Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBottomfish Harbor Study Atka, Ak. Final Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act Report 1985ATK oos BOTTOMFISH HARBOR STUDY RECEIVED ARR ALASKA lan ee ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY FINAL FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT Submitted to: Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of the Interior Alaska District Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Resources Section Western Alaska Ecological Services Anchorage, Alaska Anchorage, Alaska September, 1985 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: 1011 E. TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 (907) 276-3800 WAES Oo co wn rm ~o 3 oD un Colonel Wilbur T. Gregory, Jr. District Engineer Alaska District Corps of Engineers Pouch 898 Anchorage, Alaska 99506 Re: Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report: Atka - Bottomfish Project Dear Colonel Gregory: The enclosed Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) Report constitutes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) final report on the U.S Army Corps of Engineers' proposed Bottomfish Harbor project at Atka, Alaska. The document was prepared in accordance with the Fiscal Year 1985 scope of work and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, P.L. 85-624 Section 2(b), and it is being provided for equal consideration of fish and wildlife conservation with other project purposes as planning proceeds. Findings herein are based on information provided by project manager, Mr. Scott Schupe. Biological data are based on literature review, a field investigation, and coordination with the Corps of Engineers - Environmental Resources Section, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Power Authority, and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. The FWS would appreciate your review and written comments on the Final FWCA Report within 30 days. Please include in your comments approval or disapproval for each FWS recommendation and provide detailed justification for any disapproval. Sincerely, Enclosure cc: FWS/WAES, Alaska Maritime NWR - Homer, Adak ADF&G, NMFS, ADNR, ADOT/PF, EPA,@APA: - Anchorage City Manager - Atka FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE POSITION ATKA, ALASKA, BOTTOMFISH HARBOR The Alaska District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) is studying the feasibility of constructing a bottomfish harbor at Atka, Alaska. Through a series of screenings, the no-action, a nonstructural alternative, and three harbor alternatives, all within Nazan Bay near Atka Village, were studied in detail. Alternative A - Army Dock requires rubblemound breakwater construction and dredging. An armor rock quarry site has been located on Bolshoi Island. Alternative B - Bolshoi Island requires no breakwaters or dredging because the site is naturally protected and has adequate mooring depths; therefore, only mooring dolphins installed by a non-Federal sponsor are required. Alternative C - Combination melds the advantages of Alternatives A and B; mooring facilities would be constructed south of Atka Village between Bolshoi Island and the Atka Island mainland, and a dock and support facilities would be constructed at the Army Dock site located north of Atka Village. Nazan Bay hosts multiple marine habitats, each supporting assemblages of organisms adapted to local oceanographic conditions. The majority of Nazan Bay's coast and offshore islands have steep cliffs as coastlines; consequently, intertidal zones are limited to narrow bands of rocky rubble. Kelp beds, commonly associated with rocky substrate habitat, support populations of juvenile fish and infaunal and epifaunal invertebrates which are foraging food for seabirds and salmonids and other fish. In contrast to the rocky shoreline habitat at Alternative B is the sandy unconsolidated shoreline in northern Nazan Bay near Alternative A. Subtidal resources in this area are sparse; however, where pockets of rock bottom substrate exist, kelps become established and support diverse epifaunal communities. Horned and tufted puffins and possibly whiskered auklets nest on Bolshoi Island near Alternative A's proposed quarry site, and bald eagles roost on the Island's high rocky outcrops. Marine mammals observed in Nazan Bay include sea otters and sea lions. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) used the following evaluation species and their habitats to assess the environmental impacts of the project and to develop mitigation goals and a mitigation plan: 1) whiskered auklet (Aethia pygmaea); 2) horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata); 3) tufted puffin (Lunda cirrhata); 4) pink salmon (Oncorhynchus orbuscha); 5) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch); and 6) sea otter (Enhydra lutris). FWS's selection of evaluation species is based on a species” utilization of habitats having significant ecological value and/or its high public interest, subsistence, or economic value. At the present time, mitigation of project-related and -induced impacts appears to be limited to avoidance, site selection, and changes in project design. The FWS concludes from its studies that Alternative C - Combination will have the least overall impact on the project area's fish and wildlife resources and FWS evaluation species. The FWS believes that Alternative B should be selected as the CE's alternate preferred project alternative because of the adverse impacts associated with Alternative A's quarry activities on Bolshoi Island and the proximity of Alternative A to nearshore kelp beds. Should Alternative A or C be selected as the CE's preferred alternative, the harbor site and dock should be positioned to avoid environmentally important and sensitive areas (e.g., kelp beds, anadromous fish stream). Because the village of Atka and the project area are located wholly within the FWS Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, a FWS Special Use Permit and/or Right-of-Way Permit will be required for those direct or project- induced construction activities occurring above mean high tide. Bottomfish Harbor Study Atka, Alaska FINAL FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT Submitted to: Alaska District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Anchorage, Alaska Prepared by: Wayne M. Crayton, Fish & Wildlife Biologist Approved by: Robert G. Bowker, Field Supervisor U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Western Alaska Ecological Services Anchorage, Alaska September, 1985 PREFACE This Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report constitutes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) final report on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE) proposed Atka, Alaska Bottomfish Harbor Project. It has been prepared under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, P.L. 85-624 Section 2(b), and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the National Environmental Policy Act. As required by law, the FWS final report will accompany the CE's Feasibility Stage Report and environmental statement to Congress. The CE's study was authorized by a resolution of the Committee on Public Works of the U.S. House of Representatives, adopted 2 December 1970. Funding for this specific navigation improvements interim study was provided to evaluate the Federal interest in fishery-related improvements affected by the ee of the 1976 Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (P.L. 94-265). The purposes of the FWS in study involvement are to: 1) evaluate each principal alternative's potential impacts on fish and wildlife resources, their habitats, and their utilization by the public; 2) identify and evaluate the least environmentally damaging alternative; and 3) recommend methods for mitigating and/or enhancing these resources. The FWS's findings are based on project data furnished prior to May 7, 1985. Biological data were obtained from a literature review, a field investigation, and coordination with the CE Environmental Resources Section, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Power Authority, and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Prior FWS planning aid documents on the CE's proposed project at Atka include Potential Bottomfish Harbors/Commercial Navigation Projects (26 July 1982), Bottomfish Harbor Study - Atka, Alaska (27 September 1984), Preliminary Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report: Bottomfish Interim Study, Atka, Alaska (26 March 1985), Draft Fish and Wildlite Coordination Act Report: Bottomfish Interim Study, Atka, Alaska (8 May T985), and a July 18, 1985 Tetter submitted to the CE commenting on proposed project changes; all are superceded by this document. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES. ... «21... STUDY AREA. 2 ew wee wee we ee er ww sw DETAILED PLAN DESCRIPTION ...... No Action and Nonstructural... Alternative A - Army Dock .... Alternative B - Bolshoi Island . Alternative C - Combination. ....... BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ~~ << 3 «3 0 « 0 6s Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources ..... Merine Resources << « « 5 « stg « « « & « Alternative A - Army Dock ...... Alternative B - Bolshoi Island. ... Subsistence Resources .......4.24-2ee26-s DISCUSSION GS 3 ee se ee ew wr Project Impacts ..... © is i 6 No Action and Nonstructural ..... Alternative A - Army Dock ...... Alternative B - Bolshoi Island. ... Alternative C - Combination ..... Cumulative Impacts .......... Mitigation Plan. ........22- cme Alternative A - Army Dock ...... Alternative B - Bolshoi Island. ... Alternative C - Combination ..... RECOMMENDATIONS ........ er CITED LITERATURE... 2 ee ee eer ee ses APPENDIX A: Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy Synopsis ... APPENDIX B: Agency Correspondence. ..... iii ) PAGE LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 1. Marine mammals of the Atka Island area... . 1... 2.2 ee eee 2. Fish, game, and plant resources known to be used in Atka..... FIGURES 1. Atka, Alaska and vicinity .........2.2.2.. 8 ew «6 2. Harbor alternatives, Atka, Alaska .. 2... 2.2. 2 ee ee eee . 3. Alternative A - Army Dock ..... RENCE CI cane Tn Enc Mcun <i -cT an CinTC 4, Alternative B - Bolshoi Island... 2... 2 2 ee ee eee eee 5. Alternative C - Combination ........2...2.2-22+-+0e0-. 6. Horizontal distribution of marine flora and fauna, and transect/substrate profile of Alternative A and C, Atka, AK ... 