> **FINAL**

**ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT**

**STATEMENT**

**Office of Ocean and**

**Coastal Resource Management's**

> **Review of**
>
> **Amendments to the**

**Alaska Coastal Management Program**

**Volume I**

![](media/image1.png){width="3.040277777777778in"
height="1.2409722222222221in"}
![](media/image2.png){width="1.1333333333333333in"
height="1.1333333333333333in"}

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Section Page**

Table of
Contents..............................................................................
ii

Acronyms.......................................................................................
ix

Abstract..........................................................................................
xi

ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................
1

1\.
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................
3

1.1 Approval of the Alaska Coastal Management
Program........................... 3

1.2 Development of the Regulatory Changes to the
ACMP........................... 3

1.3 Nature of the Federal
Action.......................................................... 5

1.4 Notice of Intent and Scoping
Process................................................ 6

1.5 DEIS
Process..............................................................................7

2\.
PURPOSE.........................................................................................
8

3\.
NEED..............................................................................................
8

4\.
ALTERNATIVES................................................................................
8

> 4.1 Alternative 1: Approve Alaska's
> Request.......................................... 9
>
> 4.2 Alternative 2: No
> Action..............................................................
> 10
>
> 4.3 Alternative 3: Deny Alaska's
> Request............................................... 10

5\. CHANGES TO THE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.........\... 11

5.1 EO
106....................................................................................
11

5.2 HB
191....................................................................................
12

5.2.1 HB 191, 11 AAC 110 -- Consistency
Revisions............................ 13

5.2.1.1 Federal
Consistency................................................... 13

5.2.1.2 State
Consistency...................................................... 14

5.2.1.3 The ACMP Consistency Process....................................
14

5.2.2 HB 191, 11 AAC 112 -- State ACMP
Standards............................ 17

5.2.2.1 Redefinition of Coastal
Waters...................................... 17

5.2.2.2 Public Participation and
Information............................... 17

5.2.2.3 Coastal
Development................................................. 17

5.2.2.4 Natural Hazard
Areas................................................. 18

5.2.2.5 Coastal
Access......................................................\... 18

5.2.2.6 Energy
Facilities....................................................... 18

5.2.2.7 Utility Routes and
Facilities.......................................\... 18

5.2.2.8 Timber Harvest and
Processing...................................... 19

5.2.2.9 Sand and Gravel
Extraction.......................................... 19

5.2.2.10
Subsistence.............................................................
19

5.2.2.11 Transportation
Routes/Facilities.................................... 20

5.2.2.12
Habitats.................................................................
20

5.2.2.13 Historic, Prehistoric and Archaeological
Resources.............. 23

5.2.2.14 Avoidance, Minimization, or
Mitigation.........................\... 23

5.2.3 HB 191, 11 AAC 114 -- District Plan
Guidance...........................\... 23

5.2.3.1 Government
Process................................................... 23

5.2.3.2 Plan
Elements.......................................................... 24

5.2.3.3 Plan Review
Process................................................\... 28

5.2.3.4 Special Area Management Plans and Areas Which Merit

Special
Attention........................................................ 29

5.  General
    Provisions...................................................\... 29

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  HB
    69.................................................................................\...\....
    29

3.  HB
    86....................................................................................\...
    30

4.  SB102.....................................................................................
    30

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
6.  AFFECTED
    ENVIRONMENT...............................................................\....
    30

6.1 Physical
Environment....................................................................
31

6.1.1
Climate.............................................................................
31

6.1.2 Natural
Hazards...............................................................\....
32

6.1.2.1 Strong Winds and
Storms..........................................\... 32

6.1.2.2 Tidal
Extremes......................................................... 33

6.1.2.3
Erosion..................................................................
33

6.1.2.4 Earthquakes and
Tsunamis........................................... 34

6.1.2.5 Hydrologic and Geological
Features................................ 34

6.1.2.6 Sea Level
Rise......................................................... 35

6.1.3 Marine
Ecosystems............................................................\...
36

6.1.3.1 Wave Beaten
Coasts................................................\... 36

6.1.3.2 Fjord
Estuaries......................................................... 36

6.1.3.3 Tide-Mixed
Estuaries................................................. 37

6.1.3.4 Bering Sea
Coast...................................................... 37

6.1.3.5 Arctic Ocean
Coast.................................................... 37

6.1.3.6 Continental
Shelf...................................................... 37

6.1.4 Shoreland
Ecosystems........................................................... 38

6.1.4.1 Beaufort Sea Coastal
Plain........................................... 38

6.1.4.2 Arctic Ocean Chukchi Sea/Bering Sea Coastal Zone............. 39

6.1.4.3 Seward
Peninsula...................................................... 39

6.1.4.4 Bering Sea
Islands...................................................\... 40

6.1.4.5 Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta..........................................\... 40

6.1.4.6 Alaska
Peninsula....................................................... 41

6.1.4.7 Aleutian
Islands........................................................ 41

6.1.4.8 Kodiak
Island........................................................... 42

6.1.4.9 Cook
Inlet............................................................\....
43

6.1.4.10 Kenai
Peninsula........................................................ 43

6.1.4.11 Gulf of Alaska
Coast.................................................. 43

6.1.4.12 Alexander
Archipelago................................................ 44

6.1.5
Fisheries............................................................................
45

6.1.5.1
Groundfish......................................................\...\...\....
45

6.1.5.2 Pacific
Salmon.......................................................... 45

6.1.5.3 Anadromous
Fish....................................................... 49

6.1.5.4
Shellfish.................................................................
49

6.1.6 Marine
Mammals..................................................................49

6.1.6.1 Polar
Bears..............................................................50

6.1.6.2 Sea
Otters.............................................................. .51

6.1.6.3 Northern Elephant
Seal.............................................\....52

6.1.6.4 Steller Sea
Lion......................................................\...52

6.1.6.5 Northern Fur
Seal...................................................\....53

6.1.6.6 Pacific
Walrus...........................................................53

6.1.6.7
Whales...................................................................54

6.1.7 Terrestrial
Animals...............................................................58

6.1.7.1
Caribou...............................................................\....59

6.1.7.2
Muskoxen............................................................\....59

6.1.7.3
Moose....................................................................60

6.1.7.4 Grizzly/Brown
Bears................................................\...61

6.1.7.5 Black
Bears..............................................................61

6.1.7.6
Wolverine............................................................\.....62

6.1.8
Birds..............................................................................\...62

6.1.8.1
Seabirds...............................................................\....63

6.1.8.2
Shorebirds............................................................\....66

6.1.8.3 Bald
Eagle............................................................\....69

6.1.9 Threatened and Endangered
Species............................................71

6.1.9.1 Short Tailed
Albatross.................................................72

6.1.9.2 Eskimo
Curlew.........................................................73

> 6.1.9.3 Aleutian Shield
> Fern...................................................75
>
> 6.1.9.4 Spectacled
> Eider........................................................75
>
> 6.1.9.5 Steller's
> Eider...........................................................76
>
> 6.1.9.6 Sea
> Turtles............................................................\...78

6.1.10
Forests..............................................................................79

6.1.11 Air
Quality.........................................................................81

6.1.11.1 Criteria
Pollutants...................................................\...81

6.1.11.2 Regional
Haze.........................................................82

6.1.11.3 Hazardous Air
Pollutants..........................................\...83

6.1.12
Hydrology..........................................................................84

6.1.12.1
Groundwater...........................................................83

6.1.12.2 Surface
Water.........................................................85

6.1.12.3
Wetlands...............................................................96

6.1.12.4 Water
Quality......................................................... 91

6.1.13 Fossil
Fuels........................................................................92

6.1.13.1 Oil and
Gas............................................................92

6.1.13.2
Coal..................................................................\...95

6.1.13.3 Environmental
Issues................................................96

6.1.14
Minerals............................................................................98

6.1.14.1 Kensington Gold
Project.............................................98

6.1.14.2 Greens Creek
Mine................................................\...99

6.1.14.3 Red Dog
Mine.......................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\....100

6.1.14.4 Other Mining
Sites..................................................100

6.1.14.5 Crushed Rock and Sand and
Gravel...........................\....101

6.1.14.6 Environmental
Issues...............................................101

6.1.15 Federal and State Recreational
Areas.........................................103

6.1.15.1 Federal Parks, Preservers and
Monuments......................103

6.1.15.2 State
Parks...........................................................104

6.2 Socio-Economic
Environment.........................................................104

6.2.1 Local District Coastal Management
Programs...........................\...104

6.2.2 Land
Ownership................................................................106

6.2.2.1 State
Land............................................................106

6.2.2.2 Federal
Land.........................................................107

6.2.2.3 Native Alaskan
Lands...............................................107

6.2.2.4 Other Private
Land................................................\...108

6.2.3
Population.......................................................................108

6.2.3.1 Projections
2005-2029..............................................108

6.2.3.2 Age
Patterns......................................................... 108

6.2.3.3
Migration..............................................................109

6.2.3.4 Ethnic
Diversity......................................................116

6.2.3.5 Geographic Distribution of the Native Alaskan

> Population............................................................
> 118

6.2.3.6 Implications of Demographic Tends for 2010 and Beyond... 119

6.2.4
Economy........................................................................
119

6.2.4.1 Oil and
Gas........................................................... 120

6.2.4.2
Minerals.............................................................
121

6.2.4.3
Fisheries.............................................................
122

6.2.4.4
Timber................................................................
125

6.2.4.5
Tourism/Recreation................................................. 127

6.2.4.6
Construction.........................................................
130

6.2.4.7
Transportation........................................................
133

6.2.5
Employment....................................................................
136

6.2.5.1 2002-2012 Employment Projections..............................
137

6.2.5.2 Employment and the Native Alaskan Workforce.................139

6.2.5.3 Unemployment and the Native Alaskan Workforce............. 140
6.2.5.4 Employment in Remote Rural
Alaska..................................... 140

6.2.6 The Remote Rural
Economy...................................................141

6.2.7
Subsistence.......................................................................
145

7\. EFFECTS
ANALYSIS...............................................................................
150

7.1 Discussion of Effects to be
Analyzed................................................ 150

7.2 Criteria for Evaluating the Effects of Approving or Denying
Amendments to

the
ACMP..............................................................................\....151

3.  HB 191, 11 AAC 110 Changes to Consistency, and HB
    86........................153

    1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
        Change..................................153

        1.  Lead
            Agency...........................................................153

        2.  Trigger point for consistency
            review.............................. 153

        3.  Scope of
            review......................................................
            153

        4.  Phasing................................................................
            153

        5.  Elevation...............................................................153

        6.  Third Party
            Lawsuits.................................................
            154

        7.  Exclusion of Alaska DEC Permits and Authorizations
            .........154

        8.  Time Limitations and Certainty for Consistency
            Reviews......155

        9.  ABC List, General
            Permits..........................................155

    2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
        ACMP..............................\...156

4.  HB 191, 11 AAC 112 Revision to Statewide Coastal
    Standards..................156

    1.  Natural Hazard
        Areas...........................................................156

        1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
            Change........................156

        2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
            ACMP.....................\...157

    2.  Coastal
        Access..................................................................157

        1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
            Change........................157

        2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
            ACMP.......................158

    3.  Energy
        Facilities................................................................158

        1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
            Change........................158

        2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
            ACMP.....................\...160

    4.  Utility Routes and
        Facilities...................................................160

        1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change
            ........................160

        2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
            ACMP.....................\...161

    5.  Mining, Sand and
        Gravel.......................................................161

        1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
            Change.........................161

        2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
            ACMP.....................\...163

    6.  Subsistence.....................................................................\...163

        1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
            Change........................ 163

        2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
            ACMP....................... 166

    7.  Resources and
        Habitats.........................................................166

        1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
            Change........................ 168

> 7.4.7.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of no
> ACMP........................169

8.  Removal of "Important Upland
    Habitat".................................... 169

> 7.4.8.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
> Change........................ 169
>
> 7.4.8.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
> ACMP....................... 169
>
> 7.4.9 Changes to Sequencing of Avoid, Minimize, or
> Mitigate.................170
>
> 7.4.9.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
> Change........................170
>
> 7.4.9.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
> ACMP.....................\...171
>
> 7.5 HB 191, 11 AAC 114 -- District Plan
> Guidance.................................... 171

1.  Government
    Process............................................................171

    1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
        Change.........................172

    2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
        ACMP.....................\...172

2.  District Plan Elements
    .........................................................172

    1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
        Change.....................\...173

    2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
        ACMP.......................174

3.  Special Area Management Plans and Areas which Merit

> Special
> Attention................................................................174

1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change........................
    175

2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP.......................176

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  HB 69, Shallow Natural Gas Exploration and
    Development..........................176

    1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program
        Change..................................176

        1.  Variance from Mining
            Regulations...................................176

        2.  Waiver from Local Ordinances and
            Regulations..................177

        3.  Exemption for Production
            Facilities..............................\...178

        4.  Consistency.............................................................179

> 7.6.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No
> ACMP..............................\...179

6.  Cumulative
    Impacts.........................................................................179

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  ENVIRONMENTAL
    JUSTICE...................................................\...............180

    1.  Minority Populations in Alaska's Coastal
        Area......................................180

    2.  Low Income Populations in Alaska's Coastal
        Area.................................184

    3.  Outreach to Affected Communities/Tribal Consultation and
        Coordination......185

    4.  Subsistence in Alaska's Coastal
        Area.................................................185

    5.  Environmental Justic Impacts of Preferred
        Alternative.............................185

> 8.5.1 Economic
> Impacts................................................................186
>
> 8.5.2 Social
> Impacts..................................................................\...186

9.  COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE

> REVIEW
> REQUIREMENTS............................................................\......\...186

1.  Endangered Species
    Act.................................................................187

2.  Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Act..................187

3.  Environmental
    Justice...................................................................187

4.  Executive Order
    12866..................................................................187

5.  Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian

> Tribal
> Governments......................................................................188

10. SUMMARY AND
    CONCLUSIONS..........................................................188

    1.  Summary of
        Effects......................................................................188

        1.  Effects on Physical Resources -- Alternative
            1...................................188

        2.  Effects on Physical Resources -- Alternative
            2...................................189

        3.  Effects on Socio-Economic Resources -- Alternative
            1.........................189

        4.  Effects on Socio-Economic Resources -- Alternative
            2.........................189

    2.  Adverse Effects that Can Not be
        Avoided..........................................\...190

    3.  Mitigation..................................................................................191

    4.  Conclusions................................................................................191

11. LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS
    CONSULTED..................................... 193

12. LIST OF
    PREPARERS........................................................................194

13. DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR
    EIS.............................................................195

14. INDEX FOR
    APPENDICES.........................................................
    ........210

> 15\.
> BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................211

[TABLES]{.underline}

> TABLE 1: Alaska Coastal Community
> Information..............................................110
>
> [CHARTS]{.underline}
>
> CHART A: Endangered, Threatended, Proposed Candidate and Delisted
> Species
>
> in
> Alaska..................................................................................71
>
> CHART B: Federal-State Subsistence
> Comparison.......................................\........149

CHART C: Native Alaskan Population, Poverty Level, and Subsistence for
Coastal

Communities below Population of
2,000............................................182

CHART D: Native Alaskan Population, Poverty Level and Subsistence for
Coastal

Boroughs..............................................................................\...183

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACMA Alaska Coastal Management Act

ACMP Alaska Coastal Management Program

ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AMSA Areas which Merit Special Attention

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

ANWR Alaska National Wildlife Refuge

AOGCC Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

ATSA Alaska Tourism Satellite Account

BBO Billion Barrels of Oil

Bcf Billion cubic feet

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CFEC Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission

CMP Coastal Management Program

CO Carbon Monoxide

CPC Coastal Policy Council

CRSA Coastal Resource Service Area

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

DEC Department of Environmental Conservation

DGC Division of Governmental Coordination

DGGS Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey

DNR Department of Natural Resources

DOG Division of Oil and Gas

DOI Department of Interior

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

F Farenheit

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

HB House Bill

IWC International Whaling Commission

LNG Liquified Natural Gas

Mmbf Million board feet

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act

MMS Minerals Management Service

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NMFS NOAA Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPRA National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

OCRM Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OHMP Office of Habitat Management and Permitting

OPMP Office of Project Management and Permitting

PM Particulate Matter

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

SAMP Special Area Management Plan

SB Senate Bill

t metric tons

TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline System

tcf Trillion cubic feet

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Number range CHAPTER**Final Environmental Impact Statement For**

**Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management Approval of**

**Amendments to the State of Alaska's Coastal Management Program**

**Lead Agency**: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Services

**Responsible Official**: Charles W. Challstrom, Acting Assistant
Administrator

**For Further Information Contact**: Helen C. P. Bass

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20902

\(301\) 713-3155, Extension 175

**Abstract**: This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) U.S.C. 4321
[et.seq.]{.underline} to assess the environmental impacts associated
with the approval and implementation of several changes to Alaska's
Coastal Management Program, submitted by the State of Alaska to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Pursuant to the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (CZMA) and Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) regulations on amendments
to approved state coastal zone management programs (15 CFR part 923,
subpart H), states must submit changes to their programs and their
enforceable policies to OCRM for approval in order to allow continued
federal funding for program implementation and application of federal
consistency under the new enforceable policies. The proposed federal
action under the NEPA is OCRM's review of the incorporation of the
revised program and its enforceable policies into the Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP).

Between 2003 and 2005, the State of Alaska adopted legislation and
regulations that made revisions to its federally-approved Coastal
Management Program. The program changes that Alaska has adopted are
significant and contain many potentially controversial elements. Alaska
adopted the amendments to improve its consistency review process both in
timing and predictability, thereby reducing duplication of permit review
with broadly defined statewide standards, and provide certainty for
private capital commitments. Methods for achieving these goals included
legislative actions that eliminated the original ACMP's Coastal Policy
Council and transferred the lead agency function from the Division of
Government Coordination to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources;
replaced the current statewide standards and mandated revision to all
coastal district plans to achieve statewide standards and coastal
district enforceable policies that are less susceptible to subjective
interpretation and non-duplicative of existing requirements; and
clarified that matters regulated or authorized by State or federal law
are not

allowable topics for coastal district enforceable policies, unless the
policy relates specifically to a matter of local concern. In addition,
certain activities that previously were subject to the coastal
consistency review process are now exempt; and limits have been placed
on parties who have standing to file legal claims challenging ACMP
consistency decisions.

The purpose of OCRM's approval of Alaska's program change request would
be to allow the State to continue its certification as a
federally-approved CMP, receive CZMA funds to implement the revised
program, and conduct State and federal consistency reviews based on the
revised program policies. This EIS evaluates the environmental
consequences for three alternatives that are available to OCRM: (1)
approve Alaska's request to incorporate the amendment as part of the
State's federally-approved coastal management program; (2) the "no
action alternative, where OCRM takes no action or is slow to act; or (3)
deny the amendment, based on a finding that the changes to the ACMP do
not meet the requirements of the CZMA and/or other federal statutes, and
return the amendment request to the State for further consideration. By
operation of Alaska State law, disapproval would lead to the repeal and
termination of the ACMP because Section 22 of Senate Bill 102 mandates
the repeal and termination of the ACMP if OCRM fails to approve the
amendment before January 1, 2006. This includes the repeal and
termination of all of the ACMP standards, district programs, the federal
consistency provisions, and shared federal/state funding under the CZMA.

**EXECUTVE SUMMARY**

The proposed Federal action is the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management's (OCRM) review and approval of Alaska's request to
incorporate Executive Order 106, House Bills 191, 69, and 86, Senate
Bill 102, revisions to the statute AS 46, and new implementing
regulations at 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, and 11 AAC 114 as amendments to
the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) pursuant to OCRM
regulations on Amendments to Approved Management Programs (15 C.F.R.
part 923, subpart H). When an amendment is submitted, OCRM must review
the request to determine if the federally-approved management program,
as changed by the amendment request, will still constitute an approvable
program. This action requires a preliminary determination that the ACMP,
as amended by EO 106, HBs 191, 69, and 86, SB 102, and the new and
revised regulations, will still meet the substantive requirements of the
CZMA in five categories: uses subject to management, special management
areas, boundaries, authorities and organization, and coordination,
public involvement, and national interest. Approval of the amendment
would allow continued federal funding for implementation of the ACMP and
the State's reliance upon the revised enforceable policies throughout
the State's coastal zone for Federal consistency under section 307 of
the CZMA, 16 USC §1465. OCRM has made preliminary Findings of
Approvability (*See* Appendix A). These Findings provide a detailed
analysis of approvability of these changes.

In accordance with the amendment procedures, NOAA must assess the
environmental impacts of OCRM's approval of the proposed amendment in
order to satisfy the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).

Number range CHAPTER There are three major alternatives for
consideration. First, OCRM can approve the Alaska program change
amendment submitted on June 2, 2005, thereby incorporating the amendment
into the federally-approved ACMP. Second, there is the "no action"
alternative where OCRM takes no action or is slow to act. By operation
of Alaska State law, disapproval would lead to the repeal and
termination of the ACMP because Section 22 of Senate Bill 102 mandates
the repeal and termination of the ACMP if OCRM fails to approve the
amendment before January 1, 2006. This includes the repeal and
termination of all of the ACMP standards, district programs, the federal
consistency provisions, and shared federal/state funding under the CZMA.
Third, OCRM can deny the amendment, based on a finding that
incorporating these changes into the ACMP by granting the State federal
approval does not meet the requirements of the CZMA and/or other federal
statutes, and return the amendment request to the State for further
consideration. As with the second alternative, under Alaska State law,
failure to approve the State's request act would lead to the repeal and
termination of the ACMP.

Based on a review of the affected environmental and possible impacts to
the human environment, OCRM has determined that approval of the majority
of the changes proposed under the ACMP's program amendment is likely to
result in neutral effects to the physical environment. The primary
result of approval of the State's amendments to its program is a shift
from State and local plan implementation to primarily State
implementation using State standards and State law. In response to
legislative mandates, the State's coastal standards were rewritten to
avoid redundancy with other State statutes, regulations, and programs.
Potential positive results include a more efficient permitting operation
for activities in the coastal area; greater clarity and guidance in some
of the statewide coastal standards; financial savings and time savings
for investors; and economic benefits to the State from increased
investment. In terms of negative effects to the physical environment,
the major issues involve the new subsistence standards and process
requiring designation for subsistence areas. There is concern that they
may reduce the level of district policies and review for subsistence
uses. In addition, the State has removed the ability for districts to
seek mitigation for any damages resulting to subsistence areas from
permitted activities. These changes have the potential to result in
negative effects to subsistence resources. Insomuch as there are any
negative effects to subsistence resources, potential environmental
justice issues have been identified.

There would be negative effects for both physical and socio-economic
resources if either alternative two or three were to occur. Under these
alternatives, as mentioned previously, the ACMP would sunset, according
to State law, and the State would no longer participate in the national
program. The result would be the loss of ACMP standards as well as
district programs, in addition to the loss of the State's ability to
apply federal consistency. It is assumed that the State's other natural
resource statutes, regulations and programs would continue to exist, and
the State's current proposed reliance on these statutes for protection
of its coastal resources would be tested in full. However, except as may
be required by other federal laws, federal agencies would no longer be
compelled to meet State standards within the coastal area. Negative
effects on the socio-economic resources would be the loss of both the
State and the districts' ability to participate in the federal program,
which currently provides approximately \$2.5 million per year to the
State in CZMA funding, and the ability to apply federal consistency.

Ultimately, NOAA's preferred alternative is to approve Alaska's request
to incorporate EO 106, HBs 191, 69, 86, SB 102, revisions to statute AS
46, and regulations at 11 AAC110, 11 AAC 112, and 11 AAC 114 as a
program amendment to the ACMP.

**1. INTRODUCTION**

**1.1 Approval of the Alaska Coastal Management Program**

Recognizing the need for coordinated effort to manage the nation's
coastal resources, Congress passed the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA) in 1972, 16 USC 1451-1465. The CZMA established a voluntary
program for the management, beneficial use, protection, and development
of the land and water resources of the nation's coastal areas. The
federal program encourages states to exercise more fully their
authorities and responsibilities related to coastal resources.

The CZMA provides guidelines for the development of state coastal
management programs. The implementing federal regulations at 15 CFR part
923, subparts B-G, outline the requirements for state program
development and approval. Subpart H of these regulations includes the
guidelines for changing an approved state program. Changes to an
approved program may be processed as either a matter of routine program
change or as an amendment (15 CFR part 923, subpart H).

The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) was approved by the
Secretary of Commerce in July 1979. The program is based on the Alaska
Coastal Management Act of 1977 (ACMA) which established an approach of
shared local and State coastal management responsibilities. The ACMA
originally created the Coastal Policy Council (CPC) to direct the State
coastal program. The CPC was staffed by both State and local government
representatives, and until the recent legislative changes, was
responsible for approving statewide standards and guidelines for the
management of coastal land and water uses. The CPC also reviewed and
approved local coastal programs. The Governor's Office of Management and
Budget, Division of Governmental Coordination served as staff to the CPC
and was the lead ACMP agency. The ACMP sets forth guidelines and
standards related to coastal resources and provides for local coastal
programs to implement the ACMP provisions.

**1.2 Development of the Regulatory Changes to the ACMP: EO 106, HBs
191, 69, 86, Senate Bill 102, Revisions to Statute AS 46, and
Regulations at 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, and 11 AAC 114**

The State of Alaska submitted a package of legislative and regulatory
changes to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) as
a program change to the ACMP, including Executive Order (EO) 106, House
Bills (HBs) 191, 69, 86, and SB 102 along with revisions to statute AS
46, and the new implementing regulations at 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, and
11 AAC 114. The new implementing regulations replace the existing
consistency review procedure regulations at 6 AAC 50, the statewide
standards at 6 AAC 80, and the district program guidelines at 6 AAC 85.
and 6 AAC 85. On February 12, 2003, Governor Frank Murkowski introduced
Executive Order (EO) 106 into the Alaska State Legislature, Senate and
House of Representatives. The HBs and regulations were introduced and
signed into law between May 21, 2003 and May 26, 2005. In essence EO 106
and HB 191 transfer responsibility for implementation of the ACMP from
the Division of Governmental Coordination in the Governor's Office to
the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). HB 191 eliminates the CPC,
and transferred authority for development of statewide standards for the
ACMP and review and approval of district coastal plans to DNR. In
addition, HB 191 requires DNR to adopt new regulations by July 1, 2004
which establish "clear and enforceable" statewide standards for the ACMP
as well as criteria for approval of new district coastal plans. The
current district plans were to sunset as of July 1, 2006, and the
districts are being required to develop new plans based on the new
standards and guidelines and submit them to DNR by July 1, 2005. Under
HB 69, shallow gas exploration and development projects that are
conducted under the oversight and regulation of the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission and State resource agencies are automatically
determined to be "consistent" with the ACMP. HB 86 specifies that, with
respect to a State consistency determination, only an applicant or
affected coastal resource district is eligible to appeal a
non-constitutional matter. Otherwise, the consistency determination is
not subject to review, stay or injunction by the State courts. In May
2005, SB 102 was signed into law in order to extend the time frame for
completing State and district program changes and address other
programmatic issues that had arisen during the initial phase of ACMP
revision implementation. Detailed descriptions of the new and revised
laws and regulations are provided in section five of this document.

DNR kept OCRM apprised on its preparation and adoption of the statutory
revisions and the revised ACMP regulations addressing the consistency
review process, the statewide standards and the guidelines for the
district plans. The districts and public were involved in the process
through district conferences and other public comment opportunities on
the proposed regulations. The draft regulations were issued for public
review and comment on February 20, 2004; the comment period ended on
April 2, 2004. DNR considered the comments, made amendments, and adopted
a revised version of the regulations that went into effect July 1, 2004.
In addition, on August 9, 2004, DNR's Office of Project Management and
Permitting (OPMP) released a second set of limited proposed changes to
the regulations for public review and comment, which were subsequently
amended and adopted as revised on September 24, 2004. These went into
effect on October 29, 2004. It should be noted that while the
regulations have become effective as State regulation, the statewide
standards will only apply to consistency reviews after the date the DNR
Commissioner has certified to the Lieutenant Governor that the United
States Department of Commerce has approved these as program changes to
the ACMP. Local coastal districts are still expected to prepare revised
plans based on the new standards, as required under SB 102. Existing
district plans and enforceable policies that were approved by the CPC
will remain in effect until March 1, 2007, unless DNR reviews and
approves new enforceable policies prior to that date.

On September 30, 2004, the ACMP, through DNR, requested OCRM to
incorporate EO 106, HBs 191, 69, and 86, and the new and revised
implementing regulations into the federally-approved State program as a
program amendment. On November 4, 2004, OCRM notified Alaska that based
on the State's submission, OCRM lacked sufficient information to make a
decision or finding of preliminary approval under CZMA section
306(e)(3)(B), and therefore was extending the time for its review of the
Alaska program change submission for a period not to exceed 120 days
(March 4, 2005). OCRM provided its comments on two charts detailing the
additional information that was needed from DNR to resubmit a complete
amendment package. On May 20, 2005, DNR held a public hearing to solicit
comments regarding Alaska's submission of its amendment request to OCRM
regarding the ACMP. The public hearing was held to meet the requirements
of 16 U.S.C. 1455(d)(4) and 15 C.F.R. 923.81(a). Once these public
hearing requirements had been met, on June 2, 2005, Alaska resubmitted a
revised request for amendment to the ACMP that also included SB 102.

Based on OCRM's review of the June 2, 2005 submission, on June 27, 2005
OCRM issued preliminary approval of the ACMP, as amended.

**1.3 Nature of the Federal Action**

The proposed federal action is OCRM's review and approval of these
changes to the ACMP pursuant to NOAA regulations on Amendments to
Approved Management Programs (15 C.F.R. 923.80). An amendment is defined
as a substantial change in, or substantial change to, enforceable
policies or authorities related to:

\(1\) Uses subject to management (15 C.F.R. part 923, subpart B)

\(2\) Special Management Areas (15 C.F.R. part 923, subpart C)

\(3\) Boundaries (15 C.F.R. part 923, subpart D)

\(4\) Authorities and Organization (15 C.F.R. part 923, subpart E)

\(5\) Coordination, Public Involvement and National Interest (15 C.F.R.
part 923, subpart F)

When an amendment is submitted, OCRM must review the request to
determine if the federally-approved management program, as changed by
the amendment request, will still constitute an approvable program. This
requires a preliminary determination that the ACMP, as amended by EO
106, HBs 191, 69, and 86, SB 102, and the new and revised regulations,
will still meet the substantive requirements of the CZMA in the
categories listed above. The preliminary Findings of Approvability have
been made and are included as Appendix A. These Findings provide a
detailed analysis of approvability of these changes. Accordingly,
reviewers should note that except during the discussion of alternatives,
this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not focus on
approvability issues, but rather, the environmental impacts associated
with OCRM's approval of these changes.

In accordance with the amendment procedures, NOAA must assess the
environmental impacts of the proposed amendment in order to satisfy the
requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Because NEPA
and the CZMA have similar goals, the information used in the NEPA
process will also be used to help make a final determination whether the
ACMP, as amended by the program changes, still constitutes an approvable
state program under the CZMA.

This EIS addresses the NEPA requirements under the guidelines
established by OCRM (OCRM Administrative Order 216-6, "Environmental
Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act," May 20, 1999). This EIS analyzes the potential environmental
impacts of OCRM's approval of the policies and provisions of the program
changes to the human environment, as described in section 6.

**1.4 Notice of Intent and Scoping Process**

On June 24, 2005, OCRM published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on
Alaska's request to incorporate EO 106, HBs 191, 69, 86, and SB 102,
revisions to statute AS 46, and regulations at 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112,
and 11 AAC 114 into the ACMP. The public comment period was open until
August 5, 2005. OCRM solicited public comment to identify alternatives
to approving the amendments to the ACMP, and potential impacts of the
proposed alternatives. OCRM held meetings in Barrow on July 25, 2005,
Anchorage on July 27, 2005 and Juneau on July 28, 2005.

During the scoping process, three ways were provided to submit comments
to OCRM on approval of the ACMP amendments:

\(1\) Public meetings;

\(2\) E-Mail

\(3\) Traditional Mail Delivery

Twenty-two people participated in the scoping process. They represented
environmental organizations, industry, and local, State, tribal and
federal governments. Comments provided during the public meeting were
captured by a court reporter. Approximately half of the participants
submitted input at the public meetings, with the other half submitting
comments by e-mail or letter. Some commenters submitted through multiple
channels. All of the comments originated from Alaska.

OCRM considered all comments one month prior to and during the formal
scoping period and used them to identify the key environmental issues to
be addressed. A summary of the public comments and primary issues raised
during the meetings is in the Scoping Report (Appendix B). Below is a
list of significant issues identified during the scoping process that
will receive particular attention in this analysis.

∙ Consolidation of decision-making authority within DNR

∙ Effects of Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Carve Out

∙ Effects of changes to consistency review requirements

∙ Effects of changes on subsistence uses and resources

∙ Effects of changes to habitat standards

∙ Effects of removal of mining from ACMP standards

∙ Removal of mitigation requirements

∙ Effects of changes to district plan requirements

∙ Environmental justice issues associated with changes to the ACMP

**1.5 DEIS Process**

On September 23, 2005, EPA published a Notice of Availability and
Schedule of Public Hearings and Public Comment Period on the DEIS on
Alaska's request to incorporate EO 106, HBs 191, 69, 86, and SB 102,
revisions to statute AS 46, and regulations at 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112,
and 11 AAC 114 into the ACMP. The public comment period was open until
November 7, 2005. OCRM held public hearings in Juneau on October 31,
2005, and Anchorage on November 1, 2005.

During the public comment period, five ways were provided to submit
comments to OCRM on approval of the ACMP amendments:

\(1\) Public hearings;

\(2\) E-Mail

\(3\) Traditional Mail Delivery

\(4\) Fax

\(5\) Telephone/Voice Message

Thirty-Two people/organizations sent written comments and a total of 28
people attended the two public hearings. They represented public
interest groups; local, State, tribal and federal governments; and
private citizens. Comments provided during the public hearing were
captured by a court reporter. Approximately seven of the participants
submitted input at the public hearings, with the remainder submitting
comments by e-mail or letter. Some commenters submitted through multiple
channels. The majority of the comments originated from Alaska; one
comment was received from Arizona. In addition, OCRM arranged for a
government-to-government consultation conference call with Native
Alaskan representatives on November 9, 2005.

OCRM has responded to all comments in Appendix E, and made necessary
changes to the EIS as indicated in that document. In addition, a copy of
all comments received and the public hearing minutes have been provided
in Appendix F.

**2. PURPOSE**

OCRM is responsible under the CZMA for approving any program changes
made by a state to its original federally-approved coastal management
program (CMP). Changes that must be submitted are those that (1) affect
the CMP as approved by OCRM; (2) the state CMP wishes to spend CZMA
funds on; and (3) the state CMP wishes to use for federal consistency
review purposes. The State of Alaska has submitted a package of
substantial changes to the ACMP's organization, participation structure,
implementation, policies, and administration of those policies for OCRM
review and approval. The purpose of OCRM's approval of Alaska's program
change request would be to allow the State to continue its certification
as a federally-approved CMP, receive CZMA funds to implement the revised
program, and conduct State and federal consistency reviews based on the
revised program policies.

**3. NEED**

The CZMA regulations define two types of program changes: amendments and
routine program changes. As discussed above, amendments are defined in
15 C.F.R. 923.80(d), as substantial changes in one or more of five
program areas. Whether or not a program change is substantial is based
on a case-by-case determination. Indicators of a substantial change
include: new or revised enforceable policies that address coastal uses
or resources not previously managed, or major changes in the way a state
CMP manages uses or resources; the extent to which the proposed change
impacts the national interest reflected in the CZMA (e.g., Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas development, energy facility siting,
water and air quality, etc.); and the extent to which the proposed
change is similar to past program change requests by any state that were
treated as amendments. OCRM has determined that Alaska's program change
submission qualifies as a substantial change to three of the five
program areas listed above: (1) uses subject to management; (2)
authorities and organization; and (3) coordination, public involvement,
and national interest. In addition, OCRM has found Alaska's program
change to be substantial, both in terms of the revisions in the way the
State is managing the uses and resources, and because the scope of the
changes represents one of the most comprehensive changes to a state
coastal program in the history of the CZMA. Therefore, OCRM is required
under the CZMA to conduct a review and approval process for Alaska's
program change submission as an amendment, which includes the production
of an EIS.

**4. ALTERNATIVES**

The proposed federal action is OCRM's approval of Alaska's EO 106, HBs
191, 69, and 86, Senate Bill 102, revisions to the statute AS 46, and
new implementing regulations at 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, and 11 AAC 114
as amendments to the ACMP pursuant to OCRM regulations on Amendments to
Approved Management Programs (15 C.F.R. part 923, subpart H). In
determining whether Alaska's new laws constituted an amendment, OCRM
found that Alaska's submission qualified as an amendment under three of
the five program areas. When an amendment is submitted, OCRM must also
review the request to determine if the federally-approved management
program as changed by the amendment request, will still constitute an
approvable program. This requires a preliminary determination the ACMP,
as amended by the new laws will still meet the substantive requirements
of the CZMA in the categories listed above (15 C.F.R. part 923, subpart
H). The preliminary Findings of Approvability have been made and are
included as Appendix A. These Findings provide a detailed analysis of
approvability of this amendment. Accordingly, reviewers should note that
except during the discussion of alternatives, this EIS does not focus on
approvability issues.

Number range CHAPTER There are three major alternatives for
consideration. First, OCRM can approve the Alaska program change
amendment submitted on June 2, 2005, thereby incorporating the amendment
into the federally-approved ACMP. Second, there is the "no action"
alternative where OCRM takes no action or is slow to act. By operation
of Alaska State law, disapproval would lead to the repeal and
termination of the ACMP because Section 22 of Senate Bill 102 mandates
the repeal and termination of the ACMP if OCRM fails to approve the
amendment before January 1, 2006. This includes the repeal and
termination of all of the ACMP standards, district programs, the federal
consistency provisions, and shared federal/state funding under the CZMA.
Third, OCRM can deny the amendment, based on a finding that
incorporating these changes into the ACMP by granting the State federal
approval does not meet the requirements of the CZMA and/or other federal
statutes, and return the amendment request to the State for further
consideration. As with the second alternative, under Alaska State law,
failure to approve the State's request act would lead to the repeal and
termination of the ACMP. The three available alternatives are discussed
below based on the merits of the specific proposals identified during
the review process.

**4.1** **Alternative 1: Approve Alaska's Request to Incorporate EO 106,
HBs 191, 69, 86, SB 102, Revisions to Statute AS 46, and Regulations at
11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, and 11 AAC 114 as a Program Amendment
\[Preferred Alternative\]**

Alaskans statewide are interested in encouraging responsible coastal
development. There are both general and practical considerations that
applicants use in judging whether to invest in resource development in
Alaska. One of the most important considerations is the structure and
predictability of the permitting laws for a state. Applicants are more
likely to seek a regulatory structure that is easily navigable and
predictable. Applicants must know what the permitting rules are up
front, how to comply with those rules, how much compliance will cost,
and how long the permitting process will take. The lack of
predictability in permitting may cause apprehension on the part of
industry deciding whether to invest in resource development in Alaska.
The result can be the loss of investment, and delay of project start
dates which can result in significant safety issues and project delays.

The current Administration in Alaska concluded that project design,
siting, and review under the ACMP structure were resulting in costly
delays because the applicable statewide standards and district plan
enforceable policies were confusing or otherwise duplicative of existing
State or federal regulation. OCRM's approval of Alaska's request to
incorporate the amendments to its Coastal Management Program, as
described, would update and reform the ACMP and address these concerns.
Under this alternative, OCRM would approve Alaska's request to
incorporate the new statutes and new and revised regulations into the
ACMP. The ACMP would be implemented as the State's new program, and the
State would continue to receive federal funding to implement the
program. The new statutes and regulations would become the
federally-approved authorities which Alaska would use to apply federal
consistency.

> **4.2 Alternative 2: No Action---Failure to Approve Alaska's Request
> to Incorporate EO 106, HBs 191, 69, 86, SB 102, Revisions to Statute
> AS 46, and Regulations at 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, and 11 AAC 114 as a
> Program Amendment before January 1, 2006, resulting in the abolishment
> of the ACMP through Statutory Sunset Provisions**

The no action alternative, required to be analyzed in an EIS by C.F.R.
1502.14(d), is the most likely outcome that can be expected to occur in
the absence of agency action, and is described for comparison with the
proposed action and any alternatives. Under the CZMA, if OCRM did not
act on a state's proposed amendment to a coastal management plan, the
amendment would eventually be conclusively presumed as approved. 16
U.S.C. 1455(e)(2). In this case, however, Alaska has enacted a statute
which will repeal the ACMP if OCRM does not approve the proposed
amendment before January 1, 2006. Alaska statute SB 102, Section 22
contains language that repeals the ACMP effective July 1, 2010, if the
revised coastal management program has not been approved by OCRM under
the CZMA before January 1, 2006, in which case the repeal of the ACMP
takes effect on May 10, 2006. Alaska could, of course, consider changing
its laws at any time during the next regularly scheduled legislative
session (January 2006 -- May 2006), but given existing law, the most
likely outcome if OCRM failed to act before January 1, 2006, is the
repeal and termination of the ACMP.

Repeal and termination of the ACMP would ensure that it would be an
unenforceable program under the CZMA, lead to State withdrawal from the
national program, and have serious repercussions to not only the
national program, but to Alaska state agencies, districts, and local
communities within Alaska's coastal zone. The same effects would occur
if Alaska decides to withdraw from the voluntary program.

Since 1974, Alaska has received nearly \$160 million under provisions of
the CZMA. Much of these grant funds were matched by the State and this
represents a considerable investment to achieve coastal management
objectives and policies as identified by the State. It is difficult to
describe all the potential negative impacts and consequences that would
result from the lack of future federal funds. There would also be the
loss of the federal consistency provisions, which is often the only
means for a state to have meaningful input into federal agency
activities, federal license or permit activities, OCS oil and gas plans
and federal financial assistance activities. While Alaska has fine tuned
the consistency provisions over the years, it has served as a mechanism
that has given State agencies and districts a greater voice in large
scale projects. To a large degree, these are subjective values different
interests would place on the loss of program participation. For the
reasons cited above, this is not NOAA's preferred alternative.

3.  **Alternative 3: Deny Alaska's Request to Incorporate Alaska's
    Request to Incorporate EO 106, HBs 191, 69, 86, SB 102, Revisions to
    Statute AS 46, and Regulations at 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, and 11 AAC
    114 as a Program Amendment**

Alaska's request to incorporate the new and revised laws and regulations
was processed as an amendment to the ACMP because it was considered to
be a substantial change to several aspects of their program, including
uses subject to management; authorities and organization; and
coordination, public involvement, and the national interest. The
application of these extensive changes to Alaska's coastal area brought
into question whether the State would still meet the requirements of the
CZMA. Several concerns were raised by the public during the program
change request process, including limiting the effectiveness of the ACMP
through 1) reduction in local districts' participation in oversight of
locally important resources, particularly subsistence issues through
revisions to Alaska's coastal standards and district plan guidance; 2)
eliminating federal consistency review requirements for shallow gas and
coal bed methane activities; 3) reducing the opportunity for public
comment on consistency review of DEC activities and other activities
covered on the A or B list, by encouraging the expansion of activities
to be included on these lists; 4) narrowing the scope of ACMP review to
cover only those activities requiring permits within the coastal zone,
rather than the "whole project" impacts, or projects outside the coastal
zone that might have significant impacts on coastal resources; 4)
centralizing all district plan and State standards and appeals decisions
within DNR by eliminating the CPC; and 5) removing the ability for a
citizen to litigate an ACMP consistency determination.

Under this alternative, OCRM would deny approval of Alaska's request to
incorporate the new statutes and new and revised regulations into the
ACMP. This would lead to exactly the same result as the "no action"
alternative: the repeal and termination of the ACMP due to the Alaska
statute SB 102, discussed above. The advantages of participation in the
federal program would not be available to the State, including a
comprehensive and effective program, federal funding, and federal
consistency. For the reasons cited above, this is not NOAA's preferred
alternative.

**5. CHANGES TO THE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM**

This section provides a synopsis of the changes submitted by the Alaska
DNR on June 2, 2005, which is attached as Appendix C. Appendix C
provides a detailed description of the new program as implemented under
the newly adopted laws and regulations, including a detailed description
of the program changes (*See* Chapter 10, pages 191-- 249). The purpose
of this section is to describe succinctly and specifically how the
previous program areas differ under the new program requirements.

1.  **EO 106**

On February 12, 2003, Governor Frank Murkowski introduced EO 106 into
the Alaska State Legislature, Senate and House of Representatives. Per
article III, section 23 of the Alaska Constitution:

> The governor may make changes in the organization of the executive
> branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he
> considers necessary for efficient administration. Where these changes
> require the force of law, they shall be set forth in executive orders.
> The legislature shall have sixty days of a regular session, or a full
> session if of shorter duration, to disapprove these executive orders.
> Unless disapproved by resolution concurred in by a majority of the
> members in joint session, those orders become effective at a date
> thereafter to be designated by the governor.

EO 106 transferred the Alaska Coastal Policy Council from the Office of
the Governor to the Department of Natural Resources, and transferred the
function of the Division of Governmental Coordination within the Office
of the Governor to the Department of Natural Resources. These transfers
were done (a) in the best interests of efficient administration; (b) to
permit better access to scientific information and state personnel with
technical expertise on projects affecting the coastal zone; and (c) to
permit closer coordination to improve the planning process for projects
affecting the coastal zone.

Though there were no legislative hearings on EO 106, the legislature did
consider the substance of EO 106 in the 2003 joint session, did not
disapprove that order, and the order became effective on April 15, 2003.
EO 106 called for reform legislation, namely HB 191, which in turn led
to statutory revisions at AS 46.39 and AS 46.40, and the implementing
regulations at Title 11 of the Alaska Administrative code.

**5.2 HB 191**

There are four essential components to HB 191. The first component was
to eliminate the CPC and transfer its authority for the development of
statewide standards of the ACMP and the approval of district coastal
management plans to DNR. The second component was to require that DNR
adopt regulations by July 1, 2004 establishing clear and enforceable
statewide standards of the ACMP and criteria for the approval of new
district coastal management plans. DNR was to retain coastal resource
districts and how they operate under the ACMP, but require the districts
to revise their plans. Under HB 191, the districts were required to
submit their new plans within one year of the effective date of DNR's
new regulations, or July 1, 2005, whichever was later. In addition,
existing district plans were to sunset by July 1, 2006 (except for those
submitted by July 1, 2005 and approved by DNR). (Extensions to these
dates were made under SB 102. *See* discussion below) The third
component was to streamline the ACMP by relying on the requirements of
the DEC and their implementing regulations as the enforceable policies
of the ACMP for those purposes and relying on DEC's implementation of
those requirements in order to determine consistency for those parts of
a development projects. Finally, the fourth component was to clarify
when a consistency review is required under the ACMP, the scope of the
activities subject to the review, and the standards against which the
project will be measured. A more detailed sectional analysis of HB 191
is provided in Appendix

C, the State's program amendment submission. In addition, the specific
changes are described below.

5.2.1 HB 191, 11 AAC 110 -- Consistency Revisions

This section describes the State consistency and federal consistency
requirement and the changes made to the ACMP's consistency process. For
more detailed information on the CZMA federal consistency requirements,
*see* CZMA section 307 (16 U.S.C. 1456) and OCRM's federal consistency
regulations, 15 C.F.R. part 930. Additional information on federal
consistency is located on OCRM's federal consistency web page at:
www.coastalmanagement.OCRM.gov/czm/federal_consistency.html.

5.2.1.1 Federal Consistency

The CZMA federal consistency provision is a cornerstone of the CZMA
program and a primary incentive for States' participation. Federal
consistency provides states with an important tool to manage coastal
uses and resources and to facilitate cooperation and coordination with
federal agencies. Federal consistency is a limited waiver of federal
supremacy and authority.

Federal agency activities that have coastal effects must be consistent
to the maximum extent practicable with the federally-approved
enforceable policies of a state's CZMA program. In addition, non-federal
applicants for federal authorizations and funding must be fully
consistent with the enforceable policies of state CZMA programs.

Federal consistency reviews are the responsibility of a lead state
agency within a state's federally-approved CZMA program. In Alaska, the
lead State agency is the Alaska DNR. At the federal level, OCRM, within
NOAA's National Ocean Service, among other duties and services,
interprets the CZMA and oversees the application of federal consistency;
provides management and legal assistance to coastal states, federal
agencies, Tribes and others; and mediates CZMA related disputes. NOAA's
Office of General Counsel for Ocean Services assists OCRM and processes
appeals to the Secretary of Commerce.

Federal consistency is the CZMA requirement that federal actions that
have reasonably foreseeable effects on any land or water use or natural
resource of the coastal zone (also referred to as coastal uses or
resources, or coastal effects) must be consistent with the enforceable
policies of a coastal state's federally-approved CZMA program. There are
four basic types of federal actions: federal agency activities, federal
license or permit activities, OCS plans, and federal financial
assistance to state and local governments:

1\) Federal agency activities -- activities and development projects
performed by a federal agency, or a contractor for the benefit of a
federal agency, e.g. Fishery Management Plans by the NOAA Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), Naval exercises, the disposal of federal land
by the General Services Administration, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) breakwater or beach renourishment project, an OCS oil and gas
lease sale by the Minerals Management Service (MMS), improvements to a
military base, Naval disposal of radioactive or hazardous waste
performed by a private contractor, activities in National Parks such as
installation of mooring buoys or road construction.

2\) Federal license or permit activities -- activities not performed by
a federal agency, but requiring federal permits, licenses or other forms
of federal approval; e.g., activitiqes requiring Corps 404 permits,
Corps permits for use of ocean dump-sites, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
licenses for nuclear power plants, licenses from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for hydroelectric facilities.

3\) OCS plans -- MMS approvals for OCS plans, pursuant to the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act. The CZMA process is similar to federal
license or permit activities.

4\) Federal financial assistance to state and local governments --
examples include Federal Highway Administration funds to coastal state
and local governments, construction grants for wastewater treatment
works, hazardous waste management trust fund, and Housing and Urban
Development grants.

5.2.1.2 State Consistency

State coastal management programs must ensure that the program is
implemented in a consistent fashion among its various state agencies
and, if applicable, local governments. This requirement is derived
primarily from CZMA section 306(d)(10)(A) (16 U.S.C. 1455(d)(10)(A))
("to administer land use and water use regulations to control
development to ensure compliance with the management program and to
resolve conflicts among competing uses."). Other sections also speak to
state consistency, e.g., CZMA sections 306(d)(2)(D), (d)(2)(F),
(d)(3)(B) and (d)(7). In OCRM's regulations the state consistency
requirement is mandated at 15 C.F.R. 923.1(c)(6) ("\[i\]ncludes
sufficient legal authorities and organizational arrangements to
implement the program and to ensure conformance to it"), and 923.1(c)(8)
("\[p\]rovides a mechanism to ensure that all state agencies will adhere
to the program").

5.2.1.3 The ACMP Consistency Process

The ACMP consistency review process requirements are contained in 11 AAC
110. The general procedures and milestones associated with the
consistency review process are explained in detail in Chapter 6 of the
ACMP Program Document (Appendix C). The consistency process for the ACMP
has changed little. The general consistency review process, both before
and after the ACMP changes, can be summarized by the following sequence
of events:

\(1\) Applicability determined;

\(2\) State provides pre-review assistance;

> \(3\) State determines packet completeness (including a "Coastal
> Project Questionnaire;"

\(4\) State determines scope;

\(5\) State issues public notice;

\(6\) Review begins (Day 1);

> \(7\) Deadline for comments (Day 17 or 30, depending upon review
> type);
>
> \(8\) State considers comments, resolves issued raised;
>
> \(9\) State issues proposed determination (Day 24 or 44, depending
> upon review type);

\(10\) Applicant considers options, including elevation;

\(11\) State issues final determination (Day 30/50).

With that summary, the following describes the changes to the
consistency review process since Alaska's statutory amendments to AS
46.39 and AS 46.40, regulatory revisions at 11 AAC 110, 112, and 114,
and laws passed by the Legislature: HB 69, HB 86, HB 191, and SB 102:

5.2.1.3.1 Lead agency

Prior to these ACMP changes the Division of Governmental Coordination
(DGC) within the Office of the Governor coordinated the consistency
review process and issued federal consistency decisions. This function
now resides within the OPMP, within the DNR.

5.2.1.3.2 Trigger point for consistency review

AS 46.40.096(j) and 11 AAC 110.010(b). (The ACMP Program Document (June
2, 2005) at section 6.1 incorrectly cites 11 AAC 110.050(b).) These
sections clarify the applicability of the consistency review process.
The 2003 statutory change simply reflects the 2002 regulatory changes
already approved by OCRM as a previous program change.

5.2.1.3.3 Scope of review

AS 46.40.096(k), 11 AAC 110.020, and 11 AAC 110.225 established that the
scope of the review for a project only requiring a State permit is
limited to activities located within the coastal zone and geographic
location descriptions, subject to a State resource agency permit, or is
the subject of a coastal district enforceable policy. Previously, the
scope of the project subject to review was not well defined. The scope
of a project subject to federal consistency review did not change and is
determined by CZMA section 307 and OCRM's regulations at 15 C.F.R. part
930.

5.2.1.3.4 Phasing

AS 46.40.094 establishes the provisions for allowing a project to be
reviewed in phases. Previously, this section was written specifically
for oil and gas exploration and development type projects, to the
exclusion of other applications. As amended, this section allows other
development type project reviews to be phased, as appropriate.

5.2.1.3.5 Elevation

AS 46.40.096(d)(3) and 11 AAC 110.600 establish the general process and
limitations for "subsequent reviews" (elevations) of proposed
consistency determinations by the coordinating agency. Previously,
elevations were reviewed by the three resource agency directors and/or
commissioners, and were to be completed within 15 days of request of the
elevation. As

amended, the elevation has been changed, such that elevations are now
reviewed and decided upon by the DNR commissioner, with an extended
timeframe for issuance of that decision.

5.2.1.3.6 Third party lawsuits

Alaska HB 86 (2003), section 3, removed the ability of third parties to
file a lawsuit regarding a consistency determination made by the State.
Previously third parties could file such lawsuits. Under the new ACMP,
only applicants and affected coastal districts may file such lawsuits.

> 5.2.1.3.7 Exclusion of Alaska DEC permits and authorizations (the "DEC
> carve-out")

AS 46.40.040(b), AS 46.40.096(g) and (k), and 11 AAC 110.040 contain the
DEC carve-out provisions. The DEC carve-out is described in Appendix C
at section 6.6. Previously DEC permits and standards were part of the
consistency review process. In addition, districts could adopt policies
that addressed air and water quality concerns. Under the new ACMP,
activities that are subject to authorization by DEC would be excluded
from the consistency review process, and districts may not write
policies that address issues under the jurisdiction of DEC. In the case
of a DEC-only authorization project, only activities outside the
activities addressed by the DEC authorization and are the subject of a
district enforceable policy are subject to State consistency review. DEC
has established ACMP consistency review procedures setting forth
"Uniform Procedures for Conducting a Coastal Management Consistency
Review for Projects that Only Require a DEC Permit or Contingency Plan
Approval to Operate." These procedures will be used when a project only
requires a DEC authorization and the activity is located within the
boundaries of an approved district. Districts and the public retain the
ability to comment on, and provide input to, DEC permit decisions under
these provisions. For activities not requiring a DEC authorization
because the activity is located on federal lands or waters, e.g., the
federal OCS, the activity will nonetheless need to comply with DEC
standards through the CZMA federal consistency review process and DEC
will forward its findings to OPMP for OPMP's federal consistency
decision.

5.2.1.3.8 Time limitations and certainty for consistency reviews

AS 46.40.096(n), (o), and (p) and 11 AAC 110.265 require that
consistency reviews shall be completed within 90 days after receipt of
the complete application for a project, except in

specific circumstances. Previously, there were no deadlines for
completing the consistency reviews, other than those general deadlines
contained in OCRM's regulations at 15 C.F.R. part 930.

5.2.1.3.9 ABC List, general permits

AS 46.40.096(m) and section 19(b) of SB 102 (Chapter 31, SLA 2005)
establish authority for the ABC List and require that the ABC List be
comprehensively updated within two years of OCRM's approval of the ACMP
changes. The most recent comprehensive revision to the ABC List was
approved by OCRM in 1995, with minor modifications approved in 1999 and
2002. The current ABC list, dated May 26, 2004, contains technical edits
and updates reflecting prior consistency review determinations. The
changes to the ABC List are non-substantive and generally limited to
technical corrections, including correcting permit titles and names,
correcting statutory and regulatory references, and including the most
updated agency general permits and nationwide permits.

5.2.2 HB 191, 11 AAC 112 -- State ACMP Standards

11 AAC 112 contains the State's revised coastal standards. Below is a
detailed description of the revisions that have been made to the
standards, compared against the existing approved ACMP. Changes that are
not considered substantive and that are unlikely to result in impacts to
the human environment have been identified. The analysis of effects of
the changes on the affected environment considered to be substantive is
found in Section 7.

5.2.2.1 Redefinition of Coastal Waters

The State has redefined the term 'coastal waters' to mean
"contain\[ing\] a measurable quantity or percentage of sea water."
(112.990(7)) Previously, under the old 6 AAC 80.900 (2), coastal waters
were defined as, "all water 11 AAC bodies in the coastal area, including
wetlands and the intertidal area." The definition now being used for
'coastal water' was previously used by the State under 6 AAC 85.900 (2)
for 'marine coastal water,' which meant "water adjacent to shorelines
which contains a measurable quantity of seawater." This will have
implications for the revised standards discussed below, which are either
limited to coastal waters or waters having a direct and significant
effect on coastal waters: 1) coastal access; 2) sand and gravel
extraction; 3) important habitats; 4) rivers, streams, and lakes; 5)
wetlands; and 6) coastal zone boundaries. The effect of the amended
regulations is to limit many of the enforceable standards to seawater.
The impacts will be discussed under those sections, as necessary.

5.2.2.2 Public Participation and Information

No substantive changes were made to the public participation and
information section, other than to move it to the guidance section of
the regulations (*See* 5.5.1 below). This section will not be reviewed
for effects. However, other aspects of public participation under
separate issues such as changes to federal consistency and DEC authority
will be analyzed.

5.2.2.3 Coastal Development (11 AAC 112.200)

Minor wording changes were made to this section now specifying that
water "dependent" or "related" could include both economical or physical
dependency or relationship, and that the determination would be made on
whether there are "practicable inland alternatives" rather than the
original program's "feasible and prudent inland alternatives." The new
term "practicable" is defined at 11 AAC 112.990(18) as "feasible in
light of overall projects purposes after considering cost, existing
technology and logistics of compliance with the standards." The previous
terms "feasible and prudent" is defined in the original document as,
"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 modified by the
term 'feasible, and prudent.'" (p. 80, Final Environmental Impact
Statement \[FEIS\])

5.2.2.4 Natural Hazard Areas (11 AAC 112.210)

This revision identifies what geophysical hazards either DNR or the
districts should designate as natural hazard areas, as well as how other
natural processes or adverse conditions in an area can qualify for
designation. In addition, the changes now specify what agency (ies)
would be the appropriate authority for identifying the appropriate
measures in siting, designing, constructing and operating a proposed
activity in a known hazard area. This change is more expansive than the
original program's requirements.

5.2.2.5 Coastal Access (11 AAC 112.220)

Coastal access has now replaced the term "recreation," although it has
retained essentially the same definition in terms of the designation of
recreational use areas (*See* section AAC 114.250(c)(d)). However, the
revised ACMP now requires that State agencies and districts "ensure"
that projects maintain, and where appropriate, increase public access
to, from, and along coastal waters, rather than the previous standard,
which was "give high priority to." The scope of the policy is also now
limited to the boundary of the new definition of "coastal waters" (*See*
section 5.2.2.1 above). Previously, the policy served as a planning tool
and lacked any compliance measures as an enforceable policy.

5.2.2.6 Energy Facilities (11 AAC 112.230)

Changes made to the Energy Facilities policies include (1) revising the
basis for siting and approving major energy facilities from on the basis
of "to the extent feasible and prudent," to "to the extent practicable,"
(*See* discussion above at 5.1.2.3 for definition of practicable); (2)
removing the term, " in productive habitat" from the end of the standard
"select sites where development will require minimal site clearing,
dredging and construction;" (3) entirely removing the standard of
"selecting sites in areas which are designated for industrial purposes
and where industrial traffic is minimized through population centers;"
and (4) further defining "uses authorized by the issuance of State and
federal leases for mineral and petroleum resource

extraction" to include easements, contracts, rights-of-way, or permits
for mineral and petroleum resource extraction.

5.2.2.7 Utility Routes and Facilities (11 AAC 112.240)

Utility routes and facilities were separated from transportation routes
and facilities. In addition, the standard was revised to take into
consideration "water related" utility routes and

facilities (originally it was only water dependent), and exchange the
standard "feasible and prudent inland alternatives" with "practicable
inland alternatives."

5.2.2.8 Timber Harvest and Processing (11 AAC 112.250)

No substantive changes were made to this section. This section will not
be reviewed for impacts.

5.2.2.9 Sand and Gravel Extraction (11 AAC 112.260)

The State has removed all references to mining in its coastal policies.
Previously, the coastal policies were not very explicit with respect to
mining and mineral processing. The requirement simply stated that,
"\[m\]ining and mineral processing in the coastal area must be
regulated, designed, and conducted so as to be compatible with the
standards contained in this chapter, adjacent uses and activities,
statewide and national needs, and district programs." With the removal
of any reference, the State's position is that activities associated
with and conducted by mining can be adequately regulated under the other
statewide standards and other State and federal laws.

With respect to sand and gravel, there are two changes. First, while
sand and gravel may still be extracted in coastal waters and be covered
by ACMP review, the definition of "coastal waters" has been revised
(*See* section 5.1.2.1 above). This revision could result in sand and
gravel extraction activities now taking place in the coastal areas along
stream banks and rivers, where the water does not meet the "coastal
water" standard. In addition, Alaska has revised the standard from "no
feasible and prudent alternative" to "no practicable alternative."

5.2.2.10 Subsistence (11 AAC 112.270)

Alaska has revised the Subsistence standard. The pre-existing policy
required that State agencies and districts recognize and assure
opportunities for subsistence usage of coastal areas and resources. The
State viewed this policy as overly broad and unclear and removed this
requirement. Under 11 AAC 114.250, districts may now designate
subsistence areas in which "a subsistence use is an important use of
coastal resources." Previously districts identified areas where
subsistence was a "dominant use of coastal resources," and had a
"priority over all nonsubsistence uses and activities." In addition,
previously, before a potentially conflicting use or activity was
authorized in a designated subsistence area, a study of possible adverse
impact and appropriate safeguards to assure subsistence usage was
required. Under the new standard, a project applicant must submit an
analysis or evaluation of reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts of the
project on subsistence use, and that project "must avoid or minimize
impacts to subsistence."

5.2.2.11 Transportation Routes/Facilities (11 AAC 112.280)

This section is new, having been added primarily to separate and
distinguish it from utility routes and facilities. The language now
requires that all transportation routes and facilities must "avoid,
minimize, or mitigate" alterations in surface and ground water drainage
patterns, disruption in known or reasonably foreseeable wildlife transit
and blockage of existing or traditional access. "Transportation routes
and facilities" is defined at 11 AAC 112.990(28) as "natural
transportation routes dictated by geography or oceanography, roads,
highways, railways, air terminals, and facilities required to operate
and maintain the route or facility.

5.2.2.12 Habitats (11 AAC 112.300)

The State made several significant changes to the habitats standards.
The State removed the introductory language to the section requiring
that each type of habitat be managed to "maintain or enhance the
biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitat which
contribute to its capacity to support living resources." The State
rewrote the standards habitat so that, with the exception of rocky
islands and seacliffs and barrier islands and lagoons, each type will
now be managed for a more limited list of habitat values. However, a
particular habitat receives more holistic review if it is designated an
"important habitat." Discussion of the various changes is broken down by
section, below.

5.2.2.12.1 Offshore Areas

Offshore areas are now managed to "avoid, minimize, or mitigate
significant adverse impacts to competing uses such as commercial,
recreational, or subsistence fishing, to the extent that those uses are
determined to be in competition with the proposed use." Previously, in
addition to being managed to maintain or enhance their habitat
qualities, they were also to be managed as fisheries conservation zones.

5.2.2.12.2 Estuaries

Estuaries under the new standards are now to be managed to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to adequate water flow
and natural water circulation patterns and competing fishing purposes.
Under the previous standard, estuaries were also managed to assure
adequate water flow, natural circulation patterns, nutrients and oxygen
levels, avoiding the discharge of toxic wastes, silt, and the
destruction of productive habitat. Nutrients and oxygen levels,
discharge of toxic substances, and activity-induced siltation are
covered under the statutory and regulatory authority of DEC.

5.2.2.12.3 Wetlands

The new wetland standards require that wetlands be managed to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to water flow and
natural drainage patterns. Under the previous standard, wetlands (along
with tide flats) were managed to assure adequate water flow, nutrients,
and oxygen levels, and avoid adverse effects on natural drainage
patterns, the destruction of important habitat, and the discharge of
toxic substances. Nutrients and oxygen levels and the discharge of toxic
substances are covered under the statutory and regulatory authority of
DEC.

Alaska has revised the definition of both saltwater and freshwater
wetlands. The new definition for wetlands is found at 11 AAC
112.990(33): "'wetlands' means saltwater wetlands and those freshwater
wetlands that have a direct drainage to coastal waters." While
freshwater wetlands are further defined at 11 AAC 112.990(13) in terms
of vegetation and environment," the most significant change is in
section AAC 112.990 (33) where wetlands are to drain into coastal
waters. The term "coastal waters" has been redefined to mean waters
"contain\[ing\] a measurable quantity or percentage of sea water."

5.2.2.12.4 Tide flats

Tide flats were previously managed under the same standard as wetlands.
Under the new standards, they are now managed to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate adverse impacts to water flow and natural drainage patterns, as
well as competing commercial, recreational, or subsistence uses, to the
extent that those uses are determined to be in competition with the
proposed use.

5.2.2.12.5 Rocky Islands and Sea Cliffs

Under the new standard, rocky islands and sea cliffs are now managed to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to habitat used
by coastal species, and avoid the introduction of competing or
destructive species and predators. This is very similar to the previous
standard, which was avoiding the harassment of wildlife, destruction of
important habitat, and the introduction of competing or destructive
species and predators. This does not seem to be a major change and this
standard will not be reviewed for impacts.

5.2.2.12.6 Barrier Islands and Lagoons

The new standard echoes the previous standard, requiring that barrier
islands and lagoons be managed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
significant adverse impacts to (rather than maintain) adequate flows of
sediments, detritus, and water, avoid the alteration or redirection of
wave energy which would lead to the filling in of lagoons or the erosion
of barrier islands, and discourage activities which would decrease the
use of barrier islands by coastal species, including polar bears and
nesting birds. This does not seem to be a major change and this standard
will not be reviewed for impacts.

5.2.2.12.7 Exposed High-Energy Coasts

The new standard for managing these habitats includes avoiding,
minimizing, or mitigating significant adverse impacts to the mix and
transport of sediments and the redirection

of transport processes and wave energy. The new standard does not
address the mix and transport of nutrients.

