interior, primarily north and east of Iliamna Lake. Three subgroups of Yupik Eskimos inhabited the remainder of the region: the Aglegmiut, Kiatagmiut, and Togiagmiut. The Aglegmiut generally resided on the coastal areas from Port Moller to Iliamna Lake. The Kiatagmiut inhabited the Wood-Tikchik Lakes area and the Nushagak River drainage. Togiagmiut Eskimos lived in the northwest part of the region west of Togiak Bay. There are 300 to 400 known archaeological sites in the region; few have been researched, mapped, and recorded. None of these researched sites have been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Undoubtedly, there are many additional sites and they are most likely located along the coast within easy access to freshwater or inland areas near salmon streams. 2-7 HISTORY The first Europeans to see the region were members of the 1741 Bering-Chirikov expedition which sailed along the southern coast of the Alaska Peninsula. In 1778 James Cook entered Bristol Bay proper and named it in recognition of the English admiral of the same name. The 1790’s saw trade begin to appear in the region, but it became substantial only after 1818 when the Russians established a trading post at Alexandrovski on the east side of Nushagak Bay. Fur, the main impetus for trade, remained important during most of the nineteenth century. Fishing later surpassed trapping as the main economic activity of the region. During the late 1800’s, Russian missionaries established churches throughout the region. This conversion of much of the Native population to Christianity had a profound effect upon the region. Although other missionary groups entered the region during this time, none had the im- mediate or lasting impact of the Russian Orthodox. The Russians maintained dominance in the region until Alaska was purchased by the United States in 1867. The first major attempt to exploit the Bristol Bay fishery, however, did not occur until 1883, when fish from Nushagak Bay were salted aboard the schooner Neptune. By 1908 there were 10 canneries at Nushagak and several more along the Naknek, Igushik, Kvichak, and Ugashik rivers, and at the villages of Egegik, Ekuk, and Togiak. This influx of whites into the region brought changes to more than just the economy and religion. Epidemics of smallpox, influenza, and measles devastated numerous villages, some of which never recovered. The canneries completely controlled the early commercial fishery. Both cannery workers and fishermen were provided transportation to and from the region, along with room and board. Very few local residents were employed in the commercial fishery, although the shortage of laborers brought on by the second world war increased local participation. THE COMMUNITIES The Bristol Bay CRSA contains 28 communities. These communities span a wide area and their economies and lifestyles reflect these distances. Following is a brief portrayal of these a brief portrayal of these communities, dealt with in the context of five geographic subregions: the Pacific and Bristol Bay sides of the Alaska Peninsula; Iliamna Lake; Nushagak; and Togiak. Five communities are located on the mountainous Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula: Ivanof Bay, Perryville, Chignik Lake, Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik (Bay). As with the rest of the region, commercial fishing is the economic mainstay of this subregion. The red salmon harvest provides the majority of the income for the subregion, but other fisheries are also of commer- cial and subsistence value. Caribou, moose, and waterfowl are all important subsistence resources. 2-8 On the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska Peninsula are the four villages of Port Heiden, Ugashik, Pilot Point, and Egegik within the CRSA (the three Bristol Bay Borough communities of Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon are within the Borough’s coastal management district). Commercial salmon fishing is the primary economic activity in this area. Waterfowl and caribou are important for subsistence. There are eight communities in the Iliamna Lake subregion. Five of these lie along the shore of the Lake: Newhalen, Iliamna, Pedro Bay, Kokhanok, and Igiugig. The other three are Port Alsworth on Lake Clark, Nondalton on Six Mile Lake, and Levelock on the Kvichak River. Commercial fishing is important to all villages but government jobs provide almost 50 percent of the subregion’s few jobs. Subsistence is essential for the residents of all these villages. Eight communities are located in the Nushagak River drainage or along Nushagak Bay. Dill- ingham, Aleknagik, Clark’s Point, and Ekuk are built along or near Nushagak Bay, and the villages of Portage Creek, Ekwok, New Stuyahok and Koliganek occupy the Nushagak River drainage. All of these communities participate in the commercial salmon fishery. The fish and wildlife of the subregion are also important as subsistence resources. Dillingham, the largest community in Bristol Bay, has a more diversified economy due to its position as the government and support services center of the region. The Togiak subregion contains the villages of Togiak, Manokotak, and Twin Hills. These villages derive a majority of their income from commercial salmon fishing; to a lesser extent, the herring fishery also provides cash income. Subsistence is an essential activity in this subregion and there are close trading ties between the subregion’s villages and the Nushagak Bay village of Aleknagik. POPULATION The communities within the Bristol Bay CRSA boundary had a 1980 population of 4,587 residents. Approximately 60 percent of these residents lived in five communities: Dillingham (1,568), Togiak (470), New Stuyahok (331), Nondalton (173), and Chignik (178). A subregion breakdown of population shows that the Nushagak subregion had over 52 percent (2,376), which is not surprising given that both Dillingham and New Stuyahok are located there. The Togiak and Iliamna Lake subregions followed with 18.3 and 12.8 percent of the region’s population, respectively. The Alaska Peninsula subregions contained the smallest amount, with the Pacific subregion at 11.3 percent and the Bristol Bay subregion (excluding the three Bristol Bay Borough communities) with 5.5 percent. Historic growth rates have reflected those of Alaska as a whole with substantial increases (nearly 2.5 percent annually) occurring from 1970 to 1980. Growth is projected to continue at a rate of 1.9 percent annually for the entire region during the next 20 years. Dillingham, Togiak and Iliamna are the communities most likely to grow at the greatest rate (2.45 percent), with Aleknagik, Twin Hills, Newhalen, and Chignik also incurring significant growth. Socioeconomics SUBSISTENCE Subsistence activities provide an essential source of food and an important link to the native cultural heritage and lifestyle for many of the region’s residents. The subsistence lifestyle pro- vides a stabilizing influence in a period of rapid social change. Subsistence also contributes to social cohesion by providing a means of exchange and distribution of goods between relatives and other villages. Some of the region’s subsistence users also participate in the wage employment sector of the economy through commercial fishing, government, and service employment. A common misconception is that an increase in wage employment results in a decrease in subsistence activities. In fact, the region’s residents utilize the base income earned in the wage economy to supplement subsistence activities; subsistence is the preferred lifestyle and source of food. Also, the high cost of foods imported from outside the region and the availability of fish and wildlife have led to a reliance upon subsistence by many of the region’s residents. People use not only the resources in the immediate area, but also venture some distance from their villages to hunt for big game, fish, or gather special items (eggs, basketgrass, berries). Since subsistence is frequently opportunistic, harvest varies from village to village and year to year. Fluctuations in use reflect household income, alternative food costs, cultural values, as well as resource abun- dance and distribution. The region’s most important subsistence resources are salmon, caribou, and moose. It has been estimated that each household in the region consumes an average of 127 salmon, 1.33 caribou, and .18 moose per year. The large size of the region causes some sub- sistence resources to be utilized only by nearby residents. Marine mammals, highly sought by the village of Togiak, are in this category along with the shellfish and bottomfish available to the residents on the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula. Waterfowl are a common subsistence resource for the villages near marine waters, while berries are gathered by all villagers. ECONOMICS Commercial fishing and subsistence are the primary economic activities in the Bristol Bay region. Commercial fishing — either in harvesting or processing — provides 45 percent of the region’s full-time jobs, while abundant subsistence resources allow residents to be relatively indepen- dent of the cash economy during poor fishing years. By far the most significant sector of commercial fishing is the Bristol Bay salmon fishery. This fishery, fueled primarily by red salmon, had an average annual ex-vessel value of 107 million dollars between 1978 and 1983. The other fishing areas in the region are the Alaska Peninsula and Chignik areas. Although neither fishery is on the scale of Bristol Bay, they are equally important to the com- 2-10 munities in their respective areas. Although there are bottomfish and shellfish resources on both sides of the Alaska Peninsula, only the south side communities (Ivanof Bay, Perryville, and the Chigniks) are involved in harvesting activities. Studies are currently underway that will evaluate the feasibility of com- munities in the northern portion of the region entering these fisheries. Government is the second most important economic sector in terms of employment. Federal, state, and local government positions and jobs created by federal and state grants, provide 30 percent of the region’s full-time employment. The Iliamna subregion relies most upon government employment, while the Nushagak subregion has the largest number of government employees. The support/services industry has been the fastest growing (13 percent annually) sector of the Bristol Bay economy during recent years. An important component of this sector, and one that is projected to grow at a greater rate than the industry as a whole, is recreation. This covers guides, hotels, and air taxi operators. Overall, the support/services sector provided 25 percent of the region’s full-time jobs. The Nushagak subregion, due to Dillingham’s presence, has almost 90 percent of these jobs. TRANSPORTATION The Bristol Bay region is accessible to the rest of Alaska by air and water only. Scheduled air service exists from Anchorage to Dillingham, King Salmon, Iliamna, and Port Heiden. Water transportation is in the form of barge service. All but two of the region’s communities (Non- dalton and Port Alsworth) receive barges, with most having to lighter freight in smaller boats. Interregional transportation is carried out through numerous airlines, with Dillingham and King Salmon the primary locations for these services. Only six roads extend outside the immediate vicinity of the villages. The 22 mile ‘‘Lake Road’’ connects Dillingham and the village of Aleknagik, with the 9 mile ‘‘Snake Lake Road”’ leaving it at the halfway point and extending to Nunavaugaluk Lake. A 15 mile paved road connects the Borough communities of Naknek and King Salmon, while 26 miles of roads — remnants of World War II military activities — exist in and around Port Heiden on the Alaska Peninsula. A road from Iliamna Bay on Cook Inlet to Pile Bay on Iliamna Lake is used for bringing boats and some freight into the region. Finally, a road is currently under construction which will connect the villages of Iliamna and Nondalton. In winter, frozen lakes, rivers, and snow-covered ground greatly improve interregional travel. Snow machines and three-wheelers are the most common forms of transportation. RECREATION The Bristol Bay region could easily be described as a recreationalist’s paradise. The exceptional fish and wildlife resources are world-renowned, and the region’s physical features — such as 2-11 Katmai National Park’s Valley of the Ten Thousand Smokes and numerous rivers and lakes — provide interesting sightseeing opportunities. The vast majority of recreational use is con- centrated along the rivers, streams, lakes, and coastline of the region. Sport fishing is undoubtedly the most significant recreational activity. It has been estimated that this activity alone is worth approximately 25 million dollars. Abundant salmon, particularly the much sought after silver and king salmon species, as well as trophy-sized rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, and char, attract people from other parts of the state, nation, and from dis- tant countries. Recreational hunting of moose, caribou, brown bear, and waterfowl have all increased in the last decade. Moose hunting by non-locals is most often conducted by professional guides and concentrated in the Mulchatna River area and on the Alaska Peninsula. The majority of the caribou and brown bear are harvested on the Alaska Peninsula. Sport hunting for waterfowl also takes place on the Alaska Peninsula, primarily in the vicinity of the village of Pilot Point. Katmai and Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, along with the Aniakchak National Monu- ment and Preserve, are important sightseeing and wildlife observation areas. The unique volcanic aspects of the Katmai and Aniakchak units brings people from around the world. Lake Clark, called one of the most beautiful lakes in the world, has within it precipitous mountains and cascading mountain streams. Finally, the Wood-Tikchik State Park is located in the region. This is the largest state park in the nation (1.4 million acres) and contains a unique lake and river system consisting of eight large lakes connected by short rivers. The lakes are contained by towering mountains to the west, while emptying into less rugged terrain to the east. As with all of the conservation units in the region, it abounds with fish and wildlife. The park, as well as all the major rivers in the region, have experienced a heavy increase in use by floaters, kayakers, and fly-in fishermen. ENERGY Currently, the Bristol Bay region relies almost exclusively on electrical power from diesel generators. The high cost of transporting fuel to villages, and the inefficiencies of some power systems, results in the region’s residents paying four to seven times as much for electricity as Anchorage residents. There are several proposals for hydroelectric projects in the region. The most promising is a 16 megawatt run-of-the-river project on the Newhalen River (Chapter 5, Iliamna Lake Subregion). This intra-regional project would provide electricity to 18 villages (see maps 4 & 5). The other large hydroelectric project is on the Allen River at the outlet of Chickuminuk Lake in Wood- Tikchik State Park. However, this project would provide electricity to the Bethel area only. Small scale hydroelectric potential also exists for the cities of Togiak and Chignik. The region, and particularly the Alaska Peninsula, is well suited for using wind energy for 2-12 electrical power generation. There are a number of small wind generators currently used for charging batteries used in powering radios and small appliances. A recent study concluded that a site north of Naknek was the most promising in terms of wind power generation. Other types of energy production, or conservation systems, that have potential applications in- clude: waste heat recovery; coal-fired steam turbines; geothermal; and the use of peat as a fuel source. LAND USE The vast majority of the Bristol Bay region’s 40,000 square miles of land remains undeveloped, with subsistence being the primary land use. Seasonal fishing, hunting, gathering, and trapping occur throughout the region. This extremely important land use is important not only for the sustenance it provides, but also because of the broader social and cultural needs represented by subsistence. : Commercial fishing, the dominant industry of the region, uses relatively small amounts of land. Shorebased processing facilities are located on rivers throughout the region, with Dillingham and the Bristol Bay Borough communities containing the majority of them. The method of processing salmon has land use implications for the region. The trend in recent years has been for floating processors — large ships that can freeze fish onboard — to take more of the catch, rendering some of the older canneries obsolete. Also, the difficulty in predicting the volume of the harvest has created situations where the supply of fish exceeds the region’s processing capacity, necessitating the rapid transport of salmon to processors outside the region. Fresh fish export operations fill this need and have proliferated in and around the communities adjacent to the regional airports. The region’s villages are generally compact. Homes comprise the vast majority of village struc- tures with a community hall, school, and health clinic also present in nearly every village. LAND OWNERSHIP Land ownership in the Bristol Bay region is dominated by the state and federal governments (see Volume 1, Map 4). The majority of the federal lands are managed as national parks, preserves, and wildlife refuges. The Fish and Wildlife Service manages the four wildlife refuges that are located within the region: Becharof, Alaska Peninsula, Togiak, and the Alaska Maritime. The National Park Service manages Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, Kat- mai National Park and Preserve, and Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve. The Bureau of Land Management manages federal lands outside of these conservation units. Most of the acreage managed by these three agencies was set aside as a result of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980. State-owned land and land selections are part of Alaska’s land entitlement under the Statehood 2-13 Act of 1958. The acreage is primarily located in the Wood-Tikchik Lakes area, the Nushagak and Iliamna drainages, and on the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska Peninsula. The state also owns all tide and submerged lands offshore to three miles and the beds of all inland navigable water- bodies. Four critical habitat areas have been designated by the state legislature at Port Heiden, Cinder River, Pilot Point, and Egegik. The legislature also created the Walrus Islands Game Sanctuary. All of these areas are managed for preservation of wildlife habitat and are under the authority of the Department of Fish & Game. Wood-Tikchik State Park is managed by the Division of Parks (DNR) for the maintenance of fish and wildlife populations and habitat. All other state lands are managed by the Department of Natural Resources under a multiple use concept. The largest private landholders in the Bristol Bay region are the Native corporations formed pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. Each of the villages in the region was entitled to select land in its vicinity, with the amount determined by its respec- tive population. The Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), the regional corporation, was also allowed to select land although a much smaller amount than the village corporations. The BBNC controls the subsurface rights, which includes gravel to all corporation lands, whether village or regional ownership. 2-14 ~ Coastal Boundaries CHAPTER 3 Coastal Boundaries Introduction The Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) encompasses the Southwest Region and Lake and Peninsula School Districts (REAA 6 & 7), as well as the City of Dillingham. The Bristol Bay Borough has developed its own coastal management program. However, this does not mean the entire region is automatically subject to the coastal management program. Only land and waters in the coastal area, and activities which directly affect these areas, are subject to the pro- gram. It is the responsibility of the CRSA Board to define the coastal area. In doing so, the Board must follow the state and federal coastal management laws. For instance, federal lands, including Native allotments, village townsite lands, and lands held in trust by the federal government, are automatically excluded from the coastal area. This means lands within the National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, Monuments, and Preserves, and BLM lands, as well as OCS marine waters beyond the three-mile limit, are not directly subject to the coastal management program. However, activities on these federal lands and waters which directly affect the coastal zone must be consistent with the coastal management program to the maximum extent practicable. The State of Alaska has established interim coastal boundaries to be used until the final ones are proposed by the CRSA Board and adopted by the Coastal Policy Council (CPC) and the federal Department of Commerce. For most of the Bristol Bay region, the interim coastal area includes marine waters to the 3 mile limit and all lands and waters below 200 feet in elevation. On the Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula, the 1000 foot contour marks the inland coastal boundary. These boundaries are based on a document entitled Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska’s Coastal Zone, published by the Office of Coastal Management and the Alaska Depart- ment of Fish and Game in 1978, and includes: © The zone of direct interaction, defined as that portion of the coastal zone where physical and biological processes are a function of direct contact between land and sea. Examples include areas of wave impact, saltwater intrusion, and active coastal erosion. It also in- cludes inter-tidal areas, salt spray zones, seabird cliff nesting sites, storm surge lines, and the lower reaches of rivers to the extent that they are affected by tides and saltwater intrusion. © The zone of direct influence, defined as that portion of the coastal zone abutting the zone of direct interaction, and closely affected and influenced by the close proximity be- tween land and sea. Examples include where anadromous fish such as salmon migrate up river to spawn, where shorebirds and waterfowl nest and feed in coastal wetlands, 3-1 where marine mammals such as beluga whales and harbor seals range inland, and where vegetation directly reflects such coastal influences as salinity and high moisture. The CRSA Board may designate final boundaries which diverge from the interim boundaries if the new boundaries include the areas of direct interaction and influence and: (1) extend inland and seaward to the extent necessary to manage uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on marine coastal water; and (2) include all transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, saltwater wetlands, islands, and beaches (6AAC 85.040). Marine coastal water is defined to include water adjacent to the shoreline with measurable quan- tities of seawater and the living resources that depend on this water (6 AAC 85.900[2]). If the above requirements are met, the final boundaries of the coastal area may be based on ‘political jurisdiction, cultural features, planning areas, watersheds, topographic features, uniform setbacks, or the dependency of uses and activities on water access’ (6AAC 85.040[d]). Additionally, the coastal boundary of the district must be sufficiently compatible with those of adjoining areas to allow consistent administration of the Alaska Coastal Management Pro- gram (6 AAC 85.040[e]). In conformance with the above requirements, and after compiling and analyzing resource in- formation, delineating the important issues, and adopting goals and objectives for the program, the Board has included the following boundary as the coastal area: (1) the interim coastal boundary designated by the state; and (2) all water bodies designated in the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rear- ing, and Migration of Anadromous Fish, ‘plus a one (1) mile corridor from ordinary high water (OHW) on each bank; and, (3) all tributaries to these aforementioned designated waterbodies, plus a 200 foot cor- ridor from ordinary high water (OHW) on each bank. This coastal boundary is graphically depicted on Map 2, contained in the map pocket inside the back cover of this program. The legend for Map 2 contains the word ‘‘buffer’’ rather than the proper term ‘‘corridor’’. The basis for expanding the coastal area in the Bristol Bay CRSA is the importance of salmon to both the region and the state. During an eight year period from 1978-1985, the ex-vessel value ' This source, most recently revised in 1987, was developed pursuant to Alaska Statute 16.05.870(a). The upper limits of these designated anadromous waterbodies represent the limit of fish surveys and are not necessarily the extent of fish habitat. As a result, the ADF&G anticipates periodic revisions to this document as more current in- formation becomes available. of the Bristol Bay fishery averaged approximately 107 million dollars per year, with a record 143 million dollars in 1983 (these figures do not include the value of those portions of the Alaska Peninsula fisheries that are located within the Bristol Bay CRSA). The direct seasonal employ- ment that results from the harvesting and processing of salmon approached 11,000 in 1983 (ADF&G, 1983b). Additional jobs are created in the services sector that supports the fishing industry. Although a dollar amount has not been placed on the value of salmon to the subsistence economy, it is easily the most important resource. It is estimated that each household in the region consumes an average of 127 salmon (500-800 pounds) each year (Nebesky et al., 1983). The labor involved in preparing this resource constitutes an important cultural activity of the Native population. The continued health of this renewable resource is of paramount importance to both the commercial and subsistence sectors of the regional economy. A third economic activity that is directly, and indirectly, dependent upon salmon is recreation. Sport fishermen account for approximately 95 percent of the guests at the region’s 50 to 60 lodges. The pristine waters contain not only the much-coveted king and silver salmon species, but also rainbow trout and Arctic grayling. It has been estimated that almost 23 million dollars is generated by recreational fishing (Impact Assessment, 1984), and that this economic activi- ty is expected to increase at a greater rate than any other portion of the regional economy. More recent research has found that this figure is low as commercial recreation service providers in the Nushagak River drainage alone had a projected gross income in 1985 of over 24 million dollars (Bristol Bay CRSA, 1986). The salmon of Bristol Bay also take on special meaning when viewed in a statewide context. Nearly 50 percent of the United State’s entire sockeye salmon production comes from Bristol Bay. The CPC adopted Resolution Number 13 (1979) which states that the conservation of anadromous fish waters designated in accordance with AS 16.05.870 and 16.10.010is a use of state concern. Thus, after analyzing the resource information contained in Chapter 5, the CRSA Board decided the potential conflicts between the region’s anadromous water bodies and other developmental activities warranted their inclusion in the coastal area. The Bristol Bay CRSA coastal boundary is consistent with the coastal boundaries of adjoin- ing district programs. The Kodiak Island and Bristol Bay Boroughs both have approved coastal management programs. In each case, the expansion from the interim boundary was based upon political jurisdiction. This allows for implementation through the existing land use controls of both boroughs and the need to include important areas that directly influence coastal resources. The Cenaliulriit (Yukon-Kuskokwim) CRSA has an approved program and coastal boundary that corresponds with the interim coastal boundaries established by the state. The Aleutians East CRSA, which is currently undergoing a NEPA review prior to federal approval, has proposed a coastal boundary which includes all anadromous fish waterbodies. The Bristol Bay CRSA Board’s coastal boundary provides both the protection of the region’s 3-3 exceptional salmon resource and also the consistent administration of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Boundary Rationale The primary reason for adopting this boundary designation is to ensure comprehensive manage- ment of the habitat supporting the world-renowned Bristol Bay salmon fishery. As described in the resource inventory (Volume 1) of this program, a variety of habitats are utilized during the life cycle of salmon. These range from the open ocean to tiny freshwater creeks. Salmon migration, spawning, and rearing areas extend into the farthest reaches of the Bristol Bay drainage, hundreds of miles inland from the actual coast and well above the 200-foot contour initially established by the state as the coastal boundary. The Alaska State Legislature recognized the importance of this resource and, in 1971, established the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve (AS 38.05.140 [f], see Volume 1, Maps 4 or 7). The reserve en- compasses all submerged and shore lands of the Bristol Bay drainage located north of the Ugashik River and east of Kulukak. The designation prohibits surface entry for oil and gas development unless the legislature specifically finds that the entry will not constitute a danger to the fishery. Federal and state legislation and designation of conservation system units in the region have also recognized the importance of protecting the salmon population of Bristol Bay. These include: © Wood-Tikchik State Park, created for the primary purpose of protecting the area’s ‘‘fish and wildlife breeding and support systems and preserving the continued use of the area for subsistence and recreational activities’’; © Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, created among other purposes, ‘‘to protect the watershed necessary for perpetuation of the red salmon fishery in Bristol Bay’’; © Katmai National Park and Preserve, created among other purposes, ‘‘to maintain unim- paired the water habitat for significant salmon populations”’; e Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge, created among other purposes, ‘‘to con- serve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including ... salmonoids and other fish’’; ¢ Becharof National Wildlife Refuge, created among other purposes, ‘‘to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to salmonoids ...’’; © Togiak National Wildlife Refuge, created among other purposes, ‘‘to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, salmonoids’’. Clearly, the salmon fishery of Bristol Bay is an extraordinary resource of state, national, and international significance requiring comprehensive management of the entire drainage if it is 3-4 to thrive. It is equally clear that the Board’s acceptance of the interim coastal boundary would not accomplish this, since the 200-foot contour is a somewhat arbitrary designation based on outdated and incomplete information which excludes large amounts of extremely valuable salmon habitat. The mere presence of salmon outside the interim boundary is not enough, however, to justify expansion of the coastal boundaries. Activities which degrade, destroy, or alter this upriver habitat may jeopardize the long term health and survival of the anadromous resources. A description of the uses and activities that have, or are likely to have, a direct and significant im- pact on salmon habitat and populations must be provided. Chapter 5, the resource analysis, provides this, and such uses are only briefly summarized below in relation to the expanded boundaries. For the sake of convenience, the same five subregions depicted in the resource analysis are used. ALASKA PENINSULA SUBREGION (PACIFIC SIDE) This subregion primarily comprises the rugged peaks and volcanoes of the Aleutian Range and the streams draining into the Pacific. Land ownership is overwhelmingly federal, with scattered pockets of state and private (Native corporation). The interim coastal boundary extends off- shore to the three-mile limit and inland along the 1000-foot elevation contour. This results in the exclusion of the headwaters of many salmon streams (federal lands are excluded by law). Expansion of the boundaries to include these anadromous waterbodies is necessary primarily in order to manage mineral exploration and development and its effect on salmon habitat (see Chapter 5 for mining impact discussion). Construction of a trans-peninsula oil pipeline to an ice free port on the Pacific is also a possibility (see Chapter 5 for transportation corridor im- pact discussion.) Knowledge of the mineral potential of the area is limited, but promising, especially for metallic minerals such as copper and molybdenum, as well as gold, silver, lead, coal, and zinc. Numerous claims and deposits exist in the area. Water quality problems frequently arise from mineral development and the construction of associated infrastructure such as roads, railroads, and ports. Construction of an oil pipeline is dependent on oil production on the north side of the Peninsula or offshore in the Bristol Bay. Such a pipeline would be necessary in order to deliver oil to an ice free terminal on the Pacific side. Construction of pipeline facilities and service roads, as well as potential pipeline ruptures, could significantly impact salmon habitat. The increased access to hunting and fishing areas provided by a public road would likewise impact fish and wildlife populations and habitat. ALASKA PENINSULA SUBREGION (BRISTOL BAY SIDE) This subregion contains drainages to Bristol Bay south of the Bristol Bay Borough. The area is mostly coastal lowland carpeted with wet tundra and numerous ponds. It is laced with such major salmon-bearing rivers as the Egegik, King Salmon, Ugashik, Dog Salmon, Cinder, and Meshik. Land ownership is a combination of private (Native corporation) and state, bordered 3-5 by national conservation units to the east and south. The interim coastal boundary extends off- shore to the three-mile limit and runs along the 200-foot contour, encompassing the entire area except for a few hills and the slopes rising to the Aleutian Range (federal lands are excluded). Expansion of the boundary to encompass the anadromous waterbodies in this area is necessary primarily to manage oil and gas exploration and development (see Chapter 5 for oil and gas im- pact discussion). As noted in the resource inventory (Volume 1), the Alaska Peninsula’s long history of oil ex- ploration has resulted in several finds, but not in commercial quantities (see Volume 2, Map 5). Although the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve, which encompasses the submerged lands and shorelands draining into Bristol Bay from Ugashik Bay to the north, prohibits surface entry for oil and gas, the remainder of the area contains numerous current and expired leases and is cur- rently being evaluated for further leasing by the state (Lease Sales 41, 56). Seismic operations have already commenced. Potential impacts to salmon habitat include: gravel extraction; ero- sion from road, airstrip, well pad, and pipeline construction; water pollution from the leakage or spillage of oil, drilling fluids, sewage, or other hazardous materials; and wetlands filling. ILIAMNA LAKE SUBREGION This subregion encompasses the entire Kvichak River drainage, which supports the largest sockeye salmon run in the world, as well as a world-renowned population of trophy-sized freshwater fish. Land ownership is a mixture of federal, state, and private (see Volume 1, Map 4). Federal lands are concentrated in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and two tracts managed by the Bureau of Land Management located east and west of the Kvichak. Lands bordering Iliamna Lake and the Kvichak are mostly state and private (Native corporation) land. The interim coastal boundary extends seaward to the three mile limit and inland along the 200 foot contour. As is the case in the Nushagak subregion, this results in the exclusion of impor- tant salmon habitat such as the Kukaklek and Nonvianuk Lake systems, portions of most streams draining into Iliamna Lake, and even portions of the Newhalen River north into Lake Clark. Expansion of the coastal boundary is necessary in order to manage the increasing use of this land for fish and wildlife habitat, community expansion, subsistence harvest, commercial lodges, sport fishing and hunting and other recreational activities, as well as potential uses such as new settlements, an intervillage road, and hydroelectric, mineral, oil, and gas development. There are eight communities in the subregion, the residents of which are highly dependent on fish and wildlife for subsistence purposes (see Volume 1, Map 2). The interim coastal boundary excludes two of them — Nondalton and Port Alsworth. However, as with other villages, ac- tivities such as gravel extraction, wetlands filling, sewage, and waste disposal, are necessary to manage due to possible impacts to salmon. The increasing development of commercial lodges catering to sport hunting and fishing enthusiasts also places pressure on fish and wildlife populations. As is the case in the Nushagak subregion, state and federal land disposals currently proposed 3-6 for the area have far reaching implications if allowed to occur. There are four locations targeted for new settlement, all of which fall outside the interim coastal boundary (Chekok Lake, Newhalen River, Kokhanok Lake, Big Mountain). Settlement in these areas could impact salmon habitat and subsistence activities (see Chapter 5 for discussion on settlement impacts). Another use with large potential impacts is hydroelectric development, which is currently the subject of a great deal of study. Two locations have been identified for serious consideration — one on the Newhalen River and the other on the Tazimina River. Both are important salmon- bearing waters, and would be impacted by the projects. Mineral exploration and development is yet another activity which is likely to expand. Thus far, there is no production although the area has a great deal of potential for both lode and placer mining. The mountains surrounding Iliamna Lake and Lake Clark contain known deposits of gold, silver, tin, copper, tungsten, molybdenum, lead, and iron, and numerous mineral claims have been established. Although new mineral entry is prohibited in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, valid existing claims are protected, and most of the remaining area is open to mineral location under state law. Mineral development, particularly placer mining, is frequently associated with water quality problems, which in turn could seriously impact salmon habitat. Construction of mine and transportation facilities such as roads, railroads, and ports could also have significant impacts (see Chapter 5 for discussion of mining impacts). Finally, the oil and gas potential of the area is low west of the Kvichak River, but moderate in areas south of Iliamna Lake. Possible impacts on salmon habitat are primarily associated with road, airstrip, and facility construction, waste disposal, hazardous materials storage, seismic blasting, and oil spills from a well or pipeline (see Chapter 5 for discussion of oil and gas impacts). NUSHAGAK SUBREGION Some of the most productive salmon habitat in the world is found throughout this subregion. Major rivers include the Wood, Nushagak, Nuyakuk, Mulchatna, and Chilikadrotna. The land status of this immense area is primarily a combination of state owned and selected lands sur- rounding private lands owned or selected by local Native corporations (see Volume 1, Map 4). There is a discrepancy between the interim coastal boundary and the biophysical boundaries narrative upon which they are supposed to be based. The biophysical boundaries state that the zone of direct influence includes the rivers and associated lake systems which support the spawn- ing sockeye salmon populations. However, the interim boundary only extends inland to the 200-foot contour. This results in the exclusion of major salmon-bearing waters such as Lakes Kulik and Chauekuktuli, in Wood-Tickchik State Park; the upper Nushagak, Iowithla, Kokwok and Nuyakuk rivers; and virtually the entire Mulchatna drainage. Other excluded areas are the Wood River Mountains, Muklung Hills, Okstukuk Hills, Kemuk Mountains, Taylor Moun- tains, and tributaries in these areas. Expansion of the coastal boundaries to include the above mentioned anadromous waterbodies will more properly reflect existing resource data and pro- vide the mechanism necessary to ensure careful management of the entire watershed so as to 3-7 protect the salmon stocks. At present, the area outside the interim coastal boundary supports a number of uses, primari- ly fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence harvests, commercial lodges and camps, sport hunting and fishing, and river float trips. In addition, a mercury mine is located on Marsh Mountain east of Aleknagik, but no longer operates. Mining claims are located in the Taylor Mountains and upper Mulchatna drainage, with at least one operation working placer deposits on Bonanza Creek in 1983. There is no doubt that existing use will intensify. Additionally, new ones may arise which are likely to affect salmon populations and habitat. One — the state’s land disposal program — has significant implications for future land use in the area. Currently, a disposal is planned on the upper Mulchatna River in the Half Cabin Lake area. Expansion of the coastal boundaries to encompass this proposed settlement is necessary since the corresponding increase in human use could impact salmon habitat and populations. A second potential use which will be necessary to manage is hydroelectric development. At least two projects are under study which would directly impact the Nushagak subregion. One would dam the Allen River at the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake, and envisions transmission lines serv- ing the Bethel area. The other project is located on the Newhalen River, and transmission lines would traverse the Nushagak drainage to serve villages. Construction of either of these energy facilities with accompanying gravel extraction, road construction, air traffic, buildings, and personnel could have significant impacts on salmon habitat. Finally, mineral exploration and development is likely to increase in the subregion. Although knowledge of the mineral potential in the area is very limited, known deposits and terranes favorable for copper, zinc, gold, silver, iron, molybdenum, tin, tungsten, uranium, nickel, and chromium exist in the Tikchik Lakes area, Taylor Mountains, Marsh Mountain, Kemuk Moun- tain, and especially in the upper Mulchatna and Chilikodrotna drainages. Placer mining in par- ticular could seriously impact salmon habitat in these areas (see Chapter 5 for discussion on min- ing impacts). THE TOGIAK SUBREGION With the exception of private lands owned by local Native corporations, state-owned tide and submerged lands, and the streambeds of navigable waters? which are owned by the State, vir- tually the entire subregion is within the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge and therefore excluded from the coastal area by law (see Volume 1, Map 4). Three villages are located in the area: Togiak; Twin Hills; and Manokotak. The interim coastal boundary encompasses offshore areas to the three-mile limit and extends inland to the 200-foot elevation contour on nonfederal land. 2 Determinations regarding the navigability of all waterbodies in the Bristol Bay CRSA will take years to resolve. This is currently the subject of several lawsuits. 