The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Board Vol. 3 Coastal Management Plan 1986BER n Alaska Power Authority 014 . ; LIBRARY COPY Ved Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Board John Auliye with grandchildren Annette Koutchak and Billy Cooper, Unalakleet. (Chuck Degnan photo) Conceptually Approved Volume 3 — Coastal Management Plan October 1986 Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Coastal Management Program The Coastal Management Program of the Bering Straits CRSA is comprised of three volumes: VOLUME 1: RESOURCE INVENTORY - This volume, distributed in October 1984, provides an inventory of the resources of the region in both narrative and mapped format as an oversized atlas. VOLUME 2: RESOURCE ANALYSIS - Distributed in October 1986, this volume examines the potential im- pacts of uses and activities on the resources of the region. VOLUME 3: COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN - Distributed in October 1986, this volume describes the development of the Coastal Management Program, identifies the coastal area boundary, and pro- vides the policies and implementation procedures for the plan. Volume 3: Concept-Approved Coastal Management Plan for the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area PO. Box 28 Unalakleet, Alaska 99684 (907) 624-3062 October 1986 This document was prepared and produced under the direction of the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Ser- vice Area (CRSA) Board. Johnson Eningowuk, Seat 1 - Shishmaref, Wales, Diomede Chairman Norman Menadelook, Sr. Seat 2 - Teller, Brevig Mission, “Nome West” Gene Willoya Seat 3 - Golovin, Solomon, White Mountain, “Nome East”, Council Andrew Daniels Seat 4 - Elim, Koyuk, Shaktoolik Frances Degnan, Seat 5 - Unalakleet Secretary-Treasurer Theodore Katcheak Seat 6 - St. Michael, Stebbins Paul Rookok, Seat 7 - Savoonga, Gambell Vice Chairman PREPARATION TEAM Bryan MacLean, Program Director Jerry lvanoff, Program Coordinator Lena lvanoff, Administrative Assistant Resource Analysts Jon D. Isaacs & Associates Fineline Graphics 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, through the City of Unalakleet, Alaska. TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 3: Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan THOT PAGO... go Phe eh ee hee ais vie angi io sialic o o ereje stb ead eg es ares Goan etete wiolaie ares lave ore i Table Of Conterte one ee atcaee vee ces gh tes ee Reise eae Uy al oaecite ee iii UASte eNOS access cep cicten tel cece, etek cca cot ototsceee. cast ccect Sie teecn=tt tet cede rete teetean tert daclranpar dit eeats std ictece aces v En a a a ee ee cat v GUI oe a es i A ea ee ee ee ee tee age vi Chapter 1: Introduction and Organization 1.1. What is Coastal Management... 0.0.0... 0 0. eee eee eee eeee 1-1 1.2 Benefits to Local’Residents. = 5. ge. tt eee beeen eee e eee eetceedenes 1-1 1.3 Effects on Activities and Landowners............... 0... cece cece eect e teen eee nee 1-2 1.4 Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area... 2.0.0.0... 0.0 cee 1-2 io | (Organizatonmotteteian 5. ec ia Vai Wl soba Hater, et Wid sta ls Ballo lb sella 1-2 Chapter 2: Issues, Goals, and Objectives 2:1 = InttQGuctlon o ndecrssts rece ee ore ce ee ee le pee eg ds MES oe ss SOR ais 2-1 2 OUNNONS 20 geet ee se ee ec ee ee ce 2-1 OO IS6NGGs eret a ae ee cee ce etre ee ee tt eater ace 2-1 26.1,- Subsistenée. 2. ce eee Pec ces veeb ees cas bse beaGe ried e is 2-1 Sse Tt MOND NRAN ata eatin Sela ge a etre ale tect et rede core gee ot eee ta Pete eee tot retort 2-2 AGS 1211 j FAONACIOON: FNGTONNAG Slade td tials iti atiots tad tertile at daers oat dest atastedl LOST ce tea cial 2-3 2.3.4 Historic, Prehistoric, and Archaeological Resources.................0.0e eee eeee 2-3 2.3.5 Geophysical Hazard Areas... 0.6... cence n nee e eens 2-4 2.36 Coastal Development.............0.. 00... cc cece eee e eee e eens 2-4 23.7 _- Mining and Minpral:Processing..).102..4.08 oi. . oc et ee ev eae cb came ose ale 2-5 Se Br ee ee eee 2-6 239 “Alternative. Energy.Development......... 2... cw eet eee esse vende see 2-7 ee ee Vee ee ee eee ee 27 ZBTU” FROOKB ORION, «226 Fone as ae Nis bce esas the, Fecha Pe ochibfe 09 a6 + Sebo oue Was shes 5 o's ay sated 2-8 2.3.12 Timber Harvesting and Processing............... 00 ec eee eee ee eee eee 2-8 2.313 Fish and Seafood Processing.............. 0.06. ccc ccc cece eee eens 2-8 Chapter 3: Coastal Boundary 3.1 3.2 33 3.4 3.5 WMtFOGUCHION.. 0 ce tte eter rete teen eee eee ee eseereeeeeseeees 3-1 Bering Straits CRSA Coastal Boundary..... 0.00... eee eee 3-2 Justification for Inland Coastal Boundary... . 0.2.0.0... 6. eee eee 3-4 3.3.1 Topography, Drainage Basins, and Coastal Wetlands........................0005. 3-5 3.3.2 Resource Dependent on Coastal Waters.... 2.0.0... cee eee 3-6 3.3.2.1 Anadromous Fish Life Histories.............. 0.0 cc ccc eee eee 3-7 3.3.2.2 Anadromous Fish Distribution and Abundance......................2... 3-9 3.3.2.3 Anadromous Fish Importance to Economy and Subsistence Lifestyle........ 3-11 3.3.3 Uses and Activities in the Coastal Area......... 00.2 eee ee 3-12 3.3.4 Direct and Significant Impacts on Coastal Resources....................0022000. 3-14 Coastal Boundary Compatibility... 0... 0. cece eee eens 3-19 Conclusion. . 2... a Sh ed ee ie ee ee eee eee ne cee cette 6 SUMe nd oo tne ee eitee 3-19 Chapter 4: Subject Uses and Use Areas 41 4.2 43 44 Introduction. 2... ce cece tee tence eee ee tenet ee eee 4-1 Subject Uses... eee ence nett ene e ene e eee 4-1 Proper and Improper Uses... 1... 0.0... ccc eee eee tenet eens 4-5 Land/Water Use AreaS... 0.60.6... t teens 4-5 441 General Use Areas... 0.6... cece eee teen eens 4-6 44.2 Important Use Areas... 0... cc cette teen eens 4-6 44.2.1 St. Lawrence Island, Adjacent Islands, and Rocks...................... 4-8 44.2.2 Little Diomede Island. .... 20.0.0... ee eee eens 4-9 iv 4.4.23 4.4.2.4 4.4.25 44.26 44.2.7 4.4.28 44.29 4.4.2.10 4.4.2.11 4.4.2.12 4.4.2.13 4.4.2.14 4.4.2.15 4.4.2.16 4.4.2.17 4.4.2.18 4.4.2.19 4.4.2.20 4.42.21 4.4.2.22 4.4.2.23 4.4.2.24 4.4.2.25 4.4.2.26 Stebbins Wetlands... 2... 00... ccc cece eevee eeeees 4-9 St MicheeliBayiti oF 8oaca cs ous bya vvcdcslesst eles. beet ase. 4-10 Unalakleet River Drainage..... 2.2.2.0... 00000 e eee 4-12 Island Point to Beeson Slough, Including Cape Denbigh................ 413 Koyuk River Drainage. .... 06.2. e eevee 4-14 Kwiniuk, Tubutulik, and Kwik River Drainages.......................0. 4-15 Golovnin Bay/Lagoon and the Niukluk and Fish River Drainages......... 415 Rocky Point to Topkok Head. .................0 000 c cece cece e eee 4-17 Safety Sound and the Solomon River Drainage........................ 4-17 Nome River Drainage... 2... cece cece eee eee 4-18 McCarthy’s Marsh... 2... e ere eees 4-20 Cape Woolley... 2... 0. c eevee eveees 4-20 Lost River Area... e ee eee 4-21 Port Clarence. 00... e eee evens 4-21 Kuzitrin River Drainage and Associated Wetlands...................... 4-22 Agiapuk River Drainage. ....... 00006. e ee 4-22 Grantley Harbor, Imuruk Basin, and Tuksuk Channel................... 4-23 Pilgrim River and Salmon Lake... .. 2.2.0.0... 0 cece eee eee ee 4-24 Brevig Lagoon... 0.6... ccc cece cent eee eennees 4-25 Lopp Lagoon/Cape Prince of Wales............... ccc cece cece eee ee 4-25 Ikpek Lagoon and Nukluk, Pinguk, Kaguerak, and Kugrupaga Drainages. . . 4-26 Arctic River Drainage... 6... cece eee eeeenee 4-26 Serpentine River Drainage. ... 0.2.00... ccc eee eee ee 4-27 Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuges.......................000. 4-27 Chapter 5: Policies 5.1 5.2 5.3 WATFOGUICHION. 6 ee ie ee poe snot bole Sg tis wumlnie a eibiee toes diate deccebaes 5-1 Definitions. 0.0... cece nee ee tee eee cee e etn eeeeeneees 5-2 POIIB oo cece eee ena e ce ney Fewiyscvedas cess upececapdebirectbaesepeueee 5-4 Chapter 6: Implementation 6.1 Introduction... ccc eect e teen eee e beeen een eeneees 6-1 6.2 Permits and Activities Subject to Consistency Determination.....................000000 6-3 6.3 State and Federal Permit Review and Consistency Procedures...................000000- 6-7 6.4 Bering Straits CRSA Board Involvement in Consistency Determinations.................. 6-10 6.5 Local Involvement in CRSA Board Recommendations.................0 0 ce eevee eee eee 6-12 6.6 Key CRSA Board Participants and Responsibility....................0000000000000000, 6-13 6.7 Planning for Major Project... 0.2... ccc cece teen eee cease 6-14 6.8 Amendments and Revisions. .......... 0.0 eeeen 6-19 6.9 Monitoring and Enforcement. .... 0.0.0.0... cece eee cece eae 6-19 6.10 Permit Pre-application Packet Requirements. .................0.0000000000 00 eee eee 6-19 Chapter 7: Areas Meriting Special Attention 71 7.2 73 WAtPODUCHION «6 oes et cerita cae ate Seg tinte even ewe dieu bulma e bbe Gag Ps ov sw cess an 7A Criteria for AMSA Designation... 20... .0 0.0.6.0 e eee e eee eeeeeees 7-2 Description of AMSAS. 0.0... ccc ccc eect eee e nent ete e eee aaes 7-3 73.1 Stuart Island/Klikitarik. 0. ccc ccc cette tent e eee eee 7-3 73.2 Portage Roadhouse... ....... 0... cece eee eee e eens 7-4 73.3 Golovnin Bay...... 0.6.6. e een nett e en ees 75 73.4 Rocky Point... 0... ccc ccc eee e eee e ete eeeee 7-6 735 Safety Sound............. 0. cent eee ett e ee ees 77 73.6 Cape Nome........... 0... cece eee beeen eee eee e beeen eae 7-8 73.7 Nome River... 0.0.0... c eect tet t te tee eeeee 7-9 vi Chapter 9: Bibliography and Appendices DNOMO ONY eo ci os ce At Po On eo Re es vs WG sock Me ee 9-1 Appendix A: Waterfowl and Shorebird Distribution, Abundance, and Important Wetland Habitats ImtherBenngiSuataOlIGA 4... Fee. es cet tee a CoP eu eden sn Pe oeae A-1 Appendix B: Native Village Corporations Within the Bering Straits CRSA...................... B-1 Appendix C: Locations of Potential AMSAs Within the Bering Straits CRSA.................... CA vii Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 5-1 Table 5-2 Table 5-3 Table 6-1 Table 6-2 Table 6-3 Table 8-1 Table 8-2 Map 3-1 Map 4-1 LIST OF TABLES Peak Salmon Escapement in the Bering Straits CRSA, 1983..................... 3-10 Villages Surveyed During the Public Participation Survey....................... 3-11 Geographic Pattern of the Use of Subsistence Resources in the Norton SOUMA REGIONE . 5.’ ter. 5.0 ois ee Meals ook iets a5 oh alae vad Selo « neta s oo)» bees 3-11 Distance to Fish-Bearing Waters for Varying Weights of Explosives................ 5-8 Distance to Spawning Beds for Varying Weights of Explosives.................... 5-8 Maximum Allowable Screen Mesh Size and Water Velocities Through a Screened Intake for Small Water Withdrawals... 0.0.0.0... ccc eee eee 5-9 Permits and Approvals Requiring Individual Project Review...................... 6-4 Major Procedures Under the 40-Day Schedule.................... 00000000000 6-8 Major Procedures Under the 60-Day Schedule......................00.. 0.0005 6-9 Bering Straits CRSA Board Meetings and Public Meetings....................... 8-2 Bering Straits CRSA Board/Staff Presentations........... 0.0... c cece eee 8-5 LIST OF MAPS Coastal Area Boundary of the Bering Straits CRSA (Oversize map in viny! pocket) Important Use Areas in the Bering Straits CRSA......................0022200. 4-6a viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people are responsible for the development and production of this Concept-Approved draft of the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan. The elected members of the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA) Board provided overall direction for the CRSA staff. The CRSA Board wishes to acknowledge the atten- dance and participation of the many village members who came to Board meetings, public hearings, and com- munity workshops to answer questions on coastal management issues and concerns and to provide invaluable input to the CRSA Board and staff. The Board also wishes to recognize and express their appreciation for the contributions and efforts of the many City, IRA/Traditional Council, and Village Corporation leaders and staff, and the Bering Straits School District principals and teachers that offered their hospitality to the Board and program staff; their professional contributions went far beyond normal job duties and working hours. Along with the expression of special recognition and appreciation to elders of the Bering Straits Region, the CRSA Board wishes to recognize contributions of current and past Board members, including: Morris Coffey Dwight Milligrock, Sr. Robert R. (Bob) Blodgett Harry Boone Norbert Otten, Sr. John Cheemuk, Sr. The Board would also like to express their appreciation to the following staff, whose contributions and efforts helped make the Bering Straits Coastal Management Program a reality: Bryan MacLean Program Director Jerry Ivanoff Program Coordinator Helga Eakon Program Coordinator Diane Hemnes Program Coordinator John Levy Program Planner Lena Ivanoff Administrative Assistant Carolyn Nashalook Administrative Assistant Additionally, the Board would like to thank the following organizations for their confidence and support to the Bering Straits Coastal Management Program: each of the Region’s municipalities for contributing toward the in- itial 20 percent match required to initiate the program; the City of Unalakleet for assuming the burden of contract administration and support services, and for their nonreimbursable contributions of technical support; Kawerak Inc., for their efforts in establishing the program and continued input and support through the long years of pro- gram development; the Inuit Circumpolar Conference for their support of the program; and the Bering Straits School District for early program support and grant facilities for public hearings and workshops, and to the staff of the newsletter “Strait Talk” for printing numerous press releases. The Board is also indebted to those individuals who assisted in the translation and interpretation of the CRSA slide show: Allen Soosuk, Eleanor Oozeva, and Jean Ferris. Finally, our gratitude to Chuck Degnan; Mary Alex- ander and Peggy Yokum from the Kawerak Eskimo Heritage Program; Laura Kosell from Bering Straits Native Corporation; Dick Mylius from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources; Wayne Marshall from the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs; the National Park Service; and the Alaska Environmental Infor- mation and Data Center for providing use of the photographs presented in Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of the Bering Straits CRSA Coastal Management Program. ix Pulling up whale near Savoonga. (Kawerak Eskimo Heritage Program photo) From time immortal we the eskimos get most of our food from the sea, seals, walrus, whales, fish and birds. Anything that we get from the sea... White people get their food mostly from the land. They grow crops, raise animals and birds. The sea is like a garden to us. Our way of getting food is far different from the white people. We both have difficulties: Poor hunting for us is caused by weather and bad ice conditions, just as drought, frost, etc. affect farming. — Mpyra Sepilu, Savoonga xi Two Boat Crews on a Hunting Trip (Kawerak Eskimo Heritage Program photo) Chapter One: Introduction and Organization Chapter 1: Introduction and Organization 1.1 WHAT IS COASTAL MANAGEMENT Coastal Management is a joint planning effort of local, state and federal governments and the private sector to manage coastal resources and promote their wise and balanced use. For the people of rural Alaska, it is an impor- tant opportunity for meaningful participation in federal and state decisions that affect their lives. Coastal manage- ment works by requiring certain types of activities that need federal or state permits or approvals to be consistent with approved local district coastal management programs. In 1972, recognizing the need for sound management and conservation of the nation’s coastal resources, Con- gress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA established a national Program to for the management, beneficial use, protection, and development of coastal land and water resources. The federal pro- gram encouraged states to develop their own coastal management programs in response to the need for coastal resource planning. Federal agencies are directed to conduct or support activities directly affecting the coastal Zone in a manner that is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with approved state coastal management programs. The State of Alaska passed the Alaska Coastal Management Act (ACMA) in 1977, establishing a state coastal management program based on a partnership of shared state and local management responsibility. It provides for the development of local district coastal management programs. The ACMA created the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, which includes nine members from local government and seven representatives from State agencies. The standards and guidelines adopted by the Council serve as both statewide minimum requirements for prepar- ing district programs and for determining the consistency of projects in areas where no local programs have been prepared and approved. District coastal management programs are developed by local residents and reflect the issues, resources, and policy guidance unique to a specific district. These programs are prepared by municipalities, or, in the case of most of rural Alaska, by popularly elected Coastal Resource Service Area Boards. The district programs prepared are subject to review by the public and state and federal agencies, and approval by the local coastal board, the Coastal Policy Council, and the federal government. 1.2 BENEFITS TO LOCAL RESIDENTS Coastal management does not provide complete local control over activities that occur in a coastal district. However, in the portion of rural Alaska outside of boroughs without other planning powers, coastal management is an impor- tant step forward in exercising the concept of local control. It takes local residents from the role of making public comments on an activity, where they have no voice in the decision, to actually participating in decision making. By forming a coastal resource service area and participating in coastal management, local residents receive the following benefits: 1. Through their approved coastal plan, it allows the local residents to develop the “rules” (the plan's policies) with which federal, State, and local activities must be consistent. 2. Coastal management provides local residents with a strong and legally defined role in the consistency deter- mination process; their input cannot be ignored. 3. An approved plan is legally binding on federal, state, local, and private activities that are subject to coastal management; such activities must be consistent with an approved local plan. 1.3. EFFECTS ON ACTIVITIES AND LANDOWNERS Coastal management only affects activities that already require a state or federal permit or approval. Because the coastal consistency process is tied to the requirements of Permit Reform legislation, it cannot add any addi- tional time to the permit decision-making process. In many cases, coastal management increases communica- tion among parties affected by a proposed activity; local involvement results in a decision that is less likely to be challenged and result in extra delay. Coastal management applies to activities on federal, state, municipal, and private lands located within the coastal boundaries. Activities on lands conveyed through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, including selection by village and regional corporations and former reserve lands, are subject to coastal management. Native Allotments and individual restricted lots within Trustee Townsites are considered Bureau of Indian Affairs trust lands and are excluded unless activities are likely to have significant effects on adjacent coastal resources. 1.4 BERING STRAITS COASTAL RESOURCE SERVICE AREA Outside boroughs and other municipalities with planning powers, district coastal management programs are prepared by Coastal Resource Service Areas (CRSA). These areas have been designated in the Alaska Coastal Management Program, using the boundaries of Rural Education Attendance Areas. A CRSA is formed when the residents of a potential CRSA hold an election and vote to form a CRSA; the CRSA Board is elected by the residents shortly thereafter. Each member represents specific communities within the CRSA, and board seats are up for election for regular three year intervals. It is the responsibility of the CRSA Board to provide the overall direction for the development of the district coastal management program. In 1980, the residents of the Bering Straits Region voted to form the Bering Straits CRSA. The CRSA contains 19 communities (15 incorporated, 2 unincorporated, and 2 displaced). Shortly after formation of the CRSA, a seven member Board was elected, with each seat representing the following communities: Seat 1: Shishmaref, Wales, and Diomede Island Seat 2: Teller, Brevig Mission, and “Nome West” Seat 3: White Mountain, Golovin, Solomon, Council and ‘Nome East” Seat 4: Elim, Koyuk, and Shaktoolik Seat 5: Unalakleet Seat 6: St. Michael and Stebbins Seat 7: Gambell and Savoonga The City of Unalakleet provides project administration, office space and other program support to the two CRSA staff members, the Program Director and Administrative Assistant. Development of the Coastal Management Pro- gram has relied on input from the villages of the region, including community councils, |RA/Traditional councils, village corporations, and the region's native non-profit and profit corporations. The continuing involvement of these groups is crucial to the successful implementation of the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan. For more information on the role of the CRSA Board, staff, and local residents and organizations, see Chapter 6. 1.55 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN The Concept Approved Draft of the Bering Straits CRSA Coastal Management Plan is submitted to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council for State approval. It reflects the Standards and Guidelines of the Alaska Coastal Manage- ment Program, and emphasizes the values and concerns of the people of the Bering Straits Region. The Concept Approved Draft consists of three volumes: the Resource Inventory (Volume 1), the Resource Analysis (Volume 2), and the Coastal Management Plan (Volume 3). This volume, the Coastal Management Plan, contains the following chapters: Chapter 2.0, Issues, Goals and Objectives presents the needs and concerns of the people of the coastal area, and the program goals and objectives that address them. Chapter 3.0, Coastal Boundary describes the area covered by the coastal management plan and how it was determined. Chapter 4.0, Subject Uses and Use Areas lists the uses and activities subject to the coastal management plan and uses areas important to the CRSA. Chapter 5.0, Policies are the “enforceable” rules of the coastal management plan, and are used to determine the consistency of uses and activities with the plan. Chapter 6.0, Implementation describes how the State of Alaska and the CRSA Board work together in the con- sistency determination process, including the role of local communities and landowners. Chapter 7.0, Areas Meriting Special Attention includes the potential AMSA's designated in the plan. Chapter 8.0, Public Participation outlines the program for public input used in the development of the plan. Chapter 9.0, Bibliography and Appendices For further information on the Bering Straits CRSA Coastal Management Program contact: Program Director Bering Straits CRSA c/o City of Unalakleet PO. Box 28 Unalakleet, Alaska 99684 (907) 624-3062 Brevig Mission Looking East. (DCRA photo) Chapter Two: Issues, Goals and Objectives Chapter 2: Issues, Goals, and Objectives 2.1 INTRODUCTION The issues, goals, and objectives in this chapter identify the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan as a locally inspired and prepared program. They provide the foundation for the plan as they reflect the attitudes and interests of peoples’ dependence on the coast and its resources. Each of the issues (areas of concern or conflicting use) is followed by goals (ideals, desired ends) and objectives (methods of achieving these ideals). Upon these, the district's enforceable policies are based. The importance of the goals and objectives lies in serving both as aids in identifying the intent of a particular policy as well as portraying regional, state, and national concerns. The CRSA Board's primary concern is land and water use. Economic, social, and cultural issues are also addressed in this chapter. The use and management of land and resources in the Bering Straits Region cannot be separated from the mix of Inuit and Western values and economic questions that bear so heavily on resource management. Sources for the issues, goals, and objectives included a public attitude survey conducted in the region from April through June 1983; village input from public meetings; the coastal management resource inventory (Volume 1) and Resource Analysis (Volume 2); CRSA Board discussions; and comments from regional and local landowners and state and federal agencies. 2.2. DEFINITIONS Traditional Inuit Way of Life: “Inuit” means the native people of the Arctic as defined by the Arctic Policy Act of 1984. Traditional Inuit ways of life refer to the land and water use values, both written and oral, of the Inupiaq, St. Lawrence Island Yupik, and Central Yupik peoples of the Bering Straits Region. Issues: Subjects or matters of local and regional concern to people in the Bering Straits Region and often of national concern. Goal: A end state, condition, or situation toward which residents of the region want to direct uses of resources. Objectives: Actions which are taken in order to achieve a goal or to bring a goal closer to reality. 2.3 ISSUES 2.3.1 Subsistence Subsistence use is the customary, and traditional use of natural resources for direct personal or family consump- tion as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft articles; and for barter or sharing among subsistence users. Subsistence is the principal land use and predominant way of life among residents of the Bering Straits Region. Food gathering activities occur in a year-round cycle geared to the principal seasons of species occurrences, constrained at times by climate, terrain, and sea conditions. Goal A: Ensure the availability of access to subsistence resources and use areas for the continuation of sub- sistence as the predominant way of life for the region’s people. Objective 1. Identify subsistence hunting, fishing, and foraging areas and determine sensitivity to poten- tial adverse impacts from conflicting uses. Objective 2. Coordinate competing land and water uses in a manner that maintains and/or enhances the productivity of important subsistence resources and use areas. Objective 3. Maintain and/or enhance the productivity of important subsistence resources and use areas, including the following: * sensitive denning, calving, staging molting, feeding, nesting, spawning and overwinter- ing habitats, and migration routes of important subsistence resources; and © vegetative communities and habitats important to subsistence users. Objective 4. Identify and develop mitigation measures that can be used to compensate subsistence users for losses caused by resource development activities. Objective 5. Facilitate maintenance and enhancement of public access to lands traditionally used by residents for subsistence purposes. Goal B: Recognize subsistence as the primary land use of residents of the Bering Straits Region. Objective 1. Maintain or enhance the viability of the region’s subsistence economy and ensure oppor- tunities for resident participation in subsistence activities. Objective 2. Accomodate subsistence activities in regional and specific resource development plans. 2.3.2 Habitats The Bering Straits Region provides important habitat to bird species which nest in wetlands, uplands, and on rocky cliffs: marine mammals which migrate through the region and haul-out on rocky beaches; and both large and small land mammals which inhabit coastal and upland areas. Marine and anadromous fish utilize the marine and freshwater habitats of the region. Protection of fish and wildlife habitat is critical, both for the healthy propaga- tion of the myriad species and to ensure continuation of the subsistence way of life. Goal A: Encourage state, federal, and other landowners to manage fish and wildlife populations to maintain or enhance current levels and meet the subsistence and commercial needs of the region's people. Objective 1. Identify and inventory important fish and wildlife habitats, particularly those which are sensitive to disturbance, limited in availability, or critical to a species’ life history. Objective 2. Work with the Department of Natural Resources in identifying land classified as wildlife habitat in accordance with 11 AAC 55.230. Land classified as wildlife habitat is land which is primarily for: (1) fish and wildlife resource production, whether existing or through habitat manipula- tion, to supply sufficient numbers or diversity of species to support commercial, recrea- tional, or traditional uses on an optimum sustained yeild basis; or (2)maintenance of a unique or rare assemblage of a single or multiple species of regional, state, or national significance. Goal B: Ensure that development is conducted in a manner compatible with sensitive fish and wildlife popula- tions and habitats. 2-2 Objective 1. Avoid adverse impacts to marine, anadromous and resident fish populations by protec- ting important spawning, feeding, overwintering, and migration areas. Objective 2. Maintain or enhance large mammal populations by protecting important wintering grounds, calving grounds, denning areas, and migration routes. Objective 3. Maintain or enhance marine mammal populations by protecting important pupping, haulout, feeding, and wintering areas. Objective 4. Maintain or enhance waterfowl populations by protecting wetland areas important for spring and fall staging, nesting, molting and feeding. Objective 5. Protect wetlands which are important to the integrity and productivity of aquatic systems by maintaining water quality and ambient seasonal flows. Objective 6, Maintain or enhance small animal and bird populations by protecting denning, feeding, nesting, and wintering areas. Objective 7. Maintain or enhance endangered species populations by avoiding development in areas or habitats which are critical to the existence of an endangered species. 2.3.3. Reindeer Herding Reindeer are a major agricultural resource in northwest Alaska. They are the only large domesticated animal on the Seward Peninsula which currently lives year-round on the tundra. Reindeer herding provides residents with income, employment, a source of food, and clothing and craft material. Goal A: Maintain or enhance reindeer herds by protecting important use areas, such as winter grazing and fawning areas. Objective 1. Establish, recognize, and facilitate protection of all lands stipulated as primary reindeer grazing lands in ANCSA and ANILCA. Objective 2. Identify and maintain or enhance use of all reindeer fawning areas. Objective 3. Identify and develop mitigative measures that can be used to compensate reindeer herders for losses caused by resource development activities. Goal B: Facilitate improvement of the economic viability of the reindeer industry in the region. Objective 1. Encourage the State of Alaska to develop markets for reindeer products and by-products. Objective 2. Encourage the State of Alaska to resarch, and as appropriate, promote production of an alternative feed for reindeer in the Bering Straits Region. Objective 3. Encourage the State of Alaska to maintain the health of reindeer herds by combating reindeer pests and parasites. 2.3.4 Historic, Prehistoric, and Archaeological Resources The Bering Straits Region holds tremendous historical importance. It was here that the ancestors of the native inhabitants of North America first entered the continent from Asia; some settled in the region. Thousands of years later, early European and American traders, whalers, missionaries, and prospectors also settled in the region. Archaeological, historic, and cultural sites are important links between the region's people and their past. These coastal resources should be identified to protect their importance. The entire Bering Straits Region is considered to be culturally sensitive. Goal A: Preserve and foster respect for the history of the early Inuit, European, and American peoples of the Bering Straits Region. 2-3 Objective 1. Ensure the protection of all prehistoric, historic, and cultural sites. Objective 2. Facilitate the protection of the Inuit culture by instilling respect for ancestoral sites. Objective 3. Ensure that developers identify potential and existing prehistoric, historic, and cultural sites to the appropriate authorities prior to the initiation of development activities. Objective 4. Ensure that sites of prehistoric, historic, or cultural significance which are encountered during development activities are properly surveyed, protected, preserved, and evaluated as required by state and federal regulations. 2.3.5 Geophysical Hazard Areas Bering Straits coastal communities are vulnerable to flooding and erosion and also suffer from unstable ground conditions, such as melting permafrost and landslides. Activities in coastal waters are susceptible to damage from storm conditions and surges, and from sea ice conditions. Damage from some natural hazards can be trig- gered or worsened by man’s disturbance of natural conditions or processes. Identification of hazard-prone areas is essential to planning for safe development. Goal A: Ensure that development in the Bering Straits Region respects and accomodates the natural forces of the region. Objective 1. Identify and analyze information from written and oral sources relating to weather pat- terns, ice conditions, and landforms in the region. Objective 2. Ensure that development in hazardous areas adopts adequate mitigative measures and safeguards to address geophysical hazard concerns. Where there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, adequate mitigating measures to minimize impacts to health and safety, coastal habitats and other resources must be adopted. Objective 3. Discourage development in areas designated as active floodplains, high water channels and unstable slopes and shorelines. Objective 4. Ensure that all offshore exploration, development, and production that has the potential to significantly affect coastal land and water resources within the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service area is conducted using technology that will guarantee the ability of man-made structures to withstand naturally-generated forces and thereby protect the viability of biological resources. 2.3.6 Coastal Development Standards for coastal development are intended to provide a balance between subsistence activities, environmental protection and the need for development along the coast. State standards require that districts and state agen- cies, when planning for and approving development in coastal areas, give first priority to water-dependent uses, second priority to water-related uses, and then priority to uses that are neither water-dependent nor water-related and for which there is not a reasonable inland alternative. Goal A: Provide guidance and direction for the siting, design and management of industrial facilities and activities in a manner which minimizes environmental and social effects, benefits local residents, and satisfies industrial requirements. Objective 1. Establish a process that integrates local input from traditional and city councils, and village and regional Native Corporations into planning for the siting, design, and management of industrial facilities and activities. 2-4 Objective 2. Ensure that coastal development complies with municipal, state, federal, private landowner and Bering Straits CRSA air, water, noise, and land regulations and policies. Objective 3. Ensure that site preparation activities are scheduled at times when the impacts on critical fish and wildlife life history stages will be minimal. Objective 4. Avoid excavation in wetlands except for essential public purposes (e.g., electrical lines, pipelines, and waterlines) that cannot be rerouted. Objective 5. Ensure that landowner, municipal, and government agency development plans include procedures for maintaining natural water drainage systems and for preventing permafrost degradation. Objective 6. Notify communities in the region, well in advance, of development activities that bring significant workers into the community, and provide advance information on physical and social impacts to the community so that adequate planning and mitigation measures for infrastructural and service needs may be initiated. Objective 7. Develop a process to coordinate capital improvement project planning within the CRSA boundaries to promote efficiency, reduce disruption, and best utilize the local labor force. Objective 8. Encourage communities in the region to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans com- patible with the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan. Goal B: Provide guidance and direction for coastal development which is compatible with traditional Inuit ways of life. Objective 1. Develop close working relationships between development entities and |RA/traditional councils, city councils, and Native corporations for mutually beneficial development, site location, and protection of subsistence and cultural resources. Objective 2. Ensure that decision makers consult with affected landowners and obtain approval of affected communities prior to undertaking major industrial or developmental projects. Objective 3. Recognize that subsistence and cash economies are different but equally important, and must be balanced during coastal development. 2.3.7 Mining and Mineral Processing Since the turn of the century, mineral resources of the Bering Straits Region have been exploited by people attracted to the region for its mineral wealth. This development led to the founding of new communities and transportation routes. Interest in mineral development continues today, as evidenced by the federal government sale of large mining leases in the region. Mining and mineral processing activity has traditionally focused on locatable minerals (gold, nickel, and copper) and leasable minerals (coal, sand, and gravel). Specific activities include excavation; dredging; the use of hydraulic equipment or explosives; sorting, milling, and crushing; and waste disposal. Primary disturbances caused by extraction, transportation, and processing of minerals could greatly affect coastal resources. Secondary impacts on the environment could result from location, design, or operation of related facilities. Goal A: Provide guidance and direction for the exploration and extraction of mineral resources, in accordance with state and national interests and in a manner which does not adversely impact traditional Inuit ways of life or the environment. Objective 1, Establish a process that integrates local input from traditional and city councils, and village and regional Native Corporations into planning for the siting, design, and management of industrial facilities and activities. 2-5 Goal B: Objective 2. Objective 3. Identify potential adverse impacts of mineral development and associated transportation facilities and ensure adoption of mitigating measures which will minimize these impacts. Ensure that stipulations designed to minimize adverse impacts from mineral extraction and processing activities are incorporated into leases and permits and are enforced. Maximize benefits to Bering Straits residents from mineral resource development. Objective 1. Objective 2. Objective 3. Work with the mineral industry to train and hire Bering Straits residents and improve employment opportunities for residents in the resource extraction industries. Develop ways for the mineral industry and state and federal governments to assist with costs of developing and maintaining infrastructure generated by mineral resource ex- ploration and development. Work with the mineral industry to provide support for local and regional social service programs such as community facilities, scholarships, and cultural events. 2.3.8 Energy Facilities There is considerable federal and state government interest in developing potential Bering Sea petroleum resources. A commercial find would contribute to reducing national reliance on energy imports. Development of regional resources would also provide the State of Alaska with increased revenue, and if accomplished with local participa- tion, could provide economic benefits to local residents. Residents of the region are primarily concerned with the potential impacts of oil development on the environment and subsistence resource availibility and access. Goal A: Goal B: Provide guidance and direction for present and potential development of oil and gas, in accordance with state and national interests and in a manner which does not adversely impact traditional Inuit ways of life or the environment. Objective 1. Objective 2. Objective 3. Objective 4. Objective 5. Objective 6. Establish a process that integrates local input from traditional and city councils, and village and regional Native Corporations into planning for the siting, design, and management of industrial facilities and activities. Ensure that exploration and extraction activities balance local interests and interests of state concern. Identify potential adverse impacts of oil and gas development and mitigation measures which would minimize these impacts. Identify areas in the region which are sensitive to the effects of oil and gas exploration and development activities. Avoid siting of oil and gas facilities in sensitive fish and wildlife habitats, subsistence use areas, and geophysically unstable areas. Where no feasible and prudent alternative exists, ensure adoption of adequate mitigation measures and safeguards. Ensure that stipulations designed to minimize adverse impacts from oil and gas activities are incorporated into leases and permits and are enforced. Maximize benefits to Bering Straits residents from oil and gas development. Objective 1. Objective 2. Objective 3. Work with the oil and gas industry to train and hire Bering Straits residents and improve employment opportunities for residents in the petroleum industry. Develop ways for the oil and gas industry and state and federal governments to assist with costs of developing and maintaining infrastructure generated by oil and gas explora- tion and development. Work with the oil and gas industry to provide support for local and regional social service programs such as community facilities, scholarships, and cultural events. 2-6 Objective 4. Facilitate development of opportunities for providing Bering Straits Region with reasonably Priced intra-regional supplies of fuel oil and gas. 2.3.9 Alternative Energy Development Bering Straits residents rely on petroleum products for heating, cooking, and for fuel for their vehicles. To reduce both the demand on petroleum as a single energy source and the high price villagers must pay for fuel, conserva- tion and alternative energy sources must be more fully utilized. Appropriate alternatives identified for the region include wind, geothermal (hot springs), coal, and in one village, hydroelectric power. Goal A: Reduce village dependence on high cost petroleum products. Objective 1. Develop locally available energy resources for local consumption, where feasible and environmentally sound. Objective 2. Facilitate development of conservation programs that promote efficient use of energy. Objective 3. Encourage development of appropriate alternative energy facilities and programs. Goal B: Establish a process that integrates local involvement in the planning, designing, and siting of alter- native energy facilities. Objective 1. Ensure that development of alternative energy projects includes consultation with and approval by affected landowners and communities. Goal C: Provide guidance and direction for development of alternative energy resources in a manner which does not adversely impact traditional Inuit ways of life or the environment. Objective 1. Identify potential adverse impacts of alternative energy development and mitigative measures which would minimize these impacts. Objective 2. Avoid siting of alternative energy facilities in sensitive fish and wildlife habitats, subsistence use areas, and geophysically hazardous areas. Where no feasible and prudent alternatives exist, ensure adoption of adequate mitigation measures and safeguards. 2.3.10 Transportation and Utilities The most common year-round method of transportation in the region is the airplane. There are few roads, and like the sea, they are open only part of the year. Most recreational and subsistence activity occurs off-road and depending on the time of year, requires a boat, all-terrain vehicle, and/or snowmachines. Transportation systems and utility corridors and facilities have both direct and indirect impacts on coastal ecosystems. Direct impacts are most often caused by actual construction and maintenance of projects. The main indirect impacts of transpor- tation are development of utility corridors and facilities which open previously uninhabitated country to use and development. Goal A: Upgrade existing transportation facilities to improve safety, lower transportation costs, and better serve the region’s needs while not jeopardizing fish and wildlife habitats and the subsistence activities of residents. Objective 1. Identify deficiencies in the existing transportation system. Objective 2. Identify potential transportation routes and facilities that would enhance the development of the region’s resources. Objective 3. Identify potential adverse impacts of developing new transportation facilities and mitigating measures which would minimize these impacts. Objective 4. Avoid siting transportation routes, utility systems, and associated facilities in sensitive fish and wildlife habitat and important subsistence use areas. Where no feasible and prudent alternatives exist, ensure adoption of adequate mitigation measures and safeguards. Goal B: Reflect local concerns in planning for transportation and utility-related facilities. Objective 1. Ensure that development of transportation and utility projects includes consultation with and approval by affected landowners and communities. 2.3.11 Recreation Popular recreation activities enjoyed in the Bering Straits Region include hunting, fishing, boating, beachcomb- ing, hiking, camping, picnicking, berry picking and gathering, dog and snow machine racing, photography, bird watching, and sightseeing. Historical and cultural sites also provide educational and recreational attractions. With proper planning and development, parks, beaches, and other coastal recreational areas can contribute to a healthy environment and regional economy. Goal A: Provide adequate recreational opportunities for the people of the Bering Straits Region and state, national, and international visitors in a manner which is compatible with traditional Inuit ways of life. Objective 1. Identify lands used primarily for recreational activities. Objective 2. Avoid conflicts between recreation and other land uses, particularly subsistence activities. 2.3.12 Timber Harvesting and Processing Upland and bottomland forest ecosystems are found in the southwesterly slopes, terraces, and floodplains of the Niukluk, White Mountain, Koyuk, Buckland, Shaktoolik, Ungali, Unalakleet, Iglutalik, and Egavik River valleys. Before initiating timber harvests, other values for the forested land (e.g., wildlife habitat, watershed, and recrea- tion) must be considered in the overall land management plan. Goal A: Provide opportunities for harvesting and processing of timber and driftwood which are in accordance with local, state, and national interests and which are compatible with traditional Inuit ways of life. Objective 1. Identify potential adverse impacts of timber harvesting and processing and ensure adop- tion of mitigating measures which would minimize these impacts. Objective 2. Facilitate the establishment of public access to lands traditionally used by residents for driftwood collection purposes. 2.3.13 Fish and Seafood Processing Commercial salmon, herring, and crab fishing in Norton Sound are important supplements to the traditional sub- sistence economy. The North Pacific Management Fishery Council prepares fishery management plans within a Fishery Conservation Zone extending 200 miles from the shoreline of Alaska, excluding areas within the territorial sea over which the state has management authority. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game exercises the state’s authority over fishing in state territorial waters. Sub-regional advisory boards advise the Department of Fish and Game on specific matters of concern to commercial fishermen, such as permitted areas and hours of operation. Coastal management is responsible for identification of sensitive and important fish spawning, rearing, 2-8 and migrating areas and potential conflicts with other uses of these lands and waters. The most significant impacts of seafood processing on coastal waters concern adverse impacts to water quality. Goal A: Ensure that commercial fishing and seafood Processing is compatible with the environment. Objective 1. Avoid the discharge of materials and pollutants from seafood processing facilities or fishing vessels which may have an adverse impact on aquatic habitat and fish populations. Where no feasible and prudent alternatives exist, ensure adoption of adequate mitigation measures and safeguards to protect fisheries resources. Goal B: _ Ensure that state and federal agencies maintain and/or enhance fish populations and productivity and their contribution to the cash economy needs of the region's people. Objective 1. Avoid scheduling coastal development activities and locating associated facilities in sen- Sitive fish habitats and important commercial fishing areas. Where no feasible and pru- dent alternatives exist, ensure adoption of adequate mitigation measures and safeguards. Objective 2. Ensure that stipulations designed to minimize adverse impacts on commercial fishing from resource extraction and processing activities are incorporated into leases and per- mits and are enforced. Goal C: Facilitate expansion of fisheries in the Bering Strait Region that will benefit local fishermen. Objective 1. Encourage preparation of a fisheries development plan that identifies opportunities for maintaining or expanding the commercial fishing opportunities for local residents in the Bering Straits Region. Children Playing on Ice at Shishmaref. (Kawerak Eskimo Heritage Program photo) Chapter Three: Coastal Boundaries Chapter 3: Coastal Boundary 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies the coastal zone boundary for the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan. Information presented to support the coastal boundary as delineated on Map 3-1 (map pocket in Volume 3) includes a descrip- tion of coastal resources, a summary of anticipated uses and activities of the lands and waters, and the direct and significant impacts to coastal resources which could occur from these uses. The compatability of the Bering Straits CRSA coastal boundary with the NANA CRSA to the north and Cenaliulriit CRSA to the south is also discussed. The identification of the inland and seaward limits of the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area coastal zone boundary is an important part of the development of the district Coastal Management Program. The lands and waters encompassed by the coastal zone comprise the area in which the enforceable policies of the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan directly apply. This area is referred to in the Alaska Coastal Management Pro- gram (ACMP) Guideline 6 AAC 85.040 as the ‘“‘coastal area”. The coastal area includes all lands and waters within its boundaries not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government (i.e., State and private lands and waters). Under federal law, federal lands are ‘‘excluded”’ from the State’s coastal area. Federally authorized uses and activities on these federal lands and waters which have direct effects on State coastal resources must be consistent with the district program to the maximum extent practicable (Section 307(c), Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended). The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), in cooperation with the former Office of Coastal Manage- ment (presently Division of Governmental Coordination), utilized resource information available to the agency to deine the coastal zone of Alaska. This initial determination was published in 1978 in a series of maps entitled the Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska’s Coastal Zone. The coastal area was defined in terms of three zones: direct interaction, direct influence, and indirect influence. These zones were established as a result of interviews with biologists and others familiar with the region and a review of available scientific literature on the biological and physical processes of Alaska’s coastal region. The specific criteria used to delineate these zones are presented on the referenced maps. The biophysical boundary maps for the entire State were completed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in a relatively short period between 1975 and 1977. The inventory was based on biophysical information and no assessment of potential uses and activities was made. It should be recognized that the data base for resource information has been significantly expanded and refined since that time. Baseline knowledge of the biological and geophysical relationships between the marine and terrestrial environment has been supplemented with region- specific data for resource distribution, the knowledge and familiarity of local residents with coastal resources, and a more complete understanding of interactions, sensitivities, and vulnerabilities to disturbance. In 1978, the Coastal Policy Council adopted the three-mile territorial limit of State waters as the seaward limit of the coastal zone, and the inland extent of the zone of direct influence as the landward limit of the coastal zone. This zone is depicted on maps entitled Interim Coastal Zone Boundaries of Alaska, published by the former Office of Coastal Management (presently Division of Governmental Coordination). The Coastal Policy Council recognized that a current analysis of uses and activities and corresponding direct and significant impacts should be completed prior to finalization of the State’s coastal zone. To accomplish this objective, the Coastal Policy Council, through 6 AAC 85.040, gave coastal districts the responsibility and opportunity to evaluate the initial coastal zone boundary, potential uses and activities, direct and significant impacts, and to propose a final coastal zone boun- dary that best fits the ACMP criteria and the district conditions. ACMP Guideline 6 AAC 85.040 allows coastal districts to adopt the initial (interim) coastal boundary or deviate from it. No justification is required if the coastal 31 district adopts the interim coastal boundary. However, coastal districts must provide justificaiton as outlined in 6 AAC 85.040 where they diverge from the initial boundaries. The final boundaries of a coastal district may deviate from initial boundaries if the district demonstrates that the adjusted boundaries: 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 waters; and 2. _ include all transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, saltwater wetlands, islands and beaches. The term “marine coastal water” as used in (1) above is defined as “water adjacent to shorelines which contains ameasurable quantity of seawater, including sounds, lagoons, bayous, ponds, and estuaries, and the living resources that depend on these bodies of water” (6 AAC 85.900(2)). In other words, the coastal area boundary may extend inland to the extent necessary to manage uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on the living resources that depend on saline coastal waters. These provisions were interpreted by the U.S.Department of Commerce (1979) in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the ACMP. They concluded that, ”... with all of these (biological and geophysical) relationships established, the ‘biophysical boundary’ method simply declares that an impact on these relationships could result in an ‘impact on the coastal waters’, (the) ACMP went further, and declared that an impact on animals using the coastal waters, including anadromous fish, is part of the definition of impacts on coastal waters.” If these criteria are met, then the “final boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district program may be based on political jurisdiction, cultural features, planning areas, watersheds, topographic features, uniform set- backs, or the dependency of uses and activities on water access” (6 AAC 85.040(d)). The final boundaries of the district “must be sufficiently compatible with those of adjoining areas to allow consistent administration of the Alaska coastal management program” (6 AAC 85.040(e)). 3.2 BERING STRAITS CRSA COASTAL BOUNDARY The seaward coastal zone boundary of the Bering Straits CRSA remains unchanged from the interim boundary, extending three miles seaward from the coastline and encompassing the waters of Norton Bay. In addition, all offshore islands within the Bering Straits CRSA (including St. Lawrence Island) are included in their entirety, with the coastal zone boundary encompassing the same three-mile seaward limits from their respective coastlines (Map 3-1). The inland boundary of the Bering Straits CRSA coastal area deviates from the interim coastal zone boundary by encompassing a combination of selected watersheds, drainage basins, contiguous coastal wetlands, and uniform corridors along streams and rivers which provide critical spawning, rearing, and overwintering habitats for impor- tant populations of anadromous fish within the region (Volume 2, Map 3-1). In addition, coastal bluff areas which immediately adjoin or are in close proximity to marine waters have been provided a uniform setback from these coastal saline waters. The Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska’s Coastal Zone limit the zone of “indirect influence” (the area potentially considered for coastal boundary expansion) to waters which flow into coastal waters of the Bering Straits CRSA. The inland coastal boundary extension is necessary to manage forseeable uses and activities that have or are likely to have direct and significant impacts on saline coastal waters and the populations of anadromous fish which are dependent upon those waters. Anadromous fish are a highly important component of the natural resources of the Bering Straits CRSA, supporting both subsistence and commercial fishing activities which are an integral part of the economy and lifestyle of residents of the region. 3-2 Within the resource-rich Bering Straits region, the harvest of renewable resources and the extraction, processing, and transportation of non-renewable resources are current and potential uses and activities within the coastal area. In the Bering Straits CRSA, mineral development is the use most likely to have direct and significant impacts on living resources dependent on saline coastal waters. To protect anadromous fish resources and habitats in the areas with greatest potential for mineral development, the Bering Straits CRSA coastal area boundary includes watersheds and drainages where mineral potential is rated as high or very high by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). For lands within the CRSA south of Cape Denbigh where mineral potential has not been recently evaluated by the ADNR, the potential for mineral development has been associated with highly mineralized terranes, as identified by the Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center ina map series published in 1982 (Volume 2, Map 7-1). Areas inland from the interim coastal boundary with identified mineral resources of lesser potential have not been included in the coastal area boundary due to the reduced likelihood of development in the forseeable future. However, the Bering Straits CRSA also recognizes that mineralized areas which are presently not rated as high potential could become economically viable development prospects once transportation systems and a support infrastruc- ture are in place for developments in other locations. Inland from the interim coastal boundary, rivers and streams which support anadromous fish in areas where the likelihood of mineral or other development is low are included in the coastal area boundary through provision of a corridor extending one mile from the ordinary high water mark on both sides of the stream or from the outermost active channel within braided or split-channel floodplains. This corridor extends upstream to one mile above the limits of known distribution of anadromous fish. The corridor is not intended to be an area where development cannot or should not occur, Based on the topography of the Bering Straits CRSA, this corridor is considered the minimum area necessary to manage uses and activities (other than mineral development) within and proximate to the riparian zone which have potential for direct and significant impact to anadromous fish habitats. The coastal boundary has also been modified to encompass the contiguous coastal wetlands south and southeast of St. Michael. In this location, the wetland community is continuous from the coastal shoreline inland to the boun- dary shown on Map 3-1. The interim boundary based on the biophysical criteria of a 200-foot elevation contour arbitrarily excludes a significant portion of this important wetland. These contiguous wetland habitats include a transitional area which provides an important mix of wetland communities for waterfowl and shorebirds. Within the Bering Straits CRSA, essentially all other major expanses of coastally-contiguous wetlands are encompassed by the interim coastal boundary. The Bering Straits CRSA coastal boundary has also provided for an inland setback of two miles from the marine coastal shoreline where bluffs are adjacent to or in close proximity to the coast. Application of the 200-foot eleva- tion biophysical criteria for the interim coastal boundary is inappropriate where bluffs higher than 200 feet adjoin or are in relatively close proximity to marine waters; in some instances, the interim coastal boundary does not even encompass the coastal bluff. In these situations, an inland boundary has been prescribed to encompass areas clearly within a zone of marine coastal influence and in which uses and activities could have direct and significant impacts on coastal habitats and coastally-dependent resources. The Bering Straits CRSA coastal boundary, identified for the management of uses and activities which may adversely affect anadromous fish habitats, also encompasses many of the coastal habitats recognized as important to non- anadromous fish, waterfowl, seabirds, shorebirds, and wildlife (Volume 1, Resource Inventory). In addition, some important habitats utilized by the region’s domesticated reindeer also occur within the delineated coastal area boundary. Map 3-1 shows that the coastal area boundary south of the Inglutalik River to the southern limits of the CRSA is comprised of the interim coastal boundary, one mile corridors along anadromous fish streams, and limited 3-3 extent mineralized areas within portions of the drainage basin of the Unalakleet, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, and Inglutalik Rivers. The coastal boundary also encompasses the contiguous coastal wetlands southeast of St. Michael. From the Koyuk River west to the Sinuk River, extensive and contiguous zones of high mineral potential encom- pass the watersheds of the Koyuk, Tubutulik, Fish, Niukluk, and Sinuk Rivers within stream reaches utilized by anadromous fish. The portions of these watersheds which emanate from high potential mineralized areas inland from the interim boundary are included within the coastal boundary. Coastally-associated bluffs within two miles of the marine coastline are included in the coastal boundary near Bald Head, and between Moses Point and Cape Darby. The City of Nome has developed its own coastal management program, and the area encompassed by the Nome district is not included within the Bering Straits CRSA coastal boundary (Map 3-1). Anadromous fish habitats in rivers draining to Imuruk Basin and Port Clarence include non-mineralized areas south of the Basin, and extensive mineralized zones in the Kuzitrin, Noxapaga, Agaigpuk, and American Rivers. Watersheds and portions of drainage basins which originate in these high potential mineral areas are included in the coastal area boundary. Where mineralized areas are not present within the watersheds of anadromous fish streams, one mile corridors along the watercourse are delineated. Coastally-associated bluffs within two miles of the marine coastline of Port Clarence south and east of Teller are included within the coastal boundary. West of Port Clarence to Cape Prince of Wales, and north along the coast to Shishmaref Inlet, anadromous fish habitats and high potential mineral areas are more widely distributed and interspersed, creating a coastal boundary comprised of smaller watersheds, portions of anadromous fish stream drainage basins, and one mile corridors along anadromous streams where high mineral potential has not been identified. The coastal topography northeast from Cape Prince of Wales changes to a broad coastal plain which extends inland up to 15 miles before foothills are encountered. West of Brevig Lagoon near Lost River, coastally-associated bluffs within two miles of the marine coastline are included in the coastal area boundary. From Shishmaref Inlet north to the common boundary with the NANA CRSA, the broad coastal plain is principally encompassed by the interim coastal boundary and shorter drainage systems which have not been documented to support anadromous fish. This area does not contain identified mineralized areas adjacent to the coast, but mineralized areas are present in the upper portions of stream watersheds. In the coastal boundary regions described above, the transition between watershed or drainage basin criteria and one mile corridor criteria has followed the most reasonable and appropriate features available (drainage divides, topography, political boundaries) to appropriately represent resource concerns and to provide an identifiable coastal boundary. Fourteen discrete areas surrounded by the coastal boundary are not included in the coastal area since they are not within the interim coastal area, have not currently been documented to provide anadromous fish habitats, and at present are considered low potential for mineral development or other uses and activities with the likelihood of direct and significant impacts to coastal resources. 3.3. JUSTIFICATION FOR INLAND COASTAL BOUNDARY The ACMP provides specific guidance to coastal districts for coastal area boundary expansions by defining the components that must be addressed under Boundary Guidelines (6 AAC 85.040(a)- (c)). Part (a) outlines the requirements for an appropriate coastal area boundary map to identify the area subject to the district program (Bering Straits CRSA coastal boundary shown on Map 3-1). Part (b) identifies the initial coastal boundary, based on the Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska’s Coastal Zone, and indicates that the final boundary must include the zone of direct interaction and the zone of direct influence. The final section of the guideline (6 AAC 85.040(c)) establishes the minimum criteria which must be satisfied by a district before modification of the initial coastal zone boundary can be approved. The identification of probable uses and activities in the Bering Straits CRSA and the identification of direct and significant impacts to saline coastal waters (i.e., anadromous fish and their habitats) attributable to these uses and activities are essential factors for consideration of the district's coastal boundary expansion. The coastal area boundary modification process followed by the Bering Straits CRSA has expanded upon the biophysical criteria considered during identification of the interim coastal boundary. The inland coastal boundary justification also included area-specific information pertaining to the occurrence of renewable and non-renewable resources (Volume 1, Resource Inventory) and the uses and activities associated with likely development scenarios (Volume 2, Resource Analysis). This has facilitated a detailed evaluation of the land/water relationships in the zone of indirect influence, as anticipated by the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the ACMP. Throughout this process, the Bering Straits CRSA has concentrated attention on the most critical areas for coastal resources to identify justifiable extensions to the coastal boundary for management of uses and activities to protect anadromous fish and their habitats. The justification for modifying the Bering Straits CRSA coastal boundary to include all areas where uses and activities have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on coastally-dependent resources requires an understanding of: 1. topographic features (including coastal bluffs), drainage basins, and the inland extent of contiguous coastal wetlands and stream basin riparian habitats; 2. important biological resources and physical processes which are dependent on marine coastal waters (life history and distribution); 3. existing and anticipated future uses and activities in the Coastal District; and 4. the extent to which these uses and activities have or are likely to have a direct and significant impact on marine coastal waters. The following sections provide a rationale for adjustment of the Bering Straits CRSA coastal boundary based on these four components. The discussion will concentrate on adjustments inland of the interim boundary because the interim coastal zone boundary and its criteria were previously approved by the Coastal Policy Council. 3.3.1 Topography, Drainage Basins, and Coastal Wetlands The topography of a coastal district is an important determinant of the area where uses and activities may have a direct and significant impact on coastally-dependent resources. Mountainous areas typically magnify impacts because (1) surface runoff due to spring breakup and storm events is generally more rapid and more difficult to control, (2) vegetation is commonly sparse and characterized by low-lying mats which necessitate much broader natural buffers to “filter” potential impacts, (3) natural hazards are more pronounced and capable of damaging man-made developments, and (4) remedial or emergency measures are often difficult to implement due to the remoteness of development sites, rugged terrain, or lack of all-weather roadways or transportation facilities. Topography and drainage patterns are of particular concern when evaluating the potential for transport of sediments, toxic materials, and other contaminants which can adversely affect water quality in downstream aquatic habitats. The topography of the Bering Straits CRSA is characterized by northeast-southwest trending ridges and valleys of the Nulato Hills along the eastern boundary of the CRSA; the Bendeleben Mountains, Darby Mountains, and Kigluaik Mountains which circumscribe the major rivers of the southern Seward Peninsula, and the expansive coastal plain extending northeast from Cape Prince of Wales to the northern border of the CRSA. Along the com- mon border with the NANA CRSA, several rivers originate in the Bering Straits CRSA but flow east or north to empty into Kotzebue Sound. The Nugnugaluktuk River is a large system within the coastal boundary which does not discharge into the coastal waters of the Bering Straits CRSA. 3-5 Adjoining the wide river valleys of major drainage systems, the foothills and mountains of the upper watersheds rise to 1,500 to 3,900 feet in elevation. The drainage divides between adjacent watersheds are often intermingled with tributary streams extending to the extreme upper limits of the drainage basins. Where zones of high potential mineral areas are located along the crests of ridges separating multiple watersheds, the pattern of drainage becomes highly variable over relative short distances. Drainage patterns are further complicated by numerous ditch systems that interconnect drainage basins. These ditches were constructed during historical mineral development activity, particularly for placer mining operations. Some of the higher elevation streams are intermittent, while others maintain continuous flow during the winter as evidenced by naturally- occurring areas of aufeis (icings) during the winter or the presence of spawning or overwintering habitat for anadromous fish. Upper watershed streams are frequently bounded by moderate to steep slopes which are sparsely vegetated. Stream flow in these systems is highly respon- sive to runoff at breakup and seasonal storm events. Hydrologically, the seasonal flow of water and sediment loads, and water quality, are important factors affecting the biological productivity of the major river systems to which they are tributaries. Extensive wetland habitats are present within the Bering Straits CRSA as wetlands contiguous to coastal areas, wetlands associated with continuous riparian communities along major watercourses, and isolated wetlands in higher elevation inland areas where topography is relatively flat and drainage is restricted. The largest areas of wetlands contiguous to the coast are located between St. Michael Island and Tolstoi Point and north of Cape Prince of Wales. Riparian wetlands associated with river and stream systems perform an important function in controlling the quali- ty and quantity of water in the adjacent watercourses. Freshwater wetlands comprise an important component of anadromous fish habitats; waters which flow through or originate in wetlands become enriched with nutrients which contribute to increased productivity in the streams (i.e. increased algal growth, aquatic insect populations, and food sources for anadromous fish). Wetlands also provide integral habitats for coastally-dependent waterfowl and shorebirds in the form of spring and fall migration staging areas, nesting areas, and molting areas. 3.3.2 Resources Dependent on Coastal Waters The distribution and life histories of biological resources are important considerations when evaluating the area where uses and activities may have a direct and significant impact on coastal resources. The ACMP requires a discussion of coastally-dependent resources that have a potential to be directly and significantly impacted. Some species provide a clearer justification for coastal boundaries because their distribution, life histories, and dependence on saline coastal waters is more apparent and comparatively well documented. Certain species of waterfowl are highly dependent on the availability of coastal staging, resting, and feeding areas during spring and fall migration. Some waterfowl species utilize wetland nesting or molting habitats significantly inland from saline coastal waters. Within the Bering Straits CRSA, most of the wetland habitats which support coastally-dependent waterfowl and shorebird breeding, molting, and staging areas are currently encompassed by the interim coastal boundary (Volume 1, Resource Inventory; ADF&G 1986). A summary of waterfowl and shorebird distribution, abundance, and important wetland habitats within the Bering Straits CRSA is provided in Appendix A. Reindeer utilize coastal habitats of the Bering Straits CRSA and provide an important component of the region’s economy and subsistence resources. Although reindeer are not directly dependent on saline coastal waters, they display a preference for the coastal environment during the summer. Reindeer herders recognize and understand this preference and ensure that access to coastal areas is maintained. A discussion of the distribution, life history, and importance of reindeer to the economy and lifestyle of the residents of the region is provided in Volume 2, Resource Analysis. The original biophysical boundaries of Alaska’s coastal zone, based in part on anadromous fish distribution, have 3-6 been substantially supplemented by current research information, including the knowledge of coastal residents. The direct association and dependence of anadromous fish on both saline and freshwater areas provides the strongest justification for modifying the Bering Straits CRSA coastal area boundary to facilitate management of uses and activities which are likely to have a direct and significant effect on coastal resources. Anadromous fish are a living coastal resource which is indisputably dependent on marine waters. The federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) acknowledged the appropriateness of considering anadromous fish as biological resources dependent on coastal waters in correspondence to the Bristol Bay CRSA (P. Tweedt to R. Grogan, May 31, 1985) which stated “Alaska has previously recognized, and OCRM approved as part of the ACMP, a definition of coastal waters that includes those animals which are dependent on coastal waters...” . All anadromous fish are dependent upon saline waters during some stage of their life history cycle for feeding, rearing, migrating, overwintering, or combinations of these events; spawning activities of all anadromous fish occur in freshwater systems. Within the Bering Straits CRSA, anadromous fish present in fresh and saline waters of the region include Arctic char, salmon (chum, pink, coho, chinook, and sockeye), whitefish (sheefish, least cisco, Bering cisco, Arctic cisco, broad whitefish, and humpback whitefish), and smelt (boreal and pond). Juvenile salmon show an affinity for nearshore coastal waters during the first few months after entering ocean waters; both juvenile and adult salmon migrate along the coastal shelf following departure from and return to natal spawn- ing streams (Hood and Calder 1981). The currently documented distribution of these species within freshwater streams of the Bering Straits CRSA is presented in Volume 2, Resource Analysis. Arctic char, chum salmon, pink salmon, coho salmon, chinook salmon, and whitefish are most abundant and important to the residents of the region. The following summaries present aspects of the life history of some anadromous fish speciesin the Bering Straits CRSA pertinent to the boundary justification. Additional information concerning the occurrence, preferred habitats, and life history of these species are presented in Volume 1, Resource Inventory. 3.3.2.1 Anadromous Fish Life Histories Chum Salmon Chum salmon enter bays and estuaries from late June to late July and migrate upstream to spawn from late June to mid-September (McLean and Delaney 1978). Chum salmon spawning sites are often located in spring areas where winter water temperatures are moderated. Preferred spawning areas are composed of small gravel and sand riffles where eggs hatch in seven to fourteen weeks (Hale 1981). The female chum salmon excavates a redd in a gravelly stream substrate where extruded eggs are fertilized by the dominant of several males in attendance. The female then excavates another redd slightly upstream to cover the freshly deposited eggs. Both male and female chum salmon die after spawning. The eggs incubate in the gravel throughout the winter; fry emerge in late spring and migrate directly to coastal waters April to July, feeding primarily on aquatic insects. Chum salmon do not rear in freshwater systems. In early summer, chum salmon feed in estuaries and nearshore waters, moving to offshore feeding areas by mid-August (Hale 1981, Hood and Cider 1981). After three to five years in offshore oceanic waters, chum salmon return to their natal streams to spawn. Pink Salmon Pink salmon arrive on the Bering Sea shelf in mid-June and are present in estuaries and the mouths of rivers from late June until late July. They enter spawning rivers from early July through early August, and are capable of spawning in a variety of stream habitats. Preferred spawning habitat is in water depths greater than 0.15 meters, in current velocities of 0.21 to 1.10 meters per second, and where the gravel substrate is 1.3 to 10.2 centimeters in diameter (ADF&G 1983). Spawning activity of pink salmon is similar to that for chum salmon. Fertilized eggs develop in the gravel for 8 to 18 weeks; the alevins remain in the gravel until the following spring. After emergence from the gravel, pink salmon fry immediately migrate to marine coastal waters during late May through June. 3-7 This outmigration usually occurs during hours of darkness, and the fry do not feed. Pink salmon fry school in nearshore marine waters for about a month before migrating to offshore waters. Pink salmon remain in marine waters for 12 to 18 months before maturing. Chinook, Coho, and Sockeye Salmon Life history activities of these three salmon species are similar to those for chum and pink salmon except for timing of spawning, preference for spawning habitats, and the length of time spent in freshwater after emergence from the gravel as fry. King, coho, and sockeye salmon may spend from one to four years rearing in freshwater aquatic habitats prior to migrating downstream to the ocean as smolts. Streams which support these species must provide suitable rearing, feeding, and overwintering habitats in addition to acceptable spawning sites. Since spawning, rearing, and overwintering habitats often have different characteristics, in-stream movement of fish between seasonal use areas may occur. The presence of juvenile salmonids of different stages of development at all times of the year makes watercourses which support king, coho, or sockeye salmon potentially vulnerable to adverse environmental alterations throughout the year. Chinook, or king salmon, return to coastal estuaries and bays from mid-June to mid-July, entering freshwater streams to spawn from mid-July to early August. Preferred spawning habitats are areas of alternating pools and riffles where the strongest currents pass through medium to fine-sized gravel. After emerging from the spawning gravel, king salmon rear in fresh water for one to three years feeding on aquatic larvae and insects (McPhail and Lindsey 1970). Following freshwater rearing, smolts migrate to coastal waters May and early June and remain in ocean waters for one to six years before returning to spawn. Coho, or silver salmon, return to spawning streams from early August through mid-September. Preferred spawn- ing habitat for this species is usually fine to medium-size gravel substrate at the head of rifles, in narrow side channels, and in river tributaries. Coho fry emerge from the gravel in May to June of the following year. They rear in freshwater stream habitats for one to four years before migrating to the ocean as smolts (Morrow 1980). After feeding for several months in nearshore waters, coho move to offshore waters for one to three years before returning to spawn. Sockeye, or red salmon, enter spawning streams of the Bering Straits CRSA from late July to early August and spawn in gravel bottom streams or along lake shorelines by early September. The eggs hatch and the fry remain in the gravel until emergence from April through June of the following year. Sockeyes are highly dependent on lake habitats where they rearing from one to three years before migrating to ocean waters in spring and early summer. Arctic Char Char inhabit nearly all of the region’s drainages, including those on St. Lawrence Island. Char spawn during the fall in the gravel substrate of river pools, often near lakes (Morrow 1980). When they return to freshwater to spawn, char cease active feeding. The female constructs a redd (streambed spawning depression) in which the eggs are deposited and fertilized; several redds may be constructed during the spawning period. Eggs incubate and develop in the gravel during the winter and hatch shortly after break-up in the spring. The newly-emerged fry disperse throughout the freshwater river system and its tributaries, returning to the main stem of the system during August to September. Juvenile char feed and rear in freshwater habitats until two to four years of age when they migrate to marine coastal water as smolts. While rearing in freshwater, young char feed primarily on insects. In marine waters, both adult and juvenile Arctic char feed actively on sand lance, other small fish, and epibenthic crustaceans. Arctic char return from marine waters to freshwater systems by mid-August to overwinter until the following spring. Recent studies have shown that char may utilize different river systems for spawning and overwintering, necessitating 3-8 several annual transits between freshwater streams through marine coastal waters (DeCicco 1984). Arctic char of all age classes overwinter in freshwater. The availability of suitable overwintering areas, pools of unfrozen water, and sufficiently oxygenated water of good quality are factors critical to the winter survival of Arctic char. Smelt Boreal (also called rainbow or toothed) and pond smelt range throughout the waters of the Bering Straits CRSA. Smelt are anadromous and are reported to congregate near the mouths of rivers and streams in winter. In fall and spring smelt enter estuaries and rivers to spawn, preferably on gravel or among rocks and aquatic plants (Russell, personal communication; ADF&G 1981). Whitefish Humpback, round, and broad whitefish inhabit freshwater and nearshore marine areas of the Bering Straits CRSA. Anadromous whitefish typically spawn from mid-September to late October along shallow stretches of rivers and rocky reefs in lakes. Whitefish winter in lakes, large rivers, and nearshore marine areas. Larvae emerge in early spring and anadromous juveniles migrate to nearshore marine waters where they remain during the summer and, in some cases, during the winter. 3.3.2.2. Anadromous Fish Distribution and Abundance The following summaries describe the major distribution of anadromous fish in the Bering Straits CRSA. Although some streams with smaller runs are not discussed, they are still of significant importance to local subsistence users. Salmon The largest salmon runs in the Bering Straits CRSA enter the Kwiniuk, Unalakleet, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Koyuk, Tubutulik, Kachavik, Fish, and Pilgrim Rivers and the Salmon Lake system. The largest pink salmon runs enter the Kwiniuk and Unalakleet Rivers (Table 3-1). Chinook salmon in the Bering Straits CRSA are most numerous in the Unalakleet, North, Shaktoolik, Ungalik, Inglutalik, Kwiniuk, and Tubutulik Rivers. Coho spawn in several of the region's streams including the Sinuk, Nome, North and Unalakleet Rivers. The Unalakleet River sustains a particularly large run. Sockeye salmon runs occur in the Sinuk and Pilgrim Rivers, Salmon Lake, and Grand Central River (flowing into Salmon Lake). The number of salmon reaching major Norton Sound drainages varies from year to year. Arctic Char Regional surveys have shown char to be widespread in nearshore marine waters but most abundant in eastern Norton Sound, especially between Cape Denbigh and Tolstoi Point (Barton 1978). Char migrations between marine waters and spawning areas can be extensive. Char that spawn in the American River migrate to the upper reaches of the river in the interior of the Seward Peninsula. Smelt Smelt are reported to occur throughout the coastal waters of the CRSA. Trawl surveys in 1976 and 1977 revealed that boreal and pond smelt were widely distributed throughout Port Clarence and Golovin Bay. Pond smelt are also common around the mouth of the Unalakleet River. Boreal smelt are abundant offshore and their larvae have been encountered throughout the region’s nearshore waters (Barton 1978). In the fall, large runs of rainbow smelt converge on the coast, but the distribution of spawning areas for this species is not known. Whitefish Humpback and broad whitefish are common in Port Clarence, Golovin Bay, and near the mouth of the Unalakleet River. Round whitefish occur in Port Clarence and between the Unalakleet River and Tolstoi Point. Sheefish and other whitefish are also present on the northern Seward Peninsula in the Serpentine River, Arctic River and Trout Creek. 3-9 TABLE 3-1: PEAK SALMON ESCAPEMENT IN THE BEARING STRAITS, CRSA, 1983. Stream Name Chum Pink Chinook Coho Nome River 198 9,170 ‘1 a Flambeau 1,195 200 2 - Eldorado 994 270 ah] - Bonanza 723 10,576 - - Solomon 310 8,180 - - Sinuk 2,150 1,070 47 - Fish 20,077 300 87 - Niukluk 8,886 50 54 - Boston 704 - 154 ~ Tubutulik 16,345 40,797 135 Kwiniuk 56,907 251,965 267 - (Tower Count) Ungalik 8,357 23,380 21 Shaktoolik 12,414 18,705 1,808 - North River 4,135 4,980 347 - Unalakleet System 58,540 89,324 3,025 14,656 Source: ADF&G, Preliminary Norton Sound Commercial Salmon Fisheries Report, 1983. ** Silver runs were not surveyed due to poor weather conditions. The Unalakleet run was counted by sonar. Note: These counts only provide an indication of the degree of escapement because many fish are not detected. These figures do, however, provide an indication of the relative importance of some drainages to the region’s salmon stocks. 3-10 3.3.2.3, Anadromous Fish Importance to Economy and Subsisence Lifestyle - Commercial harvests of chinook, coho, pink and chum salmon within the Bering Straits CRSA have ranged be- tween 40,000 and 532,100 fish (2.8 million Ibs) in the last 20 years. Between 1980 and 1984, the annual catch averaged 437,200 fish worth approximately $842,000. During 1985 and 1986, villagers throughout the Bering Straits CRSA contributed to the public participation phase of the coastal management plan review. Villages listed in Table 3-2 reviewed the resource distribution maps and provided additional information on the location and subsistence use of anadromous fish resources. Public testimony emphasized the regional importance of anadromous fish to the local residents. Salmon are one of the more important species for subsistence users, particularly in villages along the coast of Norton Sound (Table 3-3). Between 1978 and 1980, the annual subsistence harvest ranged from 49,000 to 77,000 fish (ADF&G 1981 Harvest Survey). In 1982, 93 percent of the households in northwestern Alaska harvested salmon which comprise TABLE 3-2: VILLAGES SURVEYED DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SURVEY. Shishmaref Golovin Wales Elim Brevig Mission Koyuk Teller Shaktoolik Mary's Igloo Unalakleet Stebbins Solomon St. Michael Gambell Savoonga White Mountain TABLE 3-3: GEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS OF THE USE OF SUBSISTENCE RESOURCES IN THE NORTON SOUND REGION 1 Average and Range Percent Utilization Village Average and Range Area Mammals Fish Fowl Plants Total Kg/Person Offshore Islands 2 90.9 5.4 1.7 2.0 1149.1 (73.7-98.8) (0.4-15.7) (0.6-3.3) (0.1-7.2) (308.1-2946.2) Bering Strait 3 94.2 2.1 0.5 3.2 841.3 (91.9-97.1) (1.3-2.6) (0.4-0.5) (1.1-4.9) (544.8-1137.0) Seward Peninsula 4 56.7 30.4 23 10.6 182.8 (28.9-76.4) (14.9-53.7) (1.8-3.1) (6.8-15.5) (153.2-238.4) Norton Sound 5 45.9 38.9 10.8 44 333.5 (30.4-63.5) (16.6-52.8) (1.5-27.6) (1.1-9.5) (173.7-661.7) Source: Adapted from data collected by the Northwest Alaska Native Association as presented in Selkregg (1976). 2 Diomede, Gambell, Savoonga, and King Island. 3 Shishmaref and Wales. 4 Teller, Brevig Mission, and Nome. 5 Elim, Golovin, Koyuk, White Mountain, Shaktoolik, Unalakleet, Stebbins, and St. Michael. an important component of their subsistence diet (Ellana 1983). Subsistence foods are preferred because of their taste, high nutritional value, and as a source of cultural identity. A fall-early winter survey in Shaktoolik reported that 57 percent of the animal foods consumed were obtained through hunting and fishing (Thomas 1982). During the spring and summer, many residents move to fishing camps within the coastal area boundary. Throughout the year subsistence fishermen use gill nets, seine nets, traps, and sportfishing tackle. 3-11 3.3.3. Uses and Activities in the Coastal Area The identification of existing and anticipated uses and activities for lands and waters within the Bering Straits CRSA is an integral part of the coastal boundary determination. The ACMP requires the coastal zone boundary to encompass all uses and activities which may have a direct and significant impact on coastally-dependent resources. Human uses and development activities can adversely impact anadromous fish populations through direct mor- tality, loss or degradation of important habitats, migration barriers, or impairment of important life history functions (Volume 2, Resource Analysis). Current and anticipated uses of the lands and resources which could adversely affect anadromous fish or their habitats include: placer mining sand, gravel, and rock mining pit mining for minerals or coal offshore mining pipelines and related facilities, including pump and compressor stations, access roads, camp facilities, and airfields toxic waste disposal sites sanitary landfills, refuse and overburden disposal sites transportation and utility corridors work pads, facility pads, berms geophysical exploration oil and gas exploration and development sewage treatment facilities mineral extraction and processing facilities water removal for domestic use, camps, drilling operations, ice roads, and ice pads Within the Bering Straits CRSA, development projects which include some of the above activities or land uses are currently underway, in various stages of planning, or have the potential for future development depending on world economic conditions. Development projects with the greatest likelihood of occurrence are those which would entail the exploration, extraction, processing, transportation, and export of lode and placer minerals from the highly mineralized areas of the Bering Straits CRSA. Specific areas of mining activity are often relatively discrete and limited in geographical extent. However, the re- quisite related facilities for exploration activities, development of transportation systems, and establishment of a support infrastructure include most of the facility sites and activities of concern identified for all development projects. In particular, transportation systems for movement of metallic ores or processed concentrates from mine sites to trans-shipment facilities (such as coastal ports or harbors) will be routed where topographic features are appropriate to engineering constraints. This will often result in roadways which follow or are located in close prox- imity to riparian habitats along streams and river systems emanating from the higher elevations where minerals are located. In some situations, roadways or transportation corridors could impact anadromous fish habitats out- side of the watershed in which mineral development activity occurs. The complex nature of drainage basin pat- terns within the Bering Straits CRSA increases the potential for this situation to occur. Extensive areas within the Bering Straits CRSA have deposits of lode and placer minerals, and additional loca- tions have been identified as highly prospective for mineral development (Volume 2, Resource Analysis). Minerals have influenced the region's economic development and settlement patterns ever since placer deposits were discovered near Nome 85 years ago. Placer mining for gold and tin is the principal form of mineral extraction presently occurring in the CRSA. 3-12 Placer gold deposits may have been discovered as early as 1865 on the Niukluk River northeast of Nome (Cobb 1973). In 1898 two major gold rushes took place near Council and Nome. Miners staked the first claims along Anvil, Snow Gulch, Glacier, Rock, and Dry Creeks in the Nome area. These creek bed deposits proved to be the area’s greatest gold producers. Other important placer gold-producing areas include the Kougarok area on the central Seward Peninsula and the Council area, where miners have recovered more than 588,000 ounces of placer gold (Stevens, personal com- munication). A placer dredge operates at Ophir Creek in the Council area and smaller placer operations also mine in the area. The Solomon River and its tributaries have produced over 255,000 ounces of gold, much of it by dredging. The Bluff area, principally Daniels Creek and the offshore extension of the creek placer, produced over 90,000 ounces of gold (Stevens, personal communication). Placer mining activity in the Koyuk area began in the early 1900’s along Bonanza, Dime, and Sweepstakes Creeks and the Ungalik River. Placer mines are cur- rently in operation along the Ungalik River. Placer tin deposits were mined in the Tin City area as early as 1902, with a total recovery of about 2,000 tons of tin concentrate (Selkregg 1974). Current tin production consists of small placer operations at Cape Creek near Tin City owned by the Lost River Mining Corporation. Platinum has been recovered on the eastern part of the Seward Peninsula, and miners have taken about 31,000 pounds of tungsten oxide from streams and residual deposits near Nome area lodes. Major lode deposits of tin, tungsten, fluorite, and beryllium reserves occur in the Lost River area on the western Seward Peninsula. The deposit has a potential value greater than the combined value of all past Seward Penin- sula placer gold production (Selkregg 1974). Large lode tin deposits occur elsewhere on the western peninsula, primarily at Ear, Cape, Black, Kougarok, and Potato mountains, and in other areas with granitic intrusions. Lode deposits in the Nome mining district have yielded significant amounts of gold, tungsten, and antimony. Copper ore has been produced from the Ward Mine on the northcentral Seward Peninsula. The region’s first hardrock silver mine operated during the 1880's in the Omilak area north of Golovin. Smaller lode deposits in the region contain iron, copper, bismuth, molybdenum, lead, and zinc (Cobb 1973). Recent exploration has focused on lode deposits of gold in the Nome district. Mapco Alaska, Inc., is evaluating gold deposits at Mount Distin 18 miles north of Nome. In the summer of 1983 Pacific Cornwall Enterprises (PCE) investigated a patented gold claim at the Big Hurrah Mine on a tributary of the Solomon River. High grade uranium- bearing sedimentary rocks have been recently investigated in the Darby Mountains, and other uranium deposits occur in the eastern part of the Seward Peninsula. As of November 1983, federal land comprising approximately one-eighth of the Bering Straits CRSA is available for mineral leasing and entry or limited sales and leasing under provisions of the Federal Land Policy Manage- ment Act (FLPMA) of 1976. This expansive area includes portions of the Imuruk, Bendeleben Mountains, and Selawik-Nulato Hills subunits. Although much of the historic mineral development activity in the Bering Straits CRSA has occurred in coastal areas or adjacent to subsequently developed trails and roadways, many of the potential mineral development projects in inland areas would be dependent on prior or concurrent construction of a transportation infra-structure. Some sites of potential mineral development are located in foothills or areas of steeper topography where higher gradient watercourses support or are proximate tributaries to anadromous fish habitats. A comparison of the area 3-13 within the coastal boundary extension and the geographic areas encompassed by high or very high mineral potential (ADNR, Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey, 1985), placer and lode mineral deposits, and likely transpor- tation corridors indicates the potential for significant interaction between development activities and aquatic habitats which support anadromous fish populations. 