5.2.2.12.8 River, Stream and Lakes

The purpose of the new standard is to manage to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate significant adverse impacts to natural water flow, active
floodplains, and natural vegetation within riparian management areas.
Under the original standards, river, streams and lakes were also managed
to protect water quality and important fish or wildlife habitat.

5.2.2.12.9 Important Habitat (11 AAC 250(h))

The new standard now incorporates a category called "important habitat,"
replacing "important upland habitat" (*See* section 5.1.2.12.10). Under
the program changes, "important habitat" refers to any of the types of
habitat discussed above, or another area which has been designated by
either a district or the State, or State game refuges, State game
sanctuaries, State range areas, or fish and game critical habitat areas.
The area must be managed for the "special productivity of the habitat"
in accordance with district enforceable policies, if it has been
designated by a district as "important habitat," or managed to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate significant adverse impacts to the special
productivity of the habitat. In order for an important habitat to be
designated, either a district or the State can demonstrate that (1) the
use of those designated portions have a direct and significant impact on
coastal water; and (2) the designated portions are shown by written
scientific evidence to be biologically and significantly productive.

5.2.2.12.10 Removal of "Important Upland Habitat"

Alaska has removed "important upland habitat" as one of the habitats in
the coastal area which is subject to the ACMP. Important upland habitat
is defined at 6 AAC 80.900(15) as "drainages, aquifers, and land, the
use of which would have a direct and significant impact on coastal
water." Instead, DNR states that upland habitat which would have a
direct and significant impact on coastal water could still be addressed
through the newly included "important habitat." Other State and federal
laws continued to address upland habitats as well.

> 5.2.2.12.11 Riparian Management Areas and Floodplain (11 AAC
> 112.300(c)2) and 11 AAC 112.990 (1)

Alaska has incorporated definitions for riparian management areas and
floodplains which it will use to delineate areas alongside rivers, lakes
and streams subject to the program's review.

Previously, the ACMP did not have any definitions for riparian
management areas and floodplains. It is standard practice for a state to
delineate or define such areas in its coastal policies.

> 5.2.2.13 Historic, Prehistoric, and Archaeological Resources (11 AAC
> 112.320)

There are two changes under the new standard. First, DNR, which includes
OPMP and the State Historic Preservation Office, rather than
"appropriate State agencies" is identified as the State agency to
designate historic, prehistoric and archeological resource sites in the
State. Second, the language was changed to be more specific from
designating these sites in the "State" to designating them in the
"coastal zone." These are not major changes and this section will not be
reviewed for impacts.

5.2.2.14 Avoidance, Minimization, or Mitigation (11 AAC 112.900)

Alaska has adopted a new standard throughout the regulations for
"avoidance, minimization or mitigation." It specifically appears in the
standard for utility routes and facilities, transportation routes and
facilities, and habitats. The State has clarified in its program
submission that it is not their intent for this standard to be equated
with "no net loss of coastal resources."

5.2.3 HB 191, 11 AAC 114 -- District Plan Guidance

The changes to the regulations at 11 AAC 114 primarily address the
requirements for district plan contents and the transition process as
per HB 191. Below is a detailed description of the revisions that have
been made to the guidance, compared against the existing approved ACMP
guidance.

5.2.3.1 Government Process 11 AAC 114.010 -- 11 AAC 114.020

There are two elements covered under this section: (1) public
participation and information; and (2) program management and
coordination. As explained in Section 5.4, no substantive changes were
made to the public participation and information requirements in the
ACMP. However, significant changes were made to program management and
coordination.

Under EO 106 and HB 191, the ACMP was relocated from the DGC in the
Governor's Office into the OPMP within the DNR, and the Alaska CPC was
dissolved. The role of the CPC was to provide policy-level leadership
for the ACMP, and to serve as the main coordination mechanism for the
ACMP, as well as the repository of most of the authority for the
program. Since the ACMP was originally intended to be based on both
State agency and local authorities, the CPC membership was composed of
representatives of both groups. There were nine elected local government
officials and seven State agency heads on the CPC. The CPC was
responsible for adopting the ACMP regulations, supporting resolutions,
participating and advising the development of grant applications for
federal funding to support the ACMP, reviewing and approving district
plans, and providing general leadership for the ACMP. In addition, the
CPC served as a forum for resolution of disputes that might arise
between State agencies and local governments on local program
implementation, and played a conflict resolution role in inter-agency
conflicts when possible. These responsibilities have now been
transferred to DNR. While there continues to be public notice and
opportunity for input during public comment and public hearing
procedures, there is no longer the same level of participation and local
representation at the policy and decision-making level on development of
State coastal program standards and guidance, nor approval of district
plans.

5.2.3.2 Plan Elements (11 AAC 114.200 -- 11 AAC 114.290)

Perhaps the most significant changes to the ACMP have been to the
district plan development and implementation process. As explained by
the Alaska State legislature in the Findings section of HB 191, the
purpose of the legislative changes to the ACMP was to make the ACMP
"function with a minimum of delay and avoid regulatory confusion, costly
litigation, and uncertainty regarding the feasibility of new
investment." It was their decision to:

> \[U\]pdate and reform the existing statewide standards of the ACMP so
> that they are clear and concise and provide needed predictability as
> to the applicability, scope, and timing of the consistency review
> process under the program \[and\]\...update and reform the district
> coastal management plans under the ACMP so that the local enforceable
> policies within those plans are clear and concise, provide greater
> uniformity in coastal management throughout the State, relate to
> matters of local concern, and do not duplicate State and federal
> requirements.

Consequently, the State developed local district guidance and a process
to significantly revise the existing district coastal plans. A
description of the changes is provided below, with comparisons to the
previously approved guidance and process where possible.

5.2.3.2.1 Coastal Zone Boundaries (11 AAC 114.220)

Although Alaska's coastal zone boundary remains the same, the new
definition of "coastal waters" limits the application of certain
policies within that boundary. In describing the coastal zone boundary,
the regulations read, "\[f\]inal coastal zone boundaries may diverge
from the initial boundaries so long as the final boundaries (1) extend
inland and seaward to the extent necessary to manage a use or an
activity that has or is likely to have a direct and significant impact
on coastal waters." Since the new definition limits 'coastal waters' to
a much smaller area, the State's standards related to coastal access,
sand and gravel extraction, important habitats, rivers, streams and
lakes, and freshwater wetlands will also now apply to a more limited
area. The change in the boundary language itself does not affect the
designation of the State or a district's boundary, since the original
boundary language reads, "extend inland and seaward to the extent
necessary to manage a use or an activity that has or is likely to have a
direct and significant impact on ***marine*** coastal water." As
discussed above at 5.1.2.1, the new definition of 'coastal waters' and
the existing definition of 'marine coastal waters' are the same.

> 5.2.3.2.2 Resource Inventory and Resource Analysis (11 AAC
> 114.230--240)

Since it is the legislation's overall goal to restrict the scope of
district policies to resources that are of local concern, and neither
repeat nor duplicate any existing federal or State requirements, the new
resource inventory and analysis requirements are much more rigorous and
focused. The new language states the "resources subject to a district
plan are ***limited***" (italics added) to a descriptive list of
characteristics, which are identified in other parts of the regulations,
and which require additional, restrictive delineation. The purpose of
any of the new areas listed for inclusion in the inventory is because if
these areas are not listed in a district's plan for a particular use,
then the district will not be able to develop policies relating to that
area for that specific use. In addition, districts must now incorporate
"appropriate and pertinent local knowledge," and resource inventory
information must be substantiated or documented with a citation or
reference to the source of information. If the information is included
by reference, it must be summarized and made available upon request. The
previous guidance for district plan inventories had no information
substantiation requirements.

The new resource analysis guidance is similar to the resource inventory
requirements. In addition to previous resource analysis requirements,
the State now requires districts to provide information on "reasonably
foreseeable direct and indirect impacts" of uses and activities.
Districts must also document "by local usage or scientific evidence a
use or resource of unique concern that is the subject of an enforceable
policy" for an area designated by a district as a land and water use or
activity subject to the district's plan, a SAMP, or an area that merits
special attention within a district.

The new guidance for the resource inventory and analysis introduces
several new terms requirements that previously were not part of
developing a district plan resource inventory and analysis. These
include "appropriate and pertinent local knowledge," "scientific
evidence," and "local usage." These are described below.

● "Appropriate and pertinent local knowledge" defines the type and
extent of local knowledge that can be cited in a district's inventory as
that which is relevant and useful; i.e., "a body of knowledge or
information about the coastal environment or the human use of that
environment, including information passed down through generations, if
that information is (a) derived from experience and observations; and
(b) generally accepted by the local community;

● "Scientific evidence" means facts or data that are (1) premised upon
established chemical, physical, biological, or ecosystem management
principles as obtained through scientific method and submitted to OPMP
to furnish proof of a matter;

\(2\) in a form that would allow resource agency review for scientific
merit; and

\(3\) supported by one or more of the following: (i) written analysis
based on field observation and professional judgment along with
photographic documentation; (ii) written analysis from a professional
scientist with expertise in the specific discipline; or (iii)
site-specific scientific research that may include peer-review level
research or literature.

● "Local usage" means current and actual use of a coastal resource by
residents of the locality in which the resource is found. This
definition would require proof, but not of the rigorous nature entailed
by having to provide "scientific evidence" of the use.

> 5.2.3.2.3 Subject Uses, Activities, Resources, and Designations (11
> AAC 114.250)

This section defines the subject matter under which district enforceable
policy matters may be written, and specifically lists the subject matter
and criteria for establishing designated areas. A district may write
district enforceable policies on any or all of the uses, activities, and
resources listed in 11 AAC 112.200 -- 11 AAC 112.240 (coastal
development, natural hazard areas, coastal access, energy facilities,
and utility routes/facilities), and 11 AAC 112.260 -- 11 AAC.280 (sand
and gravel extraction, subsistence, and transportation routes and
facilities), as well as uses, activities and resources in 11 AAC 114.250
(b)--(i) (natural hazards areas, recreation use areas, areas of tourism,
major energy facility sites, commercial fishing/seafood processing
facility areas, subsistence areas, any of the habitat and important
habitat areas, and historical/ prehistorical areas). However, if a
district wants to write an enforceable policy for one of the eight areas
listed in 11 AAC 114.250 (b)--(i), that area must be designated. In
addition, if a district creates an enforceable policy for a matter in a
designated area, the policy is applied outside of the boundaries of that
designated area, pursuant to 11 AAC 110.015. Under 11 AAC 110.015, State
and approved district enforceable policies will apply to federal actions
affecting Alaska's coastal uses or resources, regardless of the location
of the federal action where the coastal use or resource is affected.
This section shall apply notwithstanding language limiting the
application of district policies to geographic areas in other sections
of Alaska's regulations.

Under the previous district programs, districts were required and
encouraged to designate specific areas in order to be able to apply
their policies, but were not necessarily restricted to applying district
policies within the boundaries of those designated areas. This
restriction, as contained in 11 AAC 110.015, may reduce districts'
abilities to apply their enforceable policies to non-federal actions
that may have impacts on coastal resources, particularly along district
and designated area boundary lines.

> 5.2.3.2.4 Proper and Improper Uses and Activities (11 AAC 114.260)

This section has not changed substantively, however, because of the
importance of designating areas with respect to development and
application of district policies in designated areas, Areas which Merit
Special Attention, and special area management plans, the opportunity to
identify proper and improper uses and activities is more critical.

5.2.3.2.5 District Enforceable Policies (11 AAC 114.270)

Both the legislation and the revised regulations are clear in their
intent to significantly revise district policies. The original
regulation at 6 AAC 85.090 was broad in its description of requirements
for policies (e.g., criteria required that policies be comprehensive, so
as to apply to all uses, activities and areas in need of management; and
specific so as to allow clear understanding of who will be affected by
the district program; and enforceable). However, the new requirements
are more specific and focused:

> \(1\) The policies must relate to the uses and practices identified in
> the regulations (*See* 5.1.3.2.3 above);
>
> \(2\) District enforceable policies may not address any matters
> regulated by DEC, including policies that are more or less stringent
> than a DEC standard on a regulated subject area;
>
> \(3\) District policies may not adopt, duplicate, repeat, restate, or
> incorporate by reference a State standard or other State or federal
> law;
>
> \(4\) If the policy addresses a subject matter regulated or authorized
> by State or federal law, then it must relate to a "matter of local
> concern." In order to identify a "matter of local concern," the
> district must have it documented in its plan. Furthermore, a "matter
> of local concern" must:

● relate to a specific coastal use or resource within a defined portion
of the district's

coastal zone, typically identified in the resource inventory;

● relate to an area defined narratively or mapped;

● relate to a coastal use or resource that is sensitive to development;

● address a coastal use or resource that is not adequate addressed by
State or federal law;

● relate to a coastal use or resource that is of unique concern to the
district through documentation of local usage or scientific evidence

> \(5\) The policy must be clear and concise as to the activities and
> persons affected by its requirements, and use precise, prescriptive
> and enforceable language. Either the policy or the implementation
> chapter must clearly explain how to implement the policy, who
> implements it, who enforces it, and who has the expertise in
> determining compliance with the policy. In addition, the policy must
> use objective language;

\(6\) The policy must be supported by the resource inventory and
analysis;

> \(7\) A district plan must have at least one policy that can be
> applied to the designated area during consistency review, since a
> policy that only provides a designation does not have an enforceable
> component, and policies must be enforceable; and
>
> \(8\) A district can reference a State standard to build on it, but
> can not incorporate it by reference, or repeat it.

Essentially, the districts were formerly able to write a district policy
on almost any use or resource anywhere in their districts, regardless of
whether the subject use or resource of the enforceable policy were
present within the district, or already covered/addressed by another
State or federal law. The program changes have focused the districts to
writing policies for areas that have already been designated for a
specific use, and uses that are not already sufficiently managed by
either DEC, or if managed by another State or federal agency, are of
local concern. In addition, new requirements for scientific and local
knowledge are required at several stages of development of a district's
plan. Such scientific and local knowledge is needed to support any one
policy, resource inventories and analyses, and demonstrating that the
issue is a matter of local of concern. This last item also requires a
demonstration that the issue is not already sufficiently managed by a
State or federal agency policy, and is of local concern. In addition,
the State has established standards for what is acceptable as scientific
and local knowledge documentation.

5.2.3.2.6 Implementation (11 AAC 114.280)

This section of the regulations was not substantially revised.
Additional descriptive information is now required on the planning,
implementation, and enforcement relationships between the coastal
district and the cities and villages inside the districts, however, this
does not appear to be a significant change and this section will not be
reviewed for impacts.

5.2.3.3 Plan Review Process (11 AAC 114.300 -- 11 AAC 114.385)

The changes that were made to the plan review process regulations
primarily reflect technical amendments to the program; i.e., the
relocation of the ACMP into DNR, OPMP's assumption of the former CPC's
responsibility for district plan review and approval. The new sections
identify the district plan development and approval process for new and
amended district plans, including the public review requirements, the
minor amendment process for revisions to district plans that are not
significant amendments, procedures for mediation on plan approval,
federal review, local adoption and effective dates, reporting, new
requirements for submission of district plans (every ten years), and
petitions for amendments to district plans or regarding
non-implementation of district plans. The only new requirements are that
districts review and submit their plans every ten years, and the
inclusion of the transition process to address the

implementation of the new district plans required under the new statutes
and regulations. The new regulations are detailed, however the changes
are procedural, and not considered significant in terms of effects.

> 5.2.3.4 Special Area Management Plans and Areas Which Merit Special
> Attention (11 AAC 114.400 -- 11 AAAC 114.430)

There are no structural changes to Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs)
and Areas which Merit Special Attention (AMSAs) planning criteria.
However, all currently approved SAMPs and AMSAs developed by
district/borough programs must be revised, along with district plans, as
of March 1, 2007, according to the new procedures proscribed for
district program under 11 AAC 114.

5.2.3.5 General Provisions (11 AAC 114.900 -- 11 AAC 114.990)

In this section, the State has made numerous additions and a few changes
and deletions to definitions in the ACMP that reflect the revisions to
the statutes and regulations. Some of the additions include definitions
for 'local usage,' 'major energy facility,' 'matter of local concern,'
'reasonably foreseeable,' 'scientific evidence,' and 'use of State
concern.' An example of a definition that was changed is the term
'coastal water,' (*See* discussion above). In other instances,
definitions that are no longer relevant have been removed, such as
'Council.' Most of these additions, changes and deletions have been
mentioned in the related discussions of revisions to statutes and
regulations above. The impacts of any changes will be discussed in the
context of the appropriate impact sections, and will not require
separate analysis.

**5.3 HB 69**

The State made revisions to the ACMP's statues relating to the
regulation of shallow natural gas resources. These include:

\(1\) For certain actions involving exploration for or development of
shallow natural gas at a single well or a single field, the Alaska Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) may, where operations might be
unduly delayed, approve a variance from the AOGCC's regulations that
apply to the well or field;

\(2\) The DNR commissioner may approve a waiver of local planning
authority approval and requirements relating to compliance with local
ordinances and regulations;

\(3\) The addition of "production facilities" used solely to explore for
or "develop or produce shallow natural gas resources" to the exemption
from the requirement to obtain an approved oil discharge prevention and
contingency plan unless the AOGCC determines otherwise; and

\(4\) All shallow natural gas exploration and development activities
that are conducted under the oversight and regulation of the AOGCC and
the State's resource agencies are automatically determined to be
consistent with the ACMP.

**5.4 HB 86**

HB 86, Section 3 eliminates the ability of third parties (anyone other
than the applicant or a coastal resources district) to file a lawsuits
against OPMP/ACMP on a final consistency determination. The effects of
this provision are discussed in section 7.3 as part of the federal
consistency changes discussion.

The second provision, Section 4, provides that certain oil and gas
projects in the Cook Inlet Basin are authorized and approved by the
legislature, and also provides for an exemption from judicial review
similar to Section 3 of HB 86. The State is not submitting Section 4 as
an amendment to the ACMP, and therefore it will not be reviewed in this
NEPA analysis. Alaska's submittal states that Section 4 is not an
amendment to the ACMP because the projects at issue had already received
the required consistency determinations, and subsequent judicial review
was not a factor in OCRM's original program approval or a requirement of
the CZMA.

> **5.5 SB 102**

On May 26, 2005 the Governor signed into law SB 102, in part to address
the sunset provision on the ACMP that annulled the statewide ACMP
standard as of July 1, 2005, and extended by eight months the effective
authority of existing district coastal management programs and the
deadline for districts to submit their revised plans to DNR to March 1,
2007. Other elements of SB 102 (1) automatically repeal the ACMP by
removing all references to the ACMP from statutes, which will require
the State legislature to conduct a mandatory review of the ACMP's
efficacy on a given date after the program, its coastal district plans,
and the ABC List revisions have been approved and implemented; (2)
repeal district enforceable policies that are in conflict with State
law; (3) mandate that within two years after OCRM approval of this
program amendment DNR review and update all categorically consistent or
generally consistent ACMP approvals; and (4) specify that if the ACMP,
as amended, is not approved in a "timely" manner by OCRM (e.g., January
1, 2006), then the ACMP will sunset on May 10, 2006.

**6. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**

The "Affected Environment" section was written to capture the widest
possible universe of possibly affected environments and socio-economic
considerations. The inclusion of sections therein does not mean that the
subject matter is necessarily anticipated to be actually affected by all
of the statutory changes within Alaska's program change submittal,
including EO 106, HBs 69, 86, 191, SB 102, changes to statute 46, and
regulation changes within 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, and 11 AAC 114.
Several of the sections below provide an overall background describing
Alaska's coastal environmental and socio-economic character. In
particular, for each listing of sub-groupings within the "Affected
Environment" section, we have attempted to provide a reasonably
comprehensive list of environments, and issues related to such
environments. These listings are intended to be representative samplings
of potentially impacted species, biota, languages, economic
categorizations, and social categorizations, and are not intended to be
complete and exhaustive.

**6.1 Physical Environment**

The amendments to the ACMP will affect the entire coastal area of
Alaska; a vast expanse. Alaska sprawls longitudinally approximately
2,400 miles across the North Pacific Ocean. Its westernmost chain of
islands extends so far westward that the International Date Line tacks
to keep Alaska on the same date. Alaska includes the western and
northernmost points of land in North America and spans 1,420 miles from
south to north. Even distances of this magnitude do little to illustrate
the length of Alaska's coastline. It is the only State bounded by two
oceans and two seas. Glaciers have carved many large islands from the
mainland and retreated to uncover a shoreline with abundant narrow
fjords and craggy headlands. Volcanic activity has formed numerous
islands. As a result of its convoluted coastline and its vast extent,
the marine shoreline of Alaska measures 44,500 miles (note: the original
ACMP document identified the coastal shoreline mileage as 33,904 miles,
however, recent Alaska coastline GIS surveys using updated technology
indicate the higher number). This is more than two-thirds the total
marine shoreline of the United States and its possessions.

The ice-stressed coastal ecosystems of Alaska are unique in the United
States, although its diverse coastline includes every ecosystem found in
the contiguous states except tropical. Alaska's fertile continental
shelf totals 830,000 square miles, or 74 percent of the nation's total.
It is an important continental interface between Asian and North
American biotic and human communities. There are species and subspecies
indigenous to Alaska alone. Many species of migratory fish, birds, and
marine mammals use the islands, estuaries and coastal streams and ponds
for breeding, spawning, birthing and resting. Some of the world's
richest commercial fish stocks are found along Alaska's continental
shelf.

The unique biophysical character of Alaska's coastal zone is of extreme
national and international scientific and economic value. Its potential
oil and gas reserves are among the largest in the world. Nearly all of
the minerals classified as strategic by the Federal government, ranging
from antimony to zinc, are found in Alaska.

Many of these diverse uses of the coastal zone are conflicting.
Opportunities to preserve sections of the coastal zone for future
recreation, education, scientific study, and conservation are without
equal in the United States. Conversely, opportunities to develop the
wealth of coastal resources such as oil and gas, mineral, fish and
timber are also without equal. The ACMP seeks to strike a balance
between conserving and developing the wild and rich coastal resources of
Alaska.

6.1.1 Climate

In Alaska, climatic extremes are the primary factor in determining the
location and intensity of fish, wildlife and human activities in the
coastal zone. The geographic breadth of the State results in radically
different climates found along its coasts. These climatic conditions
also

depend on the season, the topography and the different characteristics
of the surrounding seas. The three major coastal climatic zones in
Alaska are maritime, transition, and arctic.

The maritime climate is found in Southeast Alaska, the Aleutian Island
chain, and the narrow coastal strip in between. The Pacific Ocean is the
major moderating influence. This climatic zone is characterized by cool
summers and mild winters. The average annual temperature is
approximately 40° Farenheit (F) in Southeast Alaska and is slightly
cooler in the Aleutians. Cloudy skies occur approximately 275 days per
year, with rain or snow on 220 to 230 days. Average annual precipitation
is about 90 inches in Southeast Alaska, but ranges from 26 inches near
Skagway to over 360 inches on Baranof Island. In Southeast Alaska there
are 111 to 208 frost-free days per year.

Between maritime and the extensive continental climatic zone lies the
transition zone. This zone includes the coasts of the northern Gulf of
Alaska, western Alaska, and the Alaska Peninsula. Along the Pacific
coast the transition zone is narrow. It is a highly variable climatic
region being overwhelmed alternately by maritime and continental
conditions. The ocean has much less influence on climate along the
western coast of Alaska. The transition zone generally has more marked
temperature variation, less cloudiness, and less precipitation than is
characteristic of the maritime climate. Mean annual temperatures range
between 29 degrees F in northwestern Alaska to 39 degrees F in
south-central Alaska. Precipitation generally ranges from less than 12
inches per year in the north to about 60 inches in the south.

The north slope of Alaska is in the arctic climate zone. At Point Barrow
the sun stays below the horizon for 67 days and above the horizon 80
days each year. A persistent frozen condition dominates the climate.
Predictably, winters are long and cold, and summers short and cool. The
mean annual temperature is about 17 degrees F and annual precipitation
is from less than four inches (at Barrow) to about 17 inches per year,
60 percent of which is snow.

6.1.2 Natural Hazards

An inventory of Alaska's coastal natural hazards is long and varied.
Most of the coastal hazards are common in other state coastal zones, but
in Alaska they are often more widespread or extreme than those
experienced in more temperate regions. Some natural hazards are
instigated by human disturbance of natural conditions or processes. This
problem is magnified in Alaska

because of the fragile nature of much of the coastal environment.
However, the overall problem is ameliorated because much of the coastal
environment is in restricted or no-development status due to federal
ownership and accompanying federal land use plans.

6.1.2.1 Strong Winds and Storms

Strong winds and storms are common throughout the Alaska coastal zone.
Broad storm tracks move up the Aleutians into the northern Gulf of
Alaska throughout the year, with winds occasionally reaching 75 to over
100 miles per hour (mph). In the mountainous coastline bordering the
Pacific Ocean, narrow passes funnel winter winds into dangerous gusts
that can continue for weeks. Violent storms often arise with very little
warning. In western Alaska, summer storms of gale force are common and
even cyclonic storms frequent the Aleutian Islands where winds average
17 to 20 mph year-round. Shemya Island, for example, experiences calm
conditions only about nine days of the year.

Visibility is greatly reduced in many areas by ubiquitous torrential
rains, blizzards, and fogs. An extreme blizzard condition known as a
"white-out" can reduce visibility in winter months to zero.

6.1.2.2 Tidal Extremes

Navigation is limited by numerous and uncharted sand bars, reefs, and
rocky islets, and the severe weather conditions noted above. The extreme
tidal ranges in south central and southeast Alaska affect all water
related activities, especially marine transportation, marinas, docks,
waterfront businesses, log dumping or storage, shoreline construction
and the location of recreational facilities. Tidal currents as strong as
six knots are not uncommon in narrow southeastern straits.

6.1.2.3 Erosion

Alaska's coastline and rivers are often subject to periodic, yet severe,
erosion. The northern coastline is icebound for most of the year. The
ice season lasts from November to April on most of the Bering Sea coast,
longer along the Chukchi Sea, and still longer on the Beaufort Sea
coast, where it usually lasts nine to ten months. Along this northern
coastline, Alaska experiences some of the highest erosion rates in the
world during its few ice free months. The high coastal erosion rates
generally are caused by seasonal storm surges, the thawing of
permafrost, and the breaking off of chunks of shoreline by moving ice.
Some of the area's barrier islands are moving landward at a rate of 23
feet per year.

While the overall average rate of erosion along Alaska's coastline is
eight feet per year, specific area erosion rates can be significant and
negatively impact a large number of coastal communities. In 1975, a
State committee identified 35 communities where erosion was considered
critical. The number of communities with known erosion problems
increased to 62 in a 1984 State task force report. For instance, the
Matanuska River has in the past cut as much as 90 feet of riverbank in
four days. Some communities lose 10-20 feet of riverbank annually. In
some places, the whole community is threatened by erosion. The majority
of the coastal bluff properties within the City of Homer are threatened
due to chronic coastal erosion. The Homer Spit has significant erosion,
an impact from the 1964 earthquake. Because the plate dropped about
three feet, the entire perimeter of land adjacent to Homer is washing to
sea. The village of Newtok recently completed a Congressionally-approved
land trade to relocate off a severely eroding river bank to the north
end of Nelson Island. The coastal village of Shishmaref may have to
relocate because it is affected by coastal erosion from strong fall
storms before the sea is

frozen over. Other Alaskan coastal communities including Barrow,
Kivalina, Newtok and Point Hope are also looking at relocation as a
possibility due to severe coastal erosion.
(http://www.surfrider.org/stateofthebeach/05-sr/state.asp)

6.1.2.4 Earthquakes and Tsunamis

The coastal strip between Cordova and the tip of the Aleutian chain is
classified as one of the two highest seismic risk areas in the United
States. The 1964 Good Friday earthquake, which registered about 8.5 on
the Richter Scale, caused notable tectonic changes in land level over a
70,000 to 110,000 square mile area. The area of crystal deformation is
larger than any such area known to have been associated with a single
earthquake in historic times. Maximum subsidence was 7.5 feet; maximum
measured uplift was 38 feet. Subsea lifting may have been as great as 50
percent.

The resulting tsunami, another natural hazard, destroyed portions of the
three major towns and part or all of numerous small villages in Alaska
as well as causing deaths along the West Coast. The seismic sea wave was
still four feet high when it washed up on Antarctica less than 24 hours
later. Five Alaska communities (Sitka, Yakutat, Unalaska, Dutch Harbor
and Adak) have recorded nine or more catastrophic tsunamis.

About 48 volcanic centers in a 1,500 mile coastal arc from Cook Inlet
through the Aleutians have been reported active since 1760. Earthquakes
and tsunamis are well-known, but equally hazardous to human life and
property, are high-speed mud slides and flash floods from glacier-dammed
lakes which are suddenly released, both of which can extend many miles.
Corrosive acidic rains are common after eruptions and can also fall
hundreds of miles from their origin. More recently, volcanic ash from
coastal volcanoes near Anchorage temporarily shut down local air travel
and rerouted international air routes.

6.1.2.5 Hydrologic and Geological Features

Surging ice is another coastal hazard in Alaska. In the Beaufort Sea,
oceanographic and meteorological influences maintain the summer arctic
ice pack in a position almost always threatening, if not halting,
navigation. In winter the pack ice reaches Bristol Bay regularly,
sometimes advancing as far the eastern Aleutian Islands and covering the
entire Bering Sea Continental Shelf. Surging glaciers are an uncommon
but potential threat in southern and southeastern Alaska. The gravelly
soils of flat, glacier valleys are inviting sites for construction, but
occasionally a glacier will surge without warning. The inland Black
Rapids Glacier is an example. Advancing up to 62 meters per day in
1936-37, the terminal moraine nearly blocked the only road link between
Anchorage and Fairbanks before the glacier began to recede. A more
recent example is near Yakutat Bay where the Russell Fjord was
temporarily closed by a surging glacier. Several studies have been
started to determine if the world famous Situk River can be saved in the
event Russell Fjord is again block and then overflows directly to the
Gulf of Alaska. Icebergs, split away from the seasonal ice pack or
calved from tidewater glaciers in south central

and southeastern Alaska, can threaten coastal navigation by oil tankers
in Prince William Sound as well as large and small cruise ships and
pleasure boats.

In Alaska, vastness itself is a natural hazard. With isolated small
communities, dependant upon air and marine transportation services along
immense reaches of coastline, even a minor accident can prove to be
dangerous. The layer of permafrost on the arctic and western coast of
Alaska is a unique natural hazard aggravated by human disturbance. The
persistently frozen ground prevents internal soil drainage, forcing
water to drain over the surface and accumulate in peaty bogs. Because it
is impermeable, permafrost hinders development and maintenance of
community utilities including roads, airports, and water and sanitation
devices.

Landslides are particularly common along the southern and southeastern
coasts because of steep slopes and unstable soils. Snow avalanches are
frequent in the spring. Both pose potential threats to roads, above
ground utilities, homes and businesses. Landslides may be instigated by
the removal of vegetation by the construction or timber industries. Less
spectacular erosion is initiated by placer mining, overgrazing,
agriculture and the use of vehicles on permafrost soils. Solifluction is
a peculiar "landslide" occurring in thawed soils underlain by
permafrost. In the past, erosion was initiated by large scale hydraulic
and dredge mining for placer gold. Because of the northern climate,
overgrazing and farming have not been significant contributors to
erosion. Conversely, cross country all terrain vehicle use continues to
be a potential local source of erosion.

Irregular subsidence, caused by the thawing of frozen soils beneath
disturbed vegetation, severely curtails development and land uses in the
arctic. A more widespread subsidence problem may follow the removal of
oil and gas reserves in the arctic.

6.1.2.6 Sea Level Rise

Sea level rise is another issue facing Alaska. The EPA's global warming
impacts website notes that over the last century, the average
temperature in Anchorage, Alaska, has increased 3.9 degrees F, and over
the last 41 years of available date, precipitation has increased by
approximately 10 percent in many parts of the State. These past trends
may or may not continue into the future. Sea level rise could lead to
flooding of low-lying property, loss of coastal wetlands, erosion of
beaches, saltwater contamination of drinking water, and decreased
longevity of low-lying roads, causeways, and bridges. In addition, sea
level rise could increase the vulnerability of coastal areas to storms
and associated flooding. Much of Alaska's coast remains undeveloped;
however 85 percent of the State's population resides in the coastal
area, with 40 percent of that population currently residing in the
coastal city of Anchorage alone. Rising sea levels would also increase
the intertidal and estuarine coastal habitats with slight topographic
relief such as the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.

Clearly several factors contribute to the changes in Alaska. Current
rates of erosion of Alaska's coastline vary widely because of local
terrain and differences in the rates of uplift, as well as the abundance
of sea ice and permafrost. In some areas, uplift as a result of tectonic
activity is rapid. On average, however, Alaska's coastline is eroding at
a rate of eight feet per year, and this rate could increase with sea
level rise. Along much of Alaska's coast, the rate of sea level rise is
nearly equal to or less than the rate of uplift. Accounting for the
effects of climate change, sea level may rise a total of ten inches by
2100, although at some locations a net uplift is most likely.

6.1.3 Marine Ecosystems

The ACMP covers non-federally owned intertidal and marine waters
extending seaward three miles from the shoreline. There are six major
ecosystems represented in the Alaskan coastal zone. The nearshore and
intertidal ecosystems are wave-beaten coast, fjord estuary, tide-mixed
estuary, ice-affected Bering Sea coast and the ice-affected Arctic Ocean
coast. Offshore is the vast continental shelf of Alaska. Almost all of
the wave-beaten coasts, fjord estuaries, and tide-mixed estuaries are
located on the Pacific Coast.

6.1.3.1 Wave Beaten Coasts

Wave-beaten coasts border about 20 percent of the State's tidal
shoreline. These nearshore and intertidal areas are extremely productive
because waves, the primary mixing agent, churn nutrients from the sea
floor up into the photic zone. The waters adjacent to the exposed
headlands of the Gulf of Alaska coast and the rocky Aleutian shores
support much greater concentrations of plant and animal life than the
mud flats and silty beaches found along most of western and arctic
Alaskan coasts. Phytoplankton and the large marine plants (e.g., kelp
and intertidal seaweeds) are extremely abundant. Marine animals include
high incidence of attached and intertidal species, such as snails, small
crabs, barnacles and mussels. Because of the abundance of food,
seabirds, marine mammals, and fish are plentiful.

6.1.3.2 Fjord Estuaries

Fjord estuaries indent most the of the State's tidal shoreline (about 70
percent). Productivity and species diversity are influenced by wave
action in fjords, but there is little direct pounding and mixing. Fjord
estuaries comprise all but the seaward inlets of Southeastern Alaska,
Prince William Sound, and Shelikof Strait between Kodiak Island and the
mainland. Many of the seaways have rocky bottoms over 400 feet deep.
These waters become stratified, limiting high phytoplankton production
to early spring "blooms." However, local upwelling creates some highly
productive areas. Marine animal life is similar to that found in
wave-beaten coastal waters but overall production of marine life is
moderate to low because of limited seasonal productivity. The
hydrography of fjords in association with extended sunlit summer
periods, high energy and deep-lying, nutrient-rich waters, offers an
unusually good opportunity for aquaculture.

6.1.3.3 Tide-Mixed Estuaries

About two percent of the tidal shoreline lies adjacent to tide-mixed
estuaries and most of this ecosystem is found in Cook Inlet. Tides are
the primary mixing agent in Cook Inlet, where tidal ranges and currents
are extreme. Anchorage experiences tides ranging up to 30.4 feet. The
tidal variance of Turnagain Arm is one of the few places in the world
capable of producing tidal-generated power. However, the high suspended
sediment loads, bottom instability, and present economic factors there
make tidal power unlikely. Productivity in upper Cook Inlet waters is
greatly curtailed because suspended sediments from glacier streams
reduce light penetration. However, lower Cook Inlet is highly
productive. Kachemak Bay may be the world's most productive estuarine
fishery for its size and is an area where the State and the Federal
government have initiated special land use provisions to add extra
protection to the marine and terrestrial ecosystems that make up the
Bay. Marine mammals and seabirds are not as abundant in Cook Inlet as in
many areas of the State, but its shores are an important rest stop for
migrating waterfowl as well as an important habitat for brown bear and
salmon.

6.1.3.4 Bering Sea Coast

The coastal waters of the Bering Sea are influenced by sea ice during
winters of most years. Bering Sea coasts comprise about four percent of
the State's tidal shoreline. Mainland coasts are silty and unusually
wide with nearly flat offshore slopes. Near-shore plant productivity,
particularly of kelp and eelgrass, is among the highest in the world. In
protected areas, extensive patches of eelgrass, kelp, and other attached
plants provide critical sea otter and fish habitat and essential staging
grounds for migrating seabirds and water fowl. Other marine mammals are
abundant. Seal, walrus, and whales contribute substantially to Eskimo
subsistence harvest. Polar bears are seasonally present, following the
edge of the ice pack in the northern Bering Sea.

6.1.3.5 Arctic Ocean Coast

All coasts north of the Bering Strait, approximately two percent of the
State's total tidal shoreline, are bordered by sea ice in the winters of
all years. Pack ice may be just offshore all summer. Most of the
coastline is sedimentary and portions have extensive barrier islands and
lagoon-forming spits. There is little shelter from ice movement and
there are few harbors. The annual productivity is limited by sea ice and
is the lowest of the State's marine waters. In a typical adaptation of
arctic life to a harsh environment, the spring phytoplankton "bloom"
actually begins under and within the sea ice. Lagoons are productive
waterfowl and shorebird breeding areas. Many birds and marine mammals
represented in this ecosystem are rare or non-existent south of the
Bering Sea.

6.1.3.6 Continental Shelf

The Pacific continental shelf of Alaska is cut by large undersea valleys
and averages a little over 50 miles in width. The continental shelf
becomes discontinuous along the Aleutians Island chain but widens in the
Bering Sea. Prehistorically a broad plateau bridging Asia and North
America, the Bering Sea continental shelf underlies half of the Bering
Sea. Most of it is within the 200 mile U.S. fishing limit established by
Congress. The Arctic Ocean continental shelf averages slightly less than
50 miles in width. Major ocean currents flow north and west around the
Gulf of Alaska and along the Aleutian Islands, then northward through
the islands and up the western coast. A weak current flows westward
along the northern coast. The Pacific Ocean shelf provides habitat for a
variety of bottom, pelagic, anadromous, and shellfish species. The major
commercial fisheries in the western Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian
Islands are King crab, tanner crab, and shrimp. In much of the Beaufort
Sea, the coldness of the water and seasonal ice cover limit habitat for
bottom fish. One of the world's largest flatfish and pollock fisheries
is located on the southern edge of the Bering Sea shelf. Surface fish
stocks, such as salmon and herring, are among the largest in the world.

6.1.4 Shoreland Ecosystems

There are six major land ecosystems abutting the Alaskan coastline:
moist tundra, wet tundra (or marsh), alpine tundra, high brush, western
hemlock-Sitka spruce coastal forest, and lowland spruce-hardwood forest.
Each ecosystem has characteristic plant and animal populations and life
cycles. The various ecosystems are discussed in geographical order from
north to southeast.

6.1.4.1 Beaufort Sea Coastal Plain

This coastal zone area is predominately in federal ownership as part of
the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA), and the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. The treeless, wind-swept plain gradually ascends from
the Beaufort Sea coast southward to the foothills of the Brooks Range.
This flat to undulating coastal plain is underlain by unconsolidated
deposits of marine, fluvial, glaciofluvial, and eolian origin and lacks
bedrock control. Annual precipitation is low and mostly falls as snow
during the winter. Due to low temperatures, permafrost is continuous
across the region, except under large rivers and thaw lakes. Permafrost
and frost processes contribute to a large variety of surface features
such as pingos, ice-wedge polygons, and oriented thaw lakes.

The presence of permafrost prevents surface drainage so soils typically
are saturated and have thick organic horizons. Due to the abundance of
thaw lakes (covering up to 50 percent of the surface) and saturated
soils, nearly the entire region supports wetland communities. Vegetation
is dominated by wet sedge tundra and sedge-*Dryas* tundra on gentle
ridges. Low willow thickets grow on well-drained riverbanks. Although
drainage over most of the area is poorly integrated, there are numerous
large, braided rivers that originate in the Brooks Range and drain
northward to cross the coastal plain. Anadromous arctic cisco, broad
whitefish, least cisco, and Dolly Varden char overwinter in these larger
rivers and migrate to nearshore waters for the summer. Smaller streams
often dry up or freeze completely during the winter. The coastal plain
supports large caribou herds and is an important calving area. Important
herbivores include muskoxen, lemmings, and arctic ground squirrels,
while important predators include arctic foxes, gray wolves, and brown
bears. Polar bears occasionally den on the coastal plain. The region
also is important for breeding waterfowl, including a wide variety of
shorebirds, ducks, geese, swans, and passerines.

6.1.4.2 Arctic Ocean Chukchi Sea/Bering Sea Coastal Zone

The majority of the Arctic Ocean coastal zone is located within the
Alaska Maritime and Arctic units of the federally-owned National
Wildlife Refuge System and the NPRA. The Bering Sea coastal zone is a
mixture of Native Alaskan, National Wildlife Refuge, National Park
Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ownership.

Most of the Arctic Ocean Chukchi Sea and Bering Sea coastal zone is
moist tundra. A slight increase in topographical gradient facilitates
runoff so that these tundra soils are less saturated and there is less
standing water. Grasses and sedges are the dominant vegetation.
Productivity is slightly lower than in the wet tundra. Saprophytes play
a dominant role in the arctic and sub-arctic terrestrial food web. Since
there are relatively few vertebrate species, most organic material ends
up in the soil and is decomposed by dense populations of bacteria, fungi
and soil invertebrates. Small mammals such as lemmings, because of their
abundance and year-long residence, have a major above-ground impact on
vegetation. During population peaks, approximately every three years,
lemmings consume over one-third of the annual primary production in the
arctic.

Beach ridges surrounding aquatic habitats, serpentine barrens, limestone
outcrops, marshes, sloughs and other ecologically important and fragile
regions in the arctic and western coasts provide habitat for unique
species of plants and animals. Sandy dune soils on the coast provide
burrow and den sites for mammals ranging from arctic ground squirrel to
wolf. Coincidentally, these dry soils are favored sites for sand and
gravel removal and construction. Breeze-swept beaches provide
insect-free habitat attractive to caribou and reindeer in the summer.
Other common coastal mammals are grizzly bear, wolf, wolverine, arctic
and red fox, weasel, and lemmings. There are no reptiles or amphibians
in the Arctic or Western Alaska. Only about three amphibians are found
in coastal Alaska, all in the southern and southeastern regions.

> 6.1.4.3 Seward Peninsula

The most extensive high brush ecosystems in the coastal zone are on the
Seward Peninsula near Nome, along the Alaska Peninsula. The Seward
Peninsula is a cold, wind-swept landmass jutting out into the Bering
Sea, and represents the southernmost range of polar bears on mainland
Alaska. This area of the coastal zone is largely in federal ownership.
Sedimentary, metamorphic, and volcanic rocks intertwine to form a mosaic
of coastal lowlands, expansive convex hills with scattered broad
valleys, and small, isolated groups of rugged mountains. Vegetation is
principally tundra, with alpine *Dryas*-lichen tundra and barrens at
high elevations and moist sedge-tussock tundra at lower elevations.
Patches of low-growing ericaceous and willow-birch shrubs occur on
better-drained areas. Permafrost is continuous, but ranges from thin to
moderately thick. Soils are often wet, shallow, and organic because of
permafrost. Ice-related features such as pingos and patterned ground
(raised polygons outlined by rock-filled ditches) are present. The
climate is best classified as moist polar. The Chukchi Sea and Bering
Strait afford very little climatic moderation since ice spans these
waters over much of the year allowing direct passage of bitterly cold
air from Siberia. Persistent cold, windy conditions occur in the winter
and fog blankets the coastlines in the summer. At its height Pleistocene
glaciation covered only the highest mountains. Back then the peninsula
was part of an important ice-free migration corridor between North
America and Asia. Strong ecological affinities to Asia remain to this
day with the presence of Eurasian birds (gray-headed chickadee, yellow
and white wagtails, bluethroat), fishes (Alaska blackfish), and flora.
Streams occupy all larger valleys, and many lakes lie in broad inland
valleys. Dense concentrations of lakes and ponds support abundant
waterfowl (including the rare arctic loon) and nesting birds (e.g.,
spectacled eiders and ruddy and black turnstones) occur within coastal
plains. Bears, caribou, snowy owls, arctic foxes, and Alaska hares,
squirrels, muskrats, and beavers are common. Ribbon seals and walruses
are often observed along shorelines and adjacent ice floes. Usually
these dense coastal brush systems are alder thickets, often having a
well-developed layer of grass and ferns below.

> 6.1.4.4 Bering Sea Islands

These rocky volcanic islands are scattered throughout shallow portions
of the Bering Sea and are a mixture of federal ownership as part of the
National Wildlife Refuge system and Native Alaskan ownership. Here, an
odd mix of polar and maritime climates exist, depending on the season.
In winter, ice encapsulates the islands, ushering in dry polar air from
Siberia. These conditions are replaced by cool, moist maritime
conditions after spring ice breakup. Thin to moderately thick permafrost
underlies mainly thin, rocky soils. At the height of the Pleistocene
glaciation, these islands were mere hills within a vast seabed plain of
the Bering Land Bridge. Life on these islands today possesses affinities
to North America and Asia. Moist tundra communities of sedges, grasses,
low shrubs, and lichens are surrounded by rocky cliffs and shorelines.
Millions of seabirds (cormorants, kittiwakes, murres, puffins, and
auklets) and marine mammals (northern fur seals, ribbon seals, and sea
lions) inhabit these rocky outposts during the summer. Wintering flocks
of rare spectacled eiders congregate in small polynyas (or openings) in
the sea ice south of St. Lawrence Island.

6.1.4.5 Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta

The two most extensive wet tundra ecosystems are found on the central
arctic coast and on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. The Yukon and Kuskokwim
Rivers nourish this vast, marshy delta as they fan out to meet the
Bering Sea. This area is now included in the federally-owned Yukon Delta
National Wildlife Refuge. The delta was formed from a combination of
heavy sediment load carried by glacial runoff and from stabilization of
sea levels after an initial rapid rise during deglaciation. Now in these
areas, topographic relief is measured in inches. The unconsolidated
sediments are comprised principally of marine tidal flats, beach
deposits, and alluvium. Isolated basalt hills and volcanic cinder cones
jut up in places. The climate is moist polar, ameliorated somewhat by
the Bering Sea. At this latitude, sea ice spans the Bering Sea every
winter allowing direct passage of cold Siberian fronts. Permafrost is
discontinuous, moderately thick to thin, and relatively "warm." Impeded
subsurface drainage caused by the permafrost contributes to shallow
organic soils. Thermokarst lakes are abundant across the delta. In
summer, ponds and lakes are ubiquitous. Many low-gradient streams
meander dynamically across the surface. In the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta,
coastal vegetation is dominated by highly productive brackish marshes
and wet meadows. Inland, permafrost-dominated landscapes support low
birch-ericaceous shrubs and sedge-tussock and sedge-moss bogs. Willow
thickets occur along rivers and on better-drained slopes. The diverse
and abundant wetlands support exceptional populations of waterfowl,
including brant, emperor geese, and tundra swans, sandhill cranes,
shorebirds (Sabines' gulls, black turnstones, western sandpipers). It is
estimated that the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta ecosystem is important habitat
for more than 1.75 million geese and swans, two million ducks, and more
than 100 million shore and water birds. Whales, walruses, and bearded
and ribbon seals patrol its shore while black bear, grizzly bears,
moose, caribou and gray wolves roam the land. Arctic char, sheefish, and
all five species of North American Pacific salmon are common fishes in
rivers, streams, and surrounding sea.

6.1.4.6 Alaska Peninsula

Most of the coastal alpine tundra ecosystems are found on mountain
ranges and on exposed ridges in the Aleutian Islands and the Alaska
Peninsula. The general area is now included within the federally-owned
Katmai National Park and Preserve, and Becharof, Alaska Peninsula,
Izembek, and Alaska Maritime units of the National Wildlife Refuge
system. The Aleutian Range serves as the spine of this peninsula, which
divides Bristol Bay from the north Pacific Ocean. The Alaska Peninsula
narrows progressively toward the southwest as the range becomes
increasingly submerged. The folded and faulted sandstone bedrock is
dotted with symmetrical cinder cones clad with ice, pumice, and volcanic
ash. The Pleistocene glaciation produced strongly contrasting
topographies along this peninsula with smooth glacial moraines and
colluvial shields on the north side and rugged deeply cut fjordlands on
the south side. In turn, glacially fed streams flowing northward have
low-energy, shallow channels, whereas those flowing southward have
high-energy, deeply incised channels. Along the north side, huge lakes
have filled behind young glacial moraines that act as dams. This
ecosystem consists of barren rocks and rubble interspersed with low
plant mats, both herbaceous and shrubby. Dominant vegetation is low
shrub lands of willow, birch, and alder interspersed with ericaceous
heath and *Dryas*-lichen communities. Ecological diversity is low.
Regeneration is extremely slow. Some lichens may require over 60 years
to recover after over-use or trampling. The peninsula is free of
permafrost; however sea ice occasionally forms in Bristol Bay,
demarcating the northern extent of sea otters. The coastline habitat
supports numerous shorebirds and sea mammals. Many Stellar sea lion
rookeries and haul-outs are present. Large populations of brown bears
survive on abundant pink, chum, and silver salmon runs.

6.1.4.7 Aleutian Islands

This area is predominately in federal ownership as part of the Alaska
Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. The Aleutian islands represent
volcanic summits of a submarine ridge extending from the Alaska
Peninsula to the Kamchatka Peninsula. The Aleutian island arc and deep
sea trench are products of the Pacific crustal plate subducting or
descending beneath the North American crustal plate. It is one of the
most seismically and volcanically active areas in the world. The
topography features glaciated and rubble-strewn volcanic cones indented
with fjords and bordered by sea cliffs or wave-beaten platforms. These
islands are free of permafrost, covered by volcanic-ash soils, and
dissected radially by short, swift streams. A cool maritime climate with
abundant year-round precipitation prevails over these islands.
Terrestrial warming is subdued by incessant cold ocean winds and
perpetual overcast clouds and fog which limits solar isolation. The
flora is a blend of species from two continents, grading from North
American to Asian affinities from east to west. Mountain flanks and
coastlines are dominated by low shrubs of willow, birch, and alder
interspersed with ericaceous-heath, *Dryas*-lichen, and grass
communities. Alpine tundra and glaciers are on mountains. This island
chain demarcates the southern boundary of the Bering Sea and is
important for marine mammals (northern fur seals, Steller sea lions, and
sea otters), waterfowl (Aleutian Canada geese, emperor geese), and
seabirds (various species of auklet, red-legged kittiwakes). With their
vast numbers, seabirds supply important fertilizing nutrients by
splattering these islands with their guano.

6.1.4.8 Kodiak Island

Kodiak Island is a rugged, fjord-carved island complex; a geologic
extension of the Chugach Mountains with a similar suite of folded and
faulted sedimentary rocks of Pacific origin. During past glaciations, a
solid ice sheet spanned Shelikof Strait connecting this group of islands
with the mainland. Ice engulfed most of the islands except for the
highest mountains (nunataks) and some seaward coastal plains that
provided refuge for plant and animal life. Ownership of this portion of
the coastal zone is a mixture of Native Alaskan, State, and the
federally-owned Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge.

Today, high sharp peaks with cirque glaciers and low rounded ridges
overtop glacially scoured valleys covered with till or lacustrine
deposits. Large terminal moraines occur offshore where many former
glaciers extended onto the continental shelf. The flora of this island
group is still recovering from the last glaciation. For instance, trees
did not survive the last Pleistocene glaciation, and only recently have
Sitka spruce and black cottonwood managed to regain a foothold. Today
luxuriant forb/grass meadows and willow and alder thickets cover the
majority of these islands. Some alpine tundra exists at higher
elevations. The climate is cool, wet maritime with minimal seasonal
temperature variation and extended periods of overcast clouds, fog, and
precipitation. A seemingly endless stream of moisture blows in during
the fall from repeating lows sweeping eastward along the Aleutians.
These islands are entirely free of permafrost. Offshore waters are rich
with deepwater fish, such as halibut and cod, and marine mammals,
including sea otters, Stellar's sea lions, and a variety of whales.
Small, swift rivers and streams radiating from the highlands harbor
abundant salmon runs. These runs funnel tremendous amounts of nutrients
to these islands and help support populations of the largest land
carnivore in the world, the Kodiak brown bear. Puffins and auklets nest
on the islands' rocky shoreline cliffs.

6.1.4.9 Cook Inlet

The gently sloping lowland of the Cook Inlet Basin was buried by ice and
flooded by proglacial lakes several times during the Pleistocene. This
portion of the coastal zone is primarily in State and private ownership.
The basin floor is comprised of fine-textured lacustrine deposits ringed
by coarse-textured glacial tills and outwash. Numerous lakes, ponds, and
wetlands attract large numbers of waterfowl (including trumpeter swans)
and shorebirds. Dolly Varden and white fish occur in fresh waters.
Several river systems support recovering salmon runs and resultant bear
and raven populations. The basin is generally free of permafrost. A mix
of maritime and continental climates prevails with moderate fluctuations
of seasonal temperature and abundant precipitation. This climate,
coupled with the flat to gently-sloping, fine-texture surfaces give rise
to wet, organic soils that support black spruce forests and woodlands.
Ericaceous shrubs are dominant in open bogs. Mixed forests of white and
Sitka spruce aspen and birch grow on better-drained sites and grade into
tall shrub communities of willow and alder on slopes along the periphery
of the basin. A mixture of wetland habitats supports numerous moose,
black bears, beavers, and muskrats.

6.1.4.10 Kenai Peninsula

Lowland spruce-hardwood meets the coastline only in upper Cook Inlet and
on the northern Kenai Peninsula. The western and southern part of the
Peninsula are a mixture of State, private, and federal ownership. Willow
scrub covers extensively burned areas on the Kenai Peninsula and this
secondary growth supports one-third of the State's moose population.
This high population of moose is a direct reflection of past forest
fires that created favorable moose habitat. As forest fire prevention
methods improved the State and federal fire management agencies have
instituted a series of prescribed burns and areas where natural
wildfires may burn within prescribed areas and weather conditions.
Because productive bottom lands in Alaska are the prime habitat for
large mammals, populations of moose, caribou and bear have been reduced
by this displacement. Most of the coastal zone east of Cook Inlet is
western hemlock-Sitka spruce coastal forest ecosystem. Mainland areas
have considerable alpine tundra, but Prince William Sound and southeast
Alaska are mossy, temperate rain forests.

6.1.4.11 Gulf of Alaska Coast

Lush, lichen-draped temperate rain forests of hemlock and spruce
interspersed with open wetlands blanket the shorelines and adjacent
mountain slopes along the Gulf of Alaska. This forest produces 95
percent of the commercial timber cut in Alaska and contains over 80
percent of the saw timber volume. The vast majority of the uplands are
owned by the Federal government as part of either the Chugach or the
Tongass national forests and Glacier Bay National Park.

A cool, hyper maritime climate dominates with minor seasonal temperature
variation and extended periods of overcast clouds, fog, and
precipitation. Snow is abundant in the winter and persists for long
periods at sea level. Permafrost is absent. Tectonic events have raised
and submerged various portions of the coastline through time. Common
forest animals include black and brown bears and Sitka black-tailed
deer, brown bear, mink and land otter. Most of the world's bald eagle
population inhabits southeast Alaska. Common murres, Bonaparte's gulls,
Steller's sea lions, harbor seals, and sea otters teem along its
shorelines. Numerous streams and rivers support Dolly Varden, steelhead
trout, and all five species of Pacific salmon.

Salmon spawning runs deliver tremendous amounts of nutrients to aquatic
and terrestrial systems. A fjordal coastline and archipelago exists
around Prince William Sound and points west where continental ice sheets
repeatedly descended in the past. Here, fjords formed where
glacier-carved terrain filled with seawater after deglaciation. At the
head of fjords lie broad U-shaped valleys that have steep, deeply
incised side walls draped with hanging glacial valleys. A coastal
foreland extends from the Copper River Delta southeast to Icy Point,
fringed by the slopes and glacier margins of the Chugach-St. Elias
Mountains. Here, unconsolidated glacial, alluvial, and marine deposits
have been uplifted by tectonics and isostatic rebound to form a
relatively flat plain. Because of its geographic position, the foreland
is water-drenched through persistent maritime precipitation and overland
runoff from the mountains. The organic soils shed water slowly and are
blanketed with wetlands among meandering and braided silt-laden streams.
Temperate rain forests of hemlock and spruce grow sporadically where
soil drainage affords. Rare dusky Canada geese and trumpeter swans nest
on these wet flats where brown bears, Sitka black-tailed deer, and moose
roam.

6.1.4.12 Alexander Archipelago

This rugged area consists of a series of accreted terrains of Pacific
origin heavily scoured in the past by ice sheets. The uplands are
primarily in federal ownership as part of the Tongass National Forest.
This island-rich fjordland formed when the glacier-carved landscape
filled with seawater after deglaciation. Exceedingly deep waters exist
where thick rivers of ice flowed along geologic faults. Today, these
marine waters support humpback whales, orcas, seals, and sea otters. At
the head of fjords lie broad U-shaped valleys that have steep, deeply
incised side walls draped with hanging glacial valleys. Rounded
mountains with rolling till plains occur where continental and piedmont
glaciers overrode the land. High, steep-sided, angular mountains (i.e.,
former nunataks), some still sporting alpine glaciers, rise above the
reach of these overriding glaciers. Rebound after the withdrawal of the
continental ice sheets, together with tectonic movements, have both
raised and lowered marine terraces, giving rise to rich coastal lowlands
and estuaries.

A cool, hyper maritime climate dominates with minor seasonal temperature
variation and extended periods of overcast clouds, fog, and
precipitation. Snow, though abundant in some locations, is ephemeral at
sea level. Lush, lichen-draped temperate rain forests of hemlock and
spruce blanket the shorelines and mountain slopes where soil drainage
allows. Open and forested wetlands occur on poorly drained soils,
especially on compact glacial tills, marine terraces, and gentle slopes.
On upper slopes, forests progressively give way to scrublands, landslide
and avalanche tracks, and alpine tundra. Numerous short and swift
streams support Dolly Varden and steelhead trout, and all five species
of Pacific salmon. The land and sea are intimately connected as spawning
salmon return to their native streams and, in the process, cycle
tremendous amounts of nutrients back to the freshwater and terrestrial
systems which bore them life. Streams become increasingly littered with
spawned-out carcasses as brown and black bears, bald eagles, and sea
gulls feast on returning salmon from late spring to early fall.

Southeast Alaska has about 1,000 of the State's 1,800 named islands,
rocks, and reefs (several thousand remain unnamed). Kodiak Island,
Nunivak Island, St. Lawrence Island, the six largest islands of
Southwest Alaska, and the Aleutian Islands total almost 23,000 square
miles. Most of the major seabird and marine mammal rookeries are located
on the isolated wave-beaten coasts of islands. As noted previously, most
of the coastal uplands on the islands, rocks and reefs are in federal
ownership as part of the national wildlife refuge or national forest
systems. Indigenous island species are extremely sensitive to
disturbances. Marine mammal and seabird concentrations in rookeries are
susceptible to harassment by humans and the environmental changes that
accompany man's presence, including marine oil spills, domestic animals,
and aircraft noise. The most limited and sensitive habitats in Alaska
may be certain island seabird breeding colonies. The endangered Aleutian
Canada goose and a growing population of now-endangered sea otters also
inhabit the remote Aleutian Islands.

6.1.5 Fisheries

This section provides a brief discussion of the commercial, sport, and
subsistence uses of marine and anadromous fisheries that may be affected
by the proposed coastal program changes. The section is divided into
groundfish, salmon, other anadromous fish, and shellfish. The
information presented for each species supports the development of this
EIS and is not intended to be exhaustive. The species discussed below
were selected in part based on their importance as commercial and
subsistence species. Detailed information on groundfish species and
additional information on principal target species can be found in the
*Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat
Identification and Conservation in Alaska* (NMFS, April 2005)

> 6.1.5.1 Groundfish

The groundfish complex is the most abundant of all fisheries resources
off Alaska, totaling more than 21 million metric tons (t) of exploitable
biomass and contributing more than two million t of catch each year.
Another one million t of underutilized sustainable potential yield is
available. Groundfish of economic significance in Alaska include Pacific
halibut, walleye pollock, Pacific cod, and flatfish species: Greenland
Turbot, Yellowfin sole, Rock sole, Arrowtooth flounder, Sable fish,
Pacific ocean perch, Rockfish, and Atka mackerel.

6.1.5.2 Pacific Salmon

Pacific salmon occupy a special place in the lives of all Alaskans.
Native people and their heritage have a long, rich tradition of relying
on salmon for economic, cultural, and subsistence purposes. Today,
residents and nonresidents depend heavily on this resource for
recreation, food, and livelihood. The commercial fisheries, along with a
rapidly growing salmon and groundfish sport fishery, provide the State
with its largest source of private-sector employment.

Along Alaska's 44,500-mile coastline, 15,998 interior water bodies
support populations of five salmon species. Salmon management over such
a vast area requires a complex mix of domestic and international bodies,
treaties, regulations and other agreements. Federal and State agencies
cooperate in managing salmon fisheries. The Alaska Department of Fish
and Game (ADFG) manages salmon fisheries within State jurisdictional
waters where the majority of harvest occurs. Management in the federal
Exclusive Economic Zone (3-200 miles offshore) is the responsibility of
the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, which has deferred
specific regulations to the State. Management of Pacific salmon
fisheries is based primarily on regional stock groups of each species
and on time and area harvesting by specific types of fishing gear.
Because salmon are anadromous fish that spend a portion of their life
(one to seven years) at sea and then return to freshwater streams,
rivers, and lakes to spawn and die, their well being and harvest
management practices are also directly influenced by land management
practices. The quality of freshwater habitats determines the success of
reproduction and initial rearing of juveniles. Several agencies,
entities and groups have significant influence on the quality of
freshwater spawning and rearing habitats for salmon throughout Alaska.
Included among these are the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, NPS, National
Wildlife Refuges, Alaska State Parks and Forests, ADFG, Native Alaskan
Regional and Village Corporations, plus municipalities, boroughs, and
other private landowners that control watersheds used by salmon.

Five species of Pacific salmon (pink, sockeye, coho, chum, and chinook)
indigenous to Alaska are fully utilized, and stocks in most regions of
the State generally have been rebuilt to or beyond previous high levels.

[Pink]{.underline}

Number range CHAPTERPink salmon adults, eggs, alevins, and fry provide a
major nutrient and food source for aquatic invertebrates, other fish,
birds (including eagles and gulls), and mammals (including bears, otter,
and mink in freshwater systems). In the marine environment, pink salmon
fry and juveniles are food for a host of other fishes and coastal
seabirds. Subadult and adult pink salmon are known to be eaten by 15
different marine mammals, sharks, other fishes such as Pacific halibut.
Because pink salmon are the most abundant salmon in the North Pacific,
it is likely that they comprise a significant portion of the salmonids
eaten by marine mammals. Millions of pink salmon adults returning to
spawn in thousands of streams throughout Alaska provide significant
input into the trophic levels of these watersheds.

Number range CHAPTERThe average annual Alaska harvest since 1959 is 45.1
million pink salmon. The ten-year average harvest (1983-1992) is 77.4
million pink salmon. In 1991 the Alaska harvest represented about 96
percent of the total North American harvest. Pink salmon fisheries are
important in all coastal regions of Alaska south of Kotzebue Sound. It
is called the \"bread and butter\" fish in many Alaskan coastal fishing
communities because of its importance to commercial fisheries and thus
to local economies. Pink salmon also contribute substantially to the
catch of sport anglers and subsistence users in Alaska. Runs declined
markedly during the 1940s and 1950s; however, intensive effort is being
made to rebuild and enhance those runs through hatcheries, fish ladders,
and improved fisheries management.

[Sockeye]{.underline}

Sockeye salmon support one of the most important commercial fisheries on
the Pacific coast of North America. The largest harvest of sockeye
salmon in the world occurs in the Bristol Bay area of southwestern
Alaska where ten million to more than 30 million sockeye salmon may be
caught each year during a short, intensive fishery lasting only a few
weeks. Relatively large harvests of one million to six million sockeye
salmon are also taken in Cook Inlet, Prince William Sound, and Chignik
Lagoon. There is also a growing sport fishery for sockeye salmon
throughout the State. Probably the best known sport fishery with the
greatest participation occurs during the return of sockeye salmon to the
Russian River on the Kenai Peninsula. Other popular areas include the
Kasilof River on the Kenai Peninsula as well as the various river
systems within Bristol Bay.

Subsistence users harvest sockeye salmon in many areas of the State.
Aboriginal people consider sockeye salmon to be an important food
source. The greatest subsistence harvest of sockeye salmon probably
occurs in the Bristol Bay area where participants use set gillnets. In
other areas of the State, sockeye salmon may be taken for subsistence
use in fishwheels. Most of the subsistence harvest consists of
prespawning sockeye salmon, but a relatively small number of
postspawning sockeye salmon are also taken. Personal use fisheries have
also been established to make use of any sockeye salmon surplus to
spawning needs, subsistence uses, and commercial and sport harvests.
Personal use fisheries have occurred in Bristol Bay, where participants
use set gillnets, as well as in Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound,
where participants also use dip nets.

[Coho]{.underline}

Adult coho provide important food for bald eagles, terrestrial mammals
(such as brown and black bear and river otter), and marine mammals (such
as Steller sea lion, harbor seal, beluga, orca, and salmon sharks).
Adult coho play a very important role, as do the other species, in
transferring essential nutrients from marine to freshwater environments.
Juveniles are eaten by birds (gulls, terns, kingfishers, cormorants,
mergansers, and herons), fish (Dolly Varden, steelhead, cutthroat trout,
and arctic char), and mammals (mink and water shrew). Juvenile coho are
also significant predators of pink salmon fry during their seaward
migration. Marine invertebrates are the primary food when coho first
enter salt water, and fish prey increase in importance as the coho grow.
The coho salmon is a premier sport fish and is taken in fresh and salt
water from July to September. In 1986, anglers throughout Alaska took
201,000 coho salmon.

[Chum]{.underline}

Number range CHAPTERChum salmon have the widest distribution of any of
the Pacific salmon. They range south to the Chum salmon are the most
abundant commercially harvested salmon species in arctic, northwestern,
and Interior Alaska, but are of relatively less importance in other
areas of the state. There they are known locally as \"dog salmon\" and
are a traditional source of dried fish for winter use. In the last few
years an average of 11 million chum salmon, worth over \$32 million,
have been caught in Alaska's commercial fishery. Most chum are caught by
purse seines and drift gillnets, but fishwheels and set gillnets harvest
a portion of the catch. In many areas they have been harvested
incidental to the catch of pink salmon. The development of markets for
fresh and frozen chum in Japan and northern Europe has increased their
demand, especially in the last decade. The Alaska Department of Fish and
Game has built several hatcheries primarily for chum salmon products.