3-8 This results in the exclusion of mountainous terrain, mountain tributaries to major streams and rivers, and some major salmon migration, spawning, and rearing areas such as: Gechiak Lake; the Ungalikthluk River; the Kemuk River; the upper Togiak drainage, including Togiak and Upper Togiak Lake; the upper Ongivinuck River drainage; Pungokepuk Lake; and the upper Kulukak River drainage. By expanding the coastal boundaries to include these areas, state and federal actions affecting them will have to be consistent with this program. At present, these additional lands are used primarily for fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence harvests, trapping, and recreation, especially sport fishing and river floating by tourists. There are several valid mining claims north and west of Upper Togiak Lake, but production is not oc- curring. The future will undoubtedly witness an increase in existing human use. Village populations will grow, with a corresponding increase in subsistence activity. Likewise, the area’s sport fishing and wilderness recreation opportunities will attract more visitors, thereby placing more pressure on fish stocks and habitat. New mineral entry is prohibited on refuge lands designated wilderness, but existing claims remain valid. There is a possibility of mineral develop- ment on Native corporate lands, since known mineral terranes favorable for deposits of cop- per and zinc with by-products of gold and silver exist in the area. Potential impacts from mineral development vary according to the type and size of a deposit, but water quality problems fre- quently arise. This could directly affect salmon populations and habitat and the numerous sub- sistence, commercial, and sport users. Construction of the infrastructure needed to bring these minerals to market could have a similar effect. Summary The Bristol Bay economy and culture is largely based on the enormous salmon runs for which it isso famous. A primary goal of the coastal management program is to ensure the continued health and productivity of this resource. In order to accomplish this, the coastal boundary was expanded to include the anadromous waterbodies used as migration, spawning, and rearing areas, as well as all tributaries to these waters. This expansion into the farthest reaches of the drainage was necessary due to a number of activities which could significantly affect this habitat and consequently the fish upon which so many depend. 3-9 CHAPTER 4 Issues, Goals, and Objectives Introduction The issues identified in this chapter reflect general topics of concern to the residents of the Bristol Bay region. In some cases, a specific project focuses the issues, while other issues revolve around the potential development of a resource. It is important to remember that the coastal manage- ment program’s prime concern is land and water use, even though broader social, economic, and cultural issues invariably surface. Therefore, coastal management must be viewed as only one of a variety of tools that can be used to achieve the broader goals of Bristol Bay’s residents. : There are several themes which run through any discussion of land use in the region, the cen- tral one being maintenance of fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Residents depend upon these resources for food, jobs, cash, clothing, and handicrafts. The subsistence economy that is based upon these resources has existed for centuries and continues to play an integral role. Likewise, the commercial fishing industry that has developed around the salmon and herring stocks continues to provide the majority of the jobs and cash in the region. The residents of Bristol Bay have stated on numerous occasions that they want those individuals and groups involved in the formulation of land and water use policy in Bristol Bay to recognize the importance of these resources. With this in mind, three general overriding goals form the basis of this program: (1) to maintain and enhance the region’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats; (2) to protect the existing culture and lifestyle of the region’s residents and minimize their disruption; and (3) to encourage economic productivity and diversity in the region, while minimizing con- flicts with the fishing industry and subsistence lifestyle. Following are the goals and objectives for the major issues addressed in this program. Policies to accomplish these goals and objectives can be found in Chapter 6. Fish and Wildlife Issue: The fish and wildlife of the Bristol Bay region form the basis of the economy, whether used for commercial, subsistence, or recreational purposes. These populations depend upon adequate amounts of natural habitat for their health and survival. Development activities create competing demands for this habitat 4-1 . Goal: Objective 1: Objective 2: which could lead to reduced populations. Maintain and enhance the natural productivity of fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Inventory the various fish and wildlife species of the region and their habitats. Designate species of primary importance and classify their various habitat re- quirements on the basis of relative importance. Ensure that development activity occurs in a manner that has no, or minimal, im- pact on important fish and wildlife populations. Subsistence Issue: Goal: Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Historically, the residents of Bristol Bay have relied heavily upon fish and wildlife resources for subsistence. There is a strong need and desire to maintain the op- portunity to pursue this lifestyle. Land uses which threaten fish and wildlife habitat and populations threaten the subsistence lifestyle. Additionally, as human population and use increases, so will competition for limited subsistence resources. Maintain the opportunity for continuation of the subsistence lifestyle in the Bristol Bay region. Identify species particularly important for subsistence use and ensure that ade- quate amounts of habitat supporting these species continues to exist in a natural condition. Identify areas heavily used for subsistence purposes and ensure that land and water uses in these areas are compatible with subsistence activities. Ensure that public access to subsistence use areas is maintained. Settlement and Coastal Development Issue: A great deal of political pressure from urban areas has been placed upon the state government to make some of its lands available to the private sector. Most local residents believe the disposals satisfy the ‘‘demand”’ of land speculators, rather than an actual need for land. Compounding the problem, many areas proposed for such disposal conflict with valuable fish and wildlife areas. New settlement in these areas may result in the emergence of new communities, increased demand for services, and increased land and water use conflicts. Some new settlements, 4-2 Goal: Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: however, such as workforce sites related to resource development projects, may be necessary and preferable in achieving economic development for the region. The expansion of existing communities presents additional issues. All are located on the shores of water, and must therefore be planned carefully to avoid wasting valuable waterfront land, building in high hazard flood and erosion zones, and building in a manner which would significantly degrade the quality of adjacent waters. Maintain opportunities for the expansion of existing communities and the location of new resource development facilities in low hazard areas that will not lead to significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Encourage the development of community land use planning efforts so that they may expand in a careful manner. Avoid the creation of new communities. Ensure that state, federal, and native lands made available for private develop- ment are thoroughly evaluated and shown to be physically capable of supporting the intended use. Avoid development in known geophysical hazard areas. Oil And Gas Issue: Goal: Objective 1: Objective 2: The Bristol Bay region has areas with oil and gas potential. Both the state and federal government have plans to lease acreage for exploration and develop- ment. Native corporations and other private landholders may also lease acreage for petroleum exploration and development. These activities will impact fish and wildlife populations and habitat if not done in an environmentally sound manner. Maintain opportunities to explore and develop the region’s oil and gas resources in a manner that will benefit the region’s residents and will not adversely impact fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Identify the potential adverse impacts of oil and gas development and mitigation measures which would minimize these impacts. Ensure that stipulations designed to minimize adverse impacts from oil and gas activities are incorporated into leases and permits, and are enforced. Minerals Issue: The mineral potential of the Bristol Bay region remains largely unknown. The area contains several promising prospects, but a lack of infrastructure, weak markets, and the high cost of operations combine to inhibit development. Development will impact fish and wildlife habitat if not done in an environmen- tally sound manner. Goal: Maintain opportunities to explore and develop the region’s mineral resources in amanner that will benefit the region’s residents and will not adversely impact fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Objective 1: Identify the potential adverse impacts of mineral development and mitigation measures which would minimize these impacts. Objective 2: Ensure that stipulations designed to minimize negative impacts from mineral ac- tivities are incorporated into leases or permits, and are enforced. Transportation Issue: The transportation network of the Bristol Bay region serves a vital role. Its remoteness from major manufacturing and marketing centers requires the im- portation of all goods via air or sea; and likewise, the exporting of any resources or products must slso use these two modes. Despite this dependence, many air- ports and ports are unsafe and inadequate. Future economic development will depend upon the upgrading of existing, and the construction of new, facilities such as airports, ports, pipelines and roads. Additions or improvements to the region’s transportation network will impact fish and wildlife populations and habitat if not done in an environmentally sound manner. Whatever future transportation requirements are required, residents strongly op- pose a road connection to the other regions of the state. Goal: Upgrade the existing transportation system to improve safety and better serve the region’s needs. Maintain opportunities for future resource development which will not adversely impact fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Maintain the region’s separation from the main state road system. Objective 1: Identify deficiencies in the existing transportation system which require upgrading. Objective 2: Identify possible transportation routes and facilities which may be needed to 4-4 Objective 3: Energy Issue: Goal: Objective 1: develop the region’s resources. Identify the potential adverse impacts arising from the construction of new transportation facilities, and mitigation measures which would minimize these impacts. Residents of Bristol Bay are virtually dependent on oil for energy. The sharp in- crease in oil prices during the 1970’s spurred interest in developing alternative energy sources, as well as in conservation. The development of some types of alternative energy sources will impact fish and wildlife populations and habitat if not done in an environmentally sound manner. Encourage the conservation and efficient use of energy, as well as the develop- ment of cost effective renewable resource-based energy systems that will not adversely impact fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Identify areas where alternative energy resources such as small scale hydro, wood, peat, and wind may be available to meet local energy needs. Objective 2: Encourage continued study of possible energy systems which may lower costs and improve reliability. Objective 3: Maintain a flow of information from the state and federal government to the region’s residents concerning energy use and conservation matters. Objective 4: Encourage projects designed to demonstrate the feasibility of using alternative energy sources to meet local needs. Recreation Issue: The abundance of fish and wildlife, spectacular scenery, and fascinating geology of Bristol Bay offers some of the finest opportunities for outdoor recreation in the State. These qualities not only serve the needs of local residents, but also sup- port a tourist industry catering to growing numbers of national and international visitors. As the number of visitors increases, particularly those harvesting fish and game, conflicts between local residents and visitors may increase. Additional- ly, as more land is developed or transferred to private ownership, fish and game populations may be adversely affected, access to popular harvest areas may be restricted, and opportunities for enjoying a high quality wilderness experience will disappear. Goal: Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Maintain the region’s wide variety of high quality recreational opportunities in order to meet the needs of local residents as well as state, national, and interna- tional visitors. Identify areas of high recreational value and use, and ensure that these areas re- tain the unique qualities that resulted in their identification. Ensure that public access to recreational areas is maintained. Ensure that state and federal management plans encourage dispersed recreational use and maintain a wide variety of recreational opportunities. Historic/Archeological Resources Issue: Goal: Objective 1: Objective 2: The Bristol Bay region contains significant historical and archaeological remains. As development occurs in the region, these sites and remains may be lost or disturbed unless measures are taken to protect them. Preserve the important historic and archaeological sites and artifacts of the region. Inventory sites of historic or archaeological value and identify the most signifi- cant sites worth preserving. Ensure that the historic/archaeological potential of an area is considered prior to actual construction of a project. 4-6 CHAPTER 5 Analysis of Resources Introduction From the first settlement of the region centuries ago to the present, people have depended upon the region’s fish, wildlife, and other natural resources for their survival. Subsistence continues to provide a major portion of many residents’ food, and commercial fishing accounts for about 45 percent of regional employment. In addition to this current resource use, the future holds promise for new resource use and development. While providing some local jobs and unearth- ing needed resources, large-scale development could potentially harm the fish and wildlife resources which are the basis of the region’s economy and way of life. It is of the utmost con- cern to the region’s residents that such development only proceed with safeguards to protect the resources it potentially endangers. This chapter will provide an analysis of the resources of the Bristol Bay region. Its organiza- tion and content are the result of both the large size of the region and the uncertain nature and location of the developmental activities that may affect its resources. The approximately 40,000 square miles of land within the region contain large areas that possess, for example, mineral terranes and oil and gas provinces, and also, critical wildlife habitat. To date, specific locations of development projects have not been determined. Thus, the level of impact assessment con- tained within this chapter is of a general nature. In order to better analyze the resource opportunities and conflicts that may take place, the Bristol Bay CRSA jurisdiction is divided into five subregions; the Pacific and Bristol Bay sides of the Alaska Peninsula, Iliamna Lake, Nushagak, and Togiak (see Maps 3-6). This discussion for each subregion presents a brief summary of the important resources and their uses, its development potential, and the possible impacts to fish and wildlife resources as a result of them. Each subregional discussion also includes a map depicting environmentally sensitive and potential development areas to provide the reader with a graphic representation of where resource con- flicts are likely to occur. As was previously mentioned, this impact assessment is, by necessity, a general one. Thus, for the sake of brevity, the reader will at times be referred to another subregion for a more specific discussion on potential impacts from an activity. Alaska Peninsula — Pacific Subregion The mountainous Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula contains habitat that supports large 5-1 concentrations of salmon, moose, and brown bear, and to a lesser extent, caribou. The Chignik River red salmon runs provide the bulk of the cash income for the residents in the region. A much smaller amount of cash is generated from bottomfish and shellfish harvests. These resources are also used extensively for subsistence purposes. Impacts to these resources could result from two developmental activities; mining, and the con- struction of transportation corridors. To a lesser extent, impacts may result from increased recreation and the development of alternative energy sources. MINING The mountains of the Alaska Peninsula possess formations favorable for gold, silver, copper, molybdenum, lead, zinc, and coal. Map 3 illustrates these potential mineral areas. The size and location of any deposits will dictate the type and scale of the impacts associated with their extraction. These mineral developments could possibly require access roads, a railroad, an airstrip, mill- ing operations, an ore terminal and port, support facilities, and even a new settlement. The im- pacts of such development would vary greatly by area and scale of operation. An impact assess- ment would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. The types of impacts which could result from mineral development include: the loss, direct or indirect, of wildlife habitat; disruption or loss of subsistence and recreational use areas; and stream degradation. For example, con- struction activities could destroy bear denning areas, while activities close to bear dens could result in the adult abandoning both the den and the young (BBCMP EIS, 1984). Activities which would obstruct or alter a stream channel, disrupt water flow, or block fish migration would have a detrimental effect on fisheries. A large mining operation could require a new settlement or a substantial influx of people into existing communities, as well as substantial infrastructure and support services. These new area residents could compete with subsistence users for wildlife harvest. The disruption created by development activity could reduce wildlife’s use of the area, making it even more difficult for subsistence users to meet their needs. Water quality problems caused by mining and related development are a major concern. This could occur during construction of roads and facilities and during mining operations. Construc- tion in an area with an easily eroded surface could lead to significant water quality degradation. In addition, poorly designed roads and exposed slopes constitute a long-term erosion and sedimentation problem (Kolankiewicz, 1982). Water quality could also be degraded through disposal of petroleum wastes, oil and hazardous material spills, and from improper sewage disposal. Accidental introduction of hydrocarbons or other toxic substances into waterbodies would have a detrimental effect on fish. In addition, water use for drilling may cause excessive withdrawal from streams, lakes, and ponds. Mining within this subregion, and the Bristol Bay region in general, could take place in the form of placer, lode, strip mining (coal), and sand and gravel extraction. Following is a discussion of the generic impacts associated with each of these. 5-2 RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONFLICTS { Potential Development Areas (IIIIL) Minera terrane i fe] ‘ CILLL Land settlement a | ——— Oil and gas province (highest regional potential) o f <== Transmission corridor | @S<28 ‘Transportation corridor A Hydroelectric site Environmentally Sensitive Areas Critical and/or important wildlife habitat [EEE] Terrestrial (includes brown bear, moose, caribou, waterfowl, and raptors) Marine (includes marine mammals. waterfawl, and / Alaska Peninsula — Bristol Bay Subregion seabirds) —— Salmon stream - Wetland (may include critical and/or important wildlife habitat) sens CRSA boundary Db CET) Bstuary = = Subregion boundary p @ Barrier island lagoon Rocky island /seacliff Fault (dashed where inferred) Alaska Peninsula — Pacific Subregion Scale 1:1,000,000 50 KILOMETERS: E ee ee (a ee ec ee 0 30 MILES Sources: Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program, Volume 1 — Resource Inventory. 1984. Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 1984. Placer Mining — Placer mining is the method used to remove minerals from existing or past streambeds. These deposits are formed by hydraulic transport from mineralized areas. This type of mining requires the separation of course from fine textured materials, and sluice systems are commonly used. Placer operations may divert sections of an entire stream so that the bed can be worked. This form of mining has the greatest potential to degrade water quality. Possible impacts in- clude increased organic loading, minor mineral element concentrations, acid drainage from tail- ings, increased stream sedimentation, and turbidity (Hall and MacKay, 1983). An Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) study notes that: ‘‘based on experience elsewhere and on Alaska’s own experience with placer mining, it appears doubtful that the state’s water quali- ty standards for turbidity can be met using settling ponds alone as a treatment method on streams and small rivers that cross active mineral areas. Clay-sized particles will not settle out in the majority of ponds as currently designed. It will probably be necessary for operators to... . provide some alternative treatment in addition to settling ponds in order to meet current state water quality re- quirements.’’ (Kolankiewicz, 1982) Settling ponds frozen in winter remain solid through early spring, reducing their ability to set- tle solids during break-up when they are needed most. Ponds constructed in permafrost areas may be subject to uncontrollable thawing and become structurally unsound and prone to failure (Kolankiewicz, 1982). An ADEC report (1982) notes that dissolved oxygen and pH levels below a placer mine sluice were 95 percent lower than above the sluice. Water temperatures below the sluice had increased 14 percent. In addition, suspended solids, turbidity, and settleable solids increased several hundred percent over natural conditions. After passing through a settling pond, dissolved ox- ygen and pH levels continued to decline slightly and temperature continued to increase. Suspend- ed solids decreased markedly, but remained higher than natural levels. Sediment deposits on streambeds may decrease the permeability of gravel that fish use for spawning, promote fungal infection of fish, delay or impair fry emergence, deplete oxygen, and decrease food available to young salmon and freshwater fish. Streams subjected to heavy silta- tion may require 5 to 20 years to replenish their normal population of invertebrates and aquatic plants (Hall and McKay, 1983). An ADF&G report (1983b) provides numerous examples of the detrimental effects of placer mining, instream gravel extraction, and other sources of sedimentation and turbidity on salmon and their habitats. The report notes that in-stream mining adversely affects anadromous fish, their habitats and food sources, and stream water quality. Turbidity, settleable solids, and physical destruction of stream habitat as a result of placer mining can have long-term impacts 5-3 and affect spawning beds far downstream from the mining site. In addition to actual destruc- tion of stream habitat, high levels of sedimentation and turbidity adversely affect overall stream productivity by reducing light available for photosynthesis, and by decreasing insect nymphs and other foods that fish feed on. Sedimentation of spawning beds, and resultant decreases in available oxygen, can cause egg mor- tality of 85 percent when 15 to 20 percent of the intergravel voids are filled with sediment (Bell, 1973). Decreased intergravel oxygen levels due to sedimentation also results in smaller and weaker salmon fry (Silver et al., 1963) and increases the incidence of deformities (Alderice et al., 1958). When sediments were added to areas containing silver salmon eggs, egg to fry sur- vival, which is 10 to 30 percent under normal conditions, was reduced to only 1.16 percent. Sedimentation can also act as a barrier to fry attempting to emerge, thereby further reducing survival rates (Koski, 1972). One study found that a five percent increase in sediments smaller than 0.83 mm in diameter caused a 19 percent decrease in fry emergence (Hall and Lantz, 1969). In 1982 and 1983, researchers compared the productivity of the heavily placer mined Eagle Fork of Birch Creek (northeast of Fairbanks) to the North Fork of the same stream, which remains in a natural condition. Chemical oxygen demand, color, settleable solids, suspended solids, and turbidity were all higher in the Eagle Fork. Algae and invertebrates, both building blocks in the food chain, occurred at few locations in the Eagle Fork. No fish were evident. When fish from the North Fork were placed in the Eagle Fork, gill damage occured within 24 hours. Due to the absence of aquatic life, the fish began to starve (LaPeriere, 1983). Lode Mining — When minerals exist in a concentrated state, or an ore bearing a significant percentage of a mineral is located in a specific area, lode mining is utilized. The two types of lode mining are open pit (strip) and underground (shaft). Although no operations of this type are currently taking place within the region, numerous mineral terranes have the potential for significant deposits (see Volume 1, Map 5). The environmental effects from lode mining vary greatly depending upon the site and type of operation. Exploration involves the use of aircraft which could disturb wildlife along the flight path to support field crews and temporary camps. All-terrain vehicles could be used creating surface impacts. Drilling to acquire mineral samples would vary in impact according to the depth, accessibility, and character of the deposit, and the type of drilling equipment used. Drills transported on skids or pulled by bulldozers could furrow the ground and cause other surface damage. Movement on the snow or by helicopter would cause little, if any, damage. Impacts from development of a mine itself would vary greatly according to the extraction method used. Pit mining would cause complete destruction of surface vegetation and wildlife habitat during the life of the operation. This would disrupt wildlife’s use of the area, as well as subsistence and recreational use. Underground mining does not create the visual impact or sur- face degradation of the other methods, although ground subsidence may occur if proper back- filling does not take place. All forms of lode mining could have major long-term impacts on water quality if operators do not properly dispose of ore tailings. The chemicals used in the 5-4 ore milling process and mined heavy metals could poison waterbodies they enter and damage fish habitat. A hardrock mine would operate for many years and could require a relatively long- term settlement for the many workers typically involved in the mining activities. The greatest potential for lode development in the subregion is for coal in the Chignik Bay area. These coal deposits are estimated at 300 million tons of highly volatile bituminous coal located in impure beds ranging from 0.3 to 1.5 meters thick. An ADEC assessment of water quality problems associated with coal development (Kolankiewicz, 1982) reports that under uncontrolled conditions, the major water quality pro- blems include severe turbidity and sedimentation, acid mine drainage, and high levels of cer- tain inorganic compounds and heavy metals, most notably iron and manganese (Kolankiewicz, 1982). The severity of these problems at any one location depends on a number of interrelated variables, including climate, terrain, hydrology, erodibility of overburden, revegetation poten- tial, and the levels of pyritic sulfur and metals in the coal and overburden. The assessment goes on to note that there is a lack of data necessary to determine the potential for pollution from mines, and a lack of knowledge regarding the physical, chemical, and biological processes that may cause unanticipated or under-estimated mining-induced pollution. This limits attempts to specifically determine potential water quality problems from mining. While specific coal impacts cannot be accurately assessed, several general impacts are well documented, If surface mining occurs, vegetation will be removed from large areas, and massive amounts of earth, rock, and coal will be moved. Unless developers diligently use proper safeguards, serious erosion and sedimentation will occur. Erosion, perhaps sewage problems, and loss of habitats may also occur as a result of related human activities and settlement (Kolankiewicz, 1982). The most severe problem with coal mines is the creation of sulfuric acid from the oxidation of pyrite or iron disulfide contained along with coal deposits. Acid drainage from surface and underground coal mining has destroyed thousands of miles of streams in Appalachia. ADEC reports that the low pyritic sulfur levels of coal from Alaska’s major coal fields has led to the claim that acid mine drainage will not be a threat to water quality. However, pyrite in overburden and soil, not just the coal itself, will also cause acid drainage. Most, but not all, experts con- sulted by ADEC, believe pyritic levels in coal to be a reliable indicator of pyritic levels in over- burden (Kolankiewicz, 1982). Sand and Gravel — The previously mentioned mining activities will, with possible exception of placer mining, not take place in the foreseeable future. A mining activity of immediate con- cern, though, is the extraction of sand and gravel. Many of the region’s villages are situated in lowland areas that have few upland sources of gravel. Thus, in order to obtain gravel for con- struction projects, many villages must resort to dredging in or along the region’s rivers. ADNR and BLM allow sand and gravel extraction on the land they manage, including streambeds. ADNR guidelines require levees, berms, and/or settling ponds, and rehabilitation 5-5 measures to minimize sedimentation of fish habitat. BLM land managers also require preventive measures to minimize degradation of streams during sand and gravel extraction. There are a number of potential impacts from sand and gravel extraction in streams. The physical loss of gravel bars could displace existing sport and subsistence resource users. Sand and gravel extraction from streams can destroy spawning beds and increase siltation and tur- bidity, which could smother fish eggs and reduce the stream’s productivity. Also, gravel removal in active floodplains can create areas of ponded water which are isolated from the active channel. These areas can be inundated at high water and isolated as the water level drops. Fish can be trapped in these ponds and die (Woodward Clyde, 1980). Land ownership and its management within the region will dictate, for the most part, the loca- tion of future mining activities. All federal conservation system units (national parks, monuments, preserves, and refuges) are closed to new mineral entry, although valid existing rights remain. State lands are open to mineral entry except for the Wood-Tikchik State Park. Lands under private (primarily Native) ownership are also open to mineral entry. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS Should commercially developable quantities of oil or gas be found on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula or in the Bering Sea, the shallow, stormy, and in winter, icy waters of Bristol Bay could make it most practical to transport oil or gas across the Alaska Peninsula to an ice- free, deep-water port on the Pacific Ocean. Map 3 portrays the transportation corridors that, from preliminary physical assessments, have been determined to be the most practical routes across the Alaska Peninsula. Because nearly the entire Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula is in federal conservation system units, the actual construction of a trans-peninsula pipeline is sub- ject to the provisions of Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Four potential transportation routes across the Alaska Peninsula are: King Salmon to Paule Bay; Egegik to Portage Bay; Pilot Point to Wide Bay; and Port Heiden to Kujulik or Aniakchak Bays. The potential environmental problems resulting from the development of these corridors include crossing salmon streams, bear habitat, caribou range, moose grazing areas, and bird habitat. Road or pipeline construction would involve air, ground, and sea support. To the ex- tent that these activities occur when fish, birds, and animals are in the area, they would be disrup- tive and detrimental to the species involved. A number of possible impacts to large land mammals from the development of a corridor could occur. Bears would quit using some areas, including critical spring feeding areas, at least dur- ing the construction period. Although it has been shown that moose are highly tolerant of distur- bance, the construction of a pipeline would destroy some habitat. Also, a project on the scale of a pipeline would increase the amount of hunting pressure on the dwindling numbers of moose. Caribou would also be displaced during construction and the physical presence of a pipeline and road corridor could alter migration movements (BBCMP EIS, 1984). 