3.3.4 Direct and Significant Impacts on Coastal Resources The welfare of anadromous fish populations in the Bering Straits CRSA is closely related to the maintenance of important aquatic habitats which provide spawning, rearing, and overwintering areas. Potential uses and ac- tivities identified in Section 3.3.3 include specific actions which could significantly impact anadromous fish popula- tions, including those populations which utilize aquatic habitats in downstream reaches of streams and rivers distant from the principal location of development activity. These offsite impacts are directly related to adverse changes in water quality or water quantity, and the transport of pollutants or toxic substances by surface or ground- water to anadromous fish habitats. In addition, remote development activities can adversely affect anadromous fish habitats when associated facilities or activities necessary for reconnaissance, exploration, transportation, or support of the development impose impacts on anadromous fish habitats. When this situation occurs, the sphere of influence directly related to the development project can extend for a significant distance from the principal activity site. The management of anadromous fish should protect the habitats which are critical to the welfare and biological Productivity of these populations at all stages of their development. This ecosystem management or “‘full-cycle”’ overview of biological activities and populations recognizes that disturbance, habitat alteration, or impeded ac- cess to critical use areas can eliminate or reduce a resource as effectively as direct impact to a population while seasonally utilizing nearshore marine waters. Adverse impacts to anadromous fish habitats can result from develop- ment activities which cause: surface run-off from disturbed areas or erodable soils removal of stream-side vegetative cover alteration of water flow, temperature, or water quality increased turbidity or sedimentation above seasonal ambient levels introduction of crude oil, petroleum products, or toxic substances interference with free movement and timely migration of adult or juvenile fish within and between seasonal use areas alteration of the physical integrity of spawning, rearing, or overwintering areas ° removal of water from overwintering areas used by fish or aquifers that replenish overwintering areas induced thickening of ice cover on overwintering areas by ice roads, snow removal, or vehicular traffic compaction reduction in the availability of preferred food organisms disturbance of the hydrologic equilibrium of watercourses blasting within or adjacent to aquatic habitats thermal degradation of permafrost from vegetation clearing or stripping of the insulating organic mat disturbance of stream banks, floodplains, or adjacent uplands which induces hydraulic or thermal erosion disposal of overburden within stream floodplains discharge of effluents from sewage treatment facilities, mining operations, or processing facilities eeee3eee Due to the widespread distribution of spawning, rearing, and overwintering habitats for anadromous fish within the Bering Straits CRSA (Volume 2, Resource Analysis) and the interconnected network of migratory pathways utilized during seasonal movements between use areas and marine or estuarine waters, most of the watercourses and associated lakes, springs, and wetlands contribute to the presence and maintenance of anadromous fish habitats. Significant disturbance or alteration of the quality, quantity, or seasonal flow of stream waters supporting 3-14 any vulnerable life history activity of anadromous fish has the potential to adversely impact the populations or productivity of affected anadromous fish, if not properly mitigated. Wetlands and tributaries which do not directly provide anadromous fish habitat are often important in the maintenance of flow and water quality for downstream aquatic habitats utilized by anadromous fish and waterfowl (Murphy et al. 1984, Lloyd 1985, Elliott and Finn 1984). The potential for runoff from development activities to contaminate highly productive wetlands, rivers, and lakes was a major concern raised by villagers during the public participation phase of the coastal management program. Although development activities and uses may occur in areas removed from direct association with anadromous fish habitats, the adverse effects can be transported by surface water flows to drainage channels which ultimately lead to vulnerable use areas for anadromous fish. The impacts of greatest concern are untimely increases in stream turbidity or sediments (Hall and McKay 1983, Bowden and McGinnis 1983, Lloyd 1985) and the introduc- tion of toxic or harmful pollutants (Metsker 1982). Water transport of these impacts for a significant distance from the project activity site has been demonstrated in Alaska under conditions comparable to those which occur in the Bering Straits CRSA. Turbid waters induced by development activities have been reported to decrease water clarity up to 100 miles downstream from the site of introduction (Townsend 1983). Suspended solids and turbidity from placer mining operations in the Chatanika River system were still discernible 25 miles downstream from the source of distur- bance (Toland 1983). Turbid waters attributable to mining activities in a tributary of the George River extended 12 air miles downstream from the site of disturbance before water clarity showed noticeable improvement (Lloyd 1983). Ott (1984) noted water turbidity at levels which can adversely affect photosynthetic activity, invertebrate productivity, water temperature, and rearing and feeding of anadromous fish at distances from 26 to 35 miles downstream from placer mining activities. Increases in turbidity, settleable solids, and substrate embeddedness (ameasure of permeability for intergravel flow) have been recorded downstream from active placer mining opera- tions in Alaska (Wagener 1984). Development activities which cause adverse disturbances to streams have also been shown to decrease the abun- dance and diversity of invertebrates which provide an important source of food for anadromous fish. Weber and Post (1985) reported study sites in the Birch Creek watershed of the Central Mining District which showed that areas impacted by fine silt and sand downstream from active placer mining areas contained only one-tenth as many benthic invertebrates as study sites upstream from mined areas or in unmined watersheds. Stream substrate embeddedness and turbidity were found to be the best predictive descriptors of reduced invertebrate density and biomass in placer-mined streams along the Steese Highway northeast of Fairbanks (Wagener 1984). The steeper topography and higher gradient streams within the Bering Straits CRSA coastal boundary increase the potential for transported sediments and turbidity effects to be carried significant distances from the area of disturbance. Additionally, uses or activities in upland areas removed from anadromous fish habitats can also im- pair the viability and function of spawning, rearing, and overwintering habitats if waters which supply these habitats are diverted, dammed, removed, or seasonally altered. The Resource Analysis for the Bering Straits coastal management program (Volume 2) provides a detailed analysis of development activity impacts and the sensitivities of fish and aquatic habitats in the CRSA. It should be recognized that anadromous fish are present in the rivers, streams, and lakes of the Bering Straits CRSA coastal area year-round, but that certain life stages are more susceptible than others to the impacts of specific uses and activities. Development activity impacts of special concern to anadromous fish resources within and adjacent to the coastal boundary of the Bering Straits CRSA are summarized in the following sections. 3-15 Alteration of Aquatic Habitats Aquatic habitats important to anadromous fish can be adversely affected by transportation systems, utility rights- of-way, facility sites, floodplain material sites, solid waste and overburden disposal sites, toxic waste disposal sites, construction camps, erosion control structures, and the alignment of roads and pipeline rights-of-way. Impacts attributable to these activities can include destruction of stream and associated wetland habitats (Pamplin 1979), interference with fish migration and habitat access, and loss of habitat function due to stream channel modifications. Permeable gravels and continuous winter flow necessary for spawning habitat are adversely impacted by sedimen- tation (filling of the intergravel spaces, smothering of eggs), channel changes and diversions (discontinuous flows or changes in channel conformation and velocity), and interference with winter water flow. Spur dikes, channel plugs, and guide banks constructed to control erosion can inhibit fish access to side channel spawning areas or dewater these habitats. Improper siting, design, or installation of drainage structures such as culverts can im- pede fish migrations or block access to rearing, spawning, or overwintering areas. Ice roads and ice bridges can impact overwintering areas through the removal of insulating snow cover, thereby increasing the thickness of ice and reducing the depth of water in overwintering pools. Arctic char are particularly vulnerable to disturbance of overwintering areas since adults, juveniles, and incubating eggs may all be present in restricted areas of freshwater systems during this period of the year. Where winter water resources are limited, important overwintering areas or aquifers that support spawning areas with incubating eggs are susceptible to dewatering by water removal activities. Development activities which require construction pads and all-season roadways over permafrost terrain often necessitate mining of large quantities of construction materials, including sand and gravel (Burger and Swenson 1977). Due to difficulties associated with mining in permafrost soils, these materials are most commonly accessi- ble in braided river systems or floodplain benches adjacent to watercourses. Excavation in active flood-plains can result in the direct loss of incubating eggs of anadromous fish, destruction of spawning areas, encourage- ment of “‘aufeis” (induced icings), and loss of rearing habitat (Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1980). Excavated pits and channels can reduce water depth during low flow periods and create depressions which can trap fish. A study of potential transportation systems in western and Arctic Alaska (Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. 1981) recognized that the potential impacts of roadways, pipelines, or railways on anadromous fish habitats could be moderate to severe when considering physical barriers, habitat alteration, changes in water levels, stream distur- bance, and pollution. Turbidity and Sedimentation The quality and productivity of anadromous fish habitats and tributary waters can be adversely affected by sedimen- tation and turbidity which exceeds ambient conditions or that which is seasonally introduced during periods of high water clarity and low suspended sediment levels. Instream activity and surface disturbing activities adjacent to drainage channels can increase downstream turbidity (Bowden and McGinnis 1983, Lloyd 1985) and decrease Production of aquatic macroinvertebrates (Hall and McKay 1983, Wagener 1984), an important food source for rearing salmonids. Primary production (photosynthetic activity in aquatic systems) is greatly reduced in streams when turbidity reduces the penetration of light into the water. Van Nieuwenhuyse and LaPerriere (1986) noted that primary production decreased by 50 percent in interior Alaskan streams subjected to moderate levels of tur- bidity (average 170 NTU); primary production was undetectable in heavily mined streams (1100 to 3400 NTU). Mining operations which discharge sediments to watercourses from point source and non-point source activities can have significant adverse impacts to receiving waters. The magnitude of sediment discharges from 10 placer operations in the Kantishna Hills/Dunkle Mine area observed by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conser- vation during 1982-1983 indicated that 333 to 36,360 pounds of sediment were being discharged per hour into 3-16 affected streams (National Park Service 1984). In some situations, sediments deposited within or adjacent to streambeds may be long-term sources of non-point pollution (Weber and Post 1985). Madison (1981) noted that sediment from abandoned placer mines was being transported out of mining basins more than 50 years after mining ceased and was still impacting fishery resources. Sedimentation of spawning areas can eliminate spawning habitats or increase the mortality of incubating fish eggs and alevins by decreasing the permeability of spawning gravels (Hall and McKay 1983, Weber and Post 1985, Bjerklie and LaPerrierre 1985). Analysis of water chemistry in an Alaskan stream where the bed was effec- tively sealed by deposition of fine sediments produced by upstream mining found that the groundwater below the bed was saltier and relatively devoid of dissolved oxygen when compared to the surface water in the stream (Alaska Cooperative Fishery Research Unit 1986). This isolation between surface and intergravel waters has serious implications for the viability of incubating eggs and invertebrate production. Sediments can be transported from abandoned mining facilities and activities for significant periods of time after cessation of active mining. Samples of suspended solids in the water downstream from an inactive hard rock mine in Idaho contained from 400 to 60,900 mg/liter of fine sediment attributed to past operations at Blackbird Mill (Platts et al. 1979). Stream samples collected from the same system upstream from the mining district showed 0 mg/liter of suspended solids. The prospects for abatement of the sediment discharge from adits, tailing piles, and tailing ponds was considered poor without restoration and stabilization of the mining and processing sites. Alaska studies in the Birch Creek watershed (Weber and Post 1985) observed that placer mined areas adjacent to streams had not stabilized or re-established riparian communities even after sixty years following cessation of mining activity. Elevated turbidity levels can also increase stream temperatures, reduce photosynthetic activity, subject fish to physiological stress, impair recreational and subsistence harvest activities, and reduce the efficiency of fishery survey and management techniques (Lloyd 1985, Townsend 1983, Hall and McKay 1983, Bowden and McGinnis 1983, Schneiderhan 1982). Research by the Alaska Cooperative Fishery Research Unit (1985) on grayling showed that 50 percent of the yolk-sac (newly hatched) fry placed in turbid waters of Birch Creek died within 48 hours; during the same period, only 20 percent of a similar fry population died when placed in clear waters of Twelvemile Creek. Although fish may migrate through naturally turbid rivers and streams in Alaska, these systems are generally not used for spawn- ing, feeding, or rearing. Comparative studies of caged adult fish in clear and turbid streams noted that although elevated sediment levels did not cause immediate mortality, the fish were experiencing gill abrasion and a loss of body fat, especially in tissues surrounding the internal organs (Simmons 1985). Hydraulic and Thermal Erosion Hydraulic erosion can result from clearing and stripping of vegetation or the surface organic mat, altered surface water flow, exposed cuts and fills, drainage from roadways and facility pads, overland travel by vehicles and equip- ment, or damage to the insulting organic mat in permafrost areas. Thermal degradation of permafrost can also be a problem where gravel workpads or road embankments intercept sheet flow and concentrate the runoff in drainage channels underlain by frozen soils which are not thaw stable. Hydraulic or thermal erosion problems can be particularly detrimental where fine-grained soils increase turbidity or sediment deposition in adjacent watercourses. Blasting Explosives are often used within or adjacent to aquatic systems for construction projects, seismic testing, and mining. Fish are adversely affected by shock waves generated by high explosives (Sundberg 1984, Hubbs and 317 Rechnitzer 1952). Factors which influence the severity of the impact include the type of explosive, size of charge, distance to fish resource, fish species and age (eggs, juveniles, adults), blasting medium (water column or adja- cent rock/soil), water depth, and presence of ice. The major cause of injury to fish from blasting shockwaves results from rupture of the swim bladder which is very sensitive to rapid changes in pressure. Controlled tests have in- dicated that a peak pressure of 40 to 50 pounds per square inch (psi) from a high explosive charge is usually fatal to adult fish with swim bladders (Hubbs and Rechnitzer 1952). A peak pressure as low as 2.7 psi will kill juvenile salmon (Rasmussen 1967). Salmon fry that have not yet developed swim bladders are less vulnerable to damage from blasting than are juvenile salmon (Falk and Lawrence 1973). Discharge of Effluents, Pollutants, and Toxic Substances Activities and uses within a watershed which may contact surface drainage channels or groundwater aquifers have a high potential for affecting the freshwater system of the drainage basin in which they are located. Potential effluents and pollutants from development activities include crude and refined hydrocarbons, dissolved metals, pesticides, chemicals, and sewage. Construction or mining projects which require camps, fuel storage, sewage treatment facilities, or processing facilities are potential sources of effluents and pollutants which could adversely impact anadromous fish waters. Toxic materials could also be introduced to waters used by anadromous fish from mining activities where heavy metals are encountered with the target mineral or toxic substances are used for processing or refining. Heavy metals that could be introduced to aquatic environments from surface-disturbing activities such as mining include iron, cadmium, tin, antimony, aluminum, manganese, mercury, arsenic, and selenium (Metsker 1982). Some heavy metals are bioaccumulative, concentrating in living tissues with subsequent impacts to the living organism. Since some toxic substances and heavy metals may be dissolved in the water column and not just transported, adverse effects could occur a significant distance from the source of pollution. The presence of heavy metals in aquatic systems affects salmonids by inducing toxic effects to fish at low concentrations, initiating loss of aquatic food organisms at concentrations lower than those for fish toxicity, and creating avoidance of waters with heavy metals at extremely low concentrations (Platts et al. 1979). Placer mining in central Alaska streams has been shown to increase the levels of both recoverable and dissolved arsenic, cadmium, lead, zinc, and copper released to stream waters where these minerals occur naturally with the placer gold (Wagener 1984). These heavy metals are toxic and can be harmful to the aquatic life of streams receiving effluents or runoff from mining operations. LaPerriere et al. (1985) found that streams which carried settleable solids from mining activity had highly elevated concentrations of heavy metals. Lead, zinc, and copper downstream of intense mining activity were present in concentrations sufficient to threaten aquatic life. Hard rock mining which exposes sulfide minerals to oxidation can result in the discharge of strong acids and heavy metals to adjacent watersheds where they are extremely detrimental to aquatic life. Water seepage from adits and leaching from mine waste piles were determined to be the principal sources of cobalt, copper, iron, manganese, lead, and zinc in downstream portions of an east-central Idaho drainage that formerly supported anadromous fish (Platts et al. 1979). Effluents emanating from a mineral mine site in Canada were found to adversely affect the density and species composition of benthic biota and decrease stocks of fish in areas affected by mine effluents (Clarke 1974). The decreased presence of fish in this study was attributed to the direct lethal effects of the toxicants (metals, sulphur compounds, organic reagents), the effects of the toxicants on the reproductive success of fish, and the associated siltation of spawning grounds with decreased productivity of affected ecosystems. Because of their widespread use and transport, hydrocarbon products (crude oil, fuel oil, lubricants) are the pollutants most likely to be associated with development activities in the Bering Straits CRSA. Impacts to anadromous fish and use areas from hydrocarbon spill incidents could be acute (e.g. catastrophic event such as an oil pipeline rupture) or chronic. Acute oil pollution often results from an accident or natural hazard. Chronic pollution often 3-18 goes unnoticed for long periods and can be a source of significant impact if undetected. For anadromous fish species that require two to seven years to complete a life cycle, an extended period of time can pass after a pollu- tion incident before effects are noticed. Chronic pollution can also induce sublethal effects such as avoidance behavior or tainting. Some research has indicated that oil spills in anadromous fish streams can interfere with the homing ability of spawning salmon (Thorsteinson 1984). Eisler (1973), Tsai (1975), and Malins (1977) provide reviews on the lethal and sublethal effects of many pollutants on anadromous fish and invertebrates. 3.4 COASTAL BOUNDARY COMPATABILITY The guidelines for district coastal management programs (6 AAC 85.040 (e)) require that the coastal area boun- dary of the Bering Straits CRSA be sufficiently compatible with those of adjoining areas (NANA CRSA to the north and Cenaliulriit CRSA to the south) to allow consistent administration of the Alaska Coastal Management Pro- gram. The NANA CRSA coastal area shares a common boundary with the Bering Straits CRSA approximately 18 miles west of Cape Espenberg. This common border extends south to the vicinity of Kuzitrin Lake, then east to the headwaters of the Buckland River. In this area, the NANA CRSA coastal area encompasses the interim coastal boundary from the Chukchi Sea coast to the headwaters of the Goodhope River; between this point and the Buckland River headwaters, the NANA CRSA coastal boundary includes the interim coastal boundary, anadromous fish streams, and the highly mineralized uplands which they drain. The maintenance of subsistence resources and opportunities, and the protection of anadromous fish and their important use habitats are primary objectives of both the Bering Straits CRSA and the NANA CRSA coastal manage- ment programs. In addition, anticipated uses and activities in the coastal area (mineral development) are similar for both of these programs. Since the common border between CRSA’s approximates a drainage divide between the two regions, several river systems originate in the Bering Straits CRSA and flow across the border through the NANA CRSA coastal area (upper Buckland, West Fork, Kiwalik, and Nugnugaluktuk Rivers). In a similar respect, the Peace, Koyuk, Kuzitrin, and Noxapaga Rivers originate in the NANA CRSA and flow through the Bering Straits coastal area. The common border, similar objectives, comparable topography, shared drainages, and parallel approach to pro- tection of coastal resources and habitats will insure that the coastal area boundaries of the Bering Straits CRSA and NANA CRSA districts are compatible for the Purposes of administration of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The coastal area boundary of the Cenaliulriit CRSA shares a common boundary with the Bering Straits CRSA approximately 25 miles south of St. Michael. The Cenaliulriit CRSA coastal area encompasses the interim coastal boundary in this area, and the Bering Straits CRSA coastal area includes the interim boundary, contiguous coastal wetlands, and a one mile corridor adjacent to anadromous fish streams. The topography in this area limits the inland extent of both coastal areas to approximately ten miles for Cenaliulriit and fifteen miles for Bering Straits. Drainage watersheds are relatively narrow and short in length. There is only one anadromous fish stream which meanders between the two CRSA's, originating in the Cenaliulriit CRSA. The limited extent of coastal area and common border, and the lack of extensive shared drainages indicate that the Bering Straits and Cenaliuriit CRSA district coastal area boundaries are compatible for purposes of administration of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. 3.5 CONCLUSION Evaluation and review of the Resource Inventory (Volume 1) and the Resource Analysis (Volume 2) for the Bering Straits CRSA coastal management program has indicated to the CRSA Board and the residents of the region 3-19 that the interim coastal area boundary does not adequately encompass the anticipated uses and activities that have, or are likely to have, direct and significant impacts on marine coastal waters. In compliance with the boun- dary justification criteria of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (6 AAC 85.040), the Bering Straits CRSA has identified an inland extension of the interim coastal area boundary based on: 1) the known distribution of coastally-dependent resources (primarily anadromous fish); 2) the documented sensitivities of anadromous fish and the vulnerability of aquatic habitats to develop- ment impacts; and, 3) the identified uses and activities reasonably forseeable in the Bering Straits CRSA which are likely to have a direct and significant impact on coastal resources. The Bering Straits CRSA coastal area boundary includes the interim coastal boundary, portions of river and stream watersheds supporting anadromous fish where potential for mineral development is high to very high, a one-mile corridor adjacent to and upstream from identified anadromous fish habitats, the contiguous coastal wetlands near St. Michael, and a two-mile setback from the coast in four specific locations to encompass coastal bluffs. The one mile corridor is delineated where anticipated uses and activities do not include mineral development, but where potential activities could produce adverse impacts to aquatic communities or associated riparian habitats. Aone-mile corridor from ordinary high water along both sides of a stream is considered the minimum area necessary to manage uses and activities within and proximate to the riparian zone which have potential for direct and signifi- cant impact to anadromous fish habitats. The contiguous coastal wetlands south of St. Michael have been included in the coastal boundary to manage uses and activities which have the potential for direct and significant impact to coastal resources in this continuous wetland habitat. The two mile setback to encompass coastal bluffs is necessary to adequately manage coastal habitats adjacent to marine waters to insure that potential direct and significant impacts to marine waters used by coastal resources are minimized. The Bering Straits CRSA coastal area extends beyond the ACMP interim coastal boundary to ensure comprehen- sive management of all uses and activities which may have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters and the living resources, in particular anadromous fish, which depend on these waters. Mineral development and associated facilities and activities related to exploration, production, processing, transportation, and logistical support are considered the uses and activities with the greatest likelihood of occurrence in the Bering Straits CRSA. The widespread distribution of anadromous fish within the CRSA indicates that essentially all watercourses and associated lakes, springs, and wetlands contribute to the maintenance of anadromous fish habitats. Significant disturbance or alteration of the quality, quantity, or seasonal flow of surface waters supporting these habitats has the potential to directly and significantly affect fish populations or their productivity. Major project uses and ac- tivities outside the Bering Straits CRSA coastal area boundary could also adversely impact anadromous fish popula- tions if downstream aquatic habitats within the coastal area are directly and significantly altered. Anadromous fish are present year-round in freshwater systems and seasonally in the nearshore coastal waters of the Bering Straits CRSA, but certain life history stages are more susceptible to the impacts of specific uses and activities. The adverse impacts of greatest concern include untimely increases in turbidity or sediments, and the introduction of toxic or harmful pollutants to aquatic systems. These waterborne impacts can be transported 3-20 Rose Ann Dan and Rosie Matthias of Stebbins cleaning walrus stomach. (Kawerak Eskimo Heritage Program photo) Chapter Four: Subject Uses and Use Areas <9 és sc es on a) = 7 fi pure sase ofqng Chapter 4: Subject Uses and Use Areas 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies land and water uses and activities which are subject to the provisions of the Bering Straits CRSA coastal management program. Within this chapter, criteria are presented for determining whether uses and activities are subject to consistency with the coastal management program. Concerns associated with sub- ject uses and use areas have been derived from a synthesis of the Resource Inventory (Volume 1); Resource Analysis (Volume 2); Issues, Goals, and Objectives (Chapter 2); and Coastal Boundary determination (Chapter 3). From these coastal management program elements, attention has been focused on likely uses and activities, areas of special importance or vulnerability, and proper and improper uses of the lands and waters of the coastal area. The Alaska Coastal Management Program provides guidelines for development of the Subject Uses and Use Areas chapter. A coastal mangement program must include: ° ...a description of the land and water uses and activities which are subject to the district program... (6 AAC 85.070); ° ...a description of the uses and activities...that will be considered Proper...and improper within the coastal area...(6 AAC 85.080); and e ...the policies that will be applied to land and water uses and activities subject to the district program... (6 AAC 85.090). 4.2 SUBJECT USES All land and water uses and activities occurring on state and private lands, and federal actions which directly affect the Bering Straits CRSA coastal area are subject to the Bering Straits CRSA program, including: e Land and water uses within the coastal boundary which require approvals, including permits and cer- tifications from the state and federal government; and e Resource leasing activities that require federal or state permits, land disposals, regional plans, and community facility plans. These include permitted activities that are subject to categorical approval, general concurrence, and individual Project review (see Chapter 6.2). Regulated land and water uses and activities occurring on state and private lands which directly affect the Bering Straits CRSA are subject to the policies contained in this program. Although federal lands are excluded from the coastal area, uses and activities occurring on federal land which directly affect the coastal area are subject to this Program. Examples of uses and activities which are covered by the program include, but are not limited to, the following: Subsistence: ¢ Areas used for subsistence activities Habitat: ¢ Areas used by fish and wildlife for feeding, breeding, rearing, and migration 41 Historic and Archaeological Sites: e Areas bearing important historic or cultural remnants Coastal Development and Settlement: . Residential, commercial, and industrial development dredging, filling, and the placement of structures in navigable waters ° Oil and gas development ¢ — Seismic activities ° Structures used to explore and produce oil and gas . Shore bases and storage areas used to support energy development e Pipelines and rights-of-way ° Facilities used to separate, treat, and store oil and gas e Plants used to condense natural gas to a liquid and transport it e Ports used to transfer energy products e Yards used to build platforms for offshore oil and gas production ° Refineries and associated facilities ° Petrochemical plants Mineral Development: ° Mineral prospecting and exploration activities e Lode, placer, and strip mine development ¢ Offshore mining e Sand and gravel extraction e Peat extraction e Mineral storage, treatment, and transport facilities Transportation and Utilities: e Roads, bridges, docks, ports, and harbors, including crossings of anadromous fish streams 42 ¢ Ferry routes and terminals ° Airports and railways e Electric power plants, including hydroelectric projects ¢ Transmission lines ¢ Geothermal facilities ° Water supply facilities ° Sewage and solid waste facilities Recreation: e Areas used for recreational activities e Construction of trails, campsites, cabins, lodges, visitor centers, and related 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 The existing statuatory and regulatory framework for planning and permitting the above uses will be utilized in the implementation of this program. The specific mechanisms to be used are more fully described in the Chapter 6, Implementation. 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: 1) _ 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; 2) 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; 3) _ 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 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; 4-3 4) facilities serving statewide or inter-regional transportation and communication needs; 5) _usesin 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. Section 46.40.070 (c) of the Alaska Coastal Management Act describes what must be done before the Alaska Coastal Policy Council can approve a restriction or exclusion of a use of state concern. The Council must find that: ° the Bering Straits CRSA Board has consulted with and considered the views of appropriate federal, state, and regional agencies; e the Bering Straits CRSA Board has based such restriction or exclusion on the availability of reasonable alternative sites; e the Bering Straits CRSA Board has based such a restriction or exclusion on an analysis that shows that the proposed use is incompatible with the site; and . the restriction is not unreasonable or arbitrary. State agencies have identified uses of state concern which are within their area of responsibility. Following is a list of those state agency concerns. Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF) — DOT&PF has listed transportation facilities mentioned in Coastal Policy Council Resolution #13 as uses of state concern that include: “Capital projects that have statewide, inter-regional and inter-district uses which impact the state’s transpor- tation system including highways, roads, trails, railroads, pipelines, airports (for land and sea planes), the Marine Highway System (ferries, docks, piers, or terminals), boat docks, and harbors.” Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) — ADEC has identified the following uses of concern under their purview within the Bering Straits CRSA: ° conservation and maintenance of air quality in compliance with the Alaska Air Quality Standards (18 AAC 50.020); ° conservation and maintenance of water quality in compliance with the Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70); and *® assurance of proper solid waste disposal in compliance with requirements set forth in 18 AAC 60.050. Department of Fish and Game — ADF&G has identified the following general uses of state concern under their purview within the Bering Straits CRSA: e conservation of anadromous fish waters; ° harvest of fish and wildlife; . the research, management, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; and ¢ protection of refuges, sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas. In addition, ADF&G has identified the following specific uses of state concern for Department research and manage- ment sites. ¢ Cape Denbigh — herring research and management site e Klikitarik River — herring research and management site e _Unalakleet River — salmon test net site e North River — salmon counting tower ¢ — Kwiniuk River — salmon counting tower Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — DNR has identified several uses of state concern that may occur in the Bering Straits CRSA region: ° the utilization, development, and conservation of state energy resources; e siting of major energy facilities; e the utilization, development, and conservation of all state minerals and materials; e large-scale industrial and commercial development associated with state resource development; ° transportation facilities associated with state resource development; ° the utilization, development, and conservation of all lands and waters belonging to the state; ° the utilization, development, and conservation of all state forest resources; and . management of state historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources. 4.3 PROPER AND IMPROPER USES District programs must identify uses and activities, including uses of state concern, that are considered proper and improper within the coastal area. No uses are categorically prohibited or improper within the coastal boun- dary. For the Bering Straits CRSA, proper and improper uses are determined by policy requirements and land/water use categories. All land and water uses and activities are considered proper as long as they comply with the policies of the Bering Straits Coastal Management Program and applicable federal and state regulations. There are specific policies that reference activities in Important Use Areas. 4.4 LAND/WATER USE AREAS The land use classification and applicable policies have been developed from earlier elements of the Bering Straits CRSA coastal management program. During preparation of the Issues, Goals, and Objectives (Chapter 2) local concerns regarding resource values and use were identified, along with concerns associated with potential impacts from resource development activities. The Resource Inventory (Volume 1) and the Resource Analysis (Volume 2) identify resource values, utilization, and sensitivity as they are potentially affected by development activities 4-5 and changes in resource use. This information provides the basis for identifying land use classifications and assign- ing specific areas to these classifications. Through this procedure, applicable policies can be developed to insure that uses and activities consider and protect the resources of each area. The Bering Straits CRSA has developed two land and water use classifications for the district: General Use and Important Use. The purpose of each land and water use classification is described below. 4.4.1 General Use Areas The majority of the lands and waters within the Bering Straits CRSA coastal management program occur within the General Use Area. While this area may support resources used by local residents or resources of importance to the state and nation, they can be adequately managed through implementation of the general policies. These areas do not require designation as Important Use Areas to protect coastal resources. All areas not specifically identified as Important Use Areas are considered to be within the General Use Area. 4.4.2 Important Use Areas Some areas within the region warrant special attention due to the presence of highly productive wildlife habitat, the ability to sustain a large part of a villages’ subsistence needs, the occurrence of unusual historical sites or large mineral deposits, recreation, energy development, hazardous areas, or the presence of important fisheries. These areas are very important to the communities within the Bering Straits CRSA and are identified on Map 4-1. The Important Use Area classification provides the following functions: . to guide uses and activities on those lands and waters which may need special consideration for pro- tection of biological resources and habitats, subsistence resources and use areas, and cultural resource sites; and ° to guide uses and activities on lands and waters which are potentially important for major resource development activities; these uses and activities include energy facilities, mining, timber, land disposals, and transportation systems. The Important Use Area classification is applied to specific areas identified by the CRSA Board and local com- munities. With regard to the policies of the coastal management plan, the intent of classifying Important Use Areas is two-fold: 1) to develop a limited number of specific policies that provide guidance for activities taking place within areas Classified as Important Use Areas; and 2) to provide notice that these areas are of particular concern to the residents of the region, and that information contained in the Important Use Area descriptions should be used when complying with policies presented in Chapter 5. In a recent legal opinion by the State Attorney General (H.M. Brown to R. Grogan, 4/28/86), the identification of important areas and the development of area-specific policies by coastal districts was found to be “...an essen- tial feature of the ACMP”. - The following criteria were applied when evaluating an area for designation as an Important Use Area. 4-6 > Lopp Lagoon/Cape Little Diomede Prince of Wal AMNWR’ wee, Cc AT E-O T ZE BOE Port Clarence X A. x Pon % Careme . | ‘ Port Clarence' SF il o pds \ M4 2 8 Cape Woolley} J ‘ Tes ~ Kwiniuk, Tubutulik / T}0s and Kwik Rivers XS i uw x f { x 12 7 Island Point to | Beeson Slough Rocky Point to Topkok 13 ae 7 a nnd Safety Sound 7 ee ty Golovnin Bay/Le oe" and the Niukluk & Fish Rivers is) L3 Ps 0 =e le = it 7 7 N. OR Iai TI9S | T208 | Oe a ae 7 2 5 ATS bs F | sumt] ¢ 2 Nae OY nc ba ““Stepbins’ nz & \ of Stebbins Wetlands j oe Pastol Bay Yul ED'S a, | 4 re Gravina AN, porwr Bering Straits CRSA —— @ Important Use Areas AAR DSA AENEAN *“AMNWR - Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge SCALE 0 10 20 30 Kilometers Je ee Goo ee ° 10 20 Miles 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, through the City of Unalakleet, Alaska Map 4-1 IMPORTANT USE AREAS IN THE BERING STRAITS CRSA Subsistence: 1) An area provides a large part of the sustenance for one or more villages and it cannot be replaced by another site within a village’s subsistence range. Habitat: 2) Anareais essential to a large part of the region's population of one or more fish, wildlife, or plant species. 3) | Aproductive habitat is sensitive to degradation or species occupying the site are sensitive to disturbance. 4) An area has special scientific or research value. Historic Site: 5) A site has great prehistoric, historic, or spiritual significance to residents of the region. Hazardous Area: 6) An area is of high development potential and is subject to serious geophysical hazards. Mineral Development: 7) An area contains major (known) mineral deposits which appear to be commercially extractable and should be safeguarded from uses that would preclude or deter mineral extraction. Energy Development: 8) An area may be needed for siting of facilities for oil and gas, mineral, or port development and should be protected from conflicting uses which have less demanding site requirements. 9) An area has been identified as a potential onshore energy facility site. Recreation: 10) An area supports intensive recreational use. 11) An area supports recreational opportunities of a quality or type not available elsewhere in the region. Commercial Fisheries: 12) An area supports major commercial harvests of fish or shellfish in the Bering Straits region. The following sections identify such areas and provide a description of their attributes. The level of detail in the discussion typically reflects the level of available information on the site rather than its relative importance. 