7. Habitat map of the fish and wildlife resources occurring in the vicinity of Alternative A, Atka, AK. .......2.2.2.e. 8. Horizontal distribution of marine flora and fauna, and transect/substrate profile of Alternative B, Atka, AK. ...... 9. Areas used by residents of Atka for subsistence use of fish and wildlife... 1. 2 ee ee eee ew wee re 10. Seasonal round of resource harvest, Atka. .... +2. eee eee iv 14 15 7 19 20 STUDY AREA Atka is the westernmost native community in Alaska. Some 550 miles from the tip of the Alaska Peninsula and 1,250 miles from Anchorage, Atka Island is located approximately midway in the 1,100 mile arc of the Aleutian Islands (Figure 1). Atka Island is the fourth largest of the more than 70 islands comprising the archipelago, and it is the largest member of the Andreanof Islands group. The west-southwestward long axis of the Island is characterized by convoluted Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea coastlines with many deep bays. The northern, roughly circular portion of the island offers few sheltered areas. The beaches are short and narrow and backed by cliffs rising to volcanic slopes. The lowlands separating these two portions of Atka consist primarily of sand dune accumulations and contain several small ponds. Atka lies in the maritime climate zone of Alaska. Winters are typically mild and the summers cool. Temperature extremes of 77 degrees Fahrenheit (F.) and 12 degrees F. have been recorded. Precipitation is moderate year-round with approximately 60 inches occurring annually. Ocean temperatures around Atka range from 38 to 48 degrees F. To the east and southeast of Atka's lowlands lies the project area, Nazan Bay, which possesses no large coves or bays. Numerous small islands, immediately to the east and southeast of the village of Atka, provide some protection to small craft from wind and swells. Nazan Bay's tides range from a mean highest high water (MHHW) level of approximately 5.0 feet to an extreme low of -3.0 feet (NOAA Chart 16490 and U.S. Department of Commerce, 1984); mean tide level is 1.6 feet. Tides in Nazan Bay are diurnal and have a mean range of 3.3 feet. DETAILED PLAN DESCRIPTION To accommodate the potential moorage demand calculated for Atka, a No-Action, a Nonstructural, and three harbor plan alternatives, all located within Nazan Bay near Atka Village, were considered by the CE (Figure 2). All plans considered by the CE will provide shelter and basic services to the existing and future groundfishing and crabbing fleet operating near Atka. The harbors would provide depths of at least 19 feet below mean lower Tow water (MLLW) levels as well as space for up to 30 vessels, 80 to 125 feet in length, tied to mooring dolphins. Docks would accommodate an oceangoing tug and barge up to 200 feet in length. It is not expected that more than 10 to 15 of the larger ( 80- to 120-foot) fishing vessels would use the harbor at any one time except during the Christmas holidays. Atka residents anticipate purchasing as many as eight 20- to 30-foot fishing vessels which would be moored in a separate area within the harbor. Onshore, fuel tank and delivery systems must be constructed as well as a freshwater storage system. The CE expects that crabber/trawlers would use from 2,000 to 10,000 gallons of water each month, therefore a storage tank with 100,000 gallons capacity would be needed. 1 FIGURE 1. ATKA, ALASKA AND VICINITY , PROJECT: ESE aon AREA Usp 4 - ey. ieee saan aoe hen, >| USC&GS 16480 (8862) Alaska State Anadromous Fish Stream No. 305-52-11500 \ 7 RUNWAY Alternatives A&C NAZAN BAY Cone: Island Alternative B/&C fuarry Site ° Seabird Cliffs ATKA, ALASKA SMALL BOAT HARBOR FEASIBILITY STUDY HARBOR ALTERNATIVES Alaska District, Corps of Engineers Figure 2. Harbor alternatives, Atka, Alaska. The fleet expected to use the harbor will require storage capacity for 650,000 gallons of fuel. Fuel and water would be piped from the tanks to the dock face. Near the fuel and water tanks, a three- to four-acre staging area would be needed to hold a warehouse, a work yard, and possibly a bunkhouse for transient fishermen, and to enhance the service facilities. Roads between Atka and the respective staging areas would be improved for truck traffic, although little traffic is expected since the harbor is intended to be self-sufficient. No Action and Nonstructural With the No Action alternative, no Federal action would be taken to construct a harbor at Atka Island. Fishing boats would continue to make the trip to Unalaska or more distant ports for support services. Nonstructural alternatives appear infeasible because the Atka community and fishing community have expressed need for construction of a harbor facility in the study area. Alternative A - Army Dock A wooden military dock from World War II is located across Nazan Bay from the village, at the end of a primitive road leading to the village and airstrip. The dock is badly deteriorated. The site was picked by the CE for consideration because: 1) Palisades Point provides some protection from easterly waves; 2) the location has attracted past anchorage activities; 3) the CE initially believed the dock could be rehabilitated and incorporated into a harbor project at reduced overall cost; and 4) Atka village leaders prefer it. Local people prefer this site because it offers the maximum amount of developable land nearby for industrial and commercial use. Atkans expressed a desire to use this land as a rental storage area for crab pots and possibly as a site for a future processing plant. The Army dock was found by the CE to be in such bad shape that it cannot be used to facilitate harbor development. The dock will be razed under the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA), and the harbor would be located in its place. A south-southeast breaking wave of 6.9 feet was found to be the largest wave reasonably expected to affect the site. The period of the design wave is 3.7 seconds. This harbor site would be protected by two traditional rubblemound breakwaters (Figure 3). The first, perpendicular to shore, would be 490 feet long. The second, 840 feet long, would be positioned parallel to shore and connected at right angles to the first. The easterly perpendicular breakwater could be detached from shore to provide 50 feet of open water at MLLW between the breakwater and shore for fish passage and to aid water circulation in the inner harbor. ‘a—Fuel tanks @<Water tank Access road — —— cesta —_ a ————— . - ss Breakwater Cassa - = Se —, Generator——_»@ an <I breach house % yy 20 ay Warehouse —> Proposed dock NAZAN_ BAY | Coia Army Dock Proposed Bridge to / : center-line off be replaced breakwater Dredge area (-2 to -19 ft. MLLW) Unnamed creek - Figure not to scale - Figure 3. Alternative A - Army Dock. Breakwaters for this design would be constructed of 3.5-ton armor rock [48,334 cubic yards (cy)] and would require 155,600 cy of dredging in an area of approximately 13 acres. Rock would be obtained from a quarry constructed at the north end of Bolshoi Island. The non-Federal sponsor would dredge nine acres within the mooring basin to -19 feet MLLW and construct a supply dock, mooring dolphins, floats, and catwalks. Dredged material (sandy gravel) would be used to build a three to four acre staging area near the harbor. The material could also be used as fill, if a bulkhead type dock is constructed. Excess dredged material would be deposited in yet to be identified deep-water (50 fathoms) sites within Nazan Bay. The non-Federal sponsor would assume responsibiity for repairing the existing road and bridge from the village to the harbor site and for constructing and maintaining utilities, including water, fuel, and fire protection. Water would be directed from a nearby creek. The total first cost of this plan is estimated at $13.3 million. Its total average annual cost is about $400,000. Average annual benefits are calculated as $1.1 million. The preliminary benefit-cost ratio is approximately 1.2 to 1. Alternative B - Bolshoi Island Because of naturally deep water and natural shelter from large waves, no breakwaters need to be constructed and no dredging is anticipated (Figure 4). A dock would be constructed on the north edge of the harbor area closest to town. The staging area and fuel and water tanks would be located to the south of the dock. Water would be diverted from a nearby creek. The non-Federal sponsor would construct mooring dolphins for the expected crab fishing and groundfishing vessels. The sponsor would also construct floats and catwalks for berthing the local fleet of small craft. The non-Federal sponsor would also construct a supply dock and a three to four acre staging area, warehouse space for gear storage, and an access road from the village. The sponsor would also assume responsibility for construction, operation, and maintenance of harbor utilities, including water, fuel, and fire protection. The sponsor would assume any maintenance -dredging (unforeseen) of the inner harbor area, and would maintain the dock, floats, dolphins, and upland facilities. The CE would be responsible for maintaining the entrance channel. Navigational aids would be provided and maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Because it needs no breakwater, the cost of this plan would be much less than the other structural plans studied. Since the benefits would be nearly the same for all alternative plans, Alternative B's benefit-cost ratio stands out above the others. The total first cost of this plan is estimated at $7 million. Its total average annual cost is put at $300,000, Average annual benefits are $1.1 million. The preliminary benefit-cost ratio is approximately 3.6 to 1. NAZAN BAY BOLSHOT ISLAND Proposed resupply dock ATKA e Mooring ISLAND p dolphins Proposed resident mall boat b 0 moorage qV \ q Figure not to scale S taging area i Ss Chuniisak Ck. q . G Warehouse «—Water intake Temporary housing Figure 4. Alternative B - Bolshoi Island. Alternative C - Combination This alternative melds the advantages of both Alternatives A and B (Figure 5). Expensive breakwaters and dredging are avoided by placing the moorage area near Bolshoi Island. Locating the dock and service facilities near the Army Dock may attract future onshore industrial development desired by Atkans. The dock for this alternative would be longer than that proposed in Alternative A so that deeper water would be available at its face without dredging. As in Alternatives A and B, the U. S. Coast Guard would provide and maintain navigation aids, and the CE would perform any potential (although unforeseen) entrance channel maintenance. Local