Sport fishers generally capture chum salmon incidental to fishing for
other Pacific salmon in either fresh or salt water. Statewide sport
harvest usually totals fewer than 25,000 chums. In arctic, northwestern
and Interior Alaska, chum salmon remain an important year-round source
of fresh and dried fish for subsistence and personal use purposes. After
entering fresh water, chums are most often prepared as a smoked product.

Number range CHAPTER

Chum salmon eggs, alevins, and juveniles in fresh water provide an
important food source for many birds (including gulls, crows, magpies,
ouzels, and kingfishers), small mammals, other fishes, and many
invertebrates. Chum salmon carcasses provide nutrients for the
freshwater watersheds and estuaries. The adult chum salmon that return
to the Chilkat River system near Haines, Alaska, feed large numbers of
bald eagles that congregate on the spawning grounds between September
and December. Spawning fish and spent carcasses provide a major food
source for brown and black bears, wolverines, wolves, and many other
small mammals. Many species of invertebrates also use the carcasses for
food. Juvenile chum salmon eat mostly invertebrates, while adults
consume amphipods, euphausiids, pteropods, copepods, gelatinous
zooplankton, fish, and squid larvae.

[Chinook]{.underline}

The chinook salmon is Alaska\'s State fish and is one of the most
important sport and commercial fish native to the Pacific coast of North
America. It is the largest of all Pacific salmon, with weights of
individual fish commonly exceeding 30 pounds. Chinook salmon eggs,
alevins, and juveniles in fresh water provide an important nutrient
input and food source for aquatic invertebrates, other fishes, birds,
and small mammals. The carcasses of Chinook adults can also be an
important nutrient input to their natal watersheds, as well as providing
food for terrestrial mammals such as bears, otter, mink, and birds (such
as gulls, eagles, and ravens).

The chinook salmon is perhaps the most highly prized sport fish in
Alaska and is extensively fished by anglers in the southeast and Cook
Inlet areas. Catches by subsistence fishers in southwest and
south-central areas from 1976 through 1986 averaged approximately 90,000
chinook salmon. Approximately 90 percent of the subsistence harvest is
taken in the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers.

6.1.5.3 Anadromous Fish

Anadromous fish managed under ADFG regional Alaska Management Area plans
and federal Subsistence Management Regulations where the species reside
on federal lands include Coastal Cutthroat Trout, Steelhead Trout, Dolly
Varden, Eulachon, Lamprey, Lingcod, and Pacific Herring. Size and bag
limits are established by the Alaska Board of Fisheries.

6.1.5.4 Shellfish

Alaska's major shellfish fisheries developed in the 1960s in the Gulf of
Alaska, subsequently expanding to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
region. The most important of these are the king and snow crab
fisheries. King and Tanner crab fisheries are managed primarily by the
State of Alaska, with advice from a federal fishery management plan for
the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands stocks. Shrimp and other nearshore
fisheries are managed by the State of Alaska. Other shellfish of
important include Dungeness crab, giant Pacific weathervane scallops,
and razor clams.

6.1.6 Marine Mammals

The Alaska region has 39 stocks of 24 species of marine mammals. Three
of these species (sea otter, polar bear, and walrus) are managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the remaining cetaceans and
pinnipeds are managed by NMFS. According to the criteria provided in the
1994 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), these
include ten strategic stocks: the northern fur seal, the sperm whale,
the western North Pacific and central North Pacific humpback whales, the
fin whale, the North Pacific right whale, and the bowhead whale; the
Cook Inlet stock of beluga; and the western U.S. Pacific stock of
Stellar sea lions as well as the eastern Pacific stock of this species.
Of the 39 stocks, seven are believed to be increasing, six are stable,
four are declining, and the population status of the remaining are
known. Ten stocks, the western U.S. Pacific stock of the Steller sea
lion, the northern fur seal, the Gulf of Alaska harbor seal, the
northern sea otter, the bowhead whale, and all five stocks of beluga
whales, are subject to subsistence harvests. While most marine mammal
stocks are assessed under the authority of Section 117 of the MMPA, NMFS
determined that management of the stocks subject to subsistence harvests
that do not have significant commercial takes should be developed
through the co-management process described in Section 119 of the Act.
The marine mammals discussed below are intended to be representative
samplings of potentially impacted species, and are not intended to be
complete and exhaustive. They were selected in part based on their
importance as subsistence resources. (NMFS,1999)

6.1.6.1 Polar Bears

Polar bears occur at low densities in the ice-covered portions of the
Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort seas adjacent to Alaska, and are closely
associated with the pack ice of the Arctic Ocean throughout most of the
year. The species comprises several largely discrete stocks, two of
which occur in Alaska---the northern Alaska (southern Beaufort Sea)
stock, shared with Canada, and the western Alaska (Chukchi/Bering Seas)
stock, shared with Russia. The total number of polar bears in Alaska and
adjacent waters has been estimated at 2,000 to 5,000 animals (Marine
Mammal Commission Annual Report for 2000). Accurate population estimates
for the Alaskan population have been difficult to obtain because of low
population densities, inaccessibility of the habitat, movement of bears
across international boundaries, and budget limitations. According to
the most recent stock assessment report, the Southern Beaufort Sea stock
appears to be stable and is experiencing little or no growth, whereas
the status of the Chukchi/Bering Seas polar bear stock is designated as
uncertain due to the lack of reliable population information (USFWS
2002).

It has been observed that some females move to coastal areas, and
occasionally farther inland, during October and November to seek
maternity den sites, depending on ice movement and ice buildup. When the
nearshore ice breaks up in the spring, the bears move with the sea ice
and many concentrate at the south edge of the ice pack. This position
varies seasonally but usually is between the coast and latitude 72°
North. Except for a shore lead, the Beaufort Sea is ice covered
year-round. Nearshore open water begins to freeze in September or
October, and nearshore ice does not melt until May or early June. Male
and nondenning female polar bears inhabit the sea ice throughout the
winter. Polar bear movements are extensive and individual activity areas
are enormous. The distribution of polar bears is influenced by the
availability of their major prey species, ringed and bearded seals,
which concentrate in areas of drifting pack ice. Ringed seals probably
constitute 95 percent of the polar bear's diet, although they also eat
walruses and some other marine mammals.

Historically, polar bears have been killed for subsistence, handicrafts
and recreation. The continue to be an important renewable resource for
coastal communities throughout northern Alaska. Polar bears provide a
source of meat and raw materials for handicrafts, including functional
clothing such as mittens, boots (mukluks), parka ruffs and pants. Polar
bears and polar bear hunting were an important part of earlier
religions, myths and legends, and continue to play an important role in
the Inupiat and Yupik culture. Polar bear hunting is a source of pride,
prestige, and accomplishment. Today, residents from 14 villages actively
hunt polar bears; the level of hunting effort varies from village and by
year. In addition, a small bear viewing tourism industry is developing
in some coastal communities.
([http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/phistory.html,](../(http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/phistory.html,)
last viewed: 7/15/2004) Currently in Alaska, about 100 polar bears are
harvested every year by natives under the subsistence provision of the
MMPA. The only restriction in place is that if they kill a bear, the
carcass must be used in some way. Natives are not allowed to sell the
skins, but may make and sell products from them
(<http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/facts.php>, last viewed:
6/28/2005)

Polar bears are protected under the provisions of the MMPA of 1972.
Additionally, an international agreement for the conservation of polar
bears was ratified in 1973 by the governments of Canada, Denmark,
Norway, the former USSR, and the U.S. The treaty requires management of
shared populations by consultations. Article II requires that
appropriate actions be taken to protect ecosystems of which polar bears
are a part, especially denning and feeding sites. Russia shares a
population of polar bears with the United States. In an enhancement of
the 1973 treaty, the two governments and native groups in the Russian
Far East and Alaska drafted and signed a long-term bilateral treaty for
the conservation of polar bears in 2000, ratified by the U.S. Senate,
which allows hunting by Russian natives and places quota restrictions on
both U.S. and Russian natives. The agreement provides for long-term
programs to conserve ecosystems and important habitats, harvest
allocations based on sustainability, collection of biological
information, and increased partnerships with state, local, and private
interests (U.S. FWS October 16, 2000, press release).

Pursuant to Section 119 of the MMPA, enacted in 1994, the U.S. FWS and
the Alaska Nanuuq (Polar Bear) Commission entered into a cooperative
agreement for the co-management of polar bears in 1997. Over time, the
Service has provided funding to enable the Commission to participate in
the bilateral treaty with Russian and technical assistance to survey the
status of polar bear populations. The U.S. FWS has also worked closely
with the Canadian Wildlife Service since 1998 to support the Southern
Beaufort Sea Polar Bear Management Agreement which governs mutually
agreed upon subsistence harvest quotas for polar bears from this stock
for both Alaska and Canadian Natives (Marine Mammal Commission Annual
Report for 2000).

2.  Sea Otters

(Note: This and the next marine mammals' information came from:
http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/learning/education/mammalinfo/seaotter.asp,
last viewed, 6/29/2005)

Ninety percent of the world's sea otters live in coastal Alaska. Because
sea otters forage almost exclusively on bottom-dwelling marine
invertebrates such as clams, snails, crabs, and sea urchins, they
predominantly occur near shore. In addition, sea otters prefer places
with kelp, which acts as an anchor that the sea otters use to wrap
themselves in when they are resting. Their offshore distribution is
limited by their diving ability; although they are capable of diving to
more than 100 meters deep, most of their feeding takes place between the
shoreline and depths of 40 meters. (Bodkin and Monson)

Of the three populations of sea otters recognized in Alaska (southwest,
southeast, and southcentral), a substantial decline in the southwest
Alaska otter population appears to have begun in the mid- to late 1980s.
In the Aleutians, there were approximately 55,000 to 74,000 sea otters
in the mid-1980s, representing almost half of the world's estimated
population of sea otters at that time. Aerial surveys since that time,
however, indicate a progressive decline in the number of otters in the
Aleutians, where the current population is estimated to be less than
9,000 animals. Survey results also show substantial declines have
occurred in the Alaska Peninsula, where the counts of otters have
declined by more than 65 percent since the mid 1980s. In the Kodiak
Archipelago, surveys indicate the number of otters has declined more
than 55 percent since the late 1980s. Overall, the population has
declined an estimated 56 to 68 percent over the past ten to 15 years,
and recent surveys indicate the decline is continuing. The overall trend
for the southcentral population appears to be either stable or slightly
increasing and the current population trend for the southeast Alaska
stock is uncertain (USFWS 2002 Stock Assessment).

The cause of the population decline is not clear. Production of young
does not appear to be reduced, nor is there evidence that starvation,
disease, or contaminants are involved. There also is no evidence that
entanglement in commercial fishing gear or competition with fishermen
for prey species is playing a significant role in the decline, and
annual subsistence harvest by Native Alaskans is believed to be too low
to contribute significantly to the decline. Some evidence points to
predation by killer whales as a possible cause of the decline in the
Aleutian Island chain. (USFWS Press Release, 2/11/2004)

The MMPA protects sea otters. It prohibits commercial harvest of sea
otters, and allows Alaska natives to hunt sea otters for subsistence and
creation of handicrafts. The USFWS has developed agreements with the
Alaska Sea Otter Commission to co-manage the subsistence harvest of sea
otters. The primary threats to the sea otter are generally
human-related, and

include: competition for shell fish, mariculture, oil and gas transport,
logging activities in coastal areas, and commercial fishing. The
southwest Alaska population of the sea otter were designated a
threatened species under the ESA in August 2005.

6.1.6.3 Northern Elephant Seal

Northern elephant seals are found in the North Pacific, from Baja
California, Mexico to the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. During
the breeding season, they live on beaches on offshore islands and a few
remote spots on the mainland. The rest of the year, except for molting
periods, the elephant seal lives well off shore (up to 5,000 miles),
commonly descending to over 5,000 feet below the ocean\'s surface.

6.1.6.4 Steller Sea Lion

Stellers are found throughout the North Pacific Rim from Japan to
central California. Unlike California sea lions, Stellers tend to remain
off shore or haul out in unpopulated areas. Breeding occurs along the
North Pacific Rim from Año Nuevo Island in central California to the
Kuril Islands North of Japan, with the greatest concentration of
rookeries (breeding grounds) in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands.

The current population of Steller sea lions is about 40,000, with about
500 living in California. However, there is great concern about this
population, which has dropped by 80 percent in the last 30 years. In
1997, the western stock in Alaska was listed as endangered and the
eastern stock of the continental United States and Canada was listed as
threatened. Reasons for this decline are not known. However, researchers
believe that a decline in the fish they eat may be the biggest factor.
The decline of fish could be due to increasing commercial fisheries in
the Gulf of Alaska. Drowning, entanglement in nets, and gunshot are all
possible reasons for the Stellers\' decline. Stellers are protected
under the MMPA, which forbids the killing, harming, or harassing of any
marine mammal, as well as the ESA.

6.1.6.5 Northern Fur Seal

The full range of the northern fur seal extends throughout the Pacific
rim from Japan to the Channel Islands of California, although the main
breeding colonies are in the Pribilof and Commander Islands in the
Bering Sea. Northern fur seals live almost exclusively in the open
ocean, and only use certain offshore islands for pupping and breeding.
They rarely come ashore except during these times, and are almost never
seen on mainland beaches unless they are sick.

Northern fur seals feed on small schooling fish, such as walleye
pollock, herring, hake and anchovy, and squid.

Once hunted in large numbers for their luxurious pelts, northern fur
seals are now protected under the MMPA as a depleted species. This means
that it is illegal to kill them except for research or native
subsistence. The current world population is less than one million, and
is declining. Commercial fishing operations may be contributing to the
decline, by decreasing availability of fish and entanglement in fishing
gear. Also, fur seals are especially sensitive to changes in their
environment.

6.1.6.6 Pacific Walrus

The Pacific walrus mainly inhabits the shallow continental shelf waters
of the Bering and Chukchi seas. The distribution of Pacific walruses
varies markedly with the seasons. Virtually the entire population
occupies the pack ice in the Bering Sea in the winter months. Through
the winter they generally congregate in two areas, one immediately
southwest of St. Lawrence Island and the other in outer Bristol Bay. As
the Bering Sea pack ice begins to loosen in April, walruses begin to
move northward and their distribution becomes less clustered. By late
April the distribution extends from Bristol Bay northward to the Bering
Strait. During the summer months, as the pack ice continues to recede
northward, most of the population migrates into the Chukchi Sea. The
largest concentrations are found near the coasts, between 70 degrees
North and Point Barrow in the east and between Bering Strait and Wrangel
Island in the west. Concentrations, mainly of males, are also found on
and near terrestrial haulouts in the Bering Sea in Bristol Bay and the
northern Gulf of Anadyr throughout the summer. In October the pack ice
develops rapidly in the Chukchi Sea, and large herds begin to move
southward. Many come ashore on haulouts in the Bering Strait region.
Depending on ice conditions, those haulout sites continue to be occupied
through November and into December, but with the continuing development
of ice, most of them move south of St. Lawrence Island and the Chukchi
Peninsula by early to mid-December.

Although capable of diving to deeper depths, Pacific walruses for the
most part are found in waters of 100 meters or less, possibly because of
higher productivity of their benthic foods in the shallower water. In
some instances walruses forage along rocky substrates. Clams are their
most commons food, however other invertebrates such as sea cucumbers,
crabs, and segmented worms are frequently found in their stomachs.
Walruses rarely consume fish. They are frequently reported to prey on
small seals such as ringed and ribbon seals.

Isolated sites such as islands, points, spits, and headlands are
occupied most frequently. A wide variety of substrates apparently are
suitable, but protection from strong winds and surf seems also to be
important. Social factors, learned behavior, and proximity to prey
probably influence the location of haulout sites but little is known
about such factors. In Alaska, major terrestrial haulouts are found in
Bristol Bay at Cape Seniavin, Round Island, Cape Pierce, and Cape
Newenham. Consistent seasonal occupation of specific haulouts by some
individuals suggests at least some degree of site fidelity. Limited data
from tagging and radio-tracking studies suggest that site fidelity may
be interrupted by human disturbances.

Pacific walruses are an important source of meat and ivory for Native
peoples of Alaska and the Chukotka Peninsula, Russia. Over the past
forty years, the Pacific walrus population has sustained estimated
annual harvest mortalities ranging from 3,200 to 16,100 animals per
year. Recent harvest levels are lower than historic highs. It is not
known whether lower harvest levels reflect changes in walrus abundance
or hunting effort. Factors affecting harvest levels include the
cessation of Russian commercial walrus harvests after 1991, changes in
political, economic, and social conditions of subsistence hunters in
Alaska and Chukotka, and the effects of variable weather and ice
conditions on hunting success. In 1997, a Cooperative Agreement was
developed between the USFWS and the Alaska Eskimo Walrus Commission to
facilitate the participation of subsistence hunters in activities
related to the conservation and management of walrus stocks in Alaska.
Specific activities carried out under this agreement have included the
strengthening and expansion of harvest monitoring programs in Alaska and
Chukotka as well as efforts to develop locally based subsistence harvest
regulations.

6.1.6.7 Whales:

Several species of whales spend at least part of their time feeding in
Alaskan waters. These include the Baird's beaked, Beluga, Blue, Bowhead,
Cuvier's beaked, Fin, Gray, Humpback, Killer, Minke, North Pacific
Right, Sperm, Sei, Pacific white-sided dolphin, harbor porpoise, and
Dall's porpoise. Of these whales, four species are hunted for
subsistence purposes by Native Alaskans, including Beluga, Bowhead, Gray
whale, and Minke whales (rarely). There is no known subsistence harvest
of Baird's beaked whales, Blue whales, Cuvier's beaked whales, Dall's
porpoise, Fin whale, harbor porpoise, Humpback whales, Pacific white
dolphin, North Pacific right whales, Killer Whales, Sperm whales, and
Stejneger's beaked whales. Below is a discussion of whales listed as
endangered or considered important for subsistence purposes.

[Beluga]{.underline}

Beluga whales are distributed throughout seasonally ice-covered arctic
and subarctic waters of the Northern Hemisphere, and are closely
associated with open leads and polynyas in ice-covered regions.
Depending on season and region, beluga whales may occur in both offshore
and coastal waters, with concentrations in Cook Inlet, Bristol Bay,
Norton Sound, Kasegaluk Lagoon, and the Mackenzie Delta. It is assumed
that most beluga whales from these summering areas overwinter in the
Bering Sea, excluding those found in the northern Gulf of Alaska.
Seasonal distribution is affected by ice cover, tidal conditions, access
to prey, temperature, and human interaction. During the winter, beluga
whales occur in offshore waters associated with pack ice. In the spring,
they migrate to warmer coastal estuaries, bays, and rivers for molting
and calving. Beluga whales are not a listed species under the ESA.
Beluga whales are hunted for subsistence by Native Alaskans.

[Bowhead Whale]{.underline}

Bowhead whales are distributed in the seasonally ice-covered waters of
the Arctic and near-Arctic, generally north of 54°N and south of 75°N in
the western Arctic Basin. For management purposes, five stocks are
currently recognized by the International Whaling Commission. Small
stock occur in the Sea of Okhotsk, Davis Strait, Hudson Bay, and the
offshore waters of Spitsbergen. The small bowhead stocks are comprised
of only a few tens to a few hundreds of individuals. The largest
population, and the only stock that is found within U.S. waters, is the
Western Arctic stock. The majority of the Western Arctic stock migrates
annually from wintering areas (November to March) in the northern Bering
Sea, through the Chukchi Sea in the Spring (March through June), to the
Beaufort Sea where they spend much of the summer (mid-May through
September) before returning again to the Bering Sea in the Fall
(September through November) to overwinter. The bowhead spring migration
follows fractures in the sea ice around the coast of Alaska, generally
in the shear zone between the shorefast ice and the mobile polar pack
ice. There is evidence of whales following each other, even when their
route does not take advantage of large ice-free areas, such as polynyas.
As the whales travel east past Point Barrow, Alaska, their migration is
somewhat funneled between shore and the polar pack ice. Most of the
year, bowhead whales are closely associated with sea ice. Only during
the summer is this population in relatively ice-free waters in the
southern Beaufort Sea, and area often exposed to industrial activity
related to petroleum exploration and extraction. During the autumn
migration, bowheads select shelf waters in all but "heavy ice"
conditions, when they select slope habitat. Sightings of bowhead whales
do occur in the summer near Barrow and are consistent with suggestions
that certain areas near Barrow are important feeding grounds. Some
bowheads are found in the Chukchi and Bering Seas in summer, and these
are thought to be part of the expanding western Arctic stock.

Eskimos have been taking bowhead whales for at least 2,000 years.
Subsistence takes have been regulated by a quota system under the
authority of the IWC since 1977. Native Alaskan subsistence hunters take
approximately 0.1-0.5 percent of the population per annum, primarily
from nine Alaskan communities. Under this quota, the number of kills has
ranged from 14--72 per year, depending in part on changes in management
strategy and in part on higher abundance estimates in recent years. The
total take by Native Alaskans, including struck and lost, was reported
to be 66 in 1997, 54 in 1998, 47 in 1999, 47 in 2000, and 75 in 2001.
Canadian Natives are also known to take whales from this stock. Hunters
from the western Canadian Arctic community of Aklavik killed one whale
in 1991 and one in 1996. The annual average subsistence take (by Natives
of Alaska and Canada) during the five-year period from 1997 to 2001 is
58 bowhead whales. The bowhead whale is listed as "endangered" under the
ESA of 1973, and therefore designated as "depleted" under the MMPA

[Fin Whale]{.underline}

Within the U.S. waters in the Pacific, fin whales are found seasonally
off the coast of North America and Hawaii, and in the Bering Sea during
the summer. Offshore hydrophone arrays along the U.S. Pacific coast, in
the central North Pacific, and in the western Aleutian Islands have
documented high levels of fin whale call rates along the U.S. Pacific
coast beginning in August/September and lasting through February,
suggesting that this may be an important feeding area during the winter.
In addition, recent surveys in the central-eastern and southeastern
Bering Sea in 1999 and 2000 resulted in new information about the
distribution and relative abundance of fin whales in these areas. Fin
whale abundance estimates were nearly five times higher in the
central-eastern Bering Sea than in the southeastern Bering Sea, and most
sighting in the central-eastern Bering Sea occurred in a zone of
particularly high productivity along the shelf break. The fin whale is
listed as "endangered" under the ESA of 1973, and therefore designated
as "depleted" under the MMPA. Subsistence hunters in Alaska have not
been reported to take fin whales, and there are no known habitat issues
that are particular concern for this stock.

[Gray Whale]{.underline}

The gray whale formerly occurred in the North Atlantic Ocean, but is
currently only found in the North Pacific. Two stocks have been
recognized in the North Pacific: the Eastern Pacific stock, which breeds
along the west coast of North America, and the Western Pacific or
"Korean" stock, which apparently breeds off the coast of eastern Asia.
Most of the Eastern North Pacific stock spends the summer feeding in the
northern Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas. However, gray whales have
been reported feeding in the summer in waters off of Southeast Alaska,
British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington. The whales migrate near shore
along the coast of North America from Alaska to the central California
coast starting in October or November. After passing Point Conception,
California, the majority of the animals take a more direct offshore
route across the southern California Bight to northern Baja California.
The Eastern North Pacific stock winters mainly along the west coast of
Baja California. The northbound migration generally begins in
mid-February and continues through May with cows and newborn calves
primarily migrating northward between March and June along the U.S.
coast. In 1994 Eastern North Pacific gray whales were removed from the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., it is no longer
considered endangered or threatened under the ESA).

Subsistence hunters in Alaska and Russia have traditionally harvested
whales from this stock. There was no reported takes by subsistence
hunters in Alaska during the 1990s, with the most recent reported
harvest occurring in 1989. Russian subsistence hunters reported taking
no whales from this stock during 1998, 44 in 1994, and 85 in 1995. The
1995 harvest consisted of 40 females and 44 males, and one whale
reported struck and lost. Based on this information, the annual
subsistence take averaged 43 whales per year, during which time the
population size increased. The current IWC quota for gray whales taken
by aboriginals is 140 animals per year.

[Western North Pacific Humpback Whale]{.underline}

Humpback whales in the North Pacific are seasonal migrants that feed on
zooplankton and small schooling fishes in the cool, coastal waters of
the Western United States, western Canada, and the Russian Far East. The
historic feeding range of humpback whales in the North Pacific
encompassed coastal and inland waters around the Pacific Rim from Point
Conception, California, north to the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea,
and west along the Aleutian Islands to the Kamchatka Peninsula and into
the Sea of Okhotsk. Recent sitings indicate that the Bering Sea remains
an important feeding area. Humpback whales have been known to enter the
Chukchi Sea. The humpback whale population in much of this range was
considerably reduced as a result of intensive commercial exploitation
during the 20^th^ century. The humpback whale is listed as "endangered"
under the ESA, and therefore is designated as "depleted" under the MMPA.
Subsistence hunters in Alaska have not been reported to take humpback
whales. Noise pollution from the U.S. Navy's Low Frequency Active Sonar
program and other anthropogenic sources (i.e., shipping) is a potential
concern to the health of the humpback whale.

[Minke Whale]{.underline}

In the North Pacific, minke whales occur from the Bering and Chukchi
Seas south to near the Equator. Minke whales are relatively common in
the Bering and Chukchi seas and in the inshore waters of the Gulf of
Alaska. They are known to penetrate loose ice during the summer, and
some individuals venture north of the Bering Strait. A July/August 1999
survey in the central Bering Sea resulted in 20 on-effort sightings of
minke whales, most of which occurred along the upper slope in waters 100
to 200 meters deep. In the northern part of their range minke whales are
believed to be migratory, whereas they appear to establish home ranges
in the inland waters of Washington and along central California. Minke
whales in Alaska are considered a separate stock from these "resident"
minke whales in California, Oregon, and Washington. Minke whales are not
listed as "depleted" under the MMPA or listed as "threatened" or
"endangered" under the ESA. No minke whales were ever taken by the
modern shore-based whale fishery in the eastern North Pacific which
lasted from 1905 to 1971. Subsistence takes of minke whales by Native
Alaskans are rare, but have been known to occur. Only seven minke whales
are reported has having been taken for subsistence between 1930 and
1987. The most recent harvest (two whales) in Alaska occurred in 1989.

[North Pacific Right Whale]{.underline}

Before right whales in the North Pacific were heavily exploited by
commercial whalers, concentrations were found in the Gulf of Alaska,
eastern Aleutian Islands, south-central Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and
Sea of Japan. During 1958--1982, there were only 32--36 sitings of right
whales in the central North Pacific and Bering Sea. Sightings have been
reported as far south as central Baja California in the eastern North
Pacific, as far south as Hawaii in the central North Pacific, and as far
north as the sub-Arctic waters of the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk
in the summer. Right whales calve in coastal waters during the winter
months. However, in the eastern North Pacific no such calving grounds
were ever found. Migratory patterns of the North Pacific stock are
unknown, although it is thought that the whales spend the summer on
high-latitude feeding grounds and migrate to more temperate waters
during the winter months. Aerial and vessel surveys for right whales
have occurred in recent years in a portion of Bristol Bay where right
whales have been observed each summer since 1996. North Pacific right
whales are observed consistently in this area, and are not observed on
dedicated vessel or aerial survey tracklines along the periphery of the
area or outside the area. Right whales remain in the southeastern Bering
Sea until at least through October, and have not been observed outside
the localized area in the southeastern Bering Sea. The right whale is
listed as "endangered" under the ESA, and therefore is designated as
"depleted" under the MMPA. Subsistence hunters in Alaska are not
reported to take right whales. Ship strikes and entanglement in fishing
gear may be significant sources of mortality for the North Pacific right
whales.

6.1.7 Terrestrial Animals

The economic value of hunting in Alaska annually exceeds \$100 million,
excluding the value of subsistence harvests. Trapping contributes
several million each year to the economy and is extremely important to
thousands of Alaskans lacking other sources of cash income. Wildlife
viewing and photography are of great importance to over 85 percent of
Alaskan residents and visitors to Alaska, based upon recent surveys. The
tourism industry contributes over \$1 billion annually to Alaska\'s
economy and is the State\'s third largest industry. The Division of
Wildlife Conservation within the ADFG has administrative oversight over
Alaska's major game species, and participates via interagency
coordination on land use planning (e.g., review and comment on DNR area
plans) on habitat management issues, refuges and sanctuaries. ADFG
oversees 14 species management programs for bison, black bear, brown
bear, caribou, deer, elk, furbearers, marine mammals, moose, mountain
goat, muskox, sheep, waterfowl and wolf. Species management programs
involve both management and research projects. Some management projects
involve active manipulation of wildlife populations to allow recovery of
depressed populations. Habitat improvement projects range from the
cultivation of wildlife food crops in Fairbanks and Delta to mechanical
disturbance and prescribed burns in the Matanuska, Tanana, and Susitna
River valleys. Species management programs contribute to the sustained
yield management of the State\'s wildlife --- a goal that is
accomplished through collection and analysis of data on wildlife
reproduction, survival, and mortality for use by the Board of Game in
defining hunting and trapping regulations and by the department in
developing effective management strategies. The terrestrial animals
discussed below are intended to be representative samplings of
potentially impacted species, and are not intended to be complete and
exhaustive. They were selected in part based on their importance as
subsistence resources.

6.1.7.1 Caribou

Caribou live in the arctic tundra, mountain tundra, and forests of
Alaska. Caribou in Alaska are distributed in 32 herds (or populations).
A herd uses a calving area that is separate from the calving areas of
other herds, but different herds may mix together on winter ranges. Like
most herd animals, the caribou must keep moving to find adequate food.
Large herds often migrate long distances (up to 400 miles) between
summer and winter ranges. Smaller herds may not migrate at all. In
summer (May-September), caribou eat the leaves of willows, sedges,
flowering tundra plants, and mushrooms. They switch to lichens (reindeer
moss), dried sedges (grasslike plants), and small shrubs (like
blueberry) in September. In Alaska, caribou prefer treeless tundra and
mountains during all seasons, but many herds winter in the boreal forest
(taiga). Calving areas are usually located in mountains or on open,
coastal tundra. Caribou tend to calve in the same general areas year
after year, but migration routes used for many years may suddenly be
abandoned in favor of movements to new areas with more food. Changing
movements can create problems for the Native people in Alaska and Canada
who depend upon caribou for food.

Caribou movements are probably triggered by changing weather conditions,
such as the onset of cold weather or snowstorms. Once they decide to
migrate, caribou can travel up to 50 miles a day. Caribou apparently
have a built in compass, like migratory birds, and can travel through
areas that are unfamiliar to them to reach their calving grounds.

Alaskan hunters shoot about 22,000 caribou each year for food. A few
thousand other hunters, primarily from the lower 48 states, Europe, and
Mexico, travel to Alaska to experience caribou hunting each fall. These
hunters contribute significantly to the economy of the State,
particularly in rural areas. Meat from caribou taken by these
nonresident hunters is also required to be used for food. Alaska\'s
great caribou herds have also become increasingly treasured as a natural
wonder of State, national, and international importance.

There are approximately 950,000 wild caribou in Alaska (including some
herds that are shared by Alaska and Canada\'s Yukon Territory). Caribou
are somewhat cyclic in number, but the timing of declines and increases,
and the size to which herds grow is not very predictable. Although
overhunting caused some herds to remain low in the past, today, varying
weather patterns (climate), overpopulation, predation by wolves and
grizzly bears, and disease outbreaks determine whether most herds
increase or decrease. (AK Fish and Game, [www.adfg.state.ak.us,]() last
viewed: 6/28/2005)

6.1.7.2 Muskoxen

Populations of muskoxen died out in the 1800s in the northern Alaska,
but were reintroduced in the 1960s and 1970s. In the east, muskoxen were
reintroduced to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 1969 and to the
Kavik River area (between Prudhoe Bay and the Refuge in 1970. In the
west, they were reintroduced near Cape Thompson on the Chukchi coast in
1970 and 1977. The reintroductions to the east established the Refuge
population, which grew rapidly and expanded both east and west of the
Refuge. An estimated 270 muskoxen were counted between the Colville
River and the Refuge, and a breeding population has been established in
the area of the Itkillik-Colville rivers. A total population of about
2,300 muskoxen resides in Alaska. Muskoxen occur on coastal moist
tundra.

During the summer, muskoxen live in wet areas, including river valleys.
They move to higher elevations in the winter, to avoid deep snow. They
graze on grasses, reeds, sedges, and other ground plants. Since green
plants are available for only a few weeks during the arctic summer, for
most of the year, muskoxen must paw through snow to feed on dried
plants.

6.1.7.3 Moose

The Alaska moose is the largest of all the moose. In Alaska, they occur
in suitable habitat from the Stikine River in the Panhandle to the
Colville River on the Arctic Slope. They are most abundant in recently
burned areas that contain willow and birch shrubs, on timberline
plateaus, and along the major rivers of Southcentral and Interior
Alaska. Latest estimates put the population of moose in Alaska at about
160,000.

Because moose range over so much of Alaska, they have played an
important role in the development of the State. Native Alaskan peoples
have coexisted with the moose for thousands of years. Historically,
moose were an important source of food, clothing, and implements to
Athapaskan Indians dwelling along the major rivers. Athabascan peoples
still use moose for many different things. They use the antlers, hide,
hair, and the meat. The moose hide is tanned and softened and turned
into moccasins, jackets, mittens, dresses, and ceremonial outfits. The
hide can also be made into purses, picture frames, drums, and knife
cases. Strips of rawhide could be used in the making of laces for
snowshoes and straps for baby carriers. Antlers can be used for buttons,
artwork, cribbage boards, tool handles, and bolo ties. Moose hair is
hollow and ranges from pure white to dark brown. The hair decorates
ceremonial masks and other craft items. All edible parts of the moose
are used.
(http://www3.northstar.k12.ak.us/schools/awe/moose/moosepage.html)

Today, Alaskans and nonresidents annually harvest approximately 6,000 to
8,000 moose; approximately 3.5 million pounds of meat. Moose are an
important part of the Alaskan landscape, and tourists photograph those
animals that feed along the highway. The advent of increased development
in Alaska has included many alterations upon the face of the land, which
has created conflicts between man and moose as moose eat crops, stand on
airfields, eat young trees, wander the city streets, and collide with
cars and trains. Between 300 and 1000 moose are killed every year on
Alaska\'s highways and railroad tracks. However, man\'s removal of
mature timber through logging and careless use of fire has also
benefited moose as new stands of young timber have created vast areas of
high-quality moose food.
([http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/moose.php,](../(http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/moose.php,)
last viewed: 6/28/05)

6.1.7.4 Grizzly/Brown Bears

Brown bears are found in a variety of habitats, from dense forests, to
sub alpine meadows and arctic tundra. In Alaska, there are about 30,000
Brown bears, although in the lower 48 states they are considered
endangered. They are not listed as endangered in Alaska. Compared to
other areas where brown bears are found, the largest brown bears are
found along the coast of Alaska and British Columbia, and islands such
as Kodiak and Admiralty Islands. There, because of a consistent diet of
high protein salmon, males average over 700 pounds and females average
about 450 pounds. Despite this large size, brown bears are extremely
agile and fast, reaching speeds of 35 to 40 miles per hour (mph).

Brown bears are omnivores and will eat both vegetation and animals.
Grasses, sedges, roots, berries, insects, fish, carrion and small and
large mammals are all part of a bear\'s diet. In some areas they have
become significant predators of large hoofed mammals such as moose,
caribou and elk. In other areas a large, consistent supply of food like
salmon have led to behavioral changes that allow large congregations of
brown bears to share an abundant resource. The diet of brown bears
varies depending on what foods are available in that particular season
or habitat. Along the coast, they scavenge on the carcasses of marine
mammals and prey on

waterfowl eggs and young. They also feed on sedges and grasses, prey on
arctic ground squirrels and rodents, and forage on plant roots and
berries.
([http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/grizzly_bear.html,](../(http://www.kidsplanet.org/factsheets/grizzly_bear.html,)
last viewed: 6/28/2005)

6.1.7.5 Black Bears

Black bears are the most abundant and widely distributed of the three
species of North American bears. In Alaska, black bears occur over most
of the forested areas of the State. They are not found on the Seward
Peninsula, on the Yukon-Kuskowim Delta, or north of the Brooks Range.
They are also absent from some of the large islands of the Gulf of
Alaska, notably Kodiak, Montague, Hinchinbrook and others, and from the
Alaska Peninsula beyond the area of Lake Iliamma. In Southeast Alaska,
black bears occupy most islands with the exceptions of Admiralty,
Baranof, Chichagof, and Kruzof. These are inhabited by brown bears. Both
species occur on the southeastern mainland. Black bears are most often
associated with forests, but depending on the season of the year, they
may be found from sea level to alpine areas.

Black bears are creatures of opportunity when it comes to food. There
are, however, certain patterns of food-seeking which they follow. Upon
emergence in the spring, freshly sprouted green vegetation is their main
food item, but they will eat nearly anything they encounter.
Winter-killed animals are readily eaten, and in some areas black bears
have been found to be very effective predators on newborn moose calves.
As summer progresses, feeding shifts to salmon if they are available. In
areas without salmon, bears rely primarily on vegetation throughout the
year. Berries, especially blueberries, are an important late summer-fall
food item.

At one time black bears were classified as furbearers and were heavily
used as such. Now there is a growing appreciation for them as meat and
trophy animal. In some areas of Alaska, black bears are a traditional
subsistence food. In the community of Huslia, for instance, hibernating
bears are killed, cooked, and eaten by the men and boys of the community
in a traditional dinner.
([Http://www.alaskan-adventures.com/alaska-black-bear.htm,](../(Http://www.alaskan-adventures.com/alaska-black-bear.htm,)
last viewed: 6/29/2005)

6.1.7.6 Wolverine

The wolverine, a relative of the mink and weasel, is the largest
terrestrial member of the family Mustelidae. Also known as devil bear,
carcajou, or woods devil, its scientific name is *Gulo gulo*, meaning
"glutton." Wolverines occur in small numbers throughout their range and
require large expanses of wilderness. Formerly distributed across most
arctic and sub arctic regions in North America, the wolverine has
disappeared from most of the eastern United States and Canada. In
Alaska, there have always been significant wolverine populations
throughout mainland Alaska and some of the islands of Southeast Alaska.

The wolverine is valued by Alaskans as a fur resource and as a symbol of
wilderness. Its fur is commonly used for parka trim and hoods because of
its beauty and durability and because the guard hairs of wolverine fur
resist frost accumulation.

Wolverines are opportunistic, eating about anything they can find or
kill. They are poor hunters but are well adapted for scavenging. Their
diet reflects annual and seasonal changes in food availability. In the
winter, wolverines primarily rely on remains of moose and caribou killed
by wolves and hunters or animals that have died of natural causes.
Throughout the year, wolverines feed on small and medium-sized animals
such as voles, squirrels, snowshoe hares, and birds. In the right
situations, wolverines can kill moose or caribou, but these occurrences
are rare.

It appears that few wolverines live longer than five to seven years in
the wild. Some, however, do survive to 12 or 13 years of age. The
primary natural mortality factors are starvation and being killed by
other predators, primarily wolves. However, most wolverine mortality is
due to trapping by humans. The continued health of wolverine populations
in Alaska is best assured by both protecting large expanses of
wilderness and preventing over harvest. Wolverines prefer vast areas of
wilderness, and preservation of their habitat is of key importance to
their successful management. Much wolverine habitat is now protected in
the State through various federal and State land dedication programs.
Harvests are controlled by seasons and bag limits. Annual catches and
the effects on the population are closely monitored by the ADFG that
harvest by humans will not be a negative factor on Alaska\'s wolverine
populations.

6.1.8 Birds

Alaska is host to 437 species of birds, with new species being reported
regularly. The greatest variety of species comes from a few families,
including waterfowl (44 species), shorebirds (37 sandpiper and nine
plover species), gulls (17 species), alcids (16 species), birds of prey
(16 species), wood warblers (12 species), thrushes (11 species), and
owls (ten species).

Despite Alaska's size, its northern location offers relatively few life
zones. Three zones are recognized: The Canadian zone, characterized by
the range of Sitka spruce forests; the Hudsonian zone, which includes
the interior valleys and mountain bases identified by birch-spruce
forests; and the arctic-alpine zone, which extends above the tree growth
and is characterized by tundra or treeless vegetation. Within these life
zones are diverse habitats ranging from oceanic islands to river deltas,
temperate rainforests, deciduous and coniferous woodlands, mountain
ranges (including 17 of the 20 tallest mountains in North America),
arctic tundra, grassy plains, glaciers, and lakes, rivers and other
wetlands.

The distribution of bird species throughout Alaska is tied to the
seasons. Alaska represents the northern limit for many widespread
species of birds, from the Great Horned Owl to the Savannah Sparrow.
While shorebirds are plentiful, wading birds are rare; only the Great
Blue Heron ranges into southcentral Alaska. While the bountiful Alaska
summer provides resources for multitudes of breeding birds, the harsh
winter flushes most birds from the frigid lands. Few species winter in
Alaska; most are found there only during migration or the summer
breeding season. Spring and fall migrations bring spectacular
concentrations of birds.

Spring migration begins in early April and continues through early June
with a peak of migration activity in May. Fall migration begins in late
June, when some no-breeding sandpipers begin to return south from the
arctic, while some gulls continue migrating through early December.
However most fall migrations take place in August and September.

Four principle migration routes are recognized in Alaska: the interior,
coastal, Pacific, and Siberian routes. The coastal migration route
roughly follows the coastline and is used by many waterfowl, shorebirds
and some songbirds. The Pacific migration route is used by birds
wintering in South America and South Pacific Islands. The Siberian route
is used by a few birds that winter in Asia, but breed in Alaska, like
the Bluethroat, Northern Wheatear, Bar-tailed Godwit and Yellow Wagtail.
(http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/student_info/learn/birding.htm, last
viewed 6/30/2005)

The birds discussed below are intended to be representative samplings of
potentially impacted species, and are not intended to be complete and
exhaustive. They were selected in part based on their importance as
subsistence resources.

6.1.8.1 Seabirds

Populations of seabirds in Alaska are larger and more diverse than in
any similar region of the northern hemisphere. Seabirds, so named
because they spend at least 80 percent of their lives at sea, are
dependent upon marine resources for food. About 100 million seabirds
reside in marine waters of Alaska during some part of the year. About
half this population is composed of 50 species of nonbreeding residents,
visitors, and breeding species that use marine habitats only seasonally.
Another 30 species include 40--60 million individuals that breed in
Alaska and spend most of their lives in U.S. territorial waters. Alaskan
populations account for more than 95 percent of the breeding seabirds in
the continental United States, and eight species nest nowhere else in
North America. Another five species range through the North Pacific, but
their populations are concentrated in Alaska. In addition to breeding
grounds, Alaskan waters also provide important wintering habitat for
birds that breed in Canada and Eurasia. Shearwaters, which breed in the
southern hemisphere, are the most numerous species in Alaskan waters
during the summer.

Collectively, seabirds use a wide range of coastal habitats for nesting,
but common characteristics of all nesting habitats are safety from
mammalian predators and availability of marine prey near nesting
colonies. Most seabirds nest on offshore islands or mainland coastal
cliffs. Seabird nest sites include rock ledges, open ground, underground
burrows, and crevices in cliffs or talus. The catalog of known breeding
sites includes more than 1,300 colonies around the coast, ranging in
size from a few birds to more than 2.5 million. Seabirds take a variety
of prey from the ocean, including krill, small fish, and squid. Suitable
nest sites and oceanic prey are the most important factors controlling
the natural distribution and abundance of seabirds. The seas near Alaska
(the Arctic Ocean, Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, and north Pacific Ocean)
are very rich and produce large amounts of food for the birds. Most
species of seabirds nesting in Alaska feed within 50 km of breeding
grounds.

The most abundant breeding species in Alaska are northern fulmars,
storm-petrels, kittiwakes, murres, auklets and puffins. These species
also form the largest colonies. Fulmars, storm-petrels, and kittiwakes
are surface feeders, picking their prey from the surface or just below
the surface; murres, auklets, and puffins dive for their food. Fulmars
nest primarily on island groups in and around the Bering Sea. They take
a wide variety of prey (e.g., fish, squid zooplankton, jellyfish) from
the surface or just below the surface. Storm-petrels are strictly
nocturnal and nest below ground in either burrows or crevices between
rocks. They forage on zooplankton and squid; in some areas they are
dependent upon small fish such as capelin and sand lance caught at the
surface. Black-legged kittiwakes are widespread throughout Alaska, while
red-legged kittiwakes are found only in the Bering Sea region. Both are
surface feeders although black-legged kittiwakes feed primarily on small
fish and forage over the continental shelf and shelf break; red-legged
kittiwakes feed primarily on myctophids and will forage beyond the shelf
break. Murres nest on cliffs around the coast of Alaska, forming large
colonies. They forage over the continental shelf and will dive up to 300
feet for prey (primarily fish during the breeding season and zooplankton
during the winter). Six species of auklets nest in Alaska, four of which
(Least, Crested, Whiskered and Parakeet) nest only in the Bering Sea
region. Least auklets are the most abundant breeding seabird in Alaska;
approximately one-fifth of the State's total breeding seabirds.

Auklets forage across the continental shelf; however, they are attracted
to "fronts" between water masses where food is concentrated. They feed
on zooplankton, usually diving to moderate depths, but can dive up to
250 feet. Puffins breed throughout Alaska, where their populations are
concentrated. Puffins generally forage near their breeding colonies and
while their diet is broad over the course of the year, puffins depend
upon fish to feed their young. (Meehan, et.al. 1998)

Little information is available to assess numerical changes for most
seabird species in Alaska. It is known that some species were seriously
reduced or locally extirpated by foxes introduced to islands in the
1800\'s and early 1900\'s. About 450 islands from southeastern Alaska to
the western Aleutians were used as release sites for arctic and red
foxes. The species most affected included open ground nesters such as
gulls, terns, and fulmars, and burrowing birds like ancient murrelets,
Cassin's auklets, tufted puffins, and storm-petrels. In spite of natural
die-offs and eradication efforts, foxes remain on about 50 islands to
which they were introduced.

Recent counts suggest that fulmars are increasing at two of their seven
major colonies (Semidi Islands and Pribilof Islands), and several small
colonies have been established since the mid-1970\'s) Counts of least
and crested auklets also indicate possible increases at two colonies in
the Bering Sea. Red-faced cormorants declined about 50 percent on the
Semidi Islands between 1978 and 1993, while pelagic cormorants increased
on Middleton Island between 1956 and the mid-1970\'s. Glaucous-winged
gulls increased on Middleton from non breeding in 1956 to more than
20,000 birds in 1993; this species has also shown marked increases
following removal of introduced foxes at several sites in the Aleutian
Islands. Marine bird surveys in Prince William Sound suggest that arctic
terns, glaucous-winged gulls, pelagic cormorants, horned puffins, and
pigeon guillemots have all declined in that area. Terns and guillemots
have recently increased on several Aleutian Islands following fox
removal.

Important threats to Alaska's seabirds include oil pollution, the
introduction of predators to nesting islands, conflicts with commercial
fisheries, and disturbance or habitat loss associated with human
population growth in coastal areas. There is little doubt, however, that
the introduction of exotic animals, especially foxes, but also rats,
voles, ground squirrels, and rabbits has been the most damaging source
of direct mortality associated with human activity. Unlike one-time
catastrophes, introduced predators exert a continuous negative effect on
seabird populations. Another important influence on seabird populations
is changes in food supply, whether natural or related to human activity.
The postwar period from 1950 to the 1990\'s has seen explosive growth
and constant change in commercial fisheries of the northeastern Pacific.
Driving these changes, or in some cases possibly driven by them, are
major shifts in the composition of marine fish stocks. In the Gulf of
Alaska, for example, a shift occurred in the late 1970\'s and early
1980\'s toward greater abundance of groundfish (cod, various flatfishes,
and especially walleye pollock), possibly at the expense of small forage
species such as herring, sandlance, and capelin. Coincident with these
changes, diets of a variety of seabirds such as murres, murrelets, and
kittiwakes have shifted from being predominantly capelin-based to
pollock-based. Seabird declines and breeding failures correspond to the
shift, as do drastic declines in harbor seals and northern sea lions in
the Gulf of Alaska. The wholesale removal of large quantities of fish
biomass from the ocean is likely to have major, if poorly understood,
effects on the marine ecosystem. (Hatch and Piatt)

Subsistence harvest of seabirds is conducted by residents of coastal
villages throughout the Bering Sea region. These villages are remote and
have limited employment opportunities; consequently, many residents rely
on subsistence resources. The relative use of seabirds depends in part
on proximity to the resource; a study of bird hunting in Savoonga and
Gambell over the course of year found that nearly all households used
birds. Seabirds and their eggs, while a small portion of the overall
subsistence diet, provide variety, particularly in the spring. Seabirds
may also provide an important food resource in years when other
resources are limited. Seabird hunting and egg gathering are activities
generally done in family groups. These activities help to maintain
family ties and provide cultural identity. Furthermore, the gathering
activities are viewed both as food gathering and essentially as social
and recreational activities. The use of seabird resources extends beyond
the region, as trade and barter are integral parts of the subsistence
lifestyle; consequently, resources specific to certain regions or areas
are used to trade for other resources that are not available locally.

While tourism activities directly related to seabirds may be minimal in
the region, they can be important locally. Annually, many groups visit
the Pribilof Islands to enjoy the spectacle of large and diverse seabird
populations. This tourism is important to the local economy. In
addition, the local Native corporation, in cooperation with the USFWS,
supports a science camp

for young people to learn from their elders and others about the local
environment. The camp,

while being of great educational value, also provides income to the
local area and important diversity to the local economy. (Meehan,
et.al.1998)

> 6.1.8.2 Shorebirds

Because of its size, northerly position and pristine habitats, Alaska
provides breeding habitat for more shorebirds than any other state in
the United States. Seventy-one species of shorebirds (one-third of the
world's species) occur in Alaska; 37 of these regularly breed there
while nine others breed irregularly, or annually but in small numbers.
Alaska is unique in that it hosts most of the world's population of
three shorebird species, entire populations of five supspecies, and
large portions of North American populations of six other species or
subspecies. In total, Alaska hosts between seven and 17 million
shorebirds, or as much as 50 percent of all the shorebirds that occur in
North America. Using the species prioritization process developed for
the U.S. Shorebird Plan, 14 species or subspecies occurring in Alaska
are considered Birds of Conservation Concern by the USFWS.

For almost all of the shorebirds occurring in Alaska, coastal habitats
are critical during some phase of their annual cycle, particularly
during the nonbreeding period. With respect to critical habitat, Alaska
has over 50 shorebird migration staging or stopover sites that qualify
as Western Hemisphere or East Asian-Australasian Shorebird Reserve
Network sites. At ten of these sites concentrations exceed one million
birds, with sites like the Copper River Delta hosting between five and
eight million shorebirds each spring. The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta likely
supports an equal number of shorebirds, but they occur mostly during
summer and autumn. The world's largest aggregations of shorebirds are
thought to occur on the Copper River Delta.

This vast network of migration sites coincides with the arrival and
exodus of shorebirds to and from Alaska during each spring and fall.
Only six of the 43 taxa that regularly occur in Alaska winter there.
However of these 43 regularly occurring taxa, some portion of the
populations of 38 winter outside the United States while entire
populations of 18 others migrate to Central and South America or
East-Asia-Australasia and South Pacific countries (Oceania). Alaska's
shorebirds are not only a national resource, but they provide
international links to over 40 countries distributed on five continents.
Below is a description of four broad areas

In the low-lying northern Arctic plains and mountains, where freezing
and thawing form a patterned mosaic of polygonal ridges and ponds and
many rivers bisect the plain and flow into the Arctic Ocean, waterfowl
and shorebirds dominate the avian community and passerines are scarce.
The most abundant breeding birds on the coastal plain include Northern
Pintail, King Eider, Oldsquaw, American Golden-Plover, Semipalmated
Sandpiper, Pectoral Sandpiper, Red-necked Phalarope, and Lapland
Longspur. Several Old World species, including the Arctic Warbler and
Bluethroat, penetrate the region from the west. Taiga passerines such as
Gray-cheeked Thrush and Yellow Warbler reach the region along drainage
systems, and raptors including Gyrfalcon and Rough-legged Hawk nest
commonly along major rivers. Few bird species winter in the region.

In the Subarctic Coastal Plain of western Alaska and the Alaska
Peninsula Mountains, wet and mesic graminoid herbaceous communities
dominate the lowlands and numerous ponds, lakes, and rivers dot the
landscape. High densities of breeding waterfowl and shorebirds are found
on the coastal plain of the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers. Intertidal areas
here and lagoons of the north side of the Alaska Peninsula supports
millions of shorebirds during migration, including Dunlin, Western
Sandpiper, Red Knot, and Bar-tailed Godwit. The coast of the Alaska
Peninsula supports high concentrations of wintering sea ducks including
Steller's Eider, Harlequin, Oldsquaw, Surf Scoter, and Black Scoter.
Passerine diversity is greatest in tall, riparian shrub habitats, where
Arctic Warbler, Gray-cheeked Thrush, and Blackpoll Warbler nest.
Gyrfalcon and Rough-legged Hawk nest along the riverine cliffs. Mainland
sea cliffs are occupied by nesting colonies of Black-legged Kittiwake,
Common Murre, and Pelagic Cormorant.

The Aleutian Islands, extend westward from the Alaskan mainland for
1,100 miles, and the Bering Sea islands including the Pribilofs, St.
Matthew, Hall, St. Lawrence, and Little Diomede. Meadows and marshes of
herbs, sedges, and grasses are plentiful and some islands have
ericaceous bogs. The breeding diversity of passerines (mainly Lapland
Longspur, Snow Bunting, and Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch), and shorebirds
(including Black Oystercatcher, Dunlin, Ruddy Turnstone, and Rock
Sandpiper) is low. However, McKay's Bunting, the only endemic Alaskan
passerine, is restricted to this area.

The coastal North Pacific rainforest, which stretches from the western
Gulf of Alaska all the way south through British Columbia and the
Pacific Northwest to northern California provides critical breeding,
wintering, and migration habitat for internationally significant
populations of waterfowl and other wetland-dependent species. The area
includes major stopover sites for migrating shorebirds, especially
Western Sandpipers and Dunlins. Black Oystercatchers, Rock Sandpipers,
Black Turnstones, and Surfbirds are common wintering species. Nearshore
marine areas support many breeding and wintering sea ducks. Many
seabirds breed on offshore islands, including important populations of
Ancient Murrelet, Rhinoceros Auklet, Tufted Puffin, Common Murre,
Western and Glaucous-winged Gull, and Leach\'s Storm-Petrel. Pelagic
waters provide habitat for large numbers of shearwaters, storm-petrels,
alcids, and Black-footed Albatross.
([http://www.abcbirds.org,](../(http://www.abcbirds.org,) Last viewed:
7/7/2005)

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742d) designate the Department of the
Interior (DOI) as the key agency responsible for the management of
migratory bird populations frequenting the United States and for the
setting of harvest regulations that allow for the conservation of those
populations. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Protocol Amendment (1995)
(Amendment) provides for the customary and traditional use of migratory
birds and their eggs for subsistence use by indigenous inhabitants of
Alaska. DOI monitors the subsistence harvest in Alaska through the use
of annual household surveys in the most heavily used subsistence harvest
areas (e.g., Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta), which help the agency gather
information on the annual subsistence harvests of up to 53 species of
birds, including geese, ducks, swans, cranes, loons, seabirds,
shorebirds, and upland game birds. These surveys are conducted by local
village resident surveyors in the subsistence eligible areas of Alaska.
The resulting estimates of harvest per household are combined with the
complete list of households in the subsistence-eligible areas to provide
estimates of the total annual harvest of the up to 53 species of birds.

Recent data on subsistence harvests, available from most of the
subsistence-eligible areas of Alaska between 1995 and 2000, indicate an
average annual harvest of 236,000 migratory birds. These include geese,
ducks, swans, cranes, seabirds and shorebirds. Approximately 80 percent
of this harvest was in western coastal Alaska (from Kivalina in
Northwest Arctic Alaska to Port Heiden on the Alaska Peninsula). The
remainder of the harvest took place in interior and southern coastal
Alaska. Available data indicated that 70 percent of total annual
subsistence harvest occurs in spring and summer. In most areas, 65-85
percent of all birds taken are taken in the spring and summer. However,
in the Upper Tanana River (Tok) area, and most places in south coastal
Alaska, the bulk of the harvest is taken during fall and winter. Highest
annual spring and summer harvests occur on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta.

Recent data indicate that, of the entire Alaska spring-summer average
subsistence harvest of 165,000 birds between 1995 and 2000, 80,000, or
48 percent, were taken on the Yukon-Kuskowim Delta. Next highest
spring-summer harvests were in the Bering Strait region, (27,000 birds)
followed by Bristol Bay and the Northwest Arctic region, which each had
reported takes of about 18,000 birds. (No complete recent survey data
are available for the North Slope). The Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta is also
the place of highest fall harvests of migratory birds. Recent data show
that, between 1995 and 2000, of the 71,000 birds taken in the
subsistence-eligible areas beginning in September, 28 percent (20,000
birds) were taken on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Other high fall harvests
were in the Bering Strait region (14,000 birds), Kodiak Island (10,000
birds), and in Bristol Bay and the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands (8000 birds
each).

The migratory birds taken in greatest quantities in the
subsistence-eligible areas were pintails and mallards (22,000 birds
each, annual average) followed by lesser Canada geese (20,000 birds).
Next in magnitude were cackling Canada geese (15,000 birds), Pacific
white-fronted geese (15,000 birds), black scoters (11,000 birds), and
black brant (10,000 birds). Large quantities of pintails, mallards, and
black brant were taken in several of the subsistence eligible areas
between 1995 and 2000. Most of the lesser and cackling Canada geese, the
Pacific white-fronted geese, and the black scoters were taken on the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta.

Migratory bird eggs are also an important part of the subsistence diet,
particularly in the coastal areas. According to available data, 115,000
eggs were taken annually, on average, in the

subsistence-eligible areas between 1995 and 2000. About 89 percent of
the egg harvest occurred in western coastal Alaska. The rest took place
in the Aleutian-Pribilof Islands and on Kodiak

Island. The Bering Strait region is the area of highest harvest of
migratory bird eggs. Available data indicate a harvest of 41,000 eggs
from the Bering Strait region, the majority being murre eggs. The
Bristol Bay region took the next highest number of bird eggs: 28,000
eggs, most of them gull eggs. This is followed by Northwest Arctic
Alaska and the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, which each took 14,000 eggs on
average. In Northwest Arctic Alaska, most of the eggs taken were gull
eggs, followed by murre eggs, whereas on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, most
of the eggs taken were waterfowl eggs. For the subsistence-eligible
areas as a whole, 83 percent of all migratory bird eggs taken were those
of murres, gulls, or other seabirds. Another 15 percent were waterfowl
eggs. The remaining two percent were eggs of loons and shorebirds. Over
half of the waterfowl eggs taken between 1995 and 2000, were taken on
the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Most of the rest were taken on the Bering
Strait mainland, followed by Northwest Arctic Alaska and Bristol Bay.
([http://alaska.fws.gov/ambcc/ambcc/Harvest/subharvweb.pdf),](../(http://alaska.fws.gov/ambcc/ambcc/Harvest/subharvweb.pdf),)
Last viewed: 7/7/2005)

6.1.8.3 Bald Eagle

The Bald Eagle is Alaska's largest resident bird of prey (the Steller's
Sea Eagle is larger) with a wing span up to seven and a half feet long,
and weights of eight to 14 pounds. Like many raptors, females are larger
than males. The Bald Eagle is so named for its conspicuous white head
and tail. The distinctive white adult plumage is not attained until five
or more years of age. Immature birds lack this easily identifiable
characteristic and can be confused with the Golden Eagle. The immature
Bald Eagle's unfeathered tarsi (lower legs) and whitish wing linings on
the forward part of the wings can be helpful distinctions where the two
species coexist.

Found only in North America, Bald Eagles are more abundant in Alaska
than anywhere else in the United States. The Alaska population has been
estimated to include 30,000 birds at the time of fledging. Bald Eagles
are often found along Alaska's coast, offshore islands, and interior
lakes and rivers. The highest nesting densities occur on the islands of
Southeast Alaska. Admiralty Island is home to the densest nesting
population of bald eagles known in the world. Most Bald Eagles winter in
southern Alaska, but some leave the State during cold months. In the
Chilkat Valley, over 3,000 birds may congregate in late fall and early
winter to feel on spawned-out salmon.

Bald Eagles often use and rebuild the same nest each year. Nest trees
are usually close to water, afford a clear view of the surrounding area,
and often provide sparse cover above the nest. In southeast Alaska, Bald
Eagles usually nest in old-growth timber along saltwater shorelines and
mainland rivers. Eagles in south-central Alaska nest in old cottonwood
trees near water. Nest building begins in April, and both the male and
female gather nest material. In late April, two (sometimes three) dull
white or creamy yellow eggs are laid several days apart. Incubation
lasts about 35 days. When the young hatch, sibling rivalry is common and
the weaker, usually the younger, chick is killed or starved. The
surviving young leave the nest after approximately 75 days. They do not
attain adult plumage and breed until four or five years of age. After
the breeding season, Bald Eagles congregate where food is plentiful, and
they may continue to roost near the nest tree.

Reproductive success can be affected by pesticides in the eagles' prey.
Alaska Bald Eagles seem to be reproductively healthy, but contaminants
have been recorded in Alaska fish populations and in Bald Eagles. A
greater threat to Alaska's Bald Eagle population is destruction of their
nesting habitat and nest disturbances. Nest trees tend to be the largest
in the stand and

are usually 400 years old. In treeless areas on the Aleutians, nests are
located on rock pinnacles, or they may be on the ground.

Fish are the main diet of the Bald Eagle. Herring, flounder, pollock,
and salmon are taken along the coast, while the interior populations
prey heavily upon salmon. Eagles also prey upon waterfowl, small
mammals, sea urchins, clams, crabs, and carrion.

Claims by fox farmers and fishers of eagle depredations caused the
Alaska Territorial Legislature in 1917 to impose a bounty system on
eagles. These claims were later found to be mainly false, but over
100,000 eagles were killed before the bounty was removed in 1953. With
statehood in 1959, the Bald Eagle in Alaska received federal protection
under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. This act made it illegal to
kill or possess an eagle, alive or dead, or to possess any part of an
eagle, including feathers. Bald Eagles were endangered or eliminated
throughout most of the Lower 48 states as a result of habitat
destruction, illegal shooting, pesticides, and poisoning. Bald Eagle
populations are recovering in many states because of strong support for
protection of endangered species wildlife habitat. Alaska's populations
remain healthy, but careful stewardship and conservation of nesting
habitat and salmon spawning streams as well as minimizing human
disturbance near nest sites is necessary in order to protect Alaska's
Bald Eagles from the potential harm caused by increasing human
development.
([Http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/eagles.php,](../(Http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/eagles.php,)
last viewed: 6/30/2005)

All birds of prey--hawks, falcons, eagles, and owls--are protected by
federal regulations, and it is unlawful to possess any raptor (dead or
alive) or any portion of one, including its feathers and talons. However
the traditional and continuing subsistence use of snowy owls in Alaska
is recognized. Federal and State regulations allow these raptors or
their eggs to be taken for food or their skins for clothing. There is no
closed season and no bag limit on snowy owls, when they are used for
food or clothing, in five of Alaska's game management units in
southwestern, western, and arctic Alaska.

Further, the USFWS, which has management authority for birds of prey,
has established a national "feather bank" in Denver, Colorado, wherein
eagle feathers are deposited. Feathers are distributed by the Federal
government to American Indians and Native Alaskans who may request their
use for religious or cultural ceremonies.

In Alaska, birds of prey historically played a significant part in the
lives of Natives throughout the State. Perhaps the most widely known
part played by raptors in Native life is that of the eagle in the
culture of the Tlingit Indians of southeastern Alaska. Birds are of
great importance in Tlingit legends; the Creator (Raven) was a bird, and
according to Tlingit prehistory, people come from birds. The two
moieties, or sides of the Tlingit peoples are the Raven and the Eagle
(in southern portions of Tlingit territory). The Eagle also serves as
the symbol for a number of clans within each moiety.
[(http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=birds.raptors,](http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=birds.raptors,)
last viewed: 6/30/2005)

6.1.9 Threatened and Endangered Species

Alaska is unique among the states in retaining nearly all of its native
animals and plants in their natural diversity and abundance. The State's
geographical isolation, relatively recent growth in population, limited
development, small agricultural industry, and conservative laws
governing the introduction and importation of exotic animals all
contribute to this favorable condition. Many species that are rare,
endangered, or have been extirpated elsewhere in the United States are
thriving in Alaska. Examples include grizzly (or brown) bears, gray (or
timber) wolves, bald eagles, caribou, peregrine falcons, marten, lynx,
river otters, wolverines, loons, and trumpeter swans. In Alaska, there
are approximately 31,000 grizzly bears, 7,500 gray wolves, 40,000 bald
eagles (80 percent of the entire United States' population of this
species), 150,000 sea otters, and nearly one million caribou. A list of
the federally endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and delisted
Alaska species is provided below, along with their ranges. Where these
species have not been described previously, additional information is
provided following the chart and at Appendix XXX?

**CHART A: ENDANGERED, THREATENED, PROPOSED, CANDIDATE, AND DELISTED
SPECIES IN ALASKA, (as of June 2004)\*\***

**[SPECIES MANAGED BY U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE]{.underline}**

**CRITICAL HABITAT**

**DATE OF DESIGNATED LEAD**

**[SPECIES AND STATUS STATUS ON OFFICE RANGE IN ALASKA]{.underline}
Endangered**

Short-tailed albatross (*Phoebastria albatrus*) 7/31/00 n/a Anchorage
U.S. Territorial waters, Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, Bering Sea
Coast, Japan, Russia, high seas

Eskimo curlew (*Numenius borealis*) 3/11/67 n/a Fairbanks No longer
occurs in Alaska

[Aleutian shield fern (*Polystichum aleuticum* 2/17/88 n/a Anchorage
Adak Island]{.underline}

**Threatened**

Spectacled eider *(Somateria fischeri)* 5/10/93 2/6/01 Fairbanks Western
and Northern Alaska (coastal)

Steller's eider *(Polysticta stelleri)* 6/11/97 2/2/01 Fairbanks
Southwestern, Western and Northern Alaska

Northern sea otter *(Enhydra lutris kenyoni)* 2/11/04 n/a Anchorage
Aleutian Islands, Alaska

[(Southwest Alaska Population) Peninsula, Kodiak Island]{.underline}

**Candidate**

Kittlitz's Murrelet 4/4/04 n/a Anchorage Coastal waters in southern and

[*(Brachyramphus brevirostris)* northwestern Alaska]{.underline}
**Delisted**

Arctic peregrine falcon 10/5/94 n/a Fairbanks Northern and Western
Alaska

(*Falco peregrinus tundrius)*

American peregrine falcon 8/25/99 n/a Fairbanks Interior Alaska

*(Falco peregrinus anatum)*

Aleutian Canada Goose 3/20/01 n/a Anchorage Aleutian Islands., Semidi

[(*Branta canadensis leucopareia)*
Islands\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

**[SPECIES MANAGED BY NOAA MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE\*]{.underline}**

**FREQUENCY OF**

**[SPECIES AND STATUS OCCURRENCE RANGE IN ALASKA]{.underline}
Endangered**

Stellar sea lion (*Eumetopian jubatus)* west of 144° Regular Bering Sea,
N. Pacific

Blue whale (*Balaenoptera musculus)* Rare Bering Sea, Gulf of Alaska, N.
Pacific

Bowhead whale *(Balaena mysticetus*) Regular Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Seas

Fin whale (*Balaenoptera physalus)* Regular Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea,
Gulf of Alaska, N. Pacific

Humpback whale (*Megaptera novaeangliae*) Regular Bering Sea, Gulf of
Alaska, N. Pacific

North Pacific right whale (*Eubalaena japonica*) Rare Bering Sea, Gulf
of Alaska, N. Pacific

Sperm whale (*Physeter macrocephalus*) Regular Bering Sea, Gulf of
Alaska, N. Pacific

Sei whale (*Balaenoptera borealis*) Rare Gulf of Alaska, N. Pacific

[Leatherback sea turtle *(Dermochelys coriacea*) Rare Gulf of
Alaska\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

**Threatened**

Stellar sea lion (*Eumetopias jubatus*) east of 144° Regular Bering Sea,
Gulf of Alaska, N. Pacific

Loggerhead sea turtle (*Caretta caretta*) Rare Gulf of Alaska

[Green sea turtle (*Chelonia mydas*) (incl. *Agassizi*) Rare Gulf of
Alaska\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

**Proposed**

[None]{.underline}

**Candidate**

[None]{.underline}

**Delisted**

Gray whale (*Eschrichtius robustus*) Regular Chukchi Sea, Bering Sea,
Gulf of Alaska, N.