5-6 If the pipeline were buried or designed to allow caribou and other animals to pass freely, it probably would have relatively minor impacts. Caribou could show fear to an exposed pipe- line, however, disrupting migration to prime calving grounds. If suitable replacement sites are not found, loss of critical habitats could be a limiting factor for overall herd size (USDI, 1984a). Results of a two-year study of the response of caribou to a road and pipeline in the Kuparuk River oil field showed that 91 percent of the observed caribou showed no response to the road and pipeline when there was not traffic. Forty-seven percent of the animals, however, hada “*severe reaction’’ to traffic. Based on these findings, analysts recommend that roads paralleling pipelines be located at least one-half mile from the pipeline, and wherever possible, pipelines should be buried (Alaska Biological Research, 1982). Both waterfowl and seabird habitat and populations would be affected by construction of a transportation corridor. The lowlands on the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska Peninsula provide critical and important habitat for waterfowl. On the Pacific side, large colonies of seabirds exist at Portage, Puale, and Wide Bays (see Volume 1, Map 7), all of which are proposed end points for potential corridors. The impacts to these populations would be moderate, although major impacts could take place in localized areas (BBCMP EIS, 1984). Salmon and freshwater fish (e.g., trout, Dolly Varden, and grayling) could be harmed by construction activities which lower water quality through siltation, turbidity, introduction of toxic substances, lowered dissolved oxygen, and by removal of streambed gravel. Oil spills, particularly a large one brought on by a severe earthquake, could cause damage in the affected part of a drainage or saltwater body. The importance of this last point cannot be overstated. The entire Pacific side of the Alaska Peninsula is seismically active as is evidenced by the numerous faults and volcanoes in the area (see Map 2). Offshore from the subregion is an area referred to as the Shumagin Gap, which has been described as a likely candidate for a major earthquake within the next few decades. Such an earthquake could cause severe ground motion and local tsunamis reaching up to thir- ty meters in height (Davies and Jacob, 1980). RECREATION Due to the presence of the numerous conservation system units in the subregion, recreational use can be expected to increase. This could result in more sport hunting and fishing pressure; increased sport hunting in particular could undermine local residents’ ability to meet subsistence needs. The development of access to conservation system units — Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve in particular — could also have possible impacts in the future by attracting more users. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY The U.S. Corps of Engineers is currently evaluating a potential hydroelectric site near the village of Chignik. The site, located on Indian Creek, was previously dammed by the local cannery in order to generate electric power and provide water. The project as proposed would entail building a 24-foot high wooden dam in place of the existing dam. Water would be conveyed through a 34 inch penstock to the powerhouse near Chignik and would generate 1,100 kilowatts of power. The project’s initial cost in 1983 dollars is $6,675,000. The environmental conse- quences of the project appear to be negligible. A very small pink salmon population (50 to 1,100 fish) inhabit Indian Creek. Approximately two acres of alder scrub would be lost with the in- creased level of the impoundment (U.S. Corp of Engineers, 1984). Another alternative energy source that may have potential application in the subregion is geothermal energy. Although site-specific data is limited, the volcanic activity that occurs throughout the subregion illustrates generally its geothermal potential. Map 5 in hcscas 1 por- trays documented sites with geothermal potential. Geothermal resources can be utilized in two ways: for the production of electricity and through direct utilization in industry, space conditioning, agriculture, and aquaculture. Generally, elec- tricity is produced from geothermal resources by bringing the steam to the surface through wells and using it to drive steam turbines. Direct utilization of geothermal resources provides both a more efficient use (80 percent to 15 percent) than electrical generation, and also a greater number of potential resource sites (Alaska Division of Energy and Power Development, 1980). Although little site-specific data exists, the prospects for the utilization of geothermal resources on the Alaska Peninsula appear to be excellent. Energy intensive activities that are proposed for this area in the future will no doubt assess the viability of this energy source. Alaska Peninsula — Bristol Bay Subregion Like their counterparts in the Pacific subregion, the residents on the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska Peninsula depend primarily upon commercial fishing and subsistence activities. Millions of salmon spawn in the area’s rivers, lakes, and streams and large salmon fisheries have developed around Egegik and Ugashik Bays. The North Peninsula caribou herd roams throughout the subregion as do moose and brown bear. In addition, millions of waterfowl and shorebirds stage and feed in the area’s productive estuaries, bays, and coastal lowlands. The subregion holds the distinction of having the highest potential for oil and gas deposits in the region. An oil and gas basin of moderate potential (based on a state-wide rating) underlies much of the subregion. Most of the land is owned by the state or by Native corporations; in- land from these holdings are federal lands designated as national wildlife refuges (Becharof and Alaska Peninsula) and monument/preserve (Aniakchak). State and Native lands are open to oil and gas exploration and development, as are national wildlife refuges where the activity is 5-8 compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. Besides oil and gas exploration and development, activities that may affect the subregion in- clude the construction of transportation facilities and transmission lines and increased recrea- tional use. Map 3 shows these potential developmental activities and the areas where they may conflict with fish and wildlife use areas. OIL AND GAS The exploration and possible development of the Bristol Bay subregion’s oil and gas resources is of major concern to all of the Bristol Bay region’s residents. These oil and gas activities could take place both onshore and offshore. Onshore, the State has already conducted one of two lease sales on the Alaska Peninsula: sale 41, in the northern portion of the Peninsula, was held in September, 1984; and sale 56, south of this area, is scheduled for September, 1988. Offshore, the federal government has placed four outer continental shelf (OCS) lease sales on the current Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program (mid-1987 to mid-1992) that could affect the region: St. George Basin sale 101 (February, 1990); North Aleutian Basin sale 117 (May, 1990); Gulf of Alaska/Cook Inlet sale 114 (September, 1990); and Shumagin sale 129 (January, 1992). The previous 5-year OCS Leasing Program also included lease sales in these four planning areas. Due to lack of industry interest, however, all of these lease sales were cancelled except North Aleutian Basin sale 92 which is presently in litigation. All of these OCS lease sales are referred to as areawide sales that offer entire planning areas for leasing. The State of Alaska has deferred offshore leasing in state waters (mean higher high water to three nautical miles) on the Bristol Bay side of the Alaska Peninsula until at least 1994 under the provisions of the Bristol Bay Area Plan (1984). There are a number of steps, spanning a decade in most cases, that must take place before oil and gas resources can be produced. Prior to leasing, seismic testing takes place to provide more information on the characteristics of the geologic structures. Once areas have been leased, oil companies continue their exploration efforts. This may include seismic tests and drilling ex- ploratory wells to determine if recoverable amounts of oil and gas exist. If the wells do not pro- duce significant finds, which has been the case thus far on the Alaska Peninsula, the well is plugged and abandoned (see Volume 1, Map 5). If acompany finds promising quantities of oil, it will drill additional wells to determine if the site contains sufficient oil for commercial development. OCS exploration would require onshore support bases (probably Dutch Harbor and Cold Bay), offshore seismic testing, and exploratory wells. Upland exploration also involves seismic testing and the drilling of exploratory wells but few new facilities would be required. Some bush airstrips may be built to reach exploratory wells. Probably fewer than 50 people will be involved in ex- ploratory activity (BBCMP EIS, 1984). If acompany discovers oil in economically recoverable amounts, it will initiate a development phase which will include drilling permanent wells as well as building roads, service bases, an 5-9 oil terminal, port, pipeline, airstrips, treatment facilities, housing facilities, and perhaps a refinery, liquified natural gas (LNG) plant, or petrochemical plant. This development phase requires the most employees and activity. Once facilities are built and production begins, ac- tivity decreases. Production could last 20 years or more, but employees would consist mainly of a couple of hundred trained technicians who operate the facilities. The potential impacts to resources from oil and gas exploration and development will vary depending upon the location. Following are descriptions of the proposed onshore and offshore lease sales listed previously, the fish and wildlife resources existing in the area, and the impacts that may potentially affect them. Onshore — The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) held oil and gas lease sale 41 on state owned uplands between the Kvichak River and Port Heiden in September of 1984. Most of the sale area falls within the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve, which prohibits surface entry for oil and gas in all state-owned submerged lands and shorelands without legislative authoriza- tion. The upland areas between the Naknek River and Port Heiden encompass five lakes and 14 streams and rivers with approximately 700 river miles used by salmon. The Naknek, King Salmon, Egegik, Ugashik, Dog Salmon and Cinder River systems are critical? salmon habitat (BBCMP EIS, 1984). The lease sale area contains a large portion of the northern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd’s range. This herd, which consists of approximately 17,000 caribou, ranges from Naknek to Port Moller. They winter between the Naknek and Egegik rivers. In early spring, the caribou begin to migrate south to their calving grounds in the vicinity of the Cinder River and Port Heiden. The northern portion of the calving ground is within the lease sale boundary. Caribou must be able to range freely to reach critical wintering and calving areas. The ADF&G is concerned that new road access could result in hunters killing many animals. Restricting hunting within several miles of access roads could alleviate this potential problem (Governor’s Agency Advisory Com- mittee on Leasing, 1983). The ADF&G has identified 360,000 acres of the lease sale area between Port Heiden and Ugashik Bay as critical winter habitat for about 1,200 to 1,500 moose. Most of these moose roam along the King Salmon Creek drainage and in the area from Ugashik and Mother Goose Lake westward to Cinder River. The ADF&G also identified an area along the King Salmon River and a tributary of the Naknek River as critical winter moose habitat. Moose have proven to be relatively insensitive to noise and development, and development activity will probably have little effect on them unless critical habitats are destroyed or degraded. Approximately 300 to 500 brown bear inhabit the lease sale area. ADF&G has located dens 3 The Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP) uses the term ‘‘essential” in lieu of ‘‘critical’’ for these designated habitats. In order to be consistent with this coastal management program’s resource inventory maps (Volume 1), this management plan uses the term ‘“‘critical’’ which is considered synonymous with the term ‘“‘essential’’ in the BBAP. 5-10 within the area south of Ugashik Bay and around Naknek Lake. Denning habitat is important, but due to an abundance of suitable denning areas, loss of some sites probably would not limit bear populations. Spring feeding areas, however, constitute critical brown bear habitat. Dur- ing the spring and fall, the coastal grass flats south of Egegik Bay, around the mouth of the Cinder River, and south from Cinder River to the southern sale boundary are heavily used by bears. These areas provide a vital spring food source when little else is available. When salmon enter the streams, bears congregate around several river systems including King Salmon Creek, King Salmon River, Cinder River, a tributary of the Naknek River, two tributaries of the Egegik River, and numerous drainages east of Upper and Lower Ugashik Lakes. Bears would primarily be affected by oil and gas development if their travel patterns to and from their denning and feeding areas were disrupted. Also, human/bear conflicts would increase, resulting in unnecessary destruction of bears. Winter exploration or development would have little affect upon bears unless it occurred near denning areas. In this case, persistent noise could cause the adult to abandon her cubs. Loss of some areas to permanent development could reduce local bear populations (BBCMP EIS, 1984). Each spring, this area supports huge flocks of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Millions of birds congregate at Egegik Bay, Ugashik Bay, and near the mouth of Cinder River. Other than a few species that overwinter in Bristol Bay, most waterfowl are gone by mid-October. The most prevalent nesting species throughout the Bristol Bay lowlands is the white-fronted goose numbering an estimated 4,000 pairs. Approximately 50 pair of whistling swan overwinter along Mother Goose Lake. These mating birds are particularly vulnerable to disturbance. The coastal areas around Egegik Bay, Ugashik Bay, and Cinder River are also important staging areas for the sandhill crane. In 1979, an estimated 5,200 cranes were nesting in the area. Nesting areas include the coast north of Egegik, and an area located in the coastal lowlands between Egegik and Ugashik bays. Many of these important waterfowl habitats are within legislatively designated state critical habitat areas. In addition to waterfowl, as many as 35 species of shorebirds and 19 species of raptors occur within the sale area. The ADNR has also scheduled lease sale 56 for September 1988 for the area from sale 41 south to Izembek Lagoon. Detailed assessments of this lease sale have yet to take place. Generally, though, the fish and wildlife resources that inhabit this area are the same as those in sale 41, and the impacts to them would be comparable. It should be mentioned that both the state and federal governments require that lease holders conform to numerous stipulations and guidelines. In recent years the oil and gas industry, while adhering to these lease stipulations, has had a good track record of avoiding environmental damage. The following describes some of the documented effects of oil and gas activities on fish and wildlife habitats and populations. The effect onshore oil and gas development has on wildlife would depend upon the extent 5-11 of habitat loss or degradation, the adaptability of wildlife, and the degree to which activities such as airplane and helicopter traffic, pipeline monitoring, maintenance, and other noise would affect habitat use and migration patterns. Onshore oil field development would probably involve blasting, clearing, grading, gravel ex- traction, and filling which could disrupt fish and wildlife or damage habitat and interfere with subsistence and recreational activities. If roads are improperly built near streams, stream bank erosion and sedimentation could occur. Sediment in streams could harm the fish and other aquatic life living within the waterbodies. Sediment can smother fish eggs and reduce juvenile survival. Turbidity decreases the amount of light entering the water, thereby altering the stream’s ecosystem. If runoff contains toxic substances, fish, and other wildlife, as well as aquatic vegeta- tion could be damaged or killed. Likewise, inadequate disposal of drilling wastes could con- taminate drainages. In addition, building roads and pipelines across streams could cause removal of important streamside vegetative buffers thereby resulting in erosion, increased water temperature, and reduction of aquatic food production. Production wells bring to the surface formation waters in addition to oil and gas. The discharge of these formation waters, which can release up to 50 parts per million (ppm) of oil as droplets or 35 ppm as dissolved hydrocarbons, could cause harm to fish and wildlife. Marine discharge of drilling muds can be toxic to fish and marine invertebrates in the immediate area (Dames and Moore, 1978), but is not likely to cause significant impacts. During onshore drilling, forma- tion waters may be reinjected into the ground, while drilling muds can be contained through bermed reserve pits (Governor’s Agency Advisory Committee on Leasing, 1983). Offshore — The federal government’s OCS lease sale schedule, as was previously mentioned, contains three lease sales that could potentially affect the resources of Bristol Bay. While only exploratory wells will determine whether an area contains oil or gas reserves, the region’s waters are known to support a rich diversity of marine organisms. The red salmon fishing alone was worth almost 150 million ex-vessel dollars in 1983; it also supports the subsistence lifestyle led by the great majority of the region’s residents (Bristol Bay CRSA Resource Inventory, 1984). The salmon also provide a major food source (eggs, smolt, and carcasses) for freshwater fish, bears, and eagles. Oil and gas related activities and impacts which could harm fish and wildlife include oil pollution, improper disposal of drilling mud and cuttings, noise and disturbance, dredging and fillings, gravel mining, gravel islands, shoreline alteration, release of formation and cooling water, water withdrawl, related development, toxic waste disposal, and air pollu- tion (Starr et al., 1981). Helicopter traffic, seismic blasting, and other noise could disturb birds and wildlife. Seabirds are known to knock their eggs and young from the nest as they flee noise and the nest may be attacked by predators in the adult’s absence. A strong or persistent disturbance can cause bears to abandon newly born cubs during or immediately following denning (Starr et al., 1981). The physical presence of drilling platforms, along with the increased boat traffic needed to ser- vice them, could interfere with commercial fishing in the area. Subsea pipelines can snag bottom- 5-12 trawling gear if proper design measures are not incorporated. The disposal of formation waters and drilling muds from OCS drilling activities provide a poten- tial source of water pollution. Generally, these discharges are intermittent and of short dura- tion. Habitat loss of the bottom area from drill cuttings and mud could take place. Given the huge area contained in these lease offerings (approximately 180 million acres) and the strong wave and current action, the impacts from the disposal of formation water and drilling mud should be insignificant (USDI, 1984b). Significant impacts may occur if development is con- centrated in relatively small areas. A significant concern with regard to OCS operations is the potential for a major oil spill. The severe climate conditions (sea ice, tides, waves) which exist in all three of these lease sale areas and their remote locations, have led to these concerns. Although large oil spills rarely occur, one that could not be contained may have disastrous environmental effects. Oil spill projections are based upon the assumption that future spill frequencies can be ex- trapolated from past OCS experience. The greatest probability of an oil spill, for both small (1,000 barrels) and large (10,000 barrels), is from the transporation of oil, rather than the pro- duction platform itself. For the North Aleutian Basin sale 92 (assumed to produce 383 million barrels over the life of the field) it has been estimated that there is a 35 percent greater chance that both small and large spills will come from transportation rather than production. For the more remote St. George Basin sale 89 (assumed production 660 million barrels), this increases to a 54 percent greater chance for a spill from transporation (USDI, 1984b). Contamination from a spill on tide and submerged lands, where oil is retained as small droplets or as dissolved hydrocarbons, would require a long time to degrade because of the region’s cold water. The potential damage from upland spills is less, as containment and cleanup of spills is logistically much easier. Problems will occur, though, if a spill enters a waterway, in which case pollutants could then disperse through inland waterbodies to the coastal areas. Fish in these drainages would be particularly vulnerable at spawning and at hatching time. A large oil spill into Bristol Bay or inland waters could be disastrous for salmon and other wildlife. Each year, the Bristol Bay migration route along the Alaska Peninsula hosts up to 60 million returning adult salmon and 650 million outgoing juvenile salmon. Oil pollution on the migration route could block or delay migration and kill outgoing juveniles. An oil spill could also damage the plankton that salmon smolt feed upon, which would affect salmon size and survival rate (BBCMP EIS, 1984). Studies of the life history stages of Pacific salmon (eggs, alevin, fry, smolt, juvenile, and adult) show that emerging fry are the most sensitive to any pollution. Young red and silver salmon died within hours after exposure to an oil slick in a holding tank (Morrow, 1973). Pink salmon died when exposed to oil concentrations as low as 1.41 ppm. Salmon feeding and reproduction is disrupted by soluble aromatic hydrocarbon derivatives in concentrations as low as 10 to 100 parts per billion (ppb). 5-13 The ability of salmon fry and other fish to avoid oil contaminated areas is unclear. While young pink salmon were able to detect and avoid oil concentrations as low as 1.6 mg of oil per liter, trout and Atlantic salmon failed to avoid lethal crude oil components (Starr et al., 1981). Eggs and larvae of bottomfish and shellfish are also susceptible to oil pollution. Cod and pollock eggs collected in the vicinity of a major spill (the Argo Merchant) were either dead (46 percent) or contained grossly malformed embryos (18 percent). Exposure to crude oil levels of 1.2 ppm for 48 hours reduced shellfish molting success to zero. Failure to molt usually results in death (Starr et al., 1981). Herring spawn year to year in the shallow areas along the region’s coast, most notably in Togiak Bay (see Volume 1, Map 7). Because large numbers of herring are congregated in shallow water during the spawning period, they are extremely vulnerable to changes in water chemistry. Ac- tivities that could be detrimental to spawning success include alteration of the composition of the substrate, decreases in water quality, or changes in the composition of aquatic vegetation in spawning areas. Herring larvae have been killed by a 96 hour exposure to 3 ppm of the water soluble portion of crude oil (Rice et al., 1976). If herring spawning grounds are altered to the extent that reproductive success is lowered, then population levels would likely decrease (ADF&G, 1983a). The effects of oil on shellfish vary depending upon life stage. Larvae are affected by oil slicks and water soluble fractions of oil. Due to the large volumes of water absorbed during molting, crab and shrimp would be especially vulnerable to water soluble hydrocarbons. Sinking oil can affect shellfish directly through toxic effects, by killing food organisms, or by interfering with the chemical signals crab and shrimp use to locate mates and food organisms (ADF&G, 1977). In addition to possibly killing marine life, oil can taint fish and shellfish rendering them inedible. Accumulation of aromatic hydrocarbons in crab, clams, scallops, shrimp, or fish would not only damage the creature, but possibly harm humans who eat it. Shellfish fisheries have been closed for periods of two to four years due to possible health hazards associated with oil con- tamination (Starr et al., 1981). Based upon available marine mammal research, oil pollution in haul-out and breeding areas could produce significant localized impacts. Direct mortality may occur to sea otters, fur seals, and newly born seal pups from oiling due to the loss of the fur’s insulating properties. Sea ot- ters are particularly vulnerable. During periods when marine mammals are undergoing natural stress — molting, times of fasting, food scarcity, and disease infestations — the potential of death due to oiling increases (USDI, 1984b). Gray and beluga whales are the two species of cetaceans in Bristol Bay that could be affected by oil development. Gray whales, which are considered an endangered species, have been known to be adversely affected by constant ship traffic. Spilled oil may adversely affect the skin of the whale, along with fouling the hair-like fringes of the baleen. This filter feeding cetacean could be affected by an oil spill’s impact on the microscopic plant and animal life that they feed upon 5-14 (USDI, 1984b). Beluga whales, which feed on relatively large, individual prey (e.g., salmon) would probably not ingest great amounts of oil (Starr et al., 1981). Oil spills could seriously harm birds, especially diving ducks and seabirds which are the most sensitive of all wildlife to oil pollution. Oil coating their down can cause hypothermia, shock, drowning, starvation, and vulnerability to predators. Other birds which land on the sea are also susceptible to oil pollution. In 1970, as many as 100,000 seabirds died after being fouled by an oil spill off Kodiak Island. That same year, at least 10,000 Cook Inlet birds were killed by oil apparently pumped from a tanker’s ballast tanks (Starr et al., 1981). Waterfowl, seabirds, and shorebirds are most vulnerable during spring and fall migrations and during the molting period when large flocks gather along the north side of the peninsula. The bays, lagoons, and estuaries along the Bristol Bay coast, including Nushagak, Kvichak, Egegik, and Ugashik bays, Seal Island lagoon, Port Heiden, and the Naknek and Cinder river estuaries provide critical staging and feeding areas for huge flocks of waterfowl and shorebirds. Lowland ponds and the first waterbodies to open in the spring are also critical for some birds. Birds con- gregated at these areas are extremely susceptible to oil pollution and disruption, or to a reduc- tion of available food. For example, shorebirds could be harmed if oil contaminates the inter- tidal foods they depend upon (e.g., bivalves) (Starr et al., 1981). In addition to the predominant fish, marine mammal, and bird species, oil pollution could af- fect other sealife critical to the marine food-web. Mammals, birds, or fish of commercial or sub- sistence value that depend on them would suffer accordingly. The resource inventory for this program defines and maps the coastal habitats that are sensitive to oil pollution (see Volume 1, Map 6). Sheltered wetlands and tideflats are important water- fowl and shorebird nesting, molting, and rearing areas. Eelgrass and kelpbeds are some of the most productive nearshore habitats; they serve as nursery areas for fish, particularly herring, and crab, as well as foraging areas for waterfowl. Rocky islands and seacliffs are important habitat for seabirds. Rivers, lakes and streams are important rearing, spawning, and migration routes for five species of salmon. They fuel the commercial and recreational industries of Bristol Bay and the subsistence lifestyle that the great majority of the region’s residents pursue. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS As can be seen from Map 3, the four potential transportation corridors that were described in the analysis of the Pacific subregion could also impact the Bristol Bay subregion. Of primary concern in this subregion are fish and caribou populations and habitat. Each of the potential corridors would cross major fish-bearing streams. Also, caribou migra- tion routes and calving areas that support one of Alaska’s 13 major herds occur throughout the subregion. Construction of a corridor in either of these areas should be designed and constructed so as to minimize impacts to the resources. 5-15 For further discussion on the potential impacts from construction of a transportation corridor across the Alaska Peninsula, see the transporation section of the Pacific subregion. TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS Currently under consideration by the Alaska Power Authority is a hydroelectric project on the Newhalen River. This project would supply electricity to 18 villages in the Bristol Bay region, including Egegik on the Alaska Peninsula. Should this project take place, noise and activities associated with construction of transmission lines could disrupt the large flocks of waterfowl which seasonally congregate there. Once built, it is also possible that birds would strike the powerline and die. Map 3 portrays the general location of this transmission line. RECREATION The abundant fish and wildlife resources of the Bristol Bay subregion provide excellent recrea- tional opportunities for local residents, as well as for visitors from around the state, nation, and world. Although fishermen and hunters have been the traditional recreational users in the area, it is expected that future growth will see a diversification into rafting, camping, and wildlife photography. Salmon, Arctic char, grayling, and trout provide exciting opportunities for anglers. Sport hunt- ing for caribou, moose, brown bear, and waterfowl also takes place. With the exception of the local users, sport fishermen and hunters frequently use professional guide services. Approx- imately 30 guides operate in the subregion, with the Ugashik area receiving the greatest inten- sity of use. With the exception of air taxi operators in Naknek and King Salmon, the vast ma- jority of the expenditures (i.e., salaries, supplies and fuel) for these recreational activities leave the subregion (Impact Assessment Inc., 1984). Recreational demand for fish and wildlife resources is anticipated to increase in the future. In particular, the building of airstrips during the exploration phase of oil and gas development could increase accessibility. This increase in the recreational use of resources should be close- ly watched by those involved in the allocation of resources so conflicts between recreational and subsistence users can be avoided. Tliamna Lake Subregion Some of the most productive fisheries habitat in the world exists in the Iliamna Lake subregion. The largest run of red salmon in the world takes place here, along with a rainbow trout resource that is unsurpassed anywhere. Wildlife that inhabit the subregion include moose, brown bear, and caribou. The Aleutian Mountain Range provides a spectacular backdrop for much of the area which, along with the excellent fish and wildlife resources, creates a recreational paradise. The subregion has few jobs, with government and commercial fishing providing the only 5-16 opportunities for cash income. Subsistence is actively pursued by all of the village residents and thus, the extensive fish and wildlife of the area take on added importance in this economically depressed area. Future activities that may impact the subregion are hydroelectric development, land settlement, increased recreational use, and mining. Map 4 illustrates the areas where these activities may come in conflict with fish and wildlife habitat. HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT Electricity in the Bristol Bay region is currently provided by village-scale diesel generation. These systems are well suited to the demands of small isolated villages as they are reliable and require minimal maintenance. The disadvantages, of course, are that they are tied to the ever escalating cost of diesel fuel. An alternative to diesel generation is hydroelectric power. Although initial capital costs are high, this power source could be less expensive when total costs are determined for the life of the facili- ty. With this in mind, the Alaska Power Authority (APA) has been active in assessing the feasibility of a number of sites in the subregion. The most promising is a run-of-the-river project on the Newhalen River. This large scale plant would have an installed capacity of 16 megawatts (MW) and supply energy to 18 villages in the region. The communities to be served would be Nondalton, Newhalen, Iliamna, Igiugig, Levelock, Koliganek, New Stuyahok, Ekwok, Portage Creek, Dillingham, Aleknagik, Manokotak, Clarks Point, Ekuk, Egegik, and the Bristol Bay Borough communities of Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon. The total cost of the project would be $150 million (1982 dollars). Almost 45 percent of this total cost would go for the 424 miles of transmission lines needed to serve the villages. The project could be completed in three and one half years utiliz- ing a labor force of 300 (Nebeskey et al., 1983). The primary environmental concern with the Newhalen project is the possible damage it could inflict upon the salmon passing through the project area. Each year, between 100,000 and 10 million (averaging about 2 million) adult salmon migrate up the Newhalen River and Lake Clark to spawn. An average of about 20 million salmon smolt migrate downriver to the sea each year. The Newhalen River also supports rainbow trout, char, and grayling. Each spring large rain- bows come up from lliamna Lake to spawn in the river’s lower branches. Salmon and freshwater fish would be killed by turbine blades, fast currents, or abrasion. Low water levels could impair spawning, egg incubation, and perhaps impede migration. Maintaining adequate stream flow and using barriers or deflectors to prevent smolt and fry from entering the turbine intakes is important to the maintenance of freshwater fish populations as well as salmon. The APA estimates that if all safeguards are built into the project, and it is operated in amanner to prevent smolt loss, an annual loss of 15,000 adult red salmon would still occur. 