sponsors would construct and operate all other harbor and associated facilities. The costs of this plan are expected to be less than the costs of Alternative A, but greater than those of Alternative B. The benefits are essentially the same, so the preliminary benefit-to-cost ratio is expected to be about 2 to 1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources The majority of Atka Island is covered with alpine tundra vegetation. Vegetation is generally sparse and low on upland hills and ridges with major species being various lichens and crowberry (Empetrum nigrum). Lowland and coastal areas are composed of moist tundra plants; major species include crowberry, sedge (Carex saxatilis), hair moss (Dicranum sp.), cow parsnip (Heracleum lanatum), angelica (Angelica lucida), and reindeer lichen (TTadonta sp.). In addition, mosses, herbs; and dwarf shrubs (Salix spp.) are often present (Veltre and Veltre, 1983). Except for the native dwarf willows and a few Sitka spruce introduced during World War II, Atka is treeless. Three mammal species commonly occur on Atka Island: Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), blue fox (Alopex lagopus), and reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). eindeer were introduced in 1914 when 40 animals were brought to the island from Ugashik on the Alaska Peninsula (Veltre and Veltre, 1983). Between 2,500 and 3,500 reindeer roam the island and provide meat for the village (University of Alaska, 1978). Reindeer do not inhabit Bolshoi Island (quarry site); however, blue foxes do reside on the island. Bird surveys of Nazan Bay are not numerous. While recent accurate surveys have been conducted for much of the archipelago (Nysewander et al., 1982), most bird data specifically from the Atka region come from older studies (Sekora, 1973). More recently, however, bird surveys were conducted by the FWS Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge-Aleutian Islands Unit in 1983. f To Village of Atka ISLAND ATKA ISLAND Access road Staging area location and features are identical to Alternative A Parki oe Old Army Dock rea New Dock Resident Small boat - No dredging required - Mooring NAZAN BAY Figure not to scale Figure not to scale Figure 5. Alternative C - Combination. Those bird species most abundantly observed in the project area include the horned puffin, tufted puffin (Lunda cirrhata), black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and pigeon guillemot (Cepphus co columba). Approximately 20 to 50 horned puffins and 100 to 200 tufted puffins nest on the south and west faces of the Cone Island Triplex southern island and on the north face of the Cone Island Triplex western island. On the northern sea cliffs of Bolshoi Island, just east of the proposed quarry site, approximately, 100 to 200 horned puffins and 500 to 600 tufted puffins also nest (Figure 2). Whiskered auklets (Aethia ygmaea), which are very limited both in and outside of Alaska, may also PohabTe Bolshoi Island's talus-sloped seacliffs; however, the likelihood of a large population nesting on the Island is remote because of the medium value of the nesting habitat. Whiskered auklets have been documented 40 to 50 miles west of the project area on Oglodak, Ikiginak, and Koniuji Islands (Sowl, 1978). Recent findings indicate that whiskered auklets inhabit seacliffs used by nesting tufted and horned puffin (Nysewander, 1985). Because of their nocturnal habits, whiskered auklets are rarely seen during daylight hours, but their calls can be heard emanating from puffin cliffs at night. The total population of whiskered auklets in Alaska is estimated at 20,000 birds (Sowl, 1978). For FWS environmental assessment purposes, whiskered auklets are presumed to occur in the horned and tufted puffin colony on Bolshoi Island even though no direct evidence is currently available to support this presumption. Field studies should be specifically designed and conducted to definitively document the presence or absence of whiskered auklets on Bolshoi Island. Methods to verify whiskered auklet presence shall include, but not be limited to, call identification and, should conditions permit, physical observations. Bald eagles commonly occur in the village's vicinity and at the quarry site. Although no bald eagle nests were observed during field investigations, the FWS Raptor Management Studies office (Juneau, Alaska) reports that a bald eagle nest does exist on the east side of Bolshoi Island. Anadromous fish occurring in the Atka Island region include Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) and five species of salmon: pink (Oncorhynchus orbuscha), chum (0. keta), coho (0. kisutch), sockeye (0. nerka), and chinook (0. ea iE ). Nazan Bay has two documented anadromous fish streams. The first located one mile west of Alternative A (State Anadromous Fish Stem No. 305-52-11500). Surveys conducted in this unnamed stream on 24 August 1982 by the ADFG (Patrick Holmes, Kodiak) enumerated 8,200 pink salmon, and observed coho salmon fry and fingerlings and Dolly Varden. South of Alternative B lies the second anadromous fish stream in Nazan Bay, Chuniisax Creek (State Anadromous Fish Stream No. 305-52-11620). Atka residents report that pink, chum, and coho salmon and Dolly Varden use the creek for spawning. FWS studies conducted in Chuniisax Creek for the purposes of environmentally assessing Alaska Power Authority's proposed hydroelectric project documented that pink and coho salmon use the lower half of the Creek for spawning and/or rearing. In July, 1984, FWS biologists observed hundreds of pink salmon in Chuniisax Creek's mouth at high tide and immediately offshore during low tide. 10 Marine Resources Marine mammals are widely represented in the Atka Island area (Table 1). Of those cetaceans represented, the common dolphin, right whale dolphin, and the bowhead whale are considered to be rare in Aleutian waters (Haley, 1978). Neither whales nor dolphins were observed in Nazan Bay during FWS's field reconnaissance. However, sea lions and occasional sea otters were observed throughout Nazan Bay. Population estimates for the two sea mammals most important for subsistence in Atka are 7,000 harbor seals in the Andreanof Island group and 600 to 4,900 Steller sea lions in the North Cape and Cape Korovin regions of Atka Island (Veltre and Veltre, 1983). Sea lion rookeries are not present in Nazan Bay or its vicinity. Shellfish in the Atka area include tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi), red king crab (Paralithodes camtschatica), blue king crab (P. platypus), and brown king crab (Lithodes aquispina). King crab is the dominant species taken by fisherman in the area. A commercial fishery does not exist near the village. The typical annual harvest of crab taken in Atka is between 1.5 and 2 million pounds, which is split evenly between red king and brown king crab (U.S. Department of the Army, 1982). The primary bottomfish species occurring in the Atka area include pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), turbots (Atheresthes stomias and Reinhardtius hippoglassoides), sablefish (AnopTopoma fimbria), Atka mackerel (Preuro rammus monopterygius), Pacific Ocean perch (Sebastes alutus), and other rockfish (NPFMC, 1985). The average annual groundfish Catch in the Aleutian Island area was 59,000 MT for the period 1971 to 1975. For comparative purposes, 2,032,000 MT were caught in the Eastern Bering Sea during the same time period. Pacific Ocean perch have been the principal species of roundfish in Aleutian Island catches with an average of 22,000 MT caught between 1971 and 1975 (NPFMC, 1983). Nazan Bay hosts a variety of marine habitats, each supporting an assemblage of organisms unique to local oceanographic conditions. The majority of Nazan Bay's coastline and islands have steep shores, which confine intertidal zones to a narrow band of rocky substrate. Associated offshore from this shore type are kelp beds which support populations of juvenile fish and invertebrates which are food for seabirds and salmonids and other fish species. For example, Hunt, et al. (1981) report, from studies conducted in the eastern Bering Sea that 79% of the tufted puffin's food volume consists of fish, 40.74 of which is walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma) and 5.1% capelin (Mallotus villosus). The remaining balance of the tufted puffin's diet is Composed Of nereid polychaete worms and amphipods. The horned puffin's food volume consists of 81.4% fish [24.2% of which is whitespotted greenling (Hexagrammos stelleri) and 15.7% sand lance (Anmedytes hexapterus)] and 11.1% amphipods. Studies conducted by Springer a8 es (1982) centered on trophic relationships of seabirds in northwest aska. Kelp beds in Nazan Bay, however, are not exclusively associated with rocky shores. Large pockets of kelp occur offshore of sandy shores as well, presumably attached to submerged rock reefs. Those shoreline areas not 1 Table 1. Marine mammals of the Atka Island area. Common Name Sea otter Harbor (or hair) seal Steller sea lion Northern fur seal Long-nosed (or spinner) dolphin Rough-toothed dolphin Common dolphin Bottlenose dolphin Right whale dolphin Striped porpoise Killer whale Grampus (or Risso's dolphin) False killer whale Pilot whale Harbor porpoise Dall's porpoise Beluga whale Baird's beaked whale (or giant bottlenose whale) Stejneger's (or Bering Sea) beaked whale Cuvier's beaked (or goosebeak) whale Sperm whale Pygmy sperm whale California gray whale Finback whale Sei whale Little piked (or minke) whale Blue whale Humpback whale Pacific right whale Bowhead whale Source: Collins, 1945 and Haley, 1978, 12 Scientific Name Enhydra lutris Phoca vitulina Eumetopias jubatus Callorhinus ursinus Stenella longirostris Steno bredanensis DeTphinus delphis Tursiops truncatus Lissodelphis borealis StenelTa coeruTeoalba Orcinus orca Grampus griesus Pseudorca crassidens Globicephal a macrorhynchus Phocoena phocoena Phocoenoides dalli Delphinapterus leucas Berardius bairdii Mesoplodon stejnegeri Ziphius cavirostris Physeter macrocephalus Kogia breviceps Eschrichtius robustus Balaenoptera physalus BaTaenoptera borealts Borcenobtera acutorostrata Balaenoptera Bal aenoptera musculus Neaheters io aptera novaeangliae Bal aena glacialis Balaena a mysticetus having steep shores typically have low-sloping cobble and/or boulder beaches which are covered with invertebrates and thick mats of algae. In sharp contrast to the rocky shoreline type are the two and a half miles of sandy beach which line the west and north shore of Nazan Bay. Because of the beach's high