[Pacific\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

\*A number of listed trout and salmon species that spawn in the lower
Pacific Northwest states may occur in Alaskan water in Alaskan waters
during the marine phase of their life cycle. For information on these,
see the NMFS Northwest Region website:
[http://www.nwr.NOAA.gov](http://www.nwr.NOAA.gov/).

\*\*(updated as of 9/8/2005)

(USFWS Website)

6.1.9.1 Short Tailed Albatross

The largest of the North Pacific albatrosses, adult Short-tailed
Albatross have prominent pink bills, white-bodies, and a yellow wash on
the head. Immature birds are dark, and can be distinguished from
Black-footed Albatross by their pink bill and flesh colored feet. Adults
can reach wingspans of over seven feet.

Once abundant in the North Pacific Ocean, the Short-tailed Albatross was
nearly driven to extinction by the commercial feather trade at the end
of the 19^th^ century and beginning of the 20^th^ century. Short-tailed
Albatross were devastated by the demand for feathers, which were used in
down insulation and for decorating ladies' hats. The largest remaining
breeding colony of Short-tailed Albatross is located on Torishima
Island, a volcanic island peak rising out of the Pacific Ocean south of
Japan. A small number of birds (under 100 individuals) breed on the
uninhabited island of Minami-kojima, just north of Taiwan. In recent
decades, individual birds (of both sexes) have been reported among
breeding Laysan and Black-footed albatrosses on Midway Atoll, but these
birds have not bred successfully.

Short-tailed Albatross travel the North Pacific as far as the Bering Sea
after the breeding season (the northern summer). South of the waters off
Alaska the species has been sighted fewer than 30 times along the
Pacific coast south to California. It is estimated that there are
roughly 2,000 individuals left in the world, a dangerously low number
for any species. During the lates 1800s and early 1900s, an estimated
five million birds were clubbed to death by feather hunters until the
species was nearly extinct. The population that is growing on Torishima
today seems to have been founded by juvenile birds that remained at sea
while the last breeding adults were killed in the 1930s.

Returning to their breeding sites around October, Short-tailed Albatross
on Torishima Island build their nests on relatively steep but open
slopes. Grass is employed in nest construction. Like many other
seabirds, only one egg is laid per pair, and both sexes share
responsibility for incubating the egg, and feeding the young.
Short-tailed Albatross feed on shrimp, squid and fish. They are not
known to follow boats, like some other albatross species.

Due to their extremely small population size and very restricted
breeding distribution, Short-tailed Albatross are quite vulnerable to
any threats. The main breeding colony is found on an active volcanic
island, which has erupted as recently as the 1940s. Heavy rain and
typhoons can be a threat to breeding birds, and can erode the volcanic
ash slopes of the colony sites. There is also competition with
black-footed albatrosses for nesting habitat. Although rats are present
on the island, they do not seem to pose a threat to the albatross eggs
or juveniles. Feral cats and dogs have been removed from breeding
islands, but would pose a threat if introduced. Short-tailed Albatrosses
have been killed occasionally in long-line fisheries in the Pacific and
loss of any individuals of this exceptionally rare species is a serious
threat. (http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp?id=188,
Last viewed: 7/7/2005)

6.1.9.2 Eskimo Curlew

Once called a "doughbird" for the thick layer of fat developed for
migration, the eskimo curlew is a long-legged wading bird, measuring 12
to 14 inches in length and weighing one pound. Adults are mottled brown
on the back, with a white throat and yellowish-buff undersides. A
buff-white eyebrow divides the dark crown from the eyeline and the bill
is thin, curving downward over its two in length. Cinnamon colored wing
linings are visible in flight and the stilt-like legs are dark green to
blackish-gray. In the spring it feeds robin-like on berries and insects,
especially ants, grasshoppers and their eggs. Snails are added to the
menu in the winter.
(http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/escufs.html,
last viewed: 7/7/2005)

Eskimo Curlews formerly bred in the tundra and woodland transition zones
of the Mackenzie District in the Northwest Territories, and possibly
occurred as far west as Alaska or even Siberia. Eskimo Curlews arrived
in their breeding grounds in late May, and quickly established nesting
territories. The breeding habitat consisted of treeless upland tundra
with dwarf shrubs and grassy tundra meadows. From mid to late June,
clutches of four eggs were laid in nests in shallow depressions scraped
in the ground. The birds were presumably monogamous (each male mated
with one female), as in related species, with incubation shared by both
parents. The young hatched from early to mid July and as other North
American shorebirds, were precocial (left the nest with the parents
within a day or two of hatching and fed themselves from the first day).
They were ready to migrate by the end of the month. Only one brood was
raised per

season. Nothing is known about breeding age, nest success, or adult and
juvenile mortality, but closely related species usually do not breed
until three years old and are long-lived (ten to more than 30 years).

During fall migration (July to October), most of the birds flew eastward
to the Ungava Peninsula, then down the east coast to the Gulf of St.
Lawrence. They staged primarily in Labrador and Newfoundland and in some
years in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the New England states. The
curlews usually flew non-stop from Labrador and Newfoundland over the
Atlantic to South America, presumably wintering primarily on the pampas
of Argentina but also in Uraguay and further south. During fall
migration, the birds used a variety of coastal and terrestrial habitats.
They fed in areas of crowberry, salt marsh, meadows, pastures, old
fields, intertidal flats and sand dunes. During the winter in the pampas
of Argentina, they used treeless grasslands with wetlands and may have
used wetter grasslands and intertidal areas. In spring, the curlews were
found in tallgrass and eastern mixed-grass prairies, often in areas
disturbed by recent fires, areas near water disturbed by grazing bison,
and in cultivated fields. Present day habitat use is unknown. In April
and May, the returning flocks followed a more western route, moving
northwards along the Pacific coast of South America, across Central
America and the Gulf of Mexico, through Texas and the midwestern states,
with some birds in the Canadian prairies.

Eskimo Curlews were hunted extensively because they were considered a
delicacy, traveled in large dense flocks, were unafraid of humans, and
had the habit of circling back within guns range when some members of
the flock were shot. These characteristics made them particularly easy
to harvest. Uncontrolled hunting during spring and fall migration is
probably the most important reason for the drastic decline in numbers.
In the fall, thousands were shot in Labrador, and many thousands were
killed in New England when birds were forced to land by storms. Each
spring huge numbers were shot in the Great Plains of the United States
by market hunters. The role of habitat loss or of other possible
limiting factors cannot be assessed, but habitat loss and alteration
(e.g., conversion of grasslands to croplands) at staging sites in Canada

and the United States and in wintering areas in South America may have
contributed to the specie's decline.

The Eskimo Curlew has been protected under the Migratory Birds
Convention Acts of both Canada and the United States since 1917. All
shorebirds have been protected in the Buenos Aries province of Argentina
since 1927. The birds were covered under the Migratory Birds Convention
between the United States and Mexico in 1936 and included in the ESA of
1973. They are protected by the Ontario Endangered Species Act of 1971.
Part of the historic breeding range in Canada is protected in the
Anderson River Migratory Bird Sanctuary established by the Federal
government in 1961. Probable breeding habitat is also protected in the
Kendall Island Bird Sanctuary in the Northwest Territories. In all
provinces and in the Yukon, the birds are further protected through
provincial Wildlife Acts.
(http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/search/speciesDetails_e.cfm?SpeciesID=21,
last viewed: 7/7/2005)

6.1.9.3 Aleutian Shield Fern

On the botanical front, the Aleutian shield fern (Polystichum aleuticum)
became Alaska\'s first, and so far only, listed plant in 1988. Although
this small plant has probably long been rare, the introduction of
grazing animals (reindeer and caribou) onto Adak Island, the only place
where it occurs, has taken a toll on fragile alpine habitat near where
the fern is found. The populations are located within a military
reservation managed by the USFWS as part of the Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge. The military base was recently closed and the uture use
of the installation is unknown. Scientists have tried but so far failed
to develop cultivation techniques for use in the propagation of Aleutian
shield ferns for eventual reintroduction into native habitat.

6.1.9.4 Spectacled Eider

An unmistakable seaduck with diagnostic pale feather "goggles" around
each eye, the Spectacled Eider breeds along the coast of Alaska and
Russia. Male Spectacled Eiders in breeding plumage are magnificent with
their black-and-white body, green head, orange bill and prominent white
patches around each eye. Females have subtle tan and brown barred
plumage. A little smaller than the Common and King eiders, the
Spectacled Eider is easily distinguished from these in any plumage by
its "goggles".

The Spectacled Eider is found only within a restricted arctic range, and
lives in the arctic region throughout the year. They are found along the
northern coast of Russia and Alaska and down the coast of western Alaska
(above the Aleutian Chain). The Spectacled Eider breeds near the coast,
and spends the non-breeding season at sea. Nesting sites are typically
located immediately adjacent to water bodies.

Nest building occurs with the break-up of winter ice. Spectacled Eiders
arrive from their wintering grounds already paired for breeding. Females
may modify an old nesting site, or will create a new nest bowl shortly
before laying the first egg. Nesting sites are usually located on small
islands, peninsulas and raised areas in coastal marshes. Nests are lined
with available vegetation, and females will place some of their own down
in the nest once they have laid a number of eggs. Males leave the
breeding grounds shortly after eggs are laid. The young are born with
down, and can feed themselves within a day or two of emerging from the
egg. Mothers will watch over their brood for about four weeks, and help
the young find food. Their primary food source in summer seems to be
insects, although mollusks, crustaceans and some plant material are also
consumed. Winters are spent at sea. In winter this species relies
primarily on benthic food sources such as clams and other mollusks.

The population of Spectacled Eiders breeding in western Alaska has
declined dramatically. From 1957 to 1992, the population declined 96
percent, prompting the USFWS to list the species as threatened
throughout its range under the ESA in 1993. Another 3,000---4,000 pairs
currently nest in northern Alaska and Russia, while at least 40,000
pairs nest in arctic Russia. Historical data for these other nesting
areas are scrace so current population trends are not known. Recent
studies, which tracked birds by satellite, have shown that hundreds of
thousands of Spectacled Eiders spend the non-breeding season in the
Bering Sea south of St. Lawrence Island.

The primary threat to this species continues to be from lead poisoning.
Over 100 years of hunting in the breeding areas of this species has
introduced a large amount of lead shot pellets. Like many other bird
species, eiders will swallow pebbles and pieces of shell to help with
their digestive process. Once in the gizzard, this "grit" is used to
crush food and make it available for digestion. Lead pellets are
attractive forms of grit to many species. One study of this species in
western Alaska found that the annual survival rate of adult female
Spectacled Eiders was reduced by 35 percent due to lead poisoning. Lead
poisoning has also been documented in ducklings. A variety of other
pollutants have been found in the blood, feathers and eggs of this
species, including arsenic, barium, cadmium, mercury, selenium and a
variety of other trace elements. The effects of these pollutants have
not been documented. Development of coastal sites, including expansion
of oil exploration and production facilities, could pose a threat to
this species during the breeding season.

The USFWS has taken a variety of steps to try and halt the decline of
this species. In 1991, when it was apparent that the birds breeding in
western Alaska were in trouble, sport hunting and egg collecting was
closed throughout the State. Subsequently, agreements were reached with
native people to stop subsistence hunting of the species. The ban on
using lead shot for hunting was enforced in 1998.
([http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp?id=193,](../(http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp%3Fid=193,)
last viewed: 7/7/05)

6.1.9.5 Steller's Eider

The Steller's Eider is a small duck frequently seen close to shore, or
in sheltered inlets. Mixing black, white, blue, orange and green, male
Steller's Eiders in breeding plumage are easily identifiable. Males have
a white head contrasting against a black tail, back and neck collar. The
breast and sides are orange. At close range, green spots before the eye
and on the back of the head may be visible. Both sexes of this species
are distinguished by their small size, "flat" head, long tail and
distinctively shaped bill. Females and males in non-breeding plumage are
brown, with a light eye ring.

The Steller's Eider is a year-round inhabitant of the Arctic, and breeds
along Arctic coasts of Alaska and Russia. The U.S. population is most
plentiful on the Arctic Coastal Plain near Barrow. Three breeding
populations of Steller's eiders are recognized; two in Arctic Russia and
one in Alaska. The population that nests in Alaska was listed as
threatened under the ESA in 1997. The Arctic Coastal Plain is thought to
include Steller's eiders in the hundreds to low thousands of birds. The
bulk of the population winters and molts in the coastal areas of the
Bering Sea and along the northern side of the Aleutian Island chain. The
U.S. population is found also in coastal waters of the Aleutian Island
chain, Kodiak, and southern Cook Inlet. This species has been difficult
to survey and current population sizes are not known with much
precision.

Courtship begins early, and Steller's Eiders are usually paired before
departure to breeding grounds. Females select nest sites, usually on
open tundra near water. The female will hollow out a nest bowl, line it
with grasses, lichens and other material found near the nest, and add
down from her own breast after a number of eggs have been laid. During
this time, the male may make flights intended to distract predators.
Steller's Eiders feed on insect larvae, and small marine invertebrates
like polychaete worms, small mollusks and gastropods during the breeding
season. Unlike other eider species, Steller's Eiders are found primarily
close to shore in winter. They feed in shallow water where they dive for
small mollusks, gastropods and crustaceans found in and amongst seaweed
patches. The Steller's Eider is known for the propensity to dive and
surface in unison with other members of large flocks.

Subsistence and sport hunting is prohibited under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and hunting of Steller's eiders has been closed since 1981 in
Russia and since 1991 in Alaska. Several threats have been identified
that may be leading to the decline of Steller's eiders in the
Yukon-Kuskikwim Delta. They are lead poisoning, predation by animals
associated with human activities, and the risk of oil spills and
disturbance created by marine shipping and commercial fishing. Other
possible threats include disease, marine contaminants, and changes in
the Bering Sea and North Pacific ecosystem that may affect food
availability. In general, this species is most vulnerable at staging
areas and wintering grounds, such as Izembek and Nelson Lagoons in
Alaska, where a large portion of the global population may be found at
the same time.

Due to the isolated nature of wintering and breeding grounds on both
continents, research and management for this species are difficult. The
USFWS is monitoring the status of this species, and is providing some
protection by reviewing activities that could be detrimental to the
species both on and off wildlife refuge lands. It has also designated
critical habitat for the species.
([http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp?id=197;](../(http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp%3Fid=197%3B)
last viewed: 7/7/05)

6.1.9.6 Sea Turtles

Three species of marine turtle occasionally occur in Alaska, including
the endangered Leatherback sea turtle, and the threatened Loggerhead and
Green sea turtles. Marine turtles are large, tropical/subtropical,
thoroughly aquatic reptiles whose forelimbs or flippers are specially
modified for swimming and are considerably larger than their hind limbs.
Movements on land are awkward. Except for occasional basking by both
sexes and egg-laying by females, turtles rarely come ashore. Although
their age is often exaggerated, they probably live to 50 to 100 years.

The green turtle has a smooth, hard, olive or dark brown shell. It
reaches a length of five feet and a weight of 800 pounds, although most
adult green turtles are three feet long and weigh about 200 pounds. The
leatherback has a smooth leathery skin with prominent longitudinal
ridges on its shell. It is dark gray, brown, or black with whitish spots
on neck and limbs. Leatherbacks reach eight feet and 1,500 pounds,
although most leatherbacks are five feet long and weigh about 800
pounds.

Marine turtles are found worldwide. They breed in the tropics/subtropics
and lay their eggs at night in holes dug on sandy beaches by the female.
A single female may deposit several clutches of eggs each year. The eggs
are round, covered with a parchment-like skin, and about as big as golf
balls. The number of eggs laid ranges from 80 to 500. Green turtles are
primarily vegetarian as adults. Leatherbacks feed almost exclusively on
jellyfish. Leatherbacks have a mammal-like ability to maintain a high
body temperature (about 80° F), independent of the temperature of the
surrounding water. This may account for its relatively common occurrence
in cold northern waters where jellyfish are seasonally abundant. In
contrast to the leatherbacks, the hard shell turtles (green, and
loggerhead) are considered warm water species, which rarely stray into
cold Alaskan waters.

Marine turtles migrate a considerable distance between their nesting and
feeding grounds. Leatherbacks have been recorded 3,000 miles from their
nesting grounds. The mechanisms of sea turtle navigation have been
intensely investigated, but the cues or sensory systems involved are
still unknown. Both green turtles and leatherbacks probably reach Alaska
by way of the warm Japan Current and North Pacific Current which reach
Alaska's Alexander archipelago, arc northwestward across the Gulf of
Alaska, and then flow southwestward along the Aleutian chain.

All marine turtles are protected by the United States Government. Severe
penalties are imposed for molesting or killing free-swimming turtles or
salvaging turtles or parts of turtles

stranded or dead on Alaska's beaches.
([http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/amphibia/turtle.php,](../(http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/amphibia/turtle.php,)
last viewed: 7/7/05)

Other threatened and endangered species have already been discussed in
previous sections.

6.1.10 Forests

Forests cover over one-third of the total land area of Alaska, and
border the communities in which about 90 percent of Alaska's residents
make their homes. There are two distinct forest types: coastal and
boreal. The coastal rainforest begins in southern and southeast Alaska,
and extends through Prince William Sound, and down the Kenai Peninsula
to Afognak and Kodiak Islands. The boreal forest covers much of interior
and southcentral Alaska. Alaska's coastal forests comprise a total of
13.7 million acres of temperate coastal rainforest. These forests are
composed predominantly of Western and Marine Hemlock (71.4 percent and
7.4 percent, respectively) and Sitka Spruce (12.8 percent) along with
Western Red Cedar (3.8 percent), Poplar (2.9 percent), White Spruce (0.4
percent), and Paper Birch (0.1 percent). The abundance of Alaskan forest
assets is constantly changing over time due to growth, mortality, and
timber harvest. Coastal forests grow at the rate of about 10,064 cubic
feet per acre per year, totaling 1,161,386 cubic feet per year.
Wildfires, insects, and diseases kill many acres of forest each year.
The spruce bark beetle is the primary insect threatening Alaska forests.

Based on 1995 estimates provided by the U.S. Forest Service Anchorage
Forestry Sciences Laboratory, five million acres contain commercial
timber without logging restrictions; 2.6 million acres are productive
reserved forestland that includes parks, refuges, wilderness areas, and
other land with restrictions on logging; and the remaining 6.1 million
acres is comprised of forested areas in urban areas or areas with few or
sparse trees. (Larson, 1998) The two largest national forest in the
United States are in this region. With 16.8 million acres, the Tongass
National Forest is the largest national forest in the United States.
Although established in 1907, only 400,000 acres have been harvested to
date; approximately four percent of the 9.5 million forested acres on
the Tongass. The 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan schedules 176,000
acres for timber harvest over the next 100 years. The second largest
national forest is the Chugach National Forest, at 5.9 million acres in
south central Alaska, south and east of Anchorage, encompassing the
Prince William Sound area and much of the Kenai Peninsula. Most of the
Chugach is managed as fish and wildlife habitat, with only about six
percent of the land base considered productive forest land. Spruce bark
beetle infestations have killed much of the trees on the Chugach in
recent years.

The timber regions are managed by four landholders: the Federal
government (51 percent); State, university and local governments (25
percent); Native corporations (24 percent); and other private landowners
(0.4 percent). (Alaska Forest Association, 2005)

Forests contribute to Alaska's economy directly through commercial and
subsistence harvests of timber. However, they also add value to Alaska's
economy indirectly through the contribution of forest ecosystems to
socially valuable activities. In Alaska, the indirect ecosystem services
of forests, generally not measured by dollar flows, are very important,
and may exceed values obtained from commercial timber operations in many
parts of the State. Such services include purification of air and water,
mitigation of droughts and floods, generation and preservation of soils
and renewal of their fertility, cycling and movement of nutrients,
protection of coastal shores from erosion by waves, and partial
stabilization of climate. Large areas have been permanently devoted to
sustaining these uses in Alaska. About six million acres, or 40 percent
of the productive forest ("timberland") in Alaska, is reserved for
non-harvest uses. A larger proportion of the area of Alaska, including
productive forests, has been placed into the strictest categories of
protection than nearly any similar-sized region in the world.

Much of the harvested timber is stored onshore and then transported on
waterways to various destinations for processing.

Logging effects on wetland habitat can result from clearcutting,
construction of logging roads, and the building and use of transfer
sites for transporting logs by waterways. The actual harvest of trees
converts needle-leaved, evergreen, forested wetlands to deciduous shrub
wetland types. Only about five percent of the land harvested for timber
in Southeastern Alaska is wetland. The conversion from forested to shrub
wetlands may not result in long-term loss of wetland values, only a
conversion from one set of wetland functions to another. However, before
trees and shrubs re-establish themselves, erosion can occur, clogging
waterways frequented by salmon and other anadromous fish. Logging in
upland areas can also result in sediment eroding into watercourses.
Wetlands can also be lost to the construction of onshore storage areas,
loading platforms, and docks. Transferring logs from land to water or
boats requires a facility that extends from the shore out to the water.
The USFWS estimates that the 90 sites active in 1985 had directly
destroyed about 300 acres.

Secondary environmental impacts associated with log transfer sites
include the accumulation of bark debris and concentration of organic
compounds in estuaries. Bark strips away as logs are dumped into the
water and rafted for temporary storage. The USFWS estimates that the
bark has degraded about 176 acres of substrates, reducing the biota
along with the food and cover used by other water-dependent species.
This constitutes a small but ecologically significant portion of the
estuarine area in Southeastern Alaska. Organic compounds leaching from
the logs also serve to degrade water quality. High concentrations of
organic compounds have been measured at the transfer sites and dissolved
oxygen concentrations measured in coastal waters have been below
Alaska's minimum standard.
([http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch13.html;](../(http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch13.html%3B)
last viewed: 7/7/2005)

Road construction for logging purposes can cause loss and degradation of
freshwater wetlands. To date, 3,500 miles of roads have been built in
the Tongass. Since 1980, construction has averaged about 100 miles of
new roads per year and 34 miles of reconstruction. About 1,050 miles of
roadways occur in wetland areas. The USFWS estimates that roads account
for about 2,000 acres of direct wetland loss. In addition to the direct
losses, roads often alter the hydrologic regime. Culvert placement, for
example, usually alters waterflows on both the uphill and downhill sides
of roads. Roads also isolate wetland areas, and activities during
construction can cause erosion and the silting of streams.

6.1.11 Air Quality

Air quality in a given area is a function of the air pollutant emissions
in an area (type of pollutant, rate, frequency, duration, exit
conditions, and location of release), atmospheric conditions (climate
and meteorology), characteristics of the area itself (size of air shed
and topography of the area), and the presence of pollutants transported
from outside the area. Air quality in the majority of Alaska's coastal
area is generally considered very good because of minimal human
habitation and industrial development. Localized sources of emissions
include man-made (anthropogenic) sources of industrial, residential, and
transportation-related emissions, and natural sources of windblown dust
and forest fires, which contribute to temporary increases in air
pollution.

The Alaska DEC has a longstanding program of monitoring air quality.
Alaska is a huge state with a small population, and it is not possible
for DEC to monitor the air in every community. Therefore, DEC has taken
a three-pronged approach to monitoring network design: 1) monitoring
larger communities to cover the largest possible population exposure; 2)
monitoring designated smaller towns that are representative of multiple
communities in a region; and 3) monitoring in response to complaints.
The largest population centers in Alaska's coastal area are Anchorage
and Juneau (260,000 and 30,000 people respectively). There are no other
communities with populations over 10,000. There are several towns with
populations between 1,000 and 10,000, and there are many towns smaller
than 1,000 people (in many cases much smaller).

6.1.11.1 Criteria Pollutants

The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered
harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act
established two types of national air quality standards. Primary
standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of
\"sensitive\" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly.
Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including
protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops,
vegetation, and buildings.

The EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards has set NAAQS for
six principal pollutants, which are called \"criteria\" pollutants. The
six principal pollutants include lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate
matter (PM-10), particulate matter (PM-2.5), ozone, and sulfur oxides.
To protect human health and welfare, NAAQS (40 CFR 50) and Alaska
Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAAQS) (18 AAC 50.010) establish maximum
air pollutant levels for these six principal pollutants that are not to
be exceeded. Air Quality Control Regions have been established to
implement the air quality standards. In addition, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations (18 AAC 50.020) limit the
maximum allowable incremental increases in ambient concentrations above
an established baseline. By limiting the allowable increases in
pollutant concentrations, the PSD regulations were intended to protect
air quality in areas attaining the ambient standards from deteriorating
up to these standards. Smaller increments are established for Class I
areas, such as national parks or wilderness areas, than for other areas.

PSD regulations apply to major new sources and modifications to existing
sources. Currently the only principal pollutant for which Alaska has
current nonattainment areas is PM-10. Particulate matter, also called
particle pollution, is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets
found in the air. Some particles, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke,
are large or dark enough to be seen with the naked eye; others are so
small, they can only be detected using an electron microscope. Particle
pollution also varies by time of year and by location and is affected by
several aspects of weather, such as temperature, humidity, and wind. In
general, particle pollution consists of a mixture of larger materials,
called "coarse particles," and smaller particles, called "fine
particles." Coarse particles have diameters ranging from about 2.5
micrometers to more than 40 micrometers, while fine particles, also
known as PM-2.5, include particles with diameters equal to or smaller
than 2.5 micrometers. EPA also monitors and regulates PM-10, which
refers to particles less than or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter.
PM-10 includes coarse particles that are inhalable; particles ranging in
size from 2.5 to 10 micrometers that can penetrate the upper regions of
the body's respiratory defense mechanisms. There are two designated
nonattainment areas for NAAQS in the coastal area: Eagle River and
Juneau, Alaska. Both have been found to be non-attaining for moderate
levels of PM-10.

Previously, until mid-2004, for the last 12 years both Anchorage and
Fairbanks had been designated as non-attaining for carbon monoxide (CO).
In 2004, they were both redesignated at attainment areas. (EPA's Green
Book) CO is a colorless and odorless gas, formed when carbon in fuel is
not burned completely. It is a component of motor vehicle exhaust, which
contributes about 60 percent of all CO emissions nationwide. Nonroad
vehicles account for the remaining CO emissions from transportation
sources. High concentrations of CO generally occur in areas with heavy
traffic congestion. In cities, as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions
may come from automobile exhaust. Other sources of CO emissions include
industrial processes, nontransportation fuel combustion, and natural
sources such as wildfires. Peak CO concentrations typically occur during
the colder months of the year when CO automotive emissions are greater
and nighttime inversion conditions (where air pollutants are trapped
near the ground beneath a layer of warm air) are more frequent.

6.1.11.2 Regional Haze

Regional haze refers to haze that impairs visibility in all directions
over a large area. The distance that one can see is limited because of
tiny particles in the air absorbing and scattering sunlight, which in
turn degrades color, contrast, and clarity of the view. Many sources
produce the particulate matter that causes haze. Particulate matter is
both manmade and naturally occurring. Some natural sources of
particulate matter include windblown dust, wildfires, "bioorganic"
emissions from trees, and coastal emissions from the ocean. Manmade
sources include gas and diesel engines, electric utility and industrial
construction, and agriculture. Additionally, particulate matter is
formed when gaseous pollutants undergo chemical reactions with sunlight
in the atmosphere. Factors such as weather and humidity further impact
the formation of haze. Particulate matter tends to remain suspended in
the air for a long period of time and can travel to areas hundreds or
even thousands of miles away from the pollution sources.

On July 1, 1999, EPA announced a rule designed to protect and improve
visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas throughout the
country. The Regional Haze Rule establishes specific State
Implementation Plan requirements and strategies to adopt when
implementing a plan. States must develop long-term plans for reducing
pollutant emissions that contribute to visibility degradation and within
the plans establish goals aimed at improving visibility in Class I
areas. Under the rule, Class I areas must be at "natural conditions" in
60 years. The State Implementation Plan must address haze caused by all
sources of pollutants that impair visibility including haze caused from
smoke, vehicles, electric utility and industrial fuel burning, and other
activities that generate pollution.

Alaska has four Class I areas subject to the rule, including Denali
National Park and Preserve, Tuxedni Wilderness Area, Simeonof Wilderness
Area, and the Bering Sea Wilderness Area. Three of these, the Tuxedni
Wilderness Area, the Simenof Wilderness Area, and the Bering Sea
Wilderness Area, are in the State's coastal area. In general, the
farthest distance one can see a landscape or feature measures
visibility. Currently, haze reduced visibility in the western United
State from 140 miles to between 33 and 90 miles. Alaska's visibility is
far better than the lower 48 states. On a "hazy" day in Denali, the
average visibility is 130 miles and on a mid-range day, visibility can
range from 205-255 miles.

In Alaska, the planning process to implement the regional haze rule is
currently underway. A Long Term Strategy Plan is due no later than 2008
and must be updated and revised every ten years. The Strategy Plan will
demonstrate how the State will reach natural conditions by 2064 and show
progress in emissions reductions. The rule also requires emissions
limits be determined for certain older, large stationary sources, i.e.,
power plants, and refineries. Sources found contributing to Regional
Haze will be required to install Best Available Retrofit Technology
within five years after a State plan has been approved. In addition to
large stationary sources, other sources that contribute to regional haze
that may be identified in the Strategy Plan could include mobile
sources, and "area" sources such as residential wood combustion and gas
stations, burning related to forestry and agriculture activities, and
dust from roadways and construction activities. Local air quality issues
in Alaska include smoke from forest fires or woodsmoke from home uses,
and dust from gravel roads.

6.1.11.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants

Toxic air pollutants, also known as hazardous air pollutants, are those
pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious
health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or
adverse environmental effects. EPA is working with state, local, and
tribal governments to reduce air toxics releases of 188 pollutants to
the environment. Examples of toxic air pollutants include benzene, which
is found in gasoline; perchlorethlyene, which is emitted from some dry
cleaning facilities; and methylene chloride, which is used as a solvent
and paint stripper by a number of industries. Examples of other listed
air toxics include dioxin, asbestos, toluene, and metals such as
cadmium, mercury, chromium, and lead compounds.

People exposed to toxic air pollutants at sufficient concentrations and
durations may have an increased chance of getting cancer or experiencing
other serious health effects. These health effects can include damage to
the immune system, as well as neurological, reproductive (e.g., reduced
fertility), developmental, respiratory and other health problems. In
addition to exposure from breathing air toxics, some toxic air
pollutants such as mercury can deposit onto soils or surface waters,
where they are taken up by plants and ingested by animals and are
eventually magnified up through the food chain. Like humans, animals may
experience health problems if exposed to sufficient quantities of air
toxics over time.

Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including mobile
sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses) and stationary sources (e.g.,
factories, refineries, power plants), as well as indoor sources (e.g.,
some building materials and cleaning solvents). Some air toxics are also
released from natural sources such as volcanic eruptions and forest
fires.

Neither the EPA nor the State of Alaska has established ambient
hazardous air pollutant standards.

6.1.12 Hydrology

Alaska's water resources include more than three million lakes greater
than five acres in size, 365,000 miles of rivers and streams, over
174,000,000 acres or freshwater wetlands, and 36,000 miles of coastal
shoreline. (AK 2002/2003 WQ Report)

6.1.12.1 Groundwater

Alaska's groundwater resources may be among the most extensive in the
nation. However, very few of Alaska's aquifers have been studied (or
even located) and little water quality data is available. Groundwater is
a source of drinking water for about 50 percent of Alaska's population,
and 90 percent of the State's rural residents. Eighty-seven percent of
Alaska's 3,500 public drinking water systems are groundwater supplied. A
small number of public water systems (e.g., Anchorage and several
southeastern communities) serve a large number of people from primarily
surface water sources. Ninety percent of the private drinking water
supplies are groundwater. Of the 275 million gallons of water used each
day for domestic, commercial, industrial, and agricultural purposes in
Alaska, roughly 23 percent is derived from aquifers.

Groundwater is available in most areas of Alaska, except where
permafrost is very

deep in the northern part of the State. South-central and interior
Alaska have the greatest

dependence on groundwater. Arctic, western, and southeastern Alaska
makes more frequent use

of streams, rivers, lakes, and rainwater catchments. The largest
groundwater withdrawals occur

in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas, and to a lesser extent, the
Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai

Peninsula Boroughs in the south-central portion of the State.

Most of Alaska's aquifers consist of unconsolidated materials derived
from glaciers, rivers, and streams. Ground water supply aquifers range
from extremely small thaw bulbs in permafrost to large regional
aquifers. The extensive permafrost development around the State provides
challenges to the development of ground water resources. In many parts
of Alaska, steep topography limits the size of most aquifers, preventing
large scale extraction. (<http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/water/hydro>
last viewed 7/8/2005) Producing aquifers are typically unconfined (i.e.,
not protected by a layer of clay or silt), and the depth of the water
table ranges from a few feet to over 400 feet statewide.

Although water quality data is sparse, most of the State's groundwater
is suitable for domestic, agriculture, aquaculture, commercial, and
industrial uses with moderate or minimal treatment. Naturally occurring
iron, manganese, and arsenic are the most common treatment problems in
groundwater systems. Fuel storage and wastewater disposal, primarily
from onsite (septic) systems, are common threats to groundwater quality
statewide. Additionally, a range of other activities either have, or
have the potential to, affect groundwater quality (e.g., nonpoint
pollution in urban areas, natural resource extraction activities in
remote locations, and a wide range of potential point sources of
pollution). Approximately 2,165 leaking underground storage tanks have
been identified across the State so far. Roughly 50 percent of those
identified tanks may affect groundwater quality. Another 2,781
contaminated sites have been identified that may affect groundwater
quality. These contaminated sites include seven Superfund sites and 13
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-permitted sites where clean-ups
are currently under way.

Protection of Alaska's groundwater is largely accomplished through the
regulation of contaminated sites, storage tanks, spill response, and
specific waste disposal activities under State and federal programs. DEC
manages several programs that contribute to the protection of
groundwater, including the Contaminated Sites, Storage Tank, Prevention
& Emergency Response, Industry Preparedness & Pipeline, Solid Waste,
Pesticides, Water & Wastewater, Drinking Water Protection, Water Quality
Protection, and Community Assistance & Information programs. US EPA's
Underground Injection Control Program, and a number of other important
EPA programs, can also have a significant impact on groundwater quality
in Alaska.

6.1.12.2 Surface Water

Alaska has the greatest surface water resources of any state in the
United States; more than three million lakes, over 12,000 rivers,
thousands of streams and creeks, and an estimated 100,000 glaciers. The
Yukon, Kuskokwim and Copper Rivers are among the ten largest rivers in
the U.S. Approximately 40 percent of all the surface water outflow for
the entire United States comes from Alaska. The State receives an
average of approximately 1,050,000 million gallons per day in the form
of precipitation. Surface water is used for about half of Alaska's
domestic water supply, and supplies approximately 75 percent, or about
300 million gallons per day of the State's water needs for industry,
agriculture, mining, fish processing, and public water use. Even with
all of the surface water in Alaska, a number of communities experience
water quantity problems because of inadequate supplies (especially in
permafrost regions), lack of satisfactory distribution systems, and
droughts.

Many of Alaska's lakes and streams are frozen, or partially frozen, for
five to six months of the year. In late April and May, "breakup" occurs
when the snow melts, and streams thaw. A typical Alaska stream
experiences low flows from December through March, peak flows during
breakup in May through June, lower summer flows in July and August,
secondary peak flows produced by rainfall in September through October,
and declining flows in November. Alaska's surface waters include over
15,000 anadromous streams which support seagoing fish, including salmon.

Glaciers are found in a variety of settings in Alaska and come in a
variety of different types, including mountain, valley, piedmont,
cirque, hanging, and tidewater glaciers. Found at the heads of fiords
and inlets, tidewater glaciers flow to the seacoast. Glacier Bay alone
has sixteen tidewater glaciers flowing into it. In Southeast Alaska,
many of the most active glaciers calve daily when giant pieces of ice
crack off the head of the glacier and fall into the sea. Tidewater
glaciers that end in deep water can also calve from under the water,
shooting huge pieces of ice-like missiles up through the surface to fall
back with mighty splashes. The image of slow, imperceptible glacial
movement is now replaced by the sounds of the thundering ice bergs
cracking and falling into the sea. The freshly-calved bergs are often a
sparkling deep blue and assume fantastic shapes as they slowly drift
with the currents or beach themselves on outgoing tides. All this makes
tidewater glacier watching a popular tourist attraction by sea or air.

As a tidewater glacier advances, it pushes a mound of debris called a
moraine shoal in front of its terminus, protecting it from deep tidal
water. If climate or glacial dynamics force the glacier\'s terminus to
retreat from its moraine shoal, the deeper water behind the shoal causes
the glacier to calve, rapidly producing many icebergs and triggering its
retreat. Once the glacier retreats to a stable position, calving slows,
and the glacier advances again, gradually rebuilding its moraine shoal.
Alaska has an estimated 100,000 glaciers, ranging from tiny cirque
glaciers to huge valley glaciers. There are more active glaciers and ice
fields in Alaska than in the rest of the inhabited world. The largest
glacier is the Malaspina at 850 square miles. Five percent of the State,
or 29,000 square miles, is covered by glaciers.
([http://www.dced.state.ak.us;](../(http://www.dced.state.ak.us%3B) last
viewed: 7/19/2005) Glaciers significantly influence most of Alaska's
major rivers, even though glaciers cover only five percent of the State.
For example, glaciers cover only five percent of the Tanana River
drainage basin, yet glacial meltwater accounts for half of the river's
runoff. ([http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/water/hdro last viewed:
7/8/2005)](http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/water/hdro last viewed: 7/8/2005))

6.1.12.3 Wetlands

According to EPA and the Society of Wetland Scientists, Alaska\'s has
almost 175 million acres of wetlands, occupying 43.3 percent of its
403,247,700 acres. By comparison, the entire remainder of the U.S.
contains 103,000,000 acres of wetlands, comprising approximately 5.2
percent of the 1.9 billion acre land surface.
(<http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact9.html>, last viewed:
9/12/04) Wetlands in Alaska include: salt and fresh marshes, mud flats,
forests, ponds, wet and moist tundra, fens, and bogs. Most regions in
Alaska have a land surface with extensive areas of wetlands. Expanses of
moist and wet tundra underlain by permafrost occur in the northern and
western regions. Interior Alaska contains vast areas of black spruce
lowlands and extensive floodplains dominated by deciduous shrubs and
grasses. Forests, scrub shrub, and peatlands are a conspicuous feature
of south-central and southeast. Even in the mountainous areas such as
the Brooks Range, wetlands have developed in drainages and on vegetated
slopes. Some of the Nation\'s most extensive complexes of salt marshes
and mud flats occur along the coasts of the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea,
Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska.
([http://www.sws.org/regional/alaska/Wetlands.htm,](../(http://www.sws.org/regional/alaska/Wetlands.htm,)
last viewed: 7/7/2005).

Wetlands are abundant in the valleys and basins associated with Alaska
river systems, including the Yukon, Kuskokwim, Porcupine, Tanana, and
Koyukuk Rivers. The major river deltas also possess large wetland areas.
One of the largest coastal deltas, the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, supports
several wetland types. Other predominant wetland deltas of Alaska
include the Colville River Delta on the Beaufort Sea Coast, the Copper
River Delta in Southcentral Alaska, and the Stikine River Delta in
Southeast Alaska. The quality and connectivity of Alaska's wetland
habitat is generally healthy.

[Salt Marsh]{.underline}

Salt marshes are intertidal wetlands vegetated with sedges, goose tongue
and other salt-tolerant plants. The salt marsh ecosystem is defined
between the mean high watermark and the lower intertidal zone. Alaska
has 345,000 acres of salt marsh wetlands along 33,000 miles of
coastline. Yet salt marsh habitat in Alaska represents only two tenths
of one percent of the State's total wetlands, and only four percent of
the total vegetated tidal marshes in the United States.

Salt marshes are typically located at river mouths and behind barrier
islands, coves, spits and on tide flats where low energy wave action and
fine sediment deposits provide elevated land for marsh vegetation to
establish. They are located at mid to upper intertidal elevations and
characterized by salt tolerant plant communities such as certain types
of sedges and grasses. Species composition and the distribution patterns
of salt marsh vegetation communities can vary distinctly based on
differences in elevation, drainage, and soil type. In Alaska salt
marshes, Creeping Alkali Grass is the dominant plant. Some of the
Nation's most extensive complexes of salt marsh habitat occur along
Alaska's coastline of the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea and the Gulf of
Alaska.

[Sedge Wetland]{.underline}

Sedge wetland habitats are dominated by 50 percent or greater sedge
species such as *Carex* spp. typically inundated with water. Trees,
shrubs and lichens are absent, but aquatic mosses may be present. Sedges
compose the largest genus of plants in Alaska and consist of erect,
rooted, water-loving vegetation. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (2003) National
Plants Database identifies 155 species, subspecies and varieties of
sedges in Alaska, of which 113 can be found in wetlands. Sedge habitats
are found in relatively slow-flowing open water along streams and lakes
and ponds, and in sloughs, coves and side channels of rivers, generally
in organic-rich mulch substrate. Sedge wetlands also make up a
significant area of wetland habitat above tidal influence in Alaska.

Sedge wetlands in Alaska are dominated by a variety of species,
depending on the locality of occurrence. Fresh sedge wetlands are
commonly found in south-central and southeast Alaska, and also in the
interior portion of the State. Species in these areas include *Scirpus
validus, Eleocharis-palustris-Hippuris vulgaris*, and *Eleocharis
palustris-Myriophyllum spicatum*. Sedge wetlands occur in very wet areas
of floodplains, margins of ponds, lakes and sloughs and in depressions
of upland areas throughout interior, south-central, and southeast Alaska
and the Aleutian Islands. Common plants occurring in these areas include
a large list mainly from the species *Carex*, in addition to
*Deschampsia beringensis-Carex lynbyaei*, and *Erioporum
angustifolium-Carex livida*. In the southern areas of the State, sedge
mats in filled lakes, ponds and depressions are common and may consist
of species such as *Eriophorum russeleolum-E. Scheuchzeri, Eriophourm
spp.-Menyanthes trifoliate, Eriophorum russeolum-Carex
kelloggii-Calamagrostis canadensis*, etc.

[Grass Wetland]{.underline}

Grass wetlands are dominated by 50 percent or greater water tolerant
grass species. The grasses may occur in clumps or tussocks subjected to
fluctuating water regimes. Woody plants and lichens are absent. Aquatic
mosses may occur seasonally. The soil substrate associated with grass
wetlands is generally organic or mineral rich. In addition to providing
important wildlife habitat, they function as important groundwater
recharge areas that maintain minimum base flows important to aquatic
resources by storing storm and floodwaters.

Wet meadow habitats commonly occur in poorly drained areas such as
shallow lake basins, and the land between shallow marshes and upland
areas. In Alaska, forested wetland areas that have been cleared for
agricultural purposes, such as in the Point MacKenzie and
Matanuska-Susitna areas of the Cook Inlet basin, and areas of Delta
Junction and Kenny Lake have been converted to wet meadow habitat. Some
wet meadows are also found at higher elevations of the alpine country.
For most of the year wet meadows are without standing water, though the
high water table allows the soil to remain saturated. Wet meadows are
relatively young wetlands dominated by soft-stemmed herbaceous plants.
They are hydrated by rainfall, snowmelt, groundwater, and year-round and
ephemeral streams. Plant communities found in Alaska's wet meadow
habitats include wet herbaceous and wet forb graminoids and aquatic
herbaceous species.

[Bog]{.underline}

Bog habitats represent many thousands of years of wetland succession. In
contrast to early successional freshwater wetland with only a shallow
depth of organic material overlying mineral substrate, a bog consists of
several feet of peat deposits. Bogs are characterized by spongy peat
deposits, acidic waters, and an overlying vegetative layer of thick
sphagnum moss. Peat is the result of undisturbed decomposed remains of
mosses and sedges that gradually become deep peat deposits. Additional
bog habitat classifications include shrub-bog and forested-bog types,
depending on successional stage of the landscape. Most of Alaska's
wetlands are peat lands, covering approximately 110 million acres.

Bogs receive most of their water from rainfall rather than from runoff,
streams or groundwater infiltration. As a result of this, and combined
with acidic conditions, bogs are low in nutrients necessary for plant
growth. Flora and fauna that live in bogs are uniquely adapted to these
specific habitats and demonstrate many special adaptations to cope with
the low nutrient levels, waterlogged conditions, and acidic waters.
Evergreens and shrubs are the most abundant woody plants found in bog
habitats. Blue grouse forage in bogs for berries and insects. Species
such as the gray owl depend on bogs for survival.

Because bogs require a persistently wet and cool climate in order to
allow the growth of peat forming sphagnum mosses, they are predominantly
found in the northern hemisphere. Bogs have recently been recognized for
their role in regulating the global climate by storing large amounts of
carbon in peat deposits. Bog habitats are particularly susceptible to
destruction as they take hundreds of thousands of years to develop, yet
they can be destroyed in a matter of days.

6.1.12.3.1 Wetland Biological Importance

Alaska's coastal wetlands are biologically among the most productive
areas in the world. These coastal and riverine wetlands are critical to
the life cycles of many marine and anadromous species that mature and
are harvested offshore, such as salmon, herring, pollack, and sole.

[Fisheries]{.underline}

The relationships between wetlands and fish production are essential and
important. Because of the complexity of aquatic systems, it is difficult
to quantify the exact effect of the loss or degradation of a particular
acre of wetland on a fishery as a whole. However, the life cycles of
most commercial fish and shellfish species are fairly well understood,
and biologists have determined that wetlands play an important part in
providing food, protection, and spawning areas for many species.
Approximately 75 percent of the nation's commercial fish and shellfish
depend on estuaries at some stage in their life cycle. Estuaries
themselves depend on wetlands to maintain water quality and provide the
basis for food chains that culminate in human consumption of seafood.
Many estuarine-dependent species have even closer ties to wetlands in

that they feed, take refuge, or reproduce in the wetlands themselves.
Without wetlands, these fish and shellfish cannot survive.

Of the commercial fish and shellfish harvested in Alaska, about 76
percent are dependent on estuaries and the wetlands that are an integral
part of the estuarine ecosystem. The Alaska region is one of the most
productive areas of the world's oceans, supporting large populations of
salmon, groundfish, crabs, marine mammals, and seabirds. Alaska leads
all other states in pounds of fish landed and their dockside value.
Fishing occupies a traditional place in the State's economy, and is
considered part of Alaska's heritage. Towns such as Dutch
Harbor-Unalaska, Kodiak, Petersburg, Akutan, and Cordova depend to a
large extent or almost exclusively on fishing to support their
economies. Fishing is the largest nongovernment employer in the State,
and the export of fish products from Alaska plays a major role in
reducing the nation's trade deficit. Approximately one-third of the
recreational fishery occurs in coastal waters.

Pacific salmon alone is an integral part of the culture heritage and
economy of Alaska. It is estimated that the salmon industry in Alaska
employs 22,000 people. The 1995 statewide salmon catch had a dockside
value of \$496 million. Because salmon move between fresh water and
saltwater, they are dependent on both coastal and riverine wetlands for
the successful completion of their life cycle. Logging, mining, and
industrial urban development can often degrade salmon habitat.
(http://www.nmfs.NOAA.gov/habitat/habitatconservation/publications/habitatconections/habitatconnections.htm;
last viewed: 7/8/2005)

[Biological Diversity]{.underline}

Wetlands are also one of the most productive habitats and are important
in preserving the State's biological diversity. Alaska's wetland
habitats are the summer breeding grounds for the hundreds of thousands
of migratory birds that utilize all four North American flyways to fly
south to their wintering rounds. The expansive and varied wetland
habitats of the Copper River Delta are of international importance as
staging areas for millions of migrating shorebirds. Large wetland areas
such as the Copper River Delta are extremely valuable because they
provide large, whole and intact complexes. Waterfowl and waterbirds are
wetland-dependant, and many species of songbirds nest and/or feed in
wetland habitats. In addition, raptors and owls often frequent wetlands
to forage. Brown bears forage for returning salmon in these same
locations. Amphibians breed in wetlands, and many spend their entire
lives in wetlands. Damselflies and dragonflies also utilize wetlands as
their breeding and feeding grounds, as well as for cover. They prey on
insects, such as aphids and mosquitoes. Voles live and eat the meadow
grasses and seeds. They build distinctive runways crisscrossing through
the area. They also dig underground tunnels where they construct food
and nesting chambers. During the winter in snow-covered areas, the voles
make runways beneath the snow and feed on the snow-flattened grasses.
Voles are the staple foods of weasels, marten, foxes, coyotes, all owls,
most hawks, inland breeding gulls, jaegers, and occasionally great blue
herons, domestic cats, northern pike, and other voles. Wetland grasses
and sedges provide habitat structure for production of invertebrates,
crustaceans and insect larvae that many species of animals are dependent
upon.

Species ecological interaction plays an important role in the healthy
function of wetland habitat. For example, wetland animal species
facilitate decomposition of organic matter and enhance nutrient
regeneration, serve as food for a variety of higher trophic levels; and
exhibit high sensitivity to human impact. This makes them excellent
indicators of wetland
pollution.(http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/ngplan/files/appendixpercent204d.pdf,
Last viewed, 7/8/2005)

Although wetlands comprise 43.3 percent of the State, the distribution
of wetlands in Alaska varies considerably within the State's
physiographic regions. Many of the wetland types discussed above are
limited in extent, and only certain wetland types are of value to living
marine resources. For example, while there are approximately 44,500
miles of shoreline in Alaska, coastal salt marshes comprise only 360,000
acres, and seasonally flooded forested wetland on stream and river flood
plains comprise only 204,000 acres.

6.1.12.3.2 Wetland Losses

About half of all Colonial-era wetland acreage in the lower 48 states
has been converted to agriculture, development, or other land uses. In
urbanized and developed areas of Alaska, such as Anchorage, over 50
percent of the wetlands have been developed. Although there is no
statistically reliable data on statewide wetland losses, the USFWS
estimates that Alaska has lost 200,000 acres, or less than one percent
of the State's original wetland acreage. Additionally, significant
percentages of wetlands in other urbanized areas in Alaska including
Juneau, Fairbanks, the Matansuka-Susitna Valley, and the North Slope
have been lost or impacted (Alaska's Final 2002/2003 Integrated Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report). Wetland losses in coastal
Alaska result from development in five major sectors: (1) transportation
systems, including roads, bridges, pipelines, airports and harbors; (2)
urban development near major population centers; (3) forestry in
southeastern Alaska; (4) oil and gas development on the north slope; and
(4) placer mining. In southeastern Alaska, urban development and logging
have been the principal causes of wetland loss and degradation.

6.1.12.4 Water Quality

The vast majority of Alaska's watersheds, while not being monitored, are
presumed to be in relatively pristine condition due to Alaska's size,
sparse population, and general remoteness. Most of Alaska's waters are
suitable for the following beneficial uses: water supply (drinking,
agriculture, aquaculture, industrial); water recreation; and growth and
reproduction of fish, shellfish, aquatic life, and wildlife. In some
areas, some beneficial uses are limited by natural water quality
conditions in Alaska, such as suspended sediment in glacial waterbodies,
highly mineralized waterbodies, microorganisms such as giardia (beaver
fever) and schistosoma (swimmer's itch), and high bacterial counts from
decomposing salmon in streams.

However, Alaska has localized water pollution. Surface water quality has
been found to be impaired or threatened from sources such as urban
runoff from development, septic systems and landfill leachate
(Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Juneau), natural resource development,
including mining operations in the interior and northwest Alaska, oil
and gas development, seafood processing facilities in the Aleutian
Islands, and forest products facilities in southeast Alaska
([http://www.surfrider.org/stateofthebeach/05-sr/state.asp),](../(http://www.surfrider.org/stateofthebeach/05-sr/state.asp),)
and military development including both operational and abandoned
installations. Fecal coliform bacteria, sediment, and petroleum products
are the primary pollutants of surface waters in Alaska, while petroleum
products are the primary pollutants of ground waters. Urban runoff is
the most common pollutant source in Alaska overall.
([http://www.dnr.state/ak.us/mlw/water/hydro/]{.underline}, last viewed:
7/8/2005)

6.1.13 Fossil Fuels

6.1.13.1 Oil and Gas

Alaska has two major commercially active oil and gas regions, located in
Cook Inlet and on Alaska's North Slope. The first commercial production
from an Alaska oil field began at Swanson River, Cook Inlet in 1959.
Five other Cook Inlet fields began production between 1965 and 1972.
Most recently, West McArthur River began production in 1993 and Redoubt
in 2002. All Cook Inlet oil is currently shipped to the Tesoro refinery
at Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula. Oil from fields on the west side of
Cook Inlet is transported by pipeline to the Drift River terminal, and
then transported to Nikiski. Oil from the eastside fields is shipped by
pipeline directly to the refinery. By year-end 2003, the Cook Inlet has
produced almost 1.3 barrels of oil, including 10 million barrels of
natural gas liquids.

Cook Inlet gas production began in 1959 as a by-product of Swanson River
oil development. As more oil and gas fields were discovered, nearby
markets for gas were developed in Anchorage and Kenai to supply space
heat and electricity generation. In 1968 Unocal started up the
ammonia-urea plant at Nikiski to take advantage of the abundance of
cheap stranded natural gas. This plant was acquired in 2000 by Agrium,
Inc. of Calgary, Alberta. In 1969, Phillips and Marathon began operating
the liquid natural gas plant, also located at Nikiski. In recent years,
liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to Japan accounted for about
one-third of total Cook Inlet gas production. Industrial use of Cook
Inlet gas has remained fairly constant since 1983; production has
increased in step with the growing residential and commercial demand for
space heating and electric power generation. Cook Inlet natural gas
production has remained relatively stable at an average of 213 billion
cubic feet (Bcf) per year from 1997 to 2001.

Oil production on the North Slope began in 1969 at Prudhoe Bay. The
Prudhoe Bay Unit on the North Slope of Alaska is the largest operating
oil field in the United States having produced 12.8 billion barrels of
oil since production began and with an estimated 6.4 billion barrels
still in the ground. Production was initially restricted to small
quantities used to fuel field operations until the Trans Alaska Pipeline
Systems (TAPS) was completed in July 1977. The North Slope has produced
14.4 billion barrels of oil and NGLs by the end of 2003; nearly all from
the large Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields. NGLs produced on the North
Slope are blended with oil and shipped down TAPS or used to make
miscible injectant for enhanced oil recovery projects. NGLs have been
shipped from Prudhoe Bay to the Kuparuk River Unit via the Oliktok
pipeline for miscible injectant in the Large-Scale Enhance Oil Recovery
project at Kuparuk. Today, incremental oil production from new fields
brought on line since 1995 account for approximately 27 percent of total
yearly Alaska North Slope production. While production from the largest
of North Slope fields, Prudhoe and Kuparuk is in decline, smaller and
more numerous satellite oil and gas reservoirs are being developed and
produced. North Slope oil production is expected to level out at about 1
million barrels per day through 2010. There are also enormous amounts of
natural gas in the North Slope reserves. Construction of a natural gas
pipeline from the North Slope is under active consideration.
(www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/AEIS/PDF_Files/AEPR2002_OilandGas.pdf)

North Slope gas production began near Barrow in the mid-1940s. This gas
was used initially to fuel a nearby military base. Gas service was
extended to the village after World War II. The East Barrow and Walakpa
fields were developed in 1980 to provide gas to Barrow. Gross gas
production on the North Slope in 2000 was 3.2 trillion cubic feet (tcf)
(8.7 billion cubic feet per day) but 93 percent of this volume was
injected into oil producing reservoirs. The remaining net gas
production, equal to 297 Bcf in 2003, is consumed locally on the North
Slope to fuel oil field equipment operations, and pipelines. North Slope
industrial yearly gas consumption is approximately equal to annual gas
produced in Cook Inlet.

Drilling activity shows slight increases in recent years and the total
number of feet drilled per year has been relatively steady since the mid
eighties. New companies have entered the Alaska crude oil and gas
upstream sector, and interest continues to grow, especially among
independent exploration and production companies and in areas beyond the
mature oil provinces of Cook Inlet and the North Slope, such as the
North Slope Foothills, other interior Alaska basins and the Alaska
Peninsula region. However, total oil production has steadily declined
since it peaked at two million barrels per day in 1988, along with gross
oil and NGL production from State lands. The majority of Alaska oil
production comes from the North Slope, with a current production rate of
slightly under one million barrels per day. That rate is expected to
hold steady for at least the next seven years.

Three State agencies are responsible for evaluating oil and gas reserves
and production: the AOGCC, the Department of Revenue, Tax Division DOR,
and DNR, Division of Oil and Gas (DOG). Each agency calculates reserves
using slightly different methods. AOGCC emphasizes geologic and
engineering factors to estimate the total recoverable resource. DOR
calculations emphasize oil and gas production economics and the impact
of oil prices forecasted far into the future. DO&G reserves are
calculated from the forecast of production from existing and planned
developments that may reasonably be expected to occur in the near
future. These agencies cooperate and coordinate the preparation of
reserves estimates and production forecasts.

DNR holds four regularly scheduled oil and gas lease sales per year. DOG
and the Division of Geological and Geophysical Survey (DGGS) are working
on obtaining geologic and geophysical data as well as conducting its own
field work in new areas. DGGS and DOG geologists completed field work
that will help companies in evaluating hydrocarbon potential for the
proposed Alaska Peninsula Oil and Gas Lease Sale tentatively scheduled
for fall 2005. In addition to competitive areawide leasing, DNR has
instituted an exploration licensing program to encourage exploration in
oil and gas basins outside of Cook Inlet and the North Slope. Four
exploration licenses have already been issued -- in the Nenana and
Copper River basins, and two licenses in the Susitna basin. Recently,
DOG received exploration license proposals for the northern portion of
the Bristol Bay basin and Healy area. A short-lived shallow natural gas
leasing program allowed DOG to issue non-competitive leases to explore
for and develop natural gas reservoirs, including coalbed methane,
located within 3,000 feet of the surface.
(www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/publications/annual/2004_annual_report/Section1.pdf)

Industry Issues and Outlook

In early 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed an assessment
of undiscovered oil and gas resources of the central part of the Alaska
North Slope and the adjacent State offshore area which indicated that
there is a significant amount of oil and a large amount of gas that
remains to be discovered. An estimated 4.0 billion barrels of oil (BBO),
37.5 tcf of natural gas, and 478 million barrels of natural gas liquids
are undiscovered and technically recoverable (using current technology).
The central North Slope already contains virtually all of the
petroleum-producing infrastructure and pipelines in northern Alaska,
including the TAPS. (USGS Press Release, 5/11/05)

It is very likely that the next oil patch to be developed will be the
NPRA. In 2002 USGS scientists completed a four-year reassessment of the
undiscovered oil and gas resources, including an economic analysis,
which showed that the area contains between 1.3 and 5.6 economically
recoverable BBO at market prices of between \$22 and \$30 per barrel.
Estimates of technically recoverable oil on federal lands are between
5.9 and 13.2 BBO, with a mean value of 9.3 BBO. A large proportion of
the undiscovered oil resources are estimated to occur in the northern
third of the NPRA in moderate size accumulations. Its proximity to
Prudhoe Bay infrastructure improves its potential. New estimates of
technically recoverable undiscovered natural gas resources on federal
lands in the NPRA range between 39.1 and 83.2 tcf, with a mean value of
59.7 tcf. The economic viability of the natural gas resources depends on
the availability of a pipeline to transport the product to market in the
lower 48 states. Presently, no natural gas pipeline exists. The bulk of
the natural gas resources are thought to occur in the central and
southern NPRA. (USGS Press Release: 5/16/02) Over \$64 million in NPRA
oil and gas leases were sold in June of 2002.

There is considerable interest in the construction of a natural gas
pipeline to bring Prudhoe Bay gas to market. Routing alternatives are
along the Alaska Highway to Alberta, Canada or along the existing oil
pipeline to Valdez. The gas line, estimated to cost up to \$20 billion
depending on routing, enjoys strong political support, but both prices
and markets must be secure to prompt investment. There are 35 tcf of
known reserves of stranded natural gas on the North Slope, with total
estimated reserves of 100 tcf. Construction of a natural gas pipeline is
a top priority of the State Administration. The interest in a natural
gas pipeline also brings the hope of an associated LNG pipeline and
export facility in Alaska.

The State's second active oil and gas producing region is in Cook Inlet,
within the boundaries of the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Several smaller
independent operators have succeeded to leases formerly held by major
oil and gas companies. Using new exploratory and drilling techniques,
these operators have re-invigorated interest in the region. With
improved techniques and the possibility of new discoveries, Cook Inlet
could be producing gas for local markets and for export for many more
years. The presence of independent oil companies using new exploration
techniques and drilling technologies offers hope that Cook Inlet can
remain a producing oil and gas region at levels above current production
forecasts.

Gas exploration companies are interested in exploring for coalbed
methane gas at three locations around the State: near Chignik on the
Alaska Peninsula; near Fort Yukon at the confluence of the Porcupine and
Yukon Rivers; and near Wainwright on the Arctic coast. The exploration
program will provide valuable information on development costs and
feasibility.

Exploration is also taking place in the Nenana Basin in interior Alaska,
in the Copper River Basin near Glennallen and on the Alaska
Peninsula/Bristol Bay. Exploration is also planned at the Katalla oil
field near Cordova, where oil was produced from early in the 20th
century through the 1920s. Gas or oil discoveries in interior basins, if
economic, could provide for local energy needs; however, much
exploratory work will be needed to determine whether commercial
quantities of gas can be developed. Oil exploration and development in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) failed to be included in the
2005 Energy Bill. ANWR is estimated to contain 4.3 to 11.8 BBO, with a
mean value of 7.7 BBO.

The DOI has approved the federal MMS's 2002--2007 OCS leasing program.
Eight lease sales are planned: Beaufort Sea in 2003, 2005 and 2007;
Chukchi Sea/Hope Basin in 2004 and 2007; Cook Inlet/Shelikof Straits in
2004 and 2006; and Norton Sound in 2003. Resource estimates indicate the
potential for significant amounts of oil and gas, however, further
exploration is needed to determine actual reserves, and offshore
development is expected to be both costly and lengthy. The MMS is
attempting to see whether the gas-prone Hope Basin can be developed for
local use, for both nearby communities and the Red Dog mine.

6.1.13.2 Coal

Alaska's coal resources make up about half of the United States
coal-resource base and about one-sixth of the total world-resource base.
(Schaff, 1983) Very little of this extensive resource has been developed
because of competition from the petroleum and natural gas produced in
the State. Alaska's total coal resources are estimated at between 5.5
and 6.0 trillion tons, over half of which are of bituminous rank. The
total energy equivalent (in Btu) of all the coal in Alaska exceeds by
several orders of magnitude that of all known oil reserves in the State.
The energy equivalent of Alaska's bituminous coal resources alone is
estimated to be more than 1,000 Prudhoe Bays (original recoverable
reserves of about 10 billion barrels).

The northern Alaska coal fields form the largest coal resource province
in the nation. It is divided into a southern bituminous subprovince and
a large, predominantly subbituminous northern subprovince. The Meade
River and Corwin Bluff Mines are in these fields, as are two other
coal-bearing exposures of this region; Kukpowruk River and Elusive
Creek. These coal deposits are located in the Naval Petroleum Reserve
Alaska and occur in the Cretaceous Nanushuk Group on the Arctic Coastal
Plan and foothills of the western North Slope. The Nanushuk Group is in
the southwestern part of the province, near Cape Lisburne. The Cook
Inlet-Susitna lowland is the second largest coal-resource province. It
is composed of the Beluga Yentna, Little Susitna, Matanuka, Broad Pass,
and Kenai coal fields plus offshore deposits in Cook Inlet. The Nenana
coal trend forms the third largest coal-resource base in Alaska,
however, it is not in the coastal area. (Schaff, AK DNR, 9/30/83)

The production of coal has fluctuated in Alaska from the time it was
first mined on a commercial scale in 1855. Primarily it was purchased
for in-state use. The military build up for World War II near Anchorage
and Fairbanks expanded the market for coal, however the mines closed
when the Alaska Railroad converted to diesel-electric locomotives and
when oil and natural gas produced from large deposits discovered in Cook
Inlet captured most of the coal market in the Anchorage area. Production
continued to fluctuate between 600,000 to 900,000 short tons until 1985,
when it rose sharply to 1.4 million short tons with the beginning of
exports to Korea.

Since the early 1970\'s, the only active coal mine in Alaska has been
operated by Usibelli, near Healy in the Nenana field, south of
Fairbanks. While there continues to be some domestic customers for this
coal, the majority is exported to the Korean Electric Power Company.
Coal intended for the Korean market is transported from the mine by the
Alaska Railroad about 300 miles to Seward, a year-round ice-free port.
Pending an expansion of Alaska coal exports to the Asian market, several
other coal mines in Alaska may be planned. Currently, only one surface
mine actively produces coal in the State, and about half of its annual
output of 1.5 million short tons is exported. The value of coal
production to the economy of Alaska is also small. In 1992, coal was
estimated to account for less than one percent of the total value of all
mineral commodities produced in the State, including crude oil and
natural gas.

([http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/st_coal_pdf/0576e.pdf,](../(http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/st_coal_pdf/0576e.pdf,)
last viewed: 7/19/2005)

Known sources of high-rank (bituminous) coal in Alaska's coastal area
that could be exploited are located on Alaska's North Slope, in the
Matanuska, Bering River, Chignik, and Herendeen Bay coalfields. The
potential for coal development in Alaska is unlimited, and Alaska's
strategic position on the northern Pacific Rim places it in the center
of expanding trade routes. Alaska is closer to Far East markets than
Australia, Canada, or South Africa. (DNR, 1993)

6.1.13.3 Environmental Issues

More than 750 exploratory oil and gas wells have been drilled in Alaska.
The only commercially recoverable finds currently operating are on the
North Slope and the Cook Inlet-Kenai Peninsula areas. Both of these
areas have substantial wetland acreage associated with the oil and gas
activity. Oil and gas exploration and development in wetland areas have
significant impacts, particularly in Arctic regions where vegetative
recovery is slow. The effects of oil and gas activities on wetlands
differ between the exploration phase and the development phase.