5-17 Without these safeguards, the loss of red salmon could be expected to double to approximately 30,000 (BBCMP EIS, 1984). If constructed, the transmission lines would distribute power from the plant to upper Bristol Bay villages (see Maps 3, 4 & 5). These lines would cross as many as 19 salmon streams and the Mulchatna caribou herd’s winter range. To minimize environmental impacts, powerlines could be installed by helicopters and ATV’s. The noise during construction, particularly helicopter traffic, probably would prevent caribou from entering the immediate construction area. Some caribou may not cross the powerline, and fail to reach wintering areas south of the Kvichak River. Biologists do not know the long-term effect of powerlines on caribou, but powerlines probably wouldn’t have substantial impact on the widely ranging herd of 20,000 animals. Improved hunting access provided by the powerline corridor could result in the demise of an additional 300 to 400 caribou each year. The growing herd, however, probably would be able to withstand this pressure (BBCMP EIS, 1984). Nebesky et al. (1983) also assessed the impact the construction of this facility would have on the socioeconomic environment of the region. As was previously mentioned, 300 workers would be employed at one time on the three and one-half year project. Approximately 22 percent of the construction employees would reside year-round in the Iliamna and Newhalen area; one half of these (33 workers) would be new residents and the remainder would be existing unemployed or underemployed local workers. Two significant effects could result from the project construction. The first could be a real decline in consumer electricity prices. Energy savings to residents of the 18 villages could be 3.3 million dollars. It is estimated that this extra income would result in increased expenditures in the support and services sector of the regional economy. As many as 113 new jobs could be created by this, with two-thirds of these being filled by existing residents (Nebesky et al., 1983). This optimistic economic forecast is based upon the assumption that the project is constructed for 150 million dollars. The second effect is the impact that this increase in disposable income could have on subsistence activities. Nebeskey et al. (1983) state that, based on trends in other regions in Alaska, greater effort and harvests of big game species (i.e., moose and caribou) could take place as motorized transport comes within economic grasp of more of the subregion’s residents. LAND SETTLEMENT The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) administers the land disposal program for the state. This program provides for the transfer of land from the state to the private sec- tor. Anumber of different types (e.g., subdivision, homesite, remote parcel) of disposal methods are used to implement the program. With much of the state land near the major population centers either already disposed of or appropriated for other uses, the state feels there is need 5-18 TTT Een. . RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES SN . AA Ber AND CONFLICTS ay. ‘3 | ae = Development Areas TA \ \ (\ \ \ \ \\4 ‘b. 0 Mineral 1 terrane w= CRSA boundary Alt ‘i HAN \y fi \\ ¥ CIID Land settlement = = Subregion boundary \ \ i WN } eh Oil and i i i i \ \ i? \ \ 24 —— il and gas province (highest regional potential) Wy ny Xt e ag : AE orem 3 Ct roelectric site = “ANN \ . A way ay \ r OK \\ \ TT Sensitive Areas Ce) \\ \ \ ; \ Critical and/or important wildlife habitat 5 Noe -— a f \ “ AO \\\ \\WR\\\ ea) saias brown bear. moose, caribor A) ct {\\ y C } ; ; ae] ar : mammals, waterfowl, and xe) A 7M f 4 \ — Salmon stream Sf ov i sane a ‘ie ; \\ \ a] a critical and /or important oe oo A AN BS) A KOA \\ Lett CTT) Estuary : 4 © Barrier island /lagoon Rocky island /seacliff Fault (dashed where inferred) Scale 1:1,000,000 a a f\ ane a A A if eae C ‘a ¥\ i 3S Hatin ah an eral 4 nagement Plan and Fit MAP 4 — ILIAMNA LAKE SUBREGION for land for future disposals in Bristol Bay. Current plans call for the state to dispose of approximately 3,000 acres in the Iliamna Lake subregion. Map 4 portrays these proposed disposal areas. Some of the disposals would be 5-acre subdivisions, while others would be 5 to 40-acre homesteads. Table 5-1 depicts the four land disposals that have been proposed for the subregion along with the anticipated population impacts. The table shows that by the year 2002 these disposals will contain a total of 60 households. Of this total, 36 will be new households; only 4 of these will be permanently occupied. These new households are projected to bring with them 108 new residents. Because 80 percent of this new population will be seasonal, and probably own or lease airplanes to reach their parcels, the impacts on the subregion services sector are expected to be negligible. TABLE 5-1 Population Impacts Resulting From Settlement To 2002 Tliamna Lake Subregion Numbers of Households New Populations New Settlement Area Acres Households Established? _ to Regionb&c to Regiond Newhalen River 750 15 8-Seasonal 1- Permanent 27 Chekok Lake 500 10 5-Seasonal 1-Permanent 18 Kokhanok/ 1,000 20 11-Seasonal Moose Lakes® 1-Permanent 36 Big Mountain* 750 15 8-Seasonal 1-Permanent 27 Subregion Total 3,000 60 32-Seasonal 4-Permanent 108 4 Acreage x .3 divided by 15 (average parcel size) b Households Established x .80 = Seasonal Households Households Established x .20 = Permanent Households ¢ Seasonal Households x .66 = New Seasonal Households Seasonal Households x .33 = New Permanent Households d New Households x 3 € Will not be placed on state sale schedule until 1989 (Reconstructed from Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan EIS, 1984) 5-19 Significant impacts could occur as new seasonal and year-round residents, particularly those outside of existing communities, increase the demand for fish and wildlife. Some areas can withstand increased fishing and hunting, but residential development in areas currently used for subsistence or recreation will create conflicts. A small amount of wildlife habitat will be lost to development, while other areas will be affected by increased use. New development near ex- isting communities will also place increase demands on community services, roads, and utilities (see analysis of land settlement for the Nushagak subregion). RECREATION The subregion’s close proximity to Anchorage, when coupled with its vast fish and wildlife resources and unique physical setting, creates an excellent base for the recreation industry. At least twenty lodges are situated within the subregion. The jobs within this industry (i.e., pilots, guides, and outfitters) are almost exclusively held by outsiders, and thus, the subregion derives very little economic benefit from this activity. The large rainbow trout (often in excess of 10 pounds) that ascend the Iliamna Lake tributaries each fall are the primary attraction for anglers. Sport fishermen also catch grayling, char, and salmon. The area’s subsistence fishermen, which include most local residents, concentrate their efforts on the usually abundant red salmon, but they also take whitefish, trout, char, and some grayling. The visiting anglers, who typically pay over $2,700 for a week’s stay at an area lodge, generally return the prized rainbow trout to the water, perhaps to be caught another day. These rainbows, which are largely responsible for the lodges’ income, grow slowly and are few in number compared to red salmon and grayling. The state has recognized the importance of this recreational resource by designating all of the Iliamna Lake watershed below Lake Clark a Wild Trout Management area. Within this area, anglers are restricted to using artificial lures with single hooks and it is closed during the spring spawning season (see Volume 1, Map 3). Increasing demand for the area’s wild rainbow trout may result in conflicts between subsistence and recreational fishermen. To the villagers, the trout can be an important food source; however, it is not necessarily preferred over alternative foods. To the angler who may have traveled thousands of miles, and spent thousands of dollars to catch a trophy trout perhaps unequaled in the rest of the world, the fish takes on great value. Aside from being very special to the fishermen, the trout is worth far more than its food value to the lodge owners and air taxi operators who take in millions of dollars from visiting anglers. Recreational activity will also increase as a result of the subregion’s location in respect to National Park lands. The recently designated Lake Clark National Park and Preserve is located north and east, while Katmai National Park and Preserve is south. The Alagnak (Branch) River, east of Levelock, has been designated wild and scenic by ANILCA. Growth in employment in the recreation industry is expected to increase at a greater rate (7 per- cent annually) than any other sector of the Bristol Bay economy (Nebesky et al., 1983). Due to the Iliamna Lake subregion’s prominence in recreation, it can be expected to incur more of this 5-20 growth than the region as a whole. The results of this increase will be a greater use of fish and wildlife resources by non-residents. Conflicts with traditional users are bound to occur, and could become particularly acute if ‘‘cottage’’ recreational lodges are developed on state disposal land. It is doubtful whether these negative impacts to the subregion’s residents will be mitigated by increased economic benefits or opportunities. MINING Map 4 shows the areas of the subregion that possess mineral potential. Mountainous areas along the eastern half of Iliamna Lake, especially along the south side, have potential for gold, silver, copper, lead, tin, tungsten, iron, and molybdenum deposits. There are several mining claims in the area. These potentially mineralized areas are owned by Native corporations or the state, and extend into both Katmai and Lake Clark National Parks. All national park lands are closed to new mining. These uplands contain vital wildlife habitat. The Pile Bay area has critical and important habitat that moose use year-round. Critical spring brown bear habitat is located near Chitna Bay on the northeast border of the subregion. The Pile River, which contains salmon and freshwater fish, drains part of the mountainous mineralized area north of Iliamna Lake. Access roads and mine development and production could degrade this drainage. Miners could also compete with subsistence users for available fish and wildlife. See the Pacific subregion analysis for more in- formation on mining impacts. Nushagak Subregion The Nushagak subregion contains all of the Wood, Nushagak, and Mulchatna river drainages. These drainages contain some of the world’s most productive salmon habitat. The Mulchat- na caribou herd, estimated at 20,000 animals, roams throughout the northern portion of the subregion. Subsistence is actively pursued by the subregion’s residents, particularly in the up- per Nushagak River villages. Employment within the subregion — approximately one-half of the entire regional total — is dominated by jobs in the support/service (44%), commercial fishing (32%), and government (24%) sectors. Dillingham serves as the regional center for both government and support/services. A number of possible developmental actions may affect the fish and wildlife resources, and the subsistence lifestyle dependent upon them within the subregion. The ADNR is planning on placing approximately 8500 acres of land within the subregion on the state land disposal schedule. Recreational use of fish and wildlife resources is expected to increase steadily in the next two decades. Although little information is available, mineral terranes that might contain recoverable deposits are interspersed throughout the subregion. The Chikuminuk site in Wood-Tikchik State Park is under consideration for hydroelectric development, along with the transmission corridors for the Newhalen River project (see Iliamna Lake subregion). Finally, impacts from existing fish processing facilities are a development concern. Map 5 5-21 shows the area where these activities may conflict with wildlife habitat. LAND SETTLEMENT As was mentioned in the Iliamna Lake subregion analysis, the ADNR administers the state’s land disposal programs, one which transfers land from state to private ownership. The vast ma- jority of the subregion’s residents were adamant in their opposition to any disposals in the area. After extensive negotiations, a compromise was reached on the number and location of disposal areas. In the Nushagak subregion, the state may sell up to 8500 acres from seven disposal areas, and 500 acres in the Half Cabin Lake area. Map 5 shows the location of these lands. The impacts to fish and wildlife resources and habitats that would result from the settlement of these disposal lands are of primary concern to subregion residents. Table 5-2 portrays the proposed disposal areas and the population impact that would result; these figures are estimates based upon experiences in other regions of Alaska. The table shows that by the year 2002, 116 households would be created. Of this total, 70 will be new households, with 8 being permanent residents. These new households are projected to bring with them 210 new residents. Because 88 percent of these would be seasonal residents, the demand for services should not be great. Dillingham will probably experience the greatest impact through increased air taxi operations and retail sales. TABLE 5-2 Population Impacts Resulting From Settlement To 2002 Nushagak Subregion Numbers of Households New Populations New Settlement Acres Households Established> _ to Regionc&d to Region® Sum of all land disposals 60-Seasonal less Half Cabin Lake? 8500 113 8-Permanent 204 Half Cabin Lakef 500 3 2-Seasonal 6 0-Permanent Subregion Total 9,000 116 62-Seasonal 8-Permanent 210 4 Snake Lake, Land Otter Creek, Warehouse Mountain, Wood River/Aleknagik Road, Weary River, Snake River, and Etolin Point b Acreage x .3 divided by 15 (average parcel size) © Households Established x .80 = Seasonal Households Households Established x .20 = Permanent Households d Seasonal Households x .66 = New Seasonal Households Seasonal Households x .33 = New Permanent Households © New Households x 3 f Will not be placed on state sale schedule until 1989. (Reconstructed from Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan EIS, 1984) 5-22 Sources: Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program, Volume | — Resource Inventory. 1984. Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 1984. “= CRSA boundary = = Subregion boundary Scale 1:1,000,000 50 KILOMETERS ° 30 MILES J 14 MAP 5 — NUSHAGAK SUBREGION (Whitefish - Lake ~ RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONFLICTS Potential Development Areas Mineral terrane Land settlement Transportation corridor Transmission corridor rT BE Hydroelectric site Environmentally Sensitive Areas Critical and/or important wildlife habitat waterfowl, and raptors) seabirds) Salmon stream wildlife habitat) 4 Ol U0 l Estuary @ Barrier island /lagoon Rocky island /seacliff ——— Fault (dashed where inferred) Oil and gas province (highest regional potential) Terrestrial (includes brown bear, moose, caribou, Marine (includes marine mammals, waterfowl, and Wetland (may include critical and/or important The attractiveness of these and the Iliamna Lake disposals to potential buyers are the wilderness setting and prodigious numbers of fish and wildlife. The creation of these disposal areas may result in loss of control over the resource base by those who have traditionally used it. The residents settling in the disposal areas will compete with existing traditional users for fish and wildlife resources. In some instances, particularly big game, populations would not be able to sustain the increased harvest (Nebesky et al., 1983). This would result in the promulgation of regulations to decrease harvest in order to protect the resources. This would negatively impact the subsistence economy (ADF&G, 1984). Also questioned, from a land management perspective, is the wisdom of creating new com- munities in remote locations throughout the subregion. Given the cost to the state of providing services to rural Alaska, opening up these areas could result in future financial obligations on the part of the state. RECREATION As with the Iliamna Lake subregion, the Nushagak subregion receives considerable recreational use. The area is popular with anglers, hunters, and river rafters (usually fishing parties). Rain- bow trout fishing on the Agulowak and Agulopak rivers, and king salmon fishing on the Nushagak River are especially popular. Five lodges in the area cater to these recreationists. In- dependent guides and Dillingham based air taxis also benefit from the visitors’ business. Continued recreational use of the area depends upon the maintenance of fish and game popula- tions. Projects and activities which would diminish these resources would hurt the area’s recrea- tional business as well as its subsistence and commercial fishing. Conversely, some development could provide new access, thereby creating more recreational opportunities. Recreational use is not without its problems. Residents in the area complain that trespassing guides take over favored sites as though they owned them. While there are generally enough fish to go around, sport hunters compete with subsistence hunters over moose and, to a lesser ex- tent, caribou. The magnificent scenery and fishing of the Wood-Tikchik area, along with the big game hunt- ing opportunities in the upper Nushagak and Mulchatna Rivers will ensure an increase in recrea- tional use in the Nushagak subregion in the future. The 7 percent annual rate of growth in employment projected for the entire region will hold true for this subregion. The most notable impacts to the subregion as a result of this increase will be to the services sector (stores, bars, hotels, and air taxis) of Dillingham (Impact Assessment Inc., 1984). Financial gain from this increased recreational activity will benefit a relatively small number of local residents. The residents of the villages, who will most likely take the brunt of the negative impacts (increased competition for fish and wildlife), will not benefit noticeably from this in- creased activity. An exception to this may be the Ekwok Natives Limited, who operate their own hunting and fishing lodge. 5-23 MINING As is evident from Map 5, numerous mineral terranes exist throughout the subregion. Current activity is limited to a few small placer operations located in the upper Mulchatna River area. With the exception of those areas located within Wood-Tikchik State Park, which is legislatively closed to mineral entry, all of these mineral areas are on state land and are open to mining activity. Of primary concern in the Nushagak subregion is the maintenance of fish, particularly salmon, habitat. Questions have arisen over whether the state can adequately enforce its water pollu- tion standards for mining in these remote areas. Impacts that may result from mining are dealt with in detail in the Pacific subregion analysis discussion. HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT The proposed dam on the Allen River near the outlet of Chikuminuk Lake would generate 24 MW of power for the Bethel area. The APA has conducted preliminary studies on the en- vironmental and economic feasibility of this project. An initial review of park laws and regula- tions conducted by ADNR, Division of Parks, concluded this project would constitute an in- compatible or prohibited use of the park (Division of Parks, Wood-Tikchik Management Plan — Issues Paper December 1983). The legislature would have to approve the project if it were found to be economically feasible. If the project were built, grayling habitat would be lost, and salmon in the lower reaches of the river could be affected by low water during migration and egg incubation periods. Nitrogen gas produced at the dam could inflict fish down river with gas bubble disease. In addition, important grazing areas for moose would be flooded. Transmis- sion lines would cross the park and perhaps national wildlife refuge land including several rivers popular with river floaters and anglers. The impacts from the influx of construction and materials could be extremely detrimental to the existing upper Nushagak River villages. Map S shows the general location of the transmission lines that would provide power from the Newhalen River hydroelectric project to the subregion’s communities. Primary concerns center on disruption of caribou calving and migration, destruction of moose and salmon habitat, and temporary increases in the human population. COMMERCIAL FISH PROCESSING The scores of canneries and freezing plants in the region process millions of salmon, herring, and other seafood each year. While these processors play an essential role in the region’s economy, there are some concerns with the environmental effects of wastes they dispose of in adjacent marine waters. Processors dispose of large quantities of organic wastes (e.g., blood, entrails, bone, skin, heads, scales, oil, shells, meat, and grease) directly from the plant to marine waters. These wastes are, for the most part, highly biodegradable, but as they degrade they deplete the oxygen in the affected water diminishing its suitability as a habitat for fish and other sealife. Ammonia, which occurs in most of the discharged waste, can also degrade the water in the immediate area. 5-24 If adequate flushing does not occur, foam, surface film, floating debris, and discolored water are evident around the processing plants. Entrails and other wastes fouling water and gear become a nuisance for fishermen. The wastes also attract scavengers, such as gulls. In addition to discharge problems, floating processors, which anchor in prime fishing areas, interfere with commercial fishing. The U.S. Coast Guard has considered designating anchorages out of the fishing mainstream to help alleviate the problem. Togiak Subregion Like the rest of the region, the Togiak subregion contains extensive and diverse fish and wildlife populations. The Togiak River supports one of Bristol Bay’s major commercial salmon fishing districts. All five species of Pacific salmon spawn in the subregion’s rivers. The attractive sport species of silver and king salmon — second in numbers only to those in the Nushagak River — are causing an increase in recreational activity. Although caribou do not occur, brown bear and moose exist throughout the subregion. The offshore areas are teeming with fish, birds, and marine mammals. The cash economy of the subregion is almost exclusively dependent upon commercial salmon fishing. An emerging activity of economic importance is the Togiak herring fishery. Subregion participants are at a disadvantage, though, as their drift gill net vessels are less efficient than the purse seine vessels used mostly by outside interests. The herring fishery is the largest in the state. Togiak’s position as the subregional center has brought with it an increase in government employment. As with most of the Bristol Bay region, the Togiak subregion is highly dependent upon sub- sistence. This is particularly true as the incomes from commercial fishing in the Togiak fishing district are not as high as in other areas of the region. Resources of importance include salmon and marine mammals (walrus, sea lion, and seal), herring, and basketgrass. Extensive inter- village trading occurs between the subregion villages of Togiak, Twin Hills and Manokotak, and the Nushagak subregion village of Aleknagik. With the exception of Native corporation lands, the vast majority of the subregion’s land is con- tained within the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), with almost half of this designated wilderness under ANILCA. Future resource development activities that could impact existing fish and wildlife populations, habitats, and traditional lifestyles include: offshore oil and gas exploration and its possible im- pacts to sensitive coastal habitats; development of mineral resources; increased recreational use; and fish processing. Map 6 illustrates these potential conflict areas. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS The leasing of outer continental shelf (OCS) lands within Bristol Bay has been a controversial 5-25 issue to the residents of the Togiak subregion. Although the OCS waters adjacent to the subregion are currently being evaluated for leasing, it is doubtful, due to the lower oil and gas potential of northern Bristol Bay, that any activity will take place. The concern of the subregion’s residents relates to the possibility of an oil spill originating in another area of Bristol Bay and, because of the counter clockwise circulation of the waters, impacting the sensitive habitats and fish and wildlife populations of the subregion. The salmon and herring that utilize the nearshore environment are of critical importance to the subregion’s cash economy. Herring are susceptible to oil pollution; this is particularly true for the abundant eelgrass and kelp beds that occur throughout the subregion’s waters and provide important spawning habitat. The seabirds and marine mammals that inhabit the rocky shorelines and seacliffs of the area are extremely important subsistence resources. The Bristol Bay subregion analysis goes into greater detail on the impacts of an oil spill. MINING Map 6 portrays the mineral terranes in the subregion. These areas may contain significant deposits of gold, platinum, chromium, and silver. The Togiak NWR is closed to all new min- ing claims. The streambeds of navigable waters are owned by the state and currently open to mining claims. New mining can occur on Native corporation land. These areas with mineral potential contain many salmon spawning streams, along with a critical brown bear denning area north of Togiak Lake. See the Pacific subregion analysis for a more detailed discussion on min- ing impacts. RECREATION Recreation within the Togiak subregion has become increasingly popular in recent years. The salmon and freshwater fish (char, rainbow trout, and grayling) are the primary attraction, along with rivers that provide excellent rafting. The Togiak Lake area, where much of the activity oc- curs, is within easy flying distance of many of the Wood-Tikchik lodges, lending to accessibility. Concern over increased recreational use of the subregion comes from Native landholders and subsistence users. The Togiak River contains a number of Native allotments interspersed along its course. Unknown to many of the river floaters and fishermen, these are private lands; un- fortunately, they have not been respected as such in the past. Also, the lower water course of the river is Native Corporation land owned by the villages of Togiak and Twin Hills. The pro- cess of delineating these private lands and also,educating guides, federal officials, and air taxi operators as to their locations and restrictions should be initiated in order to avoid conflicts be- tween recreational and traditional users. FISH PROCESSING The subregion contains three permanent fish processing facilities; two are located in the village of Togiak and one across Togiak Bay near Twin Hills. The May herring fishery also results in 5-26 RESOURCE OPPORTUNITIES AND CONFLICTS Potential Development Areas = = Subregion boundary (TTT) Mineral terrane (THD) Land settlement —— Oil and gas province (highest regional potential) =~ | === CRSA boundary said (Es Transportation corridor === Transmission corridor Yfascatie, A Hydroelectric site toy Environmentally Sensitive Areas | 4 Critical and/or important wildlife habitat a \ Terrestrial (includes brown bear. moose, caribou, / my waterfowl, and raptors) Hig. X [7] Marine (includes marine mammals, waterfowl, and La seabirds) xe —— Salmon stream 4 Re: Pe r y ‘OBia! (7) wetland (may include critical and/or important | et Lake wildlife habitat) OO Estuary ‘ | | | , \\K H @ Barrier island /lagoon 4 4 | Rocky island /seacliff \ Fault (dashed where inferred) , Togiak | Good | ti ive’ Laeh ws. b ew Fork. Q L Wi R ting 8 § iver 7) uluka ote ° 50 KILOMETERS } Scale 1:1,000,000 i | : . Spires, and designated capes and headlands q a ‘coastal areas and adjacent seas of Alaska. oO 30 © MILES z Hagemeister Island (near Togiak) and é | Chistiakof Island (near Port Heiden) are enttionstane a included in this refuge system, as are ‘numerous coastal and offshore features on the Pacific Ocean side of the Alaska Peninsula. Sources: Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program, Volume 1 — Resource Inventory. 1984, MAP 6 — TOGIAK SUBREGION Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. 1984. scores of herring processors coming into the Bay. While these processors play an important role in the economic health of the subregion, there are concerns about the negative impact of their activities (see Chapter 8, the Togiak fishing grounds, for more discussion of this subject). These processors dispose of large volumes of organic waste. Although the wastes are biodegradable, they deplete the oxygen content of the affected water which diminishes its suitability as habitat for fish. If adequate flushing does not occur, foam, surface film, floating debris, and discolored water are evident around plants. Entrails and other wastes can foul gear and become a nuisance to fishermen. As with all activities in the region, it is important that all processing operations adhere to water pollution standards. 5-27 icieS ict Pol Distr CHAPTER 6 District Policies Introduction This chapter contains the policies which will guide land and water use affecting the coastal resources of Bristol Bay. Since the BBCMP has been approved by the Coastal Policy Council and the Federal Department of Commerce, the policies are incorporated into the Alaska Coastal Management Program and assume the status of law. The policies are the result of the planning process carried out by the Bristol Bay CRSA Board. The initial step in this process was to inventory the physical, biological, and cultural resources of the region. These resources were then analyzed with respect to the potential actions that may affect them (Chapter 5). The goals and objectives of the program (Chapter 4) were developed in order to express the direction that Bristol Bay residents believe land and water management should take. The policies contained in this chapter reflect a melding of the goals and objectives with the resource analysis to arrive at the specific guidance required to accomplish the goals of the program. For the most part, the program has taken the approach of specifying performance standards for proposed uses. There are two reasons for this. First, the exact pattern of future land use is highly speculative. Although general areas possessing development potential have been delineated, the timing and location of specific projects has yet to be determined. However, an important resource such as fish habitat can be identified, and minimum standards developed to protect it. Second, by setting minimum performance standards, a potential user is left with the flexibility to incorporate specific design features and technological advances that allow the operation to meet the standards. Specific land allocations for the Bristol Bay region are contained in the Department of Natural Resource’s Bristol Bay Area Plan (1984). Serious consideration was given to incorporating these allocations into the Coastal Management Program. Although this is deemed unnecessary at pre- sent, the CRSA Board reserves the right to do so in the future. It should be mentioned that the Board played a significant role in the development of the Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP) and believes this role must be maintained during any modification or amendment to the BBAP. Subject Uses Regulated land and water uses and activities occurring on state and private lands which directly affect the Bristol Bay CRSA coastal area are subject to the policies contained in this program. 6-1 Additionally, although federal lands are excluded from the coastal area, uses and activities oc- curring on federal land which directly affect state coastal resources are subject to this program. Subject uses also include ‘‘uses of state or national concern’’, defined as those land and water uses which would significantly affect the long-term public interest. These include: ¢ uses of national interest, such as the use of resources for the siting of ports and major facilities which contribute to meeting national energy needs, construction and maintenance of navigational facilities and systems, resource development of federal land, and national defense and related security facilities that are dependent upon coastal locations; © uses of more than local concern, such as land and water uses which confer significant environmental, social, cultural, or economic benefits or burdens beyond a single coastal resource district; © maintenance and use of fishery resources; ¢ exploration for oil and gas resources, siting of major energy facilities, activities pursuant to a state oil and gas lease, or large-scale industrial or commercial development activities which are dependent on a coastal location and which, because of their magnitude or the magnitude of their effect on the economy of the state or the surrounding area, are reasonably likely to present issues of more than local significance; © facilities serving statewide or interregional transportation and communication needs; and © uses in areas established as state parks or recreational areas under AS 41.20 or as state game refuges, game sanctuaries, or critical habitat areas under AS 16.20. Examples of uses and activities which are covered by the program include, but are not limited to, the following: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT AND SETTLEMENT Residential, commercial, industrial development Dredging, filling, and the placement of structures in navigable waters ENERGY FACILITIES Seismic activities Structures used to explore and produce oil and gas Shore bases and storage areas used to support energy development Pipelines and rights of way Facilities used to separate, treat, and store oil and gas Plants used to condense natural gas into a liquid and transport it Ports used to transfer energy products Yards used to build platforms for offshore oil and gas production Refineries and associated facilities Petrochemical plants Electric power plants, including hydroelectric projects Transmission lines Geothermal facilities TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES Roads, bridges, docks, ports, harbors Ferry routes and terminals Airports and railways Water supply facilities Sewage and solid waste facilities FISH AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING Onshore and offshore seafood processing facilities Hatcheries and other aquaculture facilities Fish research and management facilities Fish habitat enhancement activities MINERAL DEVELOPMENT Mineral prospecting and exploration activities Lode, placer, and strip mine development Offshore mining Sand and gravel extraction Peat extraction Mineral and materials storage, treatment, and transport facilities SUBSISTENCE Subsistence activities such as fishing, hunting, trapping, gathering of basketgrass, and berry picking RECREATION Recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, rafting, and sightseeing Construction of trails, campsites, cabins, lodges, visitor centers, and related facilities HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES Areas bearing important historic or cultural remnants from the past 6-3 HABITAT Fish and wildlife habitat used for feeding, breeding, rearing, and migration The existing framework for planning and regulating the above uses will be utilized in the actual implementation of this program. The specific mechanisms to be used are more fully described in Chapter 7. Policies The goals and objectives contained in Chapter 4 express the general intent of this program and describe certain tasks which the program seeks to accomplish. The policies contained in this chapter are the specific rules and standards that will be applied to achieve these goals and ob- jectives. Proposed land and water uses will have to be consistent with these policies. In addi- tion, all existing local, state, and federal laws remain in effect. With respect to the existing coastal management standards contained in the ACMP, they will remain in effect to the extent they are not replaced or supplemented by district policies. Where district policies replace or supplement ACMP standards and are more specific, the more specific policy applies. Following each specific policy section in this chapter (e.g., coastal development, habitats, etc.) is a notation of whether or not the BBCMP policy replaces or supplements an ACMP standard. Appendix B lists the standards in the ACMP. Other state regulations referred to in the policies are included in Appendix C. Various terms and phrases are utilized in the policies below. In order to avoid possible confu- sion or ambiguity, the following definitions are provided: avoid: to prevent from happening community expansion: the sale of private or public land for commercial, industrial, or resi- dential development associated with existing communities. Existing communities include all incorporated municipalities and villages recognized under ANCSA. Lands held in trust pur- suant to Section 14(c)(3) of ANSCA are considered lands for community expansion. critical habitat: Also referred to as essential habitat. This term refers to habitat necessary to support essential life cycle functions of individual fish and wildlife species and provide for the existence and maintenance of local and/or regional fish and wildlife populations. Relative to other geographical areas or habitat designations, critical habitats are the highest valued fish and wildlife areas. Man-induced disturbance and land use changes in critical habitat areas would be expected to have the most severe and immediate impact on local and/or regional populations of fish and wildlife. Within the Bristol Bay CRSA, critical habitat, as depicted on the fish and wildlife distribution maps 7 & 8 (Volume 1), includes: caribou calving areas, winter use areas, and migration corridors; brown bear spring use stream concentration areas; moose winter use areas; sea lion haulout areas; walrus haulout areas; harbor seal haulout areas; raptor nesting 6-4 areas and stream concentration areas; waterfowl spring high use areas and fall high use areas; and marine bird nesting areas. The term critical habitat is not limited to areas designated critical per AS 16.20 feasible and prudent: consistent with sound engineering practice and not causing environmental, social, or economic problems that outweigh the public benefit derived from compliance with the policy modified by the term ‘‘feasible and prudent’’. fish: includes all harvested fish species except blackfish and sticklebacks. fish and wildlife enhancement: increasing the quantity of targeted fish or wildlife populations through habitat manipulation. Habitat manipulation includes, but is not limited to, removal of natural fish blocks in streams, controlled burns, and hatchery programs. fish and wildlife harvest: the harvest of fish and wildlife species for subsistence, commercial, or recreational purposes. fish habitat: marine waters; fresh waters identified in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s (ADF&G) Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes; and waters identified in the fish distribution map (Volume 1, Map 7). grazing: the use of open range land for the large-scale commercial raising of livestock. important habitat: habitat used to support life-cycle functions of individual fish and wildlife species and important in maintaining optimal levels of local and/or regional fish and wildlife populations. On a unit area basis, man-induced development and disturbances in important habitat areas would be expected to have less severe and more long range impacts on local and/or regional populations of fish and wildlife when compared to similar disturbances in critical habitat. Within the Bristol Bay CRSA, important habitat, as depicted on fish and wildlife distribution maps 7 & 8 (Volume 1) includes: caribou summer use areas; brown bear summer and fall use areas and denning areas; moose spring, summer, and fall use areas; and waterfowl summer high to moderate use areas. land: this designation includes both land and water, and both surface and subsurface resources. maintain: to continue current conditions and functions. minimize: an absolute term meaning to select from a comprehensive review of alternatives the one alternative which uses the best available technology to reduce environmental impact to the smallest amount, extent, size, or degree. mining: the exploration and development of placer, strip, pit, or underground mining of metallic and non-metallic minerals or coal. 6-5 oil and gas: the exploration, development, and production of oil and gas, including all facilities such as service roads, drill pads, flowlines, camps, and all directly and indirectly related facilities associated with oil and gas activities, including transmission pipelines. recreation: all forms of outdoor public recreational activities, ranging from hunting and fishing to river-floating and snowmachining, but specifically excluding organized community recrea- tional programs. Developed public recreational facilities are also encompassed by this term. This term only applies to land management and has no effect on allocation of fish and game. The Boards of Fish and Game are responsible for allocation of fish and wildlife resources betweeen subsistence, commercial, and recreational users. sensitive period: a period during a specie’s annual life cycle when the population has a significant chance of being harmed by activities that are not part of the natural environment and which cause the animal to detrimentally alter its normal behavior pattern. An example is disturbance which might cause a calving caribou to run during the birthing process or abandon the helpless calf immediately after it is born. These periods generally occur when large numbers of a par- ticular species are concentrated in relatively small geographic areas. significant: likely to have an influence or effect greater than that attributable to mere chance. Section 46.40.210(5) of the Alaska Coastal Management Act defines a use of direct and significant impact as a use or an activity associated with the use which proximately con- tributes to a material change or alteration in the natural or social characteristics of a part of the state’s coastal area and in which: ¢ the use or activity associated with it would have a net adverse effect on the quality of the resources of the coastal area; © the use or activity associated with it would limit the range of alternative uses of the resources of the coastal area; or © the use would, of itself, constitute a tolerable change or alteration of the resources within the coastal area, but cumulatively would have an adverse effect. transportation and utilities: roads, bridges, docks, ports, harbors, ferry routes and terminals, airstrips, railroads, electric power plants including hydroelectric projects, transmission lines, geothermal facilities, water supply facilities, sewage and solid waste facilities. wetlands: those areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR 323.2[c]). wetlands hydrologically important to fish habitat: wetlands adjacent to fish habitat that store surface runoff and ground water. The discharge of water from these wetlands is necessary in maintaining and stabilizing water levels to maintain productivity of fish habitat during periods of extremely high (floods) or reduced (winter) flow rates. 