dynamics, epifaunal intertidal organisms do not commonly occur. Alternative A - Army Dock: The shoreline adjacent to Alternative A consists of volcanic bluffs which abruptly rise from a narrow band of boulder-strewn sandy beaches. The intertidal zone consists of sand and scattered boulders (Figure 6). Boulders occurring in the intertidal zone and having diameters greater than three feet are primarily covered with rockweed and barnacles; however, boulders less than three feet wide often are devoid of organisms and/or algae, presumably because smaller boulders are periodically buried by sand. The majority of subtidal substrate consists of sand and gravel. Dominant organisms occurring in the generally epifaunal-devoid subtidal sand flats are sand dollars and unidentified crustaceans. Also occurring, but in less relative abundance, are file dogwinkles (Nucella lima) and Arctic naticas (Natica clausa). Little evidence exists to indicate that an abundant infaunal community inhabits the subtidal sand flats. Scattered shell debris of several bivalve species occur; however, clam siphons, which indicate the presence of live bivalves, are absent. Anchored to pockets of subtidal boulders are patches of the kelp Alaria sp. and Laminaria spp. which harbor within their canopies fish and invertebrates. Because of the reconnaissance nature of FWS's subtidal investigations, conclusive documentation of the areas uses are incomplete. Sandy nearshore areas could be very important to sand lance which is an important forage fish for seabirds, marine mammals, and fish. Other important fish and shellfish could use Alternative A's sandy areas seasonally or nocturnally which would not have been detected by FWS's limited reconnaissance survey. Fish species occurring in nearshore waters (three to five feet deep) include adult and juvenile rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata), sand lance, and several species of greenling (Hexagrammus spp. ). In contrast to the biological community inhabiting the sandy subtidal areas, a vegetatively lush rocky reef (5-10 acres) lies in 10 to 15 feet of water just west of the proposed mooring basin (Figure 7). The kelp bed consists predominately of Alaria sp. with laminarians and other brown algae species covering the reef's surface. Encrusting red algae, sponges, and bryozoans cover rock surfaces not already covered with kelp holdfasts. The reef's epifaunal community consists in part of Isodictya sp., rock oysters, shrimp, chitons, echiuroids, anemones, and starfish. Because of the kelp's high density and the reef's many interstices, fish utilization was not documented; however, several species of greenling were observed near the kelp bed's periphery. 13 Figure 6. Horizontal distribution of marine flora and fauna, and * transect/substrate profile at Alternative A & C - Army Dock. Atka, Alaska. * FLORA DISTRIBUTION ALONG TRANSECT Fucus Alaria Laminaria Lithothamnion FAUNA Balanus Mytilus Natica Myoxocephalus Shrimp Saxidomus fragments Amphipods Echinarachnius Lepidopsetta Hexagrammos r — MHHW om ROCK PATCH -1.1 ft. MLLW 1010 hrs. : -4.4 ft. MHHW 26 JULY 1984 BEARING 210°MN. WATER DEPTH TIME TIDE 70 80 40 80 120 160 200 240 260 320% DISTANCE OF TRANSECT * Listed organisms are those most visually abundant. 14 Sl Alaska State Anadromous Fish. Stream sie go’ Figure 7. J 5 FATHOMS KEY SL Sea lion observed “se Alaria/Laminaria kelp beds SO Sea otter observed Sandy substrate ? Puffin observed 226 Boulder strewn sandy beach ?S Pink salmon habitat Rocky reef SS Silver salmon habitat jjjj7, Steep vegetated bluffs WY" ER Eagle roosts MT Moist tundra 10 FATHOMS Habitat map of the fish and wildlife resources occurring in the vicinity of Alternative A. Alternative B - Bolshoi Island: The marine resources at Alternative B are characteristic of a rocky intertidal and rocky/silty substrate subtidal community (Figure 8). The highest intertidal elevations consist of rocky substrate with no associated marine flora or fauna. At approximately mean high water (MHW) barnacles (Balanus cariosus, B. glandula), rockweed (Fucus sp.), and Laminaria spp. dominate on Targe Trregularly shaped rocks. Rocky intertidal substrate extends into the subtidal zone. Sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis), rock oysters (Pododesmus macroschisma), an chitons (Tonicella lineata) are common invertebrates in rocky subtidal areas. Common subtidal algae include tarspot (Ralfsia pacifica), cup and saucer (Constantinea simplex), red rock crust (Lithothamnion sp.), and sea sac (HaTasaccion glandiforme). Rocky subtidal substrate stops prior to a steep, silt-covered gravel gradient. Algal abundance along the steep gradient dwindles from a thick mat to scattered detrital patches. Associated with the decrease of marine flora is a decrease in the relative abundance of marine epifauna. Several species of hermit crabs and unidentified species of other crustaceans commonly occur on detritus and the silt substrate. At a depth of 60 feet the steep gradient flattens into a silt and mud flat which is littered with cockle shell fragments. Several species of hermit crab and crustaceans appear to co-dominantly inhabit the mud flats with rock sole. The nearshore fishery use at Alternative B is not known. It is presumed, however, that juvenile fish species use the protective intertidal algae canopies as a place to seek food and refuge. Subsistence Resources The community of Atka utilizes a variety of fish and wildlife and other natural resources for subsistence (Table 2). Major use is made of the five salmon species, Dolly Varden, halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), and cod; clams and other marine invertebrates are other important dietary components (ADFG, 1985). Also ducks and geese are hunted and bird eggs are gathered. Approximately 100 reindeer and 30 harbor seals are harvested by Atka residents per year (Veltre and Veltre, 1983). The CE's proposed project is located within areas used by residents of Atka for noncommercial harvest of fish and wildlife (Figure 9). Both anadromous fish streams in Nazan Bay are fished by Atka residents for subsistence. Present information on the seasonality of harvests of major fish and wildlife resources by Atka residents is depicted in Figure 10. DISCUSSION Project Impacts A comparison of project features associated with each alternative reveals varying types and magnitudes of potential environmental perturbations. Additional impacts would occur from the development of harbor associated 16 Figure 8. Horizontal distribution of marine flora and fauna, and transect/substrate profile at Alternative B - Bolshoi Island, Atka, Alaska. * FLORA DISTRIBUTION ALONG TRANSECT na ¢ 8 ie a Laminaria Alaria Lithothamnion FAUNA Balanus Tonicella Acmaea Pododesmus Strongylocentrotus —_——————_ — —_——_—_— Pagurus —_—_ —_—_— —————- DSSS Shrimp Nudibranchs Lepidopsetta MHHW a8 a LOOSE ROCK W SILT a ar W soLue ° Oa 40 aoow”d x RSor4 s3iv7T B20. u50 5 re) see z Names SILT&MUD Mian 70 100m, a0 ‘ 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 32044 DISTANCE OF TRANSECT * Listed organisms are those most visually abundant. A Table 2. Fish, wildlife, and plant resources known to be used for subsistence in Atka, Alaska, 1983. 1/ Wildlife Intertidal Sea lion Sea urchin Harbor seal Razor clam Porpoise Butter clam Walrus Cockle Reindeer Blue mussel Ducks 2/ Limpet Emperor goose Chiton Gull eggs Red chiton Other bird eggs 3/ Octopus Fox King crab Sea cucumber Sea anemone Sea snails Fish Plants Sockeye salmon Crowberry (mossberry ) Chinook salmon Strawberry Coho salmon Wild celery Pink salmon Petrusky Chum salmon Wild rice Dolly Varden Yarrow Halibut Cod Pogy (greenling) Pogy eggs Atka mackerel Yellow sculpin Herring Source: Veltre and Veltre, 1983 as presented in ADFG, 1985. Vv Other species may also be used; consult with local communities for definitive information. Ducks include common eiders, mallards, scoters, mergansers, oldsquaws, harlequins, buffleheads, teal, ancient murrelets, king eiders, scaup, goldeneyes, horned and tufted puffins, ptarmigans, common loons, red-throated loons, and gullemots. Other bird eggs include eggs of eiders, oystercatchers, puffins, and ancient murrelets. 18 6L PACIFIC ALEUTIAN ISLANDS Figure 9. % ET ge ane wate Areas used by residents of Atka for subsistence use of fish and wildlife (Veltre and Veltre, 1983 as presented in ADFG, 1985). oF Sockeye salmon Chinook salmon Coho salmon Pink salmon Chum salmon Halibut Cod Dolly Varden Greenling Greenling eggs Sea lion Harbor seal Ducks Geese Fox Oystercatcher eggs Sea gull eggs Eider eggs Clam Mussel Sea urchin Figure 10. Seasonal round of resource harvests, Atka. Solid line indicates time when harvest usually takes place. Broken line indicates occasional harvest effort. (Veltre and Veltre, 1983 as presented in ADFG, 1985) 20 support facilities. A discussion of each alternative's direct and induced effects on Atka's fish and wildlife resources follows. No Action and Nonstructural: Should one of these alternatives be selected, no environmental impact to fish and wildlife resources would result because no action would be taken by the CE or no structure(s) would be built at Atka. However, even without Federal involvement, some type of structure might be built by the State of Alaska to facilitate the bottomfish industry. In 1983, the Alaska Legislature appropriated funds to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to study the feasibility of constructing a dock for Atkans. Results of the study indicate that a dock site was most feasible at the northern end of Nazan Bay corresponding with the CE's Alternatives A and C (staging area); however, the study made no attempt to determine or verify the economics or cost/benefit of such an undertaking (Robertson and Associates, 1984). Alternative A - Army Dock: Specific project features and/or construction activities which would cause environmental perturbations at Alternative A include: 1) dredging; 2) disposal of dredge material; 3) breakwater construction; and 4) quarrying of armor rock. Direct impacts of dredging the inner harbor moorage basin to -19 feet MLLW are expected to be minimal because an epi- and infaunal subtidal community between zero and -19 feet MLLW does not appear to be abundant. However, major adverse impacts will occur if dredging occurs in productive (presumed standing crop and biomass values) kelp/rocky reef areas to achieve adequate entrance channel depths. Because of the consolidated nature of the rocky reef, blasting may be required to achieve adequate depths. Lethal overpressures from blasting will significantly affect kelp-fishery resources. Dredging 13 acres of sand/gravel substrate and disposing of 155,600 cubic yards of material will unavoidably suspend large quantities of sediment into the water column, degrade water quality, and physically alter benthic habitat. Resident fauna and flora can adapt to natural fluctuations in sedimentation rates and turbidity levels; however, excessive sedimentation and turbidity can interfere with invertebrate filter-feeding mechanisms, irritate and clog fish gills, and interfere with algal photosynthesis by reducing light penetration. Neighboring kelp/rocky reef communities will be most susceptible to excessive sedimentation. Depending on existing longshore current patterns, sediment-laden water could be transported into kelp beds and cause the kelp beds to function as settling basins; the productivity of the kelp beds would subsequently be impaired. Fine sediments and sand settling on dissimilar substrate will smother those sedentary organisms already adapted to a particular substrate type. Water quality in and around the dredging and disposal areas will be degraded for a short period of time. Because of previous military vessel moorings in the project area, sediment analysis should be conducted prior to conclusive statements being made about the release of sediment-bound toxicants into the water column. 