The exploration phase of oil and gas operations usually results in
little surface disturbance. Initial stages of geophysical reconnaissance
are supported by helicopter personnel and only require small, temporary
camps. Subsequent seismic surveying causes greater disturbance from
overland transportation of equipment and personnel. Tundra wetlands can
be affected by seismic survey or transportation corridors, particularly
if activities occur when the tundra is not completely frozen.

Exploratory drilling, the final stage of exploration, can involve
considerable surface disturbance, including: construction of drilling
sites, camp sites, and airstrips; overland transport of equipment and
personnel to drilling sites; and gravel mining. Transporting heavy
equipment to drilling sites can cause removal or compaction of tundra,
which in turn can cause thawing of permafrost and subsidence of the
terrain. The combination of thermal erosion (thermokarst) and hydraulic
erosion over longer periods of time can create further slumping or
gullies and ravines. Using ice to construct exploratory drill pads and
roads, although less damaging than using gravel, can require up to 15
million gallons of water and can drain tundra ponds and streams.
(http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch14.html)

Petroleum development on the Arctic coastal plain results in much more
extensive disturbance of wetlands, because it requires fill material
(usually gravel) to construct an infrastructure. This infrastructure,
which consists of drill pads, storage areas, transportation facilities,
gravel mines, and other developments, alters terrain, disrupts natural
drainage patterns, and changes or eliminates fish and wildlife habitat.
The existing infrastructure for oil and gas operations in the Prudhoe
Bay-Kuparuk complex is spread over more than 800 square miles of tundra.
Nevertheless, the amount of wetland acreage affected is relatively
small.

On federal lands, BLM attaches mitigation requirements to leases and
conditions drilling permits with environmental safeguards. These
requirements take into account regional and site-specific environmental
factors worthy of protection. Wetlands are prominent among the resources
receiving protection. Although all damage to wetlands from petroleum
development on federal lands cannot be avoided, BLM actively attempts to
protect these resources.

In addition to the direct impacts associated with placing gravel on
tundra, petroleum development on the Arctic coastal plain has resulted
in significant indirect impacts. In the wettest parts of the Prudhoe Bay
oil field, flooding and thermokarst covered more than twice the area
directly affected by roads and other construction activities. As with
other types of developmental activities, stream crossings (e.g., for
pipelines or access roads) can affect water quality through changes to
stable stream banks, erosion, siltation, and stream bottom disturbance.

Other secondary effects such as release of contaminants, sewage dumping,
oil spills, and dust have damaged or degraded wide areas of tundra
wetlands adjacent to oil and gas facilities. Contaminants released from
reserve pits by overflows, leaching, or breaching has released diesel
fuel, heavy metals, ethylene glycol, and soluble salts onto the tundra,
and has killed vegetation surrounding reserve pits. According to figures
from DEC, in 1985 alone there were 521 oil spills on the Arctic coastal
plain, amounting to about 82,000 gallons of oil. Diesel and crude oil,
which can cause severe damage to tundra vegetation and can remain toxic
for more than four years after the spill, accounted for almost half of
the spills.

6.1.14 Minerals

In all, 191.1 million acres of mineral-rich land in Alaska is available
for exploration and development. This is an area about twice the size of
Nevada. Alaska contains more land open to mineral development than the
other 49 states combined. Some of the major minerals mined in Alaska
include zinc, gold, silver, lead, copper, and coal. Currently, there are
three large mining projects in Alaska's coastal area: Kensington Gold
Project, Greens Creek Mine, and the Red Dog Mine.

6.1.14.1 Kensington Gold Project

The Kensington Gold Project is located approximately 45 air miles north
of Juneau. The mine site is within the City and Borough of Juneau and
the Tongass National Forest, and thus is located on federal land
overseen by the U.S. Forest Service, as well as on State of Alaska
tidelands and on private patented property. The Sherman Creek drainage
is a second growth rain forest. The canopy consists of coniferous forest
vegetation interspersed with muskeg bogs and alder. Field surveys
documented that wetlands exist on all but the steep slopes within the
project area. The planned mill site and mine area lie between Ophir and
Sherman Creeks at the western base of Lions Head Mountain. The hill
above the site is referred to as the \"Horrible Hill,\" after an
abandoned mine located in the area. Steep and rugged mountains surround
the planned Kensington site. The area between the mine portal and the
Lynn Canal is characterized by five to 35 percent slopes and alluvial
fans dissected by the drainage. Coeur\'s application states that
approximately 269 acres will be disturbed by the construction and
operation of the project. This disturbance will be on both the
applicant\'s private land and on unpatented mining claims located on
Forest Service land. A number of surface facilities will be constructed
for the Kensington Gold Project. These facilities and the estimated
surface disturbance include access roads, a marine terminal, fuel
storage, an employee camp, a processing area, mine water and
sedimentation ponds, etc.

Access to the mine site is limited to air and water; no road access
exists. Mine personnel will be transported primarily by helicopter
operating between the Juneau airport and a heliport at Comet Beach at
the mine site. On average, two to four flights per day, seven days per
week will occur during operations, with more frequent flights during
mine construction. Large quantities of equipment and supplies will
arrive by barge transport from Juneau and Seattle. Diesel fuel will be
delivered in bulk by fuel barges arriving about once a week. Other fuels
will be delivered in containers by barge. Barges will also load
containers of ore concentrate for shipment off-site. The proposed mine
will produce approximately 2,000 tons of ore per day, as well as waste
rock, over an estimated ten-year period.
(<http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/cdd/Kensington,> last viewed: 7/18/2005)

6.1.14.2 Greens Creek Mine

The Greens Creek Mine is an underground metals mine near Hawk Inlet on
northern Admiralty Island. It is located approximately 18 miles
southwest of Juneau, Alaska in the Tongass National Forest, within the
non-wilderness portion of the Admiralty Island National Monument.
Mineralized outcrops near Greens Creek were first sighted in early 1975.
Mine development began in 1987 with full production reached in 1989. Due
to depressed metal prices, production was suspended in 1993, but started
again in 1996. The Greens Creek ore body is a rich massive sulfide
deposit that provides polymetallic silver, zinc, gold and lead ore.
Greens Creek Mine presently processes in excess of 2,000 tons of ore per
day. On an annual basis, that production yields approximately ten
million ounces of silver, 65,000 ounces of gold, and a total of 200,000
tons of zinc, lead and bulk concentrates. Measured and indicated
reserves as of 2003 are approximately 9 million tons at 11.6 percent
zinc, 4.4 percent lead, 15.8 opt silver, and 0.13 opt gold. This ranks
Greens Creek as the second largest silver mine in the United States and
one of the top silver and zinc deposits in the world.
(http://www.kennecottminerals.com/S&E_2003/GreensCreekMine2003.pdf, last
viewed: 7/18/05)

Mining is accomplished with a mechanized long-hole or cut and fill
method. Milling is done with a SAG mill and ball mill, followed by a
standard lead/zinc flotation circuit. The majority of mineral tailings
are combined with cement and returned underground as backfill with the
remainder being sent to a nearby surface dry tailing storage area.
Greens Creek received its Record of Decision to expand its dry tailings
facility early in 2004, along with all associated State, federal, and
local permits. These permits and EIS approval allow for continued
operation and storage of tails produced through the remainder of
life-of-mine reserves.
<http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/minerals/pub/web05.pdf>

Greens Creek has 13 miles of road, a marine terminal to handle
ocean-going vessels, on-site employee shift housing, a mine site with
administrative facilities and an ore concentrator. Most employees are
transported to and from work daily by boat. Reclamation plans call for
facility structure removal, pond removal, portal closure, capping of
tailings and waste rock material, and final site contouring in
accordance with U.S. Forest Service requirements. There have been many
recent facility upgrades, including construction of a southeast tailing
liner and under drain system, a new cleaner flotation circuit, and
installation of a low Nox turbine electric power generator.

6.1.14.3 Red Dog Mine

Red Dog Mine in northwestern Alaska dominates Alaska mineral production.
Red Dog, the largest zinc producer in the world, accounts for nearly 50
percent of the annual value of Alaska's mineral industry. It produces an
average of 1.2 million tons of lead and zinc concentrate annually. The
mine is located in the DeLong Mountains of the western Brooks Range
within a local government known as the Northwest Arctic Borough,
approximately 600 miles north of Anchorage and 55 miles inland from the
Chuckchi Sea. Lead and zinc are mined and milled to produce lead and
zinc concentrates in a powder form. These concentrates are then hauled
year-round from the mine via the De Long Mountain Transportation System
haul road to two concentrate storage buildings at the Port Site, where
they are stored for later loading onto two barges and then transported
over the DeLong Mountain Transportation System (the haul road\'s
official name), to a port site storage facility. The metals are
transported year-round, but are stored most of the year while the
Chuckchi Sea is choked with ice. (O'Brien, 2001) In 2004, the mine
produced 554,000 tons of zinc and 117,000 tons of lead in concentrates,
slightly less than in 2003 due to excessive process pipe scaling during
the first quarter restricted throughput. Production in 2005 is estimated
to be 578,000 tons of zinc and 105,000 tons of lead in concentrates.
(Szumigala and Hughes, 2004).

6.1.14.4 Other Mining Sites

Other mineral areas under exploration in Alaska's coastal area include
the Port Moller Quadrangle, Woewodski Island polymetallic, Union Bay
Copper-platinum, and Duke Island nickel-copper-platinum. On the Seward
Peninsula, NovaGold Resources continued advanced exploration on the Rock
Creek Gold and the Big Hurrah properties near Nome, and is currently
studying taking this project to development phase. The Port Moller
Quadrangle encompasses the western Alaskan Peninsula and the eastern
Aleutian Islands. The two most advanced epithermal gold projects in the
Quadrangle include Centennial, on Popov Island adjacent to Sand Point,
with seven million tons averaging about 0.04 ounces of gold per ton in
an intermediate sulfidation system occurring as quartz stockworks with
pyrite and rare visible gold located below a capping basalt, and the
Shumagin and Apollo low-sulfidation, epithermal gold prospects on Unga
Island. At the Apollo mine, approximately 145,000 ounces of gold were
mined from ore averaging 0.29 ounces of gold per ton from 1891 to 1904.
In 2004 exploration for polymetallic massive sulfide prospect continued
on the Woewodski Island project. In southeastern Alaska, exploration
took place on the Union Bay project near Ketchikan, including
reconnaissance rock chip sampling, airborne magnetic and multi-frequency
eloctromagnetic surveys and 5,973 feet of diamond core drilling in ten
holes. Initial field work returned significant platinum values of
ultramarific rock units. The Duke Island nickel-copper-platinum prospect
is located in the Prince Rupert quadrangle of southeast Alaska, about 30
miles south of the city of Ketchikan and is currently in the exploration
phase. Geochemical, geological and geophysical data suggest the system
extends for over 5,000 feet along strike and up to 1,900 feet across
strike. Surface samples have returned up to 2.8 percent copper, 0.25
percent nickel and over 1 gram per tonne combined platinum plus
palladium. (Geologic Report DK02EXE-1, Summary Report for the Duke
Island Cu-NI-PGE Property, Avalon Development Corp., September 20, 2002,
Fairbanks, AK)

6.1.14.5 Crushed Rock and Sand and Gravel.

Alaska's glacial history has produced, and continues to produce a high
grade of sand and gravel, most of it near coasts, facilitating
transportation. (Gilbertson, et al, 2003) Production of sand and gravel
in 2003 was about 10.8 million metric tons (Mt), which was a sharp
decline from the 18.4 Mt produced in 2002. Rock production in 2003 was
781,000 t, which also reflected a marked reduction from the 2.9 Mt
produced in 2002 (Szumigala, et. al 2004). In the south-central region,
sand, gravel, and rock (aggregate) production was about one-half that of
2002 from about one-half as many reporting operations as in 2002;
nevertheless, the region was the leading producing region in 2003. About
3.8 Mt was produced from 16 reporting operations. In the eastern
interior region, the State's second highest aggregate-producing region
with about 3.2 Mt of production, Alaska Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) projects requiring large amounts of sand and
gravel included the Badger Road interchange on the Richardson Highway
and a new access route to Tanana Loop on the University of Alaska
Fairbanks campus that was named Thompson Drive. About 1.7 Mt of sand and
gravel produced in the northern region went for oilfield-related use on
the North Slope; slightly more than one-half of that quantity of rock
also was produced in this region. Only about 1.3 Mt of sand and gravel
production took place in the next highest producing region, the
southwestern region. In the southeastern region, slightly more than 1 Mt
of rock, sand, and gravel was produced. On the Seward Peninsula near
Nome, Nova Gold is considering a plan to produce several million tonnes
of sand and gravel along with along with 50,000+ ounces of
gold.([www.novagold.net](http://www.novagold.net/)) More than 600,000 t
of aggregate were produced in the western region. In the Alaska
Peninsula region, a small amount of sand and gravel was produced from
Bristol Bay Borough lands.
([http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2003/akstmyb03.pdf)](../(http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2003/akstmyb03.pdf))
The mining of construction sand and gravel provided 170 jobs in 2002.

> 6.1.14.6 Environmental Issues

6.1.14.6.1 Placer Mining

Placer mining in western Alaska significantly affects wetlands. Placer
is a mineral deposit usually located in gravel associated with a stream
bed. Mining operations involve retrieval of placer deposits by hand,
hydraulic, mechanical, dredging, or drifting methods. A mining operation
can be divided into stripping, sluicing, and disposing of tailings.

Small scale placer mining operations can be found throughout the State,
with concentrations in the south-central, southwest, and interior
regions. As of the late 1980s, about 450 miners actively worked an
undetermined number of the approximately 84,000 placer mining claims
that exist in Alaska, most on federal lands.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) estimates that up to 2,250
acres of wetlands per year are lost to placer mining activities (i.e.,
placement of fill). The Corps only has information on placer mining
activities over which it has jurisdiction, however, so this is a
conservative estimate. Placer mining activities receded in the period
1989-93, primarily because of depressed gold prices and increased
regulation of water quality and effluent discharge by State agencies and
EPA. The price of gold has been rising recently, however, and may
portend an increase in mining.

Placer mining in Alaska has a long history of causing adverse impacts on
fish and wildlife and their habitats. Siltation, filling of wetlands,
and severe alteration of stream channels have often eliminated
anadromous and resident fish habitat, impeded or totally blocked fish
passage, and in some large scale placer mining areas, totally extirpated
local fish stocks. Although the extent of the degradation has not been
fully quantified (e.g., number of streams affected, stream miles), it is
clear that the loss of biological productivity in streams and adjacent
wetlands due to placer mining activity is a major problem. Indeed, some
streams are completely dead biologically.

Wetlands and riparian habitats adjacent to placer mined streams are
destroyed by excavation of gravel and placer deposits, deposition of
overburden and tailings, and construction of berms, ditches, settling
ponds, camps, airstrips, and roads associated with mining. Wetland
impacts involve direct and indirect losses, as well as functional
alteration. Indirect impacts include blockage of natural drainage
patterns and displacement of waterfowl, shorebirds, and other
terrestrial wildlife species that use wetland areas.
([http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch14.html;](../(http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch14.html%3B)
Last viewed: 7/8/2005)

6.1.14.6.2 Future Mine Sites

More than 75 percent of the Federal land in Alaska is closed to mining
because it is located in National Parks, Preserves, Monuments, Wildlife
Refuges, or other areas withdrawn from mineral entry. However there are
still 49.6 million acres of federal land open to mineral entry. To date,
mining activities have converted about 14,500 acres of wetlands in
Alaska (eight percent of total wetland losses). Placer mining
significantly affects wetlands and accounts for a majority of the
losses. (<http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch14.html>; last viewed
8/22/05) The amount of State land open to mineral entry (95.9 million
acres) is nearly the size of the entire State of California. Three out
of the four largest illegal industrial spills in Alaska in 2003,
including the largest spill of all, were caused by the mining industry.
There are currently 35,700 State mining claims and 8,700 federal claims
in Alaska and these numbers are set to increase dramatically in what the
Lt. Governor has called "Alaska's second gold rush." Upcoming areas of
specific concern include the Pebble Project, which is located on State
land in the Bristol Bay region of southwest Alaska. This is scheduled to
be the largest open pit gold mine, situated just north of Alaska's
biggest lake, Lake Iliamna.
([www.bettermines.org/alaska.cfm](http://www.bettermines.org/alaska.cfm))

6.1.15 Federal and State Recreational Areas

6.1.15.1 Federal Parks, Preserves, and Monuments:

There are 20 National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Preserves, Forests,
Historical Parks and Monuments in Alaska's coastal zone, totaling more
than 100 million acres. These include the Alaska Peninsula National
Wildlife Refuge, Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, Aleutian WWII
National Historical Park, Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve,
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Bering Land Bridge National Preserve,
Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Chugach National Forest, Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserver, Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, Katmai
National Park and Preserve, Kenai Fjords National Park, Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Clark National
Park and Preserve, Sitka National Historic Park, Togiak National
Wildlife Preserve, Tongass National Forest (encompassing the Admiralty
Island National Monument), Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and
Preserve, and Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. These designated
sites include some amazing statistics, including the first and second
largest National Forests, the largest National Park, the oldest
federally-designated National park, nine of the 16 highest peaks on U.S.
soil, and the highest concentration of prehistoric dwellings. Visitation
to Alaska's national parks reached a record in 2004, with just under 2.3
million visits. The growth has been particularly large in the southeast
Alaska parks. In the last 20 years, Sitka and Glacier Bay have tripled
the number of visits. Kenai Fjords has seen an eight-fold increase in
visitation, from 30,700 in 1984 to more than 250,000 last year. (NPS,
2004)

Alaska is the only State where subsistence rights are preserved in the
national park, wildlife, and forest system. In the early years of
federal designation of national parks in Alaska, subsistence was not
considered. In 1971, deliberations leading to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971, the U.S. Congress acknowledged the
importance of subsistence hunting and fishing to Native Alaskans,
however they provided no specific protection on federal public lands.
Nine years later, Congress formally recognized the social and cultural
importance of protecting subsistence uses by both Native and non-Native
rural residents when it passed the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA). This legislation created millions of
acres of new national park and preserve additions in Alaska. In addition
ANILCA recognized the importance and significance of the cultural and
subsistence components in Alaska's ecosystems and incorporated
protections into the law to ensure the opportunity for both Native and
non-Native Alaskans to engage in a subsistence way of life. However, it
excluded Glacier Bay National Park, Kenai Fjords National Park, Katmai
National Park, all parks within Alaska's coastal area.

Subsistence resource commissions have since been established for most
national parks and monuments in Alaska to provide meaningful
participation and involvement of local subsistence users in planning and
management decisions affecting subsistence.

6.1.15.2 State Parks

Alaska holds almost one-third of the United States\' state park acreage.
There are 121 State parks stretching across the entire State covering a
total of 3,353,485 million acres, as of 2005. Six of these parks are
undeveloped marine parks. These parks feature a wide variety of sites
that are important historical landmarks, protected natural environments
or both simultaneously. Some parks offer nothing but wild, untamed
nature; some, baseball and volleyball fields; others, restored villages
and artifacts. Every year, about six million visitors -- 25 percent from
outside the State--are attracted to Alaska\'s State parks. Sixty-six of
these parks are either entirely or partially located within the State's
coastal area. (http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/units/)

Four non-subsistence zones overlap in part with various coastal district
boundaries and include 33 State park units. Of the 33 remaining State
park units located both within a coastal district boundary and outside
of a non-subsistence zone, four park units support subsistence use
activities. The Wood-Tikchik Park near Dillingham in western Alaska
includes caribou, moose and bear hunting as well as salmon fishing and
berry picking. In the Wood-Tikchik State Park, sport fishing and
recreational activities equal the subsistence use activities. Two
additional parks within the State park system located on Shuyak and
Afognak Islands near Kodiak Island also support subsistence hunting and
fishing, although the subsistence uses occur less frequently than do the
recreational activities. Some subsistence use activity takes place in a
portion of the Kachemak Bay State Park near the villages of Nanwalek and
Port Graham.

State parks are primarily accessed for a variety of sport and
recreational activities. Of the State park units located outside of the
"non-subsistence zones," a small number support subsistence uses. As a
result, "subsistence uses" by coastal residents within the State park
system are minimal except in the noted State park units.

**6.2** **Socio-Economic Environment**

More than 75 percent of Alaska's 650,000 residents live on the
coastline. Other than the Anchorage-Kenai Peninsula region, most of the
100 plus communities in Alaska are not road-connected. Salmon, herring,
halibut, and blackcod fishing are the economic backbone of many
communities. Tourism and shellfish aquaculture are growing sources of
economic diversification, as is seafood processing. Alaska's coastal
residents depend on the marine and freshwater resources of their regions
for their cash income, subsistence economy, and cultural and
recreational well-being. Sustainable use of marine resources is critical
to the future of coastal Alaska.
(<http://www.uaf.edu/map/community/index.html>; last viewed 7/15/04)

1.  Local District Coastal Management Programs

With the passage of the ACMA of 1977, the State of Alaska,
municipalities, and regions began to cooperatively manage the uses and
protection of Alaska's resources. Alaska's decision to participate in
coastal zone management was in part the result of ambitious plans for
federal oil and gas leasing off Alaska's coasts. Several federal
agencies also managed large portions of Alaska (*See* section 6.2.2) and
Alaska's offshore areas, affecting the economies and lifestyles of local
communities. Coastal communities argued strongly for a voice in any
decisions that might affect their livelihood and lifestyle. From its
inception in 1972, the CZMA provided Alaska and its coastal communities
with an effective forum for resolving local issues. The ACMP received
federal approval in 1979.

The original ACMP established the CPC, which determined the ACMP's
direction, guided development of the ACMP, and monitored its operation.
Staff from the Division of Government Coordination (DGC) (now DNR)
assisted the CPC in carrying out its duties. The CPC approved the first
district coastal management program in 1980. The ACMP now includes 33
coastal districts with approved coastal management plans and more than
20 special area plans.

A coastal district is either a municipality with all or part of its
boundary within the coastal zone or a coastal resource service area
(CRSA) in the unorganized borough. The distinction between these two
types of districts deals with their ability to conduct planning and
apply land use controls. Municipalities are incorporated areas pursuant
to Title 29, A.S. These areas, which are either boroughs or cities, can
exercise planning, platting, zoning, and land use regulation. Under the
original ACMP, CRSAs were created in order to provide for the
development of district plans for portions of the "unorganized borough,"
which includes much of rural areas, where no incorporated governments
exist. These areas do not have the authority to develop traditional
land-use planning, platting and zoning controls.

A coastal resource district that has and exercises zoning or other
controls on the use of resources within the coastal area directly
implements its district coastal management plan. Implementation is in
accordance with the comprehensive use plan or the statement of needs,
policies, objectives, and standards adopted by the district. In
addition, the State agencies are similarly obligated to implement the
coastal district plan. For a coastal resource district that does not
have or exercise zoning or other controls on the use of resources within
the coastal area, that district's coastal plan is implemented through
the ACMP by appropriate State agencies as provided in AS 46.40.096.
There are currently four approved CRSAs: Aleutians West, Bering Straits,
Bristol Bay, and Cenaliulritt. Thus for either Title 29 jurisdictions or
CRSAs, management of uses takes the form of direct State regulation.

A coastal district has four main responsibilities: (1) develop a coastal
management program for its area; (2) participate in the consistency
review process by using its enforceable policies in its approved program
for coastal development projects; (3) educate the members of its
community about coastal management; and (4) implement its coastal
management program at the local level. Municipal coastal districts can
voluntarily choose to participate in the ACMP. Also governed by local
ordinances, these municipal coastal districts with planning powers may
also conduct local consistency reviews for projects affecting their
coastal zones.

Under their mandate to manage coastal resources, coastal districts may
also participate in other activities and planning efforts. Coastal
districts may contribute information and resources during consistency
reviews to DNR Area Plans, and to DEC oil spill response planning; may
provide public education and outreach efforts on coastal resources and
activities; and may participate in special ACMP-funded projects.

6.2.2 Land Ownership

Current land ownership in Alaska can be traced back to three main events
in the State's history:

● Russian traders arrived in Alaska in the mid 1700's and established
small scattered trading posts and settlements. Native Alaskans (the
Eskimo, Indian, and Aleut peoples) continued as the primary "landowners"
during this period of Russian occupation. On October 18, 1867, Russia
sold Alaska to the United States government. As a result, the Federal
government owned the Alaska Territory, approximately 375 million acres
(about one-fifth the size of the continental U.S.)

● Alaska became a State in 1959. The Federal government granted the new
State 28 percent ownership of its total area. Approximately 103,350,000
acres were selected under three types of grants: Community (400,000
acres); National Forest Community (400,000 acres), and General
(102,550,000 acres). Additional territorial grants for schools,
university and mental health trust lands totaling 1.2 million acres were
confirmed with statehood. All grants combined gave the State of Alaska
approximately 105 million acres.

● In 1971 Congress passed the ANCSA. This law granted 44 million acres
and one billion dollars to village and native corporations created under
the act. Generally, ANCSA gave Native selections priority over State
land selections.

6.2.2.1 State Land

To date, the State has received patent to approximately 85 percent (90
million acres) of its total land selections. The State was permitted to
select lands from any federal land not already reserved for other uses
to provide (1) land and resources to support the State's economy for
road construction, economic development and building houses, schools,
and other public and private facilities; and (2) a reduction in federal
control over State internal affairs by giving the State ownership and
jurisdiction over its own land. The State chose the land to meet three
specific needs: settlement, resources, and recreation.

First, the State of Alaska selected land to encourage development and
settlement. Land for public facilities, road construction and other
public needs were included. Once owned, the State transfers large tracts
of land to local governments, and leases and disposes of land to the
private sector. There are approximately 580,000 acres currently in the
State's land disposal bank for eventual lease or sale. Second, lands
were selected for agriculture, forestry, commercial fisheries, mining
potential, oil and gas development, and wildlife habitat because in
large part, the Alaskan economy is based on exploration for and the
development of natural resources. Third, lands for wildlife,
back-country recreation, and varying degrees and types of developed
recreation were chosen and reserved to provide for a variety of
experiences for Alaskans and the tourist industry.

Once land is selected, land planners develop State land use plans.
Planners consider laws and policies set by the Governor and State
legislature. The character of the land itself, recommendations made by
resource experts, and public input determine the most appropriate
management of currently owned or selected State land. Plans are
developed for land in selected status in anticipation of its conveyance
to the State.

6.2.2.2 Federal Land

The Federal government is still the largest landowner in Alaska with 60
percent of the total area (222 million acres). This acreage includes
national parks, wildlife refuges, national forests, military
reservations and the North Slope National Petroleum Reserve. More than a
dozen federal agencies management federal lands in Alaska.

The majority of federally-owned lands have been set aside for public use
(approximately 80 million acres). These are designated as follows:

• The NPS and USFWS manage about 119.3 million acres (48.3 and 71.0
million acres respectively) for primary uses of resource protection and
fish and wildlife conservation.

• The Forest Service and BLM manage about 97.7 million acres (19.8 and
77.9 million acres respectively) for multiple use purposes including
timber production, fish and wildlife, recreation, water and mining.
Management of these lands is based on priorities and compatibility among
various uses.

The remaining federal land is designated for special purposes, such as
military reservations, the National Petroleum Reserve and U.S. Postal
Service lands.

6.2.2.3 Native Alaskan Lands

Native Alaskan lands are private lands. ANCSA mandated the creation of
regional and village Native corporations for the disbursement of the 44
million acres and payment of one billion dollars mandated to Native
ownership.

Thirteen regional corporations were created for the distribution of
ANCSA land and money. Twelve of those shared in selection of 16 million
acres. The thirteenth corporation, based in Seattle, received a cash
settlement only. 224 village corporations of 25 or more residents shared
26 million acres. The remaining acres, which include historical sites
and existing native-owned lands, went into a land pool to provide land
to small villages of less than 25 people.

6.2.2.4 Other Private Land

Land in private ownership (other than Native Alaskan land) comprises
less than one percent of the total land in Alaska. Much of the best land
for development around Alaska's communities is, or will be, privately
owned. Private land development meets people's needs by providing places
to live, work, shop and recreate. It also provides a tax base for cities
and communities to help support public services. (DNR, 2000)

6.2.3 Population

The population projections discussed in this section were gathered from
the February 2005 article in "Alaska Economic Trends" by Gregory
Williams, State Demographer. This article should be referred to for all
assumptions regarding change, such as mortality, fertility, population
migration and policy influences.

6.2.3.1 Projections 2005-2029

Beginning with a 2004 population of 655,435, the middle series
population forecast for year 2005 is 662,604. Under certain assumptions,
the population in the succeeding years is projected to be 692,001 in
2009; 727,003 in 2014; 758,170 in 2019; 783,452 in 2024; and 801,904 in
2029. The implied annual growth rate ranges from approximately 1.11 -
0.39 percent, most of which is from natural increase rather than
migration. Through the projections period to 2029, births would increase
from 10,054 to 11,311 annually, and deaths would increase from 3,137 to
almost 5,857 annually.

6.2.3.2 Age Patterns

Alaska's median age increases from 33.4 to 35.8 during the projection
period. The aging of the baby boom generation is a dominant factor
throughout the period. As the generations who came to Alaska before the
TAPS era dwindle and the number of older women increases, the

gender ratio of Alaska will approach that of the nation as a whole. The
gender ratio can be expected to drop from 106 males per 100 females in
2004 to 100 by 2029.

The burden of dependency for individuals and the State is also expected
to increase sharply during the projection period. In 2004, each 100
Alaskans of working age will be supporting about 50 children and 31
elders. So while the total burden of dependency for each 100 Alaskans in
2004 is about 56 persons, by 2029 that burden will reach 81 persons.
There is no decline in child dependency, but a tripling of age
dependency. With nationwide pressure on medical costs, Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid, demographics would indicate strong pressures on
the resources of working age and older populations.

The projected population 16 years and over represents the State's
potential future labor supply, with 16-64 the prime working ages. The
working age population, of course, is always larger than the employed
civilian labor force because some may not be working or seeking work.
Those in the military are not included. Neither are the unemployed. So
of the 467,726 persons over 16 years in 2000, only 319,890, or about 70
percent, were in the civilian nonfarm labor force. Persons 16-64
numbered about 420,800 in 2000. The key working ages in fact begin to
level out at 471,000 as early as 2011. This number is expected to rise
slowly to 473,600 by 2017, after which it is expected to decline to
about 467,700 at the end of the projections period. Opportunities for
younger workers may become tighter between 2005 and 2010. The period

2010--2015 should provide advancement opportunities for younger Alaskans
as boomers in senior positions begin to retire in large numbers.

The most noticeable and most certain population growth during the next
25 years will be that of Alaska's elders. In 2000 the number of Alaskans
over 65 was about 36,000. It has increased to 41,600 currently. It is
expected to increase to 52,300 in 2009; 70,400 by 2014; 94,800 by 2019;
119,200 by 2024; and 137,800 by 2029. This group is currently increasing
at about four percent annually. The rate of growth for this group is
expected to increase to five to six percent annually between 2008
through 2020. In 2012, it is forecast to increase by 7.4 percent with
the retirement of the leading edge of the baby boom. Facilities, as well
as medical, professional, and social services to serve this population,
will need to expand at a corresponding rate. The impact of the rapidly
increasing numbers of older residents may be greater than elsewhere,
because Alaska, with its historically younger population and relatively
small number of elders, has fewer existing resources to serve the
elderly.

6.2.3.3 Migration

Of all the variables affecting population growth, the most unstable is
migration. Migration trends can change direction quickly in a place like
Alaska, depending on the prosperity of the State's economy in relation
to that of states that provide or receive most of Alaska's in- and
out-migrants. In the recent past, 44 percent of in-migration to Alaska
has come from the Pacific and Mountain states and another 27 percent
from the South Atlantic and West South Central Regions. The states that
contribute the most migrants to Alaska are currently: Washington (10.4
percent), California (9.0 percent), Texas (7.3 percent) and Oregon (4.7
percent). In the 2002-2003 period, in-migration in Alaska fell by about
75 percent from the previous year, to 513, still above the negative
numbers for 1999--2000 and 2000--2001. In the early 1990s Alaska added
about 9,600 persons each year through natural increase, while in
2002--2003, natural increase was only 6,800. This continues the trend of
lower birth rates and higher death rates as Alaska's baby boomers age.
Net migration (in-migration minus out-migration) accounted for a loss of
177 persons.

Since 2000, the Municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna
(Mat-Su) Borough have accounted for virtually all of the population
growth in the State, with Anchorage supplying 62.7 percent and Mat-Su
supplying 37.2 percent. The increase in both boroughs was due to a mix
of natural increase and migration, with most of the migration coming
from other parts of

TABLE 1: ALASKA COASTAL COMMUNITY INFORMATION

(Sources: ACMP list of coastal communities and Alaska Department of
Community and Economic Development's Community Profiles; *See* Note\* on
page 176)

  ----------------------- ---------------- -------------- -------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------- --------------------
  Number range            Population       %Native/Part            Unemployment     Mean Income/Per      \% Below   Subsistence
  CHAPTERBorough or                        Native                  Rate             Capita               Poverty    
  Census Area                                                                                            Level      

  Anchorage               274,003          10.4%                   5.7%             \$27,852             7.4%       19#/person

  Bethel Census Area      16,774           85.5%                   15.4%            \$24,400             20.6%      402#-1,328#/person

  Bristol Bay Borough     1,105            36%                     11.2%            \$42,000             9.5%       188#-299#/person

  Dillingham Census Area  4,912            76.2%                   12.%             \$27,900             24.4%      242-830#/person

  Haines Borough          2,327            15.6%                   12.5%            \$24,900             11.7%      196#/person

  Juneau                  31,283           16.6%                   6.2%             \$29,200             6%         35#/person average

  Kenai Peninsula Borough 50,980           10.2%                   11.4%            \$20,949             10%        Yes

  Ketchikan-Gateway       13,548           19.1%                   8.9%             \$33,700             6.5%       35#/person average
  Borough                                                                                                           

  Kodiak                  13,811           17.6%                   10.3%            \$26,300             6.6%       151#-451#/person

  Mat-Su Borough          67,473           8.6%                    9.1%             \$13,400             11%        27#-312#/person

  Nome Census Borough     9,370            79.1%                   15.2%            \$25,100             17.4%      240#-997#/person

  North Slope Borough     7,234            73.8%                   13.8%            \$75,900             9.1%       289#-890#/person

  Sitka                   8,891            24.7%                   6.5%             \$28,500             12.8%      206#/person

  Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon   3,164            39.5%                   5.7%             \$25,000             12.8%      48#-608#/person

  Valdez-Cordova          10,230           17.3%                   11.3%            \$28,300             9.8%       80#-149#/person

  Wrangell-Petersburg     6,336            22.6%                   11.3%            \$26,500             7.9%       155#-312#/person

  Yakutat                 691              46.8%                   16.7%            \$32,000             13.5%      398#/person

                                                                                                                    

  **Town**                **Population**   **%                     **Unemployment   **Mean Income/ Per   **% Below  **Subsistence**
                                           Native/Part             Rate**           Capita**             Poverty    
                                           Native**                                                      Level**    

  Adak                    150              37.3%                   7.55%            \$52,727/\$31,747    4.66%      No

  Akiachak                633              96.4%                   25.5%            \$35,833/\$8,321     21.16%     Yes

  Akiak                   337              95.1%                   16.48%           \$26,250/\$8,326     33.94%     Yes

  Akutan (                787              16.4%                   83.89%           \$33,750/\$12,259    45.48%     Yes

  Alakanuk                666              97.9%                   21.47%           \$26,346/\$6,884     33.84%     Yes

  Ambler                  291              86.7%                   27.88%           \$43,500/\$13,712    14.29%     Yes

  Angoon                  505              86.4%                   12.95%           \$29,861/\$11,357    27.92%     Yes

  Aniak                   551              73.3%                   13.11%           \$41,875/\$16,550    14.04%     Yes

  Atka                    95               91.3%                   0%               \$30,938/\$17,079    7.53%      Yes

  Atmautluak              279              95.9%                   10.83%           \$37,917/\$8,501     30.28%     Yes

  Attu Station            24               0%                      0%               \$0/\$26,964         0%         No

  Brevig Mission          314              92%                     2.44             \$21,875/\$7,278     48.36%     Yes

  Buckland                410              96.8%                   33.8%            \$38,333/\$9,624     11.92%     Yes

  (Cape) Chiniak          49               4%                      0%               \$14,167/\$22,211    20%        No

  Chefornak               434              98%                     11.94%           \$35,556/\$8,474     25.07%     Yes

  Chenega Bay             99               77.9%                   14.81%           \$53,750/\$13,381    15.58%     Yes

  Chevak                  884              95.9%                   15.07%           \$26,875/\$7,550     29.49%     Yes

  Chignik                 89               60.8%                   35.19%           \$34,250/\$16,166    4.49%      Yes

  Chignik Lagoon          92               82.5%                   0%               \$92,297/\$28,940    1.8%       Yes

  Chignik Lake            113              87.6%                   8.57%            \$41,458/\$13,843    21.97%     Yes

  Coffman Cove            163              6%                      10.48%\`         \$43,750/\$23,249    4.85%      No

  Cold Bay                95               17%                     33.33%           \$55,750/\$20,037    27.27%     No

  Craig                   1,174            30.9%                   8.99%            \$45,298/\$20,176    9.84%      Yes

  Cube Cove               unavailable      1.4%                    6%               \$51,875/\$27,920    0%         unknown

  Deering                 131              94.1%                   16.98%           \$33,333/\$11,000    5.76%      Yes

  Diomede                 129              93.8%                   2.17%            \$23,750/\$9,944     35.44%     Yes

  Edna Bay                45               4.1%                    0%               \$44,583/\$58,967    23.08%     No

  Eek                     290              96.8%                   17.91%           \$17,500/\$8,957     28.85%     Yes, 80-90% diet

  Egegik                  84               76.7%                   27.59%           \$46,000/\$16,352    6.9%       Yes

  Elfin Cove              32               0%                      23.08%           \$33,750/\$15,089    5.56%      No

  Elim                    341              94.9%                   26.02%           \$40,179\$10,300     7.87%      Yes

  Emmonak                 763              93.9%                   23.05%           \$32,917/9,069       16.24%     Yes

  Excursion Inlet         12               0                       50%              \$16,250/\$18,188    25%        No

  False Pass              69               65.6%                   0%               \$49,857/\$21,465    8%         Yes

  Gambell                 647              95.8%                   19.48%           \$31,458/\$8,764     28.47%     Yes

  Golovin                 146              92.4%                   3.51%            \$31,875/\$13,281    4.35%      Yes

  Goodnews Bay            245              93.9%                   13.24%           \$16,250/\$6,851     38.98%     Yes

  Gustavus                438              8.2%                    14.03%           \$34,766/\$21,089    14.59%     No

  Hobart                  1 (?)            33.3%                   0%               \$68,750/\$34,900    0%         No

  Hollis                  178              9.4%                    3.08%            \$43,750/\$17,2789   9.29%      No

  Hooper                  1,115            95.8%                   37.27%           \$26,667/\$7,841     27.94%     Yes,

  Hydaburg                370              89.5%                   31.3%            \$31,625/\$11,401    24.12%     Yes

  Igiugig                 50               83%                     0%               \$21,750/\$13,172    6.9%       Yes

  Iliamna                 92               57.8%                   0%               \$60,625/\$19,741    3.1%       Yes

  Ivanof Bay              3                95.5%                   0%               \$91,977/\$21,983    0%         Yes

  Kake                    682              74.6%                   24.85%           \$39,643/\$17,411    14.61%     Yes

  Kasaan                  55               48.7%                   20%              \$43,500/\$19,744    0%         Yes

  Kasigluk                529              96.7%                   21.31%           \$31,500/\$7,194     22.75%     Yes

  Kiana                   408              92.8%                   11.61%           \$39,688/\$11,534    11.24%     Yes

  King Cove               737              47.9%                   6.44%            \$45,893/\$17,791    11.93%     Yes

  Kipnuk                  649              98%                     33.98%           \$34,375/\$8,589     20.89%     Yes

  Kivalina                388              96.6%                   25.45%           \$30,833/\$8,360     26.4%      Yes

  Klawok                  851              58.1%          15.65%                    \$35,000/\$14,621    14.25%     Yes

  Klukwan                 114              88.5%          44.83%                    \$30,714/\$11,612    1.53%      Yes

  Kobuk                   125              93.6%          0%                        \$30,750/\$9,845     28.57%     Yes

  Kokhanok                182              90.8%          11.36%                    \$19,583/\$7,732     42.61%     Yes ,

  Kolignaek               200              87.4%          13.16%                    \$44,583/\$13,242    19.31%     Yes

  Kongiganak              401              97.2%          3.5%                      \$33,250/\$9,881     13.77%     Yes

  Kotlik                  609              96.1%          24.37%                    \$37,750/\$7,707     21.12%     Yes

  Kotzebue                3,076            76.7%          9.8%                      \$57,163/\$18,289    13.14%     Yes,

  Koyuk                   340              94.3%          34.58%                    \$30,417/\$8,736     27.99%     Yes

  Kupreanof               30               0%             0%                        \$45,833/\$26,651    0%         Yes

  Kwethluk                730              94.8%          15.76%                    \$25,417/\$6,503     29.52%     Yes

  Kwigillingok            343              97.9%          23.44%                    \$36,250/\$7,577     34.7%      Yes

  Levelock                71               95.1%          0%                        \$18,750/\$12,199    24.55%     Yes

  Lower Kalskag           267              95.5%          42.05%                    \$25,625/\$7,654     40.63%     Yes

  Marshall                368              97.7%          18.52%                    \$32,917/\$9,597     28.6%      Yes

  Mekoryuk                205              96.7%          19.79%                    \$30,833/\$11,957    21.88%     Yes

  Metlakatla              1,398            89.7%          20.85%                    \$43,516/\$16,140    8.01%      Yes

  Meyers Chuck            18               9.5%           0%                        \$64,375/\$31,660    0%         Yes

  Mountain Village        750              93.5%          30.77%                    \$31,250/\$9,653     22.19%     Yes

  Napakiak                380              96.6%          22.31%                    \$28,750/\$7,319     20.18%     Yes

  Napaskiak               419              98.2%          2.94%                     \$31,806/\$8,162     20.23%     Yes

  Naukati Bay             109              9.6%           29.09%                    \$27,500/\$15,949    9.45%      No

  Nelson Lagoon           64               81.9%          46.15%                    \$43,750/\$27,596    6.41%      Yes

  Newhalen                167              91.3%          31.25%                    \$36,250/\$9,447     16.3%      Yes

  Newtok                  329              96.9%          24.63%                    \$32,188/\$9,514     30.99%     Yes

  Nightmute               228              94.7%          16.04%                    \$35,938/\$9,396     10.7%      Yes

  Nikolski                41               69.2%          0%                        \$38,750/\$14,082    20.69%     Yes

  Noatak                  469              96%            25.35%                    \$30,833/\$9,659     22.04%     Yes

  Nondalton               217              90%            37.33%                    \$19,583/\$8,411     45.41%     Yes

  Noorvik                 649              95%            19.56%                    \$51,964/\$12,020    7.57%      Yes

  Nunapitchuk             498              95.9%          17.18%                    \$29,286/\$8,364     20.73%     Yes

  Oscarville              62               100%           0%                        \$8,125/\$5,825      40%        Yes

  Pedro Bay               45               64%            0%                        \$36,750/\$18,419    6%         Yes

  Pelican                 113              25.8%          7.95%                     \$48,750/\$29,347    4.73%      No

  Perryville              106              98.1%          11.11%                    \$51,875/\$20,935    16%        Yes

  Pilot Point             70               86%            7.69%                     \$41,250/\$12,627    20.83%     Yes

  Pilot Station           564              97.6%          32.12%                    \$31,071/\$7,311     28.73%     Yes

  Pitka's Point           107              93.6%          25%                       \$41,875/\$10,487    32.23%     Yes

  Platinum                40               92.7%          27.27%                    \$21,250/\$7,632     22%        Yes

  Point Baker             33               8.6%           0%                        \$28,000/\$12,580    4.88%      Yes

  Port Alexander          70               13.6%          9.38%                     \$31,563/\$14,767    22.9%      Yes

  Port Alsworth           105              22.1%          4.92%                     \$58,750/\$21,716    6%         No

  Port Clarence           22               0%             0%                        0/\$35.286           5.98%      No

  Port Heiden             87               78.2%          16.67%                    \$31,875/\$20,532    5.6%       Yes

  Port Protection         57               11.1%          0%                        \$10,938/\$12,057    57.5%      Yes

  Quinhagak               579              97.3%          15.44%                    \$25,145/\$8,127     26.1%      Yes

  Russian Mission         310              93.9%          21.7%                     \$27,500/\$8,358     21.77%     Yes

  Sand Point              947              44.2%          30.79%                    \$55,417/\$21,954    16.03%     Yes

  Savoonga                704              95.5%          37.36%                    \$23,438/\$7,725     29.06%     Yes

  Scammon Bay             470              97.4%          12.8%                     \$25,625/\$7,719     37.36%     Yes

  Selawick                821              95.3%          34.34%                    \$25,625/\$8,170     34.38%     Yes

  Shaktoolik              223              94.8%          27.66%                    \$31,875/\$10,491    6.09%      Yes

  Sheyma Station          27               0%             0%                        \$0/\$0              0%         No

  Sishmaref               594              94.5%          16.43%                    \$30,714/\$10,487    16.27%     Yes

  Shungnak                264              94.5%          27.52%                    \$44,375/\$10,377    35.79%     Yes

  Saint George            149              92.1%          3.8%                      \$57,083/\$21,131    7.86%      Yes)

  Saint Mary's            585              87.6%          11.34%                    \$39,375/\$15,837    20.41%     Yes

  Saint Michael           413              93.2%          21.24%                    \$33,036/\$10,692    22.88%     Yes

  Saint Paul              539              86.5%          14.98%                    \$50,750/\$18,408    11.87%     Yes

  Stebbins                570              94.7%          22.6%                     \$23,125/\$8,249     41.88%     Yes

  Sunrise                 15               11.1%          0%                        \$56,250/\$56,000    0%         No

  Tatitlek                111              85%            7.89%                     \$36,875/\$13,014    24.21%     Yes

  Tazlina                 192              30.2%          12.82%                    \$56,000/\$23,992    8.11%      Yes

  Teller                  242              92.5%          14.71%                    \$23,000/\$8,618     37.7%      Yes

  Tenakee Springs         106              4.8%           13.73%                    \$33,125/\$20,483    11.76%     No

  Thorne Bay              480              4.8%           14.6%                     \$45,625/\$20,836    7.81%      Yes

  Toksook Bay             572              97.6%          15.31%                    \$30,208/\$8,761     27.33%     Yes

  Tuluksak                464              94.2%          16%                       \$31,563/\$7,132     27.85%     Yes

  Tuntutuliak             381              98.9%          14.66%                    \$25,500/\$7,918     23.03%     Yes

  Tununak                 304              96.9%          19.81%                    \$25,000/\$7,653     30.77%     Yes

  Ugashik                 12               81.8%          0%                        \$28,750/\$12,530    10%        Yes

  Unalakleet              741              87.7%          14.57%                    \$42,083/\$15,845    11.04%     Yes

  Unalaska                4,388            9.3%           13.4%                     \$69,539/\$24,676    12.46%     No

  Wade-Hampton            7,028            92.5%          14%                       \$30,144/\$8,717     24.4%      Not Available

  Wales                   158              90.1%          18.92%                    \$33,333/\$14,877    18.3%      Yes

  Whale Pass              67               3.4%           0%                        \$62,083/\$24,041    0%         Yes

  White Mountain          214              86.2%          18.75%                    \$25,833/\$10,034    22.38%     Yes

  Whittier                178              12.6%          15.89%                    \$47,500/\$25,700    7.1%       No
  ----------------------- ---------------- -------------- -------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------- --------------------

Alaska. Mat-Su was the only area of the State whose growth came
primarily from in-migration. In-migration (mainly from Anchorage)
accounted for 6,471 of Mat-Su's 8,151 population increase. Mat-Su has
been the fastest growing area of the State since 1990, growing at an
average rate of about four percent.

Most of Alaska's boroughs and census areas have grown slowly or lost
population since 2000. The largest increases in population occurred in
the Municipality of Anchorage (+13,720), Mat-Su Borough (+8,151), Kenai
Peninsula Borough (+1,529), Bethel Census Area (+728) and the Juneau
City and Borough (+572). Most of the other boroughs and census areas
experienced out-migration or remained unchanged. The only boroughs to
have noticeable net in-migration were Mat-Su Borough, Anchorage
Municipality, and Kenai Peninsula Borough. The southeast region
continued to have the largest overall decline, with a loss from net
migration exceeding natural increases. Only Juneau and Sitka had small
population growth. Migration out of southwestern Alaska and the northern
region was less than natural increase in the regions. In the Gulf Coast,
Kodiak again had more out migration than natural increase and
Valdez-Cordova gained slightly, due to natural increase slightly greater
than the net migration loss. (Alaska Economic Trends, March 2004, J.
Gregory Williams)

6.2.3.4 Ethnic Diversity

Population statistics are based on the 2000 census for the entire State
(not just the coastal area). Within the entire State, 69 percent were
white, 19 percent were Native Alaskan, and 12 percent were Black, Asian
or Pacific Islander, and mixed race (other than Native Alaskan). The
Native Alaskan population nearly tripled between 1960 and 2000,
increasing from 42,522 in 1960 to 119,241 in 2000. This is an average
growth rate of 2.6 percent a year, and 29 percent a decade, since Alaska
became a state.

The Native Alaskan share of the population was also at 19 percent in
1960, but then declined to around 17 percent during the 1970s and 1980s,
as tens of thousands of non-Natives moved to the State to take advantage
of the many new jobs being created at that time. In the 1990s, as the
economy slowed and fewer non-Natives moved in, the Native share of the
population rebounded to 19 percent. The Native Alaskan population grew
most rapidly during the 1970s. Growth slowed after that, but the number
of Native Alaskans has continued to increase. Because relatively few
Native Alaskans leave Alaska, variation in the growth rate of Native
population over time is primarily due to changes in the rate of births
and deaths.

Alaska's indigenous people are divided into eleven distinct cultures
with 20 different languages. They live in cities, towns and villages
separated by vast distance and unique geographical regions.

[Aleut and Alutiiq]{.underline}

The area stretching from Prince William Sound west along the Gulf of
Alaska to the Aleutian Islands is home to the Aleut and Alutiiq peoples.
The natural marine environment defines subsistence lifestyles and
cultures that date back more than 8,000 years ago. The Aleuts and the
Alutiiq differ in language and culture but a commonality was created
from the first contact with the Russians in the 18th century that is
evident today. The Alutiiq language, called Sugcestun or Alutiiq, is one
of the Yupik branches of the Esk-Aleut language family. The Alutiiq are
known for their skill in building and handling kayaks or baidarka, as
the Russians called it. The Aleut, also known as Unangan, are known for
being expert boat builders and sailors and well known for their kayaks.
The Aleut language, Unangax, also derives from the Esk-Aleut family.

[Athabascan (Indian)]{.underline}

Athabascan Indians live in interior Alaska and have the largest land
base of any other Native Alaskan group. The Athabascan are efficient
hunters and fishers, and the moose, caribou, salmon and the birch tree
are the most important resources. These provide food, clothes and
shelter. In summer, they spend a great deal of time at their fish camps
along major river systems - including the Yukon, Tanana, Innoko,
Chandelar, Koyokuk and Tolovana rivers. In winter, they hunt caribou,
moose and smaller animals. There are 11 different languages spoken by
Alaskan Athabascans.

[Inupiaq and St. Lawrence Island Yupik (Eskimo)]{.underline}

The Inupiaq & St. Lawrence Island Yupik live in a region that stretches
from the St. Lawrence Island to the northern Canadian border and beyond.
Their territory also includes most of the Brooks Range. Today, as in the
past the food is determined by the region and season of the year. The
hunter/gatherer societies are based largely on an active subsistence
hunting and traditional use of foods such as, berries, salmon, moose,
whale, walrus, seal, duck, and other marine mammals to provide
substantial portions of their diet.

[Tlingit, Haida, Eyak and Tsimshian (Indian)]{.underline}

These four Indian groups of southeastern Alaska are considered to be a
part of the Pacific Northwest coast culture area. Each group speaks
their own language and has their own clan systems. The four cultures are
similar in the use of art and oral traditions, complex legal and social
systems based upon matrilineal clans and salmon harvesting. They share a
similar use of art and are known for their totem poles and dramatic
carvings.
([http://www.anchorage.net/588.cfm,](../(http://www.anchorage.net/588.cfm,)
last viewed: 7/20/2005)

[Yup\'ik and Cup'ik (Eskimo)]{.underline}

The Yup\'ik & Cup'ik people, named after the two main dialects of the
Yup'ik language, live in southwestern Alaska from Bristol Bay along the
Bering Sea coast to Norton Sound. The availability of fish, game and
plants determined the location of seasonal camps and villages. Yup\'ik &
Cup'ik are hunters of moose, caribou, whale, walrus, seal and sea lions
and harvest salmon and other fish from the Yukon, Kuskokwim and Nushagak
rivers. Bird eggs, berries and roots help sustain people throughout the
region.

The summer and fall seasons focus on gathering food and hunting while
the winter season is for traditional ceremonies and festive events.

Growth in the State's non-Native population has fluctuated over the
decades, but unlike the Native population, the non-Native population
tends to fluctuate with economic conditions. When conditions are good
and employment opportunities are expanding, the non-Native population
grows because more people move to the State. When employment growth is
slower, as it was in the 1990s, the non-Native population also grows
more slowly. About a third of Alaska's population growth between 1990
and 2000 was among Native Alaskans.

6.2.3.5 Geographic Distribution of the Native Alaskan Population

By far the most populous region is Cook Inlet, where more than 30
percent of all Alaska Natives live and which includes the city of
Anchorage and surrounding areas. Next largest is Calista, with 17
percent of the Native population, followed by Sealaska and Doyon with
around 12 percent each of the Native population. In several regions,
Arctic Slope, Bering Straits, Bristol Bay, Calista, and NANA, Natives
make up most of the total regional population. In other regions, they
make up anywhere from about 10 to 28 percent of the total population.

In 2000, 50,426 Native Alaskans, or 42.5 percent of their population,
lived in urban areas, which are defined to include Anchorage, the
Matanuska-Susitna Brough, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Fairbanks, and
Juneau. (Status of Alaska Natives, 2004) The other 58 percent of Native
Alaskans lived in rural areas, which are divided into two regions:
"remote rural" and "other rural." In northern and western Alaska there
are eight remote rural census areas far off the road and ferry systems.
In 2000, these remote census areas were home to 49,344 Native Alaskans,
or 41.5 percent of the total. The remaining 16 percent, 19,471, lived in
other rural areas. These areas are still rural, but are somewhat more
accessible by road or ferry than the remote areas. They include
southeast Alaska (except for Juneau); south-central Alaska (excluding
the urban areas); the two census areas on the Aleutian chain; and
Bristol Bay.

Within those remote areas are five regional centers where the non-Native
population is concentrated: Barrow, Kotzebue, Nome, Bethel, and
Dillingham. Those larger communities serve as trade, transportation,
communication and service hubs for the surrounding areas. In the

remote population outside the regional centers, 90 percent of the people
are Native Alaskan, mostly living in 148 small villages with populations
of less than 1,000.

Table 1 provides a list of all the boroughs and small villages that are
within the State's coastal area, the percentage of Native Alaskans and
American Indians within the coastal area, and other information.

6.2.3.6 Implications of Demographic Trends for 2010 and Beyond

During the 1990s, Native Alaskans increased their share of the State
population, up from 17 percent in 1990 to 19 percent in 2000, and it is
expected that that trend will continue in the

coming decades. The rate of "natural increase" (i.e., births over
deaths) among Native Alaskans fell in the last decade, but in 2000 it
was still about 50 percent higher than the rate among non-Natives.
Unless substantial numbers of non-Natives move into the State, as they
did in the decades after statehood, the faster growth rate among Natives
means that their share of the population will continue to increase.

One important implication of the projected growth among Native Alaskans
is that the size and composition of the Native labor force (the working
age population) will be changing. In 2000, there were about equal
numbers of Natives in their 20s, 30s, and 40s (according to Census
figures). It is predicted that by 2010, the number of Natives in their
20s in the labor market will increase dramatically, as will the number
in their 50s. By 2020, the labor market will be dominated by Natives in
their 20s and 30s. Between 2000 and 2010, 11,700 Natives will join the
labor force; a 26 percent increase, and the new workers will be
concentrated in age groups from 20 to 30. Between 2010 and 2020, the
labor force will grow at only 11 percent, adding about 6,700 workers,
and the average age will increase only slightly. If migration trends of
the last ten years continue, the Native Alaskan population in 2010 will
continue to concentrate in urban Alaska, boosting the share of the
Native population in urban areas from 42 percent in 2000 to 53 percent
in 2020. At the same time, the share in remote areas would fall from 41
percent in 2000 to 35 percent by 2020. In other rural areas, the share
would drop from about 16 to 12 percent. (Goldsmith, et.al, 2004)

6.2.4 Economy

The Alaskan economy is based primarily on its natural resources: oil and
gas, seafood, minerals, its scenic beauty and timber. The oil and gas
sector dominates the economic base, accounting for approximately 49
percent of the business that creates new wealth. Only the oil and mining
industries provide a year-round source of income to the State and
require full-time operation. The State's oil industry operates
production wells in Cook Inlet and on the North Slope. North Slope oil
is pumped 800 miles through the TAPS to Valdez for shipment to
refineries in the lower 48 states. The majority of new oil exploration
work is being conducted on the North Slope. The mining industry is
scattered across the State with a zinc mine near Kotzebue, a coal mine
at Healy, a silver mine near Juneau, and a major gold mine north of
Fairbanks. Numerous smaller mining ventures exist across the State.
Seafood exports have been hurt by competition with farmed salmon and
poor Pacific Rim market conditions. Timber industry exports have also
suffered from these poor market conditions. (2002 AK Economic
Performance Report). Other important sectors of the economy include
tourism and support

industries (e.g., construction, transportation, communication,
utilities, retail trade, services, finance, insurance, real estate),
which provides services to the economic base industries as well as the
general public, and State and local government.
http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/pub/AEPR2003.pdf

6.2.4.1 Oil and Gas

Alaska currently has two commercially active oil and gas regions; Cook
Inlet and the North Slope. The North Slope, on the Alaska Arctic coast,
is the largest operating oil field in the United States, having produced
13.7 billion barrels of oil since production began in the late 1970s,
with an estimated 5.4 billion barrels of oil still in the ground. A
number of other North Slope oil units have come on-line to supplement
the Prudhoe Bay Unit's production that has declined significantly over
the last 15 years. Total North Slope oil production is expected to level
out at about one million barrels per day through 2010, assuming that
annual investments in exploration and extraction average \$1.7 billion
each year. The description of Alaska's current oil and gas industry
economy is derived from the Alaska Economic Performance Report, 2003.

The oil and gas industry is the major employer and economic driver for
the State, directly and indirectly employing 17 percent of the total
wage and salary workforce. The oil and gas industry includes the
exploration, development and production of oil and gas products. This
does not include oil and gas field services and pipeline transportation.
Employment in oil and gas extraction, pipelines and mining support was
9,855 in 2002, and compares with 9,823 total jobs in the oil and gas
industry in 2001 reported under the old Standard Industry Classification
scheme. Wages and salaries were \$945 million in 2002, up from \$910
million in 2001.

Three of Alaska's boroughs, Anchorage, the North Slope, and the Kenai
Peninsula, account for over ninety percent of direct oil industry
employment. Production facilities are based in the latter two while
management headquarters are typically located in Anchorage. The North
Slope has the largest concentration of oil industry workers. The oil
industry accounts for nearly half of the North Slope's wage and salary
employment. Alaska's mature oil province, the Kenai Peninsula, has the
most diverse hydrocarbon industry in the State--oil and gas production,
pipeline transportation, a liquid natural gas facility, an oil refinery,
and a urea-ammonia fertilizer plant. These players represent ten percent
of the Peninsula's wage and salary employment and 18 percent of the
payroll. Most oil industry employment in Valdez and Fairbanks involves
the transport of North Slope oil. Approximately 15 percent of Valdez's
direct employment is tied to the TAPs. Although direct oil industry
employment is relatively small, Fairbanks is a major logistic and supply
center for the North Slope. Valdez and Fairbanks are also home to oil
refineries.

Although most of the jobs in the oil industry are located in a limited
number of geographic areas, the workforce is drawn from all around the
State and nation. This is particularly true for the North Slope, where
very few oil workers reside. For example, there are only a handful of
oil industry jobs in the Mat-Su Valley, but three percent of the
boroughs' labor force commute to the North Slope to work. Many residents
of the Kenai Peninsula, which has the second highest concentration of
oil industry related job, work in the oil industry elsewhere. According
to the 2000 Census, 755 Kenai Peninsula residents worked on the North
Slope, a figure exceeded only by Anchorage (1,541) and the Mat-Su
Borough (813). Over the past decade, between 22 and 29 percent of
Alaska's oil industry workers have been nonresidents. In places like
Fairbanks, Anchorage, Valdez and Kenai, local residents make up a much
larger percentage of the oil industry workforce. There is probably not
an area in the State that does not send some of its workforce to
Alaska's oil fields. (Fried, et al, 2003)

In addition to significant employment and earnings, the oil and gas
industry generated almost \$2.1 billion in revenues to the State of
Alaska for FY 2003, up from \$1.9 billion in FY 2002. This includes
about \$599 million in severance taxes, \$840 million in royalties,
\$151 million in corporate income taxes, and \$48.7 million in property
taxes. Additionally, \$403.8 million in royalties went into the Alaska
Permanent Fund. State and some local government services are greatly
dependent on the oil industry. Oil revenues represent 84 percent of all
State General Fund unrestricted revenues.

6.2.4.2 Minerals

The mining industry extracts such minerals as coal, gold, silver,
platinum, copper, tin, lead, and other minerals from mines throughout
Alaska. During 2003, metallic minerals accounted for nearly 91 percent
of the total value of Alaska's nonfuel mineral production. The State
continued to rank 12th among the 50 States in total nonfuel mineral
production value and accounted for nearly three percent of the U.S.
total. Based upon USGS estimates of the quantities produced in the 50
states during 2003, Alaska continued to rank first in the production of
zinc and silver and second in lead; it also ranked second in the
quantity of gold produced among ten gold-producing states. The total
value of the Alaska mineral industry is expected to be approximately
\$1.40 billion for 2004, topping \$1 billion for the ninth straight
year. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2003/akstmyb03.pdf

Placer gold mines continue to contribute to the value of the industry.
Production amounts to over 25,000 ounces per year from operations
throughout the State. Hard rock development and mining continues to
increase. Development stage projects include Pogo near Delta Junction,
Kensington near Juneau, Rock Creek near Nome, and Nixon Fork near
McGrath. Advanced stage exploration projects include the Donlin Creek
project near Aniak, and the World Class Pebble Copper project located
near Iliamna. Two large open pit metal, one moderate-sized open pit coal
mine, and one large underground metal mine are operating in the State.
The Teck-Cominco Red Dog zinc mine near Kotzebue is the most valued
contributor with over one-half of the total value credited to this mine.
Greens Creek near Juneau and Ft. Knox near Fairbanks round out the major
metal producers in the State. Industrial minerals operation continue to
provide the needed materials for construction of roads and other
infrastructure.

Preliminary exploration expenditures in Alaska were more than \$64
million, about a 240 percent increase from 2002 and 2003 values.
Exploration occurred across Alaska, but \$38 million (or 59 percent of
the exploration funds) were spent in southwestern Alaska. Fifteen
exploration projects had budgets greater than \$1 million, including the
Pebble copper-gold project in the southwestern Alaska coastal area.
Development investment amounting to \$165.6 million for 2004 showed a
significant increase over 2003; the 2003 investment was \$39.3 million.
Significant investments included Greens Creek Mine and the Kensington
Project, as well as in the sand and gravel industry. Development
investment continued on the Kensington Project in anticipation of
resolution of a permit appeal by the Southeast Alaska Conservation

Council. Production values also increased significantly over the 2003
value. The increase was due to improved metal prices, which were
significantly up over 2003, although production volumes were down.

A large majority of the value was the result of zinc, lead, and silver
production (descending order of value) from the Red Dog Mine near
Kotzebue in northwestern Alaska and the Greens Creek Mine in
southeastern Alaska southwest of Juneau, gold production from the
Kinross Gold Corp.'s Fort Knox Mine near Fairbanks in east-central
Alaska and from the Greens Creek Mine.

The mining industry has nearly tripled in wage and salary employment
since 1980. Mining provided 1,503 jobs in 2002, with gold mining and
zinc-lead extraction each accounting for 444 positions. Together, these
two types of mining accounted for 59 percent of all mining employment.
Silver mining was the next largest with 17.6 percent of the industry's
workforce. Sand and gravel, coal, and a miscellaneous "other" category
contributed the balance. Alaska's mining employees are some of the
highest paid in the State. In 2002 they eared an average of \$63,763 a
year. Though less than the earnings of oil workers, that amount is
substantially more than the statewide average of \$37,101. Earnings in
the mining industry are not only high, they have also risen faster than
inflation in the period from 1980 to 2002. In constant 2002 dollars,
earnings have increased from \$57,450 in 1980 to \$63,763 in 2002.
(Alaska Economic Trends, December 2003)
<http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/2003/akstmyb03.pdf>

6.2.4.3 Fisheries

6.2.4.3.1 Commercial

Alaska leads the nation in the value of its commercial fishing
catch---chiefly salmon, crab, shrimp, halibut, herring, and cod.
Anchorage and Dutch Harbor are major fishing ports, and the freezing and
canning of fish dominates the food-processing industry, the State\'s
largest manufacturing enterprise. Commercial fishing contributes about
five percent of Alaska\'s economic base.
<http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=262>

While total commercial harvests have remained fairly constant in recent
years, the value of the catch is declining, largely due to the salmon
fishery, which competes with farmed salmon.

Nonetheless, there is major growth potential for the economy, as many
important components of the industry could be relocated to Alaska where
the bulk of the resource is harvested.

Commercial harvest of fish and shellfish in the waters off Alaska in
2004 are estimated at 5.4 billion pounds with an exvessel value of at
least \$1.2 billion. Preliminary exvessel values of the fisheries in
2004 were \$236 million for salmon, \$565 million for groundfish, \$15
million for herring, \$195 million for halibut, and \$155 million for
shellfish. (Division of Commercial Fisheries 2005 Overview) In 2002,
exports of Alaska seafood contributed \$2.5 billion to the

U.S. balance of trade. Fifty-four percent of U.S. commercial seafood
harvest by weight came from Alaska in 2002.

In terms of the value harvested in 2002, Alaska had two of the country's
five top fishing ports. Dutch Harbor (in Unalaska) and Kodiak produced
\$136 million and \$63.3 million in ex-vessel value, respectively.
Alaska has 12 of the nation's top 93 fishing ports. Dutch Harbor may be
Alaska's busiest port; however residents from Kodiak Island earn more
from fishing than residents of any other region of Alaska.