6-6 wildlife habitat: land and water used by wildlife species during any phase of their life cycle. Map citations in this chapter refer to maps contained in the Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program Resource Inventory (Volume 1). Following are the policies of the BBCRSA coastal management program: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT (6 AAC 80.040) 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 When planning for and approving development in coastal areas, priorities will be given in the following order to: a) water-dependent uses and activities; b) water-related uses and activities; c) uses and activities which are neither water-dependent or water-related, but for which there is no feasible and prudent alternative to meet the public need. In order to minimize negative impacts on water quality, projects adjacent to public water supplies and fish habitat will maintain a setback adequate to protect these uses. This set- back will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be at least 100 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark. Where it is not feasible and prudent to maintain the setback, other measures will be implemented to accomplish the purpose of this policy. This setback re- quirement does not apply to projects that require an over-water or water edge location, nor does it preclude or restrict necessary stream, river, or lake crossings. Setback re- quirements contained in Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation regulation at 18 AAC 72.021 remain in effect. Compliance with Fish Guideline #2 contained in the Alaska Department of Natural Resource’s Bristol Bay Area Plan (1984) will also achieve compliance with this policy. Projects that require dredging or filling in streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, or saltwater areas including tideflats, will be located, designed, constructed, and maintained in a man- ner so as to: a) avoid significant impacts to critical fish and wildlife habitat; b) avoid significant interference with fish migration, spawning, and rearing as well as other critical life history phases of wildlife; c) limit areas of direct disturbance to as small an area as possible; d) minimize the amount of waterborne sediment traveling away from the dredge or fill site; and e) maintain circulation and drainage patterns in the area of the fill. Dredged materials disposed onshore will be diked or similarly contained and stabil- ized in order to prevent erosion or leaching of harmful or toxic substances into fish- bearing waters. This policy does not apply to use of dredged sand and gravel for construction. 125) To the extent feasible and prudent, structures in or over streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands, or saltwater including tideflats, will be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to: a) avoid decreases in water quality; b) avoid obstructions to fish and wildlife migration, spawning, and rearing; and c) avoid obstructing navigation and fish harvesting activities. 1.6 Public land made available for settlement will be located and designed so as to: a) avoid endangering human life and property; b) maintain to the greatest extent possible fish and wildlife productivity; and c) minimize conflicts with existing uses, especially subsistence use. 1.7 _ Before designating public lands to be disposed of for settlement purposes, government agencies will consult with the CRSA Board in determining: a) the market for public land; b) the type of disposal that meets the needs of the people in the area; c) the specific location within the designated disposal area; and d) the timing and design of the disposal. Those areas that were designated in the Bristol Bay Area Plan as approved in September 1984 are consistent with this policy. Policies 1.1 through 1.5 replace existing ACMP standards of regulation 6 AAC 80.040(a). ACMP regulation 6 AAC 80.040(b) remains in effect, and policies 1.6 and 1.7 are new regula- tions for the ACMP. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS (6 AAC 80.050) 2.1 Projects located in known geological hazard areas must incorporate siting, design, and construction measures which will protect against the loss of human life, property damage, and the potential significant loss of fish and wildlife populations and habitats which may result from the impact of a geological hazard event on the project. Policy 2.1 replaces the existing ACMP standard of regulation 6 AAC 80.050(b). RECREATION (6 AAC 80.060) 3:1 Rivers, lakes, and streams are designated the most important recreational use areas in the district. Hunting and fishing are recognized as the dominant recreational activity. Projects and activities in these areas, including commercial recreational use, will be located, designed, and conducted to avoid or minimize loss or displacement of existing fish and wildlife populations, interference with subsistence or recreational harvest, and 6-8 adverse impacts on the physical and cultural features which contribute to the high recrea- tional quality of the district. At a minimum, this includes maintaining public access, water quality, fish migration, rearing, and spawning areas, historic and geological features, and scenic values. Policy 3.1 supplements the existing ACMP standard 6 AAC 80.060 which remains in effect. ENERGY FACILITIES (6 AAC 80.070) 4.1 4.2 Geophysical surveys on land will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be located, designed, and conducted in a manner so as to avoid disturbances to fish and wildlife populations, habitats, and harvests. Seasonal restrictions, restrictions on the use of explosives, or restrictions relating to the type of transportation utilized in such operations will be in- cluded as necessary to mitigate potential adverse impacts. Geophysical surveys in fresh and marine waters will require the use of energy sources such as airguns, gas exploders, or other sources that have been demonstrated to be harmless to fish and wildlife. Blasting for purposes other than geophysical surveys will be approved on a case-by-case basis after all steps have been taken to minimize impacts and when no feasible and prudent alternative exists to meet the public need. Intent: Policy 4.2 balances several uses of state concern and national interest, in- cluding the exploration and production of oil and gas resources and the protection and utilization of the fishery in Bristol Bay. After considering the information available on the value of the Bristol Bay fishery, the potential adverse impacts associated with the use of explosives in open water and the potential information to be derived from seismic activities in the transition zone, the state and the Bristol Bay CRSA have ser- ious concerns about the use of explosives for seismic exploration in marine waters. The state recognizes that a limited use of explosives may be necessary to obtain quality seismic data in certain areas of the transition zone, such as when there is a need to “‘tie’? geophysical information between potential offshore lease tracts and onshore well sites. Implementation of policy 4.2 will be based on the best available scientific information relative to the significant adverse impacts of explosives and other seismic technology on fish and wildlife. The State of Alaska is reviewing its current policy pertaining to the use of explosives in marine waters, evaluating alternative means of collecting seismic infor- mation in the transition zone, and evaluating available measures to mitigate adverse im- pacts on marine life and fishery activities. The Alaska oil and gas industry is currently sponsoring a program of research to provide additional information with regard to the effects of linear explosives on juvenile salmon in the marine environment. Should a review of this research and the continuing evaluation of the state’s seismic policy by the Bristol Bay CRSA and the State of Alaska indicate a change to this policy is warranted, the state and CRSA will pursue such a change. 6-9 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 Vessels engaged in offshore geophysical exploration will conduct their operations to avoid significant interference with commercial fishing activities. Critical fish and wildlife habitat will be leased for energy development only if it is com- patible, or, through the use of mitigating measures, can be made compatible, with the maintenance of such populations and habitat. Lease free buffer zones in or adjacent to critical habitat will be an alternative evaluated when an area is to be offered for lease. Energy facilities will be sited, designed, constructed, and maintained so as to avoid significant adverse impacts to fish and wildlife populations. Oil and gas exploration and production wells will be located so as to avoid interfering with commercial fishing and subsistence harvests within the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve (established per AS 38.05.141), the Togiak and Chignik Bay commercial fishing districts regulated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and within Port Heiden Bay. In all other offshore areas, such interference will be avoided to the extent feasible and prudent. In addition, measures to prevent drilling wastes, oil spills, and other toxic or hazardous materials from contaminating drinking water supplies and fish, waterfowl, and shorebird habitat will be utilized. Impermeable lining and diking will be required for sewage ponds and onshore oil storage facilities (with a storage capacity greater than 660 gallons). Buffer zones of not less than 100 feet and up to 1,500 feet will be required to separate oil storage facilities (with a capacity greater than 660 gallons) and sewage ponds from freshwater supplies, streams, lakes, and wetlands that are important to fish, waterfowl, or shorebirds, unless sucha requirement is not feasible or prudent. Sump and reserve pits must be impermeable and otherwise fully contained through diking or other means. Oil produced in offshore areas will not be stored offshore, but will be transported to shore via pipeline, unless a pipeline is determined to have a greater potential for adverse environmental impact. Intent: In implementing this policy, social, environmental and economic factors will be considered in balancing the benefits of offshore storage versus pipeline for the transpor- tation of oil and gas. Offshore pipelines and other subsea structures will be designed or protected so as to allow trawling gear to pass over without snagging or otherwise damaging the structure or gear. Pipelines and pipeline rights-of-way will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be sited, designed, constructed, and maintained to prevent risk to fish populations and their spawning, rearing, and over wintering areas from a spill, pipeline break, or other con- struction activities. Pipelines crossing fish-bearing waters will incorporate feasible and prudent measures to minimize the amount of oil which may enter such waters as a result of a pipeline break. 6-10 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 Intent: The evaluation of ‘‘feasible and prudent measures”’ shall consider social, en- vironmental and economic costs, changing technologies, results of pertinent studies, pipeline location and other factors pertinent to the decision-making. Pipelines which cross critical caribou habitat or critical or important moose habitat will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be buried wherever soil and geophysical conditions permit. Pipelines that cannot avoid critical caribou or moose habitat and cannot be buried due to soil or geophysical conditions, will be designed and constructed in a manner that has been demonstrated to provide free movement and safe passage for caribou and moose. Projects to determine the feasibility of using energy sources such as wind, solar, peat, and hydro will be permitted provided the project conforms to the policies contained in this program and all other applicable laws. Hydroelectric projects will not dam, divert, or draw down rivers, streams, or lakes that support important commercial, subsistence, or recreational fish species unless the project is designed to cause no net loss to fish production and no interference with navigation. Transmission lines will be located, designed, constructed, and maintained ina manner so as to minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife populations and habitat. Existing transportation corridors will be used for transmission lines to the extent feasible and pru- dent. Where this cannot be done, the construction of new lines will avoid creating per- manent access corridors and will minimize damage to the land surface. Policies 4.1 through 4.12 supplement the existing ACMP standards of 6 AAC 80.070 with the exception of subsection (b)(1) which is replaced. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES (6 AAC 80.080) 5.1 5.2 3.3 Restrictions on traditional methods and means of public access through State and federal land will be minimized. Elements of public access are site-specific aspects such as roads, waterways, trails, campsites, and aircraft landing areas. Traditional means include but are not limited to aircraft, off-road vehicles, boat, snowmachine, dogsled, and foot. Projects designed to upgrade existing transportation facilities in the district will be per- mitted, provided the project conforms with the policies contained in this program and all other applicable laws. New roads and other transportation facilities will only be built to support community expansion and resource development. New inter-community roads will not be allowed unless such a road is supported by the city or village council in each community to be connected. New roads will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to avoid the loss of critical fish and wildlife habitat and loss or displace- ment of fish and wildlife populations. 6-11 5.4 5-5 5.6 River, stream, and lake crossings will be minimized, and measures to maintain bank stability and prevent siltation and pollution of fish habitat will be incorporated. All bridges and culverts on fish-bearing streams will be large enough and positioned to avoid changing the direction and velocity of stream flow up to and including annual flood conditions or otherwise interfere with the migration or spawning activities of fish unless it is determined that deviation from this policy will not have a significant impact on fish resources. Permits for temporary off-road access will require that surface disturbance and destruc- tion of fragile soils and wetlands be minimized. Operations requiring repeated off-road vehicle use will, to the extent feasible and prudent, avoid caribou calving habitat dur- ing caribou calving and, if deemed appropriate, will be restricted in caribou migration and caribou and moose over-wintering areas during sensitive periods. Restrictions need be applied only when and where it is determined that there are significant populations present. This policy does not apply to local traffic or traditional hunting activities. New airstrips will be located, designed, constructed, and operated in a manner so as to minimize physical, visual, and acoustical disturbances to fish and wildlife populations and habitats. Policies 5.1 through 5.6 supplement the existing ACMP standards of regulation 6 AAC 80.080(b). ACMP standard 6 AAC 80.080(a) remains in effect. FISH AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING (6 AAC 80.090) 6.1 6.2 Projects designed to increase the diversification and development of the district’s fishing industry will be permitted. The location of additional onshore processing facilities and other support facilities is encouraged, provided the policies contained in this program and all other applicable laws are adhered to. Fish processors, including those based offshore, will conduct their operations in com- pliance with all state and federal water quality regulations. Those that cannot will not be permitted to operate in the district. Policies 6.1 and 6.2 supplement the existing ACMP standards of regulation 6 AAC 80.090 which remains in effect. TIMBER HARVEST (6 AAC 80.100) el In recognition of the fact that there is little commercial forestry potential in the district, the harvest of timber, including commercial harvest, will be conducted primarily to meet the use needs of local residents. 6-12 Policy 7.1 supplements the existing ACMP standard of regulation 6 AAC 80.100 which remains in effect. MINING (6 AAC 80.110) 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 Access across public lands for mineral exploration and development activities will be maintained to the extent it conforms with the policies contained in this program and all other applicable laws. Recognized exploration methods for mineral location, such as geophysical sampling and core drilling, will be permitted unless otherwise prohibited by law. Bulk sampling will not be allowed in areas closed to mineral entry or in anadromous streams. All mining and mineral processing operations will be conducted in compliance with state and federal air and water quality regulations. Those that cannot do so will not be per- mitted to operate in the district. Sand and gravel extraction from offshore areas, inter-tidal areas, estuaries, barrier islands, spits, beaches, riverbeds, lakes, wetlands, and floodplains, will be permitted only where it is determined that: a) there will be no significant adverse impact on fish, fish habitat, or fish harvest; b) the material is needed for a significant public purpose; and c) no feasible and prudent alternative upland site exists. Sand and gravel extraction in or adjacent to fish habitat will utilize such measures as levees, berms, and settling ponds in order to avoid adverse impacts to fish and fish habitat. Reclamation and/or rehabilitation measures will be required in order to minimize stream bank erosion and the sedimentation of fish habitat. Sand and gravel extraction will be consolidated where feasible and prudent. Mining for locatable minerals in or adjacent to fish habitat will utilize such measures as levees, berms, and settling ponds in order to avoid adverse impacts to fish and fish habitat. Reclamation and/or rehabilitation measures will be required in order to minimize stream bank erosion and the sedimentation of fish habitat. Mining for locatable minerals in offshore areas will be conducted in a manner so as to avoid: a) obstructing commercial fishing activities; b) obstructing navigation; and c) adverse impacts to critical fish and wildlife habitat and the populations utilizing such habitat. 6-13 Dredge spoils will be redeposited in the areas disturbed by dredging unless it is determined that substantial public benefits would be derived from an alternative disposal method. Mining and mineral processing operations that are incompatible with the use of adja- cent uplands will not be allowed. Policies 8.1 through 8.8 replace the existing ACMP standards of regulation 6 AAC 80.110. SUBSISTENCE (6 AAC 80.120) Ost Traditional subsistence activities are recognized as an extremely important use of the district’s natural resources. Subsistence use areas are generally depicted on Map 2 (Volume I). Maintenance of subsistence use will be given the highest priority when ap- proving proposed land uses in these areas. Before a potentially conflicting activity may be authorized, an analysis of the possible adverse impacts upon subsistence use must be conducted and appropriate safeguards to assure subsistence usage must be provided. Policy 9.1 replaces the existing ACMP standard of regulation 6 AAC 80.120(d). HABITATS (6 AAC 80.130) 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Maintenance and enhancement of fisheries will be given the highest priority when evaluating projects which may impact fish spawning, migration, rearing, and over wintering areas. Shorelines that have banks, beaches, and beds critical to fish popula- tions will be maintained in a productive natural condition. Enhancement is an acceptable fish and wildlife management practice where it has been determined to be scientifically sound and where public review shows it to be in the public interest. Maintaining the genetic integrity of wild and indigenous species will be given high priority before approving an enhancement project. All fisheries enhancement and related activities will only use local, indigenous stocks. Except for public water supply and domestic use, the maintenance of fish stocks is the highest priority water use in the district. Therefore, an appropriation of water that would cause the instream flow to fall below the amount determined necessary to protect fish and wildlife habitat and production will not be allowed. Water intake pipes used to remove water from fish-bearing waters will require that the intake be surrounded by a screened enclosure so as to prevent fish entrainment and im- pingement. Pipes and screening will be designed, constructed, and maintained so that the maximum water velocity at the surface of the screen enclosure is not greater than 0.1 foot per second. Screen mesh size will not exceed 0.04 inch unless another size has been approved by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Other technology and techni- ques which can be demonstrated to prevent the entrainment and impingement of fish may also be utilized. 6-14 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 Projects and activities in wetlands that are hydrologically important to fish will provide for the maintenance and non-degradation of these areas. Channelization, diversion, or damming that would alter the natural hydrological con- ditions and have a significant adverse impact on critical waterfowl habitat will be avoided. Public lands designated critical waterfowl habitat will be retained in public ownership. This policy does not apply to land exchanges authorized under the Alaska National In- terest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). In recognition of the fact that large scale domestic livestock grazing would compete with wildlife populations, the use of public land for large scale grazing operations is prohibited. Uses and activities in the coastal area which will not conform to policies 10.3, 10.5, 10.6, and 10.8, may be allowed by the district or appropriate State agency if the following are established: a) there is a significant public need for the proposed use or activity; b) there is no feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity which would conform to the policies 10.3, 10.5, 10.6, and 10.8; and c) all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the policies 10.3, 10.5, 10.6, and 10.8 will be taken. The provisions of this policy specifically do not apply to policies 10.1, 10.2, 10.4, and 10.7. Policies 10.1 through 10.9 supplement the existing ACMP standards of regulation 6 AAC 80.130 which remains in effect. AIR, LAND, AND WATER QUALITY (6 AAC 80.140) 11.1 11.2 The quality of fish-bearing waters must, at a minimum, be maintained at a level which will ensure the continued health and propagation of fish populations. A use or activity which cannot be conducted in such a manner will not be permitted. No petroleum products or toxic substances will be stored in such form or manner that they could contaminate waterbodies, including groundwater. Measures to prevent and cleanup spills of petroleum or toxic materials will be incorporated into the design and operation of all storage facilities. Policies 11.1 and 11.2 supplement the existing ACMP standards of regulation 6 AAC 80.140 which remains in effect. ¥ 6-15 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (6 AAC 80.150) 12.1. The historic and archaeological value of an area proposed for development will be evaluated early in a project’s planning. If this evaluation indicates that the site contains important historic or archaeological values, archaeologists and qualified members of other relevant disciplines will have an opportunity to study a site prior to construction. Local input must be sought in the evaluation and study phase. 12.2 Ifasite is determined to be of exceptional historic or archaeological value, it will be pro- tected for future study and enjoyment and considered for placement on the Natural Register of Historic Places or designation as a State Historic Site. Policies 12.1 and 12.2 supplement the existing ACMP standards of regulation 6 AAC 80.150 which remains in effect. Proper and Improper Uses Uses that are consistent with the policies of this program will be considered proper uses. Uses that are not consistent with the policies of the program are improper uses. 6-16 CHAPTER 7 Implementation Introduction The Bristol Bay CRSA falls entirely within the unorganized borough of Alaska. As such, the Alaska State Legislature retains all the powers normally exercised by the assembly of an organized borough. Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes provides for the creation of areas within the unorganized borough for the purpose of providing special services. The Bristol Bay CRSA is one such area. The CRSA Board’s responsibility is to develop a coastal management program for the district. In doing so, the Board exercises no zoning or other direct control over the use of resources. Instead, implemen- tation of the program is dependent on the existing authority of the various state and federal agen- cies. The policies contained in the coastal program guide the agencies in the exercise of their discre- tionary functions. The mechanism through which this is to be accomplished is known as the ‘‘con- sistency’’ provision of the federal and state coastal management laws, which requires that state and federal actions be consistent with approved coastal programs to the maximum extent prac- ticable. State and federal actions include not only direct actions performed by or on behalf of an agency, but also the issuance of permits, licenses, and other authorizations, and the grant- ing of financial assistance in the form of loans, grants, subsidies, guarantees, or insurance. Determining Consistency Consistency is ensured through review procedures outlined in Administrative Order No. 78 ‘Procedures for the Alaska Coastal Management Program Project Consistency Review’’ dated 12/20/83, and the corresponding regulations found at 6 AAC 50 (see Appendix B). When con- ducting a consistency review, there is a difference between the process used for reviewing federal activities and projects requiring permits from two or more state agencies, and those simply re- quiring one state permit. This difference is more fully described below. In the course of any consistency review, agencies, interest groups, and units of local govern- ment, including the CRSA Board, are notified and given an opportunity to comment. The com- ments of agencies and affected coastal districts with approved plans are given ‘‘due deference’’ in their respective area of expertise. A coastal district is considered to have expertise in the in- terpretation and application of its approved program (6 AAC 50.120). CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS FOR FEDERALLY REGULATED OR SUP- PORTED ACTIVITIES The state of Alaska is responsible for deciding whether or not a proposed federal action is 7-1 consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program and the approved program of any affected district. On behalf of the state, the Office of Management and Budget/Division of Governmental Coordination (OMB/DGC), located within the Office of the Governor, coor- dinates any consistency review and issues any consistency determination authorized by Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (6 AAC 50.020). At a minimum, the following federal actions will be reviewed for consistency with this program: Department of Defense: Permits to place and operate fish traps, weirs, or ponds in coastal and navigable waters (33 CFR 206.95) Permits for dams and dikes in navigable waters (33 CFR 321) Permits for structures or work affecting navigable waters (CFR 322) Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for discharges of dredged or fill material into navigable waters (33 CFR 323) Permits for ocean dumping of dredged material (33 CFR 324) Department of Ene Federal Ene! ulatory Commission: Permits for non-federal hydroelectric project and transmission lines (18 CFR 1-149) Certificates of public convenience and necessity required for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, including LNG terminal facilities (18 CFR 157) Environmental Protection Agency: Permits issued under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (40 CFR 125) Permits for ocean dumping (40 CFR 220) Permits for new sources and waivers of compliance under Section 112(c)(1) of the 1972 Clean Air Act (40 CFR 60) Exemptions granted under the Clean Air Act to stationary sources Department of the Interior: Coal exploration and mining plans (30 CFR 211) 7-2 OCS oil and gas exploration and development plans (30 CFR 250.34) Plan of operations for geothermal development (30 CFR 270) Mineral prospecting permit (43 CFR 3510) Permits and licenses for rights-of-way on BLM lands (43 CFR 2800) Right-of-way approved for pipelines on the OCS (43 CFR 2883) Authorization for disposal of produced water (30 CFR 221.14) Antiquities permit for cultural resources (43 CFR 30) National Wildlife Refuge Lands Special Use Permit (50 CFR 26) National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans Department of Transportation: Permits for bridges across navigable waters (33 CFR 115.50) Permits for facilities to handle hazardous materials (33 CFR 126) Permits for siting, construction, and operation of deep water ports pursuant to the Deep Water Ports Act of 1974 Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Permits and licenses for the siting, construction, and operation of nuclear facilities. CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS FOR STATE REGULATED OR SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES As is the case with federally regulated activities, OMB/DGC will coordinate any consistency review and issue any consistency determination for activities requiring approval from two or more state agencies. However, for projects requiring only the approval of a single state agen- cy and no federal approval, the relevant agency will coordinate the consistency review and issue the consistency determination (6 AAC 50.030). The CRSA Board, as well as all other interested parties and agencies, will have an opportuni- ty to review and comment on the proposal. OMB/DGC may also review the consistency deci- sion reached by the agency and, if the project involves a disposal of interest in state land, will 7-3 either concur in the determination or require modifications necessary for its concurrence. At a minimum, the following state actions will be reviewed for consistency with this program: Department of Environmental Conservation: Air quality permits required to construct, (AS 46.03.140-160; alter,or operate a facility requiring an 18 AAC 50.300) emission control device. Granting of a hazardous waste permit regu- (AS 46.03.302; lating the handling, transportation, treatment 18 AAC 75.130) storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. Approval of subdivision plans of six or (AS 46.03.100; more lots for adequacy of water supply 18 AAC 72.065) and sewage disposal. Approval of plans for construction, (AS 46.03.720; modification, or operation of a sewage 18 AAC 72.060) system or treatment works. Certificates of reasonable assurance that (AS 46.03 .020; applications for federal licenses or permits 18 AAC 15.120) which may result in discharges into (Section 401 of the Federal Water navigable waters comply with appropriate Pollution Control Act, as amended requirements of state law. by the Clean Water Act of 1977) Solid waste disposal into state lands and (AS 46.03.020(10)(A)(E)(H); water. 18 AAC 60.020) Permits for disposal of wastewater into or (AS 46.03.100; on Alaska land or water or into a publicly 18 AAC 72.010 operated sewage system. Reclassification of waters of the state. (AS 46.03.020; 18 AAC 15, 18 AAC 70.010) Oil discharge contingency plans. (AS 46.04.030; 18 AAC 75.034) Department of Fish and Game: Permits for any work or development within (AS 16.20.260; 7-4 the statutorily designated state fish and game critical habitat areas. Permits to undertake work or development within designated state Game Refuge. Permits to construct a hydraulic project or a project that would affect the natural flow or bed of a river, lake, or stream specified as being important to anadromous fish, or to use equipment in such waters. Department of Natural Resources: Leasing state-owned upland, tideland and submerged land for the purposes other than for the extraction of natural resources (e.g., cargo docks and small boat harbors). Land Use Permits for general use of state- controlled tideland and submerged land (e.g., float homes and log storage). Land Use Permits for surface activities and the usage of equipment on special use lands and all land use activities not authorized by other DNR permits, leases, or contracts. Right-of-Way or Easement Permit for the construction of a road, trail, ditch, pipeline telephone line, or similar use or improve- ment on state land. Leasing of state land for pipeline right of way. Permits to modify any body of nonmarine surface water by construction or other work on dams. Appropriation of state water. 7-5 5 AAC 95.050) (AS 16.20.060) (AS 16.05.870) (AS 38.05.020; AS 38.05.070; 11 AAC 58.300) (AS 38.05.020; AS 38.05.320; 11 AAC 62.730) (AS 38.05.330; 11 AAC 96.010; 11 AAC 58.210; 1 AAC 186.600) (AS 38.05.330; 11 AAC 58.200) (AS 38.35.020; 11 AAC 180) (AS 46.15.020, .040; 11 AAC 93.160) (AS 46.15.020-040; 11 AAC 93.040, .220, .260) State zoning powers. Planning and land classification. Land disposals. Grazing leases. Shore fisheries leases. Oil and gas leasing. Coal prospecting permits and leasing. Geothermal resources prospecting permits and leasing. Mining leases for locatable metallic ores. Permits for off-shore locatable mineral prospecting and lease Mineral lands leases. Miscellaneous land use permit for geo- physical exploration, mining activity, or mineral exploration. Authorization to construct structure and for access across a state park. Incompatible use permit for state park. Oil and gas lease plan of operations approval. Oil and Gas Lease Unit plan of operations approval. Timber sale contracts. (AS 38.05.037; 11 AAC 91) (AS 38.04, AS 38.05.620, .300; 11 AAC 55) (AS 38.05; 11 AAC 67) (AS 38.05.020, .070; 11 AAC 60.010) (AS 38.05.020, .985; 11 AAC 64.050) (AS 38.05.135, .145, .180; 11 AAC 83) (AS 38.05.145; 11 AAC 84. 100-170; 11 AAC 90) (AS 38.05.145, .818; 11 AAC 84.700-930) (AS 38.05.185, .205; 11 AAC 86.300-325) (AS 38.05.020, .250; 11 AAC 86.500-570) (AS 38.05.135; 11 AAC 82) (11 AAC 96.010-250) (AS 41.20.020, .040; 11 AAC 12.140; 11 AAC 18.020) (AS 41.20.020, .040; 11 AAC 18.010) (AS 38.05.130, .145; 11 AAC 83.58) (AS 38.05.130, .145; .180; 11 AAC 83.346) (AS 38.05.110-120; 11 AAC 76.005-205) Review of forest operations on state, (AS 41.17.090; municipal, and private land under Forest 11 AAC 96.030) Practices Regulations. Material sales contract. (AS 38.05.110-120; 11 AAC 76.400, .470) Material sales permit. (11 AAC 76.540) Trapping cabin permits. (AS 38.95.080) Remote cabin permits. (AS 38.05.079) Department of Transportation and Public Facilities: Permits for placement, modification, or (AS 19.25.010; maintenance of an encroachment across 17 AAC 10.030) or along a state highway, or a highway funded in whole or in part by Federal funds. Department of Commerce and Economic Development: Certificates of public convenience and (AS 42.05; 3 AAC 48) necessity required for any individual, association, or corporation to own, operate, manage, or control a public utili- ty (systems for the transmission or transportation of water, electricity, gas, steam, sewage, and refuse). Alaska Power authority: reconnaissance (AS 44.83.179, .183) and feasibility study. CLASSIFICATION OF PERMITS FOR CONSISTENCY OF PROJECTS WITH THE ACMP Under the provisions of 6 AAC 50, the state has classified permits and other approvals subject to coastal consistency determination into three categories: Categorical Approval; General Con- currence; and Individual Project Reviews (see Appendix B). Activities requiring permits in the ‘‘Categorical Approval’’ list are considered not to have a significant impact on the coastal zone and, therefore, are consistent with the ACMP (and ap- proved coastal district plans). Permits classified as ‘‘General Concurrence”’ include activities which can be effectively made consistent with the ACMP by imposing standard permit stipu- 7 lations. An ‘‘Individual Project Review’’ requires a consistency determination from the ap- propriate state agencies and affected coastal district(s). A consistency determination for per- mits in this category is rendered within 30 or 50 days, depending upon agency public notice re- quirements, unless other statutory requirements specify a longer review period. The Division of Governmental Coordination is responsible for amending the classification of permits as necessary based on new information regarding the impacts of activities, including cumulative impacts. The list was last revised in 1985 and is currently being reviewed for pro- posed changes. Readers should contact either DGC or the Bristol Bay CRSA for the current classification of permits and approvals. Local Consistency Review Process The present structure of the Bristol Bay coastal management program consists of the CRSA Board and staff members. The director is responsible for assuring the program is implemented, and oversees the day-to-day functioning. An essential aspect of this is the preparation of con- sistency reviews. All proposals requiring a consistency determination will be sent to the Board’s office located at the following address: Bristol Bay CRSA Board Box 849 Dillingham, Alaska 99576 (907) 842-2666/2667 Upon receipt of a proposal requiring a consistency determination, the director will initiate the Board’s review. The director will contact agencies, the village council of a village affected by the proposal, and other interested parties, as appropriate, for concerns and additional infor- mation needed. Following this, the director will brief Board members as to any issues that may need to be resolved prior to submitting comments. In most cases, this consultation will occur via phone. It is expected that particularly large or controversial proposals will be preceded by sufficient notice and planning so as to allow time for the Board to meet, discuss, and arrive at a position on the proposal before an actual consistency review is initiated. If for some reason this has not occurred, the director will consult with the Board’s chairman to determine whether a special meeting of the Board is necessary. The written comments submitted on behalf of the Board will clearly indicate whether a proposal is consistent, inconsistent, or in need of modification in order to be consistent. If a project is found to be inconsistent or in need of modification, recommended modifications will be sub- mitted, along with the rationale for requesting the action and references to the specific policies being applied. 