47 4.4.2.1 ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND, ADJACENT ISLANDS, AND ROCKS Reasons for Designation: e Habitat e Subsistence ° Historic sites Habitat: This 1.27 million-acre, privately-owned island (Vol. 1, Map E) supports approximately 1,000 people, 2.7 million seabirds (Sowls et al. 1978) representing more than half of the region’s seabird population, and as many as 100,000 walrus (Frost et al. 1982). These wildlife resources are of local, regional, state, national, and worldwide importance. Seabirds occupying Stolbi Rocks and seven colonies along the northern side of the island contain most of the bird populations. Some colonies extend for several miles along cliffs 50 to 1,000 feet high. The largest colony contains as many as 75,000 birds at densities greater than 10 birds per square meter (Drury 1980). Approximately 62 percent of the crested auklets of the eastern Bering Sea region seasonally occupy the island (Drury 1980). In addition to the millions of seabirds, the island’s extensive wetlands and lagoons support substantial numbers of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds (Volume 1, Map 9). Twenty-two waterfowl species use the island, and at least 12 species nest there (Fay 1961). Approximately 9,000 ducks, geese, and swans nest near the island’s lagoons and lakes. Another 25,000 birds feed and molt in these areas. In winter, the open water around the island supports about 500,000 oldsquaws and 50,000 eiders (DOI 1982). In July and August, 10,000 to 20,000 immature emperor geese (Fay 1961) from the Yukon Delta and perhaps the Soviet Union (King and Dau 1980) feed along the island's northern and southern coasts. These areas may represent the principal summering grounds for the Alaskan and Siberian immature emperor geese population. Snow geese from Wrangell Island (USSR) rest on the island in late September before continuing their southern migration. In spring and fall, large walrus herds come ashore on St. Lawrence Island (Volume 1, Map 10A). In October 1978, 90,000 walrus were hauled out on Salgaht, Maknik, and Kialegak points, while others gathered at Chibukak Point, Southwest Cape, and Punuk Island (Frost et al. 1982). Subsistence: Because of the island’s isolated nature, small size, lack of employment, high price of store-bought goods, and the limited development potential, the island’s subsistence economy is highly developed and is the foundation upon which the residents maintain their physical and cultural survival. The island’s birds, bird eggs, and walrus as well as polar bear, reindeer, Arctic fox, bowhead and other whales, seals, crab, fish, and plants provide the bulk of the villagers’ diet (Ellanna 1980). Historic Sites: St. Lawrence Island also has unique archaeological resources which provide invaluable insight and appreciation of early Siberian Yuit life. Thirty-five abandoned villages have been identified and many more seasonal camps (Volume 2, Map 5-1). Land Ownership and Management: The two native corporations for the villages of Gambell and Savoonga hold surface and subsurface title to all of St. Lawrence Island, adjacent islands, and rocks. State ownership is limited to the tidal and submerged lands 4-8 seaward to the three-mile limit and the beds of navigable streams. St. Lawrence Island is within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Lands within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge will be managed under the refuge management plan. There are currently no site specific management plans for either federal or state lands on St. Lawrence Island. The native corporations for the villages of Gambell and Savoonga should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.2 LITTLE DIOMEDE ISLAND Reasons for Designation: e¢ Habitat ° Subsistence Habitat: This small rocky island off the tip of the Seward Peninsula in the Bering Straits seasonally supports a phenomenal concentration of seabirds. Least and crested auklets account for most of the 1.2 million birds (Sowls et al. 1978; Volume 1, Birds), but the island also supports 20,000 to 35,000 black-legged kittiwakes (Drury 1980) and 40,000 to 60,000 common and thick-billed murres (Drury 1979). Birds arrive in May and begin laying eggs in late June and continue through July. Birds are particulaly sensitive to disturbance during this period. In late summer and fall, birds begin their southern migration. Migrating walrus which are sensitive to disturbances periodically haul- out on the island. Subsistence: Birds, bird eggs, and native plants from the island, and walrus, seals, beluga and other whales, fish, and king crab from the sea provide the bulk of the residents’ diet (MacLean 1985). Land Ownership and Management: The native corporation for the village of Little Diomede (surface) and Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsur- face) hold title to the island. State ownership is limited to the tidal and submerged lands out to either the 3-mile limit or the International Boundary, depending upon which is closer. Little Diomede Island is within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge lands will be managed accordance with the refuge management plan. There are currently no site-specific management plans for state lands on Little Diomede Island. The native cor- poration for the village of Little Diomede should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.3 STEBBINS WETLANDS Reasons for Designation: . Habitat e Subsistence . Historic Site 4-9 Habitat: The wetlands southwest of Stebbins are extensive and contain some of the highest quality waterfowl habitat in the region. This habitat supports large numbers of nesting waterfowl and significant populations of shorebirds (Woodby and Dovoky 1982). In spring when the wetlands are regularly flooded, large flocks of ducks gather here. Aerial surveys by Woodby and Divoky (1982) estimated that approximately 134,000 shorebirds and waterfowl occupied the non-aquatic areas of these wetlands; an undetermined number of birds occupied ponds and water- ways (Volume 1, Map 9 and Birds). The wetlands are laced with canals and water bodies which receive regular infusions of saltwater on high tides. Broad expanses of the wetlands are periodically flooded during coastal storms. As a result, these wetlands which are close to Norton Sound Oil and Gas Lease Sales 57 and 100 tracts and potential onshore facility sites are highly vulnerable to contamination. Fine sediment and vegetation which comprise the wetlands could entrap oil, causing it to persist for up to 100 years (DOI 1985). Consequently, waterfowl can be contaminated for many years by direct contact or ingestion of contaminated foods (Starr et al. 1981). RP! (1981) noted that this segment of coastline would be almost impossible to protect in the event of an oil spill of any magnitude reaching the area. Subsistence: Stebbins, St. Michael, and Kotlik residents hunt waterfowl and gather eggs in the area. This wetland is contained in the Yukon Delta Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) manages the refuge for protec- tion of shorebirds, seabirds, and waterfowl habitat; other fish and wildlife resources; and subsistence (Volume 1, Land Ownership). Historic Site: The remains of five early 1900 marine vessels are present within the St. Michael Channel. Land Ownership and Management: Major landowners are the native corporations for the villages of St. Michael’s and Stebbins who hold title to por- tions of the surface estate. Bering Straits Regional Corporation holds title to portions of the subsurface estate, and the federal government owns the remainder. State ownership is limited to the tidal and submerged lands out to the three-mile limit and the beds of navigable streams. There is no site-specific area plan for federal lands. State lands are managed in accordance with DNR’s Northwest Area Plan. The native corporations for the villages of St. Michaels and Stebbins should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.4 ST. MICHAEL BAY Reasons for Designation: e Habitat Subsistence Potential energy facility site Commercial fishing Historic sites 4-10 Habitat: Herring spawn along the shore of St. Michael Bay during the first half of June (Starr et al. 1981). Eelgrass beds in St. Michael Bay provide an important food source for birds, nursery areas for fish and crab, as well as a spawn- ing area for herring (Barton 1978). Herring eggs and larvae are extremely sensitive to oil contamination. Much of the area’s productivity could be lost if St. Michael Bay were contaminated (Barton 1978). Subsistence: In addition to providing an important commercial herring fishery, the bay’s herring population also supports an important subsistence fishery. Local residents also depend on the bay to meet their subsistence needs for seals, salmon, and waterfowl. Potential Energy Facility Site: St. Michael Bay is one of five potential onshore oil and gas facility sites identified by Woodward-Clyde (1984) as suitable for development if commercial quantities of hydrocarbons are discovered in Norton Sound. St. Michael is one of two deepwater ports in the region. Development would stimulate the local economy and result in more marine traffic and support facilities as well as increase the probability of oil spills and chronic pollution. Commercial Fishing: In addition to supporting commercial salmon fisheries, the area is also an important commercial fishery for herr- ing. The Department of Fish and Game (Starr et al. 1981) identified the entire southern Norton Sound coastline as an area with a high probability of acute or chronic oil pollution affecting important habitats or sensitive biological resources in the event that potential oil reserves in Norton Sound are developed. RPI (1981) stated that this area would be impossible to protect in the event of an oil spill. Historic Site: In 1833, St. Michael became the first European settlement in the Bering Straits Region. At the turn of the century, St. Michael served as an important trade and trans-shipment center for Yukon gold rush activity (Volume 1, History). The area contains cemeteries and buildings of historic value. Land Ownership and Management: Major land owners are the native corporation for the village of St. Michael (surface), the Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface), and the federal government. The corporations hold title to St. Michael Island and the lands adjacent to St. Michael Bay. The State owns the tidal and submerged lands out to the three-mile limit and the beds of navigable streams. Beulah Island and Whale Islands are within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Federal lands are managed in accordance with the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge plan. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corpora- tion for the village of St. Michael should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4-11 4.4.2.5 | UNALAKLEET RIVER DRAINAGE Reasons for Designation: e Habitat e — Subsistence ¢ Commercial fishing e Historic sites ° Recreation Habitat and Subsistence: The Unalakleet River and its tributaries, the North, South, Old Woman, and Chirosky Rivers, are important sub- sistence use areas for the people of Unalakleet. This Important Use Area also includes the coastal waters extending one mile from the ordinary high water of the Unalakleet River at its confluence with Norton Sound. Subsistence resources harvested include fish (salmon, grayling, whitefish, Arctic char, smelt, and tomcod), mammals (moose, bear, caribou, and beaver), waterfowl, berries, plants, and timber. The drainage also supports commercial salmon fisheries (Volume 1, Map 2). Commercial Fishing: The Unalakleet River pink salmon run is usually one of the largest in the region. King, silver, and chum salmon also spawn in the drainage. Commercial fishermen catch herring and salmon in the river estuary and nearby marine waters. Commercial fishermen took an average annual total of 208,000 salmon offshore in the Unalakleet subdistrict between 1978 and 1982. Pinks accounted for 63 percent of the catch, and chums represented twenty- one percent (ADF&G 1983). Herring fishing takes place in a one- to two-week period between May 15 and June 15. King salmon are the first salmon species to arrive in the river (usually in June), followed by pink, chum, and silver salmon, which run well into September. Historic Sites: Historic sites in the area include house pits at Old Unalakleet Village, a prehistoric village site, and sites in the Unalakleet River drainage (Volume 2, Map 5-1). Recreation: Unalakleet River Lodge, one of two recreational lodges in the region, is located on the Unalakleet River about 10 miles upstream from the mouth. This lodge caters to an international sport fisherman clientele. The Unalakleet River has been designated as a wild and scenic river from its headwaters to the confluence with Chiroskey River. This designation attracts an increasing number of visitors to the drainage each year. Land Ownership and Management: The major land owners are the native corporation for the City of Unalakleet (surface), Bering Straits Native Cor- poration (subsurface), and the federal government. State ownership is limited the tidal and submerged lands out to three miles and the beds of navigable streams. Portions of the federal lands are managed pursuant to provisions of BLM’s Wild and Scenic River Management Plan fo the Unalakleet River and BLM'’s Central Yukon Planning Area Management Plan. There are no site specific management plans for the remaining federal lands. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department 4-12 of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the City of Unalakleet should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.6 ISLAND POINT TO BEESON SLOUGH, INCLUDING CAPE DENBIGH Reasons for Designation: e Habitat e Subsistence e Historic sites ¢ Commercial fishing ¢ Geological hazards Habitat: Cape Denbigh, at the tip of the peninsula, is the location of the largest seabird colony in eastern Norton Sound (Volume 1, Map 9). Between 14,000 and 20,000 common murres, pelagic cormorants, and horned puffins seasonally occupy the colony (Drury 1980). Subsistence: This peninsula and offshore waters are an important subsistence area for Shaktoolik and Unalakleet residents. Local residents harvest fish (salmon and herring), shellfish (crab and clam), waterfowl, eggs, and berries in this area (Volume 1, Map 2). Historic Site: Cape Denbigh is also an important archaeological site. The oldest known settlement in the region, lyatayet, which dates back 7,000 to 9,000 years, is located here (Volume 1, History). Commercial Fishing: Commercial fishermen harvest herring (May 15 to June 15, depending on the ice conditions) and salmon (June 8 to August 31) off the peninsula’s coast. Between 1978 and 1982, an annual average of 58,000 salmon was taken by commercial fishermen in the Shaktoolik subdistrict. Chums, pinks, and silvers accounted for 46, 39, and 12 percent of the catch, respectively (Schwartz et al. 1984). Geologic Hazards: The shoreline near Shaktoolik is subject to severe erosion. Flooding and erosion have forced Shaktoolik to relocate three times in the past 50 years (Volume 1, Communities). Land Ownership and Management: The native corporation for the village of Shaktoolik (surface) and Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface) hold title to these lands. State ownership is limited to the tidal and submerged lands out to the three-mile limit and the beds of navigable streams. Cape Denbigh is federally-owned and is within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. 4-13 Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge lands are managed under the refuge management plan. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corpora- tion for the village of Shaktookik should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicablle to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.7 KOYUK RIVER DRAINAGE Reasons for Designation: e Habitat e Subsistence Habitat This Important Use Area includes the Koyuk River and the coastal waters extending one mile from the ordinary high water of the Koyuk River at its confluence with Norton Bay. The drainage provides habitat for one of the region's largest moose populations. ADF&G estimates that about 30,000 caribou winter east of the Koyuk River to within 10 miles of the coast (Anderson, personal communication). This is by far the largest gathering of caribou in the CRSA. The lower reaches of the river support one of the region’s few shellfish populations. Wetlands south of Koyuk provide excellent shorebird nesting habitat. Extensive coastal mudflats attract thousands of feeding shorebirds (Woodby and Divoky 1982). Brant use the area in spring. In summer swans, geese, ducks and cranes feed in the area. Aerial surveys by Woodby and Divoky (1982) showed that these wetlands support one of the greatest densities of waterfowl and shorebirds in the region (an estimated 44,000 waterfowl, shorebirds, and song-birds). RP! (1981) noted that these sensitive habitats would be very difficult to protect in the event of a large oil spill. Subsistence: This river which flows from Kuzitrin Lake to Norton Bay comprises an essential subsistence use area for Koyuk residents. Villagers harvest fish (salmon, whitefish, smelt, grayling, Arctic char, and tomcod) from the river and mammals (moose, caribou, bear, and beaver) and waterfowl from the river valley. Land Ownership and Management: The major land owners are the native corporation for the village of Koyuk (surface), Bering Straits Native Corpora- tion (subsurface), and the federal and state governments. State ownership includes the beds of navigable streams. There is no area-specific management plan for federal lands. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the village of Koyuk should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4-14 4.4.2.8 KWINIUK, TUBUTULIK, AND KWIK RIVER DRAINAGES Reasons for Designation: e Habitat ¢ — Subsistence e Commercial Fishing Habitat and Subsistence: The Kwiniuk, Tubutulik, and Kwik River drainages located on the southern shores of the Seward Peninsula are important subsistence use areas for the residents of Elim. These Important Use Areas also include the coastal waters within one mile of the ordinary high water at their confluences with Norton Bay. Subsistence resources harvested include fish (salmon, Arctic char, whitefish, grayling), mammals (moose, bear, and beaver), and berries. The drainage also supports commercial salmon fisheries (Volume 1, Map 2) and is important habitat for waterfowl. Commercial Fishing: The Kwiniuk, Tubutulik, and Kwik River drainages are among the most important pink salmon spawning rivers in the region. ADF&G (1983) counted 251,965 pinks and 56,907 silvers in the Kwiniuk and 40,797 pinks and 16,345 silvers in the Tubutulik River in 1982. For that year, the Kwiniuk and Tubutulik Rivers were number one and three, respectively, for pinks and two and four for silvers in the region (Volume 1, Anadromous and Freshwater Fish). These river drainages are also important for waterfowl (Volume 1, Map 9). Land Ownership and Management: The major land owners are the native corporation for the village of Elim (surface and subsurface estate) and the federal government. State ownership is limited to navigable streams and the tidal and submerged lands out to the three-mile limit. Bering Straits Native Corporation ownership (surface and subsurface estate) is limited to a small portion on the upper reaches of the Kwiniuk River. There is no site specific management plan for federal lands. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the village of Elim should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.9 GOLOVNIN BAY/LAGOON AND THE NIUKLUK AND FISH RIVER DRAINAGES Reasons for Designation: ° Habitat e Subsistence ° Mining ¢ Commercial fishing ¢ Recreation Habitat: Golovnin Bay and Golovnin Lagoon, located on the southern coast of the Seward Peninsula, are important habitats for herring as well as boreal and pond smelt; sandlance; humpback, broad, and round whitefish; Bering and least cisco; Arctic char; saffron cod; starry and Arctic flounder; and tubenose, Bering, and sturgeon poachers (Barton 1978). The Niukluk River drainage supports an important habitat for moose in the region. In addition to serving as an important moose habitat, this area also supports thousands of birds which nest on the Fish River Delta. The entire north shore of Golovnin Lagoon consists of oil-sensitive delta marsh with extensive stands of sea grass. 4-15 Subsistence: This area is an important subsistence area for the residents of Golovin, White Mountain, and Council. Villagers harvest fish (salmon and herring), shellfish (crab and clams), marine mammals (seals and beluga), kelp, and waterfowl from Golovnin Lagoon and Bay (Volume 1, Map 2). The heavy use of the area by waterfowl and shorebirds between spring and fall makes this an important subsistence harvesting area. In addition to local subsistence use, this area is also utilized by subsistence hunters from the Nome area. Mining: Several offshore mining permits were granted in Golovnin Bay in the late 1970's (Gallagher, personal communica- tion). Currently, the Department of Natural Resources is reviewing permits to see if documented deposits are present. If they are verified, the permits may be converted to leases. Commercial Fishing: The Fish and Niukluk rivers are also moderately important salmon streams. ADF&G aerial counts (1983) showed 20,077 chum in the Fish River and 8,886 chum in the Niukluk. Small numbers of kings and pinks were also record- ed. The Golovnin Bay subdistrict accounted for the second largest salmon catches in the region between 1978 and 1982, when an annual average of 92,000 fish were taken. Chums and pinks accounted for 51 and 47 percent of the catch, respectively. Commercial fishing, and potentially processing, provide an important component of the cash income in Golovin (Volume 1, Economic Resources). Recreation The Niukluk River has road access from Council and is one of the most important sport fishing areas in the Seward Peninsula for grayling and Arctic char, as well as pink, chum and silver salmon (ADF&G 1985). Access to Fish River from the Niukluk River also makes it an easily accessible river for sport fishing. A sport lodge located on the Fish River at White Mountain caters to an international sport fishing clientele. Golovnin Bay, Golovnin Lagoon, and the Fish and Niukluk Rivers also provide moose hunting for Nome residents and hunters from outside the state. Land Ownership and Management: The major land owners are the native corporations for the villages of Golovin, White Mountain, and Council (sur- face estate), Bering Straits Native corporation (subsurface estate), and the State government. Federal ownership is limited to small areas along the northeastern portion of the area. Golovnin Bay and Lagoon contain extensive mining claims, leases, and permit in-holdings. There is no site-specific management plan for federal lands. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporations for the villages of Golovin, White Mountain, and Council should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4-16 4.42.10 ROCKY POINT TO TOPKOK HEAD Reasons for Designation: ° Habitat e Subsistence e Historic Site Habitat: The area’s marine waters are among the most productive in the region (Wolotira 1977). Offshore waters support the region's largest known concentrations of sandlance (Starr et al. 1981) which are a vital food source for fish- eating seabirds. The reproductive success for some seabirds largely depends on availability of sandlance. This stretch of coast along the southern shore of the Seward Peninsula contains the largest mainland seabird colonies in the region. At Bluff, the largest of the colonies, bird populations range between 40,000 and 90,000 (Drury 1980). Murres comprise about 75 percent of the nesting birds. These seabirds feed offshore near the colonies. Peregrine falcons nest at several locations along the cliffs. Subsistence: The eastern portion of this area provides important subsistence resources for the villages of Golovin and White Mountain. Herring spawn along the rocky shores, and salmon, capelin, king crab, and several species of bottom- fish range along the coast. Villagers catch herring and crab along the coast and gather eggs at several seabird colonies (Volume 1, Map 2). Historic Sites: This rich environment supported several villages, as evidenced by remaining house mounds and artifacts (Volume 2, Map 5-1). These sites are of cultural and historical importance to White Mountain and Golovin residents. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native corporations for the villages of Golovin and White Mountain (surface estate), Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface estate), and the federal government. State ownership is limited to the tidal and submerged lands out to the three-mile limit. Topkok Head and Bluff are within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Federal lands are limited to Topkok Head and will be managed in accordance with the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Management Plan. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporations for the villages of Golovin and White Mountain should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.11 SAFETY SOUND Reasons for Designation: ¢ Habitat ¢ — Subsistence ¢ Mining * — Historic Site Habitat: This area along the northern shore of Norton Sound with its extensive marshes, tideflats, and seagrass beds 4-17 supports large flocks of nesting and feeding waterfowl and shorebirds. In spring and fall, large flocks of migrating waterfowl! stop here to rest. Woodby and Divoky (1982) estimated that during their aerial surveys 28,000 birds occupied the Safety Sound area. A channel extending from Safety Sound to Bonanza River and the adjoining marshes and lagoons (including the Flambeau and Eldorado River wetlands) also hosts large flocks of summer- ing geese, cranes, and ducks, especially in August and September (Drury 1980). Safety Sound, an important nursery area for juvenile fish, receives the flow of the Flambeau and Eldorado Rivers which, along with the Bonanza and Solomon rivers to the east, support salmon, char, and grayling. Subsistence: Seals, moose, waterfowl, bird eggs, and fish, provide important subsistence resources for Nome and Solomon residents. Fishing and hunting camps are located along the rivers. Mining: Mining occurs in the upper Eldorado River drainage and along the Solomon River drainage. The Solomon River drainage has the greatest number of placer mining claims in the area, and the Big Hurrah Mine is located in the upper reaches of this watershed. Ten thousand ounces of gold were taken from the mine between 1900 and World War II (Cobb 1973). Favorable market conditions and availability of mineral rights may encourage interest in large-scale development of the area. Historic Site: There are numerous unexcavated archaeological sites dating back at least 3,000 years in this area (ADF&G 1985; Volume 2, Map 5-1). The City of Nome Coastal Mangement Program recommended designation of Safety Sound as an Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA). Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native corporations for the village of Solomon and the City of Nome (surface estate), Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface estate), and the State government. Portions of Safety Sound are within the Alaska Maritime National Refuge. Federal lands are managed in accordance with the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge management plan. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporations for the village of Solomon and the City of Nome should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.12 NOME RIVER DRAINAGE Reasons for Designation: e Habitat e¢ Subsistence e Recreation Habitat: This Important Use Area also includes the coastal waters extending one mile from the ordinary high water of the Nome River at its confluence with Norton Sound. Despite its small size, the Nome River is very productive 4-18 system for fish. Biologists have documented 17 species of fish, including Arctic char, grayling, least cisco, round whitefish, slimy sculpin, ninespine stickleback, Bering cisco, and chum, pink, king, and silver salmon (ADF&G 1979). The lower 30 miles of the river provide spawning habitat for the four salmon species. The best spawning beds occur below “13 Mile Bridge” on Beam Road (21 miles upstream from the mouth) (ADF&G 1983). More than 325,000 pink salmon were counted in the river in July 1982. Pink salmon escapements of 20,000 to 30,000 fish are common. Chum salmon escapement in 6 of the last 10 years has been greater than 2,000 fish, but in 1982 and 1983, observed chum salmon escapement was down sharply. While chum numbers have been declining, silver salmon have been increasing (ADF&G 1984). Waterfowl frequent the Nome River watershed in spring and summer. Willow thickets along the shores provide browse and cover for moose and smaller game like rabbits and ptarmigan. The river's plume into Norton Sound attracts small fish which occasionally provide food for marine animals; a sea lion and a gray whale were observed feeding just off the mouth in 1983. Three seal species — bearded, ringed, and spotted — come near shore in the area, especially in spring and fall. King crab are available offshore in winter and spring. Subsistence: The Nome River, due to its proximity to Nome, is subject to competing fishery and subdivision uses which could conflict with habitat protection and subsistence. This area provides a large part of the subsistence resources used by Nome residents. Fish camps line the lower part of the river. Subsistence harvests of bear and moose also occur along the Nome River. Nome residents have harvested beluga whales, spotted seals, and young bearded seals at the mouth of the Nome River. Recreation: Though sport fishermen fish the upper reaches, the lower section from the Fort Davis Bridge to the mouth is the most important sport fishing section on the river (ADF&G 1985). Salmon and char comprise most of the catch. Moose and bear along the river are also harvested by sport hunters. Cabin sites are being sold along the river's upper reaches. Several homes now occupy the riverbank in the upper Part of the drainage. Increased residential use could put more pressure on fish stocks and sewage or wastewater from houses could contaminate the stream and reduce its productivity. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native corporation for the City of Nome (surface estate), Bering Straits Native Cor- poration (subsurface estate), private speculators, and holders of mining claims. State ownership is limited to small Portions of navigable streams and the tidal and submerged lands out to three miles. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the City of Nome should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4-19 4.4.2.13 McCARTHY’S MARSH Reasons for Designation: e Habitat e Subsistence Habitat: This expansive marsh is in the interior of the Seward Peninsula, but it has been identified as an important water- fowl and shorebird habitat. Subsistence: Residents of Golovin and White Mountain hunt waterfowl in the marsh and take moose, bear, and caribou on the uplands surrounding the marsh. Because of its distance from the villages, this important productive area receives relatively light hunting pressure. Land Ownership and Management: Land ownership in the area is comprised solely of federal ownership and is managed by the Bureau of Land Manage- ment with no specific management plan. However, the northeast corner of the marsh falls within the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and is managed in accordance with the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Manage- ment Plan. The state owns the beds of navigable streams. 4.4.2.14 CAPE WOOLLEY Reason for Designation: ° Habitat e Subsistence Habitat: Waterfowl and other shorebirds use Woolley Lagoon as a spring feeding, gathering, and resting area (Springer, personal communication). Wet tundra lowlands dotted with ponds and small creeks inland from the coast support nesting waterfowl (Woodby and Divoky 1982). Subsistence: This stretch of coast along the southwestern Seward Peninsula is an essential subsistence area for King Islanders living in Nome. Each summer they occupy fish camps at the mouth of the Feather River. Salmon and other fish are harvested in the river and adjacent to the coast, and waterfowl are hunted along Woolley Lagoon and in sur- rounding wetlands. Subsistence hunters harvest bears encountered in the area, but hunters usually concentrate on walrus and seal found along the coast. Land Ownership and Management: The native corporation for the community of King Island (surface) and Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsur- face) are the major landowners. State ownership is limited to navigable streams and the tidal and submerged lands out to three miles. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the community of King Island should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to community and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4-20 4.4.2.15 LOST RIVER AREA Reason for Designation: ° Mining potential Mining: This area at the western end of the Seward Peninsula contains the second largest known tin reserves in North America as well as major tungsten, fluorite, and beryllium deposits (Volume 1, Map 6). These impressive deposits are potentially more valuable than the total worth of all past placer gold production in the region. Based on drilling samples, geologists estimate that the deposits contain 38 million tons of ore (Eakins 1983), an amount sufficient to sustain excavation of 1,750,000 tons of ore per year over 16 years (DO! 1976). Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native village corporations for the villages of Diomede and Brevig Mission Village (surface estate), Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface estate), and holders of private mining claims. State ownership is limited to navigable streams and the tidal and submerged lands out to three miles. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporations for the villages of Diomede and Brevig Mission should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.16 PORT CLARENCE Reasons for Designation: e Habitat e Subsistence Habitat: Port Clarence is the wintering grounds of large schools of herring and other marine fish (Volume 1, Map 8). Herring in particular are sensitive to contamination from petroleum and petroleum products. Port Clarence provides the best sheltered anchorage north of Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands. Port development here would pose a serious threat to local herring stocks and other fish if an oil spill incident or chronic oil pollution occurred (Barton 1978). Subsistence: This area along the Seward Peninsula’s western coast contains wetlands which support migrating waterfowl and shorebirds (Volume 1, Map 9). Residents of Brevig Mission and others residing along Port Clarence depend on this area for hunting (snow geese, migrating waterfowl, and cranes) and take salmon, beluga whales, walrus, and seals along the coast. Traditional fishing and hunting camps are located along the shoreline. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native village corporations for the villages of Brevig Mission and Teller (surface estate) and the Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface estate). State ownership is limited to the tidal and submerged lands out to three miles. The native corporations for the villages of Brevig Mission and Teller should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4-21 4.4.2.17 KUZITRIN RIVER DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS Reason for Designation: ¢ Habitat Habitat: The Kuzitrin River originates in extensive wetlands in the southwest corner of the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and flows through long, broad wetlands for miles before emptying into Imuruk Basin (Volume 1, Map 7). These wetlands are important waterfowl and shorebird habitat, and the drainage has been identified by ADF&G as one of the region’s most important moose habitats. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native corporation for the community of Mary’s Igloo (surface estate), Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface estate), the State government, and federal government. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. Federal lands are managed in accordance with the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Management Plan. The native corporation for the community of Mary’s Igloo should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.18 AGIAPUK RIVER DRAINAGE Reasons for Designation: ° Habitat e Subsistence Habitat: The Agiapuk River and its major tributary, the American River, on the north side of Imuruk Basin, provide essential wildlife habitats. The Agiapuk drainage is one of the region's most important moose habitats. Salmon and Arctic char spawn in the drainage and char overwinter there. Waterfowl and shorebirds feed and nest in wetlands near the mouth of the Agiapuk River. Subsistence: Area residents harvest moose, waterfowl, salmon, and grayling in the drainage. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native corporations for the village of Brevig Mission and Teller (surface estate), the Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface estate), the federal government and the state government. State ownership includes the beds of navigable streams. There is no site specific management plan for federal lands. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporations for the villages of Brevig Mission and Teller should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4-22 4.4.2.19 GRANTLEY HARBOR, IMURUK BASIN, AND TUKSUK CHANNEL Reasons for Designation: e Habitat ¢ Subsistence Habitat: Grantley Harbor and Imuruk Basin (including Tuksuk Channel which connects them) are among the region’s most productive marine fish habitats (Volume 1, Map 8). Imuruk Basin east of Port Clarence also serves as an important waterfowl nesting area and Grantley Harbor supports seabird colonies (Volume 1, Map 9). Extensive seagrass beds line much of Grantley Harbor, providing productive feeding and rearing areas for fish and diving ducks. Im- uruk Basin is an important nesting habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl. Large flocks of Canada geese and cranes Pass through the area in late summer (Woodby and Divoky 1982) and congregate here during spring and fall migrations (Volume 1, Birds). Subsistence: Herring, salmon, Arctic char, smelt, whitefish, tomcod, and marine mammals are important subsistence resources harvested from the area by local residents. Herring spawn in Grantley Harbor and Port Clarence in late June through early July (Barton 1978). Herring support subsistence and commerical fisheries. Based on trawl surveys in 1976, in addition to providing habitat for juvenile and adult herring, Grantley Harbor and Imuruk Basin provide habitat for juvenile pink and chum salmon (only chum in Grantley Harbor); boreal and pond smelt; sandiance (particularly important to fish-eating seabirds); humpback, broad, and round whitefish; Bering and least cisco; Arctic char; saffron cod; capelin; rock greenling; Alaska plaice; starry and Arctic flounder (only starry flounder in Imuruk Basin); nine- and three-spine sticklebacks; and tubenose poachers in Grantley Harbor (Barton 1978). These marine fish serve as important links in the marine food chain, which supports the area’s subsistence economy. Port Clarence, with one of the region's two deepwater ports, was identified by Woodward-Clyde (1984) as potential- ly important if commercial quantities of hydrocarbons are discovered in Norton Sound. Development would result in an increase of marine traffic, support facilities, and attendant noise, disruption, and potential oil pollution. Many of the marine species that inhabit the area’s waters are sensitive to oil contamination and disturbance. Barton (1978) demonstrated that oil from a spill incident could travel from Port Clarence into Imuruk Basin. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native village corporations for the villages of Brevig Mission, Teller, and Mary's Igloo (surface estate), Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface), the federal government, and the State govern- ment. State ownership includes tidal lands and the beds of navigable streams. There is no site-specific management plan for federal lands. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporations for the village of Brevig Mission, Teller, and Mary's Igloo should be contacted for appropriate land use Policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4-23 4.4.2.20 PILGRIM RIVER AND SALMON LAKE Reasons for Designation: e Habitat ° Subsistence e Land Disposal ° Geothermal Development ° Recreation Habitat: The region's only known sockeye (red) salmon run and the northernmost run in the state occurs in the Pilgrim River-Salmon Lake system. Red salmon enter Port Clarence and travel through Grantley Harbor and the Imuruk Basin before making their way up the Kuzutrin and Pilgrim Rivers to Salmon Lake. Many fish are intercepted in Grantley Harbor and the Imuruk Basin before they spawn. The number of red salmon in Salmon Lake over the past 10 years has averaged 748 (C. Lean, personal communication). Although ADF&G regulations prohibit salmon fishing at Salmon Lake, enorcement is not actively pursured. Dames and Moore (1980) projected that the small red salmon run will continue to dwindle if harvests continue at the current level. Subsistence: The Pilgrim Hot Springs-Salmon Lake area is an important subsistence moose hunting area due to easy access along the Kougarok-Nome road and high moose populations. Land Disposals: The Department of Natural Resources has proposed a disposal of 800 acres of land along the Pilgrim River (the first state disposal in the region) for seasonal, recreational homesites. Residential development could result in increased hunting pressure and a decline in the local moose and fish populations. Geothermal Development: Pilgrim Hot Springs has been identified as having geothermal potential (Volume 1, Energy and Fuel). Recreation: The Pilgrim Hot Springs-Salmon Lake area is an important recreational moose hunting area due to easy access along the Kougarok-Nome road and high moose populations. The entire area has tremendous recreational poten- tial (C. Lean, personal communication). Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native village corporation for the village of Mary’s Igloo (surface estate), the Bering Straits Native Corporation (surface and subsurface estates), the State government, and the federal government. State ownership includes the beds of navigable streams. There is no site-specific management plan for federal lands. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the village of Mary’s Igloo should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appen- dix B). 4-24 4.4.2.21 BREVIG LAGOON Reason for Designation: e Subsistence Subsistence: Brevig Lagoon is an essential subsistence area for the people of Brevig Mission (Volume 1, Map 2). Subsistence resources harvested include waterfowl, herring, and salmon. The lagoon, with its extensive sheltered marshes and tideflats, is also an important molting area for oldsquaws (Woodby and Divoky 1982). Land Ownership and Management: The native corporation for the village of Brevig Mission holds title to surface lands in the area, and the Bering Straits Native Corporation controls subsurface lands. The State owns tidal and submerged lands out to the three- mile limit. Portions of Brevig Lagoon are within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge is managed under the refuge management plan. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the village of Brevig Mission should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.22, LOPP LAGOON/CAPE PRINCE OF WALES Reasons for Designation: ° Habitat ¢ — Subsistence Habitat: Located at the western end of the continental divide, the Cape Prince of Wales coast consists of rocky, mostly barren, steep terrain with the village of Wales located at its tip. Sea cliffs extend from Wales to Tin City. Lopp Lagoon is one of the primary shorebird nesting areas in the region (Wright 1979). Subsistence: The Lopp Lagoon-Cape Prince of Wales area provides important resources for the people of Wales. Residents harvest crab, salmon, beluga whale, bowhead whale, walrus, seal, and polar bear in offshore areas and salmon, shellfish, waterfowl, and moose in the Lopp Lagoon area. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native corporation for the village of Wales (surface estate), the Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface estate), the state government, and the federal government. State ownership includes tidal lands out to three miles and the beds of navigable streams. Portions of Lopp Lagoon are within the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve. Federal lands are managed in accordance with the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Management Plan and the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the village of Wales should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4-25 4.4.2.23 IKPEK LAGOON AND NUKLUK, PINGUK, KAGUERAK, AND KUGRUPAGA DRAINAGES Reasons for Designation: ¢ Habitat e — Subsistence Habitat: These drainages on the northern side of the Seward Peninsula are part of an important migratory shorebird and waterfowl resting and feeding area. This Important Use Area also includes the coastal waters of Ikpek Lagoon. The rivers and the lagoon and the barrier islands at their mouths along this stretch of coast provide the only exten- sive sheltered water between the Arctic Ocean and the Yukon River delta. Consequently, migrating shorebirds and waterfowl use it extensively. The area is unusually productive for this latitude (Fortenberq 1974.) Subsistence: Villagers from Shishmaref hunt waterfowl and moose and fish for salmon along these rivers and their tributaries. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the state and federal governments. State ownership includes tidal lands to the three- mile limit and the beds of navigable rivers. Large portions of the federal lands are encompassed by the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve and are managed in accordance with the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Management Plan. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. 4.4.2.24 ARCTIC RIVER DRAINAGE Reasons for Designation: e Subsistence ° Mining Subsistence: The Arctic River drainage is an important waterfowl and salmon harvest area for Shishmaref residents (Volume 1, Map 2). This Important Use Area also includes the coastal waters extending one mile from the ordinary high water of the Arctic River at its confluence with Shishmaref Inlet. Wetlands in the lower part of the drainage are important waterfowl and shorebird habitat (Volume 1, Map 9). Mining: Ten placer mining sites and one lode mine are located in the upper reaches of the watershed (Volume 1, Map 6). Ear Mountain may contain major mineral deposits. Mining operations could impose adverse impacts on the resources in the Arctic River. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native corporation for the village of Shishmaref (subsurface estate), the Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface estate), and the state and federal governments. State ownership includes the beds of navigable streams. 4-26 Federal lands are managed in accordance with the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Management Plan. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the village of Shishmaref should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.245 5 SERPENTINE RIVER DRAINAGE Reasons for Designation: ¢ Habitat e Subsistence ° Historic Site Habitat: The Serpentine River drainage is one of the important moose habitats in the region (Volume 1, Map 10 and Land Mammals). This Important Use Area also includes the coastal waters extending one mile from the ordinary high water of the Serpentine River at its confluence with Shishmaref Inlet. The river supports salmon, Arctic char, and grayling, and wetlands along the lower end of the drainage provide important habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds. Subsistence: The Serpentine River drainage provides Shishmaref residents with moose, waterfowl, and fish (Volume 1, Map 2). Historic Site: Serpentine Hot Springs, located at the headwaters of the Serpentine River, is an important traditional historic site and a contemporary spiritual site for Shishmaref residents. To protect traditional use in their area, Shishmaref residents are working with the National Park Service (NPS) to provide for unrestricted use and possible ownership of traditional areas. Land Ownership and Management: The major landowners are the native corporation for the village of Shishmaref (surface estate), the Bering Straits Native Corporation (subsurface estate), and the federal government. State ownership is limited to navigable streams and the tidal and submerged lands out to three miles. Federal lands are managed in accordance with the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Management Plan. State lands are managed in accordance with the Department of Natural Resources Northwest Area Plan. The native corporation for the village of Shishmaref should be contacted for appropriate land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). 