21 The extent and magnitude of dredging's environmental impacts will depend on dredging techniques and disposal methods. Dredge disposal alternatives include terrestrial, beach, wetland, continental shelf, and deep ocean disposal. The deep ocean has an assimilative capacity to receive huge volumes of sediment without losing its capacity to sustain normal life processes, provided that deposited material is similar to the receiving substrate (Pequegnat et al., 1978). Nearshore disposal of dredge materials can degrade water quality, smother intertidal and subtidal organisms, initiate contaminant uptake, and cause physical topographic changes which could alter near-bottom currents. The potential environmental benefits of choosing the deep ocean alternative would appear to offset the disposal method's possible economical infeasibility. Possible environmental benefits could be realized should rubblemound breakwaters be constructed at Alternative A. Breakwaters constructed from armor rock and other materials with irregular surfaces will provide a rocky surf habitat on the seaward side, and a rocky calm habitat on the lee side. Rocky habitat, placed in a subtidal area previously devoid of such substrate, could provide the basis for the development of a diverse and productive subtidal community. Monitoring studies should be designed and conducted to enumerate the possible environmental benefits of constructing a rubblemound breakwater at Atka, Alaska. The CE's scenario for quarrying rock on Bolshoi Island has not yet been developed; however, enough is known about the area's resources to discuss potential environmental impacts. Intertidal zones adjacent to the quarry site will be destroyed when the area is filled to build barge staging and loading areas. The physical destruction of the area to be quarried will not directly destroy seabird nesting habitat because nesting does not occur at the CE's preferred site, although nesting seabird colonies and possibly a bald eagle nest do exist in proximity to the quarry site. One of the most environmentally damaging quarry activities at Bolshoi Island would be blasting. Untimely blasts, loud noises, and heavy equipment use at the quarry site could adversely affect the breeding success of those seabirds inhabiting the sea cliffs east of the quarry site. Panic flights caused by blasts can result in severe egg and chick mortality as large numbers of adults evacuate crowded and narrow’ breeding ledges. Additionally, vibrations generated by blasts and heavy equipment use could dislodge large slabs of rock and subsequently cause juvenile mortality and a permanent net loss of nesting habitat. Rock ledges which are used by bald eagles for roosting will be physically removed by blasting. Bald eagles and their nests are protected by the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c ). Alternative A's marine and terrestrial habitat value is not expected to change significantly from its present condition over the next 50 years if a harbor were not constructed. Atka residents will continue to subsistence fish at State Anadromous Fish Stream No. 305-52-11500, although their take may vary seasonally. On-shore development of fishery-related industries is 22 not expected to occur at Alternative A without first developing an adjacent harbor and/or dock. Alternative B - Bolshoi Island: This alternative does not require breakwater construction; therefore, significant environmental impacts on marine resources are not expected to occur should this alternative be selected as the CE's_ preferred alternative. Project features required for this alternative are limited to constructing mooring buoys and/or dolphins. Anchoring such structures in subtidal areas will result in negligible environmental damage because the area to be impacted does not support an abundant and diverse epi- or infaunal community. Dredging an entrance channel is not proposed because existing depths will adequately accommodate projected fishing vessel drafts. The CE's projected harbor design will not affect existing water circulation patterns, so water quality degradation is not expected to occur. Terrestrial resources adjacent to the harbor site will not be directly impacted because CE project features do not extend onshore. Neither seabirds nor bald eagles use the area for nesting and/or roosting, so no impacts on them are anticipated. Because of the village's proximity to the project site, some level of development (e.g., dwellings, roads, tank farms) is expected to occur over the next 50 years in Alternative B's vicinity, even if no harbor is built; however, constructing a harbor at Alternative B may accelerate and increase the magnitude of development. Alternative C - Combination: Because this alternative combines both environmental and engineering desirable features of Alternatives A and B, potential adverse environmental effects will be avoided and/or minimized. Positioning mooring facilities between Bolshoi Island and the Atka Island mainland will negate the need for rubblemound breakwater construction, dredging, and a quarry because of naturally occurring shelter and adequate mooring depths; however, mooring dolphins will cause unavoidable and minimal disturbances to infaunal resources. Constructing dock and onshore support facilities at the northern end of Nazan Bay, and not south of Atka Village, will confine development activities to areas previously impacted by local Atkans and military activities. State Anadromous Fish Stream No. 305-52-11500 will be impacted by Alternative C's on-shore development features in ways and magnitudes similar to those associated with Alternative A. Subtidal resources (e.g. kelp beds and rocky reefs) will be minimally impacted by dock construction if the dock is built at the abandoned Army dock, which is scheduled to be razed under the DOD DERA program. 23 Cumulative Impacts: Upland areas adjacent to Alternative A are not expected to be adversely impacted by project-induced development because the area does not support habitat of high wildlife value. Seabird colonies do not exist in adjacent volcanic bluffs; however, bald eagles could abandon local roosting sites because of continual human presence and/or harassment. Salmonid spawning habitat could be physically degraded during reconstruction of a roadway bridge over State Anadromous Fish Stream No. 305-52-11500. Anadromous fish use of the stream could also be impacted if large volumes of water are diverted from the stream for human consumption and/or commercial uses, thereby reducing flows to less than what is needed for coho and pink salmon to reach their spawning ground and for their eggs to properly develop. The extent and magnitude of environmental impacts associated with upland development at Alternative B could be potentially greater than at the other alternatives because new roads and buildings will require extensive excavating and grading in previously undisturbed upland areas. The proximity of the mooring basin to Chuniisax Creek, a local subsistence fishing stream, could increase non-native use of the stream and cause competition for its salmonid resources. Additionally, large volumes of water withdrawal from Chuniisax Creek will affect the instream flow needs of spawning salmonids as well as Alaska Power Authority's plans to construct a hydroelectric facility on the Creek. Activities potentially affecting either Anadromous Stream 305-52-11500 (near Alternatives A and C) or 305-52-11620 (near Alternative B) will require prior approval from ADFG. Any permit issued by ADFG for work in these streams will be designed to prevent or minimize adverse effects to fish resources. Intertidal marine resources at Alternatives A, B, and C will be impacted by project-induced developments. Both a supply dock and staging area will require intertidal fill in the vicinity of nearshore rocky reef/kelp communities. Additionally, the close proximity of intertidal fills to the aforementioned anadromous fish streams could impact the nearshore movements of juvenile fish. Cumulative impacts to seabirds can result from individually minor but collectively significant bottomfishing activities (Atka, Akutan, Unalaska, King Cove) taking place over a period of time. Bottomfishing activities directly affect the marine food resources of seabirds. Walleye pollock support a world class fishery in the Bering Sea (Frost and Lowry, 1981), and their heavy use by seabirds and other invertebrates has been well documented (Hunt, et al., 1978). Over-exploitation of walleye pollock stocks by commercial fishing may have contributed to the 1984 seabird breeding failure in the Pribilofs (FWS, 1985). Other commercially valuable species eaten by seabirds include Pacific herring, Pacific cod, salmon, and _ sablefish (Sanger, 1983). However, bottomfishing, with the removal of the aforementioned fish species, could increase the marine food resources eo heavily foraged upon by planktivores (crested and least auklets). 