[Employment and Earnings]{.underline}

Commercial fishing (including processing) employs more people than any
other private basic sector, directly supporting nearly 20,000 jobs and
indirectly about 14,000 more. In 2002, the estimated number of resident
and non-resident people directly participating in fisheries in Alaska
and adjacent Exclusive Economic Zone waters was 22,900, down from 25,300
in 2001. This includes fishermen, crew and processing workers.
Processing employment is provided as full time equivalent jobs. Personal
income in 2002 of residents engaged in fishing and seafood processing is
estimated at \$139 million, down from \$156 million in 2001.

The Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC) issued 24,257
commercial fishing entry permits to 14,934 permit holders in 2002. The
number of permit holders that fished in 2002 was 9,441, 73 percent of
which were Alaska residents. While residents hold 73 percent of permits,
they earn only 35 percent of the gross earnings. Crew permits were
substantially down from 11,747 in 2001. CFEC permits are required for
salmon, herring, crab and other fisheries under Alaska management
authority.

There were 1,376 vessels operating in the 2001 groundfish industry, a
decrease of nine percent from 2000. The average crew wage aboard a trawl
catcher vessel targeting pollock ranged from \$169,000 to \$239,000. The
groundfish industry includes pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish and many
other species.

The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development reported the
seafood processing sector makes up 71 percent of the manufacturing
sector in Alaska. Of the 7,406 people employed in Alaska's on-shore
seafood processing sector, approximately 69.6 percent (5,200) were
non-residents. Alaska residents working in the processing sector earned
an average of \$28,500 per full-time equivalent job, for a total of
\$148 million in wages. Six seafood processors are listed among the top
50 employers in Alaska for 2002. In 2000, there were 105 offshore
groundfish processing operations, including floaters, motherships and
catcher processors. Approximately half of these operations were covered
by CFEC permit requirements. The other half comprises large factory
trawlers employing 3,437 full time equivalent crew and processing
workers with \$261 million in total earnings. Total at-sea processor
crew weeks increased from 98,933 weeks to 110,197 weeks (+11 percent).
Gross product values of Alaska groundfish processors increased five
percent from 2000 to 2001.

[Salmon Issues]{.underline}

In 2003, commercial harvests of salmon in 2003 improved over the
previous year's harvest but exvessel value and participation levels
remained low. The 2003 Pacific salmon catch of 177 million fish, the
6^th^ highest catch in the last 125 years, exceeded the forecasted
harvest of 150.9 million fish. The exvessel value of \$195 million was
the 4^th^ lowest since 1976 and was about 75 percent of the recent 5
year average of \$258 million. The Bristol Bay sockeye salmon harvest of
14.9 million fish was the best in the last five years but was still well
below the 20-year average of 24.7 million fish. Record high harvests
were recorded for Lower Cook Inlet sockeye salmon (644 thousand fish)
and Prince William Sound pink salmon (51.1 million fish). The Yukon
River chinook salmon harvest was the highest since 1977, and the Yukon
coho salmon harvest was more than 1.5 times the previous record set in
1994. In contrast, harvests and participation in Norton Sound and
Kotzebue area commercial fisheries continued at levels near the lowest
recorded for those areas.

A significant weakness in the Pacific salmon industry has impacted the
economy. Since 1993, Pacific salmon has been in general decline (with
the exception of 1999). The loss of income from salmon has devastated
many local economies -- especially in western Alaska. Fisheries-related
jobs provide for about 74 percent of the wages from economic activity in
Western Alaska. This area is responsible for up to half of the world's
sockeye salmon harvest in some years. Very few economic opportunities
exist in these remote regions to offset salmon losses. Worldwide
production of farmed salmon and an oversupply of wild salmon from other
countries including Chile, Norway, and British Columbia are outpacing
the demand for Alaska wild salmon. Until balance between supply and
demand is achieved, Pacific salmon fishermen and processors will face an
uncertain future at best.

6.2.4.3.2 Sports Fishing

A study conducted in 1999 for the ADFG (Haley, et al, 1999), examined
the economic significance of sports fishing in Alaska based on 1993
data. Spending by sport anglers was divided among four regions:
south-central (Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage area, Mat-Su area north),
southeast, northern, and southwest. Nearly two-thirds of all spending
was in south-central Alaska, with resident spending in that region twice
as much as visitor spending. Close to 20 percent of spending was in the
southeast, and there, visitor spending was slightly higher than resident
spending. In the northern region, almost all of the ten percent of
spending was by residents, and most of the eight percent in the
southwest was by visitors. According to the study findings, both
visitors and residents cited selecting fishing sites based on their
likelihood of catching fish as the primary reason for visiting a
particular area. However, residents also stated less expensive sites
with road access played a factor, while visitors looked for scenic
areas.

Sports anglers spent an estimated total of \$540 million for sport
fishing in 1993; \$341 by residents and \$199 million by visitors. For
residents, the biggest expense (48 percent) was the share of vehicle
costs, followed by expenses for specific trips (26 percent), and then
fishing gear and equipment (15 percent). The largest share of visitor
expense was for fishing trips (41 percent), which include costs of
guides and charters. The next biggest expense (38 percent) was money
they spent during fishing trips but which was not specifically for
fishing, e.g., for a place to stay. Package tour costs, which typically
include costs of fishing, lodging, transportation and eating, made up
about 14 percent of visitor spending.

That spending directly created jobs and payroll in Alaska: an estimated
6,635 jobs and \$142 million in payroll in 1993. In turn, this spending
created more jobs and payroll as it circulated through the economy: an
additional 2,600 jobs and \$67 million in payroll. The study

estimated that the total economic significance of sport fishing in 1993
was 9,236 jobs, \$209 million in payroll, and \$637 million in sales.

In *The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife* (2001)
conducted by the USFWS, it was estimated that US residents spent \$537
million on fishing trips and equipment in Alaska. This is money that was
spent in Alaska and only includes U.S. residents, even though Alaska
draws anglers from all over the world. The American Sportfishing
Association used the National Survey information to estimate that the
expenditure for sport fishing in Alaska in 2001 generated 11,064 jobs,
\$238 million in wages and salaries. These jobs and income rippled
through the economy to generate an estimated total of \$960 million in
spending. (<http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/SFeconomics.cfm>;
last viewed 9/24/04)

6.2.4.3.3 Subsistence Fishing

According to the ADFG's 2002 Annual Report on Alaska Subsistence
Fisheries (the most recent report available), subsistence fisheries
contribute about 62 percent; 60 percent from finfish and two percent
from shellfish. On average, this subsistence fisheries harvest provides
about 230 pounds of food per person per year in rural Alaska. Although
producing a major portion of the food supply, subsistence harvests
represent just a small part of the annual harvest of wild resources in
Alaska, about two percent. Commercial fisheries take 97 percent of the
wild resource harvest and sport fisheries and hunts take about one
percent.

In a 2001 study entitled *The Economic Importance of Healthy Alaska
Ecosystems*, the author Steve Colt demonstrates how difficult it is to
calculate the net economic value of Alaska's subsistence fisheries. In
addition to considering the value per pound of replacement of
subsistence foods, one has to take into consideration the value of labor
input, value of gear purchased to acquire the fish, travel cost or
"contingent valuation," as well as cultural and social value of the
subsistence experience.

6.2.4.4 Timber

In 2002, Alaska's public lands timber harvest was approximately 70
million board feet (mmbf). Coupled with an approximate 260 mmbf harvest
of private Native Corporation lands, the total harvest to roughly 330
mmbf. In the calendar year 2002, the wood products industry (including
forestry services) employed an annual average of 983 workers, peaking at
about 1,200 jobs in August --- the height of the logging season.
Employment is down 23 percent from the previous year, following a
downward trend since 1999. Wood products manufacturing employed
approximately 321, or one-third of that total, and offered more
seasonably-stable employment. Industry-wide earnings totaled \$37.9
million in 2002, and average monthly individual earnings were \$3,490.
Logging accounted for \$26.5 million of earnings, and manufacturing,
\$9.9 million. In the calendar year 2002, the total value of wood
products exported from Alaska was \$146.2 million, including \$136
million in softwood logs, \$9.5 million in chips, and \$700,000 in
lumber. The total value decreased 26 percent from the previous year's
total of \$196.6 million. Japan remains the dominant export market,
accounting for 58 percent of total wood product exports in 2001.
However, because of the long term stagnation of Japan's economy, Alaska
exporters have had to look to other markets. Traditionally, Japan has
purchased nearly 80 percent of Alaska's total wood products exports. In
2001, Korea and Canada purchased approximately 20 percent and 15 percent
respectively. China (four percent) and Taiwan (two percent) were the
other two significant export markets.

Average annual employment in Alaska's logging, lumber, and pulp
industries has fluctuated between 2,000 and 4,000 over the past four
decades. Employment peaked in 1990 at just under 4,000, constituting 1.4
percent of total Alaska employment in that year. By 2002, average annual
employment by logging companies, sawmills, and pulp mills declined to
approximately 800. In the 1990s, the structure of the forest products
industry in the coastal forest of Southeast Alaska was fundamentally
altered by (1) the closure of major wood products processing facilities
in Sitka and Ketchikan, resulting in a major decline in production and
jobs; and (2) the depletion of Native corporation sawtimber inventories.
Harvest of National Forest timber in Alaska declined by nearly 80
percent. An economic downturn in Japan, Alaska's principal export
market, competition for the Japanese market from European and Canadian
producers, and high transportation costs have also contributed to a
precipitous decline in timber harvests from national forests in Alaska,
from 742 mmbf in 1990 to 44 mmbf in 2001. Similarly, although markets
are smaller, there have been significant decreases in exports to South
Korea (44 percent) and China (90 percent) over the same period.
Reorganization of the forest processing industry supplied by timber from
the Tongass National Forest following closure of the two pulp mills has
created room for potential new manufacturing facilities. However,
whatever the short-term changes in markets and policies, forest products
industry employment and income derived from forest products are unlikely
to achieve the 1990 level again in the next several decades. (Brooks,
et.al, 1997) Revised projections for demand for Alaska National Forest
timber between 1998 and 2007 range from 113 to 156 mmbf.

On the Kenai Peninsula, private and public landowners have greatly
increased the harvest of timber to deal with the devastating spruce bark
beetle infestation. Public and private landowners in the area are
striving to reduce fire loads, create defensible space for communities,
and salvage resource value to invest in replanting. While this has
accelerated local wood product activity, the overwhelming majority of
these trees have been chipped and exported. Little of the harvest has
been suitable for value-added products. The only area in Alaska with
growing employment in the wood products industry is in the Tanana Valley
of the interior, where mills are primarily producing lumber and custom
log cabins for local markets.

Positive developments are taking place. The Alaska Wood Technology
Center in Ketchikan is currently testing the strength characteristics of
Alaska tree species in order to establish Alaska specific lumber grades.
The new grades should increase the value of Alaska lumber and standing
timber. A group of investors is trying to restart the veneer mill in
Ketchikan. If functional, the mill would use lower grade hemlock and
spruce. While the Tongass Land Use Management Plan (TLMP) reduced annual
allowable harvest levels to 150 mmbf, the Forest Service is replacing
more expensive uncut timber sales with more economical sales with up to
10-year terms. The State of Alaska is advocating for a new 1.7 million
acre State Forest from the existing Tongass National Forest. This is
equivalent to the commercial forestland base that is available for
harvest under the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan. There are promising
niche markets in Japan for Alaskan softwood lumber. The unique
characteristics of Alaskan softwood species are well suited to the
demands for Japanese post and beam products. Sitka spruce and Alaska
yellow cedar continue to enjoy a good reputation in Japan. In addition,
a growing number of builders are decreasing their use of engineered wood
products to address new requirements in Alaska's Housing Quality
Assurance Act of 2000 and "sick house syndrome" concerns. Alaskan
sawmills have a unique opportunity to increase their sales of Alaska
yellow cedar lumber in both the post and beam as well as the 2x4
segments of the home building industry.

In addition to the direct use of forest for lumber, is important to
remember that forest ecosystems play an important role in Alaska's
economy through indirect ecosystem functions and values. Some examples
of ecosystem services include: (1) purification of air and water; (2)
mitigation of droughts and floods; (3) generation and preservation of
soils and renewal of their fertility; (4) cycling and movement of
nutrients; (5) protection of coastal shores from erosion by waves; and
(6) partial stabilization of climate. Alaska forests contribute
ecosystem services especially important to the economy through support
of subsistence activities; commercial fisheries, sport hunting and
fishing, and values of non-consumptive uses of the forest involving
tourism, recreation, and enhancement of the quality of life. Most
anadromous fish harvested in Alaska waters spawn and rear in freshwater
streams whose water quality and quantity is regulated by forest lands.
Many of the big game animals most important to hunters depend on forest
ecosystems, including Sitka deer, moose, black bear, and coastal brown
bear. In addition, caribou and mountain goats utilize interior and
coastal forests, respectively, for winter range. The most important
furbearing mammals are forest residents, thereby making the forest
ecosystems a critical element of supporting subsistence and sport
hunting and trapping activities. Forests create specific scenic
resources for major segments of the tour industry, including cruise
ships and State ferry routes up the Inside Passage in southeast Alaska
and in Prince William Sound. Over one million nonresident tourists visit
Alaska annually, and this number continues to

grow rapidly. Alaska forests also benefit people outside Alaska by
helping to regulate global climate, trap atmospheric carbon, and filter
air pollutants. (Brooks, et.al., 1997)

6.2.4.5 Tourism/Recreation

Tourism is the only private sector industry in Alaska that has grown
continuously since statehood. From October 2002 through September 2003,
over 1.56 million tourists visited Alaska, up 2.2 percent from 1.53
million the previous year. This represents a 62 percent increase in
visitor arrivals over 1994, with an average annual growth rate of 3.7
percent over the last decade. The highest growth rate during that period
has been in cruise ship travel, with an average annual growth rate of
9.2 percent. Domestic and international air arrivals have increased
annually by 2.3 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively. While motorcoach
arrivals have nearly doubled in the last decade (8.9 percent per year),
the number of people entering Alaska by personal vehicles is one-third
lower than it was ten years ago. Not surprisingly, 84 percent of
2002/2003 visitors (1.28 million) came during the summer 2003 season,
from May to September.

[Economic Contribution]{.underline}

Residents and non-residents spent \$2.4 billion on travel and tourism in
Alaska in 2002. The economic contribution to Alaska (the dollars
retained in Alaska) was \$1.5 billion. The total economic contribution
includes both the direct and indirect economic impact of all tourism
spending. A new economic model called the Alaska Tourism Satellite
Account (ATSA) has been developed to connect travel and tourism sales to
all associated industries in Alaska that produce travel-related goods
and services. This approach allows the State to trace economic
contributions industry by industry.

Under the ATSA model, travel and tourism sales include spending by
resident and non-resident travelers, plus other government and private
expenditures for marketing and capital improvements. This approach
provides all spending in the Alaska travel and tourism economy. It is
important to understand that not everything purchased for Alaska travel
and tourism is produced in the State. Therefore, the economic
contribution to Alaska is somewhat less than total spending and is net
of imports. The core travel and tourism industry are businesses that
deal directly with end users. The core travel and tourism industry
generated \$851 million in value added in 2002, or three percent of
Gross State Product. Value added is the sum of wages and salaries,
corporate profits, and indirect business taxes. In terms of employment,
the significance of travel and tourism is much greater. The core tourism
industry represented almost 26,000 jobs in 2002. The ATSA measurement
system ranks travel and tourism as the fourth largest employer in Alaska
-- accounting for 9.1 percent of the workforce. This approach measures
tourism on the same basis as other industries. Under previously-used
models, the tourism industry in Alaska

was ranked as the second largest private sector employer and the third
largest revenue producer for the State of Alaska, after the oil and gas
and commercial fishing industries.

> [Industry Issues and Outlook]{.underline}

Virtually all of the growth between 2001 and 2002 in visitor arrivals
was attributable to the cruise sector that experienced a growth rate of
6.9 percent. According to the Northwest Cruiseship Association, the
cruise ship industry generated \$809 million in direct purchases (\$605
million) and to Alaskan wages (\$204 million), supported 16,455 Alaskan
jobs, spent more than \$70 million to market the State, and contributed
two million dollars annually to Alaska nonprofit organizations. In 2003,
passenger arrivals via cruiseship was 776,000, in 2004 807,040 (an
estimated four percent increase). (Juneau Convention and Visitors
Bureau) There were 2.6 million passenger visits to Alaska cities, with
an expenditure of \$250 million (an average of \$100 per visit). In
addition there were approximately 1.1 million crew visits with
approximately \$18 million in expenditures (an average of \$17 per
visit). Tourism is the second largest industry in Alaska with cruise
tour operators generating thousands of jobs across the State. In
addition to employing Alaskans, cruise companies work with approximately
1,700 Alaskan-owned businesses. Cruise berth capacity for the industry
is projected to grow at an annual rate of five percent or more for the
next two to three years.

The only other mode of travel that increased was international air, with
domestic air arrivals remaining relatively steady. Highway and ferry
arrival numbers continued to decline. Some net additional growth in
cruise traffic is expected over the next few years as cruise lines
increase their capacity in the market. With over 60 percent of
out-of-state visitors arriving and leaving Alaska by air, and many more
using air to get to cruises, this may prove to be a smart investment as
hopes for the airline industry increase.

Recreation among Alaskans (excluding sport hunting and fishing) supports
close to 10,000 Alaska jobs and produces about \$240 million in annual
income. About half those recreation jobs depend on wildlife viewing and
the other half on hiking, camping, skiing and other outdoor recreation
activities. No systematic data is collected on these activities, but the
limited data available suggest that it is up sharply in the past decade.
(Colt, 2001)

Based on a study by J.M. Bowker (Outdoor Recreation Participation by
Alaskans, Projections 2000-2020) among Alaskans, the five recreational
activities with the highest participation per capita are bird/wildlife
viewing, scenic driving, offroad driving, biking, and fishing. There are
almost 13 million annual occurrences of scenic driving and bird/wildlife
and over seven million annual fishing experiences. Projected increases
in participants, times, and primary purpose trips for most activities
can be expected to keep pace with population growth at roughly 28
percent. On a percentage basis, the fastest growing activities are
adventure activities, backpacking, biking, berry picking, and tent
camping. Nevertheless, the five activities which show the greatest
growth in the absolute number of times Alaskans participate in them are
scenic driving, biking, bird/wildlife viewing, RV camping, and fishing.
The increases in these activities range from over four million times in
scenic driving to an increase of more than 1.6 million times in fishing.
Hiking, with an increase of close to 1.5 million times barely misses
being included among the five activities in terms of expected increases.
Such findings make it clear that roads and water ways will continue to
be heavily relied upon for outdoor recreation.

Among nonresidents coming to the State for wildlife-related recreation,
this study finds that growth in participants should increase for
fishing, wildlife viewing, and hunting for relatively large percentages.
By 2020 the number of bird/wildlife viewing tourists is expected to be
over one million, based on an increase of 546,000 participants over the
next 20 years. This forecast suggests that for bird/wildlife viewing,
tourists will outnumber Alaskans by more than ten to one by 2020. While
not as dramatic, the growth of tourist anglers is also expected to
exceed that for in-state anglers by 50 percent. By 2020, the ratio of
Alaskan to tourist anglers

should be close to one-to-one. Nonresident hunters are expected to
double by 2020, however, in

absolute terms, the increase of 17 thousand hunters in small compared to
those for fishing and wildlife viewing.

6.2.4.6 Construction

Historically, construction in Alaska has been characterized by boom and
bust cycles, driven by the construction of military projects,
refineries, oils pipelines, oil field developments, and other large
infrastructures projects. The last construction boom the State
experienced was in the early 1980s based on increased oil revenue and a
growing population, along with other factors. This was followed by an
economic bust with the loss of more than 8,500 construction jobs between
1985 and 1988. However, construction employment began to recover in 1989
and has been gaining incrementally since 1989. Over the past decade, it
grew by more than four percent a year. Although the industry has made a
steady recovery, it still does not approach the employment peaks of
30,000 established in 1976 or 20,700 reached in 1983. By the end of the
construction bust of the late 1980s, construction's share of all wage
and salary employment had fallen to a low of four percent. Since that
time the industry's share has grown slightly and it now employs five
percent of the wage and salary workforce. It appears unlikely that the
construction industry's share of the workforce will regain the high
levels of the past.

Construction in Alaska is divided between private and public
expenditure. Private construction is defined as oil and gas, mining,
residential and commercial construction, hospitals, utilities, and other
basic industries. Public construction is defined as defense, highways,
airport and water transport, Alaska Railroad, Denali Commission,
education, and other federal, State and local. Estimated total
construction spending in Alaska in 2005 is expected to be \$5.94
billion, with \$3.835 billion provided by private funds and \$2.105 from
public sources. The following discussion is drawn from the "2005 Alaska
Construction Spending Forecast by Scott Goldsmith and Mary Killorin,
published in January, 2005.

[Private Construction]{.underline}

Anticipated oil and gas industry spending in 2005 will be \$1,835
million due to an increase in investment by the BP, Conoco, Phillips and
Exxon and the independent companies on the North Slope as well as the
start of the Alyeska reconfiguration project and a refinery upgrade in
Fairbanks. The major companies anticipate investing \$1.9 billion in
their Alaska operations in 2005. Backing out the purchase of tankers and
expenditures related to the Alyeska pipeline, the total construction
budget for optimizing production from existing fields, including new
wells and facilities to handle water and gas produced with oil, and for
exploration will be \$1.4 billion. The independents on the North Slope,
including Kerr McGee, Pioneer, and Armstrong will spend about \$85
million on exploration. In Cook Inlet, exploration and development
spending by Unocal, Aurora, Marathon, Forest, Pelican Hill, North Star
Energy Group and others will increase this year to an estimated \$155
million. A two-year project to reconfigure the Alyeska pipeline will
begin in 2005 . In addition, the Flint Hills refinery will begin a two
year project to upgrade their refinery in Fairbanks. Approximately \$175
million in spending in 2005 is

associated with these projects. The oil and gas spending level in 2006
and beyond will depend largely on whether any new fields, such as
Liberty, move into the development stage.

In 2005, it is estimated that the mining industry will spend
approximately \$300 million on construction. In general, spending by the
mining industry on exploration, development and construction of new
mines, as well as upgrading existing mines, will increase in 2005. The
development of several important prospects, including Donlin Creek and
Pebble, bodes well for a continuation of strength in this sector in
future years although the construction spending currently associated
with those prospects is small. The Pogo mine, outside Fairbanks, is in
its second year of construction and should be completed in 2005 with
expenditures expected to be about \$120 million. Construction of the
Kensington Mine in southeast Alaska was scheduled to begin in 2004,
however it was postponed and construction startup is included in the
forecast for 2005. A budget of \$70 million for the first year of
construction is expected. The smaller Rock Creek project at Nome will
also be under construction in 2005 with a budget expected to be about
\$40 million. Significant upgrades are expected at some of the existing
large mines around the State, in particular at Red Dog and Fort Knox.
Smaller capital budgets are expected at True North, Greens Creek, and
Usibelli bringing the total to about \$40 million. Normal operations at
these and the smaller mines and prospects throughout the State also
require annual construction spending for maintenance, repair, and
upgrading of facilities.

Approximately \$50 million is associated with construction projects in
other private industries. There are no reported large construction
projects announced for the seafood, timber, and manufacturing sectors
this year. The tourism industry is adding limited additional facilities
outside the major metropolitan areas this year. For example, the Denali
Wilderness lodge will be

expanded. On the down side, the planning for a large private cruise ship
dock for Ketchikan has not moved forward this past year.

The residential construction industry is expected to generate \$700
million in 2005; approximately the same as in 2004. Commercial
construction spending consisting mainly of retail, office, hotel, and
warehouse space, is expected to be around \$250 million. There are no
giant projects that have been announced for this sector (with the
possible exception of a new parking garage at Ted Stevens International
Airport) which generally consists of numerous smaller buildings, many of
which are not well publicized prior to actual construction. Because of
this, it is impossible to develop a complete listing for each community.
Vacancy rates overall were generally a little higher moving into 2005,
and interest rates have been rising. Thus, the total volume of new
square footage may be down slightly, although higher construction costs
will keep the value of construction at about the same level as last
year. Additional retail space will continue to be the most important
category for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. As with residential
construction, Fairbanks should see another strong year in response to
economic growth from mining and the military. Hospital construction is
expected to add another \$350 million to the commercial construction
figure. It will be dominated by expansion of Providence Hospital in
Anchorage at a cost of \$110 million, and completion of the hospital in
Mat-Su (\$75

million). Expansions of hospitals in Fairbanks, Juneau, and on the Kenai
Peninsula will add

another \$125 million. Projects at other smaller facilities around the
State will further increase the total for this sector.

All together, utilities construction will total about \$350 million. The
communications sector will continue to be a dynamic sector with about
\$110 million of new investments. No large private transportation
construction projects have been identified for this year. The electric
utilities may spend \$200 million on generation, transmission, and
distribution projects throughout the State. The largest single project
is a new generation plant in Fairbanks, estimated to cost \$90 million.
Gas distribution company investments will be about \$10 million.

[Public Construction]{.underline}

Most public construction money comes from the Federal government with
smaller amounts from State and local sources financed by current
revenues and bonds. For several years, construction spending for defense
has been twice the long term Alaska average. A number of big ticket
items will continue to boost public construction in 2005, some of which
were postponed from last year. The most significant is the continued
buildup associated with the deployment of the new Stryker Brigade to
Fort Wainwright at Fairbanks. Construction will be underway to prepare
for the full force, much of which will temporarily be housed at Fort
Richardson in Anchorage. Considerable construction activity is also
associated with the mobilization of a new airborne brigade combat team
and a C-17 cargo plane squadron. Both of these deployments will be in
Anchorage. Spending on the missile defense system at Fort Greeley and
other sites will continue this year with the deployment of ten
additional missiles. After this year, defense construction spending may
begin to taper off back down to levels more consistent with the late
1990s.

In transportation, the federal highway budget in Alaska has been
trending upward, and spending should be higher in 2005 because of the
replacement of some funding that was lost in 2004. The 2005 \$400
million budget funds highway construction throughout the State, with the
largest projects typically located in the Anchorage area and along the
rest of the railbelt. About \$230 million from the Federal Aviation
Administration will go to fund airport construction projects in the \$5
to \$10 million range throughout the State. Activity at Ted Stevens
International Airport in Anchorage has been winding down with the
completion of Concourse C,

but this year will see spending on the refurbishing of Concourse B as
well as a normal level of spending on runway enhancements, and other
projects totaling about \$40 million. Port and ferry dock spending from
the Economic Development Administration and other sources will add
another \$60 million. A large project on the horizon is a major
expansion of the Anchorage port.

The Alaska Railroad's construction spending will increase modestly this
year for a total of \$75 million, as the railroad works to continue to
improve the quality of the operation and keep transportation costs along
the railbelt as low as possible. Important projects include track
improvements, completion of the new operations center in Anchorage, and
rail yard expansion. Preliminary design work for extension of the
railroad to Fort Greeley will also be underway.

Other federal agency capital for construction spending in 2005 will add
another \$300 million to Alaska's economy. Federal agencies other than
the Department of Defense, such as DOI, NPS, USFWS, BLM, Postal Service,
Department of Agriculture, and others have their own capital budgets.
For example, the NPS is building new facilities in some of the National
Parks in the summer of 2005. Most of the State capital budget is funded
by federal grants. Excluding transportation projects, the largest
category is rural sanitation projects, based on grants from the Indian
Health Service, Housing and Urban Development, EPA, and other federal
agencies. This initiative will be contributing \$100 million to State
construction spending, about the same amount as in past years. The
Federal government also provides grants and other construction funding
to Alaska tribes and non-profit organizations across the State. The most
important recipients of these grants are Native nonprofit corporations,
housing authorities, and health care providers. The largest single
program is the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act
Program (1996), which provides funds for housing construction in Native
communities through a large number of Native housing authorities
throughout the State.

Construction spending for schools will be \$150 million in 2005, down
from 2004 due to the completion of a large number of projects funded by
an earlier State bond issue. Current projects are largely funded by
local bond issues that were passed before the expiration date for
inclusion in the State bond reimbursement program at the end of 2004.
More limited funding is coming from the State general fund capital
budget. One large project on the horizon for Anchorage is the new
Muldoon middle school with a projected cost of \$50 million. Other
projects are much smaller, with many renovations and repairs scheduled.
Two large University of Alaska construction projects were completed in
2004---the library in Anchorage and the museum in Fairbanks, and the
next large project, the Integrated Science Center in Anchorage, has not
yet gotten underway.

Other State and local expenditures for will add approximately \$150
million for non-education construction projects such as roads, drainage,
trails, parks, and police and fire stations. For example, Anchorage
expects to spend about \$50 million on such projects. Local government
enterprises not included in other categories, such as Anchorage Water
and Wastewater, which has a \$40 million capital budget this year, are
another component of this residual category. A small amount of
State-funded construction spending that is neither based on federal
grants nor related to transportation or education also falls into this
category. An example is grants from the State to local governments, for
facilities construction and maintenance.

6.2.4.7 Transportation

Alaska's mountain ranges, glaciers, and vast wilderness create natural
barriers to transportation. Transportation plays a much larger role in
Alaska's economy than in much of the rest of the nation. Identified
statewide transportation needs approach \$7.5 billion dollars, and no
other State relies as heavily on federal funds to help meet its
transportation infrastructure needs. The State's proposed FY 2005
capital budget includes more than \$977 million in federal

transportation funds. Federal funding for road, highway, and ferry
projects totals \$409 million, with another \$168 million for airport
improvement projects in Alaska.

6.2.4.7.1 Roads

The only road into the State is the Alaska Highway, built as a military
supply route in 1942 and extending from Dawson Creek, British Columbia,
to Delta Junction south of Fairbanks, a distance of 2,288 km (1,422 mi).
Another major land route, entirely within Alaska, is the Richardson
Highway, about 590 km (about 370 mi), which connects Valdez with
Fairbanks. In 2003 the State had 22,901 km (14,230 mi) of highways,
including 1,741 km (1,082 mi) of the federal highway system. Highways in
Alaska, with the exception of the Dalton Highway, are typically
asphalt-paved two-lane roads. In a populated center such as Fairbanks,
more than two lanes may exist. Today, 1,487 miles (73 percent) of
National Highway System roads in Alaska meet federal standards. The
statewide highway budget in FY 2005 is approximately \$410 million, and
targets extensive projects from reconstructing roads and replacing
bridge replacements to trail safety marking.

Except near Valdez and Fairbanks, traffic congestion is not a problem,
although road maintenance activities may cause traffic delays. Annual
average daily traffic counts along the Richardson Highway vary
significantly between Valdez and Fairbanks from approximately 300 to
22,400 vehicles per day, depending on location. Traffic during the
summer can be double the annual averages and is typically higher near
the communities of Valdez, Glenallen, Delta Junction, and Fairbanks.
(BLM, 2002) Even though Alaska has vast distances, they are generally
not connected by roads.

6.2.4.7.2 Railroads

Mining encouraged some railroad development in Alaska, including a line
from Skagway to the Canadian Yukon goldfields and a line from the copper
mines to Cordova. The Alaska Railroad, the only major line, was begun in
1914 and completed in 1923. It travels a 535 mile route from Seward on
the Kenai Peninsula via Anchorage to Fairbanks in the north. A spur
connects Whittier to the main line near Anchorage. Dock and handling
yards are maintained by the railroad at the ports of Anchorage, Seward,
and Whittier for handling freight reaching Alaska by barge. The Alaska
Rail Marine, managed by the railroad, operates rail-equipped barges
year-round that transport freight between Seattle and Whittier. The
railroad hauls more than seven million tons of freight and carries more
than 500,000 passengers a year. Nonmetallic minerals account for 48 of
the tonnage of goods hauled by rail, while petroleum products constitute
32 percent and coal 15 percent. In 1985 the State of Alaska purchased
the Alaska Railroad from the Federal government and now operates it as a
State-owned corporation. The White Pass and Yukon Railroad, from Skagway
to Whitehorse, has been redeveloped as a popular summer tourist
attraction.( "Alaska," Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2005
[http://encarta.msn.com](http://encarta.msn.com/) 1997-2005 Microsoft
Corporation.)

6.2.4.7.3 Airports

Aviation is critical to the movement of goods and people in Alaska
because of the distances between cities and much of the State's lack of
a significant highway and railroad infrastructure. As of 2002, Alaska
had 24 airports in 2002, with nearly all of them small airstrips. Alaska
has approximately nine times the number of airports, ten times the
number of registered general aviation aircraft, and 5.9 times the number
of Federal Aviation Administration-licensed pilots per 100,000
residents, as the rest of the U.S. Many charter and air taxi operations
and several Alaska-based airlines operate within the State. Anchorage is
the State's largest hub for passenger and cargo traffic, followed in
importance by Fairbanks. Lake Hood in Anchorage is the world's largest
and busiest seaplane base. Daily service is provided by major U.S.
domestic airlines both to the contiguous 48 states and international
destinations. In addition, Anchorage and Fairbanks have become important
air-cargo transfer centers for goods to and from Asia.

Air transportation accounts for half of all transportation employment in
Alaska, compared with less than one-third nationally. In Anchorage, one
in 10 residents works in an airport-related job. There are over 1,100
airstrips and airports in Alaska, almost 10,000 registered aircraft, and
as many pilots. The State owns or operates 171 gravel-surfaced airports,
43 paved airports and numerous seaplane bases. Municipalities own or
operate another 20 airports. Ted Stevens Anchorage International,
Fairbanks International, Juneau International, and Ketchikan
International airports account for most air activity occurring
throughout the State. The majority of funding for these and other
airport facilities comes from the Federal Aviation Administration
through the State Department of Transportation and Public Facilities'
Airport Improvement Program, and in 2004 totaled \$168 million. Airport
planners expect Anchorage's air cargo to continue to expand an average
of five percent annually over the next five years.

6.2.4.7.4 Marine Transportation Systems

Alaska's major ports include Anchorage, Valdez, King Cove, and Kodiak.
Three quarters of the total consumer goods in Alaska come through
Anchorage's port. Anchorage is the largest port in the State and the
16^th^ largest port in the United State. The port stages 100 percent of
the exports of refined petroleum products from the State's largest
refinery in Fairbanks and facilitates petroleum deliveries from refiners
on the Kenai Peninsula and in Valdez. The total tonnage of goods in 2004
that came into the port of Anchorage was 4,628,009. That tonnage breaks
down into 112,855 tons of cement, 1,760,935 tons in vans, flats and
containers, 1,520,157 tons of rail petrol, and 1,216,896 tons of bulk
petrol. (www.muni.org/port/index.cfm)

Valdez is the leading port in Alaska in terms of tonnage. Oil is the
major commodity in Valdez. As of June 2005, holding tanks topped out at
5.5 million barrels
([www.tax.state.ak.us/programs/oil/production/index.asp).](http://www.tax.state.ak.us/programs/oil/production/index.asp).)
Tourism is also an important industry for Valdez. During the summer of
1993, Valdez hosted 124,300 visitors. Twenty-two percent arrived via
cruise ships, while 43 percent used a combination of the State highway
and ferry system. King Cove's primary product is fish; it serves as one
of the largest fish processing centers in the United States. Kodiak
harbor is home to Alaska's largest commercial fishing fleet. Dutch
Harbor/Unalaska's primary industry is also commercial fishing and
seafood. Nome is the principal port on the Bering Sea, but is open for
only a short period during the ice-free summer weeks. In summer large
cargoes are often towed on barges to Prudhoe Bay.

Several of Alaska's other ports and harbors also experience a great deal
of tourism during the summer months. Seward serves as the principal port
on the Kenai Peninsula for tourism. Cordova, Homer, and Whittier also
experience tourism in the summer. Data for the summer of 1993 show that
Cordova received 17,200 visitors and Whittier received 83,600. The
majority of visitors to southeast Alaska, 53 percent according to the
Alaska Visitor Statistics Program data for 1993, arrive by cruise ship
or smaller touring vessels. Larger cruise ships generally visit
Ketchikan, Juneau, Skagway, Glacier Bay and Sitka. Smaller tour vessels
tend to also visit the smaller ports, including Petersburg and Wrangell
and may include more visits to natural attractions such as scenic fjord
and allow more time for wildlife observation.
([www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/toubus/pub/0-COMPLETE_BOOK.pdf)](http://www.dced.state.ak.us/oed/toubus/pub/0-COMPLETE).

A State-operated ferry system called the Alaska Marine Highway System
serves Alaskan communities by transporting passengers and vehicles
between coastal communities. The Alaska Marine Highway System provides
year-round scheduled ferry service throughout southeast and southwest
Alaska, extending south to Prince Rupert, British Columbia and
Bellingham, Washington. The system connects communities with each other,
with regional centers, and with the continental road system. It is an
integral part of Alaska's highway system, reaching many communities that
would otherwise be effectively cut off from the rest of the State and
nation. The AMHS also provides a coastal transportation alternative
between Anchorage and the "Lower 48" states versus driving the Alaska
Highway.( "Alaska," Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2005
[http://encarta.msn.com](http://encarta.msn.com/) 1997-2005 Microsoft
Corporation.)

6.2.5 Employment

Alaska's current employment statistics are provided in the February 2005
"Alaska Economic Trends" which is published by the Alaska Department of
Labor and Workforce Development. Sectors of the economic base that are
growing include mining, non-resident tourism and civilian federal
government. Oil and gas production still dominates the economic base,
but is decreasing in importance. The economy is growing most rapidly in
the private support sector. This growth is primarily the result of
growth in annual Permanent Fund Dividends, Native Corporation business
activity and spending on capital improvement projects (2002 AK Economic
Performance Report). Retail trade and service in the private support
sector

now exceed oil and gas by six percent. In the government sector, State
spending has been decreasing, while local government spending has been
increasing.

As of February 2005, employment in Alaska had completed its seventeenth
year of nonstop growth, albeit, its weakest growth overall. Since 2000,
the employment growth rate has been running at approximately 1.7 percent
per year. Preliminary 2004 statewide employment figures showed a growth
rate of 1.2 percent, compared to the 1.5 percent of 2003. Most of the
major industry categories in 2004 showed little change from 2003
employment levels. For the first time since 2001, oil industry
employment gained ground. Manufacturing employment levels moved upward
for the second year in a row, after having lost ground during nearly all
the previous seven years. Strong salmon and ground fish harvests in 2004
kept employment in seafood processing jobs slightly positive. However,
the timber industry lost jobs in 2004.

After two weak years (attributed in part to 9/11), the visitor industry
registered moderate gains. A strong commercial office construction
season in Anchorage and major retail expansion in the Mat-Su and
Fairbanks North Star boroughs boosted the construction industry's
employment figures. Retail employment growth was concentrated in the
Fairbanks and Mat-Su boroughs, where a number of new stores opened.

Health care and social assistance were major contributors to employment
growth. This one sector contributed approximately half of the overall
employment growth, although it slightly down from 2003 figures.

Geographically, half of the six regions of the State reported employment
gains relative to 2003 employment levels, while the other three regions
lost grounds. Regions that benefited include Anchorage/Mat-Su,
interior/Fairbanks, and southwest. These figures are attributed the
strong growth in the service sector (health care, leisure and
hospitality, finance activities), and construction activity. The three
regions whose employment numbers fell included southeast, North Slope,
and the Gulf Coast. These losses are attributed to continuing losses in
the timber industry and State government in the southeast, declines in
the North Slope's local government, and weak seafood processing and
leisure and hospitality in the Gulf Coast.

> 6.2.5.1 2002--2012 Employment Projections

In October 2004, the State Department of Labor and Workforce Development
completed the 2002--2012 occupational forecast covering nearly 700
distinct occupations for both wage and salary and self-employed workers.
These are broken down into the following nine basic categories:
management, business financial; professional and related; service; sales
and related; office and administrative support; construction and
extraction; installation, maintenance, and repair; production; and
transportation and material moving. The findings estimated an increase
of nearly 43,000 jobs from a workforce of 313,540 in 2002 to 356,491 by
2012.

The study divided the economy into two broad sectors: the goods
producing sector and the services providing sector. The goods producing
sector, which comprises mining, construction, manufacturing, and
logging, saw its share of employment decline over the last decade,
primarily due to losses in seafood processing and shutdown of pulp mills
coupled with meager growth in mining. At the same time, industries in
the services sector--including healthcare, food services,
transportation, and trade--were experiencing rapid growth, pushing the
service sector's share of employment by 2002 to 87 percent.

The service sector is projected to continue its dominance to 2012, and
the goods producing sector should hold its own over the forecast period.
Buoyed by a resurgence in metal mining and projected natural gas
pipeline construction, the goods sector, with the steep declines in
manufacturing largely in the past, will be likely to contribute positive
growth nearly apace with the economy overall. In doing so it should
maintain its 13 percent share of employment through 2012.

The turnaround in goods producing employment notwithstanding, the
services providing sector will continue to provide the vast majority,
about 90 percent, of new jobs to Alaska's economy. And while the rate of
growth of every service sector industry, with the exception of the
Federal government, is projected to decrease relative to 1992--2002
rates, many industries will continue to experience robust growth through
2012.

These rapid growth industries have been and will continue to be job
creating machines. Continued growth in tourism, air cargo traffic, and
the movement of materials and people for construction of the gas
pipeline will mean significant employment gains in the transportation
and warehousing industry. Both general merchandise stores and food
services and drinking places will benefit from growth in tourism, as
well as from increases in both population and disposable income. And
while efforts to rein in costs may dampen the rate of growth of
healthcare industries, demographic realities and an increasing array of
treatments will assure that their expansion continues.

In general, just as the services-providing industry sector will dominate
job growth, so will the service occupations cluster provide more new job
opportunities (fully one-in-four) than any other occupational group.
Healthcare support occupations are projected to be the fastest growing
of the service jobs, with a growth rate more than twice that of the
economy as a whole. While not contributing as many new opportunities to
overall job growth as the service occupations, the professional and
related occupations cluster will continue to account for the largest
share of Alaska's employment in 2012. Contributing both the fastest
growth rate and the largest job increase, healthcare practitioner and
technical occupations are projected to contribute more than four-in-ten
new jobs to the professional and related cluster through 2012. The
balance of the occupational groups in the professional and related
cluster, aside from community and social services, will experience much
slower growth. A leveling off of projected school enrollments over the
decade will keep growth low in education related occupations. The
general lack of

growth in the government sectors, a major employer for many professional
occupations, will keep employment growth in these occupations reduced.

With growth rates around 20 percent, both the sales-related and the
transportation and material moving occupational groups share the
distinction of being the fastest growing over the projection period. The
former is driven by the demand across industries for cashiers and retail
salespersons. The transportation and material moving occupations
describe a collection of jobs that are diverse in setting, duties and
pay. They include moving people, good and resources by land, air and
water; from high paid airline pilots and flight engineers to lower paid
taxi drivers and service station attendants. Most of the growth will
come from the expanding transportation and warehousing industry as well
as natural gas pipeline related hauling. Of the remaining occupational
groups, only the construction and extraction occupations are projected
to grow faster than average. With a likely slowing in residential
building offset by gas pipeline related opportunities, more than 3,000
new jobs are projected for this group. (Alaska Economic Trends, October
2004, pp. 4-12)

6.2.5.2 Employment and the Native Alaskan Workforce

The Native Alaskan labor force increased by 54 percent in the 1980s and
by 30 percent in the 1990s. That growth of more than 10,000 people in
the labor force each decade was the result of both growth in the
population and an increasing share of the population wanting to work in
the cash economy. Alaska's expanding economy was able to absorb much of
the increase in the Native population wanting to work, but the
unemployment rate among Native Alaskans remained high, and the numbers
of unemployed Native Alaskans increased along the number of employed.
That happened even as the Native Alaskan share of all Alaska workers
increased. Based on 2000 census figures, it is projected that the Native
Alaskan labor force will increase by an additional 26 percent between
2000 and 2010, due to growth in the Native Alaskan population, even if
the share of the population that wants to work remains the same.
However, the share of the adult Native Alaskan population in the labor
force remains much lower than among non-Natives, and that share can be
expected to increase in the coming years, even though many Native
Alaskans will continue to take part in subsistence and other activities
outside the cash economy.

Strong past economic growth has contributed to economic gains for Native
Alaskans, although much of the increase in per capita cash income and
declines in the unemployment rate came before 1990. In Anchorage, the
Native Alaskan labor force grew much faster in the 1980s than in the
1990s, even though significant numbers of Native Alaskans moved from
rural to urban Alaska in the 1990s. Future job opportunities for Native
Alaskans will depend on the overall strength of the Alaska economy, as
well as on their ability to compete for existing jobs. Much of the
growth in the past decade can be traced to an expanding federal
government presence in the economy and to State government spending.
Growth in federal spending is unlikely to continue as its recent pace,
and the State government as been spending more than it collects for a
decade. Although numerous economic development opportunities are
available to the State, none offer an immediate alternative to the
government spending that has been driving the economy.

Despite these employment gains, the *Status of Alaska Natives Report for
2004* still includes some sobering facts:

• While Native Alaskans gained more than 8,000 jobs between 1990 and
2000, only about 35 percent of all Native Alaskan jobs are full-time and
year-round.

> • Despite job gains, the number of unemployed Native Alaskans
> increased 35 percent from 1990 to 2000.

• Incomes of Native Alaskans remain just 50 to 60 percent those of other
Alaskans, despite gains. Transfer payments are a growing share of Native
Alaskan income.

6.2.5.3 Unemployment and the Native Alaskan Work Force

In 1990, Native Alaskans number 85,698 and constituted just over 15
percent of the State's total population. Of this number, 62 percent of
Native Alaskans (about 52,000) lived in village Alaska. Isolation of
Native Alaskan people from the cash economy, whether they are rural or
urban dwellers, is reflected in unemployment statistics. Statistics from
the 1990 census show that while 8.8 percent of Alaska's total work force
was unemployed in that year, 22.1 percent of the portion of Alaska's
work force was comprised of Native Alaskans was unemployed.

There are thought to be several causes of the Native Alaskan
unemployment problem. First, many Native Alaskans live in locations
appropriate to a subsistence economy that have not yet become, and quite
rightly, may never be, viable in a Western cash economy in the long
term. Second, many in rural Alaska still rely on the subsistence economy
for many of their needs, due to non-existent transportation routes and
the high cost of cash market goods. Third, some Native Alaskans have not
yet been able to acquire the skills that would make them employable in
the income-producing jobs available where they live. In addition, in
rural areas, often they must compete with non-Native non-Residents who
take many of the few jobs that are available. Finally, in many cases,
employers have not been able to shape jobs that take into consideration
the differing life and work patterns of Native Alaskans, and take
advantage of Native Alaskan's cultural strengths.

The end result of these issues is reflected in the Native Alaskan
unemployment rate. In the 1990 census, Native Alaskan per capita income
was only 45.9 percent that of non-Native Alaskans. An estimated 21.5
percent of Native Alaksan families had incomes below the officially
established "poverty" line income (\$12,674 for a family of four), in
contrast to 6.8 percent of all Alaskan families. The 21.5 percent of
Native Alaskan families living in poverty was a far higher percentage
than that for whites (4.5 percent), blacks (8.8 percent), Asians and
Pacific Islanders (six percent), or other ethnic groups (seven percent).
In addition, this does not take into account the higher cost of living
in Alaska, particularly in rural Alaska.

6.2.5.4 Employment in Remote Rural Alaska

The mix of jobs in remote rural Alaska reflects the sources of cash
coming into the region. Excluding the North Slope Borough (because so
many of its jobs are in the enclave oil and gas sector), the largest
share of jobs in the region are in government at 29 percent, and in
services, at 23 percent. Proprietors (people working for themselves as
fishermen or in other occupations) make up an additional 23 percent.
Half the remaining 25 percent of jobs are in either trade or
infrastructure (transportation and utilities). A large share of the
service jobs are in

non-profit Native organizations and other businesses that are funded
largely by federal contracts and grants.

The job mix in remote areas is heavily weighted toward government and
service employment, compared with the mix in an urban area like
Anchorage, where trade and other jobs are a much larger part of the mix.
Growth in the number of jobs in remote rural Alaska (excluding the North
Slope Borough) has been in the range of 400 to 600 per year in the
1990s, with considerable fluctuation from year to year. Job growth has
been dominated by new service jobs in the last ten years, with close to
4,000 new jobs added between 1990 and 2000. The second biggest gainer,
but a very distant second at 700 jobs, was private basic industries
(mining and others). Local government and trade added smaller numbers
and the State and federal government lost jobs; mostly military.

The average worker's pay is lower in remote rural Alaska than in
Anchorage for all sectors of the economy, even without an adjustment for
the higher costs of living in remote areas. The lower average wage in
remote areas is due to a combination of lower-wage occupations and fewer
average hours worked. Likewise, the share of the population working in
rural Alaska is low, and this is reflected in the published unemployment
rate for the region, which is high, despite the fact that it does not
include people who might want jobs but have given up looking for them.
The Alaska Department of Labor bases its figures on a national
methodology that defines "unemployed" as only those actively looking for
work, and excludes anyone who has made no attempt to find work in the
previous four-week period. Most Alaska economists believe that Alaska's
rural localities have proportionately more of these "discouraged
workers." What is not mentioned by the Department of Labor is that in
most rural, remote areas, discouraged workers do not result from those
individuals not seeking work, but as a result of no work being available
during much of the year. Therefore, after a period of four non-working
weeks they drop out of the system and no longer register on unemployment
statistics. (Alaskool.org/year--Section 3)

The combination of low average wages and a smaller share of the
population with jobs keeps per capita incomes in the rural regions low.
In 2001, only the North Slope came close to matching Anchorage income,
but that was with no adjustment for the higher costs in remote areas.
Real per capita income in remote areas grew rapidly in the 1970s, but
more slowly since. The gap between remote rural and Anchorage per capita
incomes remained the same in 2000 as in 1980, with remote income just
over half that of Anchorage.

6.2.6 The Remote Rural Economy

Nearly 150 small, mostly Native villages are scattered across the remote
expanses of northern interior, western, and southwestern Alaska. This
remote part of the State has an economy that is much smaller and quite
different from that in urban Alaska. Communities in remote rural Alaska
include Wade Hampton, Bethel, Nome, Dillingham, and Yukon-Koyukuk census
areas, and the North Slope Northwest Arctic, and Lake and Peninsula
Boroughs. All of these communities with the exception of Yukon-Koyukuk,
are included in the State's coastal zone. As of 2000, about 41 percent
of Native Alaskans lived in remote rural Alaska in villages

and in five larger regional centers. Most of the places where Native
Alaskans are in the majority are in this part of the State. In fact,
there are few places in remote rural Alaska where Natives are not in the
majority.

Economic conditions in remote rural areas are not as good as in
Anchorage and other urban areas. That is because economic development
opportunities in rural areas are limited, a large share of the earnings
generated in rural areas leaks out of the local economy, and costs of
living are high due to high transportation costs, the severe climate,
and small local markets. Subsistence continues to be an important source
of well-being among all Native Alaskans but especially for those in the
remote parts of the State. About 90 percent of rural households (Native
and non-Native) participate in subsistence hunting and fishing, with
annual harvests as high as 664 pounds per person in remote rural Alaska.

Outside of the five regional centers (with populations of several
thousand) located in the eight census areas that make up the remote
rural region of Alaska, the U.S. census counts 147 small communities in
this region. The largest of those has a population of just over 1,000,
but the median population is 211, meaning half have larger populations
and half have smaller. The small size of these villages is both a
reflection and a consequence of the economic realities in remote rural
Alaska. On the one hand, there is very little private sector economic
base in most villages. On the other, the small population means that the
local market for business enterprises is quite limited.

In 2000, the combined personal income in remote rural Alaska was \$1.269
billion. That was a bit larger than the personal income of just the city
of Juneau (\$1.047 billion) or of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough)
(\$1.194 billion), but smaller than that of the Kanai Peninsula Borough
(\$1.384 billion). Within remote rural Alaska itself there is also
considerable variation in total personal income, with Bethel having the
largest economy (as measured by personal income), and Lake and Peninsula
Borough the smallest. Two census areas of remote rural Alaska do have
large private sector economic bases and consequently higher average
wages. The average wage of the North Slope Borough is the highest in the
region, largely because the borough includes the North Slope oil fields.
The next highest wages are in the Northwest Arctic Borough, home to the
Red Dog zinc mine. Unfortunately, petroleum and mining are two of the
most capital-intensive industries, and as a consequence they create
limited demand for local labor, even though their combined output is
several billion dollars a year.

The other census areas in this region have much smaller private sector
economic bases, as reflected in their lower average wage. In all these
census areas there is commercial fishing, small-scale mining, tourism
and recreation, timber, trapping, agriculture, and handicraft
manufacture. However all of these activities are on a modest scale and
are mostly seasonal, while the oil and production on the North Slope and
the Zinc mining in northwest Alaska are major, year-round operations.

Even in the two remote census areas where there are high-paying oil
industry and mining jobs, many of those jobs are held by non-residents.
In the North Slope Borough, 79 percent of total earnings leaves the
region (\$421 million in 20000), as non-resident workers return to their
homes. It should be noted that while few Native residents of the North
Slope Borough work directly in the petroleum industry, local residents
benefit indirectly because the oil fields constitute a major tax base
for the borough, and the borough has used its tax revenues for capital
improvements and other projects that create local jobs. In the Northwest
Arctic Borough, about 30 percent of earnings leaked out of the region,
or \$34 million in 2000. The reported share of earnings that leaks out
of the other census areas is much smaller, however this is misleading,
since much economic activity in remote rural Alaska passes directly out
of the region, without even appearing in reported income accounts.

The remote rural Alaskan economy derives most of its income from the
following sources: federal money, Permanent Funds, government and
services jobs, and fisheries. By far, federal money makes up the largest
share of outside money coming into remote rural areas. Approximately
\$670 million came into the region in 2000 as wages, purchases, grants,
and transfers to individuals, far surpassing the money coming in from
private natural resource-related activities. The largest share of
federal spending, close to 70 percent, was in the form of grants for
capital projects and for operation of local governments, tribal
entities, and other non-profit organizations. A small share of spending
was for federal military operations and agencies such as the USFWS and
the BLM. This amounted to about 900 jobs in 2000, and also generated
some spending for goods and services those agencies use. Around 12
percent went directly to individuals in a variety of transfer payments.

Commercial fishing has always been an important part of the private
economy of this part of Alaska, but local residents get only a small
share of the fishery value, and the overall value of the fishery itself
has been falling in recent years. The largest salmon fishery is centered
in Bristol Bay, and while the Bristol Bay Borough is outside of the
defined "remote rural Alaska," three remote rural census areas have
close access to that fishery. Local residents capture only a small share
of the value of that fishery. For example, in 2002 the value of the
salmon fisheries in waters surrounding the Lake and Peninsula Borough
was about \$37 million, but local residents captured only about \$4
million. The value of the salmon fishery accessible for residents in
most of remote rural Alaska was quite small. For example, in Nome it was
less than \$2 million, and locals captured almost none of that value.

Residents of the remote rural region are able to harvest other seafood
in addition to salmon, and some fish for salmon outside the region. Even
so, the gross earnings of residents from State-managed commercial
fisheries are quite modest. In 2002, those earnings were less than \$2
million in all census areas except Dillingham and Lake and Peninsula
Borough, where they were \$3.15 million and \$4.69 million,
respectively. Even though the value of the commercial harvest for local
residents is modest, many regional residents are involved in fishing. In
2002, 1,780 resident fishermen participated in the harvest. The average
gross earnings per resident permit holder, from all State-managed
fisheries, were \$6,280. Earnings of fishermen from the Lake and
Peninsula Borough alone accounted for about half the gross earnings of
permit

holders from throughout the remote rural areas. By contrast, total
non-resident participation in the salmon fisheries within the region
produced \$33.7 million of gross earnings, for gross revenues of
\$21,000 per permit fished.

There are other flows of cash into the regional economy. Income
residents earn outside the region for example, from firefighting, is
included, but no estimate of the size of such earnings is available.
Dividends paid by ANCSA corporations are one type of non-wage income
that comes into the region. However, during the 1990s, 83 percent of all
dividends went to shareholders in only three corporations; Cook Inlet,
Sealaska, and Arctic Slope. Of those, only Arctic Slope is in the remote
rural region. Alaska's State government also provides support for many
public services in remote areas such as schools, and provides cash
directly to households through the Permanent Fund Dividend Program. In
2002, this amounted to a cash flow of approximately \$93 million into
the region.

The economy of remote rural Alaska is small from several perspectives,
including: average size of community, average household income, total
income, and the large share of natural resource (and probably federal
spending) earnings that directly leave the region. As a result, it can
support only a very limited number of jobs that are not funded by
outside sources. Most of these jobs will be in trade, some services, and
some infrastructure and construction businesses. This is reflected in
the small ratio of jobs in these businesses, compared with total
personal income. For example, in Anchorage there are 3.4 jobs in trade
per \$1 million of personal income. In the four remote rural census
areas that have regional centers, there are 1.9 trade jobs per \$1
million of personal income. In the three remote census areas without
regional centers, there are only 0.6 trade jobs for every \$1 million of
personal income

For many reasons--including economic but also cultural and
others--subsistence hunting and fishing are very important to Native
Alaskans and Native communities. An estimated 60 percent of rural
households statewide (about half Native and half Non-Native) harvest
game and 80 percent harvest fish. The amount harvested varies
considerably around Alaska, with residents of more remote rural areas
reporting a higher annual harvest. The subsistence harvest of salmon is
higher in the remote rural part of the State than elsewhere. In 2000, it
varied between 102 fish per subsistence permit in the Chignik management
area and 24 in the Unalaska district. In the rest of the State, the
average was 22 fish per subsistence permit. Most, but not all, of these
fish were harvested by residents in the regions where they lived.

Food and other necessities that require cash continue to cost more in
remote rural areas, and because of structural problems, including high
transportation costs, severe climate, and small size of communities, the
cost of living differential shows little if any trend downward over
time. Costs get higher the further one moves from urban Alaska. This can
be observed by comparing the residential electricity rate in Anchorage
to that in Bethel and also to that in the rest of southwest Alaska,
composed of smaller outlying communities. The price of a kilowatt hour
is 11 cents in Anchorage and 28 cents in Bethel. The average for the
rest of southwest Alaska is 44 cents, before rate relief from the State
Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program, which helps pay some of the high
costs of electricity in rural areas. Still, the annual cost of
electricity for the average residential customer is higher in Bethel and
the rest of southwest Alaska than it is in Anchorage, and because
personal income is lower, it is also a larger share of the household
budget. (Goldsmith, 2004)

6.2.7 Subsistence

Federal and Alaska State law define subsistence as the "customary and
traditional uses" of wild resources for food, clothing, fuel,
transportation, construction, art, crafts, sharing, and customary trade.
Subsistence uses are central to the customs and traditions of many
cultural groups in Alaska, including Aleut, Athabaskan, Alutiiq,
Euromamerican, Haida, Inupait, Tlingit, Tsimshian, and Yup'ik.
Subsistence fishing and hunting are important sources of employment and
nutrition in almost all rural coastal communities. 108 out of 129
coastal towns (this figure does not include the boroughs) participate to
a greater or lesser extent in the subsistence lifestyle for traditional
lifestyle, nourishment, and/or economic purposes. As expected, the
coastal communities with the highest percentage of native Alaskan
populations correlate with the communities participating in a
subsistence lifestyle. *See* Table 1.

Most of the wild food harvested by rural families is composed of fish
(about 60 percent by weight), along with land mammals (20 percent),
marine mammals (14 percent), birds (two percent), shellfish (two
percent) and plants (two percent). Ninety-five percent of rural
households consume subsistence-caught fish, according to the State. Fish
varieties include salmon, halibut, herring, and whitefish. Seals, sea
lion, walrus, beluga, and bowhead whales, and sea otters comprise the
marine mammal harvest. Moose, caribou, deer, bear, Dall sheep, mountain
goat, and beaver are commonly used land mammals, depending on the
community and area. The subsistence food harvest in rural areas
represents about two percent of the fish and game harvested annually in
Alaska. Commercial fisheries are responsible for the largest amount of
take; approximately 97 percent of the statewide harvest (about 2.0
billion pounds annually). Sport fishing and hunting take about one
percent of 18.0 million lbs.

Although relatively small in the statewide picture, subsistence fishing
and hunting provide a major part of the food supply of rural Alaska and
is a major part of the nutritional requirements of Alaska's population.
It is estimated that about 43.7 million lbs (usable weight) of wild
foods are harvested annually by residents of rural areas of the State,
and 9.8 million lbs by urban residents. On a per person basis, the
annual wild food harvest is about 375 lbs per person per year for
residents of rural areas (about a pound a day per person), and 22 lbs
per person per year for urban areas. The annual harvest for the rural
population contains 242 percent of the protein requirements per person
(i.e., it contains about 118 grams of protein per person per day; about
49 grams is the mean daily requirement). It also contains 35 percent of
the caloric requirements of the rural population (i.e., 840 Kcal/day
based on a 2,400 Kcal/day mean daily requirement). Urban wild food
harvests provide 15 percent of the protein requirements and two percent
of the caloric requirements of the urban population.

Subsistence fishing and hunting are important to the rural economy, and
is part of a rural economic system, called a "mixed, subsistence-market"
economy. Families invest money into small-scale, efficient technologies
to harvest wild food, such as fishwheels, gill nets, motorized skiffs,
and snowmachines. Subsistence food production is directed toward meeting
the self-limited needs of families and small communities, not market
sale or accumulated profit as in commercial market production. Families
follow an economic strategy of using a portion of the household monetary
earnings to capitalize in subsistence technologies for producing food.
This combination of money from paid employment and subsistence food
production is what characterizes the mixed, subsistence-market economies
of the rural areas. Successful families in rural areas combine jobs with
subsistence activities and share wild food harvests with cash-poor
households who cannot fish or hunt, such as elders, the disabled, and
single mothers with children. Attaching a dollar value to wild food
harvests is difficult, as subsistence products do not circulate in
markets. However, if families did not have subsistence foods,
substitutes would have to be purchased. If one assumes a replacement
expense of \$3--\$5 per pound, the simple replacement value of the wild
food harvests in rural Alaska may be estimated at \$131.1--\$218.6
million dollars annually. (Division of Subsistence, 2000).

Although the economic role of subsistence in many rural localities is
undeniably important, in Alaska, it is not the sole function of this
activity. A second role of subsistence is sociocultural. The
sociocultural function of subsistence is particularly important to
Native Alaskan groups, for whom subsistence provides a crucial link
between modern sociocultural systems and their ancestral roots, and for
whom the acquisition and exchange of subsistence resources helps knit
together cohesive societal units. The act of harvest subsistence
resources in many cases requires cooperation by several individuals,
particularly during times of resource abundance, such as salmon runs and
caribou migrations. The shared labor of producing and processing
subsistence foods creates and maintains enduring bonds within kin
groups, between men and women, and between elders, adults, and younger
people.

In many communities, a small number of families (or households) in a
village ultimately harvest the vast majority of subsistence resources. A
survey of selected communities in the mid-1980s showed that about 30
percent of households generated about 70 percent of the total community
subsistence production. These resources are distributed to other
households throughout a community, establishing or further defining the
relations of mutual aid and obligation among components of a society, as
well as providing increased security in a very challenging natural
setting.

A third role of subsistence is ceremonial. Once again, this function is
particularly important in Native Alaskan groups, for whom subsistence
activities and resources incorporate a set of religious and spiritual
beliefs about proper relations between humans and the spirits of the
natural world. Subsistence foods are often central components of
important indigenous ceremonial events. Examples of such ceremonies
include the messenger feasts of the Nunamiut and potlatches of the
various Athabascan groups. The first, firmly rooted in tradition, serves
to establish relationships between Nunamiut communities through sharing
food at large ceremonies. Potlatches are multiday feasts to commemorate
an important day (including Christmas), as well as the memory of a
recently deceased member of a community. In such ceremonial events
subsistence resources play a central role, representing at once the
generosity of the spirits of the natural world, and the spiritual
maturity of the hunter who has found favor with these spirits and who
expresses appreciation for these gifts by sharing freely with others.
(BLM, 2002)

Regulation of subsistence in Alaska is a complex topic due the "dual
management system" currently in place by the federal and State
governments. It is also a controversial political topic because managing
subsistence involves making decisions about who has access to Alaska\'s
valuable fish and wildlife resources. Disagreements about subsistence
arise between and within different groups, including urban and rural
Alaska residents, Natives and non-Natives, subsistence users and
non-subsistence users, State lawmakers and other groups. Disagreements
include who should get rights to subsistence, how resources are
allocated under subsistence provisions, and how such decisions are made.

Subsistence was not a controversial legal issue until the late 1970s,
when demands of a growing State population started putting the squeeze
on Alaska's available fish and game, and resource managers increasingly
were forced to choose between users. But the underpinnings of the
management controversy can be traced to Alaska statehood in 1959. On
becoming a state, Alaska took over responsibility for managing
subsistence from the federal government when it gained authority for
managing fish and wildlife. State control of fish and wildlife was a
leading argument for statehood, as Alaskans criticized federal fishery
management as favoring outside interests and unresponsive to resident
needs. The new Alaska Constitution established that fish and wildlife
"are reserved to the people for common use" and that "no exclusive right
or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized."
\[Alaska Constitution, Article VIII \]

For the United States federal government, the question of subsistence
surfaced in 1971 when Congress was drafting the ANCSA. The act addressed
Native land claims that clouded construction of the TAPS. It
extinguished aboriginal hunting and fishing rights in Alaska in exchange
for almost \$1 billion in cash and 44 million acres of land. ANCSA did
not explicitly protect subsistence, but a Congressional conference
report issued with the new law stated that Native subsistence practices
and subsistence lands would be protected by the State of Alaska and DOI.
Congress made good on that promise in 1980, when it passed the landmark
ANILCA. Besides creating new national wildlife refuges and public
recreation lands, ANILCA mandated that the State maintain a subsistence
hunting and fishing preference for rural residents on federal public
lands or forfeit its management of subsistence uses there.

The State of Alaska, which had established its own subsistence law in
1978, took note of the discrepancy between the laws and amended State
law in 1986 to match ANILCA by limiting subsistence uses to rural
residents. The fix, however, did not last long. In 1989, the State
Supreme Court ruled that the rural preference violated Alaska's
Constitution, including its "common use" provisions regarding use of
fish and wildlife. As the State no longer guaranteed a rural preference
for subsistence as required by ANILCA, the federal government moved to
take over management of subsistence on federal public lands. Several
attempts by the State to reconcile the two laws by amending the Alaska
Constitution failed when supporters could not muster enough votes in the
Alaska Legislature to send a constitutional amendment to the State's
voters. Federal managers took over authority for subsistence on federal
lands on July 1, 1990.