4.4.2.6 ALASKA MARITIME NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES Reasons for Designation: ° Habitat ¢ — Subsistence Habitat and Subsistence: The region contains several components of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR) system; some of these areas include portions of other Important Use Areas. This refuge was designated by Congress to protect 4-27 essential marine mammal and seabird habitats which provide an important source of the region’s subsistence resources. The refuge contains islands, reefs, rock spires, and capes including: the islands of Egg, Besboro, Sledge, Carolyn, King, Little Diomede, Whale, Beulha, Sarichef, St. Lawrence, Punuk, Stuart, Channel, and Eider Duck; Capes Denbigh, Day, Stephens, and York, Bluff, and Topkok Head; islands in Shaktoolik and Malikfik Bays, Beeson Slough, Safety Sound, and Shishmaref Inlet (within AMNWR); Brevig and Loop Lagoons, Safety Sound, and Shismaref Inlet Barrier Islands; Kotzebue Creek; and Fairway, Youghapotit, and Stolbi Rocks (Volume 1, Map 5). Land Ownership and Management: Pursuant to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, unless designated as refuge lands prior to 1980, refuge lands conveyed to Native corporations are considered to be private in-holdings, not refuge lands. Such in-holdings are not subject to refuge laws, regulations, policies, or management. The appropriate native corporation should be contacted to ascertain land use policies applicable to village and regional corporation lands (Appendix B). In many instances (for example, St. Lawrence Island, King Island, Little Diomede Island, Stuart Island, and Cape Denbigh) in-holdings comprise the entire refuge component. Although the lands within such areas are not subject to control by the federal government, the boundaries of the refuge still exist. Should any in-holdings revert to federal ownership, then those lands would be considered refuge lands and managed accordingly. Lands selected by Native corporations, but not conveyed, are considered to be refuge lands and managed accordingly. However, before any activity can be authorized on these lands, approval from the Native corporation(s) selecting the land must be sought. The following lands have been conveyed to Native corporations in the region and constitute a complete in-holding within the Refuge boundary: Carolyn, King, Little Diomede, Sarichef, Punuk, St. Lawrence, Stuart, Channel, and Eider Duck Islands; Cape Denbigh; Bluff; Islands in Shaktoolik and Malikfik Bays, Safety Sound, Shishmaref Inlet (within AMNWR) and Brevig Lagoon; Kotzebue Creek; Cape York; and Fairway, Youghapotit, and Stolbi Rocks. The above lands are not subject to management by the federal government. The following lands have been selected by Native corporations, and, upon conveyance, will constitute a complete in-holding within Refuge lands: Egg, Besboro, and Sledge Islands; Islands in Beeson Slough; and Bluff. Until conveyed, the above lands are under federal management and are managed in accordance with the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge Management Plan. Two-thirds of Cape Darby has been conveyed to Native corporations, with the remaining one-third selected by Native corporations. Lopp Lagoon Barrier Islands are a combination of lands conveyed and selected by Native corporations and refuge lands held in federal ownership. Upon full conveyance of selected lands, Native corporations will hold a signifi- cant, but not complete in-holding in this this refuge component. Topkok Head, Cape Stephens, and Whale and Beulha Islands will remain exclusively in federal ownership. They will be managed in accordance with the management plan for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. 4-28 Drying racks at Shaktoolik (DCRA photo) Chapter Five: Policies Chapter 5: Policies 5.1 INTRODUCTION The policies presented in this chapter are the “enforceable rules” of the Bering Straits CRSA coastal manage- ment program. Land and water uses and activities occurring on state and private lands, and federal actions which directly affect habitats or resources within the Bering Straits CRSA coastal boundary are subject to the policies of the coastal management program. Uses and activities must comply with applicable coastal management policies to be considered “consistent” with the district's coastal management Program. All parties participating in the consistency determination process will use these policies as the standards for evaluating consistency. Policies presented in this section are designed to clearly identify “performance standards” for the protection of important resource values and uses, and to provide for orderly and balanced utilization of all coastal resources. The policies are intended to provide protection and management guidance for coastal resources during the plan- ning, design, construction, and operational phases of coastal development (uses and activities) in preference to after-the-fact enforcement and compliance actions. Additionally, the policies provide clear guidance of the Board’s intent while recognizing the need for some flexibility in making consistency determinations. Activities and uses subject to a consistency determination must clearly show compliance with the coastal management policies. The application of policies in making a consistency determination cannot restrict uses of state concern without ad- dressing Coastal Policy Council requirements for restricting such uses of state concern. In addition to identifying performance standards, some policies request supplemental information needed by the CRSA Board or state agencies to evaluate “performance” during the consistency determination process. This requested information is in addition to general project information, as identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. The guidance and standards provided by the policies are the culmination of the coastal management program and the synthesis of the Bering Straits CRSA concerns and objectives. Preparation of these policies included five major steps accomplished during development of the district program: ° Evaluation and application of the Issues, Goals, and Objectives (Chapter 2); ° Review of the Resource Inventory (Volume 1) and Resource Analysis (Volume 2), with input from the Public participation process (Chapter 8); ° Review, evaluation, and modification of appropriate policies from earlier Bering Straits CRSA program documents and other coastal management programs; ° Review of the Alaska Coastal Management Program Standards and Guidelines requirements and organization of the policies to reflect these requirements (6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85); and ¢ Preparation of policies. The products of this process are the Bering Straits CRSA policies which recognize coastal resource values and use areas important to the Bering Straits CRSA residents. The protection of subsistence resources and habitats, and the maintenance of the subsistence way of life are are the foundation for preserving traditional cultural values and the community and regional economy. The Bering Straits CRSA policies attempt to balance economic develop- ment with maintenance of the Native culture and subsistence economy. Policies apply to the entire area within the coastal boundary. Some of the policies are area-specific, pertaining to resource values or concerns only in identified areas where the resources or uses occur (for example, anadromous 5-1 fish streams, marine mammal haul-out sites, important use areas for subsistence). In addition to enforceable policies, several administrative policies for the Bering Straits CRSA Board have been included. Although the administrative policies are recognized as “‘unenforceable“, they are intended to provide direction to the CRSA Board and ex- press the Board’s desires with respect to planning, coordination, and notification. 5.2 DEFINITIONS The following definitions are applicable to terminology used in policies for the Bering Straits CRSA coastal manage- ment program. Active Floodplain of Watercourses: The portion of a floodplain that is periodically inundated or encompassed by a mean annual flood (Q = 2.33 flood frequency) and is characterized by active flowing channels, high water channels and adjacent unvegetated or sparsely vegetated bars. Affected Community(ies): To include appropriate city councils, |RA/traditional councils, and village corporations. Avoid: To prevent from occurring. Essential Habitats: Identified areas which support essential life history requirements of fish or wildlife species. These essential areas encompass one or more of the following: (1) pupping, calving, colonial nesting, spawning, rearing, wintering, migration, important feeding, and haul-out areas; (2) highly productive breeding and nesting areas; (3) sites providing unique population elements including high seasonal use and concentration areas or isolated occurrences; (4) habitats and use areas regularly associated with endangered species; (5) unique ecological systems; and (6) areas supporting a large portion of the individuals or species of a fish or wildlife population in the region during specific seasons. Essential Use Areas: Identified areas which are used for subsistence harvest activities, access to subsistence harvest areas, mineral development locations, important vegetative harvest communities, timber harvest locations, and traditional use/cultural use locations. Feasible and Prudent: 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”. An alternative is feasible unless it is inconsistent with sound engineering prac- tice. An alternative is prudent despite the presence of increased social, environmental, or economic costs, unless those costs are of extraordinary magnitude, and are due to unique factors present in a particular case. 5-2 Fish and Wildlife Resources: To include all aquatic and marine finfish and shellfish, and all resident and and migratory wildlife and marine mammals in the Bering Straits CRSA. Maintain: To provide for continuation of current conditions and functions. Minimize: To select from a comprehensive review of alternatives the option which uses the best available technology to limit or reduce impact to the smallest amount, extent, duration, size, or degree. Plants: To include all terrestrial, aquatic, and marine plants in the Bering Straits CRSA. Significant Impact: 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 contributes to a material change or alteration in the natural or social characteristics of a part of the state’s coastal area and in which: a) the use, or activity associated with it, would have a net adverse effect on the quality of the resources of the coastal area; b) the use, or activity associated with it, would limit the range of alternative uses of the resources of the coastal area; or c) the use would, of itself, constitute a tolerable change or alteration of the resources within the coastal area but which, cumulatively, would have an adverse effect. Water-Dependent: A use or activity which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use requires proximity or close access to the water body. Water-Related: Ause or activity which is not directly dependent upon proximity or access to a water body but which provides goods or services that are directly associated with water dependence. If this use or activity is not located adjacent to a water body, it could result is a loss of quality in the goods or services offered. 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. 5-3 5.3 POLICIES The following policies apply to all activities and uses of coastal lands and waters within the General Use Area of the Bering Straits CRSA. A. SUBSISTENCE A-l Subsistence Priority Subsistence use of the coastal lands and waters of the Bering Straits CRSA has traditionally been the primary and highest priority use of all lands and waters within the coastal management plan area; therefore, all other land/water uses and activities shall accommodate the use of subsisence resources in the planning, develop- ment, and operation of these uses and activities. Intent: The purpose of policy A-| is to provide guidance to the decision-making process that deals with balancing conflicting uses of state concern. It is the intent of this policy to ensure that through careful planning, develop- ment, and operation of a resource extraction or development project, all reasonable steps are taken to mitigate adverse impacts to subsistence resources and the use of subsistence resources. A-2 Planning Processes (Administrative Policy) Where uses and activities may have a significant adverse impact on subsistence resources and activities, the CRSA Board shall work with affected communities and resource-dependent users to identify subsistence resource concerns and to develop appropriate mitigative measures and stipulations for development ac- tivities, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. A-3 Access Traditional and customary access to subsistence use areas shall be maintained unless reasonable alter- native access is provided for subsistence users. A-4 Impacts on Subsistence Within important use areas identified for subsistence resources and activities in Chapter 4.4.2.1 through 4.4.2.26, entities proposing non-subsistence uses or activities shall locate such uses and activities at alter- nate sites outside the identified areas. Where location in alternative sites is not feasible and prudent, uses and activities shall avoid adverse impacts to subsistence resources and habitats, and shall avoid adverse impacts to subsistence users during periods of subsistence activities. B. HABITAT AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE PROTECTION B-1 Habitat Maintenance All habitats shall be managed to maintain or enhance the biological, chemical, and physical characteristics of the habitat which contributes to its capacity to support living resources. B-2 Habitat Alteration Development activities and facility sites shall meet, at a minimum, the criteria established under State regula- tions, including standards for protection of habitats in 6 AAC 80.130. Uses and activities that do not conform with the following Habitat and Biological Resource Protection policies shall be allowed if: (1) there is a signifi- cant public need for the activity, (2) there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, and (3) all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the policies have been taken. B-3 Offshore Areas Offshore areas shall be managed to maintain or enhance fisheries and marine mammal subsistence harvesting. B-4 Estuaries Estuaries shall be managed to assure adequate water flow, natural circulation patterns and nutrient and oxygen levels, and to avoid the discharge of toxic wastes or silt and the destruction of productive habitats. These areas shall be managed to maintain or enhance commercial and subsistence fisheries, and marine mammal subsistence harvests. B-5 Wetlands and Tideflats Wetlands and tideflats shall be managed to assure adequate water flow, nutrients, and oxygen levels, and to avoid adverse changes in natural drainage patterns, the destruction of important or essential habitats, and the discharge of toxic substances. B-6 Rocky Islands and Seacliffs Rocky islands and seacliffs shall be managed to avoid the harassment of wildlife, the destruction of impor- tant or essential habitats, and the introduction of competing or destructive species or predators. B-7 Barrier Islands and Lagoons Barrier islands and lagoons shall be managed to maintain adequate flows of sediments, detritus, and water, to avoid the alteration or redirection of wave energy which would lead to unnatural deposition in lagoons or the erosion of the islands, and to discourage activities which would decrease their use by coastal species including polar bears and nesting birds. B-8 High Energy Coasts High energy coasts shall be managed to assure the adequate mixing and transport of sediments and nutrients, and to avoid the redirection or interuption of transport processes and wave energy. B-9 Rivers, Lakes, and Streams Rivers, lakes, and streams shall be managed to protect natural vegetation, water quality, important and essential habitats, and natural water channels and flows necessary for maintenance of fish and wildlife habitats. 5-5 B-10 Upland Habitats Important and essential habitats in upland areas shall be managed to maintain natural drainage patterns, surface and ground water quality, and natural ground-water recharge areas. Alteration of vegetation shall be minimized to prevent excessive run-off, hydraulic or thermal erosion, or decreased biological productivity. B-ll Instream Flow Except for public water supplies and domestic use, appropriation of water from rivers, streams, lakes, or wetlands shall not decrease instream flow below the amount determined necessary by the Alaska Depart- ment of Fish and Game and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect fish habitat and production and waterfowl habitat unless, in accordance with AS 46.15, the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources makes a finding based on public review that (1) the competing use of water is in the best public interest, and (2) no feasible and prudent alternative exists. B-12 Fish Passage B-12.1 Development activities, facilities, and structures shall be designed, sited, constructed and operated in a manner which does not impede or interfere with timely access to spawning streams by adult anadromous fish or movements of juvenile anadromous fish. B-12.2 All temporary and permanent drainage structures constructed across anadromous fish streams, in- cluding multiple channels within the annual floodplain, shall provide for free and unrestricted move- ment of adult, fry, and juvenile anadromous fish which are present in the stream in accordance with the following criteria: ¢ Culverts shall be placed in and aligned with the natural stream channel and installed so that at least one-fifth of the diameter of each round culvert and at least six inches of the height of each elliptical or arch culvert is installed below the streambed at both the inlet and outlet of the drainage structure. ¢ Culverts shall be designed to accommodate upstream movement of the slowest swimming anadromous fish species or age class using the watercourse. B-13 Maintenance of Stream Characteristics All permanent bridges and culverts shall, to the extent feasible and prudent, be positioned to avoid changing the direction and velocity of the stream flow. Drainage structures shall be adequately sized to accommodate the best available estimate of the 25-year peak discharge without significantly interfering with volume, velocity, sediment transport, or substrate characteristics of the stream where these properties are important to the uses of the stream. B-14 Use of Explosives To protect fish and other aquatic fauna, explosives shall not be detonated within, beneath, or adjacent to marine, estuarine, or fresh waters that support fish or marine mammals unless the detonation of the ex- plosives produces or is likely to produce an instantaneous pressure change in the water body of no more than 2.5 psi (pounds per square inch), or produces or is likely to produce a peak particle velocity greater than 0.5 psi (inches per second) in a spawning bed during the early stage of egg incubation. Setbacks from fish-bearing waters shall be required to insure that buried explosive charges meet the criteria shown in Table 5-1 (Distance to Fish-Bearing Waters) and Table 5-2 (Distance to Spawning Beds). These criteria do not apply if the water body, including its substrate, is frozen or if no fish or marine mammals are present. 5-6 TABLE 5-1: DISTANCE TO FISH-BEARING WATERS (in feet)! Explosive Charge Weight (in pounds)” Stele eee Rock, Frozen Soil 35 50 80 110 175 350 780 1100 Ice 30 40 70 95 150 300 670 950 Saturated Soil 40 55 90 125 200 400 900 1265 Unsaturated Soil 20 30 50 70 105 210 470 670 TABLE 5-2: DISTANCE TO SPAWNING BED (in feet)' For varying weights of explosives Explosive Charge Weight (in pounds) 1 2 5 10 25 100 500 1000 O00 Distance (in all soil ; 40 55 85 120 190 380 850 1200 materials) ‘Straight line distance from center of confined buried charge to waterbody. The scaled distance relationships set forth in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 above apply to single shots of a given weight of explosives or single shots in a multiple charge if each charge is separated by an eight millisecond or longer delay. SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division - Draft Habitat Regulations, January 1986. B-15 Water Intake Structures Where water removal has been authorized from rivers, lakes, streams, or wetlands occupied by fish, the intake structure shall be designed, operated, and maintained to prevent entrainment or impingement of fish. Site specific requirements for water intake structures in anadromous fish waters shall comply with the screening and maximum velocity criteria presented in Table 5-3. B-16 In-water Facilities and Structures To the extent feasible and prudent, structures and facilities constructed in or over rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, tideflats, or marine waters shall be located, designed, and constructed to: ° avoid degradation of water quality; * avoid obstructions to fish and wildlife migration, spawning, and rearing; and * avoid obstructions to navigation, commercial fishing, and subsistence harvest activities. B-17 Snow Removal from Waterbodies Snow shall not be removed or compacted on ice cover overlying waterbodies which support fish except for perpendicular crossings of frozen streams, as approved by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 5-7 B-18 Marine Mammal Haul-outs and Seabird Colonies Seabird colony sites and haul-outs and rookeries used by walrus, sea lions, and seals (Volume 1, Map 10, or as updated in the ADF&G Regional Habitat Management Guides) shall not be physically altered or disturbed by structures or activities in a manner that would preclude or significantly interfere with continued use of these sites. Development structures and facilities shall maintain a one-half mile buffer from identified use areas for walrus, sea lions, seals, and seabirds. Development activities with high levels of acoustical or visual disturbance shall, to the extent feasible and prudent, be conditioned in appropriate permits, leases, and plans of operation to prohibit these activities within: © one-half mile of walrus or sea lion haul-outs from May 1 through December 31; © one-half mile of seal haul-outs from March 1 through September 30; and © one mile of seabird colonies from April 15 through September 30. TABLE 5-3; MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SCREEN MESH SIZE AND WATER VELOCITIES THROUGH A SCREENED INTAKE FOR SMALL WATER WITHDRAWALS Criteria Group I Group II Group Ill Group IV Group V screen mesh in: inches 0.4 0.04 0.1 0.25 0.25 (millimeters) (1.0) (1.0) (2.4) (6.4) (6.4) water velocity * 01 05 05 2.0 _ (feet per second) Group I - Fry Stage: whitefish Group II - Juvenile Stage: smelt, whitefish - Fry or Juvenile Stage: sheefish, pink salmon, chum salmon Group III - Juvenile Stage: coho, chinook, and sockeye salmon; Arctic char, Dolly Varden Group IV - Adult Stage: whitefish, Arctic char, Dolly Varden Group V - Adult Stage: chinook, coho, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon; criteria shall be used to prevent en- trapment of Group V fish in off-stream pumping ponds; velocity criteria are not applicable. * Water velocity as measured on the downstream side of the water intake enclosure. SOURCE: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division - Draft Habitat Regulations, January 1986 B-19 Disturbance by Aircraft To minimize adverse disturbances to seabird colonies (Volume 1, Map 10, or as updated in the ADF&G Regional Habitat Management Guides), fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft shall maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet or a one-half mile horizontal distance from identified colony sites between April 15 and September 30. To minimize adverse disturbances to walrus, sea lion, and seal haul-out sites (Volume 1, Map 10, or as up- dated in the ADF&G Regional Habitat Management Guides), fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft shall main- tain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet or a 1.5 mile horizontal distance from identified haul-out sites between May 1 and December 31 for walrus and sea lions, and between March 1 and September 30 for seals. 5-8 These conditions shall not be applicable where safety, weather conditions, or authorized destination within the area of concern dictate otherwise. B-20 Reindeer Fawning Areas Development activities shall minimize disturbance to the primary reindeer fawning areas shown in Volume 1, Map 10, during the fawning period from April 15 through May 15. Development activities and uses shall maintain the integrity and function of authorized and permitted reindeer fawning areas and shall not preclude access to fawning areas. The Bering Straits CRSA Board shall annually provide supplemental information concerning currently used reindeer fawning areas to the state and federal resource agencies. B-21 Endangered Species Development activities shall not cause significant impacts to the habitats or populations of the endangered bowhead whale, gray whale, peregrine falcon, or other designated endangered species identified by the state or federal governments. C AIR, LAND, AND WATER QUALITY C-1 State and Federal Regulations The statutes, regulations, and procedures of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation pertain- ing to the protection of air, land, and water quality are incorporated into the Bering Straits CRSA coastal management program. C-2 Water Quality Standards C-2.1 Domestic and public water supplies, fresh and marine waters important for the growth and propagation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and waters used for recreation shall be classified by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) for water quality standards necessary to maintain or enhance these uses. Reclassification of waters shall be made through ADEC amendment procedures. C-2.2 All permits, leases, or plans of operation for land and water uses which may directly affect water quality shall require that these activities be sited, designed, constructed, and operated to provide a reasonable assurance that discharges will meet water quality standards for the receiving water use criteria. C-3 Environmental Protection Technology To the extent feasible and prudent, equipment and procedures utilizing the most advanced and effective technology for limiting emissions and effluents, and for the storage, handling, cleanup, and disposal of oil and hazardous materials shall be required for industrial, military, energy, and transportation facilities. C-4 Hazardous Substances C-4.1 Entities proposing hazardous waste treatment, storage, transportation, or disposal must provide the Bering Straits CRSA Board, affected communities, Native corporations, and appropriate landowners the opportunity to participate in the planning process, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation (Administrative Policy). 5-9 C-4,.2 Storage, transportation, cleanup, and disposal of hazardous substances, petroleum, and petroleum products shall comply with state regulations, or federal regulations in the absence of state regulations, including provisions for public notice and public participation. C-4.3 Hazardous materials, petroleum, or petroleum products as defined in State and federal regulations, shall not be disposed of on barrier islands, on seaice, in marine waters, or in any rivers, streams, lakes, or wetlands in the region. C-5 Siting of Facilities (Administrative Policy) The Bering Straits CRSA Board shall work with developers of proposed industrial facilities to evaluate emis- sions and effluent dispersion, and assist in the siting of industrial facilities, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. C-6 Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impacts of new industrial development on the air and water quality of the district shall be considered in the review of proposed development projects. The cumulative effects on ambient air and water quality from proposed development projects shall meet all applicable requirements of State and federal laws and regulations. C-7 Refuse Disposal To the extent feasible and prudent, disposal sites for refuse and putrescible wastes shall be: C-7.1 Located in upland sites a minimum of 1,500 feet from domestic water sources or fish-bearing water- bodies, and a minimum of 200 feet from any surface waters. The appropriate setback shall be deter- mined following a site-specific surface and subsurface hydrological investigation; C-7.2 Located to avoid destruction of important or essential habitats; C-7.3 Designed and operated to avoid pollution of surrounding areas and to avoid creation of an attractive nuisance for wildlife, i.e. prevent garbage foraging by wildlife; and C-1.4 Provide for the incineration of combustible materials generated by new development activities, unless the environmental effects of incineration are more detrimental than disposal in a landfill or removal from the CRSA. C-7.5 Offshore developments, marine vessels, and floating fish processors shall dispose of refuse only in approved, onshore disposal sites. Floating fish processors shall dispose of fish processing wastes only at locations authorized by appropriate state and federal permitting agencies. C-8 Sewage Disposal Where feasible and prudent, sewage ponds and treated sewage outfalls shall be setback a minimum of 1,500 feet from currently used domestic water supplies or fish-bearing waters, and a minimum of 200 feet from any surface waters. The appropriate setback shall be determined following a site-specific surface and subsurface hydrological investigation. C-9 Storage of Petroleum and Petroleum Products To the extent feasible and prudent, facilities for the storage, processing, or treatment of 5,000 gallons or 5-10 more of petroleum or petroleum products shall be sited a minimum of 1,500 feet from domestic water sup- Plies of surface waters. To the extent feasible and prudent, impermeable berms and basins capable of retain- ing 110 percent of the tank capacity (or capacity of the largest tank where multiple tanks are separately valv- ed) plus maximum accumulated precipitation shall be required to minimize the potential for inadvertent pollu- tion. A plan of operation for the facility, and for the recovery, storage, and transportation of spilled petroleum or petroleum products shall be prepared. C-10 Oil Spill Contingency Plans (Administrative Policy) The Bering Straits CRSA Board and affected communities shall be involved in the development and review of oil spill contingency plans, when such plans are required by federal or state statutes or regulations, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. C-ll Siltation and Sedimentation Development uses, activities, and facilities shall not induce increased sedimentation, siltation, and resulting turbidity which could have a significant adverse impact to aquatic productivity and habitats, marine fish, shellfish, or anadromous fish populations in marine, estuarine, and freshwater environments. C-12 Discharge of Drilling Muds and Production Waters C-12.1 The discharge of drilling muds and production waters into marine waters of the district shall adhere to NPDES conditions and the Alaska Coastal Management program consistency requirements incor- Porated in or accompanying the NPDES permit. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conserva- tion Certificate of Reasonable Assurance for NPDES permits shall require discharges to have no signifi- cant, acute, or cumulative adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, or aquatic plant resources. C-12.2 Discharges of drilling muds or production waters to fresh water lakes, streams, wetlands, or to estuarine waters shall not be permitted. C-12.3 Whenever feasible and prudent, disposal of produced waters in upland areas shall be accomplished using reinjection techniques. C-13 Oil and Gas Operations Oil and gas plans of operation, and development and Production plans must contain “best available technology” oil spill detection, containment, and clean-up measures which will minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife, habitats, commercial fishing, and subsistence resources and activities. C-14 Nuclear Testing Uranium fuel processing facilities and nuclear testing shall be sited and conducted in a manner that does not adversely affect fish, birds, animals, vegetation, or people in the Bering Straits CRSA. D._HISTORICG, PREHISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES D-I Regional and Local Planning (Administrative Policy) Itis the policy of the Bering Straits CRSA Board that cultural resources shall be considered during develop- ment of regional and local planning activities, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. 5-11 D-2 Cultural Resource Areas D-2.1 D-2.2 D-2.3 Based on the limited inventory of historic and archaeological sites in the region and the variety of environmental settings in which they have been found, all areas within the coastal zone boundary are considered to have the potential to contain significant cultural resources. Evaluation of potential impacts to significant cultural resources and appropriate mitigation shall be the responsibility of entities proposing development activities. Development activities with the potential to adversely affect cultural resource areas shall provide an assess- ment and evaluation of identified cultural resource sites (Volume 2, Map B), including the knowledge of local residents. Where there is potential for undiscovered cultural sites in a project ares, a cultural resource survey may be required prior to surface disturbance activites. Uses and activities which may adversely affect cultural resource areas shall comply with the following standards: To the extent feasible and prudent, archaeological, prehistoric, and historic resources shall be pro- tected from adverse impacts caused by surrounding uses and activities. Prior to major development activities, a review shall be conducted to make recommendations that will insure that areas or artifacts of significant historic, prehistoric, or archaeologic importance will not be disturbed or destroyed during project development. If previously undiscovered artifacts or areas of historic, prehistoric, or archaeologic importance are encountered during development activities, the Bering Straits CRSA Board shall be notified and the site shall be protected from further disturbance pending evaluation by the State Historic Preservation Office. D-3 Traditional Activities Activities which require permits or approvals and which may impact traditional activities at cultural or historic sites shall avoid significant impacts unless effective mitigative measures are implemented, as approved by landowners, affected communities, and the regional non-profit corporation. D-4 Data Requirements (Administrative Policy) Prior to any major archaeological project within the district, adequate information shall be provided to the Bering Straits CRSA Board concerning the purpose of the project, the proposed area of investigation, the timing of the project, and the anticipated impacts to cultural resources, fish and wildlife and their habitats, plant resources, and subsistence activities identified in the Bering Straits coastal management program, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. D-5 Removal of Artifacts On private lands, artifacts shall not be removed from the Bering Straits CRSA without permission of the affected landowner. On public lands, artifacts shall not be removed from the Bering Straits CRSA without permission from the affected communities and the regional non-profit corporation. D-6 Cultural Resource Orientation For major projects listed in Chapter 6.6, construction and operation workforces shall be informed of the im- portance of historic and cultural resources to local residents, and the state and federal laws prohibiting distur- bance of such resources. 5-12 E. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARDS E-1 Design and Siting Criteria Industrial and commercial development shall not be located in a geophysical hazard area if a feasible and prudent alternate site exists. Development in geophysical hazard areas shall incorporate appropriate siting, design, construction, and operation measures to minimize property damage, minimize potential impacts to the environment, and protect against loss of life. E-2 Local Knowledge (Administrative Policy) Proposed developments should supplement information concerning known geological hazards with the knowledge and experience of local residents, particularly elders. The CRSA Board, in cooperation with local villages, can assist development entities in obtaining this information, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. E-3 Coastal Processes Development and resource extraction activities shall be sited and conducted to minimize accelerated coastal erosion or adverse impacts to coastal processes. E-4 Coastal Storm Surge/Tsunami Flooding To the extent feasible and prudent, industrial and commercial development outside established communities and within areas subject to storm surge or other saltwater flooding shall be limited to water-dependent or water-related uses. Development within such areas shall be subject to siting, design, construction, and opera- tion measures which mitigate the potential hazards. E-5 Landslides and Mass Wasting To the extent feasible and prudent, new developments shall avoid areas subject to landslide and mass wasting hazards. Industrial and commercial developments shall incorporate appropriate siting, design, construc- tion, and operation measures to mitigate the hazards. E-6 Riverine Flooding To the extent feasible and prudent, industrial and commercial developments shall not be sited within the annual floodplain and highwater channels of rivers, streams, and lakes. Where siting of facilities within this area is unavoidable, structures must be designed and constructed to minimize property damage, minimize impacts to the stream environment, and protect against loss of life. E-7 Permafrost Development activities and uses shall incorporate protection of the organic mat and underlying permafrost into project planning, design, and construction. Where disturbance of the organic mat is unavoidable, the area disrupted shall be stabilized to avoid degradation of the permafrost. 5-13 E-8 Ice Hazards To the extent feasible and prudent, shoreline and offshore developments shall avoid areas subject to ice hazards such as ice over-ride, ridging, and gouging. Development within such areas shall be subject to siting, design, construction, and operation measures which mitigate the potential hazards. F. COASTAL DEVELOPMENT F-1 Water-Dependent and Water-Related Activities In planning for and approving development in shoreline and waterfront areas, the Bering Straits coastal management program and state agencies shall give priority, in the following sequence, to: a) water-dependent uses and activities; b) water-related uses and activities; and c) 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. F-2 Mitigation Allland and water use activities shall be conducted with appropriate planning and implementation to mitigate potentially adverse effects on the following resources of local, state, or national importance: fish and wildlife populations and their habitats; subsistence resource uses and activities; commercial fishing uses and ac- tivities; and cultural resources. Mitigation shall include and be considered in the following order of preference: a) attempt to avoid the loss of the affected resource or activity; b) when the loss cannot be avoided, minimize the loss and the need for restoration, maintenance, or compensation efforts; c) when the loss of resources and/or associated activities cannot be minimized, restore or rehabilitate the resource to its predisturbance condition, to the extent feasible and prudent; and d) when loss or damage to existing resources and associated activities is substantial and irreversible (including, for example, a seasonal loss in commercial fishing or subsistence harvest) and the above objectives cannot be achieved, compensation for resource and/or harvest loss shall be considered. In the case of loss of habitat production potential, enhancement of other habitats shall be considered as one alternative means of compensation. F-3 Dredge and Fill Dredging or filling operations which may have a significant, adverse effect on important or essential fish and wildlife habitat shall be prohibited unless no feasible and prudent upland alternative site exists to meet the public need for the proposed project. If no feasible and prudent alternative is available, the project shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize the area of disturbance, disruption of drainage pat- terns, and the need for continual maintenance. F-4 Dredge Spoil Disposal Where acceptable sites are available, dredged materials shall be disposed of in upland areas. Dredged materials disposed of in shoreline landfills shall not cause significant alteration of essential habitats or adverse impacts to shoreline processes. Onshore disposal sites for dredged material shall be contained and stabiliz- ed to prevent erosion and leaching into adjacent waters. 5-14 F-5 Enclave Development To the extent feasible and prudent, workforce facilities in support of major development projects shall be located in enclaves separated from existing communities, unless the affected community approves of a dif- ferent arrangement. F-6 Infrastructure and Public Services (Administrative Policy) Major development projects which require a significant increase in infrastructure, utilities, or public services shall apprise the Bering Straits CRSA Board with reasonable advance notification of the proposed project needs, schedule, and specific plans to minimize the impact of development activities on the affected com- munity, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. F-7 Development Timing To the extent feasible and prudent, offshore resource exploration and development activities shall be scheduled and/or located to avoid interference with commercial fishing and subsistence activities. Where significant adverse impacts cannot be avoided, mitigation shall be considered in accordance with policy F-2. F-8 Minimize Shoreline Disturbance To maintain the integrity of the marine coastline, stream and river banks, and lake shorelines, commercial and industrial development facilities and structures shall not be located closer than 100 feet from high-higher water (HHW) of coastlines and ordinary high water of river, stream, and lake shorelines unless the use or activity is water-dependent or water-related. Commercial or industrial uses and activities which are neither water-dependent or water-related may occur only if there is no feasible and prudent alternative to meet the public need. F-9 Completion of Use Upon abandonment of facilities or completion of use, facilities, structures, and debris shall be removed and the site rehabilitated unless there is a demonstrated future use for the site, as approved by the affected community, or such removal and rehabilitation would cause greater impacts than abandonment. Where feasi- ble and prudent, gravel removed from abandoned roads and pads shall be stored in approved sites for reuse in future construction. F-10 Multiple Use To the extent feasible and prudent, ports, piers, cargo handling, storage, parking, and other coastal facilities shall be designed and utilized to minimize the need for duplicative facilities. Subsequent use of facilities for purposes other than their original intent shall also be a consideration in the siting and design of coastal facilities. F-I1 Compatibility To the extent feasible and prudent, activities on and uses of coastal lands and waters shall be compatible with adjacent land and water uses, including subsistence. F-12 Compliance Monitoring For all coastal developments and activities, the permitting or authorizing agency shall provide adequate 5-15 monitoring to insure compliance with stipulations and special conditions of the appropriate permits or authorizations. F-13 Impact Research Major projects defined in Chapter 6.6 shall assimilate resource information and, where necessary as stipulated in the consistency determination, shall conduct research to provide adequate baseline information for iden- tification and mitigation of adverse impacts to subsistence resources and activities in important use areas identified in Chapter 4.4.2.1 through 4.4.2.26. G. MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING G-1 Access to Minerals Where feasible and prudent, new residential, commercial, or industrial development shall not be sited in locations which would preclude or significantly hinder the effective and safe extraction of known mineral resources. G-2 Planning Processes (Administrative Policy) Entities proposing major mining or mineral processing activities shall provide the Bering Straits CRSA Board, affected communities, and affected landowners an opportunity to participate in planning processes, in ac- cordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. G-3 Sand and Gravel Priority Areas To the extent feasible and prudent, sources of sand and gravel shall be authorized in a descending order of priority, as follows: a) existing, approved upland gravel pits; b) reuse of gravel from abandoned development areas; c) new upland gravel pits; d) rivers, streams, and lakes that do not support fish; e) marine shoreline and offshore gravel sources; and f) floodplain gravel sources in fish-bearing streams. G-4 Floodplain Gravel Extraction If removal of gravel from streams and rivers cannot be avoided, the following policies apply: G-4.1 To the extent feasible and prudent, gravel shall be mined from the following river configurations in the order of highest to lowest preference: braided, split channel, meandering, sinuous, and straight. When possible, exposed gravel bars in broad, active floodplains shall be considered for mining of gravel. G-4.2 To the extent feasible and prudent, changes to channel hydraulics shall be avoided. G-4.3 Gravel pits shall be located to minimize the probability of channel diversion through the site. G-4.4 The effects of gravel removal shall be minimized by maintaining buffers between active channels and the work area and by avoiding instream work, unnecessary clearing of riparian vegetation, and distur- bance to natural banks. 5-16 G-4.5 G-4.6 G-4.7 G-4.8 To the extent feasible and prudent, site configurations shall avoid the use of long straight lines and shall be shaped to blend with physical features and surroundings to provide for diverse riparian and aquatic habitats. If the work area may be inundated by high water during the period of operation, temporary dikes shall be constructed around the site to segregate the work area from active channels and avoid the entrap- ment of fish. Sand and gravel shall not be removed from locations which have been documented to provide spawn- ing or overwintering habitat for anadromous fish. When gravel washing operations occur in the floodplain, settling ponds shall be used to remove suspend- ed materials from the wash water; settling ponds shall be adequately diked or set-back from active channels to avoid breaching by a 10-year frequency flood. Wash water shall be recycled and the ef- fluent discharge shall comply with state and federal water quality regulations. G-5 Overburden Disposal Overburden shall not be disposed of in lakes, within the mean annual floodplain of streams or rivers, or below the limit of mean high water in intertidal areas and estuaries. Whenever feasible and prudent, over- burden in upland areas shall be saved and replaced on the disturbed area to conform to the natural topography as part of the reclamation process. G-6 Reclamation and Restoration Reclamation of all upland and floodplain mined sites shall be required unless such reclamation would cause greater adverse impact to the environment. At a minimum, reclamation shall include the following elements, as applicable: G-6.1 G-6.2 G63 Topsoil shall be segregated from overburden, and both shall be stored above the mean annual floodplain of watercourses. At the end of each mining operation season, all disturbed areas shall be regraded to stable slopes. Within mean annual floodplains, regrading to ground contours which will not entrap fish nor significantly alter stream hydraulics shall occur at the cessation of each operating season. Tailings used in the con- struction of settling ponds and other essential facilities may be retained in place until completion of use. At the completion of mining activities or gravel extraction, all disturbed areas shall be stabilized and revegetated, as appropriate. Restoration shall include the following: All disturbed areas shall be graded to stable slopes that blend with the natural topography; Erosion control measures shall be implemented as appropriate to stabilize the site; and Areas designated for revegetation shall be covered with topsoil to encourage establishment of native plant species. An exception to these requirements is provided for the portion of a gravel extraction site required to provide materials for continuing maintenance and operation activities. Maintenance gravel sites will comply with the requirements of part G-6.2 of this policy. 