24 Consequently, the development of an expanding bottomfishing industry in the Aleutian Islands area could have far more serious environmental consequences to seabirds than direct project construction activities; this situation warrants continued close observation. In the event that the cumulative effects of individual bottomfish projects begin to show evidence of impacting fish and wildlife resources, the FWS will recommend that the issue be studied to document the extent of the problem and to identify means of mitigating those losses as a component of bottomfishing projects. Mitigation Plan Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the National Environmental Policy Act regulations, the FWS has responsibilities to identify impacts and make recommendations that if implemented would insure that project-related losses to fish and wildlife resources are mitigated. As part of FWS's participation in the planning and evaluation of the Atka Bottomfish Harbor project, a FWS mitigation plan is proposed in accordance with the FWS Mitigation Policy (FR Vol. 46, No. 15, January 23, 1981). The basis from which a mitigation plan is developed is explained in the Appendix A. Based on information about the fish and wildlife resources of the project area, the FWS has identified the following species to be used to assess the environmental impacts of the project, establish mitigation goals, and develop a mitigation plan: 1) coho salmon, 2) horned puffin, 3) tufted puffin, 4) whiskered auklet, 5) pink salmon, and 6) sea otter. Criteria used to determine an evaluation species' habitat value include its relative abundance, distribution, and relative productivity. The FWS has placed the habitats of the evaluation species occurring in the Atka area in the following resource category designations: Resource Category 2 Resource Category 3 Resource Category 4 Coho salmon Pink salmon Sea otter Horned puffin Tufted puffin Whiskered auklet Resource Category 2's mitigation goal states that no net loss of in-kind habitat value is to occur. Resource Category 3's mitigation goal states that no net loss of habitat value is to occur, while loss of in-kind habitat value is to minimized. Resource Category 4's mitigation goal states that the loss of habitat value should be minimized. The bald eagle, although potentially impacted, is not included as an evaluation species for mitigation purposes, because it is specifically protected by the federal Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668). Of the fish and wildlife species found in the project area, coho salmon, sea otter, and bald eagle are designated by FWS as National Species of Special Emphasis. The FWS believes that these species are of sufficient importance or concern to merit special attention. 25 The Atka, Alaska Bottomfish Harbor Project is located on native-conveyed lands; however, a Special Use Permit (SUP) and/or Right-of-Way Permit from the FWS Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge will be required prior to initiating any project or project-induced construction above the mean high a — (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, P.L. 92-203, Section 22 (g)). Alternative A - Army Dock: Alternative A will impact directly or indirectly all FWS evaluation species' habitat. When more than one evaluation species occurs in an identical area, as is the case with the horned puffin, tufted puffin, and whiskered auklet, and another case with pink and coho salmon, the mitigation goal (as determined by the evaluation species' resource categorization designation) providing the greatest level of habitat protection must be achieved without adversely jeopardizing the mitigation goals associated with lesser resource category evaluation species. A net loss of horned puffin, tufted puffin, and whiskered auklet nesting habitat on Bolshoi Island as a result of quarry activities for constructing an armor rock breakwater must be prevented. To prevent any loss of in-kind habitat value, no quarrying of rock should take place in _ seacliffs documented to have nesting whiskered auklets, horned puffins, and tufted puffins. Furthermore, blasting should be prohibited at the quarry site between May 1 and October 15, which is the breeding, nesting, and fledging period for horned puffins, tufted puffins, and whiskered auklets. Bald eagle roosting habitat may be unavoidably lost by quarry activities, but the loss of such habitat is not expected to adversely impact local bald eagle populations because an abundance of high habitat value roosting habitat exists in areas adjacent to the quarry site. Although bald eagle nests were not observed in the quarry area, nests could possibly exist in adjacent areas and could be adversely impacted by blasting activities. If bald eagle nests (active or inactive) occur within a one-half mile radius of the quarry site, no blasting should occur from March 1 to May 15. If a nest is determined to be active, blasting restrictions should be extended to August 31 (Jacobson, 1985). Pink and coho salmon habitat in State Anadromous Fish Stream No. 305-52-11500 will be impacted by project-induced activities if a roadway bridge is built and/or significant volumes of water are diverted out of the channel for human consumption and/or commercial purposes. Coho salmon's resource categorization and associated mitigation goal state that project impacts should not cause a net loss of in-kind habitat value. Additionally, pink salmon's resource category and associated mitigation goal state that no net loss of habitat value should occur, while loss of in-kind habitat value should be minimized. Because pink and coho salmon may use the same habitat area, and for reasons previously stated, no net loss of coho salmon in-kind habitat value should occur as a result of project activities. To accomplish this goal, all work performed in the creek bed should be timed so as not to interfere with spawning adults, egg development, and juvenile outmigration; the specific timing of pink and silver salmon activities in State Anadromous 26 Fish Stream No. 305-52-11500 has not yet been identified. Additionally, the stream bottom and banks should be graded and stabilized to preproject conditions. Culverting of the stream should not occur; this could permanently destroy spawning habitat and interfere with fish movements. Furthermore, large volumes of water should not be withdrawn from the stream, because extensive water withdrawal could prevent salmon from reaching spawning grounds and affect the successful incubation of salmon eggs and development of juveniles. Low instream flows may also make salmonid rearing and feeding areas inaccessible. Instream-flow and fishery studies should be performed prior to any water withdrawal from State Anadromous Fish Stream No. 305-52-11500, - Because the harbor and dock will be constructed at the abandoned military dock site which 7s proposed for demolition under the CE Defense Environmental Restoration Account, significant inpacts to kelp beds west of the proposed mooring basin, which support directly or indirectly all evaluation species, will be avoided. If it were not logistically or economically feasible to construct the harbor and dock site at the preferred site, significant kelp bed losses will unavoidably occur. To mitigate for these losses, in-kind replacement of lost kelp habitat is preferred by the FWS; however, replacing lost kelp habitat with different habitat which has been determined to be of greater value may be recommended provided that the total value of the kelp habitat lost is replaced. If this were not possible, the FWS would recommend that Alternative B be selected as the preferred plan. Alternative B - Bolshoi Island: Constructing a bottomfish harbor at Alternative B will have minimal or negligible effects on the six FWS evaluation species. Whiskered auklet, horned puffin, and tufted puffin habitat does not occur in the project area, therefore no habitat value losses will occur. Even though sea otters and their habitat occur within the area, proposed project features will not cause loss of sea otter habitat. Coho and pink salmon spawning habitat in Chuniisax Creek will experience a net loss of habitat value if large volumes of water are diverted from the Creek for human consumption and/or commercial purposes. To prevent a net loss of coho and pink salmon in-kind habitat value, instream flow needs of coho and pink salmon in Chuniisax Creek should be determined and provided for prior to diverting water out of the channel. Unavoidable disturbances to previously undisturbed upland areas will result from staging area and road construction activities. To minimize the amount of surface disturbances, land based facilities should be constructed and confined to the smallest, engineeringly feasible area. Kelp habitat will not be disturbed by dredging or breakwater construction because neither construction activity will occur. However, limited amounts of nearshore low-value kelp habitat will be unavoidably lost by constructing a supply dock. 27 Alternative C - Combination: Alternative C combines both environmentally and engineeringly desirable features of Alternatives A and B. Expensive breakwaters and dredging and associated potential advise environmental effects are avoided by placing the Moorage area west of Bolshoi Island. Additionally, adequate room for onshore support facilities and dock construction at the other end of Nazan Bay can be facilitated while surface freshwater and marine disturbances are minimized and/or avoided. 28 RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations which follow supercede those FWS recommendations made in the draft FWCA report, dated May 8, 1985, and in a supplemental information letter (July 18, 1985) sent to the CE, and are based on current project changes. Additionally, any direct and/or project-induced construction activities occurring above mean high tide will require a FWS Special Use Permit and/or Right-of-Way Permit from the FWS Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, Homer, Alaska. 1. Alternative C is our preferred alternative provided that; a) the dock is built at the Army Dock site to avoid environmentally sensitive areas, b) instream flow needs of coho and pink salmon using State Anadromous Fish Stream No. 305-52-11500 are met prior to diverting water for human consumption and/or commercial purposes, and c) unavoidable losses of marine habitat are fully compensated. 2. Should Alternative C not be selected, Alternative B would be our second choice provided that; a) instream flow needs of coho and pink salmon using Chuniisax Creek are determined and provided for prior to diverting water from the Creek for human consumption and/or commercial purposes, and b) unavoidable losses of marine habitat are fully compensated. 