In 1995, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in adjudicating *Katie
John vs. United States*, ruled that ANILCA's subsistence priority
extends to freshwater bodies within and alongside federal public lands.
The decision pushed the Federal government into management of
subsistence fisheries. Realizing that federal subsistence fisheries
management would impact fishing statewide, the State of Alaska again
attempted to regain management. Between 1997 and 1999, a subsistence
task force was convened, two special sessions of the Legislature were
held, and Alaska's Congressional delegation twice delayed a federal
takeover of subsistence on federal waters through a moratorium. But in
the end, the Alaska Senate failed to pass on to voters a constitutional
amendment to that would bring State law into compliance with ANILCA. On
October 1, 1999, the rural subsistence priority was extended to inland
waters within 34 federal parks, forests, wildlife refuges, preserves and
recreation lands. Federal subsistence fishery management had arrived.

The area of federal jurisdiction includes 34 wildlife refuges, parks,
preserves, monuments, conservation and recreation areas, national wild
and scenic rivers and the Tongass and Chugach national forests (not
including marine waters). It excludes Glacier Bay National Park, Kenai
Fjords National Park, Katmai National Park and the portion of Denali
National Park established prior to 1980. This area comprises about 60
percent of lands in the State.

In 1999, federal jurisdiction was extended to include inland rivers and
lakes on or adjacent to federal lands, as well as some marine waters.
This change put many of Alaska\'s subsistence fisheries under federal
jurisdiction. Most marine waters under federal jurisdiction for
subsistence are located in southwest Alaska and along the Alaska
Peninsula. They include Cold Bay, Hooper Bay, Toksook Bay, Quinkok Bay,
Morzhovoi Bay, Pavlof Bay, Woman\'s Bay, Chiniak Bay, Gibson\'s Cove, a
section of Saint Paul harbor, the mouth of the Karluk River extending
3,000 feet from shoreline, areas around Seal Cape and Cape Kumliun,
three-mile perimeters around Nunivak and Afognak islands, a one-mile
perimeter around Simeon Island, and a block around Semidi Islands
extending roughly between 55\'55\'\' and 56\'15\'\' latitude and
156\'30\'\' and 157\' longitude.

Under ANILCA, rural Alaska residents are eligible for the subsistence
priority. Rural residents make up about 20 percent of the State\'s
population. Rural residents are defined as all

Alaskans except those living in and around Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau,
Ketchikan, Adak, Valdez, Wasilla, Palmer, Homer, Kenai and Soldotna.

The federal subsistence priority means that subsistence uses by rural
residents are accorded priority over non-subsistence uses (commercial or
sport). To implement this priority, the Federal Subsistence Board can,
during times of resource shortage, close non-subsistence uses on federal
land to protect fish and game resources or to assure subsistence
harvests by rural residents. The Board also reserves the right to
restrict non-subsistence uses on federal land. In addition, the Board
retains authority to restrict or eliminate uses of federal lands to
provide the subsistence priority. It is important to remember that the
subsistence "priority" under federal law should lead to restrictions
only when a fish stock or game population is not sufficient to provide
for uses other than federal subsistence. When stocks or populations are
sufficient, all State uses generally are accommodated on federal lands
or waters, including State subsistence uses. For example, on federal
waters along the Copper River, Alaskans can subsistence fish under State
laws and regulations at Chitina while qualified rural subsistence
fishermen fishing under federal regulations fish a nearby section of the
river.)

Alaska holds exclusive authority to manage subsistence on lands and
waters on State and private property in Alaska, or about 40 percent of
Alaska lands and rivers. Its jurisdiction also includes most marine
waters in the State. The State allows no subsistence fishing or hunting
in non-subsistence areas around Anchorage (including the Kenai Peninsula
and Matanuska and Susitna valleys), Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan and
Valdez.

Under State law, all Alaskans are potentially eligible for the
subsistence priority. Like the Federal government, the State of Alaska
gives top priority in allocation decisions to subsistence users. Under
State management, a subsistence decision begins with a determination
that a portion of a fish stock or game population can be harvested for
subsistence consistent with sustained yield. Following such a decision,
the Board of Fisheries or Board of Game determines what amount of the
harvestable portion of the population is reasonably necessary for
subsistence uses. Then, regulations are adopted that provide a
reasonable opportunity for subsistence.
[(http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/fvss.htm;](http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/fvss.htm;)
last viewed 8/12/2005)

**Chart B: Federal-State Subsistence Comparison**

> State and federal subsistence laws each grant a priority to
> subsistence uses of fish and game over other uses. However, elements
> of the laws differ significantly, creating the differences between
> State and federal subsistence management programs. This chart
> illustrates the major differences.

  ------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------------
  **Issue**          **Federal**              **State**

  Subsistence Users  Rural Alaska Residents   All Alaska Resident

  Decision Makers    Regional Advisory        Advisory Committees and
                     Councils and Federal     State Boards of Fish and
                     Subsistence Board        Game

  Jurisdiction       Freshwater streams and   Marine waters; freshwater
                     lakes on **federal**     rivers and lakes on **State
                     lands in Alaska and      and private** lands in
                     limited marine waters\*  Alaska

  Mandated to Serve  Federally qualified      All resource users,
                     subsistence users        including sport and
                                              commercial

  How Subsistence    Other consumptive uses   Other uses are
  Priority Works     may be **restricted** or **restricted** before a
                     **eliminated** to        reasonable opportunity for
                     restrict taking of       subsistence is restricted
                     subsistence fish and     
                     wildlife                 

  Advisory Group     Advisory council         No criteria required for
  Authority          recommendations must be  rejection of advisory
                     accepted unless not      committee recommendations
                     supported by evidence,   
                     in violation             
                     conservation principles, 
                     or detrimental to        
                     subsistence              

  What Subsistence   A meaningful preference  A reasonable opportunity
  Law Must Provide   for the taking for       that allows a subsistence
                     subsistence uses on      user to participate in a
                     federal public lands,    subsistence fishery that
                     with the least adverse   provides a normally
                     impacts on rural         diligent participant with a
                     residents dependent on   reasonable expectation of
                     subsistence.             success.

  Jurisdiction of    Within the exterior      Extends to all State and
  Subsistence        boundaries of federal    private lands and waters
  Priority           public lands, federal    that are outside of
                     reserved waters and some non-subsistence areas; the
                     marine waters; does not  State's five
                     include Glacier Bay,     non-subsistence areas are
                     Denali, and Katmai       around Anchorage,
                     national parks           Fairbanks, Juneau,
                                              Ketchikan and Valdez.
  ------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------------

\*Marine waters under federal jurisdiction for subsistence include Cold
Bay, Hooper Bay, Toksook Bay, Quinkok Bay, Morzhovoi Bay, Pavlof Bay,
Woman's Bay, Chiniak Bay, Givson's Cove, a section of Saint Paul harbor,
the mouth of the Karluk River extending 3,000 feet from the shoreline,
areas around Seal Cape and Cape Kumliun, three-mile perimeters around
Nunivak and Afokgnak islands, a one-mile perimeter around Simeon Island,
and a block around Semidi Islands extending roughly between 55\'55\" AND
56\'15\" latitude and 156\'30\" and 157\' longitude.

Source: <http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/foscht.htm>

**7. EFFECTS ANALYSIS**

**7.1 Discussion of Effects to be Analyzed**

Chapter 7 discusses the environmental effects of the alternatives for
the three actions evaluated in this EIS: approving the amendments to the
ACMP (Section 4.1), denying approval of amendments to the ACMP (Section
4.2), and delaying approval or taking no action in an expeditious
manner, or the no action alternative (Section 4.3). The effects under
the "no action" alternative are the same as those for alternative number
two, since OCRM delaying approval or taking no action will produce the
same results as denying approval, which is the repeal of the ACMP,
pursuant to State legislation.

OCRM's approval of incorporation of HBs 69, 86, 191, SB 102, revisions
to statute AS 46, and State regulations 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, and 11
AAC 114 as an amendment to the ACMP, in accordance with OCRM regulations
on Amendments to Approved Management Programs (15 C.F.R. 923.80), in and
of itself, has direct socioeconomic effects. These include the State's
ability to continue using the federal consistency provisions of the
CZMA, and the continued receipt of approximately \$2.5 million dollars
annually to conduct its coastal management program, in addition to
ancillary federal funds which might be tied via legislation or
regulation to requirements on states to be participating in the federal
Coastal Zone Management Program (e.g., Coastal Estuarine Land
Conservation Program). However, due to State legislation repealing the
ACMP, OCRM's approval will ensure the continued application of the ACMP,
including its standards and local district programs. It will also have
the effect of implementing the changes that the State has proposed under
the legislation identified above, which may have cumulative and
secondary effects on the affected environment. Thus, the discussion of
environmental effects will cover the primary, secondary, and cumulative
effects of the three alternatives.

**7.2 Criteria for Evaluating the Effects of Approving or Denying
Amendments to the ACMP**

Many of the effects of approving or denying amendments to the ACMP are
difficult to analyze because they are secondary and dependent on
separate, future, discretionary actions by a variety of entities (e.g.
federal, State, local and Native Alaskan entities may make permitting
decisions or impose conditions on permits that could positively or
negatively affect coastal resources). Those future actions and
associated environmental effects are hard to predict, although
reasonable conclusions about the likely effects can be inferred from
recent history of agency actions. The following sections provide a
qualitative analysis of the effects of the alternatives on the affected
environment described in section six.

In the event of OCRM's approval of the amendments to the ACMP, OCRM
determined that it is likely that effects would occur from
implementation of the changes identified below to the ACMP. OCRM's
method for analyzing the effects of implementation of the changes was to
compare the difference between the existing and proposed policy,
standard, or guidance, and determine whether the proposed amendment
provided more, less, or the approximately the same level of coverage for
the environment or opportunity for public, district, and agency
participation as had been provided in the original, approved ACMP. Where
there are more or similar levels of coverage, the analysis identifies
positive or neutral impacts associated with the the changes. Where there
appears to be less coverage, the analysis discusses significanct effects
to the human environment associated with the changes. In addition, the
analysis seeks to identify other State or federal law(s) that might
close the gap in coverage, and how this might mitigate some of the
impacts. Information on impacts related to the changes was sought from a
number of sources, including State and federal agencies, local districts
affected by the changes, institutional knowledge within OCRM and
research (*see* Bibliography).

• AS 46.40.040(b), AS 46.40.096(g) and (k), and 11 AAC 110.040 Exclusion
of DEC permits and authorizations (the "DEC carve-out")

• 11 AAC 112.210 expanded definition of Natural Hazard Areas

• 11 AAC 112.220 requirement that State agencies and districts ensure
projects maintain and increase coastal access to, from, and along
coastal waters

• 11 AAC 112.230 change to siting and approving energy facilities so it
is now based on "the extent practicable; removal from consideration of
not selecting sites in productive habitat, as well as removal of the
standard of selecting sites in areas which are designated for industrial
purposes and where industrial traffic is minimized through population
centers, and broader interpretation of energy facilities.

• 11 AAC 112.240 changes to the standard of "practicable inland
alternative" for the Utility Routes and Facilities policy."

• 11 AAC 112.260 removal of all references to mining in the coastal
policies; and new standard of 'no practicable alternative."

• 11 AAC 112.270 changes to the Subsistence standard that (1) require
designation of subsistence areas; (2) remove requirement for State
agencies and district to recognize and assure opportunities for
subsistence use of coastal areas and resources; and (3) change the
standards from safeguards to "avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence."

• 11 AAC 112.300 removal of language requiring that each type of habitat
be managed to "maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and
chemical characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity
to support living resources; rewrite of the majority of habitat
standards for specific habitat values, including for offshore areas,
estuaries, wetlands, tideflats, exposed high-energy coasts, and rivers,
lakes and streams.

• 6 AAC 80.900(15) removal of "Important Upland Habitat."

• 11 AAC 114.010---11 AAC 114.020 relocation of the ACMP from the
Division of Governmental Coordination in the Governor's Office into the
OPMP within DNR, and the Alaska CPC was dissolved.

• 11 AAC 114.200 -- 11 AAC 114.385 district plan development and
implementation, including resource inventory and resource analysis
requirements; changes to subject uses; new designation requirements; and
new policy development requirements.

• SB 102 sunset of ACMP on May 10, 2006 (essentially, Alternative 2, or
no action alternative).

• HB 69 automatic determination that all shallow natural gas exploration
and development activities in the coastal area meeting certain
requirements are considered to be *de minimis* in nature and therefore
automatically consistent with the ACMP; specifically in areas of the
coastal area that have valuable and developable coal deposits that may
yield natural gas.

It is noted here that alternatives 2 and 3 would both ultimately result
in the revocation of the ACMP, and therefore the same effects. Therefore
the discussion for both of these alternatives has been combined, and
either follows the presentation of consideration of alternative 1 for
each change, or for an entire section. In addition, effects may be
positive, neutral or adverse.

**7.3 HB 191, 11 AAC 110 Changes to Consistency, and HB 86**

This section discusses the effects, if any, from changes in the ACMP's
consistency process as discussed in section 5.3.1.

7.3.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

7.3.1.1 Lead agency

Under Alternative 1, OPMP's assumption of duties as the lead State
agency will have neutral effects since it is not expected to have
significant changes on the ACMP. There may be positive effects to
permitting program efficiency since State agency coordination may
improve now that the lead agency is located within a principal coastal
resource agency (DNR).

7.3.1.2 Trigger Point for Consistency Review

AS 46.40.096(j) and 11 AAC 110.010(b). (The ACMP Program Document (June
2, 2005) at section 6.1 incorrectly cites 11 AAC 110.050(b).) There will
be no effects from this change under Alternative 1.

7.3.1.3 Scope of Review

Alternative 1 will have a positive effect on the State's permitting
process. By specifying the scope of review for State permits to
activities located within the coastal zone and geographic location
descriptions subject to a State resource agency permit, or the subject
of a coastal district enforceable policy, the State permit process will
be more predictable and transparent.

7.3.1.4 Phasing

Alternative 1 will have a neutral effect on the State's permitting
process. Phasing is an administrative tool to review distinct parts of a
project while not holding up earlier phases. OCRM's federal consistency
regulations specifically allow for phased review of federal activities.
Extending Alaska's phasing provisions to projects other than oil and gas
projects, where the projects lend themselves to distinct phases should
not affect Alaska's ability to review entire projects or significantly
affect the districts' or public's ability to comment on the projects.
While specific aspects of later phases may not be available at earlier
phases, the totality of the project will be known and the State should
be able to identify cumulative impacts from later phases.

7.3.1.5 Elevation

Alternative 1 will have a positive effect on Alaska's overall permitting
process and therefore, the State's economy. By limiting elevation to
only the DNR commissioner the effect

of this change will provide for more efficient and expedited decisions.
Parties to elevations will likely need to be diligent in meeting
deadlines and presenting their cases in a complete manner.

7.3.1.6 Third Party Lawsuits

Alternative 1 will have a neutral effect on the State's physical
resources, and a positive effect on socio-economic resources. The effect
of removing third party lawsuits may result in ensuring that only those
parties with a meaningful interest have standing to sue. However,
another effect could be that third parties with concerns about some
projects would be unable to seek redress through the State courts.

> 7.3.1.7 Exclusion of Alaska DEC Permits and Authorizations (the "DEC
> carve-out")

While the DEC carve-out is a change in the ACMP consistency process, it
is not apparent at this point whether the DEC carve-out will affect the
operation of the ACMP policies or significantly affect the human
environment. The single most important process effect of this change is
that districts may no longer adopt policies that address DEC
authorities. For example, districts, may not adopt policies on oil-spill
prevention or nonpoint source pollution. While these process changes
limit the scope of district policies, the DEC policies and standards
remain as the air and water quality standards of the ACMP. The DEC
permitting process still includes a public review and comment period.
Interested members of the public, including coastal districts, can
comment directly to DEC on any concerns with a proposed activity.
Districts also have the ability to provide comments to DEC on
DEC-coordinated consistency reviews and can be afforded due deference by
the reviewing agency in accordance with the process described on pages
136-138 of the ACMP program submission (Appendix C).

In addition, the DEC policies will still be applied to federal lands and
the OCS through the CZMA federal consistency review process. Moreover,
having the DEC standards be the only air and water quality standards for
the ACMP complies fully with CZMA section 307(f) (16 U.S.C. 1456(f)),
that water and air pollution control requirements developed by the
Federal government or by any State or local government shall be the
water and air pollution control requirements applicable to a state's
coastal management program. Thus, it is not apparent that this provision
will result in a change in the level of environmental protection
afforded by the ACMP.

1.  DEC and OCS Activities

One of the issues raised during the scoping process was how the State
would have the ability to address air and water quality issues related
to OCS activities, since DEC does not have authority in the OCS. The
amended ACMP does not change how the State or the public comments on
proposed development on the OCS. All OCS activity is evaluated under
NEPA through MMS' preparation of an EIS and Alaska's review under the
CZMA federal consistency provision. The State (and members of the
public, if they wish) comment on the proposed activity through the
scoping process, and on the draft EIS and during Alaska's CZMA review
comment period. Among other considerations, the State would closely
review the proposed OCS activity for potential impacts on coastal
resources and the enforceable policies that apply to the affected
coastal resources. DNR OPMP, rather than DEC would be the State's lead
for coordinating comments on the MMS EIS and the CZMA review. DEC
provides comments to DNR for use in the consolidated State comments to
MMS.

AS 46.40.040(b)(2) addresses activities that do not require a DEC
authorization because the activity is a federal activity, or is located
on federal lands or a part of the OCS. In these cases, under 11 AAC
112.310, the activities must still be found consistent with DEC's
standards, even though the activity does not require a DEC
authorization. So in order to achieve the federally mandated coordinated
consistency review DEC, nonetheless, applies its regulatory standards to
the proposed activity and forwards its findings to OPMP to include in
DNR's CZMA federal consistency decision. This section conforms to 11 AAC
112.310 and the CZMA's requirement (CZMA section 307(f)) that the
State's air and water quality standards be included in the State's
coastal program.

While any State agency could comment, agencies that would typically
comment on an OCS activity would be DNR, DEC, and the Department of Fish
and Game. The level of involvement of these agencies would depend upon
the scope of the proposed OCS activity.

The review process for Alaska's federal consistency decision is set out
at 11 AAC 110.300 -- 11 AAC 110.355. OPMP is the coordinating agency for
the review of a federal consistency determination submitted by a federal
agency. 11 AAC 110.030(e) provides that OPMP will coordinate with DEC
and issue its findings under AS 46.04.040(b)(2) where there is no DEC
authorization because the activity is a federal activity or the activity
is located on federal land.

7.3.1.8 Time Limitations and Certainty for Consistency Reviews

Alternative 1 will result in a positive effect for overall
administration of the ACMP permitting process, thereby likely having a
positive effect on economic conditions in the State. By establishing a
time limitation and deadline for completing the consistency review
process, the State permit process will be more predictable and
efficient. This change will require that permit reviewers be diligent in
following public notices, and providing comments. Overall, however,

the deadline is consistent with CZMA policies and regulations to improve
the efficiency and predictability of decision-making.

7.3.1.9 ABC List, General Permits

Alternative 1 would have a neutral effect on the physical and
socio-economic environments because the changes to the ABC List provided
as part of the ACMP program submission are technical and editorial
updates. The ABC List provides expedited consistency reviews for those
activities that are de minimis in nature and/or are routine and can be
stipulated into compliance through the application of established
alternative measures.

7.3.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effect of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have negative impacts on the physical and
socio-economic environment. The result under alternative 2 or 3 is that
Alaska would no longer have a federally approved CZMA program and,
therefore, the CZMA federal consistency provision would no longer apply
to federal agency activities, federal license or permit activities, OCS
oil and gas plans or federal financial assistance activities. Federal
agencies and applicants for federal authorizations or funds would not
have to coordinate with the State under the CZMA and would not have to
be consistent with State or district enforceable policies. Alaska would
have no basis or authority to request such CZMA reviews. Alaska and the
districts would only have review of federal actions as provided for by
federal laws other than the CZMA. Review under other federal laws, where
such reviews are provided for, would be significantly more limited in
scope than the CZMA review, both in terms of Alaska laws and district
enforceable policies that would apply and in a less comprehensive
review. Depending on the type and frequency of the federal actions, the
result may be physical deterioration of natural resources, since many
federal actions would no longer have to be consistent with Alaska
policies. There may also be deterioration of the management of important
coastal uses such as subsistence use, since federal actions affecting
subsistence uses and resources would no longer be subject to Alaska's
coastal standards and district policies through the CZMA federal
consistency review process, although there are other State and federal
laws and managed programs, both inside and outside the coastal zone,
addressing uses and resources, such as subsistence. The public would
also lose its ability to comment on many federal actions through the
CZMA federal consistency public review process.

**7.4 HB 191, 11 AAC 112 Revisions to Statewide Coastal Standards**

This section discusses the effects related to changes to the ACMP
Statewide Coastal Standards at 11 AAC 112, as described above in section
5.2.2.

> 7.4.1 11 AAC 112.210 Natural Hazard Areas

7.4.1.1 Alternative 1--- Effects of Program Change

Alternative 1 may have a positive effect on the physical environment.
The natural hazard standard establishes the designation of natural
hazards as a planning function, and sets the standard by which proposed
projects must comply. The standard applies throughout the coastal area
to those natural hazards designated by DNR or a coastal district. The
new standard will broaden the coverage of the old geophysical hazards
standard and allows coastal districts to both identify natural hazards
not identified under 11 AAC 112.990 and designate natural hazard areas
in their district plans for both. A broader definition of coastal hazard
areas will allow the State and districts to expand coverage for areas
previously not covered by the coastal hazard standards. Districts may
develop enforceable policies related to natural hazards, and may apply
those policies to activities occurring in or, as provided for at 11 AAC
110.015, affecting an area designated in their district plan as a
natural hazard area. Furthermore, the standard recognizes

that municipalities retain their Title 29 zoning and building code
authorities to address the project details of natural hazard mitigation
measures.

The changes to the previous geophysical hazard standard provide greater
certainty regarding what constitutes a hazard, what is meant by "siting,
design, and construction measures for minimizing property damage and
protecting against loss of life." The changes have also improved on the
existing standard by providing for coordinating agency consultation with
appropriate natural hazard experts in the DGGS, the flood Program in the
Department of Community and Economic Development, and "other local or
State agencies with expertise." In addition, the new standard allows
State agencies to identify natural hazard areas during a project review.
Finally, 11 AAC 112.990 has been amended to require demonstration of a
scientific basis and supporting evidence for the designation of
additional natural processes or adverse conditions not included in the
definition as "natural hazards."

2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have a negative effect on the physical
environment. The State and districts would no longer have coastal
programs and plans, and federal and State consistency would not apply to
projects in coastal areas. The existing Federal, State, and local
government laws would continue to be in effect, however, there would be
no consolidated review for impacts on coastal resources, nor would
federal or State agencies be required to take into consideration
standards that specifically address coastal resources.

7.4.2 11 AAC 112.220 Coastal Access

> 7.4.2.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

Alternative 1 would have a neutral effect on the physical and
socio-economic environment. Under the change to the State's standards,
Number range CHAPTERcoastal access has now replaced the term
"recreation," although it has retained essentially the same definition
in terms of the designation of recreational use areas (*See* section AAC
114.250(c)(d)). However, the revised ACMP now requires that State
agencies and districts "ensure" that projects maintain, and where
appropriate, increase public access to, from, and along coastal waters
rather than the previous standard, which was "give high priority to"
public access. District enforceable policies may be district wide or
area specific. The State standard is written broadly enough such that a
coastal district could write more specific enforceable policies. For
example, a district could list what appropriate access is in
publicly-owned waterfront property, and under what circumstances it is
appropriate to mandate increasing that access. In this sense, the State
has improved the status of access requirement via "ensuring" rather than
"giving "high priority to" public access.

However, the scope of the policy is also now limited to the boundary of
the new definition of "coastal waters," which means "waters containing a
quantity or percentage of sea water (11 AAC 112.990 (7)). Prior to the
program amendments, coastal waters were defined as "all water bodies in
the coastal area, including wetlands and the intertidal area. Therefore,
the requirements for ensuring public access will now apply to an
unquantified smaller area of the State's coastal zone. Between these two
changes, this revision is considered to have a neutral effect.

In terms of the socio-economic effects; the revised policy may incur an
additional financial burden on waterfront developments that are required
to include public access as part of their projects either through
application of State or district policies. In addition to design
elements, businesses may have to take into consideration additional
property insurance premiums. However, the general public will benefit
from additional public access opportunities to the waterfront, and other
local businesses are likely to experience positive economic benefits
from having an accessible waterfront.

2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have negative effects on the
socio-economic environment. The State and districts would no longer have
coastal programs and plans, and there would be no State public access
standard with which federal, State, or local governments would ensure
consistency as part of permit approval. There may continue to be local
public access requirements, however, they could not be used for
consistency purposes for federal and State projects. The result might be
a reduction in the amount of public access available to coastal
residents and visitors, which in turn could result in reduced enjoyment
of the coastal area, as well as a loss of revenue in waterfront areas
that attract tourists.Number range CHAPTER

> 7.4.3 11 AAC 112.230 Energy Facilities

The State made several changes to the Energy Facilities standard which
will have to be analyzed individually for their differing effects on the
physical and socio-economic environment. Each of these changes is
discussed separately below.

7.4.3.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

> 7.4.3.1.1 "Extent Practicable"

Changing the basis for the siting and approval of major energy
facilities by districts and State agencies from "to the extent feasible
and prudent" to "the extent practicable" is likely to have a neutral
effect on the physical and socio-economic environment. The State's
definition of the term "practicable" at 11 AAC 112.990(18) is "feasible
in light of overall project purposes after considering cost, existing
technology, and logistics of compliance with the standards." This
amended definition establishes that (1) an applicant must comply with
the coastal standards unless compliance is not feasible (as defined);
and (2) incorporates the term "in light of overall project purposes." In
other words, if costs/logistics factors do not make compliance with the
standards impracticable, then the standards must be met. This is
potentially more stringent than the previous standard of "feasible and
prudent," which used an unpredictable balancing test to determine
whether the standard must be met. Also, the new definition allows a
project reviewer the discretion to examine the overall worth of the
project, balanced against the effect that it (or implementation of one
of its component activities) might have on coastal resources, public
benefit, and the rights of individual or collective stakeholders. The
change in the basis is unlikely to make a significant difference in the
designation decisions made by State agencies and districts.

7.4.3.1.2 Changes to Criteria

The State made two significant changes to the criteria for where to site
energy facilities, the second of which, described below, may result in
negative impacts to the physical and socio-economic environment. First,
the State has changed the criteria's wording by removing the language
"in productive habitat" from the criteria, "select sites where
development will require minimal site clearing, dredging and
construction in productive habitat." Under alternative 1, this change
would have a neutral effect on the physical environment because language
in several other of the criteria used for siting development of major
energy facilities will ensure the protection of productive habitat.
Criteria 11 through 14 continue to cover consideration of: fishing
grounds, spawning grounds, other biologically productive or vulnerable
habitats, including marine mammal rookeries and hauling out grounds and
waterfowl nesting areas, areas for the free passage and movement of fish
and wildlife with due consideration for historic migratory patterns,
particular scenic, recreational, environmental or cultural value
identified in district plans, and areas of least biological
productivity, diversity, and vulnerability.

The second change to the energy facilities criteria may potentially have
negative effects for the physical and socio-economic environments. The
State has removed the criteria for siting energy facilities, "selecting
sites in areas which are designated for industrial purposes and where
industrial traffic is minimized through population centers." The State's
rationale for taking this action was that "traffic standards are more
properly applied through local zoning, ordinances, and other Title 29
authority." However, during the program amendment public meetings
several of the district and local program representatives stated that
relying on local zoning, ordinances and Title 29 authorities will not be
an effective substitute for the ACMP standards and criteria, since not
all local government have these types of authorities in place, and it
will be a hardship for districts with Title 29 authority to develop
them. If this criterion is removed from consideration during siting of
major energy facilities, it could result in siting facilities where they
would have negative impacts on population centers not appropriate for
industrial purposes and industrial traffic. Potential impacts include
increased noise, air pollution, increased exposure to hazardous
chemicals, increased potential for danger to populations related to
accidents and spills of hazardous materials, and reduction in property
values.

7.4.3.1.3 Redefinition of Major Energy Facility

The last change made to the Energy Facilities standard is the further
definition of "uses authorized by the issuance of state and federal
leases for mineral and petroleum resource extraction" to include
easements, contracts, rights-of-way, or permits for mineral and
petroleum resource extraction. This change will have a positive effect
on the physical and socio-economic environment. DNR found the term
"major energy facility" in 6 AAC 80.900(1), vague and unwieldy, and too
limiting with its requirement that all the listed items be "facilities,"
since this could conceivably exclude some exploration-type activities
that were intended to be included. In response to confusion over the
definition of the term, the definition was amended to address the
concern that only "facilities" were covered, although it is clear that
"facilities" are still covered. The further definition of the term now
includes natural gas pipelines, rights-of-way and natural gas treatment
and processing facilities.

The State's ability to comment on OCS oil and gas development has not
changed as a result of the new regulations. The original language is
from the consistency review regulations in 6 AAC 50 adopted in February
2003 and previously approved by OCRM. The geographical scope of the ACMP
in that previous regulation and 11 AAC 110.010(c) includes federal lands
and the OCS. HB 191 specifically addresses OCS reviews in the context of
DEC standards in AS 46.40.040(b)(2). Also, AS 46.40.210's definition of
State coastal zone explicitly includes

federal lands and OCS.

7.4.3.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have negative effects on the physical and
socio-economic environment. The State and districts would no longer have
coastal programs and plans, and there would be no energy facility
standard that the State or districts could use to ensure consistency.
There may continue to be standards related to separate federal, State
and local laws and regulations, however, these would not be coordinated,
nor would they necessarily achieve a previously agreed-upon level of
protection for the physical environment, nor could they be used for
consistency purposes for federal and State projects. The result would
likely be physical deterioration of natural resources and the
environment, a delay in the siting and permitting of energy facilities
along with the associated costs and loss of business investment, and an
increased amount of litigation. Districts would lose their ability to
influence the siting of major energy facilities through the loss of the
district plan process.

7.4.4 11 AAC 112.240 Utility Routes and Facilities

> 7.4.4.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

Alternative 1 will have neutral effects on the physical and
socio-economic environments. Alaska's pre-existing standard combined
transportation and utility routes and facilities within one standard,
i.e., "Transportation and Utilities." Under the proposed standards, the
State has separated the two uses; utilities routes and facilities, and
transportation routes and facilities. In part this is because
transportation routes and facilities are typically not located on the
beaches and shorelines, which is reflected in the new, separate policies
for these uses discussed in more detail below. The State's and
districts' utility routes and facilities policies will apply within the
coastal area. District enforceable policies may be district wide or area
specific, and can be located on beaches and shorelines, throughout the
coastal area, or even inland, providing the policies meet the criteria
at 11 AAC 114.270(h). In addition, the standard was revised to require
that utility routes and facilities be sited inland unless it is
water-dependent or water-related, or no "practicable inland alternative
exists." These changes are all clarifications and further definition
that are unlikely to result in application of the State's standards or
districts' policies in a way that would impact either the physical or
socio-economic environment of the State.

2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have negative effects on the physical
and socio-economic environment---specifically water quality, wildlife
transit, and subsistence access. The State and districts would no longer
have a coastal program and plans, and they would be unable to apply
coastal utility routes and facilities standards for consistency purposes
for other federal, State or local permits. The result could be a
reduction in protection for coastal resources and in due to the
inappropriate siting of utilities routes and facilities in the coastal
area or in areas that would have negative impacts on coastal
areas.Number range CHAPTER

> 7.4.5 11 AAC 112.260 Mining, Sand and Gravel

7.4.5.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

Alternative 1 should have a neutral effect on the physical and
socio-economic environments. Under 11 AAC 112.260, the word "mining" has
been removed as a use that is reviewed by the State's coastal management
program. Previously, the coastal policies stated:

> Mining and mineral processing in the coastal area must be regulated,
> designed, and conducted so as to be compatible with the standards
> contained in this chapter, adjacent uses and activities, statewide and
> national needs, and district programs.

The new policy does not address mining. Alaska's program submittal
states that this change does not mean that mining will not be regulated
in the State's coastal area, and is reflective of the original program's
wording that "while mining and mineral processing have impacts on
coastal values, most of these impacts are addressed by other ACMP
standards." Or as the State explains,

> the standard was changed to reflect that the former regulation simply
> repeated the substantial mining regulations already in place (e.g.,
> suction dredging in a waterbody designated as important for the
> spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fish is required to
> obtain a Recreational Suction Dredge Permit from the DNR Office of
> Habitat Management and Permitting (OHMP)

The State goes on to explain that it deleted mining as a use in order to
comply with HB 191's legislative mandate to "eliminate duplication or
restatement of other State or federal requirements." If a district still
has local issues after considering the application of State and federal
mining requirements, then it can still address mining-related activities
through its other district policies for utility routes and facilities,
transportation routes and facilities, energy facilities, or subsistence,
or other standards under Section 11 AAC 114.

Existing State and federal laws and regulations will continue to be
applied as they currently are, and there will be no change in the level
of protection typically afforded to Alaska's coastal resources insomuch
as that application was not dependent on the ACMP for implementation.
However, there are other implications.

First, the original effect of the mining standard was to ensure that
mining activities either taking place in the State's coastal zone, or
having effects on the State's coastal resources would have to be
"regulated, designed and conducted" so that it met all of the other
standards in the State's coastal program, including the State's habitat
and subsistence standards, and any district program policies that
included mining policies. Under the CZMA and its federal consistency
provisions, this included mining activities that occurred on federal
lands, if they affected the State's or a district's coastal resources.
With the removal of mining as a specific use of concern to the ACMP,
while other State and federal laws may apply to mining-related
activities, federal agency activities are no longer required to be
consistent with State and district coastal standards. Three federal
permits are required for conducting mining activities in Alaska: EPA
(NPDES for discharge of water into stream, river, wetland, or any other
natural body of water), ACOE (404 and general permits for activities in
wetlands), and BLM (Land Use Permit for long term camping when using a
suction dredge on a State navigable river). None of these include
policies that are specific to local district resources or issues.

In terms of mining on State lands, the removal of "mining" from the ACMP
standards will have a similar effect. While State laws will continue to
apply to mining-related activities, previously, mining activities
themselves were required to be consistent with the State's coastal
standards and district program policies. The district programs had
specific policies, many of which included being involved in the siting
and planning process. These assurances have been removed. While these
assurances have been removed and the districts' input lessened, there is
not sufficient evidence to suggest that mining regulation under State
laws and not through the State CZMA program will result in significant
new impacts to the human environment.

While these are changes to how Alaska has previously addressed mining
through the ACMP, the issue that must be addressed is whether this
change to the mining standard will result in any significant impacts to
the affected resources. Mining will continue to be a regulated activity
in the State's coastal area through other State coastal standards, and
State and federal permits. The State's original coastal program did not
include any specific standards for mining or mining-related activities,
also finding that they would be addressed through the other ACMP
standards (although the State was not specific regarding which of these
standards would "catch" other mining activities).

Ultimately, the final impact is that districts that currently have
mining-specific standards in place will lose their ability to apply
them, and will experience difficulty adopting other-such standards due
to the new district plan guidance (*See* discussion below). While this
analysis cannot determine what the precise impacts to coastal resources
will result from this change, it is

clear that mining and mining processes will continue to be environmental
concerns in Alaska's coastal area well into the future.

2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have negative effects on the physical
environment, essentially the same as Alternative 1. Insomuch as there
are other standards within the ACMP that would continue to address other
effects from mining activities, alternatives 2 and 3 would be worse than
alternative 1.

> 7.4.6 11 AAC 112.270 Subsistence

The State has made significant revisions to the ACMP's subsistence
standards. These include:

● The removal of the coast-wide requirement that districts and State
agencies recognize and assure opportunities for subsistence usage of
coastal areas and resources;

● Districts are now required to designate subsistence areas where
subsistence policies apply. Previously, districts identified areas in
which subsistence is the dominant use of coastal resources, and after
appropriate consultation designated such areas as subsistence zones
where subsistence uses and activities had priority over all
non-subsistence uses and activities;

● The standard for addressing impacts from authorized uses within a
designated subsistence area has been changed from providing "appropriate
safeguards to assure subsistence usage" to "must avoid or minimize
impacts to subsistence uses of coastal resources." Concerns have been
expressed that the State has failed to include opportunities to mitigate
any negative impacts.

● The requirement for districts sharing migratory fish and game
resources to submit compatible plans for habitat management has been
removed.

7.4.6.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

Under Alternative 1, the revised subsistence standard may have negative
effects on subsistence resources and subsistence lifestyles, however,
this may be offset by the continued requirements of other federal and
state subsistence laws and program requirements. The State has removed
the overarching requirement that districts and state agencies recognize
and assure opportunities for subsistence usage of coastal areas and
resources. However, the State has retained the ability for: (1) the
State to designate subsistence areas; (2) districts to designate
subsistence areas and develop subsistence policies; and (3) for State
and district policies to apply to federal actions located outside
designated areas if the federal action will have an effect on
subsistence uses, regardless of the location of the federal action or
where the effect to subsistence uses occur. The State's revised
standards still ensure that districts and State agencies have the

opportunity to recognize and assure subsistence usage of coastal areas
and resources through the requirements for designation of subsistence
areas.

While the previous standard also required identification of areas where
subsistence is the "dominant" use of coastal resources, and designation
of these areas as subsistence zones in which subsistence uses and
activities had priority over all non-subsistence uses and activities,
these designations did not restrict application of the overall standard
of recognizing and assuring opportunities for subsistence usage areas
and resources throughout the State and districts' coastal area. The
major difference under 11 AAC 114.250(g) is that the State or a district
subsistence policies only apply outside designated areas if there is a
federal action reviewed through the federal consistency process, and not
other activities occurring outside a designated subsistence use area and
that does not have a federal connection. Designations may be made
anywhere in the coastal area (based on demonstration of subsistence
use), although, as before, designations are not allowed on federal land.

As described above and provided for at 11 AAC 110.015, the subsistence
standard is applied when a use or activity subject to the consistency
review is proposed to be located within or affect an approved designated
area in which subsistence use is an important use of coastal resources.
Under 11 AAC 114.270, a district may then develop enforceable policies
that will be used to determine whether a specific land or water use or
activity will be allowed. Therefore, unless the State or district has
designated a subsistence use area, the State or district subsistence
policies cannot be applied even if subsistence resources are being
affected.

Designating subsistence areas requires gathering a significant amount of
information. According to the State, "the major sideboards to the
districts' right to establish enforceable policies, including
designation of a subsistence priority, is the "matter of local concern"
test in AS 46.40/070(a)(2)(c) and the requirement that the policies "not
arbitrarily or unreasonably restrict or exclude uses of state concern."
Thus, a district may establish an enforceable policy concerning a given
use or resource, e.g., subsistence, under the "matter of local concern"
test as long as the district can demonstrate that the use or resource is
(1) sensitive to development; (2) not adequately addressed by State or
federal law; and (3) of unique concern to the coastal resource district.

Districts do not develop enforceable policies to apply within their
designated subsistence use areas. The State has found that because the
State standard applies to areas designated by a district, and the State
standard provides the specific criteria that apply to uses or activities
within the designated area, a district does not have to write an
enforceable policy in its plan.

One of the major issues identified in the scoping process is the new
standard's requirements that projects designated in subsistence areas
are now required to either "avoid or minimize impacts to subsistence
uses of coastal resources." State guidance on this issue specifically
states mitigation is not a "prong" in the subsistence standard's avoid
or minimize sequencing process. While the previous standard neither
mentioned nor required mitigation, it is clear in practice that
Districts were allowed to develop enforceable policies that included
mitigation for impacts to subsistence resources for any damages that
might occur as the result of a project being approved. Many commenters
felt that any projects approved in subsistence use areas that result in
impacts to subsistence resources should still be allowed, or at least
not specifically prohibited from seeking mitigation for those impacts,
whether they were minimized or not. Others felt that the State's
standard and explanation that it would "not authorize" any projects that
did not meet the "avoid or minimize" standard was insufficient promise
and unrealistic.

Districts that are in the process of developing their new plans have
stated that the practical application of the new subsistence standard
for the ACMP is that they are unable to develop any enforceable policies
for subsistence areas beyond "allowing or disallowing a use," and those
policies may not address subsistence access, level of need, or a
subsistence use priority. (*See* scoping comments from North Slope
Borough, Lake and Peninsula Borough, Bristol Bay CRSA at Appendix D).
This interpretation stems from the State's "flow from" policy (*See*
discussion at 5.1.3.2.5).

There are likely to be some negative impacts to subsistence resources if
even 'minimized' impacts that could have been mitigated under the
previous district coastal standards, are now not permitted to be
addressed under the new State standard based on the state's "flow from"
requirement. Any negative impact to coastal subsistence resources will
likely have negative impacts on economic and cultural conditions of
importance to coastal populations, which represent both large minority
and lower income groups.

Other State and federal laws provide a priority for subsistence uses,
and this would serve as a mitigating factor to any reduction in the
districts abilities to develop subsistence use policies. The Federal
Subsistence Board assumed a role in the management of subsistence taking
of wildlife on federal public lands in Alaska on July 1, 1990. Its role
expanded on October 1, 1999 to include taking fish in rivers, lakes and
marine waters adjacent to federal public lands. Federal public lands are
those managed by the USFWS, NPS, BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. At the State level, the
State's Division of Subsistence conducts research to document
subsistence uses, estimates subsistence harvest levels, and evaluates
potential impacts to subsistence users from other uses. Research
findings are compiled and analyzed to address fish and wildlife
management and regulatory issues and to provide information for State
and federal land use planning. When the Alaska Board of Fisheries or the
Alaska Board of Game meets, a representative of the federal board serves
as a liaison and participates in the board discussions. When the Federal
Subsistence Board meets, the Commissioner of Alaska Fish and Game
participates as a nonvoting member on the board. In addition, a
representative of the department of Fish and Game provides information
and positions from the department. An Interim Memorandum of Agreement to
coordinate fisheries and wildlife management for subsistence uses on
federal public lands in Alaska was authorized in April 2002. The
agreement provides a foundation and direction for coordinating
subsistence management consistent with State and federal statutes in
order to protect and promote the sustained health of fish and wildlife
populations, ensure conservation and stability in

management, and include meaningful public involvement.
(<http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/bofgfsb/index.php>, last viewed
8/26/05)

In addition to higher level coordination on subsistence issues, State
and federal agencies also work with Native Alaska governments to address
subsistence issues as part of project development. For example, the ADFG
and Alaska Boards of Fisheries and Game have a policy on
government-to-government relations with federally-recognized tribes of
Alaska regarding department or board actions that significantly or
uniquely affect a tribal government in Alaska and pertaining to any
tribal action that significantly or uniquely affects the department or
boards. The goal is to ensure the department conducts consultations in a
culturally sensitive manner, and promote coordination with the tribes
prior to taking action or undertaking any activity that will
significantly or uniquely affect the tribes' access to or use of fish,
wildlife, or habitat. The DOI MMS, before proceeding with an oil and gas
leas sale or approving an OCS plan, consults with federally-recognized
tribes consistent with Government-to-Government consultation and
coordination requirements.

The conclusion that Alternative 1 may result in negative impacts to
subsistence resources and subsistence lifestyle is based on the
cumulative effects of the above changes. Subsistence resources under
Alternative 1 may receive a reduced level of identification, priority,
and protection by the districts. However, other federal and State
agencies are required and do take subsistence into consideration as part
of their planning and permitting processes, and this would serve as a
mitigating factor.

7.4.6.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have negative impacts on the
subsistence resources and subsistence lifestyle. The State and districts
would no longer have a coastal program and plans, and they would be
unable to designate any subsistence areas or apply subsistence policies
in the coastal zone for federal or State consistency purposes. The
result could be a reduction in protection for subsistence resources,
which would in turn have a negative impact on subsistence lifestyles.
However, this would be mitigated somewhat by the continued application
of other federal and State agency subsistence requirements.Number range
CHAPTER

> 7.4.7 11 AAC 112.300 Resources and Habitats

The State made several changes to the habitat standards. The most
comprehensive change was the removal of the previous introductory
language to the habitat section requiring that each type of habitat be
managed to "maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical
characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity to
support living resources." The State rewrote the standard for each
habitat type such that it will now be managed for a more specific range
of habitat values. Only two types of habitat (rocky islands and
seacliffs, and barrier islands and lagoons) continue to include
biological considerations. In addition, the State included the
opportunity for either districts or the State to designate "important
habitat," which can be managed to "avoid, minimize, or mitigate
significant adverse impacts to the special productivity of the habitat."
Section 5.3.2.12 provides a full description of the changes that were
made to the eight habitat areas: offshore areas; estuaries, wetlands,
tideflats, rocky island and seacliffs, barrier islands and lagoons;
exposed high-energy coasts; and rivers, lakes and streams, as well as
the new standard for designating "important habitat."

As part of the overall amendments to the ACMP, the State is placing
emphasis on other existing State resource agencies' authorities and
their coverage of habitat management, including the components of
habitats that contribute to biological productivity. Those State
resource agency authorities are applicable throughout Alaska. Other
authorities the State will be relying on include:

● 18 AAC 70, the State's Water Quality Standards, which require
providing a level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses
that must be maintained to support and protect the growth and
reproduction of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife for
both fresh and marine water. Standards must be met for a series of
pollutants, including color, fecal coliform, bacteria, dissolved gas,
dissolved inorganic substances, petroleum, hydrocarbons, oils and
grease, pH, radioactivity, residues (floating solids, debris, sludge,
deposits, foam and scum), sediment temperature, toxics, and turbidity).
These standards are enforced by DEC, and will be handled separately
through the DEC permits, which in and of themselves will represent
consistency with the ACMP.

● Alaska Statute 41.14.840 (Fishway Act) requires that an individual or
government agency notify and obtain authorization from DNR OHMP for
activities within or across a stream used by fish if the OHMP determines
that such uses or activities could represent an impediment to the
efficient passage of fish. For example, culvert installation, water
withdrawals; stream realignment or diversion; dams; low-water crossings;
and construction, placement, deposition, or removal of any material or
structure below ordinary high water all require OHMP approval.

● Alaska Statute 41.14.870 (Anadromous Fish Act) requires that an
individual or government agency provide prior notification and obtain
permit approval from the OHMP "to construct a hydraulic project or use,
divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the natural flow or bed" of a
specified waterbody (AS 41.14.870(b)). All activities within or across a
specified anadromous waterbody and all instream activities affecting a
specified anadromous waterbody require approval from the OHMP, including
construction; road crossings, gravel removal; mining, water withdrawals;
the use of vehicles or equipment in the waterway; stream realignment or
diversion; bank stabilization; blasting; and the placement, excavation,
deposition, or removal of any material. Some common activities which
require a Fish Habitat Permit include stream fords, heavy equipment
operated on the ice, water withdrawal, boat launch and dock
construction, and culvert placement. Common activities which do not
usually require a permit are hand mining, beaver dam removal by hand,
and operation of light vehicles on the ice; however requirements for
streambank or streambed disturbance need to be considered.

Other State agencies also require authorization for certain activities
in waterbodies that take into consideration habitat issues including the
Division of Mining, Land and Water and the ADFG. For offshore mining
projects, 11 ACC 86.500, the director of DNR prepares a written finding
that considers fish and wildlife species and their habitats in the
application area, and the current and projected uses in the application
area, including uses and value of fish and wildlife, among other
factors. Water Use Permits under 11 AAC 93 contain general requirements
to protect fish and wildlife habitat affected by water uses. The
commissioner issues certificates of appropriation to the permit holder
for the quantity of water that takes into consideration conditions to
maintain a specific quantity of water at a given point on a stream or
waterbody, or in a specified stretch of stream, throughout the year or
for specified times of the year to achieve, among other things, the
protection of fish and wildlife habitat. Tideland use permits (11 AAC
96) describe policies for low intensity uses of tidelands, including
general conditions that activities must be conducted in a manner that
minimizes "disturbance of vegetation, soil stability, or drainage
systems; changing the character of, polluting, or introducing silt and
sediment into streams, lakes, ponds, water holes, seeps, and marshes;
and disturbance of fish and wildlife resources."

In addition to State protection, certain activities within waterbodies
may also require additional authorizations from federal agencies,
including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. EPA, and U.S. Forest
Service.

The State recognizes the value of certain habitats within its vast
coastal area, which it has listed. The State standards at 11 AAC 112.300
supplement those State resource agency authorities, and provide enhanced
and increased habitat management for those uses and resources of the
coastal zone. Each of the standards contributes to the comprehensive
management of elements of the habitat resources. Within the habitat
standard itself, the State is further managing certain habitat types,
and specifically addressing those characteristics of the habitat they
feel are necessary, and are not covered by other authorities.

In addition, to account for any resource that may not be adequately
addressed through other State laws, regulations, and the ACMP standards,
as well as federal laws, the State has built into the ACMP the ability
to designate "important habitats" on a case-by-case basis during a
project's consistency review. Important habitats are part of the habitat
standard, and bolster the general habitat standard by managing those
"important habitats" to "avoid, minimize, or mitigate significant
adverse impacts of the special productivity of the habitat." In
addition, coastal districts and the State can identify habitats that are
of local importance and significance (i.e., a matter of local concern),
and develop additional enforceable policies to further manage those
habitats.

> 7.4.7.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

Alternative 1 may have a neutral effect on Alaska's resources and
habitat, depending on how the designation of "important habitats" is
ultimately implemented. Alaska's program amendment submission
demonstrates that the State has sufficient statewide regulatory coverage
of its resources and habitat. OCRM's greatest interest in reviewing and
approving the revised ACMP habitat standard has been to establish if the
existing Alaska statutes and regulations, when combined with the new
ACMP habitat standards would provide a comprehensive and specific set of
enforceable policies to protect the habitat values of the important
coastal marine resources the State has identified, including wetlands,
tidelands, estuaries, barrier islands, and beaches. As described above,
the State has established a comprehensive management scheme for coastal
habitat. However, the complex process required for designating an
"important habitat," as well as its "district-by-district" approach
which does not take into consideration widely established ecosystem
approach to habitat management are negatively contributing factors to
Alternative 1.

2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have negative impacts on the Alaska's
coastal resources and habitat. The State and districts would no longer
have a coastal program and plans, and they would be unable to designate
any "important habitat" areas or apply habitat policies for offshore
areas; estuaries, wetlands, tideflats, rocky island and seacliffs,
barrier islands and lagoons; exposed high-energy coasts; and rivers,
lakes and streams for federal or State consistency purposes. Insomuch as
the State is relying in large part on existing State statutes and
regulations to protect coastal resources, there would be a neutral
effect. Districts in particular would lose the opportunity to negotiate
on federal projects with respect to habitat issues, which are of
particular interest to them due to mining and oil and gas activities on
federal lands.

7.4.8 Removal of "Important Upland Habitat"

The State has removed "important upland habitat" as one of the habitats
in the coastal area which is subject to the ACMP. However, the ACMP
still addresses upland habitat, which is defined at 6 AAC 80.900(15) as
"drainages, aquifers, and land, the use of which would have a direct and
significant impact on coastal water."

7.4.8.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

Alternative 1 would have a neutral effect on important upland habitat.
Under the ACMP amendments, districts still have the ability to address
important upland habitat through the designation of important habitats
in uplands. An "important habitat" is a portion or portions of the seven
habitats listed in 11 AAC 112.300(c), that are either designated as an
important habitat by DNR or the district, or identified as State game
refuges, State game sanctuaries, State range areas, or fish and game
critical habitat areas under AS 16.20. Therefore, if a use of a portion
of a river, for example, has a direct and significant impact on coastal
waters and can be shown to be

biologically and significantly productive, then the habitat can be
designated as "important habitat" by the district, even if that portion
of the river is significantly upland.

7.4.8.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have negative impacts on important upland
habitat because it is through the ACMP that the State can apply its
policies upstream of coastal waters.

9.  Changes to Sequencing of Avoid, Minimize or Mitigate

Changes have been made to the State's sequencing process to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to affected coastal resources from
development projects. The mitigation policy is an element of the
habitat, utilities and roads, and transportation routes and facilities
standards. As described in the previous section on habitat, the original
standard was the "maintain or enhance" requirement. The process of "to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate" involves avoidance of impacts where
practicable, minimization of impacts where avoidance is not practicable,
and compensating for impacts to the extent appropriate and practicable.
According to the State's mitigation policy, deference will be given to
federal mitigation requirements if the coordinating State agency
determines that the mitigation requirements proposed by the federal
agency would satisfy the ACMP mitigation requirements.

In the course of modifying this requirement, the State further clarified
that the current mitigation standard does not involve monetary
compensation (or fee in lieu) of impacted resources, nor does the
standard require a no net loss of coastal resources. Further, the terms
"restore" and "replace" impacted coastal resources were replaced with
the term "rehabilitate", or alternatively improve a different
site---either on-site or off-site. It was determined that
rehabilitation, or the return of at least some ecosystem function and
some original species, would be a more realistic goal for large-scale
projects.

1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Preferred Alternative

It is not clear that changes to the sequencing process; to avoid,
minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable
versus the old standard, "maintain or enhance", will have a direct
negative impact on coastal resources affected from development projects.
According to the State, the new standard is a stringent one, requiring
applicant first and foremost to avoid any adverse impacts entirely. Only
where avoiding the impacts to the maximum extent practicable would the
applicant then attempt to minimize the adverse impacts, and if unable to
to do that, the project would be required to mitigate impacts. The State
asserts that the previous standard to "maintain or enhance" was
unrealistic and unachievable, and was undermined by another section of
the rules that allowed non-conforming uses if (1) the use satisfied
significant public need, (2) there was no feasible prudent alternative,
and (3) the project proponent had taken "all feasible and prudent steps
to maximize conformance with the standards." In addition, large projects
that result in adverse effects to coastal resources are most likely to
require federal permits, and therefore be required to meet federal
mitigation requirements. Furthermore, the State contends that the
previous standard under the ACMP never envisioned a "no net loss"
policy, nor was that applied.

Where there is likely to be impacts is at the district level. The
program changes that relate to the ability of district programs to apply
the state mitigation standard have been greatly restricted. Districts
have been advised that because the term "avoid, minimize, or mitigate"
is defined in 11 AAC 112.990 and the term is used in some of the state
standards, the matter is adequately addressed for those particular
standards (habitat, utilities and roads, and transportation routes and
facilities). In addition, since the state standard completely defines
the terms "mitigation", and "practicability", these terms also can not
be further refined by the districts, or developed for any other
standards, since the term would not "flow from" existing state
standards. This will reduce the opportunity for local influence in
shaping development proposals that could have impacts on local
resources.

2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have negative impacts on the Alaska's
coastal resources and habitat. The State and districts would no longer
have a coastal program and plans, and there would be no ACMP or district
standards for avoiding, minimizing or mitigating impacts specifically to
coastal resources. Potentially, development in coastal habitat, and
related to utilities and transportation, not covered by a federal permit
would not be required to avoid, minimize or mitigate for impacts to
coastal resources, unless covered by another state or local permit that
also included such requirements. Districts in particular would lose the
opportunity to negotiate on federal projects with respect to mitigation
requirements, since federal mitigation requirements that include a no
net loss approach may be more appealing to them than the State's
approach, and the ACMP is an important resource for participating in
federal decisions with impacts on district coastal lands.

4.  **HB 191, 11 AAC 114 -- District Plan Guidance**

This section discusses the effects related to changes to the government
process, the ACMP structure, and State and district roles in the ACMP,
as discussed in section 5.3.3, supra. These changes do affect the
ability of districts to participate in the ACMP. They include
dissolution of the CPC, transfer of the lead agency function from the
DGC to the DNR, and a reduction in the scope and breadth of enforceable
policies that districts can include in their programs. However, while
some of these changes may have significant socio-economic impacts, there
is no requirement in the CZMA that a State must rely on local government
implementation. Therefore, if a coastal State that has a local
government component wants to increase or diminish that local
involvement, it may do so, as long as the State continues to meet the
requirements for having the organization and authorities to manage its
coastal zone.

1.  Government Process (11 AAC 114.010 -- 11 AAC 114.020)

Under EO 106 and HB 191, the ACMP was relocated from the Division of
Governmental Coordination in the Governor's Office into the OPMP within
the DNR, and the CPC was dissolved. The role of the CPC was to provide
policy-level leadership for the ACMP, and to serve as the main
coordination mechanism for the ACMP, as well as the repository of most
of the authority for the program. Since the ACMP was originally intended
to be based on both State agency and local authorities, the CPC
membership was composed of representatives of both groups. There were
nine elected local government officials and seven State agency heads on
the Council. The Council was responsible for adopting the ACMP
regulations, supporting resolutions, participating and advising the
development of grant applications for federal funding to support the
ACMP, reviewing and approving district programs, and providing general
leadership for the ACMP. In addition, the CPC served as a forum for
resolution of disputes that might arise between stage agencies and local
governments on local program implementation, and played a conflict
resolution role in inter-agency conflicts when possible. These
responsibilities have now been transferred to the DNR. While there
continues to be public notice and opportunity for input during public
comment and public hearing procedures, there is no longer the same level
of participation and local representation at the policy and
decision-making level on development of State coastal program standards
and guidance, nor approval of district plans.

1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

Alternative 1 will likely have a neutral effect on the physical
environment, however, it may have a negative effect on elements of the
socio-economic environment. The change in the lead agency for the ACMP
alone is unlikely to result in any negative effects to the coastal
resources. However, the State has dissolved the CPC, which provided
local government interaction at the top decision-making level of the
ACMP. While there is nothing in the federal CZMA or regulations
requiring local participation at this level, the sudden removal of this
interaction has evoked a strong negative response from the local
governments (*See* scoping report, Appendix B). With the dissolution of
the CPC, each district now works individually and directly with OPMP and
the DNR Commissioner's Office on the development of that district's
coastal policy standards, plan approval, and appeals. In addition,

The effects of the proposed shift from considerable local participation
in the coastal resources decision-making process to no substantive
"official" role are not yet tangible. While the State is required to
afford local governments "due deference" in the consistency review
process, this clearly different from an officially-recognized role on
the CPC. Eventually, local governments may seek opportunities to regain
some of their responsibilities. For example, boroughs with Title 29
authorities may develop zoning and land use regulations that conflict
with

the ACMP policies, which would contribute to greater uncertainty for
applicants in the overall permitting process. This situation would not
arise in in the four CRSAs, which do not have Title 29 authorities.

2.  Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Since the ACMP would cease to exist as a matter of State law under
either alternative 2 or 3, lead responsibility for the ACMP would cease
to exist, as would district involvement through a federally approved
ACMP.

2.  District Plan Elements (11 AAC 114.200 -- 11 AAC 114.290)

Many of the new requirements regarding content and purview of the
district plans will result in a plan development process that appears to
be more complicated and cumbersome. A description of all of the changes
is provided in section 5.1.3.2 above, as well as in the State's program
submission in Appendix C.

7.5.2.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

Alternative 1 is likely to result in neutral effects to the physical
environment. However, there are likely to be positive and negative
effects to the socio-economic environment. In terms of positive effects,
the purpose of the new guidelines for district plans is to improve the
overall efficiency of ACMP operations and to address the need for
clarity, predictability, and flexibility

in the ACMP's decision-making process. Applicants for permits that must
undergo ACMP State and federal consistency review will benefit from the
streamlined process both in terms of time and money saved in the overall
process due to a lack of conflicting policies.

There are currently 35 coastal districts; 33 of which have district
programs. At this point, 27 districts are reviewing and updating their
plans according to the new requirements at 11 AAC 114.200 -- 11 AAC
114.290; six are not. These include the City of Angoon, Bristol Bay
Borough, City of Hydaburg, City of Kake, City of Kluwok, and the City of
St. Paul. According to DNR, none of these six districts have been
particularly active participants during the past five years, or received
ACMP funds. Therefore, if the revision of the plan guidance is a factor
in their decision not to participate, their lack of participation should
not result in effects one way or the other. In either case, under
Alternative 1, State coastal policies will continue to apply in areas

where district plans are not in place, including State designation of
subsistence areas and important habitat areas.

For the remaining 27 districts that are in the process of reviewing and
updating their plans, the State has decided that the plan elements
established in 11 AAC 114.200 -- 11 AAC 114.290 are the most appropriate
approach for enacting HB 191. The effect of this process will most
likely be the adoption of new district plans with considerably fewer
district-level enforceable policies. At this point, districts are in the
process of developing draft plans and submitting them to DNR for
approval. According to scoping comments, the effect has been that the
districts have found the new plan guidance difficult to work with,
unclear, time and resource-intensive, and confusing.

Examples of new provisions that the districts are finding it difficult
to develop enforceable policies under include such ideas as "flow from,"
and "adequately addressed." Under the "flow from" requirement, districts
can only develop policies that flow from the State standards; however at
the same time they are prohibited from writing any policies that are
already covered by State and Federal law. In addition, in order for a
district to develop an enforceable policy on a matter already regulated
or authorized by state or federal law, in addition to demonstrating that
the specific use or resource is sensitive to development, the district
must also demonstrate that the matter is not "adequately addressed" by
that State or federal law. Generally this would apply when a State or
federal law does not provide specific standards.

Several of the commenters have expressed concern about the time frame
for completing the process, even with the extension, and their inability
to appropriately involve the public in the process. In addition,
districts that have received comments on their draft policies have
expressed concern that it is very difficult to write an approvable
enforceable policy under the new guidelines. It is also likely to be an
expensive process for both the State and local governments.

While a reduced role for local governments in review of permitted
activities that involve local resources, and a more restrictive, time,
human-resource, and effort-intensive process for developing local plans
are not approvability matters under the CZMA, they can be considered
negative impacts to the socio-economic environment. In addition, while
some local governments may seek to replace their previous district
plan's enforceable policies zoning and land use regulations under Title
29, the four CRSAs that lack Title 29 authorities will not be able to
avail themselves of any similar enforceable policies.

7.5.2.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Alternatives 2 and 3 can not be analyzed, since the ACMP would cease to
exist as a matter of State law under either of these alternatives, and
there would be no district plan guidance.

> 7.5.3 Special Area Management Plans and Areas Which Merit Special
> Attention (11 AAC 114.400 -- 11 AAAC 114.430)

Since its inception, the ACMP has included additional management tools
that can be used by district and State agencies to focus management
efforts in certain areas that "have unique values or fragile
characteristics that make them on balance, more in need of special
attention." (Appendix C, Section 7.1). In Alaska, these are known as
Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs) and Areas which Merit Special
Attention (or Areas Meriting Special Attention---AMSAs). AMSAs under the
original program included those AMSAs located within the coastal
district, and those outside of the coastal districts (a.k.a.
extraterritorial or ET AMSAs). This is not changed by the proposed
amendments. These programs were developed with procedures similar to the
approval of a district program or as an amendment to the ACMP, the goal
of which was to develop a plan that would "preserve, protect, enhance,
or restore each value for which the area was designated." The purpose of
SAMPs is to "provide for increased specificity in protecting significant
natural resources, coastal-dependent economic growth, improved
protection of life and property in hazardous areas, and improved
predictability in governmental decision making." SAMPS could include a
harbor management plan, an ocean resource management plan, a public use
management plan, a recreation management plan, a watershed management
plan, and a wetlands management plan. (ACMP Guidebook 4, Special Area
Planning, January 2000)

There are currently 33 approved SAMPs and AMSAs in the ACMP. The
boundaries for these are included in the Coastal Zone Boundary
geographic information system maps available on the ACMP website at
[www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us](http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/). In
addition, under AS 16.20, the ADFG has established 30 State game
refuges, game sanctuaries, range areas and critical habitat areas. The
amendment to the ACMP has increased the ability for participants to
identify and designate areas of particular concern in the future through
two new means. These are discussed in section 5.1.3.4 above. The
development of SAMPs, AMSAs and State agency resource management plans
naturally takes a great deal of time, cost, and effort. The ACMP has
funded the development of SAMPs by districts and local participants
since its inception. However, due to the enormity of the State's coastal
area, a comprehensive inventory of all areas of particular concern has
not been conducted.

7.5.3.1 Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

The first effect of the changes to the ACMP is that all approved SAMPs
and AMSAs developed by district/borough programs would have to be
revised according to the procedures described in 11 AAC 114 for district
programs, consistent with the new guidance. They would remain in effect
until March 1, 2007, unless the DNR disapproves or modifies all or part
of the approved plans.

The potential for a number of the AMSAs and SAMPs to sunset (i.e.,
become non-enforceable) is real if districts find they do not have time
or resources to make the changes, or possibly the interest in doing so.
During the scoping process, several issues were raised by local
representatives with the nature of the plan development process
regarding the amount of effort required to revise district plans, and as
a consequence, some of these AMSAs and SAMPs may now be allowed to
lapse. This would not preclude local governments from developing new
plans in the future when circumstances are more favorable (i.e., time,
funding). However, every indication is that most of the coastal
districts are making every effort to meet the new requirements. Most
draft district programs that are in the process of being developed
include the relevant provisions of the SAMPs built into their coastal
district programs. For example, see the draft City of Skagway Coastal
Management Plan that includes all four of their AMSAs at
<http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/District/Plans/Skagway.htm>. One of
the aspects of these plans that is changing is the number of enforceable
policies that are included under the old plans vs. the new ones being
developed. A review of the City of Cordova's Eyak Lake AMSA (dated
11/24/86) lists 39 enforceable policies. The draft version (Chapter 6 of
the draft Coastal Management Program) shows only 24 enforceable
policies, indicating the impact of the revised approval criteria and
process.

Another change associated with the provisions of the AMSAs and SAMPs is
the fact that plans developed for designated areas that were once
approved by the CPC, now will be approved by the OPMP/Commissioner of
DNR. This is the State's preference as indicated by legislation but
represents a paradigm shift. The impacts associated with the difference
in decision making capabilities are discussed elsewhere in this EIS.

The AMSA and SAMP process and future designated areas will remain a
potentially powerful tool for Alaska to provide the resources necessary
to focus planning and management efforts to specifically defined areas
in a State with the largest, least-populated coastline in the United
States. The very purpose of designating these areas that merit special
attention is to preserve and protect them, and that will provide
environmental protection while dealing in an appropriate manner with
future development scenarios and needs. Many of the approved AMSA and
SAMP designations deal with the important but difficult issues of
subsistence but require a process that results in greater specificity of
interests, and that is one of the goals of the current amendment
process. The SAMP process should remain an important incentive for
coastal district and coastal resource area governments to participate.
Federal funding to support program development, refinement, and
revisions should have a positive effect for the resources in question.

7.5.3.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Should either Alternative 2 or 3 lead to the demise of the ACMP or the
lack of federal funding for the ACMP, it is unlikely that the coastal
district programs would have financial support to develop future AMSA or
SAMP-like programs. Also, those local governments lacking Title 29
authorities would likely be unable to continue to have AMSAs or SAMPs
without an existing State coastal management program. This is more than
an issue of applying federal consistency to give local governments more
say in major development projects or activities in their areas of
responsibility. Special area plan support has provided funds to local
governments to conduct resource inventories and analyses to better
understand the fragility of an area, the potential impacts of uses
including small scale developments and their cumulative impacts, and
future development needs and location issues. While it has varied over
time, the ACMP in the past has provided nearly \$500,000 to \$1,000,000
annually of CZMA funds to support local planning efforts. This would
likely result in some negative effects to the natural environment, which
would no longer receive the protection afforded special management area
status.