5-17 G-7 Coastal Gravel Extraction Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits only when there is no feasible and prudent alternative to coastal extraction which will meet the public need for the sand or gravel. Such extraction activities shall minimize adverse impacts on wave energy, sediment transport, herring and anadromous fish spawning and rearing habitats, and waterfowl habitat; minimize increases in shoreline erosion; and minimize increases in turbidity and sedimentation. G-8 Offshore Mining G-8.1 G-8.2 G-8.3 G-8.4 Extraction of sand and gravel or recoverable minerals from the sea bottom in offshore areas shall avoid significant adverse impacts to important and essential habitats, commercial fishing activities, subsistence harvest activities, and navigation. Offshore mining shall not occur within an area extending one mile from ordinary high water of anadromous fish streams at their confluence with marine waters. Dredge spoils and processed materials shall be discharged on the sea bottom in the area from which they were extracted. Offshore mining and mineral processing activities shall avoid discharge of toxic materials in process- ing effluent. In areas where toxic materials occur naturally in bottom sediments, offshore mining ac- tivities shall not resuspend such toxic materials in the water column or contribute to additional bioac- cumulation of toxic materials in marine organisms or fish. G-9 Placer Mining G-9.1 G-9.2 G-9.3 G-9.4 G-9.5 Extraction of placer materials shall avoid significant adverse impacts to important and essential habitats, commercial fishing activities, and subsistence harvest activities. Where feasible and prudent, placer operations which discharge processing wastewater to rivers or streams shall incorporate a functional sediment control facility into the design and operation of the placer mine. Maximum use of recycled water shall occur to minimize water withdrawal from the stream and subse- quent discharge of effluent to adjacent waters. All placer operations shall be designed, constructed, and operated in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations and water quality standards. Placer mining operations shall be rehabilitated upon completion of use in accordance with Policy G-6. Tailings and processed materials shall be stabilized and contained to avoid accelerated erosion and prevent leaching of toxic materials that may be present with the target minerals. 5-18 H. ENERGY FACILITIES H-1 Planning Requirements (Administrative Policy) 8 The state and federal government shall provide the Bering Straits CRSA Board, affected landowners, and affected local governments the opportunity to participate in planning processes for energy facilities, in ac- cordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. H-2 Siting Considerations To the extent feasible and prudent, the siting and approval of major energy facilities shall be based on the following standards: H-2.1 H-2.2 H-2.3 H-2.4 H-2.5 H-2.6 H-2.7 H-2.8 H-2.9 H-2.10 H-2.11 H-2.12 Facilities shall be sited to minimize adverse environmental and social effects on the resources and residents of the region, while satisfying industrial and commercial requirements; Facilities shall be sited to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs; Consolidate facilities and consider the concurrent use of facilities for public or economic reasons; Select sites with sufficient acreage to allow for reasonable expansion of facilities; Site facilities where existing infrastructure, including docks, roads, and airstrips, is capable of satisfy- ing industrial and commercial requirements; Select sites where development will minimize the need for site clearing, dredging, or construction in Productive coastal habitats; Site facilities to minimize the probability that petroleum spills or other forms of contamination along shipping routes could adversely affect commercial and subsistence fishing areas or biologically pro- ductive or vulnerable habitats, including marine mammal haul-outs, seabird feeding areas, and water- fowl nesting areas. Site facilities so that the design and construction of those facilities and the support infrastructure will allow for the free passage and movement of fish, wildlife, and reindeer with due consideration for historic migratory patterns; Site facilities so that areas of particular subsistence, scenic, recreational, environmental, or cultural value will be protected; Site facilities in areas of least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability, and where effluents and spills can be controlled and contained; Site facilities where winds and air currents maximize dispersal of airborne emissions which cannot be captured before escape into the atmosphere; Select sites in areas which are designated for industrial and commercial purposes and where traffic is minimized through population centers; 5-19 H-2.13 Site and construct facilities such that public access is not unreasonably restricted and where alternate routes for public access can be provided; and H-2.14 Select sites where vessel movements will not result in overcrowded harbors or interfere with commer- cial or subsistence fishing operations or equipment. H-3 Use of Existing Facilities To the extent feasible and prudent, existing energy facilities shall be used to meet new requirements for exploration and production support bases, transmission/shipment (including pipelines and transportation systems), and distribution of energy resources. H-4 Geophysical Surveys Geophysical surveys in fresh and marine waters shall be conducted using energy sources that have been demonstrated to be harmless to fish, waterfowl, seabirds, and marine mammal populations. I. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITY SYSTEMS I-1 Planning Processes (Administrative Policy) The state and federal government shall provide the Bering Straits CRSA Board, affected landowners, and affected local governments with the opportunity to participate in planning processes for transportation and utility corridors, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. I-2 Facility Design, Construction, and Maintenance Highway, airport, port, and utility system design, construction, and maintenance shall minimize alteration of watercourses, wetlands, and intertidal marshes, and visual degradation. I-3 Siting and Scheduling Transportation and utility corridors shall be sited, designed, and operated, with the following standards: 1-3.1 Adverse impacts to habitats, biological resources, subsistence activities, and the community lifestyle shall be minimized; I-3.2 To the extent feasible and prudent, transportation corridors and facilities shall be consolidated; 1-3.3 Impacts to the free passage and movements of fish, wildlife, and reindeer shall be minimized, with due consideration for historic migratory patterns; 1-3.4 Phasing of construction scheduling shall be incorporated in project plans to minimize disturbance dur- ing critical migration periods for fish, wildlife, and reindeer; and 1-3.5 Road and pipeline crossings of anadromous fish streams shall be minimized and consolidated at single locations to reduce multiple impacts to an individual drainage. 5-20 I-4 Harbors and Shipping Routes Harbors and shipping routes shall be sited to avoid reefs, shoals, drift ice and other ice hazards, and other navigational obstructions. 1-5 Airstrips Where feasible and prudent, new airstrips shall be located, designed, and constructed to avoid physical, visual, and acoustical disturbances to residents, subsistence activities, and important and essential fish and wildlife habitats and populations. 1-6 Electric Transmission Facilities Wherever feasible and prudent, transmission lines and towers shall not be sited in important or essential waterfowl habitats or migration areas. J. RECREATION J-1 Planning Processes (Administrative Policy) Recreational planners for federal and state lands shall provide the Bering Straits CRSA Board, affected local governments, and affected landowners an opportunity to participate in recreation planning, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. J-2 Subsistence Conflicts Facilities and activities subject to permits and approvals, and identified access routes associated with recrea- tional fishing and hunting shall be sited, constructed, and operated to minimize interference with subsistence activities. K. DISPOSALS OF INTEREST K-] Planning Processes (Administrative Policy) The state and federal government shall provide the Bering Straits CRSA Board, affected communities, and affected landowners the opportunity to participate in the planning process for land disposals and disposal of interests within the region, including homestead settlements, subdivisions, agricultural disposals, and leases, in accordance with procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. These disposals shall also be coordinated with village corporation shareholder homesite programs and other private land disposal programs. K-2 Coordination with Board (Administrative Policy) The Bering Straits CRSA Board will assist the state and federal government in the evaluation of disposals of interest and land disposal programs by providing an assessment of the market for land, the type of disposal that meets the needs of the residents, the location of appropriate disposal areas, and optimum timing and design of disposals, in accordance with procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. 5-21 K-3 Disposals of Land and Other State Interests Disposals of land and other interests by the state shall not occur prior to completion and approval of the Northwest Area Plan for state lands. L. TIMBER L-l Planning Processes (Administrative Policy Entities proposing timber harvest and processing within the region shall provide the Bering Straits CRSA Board, affected communities, and affected landowners the opportunity to participate in the planning pro- cess, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. L-2 Fire Protection (Administrative Policy) The Bering Straits CRSA Board shall be consulted prior to adoption of amendments to fire protection agreements affecting the district, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. L-3 Timber Management Practices Best management practices shall be used in all commercial forestry and timber harvest activities in accor- dance with the Forest Resource and Practice Regulation (11 AAC 95) of the Forest Practices Act (AS 41.17). M. COASTAL ACCESS AND EASEMENTS M-1 Planning Processes (Administrative Policy) The Bering Straits CRSA Board, affected local governments, and affected landowners shall be provided an opportunity to participate in the planning for access points and easement routes on state and federal lands, in accordance with the procedures identified in Chapter 6, Implementation. M-2 Easements Recreational, industrial and commercial, and other users shall utilize permitted or identified easements through or adjacent to private lands. 5-22 Whalebones near Shishmaref. (Kawerak Eskimo Heritage Program) Chapter Six: Implementation uoneuows[dwy :xIg Jajdey9 Chapter 6: Implementation 6.1 INTRODUCTION A plan without adequate implementation is like a harpoon without a hunter — a proper tool lacking guidance, direction, and strength. The Bering Straits CRSA Board has developed an implementation program which will ensure that the region’s major landowners, municipal and tribal governments, and state and federal permitting agencies understand the process and authorities by which proposed activities are: ° reviewed for their consistency with the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan, and e monitored and enforced for compliance with permit conditions and stipulations associated with coastal management. Implementation of the Bering Straits Program relies on continuing discussion among the CRSA Board, Native Corporations, and other affected private landowners, municipal and tribal governments, state and federal agen- cies, and private industry. Only through open communication can coastal management balance local, state and national interests. Consistency and When it is Determined It is important to understand how a coastal management plan is used to guide activities that take place in coastal lands and waters. Making a consistency determination is the legal process for providing this guidance. ‘‘Con- sistency” means that certain actions initiated or permitted by state and federal agencies must comply (or be con- sistent) with the policies of a coastal management plan that has been approved by the state and federal govern- ment. The process of obtaining state or federal permits includes review of a proposed project or activity for its consistency with a coastal management program. When an agency reviews an application for a permit, it reviews the pro- posed activity against its own and other regulatory requirements. If the proposed activity meets all regulatory requirements, including coastal management, a permit will be issued. An activity that does not meet regulatory requirements may not be approved, or may be permitted as long as it follows certain conditions or stipulations. Development cannot proceed until all required permits are issued. The Bering Straits CRSA is one of several review agencies participating in the consistency determination process. The CRSA makes a consistency recom- mendation to the agency coordinating permit review. That agency must legally address the CRSA’s and other consistency recommendations in making their consistency determination. This process and the role of the CRSA is discussed in more detail in sections 6.3 and 6.4. What Determines Consistency The Bering Straits CRSA Coastal Management Plan receives its authority from the Federal Coastal Zone Manage- ment Act of 1972, which allows states to develop their own coastal management programs, and the Alaska Coastal Management Act of 1977, which creates coastal resource service areas and allows them to prepare local coastal management plans. CRSA’s are responsible for refining the more general statewide policies of the Alaska Coastal Management Act in a manner that best reflects local issues, goals, and objectives. When a CRSA plan is approved and adopted by the State, the Alaska Coastal Management Program is amended to include the CRSA plan. Through CRSA's, local residents can develop, within certain guidelines, the policies that state agencies will use in making consistency determinations on permit applications. 6-1 The policies presented in Chapter 5 of this plan form the basis for consistency determinations by federal and state agencies, and consistency recommendations by the Coastal Board and its staff. These policies are con- sidered the enforceable rules for the purpose of program implementation. The plan policies apply to all lands and waters, and subject uses and activities within the Bering Straits coastal area. Through the existing Permit Reform project application process, the project developer must assure the CRSA Board that the proposed project is in conformance with applicable plan policies. The plan's policies will be applied to projects, activities, or uses which will be located in, or may have significant direct effects on the Bering Straits coastal area as outlined in 6 AAC 50. Projects that require an individual con- sistency review are listed in Section 6.2 and generally require state or federal permits or other approvals such as leases. When a land or water activity is developed or authorized as discrete phases, and each phase requires agency decision(s) on permit approval, each phase is considered a “project” for the purposes of permit review. In addition to enforceable policies, Chapter 5 contains Admiistrative Policies that provide additional guidance on uses and activities within the coastal zone. These policies often reflect recommended procedures outlined in this Chapter, such as Pre-development Meetings, Participation in Regional Planning, and Notification of Af- fected Communities. While compliance is not required, the objective of these policies and procedures is to minimize conflict and delay through early cooperation and timely notification. Framework for Implementation Because a CRSA has no planning powers like municipal governments, implementation of the Bering Straits Coastal Management Program and application of coastal management policies must rely on the utilization of existing federal and state regulations and permitting and planning activities. Cooperation and participation from the major private landowners and municipal and tribal governments in the region will insure that coastal activities are con- ducted in a manner consistent with this plan’s policies. Two mechanisms for local consistency recommendations are discussed in this chapter. The state consistency process conducted under 6 AAC 50 plays a major role. The Bering Straits CRSA also recommends that certain types of major development activities take part in comprehensive planning and conference procedures, which include the participation of federal, state, native corporation, and traditional government land managers. These procedures will be used by the Bering Straits CRSA Board in their consistency recommendations to apply policies and set the specific guidelines, standards, time lines, and monitoring requirements for certain types of activities. The district program may be amended to include portions of appropriate planning efforts that serve to enhance the Bering Straits CRSA program. A local coordination process will be established to make consistency recommendations. The existing CRSA Board will oversee the continued refinement, development and implementation of the coastal plan for the region. The Bering Straits CRSA Board is the only appropriate local agent for plan implementation in the area. Involvement of the Board in interpreting the plan is crucial to successful implementation. The Program Director and village contacts will aid the Board and participate in a review of all projects. The remainder of the Implementation Chapter contains the following sections: 6.2 Permits and Activities Subject to Consistency Determination 63 State and Federal Permit Review and Consistency Procedures 64 Bering Straits CRSA Board Involvement in Consistency Determinations 65 Local Involvement in CRSA Board Recommendations 66 Key CRSA Board Participants and Responsibility 67 Planning for Major Projects 68 Amendments and Revisions 69 Monitoring and Enforcement 6.10 Permit Pre-Application Packet Requirements 6-2 TABLE 6-1: PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROJECT REVIEW Review Schedule Permit/Approval Code Reference DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 60-day Air Quality Control Permit AS 46.020 to Operate (PSD) (will AS 46.03.140 18 AAC 15 likely require an extended AS 46.03.150 18 AAC 50 review due to complex & 160 issues) AS 46.03.170 18 AAC & 710 50 .300(c) 60-day Solid Waste Management AS 46.03.020 Permit (includes disposal AS 46.03.100 of oil cleanup debris) AS 46.03.100 AS 46.03.110 AS 46.03.120 18 AAC 15 AS 46.03.710 18 AAC 60 18 AAC 75 60-day Reclassification of Waters AS 46.03.020 18 AAC 15 of the State (will likely 18 AAC 70.055 require an extended review due to complex issues) 60-day Waste Disposal Permit AS 46.03.020 18 AAC 15 (Wastewater Discharge) AS 46.03.100 18 AAC 70 & 110 AS 46.03.120 18 AAC & 72.010 72.010 60-day 401 Certifications — AS 46.03.020 18 AAC 15 Certificate of Reasonable 18 AAC 70 CWA PL 95-217 Assurance Sec. 401 18 AAC 72 60-day Oil Discharge Contingency AS 46.04.030 Plans for offshore Facilities and onshore fuel storage facilities with a capacity of greater than 10,000 bbis 40-day Oil discharge permit for AS 46.03.020 18 AAC 75 scientific purposes 60-day Permit to Apply AS 46.03.020 IO(A) Pesticides AS 46.03.020 10(6) AS 46.03.320 AS 46.03.330 AS 46.03.730 6.2 PERMITS AND ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION Federal and State Permits Under the provisions of 6 AAC 50, the State of Alaska is required to make a determination of consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (as amended by approved local district plans) for certain permits and other activities requiring approvals. The state resource agencies, the Departments of Natural Resources, En- vironmental Conservation, and Fish and Game, and the Office of Management and Budget have developed a list of permits which will be subject to a coastal consistency determination. This list is divided into three groupings: Categorical Approval (‘‘A’”’ List) — activities that have been determined to have no significant impact on coastal lands and waters; General Concurrence (‘‘B”’ List) — activities that can be made consistent with the ACMP by imposing standard permit stipulations; and Individual Project Reviews (‘C” List) — activities that must be individually reviewed in order to determine con- sistency with the ACMP. Permits Projects which require one or more state permits from the the ‘‘C”’ list will be the ones subject to state and CRSA consistency review (see Table 6-1). However, a CRSA may request notification from the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) or the lead agency of any permit which may affect the district. The Bering Straits CRSA Board will regularly review “A” and “‘B” List projects, and may request that certain projects from these lists be reclassified (eg. from “A” to “B”, or “B” to “‘C”’). For informational purposes, the CRSA Board requests notification of all ‘‘A’” and “B” list permits issued within the Bering Straits Region. Other Approvals Certain types of actions by state and federal agencies do not require permits yet are subject to Individual Con- sistency Review. Most fall under the category of ‘disposal of interest’, which means that the agency transfers its outright ownership of a resource to another party. ‘Disposal of Interest” actions include land disposals, mineral leases, oil and gas leases, timber sales, and sand and gravel leases. Development of these resources by a private party may eventually require a permit subject to coastal management. Although a Disposal of Interest does not require a permit subject to a consistency determination, it is an action subject to a consistency procedure. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responsible for disposals of state interest, must reach a preliminary and final Best Interest Finding (BIF) prior to disposing of state interest. The coastal consistency review is often conducted at the same time. Under AS 38.05.945, DNR is required to notify affected municipalities and provide notice in local papers 30 days prior to the intent to issue preliminary and final Best Interest Findings. It is recommended that notice be provided in a local paper such as the Nome Nugget or Northland News. In order to make their consistency recommendation, the Bering Straits CRSA requests receiving notification and adequate information for a consistency recommendation concurrent with the advance notification process for Preliminary Best Interest Findings. The CRSA will follow the 40 or 60 day permit review time frame in making their consistency recommendation to DNR, depending on the scope of the proposed disposal of interest. By par- ticipating in the procedures recommended in Section 6.6 of this chapter, the CRSA will be more familiar with the Proposed disposal prior to consistency review. 6-3 TABLE 6-1: (continued) DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: DISPOSALS Division of Agriculture BIF* 1. Lease of cleared or drained agricultural land Division of Land and Water Management BIF 1. Sales of Land by Auction or Lottery BIF 2. Disposal of Agricultural Interest BIF 3. Homesite Disposals BIF 4. Opening of an Area for Issuance of Remote Cabin Parcels BIF 5. Lease of Land BIF 6. Grazing Lease BIF 7. Lease of Tidelands BIF 8. Right-of-way or easement permits for roads, trails, ditches, pipelines, drill sites, log storage, telephone or transmission lines BIF 9. Oil and natural gas pipeline right-of-way leasing BIF 10. Material Sales, except sales from approved upland sources Division of Oil and Gas BIF 1. Oil and gas lease sales BIF 2. Geothermal prospecting permit BIF 3. Geothermal lease sales BIF 4. Oil sale lease 40-day 5. Miscellaneous Land Use Permits Division of Mining BIF 1. Coal lease sales BIF 2. Coal prospecting permit BIF 3. Phosphate lease BIF 4. Sodium compound prospecting permit and lease BIF 5. Sulfur prospecting permit and lease BIF 6. Potassium compound prospecting permit and lease BIF 7. Offshore mining prospecting permit BIF 8. Upland mining lease BIF 9. Offshore mining lease and sales BIF 10. Production licenses to authorize commercial production from mining claims PERMITS AND OTHER APPROVALS Division of Agriculture 60-day 1. Approval of application for clearing or draining of agricultural land in vicinity of state land. Division of Land and Water Management 60-day 1. Approval of plan of operations or plan of development on leased lands (deadline does not apply when the plan is included in the lease at the time of the sale) 6-5 TABLE 6-1: (continued) 40-day 2. General land use permits, except for those classified as categorical or general concur- rence approvals Tideland permits Temporary water use permits for water withdrawal of 1000 gallons per day or more from fish overwintering areas, and 5000 gallons per day or more from other lakes, streams and wells 40-day 5. Trapping Cabin Permit o 40-day 40-day > Division of Oil and Gas 60-day 1. Approval of applications to drill geothermal wells 60-day 2. Approval of plan of operations on leased lands 40-day 3. Miscellaneous Land Use Permit for Geophysical Exploration Division of Mining 40-day 1. Miscellaneous land use permit for mining activity or mineral exploration 60-day 2. Approval of plans of operations on leased lands or land subject to an offshore prospec- ting permit 60-day 3. Millsite and tailings disposal permit DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 40-day All Anadromous Stream Permits AS 16.05.870 40-day Fish Passage Permit AS 16.05.840 Habitat Protection Permits 60-day Refuges AS 16.20.060 60-day Critical Habitat Areas AS 16.20.260 Game Sanctuaries AS 16.20.120-13 60-day Hatchery Permits AS 16.10.400-430 FEDERAL AGENCIES Ata minimum the following federal actions and permitting/authorization activities will be reviewed for consistency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rivers and Harbors Act Clean Water Act Environmental Protection Agency Permits for ocean dumping (40 CFR 200) Department of the Interior Right-of-way for pipelines on the OCS (43 CFR 2883) Disposal of produced water (30 CFR 221.14) National Wildlife Refuge Lands and National Park Service Special Use Permit (50 CFR 26) National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management Land Use Plans Nuclear Regulatory Commission Permits and licenses for the siting, construction and operation of nuclear facilities. BIF — Best Interest Finding by Department of Natural Resources * 6-6 Table 6-1 contains the permits and activities which are required to undergo individual project review in the Bering Straits coastal area. The CRSA Board shall be notified of applications for these permits within the Bering Straits coastal district boundary defined on the Bering Straits Coastal Boundary Map (Map 3-1). Native Corporation and Native Allotment Lands The status of Native lands determines whether activities on those lands are subject to a coastal consistency deter- mination. Activities on lands conveyed through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, including selec- tion by village and regional corporations and former reserve lands, are subject to coastal management. Native Allotments and individual restricted lots within Trustee Townsites are considered Bureau of Indian Affairs trust lands and are excluded, like other federal lands, unless activities are likely to have significant effects on uses, activities, or resources in the coastal area. 6.3 STATE AND FEDERAL PERMIT REVIEW AND CONSISTENCY PROCEDURES Role of the Lead Agency The lead agency is responsible for making all conclusive consistency determinations for state and federal per- mits. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Division of Governmental Coordination, is the lead agency for review of federal permits and for projects requiring two or more state agency permits. Where only one state permit is required, the permitting agency is also the lead agency for consistency determination. Depending on the permit involved, the Departments of Natural Resources, Environmental Conservation, or Fish and Game could be lead agencies. Procedure and Time Line For projects and activities subject to a consistency determination, the applicant must submit a completed project questionnaire to a state resource agency or to OMB. Based on the information provided in response to the ques- tionnaire, the agency will identify all state resource agencies that the applicant must contact prior to submitting a permit application and will determine what agency will serve as the lead agency. The questionnaire will also be used in identifying state and local entities to be notified of the permit application and to be solicited for comment. Upon receipt of a permit application, the lead agency must examine the application for completeness. If complete, the application is assigned a project number and dated as day one of the consistency review. In reaching a con- sistency determination, the lead agency will (1) notify authorized review agencies, such as the Bering Straits CRSA, of an action requiring a consistency determination, (2) send them the completed coastal questionnaire and other pertinent information, and (3) solicit a consistency recommendation. The lead agency must review and consider consistency recommendations received in making their consistency determination. If the coordinating agency rejects a recommendation or stipulation requested by the district, the coordinating agency must make a written finding stating the reasons for rejecting the stipulation. Where consistency conflicts arise between the CRSA Board and the lead agency, the lead agency will attempt to reach agreement (such as developing stipulations that ad- dress concerns). Proposals for projects received for review from the state will operate on one of two different time lines. The pro- Posals will be reviewed on a 30 or 50-day schedule. Since the Bering Straits Coastal District is within the unorganized borough, a 10-day extension may be granted which makes the time periods a minimum of 40 and 60 days long. Due to delays frequently experienced in receiving mail, the Bering Straits CRSA may frequently request 10 day extensions. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 present the major steps within the 40 and 60 day time lines. 6-7 TABLE 6-2: MAJOR PROCEDURES UNDER THE 40-DAY SCHEDULE 40 Day Schedule STEP (by day) Early contact with district about projects --- Applicant submits completed packet; 1-2 coordinating agency distributes packet and schedule Review period (upon request) 3-27" Last day for information request via coordinating agency 25 Last day for request for public hearing 27** Deadline for comments to coordinating agency 28 (verbal comments must be followed up in writing within 5 days) Coordinating agency develops preliminary position; 34 notifies applicant and districts with approved programs Last day for written statement requesting elevation to director level 39 If a consensus is reached, consistency determination 40"** sent to reviewers; permit decision issued within 5 days If project is elevated, issue paper sent to reviewers 40°*** 7 10 day extension for comment and decision deadlines is automatic for the Bering Straits CRSA. ** Coordinating agency must decide within 7 days whether to hold hearing. If so, agency must provide 15-30 days of notice, and provide summary of hearing 5 days afterwards. Parties also have the same 7 days after receipt of summary to provide additional comments. tee impossible. Agency permit decision to be issued five days after consistency determination received unless statutorily **** Elevation can take up to 15 days at each level. If no consensus reached during elevation to directors, then elevated to Commissioner for policy direction. 6-8 TABLE 6-3: MAJOR PROCEDURES UNDER THE 60-DAY SCHEDULE 60 Day Schedule STEP (by day) Early contact with district about projects sa Applicant submits completed packet; 1-2 coordinating agency distributes packet and schedule Review period (upon request) 3-44" Last day for information request via coordinating agency 35 Last day for request for public hearing 44** Deadline for comments to coordinating agency 44 (verbal comments must be followed up in writing within 5 days) Coordinating agency develops preliminary position; 54 notifies applicant and districts with approved programs Last day for written statement requesting elevation to director level 59 If a consensus is reached, consistency determination 60*** sent to reviewers; permit decision issued within 5 days If project is elevated, issue paper sent to reviewers 60**** CRSA. a 10 day extension for comment and decision deadlines will be automatically requested by the Bering Straits Coordinating agency must decide within 7 days whether to hold hearing. If so, agency must provide 15-30 days of notice and provide summary of hearing 5 days afterwards. Parties also have the same 7 days after receipt of summary to provide additional comments. wee impossible. eee elevated to Commissioner for policy direction. 6-9 Agency permit decision to be issued five days after consistency determination received unless statutorily Elevation can take up to 15 days at each level. If no consensus reached during elevation to directors, then The time line contains provisions for consistency conflict resolution at both the Director and Cabinet level, in addi- tion to provisions for a public hearing. The Director level review will be initiated if OMB, the resource agencies, the applicant, and the coastal district are unable to reach agreement by day 34 for the 40-day permits or day 54 for the 60-day permits. Director level review takes place among the different department directors under the leadership of the department commissioners. Cabinet level review takes place between department commissioners with the governor providing leadership. Conflict resolution beyond this administrative system is through the court system. Additional review time will be provided for the approvals which are elevated to higher levels. Parties reviewing the permit application may request that the lead agency hold a public hearing prior to reaching a consistency determination. If such a request is received by day 34 or 17 (60 day and 40 day time lines) and the request raises concerns not adequately covered in the existing review, the lead agency will schedule and hold a hearing in the area affected by the project. Relationship Between Federal Land and Activities and Consistency Determination The coastal area includes all lands and waters within its boundaries not subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. However, all uses and activities on these federal lands and waters must be consistent with the district program to the maximum extent possible when such activities are likely to have a direct effect on the coastal zone (Section 307(c), Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended). Currently, most federal permits are being reviewed for consistency under the ACMP. The review process for these permits follows the same procedure previously outlined. State Notification of Affected Communities The Bering Straits CRSA, through the Program Director, is responsible for coordinating the local consistency recommendation. However, the size of the CRSA, the number of communities within it, and the length of time required by intra-regional mail make it extremely difficult to get permit information out to affected communities and receive input on consistency recommendations within the permit review timeframes. In order to assist with local review and minimize requests for additional time for review, it is recommended that the coordinating agency send the coastal questionnaire/permit application and other pertinent information to the CRSA and affected com- munities simultaneously. This request is reflected by certain Administrative Policies in Chapter 5. The CRSA also requests that the lead agency notify the affected communities of the Final Consistency Determination. Amap of traditional use areas by specific communities is being developed in cooperation with the federal govern- ment to give guidance to lead agencies on notifying affected communities. Until this map is produced, the CRSA and Kawerak, Inc., will provide guidance with regard to affected communities. Appendix B provides mailing addresses and telephone numbers for affected communities in the CRSA. Further guidance for individual permits can be provided by the Program Director. 6.4 BERING STRAITS CRSA BOARD INVOLVEMENT IN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS Consistency Recommendation and Due Deference After a local program has been incorporated into the Alaska Coastal Management Program, the CRSA Board is one of several reviewers that provide consistency recommendations to the lead agency. That agency then makes aconsistency determination. However, the recommendation of the CRSA Board, along with other resource agency recommendations, must be given ‘‘due deference” in making the consistency determination. This means if the coordinating agency rejects a recommendation or stipulation requested by the District, the coordinating agency 6-10 must make a written finding stating the reasons for rejecting the stipulation. Where consistency conflicts arise between the CRSA Board and the lead agency, the lead agency will attempt to reach agreement (such as develop- ing stipulations that address concerns). As discussed later in this section, the determination of the coordinating agency can be appealed. The Division of Governmental Coordination will function as the mediator during eleva- tion through the appeal process. In making a consistency recommendation, the CRSA Board can take three courses of action: ¢ — A project can be considered consistent without any conditions or stipulations; ° A project can be considered consistent provided that certain conditions or stipulations are attached to a permit to bring it into compliance with plan policies; or ° A project can be considered not consistent, with a recommendation to deny issuance of permits. Procedure In the case of state or federal regulated or initiated activities, the state agency involved or the Office of Manage- ment and Budget, Division of Governmental Coordination (OMB-DGC) acting as the coordinating agency will solicit the Bering Straits CRSA comments on consistency and give ‘due deference” to the district’s interpretation of the policies in the plan. The point of contact with the Bering Straits CRSA for state reviews is the Program Director. Upon notification of a pending permit consistency review or other agency action (such as a Best Interest Finding) the Program director will notify the Bering Straits CRSA Board member(s) representing the CRSA district(s) affected by the proposed action. The Program Director will also contact the affected communities and the Regional Cor- Poration to ascertain that they have been notified of the consistency review. If not, the Program Director will notify them of the impending activities and contact the lead agency to request that appropriate information be distributed. The Program Director will rely upon the information and policies in this plan, designated village and corporation contacts, and the Bering Straits Coastal Board members affected by the proposed action in making the consisten- cy recommendation. Important major activities are addressed by the entire CRSA Board. More specific informa- tion on these people and their roles can be found in Section 66 of this chapter. The Program Director upon notification of a pending permit or action by a state agency will, in consultation with the affected communities, Regional corporation contacts, and appropriate CRSA Board member(s), draft written recommendations on project consistency with the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan. The written recom- mendations will include the reasons for the recommendation, with reference to applicable policies, and condi- tions, if necessary, which make the project or activity consistent with the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan. This review will be accomplished within the time frame established by the permit review regulations. The Program Director will be assisted in writing the recommendation by the network of appropriate village con- tacts. Input from native corporation land managers will also be solicited, as appropriate. The village contact is responsible for providing information on local community concerns about the proposed development. Some developments will be of interest to more than one village, or have regional implications. The Program Director will insure that simultaneous notice is given to every concerned party. In addition to the village contacts and corporate land managers, the Program Director will have as a resource Bering Straits CRSA Board members from the area affected by the proposed action to act in an oversight capacity and to advise on recommendations. In the case of a major region-wide action or conflict, the Program Director and the affected Board member will poll or convene the entire Bering Straits CRSA Board. The Board may request a public meeting under the provisions of Permit Review procedures, and will determine the project's consistency and propose conditions for development founded upon both the Coastal Management Plan and the input from Public meetings. 6-11 Stipulations or special conditions developed through this process will be recommended to the lead agency for placement on the state or federal permit. These conditions are based upon standards which meet the scope, intent and purpose of the plan policies and land use area designations. Time Line The Bering Straits Program Director will determine within ten calendar days as to whether the information submit- ted with a consistency review is adequate to determine consistency, or if more material is needed. If more informa- tion is required, the Program Director will notify the OMB-DGC permit coordinator or the coordinating agency and specifically identify the necessary information. The lead agency will determine if the request is reasonable, and then provide additional review time in accordance with procedures outlined in 6 AAC 50.110. he Program Director in consultation with the local village contacts, native corporations as appropriate, and CRSA Board Members will reach a consistency recommendation within 24 days of receipt of a complete application for 40 day permits and 44 days for 60 day permits. Consistency recommendations will include any conditions necessary to make the project consistent with the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan. Any disapproval or stipulations will include reference to the applicable policies and suggested changes which may make the project consistent. Two additional review procedures apply to permits for major project activities. As presented in Section 6.7, the CRSA Board strongly recommends that developers make a pre-development presentation before the Board, at least six months prior to filing a permit application. The Board hopes to work with developers to initiate early communication and facilitate the permit review by the Board and local interests. Secondly, a permit application conference should be held within 10 working days of permit submittal. It will be coordinated by the lead agency and include the CRSA Board, representation from local communities and landowners, and appropriate state agencies. Within 5 days of notice on major projects, the Bering Straits CRSA Program Director may request that the coor- dinating agency organize a permit application conference, to be held by day 10 of the review. The CRSA Board may, using the procedures outlined in 6 AAC 50.100, request that a public hearing on the project be held in the region to gather information or ideas. The coordinating agency may be requested to grant a request for extension of the review schedule to allow time for the hearing. A final recommendation on the project consistency will be issued within 10 days after any hearing or teleconference. All consistency recommendations for federal or state permits will be forwarded in a timely manner. 6.5 LOCAL INVOLVEMENT IN CRSA BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS Communities, tribal governments, and major landowners within the Bering Straits CRSA will work with the CRSA Board in preparing their consistency recommendations. Procedure Upon receiving notice of a permit application, the Program Director will notify the Bering Straits CRSA Board member within whose district the activity is proposed to occur. The Program Director will also contact the affected communities and the Regional Corporation to ascertain that they have been notified of the consistency review. If not, the Program Director will notify them of the impending activities and contact the lead agency to request that appropriate information be distributed. The Program Director, and CRSA Board member(s) as appropriate, will work with community and landowner representatives to identify concerns and recommended conditions on development. If a Permit Application Conference is held, the Program Director will make sure that local concerns are presented. Local input to the CRSA Board’s Consistency Recommendation must be received within 20 days 6-12 for 40 day permits and within 30 days for 60 day permits. Where local concerns cannot be incorporated into the CRSA Consistency Recommendation, the Program director must provide a justification to the local contacts involved. If affected communities, the Bering Straits CRSA Board, or program staff need additional information to complete their consistency determination, additional information may be requested by the CRSA up to day 25 of a 50 day review or up to day 15 of a 30 day review (6AAC 50.070). Any person or affected party may request, of the coordinating agency, that a public hearing be held on the project or activity undergoing a consistency determination. The Program Director, in coordination with CRSA Board members and affected parties, may decide that there is insufficient information to make a consistency determina- tion and/or that the scope of a project requires a public hearing. If it is determined that a Public hearing is in order, the Program Director shall request in writing that the coordinating agency hold a public hearing, and outline the need for such a hearing. 