7-8 If a stipulation requested by the Board is rejected by the agency preparing the consistency deter- mination, a written explanation stating the reasons for rejecting the stipulations must be provided to the Board (6 AAC 50.110). Furthermore, if the Board is dissatisfied with the initial consistency determination, it may utilize the administrative appeal procedures outlined in 6 AAC 50.070. Compliance and Enforcement One of the most glaring problems expected to be encountered in implementing the coastal management program will be assuring that uses and activities requiring prior agency authoriza- tion receive such authorization, and that an authorized activity is actually carried out in the man- ner in which it was approved. Both federal and state agencies admit they lack the resources to adequately monitor activities in rural Alaska. To a large degree, they depend upon the general public to notify them about a problem. The CRSA staff, being permanently located in the district and aware of at least those activities that have been properly authorized, will assist residents and the agencies in monitoring such activities. This may involve simply advising a resident as to which agency to contact regard- ing a complaint, or it may involve an actual field check by staff. An agencv’s response follow- ing notification of an apparent violation will be closely watched. If an agency does not act to address the problem, the Board may submit a petition to the Coastal Policy Council, as provided for under AS 46.40.100, showing that the district’s program is not being implemented, enforced, or complied with, and the council will convene a public hearing. After the hearing, the council may order any action which the council considers necessary to accomplish compliance with the coastal management program. Asa last resort, an action may be brought in superior court to enforce lawful orders of the council. Program Amendments An amendment to the program can be considered at any time. The amendment must be approv- ed by the CRSA Board, and in the same manner as the program itself was approved. Once locally approved, it is then sent to the Office of Management and Budget/Division of Governmental Coordination (OMB/DGC), which determines whether the amendment is a significant change or addition to the program, or whether it is simply a matter of routine implementation. Routine amendments may be approved by OMB/DGC administratively. However, significant amend- ments must have the approval of the Coastal Policy Council and the Department of Commerce before taking effect (see 6 AAC 85.120). Regional Clearinghouse In addition to ensuring that the program is being properly implemented, another important 7-9 function of the program will be to act as a regional clearinghouse for resource information. Except for the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, the Alaska Department of Environmen- tal Conservation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, no other resource agencies are located within the CRSA. In many instances, a lack of knowledge regarding resource issues, appropriate agency contacts, and agency procedures hinder constructive local public involvement. Staff ex- pertise coupled with a growing library of maps, studies, and other resource information can be used to assist residents as questions arise. Along these lines, the village newsletter started during development of the program, which highlights current resource topics, will be continued in order to keep village councils more informed. 7-10 CHAPTER 8 Areas Meriting Special Attention Introduction The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) directs coastal districts to consider plac- ing specific areas in a special designation referred to as an ‘‘Area Meriting Special Attention’’ (AMSA). An area may be considered for the AMSA designation if it is sensitive to change or alteration and possesses unique physical, cultural, or biological characteristics. Once an AMSA is designated, it will serve to alert local, state, and federal authorities to possible resource con- flicts and the need for a more detailed assessment. The ACMP sets forth a number of criteria that may be used as a basis for designating an AMSA (AS 46.40.210(1) and 6 AAC 80.158). These criteria are: ¢ areas of unique natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; areas of substantial recreational value; © areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters; © areas that are susceptible to commercial and industrial development; © areas possessing significant hazard(s); © areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land or resources, including coastal floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits; © areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering and foraging; ¢ areas of special scientific value or opportunity, including those where on-going research projects could be jeopardized by development or conflicting uses and activities; and © potential estuarine or marine sanctuary. Any one of these categories, or combination of them, can serve as justification for an AMSA designation. A proposal to designate an AMSA may be included in a district program, or as an amendment to a program. In both cases the proposed AMSA must have approval of the Alaska Coastal Policy Council (CPC). Each proposal must contain the following information: ° the basis for the designation (from the nine categories listed above); © a map showing the geographic location and surface area; ¢ a description of the area, including dominant physical and biological features; © the existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of the area, and the 8-1 areas adjacent to it, including existing uses and activities; and © a proposed management scheme including: a) adescription of the uses and activities that will be considered proper and improper with respect to land and water within the area; b) asummary or statement of policy that will be applied in managing the area; c) an identification of the authority that will be used to implement the proposed management scheme. As long as a proposal contains this information, it may be submitted to the coastal district or the CPC by an individual, group, or agency. Suggested AMSA’S Many areas within the Bristol Bay Region — perhaps the entire region itself — could qualify as an AMSA under these previously mentioned criteria. In many cases, though, specific federal and state laws have been enacted to provide for the protection of valuable resources. These laws have resulted in the formation of national parks, preserves, wildlife refuges, and monuments; and on state lands, parks, critical habitat areas, and game sanctuaries. It is the Board’s view that the placement of an AMSA designation on one of these areas would represent an un- necessary duplication of government regulations. The Bristol Bay CRSA Board used its public hearing draft management plan (March, 1984), and subsequent village meetings, to explain the AMSA process to the region’s residents. The draft suggests five areas for possible consideration as AMSAs. Village comments and further research narrowed that list down to two: the Togiak fishing grounds and the Nushagak/Mulchatna drainage. The Bristol Bay CRSA Board believes that these two general areas warrant further attention in regard to the AMSA process. Both have significant physical, biological, and cultural resource values and are likely to be subject to greater change than the region as a whole. Following are discussions on the location, basis for designation, significant resources values, potential develop- ment activities, and possible management schemes for each area. It must be emphasized that there is a dearth of information on both areas, and thus, future reconnaissance needs to take place in order to determine whether or not formal AMSA designations are warranted. TOGIAK FISHING GROUNDS AMSA 1. Basis for Designation The Togiak fishing grounds (see Map 7) deserve special management attention due to its high natural productivity for fish and wildlife, and also its importance as a commercial and sub- sistence harvest area. These fishing grounds encompass the largest herring fishery in the state, 8-2 - GF fw 1 : gO), Wa es f SS oO J Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program Volume 2—Management Plan MAP 7—TOGIAK FISHING GROUNDS AMSA MILES Linens idol AMSA 0 8 16 along with a near-shore environment utilized by all five species of Pacific salmon. The waters surrounding both the Walrus Islands (a state game sanctuary) and Hagemeister Island (a part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge) would also be included in the AMSA. These waters are essential habitat for various species of seabirds, waterfowl, and marine mammals. The waters of this AMSA, and the fisheries resources contained therein, are an important com- ponent in the overall Bristol Bay economy. The Togiak district salmon fishery was worth an estimated 7.5 million ex-vessel dollars in 1983; the herring harvest brought in a record 10.5 million dollars during the same year (Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program, Volume 1, 1984). The recreational opportunities of the area are numerous, and increasing numbers of tourists are taking advantage of them. Round Island experienced approximately 500 visitors in 1984, up 10 percent from 1983. It is estimated that these visitors spent $55,000 on transportation and supplies in order to view the world’s largest congregation of Pacific walrus, the sea lion colonies, and numerous seabird rookeries (Taylor, ADF&G, personal communication). The salmon, herring (particularly roe-on-kelp) and waterfowl, along with marine mammals are all important to the thriving subsistence economy of Togiak, Twin Hills, and Manokotak. 2. Description of the Area This AMSA includes the waters of Kulukak Bay, Nunavachak Bay, Metervik Bay, Togiak Bay, and Hagemeister Strait. It would begin at Kulukak Point (58 Degrees 50’ 30’’ N, 159 Degrees 39’ 00’' W) and extend west to Pyrite Point (58’ 50’’ N, 161 Degrees 34’ W), transcending the Bristol Bay CRSA western boundary. The extension of this suggested AMSA is necessary as the CRSA boundary was delineated as a result of educational service area requirements and not natural resource management. The AMSA would encompass all state waters in the area (mean higher high water to 3 geographical miles) and an appropriate amount of land on the coast necessary for the management of all uses that might potentially affect the waters of the AMSA. The major topographic feature of the AMSA is the Ahklun Mountains which trend from the southwest to the northeast. These sedimentary mountains rise abruptly from Bristol Bay to form steep, rocky seacliffs and exposed headlands; these features also occur within the Walrus Islands group. The rocky seacliffs and the nearshore areas adjacent to them provide excellent seabird habitat, along with haulout areas for walrus, sea lions, and harbor seals. The kelp, rockweed and eelgrass that are important spawning habitat for herring also exist in these areas. These generally steep, rocky shorelines are interrupted by various rivers that enter Bristol Bay. The Togiak River is the largest of these, with the Kulukak, Ungalithluk, Quigmy, Matogak, and Osviak Rivers also entering the AMSA’s waters. All of these are important for salmon. Brown bear use these rivers for summer feeding, while denning in the mountainous areas during the winters. 8-3 Other biological resources which utilize the waters of the AMSA include shellfish, bottomfish and marine mammals. Existing in various concentrations during the year are red king crab, tanner crab, curry crab, and dungeness crab. Clams (cockles, softshell, butter and razor) and shrimp also occur in the area. Bottomfish include halibut, flounder, sole, and cod. Steller’s sea lion, harbor seal, and porpoises inhabit the area, along with numerous species of whale that migrate through it during spring and fall. 3. Existing Ownership and Management Ownership of the land area surrounding the AMSA is primarily Native and federal. The state’s ownership of land consists of the seven islands that make up the Walrus Island State Game Sanc- tuary, and the tide and submerged lands seaward to 3 geographical miles. The Togiak village corporation, Togiak Natives Limited, has ownership of nearly the entire coastline of the AMSA from Tongue Point to Right Hand Point. Numerous native allotments, currently held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, are interspersed along the coast. The remainder of the coastline is federally owned and administered as the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge; an ex- ception to this is Hagemeister Island, which is part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Land management for the area is generally described in the Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP). The tide and submerged lands are to be managed for fish and wildlife habitat and harvest, particular- ly commercial fishing and subsistence hunting for marine mammals. The onshore management intent is for fish and wildlife habitat and harvest and recreation along lakes and rivers. 4. Present and Anticipated Conflicts As was mentioned in the discussion on management, retention of this area’s natural produc- tivity of fish and wildlife for commercial and subsistence harvest is of primary importance. A potential conflict that is developing is the fleet of the burgeoning herring fishery. In 1984, an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 fishermen, and almost 500 fishing vessels, operated in this fishery (Skrade, ADF&G, personal communication). In order to protect the resource, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulates the herring fishery through emergency order. Due to the numerous variables involved with predicting the timing of this nearshore fishery, fishermen may be on the grounds weeks before, and after, an opening is allowed; a number of problems have resulted from this. First, the large numbers of marine mammals that haulout on the nearby Walrus Islands have resulted in numerous instances of wildlife harassment by fishermen. Also, archaeological resources could be disturbed by these idle fishermen (Wright, ADF&G, personal communication). Another problem associated with the herring fishery is the logistics of properly disposing of the waste generated by these large numbers of fishermen and processing workers. No onshore disposal site exists in the area resulting in waste being dumped directly into marine waters, and also in the intertidal areas (Adams, ADEC, personal communication). 8-4 The fish and wildlife resources, and the commercial and subsistence lifestyles, of the AMSA may be in conflict with any oil and gas development. The legislature recognized the importance of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery in 1971 when it closed all state tidelands and submerged lands to oil and gas entry (AS 38.05.150[f]). This fisheries reserve ends at Right Hand Point, omit- ting much of the Togiak salmon and herring fishing areas. The scenic beauty of the AMSA’s clear marine waters and rocky islands and seacliffs are in con- trast to the coastal lowlands, tideflats, and turbid, silty waters of much of Bristol Bay and should be protected from any activity that may affect their aesthetic qualities. 5. Management Scheme The CRSA Board’s reasoning for suggesting the Togiak fishing grounds as an Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) is to bring attention to the potential conflicts that may take place in the area. Proposing a management scheme, which should contain proper and improper uses and policy statements, would be premature at this time. An AMSA designation for this area could be the catalyst for bringing together the various agencies and private landowners that would be essential in the development of a management scheme. NUSHAGAK/MULCHATNA AMSA 1. Basis for Designation The diverse and abundant fish and wildlife resources of this suggested AMSA are the primary criterion for its designation (see Map 8). These resources have been utilized extensively in the past by both commercial fishermen and subsistence hunters and fishermen. To a lesser extent, recreational hunters and fishermen have used the AMSA’s resources, although in recent years, this group’s use has increased markedly. There is a substantial opportunity for increased recrea- tion use in the area which, if left uncontrolled, could result in a decrease in the amount of resources available to subsistence users. 2. Description of the Area The 14,100 square mile Nushagak River drainage includes the Mulchatna, Stuyahok, Nuyakuk, Kokwok, Klutuk, King Salmon, Koktuli, Swan, and Chilchitna Rivers. It is one of the most pro- ductive fish and wildlife areas in the region. The drainages are of major importance to the Bristol Bay commercial salmon fishery, along with recreational fishing and hunting activities that are increasing at a rapid rate. The resources that have stimulated both of these previously mentioned activities are also of paramount importance to the many villages in the region that utilize them for subsistence purposes (see Map 8). These drainages are bounded by the Alaska Range to the east, the Taylor Mountains and Nushagak Hills to the north, and the Wood River Mountains to the west. From these higher elevations the various tributaries come together to form the main river channels. The majority 8-5 of the region’s forests (primarily mixed coniferous/deciduous in composition) lie along these river courses and in the upper reaches of the drainage. The lower reaches of the drainage are characterized by tundra vegetation (i.e., lichen shrub, open heath and grass cover), with numerous lakes and ponds. This suggested AMSA has extremely high fish and wildlife values. The Nushagak River and its tributaries contain all five species of Pacific salmon; the system has the region’s largest runs of king and silver salmon, the two most popular sport fishing species. Freshwater fish include rain- bow trout, Dolly Varden/Arctic char, Arctic grayling, and northern pike. Big game include moose, caribou, and brown bear. The Mulchatna caribou herd, estimated at 30,000 animals, is one of Alaska’s thirteen major herds and is in excellent condition. Moose have never been abundant in the region, although populations have been higher than currently exist. Illegal hunt- ing and predation have kept moose densities below optimum levels (Taylor, ADF&G, personal communication). The villages of Portage Creek, Ekwok, New Stuyahok, and Koliganek use the area extensive- ly for subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering; six other villages also use the area for sub- sistence purposes, primarily for hunting moose and caribou (see Volume 1, Map 2). Access to the area for recreational hunters and fisherman is provided by an increasing number of lodges and fish camps in the area (see Volume 1, Map 3). Also, more fly-in fisherman are coming direct- ly from Anchorage to the upper Mulchatna area. Non-guided hunting and fishing is increas- ing, particularly on the lower Nushagak. 3. Existing Ownership and Management Land ownership within the AMSA is almost exclusively state and Native corporation. The Native corporation land holdings are the result of selections by the villages of Koliganek, New Stuyahok, Ekwok, and Portage Creek. These Native lands generally follow the course of the Nushagak River, with ownership ending approximately 20 miles north of Koliganek. The state owns the remainder of the land within the AMSA. Land management for the AMSA has been formulated through the state’s Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP). This plan provides for the management intent as well as primary, secondary, and pro- hibited land uses for the entire region. The state lands within the AMSA (the BBAP does not affect native lands) are to be managed for fish and wildlife habitat and harvest and for recrea- tion. Primary land use designations are fish and wildlife habitat and harvest, and recreation on major rivers and streams. Prohibited land uses include remote land disposals and remote cabins; an exception to this is a remote land disposal in the Half Cabin Lakes area of the Mulchatna River. 4. Anticipated Conflicts The increasing conflict between commercial recreational users and traditional users of fish and wildlife is the primary reason for the CRSA Board suggesting this area as an AMSA. Toa lesser 8-6 \ UES SCIEN Oe PINE, AITO ZA aa MOH MAL Hs ary ©.4 a aay SUS po NZ a ore ie Vo AY LY 1s aa 7 SKC & oN xr | ina “ia Semmens “edad Ba ae ig! 56 ru, Nick . be 5 = Management Plan NUSHAGAK/MULCHATNA AMSA Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program Volume 2— MAP 8— Lj |) AMSA extent, the location of a number of terranes favorable to mineral extraction, and the potential conflicts that may result from the exploration, development, and transportation of the resource on fish and wildlife, is of concern. The AMSA is of importance to the subsistence users of the western portion of the Bristol Bay region. The Mulchatna caribou herd exists within the AMSA, along with moose that inhabit numerous drainages in the area. These big game resources are vitally important to subsistence users. It has been estimated that the village of New Stuyahok obtains 32 percent of total sub- sistence diet from caribou and moose (ADF&G, 1984). The residents that utilize the AMSA for subsistence purposes, particularly those of the villages of Portage Creek, Koliganek, New Stuyahok, and Ekwok, are concerned about the disposal of state land, whether through a formal state land disposal or a lease. Through the state’s land planning process (i.e., the BBAP) the residents of the AMSA vehemently opposed the disposal of state land for homesites. Their opposition resulted from the perception that the individual buyers of disposal land would be primarily hunters and fishermen, thus increasing the pressure on local fish and wildlife resources. Also, the stipulations that would be part of a specific disposal would not prohibit commercial recreational uses from taking place. With the excep- tion of a single disposal in the Half Cabin Lakes area (Upper Mulchatna River), this effort against land disposals was successful. The state’s position towards leasing its land in the AMSA is also of concern to the area’s residents, and was not dealt within the BBAP. A number of professional guides have applied for permits to conduct their operations from state land. One individual has applied for a long term lease (30 years) to construct a lodge in the AMSA. The state is addressing these applica- tions on a case-by-case, as the baseline information necessary for developing a coherent long term policy is lacking. The numerous mineral terranes in the AMSA have incited interest in the mining industry, with one company conducting an exploration program in the summer of 1984 near Sleitat Moun- tain. In many instances, these exploration activities result in the creation of new airstrips in the region, making access to fish and game resources by outside interests easier. 5. Management Scheme As with the Togiak fishing grounds, it would be premature for a management scheme for this AMSA to be proposed. The baseline information necessary for such decision making is lack- ing. The CRSA Board feels that this area deserves greater attention than the program can give it and urges the appropriate state resource agencies, local governments, and private landholders to begin the preparation of comprehensive recreation management for the AMSA. 8-7 SOURCES Alaska Biological Research. Caribou Responses to the Pipeline/Road Complex in the Kuparuk Oil Field, Alaska, 1981. ARCO Alaska, Inc. 1982. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Placer Mining Wastewater Settling Pond Demonstration Project Report. Fairbanks, Alaska. 1982. Alaska Department of Fish & Game. Environmental Studies of Kachemak Bay and Lower Cook Inlet. Marine/Coastal Habitat Management. Anchorage, Alaska. 1977. . Biophysical Boundaries for Alaska’s Coastal Zone. 1978. a. Wildlife Habitats. Habitat Division. 1983. _______b. Fishery Productivity and Instream Mining: Implications for the Bristol Bay Region. Habitat Division. 1983. —________.. Subsistence-Based Economics in Coastal Communities of Southwest Alaska. Divi- sion of Subsistence for Minerals Management Service. 1984. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Divisions of Parks. Wood-Tikchik Management Plan - Issues Paper. 1983. Alaska Division of Energy Power and Development. Alaska: A Guide to Geothermal Energy Development. U.S. Department of Energy Contract #EY-77-C-06-1066. 1980. Alderice, D.F., W.P. Wickett, and J.R. Brett. ‘‘“Some Effects of Temporary Exposure to Low Dissolved Oxygen Levels on Pacific Salmon Eggs’’. Journal of Fisheries Research Bulletin Canada 15(2). 1958. Bell, M.C. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria. Fisheries Engineering Research Program, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Portland, Oregon. 1973. Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area Board. Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program, Resource Inventory, Vol. 1, Dillingham, Alaska. 1984. ______. Commercial Recreation Service Providers Study. Jon Isaacs and Associates. Anchorage, Alaska. 1986. Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan and Revised Draft Environmental Impact State- ment (BBCMP EIS). Alaska Land Use Council. Anchorage, Alaska. 1984. Dames and Moore. Drilling Fluid Dispersion and Biological Effects Study for the Lower Cook Inlet C.O.S.T. Well. Atlantic Richfield Company. Anchorage, Alaska. 1978. Davies, J. and K. Jacob. ‘‘A Seismotectonic Analysis of the Seismic and Volcanic Hazards in the Pribilof Island - Eastern Aleutian Islands Region of the Bering Sea.’’ Environmental Assess- ment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and At- mospheric Administration. 1980. Fancy, S.G. Space Movements and Activity Budgets of Caribou Near Oil Drilling Sites in the Sagvanirktok River Floodplain, Alaska. 1983. Governors Agency Advisory Committee on Leasing. A Social, Economic, and Environmen- tal Analysis of the Proposed Bristol Bay Uplands Oil and Gas Lease Sale 41. Office of Manage- ment and Budget. Juneau, Alaska. 1983. Hall, J.D. and R.L. Lantz. ‘‘Effects of Logging on the Habitat of Coho Salmon and Cutthroat Trout in Coastal Streams’’. Symposium on Salmon and Trout in Streams, University of British Columbia. 1969. Hall, J.E. and D.O. McKay. The Effects of Sedimentation on Salmonids and Macroinvertebrates - a Literature Review. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Habitat Divi- sion. Anchorage, Alaska. 1983. Impact Assessment, Inc. Socioeconomic/Sociocultural Study of Local/Regional Communities in the North Aleutian Area of Alaska. U.S. Department of Interior, Minerals Management Ser- vice. 1984. Kolankiewicz, L.J. Alaskan Coal Development: An Assessment of Potential Water Quality Im- pacts. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1982. Koski, K.V. ‘‘Effects of Sediment on Fish Resources.’’ Paper presented at Washington State Department of Natural Resources Management Seminar, Fisheries Research Institute, Univer- sity of Washington. Seattle, Washington. 1972. LaPeriere, J.D. ‘‘An Ecosystem Approach to the Effects of Placer Mining on Streams of In- terior Alaska.’’ Semiannual Report from Alaska Cooperative Fisheries Research Unit. Fair- banks, Alaska. 1983. Morrow, J. Effects of Crude Oil and Some of Its Components on Young Coho and Sockeye Salmon. EPA-550/-3-73-018. 1973. S-2 Nebesky, W., S. Langdon and T. Hull. Economic, Subsistence and Sociocultural Projections in Bristol Bay Region. Institute of Social and Economic Research. Anchorage, Alaska. 1983. Redding, B.B., S.R. Throckmorton and J.D. Farwell. Report of the Commissioners of Fisheries of the State of California for the years 1870 and 1871. (1872) In: California Fish and Game 19(1). 1933. Rice, J., J. Short, C. Brodensen, T. Mecklenburg, D. Moles, C. Misch, D. Cheatham, and J. Karinen. ‘‘Acute Toxicity and Uptake - Depuration Studies with Cook Inlet Crude Oil, Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil, No. 2 Fuel Oil and Several Subarctic Marine Organisms.’’ Northwest Fisheries Center. Auk Bay, Alaska. 1976. Silver, S.J., C.E. Warren, and P. Doudoruff. ‘‘Dissolved Oxygen Requirements of Develop- ing Steelhead Trout and Chinook Salmon Embryos at Different Water Velocities.’’ The American Fisheries Society 92(4). 1963. , Starr, S.J., M.N. Kuwada, and L.L. Trasky. Recommendations for Minimizing the Impacts of Hydrocarbon Development on the Fish, Wildlife and Aquatic Plant Resources of the North- ern Bering Sea and Norton Sound. Alaska Department of Fish & Game, Marine and Coastal Habitat Management. Anchorage, Alaska. 1981. State of Alaska. Special Areas in the Alaska Coastal Zone: Abstracts of Proposals. Office of Coastal Management. Juneau, Alaska. 1980. —_____.. Administrative Order #78 - Procedures for the Alaska Coastal Management Pro- gram Project Consistency Reviews. Office of the Governor. December, 1983. ___. Project Consistency With the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Chapter 50, Alaska Administrative Code. Office of the Governor. 1984. Stuart, T.A. ‘“‘Spawning Migration, Reproduction, and Young Stages of Loch Trout (Salmo Trutta L.).’’ Freshwater and Salmon Research, Scottish Home Department. 1953. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Chignik, Alaska: Draft Small Hydropower Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. July, 1984. U.S. Department of Commerce. Alaska Coastal Management Program and Final Environmen- tal Impact Statement. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, D.C. 1979. —________. Final Findings of Approvability on the Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Resource Management. 1987. ____. Living Marine Resources and Commercial Fisheries Relative to Potential Oil and Gas Development in the North Aleutian Shelf Area. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1980. U.S. Department of Interior. St. George Basin Sale #70. Final Environmental Impact State- ment. Minerals Management Service. Anchorage, Alaska. 1982. a. Diapir Field Lease Offering: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Minerals Management Service. 1984. —________b. St. George Basin, Sale #89: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Minerals Management Service. April, 1984. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Gravel Removal Studies in Arctic and Subarctic Floodplains in Alaska. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-80/09. June, 1980. Personal Communication Adams, Marion. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Dillingham, Alaska. August, 1984. Skrade, Jeff. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. Dill- ingham, Alaska. August, 1984. Taylor, Ken. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game. Dillingham, Alaska. August, 1984. Wright, John. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Dillingham, Alaska. August, 1984. S-4 Appendices APPENDIX A Public Participation Program The Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program reflects over five years of public involvement through a variety of means. The program initially began with a public education effort con- ducted by the Bristol Bay Native Association. In response to this effort, villages from throughout the region passed resolutions calling for a referendum on the question of whether or not to form a Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA). In October, 1981, the region’s residents voted over- whelmingly to do so, which is noteworthy since these same residents have consistently resisted the formation of a borough government. The CRSA Board is composed of representatives from six subregions, and are elected public officials. The initial Board was drawn heavily from its predecessor, the Bristol Bay Outer Con- tinental Shelf (OCS) Advisory Committee, which sponsored several well attended meetings in 1981. This advisory committee disbanded following the Board’s election. A list of CRSA Board meetings is provided in Attachment #1. All Board meetings are open to the public and are adver- tised locally on KDLG radio. In addition, notice is mailed to a variety of agencies, village coun- cils, and special interest groups. Opportunities for input have not been limited to board meetings however. Public education must precede any meaningful input. The Board’s educational effort is an ongoing one ac- complished in many different ways. For instance, prior to the Board’s election, information concerning the program was provided through a series of village meetings, radio interviews, newspaper articles, and newsletters. These efforts were continued and expanded following the Board’s election. News articles regarding land issues in general and the coastal program specifically are regular features in the Bristol Bay Times and KDLG radio station. The Board also initiated its own village newsletter and prepared a 20-page public information booklet en- titled ‘‘An Introduction to Coastal Management in Bristol Bay’’. Finally, the staff has made presentations to a number of groups, conventions, and workshops (see Attachment #2). Last, but certainly not least, the Board participated in, and benefited from, the extensive public participation and review associated with the development of the Bristol Bay Cooperative Management Plan (BBCMP). This unique undertaking arose out of section 1203 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and mandated that state and federal land managers in the Bristol Bay region attempt to develop a plan to manage their respective areas in a cooperative manner. Since the majority of land within the Bristol Bay CRSA is in state and federal ownership, and since the entire CRSA was within the BBCMP study area, the issues ad- dressed by the two plans overlap to a large extent. In recognition of this, and in order to max- imize coordination, the Board joined representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska A-1 Department of Natural Resources, the Bristol Bay Borough, the Aleutians East CRSA, and the Alaska Federation of Natives to form the Bristol Bay Study Group, the policy group assembled to develop the BBCMP. An enormous amount of information, discussion, public review, and negotiation occurred within the context of this forum, all which directly benefited the develop- ment of the Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program. Although the final recommendations of the Study Group were developed in July, 1984, the Governor subsequently decided he would not sign a cooperative plan, but instead would implement the plan on state lands as the Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP). The federal govern- ment will likewise adopt a version of the cooperative plan for federal lands. A list of public meetings held in conjunction with the development of the BBCMP can be found in Attach- ment #3. Finally, during distribution of the public hearing draft for this program, public meetings were held in every village within the CRSA. Additionally, one hearing was held in Anchorage for the purpose of receiving input from agencies and other interested groups. Attachment #1 Bristol Bay CRSA Board Meetings February 8-9, 1982 March 18, 1982 April 12, 1982 May 24, 1982* September 15, 1982 November 11, 1982 January 13, 1983 February 1, 1983 March 3, 1983 April 1, 1983 May 6, 1983 May 27, 1983 August 25, 1983 October 27, 1983* March 12, 1984 September 14, 1984** February 5, 1985 March 11, 1985 May 3, 1985 August 27-28, 1985 November 15, 1985 February 7, 1986 April 8, 1986 October 22, 1986 March 9, 1987 * No quorum present ** Concept Approval Attachment #2 CRSA Staff Presentations Regarding The Coastal Management Program January 18-19, 1982 Manokotak City Council, School February, 1982 Dillingham SEA Week, Inservice April 7, 1982 Dillingham Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association April 14, 1982 Naknek Bristol Bay Borough CZM Hearing May, 1982 Dillingham SEA Week, Students August 31, 1982 Anchorage Lake and Peninsula School Board October 7, 1982 Dillingham BBNA Full Board November 29, 1982 Dillingham High School Seniors December 17,1982 § TwinHills/Togiak Village Councils January 19, 1983 Togiak Law Symposium February 14-18, 1983 Dillingham Local Government Workshop on Land April 6, 1983 Dillingham Ist Bristol Bay Mayor’s Conference May, 1983 Dillingham Bristol Bay Curriculum Project Conference December 3-4, 1983 Dillingham Ist Bristol Bay Native Convention January 10, 1984 Anchorage Bristol Bay Village Corporation Workshop April, 1984 Dillingham Bristol Bay Curriculum Project February, 1986 Dillingham 4th Bristol Bay Native Convention April, 1987 Dillingham Regional Fisheries Conference Attachment #3 Public Meetings Held In Conjunction With The BBCMP I. Issue Identification: Naknek, 11/16/81; Dillingham, 11/17/81; Egegik, 11/17/81; Igiugig, 11/17/81; Chignik Lake, 11/18/81; Newhalen, 11/18/81; Togiak, 11/18/81; Port Heiden, 11/19/81; Anchorage, 12/2/81; Koliganek, 1/15/82; Ekwok, 1/18/82; New Stuyahok, 1/16/82. II. Presentation of Preferred Alternative: Naknek, 2/7/83; South Naknek, 2/7/83; Egegik, 2/8/83; Pilot Point, 2/8/83; Newhalen/lliam- na, 2/8/83; Aleknagik, 2/9/83; Dillingham, 2/9/83; Pedro Bay, 2/9/83; Nondalton, 2/9/83; Port Heiden, 2/9/83; Clark’s Point, 2/10/83; Chignik Lake, 2/10/83; Kokhanok, 2/10/83; Ivanof Bay, 2/11/83; Levelock, 2/11/83; Chignik, 2/11/83; Ekwok, 2/19/83; Koliganek, 2/20/83; New Stuyahok, 2/21/83; Manokotak, 2/25/83; Anchorage, 3/2/83; Togiak, 3/7/83; Twin Hills, 3/7/83; Dillingham, 3/9/83. A-3 III. Presentation of Draft Plan and Environmental Impact Statement: Ekwok, 8/8/83; Iliamna/Newhalen, 8/8/83; Nondalton, 8/9/83; Pedro Bay, 8/10/83; Clark’s Point, 8/11/83; Kokhanok, 8/11/83; Aleknagik, 8/12/83; Koliganek, 8/12/83; Dillingham, 8/13/83; Naknek, 8/13/83; Togiak, 8/14/83; Twin Hills, 8/14/83; Levelock, 8/15/83; Igiugig, 8/15/83; New Stuyahok, 8/17/83; Ivanof Bay, 8/26/83; Chignik Lake, 8/27/83; Chignik, 8/28/83; Anchorage, 8/31/83. IV. Presentation of Proposed Plan and Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement Naknek, 5/18/84; Dillingham, 5/19/84; Sand Point, 5/21/84; Anchorage, 5/22/84. Attachment # 4 Public Meetings Held on CRSA Public Hearing Draft Clark’s Point, 4/18/84; Twin Hills, 4/19/84; Togiak, 4/19/84; Aleknagik, 4/23/84; Levelock, 4/27/84; Igiugig, 4/28/84; Pilot Point, 4/30/84; Port Heiden, 5/1/84; Ivanof Bay, 5/2/84; Kokhanok, 5/2/84; Nondalton, 5/3/84; Chignik Lagoon, 5/3/84; Chignik Lake, 5/3/84; Pedro Bay, 5/5/84; Newhalen, 5/4/84; Chignik Bay, 5/4/84; Egegik, 5/5/84; New Stuyahok, 5/8/84; Ekwok, 5/8/84; Koliganek, 5/8/84; Dillingham, 5/16/84; Anchorage, 6/18/84. A-4 APPENDIX B Alaska Coastal Management Program Regulations Register 89, April 1984 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 6 AAC 50.010 PART 2B. 6 AAC 50.010. PURPOSE OF REGULA- OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND _ TIONS. The regulations in this chapter are in- BUDGET-—DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL _ tended to implement, interpret, and make speci- COORDINATION fic Chapter (1) the responsibility of the office of manage- 50. Project Consistency With the Alaska ment and budget (OMB) to implement the Coastal Management Program Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) (6 AAC 50.010—6 AAC 50.190) by rendering on behalf of the state CHAPTER 50. (A) all responses concurring in or ob- PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH THE jecting to a federal consistency certification ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT or determination which is required or au- PROGRAM thorized by sec. 