3. Should Alternative C or B not be implemented, our third choice for project development would be Alternative A. We would not object to this alternative provided that; a) the harbor and dock is built at the Army Dock site to avoid environmentally sensitive areas, b) material dredged from the mooring basin is used for breakwater and staging area construction and excess dredged material is disposed of in yet-to-be identified ocean sites, c) instream flow needs of coho and pink salmon using State Anadromous Fish Stream No. 305-52-11500 are determined and provided for prior to diverting water for human consumption and/or commercial purposes, d) breakwater recolonization studies are collectively designed and conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Corps of Engineers, in consultation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and National Marine Fisheries Service to: (1) determine whether subtidal resources lost by breakwater construction are fully compensated for by creating new habitat, and (2) if applicable, identify additional habitat compensation measures. 29 4, Should the CE select a quarry site on Bolshoi Island then; a) b) c) d) quarry activities should not occur in seabird colonies, field studies should be conducted to document the presence of whiskered auklets on Bolshoi Island, blasting activities and the use of heavy equipment at quarry sites within a one-half mile radius of seabird colonies should be prohibited from May 1 to October 15. If bald eagles nests (active or inactive) occur within one-half mile of the quarry site, blasting should be prohibited from March 1 to May 15, and if nests are determined to be active, blasting restrictions should be extended to August 31, and intertidal areas impacted by barge loading activities and facilities should be rehabilitated to pre-project conditions after quarry activities have been terminated. 30 CITED LITERATURE Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1985, Alaska Habitat Management Guide. Southwest Region Volume II: Human Uses of Fish and Wildlife. Produced by Division of Habitat. Juneau. 630 pp. Collins, H.B. 1945, The Aleutian Islands: Their People and Natural History. Smithsonian Institution War Background Studies, Number 21, Washington, D.C. Frost, K.J., and L.F. Lowry. 1981. Trophic importance of some gagids in northern Alaska and their body-otolith size relationship. Fish. Bull., 79 (1): pp. 187-192. Haley, D. (editor). 1978. Marine Mammals of Eastern North Pacific and Arctic Waters. Seattle: Pacific Search Press. Hunt, G.L., Jr., B. Mayer, W. Rodstrom, and R. Squibb. 1978. Reproductive ecology, foods and foraging areas of seabirds nesting on the Pribilof Islands. in: Environmental assessment of the Alaskan continental shelf. NOAA/OCSEAP, Ann. Rep. 1 pp. 570-775. » B. Burgeson, and G.A. Sanger. T98T. Feeding ecology of seabirds of the Eastern Bering Sea. pp. 629-647. In The Eastern Bering Sea Shelf: Oceanography and Resources. Vol. 2., D.W. Hood and J.A. Calder, editors. Univ. of Washington Press - Seattle, WA. 1339 pp. Jacobson, M. 1985. Personal Communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Operations - Raptor Management Studies, Juneau, Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1983. Fishery Management Plan for the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Groundfish. Amendments 1 through 8. October. 1985. ° DRAFT. Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Amendment 9 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area. April. 58 pp. 31 Nysewander, D., D. Forsell, P. Baird, D. Shields, G. Weiter, and J. Kogan. 1982. Marine Bird and Mammal Survey of the Eastern Aleutian Islands, Summers of 1980-81. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Regional Office, February. 134 pp. T985. Personal Communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Assistance Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Pequegnat, W.E., D.D. Smith, R.M. Darnell, and B.J. Presley. 1978. An assessment of the potential impacts of dredged material disposal in the open ocean. TerEco Corp., College Station, Texas. Published by U.S. Army” Eng. Waterways Exp. Stn., Vicksburg, Mississippi. Tech. Rep. D-78-2, Robertson and Associates. 1984. Atka Dock Feasibility Study. Prepared for the Alaska State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. July. 34 pp. + Appendices. Sanger, G.A. 1983. Diets and food web relationships of seabirds in the Gulf of Alaska and adjacent marine regions. Final Report to the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. January. 91 pp. + viii; and 39 pp. appendix. Sekora, P. 1973. Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Study Report. Study conducted as a partial requirement of the Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577, Sowls, A.L., S.A. Hatch, and C.J. Lensink. 1978. Catalog of Alaskan Seabird Colonies. Fish and Wildlife Service. Office of Biological Services 78/78. October. 32 pp. + maps. Springer, A.M., E.C. Murphy, D.G. Roseneau, and M.I. Springer. 1981. Population status, reproduction ecology, and trophic relationships of seabirds in Northwest Alaska. LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. Fairbanks. April. 121 pp. University of Alaska. 1978, Atka. Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center for the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. May. Illustrated Pamphlet. U.S. Department of the Army. 1982, Bottomfish Interim Study: Reconnaissance Report. Prepared by Alaska District, Corps of Engineers. November. 72 pp. + Appendices 32 U.S. Department of Commerce. 1984, Tide Tables 1984 - West Coast of North and South America. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey. 231 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985, DRAFT Management Study Proposal: Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, Homer, Alaska. April 14 pp. Veltre, D.W., and M.J. Veltre. 1983, Resource Utilization in Atka, Aleutian Islands, Alaska Technical Paper Number 88, Prepared for State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. December. 222 pp. 33 APPENDIX A: Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy Synopsis Under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has responsibilities to insure that project-related losses to fish and wildlife resources are identified and mitigated. As part of our participation in project planning, a mitigation plan should be developed in accordance with the FWS Mitigation Policy (FR Vol. 46, No. 15, January 23, 1981) and in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The plan would provide guidance for evaluating and mitigating impacts of the proposed project to fish and wildlife. A mitigation plan is developed by first selecting fish and wildlife habitats from among the full range of habitats occurring within the area to be impacted by both direct as well as indirect impacts. These are chosen either because they represent resources which are most characteristic of the area or because the Fish and Wildlife Service has mandated responsibilities for them. By narrowing the scope in this way, the analysis can focus on areas where significant changes are most likely to occur and not be unduly burdened by inclusion of areas with low wildlife value. After identifying important habitats, evaluation species, which function as indicators of habitat quality and quantity, are chosen. Selection of evaluation species has an important role in determining the extent and type of mitigation achieved. A combination of two sets of criteria is typically used to choose species for this purpose. The first is to pick species with high public interest, subsistence, or economic values while the second is to select species which utilize habitats having significant ecological values. Fish and wildlife habitats are then assigned to one of the four Resource Categories delineated in the FWS Mitigation Policy (Table A-1). Designation of habitat into Resource Categories ensures that the level of mitigation recommended is consistent with the value of that habitat and its relative abundance on an ecoregion or national basis. The determination of the relative scarcity or abundance of evaluation species' habitat from the national perspective is based upon 1) the historical range and habitat quality and 2) the current status of that habitat. A significant reduction in either the extent or quality of habitat for an evaluation species indicates that it is scarce or becoming scarce, while maintenance of historical quantity and quality is the basis for considering it abundant. For all Resource Category 1 habitat, the FWS will recommend that all losses of existing habitat be prevented, as these one-of-a-kind areas cannot be replaced. Insignificant changes that do not result in adverse impacts on habitat value may be acceptable provided they will have no significant cumulative impact. A-1 Table A-1. Resource Categories and Mitigation Planning Goals.1/ Resource Category Designation Criteria Habitat to be impacted is of high value for evaluation species and is unique and irreplaceable on a national basis or in the ecoregion section. Habitat to be impacted is of high value for evaluation species and is relatively scarce or becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion section. Habitat to be impacted is of high to medium value for evaluation species and is relatively abundant on a national basis. Habitat to be impacted is of medium to low value for evaluation species. Mitigation Planning Goal No loss of existing habitat value. No net loss of in-kind habitat value. No net loss of habitat value while minimizing loss of in-kind habitat value, Minimize loss of habitat value. J/ Fws Mitigation Policy (FR Vol. 46, No. 15, 23 January 1981). A-2 Specific ways to achieve the mitigation goal for Resource Category 2 when loss of habitat value is unavoidable include: 1) physical modification of replacement habitat to convert it to the same type which was lost; 2) restoration or rehabilitation of previously altered habitat; 3) increased Management of similar replacement habitat so that the in-kind value of lost habiat is replaced; or 4) a combination of these measures. By replacing habitat value losses with similar habitat values, populations of species associated with that habitat may remain relatively stable in the area over time. The mitigation goal of in-kind replacement of lost habitat, however, cannot always be achieved. When opposition to a project on that basis alone is not warranted, deviation from this goal may be appropriate. Two such instances occur when either different habitats and species available for replacement are