6.6 KEY CRSA BOARD PARTICIPANTS AND RESPONSIBILITY CRSA Board The Bering Straits CRSA Board is responsible for local implementation of the Coastal Management Program. They will oversee preparation of the CRSA consistency recommendation. They also have several other responsibilities: ° Annual review, and amendment if required, of the Bering Straits CRSA Program and review of permit actions approved under the program; e Holding Pre-Development conference reviews for proposed major projects; and . Coordination with local communities and landowners to ensure their Participation in consistency recom- mendations, conferences, and plan amendments. Bering Straits CRSA Board members will serve individually to act as a resource for the Program Director and in an oversight capacity, depending on whose districts are affected by the proposed action. If affected members are not available, the Board Chairperson will provide assistance. The draft consistency recommendation for each Project should be reviewed or discussed with the Board member prior to being sent to the state. Projects and other actions with great significance for the coastal area will be brought to the Board member attention upon receipt. The Board member may recommend to the Chairperson to call a special session of the entire Coastal Board to determine consistency and/or conditions for development. Program Director The Program Director performs several key functions to insure that information and consistency determinations are processed expeditiously. The Program Director will function under the direction of the Coastal Board in represen- ting the Board’s interest in coastal affairs. Consistency recommendations are made by the Board and communication of these recommendations will be through the Program Director as staff to the Board. As the initial contact point for state agencies, the Program Director must see that information has been received in a timely manner by the parties who are involved in the consistency process. Second, the Program Director must be able to determine if the information received is adequate for a consistency recommendation. Third, a decision must be made about which projects are routine or if approval of the Project has great significance to 6-13 the coastal area and should be reviewed and discussed with the Coastal Board. Routine approvals will be pro- cessed by the Program Director with the help of the affected Board member(s) and the village contacts. Projects with great significance for the coastal area may be subject to review by the entire Coastal Board. Fourth, project impacts will be weighed against the plan policies. A draft consistency recommendation for the Board, with appropriate wording and mitigating measures, will be developed by the Program Director. Fifth, feedback from the local contacts and other interested parties will be integrated into the consistency recommendation. Sixth, the Program Director will be responsible for responding with a district consistency recommendation in a timely manner. Seventh, the Program Director will provide staff support for the CRSA Board activities and keep the entire Board advised of activities. Eighth, the Coastal Program Director will be responsible for developing a tracking system which will monitor project compliance with any terms or conditions placed on the permit as a result of the local consistency recommendation. The Program Director will be responsible for the annual report to the state as required by regulation. Village Contacts Village contacts include representatives of the City Council, the IRA/Traditional Council, and the village corpora- tion. The village contacts are responsible for providing local notice of the project. Village contacts will provide accurate and timely input back to the Program Director with detailed information on potential impacts and values in the area of the project. Village contacts will help the Program Director monitor project compliance with local concerns and conditions. They are expected to be knowledgeable about their own local area, but it is up to the Program Director to integrate their concerns into a consistency response based upon the plan policies. The villages will nominate a person to be the local contact, and the nominations will be certified by the Coastal Board. Village and regional native corporations, who own large amounts of land within the coastal area, are also key local entities and will participate in the local consistency recommendation and in other relevant planning pro- cesses. The Program Director is required to contact corporate land managers regarding pending consistency requests, development activities, and to solicit their input and recommendations regarding the consistency deter- mination. This input will be forwarded to the Board. This plan's policies will provide consistency guidelines for corporate lands. 6.7 PLANNING FOR MAJOR PROJECTS Certain types of activities have the potential to significantly impact coastal resources and create major changes within the CRSA. The region's residents are anxious to participate in agency planning for large scale development projects and land management decisions. A consistency determination made at the time of a permit approval often takes place after the planning process is completed. When they don’t participate in the planning process, local entities require more review time for permits. Conflicts that could have been avoided by mutual agreement are costly in terms of time and effort already spent, and in project delay. There are three procedures that are strongly encouraged for major activities of area-wide concern: pre-development conferences; permit application conferences; and local partnership in planning activities. Participation in these procedures has the following objectives: ° apply coastal management policies early in project or plan development; e address problems and potential consistency determination conflicts prior to the approval stage; ° speed up subsequent permits or approvals through resolution of issues; and e ensure the compatibility of future planning projects with the approved Coastal Management Program. 6-14 Any policies, standards, and stipulations developed through the three procedures will be amended to the Bering Straits CRSA Coastal Management Program through the amendment process outlined in Coastal Policy Council procedures. Major Activities of Regional Concern The following types of activities and plans are considered to be major activities of regional concern: 1. commercial timber sales 2. land disposals 3. Fire Area Management Plans 4. transportation corridor designation and/or construction (not associated with community facilities) 5. mineral exploration and/or development (projects requiring development of new airstrip or roads, and/or significant stream diversion) 6. energy exploration and/or development (coal, oil and gas not including preliminary exploring work such as upland seismic testing, and geothermal resources) 7. offshore mining 8. large scale gravel extraction (greater than 25,000 cubic yards) 9. classification or reclassification of state lands for the above uses 10. cleanup and disposal of hazardous wastes, including the DERA Program 11. development of management guidelines for uses and activities on National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management lands 12. Arctic Policy Development Pre-Development Conferences At least six months prior to filing a permit application, parties proposing activities on the major activity list are strongly encouraged to present a plan for activities to the CRSA Board. Presentations should include a descrip- tion, location, and scheduling of the proposed activities. Within 30 days of notification of intent to make a presenta- tion, the Bering Straits CRSA Board will hold a presentation meeting and arrange for the attendance of affected communities and major landowners. After the presentation, discussions may be held to identify issues and con- flicts that need to be addressed prior to permit review and the Bering Straits CRSA Board preparation of a con- sistency recommendation. The Board will be ready to work with developers in project planning as requested. The Program Director will provide a written summary to the developer, outlining major consistency concerns. Copies will be sent to OMB-DGC and the coordinating agency. All pre-development conferences are open to the public, and public notice of the meeting will be provided. Affected resource agencies will be notified in advance by the CRSA Board and invited to attend. 6-15 Permit Application Conference After a permit is filed or an intent of action given for activities in the major regional activitiy list, the lead agency will schedule a Permit Application Conference if formally requested by the CRSA. The purpose of this conference is to discuss the coastal management and permitting issues of the proposed activity, and to work towards resolu- tion of potential issues and conflicts. After receipt of the Permit Application, the Program Director will contact the lead agency, confirm that a conference is necessary, and assist in its scheduling. This conference should be scheduled not later than 10 working days after notification of the action is received by the Program Director. Ata minimum, representatives of the lead agen- cy, CRSA Board, affected communities, major landowners, and affected resource agencies will be invited to par- ticipate. Depending on the nature of the activity and travel constraints, the conference may involve a meeting or teleconference. Subsequent work sessions may be beneficial to reaching consensus on consistency. The following aspects of the proposed action will be reviewed at this time: 1) benefits to the region, local community, and Alaska 2) scale or size of proposed activity 3) alternative locations and scales of development 4) timing alternatives for development 5) alternate site characteristics 6) impacts of the proposed activity on the people, subsistence resources, biological resources, air and water quality, and adjacent land use activities and landowners of the area 7) mitigation procedures 8) reclamation requirements 9) other conditions and stipulations for development as required The Program Director will prepare a written finding of fact on each of the nine aspects. The findings will be includ- ed in the Board’s response to the permit application. For activities of area-wide concern, additional permit application requirements are listed in Section 6.10. Local Partnership in Planning Activities Local partnership in state and federal planning activities that affect allocation of coastal resources in the Region is desirable. This partnership will help meet the requirements of 6 AAC 50 that state planning activities must be compatible with approved district coastal management programs. The Bering Straits CRSA partnership in State and federal planning activities is strongly encouraged to allow local residents to work with agency decision-makers in planning for major activities. The term “partnership” is not intended to imply that the Bering Straits CRSA would assume equal authority in planning decisions, but to establish that there will be meaningful participation of the coastal district in planning processes. State and federal agencies are strongly encouraged to include representatives of the CRSA Board, affected communities, and major landowners in any planning teams formed to address regional planning and resource allocation. 6-16 This process establishes a partnership between the Coastal Board, local major landowners and state agencies. This planning process can successfully address the local needs of a subsistence-based economy. Through the use of existing state and federal planning efforts augmented by local landowners, state and corporate land and resource administrators can come to an agreement about how, where, and when activities should occur to assure protection and wise utilization of coastal resources. The Coastal Board will help identify the local representatives who are necessary to work with state and/or federal agencies to assure that the plans reflect local concerns and have credibility in both the district and in state government. Local participation is expected in major planning activities such as those described below: ° The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) develops land use plans containing land allocations and management guidelines known as Area Plans. Area Plans are developed for specific areas of the state to ensure that multiple uses of state land occur compatibly. An Area Plan can designate state land to be managed for the opportunities of habitat protection, commercial timber, land disposal areas, transportation corridors, mineral development, and energy development. Thus the DNR Area Plan ad- dresses seven of the eight activities of area-wide concern. e To fulfill those requirements, the Northwest Area Planning Team and its advisory committee includes appropriate representatives of the Department of Natural Resources, major landowners in the district, other state departments as appropriate (such as ADEC and ADF&G), and the Coastal Board. The ad- visory committee will make recommendations as a consensus group to the Commissioner of DNR. The CRSA Board is actively participating in the development of the Northwest Area Plan. Board con- cerns include protection of subsistence resources, use areas, and associated habitat; closing sen- sitive fish and wildlife habitats to mineral entry; the protection of reindeer fawning areas and winter grazing areas; oil and gas lease sales; offshore mining; and land disposals. ° Fire management planning initiated by the Alaska Land Use Council will be used to satisfy coastal planning for fire management. This process, which involves local representatives, can meet planning needs for the portions of the fire management plan which include the Bering Straits CRSA district. A fire management plan has recently been completed for this area which meets the CMP requirements for fire management for most of the area. e The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities prepares Regional Transportation Studies to determine transportation facility needs and program capital projects. As part of the regional transporta- tion study, resource development needs are assessed, along with conflicts associated with transporta- tion improvements. During plan preparation, local input is obtained through the steering committee and public hearings. Participation on the steering committee by the Bering Straits CRSA Board and major landowners will meet CRSA planning needs. e Department of Natural Resources Oil and Gas Lease Sales can have significant effects on coastal resources. In the past, the state has used the Social, Environmental, and Economic Assessment (SEEA) process to assess impacts on coastal resources and provide limited public input. Local participation in early stages of oil and gas leasing is invited and encouraged. ¢ The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has prepared Regional Guides to provide information for departmental action on resource allocation, permitting, permit review, and policy formulation. Local participation in the revision and updating of Regional Guide resource information and recommenda- tions will include the Bering Straits CRSA Board. ¢ The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is completing scoping and data collection for Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR) by the end of 1986. Draft and Final Management Plans will then be prepared. 6-17 By hosting frequent discussions and exchanging resource and management data, the CRSA Board and USFWS can work towards consistency with the coastal management program. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for administration of the DERA defense site waste cleanup program, which is currently cleaning up defense sites in the Bering Straits region. CRSA con- cerns include adequate public notice and involvement, methods of waste transport and disposal, access to cleanup sites, and the status of waste cleanup on past Department of Defense sites conveyed to Native Corporations. The National Park Service prepares conservation unit management plans for areas designated under ANILCA. Preparation of these plans includes input from local residents, communities, native corpora- tions, and other state and federal agencies. The Bureau of Land Management prepares management framework plans and conducts other plann- ing activities such as planning for designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Bering Straits CRSA Board will play a partnership role in the following plans, by area of concern: commercial timber sales - DNR Area Plan and amendments land disposals - DNR Area Plan and amendments fire management plans - BLM Fire Management Plans transportation corridor designation and/or construction - DOT/PF Regional Transportation Studies, DNR Area Plan and amendments mineral exploration and/or development - DNR Area Plan and amendments, SEEA or replacement Title 38 process energy exploration and/or development - DNR Area Plan and amendments large scale gravel extraction at new sites - DNR Area Plan and amendments and Bering Straits Regional Strategies classification or reclassification of state and federal lands for the above uses - DNR Area Plan and amendments Management plans and guidelines - AMNWR management plans, Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Management Plan hazardous waste cleanup - DERA public involvement Planning Activities and Consistency During the development of regional plans, permit applications for major projects may be submitted or other activities such as lease sales scheduled. In this situation the ongoing planning process should have input into the con- sistency determination process. Agencies and other parties responsible for consistency recommendations and determinations should consult with staff involved on planning teams for input on consistency. 6-18 District Program Amendment After completion of regional planning efforts, the CRSA Board will propose amending the Bering Straits Coastal Management Program to include pertinent policies, classifications, and resource data developed mutually through the specific planning process. Any amendments proposed will follow authorized procedures for district program amendment. 6.8 AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS Every year a formal review of the coastal plan may be initiated by the Program Director. Changes which will keep the plan up to date and relevant can be proposed and examined. Some adjustments may be made to coastal boundaries or land use districts based on information from new studies. Policies may be further refined and stan- dards adopted to expedite the consistency process. More detailed plans developed for special areas, such as AMSA's, will be incorporated into the coastal plan by CRSA Board action. This formal review gives residents, developers, local land owners, and communities in the coastal area an opportunity to propose amendments and become familiar with the plan and its policies. Adoption of an agency plan which contains new policies or use areas or changes existing policies or use area boundaries is a significant amendment to the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan. A plan which does not alter or add policies or use areas may be proposed as a routine amendment to the Bering Straits Coastal Manage- ment Plan. The amendment must be approved by the Coastal Policy Council. 6.9 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT Amanagement plan with ineffectual policy monitoring/enforcement is like a harpoon without a point - an impressive looking tool until called upon. Due to funding restrictions and logistical problems related to the size of the state, past monitoring of permitted development activities has not always been effective. AS 46.40.100 gives the State of Alaska enforcement responsibility for provisions of the Alaska Coastal Management Program; violations of Ber- ing Straits Coastal Management policies and consistency-related permit stipulations are violations of the Alaska Coastal Management Program. The Bering Straits CRSA Board will strongly encourage the State to prosecute permit violations. The Program Director is the key local individual in monitoring projects to ensure that local conditions on approval are carried out in the development process. Community contacts will be used by the Program Director in monitor- ing permit stipulations and conditions. Individuals and communities in the coastal area may report suspected violations to both the Coastal Program director and state resource agency. The Program Director will investigate the report and follow up with any appropriate action to insure state enforcement of the conditions. The Program Director will elicit state and/or federal agency support in monitoring and enforcement, including funding, and supply the agencies which are responsible for ensuring compliance with copies of local reports. This will include adherence to permit conditions and coastal policies. 6.10 PERMIT PRE-APPLICATION PACKET REQUIREMENTS In order to assist the Bering Straits CRSA Board in making consistency recommendations, and avoid time-delays during project reviews, the following information should be included in pre-application packets for permits and other activities requiring consistency determinations: e The description of the project or activity required should include a narrative which explains the pur- pose of the project or activity. 6-19 ° A map at the most appropriate scale (may be hand drawn) which shows the location of the activity and any structures, roads or alterations of the area. ¢ The date and times the proposed activities will commence and end. ° Any precautions or special procedures that will be used to bring the project into conformity with the intent of the enforceable policies of this Coastal Plan should be identified. e — Written justification should be supplied if a “prudent and feasible” policy from Chapter 5 cannot be met. . Supporting material such as studies and assessments of the project’s impacts on coastal resources such as fish spawning areas and migration routes, should be submitted at this time. If the project or activity falls under the jurisdiction of a regional plan incorporated into the CRSA program through amendment (such as a completed Area Plan), the developer may reference the plan and appropriate section and omit the preceding detailed information except for the Coastal Project Questionnaire. For major activities of regional concern discussed in Section 6.7, the following additional information should be submitted as part of the pre-application packet: 1) need, necessity, and benefits for the activity 2) scale or size of proposed activity 3) alternative locations and scales of development 4) timing alternatives for development 5) alternate site characteristics 6) impacts of the proposed activity on the people, subsistence resources, biological resources, air and water quality, and adjacent land use activities and landowners of the area 7) mitigation procedures 8) reclamation requirements 9) consideration of the effectiveness of new technology 6-20 Golovnin Bay is one of the areas recommended for consideration as an AMSA. (DCRA photo) Chapter Seven: Areas Meriting Special Attention Chapter 7: Areas Meriting Special Attention 7.1. INTRODUCTION Some coastal areas and resources merit special attention. Because of unique aesthetic, ecological, recreational, geophysical, or industrial values or combinations of these values, certain coastal areas and resources warrant additional management consideration. Such areas may be designated as “Areas Which Merit Special Attention” (AMSA). Once established, the AMSA will serve to alert local, state, and federal authorities to possible resource conflicts and the need for a more detailed assessment. The Alaska Coastal Management Act (A.S. 46.40.210(1)) defines an AMSA as ”...a delineated geographic area within the coastal area which is sensitive to change or alteration and which, because of plans or commitments or because a claim on the resources within the area delineated would preclude subsequent use of the resources to a conflicting or incompatible use, warrants special management attention, or which, because of its value to the general public, should be identified for current or future planning, protection or acquisition”. Criteria used as a basis for designating a coastal area as one which merits special attention (A.S. 46.40.210(1); 6AAC 80.160(b)) include: 1. Areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; 2. Areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources; 3. Areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity; 4. Areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters; 5. Areas of unique geologic or topographic significance which are susceptible to industrial or commercial development; 6. Areas of significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion or settlement: 7. Areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land or resources, including coastal floodplains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches, and offshore sand deposits; 8. Areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging; 9. Areas with special scientific values or opportunities, including those where ongoing research projects could be jeopardized by development or conflicting uses and activities; and 10. Potential esturine or marine sanctuaries. Any one or combination of these categories can justify an AMSA designation. Many areas within the Bering Straits Region could qualify as AMSAs under the above-listed criteria. In many cases, though, specific federal laws already have been enacted to provide for the protection of valuable resource. In the Bering Straits CRSA, federal laws have created the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, and the Alaska National Maritime Refuge System. The CRSA Board believes that nominating these areas as AMSAs is an unnecessary duplication of government regulations. The responsibility for designating areas which merit special attention within a coastal district program rests with the CRSA Board. Eleven coastal areas and areas with coastally dependent resources within the district have been recommended for consideration as areas which merit special attention. a ow =Swemnonsrwono Stuart Island/Klikitarik Portage Roadhouse Golovnin Bay Rocky Point Safety Sound Cape Nome Nome River Pilgrim River Port Clarence Cape Prince of Wales St. Lawrence Island 7.2 CRITERIA FOR AMSA DESIGNATION A proposal for AMSA designation of an area may be included in a district program or as an amendment to a pro- gram. In both cases the proposed AMSA must secure approval of the Alaska Coastal Policy Council (CPC). In accordance with 6 AAC 80.160, each proposal must contain the following information; 1. 2. The basis or bases for designation under AS 46.40.210(1) and 6 AAC 80.160(b); Amap showing the geographic location, surface area, and, where appropriate, bathymetry of the area; A description of the area which includes dominant physical and biological features; The existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of the area, including existing uses and activities; The existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status of the adjacent shoreland and sea areas, including uses and activities; Present and anticipated conflicts among users and activities within or adjacent to the area, if any; and A proposed management scheme which includes a description of proper and improper uses and ac- tivities of land and water resources within the area, a statement of policies which will be applied in managing the area, and an identification of the authority which will be used to implement the manage- ment scheme. Management schemes for areas which merit special attention must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or values for which the area was designated. The CRSA has identified these eleven areas for consideration as Areas Meriting Special Attention, and encourages future development of management plans for each area. More detailed management schemes for these areas are beyond the scope of this document. Designation as AMSAs and approval of management plans for them would be a significant amendment to the Bering Straits CRSA Coastal Management Program. 7.3. DESCRIPTIONS OF AMSAS Proposed AMSA locations by USGS quadrangle, township, and range, are listed in Appendix C. A description and basis for consideration of each area is presented below. 7.3.1 Stuart Island/Klikitarik Basis for Designation: AS. 46.210(1)(a) - areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance. A.S. 46.40.210(I)(b) - areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. ASS. 46.40.210(|)(d) - areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes the coastline and offshore waters from Klikitarik to and including Stuart Island, excluding Cape Stephens. The coastline and offshore waters are home for migrating salmon, nesting shorebirds, seals, walrus, and beluga and gray whales. Herring spawning along St. Michael Bay between June 1 and July 15 sustain the region’s only herring roe-on-kelp fishery as well as commercial and subsistence herring fisheries. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: Private: Stebbins Native Corporation, St. Michael Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface. State: Offshore waters and submerged lands from mean high water to the 3-mile limit. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: Federal: Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge offshore waters and submerged lands past the 3-mile limit; Cape Stephens is part of the Alaska Maritime Refuge System and, therefore, excluded from AMSA nomination under 6 AAC 85.040(1). Present and Anticipated Conflicts: The entire coastline and offshore waters from Klikitarik to Cape Stephens and Stuart Island is an important sub- sistence use area for the people of Stebbins and St. Michael. St. Michael Bay is one of five potential onshore oil and gas facility sites that could be utlilized in the event that commercial quantities of hydrocarbons are discovered in Norton Sound. St. Michael boasts one of two deepwater ports in the region. Development would result in increased marine traffic and support facilities. The southern coast of Norton Sound was identified as an area with a high Probability of acute or chronic oil pollution affecting important habitats or sensitive biological resources. Herring eggs and larvae are extremely sensitive to oil contamination. Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7.3.2 Portage Roadhouse Basis for Designation: A.S. 46.40.210(I)(d) - areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes the coastline from Portage Roadhouse to Iron Creek. Beluga whale and bearded and ringed seals migrate along the coast. Nearby Norton Bay has been identified as a beluga calving area (Starr et al. 1981). Large schools of salmon, particularly pinks and silvers, are found along the coast. Nearby Kwiniuk, Tubutulik, and Kwik Rivers are important salmon spawning streams. An Alaska Department of fish and Game count identified the Kwiniuk and Tubutulik Rivers as numbers one and three, respectively, for pinks in the region and numbers two and four for silvers (ADF&G 1983). These river drainages are also important for waterfowl. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: Private: Elim Native Corporation. State: All offshore waters and submerged lands from mean high water to the 3-mile limit. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: Private: Elim Native Corporation. Present and Anticipated Conflicts: The Portage Roadhouse area has been identified as one of four potential onshore oil and gas facility sites should commercial quantities of hydrocarbons be discovered in the Lease 57 area (Woodward-Clyde 1984). Due to the onshore topography and offshore bathymetry, Portage Roadhouse is the only feasible location in this area (Woodward-Clyde 1984). In this area, ocean currents move along the coast in an easterly direction (Starr et al. 1981). Seasonal subsistence activities along the coast engaged in by Elim and Golovin residents include beluga whale, bearded seal, and ringed seal hunting and crab fishing in winter and spring; salmon setnetting in summer; and Moose hunting in fall. Location of onshore facilities in this area will create impacts primarily for the village of Elim (Woodward-Clyde 1984). Increased traffic or chronic oil pollution resulting from onshore oil and gas facilities could adversely affect subsistence resources. Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7-4 7.3.3 Golovnin Bay Basis for Designation: A.S. 46.40.210(1)(b) - areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes Golovnin Bay, Golovnin Lagoon, and Fish River Flats. These areas provide habitat for nesting and feeding waterfowl, salmon (primarily chums, some kings and pinks), herring, crab, spotted and bearded seals, beluga whales, and clams. Other marine inhabitats include boreal and pond smelt; sandlance; humpback, broad, and round whitefish; Bering and least cisco; Arctic char; saffron cod; starry and Arctic flounder; and tubenose, Bering and sturgeon poachers (Barton 1978). Kelp harvested along the coast also provides an important food source (Boone, personal communication). Golovnin Bay also contains potential deposits of precious metals. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: State: Submerged waters in Golovnin Bay and Golovnin Lagoon. Private: White Mountain Native Corportion - surface selection; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface selection of Fish River Flats. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: Private: Golovin Native Corporation and White Mountain Native Corporation - surface selection; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface selection. Present and Anticipated Conflicts: Several offshore mining permits were granted in Golovnin Bay in the late 1970's (Gallagher, personal communica- tion). Currently, the Department of Natural Resources is reviewing permits to determine if deposits exist. If DNR determines that the probability of commercial mineral deposits is likely the agency may convert the permits to leases. Applicants will have seven years to prove their claims. Commercial fishing, and potentially processing, provide much of the income in Golovin. Since juvenile herring are extremely sensitive to increased turbidity (Canada Department of the Environment 1977), dredging associated with offshore mining could jeopardize subsistence and commercial herring fisheries. A detailed management plan is needed to evaluate mining and its effects on the biological resources of the area to determine whether mining and commercial fish harvesting are compatible. Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 75 7.3.4 Rocky Point Basis for Designation: A.S. 45.40.210(1)(a) - areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance. A.S. 46.40.210(1)(b) - areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes the coastline from Rocky Point to Topkok Head. This stretch of coast contains the largest mainland seabird colonies in the region. Estimates of bird populations at Bluff, the largest of the colonies, range between 40,000 and 90,000 (Drury 1980). Murres comprise about 75 percent of the nesting birds. These seabirds feed offshore. Endangered peregrine falcons nest at several locations along the cliffs. The eastern por- tion of this coast provides important subsistence resources for the villages of Golovin and White Mountain. Villagers catch herring and crab along the coast and gather eggs at several seabird colonies. Marine waters in the area are among the most productive in the region (Wolotira 1977). Offshore waters support the largest known concentrations of sandlance in the region (Starr et al. 1981), a vital food source for fish-eating seabirds. The reproductive success for some seabirds largely depends on the availability of sandlance. Herring spawn along the rocky shores, and salmon, capelin, king crab, and several species of bottomfish range along the coast. Identified upland and offshore mineral deposits include gold, copper, lead, zinc, chromium, molybdenum, and silver. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: Private: White Mountain Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface. State: All offshore waters and submerged lands from mean high water to the 3-mile limit. Federal: Offshore waters and submerged lands beyond the 3-mile limit. Bluff and Topkok Head are part of the Alaska National Maritime Refuge System. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: Private: White Mountain Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface. Federal: Offshore waters and submerged lands beyond the 3-mile limit. Bluff and Topkok Head are part of the Alaska National Marine Refuge System. Present and Anticipated Conflicts: Offshore gold dredging was attempted west of Bluff in 1983. Without adequate safeguards, offshore mining in 7-6 this area could degrade the marine habitat and adversely affect subsistence resources and subsistence harvest activities. Concerns associated with dredging in this area include increased turbidity, damage to herring eggs and larvae, interference with migrating salmon fry, and noise which could disrupt seabirds at nearby colonies. Natural mercury seepage is high in the area both onshore and offshore. Offshore dredging could stir up settled mercury, significantly increasing mercury levels in the marine water column. If mercury entered the food chain, it could contaminate subsistence and commercial species and ultimately affect humans. Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7.3.5 Safety Sound Basis for Designation: A.S. 46.40.210(1)(b) - areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources. A.S. 46.40.210(1)(c) - areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes Safety Sound, Port Safety, and the drainages of the Solomon, Bonanza, and Eldorado Rivers. In spring and fall this area supports nesting and feeding waterfowl and shorebirds. Woodby and Divoky (1982) estimated that 28,000 birds occupied Safety Sound during their aerial surveys. A channel extending from Safety Sound to Bonanza River and adjoining marshes and lagoons (including the Flambeau and Eldorado River wetlands) host large flocks of summering geese, cranes, and ducks, particularly in August and September (Drury 1980). The Flambeau and Eldorado Rivers, which flow into Safety Sound, and the Bonanza and Solomon Rivers to the east support salmon, Arctic char, and grayling. Moose and other animals roam these drainages. Birds, bird eggs, fish, and moose in the area provide important subsistence and recreational resources for Nome and Solomon residents. The Solomon and Eldorado River drainages hold rich mineral potential. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: Private: Sitnasuak Native Corporation, Solomon Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface. State: Navigable streams and all offshore waters and submerged lands from mean high water to the 3-mile limit. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: City of Nome. Present and Anticipated Conflicts: Possible conflicting uses include proposed oil and gas facilities at Cape Nome, and mining in the upper Eldorado and the length of the Solomon River drainages. The Solomon River drainage contains many placer mines. The Big Hurrah Mine is located in the upper reaches of this watershed. Pacific Cornwall Enterprises has done ex- ploratory work near the mine and will likely begin mining operations if they can successfully negotiate with Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC) for mineral rights. Fish and other aquatic life important to subsistence activities of the region’s residents could be adversely affected by mining in the watershed. Oil and gas facilities, associated aircraft traffic, and other potential disturbances (including chronic pollution from an oil terminal) could significantly reduce use of the area by birds (Dames and Moore 1980). The City of Nome Coastal Management Program also recommended Safety Sound as an AMSA. Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7.3.6 Cape Nome Basis for Designation: A.S. 46.210(d) - areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes Cape Nome and offshore waters. Moose and waterfowl occupy the Cape Nome area, located near the mouths of the biologically important Flambeau and Eldorado Rivers and Safety Sound. The latter is home to an estimated 28,000 birds (Woodby and Divoky 1982). Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: Private: Sitnsuak Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface. State: All waters and submerged lands from mean high water to the 3-mile limit. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: City of Nome. State of Alaska. Present and Anticipated Conflicts: Should Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development occur, Cape Nome has been repeatedly mentioned as a primary site for development of land-based facilities (Berger et al. 1980, Woodward-Clyde 1984). These facilities could include oil storage, loading facilities, warehouses, housing, and related support facilities. A critical management concern is that the siting and review process for land-based facilitites must be subject to some review and control by the local communities. Adequated provisions must be made for housing, transportation, community facilities, and services. Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7.3.7 Nome River Basis for Designation: A.S. 46.40.210(1)(b) - areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources. A.S. 46.40.210(1)(c) - areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. Physical and Biological Features: Despite its small size, the Nome River is a productive river (ADF&G 1983). Biologists have documented 17 fish species in this system (ADF&G 1979). The river provides habitat for four salmon species in approximately the first 30 miles (ADF&G 1983). While chum salmon have been declining, coho salmon have been increasing (ADF&G 1984). In addition to fish, waterfowl frequent the Nome River watershed in spring and summer (ADF&G 1984). Willow thickets along the shores provide browse and cover for moose and smaller game like hares and Ptarmigan (ADF&G 1984). The river’s plume into Norton Sound attracts food for marine mammals (ADF&G 1984). Three species of seal — bearded, ringed, and spotted — are found nearshore, especially in spring and fall. King crab are available offshore in winter and spring. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: Private: Sitnasuak Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface; Frontier Realty. State: State lands and all navigable waters. City of Nome. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: Private: Sitnasuak Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface. Present and Anticipated Conflicts: Cabin sites are being sold in the river’s upper reaches. Several homes now occupy the riverbank in the upper Part of the drainage. Increased residential use could put more pressure on fish stocks, and sewage and wastewater from houses could contaminate the stream and lower its Productivity. The river valley contains several mining claims. Mining activity might boost the local economy but might also degrade the watershed and reduce fish populations and harvests. The City of Nome Coastal Management Program also recommended designation of the Nome River as an AMSA. Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7.3.8 Pilgrim River Basis for Designation: A.S. 46.40.210(1)(a) - areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance. A.S. 40.210(1)(c) - areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes the Pilgrim River and Salmon Lake. Salmon Lake is home to the only known red salmon in the region and the farthest north red salmon run in the state (Lee, personal communication). ADF&G fish surveys conducted between 1974 and 1983 reveal that the average run is below 800 fish. The Salmon Lake/Kuzitrin drainage is also an important moose hunting area for Nome residents. Pilgrim Hot Springs has been an important recreational site since the turn of the century and has been identified as having geothermal potential. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: Private: Mary’s Igloo Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - surface and subsurface (ANCSA Sec. 14(h)(8). State: State lands and all navigable waters (undetermined for Pilgrim River). Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: Private: Teller Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface. + Present and Anticipated Conflicts: Since completion of the Nome/Kougarok road in 1962, the red salmon run has reportedly declined as access was opened to Salmon Lake (Lee, personal communication). Although Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulations prohibit salmon fishing at Salmon Lake, enforcement is lax. The first state land disposal in the region, an 800-acre offering near the Pilgrim River, is currently under considera- tion. The entire area has strong recreational potential; however, a detailed management plan is needed for public and private lands before the natural resources of the area are destroyed. 7-10 Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7.3.9 Port Clarence Basis for Designation: A.S. 46.40.210(1)(b) - areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources. A.S. 46.40.210(1)(d) - areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access to, coastal waters. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas of importance for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes Port Clarence, Grantley Harbor, Tuksuk Channel, and Imuruk Basin. Grantley Har- bor and Imuruk Basin, and Tuksuk Channel which connects them, are among the region's most productive marine fish habitats. These waterbodies, located due east of Port Clarence, also serve as important nesting habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl. Large flocks of Canada geese and cranes pass through the area in late summer; 6,700 cranes were observed in 1981 (Woodby and Divoky 1982). Herring spawn in Grantley Harbor and Port Clarence from late June through early July (Barton 1978). Based on trawl surveys conducted in 1976, in addition to providing habitat for juvenile and adult herring, Grantley Harbor and Imuruk Basin support juvenile pink and chum salmon and boreal and pond smelt. Sandlance (particularly important for fish-eating seabirds); humpback, broad, and round whitefish; Bering and least cisco; Arctic char; saffron cod; capelin; rock greenling; Alaska plaice; starry and Arctic flounder; nine-spined and three-spined sticklebacks; and tubenose poachers also serve as important links in the marine food chain. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: Private: Brevig Mission Native Corporation, Teller Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface. State: All waters and submerged lands within Port Clarence, Grantley Harbor, Tuksuk Channel, and Imuruk Basin. Federal: U.S. Coast Guard. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: Private: Brevig Mission Native Corporation, Teller Native Corporation - surface; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface. Federal: BLM lands east of Imuruk Basin. 711 Present and Anticipated Conflicts: Port Clarence provides the best sheltered anchorage north of Dutch Harbor (Barton 1978) and has been identified as one of four sites in the region with potential as a center for onshore facilities in the event that commerical quantities of hydrocarbons are discovered (Woodward-Clyde 1984). The Port Clarence/Teller area has also been cited as a potential port for minerals transported by road or railroad from interior Seward Peninsula mining areas. Herring support locally important subsistence and commercial fisheries. Herring eggs and larvae are extremely sensitive to the kind of chronic oil pollution that could occur if Port Clarence becomes a major port facility. Many marine species have demersal eggs which may be buried in sand until they hatch. Oiling of these areas and subsequent movement of oil into sediments could cause high mortalities to hatching fish (Zimmerman 1980). Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7.3.10 Cape Prince of Wales Basis for Designation: A.S. 46.40.210(1)(b) - areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes the coastline from Cape Prince of Wales to Espenberg. The barrier islands and offshore waters and submerged lands off the northern coast of the Seward Peninsula contain many species of birds, marine mammals, and fish. The rivers and lagoons along the northern coast of the Seward Peninsula pro- vided the only extensive sheltered water between the Arctic Ocean coast and the Yukon River delta. The area is unusually productive for this latitude (Fortenberg 1974). Waterfowl species include brant, pintail, eiders, swans, white-fronted geese, and snow geese. Crab and shrimp populations are widespread throughtout the area. Marine mammals that inhabit the coast and coastal waters include polar bear; walrus; spotted, ring, and bearded seals; and beluga and gray whales. Salmon, flounder, whitefish, herring, lingcod, and smelt migrate along the coast. Commerical quantities of oil and natural gas may also exist in the area. Ownership, Juridiction, and Mangement: State: All offshore waters and submerged lands from mean high water to the 3-mile limit. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: Private: Shishmaref Native Corporation, Inalik Native Corporation, and Wales Native Corporation - surface selec- tion; Bering Straits Native Corporation - subsurface selection. Federal: National Park Service. 7-12 Present and Anticipated Conflicts: The State of Alaska has proposed to offer tracts in the Hope Basin for oil and gas lease sales. A detailed manage- ment plan is needed to study, coordinate, and regulate permitted and nonpermitted activities in these coastal waters to protect fish and wildlife populations and habitats, and to insure access to subsistence resources. Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7.3.11 St. Lawrence Island Basis for Designation: A.S. 46.40.210(1)(b) - areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources. 