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. 16 Section U.S.C. § 1456, (CZMA), and 10. Purpose of regulations 20. Federal consistency determinations 30. State permit consistency determinations 40. Preapplication assistance 50. Expedited review by categorical approval and general concurrence determinations 60. Scope of project to be reviewed 70. Consistency review process 80. Confidential information and fees 90. Emergency expedited review 100. Public participation 110. Review period deadlines and extensions 120. Conclusive consistency determination 130. Issuance of project permits 190. Definitions (B) all conclusive consistency determina- tions for any project requiring two or more state agency or federal permits as required by AS 44.19.145(a)(11): and B-1 Register 89, April 1984 (2) the responsibility of resource agencies to implement the ACMP by making conclusive con- sistency determinations for projects requiring the permit of a single state agency and no federal permit, and to expedite their permit re- view procedures, to the extent permitted by law, by coordinating their own procedures with the consistency review of a project. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) ~ AS 46.40.100(a) 6 AAC 50.020. FEDERAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS. The division of govern- mental coordination (DGC) of the office of ,management and budget will coordinate a consistency review and render a_ response concurring in or objecting to a federal con- sistency certification or determination which is required or authorized by sec. 307 of the CZMA. DGC will coordinate the review in the manner provided in this chapter and will render a response in the time and manner prescribed in the CZMA or in the regulations implementing that Act. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: AS 44.19.145(a)(1 1) 6 AAC 50.030. STATE PERMIT CONSIS- TENCY DETERMINATIONS. (a) DGC will coordinate the review and render a determina- tion for a project which requires the permits of two or more state agencies or a federal permit, in the manner provided in this chapter. (b) A resource agency shall coordinate the consistency review and render a conclusive con- sistency determination for a project which re- quires only the permits of a single state agency and no federal permit. The agency shall co- ordinate the review and render its determina- tion in the manner provided in this chapter. (c) DGC will participate in a single-agency con- sistency review in the same manner as the other resource agencies participate. DGC will also, on request of the coordinating agency, act as a facilitator to attempt to resolve any disputed issues. If the project includes a disposal of in- terest in state land, DGC will either concur in the determination or require modifications necessary for its concurrence. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE (d) DGC will, in its discretion. at any time, with reasonable notice, review the consistency review procedures, files, or decisions of a co- ordinating agency. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) AS 46.40.100(a) 6 AAC 50.040. PREAPPLICATION ASSIST- ANCE. DGC will, on request, assist a potential applicant for a state permit for a project by pro- viding and explaining the coastal project ques- tionnaire and the consistency review process as described in 6 AAC 50.070, identifying persons to contact in other state or federal agencies, de- termining the scope of activities which com- prise the project, and providing any other assist- ance or information at its disposal to facilitate review and approval of the applicant’s proposed project. A resource agency shall, on request, pro- vide similar assistance and shall also provide application forms for its own permits. DGC and all resource agencies will attempt to regularly in- form each coastal resource district of proposed projects which may have significant and direct impacts on that district. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) AS 46.40.100(a) 6 AAC 50.050. EXPEDITED REVIEW BY CATEGORICAL APPROVAL AND GENERAL CONCURRENCE DETERMINATIONS. (a) The consistency review of a project will be expedited as provided in (b) or (c) of this section if the project meets the requirements of one of those subsections. (b) A project which requires one or more state or federal permits, each of which appears on the list published under (e) of this section listing permits which have been categorically approved by DGC as being consistent with the ACMP, is considered to have been conclusively determined by DGC to be consistent with the ACMP. A per- mit will be categorically approved if DGC de- termines that the activity authorized by the permit will have no significant impact in the coastal zone. (c) A project which requires one or more state or federal permits not categorically approved as B-2 6 AAC 50.010 6 AAC 50.050 Register 89, April 1984 provided in (b) of this section will be considered consistent without further review, if it meets the requirements of a general concurrence deter- mination contained on the list published under (e) of this section. A “general concurrence de- termination” is a consistency determination for a type of project which includes only routine activities, and which can be effectively made consistent with the ACMP by imposing standard stipulations on the applicable permit. If a sub- sequent project of any applicant fits the descrip- tion in a general concurrence determination, the project will be considered consistent with the ACMP if it complies with the stated standard stipulations. (d) A project which requires one or more state or federal permits, and which is not within the categories described in (b) or (c) of this section, is subject to review as an individual project as provided in this chapter. (e) DGC will publish a list of permits which have been categorically approved as being con- sistent with the ACMP, and a list of general concurrence determinations, and will identify on each list those permits or projects for which a coastal project questionnaire is. not necessary. DGC will amend these lists as necessary on its own initiative, or on the request of a coastal resource district or a resource agency based on new information regarding the impacts of these activities, including cumulative impacts. Before publishing or amending these lists, DGC will distribute the proposed lists or amendments for comment in the manner provided in 6 AAC 50.070 for a project consistency review. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) 6 AAC 50.060. SCOPE OF PROJECT TO BE REVIEWED. The scope of activities which are to be reviewed for consistency with the ACMP as part of a project will be determined based on statements of the applicant, the information provided in the coastal project questionnaire, and any additional information which DGC ora resource agency finds necessary to request. If there is disagreement among the agencies, DGC will make the final decision. If DGC determines that a project under review by a resource agency is one requiring a federal permit, or the permits B-3 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 6 AAC 50.050 6 AAC 50.070 of two or more state agencies. DGC will im- mediately notify the applicant and the resource agency that the consistency review will be co- ordinated by DGC, and will commence as pro- vided in 6 AAC 50.070 when DGC has received completed applications for all necessary permits and a completed coastal-project questionnaire. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(1 1) 6 AAC 50.070. CONSISTENCY REVIEW PROCESS. (a) Except as provided in 6 AAC 50.050(e) or in (b) of this section, DGC on re- quest, or a resource agency which receives an application for a permit for a coastal project, shall give the applicant a project questionnaire provided by DGC. Based on the information provided by the applicant in response to the questionnaire, the agency shall identify all state resource agencies which the applicant must con- tact regarding the project before submitting an application for a permit. (b) A project questionnaire is not required for placer mining activity which is authorized by an annual application known as the “tri- agency placer mining application.” These appli- cations must be submitted to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). DNR will dis- tribute these applications to initiate the con- sistency review of the projects as provided in this chapter. (c) For a project requiring a federal permit or the permits of two or more state agencies, the applicant shall submit a packet including all necessary state permit applications, copies of all necessary federal permit applications, and the project questionnaire to DGC, except that con- fidential information or fees must be handled as provided in 6 AAC 50.080. The coordinating agency may require the applicant to provide additional copies of maps or other documents which may not be conveniently duplicated. (d) For a project requiring only the permits of a single state agency, the applicant shall sub- mit a packet including all necessary applica- tions and the project questionnaire to the agency. Register 89, April 1984 (e) Immediately upon receipt. the coordin- ating agency shall review the packet and shall in- form the applicant if it appears to be incom- plete. If the packet appears to be complete, and the project does not include a disposal of interest in state land, the coordinating agency shall immediately assign a project number, and note the date as Day | of the consistency review process. For a project which includes a disposal of interest in state land, the consistency review will begin at a date which DGC and DNR agree will most effectively allow for both the consis- tency review and DNR’s own statutory responsi- bilities. Acceptance of the packet does not preclude an agency from requesting additional information or applications from the applicant as necessary for its consistency review or its own statutory responsibilities. On or before Day 2, the coordinating agency will distribute copies of the packet to all resource agencies, other state agencies on request, all affected coastal resource districts, and other interested parties. For a 30- day review, the distribution may be limited in the discretion of the coordinating agency but must, if requested in writing, include any affected coastal district with an approved pro- gram. Along with the packet, the coordinating agency will distribute a notice establishing a comment deadline at Day 34, or at Day 17ina 30-day review period, or later if the review period is extended as provided in 6 AAC 50.100. The notice will also state the applicable time limit, if any, imposed by the federal law or regulation. (f) If the coordinating agency determines that the public notice, if any, provided by the re- source agencies as part of their review of a per- mit is not adequate to inform the public about the project and the consistency review process, the coordinating agency shall, as soon as pos- sible, publish a public notice in a newspaper or on radio or television in the affected areas, de- scribing the project and the consistency review process. In evaluating the need for public notice of a project, the coordinating agency shall con- sider the magnitude of likely impacts, including cumulative impacts on the affected area, but may not unreasonably require public notice for a project for which notice is not statutorily required. DGC will encourage the joint public notice of project reviews when a permit from more than one agency is required. GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 6 AAC 50.070 (g) The coordinating agency, on its own initiative or at the request of a resource agency or of an affected coastal district with an approved program, may request from the appli- cant by Day 25, or Day 15 of a 30-day review period, additional information relevant to the proposed project, which is necessary for its con- sistency review or its own statutory responsibili- ties. (h) Comments must be received by the coor- dinating agency on or before the comment dead- line established by the coordinating agency. Each commenter shall also send copies of its comments to the resource agencies. Verbal com- ments must be confirmed by written comments postmarked within five working days after the verbal comments. If the commenter recom- mends stipulations on the consistency determin- ation, a brief written justification must be pro- vided by the commenter for each stipulation. Upon request, the coordinating agency shall send copies of comments to other interested parties. (i) The coordinating agency shall encourage and facilitate consideration of comments re- ceived and discussion among the resource agencies. The coordinating agency shall deter- mine whether there is a consensus among the resource agencies regarding a proposed con- sistency determination. The coordinating agency shall notify the affected coastal resource district with an approved program and the applicant on or before Day 44, or Day 24 in a 30-day review period, of the proposed determination or the issues to be resolved. (j) If a resource agency, an affected coastal Tesource district with an approved program, or the applicant does not concur with the proposed consistency determination, it may request ele- vation of the review by submitting a written statement which describes its concerns and in- cludes a proposed alternative consistency de- termination which would meet its concerns. That party shall distribute this statement so that all resource agencies, affected coastal resource districts, the applicant, and DGC will receive a copy on or before Day 49, or Day 29 in a 30- day review period, or within five days after receiving notice of the proposed determination, whichever is later. This requirement may be satisfied by transmitting the substance of the B-4 Register 89, April 1984 statement to the coordinating agency by tele- phone or other telecommunication device and sending written confirmation to all parties by mail or courier on or before the deadline under this subsection. (k) The coordinating agency shall issue a con- clusive consistency determination on or before Day 50, or Day 30 in a 30-day review period, if it has not received a request to elevate the re- view. If the coordinating agency receives a re- quest, the agency shall elevate the review as necessary to the division directors, and then commissioners of the resource agencies, and may extend the decision deadline in accordance with 6 AAC 50.110(b)(7). If the review is elevated, the coordinating agency, or DGC on request, shall arrange meetings and shall mediate among the resource agencies, the affected coastal re- source districts with approved programs, and the - applicant, for the purpose of attempting to re- solve any disputed issues and to formulate a mutually acceptable consistency determination. If no consensus is reached, the coordinating agency shall render a determination consistent with any policy direction given by the commis- sioners or the governor. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) 6 AAC 50.080. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMA- TION AND FEES. An application for a state permit requiring information which must by law be held in confidence, and any fee associated with a state permit, must be submitted by the applicant directly to the agency with responsi- bility for issuing the permit. The agency shall delete the confidential information from any copy of the application which is distributed for a consistency review under this chapter. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) 6 AAC 50.090. EMERGENCY EXPEDITED REVIEW. If, due to an emergency as described in AS 26.23 or AS 46.04.080 or other applicable law, an applicant needs an expedited agency per- mit or consistency review, or if the head of the coordinating agency finds that an expedited re- view is necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, or general welfare, B-5 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 6AAC 50.070 6AAC 50.100 the head of the coordinating agency may modify the review process established in this chapter as necessary to meet the emergency. Any modifi- cations in the review process made under this section must be made in writing by the head of the coordinating agency, based upon clear and convincing evidence of a need for the modifica- tion. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) 6 AAC 50.100. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. (a) Any person may comment on a proposed project by submitting written comments to the coordinating agency on or before the comment deadline. The coordinating agency shall provide a copy of the project packet to any person on request. (b) If the coordinating agency receives a re- quest for public hearing regarding a project by Day 34, or Day 17 of a 30-day review period, and finds that the request is based on concerns not already adequately addressed in the review. the coordinating agency shall schedule and hold a hearing in the area affected by the project. (c) Within seven days after receiving a request under (b) of this section, the coordinating agency shall decide whether or not to hold a public hearing. (d) At least 15 but no more than 30 days be- fore the date of a public hearing, the co- ordinating agency shall give notice of the time and place of the hearing (1) by publication in a newspaper which is circulated in the area to be affected by the project; (2) by written notice to the governing body of an affected coastal resource district; and (3) if the project is to be located in the un- organized borough, by radio or television an- nouncements. (e) If new information or issues are presented at a public hearing that have not been con- sidered or resolved by project reviewers, the coordinating agency shall summarize those por- tions of the hearing testimony and distribute the Register 89, April 1984 summary to other resource agencies, affected coastal resource districts, and the applicant, within five days following the hearing. Recom- mendations for a proposed determination based on the summary may be submitted to the coordinating agency in writing within seven days after receipt of the summary. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) 6 AAC 50.110. REVIEW PERIOD DEAD- LINES AND EXTENSIONS. (a) The co- ordinating agency shall complete a review by either Day 30 or Day 50 unless it extends the applicable decision deadline as provided in (b) or (c) of this section. Each resource agency shall, after consultation with DGC, establish standards for determining whether a 30-day or 50-day decision deadline will apply. DGC will complete a review by Day 30 only if all required permits must by statute or regulation be issued within 30 days. (b) An associate director within OMB or a divi- sion director within the coordinating agency may grant an extension of a consistency review as long as the consistency determination is made within any time limit imposed by federal law or regulation. An extension and the reasons for it must be stated in writing and, except for an extension granted under (1) of this subsec- tion, must be based on clear and convincing evi- dence of the need for the extension. The co- ordinating agency will notify the resource agencies, applicant, and affected coastal resource districts of the terms of an extension. The limits on extensions are (1) for a project located in the unorganized borough, the coordinating agency may, without a request, extend both the comment and deci- sion deadlines by 10 days; : (2) if a commenting agency requests time to perform a field review, the coordinating agency may extend the remaining deadlines by up to 10 days; (3) if the project involves a disposal of interest in state land or resources and DGC is the coordinating agency, it will, on DNR’s re- quest, extend both the comment and decision B-6 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 6 AAC 50.100 6 AAC 50.110 deadlines for a period necessary to most ef- ficiently coordinate the consistency review and the DNR disposal process; (4) for a project which is subject to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, P.L. 95-87, 91 Stat. 445 (1977), 30 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., the consistency review deadlines will be extended as necessary to con- form to the requirements of that Act and of the Alaska Surface Mining Control and Reclama- tion Act, AS 27.21; (5) if a public hearing is held as part of the consistency review process, or as part of a resource-agency review of a necessary permit, the coordinating agency may extend both the comment and decision deadlines as necessary; (6) if the coordinating agency requests addi- tional information from the applicant as pro- vided in 6 AAC 50.070, the agency may extend the remaining deadlines for a period equal to the time elapsed between the request and receipt of the information; (7) if the coordinating agency determines that a consensus among the resource agencies, any affected coastal resource district, and the applicant cannot be reached within a 50-day re- view period, it shall state in writing the issues or conditions which require additional time for review, and may extend the remaining deadlines for up to 15 days for each higher level of review provided in 6 AAC 50.070(k); (8) if the applicant requests an extension, the coordinating agency may extend the remaining deadlines as requested; (9) if the coordinating agency determines that the project involves unusually complex issues, it may extend the deadlines as neces- sary; if the deadline is extended under this para- graph, the agency shall by Day 50, or Day 30 of a 30-day review period, distribute to the re- source agencies, the affected coastal resource districts, and the applicant, a written statement of the issues which remain to be resolved; the coordinating agency shall notify all interested parties promptly as issues are resolved. (c) All time periods in this chapter must be calculated using calendar days. An action Register 89, April 1984 required to be taken on a Saturday, Sunday, or state or federal holiday must be taken on or before the next working day. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) 6 AAC 50.120. CONCLUSIVE CONSIST- ENCY DETERMINATION. (a) In rendering a conclusive consistency determination, the coordinating agency shall give careful considera- tion to all comments, and shall give due def- erence to the comments of resource agencies and affected coastal districts with approved pro- , grams. “Due deference” means that deference which is appropriate in the context of the com- menter’s expertise and area of responsibility, and all the evidence available to support any factual assertions. A coastal resource district. whose district program has been incorporated into the ACMP is considered to have expertise in the interpretation and application of its pro- gram. If the coordinating agency rejects a stip- ulation or recommendation requested by a commenting resource agency or affected coastal Tesource district with an approved program, within its respective area of expertise, the co- ordinating agency shall make a written finding stating the reasons for rejecting the stipulation. (b) The coordinating agency shall render a written conclusive consistency determination before the decision deadline under 6 AAC 50.070 or 6 AAC 50.110. The agency shall dis- tribute its determination to the applicants and to all resource agencies, all other agencies which commented on the project, and all affected coastal resource districts. The determination must describe the scope of the project which was reviewed. If the project is determined to be consistent with the ACMP, the determination must state any conditions or stipulations and must identify the state or federal permits in which each stipulation must be included to ensure that the project is consistent with the ACMP. If a resource agency is the coordinating agency, it may include the determination in its approval or denial of each permit required for the project. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska,Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) B-7 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 6 AAC 50.110 6 AAC 50.190 6 AAC 50.130. ISSUANCE OF PROJECT PERMITS. A resource agency shall issue a per- mit which is necessary for a project, except a lease, within five days after it issues or receives the conclusive consistency determination for that project, unless the commissioner of that agency finds that additional review is necessary to fulfill statutory responsibilities. A resource agency shall issue a lease at the time and in the manner provided by applicable law, regulation, and agency procedure, but not before it issues or receives a conclusive consistency determina- tion for the appropriate project. For a project which is deemed consistent, by either categorical approval of all necessary permits or a general concurrence determination, an agency shall issue a required permit as soon as possible in the time and manner prescribed by applicable statutes or Tegulations. A project permit must contain any applicable conditions or stipulations required by the conclusive consistency determination, and may not contain any additional condition or stipulation for the sole purpose of ensuring con- sistency. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) 6 AAC 50.190. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter and in AS 44.19.145(a)(11) (1) “ACMP” means the Alaska Coastal Man- agement Program, as amended, which was de- veloped as provided in AS 46.40, 6 AAC 80, and 6 AAC 85, and approved by the Secretary of the United States Department of Commerce under authority of sec. 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1454; (2) “affected coastal resource district’? means a coastal resource district as defined in AS 46.40.210(2) in which a project is proposed to be located, or which may experience a direct and significant impact from a proposed project; (3) “approved program” means a coastal resource district program that has been approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy Council and filed by the lieutenant governor’s office; (4) “‘consistency” means compliance with the Register 89. April 1984 standards of the ACMP, including the enforce- able policies of an approved coastal resource district program; (S) “coordinating agency” means the agency responsible for coordinating and facilitating the review and rendering the determination; (6) ‘‘CZMA” means the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.; (7) “DGC” means division of governmental coordination within the office of management and budget in the Office of the Governor; (8) “DNR” means the Department of Natural Resources; (9) “determination” or “consistency deter- mination” or “conclusive consistency determina- tion’’ means (A) a document issued by the co- ordinating agency containing a brief descrip- tion of the project, and the findings of the consistency review together with any stipula- tions, conditions, or modifications to the project which must be attached to the applicable permits, and a brief justification for those necessary modifications, conditions, or stipulations, and includes (B) a response to a consistency certifica- tion or determination required or authorized under the CZMA; (10) “direct and significant impact’? means an effect of a project which will likely contri- bute or lead to a significant change in or altera- tion of the natural, social, cultural, or economic characteristics of a coastal resource district; (11) “disposal of interest in state land” mecns the sale, lease, or other disposition of statz-owned or state-managed land or resources by the Department of Natural Resources; (12) “OMB” means the office of manage- ment and budget in the Office of the Governor; (13) “permit” means a permit, lease, au- thorization, license or any other determina- GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 6 AAC 50.190 tion necessary for completion of a project or a discrete phase of a project: (14) “project” means an activity or use which will be located in or may affect the coastal zone of Alaska and which is subject to consistency review under sec. 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1456), or which requires the issu- ance of one or more state permits; when a land or water activity is developed or authorized in discrete phases, and each phase requires agency decisions regarding permits, each phase is con- sidered a “project’’; (15) “resource agency” means the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, or the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, or the Alaska Department of Natural Resources; - (16) “review” or “consistency review” means the evaluation of a project against the ACMP standards. (Eff. 3/11/84, Reg. 89) Authority: Art. III, Secs. 1, 16 and 24, Alaska Const. AS 44.19.145(a)(11) Register 94, July 1985 PART 6. ALASKA COASTAL POLICY COUNCIL Chapter 80. Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (6 AAC 80.010—6 AAC 80.900) 85. Guidelines for District Coastal Management Programs (6 AAC 85.010—6 AAC 85.900) CHAPTER 80. STANDARDS OF THE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Article 1. Government Process (6 AAC 80.010—6 AAC 80.030) 2. Uses and Activities . (6 AAC 80.040—6 AAC 80.120) 3. Resources and Habitats (6 AAC 80.130—6 AAC 80.150) 4. Areas Which Merit Special Attention (6 AAC 80.158—6 AAC 80.170) 5. General Provisions (6 AAC 80.900) ARTICLE 1. GOVERNMENT PROCESS Section 10. Coverage of chapter 20. Public participation and information 30. Program management and coordination 6 AAC 80.010. COVERAGE OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter contains standards for the use of and application by districts and state agencies in carrying out their responsibilities under the Alaska Coastal Management Act (AS 46.40, and AS 44.19.891 — 44.19.894). (b) Nothing in this chapter or in any district program displaces or diminishes the authority of any state agency or local government with Tespect to resources in the coastal area. Uses and activities conducted by state agencies in the coastal area must be consistent with the applicable district program and the standards contained in this chapter. In authorizing uses or activities in the coastal area under its statutory authority, each state agency shall grant authorization if, in addition to finding that the use or activity complies with the agency’s statutes and regulations, the agency finds that GOVERNOR’S OFFICE 6 AAC 80.010 6 AAC 80.020 the use or activity is consistent with the appli- cable district program and the standards con- tained in this chapter. However, if the district program and the standards in this chapter both address the same operational subject or issue, the provisions of the district program are con- trolling. (c) At a minimum, the council will review this chapter annually. (Eff. 7/18/78, Rey. 67; am 9/9/81, Reg. 79) Authority: AS 44.19.160 AS 46.40.040 AS 46.40.100 6 AAC 80.020. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION. (a) The council will provide adequate, effective, and continuing opportunities for public participation from the beginning of the Alaska coastal management program. The council will give notice of when and where opportunities for public participation will be provided before adoption of guidelines and standards, review and approval of district programs and amendments to district programs, and amendments to the Alaska coastal management program. (b) The council will not approve a district program or significant amendment of a district program unless evidence of significant opportunities for public participation at the district level has been provided. (c) The council will make available to the public information and educational materials concerning coastal management, in understandable form, including (1) a guide for the development of district programs; (2) maps and narratives describing physical and biological characteristics to be used in establishing boundaries of coastal areas; (3) areas recommended for council designation as areas which merit special attention; (4) maps showing the distribution and abundance of coastal fish and wildlife species with commercial, recreational, subsistence, or general ecological importance; Register 94, July 1985 identification of major data and sources concerning _ coastal (5S) an information management; (6) a summary of information regarding coastal regions; (7) summaries of public hearings and workshops; (8) films and slide programs; (9) written material summarizing or explaining the Alaska coastal management program; and (10) the council’s annual report to the legislature. (d) At public meetings concerning the Alaska coastal management program, the council will ensure that, when requested and ‘reasonably necessary, translation into the appropriate Native language is provided. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) ; Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.030. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION. (a) The division of governmental coordination of the Office of Management and Budget is the designated lead agency for the Alaska Coastal Management Pro- gram. The division of governmental coordination of the Office of Management and Budget shall (1) present the staff position regarding matters before the council; (2) coordinate the activites of state agencies participating in the Alaska coastal management program; and (3) review state and federal actions for con- sistency with the Alaska coastal management program, as provided in 6 AAC 50. (b) The council will initiate an interagency program of comprehensive resource management for each geographic region listed in AS 44.19.155. Regional programs will (1) assist the council and districts in identify- GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 6 AAC 80.020 6 AAC 80.030 ing uses of state concern and developing manage- ment policies for these uses; (2) provide resource, social, and economic information on a coordinated regional basis; and (3) assist the council and districts in identify- ing, avoiding, or minimizing existing or potential conflicts. (c) Plans and recommendations developed as part of the regional program described in (b) of this section must be transmitted to the district through the division of governmental coordina- tion. District planning efforts must demonstrate review and consideration of these plans and recommendations. If the final district program proposed does not agree with the regional program plans and recommendations, the differ- ences will be resolved by the council. (d) The council will prepare a manual of standards for the management of land and water uses in the coastal area to assist in the develop- ment of district and state agency programs. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67;am 10/28/84, Reg. 92) Authority: AS 44.19.145(a)(11) AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 B-10 Register 89, April 1984 ARTICLE 2. USES AND ACTIVITIES Section 40. Coastal development 50. Geophysical hazard areas 60. Recreation 70. Energy facilities 80. Transportation and utilities 90. Fish and seafood processing 100. Timber harvest and processing 110. Mining and mineral processing 120. Subsistence 6 AAC 80.040. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT. (a) In planning for and approving development in coastal areas, districts and state agencies shall give, in the following order, priority to: (1) water-dependent uses and activities; (2) water-related uses and activities; and (3) uses and activities which are neither water-dependent nor water-related for which there is no feasible and prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for the use’ or activity. (b) The placement of structures and the discharge of dredged or fill material into coastal water must, at a minimum, comply with the standards contained in Parts 320-323, Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (Vol. 42 of the Federal Register, pp. 37133 — 47 (July 19, 1977)). (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.050. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARD AREAS. (a) Districts and state agencies shall identify known geophysical hazard areas and areas of high development potential in which there is a substantial possibility that geophysical hazards may occur. (b) Development in areas identified under (a) of this section may not be approved by the appropriate state or local authority until siting, design, and construction measures for minimizing property damage ‘and protecting against loss of life have been provided. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE B-11 6 AAC 80.040 6 AAC 80.070 6 AAC 80.060. RECREATION. (a) Districts shall designate areas for recreational use. Criteria for designation of areas of recreational use are (1) the area receives significant use by persons engaging in recreational pursuits or is a major tourist destination; or (2) the area has potential for high quality recreational use because of physical, biological, or cultural features. (b) Districts and state agencies shall give high priority to maintaining and, where appropriate, increasing public access to coastal water. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.070. ENERGY FACILITIES. (a) Sites suitable for the development of major energy facilities must be identified by districts and the state in cooperation with districts. (b) The siting and approval of major energy facilities by districts and state agencies must be based, to the extent feasible and prudent, on the following standards: (1) site facilities so as to minimize adverse environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial requirements; Register 89. April 1984 (2) site facilities so as to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs: (3) consolidate facilities: (4) consider the concurrent use of facilities for public or economic reasons; (5) cooperate with landowners, developers, and federal agencies in the development of facilities; (6) select sites with sufficient acreage to allow for reasonable expansion of facilities; (7) site facilities where existing infrastructure, including roads, docks, and airstrips, is capable of satisfying industrial requirements; (8) select harbors and shipping routes with least exposure to reefs, shoals, drift ice, and other obstructions; ~ (9) encourage the use of vessel traffic control and collision avoidance systems; (10) select sites where development will require minimal site clearing, dredging and construction in productive habitats: (11) site facilities so as to minimize the probability, along shipping routes, of spills or other forms of contamination which would affect fishing grounds, spawning grounds, and other biologically productive or vulnerable habitats, including marine mammal rookeries and hauling out grounds and waterfowl nesting areas; (12) site facilities so that design and construction of those facilities and support infrastructures in coastal areas of Alaska will allow for the free passage and movement of fish and wildlife with due consideration for historic migratory patterns and so that areas of particular scenic, recreational, environmental, or cultural value will be protected; (13) site facilities in areas of least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be controlled or contained; GOVERNOR’S OFFICE 6 AAC 80.070 6 AAC 80.100 (14) site facilities where winds and air currents disperse airborne emissions which cannot be captured before escape into the atmosphere; (15) select sites in areas which are designated for industrial purposes and where industrial traffic is minimized through population centers; and (16) select sites where vessel movements will not result in overcrowded harbors or interfere with fishing operations and equipment. (c) Districts shall consider that the uses authorized by the issuance of state and federal leases for mineral and petroleum resource extraction are uses of state concern. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.080 TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES. (a) Transportation and utility routes and facilities in the coastal area must be sited, designed, and constructed so as to be compatible with district programs. (b) Transportation and utility routes and facilities must be sited inland from beaches and shorelines unless the route or facility is water-dependent or no feasible and prudent inland alternative exists to meet the public need for the route or facility. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.090. FISH AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING. Districts shall identify and may designate areas of the coast suitable for the location or development of facilities related to commercial fishing and seafood processing. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.100. TIMBER HARVEST AND PROCESSING. AS 41.17, Forest Resources and Practices, and the regulations and procedures adopted under that chapter with respect to the harvest and processing of timber, are incorporated into the Alaska coastal manage- ment program and constitute the components of B-12 Register 89, April 1984 the coastal management program with respect to those purposes. (Eff. 7/18/78. Reg. 67: am 8/18/79. Reg. 71: am 3/30/84. Reg. 89) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.110. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING. (a) Mining ard mineral processing in the coastal area must be regulated, designed. and conducted so as to be compatible with the standards contained in this chapter. adjacent uses and activities, statewide and national needs, and district programs. (b) Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits, when there is no feasible and prudent alternative to coastal extraction which will meet the public need for the sand or gravel. (Eff. 7/18/78. Reg. 67: am 8/18/79, Reg. 71) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.120. SUBSISTENCE. (a) Districts and state agencies shall recognize and assure opportunities for subsistence usage of coastal areas and resources. (b) Districts shall identify areas in which subsistence is the dominant use of coastal resources. (c) Districts may, after consultation with appropriate state agencies, Native corporations, and any other persons or groups, designate areas identified under (b) of this section as subsistence zones in which subsistence uses and activities have priority over all nonsubsistence uses and activities. (d) Before a potentially conflicting use or activity may be authorized within areas + designated under (c) of this section. a study of the possible adverse impacts of the proposed potentially conflicting use or activity upon subsistence usage must be conducted and appropriate safeguards to assure subsistence usage must be provided. GOVERNOR’S OFFICE B-13 6 AAC 80.100 6 AAC 80.130 (e) Districts sharing migratory fish and game resources must submit compatible plans for habitat management. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 ARTICLE 3. RESOURCES AND HABITATS Section 130. Habitats 140. Air, land, and water quality 150. Historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources 6 AAC 80.130. HABITATS. (a) Habitats in the coastal area which are subject to the Alaska coastal management program include (1) offshore areas: Register 89, April 1984 (2) estuaries: (3) wetlands and tideflats; (4) rocky islands and seacliffs; (5) barrier islands and lagoons: (6) exposed high energy coasts; (7) rivers, streams, and lakes; and (8) important upland habitat. (b) The habitats contained in (a) of this section must be managed so as to maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity to support living resources. (c) In addition to the standard contained in (b) of this section, the following standards apply to the management of the following habitats: (1) offshore areas must be managed as a fisheries conservation zone so as to maintain or enhance the state's sport. commercial, and subsistence fishery; (2) estuaries must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, natural circulation patterns. nutrients, and oxygen levels, and avoid the discharge of toxic wastes, silt, and destruction of productive habitat: (3) wetlands and tideflats must be managed sO as to assure adequate water flow, nutrients, and oxygen levels and avoid adverse effects on natural drainage patterns, the destruction of important habitat, and the discharge of toxic substances; (4) rocky islands and seacliffs must be managed so as to avoid the harassment of wildlife, destruction of important habitat, and the introduction of competing or destructive species and predators; (S) barrier islands and lagoons must be managed so as to maintain adequate flows of sediments. detritus. and water. avoid the alteration or redirection of wave energy which would lead to the filling in of lagoons or the erosion of barrier islands. and discourage GOVERNOR'S OFFICE 6 AAC 80.130 6 AAC 80.140 activities which would decrease the use of barrier islands by coastal species, including polar bears and nesting birds: (6) high energy coasts must be managed by assuring the adequate mix and transport of sediments and nutrients and avoiding redirection of transport processes and wave energy; and (7) rivers, streams. and lakes must be managed to protect natural vegetation, water quality, important fish or wildlife habitat and natural water flow. (d) Uses and activities in the coastal area which will not conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section may be allowed by the district or appropriate state agency if the following are established: (1) there is a significant public need for the proposed use or activity; (2) there is no feasible prudent alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity which would conform to the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section: and (3) all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the standards contained in (b) and (c) of this section will be taken. (e) In applying this section, districts and state agencies may use appropriate expertise, including regional programs referred to in 6 AAC 80.030(b). (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.140. AIR, LAND, AND WATER QUALITY. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the statutes pertaining to and the regulations and procedures of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land, and water quality are incorporated into the Alaska coastal management program and, = as administered by that agency, constitute the components of the coastal management program with respect to those purposes. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 B-14 Register 97. April 1986 6 AAC 80.150. HISTORIC, PREHISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Dis- tricts and appropriate state agencies shall identify areas of the coast which are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory. (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 ARTICLE 4. AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION Section 158. Types of areas to be designated as areas which merit special attention . 160. Areas which merit special attention inside districts 170. Areas which merit special attention outside districts 6 AAC 80.158. TYPES OF AREAS TO BE DESIGNATED AS AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION. An area to be desig- nated as an area which merits special attention may include the following, in addition to the categories contained in AS 46.40.210(1): (1) areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging; (2) areas with special scientific values or op- portunities, including those areas where ongoing research projects could be jeoparidzed by de- velopment or conflicting uses and activities; and (3) potential estuarine or marine sanctuaries. (Eff. 6/9/85, Reg. 94) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 Editor’s Note: Before 6/9/85, Register 94, the substance of 6 AAC 80.158 was contained in 6 AAC 80.160. The history of 6 AAC 80.160 is not reflected in the ee. note for 6 AAC 80.158. 6 AAC 80.160. AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION INSIDE DISTRICTS. (a) A person may recommend, to a district, areas inside the district to be nominated to the council as areas which merit special attention. A district may nominate, in a district program or as a significant amendment to its program, B-15 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE 6 AAC 80.150 6 AAC 80.160 areas which merit special attention. Council designation of areas which merit special attention inside districts will be in accordance with the procedures for approval of district pro- grams, or significant amendments to district programs, as described in 6 AAC 85. A nomina- tion of an area which merits special attention must include the following information: (1) the basis or bases for designation under AS 46.40.210(1) or 6 AAC 80.158; (2) a map showing the geographical location, . surface area and, if appropriate, bathymetry of the area, along with a legal and narrative descrip- tion of the boundaries and a justification of the size of the area which merits special attention; (3) a description of the area which includes dominant physical and biological features; (4) the existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of the area, including existing uses and activities; (5) the existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of adjacent shoreland and sea areas, including existing uses and activities; (6) present and anticipated conflicts among uses and activities within or adjacent to the area, if any; and (7) a proposed management plan, consisting of the following: (A) a description of the uses and activi- ties that will be considered proper, and the uses and activities that will be considered improper, with respect to land and water within the area, and the rationale for the designate of proper and improper uses: (B) a statement of the specific, enforce- able policies that will be applied in managing the area; and (C) an identification of the authority that will be used to implement the proposed management plan. (b) A management plan for an area which merits special attention inside a district must Register 97, April 1986 preserve, protect. enhance. or restore the value or values for which the area was designated. (Eff. 7/18/78. Reg. 67: am 8/18/79. Reg. 71: am 6/9/85, Reg. 94: am 4/2/86. Reg. 97) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 6 AAC 80.170. AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION OUTSIDE DISTRICTS. (a) A person may recommend to the council an area that is within the coastal area but outside a coastal resource district, to be designated as an area which merits special attention. A recom- mendation to the council of an area which merits special attention outside a district must include the following information: (1) a map showing the geographical location of the area, as well as a legal and narrative description of the boundaries, and a justification of the size of the area which merits special attention; (2) a summary of the resource values and use conflicts, if any, in the area; (3) a statement of the purpose and objectives to be met through planning for an area which merits special attention; (4) a tentative schedule outlining timeframes for completion of planning tasks and reviews; (5) a list of parties with interests in or adjacent to the proposed area which merits special attention who may be affected by its designation, and a description of how these parties would be involved in plan development; and (6) justification that the area which merits special attention is the preferred planning and management mechanism for meeting the objec- tives of the proposal and the Alaska coastal management program. (b) Upon receipt of a recommendation for an area which merits special attention outside of a district, the division of governmental coordina- tion (DGC) of the office of management and budget shall place the recommendation on the council’s agenda for consideration at its next regularly scheduled meeting, and shall give GOVERNOR’S OFFICE 6 AAC 80.160 6 AAC 80.170 notice of a public hearing. DGC shall give direct notice to the affected parties identified in (a)(5) of this section. DGC shall make the recom- mendation available for public inspection at the time of the notice of the public hearing. The council will make an initial finding, detailing its reasons to either authorize additional planning for the area which merits special attention outside a district, or to reject the recommenda- tion. The council’s determination to authorize additional planning for the area which merits special attention may not be construed as council approval of the merits of the final plan. (c) If the council decides to authorize further planning for an area which merits special atten- tion, public notice will be provided by con- spicuous advertisement, such as display notice, in a news publication of general circulation in the affected area and in one of general circula- tion in the state. DGC, with assistance from the sponsor, shall compile a mailing list of state and federal agencies, affected municipalities and villages, landowners, and other interested parties and shall notify them that planning for the area which merits special attention is going to occur. (d) The sponsor of the nomination is respon- sible for developing a public review draft for the area which merits special attention outside of a district. The review draft must include the in- formation required under 6 AAC 80.160(a)(1) through (7), in addition to the following: (1) an evaluation of the potential impacts of the designation on the social, cultural, environ- mental, and economic features of the area and adjacent areas: (2) The proposed management plan required under 6 AAC 160(a)(7) must include a descrip- tion of how the proposed management plan will be implemented. B-16 Register 97, April 1986 (e) A management plan for an area which merits special attention outside a district must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or values for which the area is designated. (f) The sponsor shall provide opportunities for consultation on and review of the proposal by appropriate state, federal, and local govern- mental agencies, affected landowners, and other persons who have been identified as interested parties under (c) of this section. The sponsor shall hold no less than two public meetings during plan development to inform the public and receive comments concerning the plan. (g) The sponsor of the area which merits special attention shall distribute a public review draft to all parties identified under (c) of this section. The public review draft must contain all elements listed in (d) of this section, as well as evidence that the public participation require- ments of this section have been satisfied. The sponsor shall provide at least a 60-day review period. The sponsor shall send with the public review draft a transmittal letter that identifies the comment deadline and the recipient of comments. The sponsor shall publish notice of the availability of the public review draft for review and comment, including advertising in news publications that are circulated in the area affected by the nomination and in news publications that are circulated statewide. The sponsor shall also post a notice prominently in municipalities and villages affected by the proposal. (h) After the close of the public review and comment period, the sponsor of the area which merits special attention shall revise the public review draft as necessary to incorporate comments received. Council review of the area which merits special attention will begin upon the sponsor’s submission of the revised draft to the council. (i) DGC shall distribute the council review draft, along with its preliminary findings on the plan, to the mailing list compiled under (c) of this section. A person may submit comments on the area which merits special attention nomina- tion to the council within 60 days after this B-17 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE 6 AAC 80.170 distribution. Comments that are not received within the 60-day review period will not be con- sidered. G) DGC shall prepare a summary of and a re- sponse to comments received on the council review draft and, if necessary, revise its recom- mendations. DGC shall distribute these materials to all parties who commented on the draft. All comments and additional material submitted will be placed in a record file maintained by DGC. (k) The council will, after public notice, hold a public hearing on the designation of the area which merits special attention. (1) The council will approve the designation of an area which merits special attention if it (1) is substantially consistent with the requirements of this section; (2) does not arbitrarily or un- reasonably restrict or exclude uses of state con- cern, except as allowed in AS 46.40.070(c); (3) does not violate another state law; and (4) does not cause substantial irreparable harm to another interest or value in the coastal area. The council’s decision to designate, or not designate, the area which merits special atten- tion outside of a district will contain findings and conclusions based on the requirements listed in this subsection. Register 97, April 1986 (m) DGC shall provide public notice of the council’s action designating an area which merits special attention outside of a district by distri- buting a copy of the council’s order to all per- sons who testified or submitted timely written statements during public review, and to all per- sons who requested a copy of the order in writing. DGC shall also publish notice of the council’s action, at a minimum, in news publica- tions that are circulated within the affected region and in news publications that are cir- culated statewide. (n) The council’s designation of an area which merits special attention outside of a district takes effect for state law purposes as part of the Alaska coastal management program upon the lieutenant governor’s filing of the council’s order approving the designation. (Eff. 6/9/85, Reg. 94: am 4/2/86, Reg. 97) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 ARTICLE 5. GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 900. Definitions 6 AAC 80.900. DEFINITIONS. Unless the context indicates otherwise, in this chapter (1) “barrier islands and lagoons” means depositional coastal environments formed by deposits of sediment offshore or coastal remnants which form a barrier of low-lying islands and bars protecting a salt-water lagoon with free exchange of water to the sea; (2) “coastal water’”’ means all water bodies in the coastal area, including wetlands and the intertidal area; (3) “council” the Alaska Coastal Policy Council; means (4) “district” means a coastal resource district as defined in AS 46.40.210(2); (5) “district program” means a_ district coastal management program; (6) “estuary” means a semiclosed coastal body of water which has a free connection with GOVERNOR’S OFFICE ‘from geophysical or 6 AAC 80.170 6 AAC 80.900 the sea and within which seawater is measurably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage; (7) “exposed high-energy coasts” means open and unprotected sections of coastline with exposure to ocean generated wave impacts and usually characterized by coarse sand, gravel, boulder beaches, and well-mixed coastal water; (8) “facilities related to commercial fishing and seafood processing’’ includes hatcheries and related facilities, seafood processing plants and support facilities, marine industrial and commercial facilities, and aquaculture facilities; (9) “geophysical hazard areas” means those areas which present a threat to life or property geological hazards, including flooding, tsunami run-up, storm surge run-up, landslides, snowslides, faults, ice hazards, erosion, and littoral beach process; (10) “mining and mineral processing” means the development of mineral resources extracted in tidal rivers, coastal water, and on continental shelves of the open sea, and found in surface, subsurface, and aqueous deposits; (11) “offshore areas” means submerged lands and waters seaward of the coastline; (12) “trocky islands and seacliffs’ means islands of volcanic or tectonic origin with rocky shores and steep faces, offshore rocks, capes, and steep rocky seafronts; (13) “‘tideflats” means mostly unvegetated areas that are alternately exposed and inundated by the falling and rising of the tide; (14) “transportation and utility routes and facilities” include power transmission lines, mineral slurry lines, oil and gas pipelines, land and marine corridors, railways, highways, roadways, air terminals, water and sewage transfer, and facilities required to operate and maintain the route or facility; (15) ‘“‘upland’’ means drainages, aquifers, and land, the use of which would have a direct and significant impact on coastal water; B-18 Register 94, July 1985 (16) ‘“‘uses of state concern” has the same meaning as in AS 46.40.210(6); (17) “water-dependent” means a use or activity which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body; (18) “water-related” means a use or activity which is not directly dependent upon access to a water body, but which provides goods or services that are directly associated with water-dependence and which, if not located adjacent to water, would result in a public loss of quality in the goods or services offered; (19) “wetlands” includes both freshwater and saltwater wetlands; “freshwater wetlands” means those environments characterized by rooted vegetation which is partially submerged either continuously or periodically by surface freshwater with less than .5 parts per thousand salt content and not exceeding three meters in depth; “saltwater wetlands” means those coastal areas along sheltered shorelines characterized by halophytic hydrophytes and macroalgae ex- tending from extreme low tide to an area above extreme high tide which is influenced by sea spray or tidally induced water table changes; (20) “feasible and prudent” means consistent with sound engineering practice and not causing environmental, social, or economic problems that outweigh the public benefit to be derived from compliance with the standard which is modified by the term “feasible and prudent”; (21) “including” means including but not limited to; (22) “major energy facility” includes marine service bases and storage depots, pipelines and rights-of-way, drilling rigs and _ platforms, petroleum or coal separation, treatment, or storage facilities, liquid natural gas plants and terminals, oil terminals and other port development for the transfer of energy products, petrochemical plants, refineries and associated facilities, hydroelectric projects, other electric generating plants, transmission lines, uranium enrichment or nuclear fuel processing facilities, and geothermal facilities; ‘“‘major energy facility” means a development of more than B-19 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE 6 AAC 80.900 local concern carried out in, or in close proximity to, the coastal area, which meets one or more of the following criteria: (A) a facility required to support energy operations for exploration or production purposes; (B) a facility used to produce, convert, process, or store energy resources or marketable products; (C) a facility used to transfer, transport, import, or export energy resources or marketable products; (D) a facility used for in-state energy use; or (E) a facility used primarily for the manufacture, production, or assembly of equipment, machinery, products, or devices which are involved in any activity described in (A) — (D) of this paragraph; (23) “significant amendment” means an amendment to an approved district program which (A) results in a major revision, addition or deletion to the policies or implementa- tion methods or authorities included in the district program under 6 AAC 85.090 and 6 AAC 85.100; (B) alters the district boundaries, other than by technical adjustments; (C) designates an area which merits special attention or alters an existing area which merits special attention designation; or (D) restricts or excludes a use of state concern not previously restricted or excluded; (24) ‘“‘area which merits special attention” * has the same meaning as in AS 46.40.210(1); Register 94, July 1985 GOVERNOR’S OFFICE (25) “village” has the same meaning as in AS 46.40.180(d). (Eff. 7/18/78, Reg. 67; am 8/18/79, Reg. 71; am 9/9/81, Reg. 79; am 6/9/85, Reg. 94) Authority: AS 44.19.161 AS 46.40.040 AS 46.40.010(c)(2) AS 46.40.060 AS 46.40.030 AS 46.40.070 B-20 6 AAC 80.900 APPENDIX C Selected State Regulations Coastal Development Policy 1.2 in the Bristol Bay CRSA Coastal Management Program references setback requirements contained in the Alaska Department of Environmental Con- servation regulation at 18 AAC 72.021 and Bristol Bay Area Plan (BBAP) Fish Guideline #2. A copy of both regulations is provided below. ADEC REGULATION 18 AAC 72.021. SEPARATION DISTANCES. (a) Aperson who builds or installs a sewer, wastewater disposal system, or wastewater treatement works must use the minimum separation distances set out in Table A unless the department approves a lesser distance. Requests for approval of a lesser separation distance must include an engineering report, approved and signed by a registered engineer, which justifies the lesser distance and contains (1) a description of the soil classification, groundwater conditions, surface topography, geology, and any other environmental condition which is important in setting the separation distance; (2) a set of plans with an accurate description and location of potential sources of contamination, waters, and existing or potential drinking water sources in the area; and (3) details of a design which will prevent contamination of waters or drinking water sources identified in (2) of this subsection at the lesser distance. (b) The department will, in its discretion, waive the requirement that the report submitted to justify a lesser separation distance be prepared by a registered engineer if the proposed system is in a remote location or cannot be reached by road. (c) The department will allow a lesser separation distance than set out in Table A if it finds, after review of acomplete engineering report submitted in accordance with this section, that the lesser distance will protect water and existing or potential drinking water sources. The department will, in its discretion, require changed pipe material, pipe bedding, joints, pipe strength, increased depth of grout, or other changes needed to protect waters and drinking water sources. (d) The department will require a greater separation distance than set out in Table A when needed to pro- tect waters or drinking water sources. This decision will be made after considering soil classification, groundwater conditions, surface topography, geology, past experience, or other factors which do not enable the distances in Table A to protect waters or drinking water sources. C1 TABLEA MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES BETWEEN SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE DRINKING WATER SOURCES AND POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION [Measured horizontally in feet (meters)]. Potential Sources Water Sources For Drinking Water Supply Systems: of Contamination Class A & Class B Class C Private Public Water Public Water Water Sources Systems Systems Wastewater treatment works, wastewater disposal system*, privy*, sewer, sewer cleanout 200 (61) 150 (45.7) 100 (30.5) Community sewer line, holding tank*, other poten- tial source of contamination 200 (61) 100 (30.5) 75 (23) Private sewer line,petroleum tank 100 (30.5) 75 (23) 25 (7.6) *distance is measured from the nearest edge of the soil absorption system, seepage pit, septic tank, holding tank, or privy to drinking water sources. (e) No person may install a septic tank, soil absorption system, seepage pit, or privy within 100 feet, measured horizontally to the nearest edge of the mean annual high water level of lakes, rivers, streams, springs, or sloughs, or mean higher high water level of coastal waters. (f) No person may install a septic tank, soil absorption system, or sewer in the ground either directly above, below, or within 10 feet of a water line. The water line should be above a sewer line whenever possible. Where sewer and water lines must cross, (1) The sewer line must be at least 18 inches from the water line; (2) both lines must be made of cast iron, ductile iron, or an approved equivalent; and (3) sewer line joints must be at least nine feet from water lines. (g) The department will, in its discretion, waive the requirements of (f) of this section for a utilidor if the water line is above the sewer line. Unless waived by the department, a utilidor must be designed so that if pipe failure occurs it will not flood. (h) No person may install a privy in areas subject to flooding. The vertical separation between the lowest point of the privy and the water table, measured during the season of the year with maximum water table C-2 elevation must be at least four feet. (Eff. 12/30/82, Register 84) Authority: AS 46.03.020 AS 46.03.050 AS 46.03.070 AS 46.03.080 AS 46.03.100 AS 46.03.720 Editor’s Note: This section is based on former section 18 AAC 72.020. BRISTOL BAY AREA PLAN FISH GUIDELINE #2: BUFFERS ADJACENT TO FISH HABITAT To minimize negative impacts on water quality and public access, the State will retain a publicly-owned vegetated (if naturally occurring) strip of land or an easement as a buffer on lands adjacent to fish habitat for the activities outlined below. This entire guideline does not apply to land exchanges and non-discretionary land conveyances, such as Native selections, Native allotments, mineral patents, etc. The size of river, lake, and stream buffers will be decided by the public land manager on a case-by-case basis and may vary depending on the nature of the activity proposed and the particular values of the stream, lake, or river. When disposing of land for settlement or commercial recreation facilities land managers will decide on a case-by- case basis whether the buffer will be publicly owned or an easement. Public ownership of the buffer is preferred on streams, rivers and lakes important to the production of anadromous fish or with important public use values. If an easement is used, no development or clearing except for access purposes will be allowed within the easement. Generally, public land disposals for settlement, commercial recreational facilities, or similar low densitys, non- water dependent uses should have a minimum buffer of 200 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark(s). However, adjacent to designated anadromous fish spawning habitat, the buffer will, to the extent feasible and pru- dent, never be less than 100 feet landward of the ordinary high water mark(s). Permits, leases, and plans of operation for non-water dependent commercial and industrial uses, transportation facilities, and pipelines wili, where feasible and prudent, require setbacks between these facilities and adjacent water bodies to maintain streambank access and protect adjacent fish habitat, public water supplies, and public recrea- tion. The width of this setback may vary depending upon the type and size of non-water dependent use, but will be adequate to maintain access and protect adjacent waters from degradation below the water quality standard set by DEC. Adjacent to designated anadromous fish spawning habitat this setback will, to the extent feasible and prudent, never be less than 100 feet landward of ordinary high water. Where it is not feasible and prudent to maintain a setback adjacent to fish habitat, public water supplies and recrea- tional waters, other measures will be implemented to meet the intent of this guideline. Where buffers are smaller than the minimum, soil erosion will, to the extent feasible and prudent, be minimized by restricting the removal of vegetation adjacent to fish-bearing waterbodies and by stabilizing disturbed soil as soon as possible. Adequate stabilization practices and timing will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Private landowners are encouraged to maintain development setbacks equivalent to the buffers described here and to follow soil erosion mitigation practices. This guideline is not intended to preclude or restrict necessary stream, river or lake crossings. . Kontrastib onde bee Ze fs j NIE ChE Naguruns ‘ Lake = re. wy x » Righs aid Point | ‘The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refage consists of islands, islets, rocks, reefs, spires, and designated capes and headlands in the coastal arcas and adjacent seus of Alaska. ‘Hagemeister Inland (near Togiak) und Chistiakof Island (near Port Heiden) are - included in this refuge system, as are ‘numerous coastal and offshore features on the Pacific Ocean side of the Alaska Peninsula, Protection? oiat : Egegik Sta Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area | | ‘rtical Habitat afea i N | i i somes Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Arca Boundary! —~ —— Park Boundary? a Borough Boundary First Class City Second Class City © Village 9 GE se : 2 : é lee D + - . . o Other Settlement ear : : : Wir kntal Hey : ‘ Upper\ : : ‘ cape Kekurnoi Care Greig) : c oO MAP AREA SY L 1 ‘The Bristol Bay Borongh maintains ils own coastal management program and thus is not » bound by policy decisions of the Bristol Bay CRSA Board. However, this atlas portrays resource and cultural data distributions throughout the Borough for the sake of clarity. Neighboring jurisdictions with coastal management programs in progress include Kodiak Island Borough, Aleutians East CRSA. and Cenaliulriit CRSA (see map). 2 Includes parks, preserves, wildlife refuges, and similar administrative units. Cape Me j Cape Grant apg ixvak : Source: Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs, 1983. H x : | Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1983. a ae a bee, \ Middte Cape, 4 ; _ an island ‘. : S Cane Tholik es » \ Base map adapted {rom Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center/University of ‘Alaska, “Alaska 1: 1,000,000 Base Map Series,” 1981. Universal ‘Transverse Mercator projections; Zones 4 and 5 joined al 156° West Longitude. Protracted land lines from U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Elevations in feet; contour interval 1000 feet, Cartography by Yeti Map Studio, Redmond, WA, 1983 3 Scale 1:1,000,000 50. KILOMETERS Bae ED AS ae ee ee Sa hc he lb Ee Tea anaes a, Hn ment eer rR o 30 MILES a x Cape Adjtak Ns ‘ x a Cane Trinity Bristol Bay Coastal Management Program Volume 2 — Management Plan Map 2 — Coastal Boundaries’ 2 a : a Y : ; ms ‘el > Cape Kumi 1 ve ESS : pcccee SUTWIK p tL : fee he Ke ' hE } £ : NAGRCHAMIK : : LAND at Or ro: gy Cape Landward boundary” | “© — Anadromous waterbody and buffer’* "Lands owned, leased, held in trust, or whose use is solely to the discretion of the federal government arc excluded from the coastal area by law. Cape Kutazot 2 ; : ; “Phe landward extent of this coastal boundary is based upon Biophysicul Boundaries of Alaska’s Coastal Zone as Weveloped by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the Office of Coastal Management (1978). ‘The coastal boundary extends seaward from mean higher high water (MHHW) to three geographical (nautical) miles. ace @AUSILK island ALEUTIANS \ aaa AGHIVUR ISLAND rp | Anowits Island Kaieekuk Island, © aintagit island CHOWIET. “These corridors include all waters used for spawning, rearing, and migration by anadromous fish as designated in the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing and Migration of Anadromous Fishes. Included within these corridors is a one (1) mile buffer from ordinary high water (OHW) on each bank. Duc to limitations of map scale, proponents of activities taking place on, or along, these designated waterbodies should consult the 1:63,360 manuscripts contained in the Sk (SUkHA Island 5 above source. 56°| ‘The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refage ISLA : 4 7 North LANBRS + ‘Although not graphically emphasized on this map, all tributaries to these designated pethae consists of islands, islets, rocks, reeks spires, and designated capes and headlands in voll the coastal areas and adjacent seas of Alaska. ‘Hagemeister Island (near Togiak) and Chistiakof Island (near Port Heiden) are ‘included in this refuge system, as are -numerons cnastal and offshore features on the Pacific Ooean side of the Alaska Peninsula, anadromous waterhodies are also part of the coastal boundary; this includes a 200 foot buffer from ordinary high water (OHW) on each bank, and extends from the headwaters of the uibutary to its confluence with the anadromous waterbody. [156° | 154° West Longitade