determined to be of greater value than those lost, or when in-kind replacement is not physically or biologically attainable in the ecoregion. In either case, replacement involving different habitat kinds may be recommended, provided that the total value of the lost habitat is compensated. For Resource Category 3, in-kind replacement of lost habitat is preferred though not always possible. Substituting different habitats, or increasing management of different habitats so that the value of the lost habitat is replaced, may be ways of achieving the planning goal of no net loss of habitat value. For Resource Category 4, the FWS will recommend ways to avoid or minimize losses. If losses are likely to occur, then FWS will recommend ways to immediately rectify them or to reduce or eliminate them over time. If losses remain likely to occur, then the FWS may make a _ recommendation for compensation, depending on the significance of the potential loss. However, because these areas possess relatively low habitat values, they will likely exhibit the greatest potential for significant habitat value improvements. FWS personnel will fully investigate these areas' potential for improvement, since they could be used to mitigate Resource Category 2 and 3 losses. A-3 APPENDIX B: Agency Correspondence United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE snd UPI. ange tervicg Raptor Management Studies Tiny P.O. Box 1287 H Juneau, Alaska 99802 MAR 2 ‘7 985) Marth 26, 1985 IN REPLY REFER TO: Western Alaska Ecological Sort Anchorage, Wayne Crayton Alaska Western Alaska Ecological Services Sunshine Plaza, Suite 2B 411 W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Wayne, Enclosed is some information on bald eagle nest locations at Atka Island. The information on the maps is not very specific but it's all I have. General locations of bald eagle nests (Hale - for Haliaeetus Leucocephalus) are circled. FAPE stands for peregrine falcon. It might be helpful to talk to Ed Bailey of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge in Homer or someone from the Aleutian Islands Unit of the refuge. Jack Hodges and Bruce Conant conducted an aerial bald eagle survey a few years : ago along the south side of the Alaska Peninsula but did not go beyond Unimak Island. As far as blasting is concerned, blasting operations should be suspended within 1/2 mile of all eagle nests from March 1 to May 15, and suspension . should remain in effect until August 31 for any nest which contains an actively nesting pair of eagles. This would be the best procedure to follow to insure against a violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act. Sincerely, Mb. Saerbeon, Mike Jacobson Eagle Management Specialist DATE: REPLY TO ATTN OF: SUBJECT: TO: UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT memorandum December 26, 1984 Refuge Manager, AMNWR-Homer Aleutian Harbor Developments Wayne Crayton, WAES I have received your Akutan and Atka Bottomfish Harbor Studies and agree with your comments. The area described in the Akutan project is all Native conveyed. It will not require a Special Use Permit (SUP). The Atka project also is on conveyed lands but will require a SUP because of 22 g. Any activity above the high tide = line will require a SUP. Why is it necessary to open up a new material pit on Bolshoi Island? Is there not a pit on Atka that was left over fron WWII or more recent activities? I would like to see old disturbed areas used rather than new areas. I will provide comments on the St. George Harbor later. I have enclosed our latest Vessel Schedule for the summer. Enclosure Lo OPTIONAL FORM NO. 10 (REV. 1-80) GSA FPMR (41 CFR) 101-11.6 SO10-114 > een + HORT A = WwIAKPK (KINKY United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE IN REPLY REFER TO: 1011 E. TUDOR RD. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 DES MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Crayton, Division of Ecological Services Westgry Alaska Ecological Services hs yA FROM: alll 14 MAY 1985 SUBJECT: Comments on Atka Draft Coordination Act Report Good job on the report, I particularly like what you have done with the evaluation species selection. A couple more comments follow: Recommendations 1. This comment is not a recommendation and probably should be handled in the Discussion section and position statement in the front of the document. 5a) Specific and acceptable mitigation measures should be developed and presented in the report, in case the harbor and staging area sites cannot be shifted southeast. BILL SHEFFIELD, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA ME 333 RASPBERRY ROAD June 7, 1985 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502 0485-IvV-74 Robert Bowker Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Western Alaska Ecological Services Sunshine Plaza, Suite 2B 411 W. 4th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Bowker: Re: Atka Bottomfish Harbor Coordination Act Report The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has reviewed the draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report - Bottomfish Harbor Study, Atka, Alaska released in May 1985. We had previously provided comments dated April 8, 1985 on the preliminary draft. Those comments appear to have been satisfactorily incorporated into the draft report. We still concur that Site B near Bolshoi Island appears to be the preferred alternative. Our only comment on the new draft relates to additional discussion on the "direct relationship" between kelp and king crab contained on page 14. We are not aware that a direct relationship between macro-algae and king crab has been established in Alaska. For most of the year, king crab live beyond the compensation depth of macro-algae (i.e. greater than 90 feet). King crab move into shallow water to spawn during the spring and some of the spawning areas may coincide with kelp beds although king crab also spawn in areas where no kelp occurs. Subsequent to spawning and pelagic larvae development, post-larval king crab may settle and rear in areas of kelp growth. However juvenile king crab also settle and rear in areas where no kelp occurs. Sundberg and Clausen (1977) found that post-larval king crab in Kachemak Bay were distributed around the_ shallow perimeter of the bay in association with substrates coarser than gravel and certain types of epigrowth most notably bryozoans. Although king crab are omnivorous and may, at times feed on attached or drift macrophytes, plant consumption is likely only a small portion of the overall diet compared to benthic invertebrates. Other recent Robert Bowker -2- June 7, 1985 investigators (Feder and Jewett, 1980; Feder and Jewett, 1981; Tsalkina, 1969; Tarverdieva, 1976; McLaughlin and Hebard, 1961) have studied the food habits of king crab in Alaska. Bright et al. (1959) is not considered by ADF&G as an authoritative work on king crab. The attached summary of the food habits of king crab is taken from the Alaska Habitat Management Guide - Southwest Region Volume 1 (ADF&G, 1985) and is provided for your reference. We appreciate the opportunity to comment. If you have any specific questions, please contact Kim Sundberg (267-2334) or Denby Lloyd (267-2333). Sincerely, ee Trasky Regional Supervisor Region IV Habitat Division Attachment Vv. NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS Preferred Foods A. Ls 2. Larvae. Larvae feed primarily on diatoms. Juveniles. The preferred diet of postlarval crabs on the west Kamchatka shelf were hydroids (Lafoeina maxima) (Tsalkina 1969). In lower Cook Inlet, postlarval crabs ingested detrital materials, diatoms, Bryozoa, harpacticoid copepods, ostracods, and sediment (Feder and Jewett 1981). Adults. The diet differs according to the geographic region. Crebs feed on dominant benthic forms (Kun and Mikulich 1954, Kulichkova 1955). In the southeastern Bering Sea, a number of food habit studies have been performed. Dominant food items have been cockles (Clinocardium ciliatum), a snail (solarieliia sp.), a clam (Nuculana fossa), brittle stars (Amphiuridae), a polychaete worm (Cistenides sp.), and snow crab (Chionoecetes sp.) (Feder and Jewett 1980). Tarverdieva (1976) found the main foods to be polychaete worms, sanddoilars (Echirnarachnius parma), gastropods of the families Trochidae and Naticidae, and pelecypods (Yoldia, Nuculana, Nucula, Cyclocardia). Cunningham (1969) determined brittle stars (Ophiura sarsi), basketstars (Gorgoncephalus sp.), sea urchins Gon Tocentratus sp. and Echinarachnius parma) to be main foods. Following in importance were mollusks (Nuculana radiata, Clinocarduim californiense, Chlamys sp.); snails (Solarieila sp. and Buccinidae), crustaceans (crab: Hyas coarctatus alutacesus, Erimacrus isenbeckii, and Paaarus sp.), and sand fleas (Amphipoda). McLaughlin and Hebard (1961) determined major food items to be molluscs (bivalves), echinoderms, and decapod crustaceans. The diets of the two sexes were not found to be significantly different. King crabs in the Bering Sea must often compete for food with other bottom-feedinag organisms (snow crab, sea stars, Pacific cod, yellowfin sole, Alaska plaice rock sole, and flathead sole) (Feder and Jewett 1981, Takeuchi 1959). The diet of red king crabs in the Gulf of Alaska (Kodiak and fognak islands) is diverse. Prey in Izhut Bay at Afognak Island were fishes, probably capelin (Mallotus villosus), which was an unusual occurrence (Otto, pers. comm.). In Kiliuda Bay 479 at Kodiak Island, prey consisted of clams, and on the outer Kodiak shelf, crabs, clams, crustaceans, and fishes were important; crabs from shallow bays at Kodiak Island preved upon clams (Protothaca stamina, Macoma sp.), cockles (Clinocardium sp.), and acorn barnacies (Balanus crenatus). © There were significant differences in the food quantity consumed amona sampling areas, time periods, depths, and crab sizes (Feder and cewett 1981). Predation upon sea stars (Pycnopodia hilianthoides and Evasterias troshelii) has been observed and deemed important, especially when crabs are foraging in shallow cae in late spring and summer (Feder and Jewett 1981, Powell 1979). Lower Cook Inlet red king crabs also manifested regional differences in food habits. Crabs in Kachemak Bay fed on clams (Spisula polynyma) , whereas crabs from Kamishak ate mostly barnacles. Diets of postlarval king crabs in Cook Inlet contained detrital material, diatoms, bryozoa, harpacticoid copepods, ostracods and sediment (Feder et al. 1980). B. Feeding Behavior : The king crab is omnivorous during the juvenile and adult phases of its life (Eldridge 1972). 480