6 AAC 80.160(b)(1) - areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging. Physical and Biological Features: The proposed AMSA includes the coastline of St. Lawrence Island. This 1.27 million-acre island sustains about one thousand people, approximately 2.7 million seabirds (more than half of the region’s seabird population), as many as 100,000 walrus, and other wildlife. These wildlife resources are of local, regional, and statewide importance. Seven colonies along the north side of the island support most of the seabirds. Some colonies extend for several miles along cliffs 50 to 1,000 ft high. The largest colony contains as many as 750,000 birds at densities greater to 10 birds per square meter (Drury 1980). Approximately 62 percent of the crested auklets of the eastern Bering Sea region seasonally occupy the island (Drury 1980). In addition to millions of seabirds, the island’s extensive wetlands and lagoons support substantial numbers of migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Altogether, 22 waterfowl species use the island, and at least 12 species nest there (Fay 1961). Approximately 9,000 ducks, geese, and swans nest near the island’s lagoons and lakes. Another 25,000 birds feed and molt in these areas. In winter the open water around the island supports about 500,000 oldsquaws and 50,000 eiders (DOI 1982). In July and August 10,000 to 20,000 immature emperor geese (Fay 1961) from the Yukon Delta and perhaps the Soviet Union (King and Dau 1980) feed along the island’s northern and southern coasts. These areas may represent the principal summering grounds for populations of immature emperor geese in Alaska and Siberia. Snow geese from Wrangell Island (USSR) rest on the island in late September before cotinuing their southern migration. In spring and fall large herds of walrus come ashore on St. Lawrence Island. In October 1978, as many as 90,000 were hauled out on Salgaht, Maknik, and Kialegak Points. Others gathered at Chibukak and southwest of Savoonga (Frost et al. 1982). Birds, bird eggs, walrus, polar bears, reindeer, hares, Arctic fox, bowhead whales, seals, crab and fish provide the bulk of the villager’s diet (Ellanna 1980). The Island’s residents are particularly dependent upon subsistence because of few employment opportunities, the high cost of store-bought food, and strong cultural ties to subsistence pursuits. The island also has great archaeological resources, with 35 known abandoned villages and many more seasonal camps which allow for invaluable insight and appreciation of early Siberian Yuit life. FAB Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management: State: All offshore waters and submerged lands from mean high water to the 3-mile limit. Ownership, Jurisdiction, and Management of Adjacent Areas: Private: Gambell Native Corporation, Savoonga Native Corporation. Present and Anticipated Conflicts: In March 1984 the Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, sold tracts in OCS Lease Sale 83. This sale, and the following proposed lease sales, may have a direct and significant impact on the St. Lawrence Island coastline: Navarin Basin Lease Sale 107 and Norton Sound Lease Sale 100. No land or resource management plans have been completed for this area. A joint Gambell/Savoonga land use plan is currently being prepared. State-owned offshore waters and submerged lands included in this AMSA nomina- tion are not covered by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Northwest Area Plan. AMSA designation for this area would provided the impetus fo state/private management of these regionally important coastal resources. Proposed Management Scheme: To be prepared, contingent upon funding. 7-14 Elders’ Conference, Nome. (Kawerak Eskimo Heritage Program photo) Chapter Eight: Public Participation uonedionieg oNqnd 3ysrq JydeyD l Chapter 8: Public Participation 8.1 INTRODUCTION The Bering Straits Coastal Management Program has an extensive background of public participation and in- volvement. The program began in late 1979 when Kawerak, Inc., the native nonprofit organization for the Bering Straits Region, requested that the State hold an election on formation of a Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA). In mid-1980, residents of the region voted to form the CRSA and shortly thereafter elected a seven-member Board. The first Board meeting occurred in November 1980. Public participation has concentrated on educating the public on the status, content, and purpose of the plan; assimilating and verifying resource information; and holding agency and public meetings for review of draft plan products. 8.2 PUBLIC EDUCATION From late 1980 to December 1982, funding constraints limited regular Board meetings. Board meetings were held in adifferent village each time (Table 8-1) to allow village residents to learn about coastal management and provide an opportunity to express their concerns about coastal issues. Most of the village concerns focused on outer continental shelf lease sales, related potential for adverse impacts on subsistence resources, and protecting the region's predominantly subsistence way of life. During 1983 and mid-1984, staff members continued to hold public education and resource verification meetings in each of the district’s 15 second-class cities (Table 8-1). Additionally, CRSA staff and Board members gave presen- tations to a number of groups and conventions (Table 8-2). Between April 25 and June 19, 1983, the CRSA Board contracted with Alaska Attitudes, a professional polling firm, to conduct an attitude survey in the region. Residents were asked their views concerning management of coastal resources, the extent of their subsistence and commercial fishing activities, and their opinions on oil, gas, and alternative energy development. To administer the survey, the CRSA Board hired one resident from each village who was then trained by Alaska Attitudes to conduct survey interviews. Based on the 1980 U.S. Census, percentage of each village’s population was sampled in proportion to its size. A total of 288 face-to-face interviews, or approximately 25 percent of the region’s households, were surveyed. From survey information CRSA staff produced an initial draft of Issues, Goals, and Objectives for the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan (Chapter 2). A summary of survey results was mailed to every village in the region. In late 1983 the CRSA Board and staff prepared a summary brochure on the program. Seven hundred and fifty copies were distributed regionwide and to government agencies and organizations on the district’s mailing list. The brochure provided information on the Bering Straits Coastal Management Plan and summarized community attitude results. Between September and November 1983, CRSA staff produced a slide show which explained the coastal manage- ment program in the Bering Straits region at village and other public meetings. Four editions were produced: English; Inupiaq; St. Lawrence Island Yupik; and Central Yupik. The slide show was very effective. Periodically since 1982, articles were published in the Bering Straits School District's monthly newsletter, Strait Talk, to inform the public of the progress of the coastal management program. Periodic articles have also ap- peared in the Nome Nugget in a column entitled, ‘Coastal Resource Notes”. Regular program status reports from the Board Chairman to local municipalities, |RA/Traditional Councils, and village corporations have been ongoing since 1980. In November 1983 Kawerak, Inc., contracted with the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs to to develop the Bering Straits Regional Strategy to establish an organizational structure representing regional groups and publicly elected bodies. The organization and planning process are to address changes caused by economic development; to identify regional issues, goals, and policies; and to provide a constructive forum to enable quality regional investigation and response to issues of concern. The Bering Straits CRSA is represented on the Planning Board. The CRSA board regards regional strategy as a good forum for discussion of coastal management issues. From spring 1985 through spring 1986, the CRSA Board and staff conducted public hearings in all the incorporated communities of the region on the Public Hearing Draft of the Bering Straits CRSA coastal management program. 8.3. RESOURCE INFORMATION During village public meetings, CRSA Board and staff elicited information on fish and wildlife resource distribution and use. Subsistence use of the land has been identified by village residents as the primary and highest priority use of all lands in the coastal area. The CRSA planner prepared a subsistence map showing important hunting, fishing, and food-gathering areas. The harvest information was verified at public meetings in villages throughout the region. 8.4 AGENCY MEETINGS AND DRAFT PRODUCTS REVIEW In February 1983 the CRSA staff held a meeting in Anchorage to obtain resource information from state and federal agencies. Thereafter, additional meetings took place between CRSA staff and some state resource agencies, notably the Departments of Natural Resources, Transportation and Public Facilities, and Fish and Game. Draft chapters of the plan were reviewed at these meetings and comments obtained. As draft chapters were written, copies were mailed to key state and federal agencies, municipalities, IRA/Traditional Councils, Bering Straits Native Corporation, the City of Nome, village corporations, Kawerak, Inc., and other interested parties. The CRSA Board reviewed their comments and incorporated pertinent recommendations into the plan chapters. TABLE 8-1: BERING STRAITS CRSA BOARD MEETINGS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS DATES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATES OF PUBLIC PLACE MEETINGS MEETINGS Unalakleet 9/23-24/79 (Organizational Meeting) Savoonga 11/5/80 Gambell 11/6/80 11/6/80 Nome 11/7/80 Shaktoolik 2/23/81 2/23/81 Unalakleet 2/25/81 2/25/81 Elim 3/23/ 81 (with DNR) Nome 4/10/81 Unalakleet 4/30/81 Unalakleet 5/1/81 Unalakleet 6/4/81 (Executive Committee) Unalakleet 9/3/81 Elim 10/1/81 10/1/81 8-2 TABLE 8-1: (continued) DATES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATES OF PUBLIC PLACE MEETINGS MEETINGS Koyuk 10/2/81 10/2/81 St. Michael 1/11/82 111/82 Stebbins 12/82 1N2/82 Golovin 3/23/82 3/23/82 White Mountain 3/24/82 3/24/82 Unalakleet 5/14/82 Unalakleet 6/23/82 Unalakleet 8/3/82 Unalakleet 9/23-24/82 Unalakleet 12/9-10/82 Nome 2/2/83 2/3/83 Wales 2/21/83 Shishmaref 2/23/83 Diomede 2/24/83 Unalakleet 3/15-16/83 (Joint meeting with Cenaliulriit CRSA and NANA CRSA Boards) Unalakleet 3/16/83 Teller 4/6/83 4/6/83 Gambell 5/4/83 (with Sivuqa Corporation and City) Savoonga 5/5/83 Nome 6/4/83 Elim 10/25/83 Unalakleet 11/17/83 Shaktoolik 1/10/84 Koyuk 1N2/84 Shishmaref 1123-24/84 1124/84 Stebbins 2/6/84 St. Michael 2/7184 Diomede 3/9/84 Wales 3/10/84 8-3 TABLE 8-1: (continued) DATES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATES OF PUBLIC PLACE MEETINGS MEETINGS Gambell 3/15/84 3/14/84 Savoonga 3/16/84 3/16/84 Nome 3/27/84 Elim 3/28/84 White Mountain 3/29/84 Golovin 3/30/84 Unalakleet 413/84 Unalakleet 4/18-19/84 (workshop) Unalakleet §/2-3/84 Shishmaref 7N0/84 7/9/84 Nome (King Island Community) 4127/84 Unalakleet 9/25/84 Unalakleet 1/15/85 Unalakleet 2/26/85 Unalakleet 4/29/85 4/29/85 Nome 4/30/85 Teller 6/2/85 Brevig Mission 5/2/85 Shaktoolik 5/8/85 Koyuk 5/9/85 Elim 5/11/85 Golovin 5/13/85 White Mountain 5/14/85 Shishmaref 5/7/85 Diomede 5/18/85 Wales 5/19/85 Brevig Mission 9/10/85 Shishmaref 9/11/85 Unalakleet 9/27/85 St. Michael 9/30/85 Teller 11/5/85 8-4 TABLE 8-1: (continued) DATES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DATES OF PUBLIC PLACE MEETINGS MEETINGS —_—— ——K Oh Brevig Mission 11/7/85 St. Michael 11/10/85 Stebbins 1113/85 Unalakleet 11/15/85 Solomon 11/18/85 Nome (King Island Community) 11/20/85 Gambell 11/21/85 Savoonga 11/25/85 Koyuk 12/3/85 Shaktoolik 12/5/85 Shishmaref 12/9/85 Wales 12/11/85 White Mountain 12/13/85 Golovin 12/16/85 Elim 12/17/85 Shaktoolik 12/18/85 Gambell 1/25/86 Savoonga 1/26/86 Stebbins 2/25/86 Unalakleet 4/28/86 Unalakleet 6/19/86 Unalakleet 8/28-29/86 Unalakleet 9/17-18/86 TABLE 8-2: BERING STRAITS CRSA BOARD/STAFF PRESENTATIONS PLACE DATE GROUP Nome 1/21/83 AVCP - Kawerak Convention Nome 3/10/83 Bering Straits Women’s Spirit Rising Conference Nome 3/21/83 Kawerak Executive Committee Nome 1/25/84 Kawerak Board of Directors Shishmaref 24/84 North & Northwest Mayors’ Conference Nome 2/22/84 Elders’ Conference 8-5 TABLE 8-2: (continued) PLACE DATE GROUP Nome 3/28/84 Council Native Corporation Representative and DCRA Staff Meeting Nome 5/17/84 Department of Transportation Nome , 5/18/84 Bering Straits Native Corporation Board of Directors Mt. McKinley 6/7/84 Norton Basin Synthesis Meeting Anchorage 6/11/84 Dept. of Natural Resources Staff Meeting Anchorage 6/13/84 Bi-annual Coastal Management Conference Anchorage 6/14/84 Dept. of Transportation and Dept. of Natural Resources Staff Meeting Anchorage 6/22/84 Dept. of Fish and Game Staff Meeting Nome 6/25/84 Exxon; Oil Spill Seminar Nome 7N2/184 Reindeer Herder’s Association Staff Meeting Nome 7N3/84 ARCO; Oil Spill Seminar Anchorage 3/14/85 Alaska Federation of Natives Marine Mammals Conference Nome 4/8/85 Bering Straits Regional Strategy Meeting Nome 4/15/85 Kawerak, Sitnasauk, and King Island Village Corporation meetings with staff Anchorage 9/3/85 Department of Natural Resources Staff Meeting Montreal 9/19/85 ICC Arctic Policy Conference Unalakleet 9/26/85 BSNC/BSCRSA Boards Workshop Nome 10/9/85 Kawerak Board of Directors Meeting Nome 10/24/85 Bering Straits Regional Strategy Meeting Anchorage 10/29/85 Bi-annual Coastal Management Conference Nome 12/13/85 Bering Straits Regional Strategy Meeting Anchorage 12/21/85 IRA Task Force Meeting Fairbanks 113/86 Inspiration Mines; quarterly review of monitoring program Anchorage 1/27/86 Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs and Dept. of Fish and Game Staff Meeting Fairbanks 2/20/86 Northwest Area Plan; Planning Team Meeting Anchorage 3/20/86 Northwest Area Plan; Planning Team Meeting Anchorage 4/18/86 Dept. of Fish and Game Staff Meeting Gambell 4/20/86 IRA, City, Village Corporation Anchorage 6/15/86 Bi-annual State Coastal Management Conference Anchorage 6/25/86 Inspiration Mines; quarterly review of monitoring program Anchorage 8/12/86 Alaska Coastal Policy Council Working Group Nome 9/8/86 Kawerak Executive Committee 8-6 dl saorpuaddy pue AudeiZonaisg :auint Jadreua Jonathan Kakaruk at meeting. (Laura Kosell, BSNC photo) Bibliography Alaska Coastal Management Program (A.S. 46.40.010 et. seg.; 6 AAC 50.010 et. seq.) Alaska Cooperative Fishery Research Unit (ACFRU). 1986. Progress report on the effects of placer mining. University of Alaska Magazine, January 1986. Fairbanks, Ak. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1977. Biophysical boundaries of Alaska’s Coastal Zone. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1983. The effects of sedimentation on salmonids and macroinvertebrates — a literature review. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1983. Preliminary Norton Sound commercial salmon fisheries report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1986. An atlas to the catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes: Arctic region. Habitat Div., Anchorage, Ak. Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1986. Alaska habitat management guide, map atlas: Arctic region. Habitat Division, Anchorage, Ak. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1983. Fiscal year 1983 statewide natural resources plan. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1984. Five-year oil and gas leasing program. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. no date. Long range capital improvement program for Bering Straits area. Alaska Geographic. 1981. Alaska National Interest Lands — the D-2 Lands. Volume 8, Number 4. Alaska Power Authority. 1981. Reconnaissance study of energy requirements and alternatives for Kaltag, Savoonga, White Mountain, and Elim. Holden and Associates. Alderice, D., W.P. Wickett and J.R. Brett. 1958. Some effects of temporary exposure to low dissolved oxygen levels on Pacific salmon eggs. Journal of Fisheries Research Bulletin Canada 15(2). Alexander, G.R. and E.A. Hansen. 1977. The effects of sediment from a gas-oil well drilling accident on trout in creeks of the Williamsburg area, Michgan. Fisheries Research Report No. 1851, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division. Alt, K.L. 1977. Inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters of western Alaska. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 1982. Mineral terrane maps. Anchorage, Ak. Barton, L.H. 1978. Finfish resource surveys in Norton Sound and Kotzebue Sound. Jn: Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. Final Report. Vol. 14. NOAA/OCSEAP. Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. 543 pp. Bering Straits Native Corporation. 1982. Land and Resources. Bigler, B. 1983. Personal communication. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Div., Kotzebue, Ak. Biswas, N.N., L. Gedney, and J. Agnew. 1980. Seismicity of western Alaska. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. Vol. 70. Boone, H.V. 1984. Personal communication. Bering Straits CRSA Board member, Golovin, Ak. Braham, H.W., M. Fraker, and B.D. Krogman. 1980. Spring migration of the Western Arctic population of bowhead whales. Brower, W.A., H. Serby, and J. Wise. 1977. Climatic atlas of the Outer Continental Shelf waters and coastal regions of Alaska Bering Sea. 9-1 Burger, C. and L. Swenson. 1977. Environmental surveillance of gravel removal on the trans-Alaska pipeline system with recom- mendations for future gravel mining. Joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team, Special Report. Number 13. Anchorage, Ak. Burns, J.J. 1970. Remarks on the distribution and natural history of pagophilic Pinnepeds in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Journal of Mammology. Vol. 51, No. 3. Burns, J.J. 1981. Ice as marine mammal habitat in the Bering Sea. Jn: The eastern Bering Sea shelf, NOAA. Burns, J.J. 1981. Population status of certain marine mammals in waters adjacent to Alaska. Administrative Report. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Ak. Burns J.J. and K.J. Frost. 1979. The natural history and ecology of the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus). Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program, Final Report, Research Unit 230. Burns, J.W. 1970. Spawning bed sedimentation studies in northern California streams. Calif. Fish and Game 56(4):253-270. C.C. Hawley and Associates, Inc. 1976. Mineral potential and development on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Clarke, R. McV. 1974. The effects of effluents from metal mines on aquatic ecosystems in Canada. Dept. of the Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service, Research and Development Directorate. Forty-seventh Technical Report. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Dames and Moore. 1978. Drilling fluid dispersion and biological effects study for the Lower Cook Inlet C.O.ST. well. Atlantic Richfield Company. Anchorage, Ak. Dames and Moore. 1980. Technical Memorandum BN-4: Bering-Norton fish and wildlife impact analysis. Anchorage, Ak. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. Dames and Moore. 1981. Draft Report: Assessment of the feasibility of utilization of the coal reserves of Northwestern Alaska for space heating and electricity, Phase Il. Dames and Moore. 1983. Environmental baseline studies, Red Dog Project. Prepared for Cominco Alaska, Inc. Anchorage, Ak. Davis, J.L. 1978. Western Arctic caribou herd studies. Ak. Dept. Fish and Game, Game Division. Fairbanks, Ak. DeCicco, F. 1984. Annual performance report for inventory and cataloging of sport fish and sport fish waters of western Alaska. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Div. Study G-I-P-A. Vol. 24. Fairbanks, Ak. Derksen, DV., M.W. Weller, and W.D. Eldridge. 1979. Distributional ecology of geese molting near Teshekpuk Lake, National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska. Management and biology of Pacific flyway geese: a symposium. R.L. Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek (eds). Dow! Engineers. 1982. Pre-reconnaissance report, Elim hydroelectric project. Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Drury, W.H. 1978. Ecological studies in the northern Bering Sea: birds of coastal habitats on the south shore of Seward Penin- sula, Alaska. NOAA, OCSEAP. Drury, W.H. and B.B. Steele. 1977. Studies of populations, community structure, and ecology of marine birds at King Island, Bering Strait region, Alaska. Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. Ann. Rep. 5:75-149. Drury, W.H. and C. Ramsdell. 1979. Ecological studies of birds in northern Bering Sea: seabirds at Bluff, distribution of birds at sea, movements of birds in the Bering Strait. In: Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf, Annual Report of Principal Investigators. Vol |, Receptors: Mammals-Birds. USDC, USDI. Drury, W.H., C. Ramsdell, and J.B. French, Jr. 1980. Ecological studies in the Bering Strait Region. Jn: Environmental Assess- ment of the Alaska Continental Shelf. Final Repts. of Principal Investigators, Vol. II, Biological Studies. NOAA/OCSEAP. Eisler, R. 1973. Annotated bibliography on biological effects of metals in aquatic environments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Monitoring. Ecological Resource Series. Ellanna, L.J. 1980. Bering - Norton petroleum development scenarios, sociocultural systems analysis. Technical Report 54, Volume 1. OCSEAP. 9-2 Ellana, L.J. 1983. Nome: resource uses in a middle-sized regional center of northwestern Alaska. Jn: Wolfe, R.J. and L.J. Ellana (eds.), Resource use and socioeconomic systems: case studies of fishing and hunting in Alaskan communities. Tech. Paper No. 61, Ak. Dept. Fish and Game, Subsistence Div. Juneau, Ak. Elliott, G.V. and J.E. Finn. 1984. Fish use of several tributaries to the Kenai River, Alaska. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Special Studies, Final Report. Anchorage, Ak. Engelhardt, F.R. 1977. Uptake and clearance of petroleum hydrocarbons in the ringed seal, Phoca hispida. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Vol. 34, pp. 1143-1147. Environmental Services Ltd. 1980. Bering Straits community profiles, a background for planning. Environmental Services Ltd. 1981. Nome Coastal Management Program Background Report. Falk, M.R. and M.J. Lawrence. 1973. Seismic exploration: nature and effects on fish. Canadian Dept. of Environment, Fisheries and Marine Service. Fisheries Operations Directorate. Central Region Technical Rpt. No. CEN/T-73-9. Winnipeg, Alberta, Canada. Fay, F.H. 1961. The distribution of waterfowl on St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Annual Report. Wildlife Trust Fund. Vol. 12. Frost, H.J. and L.F. Lowry. 1981. Foods and trophic relationships of Cetaceans in the Bering Sea. In: The eastern Bering Sea shelf. NOAA. Frost, H.J. 1982. Distribution of marine mammals in the coastal zone of the Bering Sea during summer and autumn. Gallagher, J. 1984. Personal communication. Ak. Dept. Natural Resources, Div. of Mining. Anchorage, Ak. General Electric, Advanced Energy Systems. 1980. Electric power generation alternatives assessment for Nome, Alaska. Geraci, J.R. and DJ. St. Aubin. 1980. Study of the effects of oil on marine Mammals. Grauvogel, C. 1984. Personal communication. Ak. Dept. Fish and Game, Nome, Ak. Gusey, W.F. 1979. The fish and wildlife resources of the Norton Sound region. Hall, J.E. and D.O. McKay. 1983. The effects of sedimentation on salmonids and macroinvertebrates - a literature review. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. Anchorage, Ak. Hill, S.H. 1978. A guide to the effects of underwater shock waves in Arctic marine mammals and fish. Inst. of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, B.C. Pac. Mar. Sci. Rep. 78-26. 50 pp. Hood, D.W. and J.A. Calder (eds.). 1981. The eastern Bering Sea shelf: oceanography and resources. Vol. 1. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admininstration, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment. Seattle, Wa. Hubbs, C.L. and A.B. Rechnitzer. 1952. Report on experiments designed to determine effects of underwater explosions on fish life. California Fish and Game 38:333-366. Hunt, G.L., B. Burgeson, and G.A. Sanger. 1981. Feeding ecology of seabirds of the eastern Bering Sea. In: The eastern Bering Sea shelf. NOAA. Kaimmer, S.M., J.E. Reeve, D.R. Gunderson, G.B. Smith, and R.A. Macintosh. 1976. Baseline information from the 1975 OCSEAP survey of demersal fauna of the eastern Bering Sea. King, J.S. and C.P. Dau. 1980. Waterfowl and their habitats in the eastern Bering Sea. In: The eastern Bering Sea shelf, NOAA. Klinkhart, E.G. 1977. A fish and wildlife resource inventory of western and Arctic Alaska. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Marine and Coastal Habitat Mgt, Habitat Div. Vol. 1 - Wildlife. Kolankiewicz, L.J. 1982. Alaska coal development: an assessment of Potential water quality impact by Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Koski, K. V. 1975. The survival and fitness of two stocks of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) from egg deposition to emergence in a controlled stream environment at Big Beef Creek. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle. 212 pp. 9-3 LaPerriere, A.J. and PC. Lent. 1977. Caribou feeding sites in relation to snow characteristics in northeastern Alaska. LaPierriere, J. D., Wagener, S. M., and D. M. Bjerklie. 1985. Gold mining effects on heavy metals in streams, Circle quadrangle, Alaska. Water Resources Bulletin 21(2):245-252. Levy, J.S. 1983. Planning for ANCSA Section 19 villages: the challenges of 1991. Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. 1981. Western and Arctic Alaska transportation study. Prepared in association with Philleo Engineering and Architectural Services, Inc., for the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Fairbanks, Ak. 6 volumes. : Lloyd, D. S. 1983. File memorandum reporting field trip to Wilmarth Mine near George River on August 17, 1983. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. Anchorage, Ak. Lloyd, D.S. 1985. Turbidity in freshwater habitats of Alaska: a review of published and unpublished literature relevant to the use of turbidity as a water quality standard. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. Rept. No. 85-1. Anchorage, Alaska. Lowry, L.F. et al. 1978. Trophic relationships among ice-inhabiting phocid seals. Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf. Annual Reports of Principal Investigators for the Year Ending March 1978. Vol. |, Receptors: Mammals- Birds. NOAA/OSCEAP. Madison. 1981. Effects of placer mining on hydrologic systems in Alaska: status of knowledge. Magdanz, J.S. 1983. Norton Sound - Bering Strait subsistence king crab fishery update. Magdanz, J.S. 1983. Northern Bering Sea subsistence report. Malins, D.C. (ed.). 1977. Effects of petroleum on Arctic and subarctic marine environments and organisms. Vol. II. Biological effects. Academic Press, Inc. New York. Metsker, H. 1982. Toxicity of certain heavy metals on fish in the aquatic environment. Presented at the Placer Mining Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska, 4/9/82. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Morrow, J. 1973. Effects of crude oil and some of its components on young coho and sockeye salmon. EPA-550/3-018. Morrow, J. E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Co. 248pp. Murphy, S. M., B. Kessel, and L.J. Vining. 1984. Waterfowl populations and limnologic characteristics of taiga ponds. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(4):1156-1163. National Park Service. 1984. Denali National Park and Preserve draft environmental impact statement; Kantishna Hills/Dunkle Mine study. Anchorage, Ak. Nisbett, |.C-T. 1977. Coastal ecosystem management: a technical manual for the conservation of coastal zone resources. John Wiley and Sons. New York. 928 pp. Ott, A. G. 1984. File memorandum dated 4/20/84 to D. Lloyd, ADF&G, Habitat Division, Anchorage, concerning turbidity measurements downstream from active place mines. Ak.Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. Fairbanks, Ak. Ott, A. G. 1986. File memorandum dated 1/8/86 to B. Talbot, ADNR, Division of Land and Water Management, Fairbanks, concerning placer mining pollution and fish populations. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. Fairbanks, Ak. Pamplin, W. L., Jr. 1979. Construction-related impacts of the trans-Alaska pipeline system on terrestrial wildlife habitats. Joint State/Federal Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team, Special Rpt. No. 24. Anchorage, Ak. Payne, R. and D. Webb. 1971. Orientation by means of long range acoustic signaling in baleen whales. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 188:110/142. Phillips, R.W., R.L. Lantz, E.W. Claire, and J.R. Moring. 1975. Some effects of gravel mixtures on emergence of coho salmon and steelhead trout fry. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 104(3):461-466. Pitcher, K. and D. Calkins. 1979. Biology of the harbor seal in the Gulf of Alaska. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program Final Report. Research Unit 229. Ak. Department of Fish and Game. 9-4 Platts, W.S., S.B. Martin, and E.R.J. Primbs. 1979. Water quality in an Idaho stream degraded by acid mine waters. Intermoun- tain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-67. 19pp. Rasmussen, B. 1967. The effects of underwater explosions on marine life. Bergen, Norway. 17 pp. Ray, D.J. 1964. Nineteenth century settlement and subsistence patterns in Bering Strait. Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 2(2). Ray, D.J. 1975. The Eskimos of Bering Strait: 1650-1898. Rice, J. and J. Karinen. 1976. Acute and chronic toxicity uptake and depuration and sublethal metabolic response of Alaskan marine organisms to petroleum hyrocarbons. In: Reference Paper No. 6, Bureau of Land Management, Outer Continental Shelf Office, Anchorage, Ak. Rice, J., J. Short, C. Brodensen, T. Mecklenburg, D. Moles, C. Misch, D. Cheatham, and J. Karinen. 1976. Acute toxicity and uptake-depurati on studies with Cook Inlet crude oil, Prudhoe Bay crude oil, no. 2 fuel oil and several subarctic marine organisms. Northern Fisheries Center. Auke Bay, Alaska. Schneiderhan, D. 1982. File memorandum dated 8/30/82 to R. Regnart, ADF&G Regional Supervisor, Commercial Fisheries Division, Anchorage, concerning dredge operations in the Tuluksak River. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Division, Anchorage, Ak. Seaman, G.A. and J.J. Burns. 1981. The distrubution, natural history, and utilization of belukha whales in Alaska. Unpublished report, Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Ak. Selkregg, L.L. 1974. Alaska Regional Profiles: Northwest Region. Shaw, PA. and J.A. Maga. 1943. The effect of mining silt on yield of fry from salmon spawning beds. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game 29(1):29-41. Silver, S.J., C.E. Warren, and P. Doudoroff. 1963. Dissolved oxygen requirement of developing steelhead trout and chinook salmon embryos at different water velocities. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 92(4):327-343. Sinnott, R. 1984. Personal communication. Ak. Dept. Fish and Game, Anchorage, Ak. Sowls, A.L., S.A. Hatch, and C.J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of Alaskan seabird colonies. Springer, H. 1984. Personal communication. Ak. Dept. Transportation and Public Facilities, Nome, Ak. Starr, S.J., M.N. Kuwada, and L.L. Trasky. 1981. Recommendations for minimizing the impacts of hydrocarbon development on the fish, wildlife, and aquatic plant resources of the northern Bering Sea and Norton Sound. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage, Ak. Stern, R.O. 1980. Eskimos, reindeer, and the land. Straty, R.R. 1981. Trans-shelf movements of Pacific salmon. Jn: The eastern Bering Sea shelf, NOAA. Sundberg, K. 1982. File memorandum dated 10/5/82 to S. Grundy, ADF&G Region II Supervisor, Habitat Division, concerning field trip to Northland Gold dredging operation on the Tuluksak River. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. Anchorage, Ak. Sundberg, K. 1984. Alaska Department of Fish and Game memorandum to Dave Johnson from Dennis Kelso on the Port Moller seismic program, MLUP 84-022. March 14, 1984. Anchorage, Ak. Thomas, D. 1982. The role of local fish and wildlife resources in the community of Shaktoolik, Alaska. Unpublished report. Ak. Dept. Fish and Game, Subsistence Div. Nome, Ak. Toland, D. 1983. Suspended solids in mainstem drainages from placer mines, Fairbanks and vicinity, August 3-17, 1983. Ak. Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Environmental Quality Monitoring and Laboratory Operations. Juneau, Ak. Townsend, A. H. 1983. File memorandum dated 2/2/83 to B. Baker, Director, ADF&G Habitat Division, Juneau, concerning effects of placer mining turbidity on sport fishing in the Chatanika River. Ak. Dept. Fish and Game, Habitat Division. Fairbanks, Ak. 9-5 Trasky, L.L. 1976. Environmental impact of seismic exploration and blasting in the aquatic environment. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game. Unpublished Report. Anchorage, Ak. Tsai, C. 1975. Effects of sewage treatment plant effluents on fish: a review of literature. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Univ. of Maryland. CRC Publ. No. 36. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1983. Rivers and harbors in Alaska. Water Resources Comprehensive Study. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1979. State of Alaska, coastal management program and final environmental impact state- ment. State of Alaska, Office of Coastal Management. U.S. Department of Interior. 1976. Lost River final environmental impact statement. U.S. Department of Interior. 1982. Norton Sound final environmental impact statement. OCS proposed oil and gas lease sale 57. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage District Office. 1981. Proposed land use plan summary, Southwest Planning Area. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks District Office. 1983. BLM land use plan for Northwest Planning Area, a summary. U.S. Geological Survey. undated. Miscellaneous field studies, maps 381, 426. United States Government Flight Information Publication - Alaska Supplement. 24 November 1983 to January 1984. Van Nieuwenhuyse, E.E., and J.D. LaPerriere. 1986. Effects of placer gold mining on primary production in subarctic streams of Alaska. Water Resources Bulletin 22(1):91-99. Wagener, S.M. 1984. Effects of gold placer mining on stream macroinvertebrates of interior Alaska. Master's thesis. Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, Ak. Wahrhaftig, C. 1965. Physiographic divisions of Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 482. Weber, P., and R. Post. 1985. Aquatic habitat assessments in mined and unmined portions of the Birch Creek watershed. Ak. Dept. of Fish and Game, Habitat Division. Technical Report No. 85-2. Juneau, Ak. Welty, J.C. 1975. The life of birds. W.B. Saunders Company. Philadelphia, Pa. Wespestad, V.G. and L.H. Barton. 1981. Distribution, migration, and status of Pacific herring. In: The eastern Bering Sea shelf, oceanography and resources. Vol. 1. NOAA. Wolfe, R.J. 1979. Food production in a western Eskimo population. Wolotira, R.J., Jr., T.M. Sample, and M. Morin, Jr. 1977. Demersal fish and shellfish resources of Norton Sound, the southeastern Chukchi Sea, and adjacent waters in the baseline year 1976. Woodby, D.A. and G.J. Divoky. 1982. Bird use of coastal habitats in Norton Sound. Woodby, D.A. and G.J. Divoky. 1982. Spring migration of eiders and other waterbirds at Point Barrow, Alaska. Arctic 35 (3): 403-410. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1980. Gravel removal guidelines manual for Arctic and subarctic floodplains. Report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-80/09. Washington, D.C. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1983. Geothermal energy development of Pilgrim Springs, Alaska: results of drilling, testing, and resource confirmation. Wright, D.C. 1982. A discussion paper on the effects of explosives on fish and marine mammals in the Northwest Territories. Canadian Tech. Rept. of Fisheries and Aquatic Science No. 1052. 16 pp. Zimmerman, S.T. 1982. The Norton Sound environment and possible consequences of planned oil and gas development. OCSEAP. 9-6 Appendix A: Waterfowl and Shorebird Distribution, Abundance, and Important Wetland Habitats in the Bering Straits CRSA A-1 WATERFOWL AND SHOREBIRDS: The region's wetlands (both coastal and inland freshwater) provide nesting, feeding, and staging areas for thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds. Although some waterfowl such as common eiders remain near the coast throughout the open water season, many species that serve as an important coastal subsistence resource (such as brant, greater white-fronted geese, and pintails), nest and rear their young in inland freshwater wetlands. In spring, birds are hunted as they migrate through the region, particularly when they congregate at staging areas in ice leads or ice-free river mouths and in freshwater wetlands (Drury 1978). In the fall, subsistence hunting occurs as water- fowl gather at coastal wetlands and lagoons prior to migrating south. A major Arctic migration route for waterfowl crosses the western half of the Seward Peninsula. About 10 percent of the eastern Bering Sea swan population and at least 13 percent (6,700) of the Canada geese pass through the region, stopping to feed in inland freshwater wetlands as well as coastal wetlands. Thirty to 50 percent of all brant and about 40 percent of the Bering Sea American wigeon population also migrate through the region. The area is unusually productive for this latitude, and resting and feeding waterfowl use it extensively (Fortenbery 1974). King eiders, which spend much of the year at sea, are the first to arrive in inland areas during the spring (April). Pacific, Steller’s, and spectacled eiders which are also coastal-dependent species for much of the fall and winter, follow in mid-May. In late May tundra swans, brant, emperor geese, snow geese, and northern pintails arrive (Bellrose 1976). All of these waterfowl are consideed to be coastally-dependent species based on the proportion of their life spent at sea or in coastal marshes. Although some birds move on to northern breeding areas, with the excep- tion of snow geese, substantial numbers of each species remain in inland areas to breed. In July emperor geese that have failed to breed move out to sea or to St. Lawrence Island (King and Dau 1980). A portion of these 10,000 to 20,000 geese that used freshwater wetlands during the spring spend the summer on the island’s northern and southern coasts (Fay 1961). These geese begin their southern migration in late August. Snow geese from Wrangell Island (USSR) rest on St. Lawrence Island from mid to late September before flying to freshwater wetlands on the southwest side of the Seward Peninsula on their migration south (King and Dau 1980). Approximately 1,000 emperor geese nest near Shishmaref Inlet in wetlands inland from the interim coastal boun- dary (Bellrose 1976). After using inland freshwater wetlands for breeding, Canada geese and tundra swans gather to feed along the region's protected shores, coastal and inland wetlands, and adjacent uplands (Woodby and Divoky 1982). As many as 1,000 swans have been seen on the Stebbins wetlands. At least 5,000 snow geese have been observed at Koyuk. Brant are most common in spring when thousands migrate past Koyuk and the Fish River delta (Woodby and Divoky 1982). Red-throated and Arctic loons prefer the wetlands in the northwest portion of the Bering Straits CRSA, the Imuruk Basin, and the Stebbins wetlands in the southeastern section of the district. Thousands of dabbling ducks also nest in the Bering Straits CRSA with pintails being most abundant. In addition to nesting birds, migrating flocks of mallards, teal, shovelers, and American wigeon feed in the region’s wetlands (Bellrose 1976). The CRSA has three times as many diving duck species as dabbler duck species (Volume 1, Resource Inventory). Greater scaup, considered to be a coastal dependent species, are the region’s most com- mon nesting diving ducks. They breed in freshwater wetlands both within and inland from the interim coastal boundary. In late summer greater scaup move to coastal areas, the Fish River delta on Golovin Lagoon (about A 1,500 birds), and the Stebbins wetlands (1,300 birds). Oldsquaw, which spend much of the fall, winter and early spring at sea, also nest in freshwater wetlands within and inland from the interim coastal boundary. Oldsquaw are reported to molt in coastal lagoons, especially Brevig Lagoon (Woodby and Divoky 1982). Black scoters nest along rivers and in freshwater wetlands and feed along rocky coastal shorelines, Particularly in the northwest part of the CRSA. During the fall and winter, large numbers of scoters and eiders are found in coastal bays and lagoons as well as offshore areas (Woodby and Divoky 1982). A-2. IMPORTANT WETLAND HABITATS: Woodby and Divoky (1982) conducted extensive observations along the coast of the Bering Straits CRSA from Cape Prince of Wales to the Yukon Delta. Wetlands within and inland from the interim coastal boundary were observed to support large numbers of coastally-dependent waterfowl. Following are observations from some of the more important wetlands identified. STEBBINS — The wetlands southeast of Stebbins extending from sea level to over 1,000 feet in elevation com- Prise the region’s largest expanse of prime waterfowl and shorebird nesting habitat and supports the CRSA’s largest nesting shorebird population. In spring when the wetland is regularly flooded, large flocks of ducks and shorebirds congregate here; during August and Septembers, swans, ducks and shorebirds feed extensively in this area. KOYUK — The wetlands south of Koyuk, extending from sea level to approximately 900 feet in elevation, provide excellent waterfowl and shorebird nesting habitat. The extensive coastal mudflats nearby attract thousands of feeding waterfowl and shorebirds prior to and following the nesting season. Brant are common in spring and swans, geese, and ducks feed and nest in these wetlands. About 20,000 birds were counted in May 1977, including approximately 5,000 snow geese and 3,000 brant. MOSES POINT — This important feeding area is located primarily below the 200-foot contour and is heavily used by waterfowl and shorebirds in late summer, particularly at Kwiniuk Inlet and at the mouth of the Kwik River. The Moses Point spit partially shelters these wetlands. FISH RIVER AND NIUKLUK WETLANDS — These freshwater wetlands extending from sea level to over 1,000 feet in elevation provide high quality goose, duck, and shorebird nesting habitat. During the spring brant feed and nest as far as 40 miles from the coast. In the fall, these wetlands host large flocks of migrating Canada geese. One researcher reported a fall population of more than 14,000 waterfowl in this area, comprised principally of pintails and Canada geese (Drury and Steele 1977). IMURUK BASIN — Wetlands along this complex of lakes, rivers, and marshes ranging from sea level to nearly 2,000 feet in elevation are generally used for nesting by geese, ducks, and shorebirds. Large flocks of Canada geese pass through the area in late summer, and coastally-dependent ducks congregate throughout the basin during spring and fall migrations. SAFETY SOUND — This area, including the Flambeau and Eldorado River wetlands and Taylor Lagoon, extends from sea level to over 1,000 feet in elevation and offers good waterfowl and shorebird nesting habitat. Many coastally- dependent ducks, geese, and shorebirds nest in the inland wetlands and feed on the mudflats at the Sound’s entrance, especially during August and September. These extremely important staging and nesting areas often support geese, ducks, and swans at densities 10 times greater than surrounding areas (Volume 1, Resource Inventory). Other important wetlands within the Bering Straits CRSA are located at Point Spencer, Shaktoolik, Stuart Island, Woolley Lagoon, Brevig Lagoon, Unalakleet, Wales (Woodby and Divoky 1982), the Kuzitrin River flats, McCarthy's Marsh, Cape Douglas, Cape Rodney, Shishmaref Inlet, Ikpek Lagoon, Lopp Lagoon, and Arctic Lagoon. Many of these wetlands extend from the coast up the river drainages to elevations in excess of 1,000 feet. A-2 A-3 SUBSISTENCE IMPORTANCE OF WATERFOWL: Waterfowl are an important subsistence resource for the people of the Bering Straits Region, particularly during the spring when waterfowl provide the first fresh meat of the season. In 1978 it was estimated that approximately 44,000 ducks and geese were harvested for subsistence (Klinkhart 1977). In early spring when food supplies are at their lowest, villagers hunt waterfowl in open water areas along the coast and in freshwater wetlands inland from the coast. During spring residents also gather waterfowl eggs from nesting areas. Villagers subsistence hunt in the summer along the coast, in lagoons, along rivers and in wetlands; subsistence hunting continues in the fall when migrating birds again pass through the region on their way south. Appendix B: Native Corporations of the Bering Straits CRSA COMMUNITY NATIVE CORPORATION ADDRESS Brevig Mission Elim Gambell Golovin Koyuk Diomede Council King Island Nome Solomon Savoonga Shaktoolik Brevig Mission Native Corporation Elim Native Corporation Sivuqagq, Inc. Golovin Native Corporation Koyuk Native Corporation Inalik Native Corporation Council Native Corporation King Island Native Corporation Sitnasuak Native Corporation Solomon Native Corporation Savoonga Native Corporation Shaktoolik Native Corporation B-1 General Delivery Brevig Mission, Alaska 99785 General Delivery Elim, Alaska 99739 Phone: 890-9911 PO. Box 101 Gambell, Alaska 99742 Phone: 985-5826 General Delivery Golovin, Alaska 99762 Phone: 779-3251 General Delivery Koyuk, Alaska 99753 Phone: 963-3621 General Delivery Little Diomede, Alaska 99762 Phone: 686-8001 (village phone) PO. Box 727 Nome, Alaska 99762 PO. Box 992 Nome, Alaska 99762 Phone: 443-5494 PO. Box 905 Nome, Alaska 99762 Phone: 443-2632 PO. Box 243 Nome, Alaska 99762 General Delivery Savoonga, Alaska 99769 Phone: 984-6613 General Delivery Shaktoolik, Alaska 99771 Shishmaref St. Michael Stebbins Mary’s Igloo Teller Unalakleet Wales White Mountain Appendix B: continued Shishmaref Native Corporation St. Michael Native Corporation Stebbins Native Corporation Mary’s Igloo Native Corporation Teller Native Corporation Unalakleet Native Corporation Wales Native Corporation White Mountain Native Corporation B-2 General Delivery Shishmaref, Alaska 99772 Phone: 649-3751 General Delivery St. Michael, Alaska 99659 General Delivery Stebbins, Alaska 99671 Phone: 934-3281 General Delivery Teller, Alaska 99778 Phone: 642-3731 General Delivery Teller, Alaska 99778 Phone: 642-4011 PO. Box 100 Unalakleet, Alaska 99684 Phone: 624-3020 General Delivery Wales, Alaska 99783 Phone: 664-3641 General Delivery White Mountain, Alaska 99784 Appendix C: Locations of Potential AMSAS Within the Bering Straits CRSA 1. STUART ISLAND/KLIKITARIK - UNALAKLEET, ST. MICHAEL QUADRANGLES T22S R19WtoR21W T23S R15 Wto R 19 W T24S R 16 W to R 18 W 2. PORTAGE ROADHOUSE - SOLOMON QUADRANGLE TS R19W R20W T12S R20W 3. GOLOVNIN BAY - SOLOMON QUADRANGLE T10S R22W R23W TUS R21W R22W T12S R21 WtoR 23 W T13S R21W 4. ROCKY POINT - SOLOMON QUADRANGLE T10S R 26 W TUS R 23 W to R 26 W T12S R23 W 5. SAFETY SOUND - SOLOMON QUADRANGLE TUS R 29 W to R 32 W T12S R30W R31W 6. CAPE NOME - NOME QUADRANGLE T12S R31W R32W 7. NOME RIVER - NOME QUADRANGLE T7S R 33 W T8S R 32 W T9S R 33 W T10S R33 W TUS R33 W 8. PILGRIM/SALMON - BENDELEBEN QUADRANGLE T4S R29W R30W T5S R29W R30W T6S R29W R30W T7S R31W R32W 9. PORT CLARENCE - TELLER QUALDRANGLE T2S R 35 W to R 38 W T3S R 35 W to R 39 W T4S8 R32W R34W R37WtoR39W T5S R34W R35W Appendix C: continued 10. CAPE PRINCE OF WALES - TELLER AND SHISHMAREF QUADRANGLES T2N R 45 W T3N R45 W T4N R44W R45W TSN R41 WtoR 43 W TEN R40W R41W T7N R39W R40W TEN R37W R38W TON R 35 W to R 37 W T10N R34W R35W T11N R32W R33W T12N R 30 W to R 32 W T13N R 25 W to R 29 W 11. ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND - ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND QUADRANGLE T20S R 67 W T21S R 60 W to R 68 W T22S R 59 W to R 68 W T23S R 59 W to R 68 W T24S R 57 W to R 68 W T25S R53WtoR62W R66 Wto R 68 W T26S R 53 W to R 61 W T27S R 54 W to R 60 W T28S R57W R58W T29s R58wW R59W C-2 Map 3-1 BERING STRAITS COASTAL RESOURCE SERVICE AREA | COASTAL AREA BOUNDARY | Elia. AREA NOT ENCOMPASSED IN COASTAL ZONE: BOUNDARY 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 Com- munity and Regional Affairs, Division of Municipal and Regional Assistance, through the City of Unalakleet, Alaska. 1:500,000 bo ‘ 30 Kilometers PRENOMREN SERRE IY se CITY OF NOME COASTAL MANAGEMENT | DISTRICT posseranennel