5.  **HB 69 -- Shallow Natural Gas Exploration and Development**

Under HB 69, the State developed a new framework for addressing shallow
natural gas development. The term "shallow natural gas" includes coal
bed methane, fractured shales, and gas hydrates found at any depth. HB
69 was created in response to public comments that shallow natural gas
exploration and development projects should not be subject to the same
regulations designed for deep, high-pressure oil and gas operations. The
State's rationale for developing this framework is that shallow natural
gas exploration and development activities defined in HB 69 are
considered de minimis in nature and pose significantly fewer risks and
create substantially less impact to the environment than traditional
deep oil and gas projects.

1.  Alternative 1 -- Effects of Program Change

> 7.6.1.1 Variance from Mining Regulations

The addition of AS 31.05.060(c), authorizing AOGCC to approve variances
from AOGCC's regulations for certain shallow natural gas exploration or
development actions may result in a negative impact to the physical
environment. Prior to HB 69, shallow natural gas exploration or
development actions were generally subject to AOGCC's regulations that
included various environmental and safety controls on drilling
operations, production procedures, and abandonment and plugging of
wells. The addition of AS 31.05.060(c) under HB 69 could have a negative
impact on the physical environment because it allows shallow natural gas
exploration or development actions to occur without complying with the
environmental and safety requirements of the AOGCC regulations.

A potential mitigating factor is that the AOGCC cannot approve a
variance unless it is an equally effective means of satisfying the AOGCC
regulations or the AOGCC determines the variance is more appropriate
than compliance with AOGCC regulations. Also, the AOGCC variance may
exempt a lessee or operator from a requirement of an AOGCC regulation
only if the AOGCC determines the requirement is not necessary or not
suited for the well or field. In making this determination, the AOGCC
must consider the human safety and the environmental risks reasonably
anticipated to occur from the exemption to the AOGCC regulation.

The addition of AS 31.05.060(c) may also result in socio-economic
impacts. Prior to HB 69, AOGCC was authorized to issue an order that
would prevail over AOGCC regulations as long as the public hearing
requirements of 20 AAC 25.540 were satisfied. The addition of AS
31.05.060(c) under HB 69 allows AOGCC to approve a variance to AOGCC
regulations without providing notice to the public and an opportunity to
be heard. Therefore, it is likely that HB 69 would have an impact on
public participation in the government decision-making process because
the AOGCC could approve a variance to AOGCC regulations without
providing notice to the public and opportunities for the public to
comment. The addition of AS 31.05.060(c) may have a positive economic
impact because it could encourage shallow natural gas development that
might have otherwise been unduly delayed by AOGCC regulations.

7.6.1.2 Waiver from Local Ordinances and Regulations

AS 31.05.125 authorizes the DNR commissioner to approve a waiver of the
planning and approval requirements of local ordinances and regulations
for shallow natural gas projects. Prior to HB 69, shallow natural gas
exploration or development actions were subject to local ordinances and
regulations. AS 31.05.125 could limit a municipality's Title 29
authority to apply local zoning ordinances and regulations to shallow
natural gas projects. The addition of the waiver in AS 31.05.125 under
HB 69 could have a negative impact on the physical environment because
it allows shallow natural gas exploration or development actions to
occur without complying with the environmental and safety requirements
of local ordinances and regulations. A potential mitigating factor is
that the DNR commissioner must clearly demonstrate that there is an
overriding State interest and issue specific findings giving reasons for
granting a waiver of local ordinances and regulations for shallow
natural gas projects.

The addition of AS 31.05.125 may have a positive economic impact because
it could encourage shallow natural gas development that might have
otherwise been unduly delayed by local ordinances or regulations.

> 7.6.1.3 Exemption for Production Facilities

The amendment of AS 46.04.030(b), exempts shallow natural gas production
facilities from obtaining DEC approval of, and compliance with, an oil
discharge prevention and contingency plan. Prior to HB 69, shallow
natural gas production facilities were required to comply with a
DEC-approved oil discharge prevention and contingency plan. Allowing
shallow natural gas production facilities such an exemption may have a
negative impact on the physical environment if a shallow natural gas
production facility penetrated a formation capable of flowing oil and
the facility did not have an approved discharge prevention and
contingency plan. Since the definition of the term "shallow natural gas"
under AS 31.05.170 includes coal bed methane, fractured shales, and gas
hydrates sought at any depth it is possible that shallow natural gas
production facilities could penetrate a formation capable of flowing
oil.

A potential mitigating factor is that under AS 31.05.030(j), the AOGCC
is required to determine whether a well drilled for shallow natural gas
may penetrate a formation capable of flowing oil. If so, the AOGCC must
also determine whether the volume of oil to be encountered will be of
such quantity that an oil discharge prevention and contingency plan will
be required.

The amendment of AS 46.04.030(b) may have a positive economic impact
because it could encourage shallow natural gas development that might
have otherwise been unduly delayed by the requirement to comply with a
DEC-approved oil discharge prevention and contingency plan.

7.6.1.4 Consistency

Under HB 69, the addition of AS 46.40.205 provides that all shallow
natural gas exploration and development activities conducted under the
oversight and regulation of the AOGCC and the State's resource agencies
are automatically determined to be consistent with the ACMP. According
to the State, this consistency determination applies throughout the
coastal zone and specifically to those areas in the coastal area that
have valuable and developable coal deposits that may yield natural gas.
Prior to HB 69, shallow natural gas exploration and development
activities in the coastal area requiring a federal license or permit had
to meet the State's standard federal consistency review requirements.

It is not apparent at this point whether the addition of AS 46.40.205
will significantly affect the human environment. Prior to HB 69, shallow
natural gas projects were subject to review for State or federal
consistency with the enforceable policies of the ACMP including and
other resource agency regulations. However, it is difficult to determine
whether any projects fitting under the HB 69 criteria for shallow
natural gas projects were reviewed for consistency. The addition of AS
46.40.205 may have an environmental impact if shallow natural gas
projects were previously reviewed for consistency because under AS
46.40.205 there will no longer be a review of whether shallow natural
gas projects are consistent with the enforceable policies of the ACMP.
However, if the State did not review shallow natural gas activities
prior to HB 69 because such projects were determined to be de minimis
activities the general concurrence for such projects established by AS
46.40.205 for purposes of the CZMA may not result in significant impacts
to the human environment.

The addition of AS 46.40.205 may have socio-economic impacts. Prior to
HB 69, the public was offered an opportunity to participate in the
government decision-making process through State and federal
consistency. The addition of AS 46.40.205 may have a negative impact on
public participation in the government decision-making process because
by automatically determining that shallow natural gas projects are
consistent with the ACMP there would be one less opportunity for public
participation. However, a potential mitigating factor is that there are
public review and comment processes provided under AOGCC and other State
resource agency regulations. Therefore, unless AOGCC approves a variance
to its public notice and comment requirements as described in 5.3.1
above, there will still be a public review process in place for shallow
natural gas projects.

The addition of AS 46.40.205 may have a positive economic impact because
there could be timelier and more efficient review of shallow natural gas
exploration and development since a federal consistency review is not
required.

> 7.6.2 Alternatives 2 and 3 -- Effects of No ACMP

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, impacts could occur as described in section
7.3.2 above, because under Alternatives 2 and 3 there will no longer be
an existing ACMP.

**7.7 Cumulative Impacts**

Cumulative impacts have been considered as an integral part of the
Effects Analysis. In general, the cumulative impacts of the proposed
action, when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions, are difficult to analyze in a detailed manner because the
impacts of other actions are largely dependent on future, discretionary
actions. For example, the Alaska State Legislature recently passed a
bill (Senate Bill 110, passed May 10, 2005) that directs DEC to seek and
assume primacy for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) wastewater permitting program established in the Clean Water
Act. If approved by the EPA, this assumption of the NPDES program could
potentially result in significant effects, either positive or adverse,
to water quality. Nonetheless, any attempt to factor this potential
development into a cumulative effects analysis would be speculative,
since DEC has not submitted an application at this time (DEC plans to
submit a primacy application to EPA for their approval before July 1,
2006 and plans to assume primacy by June, 2007 if approved by EPA).
Similarly, the effects of future development projects affecting the
coastal zone will depend on future discretionary actions that are
largely speculative and therefore not susceptible to meaningful
analysis.

**8. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE**

NOAA is required under Executive Order (EO) 12898, entitled *Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations*, to analyze the environmental effects (health,
economic and social) of proposed actions, including such effects on
minority and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by
NEPA. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order
(EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629). This EO, along with
its accompanying cover memo, calls on federal agencies to incorporate
environmental justice considerations as part of their missions. It
directs them to address, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions,
programs, or policies on minority and low income populations. The cover
memo specifically mentions the NEPA twice, providing opportunities to
incorporate environmental justice as part of the NEPA process. The
fundamental objective of the Executive Order is summarized in its first
section, which states:

> To the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law\...each
> federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice a part of
> its mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high
> adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
> policies and activities on minority and low-income populations in the
> United States.

In addition, Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898 identifies subsistence
issues as a particular concern for environmental justice populations,
since these populations frequently rely on food that they grow, hunt,
collect, or otherwise obtain through noncommercial means. Therefore, as
part of its NEPA analysis, NOAA must consider whether approval of the
Alaska Program Amendment will have disproportionately high adverse
health, economic or social impacts on minority and low-income
populations in Alaska.

This FEIS used data from the 2000 census and the Alaska Community
Database Community Information Summaries at
<http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CIS.cfm> to evaluate the
environmental justice implications of all three alternatives.

**8.1 Minority Populations in Alaska's Coastal Area**

Council on Environmental Quality guidelines developed for Executive
Order 12898 recommend that "minority" be defined as members of American
Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black non-Hispanic,
and Hispanic populations (CEQ 1997). The earliest release of detailed
2000 census data that included information necessary to identify
minority populations enumerated individuals both according to race and
Hispanic origin (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001a). It also reported
individuals claiming multiple racial identities, up to six races. For
simplification's sake, in this document the term "minority populations"
will refer to American Indian or Native Alaskan, which in the 2000
census included persons who identified themselves as part-Native Alaskan
or American Indian.

To identify disproportionately high minority populations, due to the
location of the program change this EIS uses the percentage of Native
Alaskans and American Indians for the State of Alaska as a reference
point. Block groups or communities with minority populations in excess
of the percentage for the State as a whole thus are identified as
disproportionately high with respect to their minority composition.
Using the entire State's minority population to identify
disproportionality acknowledges the unique minority situation in
Alaska's coastal area compared with statewide, since the majority of the
population (75 percent) resides in the coastal area (with its
comparatively high population of indigenous people), as well as the
disproportionate potential for impacts on minority population by
approval of the ACMP revisions. In 2000, 19 percent of the State
population was Native Alaskan or American Indian alone or in
combination. (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2001b).

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="3">&lt;/= 100 Population</td>
<td colspan="3">&lt;/= 300 Population</td>
<td colspan="3">&lt;/= 500 Population</td>
<td colspan="3">&lt;/= 750 Population</td>
<td colspan="3">&lt;/= 1000 Population</td>
<td colspan="3">&lt;/= 2000 Population +</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Native</p>
<p>AK</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Below</p>
<p>Poverty</p>
<p>Level</p></td>
<td><p>Subsis-</p>
<p>tence?</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Native</p>
<p>AK</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Below</p>
<p>Poverty</p>
<p>Level</p></td>
<td><p>Subsis-</p>
<p>tence</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Native</p>
<p>AK</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Below</p>
<p>Poverty</p>
<p>Level</p></td>
<td><p>Subsis-</p>
<p>tence</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Native</p>
<p>AK</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Below</p>
<p>Poverty</p>
<p>Level</p></td>
<td><p>Subsis-</p>
<p>tence</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Native</p>
<p>AK</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Below</p>
<p>Poverty</p>
<p>Level</p></td>
<td><p>Subsis-</p>
<p>tence</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Native</p>
<p>AK</p></td>
<td><p>%</p>
<p>Below</p>
<p>Poverty</p>
<p>Level</p></td>
<td><p>Subsis-</p>
<p>tence</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>91.3</td>
<td>7.53</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>37.3</td>
<td>4.66</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>95.1</td>
<td>30.94</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96.4</td>
<td>21.16</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>16.4</td>
<td>45.48</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>30.9</td>
<td>9.84</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>86.7</td>
<td>14.29</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>92</td>
<td>48.36</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>97.9</td>
<td>33.84</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>95.9</td>
<td>29.49</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>95.8</td>
<td>27.94</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>77.9</td>
<td>15.58</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>95.9</td>
<td>30.28</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96.8</td>
<td>11.92</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>86.4</td>
<td>27.92</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>93.9</td>
<td>16.24</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>89.7</td>
<td>8.01</td>
<td>Y</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>60.8</td>
<td>4.49</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>21.97</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>25.07</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>73.3</td>
<td>14.04</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>58.1</td>
<td>14.25</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>82.5</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>4.85</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>94.9</td>
<td>7.87</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>95.8</td>
<td>28.47</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>94.8</td>
<td>29.52</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>17</td>
<td>27.27</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>94.1</td>
<td>5.76</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>95.8</td>
<td>28.47</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>74.6</td>
<td>14.61</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>44.2</td>
<td>16.03</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4.1</td>
<td>23.08</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>93.8</td>
<td>35.44</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>89.5</td>
<td>24.12</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>22.75</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>95.5</td>
<td>29.06</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>76.7</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96.8</td>
<td>28.85</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>92.8</td>
<td>11.24</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>47.9</td>
<td>11.93</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>95.3</td>
<td>34.38</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>0</td>
<td>5.56</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>92.4</td>
<td>4.35</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96.6</td>
<td>26.4</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>98</td>
<td>20.89</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>0</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>93.9</td>
<td>38.98</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>97.2</td>
<td>13.77</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96.1</td>
<td>21.12</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>83</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>9.4</td>
<td>9.29</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>97.9</td>
<td>34.7</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>93.5</td>
<td>22.19</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>57.8</td>
<td>3.1</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>88.5</td>
<td>1.53</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>97.7</td>
<td>28.6</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>94</td>
<td>7.57</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>95.5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>93.6</td>
<td>28.57</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96.6</td>
<td>20.18</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>97.6</td>
<td>28.73</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>48.7</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>90.8</td>
<td>42.61</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>98.2</td>
<td>20.23</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>97.3</td>
<td>26.1</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>87.4</td>
<td>19.31</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96.9</td>
<td>30.99</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>94.5</td>
<td>16.27</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>95.1</td>
<td>24.55</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>95.5</td>
<td>40.63</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96</td>
<td>22.04</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>87.6</td>
<td>20.41</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>9.5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>96.7</td>
<td>21.88</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>95.9</td>
<td>20.73</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>86.5</td>
<td>11.87</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>81.9</td>
<td>6.41</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>9.6</td>
<td>9.45</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>93.9</td>
<td>21.77</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>94.7</td>
<td>41.88</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>69.2</td>
<td>20.69</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>91.3</td>
<td>16.3</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>97.4</td>
<td>37.36</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>97.6</td>
<td>27.33</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>100</td>
<td>40</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>94.7</td>
<td>10.7</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>94.5</td>
<td>35.79</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>87.7</td>
<td>11.04</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>64</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>90</td>
<td>45.41</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>93.2</td>
<td>22.88</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>86</td>
<td>20.83</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>25.8</td>
<td>4.73</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>7.81</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>92.7</td>
<td>22</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>16</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>94.2</td>
<td>27.85</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>8.6</td>
<td>4.88</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>93.6</td>
<td>32.23</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>98.9</td>
<td>23.03</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>13.6</td>
<td>22.9</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>22.1</td>
<td>6</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>96.9</td>
<td>30.77</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>0</td>
<td>5.98</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>94.8</td>
<td>6.09</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>78.2</td>
<td>5.6</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>92.1</td>
<td>7.86</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>11.1</td>
<td>57.5</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>85</td>
<td>24.21</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>30.2</td>
<td>8.11</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>11.1</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>N</td>
<td>92.5</td>
<td>37.7</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>81.8</td>
<td>10</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>4.8</td>
<td>11.76</td>
<td>N</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>3.4</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td>90.1</td>
<td>18.3</td>
<td>Y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>86.2</td>
<td>22.38</td>
<td>y</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>12.6</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>N</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**CHART C: POPULATION,POVERTY LEVEL, &SUBSISTENCE FOR COASTAL
COMMUNITIES BELOW POPULATION OF 2,000\***

+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Borough                    | Popul | \%      | \% Below | Subs     |
|                            | ation | Native  |          | istence? |
|                            |       |         | Poverty  |          |
|                            |       | Alaskan | Level    |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Anchorage                  | 27    | 10.4    | 7.4      | No       |
|                            | 4,003 |         |          |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Bethel Census Area         | 1     | 85.5    | 20.6     | Yes      |
|                            | 6,774 |         |          |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Bristol Bay Borough        | 1,105 | 36      | 9.5      | No       |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Dillingham Census Area     | 4,912 | 76.2    | 24.4     | Yes      |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Haines Borough             | 2,327 | 15.6    | 11.7     | No       |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Juneau                     | 3     | 16.6    | 6        | No       |
|                            | 1,283 |         |          |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Kenai Peninsula Borough    | 5     | 10.2    | 10.04    | Yes      |
|                            | 0,980 |         |          |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Ketchikan-Gateway Borough  | 1     | 19.1    | 6.5      | No       |
|                            | 3,548 |         |          |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Kodiak                     | 1     | 17.6    | 6.6      | Yes      |
|                            | 3,811 |         |          |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Mat-Su Borough             | 6     | 8.6     | 11       | No       |
|                            | 7,473 |         |          |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Nome Census Area           | 9,370 | 79.1    | 17.4     | Yes      |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| North Slope Borough        | 7,234 | 73.8    | 9.1      | Yes      |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Sitka                      | 8,891 | 24.7    | 12.8     | Yes      |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon      | 3,164 | 39.5    | 12.8     | No       |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Valdez-Cordova             | 1     | 17.3    | 9.8      | No       |
|                            | 0,230 |         |          |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Wrangell-Petersburg        | 6,336 | 22.6    | 7.9      | Yes      |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| Yakutat                    | 691   | 46.8    | 13.5     | Yes      |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+
| \*Information for these    |       |         |          |          |
| charts was gathered from   |       |         |          |          |
| the Alaska                 |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| Community Database         |       |         |          |          |
| Community Information      |       |         |          |          |
| Summaries at               |       |         |          |          |
| <                          |       |         |          |          |
| http://www.commerce.state. |       |         |          |          |
| ak.us/dca/commdb/CIS.cfm>. |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| Population is based on     |       |         |          |          |
| 2004 information; other    |       |         |          |          |
| information from           |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| that site is gathered from |       |         |          |          |
| the 2000 Census. The list  |       |         |          |          |
| of individual              |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| communities and boroughs   |       |         |          |          |
| and census areas located   |       |         |          |          |
| in the coastal             |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| area is based on an Index  |       |         |          |          |
| of Coastal Communities     |       |         |          |          |
| provided by                |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| the Alaska DNR. Individual |       |         |          |          |
| communities not listed are |       |         |          |          |
| represented                |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| within a Borough or Census |       |         |          |          |
| area, with the exception   |       |         |          |          |
| of Cape Pole,              |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| Cape Yakataga, Dora Bay,   |       |         |          |          |
| Funter Bay, Hawkins        |       |         |          |          |
| Island,                    |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| Hinchinbrook Island, Kuiu  |       |         |          |          |
| Island, Labouchere Bay,    |       |         |          |          |
| Long Island,               |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| Polk Inlet, Port           |       |         |          |          |
| Armstrong, Rown Bay,       |       |         |          |          |
| Sawmill Bay,               |       |         |          |          |
|                            |       |         |          |          |
| Security Bay, Tolstoi Bay, |       |         |          |          |
| Two Moons Bay, and Unakwik |       |         |          |          |
| Inlet.                     |       |         |          |          |
+----------------------------+-------+---------+----------+----------+

**CHART D: NATIVE ALASKA POPULATION, POVERTY LEVEL, AND SUBSISTENCE**

**FOR COASTAL BOROUGHS\***

As demonstrated in Charts C and D, of the 122 small coastal or
rural/remote rural communities with less than 2,000 residents, 101 have
greater than the 19 percent minority Native Alaskan and American Indian
populations. In fact, 65 of those communities have between 90 and 100
percent Native Alaskan and American Indian populations, with another 18
having between 80 and 90 percent Native Alaskan and American Indian
populations. The remaining 18 communities have between 20 and 80 percent
minority populations. With respect to the larger borough and population
centers (representing populations between 2,327 and 274,003, (with the
exceptions of Yakutat at 691 and Bristol Bay Borough at 1,105), nine of
these 17 areas have

greater than the 19 percent minority population. However, these figures
range much lower, with only three areas, Bethel Census Area (85.5
percent), Dillingham Census Area (76.2 percent), Nome Census Area (79.1
percent), and North Slope Borough (73.8 percent) having substantially
larger minority populations. Areas where the minority population is
lower than the statewide average are Anchorage, Haines Borough, Juneau,
Kenai Peninsula Borough, Kodiak, Mat-Su Borough, and Valdez-Cordova.

**8.2 Low Income Populations in Alaska's Coastal Area**

As recommended by the CEQ guidelines, this environmental justice
analysis identifies low income populations as those falling below the
statistical poverty level identified annually by the U.S. Bureau of the
Census in its Series P-60 on income and poverty. The Census Bureau
defines poverty levels on the basis of a statistical threshold that
considers for each family both overall family size and the number of
related children less than 18 years old. For example, the poverty
threshold annual income for a family of three with one related child
under 18 was \$13,410, while the poverty threshold for a family of five
with one related child under 18 years was \$21,024 in 1999 (U.S. Bureau
of the Census 2000). The 2000 census used 1999 thresholds because 1999
was the most recent year for which annual income data were available
when the census was conducted. If a family fell below the poverty line
for its particular composition, the census considered all individuals in
that family to be below the poverty line. To identify census block
groups with disproportionately high presence of low-income populations,
this EIS used the percentage of low-income persons living in the State
of Alaska as a reference point. The rationale for using State-level
statistics to define disproportionality low-income populations was that
the coastal area encompasses portions of the entire State and represents
75 percent of the population, and consequently, requires reference to an
equally broad range of economic settings. In 1999, 9.4 percent of the
State population was low-income, as defined on the basis of the criteria
outlined above (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992).

The number of low-income population living in the coastal area is also
substantially higher than the State average, particularly in the rural
and remote rural coastal communities. According to the Status of Alaska
Natives 2004 report published by the University of Alaska Institute of
Social and Economic Research, Native Alaskans are three times as likely
as other Alaskans to be poor. In addition, all the economic problems
Native Alaskans face are worst in remote areas, where living costs are
highest. As demonstrated in Charts C and D, of the 122 small, or
rural/remote rural coastal communities, 82 communities, or 67 percent,
have a higher percentage of the population living below the poverty
level, or that could be considered "low income." The basis for these
figures, and any ties to the minority Native Alaskan and American Indian
communities are discussed in Section 6.2 above. In the larger population
centers in the coastal area, 11 of the 17 boroughs and census areas, or
64 percent have a higher percentage than the State average of population
living below the poverty level.

**8.3 Outreach to Affected Communities/Tribal Consultation and
Coordination**

In July 2005, OCRM contacted the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council to discuss
setting up government-to-government consultations regarding the EIS. At
approximately the same time, OCRM conducted scoping meetings in Alaska,
including Anchorage, Juneau and Barrow. The meeting in Barrow was held
specifically in response to a request from the North Slope Borough. OCRM
was not able to accommodate meetings with any of the tribes before the
close of the public comment period on the DEIS, however, a separate
letter was sent to the mailing list provided by the Alaska Inter-Tribal
Council advising Alaskan Natives on the list of the public hearings in
Juneau and Anchorage, recommending their participation, and advising
them of a conference call to participate in government-to-government
consultations on November 9, 2005. While no one availed themselves of
that opportunity, OCRM has still committed to a meeting with the Alaskan
Native interests in Alaska during the FEIS comment period.

**8.4 Subsistence in Alaska's Coastal Area**

In addition to ethnic background and income, the other important factor
in determining the effect of federal activities in Alaska's coastal
areas and their relationship to environmental justice issues is the
Native Alaskans' and American Indians', as well as low income
community's reliance on subsistence as a source of food, cash and
non-cash economy, and community and spiritual tradition. Table 1, as
well as Charts C and D reflect whether subsistence activities and
resources have been identified as important to coastal communities. It
is clear from the table and charts that those communities with the
largest number of Native Alaskans and American Indians, as well as
low-income communities (in many cases, the same communities), rely the
most on subsistence resources. Therefore, any policy changes that
specifically and/or negatively target subsistence resources and their
governance will have a corresponding effect on communities that are the
subject of Environmental Justice reviews.

**8.5 Environmental Justice Impacts of Preferred Alternative**

Based on the above information and the effects analysis, OCRM's approval
of some elements of the ACMP program amendments is likely to have
disproportionately high adverse economic and social impacts on minority
and low-income populations in Alaska in terms of Native Alaskan
communities developing subsistence use policies and designating
subsistence use areas.

1.  Economic Impacts

Subsistence fishing and hunting figure prominently in the economy of the
majority of Alaska's coastal rural and remote rural areas, which
represent a high number of the State's minority and low-income
populations. The ADFG, following 15 years of intensive research,
concluded that the non-commercial taking of wild plant and animal
species for food and other domestic uses continues to produce
"significant economic value" in contemporary Alaska, particularly in the
rural areas of the State. For example, 45 of 98 communities surveyed by
the State during the early 1980s were found to have wild food harvesting
equal to or surpassing in quantity the western U.S. standard for average
annual per capita purchases of meat, fish, and poultry. Approximately 83
percent of those same 98 communities reached at least half of that
western U.S. benchmark through hunting and fishing. (Economic Issues &
Rural Economic Development,
[www.alaskool.org/resources/anc2/ANC2_Sec3.html](http://www.alaskool.org/resources/anc2/ANC2_Sec3.html))
These wild foods and materials, if absent, would have to be replaced by
imported substitutes at some economic and social cost. The costs would
be particularly high for remote rural areas due to the remote locations
and lack of public infrastructure to ferry goods to these areas.

Changes to the State's subsistence standards and the district plans may
create circumstances that will result in negative effects to subsistence
resources. Under the revised statewide standards, subsistence resources
under the preferred alternative may receive a reduced level of
identification, priority, and protection by the districts. Districts'
ability to designate subsistence use areas and to create subsistence use
policies is more limited and they no longer have the "seat at the table"
they had under the CPC. Also, districts will no longer have the ability
to negotiate with applicants to provide mitigation for any negative
impacts to subsistence resources that result from an approved project,
no matter how minimal.

2.  Social Impacts

Perhaps the greatest focus and controversy of the proposed ACMP
amendments is the new emphasis on State control and, what has been
perceived by local governments, a loss of their involvement in critical
subsistence resource management. This has been accomplished through
legislative and regulatory changes at the State level, which has
restructured local participation in management of the ACMP and developed
guidance for district plans that narrows the scope of their management
abilities over key subsistence areas. This is a decision that has been
made by the State, and it is their decision to make under the CZMA.
However, by approving the amendment, NOAA is likely to be viewed by some
as having taken an action that has disproportionately highly adverse
effects on minority and low-income populations' self-government in the
State of Alaska.

**9. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS**

OCRM's action to approve the amendments to the ACMP as described in this
EIS is subject to a number of authorities such as the ESA. OCRM is
responsible for ensuring federal actions comply with these and other
relevant authorities. A brief discussion on how these laws and executive
orders are met with this action is described below.

9.1 Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531 et seq.)

The purpose of the ESA is to protect certain species of plants or
animals that have become "listed" as endangered, threatened, and
proposed or candidate species and designated critical habitat and to
ensure there is no "taking" of the species. Alaska has a number of
marine mammals including whales, Steller sea lions, and sea otters;
several species of sea birds and a sea duck, and one fern that are
listed. The nature of the federal action in this EIS is not approval of
a specific project that would directly result in a taking. However, land
and water use plans and standards such as those proposed under this
amendment, play a role in how growth and development may occur under
future scenarios. OCRM has completed its discussions with the USFWS and
NMFS regarding the extent of impacts that may be associated with
approval of the proposed amendment to the ACMP. (*See* discussion on ESA
at 6.1.9). The ESA Section 7 Consulation Final Biological Effects
Evalation is attached at Appendix G.

9.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,
federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS regarding any actions
that may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). NOAA
Fisheries recently published a final EIS on the designation of EFH areas
for Alaska (<http://www.fakr.NOAA.gov/habitat/seis/efheis.htm> ). Many
of the issues regarding the level of protection needed for EFH concern
the effects of fishing activities on sea floor habitats (EFH FEIS). The
ACMP does not directly deal with fishery management plans or with EFH
far out in the OCS in areas that are regulated by Fishery Management
Councils. However, there are many nearshore areas that contain EFH that
may be affected by land and water use plans and standards such as those
proposed under this amendment. OCRM consulted with NMFS regarding
potential effects to EFH, and the EFH Assessment for the ACMP Program
Amendment will be made available on OCRM's website.

9.3 Environmental Justice

*See* discussion at Section 8 above.

###  9.4 Executive Order 12866 

###  Implementation of the ACMP does not constitute a Asignificant regulatory action@ as defined by Executive Order 12866 because: (1) it will not have an annual effect on the economy of \$100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, on State, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) it will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) it will not materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; and (4) it will not raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President=s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

9.5 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

The federal government has a trust responsibility to American Indian and
Native Alaskan Governments in protecting tribal self-determination,
tribal autonomy, and the tribal way of life. Actions taken pursuant to
the CZMA by OCRM, and Alaska through the federally approved ACMP, may
impact Native Alaskan governments. OCRM is, therefore, required to
engage in government to government consultation with Native Alaskan
governments as part of the review and approval of the ACMP amendment.
This requirement is set forth Number range CHAPTERin Executive Order
13175, *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments*
(63 Fed. Reg. 27655-27657 (Tuesday, May 9, 1998)); President Clinton's
*Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations With Native American
Tribal Governments* (April 29, 1994)( 59 Fed. Reg. 22951-22952
(Wednesday, May 4, 1994)); and the *American Indian and Alaska Native
Policy of the*

*U.S. Department of Commerce* (March 30, 1995). While OCRM was not able
to accommodate meetings with any of the tribes before the close of the
public comment period on the DEIS, a separate letter was sent to the
mailing list provided by the Alaska Inter-Tribal Council advising
Alaskan Natives on the list of the public hearings in Juneau and
Anchorage, recommending their participation, and advising them of a
conference call to participate in government-to-government consultations
on November 9, 2005. Unfortunately, no one availed themselves of that
opportunity, however, OCRM has still committed to a meeting with the
Alaskan Native interests in Alaska during the FEIS comment period.

**10. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS**

1.  **Summary of Effects**

    10.1.1 Effects on Physical Resources -- Alternative 1

The majority of the changes proposed under the ACMP's program amendment
are likely to result in neutral effects to the physical environment,
relative to the pre-amendment ACMP. The State has proposed a shift in
its program from State and local plan implementation to primarily State
implementation using State standards and State law. In response to
legislative mandates, the State's coastal standards were rewritten to
avoid redundancy with other State statutes, regulations, and programs.
Where changes were made to most of the standards, they were made for
clarification and to set management guidelines and compliance standards.
In some cases, such as the natural hazard standard at 11 AAC 112.210,
and the coastal access standard at 11 AAC 112.220, the State has revised
the language to be more comprehensive, specific, and enforceable. OCRM's
approval of these changes is unlikely to result in either positive or
negative effects on the physical environment. However, in such cases as
natural hazard areas and coastal access there now appears to be
additional coverage for more areas, which may result in positive effects
for the physical and socio-economic environment.

In terms of significant effects to the physical environment, there are
concerns with respect to the changes to the subsistence standard and the
new State guidance for designating subsistence areas. Under the new
standard and guidance, subsistence resources may receive a reduced level
of identification, priority and protection by the State and the
districts. In addition, while federal consistency will continue to apply
to projects outside of designated subsistence areas that have impacts on
coastal resources in or of subsistence areas, this is not the case for
state consistence. The State has also removed the ability for districts
to adopt enforceable policies that require mitigation for any damages
resulting to subsistence areas from permitted activities. These changes
cumulatively have the potential to result in negative effects to
subsistence resources.

10.1.2 Effects on Physical Resources -- Alternatives 2 and 3

There would be negative effects for physical resources if either
alternative two or three were to occur. Under these alternatives, as
mentioned previously, the ACMP would sunset, according to State law, and
the State would no longer participate in the national program. The
result would be the loss of ACMP standards as well as district programs,
in addition to the loss of the State's ability to apply federal
consistency. It is assumed that the State's other natural resource
statutes, regulations and programs would continue to exist, and the
State's current proposed reliance on these statutes for protection of
its coastal resources would be tested in full. However, except as may be
required by other federal laws, federal agencies would no longer be
compelled to meet State standards within the coastal area. Considering
that 60 percent of Alaska is federal lands, and the amount of federal
oil and gas and mining activities that occurs there now and may occur in
the future, there is the opportunity for considerable negative effects
to Alaska's physical coastal resources under alternatives two or three.

10.1.3 Effects on Socio-Economic Resources -- Alternative 1

The socio-economic benefits that the revised ACMP would provide include
(1) a more efficient permitting operation for activities in the coastal
area (2) greater clarity and guidance in some of the statewide coastal
standards; (3) financial savings and time savings for investors; and (4)
and economic benefits to the State from increased investment.
Significant impacts to socio-economic resources include potential
economic impacts to communities considered under EO 12898. OCRM has
identified that many of Alaska's rural coastal communities represent a
preponderance of the Native Alaskan and lower income population who rely
on subsistence resources. The effects to the physical resources
described in section 10.1.1 above could negatively affect these
communities' economically. Socially, the revisions to the ACMP will

result in a much smaller role for districts in the ACMP and
participation in permitting decisions regarding subsistence resources,
which are important to their lifestyle.

10.1.4 Effects on Socio-Economic Resources -- Alternatives 2 and 3

There would be negative effects for socio-economic resources if either
alternative two or three were to occur. Under these alternatives, as
mentioned previously, the ACMP would sunset, according to State law, and
the State would no longer participate in the national program. The
result would be the loss of the ACMP standards as well as district
programs, in addition to the loss of the State and districts' ability to
apply federal consistency. In addition, Alaska would lose the
opportunity to experience the socio-economic benefits described in
10.1.3. above.

**10.2 Adverse Effects that Can Not be Avoided**

OCRM's approval of the State of Alaska's amendments to its
federally-approved coastal management program may affect a variety of
physical and socio-economic coastal resources in Alaska. OCRM approval
will ensure funding for, and implementation of, the program changes,
which include revisions to the district plan process and substance and
federal consistency with the revised standards. As indicated in the
impacts discussion of this document, there may be some negative physical
and socio-economic environmental effects associated with some of the new
standards, including changes to the subsistence standard. In addition,
changes to the overall implementation of the program from a State and
locally-implemented program to a primarily State-implemented program may
result in socio-economic impacts due to the ethnic and
subsistence-oriented population primarily affected by these changes.

**10.3 Mitigation**

OCRM's authority to provide mitigation for impacts associated with its
approval of the amendments to the ACMP would stem from its oversight
authority under the CZMA. Under the CZMA, OCRM has two tools at its
disposal: (1) Section 312 evaluations of the State's implementation of
its CMP; and (2) annual Section 306, 306(a), 309, 310, and 6217 funds
NOAA provides to the State to implement its CMP.

First, NOAA is required by Section 312 of the CZMA to conduct
evaluations of CMPs. (15 C.F.R. 923.132) The evaluation results in
findings regarding how well a State has met CZMA goals, implemented the
Federally-approved CMP, and adhered to the terms of its financial
assistance awards. Findings are used by OCRM to make decisions relevant
to a current award or to negotiate future financial assistance awards.
The evaluation findings include a description of the CMP under review, a
synopsis of the significant ongoing activities and accomplishments since
the previous evaluations, and recommendations that are either program
suggestions or necessary actions. Program suggestions are actions OCRM
believes a state should take to improve its CMP. It is not mandatory;
however, if a problem in a CMP continues to result in the same program
suggestion during subsequent evaluations, a program suggestion may be
elevated to a necessary action. Necessary actions are actions the state
must take by the next regularly scheduled evaluation or by the date(s)
indicated. Failure by a state to comply with the terms of a necessary
action may lead to interim sanctions being placed on the state. Interim
sanctions means the suspension and redirection of funds for a period not
less than six months and not greater than three years in order to
address the specific actions of a work plan necessary to bring the state
CMP back into full compliance. OCRM will be able to apply its oversight
to either ensure that the State mitigates for negative cumulative
impacts, or impacts to its subsistence resources that result from the
program amendments.

Second, Alaska receives funding in the amount of approximately \$2.5
million annually under various sections of the CZMA. OCRM and Alaska
negotiate the use of these funds under a cooperative agreement on an
annual basis. As indicated above, funds can be directed to address
findings of a 312 evaluation. In addition, OCRM could work with the
state regarding providing funding to address mitigation for impacts to
subsistence resources that result from revisions to the ACMP, or
cumulative impacts related to the program change, as long as these
activities fell within the various funding obligations of the CZMA. For
example, district governments, could receive federal CZMA funds to
implement subsistence elements of their district plans, or to address
subsistence resources that have been negatively affected by the program
amendments.

**10.4 Conclusions**

In 2003, the State of Alaska decided to address structural issues with
the ACMP's ability to meet its requirements in a timely manner through a
series of legislatives acts and regulatory changes. These changes
resulted in the entire restructuring of the ACMP from an entity that
shared decision-making authority between State and local governments on
coastal resources, to a State-centered program, with input from local
governments focused solely on coastal resources determined and
demonstrated to be of local concern. In addition, the State streamlined
the State's coastal standards to avoid redundancy with other State and
federal laws. OCRM's approval of these changes, particularly the
significant change to the level of sharing between the local and State
governments' decision-making control over subsistence-related resources
in the coastal area, was considered to be a major federal action.

However, the actual effect of many of these changes is less significant.
While there are instances where there may be negative effects to the
physical and socio-economic environment (*See* discussion at section
10.2), the majority of the changes will result in neutral effects. In
essence, the State is still implementing its federally-approved ACMP,
and relying on existing State laws while avoiding some of the redundancy
experienced under the previous program structure. Positive effects from
this may be more consistent reviews and requirements for permitees, a
faster and smoother permit processing system, and more even application
of new standards that are more compliance and management-oriented
standards. Local districts will continue to have review authority for
resources of local concern.

Alternatively, if OCRM denies Alaska's request for program amendment, or
fails to take action on this request before January 1, 2006, the State
has enacted a statute which will repeal the ACMP, which would take
effect on May 10, 2006. As mentioned previously, Alaska could, of
course, consider changing its laws during the upcoming legislative
session; but given existing law, the most likely outcome if OCRM were to
fail to act before January 1, 2006, is the repeal and termination of the
ACMP. There are significant adverse effects associated with either of
these alternatives.

Therefore, NOAA's preferred alternative is Alternative 1, to approve
Alaska's request to incorporate EO 106, HBs 191, 69, 86, SB 102,
revisions to statute AS 46, and regulations at 11 AAC110, 11 AAC 112,
and 11 AAC 114 as a program amendment to the ACMP.

**11**. **LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED**

US Fish and Wildlife Service

NOAA Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service

**12.** **LIST OF PREPARERS**

Helen C. P. Bass

Environmental Protection Specialist

B.A. History

M.A. Marine Affairs

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

National Ocean Service/NOAA

Phone: 301/713-3155, x175

E-mail: <Helen.Bass@noaa.gov>

Richard B. "Ben" Mieremet

Senior Program Analyst

B.S. Conservation and Resource Development

M.S. Water Resources Management

M.A. International Relations

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

National Ocean Service/NOAA

Phone: 301/713-3155, x233

E-mail: <Ben.Mieremet@noaa.gov>

David Kaiser

Federal Consistency Coordinator

Juris Doctor\
M.A. Marine Affairs\
B.A. Political Science

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

National Ocean Service/NOAA

Phone: 301/713-3155, x144

E-mail: <David.Kaiser@noaa.gov>

Masi Okasaki

Assistant Regional Manager

B.A.

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

National Ocean Service/NOAA

Phone: 301/713-3155, x231

E-mail: Masi.Okasaki@noaa.gov

13. **DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR FEIS**

Number range CHAPTERAndrew Abyo, President

Native Village of Pilot Point

P.O. Box 449

Pilot Point, AK 99649

Edward Adams, Sr., President

Native Village of Shelson's

General Delivery

Shelson's Point, AK 99666

Simon Agnus, President

Native Village of Umkumiute

General Delivery

Nighmute, AK 99690

George Ahmaogak Sr., Mayor

North Slope Borough

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

Maggie Ahmaogak, Executive Director

Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

P.O. Box 570

Barrow, AK 99723

Tina Anderson

Coastal Coordinator

Aleutians East Borough

Anchorage Office 3380 C Street, Suite 205

Anchorage, AK 99503-3952

Jim Ayers

Vice President, and Director for the Pacific

Oceana

175 South Franklin Street, Suite 418

Juneau, AK 99801

James Ayuluk, President

Native Village of Chevak

140 Aurora Street

Chevak, AK 99563

Martina Azean, President

Native Village of Kongiaganak

P.O. Box 5069

Juneau, AK 99801

Leslie Holland-Bartels

Center Director\
Alaska Science Center\
USGS

4230 University Drive\
Anchorage, AK 99508

Randy Bates, Deputy Director

DNR, OPMP

301 Gold Street

Juneau, AK 99801

Wassillie Bavilla, President

Native Village of Kwinhagak

General Delivery

Quinhagak, AK 99655

Elizabeth A. Benson, AICP

Bristol Environmental & Engineering Services Corporation

111 West 16th Avenue, Suite 301

Anchorage, Alaska 99502-1117

Samuel Bergeron, President

Ketchikan Indian Community

2960 Tongass Avenue

Ketchikan, AK 99901

Pamela Bergmann

Regional Environmental Officer---Alaksa

US DOI

Office of Environmental Policy and Coordination

1689 C Street, Room 119

Anchorage, AK 99501-5126

Representative Ethan Berkowitz

Alaska State Capitol

Juneau, AK 99801-1182

Henri Bisson

Alaska State Director

Bureau of Land Management

222 W Seventh Avenue, #13

Anchorage, Alaska 99513

Marcia Blaszak

Alaska Regional Director

National Park Service

240 West 5th Avenue, Room 114

Anchorage Alaska, 99501

Dave Boisseau

P.O. Box 920608

Dutch Harbor, AK 99692

Judith Brady

Alaska Oil and Gas (AOGA)

121 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 207

Anchorage, AK 99503-2035

Dennis Bschor

Forest Service Alaska Regional Office

USDA Forest Service\
PO Box 21628\
Juneau, AK 99802-1628

Colleen Burgh

U.S. EPA

Anchorage Office

222 West 7^th^ Ave., #19

Anchorage, AK 99513-7588

Bruce Buzby, Manager\
Coal Regulatory Program\
Land and Water Coal Regulatory Program

Office of Surface Mining

U.S. Department of Interior\
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 900D\
Anchorage, AK 99501-3577

Marlene Campbell

Coastal Management Coordinator

City and Borough of Sitka

100 Lincoln Street

Sitka, AK 99835

Chenega IRA Council

P.O. Box 8079

Chenga Bay, AK 99574-8079

Postmaster Keith Coleman

United States Postal Service

Fairbanks PCC\
5400 Mail Trail\
Fairbanks, AK 99709-9998

COMMANDER

SEVENTEENTH COAST GUARD DISTRICT

P. O. Box 25517

Juneau, AK 99802-5517

John S. Devens, Ph.D.

P W S Regional Citizens' Advisory Board

3709 Spenard Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

Julie Dirks

P.O. Box 894

Unalaska, AK 99685

Ken L. Donajkowski

Conoco Phillips Alaska Inc.

P.O. Box 100360

Anchorage, AK 99510-0360

Johanna K. Dybdahl

Tribal Administrator

Hoonah Indian Association

P.O. Box 602

Hoonah, AK 99829

Steven A. Frenzel

Water Office Chief

Alaska Water Science Center\
USGS

4230 University Dr., Suite 201\
Anchorage, AK 99508-4664

James F. Fulton, Chief\
Denver Field Division

Western Regional Coordinating Center

Office of Surface Mining

U.S. Department of Interior

P. O. Box 46667

Denver, CO 80201-4667

Col. Timothy J. Gallagher

Commander and District Engineer

U.S. Army Engineering District - Alaska

P.O. Box 6898

Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898

Joy Geiselman

Deputy Office Chief

Biological Science Office

Alaska Science Center

1011 E. Tudor Rod., MS701

Anchorage, AK 99503

Bill Gissel

U.S. EPA -- Juneau Office

709 W 9^th^ Street, Room 223A

P.O. Box 20370

Juneau, AK 99801-0370

John Goll

Regional Director

U.S. Mineral Management Service

Alaska OCS Regional Office

3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500

Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5820

Rowan Gould

Regional Director

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Alaska Regional Office

1011 East Tudor

Anchorage, AK 99503

Glenn Gray

P.O. Box 33646

Juneau, AK 99803

Hal Gray

P.O. Box 27

Unalaska, AK 99685

Julie Hammonds

3535 W. Monte Cristo #127A

Phoenix, AZ 85053

Kathy Hansen

9369 N. Douglas Highway

Juneau, AK 99801

Sandy Harbanuk

Coastal District Consultant

604 Fourth Street

Juneau, AK 99801

Peter Harley

900 E. Benson Blv.

Anchorage, AK 99508

Eileen Henniger

Wildlife Biologist

Yakatat Tlingit Tribe

P.O. Box 418

Yakutat, AK 99689

Hoonah Indian Association

P.O. Box 602

Hoonah, AK 99829

Byron K. Huffman

Division Manager

FAA Alaskan Region

Airports Division

222 W. 7^th^ Avenue, #14

Anchorage, AK

David Johnston

Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region

Minerals Management Service

USDOI

3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500

Anchorage, AK 99503-5823

Representative Reggie Joule

AK State Legislature

State Capital Building

Juneau, AK 99803

Alice Julius

Native Village of Good News Bay

P.O. Box 138

Good News Bay, AK 99589

James Kasayulie, President

Traditional Village of Platinum

P.O. Box 8

Platinum, AK 99651

Frank Kelty

P.O. Box 162

Unalaska, AK 99685

Agrafina Kerr

P.O. Box 010

Nikolski, AK 99638

Postmaster Kerry Kimura

United States Postal Service

Greater Anchorage PCC

3720 Barrow St\
Anchorage, AK 99599-9998

Karla Kolash

North Slope Borough

Office of the Mayor

P.O. Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

Karol Kolehmainen

Aleutians West CRSA

P.O. Box 1074,

Palmer, AK 99645

KONIAG Incorporated

4300 B Street, Ste 407

Anchorage, AK 99503

Ron Kreizenbeck

Regional Administrator

U.S. EPA, Region 10\
1200 Sixth Avenue\
Seattle, WA 98101

Gabrielle LaRoche

555 Blue Sky Drive

Port Townsend WA 98368

Patrick Lavine

National Wildlife Federation

Alaska Office

750 West Second Avenue #200

Anchorage, AK 99501

Susan Lee, Planner I

Matanuska-Susitna Borough

350 E Dahlia Avenue

Palmer, AK 99645

David E. Leibersbach

Alaska Division of Emergency Services\
P.O. Box 5750\
Fort Richardson, Alaska 99505-5750\
Lesnoi Village

P.O. Box 9009

Kodiak, AK 99615

Marilyn Leland

Deputy Director

Prince William Sound RCAC

3709 Spendard Road

Anchorage, AK 99503

Tom Lohman

North Slope Borough

4011 Winchester Loop

Anchorage, AK 99507

Bob Lohn

Regional Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)

7600 Sand Point Way NE

Seattle, WA 98115-0070

Leonty Lokanin

P.O. Box 47013

Atka, AK 99547

Mark Major

P.O. Box 100360

Anchorage, AK 99510

Hannah W. McCarty

Representative Beth Kerttula

Rm. 430, State Capitol

Juneau, AK 99801-1182

Michele Metz

Asst. Lands Manager

SEALASKA CORPORATION

One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 400

Juneau, AK 99801

Kara Moriarty

AOGA

121 W. Fireweed Lane, #207

Anchorage, AK 99503

Peggy Murphy

5955 No. Douglas Highway

Juneau, AK 99801

Morris Nassuk

Program Director

Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area

P.O. Box 53051

Koyuk, AK 99753

Phil North

U.S. EPA -- Kenai Office

P.O. Box 1329

Kenai, AK 99611

M. Murph O'Brien

Director of Planning and Land Use

Matanuska-Susitna Borough

Planning and Land Use Department

Planning Division

350 East Dahlia Avenue

Palmer, AK 99645

Bosco Olsen, President

Native Village of Hooper Bay

P.O. Box 41

Hooper Bay, AK 99604

Senator Donald C. Olson

Alaska State Legislature, District 3

State Capital Building

Juneau, AK 99801-1182

John Oscar, Program Director

Cenaliulriit CRSA

P.O. Box 69

Mekaryuk, AK 99630

John Pennington

FEMA Regional Director

Region X

130 228th Street, SW\
Bothell, WA 98021

Greg Peters

P.O. Box 431

Unalaska, AK 99685

Richard Peterson

Organized Village of Kasaan

P.O. Box 26

Kasaan, AK 99924

Ann Rappoport, Field Supervisor

Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Field Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

605 W 4^th^ Suite G-61

Anchorage, AK 99501

Erin Reeve

Planner & Coastal District Coordinator

Ketchikan Gateway Borough

Department of Planning & Community Development

344 Front Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

Delbert J. Rexford, Acting Director

North Slope Borough Planning and

Community Service Department

Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

Heather Rice

Environmental Protection Specialist

Alaska Park Service

National Park Service

240 W. 5^th^

Anchorage, AK 99501

Ida Roehl, President

Native Village of Dillingham

P.O. Box 216

Dillingham, AK 99576

Sue Salveson

Assistant Regional Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)\
Alaska Region\
PO Box 21668\
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1668

Sari Saunders

4436 Wood Duck Avenue

Juneau, AK 99801

Sue Schrader, Research Associate

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

419 Sixth Street, #200

Juneau, AK 99801

Mayor Roswell Schaeffer, Sr.

Northwest Arctic Borough

P.O. Box 1110

Kotzebue, AK 99752

Gabriel Scott, Alaska Field Representative

Cascadia Wildlands Project

Alaska Field Office

P.O. Box 853

Cordova, AK 99574

Joshua Scott

AHTNA, Inc.

P.O. Box 649

Glenallen, AK 99588

Representative Paul Seaton

Alaska State Legislature

State Capital, Room 428

Juneau, AK 99802

Bob Shavelson

Cook-Inlet-Keeper

P.O. Box 3269

Homer, AK 99603

Tamara Sheffield

Alaska Oil and Gas Association

121 W. Fireweed Lane, #207

Anchorage, AK 99503

Dr. Donald F. Shepard

Village Administrator

Pedro Bay Village Council

P.O. Box 47020

Pedro Bay, AK 99647

Dave Sherman

SEACC

419 6^th^ Street, Suite 200

Juneau, AK 99801

Carol Smith

Community and Economic Dev.

City of Valdez

P.O. Box 307

Valdez, AK 99686

Judy Smith

Colorado State University Library

1019 Camput Delivery

Fort Collins, CO 80523-1019

Marv Smith

Community Development Coordinator

Lake and Peninsula Borough

P.O. Box 495

King Salmon, AK 99613

Faye Sullivan

Unocal

P.O. Box 196247

Anchorage, AK 99519-6247

Steve Sumida

Executive Director

Alaska Inter-Tribal Council

750 West 2^nd^ Avenue

Suite 215

Anchorage, AK 99501

Brian Templin

Craig City Planner

P.O. Box 725

Craig, AK 99921

Thede G. Tobish, Senior Planner

Municipality of Anchorage - Planning Dept.

P. O. Box 196650

Anchorage, AK 99519-6650

Stanley Tom, President

Newtok Village

P.O. Box 5545

Newtok, AK 99559

Marion Twitchell

Environmental Planner

Skagway Traditional Council

P.O. Box 1157

Skagway, AK 99840

Jeff Walker

Mineral Management Service

1310 Centerpoint Drive

Anchorage, AK 99515

Joe Wehrman, AML Prog. Coordinator\
Division of Mining, Land and Water

Office of Surface Mining

U.S. Department of Interior\
550 West 7th Avenue, Suite 900D\
Anchorage, AK 99501-3577

Lawrence Widmark, Jr., President

Sitka Trive of Alaska

456 Katlian Street

Sitka, AK 99835

Waslea Williams, Jr.

Box 69

Barrow, AK 99723

Frank Wright, Jr., President

Hoonah Indian Association

P.O. Box 602

Hoonah, AK 99829

Brenda Wright

Juneau Audubon Society

P.O. Box 21725

Juneau, AK 99802

Frank Wright, Jr., President

Hoonah Indian Association

P.O. Box 602

Hoonah, AK 99829

Jan Warrenchuk

Oceana

175 South Franklin, Suite 148

Juneau, AK 99801

U.S. EPA

Anchorage Office

222 West 7th Ave. #19\
Anchorage, AK 99513-7588

U.S. EPA

Juneau Office\
709 W 9th Street, Room 223A\
PO Box 20370\
Juneau, AK 99802-0370

U.S. EPA

Kenai Office\
P.O. BOX 1329\
Kenai, AK 99611

**14. INDEX OF APPENDICES**

Appendix A: NOAA Findings of Preliminary Approval

Appendix B: Scoping Report

Appendix C: The Alaska Coastal Management Program, as Amended, June 2,
2005

Includes as attachments: AS 46, 11 AAC 110, 11 AAC 112, 11 AAC 114, HB
69, HB 86, HB 191, SB 102, ABC Lists, Federal Requirement Matrix,

Appendix D: Scoping Comments

Appendix E: Public Comments on DEIS and Public Hearing Report

Appendix F: OCRM Response to Comments

Appendix G: Endangered Species Act---Section 7 Consultation Biological
Effects Evaluation

**15. BIBLIOGRAPHY**

> Air Quality. <http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/cdd/Kensington/airqual.htm>
> Also: Effects on Wildlife.
> <http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/cdd/Kensington/wildlife.htm> and Water
> Quality. http://www.juneau.lib.ak.us/cdd/Kensington/watrqual.htm
>
> Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of
> Community and Business Development. November 2002. [Alaska Economic
> Performance Report]{.underline}.
> http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/pub/performancereport.pdf
>
> Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. May 2005. "EPA
> releases Toxic Release Inventory; DEC put it into perspective for
> Alaska." DEC News, May 11, 2005.
>
> Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Alaska Regional Haze
> Fact Sheet. http://www.dec.state.ak.us/air/anpms/as/doc/RHfacts.pdf.
>
> Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. [Alaska's SLAMS/NAMS
> Monitoring Network Assessment 2001 Annual Report]{.underline}. Air and
> Water Quality Division, Air and Water Data and Monitoring Section.
> Anchorage, Alaska.
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game/Alaska Boards of Fisheries and
> Game. May 2002. Policy on Government-to-Government Relations with the
> Federally Recognized Tribes of Alaska.
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries.
> 2005. [2005 Overview of Division of Commercial Fisheries]{.underline}.
> Juneau, AK.
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game. December 2003. Division of
> Subsistence Fisheries 2002 Annual Report. Juneau, Alaska.
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Division of Subsistence Overview.
> http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/about/subgen.cfm
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. 2000.
> [Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2000 Update]{.underline}. Juneau,
> Alaska.
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation.
> 2003. [Alaska Wildlife Harvest Summary, 2002-2003]{.underline}.
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game. [Ecosystem Description: Species of
> Kachemak Bay]{.underline}.
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Section of Boards Support. [Alaska
> Boards of Fisheries, Game and the Federal Subsistence Board/Alaska
> Board of Fisheries, Alaska Board of Game, and the Federal Subsistence
> Board]{.underline}.
> http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/bofgfsb/index.php
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game. December 2000. "Species Used for
> Subsistence Purposes." Subsistence, Community Profile Database
> Technical Documentation, Section: Reference Tables.
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division. [Economic
> Value of Sport Fishing in Alaska]{.underline}.
> http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/SFeconomics.cfm.
>
> Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Turtle.
> http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/amphibia/turtle.php
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Divison of Forestry. [Alaska
> Forest Resources and Practices Act, Effective September 1,
> 2003]{.underline} (booklet).
> <http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/forestry/forestpractices.htm>
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. June
> 2004. [Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations]{.underline}.
> (booklet)
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Divisoin of Geological and
> Geophysical Surveys. 1993. [Alaska's High-Rank Coals]{.underline}.
> Fairbanks, AK.
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining. Alaska
> Hydrologic Survey. <http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/water/hydro>.
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Mining, Land and
> Water. March 2004. [Fact Sheet: Federal Permitts Required for your
> Mining Activities]{.underline}.
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and
> Water. March 2000. [Fact Sheet: Land Ownership in Alaska]{.underline}.
> <http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/factsht/land_own.pdf>
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and
> Water. [Mining Laws and Regulations, as Contained in the Alaska
> Statutes and Alaska Administrative Code]{.underline}. August 2004.
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas.
> December 2004. [Alaska Oil and Gas Report]{.underline}. Anchorage, AK.
> http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of Habitat Management
> and Permitting. [Title 41 (Fish Habitat) Permits]{.underline}.
> http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/habitat /FHpermits.htm
>
> Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1985. [Oil-And-Gas Resources
> of Alaska]{.underline}. Information Circular 31, Division of
> Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
>
> Alaska Division of Wildlife Conservation. Overview.
> http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/division_info/overview.cfm
>
> Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 USC Chapter 51,
> 01/26/98
>
> Alaska Native Policy Center. July 2004. [Our Choices, Our Future:
> Analysis of the Status of Alaska Natives Report 2004]{.underline}.
> Anchorage, Alaska.
>
> Alaska Natives Commission. [The Alaska Natives Commission's Final
> Report]{.underline}. http://www.alaskool.org/resources/anc3/ANCIII.htm
>
> [Alaska's Final 2002/2003 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring
> Assessment Report]{.underline}. December 2003.
>
> [Alaska's Non-Endangered Species]{.underline}.
> http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/aawildlife/endangered.
>
> Alaskool. [Alaska Regional Profiles]{.underline}. (Northwest Region,
> Yukon Region, Southeast Region, Southcentral Region).
> [http://www.alaskool.org](http://www.alaskool.org/)
>
> ANILCA Introduction. http://www.r7.fws.gov/asm/anilca/intro.html
>
> ANILCA Title VIII. Subsistence Management and Use Findings.
> http://www.r7.fws.gov/asm/anilca/title08.html
>
> [Audubon Watch List]{.underline}. (Short-tailed Albatross, Spectacled
> Eider, Steller's Eider).
> http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp?id=188,
> **<http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp?id=193>.**
> http://audubon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.jsp?id=197
>
> Avalon Development Corporation. September 2002. Summary Report for the
> Duke Island CU-NI-PGE Property, Ketchikan Mining District, Alaska.
> Fairbanks, AK.
>
> Bodkin, James and Monson, Daniel. [Sea Otter Population Structur and
> Ecology in Alaska]{.underline}. Alaska Science Center, Anchorage,
> Alaska.
>
> Bowker, J. M. [Outdoor Recreation Participation and use by Alaskans:
> Projections 2000-2020]{.underline}. Athens, Georgia.
>
> Brooks, David J. and Haynes, Richard W. [Recreation and Tourism in
> South Central Alaska: Synthesis of Recent Trends and
> Prospects]{.underline}. Portland, Oregon.
>
> Cannon, Jack. July 2003. "Census Data on Race." [Alaska Economic
> Trends]{.underline}.
>
> Cannon, Jack. June 2004. "Housing Trends." [Alaska Economic
> Trends]{.underline}.
>
> [Chronology of Subsistence Management in Alaska]{.underline}.
> http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/shared/chron.htm
>
> Colt, Steve. January 2001. [The Economic Importance of Healthy Alaska
> Ecosystems]{.underline}. Institute of Social and Economic Research,
> University of Alaska, Anchorage. Anchorage, Alaska.
>
> Environmental Health Perspectives. February 1998. [Northern
> Overexposure]{.underline}. Vol. 106, Number 2, February 1998.
> http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/qa106-2focus/focus.html
>
> Exponent. August 2001. [History and Environmental Impacts of DeLong
> Mountain Transportation System Port Site, Red Dog Operations,
> Alaska]{.underline} (Executive Summary)
>
> Federal, State Subsistence Comparison.
> http://www.subsistmgtinfo.org/foscht.htm.
>
> [Federal Subsistence Management Program]{.underline}.
> http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/who.cfm
>
> Ford, Jesse, Ph.D. and Hasselbach, Linda. May 2001. [Heavy Metals in
> Mosses and Soils on Six Transects Along the Red Dog Mine Haul Road,
> Alaska, Western Arctic National Parklands, National Park
> Service]{.underline}.
> http://arcticcircule.uconn.edu/SEEJ/RedDog/execsummary.htm
>
> Fried, Neal, and Windisch-Cole, Brigitta. September 2003. "The Oil
> Industry." [Alaska Economic Trends]{.underline}.
>
> Fried, Neal. February 2005. "Seventeen Years of Employment Growth."
> [Alaska Economic Trends]{.underline}.
>
> Fried, Neal. January 2005. "Transportation." [Alaska Economic
> Trends]{.underline}. Vol. 25, No. 1. January, 2005.
>
> Fried, Neal. August 2003. "The Trends 100; Alaska's largest private
> employers in 2002." [Alaska Economic Trends]{.underline}. August,
> 2003.
>
> Fried, Neal, Windisch-Cole, Brigitta and Keith, Brynn. November 2003.
> "Alaska's Construction Industry." [Alaska Economic
> Trends]{.underline}. November 2003.
>
> Gilbertson, Neal, and Robinson, Dan. December 2003. "Natural
> Resources." [Alaska Economic Trends]{.underline}, December, 2003.
>
> Goldsmith, Scott, Angvik, Jane, Howe, Land, Hill, Alexandra and Leask,
> Linda. 2004. [Status of Alaska Natives Report 2004.]{.underline}
>
> Goldsmith, Scott and Killorin, Mary. January 2004. [2004 Alaska
> Construction Spending Forecast]{.underline}. Institute of Social and
> Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. Anchorage, Alaska,
> January, 2004.
>
> Goldsmith, Scott. October 2001. [Economic Projections for Alaska and
> the Southern Railbelt; 2000 -- 2005]{.underline}. Institute of Social
> and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. Anchorage,
> Alaska.
>
> [Greens Creek Mine]{.underline}.
> http://www.kennecottminerals.com/S&E_2003/GreensCreekMine2003.pdf
>
> Hadland, Jeff and Cannon, Jack. September 2004. "Ten-Year Industry
> Forecast." [Alaska Economic Trends]{.underline}, September, 2004
>
> Haley, Sharman, Berman, Matthew, Goldsmith, Scott, Hill, Alexandra,
> and Hongjin, Kim. December 1999. [Executive Summary: Economics of
> Sport Fishing in Alaska]{.underline}. Institute of Social and Economic
> Research, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Anchorage, Alaska.
>
> Hatch, Scott A. and Piatt, John F. [Seabirds in Alaska]{.underline}.
> http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/b023/htm
>
> The Institute of Social and Economic Research. May 2004. [Executive
> Summary: Status of Alaska Natives 2004]{.underline}. University of
> Alaska Anchorage.
>
> The Institute of Social and Economic Research. July 2000. [Traditional
> Knowledge and Contaminants Project: Progress Report]{.underline}.
> University of Alaska Anchorage in Collaboration with the Alaska Native
> Science Commission.
>
> Kruse, Gordon H., Funk, Fritz C., Geiger, Harold J., Mabry, Kristin
> R., Savikko, Herman M., and Siddeek, Shareef M. October 2000.
> [Overview of State-Managed Marine Fisheries in the Central and Western
> Gulf of Alaska, Aleutian Islands, and Southeastern Bering Sea, with
> Reference to Steller Sea Lions]{.underline}. Regional Information
> Report 5J00-10, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
> Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska.
>
> Larson, Eric. December, 1998. [An Overview of Alaska's Natural
> Assets]{.underline}. Institute of Social and Economic Research,
> University of Alaska Anchorage. Anchorage, AK.
>
> Leask, Linda, Killorin, Mary, and Martin, Stephanie. October 2001.
> [Trends in Alaska's People and Economy]{.underline}. Prepared for the
> Alaska 20/20 Partnership Bringing Alaskans Together to Chart our
> Future.
>
> Lonner, Thomas D. [Perceptions of Subsistence and Public Policy
> Formation in Alaska]{.underline}. Technical Paper Number 68. Alaska
> Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Anchorage,
> Alaska.
>
> Marine Advisory Program. [Fisheries]{.underline}.
> http://www.uaf.edu/map/fisheries/index. html.
>
> Meehan, Rosa, Byrd, Vernon, Divoky, George and Piatt, John. October
> 1998. [Implications of Climate Change for Alaska's
> Seabirds]{.underline}.
> http://www.besis.uaf.edu/besis-oct98-report/Seabirds.pdf.
>
> [Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Alaska and USDA
> Forest Service on Coastal Zone Management Act/Alaska Coastal
> Management Program Consistency Reviews]{.underline}. FS Agreement No.
> 00MOU-111001-026.
>
> Natcher, David, Haley, Sharman, Kofinas, Gary, and Parker, Walt. June
> 2003. [Effective Local Institutions for Collective Action in Arctic
> Communities, Workshop Summary]{.underline}. A Workshop Supported by
> the National Science Foundation Arctic Social Sciences Program.
>
> NMFS. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish
> Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska .
>
> NMFS. [Incidental Take (Bycatch) of Seabirds]{.underline}.
> http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/seabirds/bycatchinfo.htm.
>
> NMFS. 1999. Our Living Oceans. Report on the Status of U.S. living
> marine resources, 1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical
> Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-41, on-line version,
> http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/olo99.htm.
>
> NOAA. 2003. [Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments]{.underline} for:
> Bowhead Whale, Fin Whale, Minke Whale, Stejneger's Beaked Whale, Blue
> Whale, Cuvier's Beaked Whale, Beluga Whale, Baird's Beaked Whale,
> Sperm Whale, North Pacific Right Whale, Humpback Whale, Beluga Whale,
> Dall's Porpoise, Harbor Porpoise, Pacific Walrus, Polar Bear, Sea
> Otter, and Steller Sea Lion.
> http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/PR2/Stock_Assessment_Program/sars.html.
>
> Nobmann, Elisabeth, Ph.D. September 1997. [Nutritional Benefits of
> Subsistence Food]{.underline}. Anchorage, Alaska.
>
> NovaGold Resources, Inc. [Projects]{.underline}.
> http://www.novagold.net/s/NomeProjects.asp
>
> O'Brien, Michael. November 13, 2001 "Alaska Natives and
> Environmentalists Battle Injustice At Red Dog," [Vermont Journal of
> the Environment]{.underline}.
>
> Office of the Governor, Division of Governmental Coordination.
> [Guidebook 1:\
> Introduction to the Alaska Coastal Management Program; What it is and
> how it works]{.underline}.
>
> Office of the Governor, Division of Government Coordination.
> [Guidebook 4: Special Area Planning]{.underline}.
>
> Olson, Paul and Keith, Brynn. October 2004. "Ten-Year Occupational
> Forecast." [Alaska Economic Trends]{.underline}. Vol. 24, No. 10,
> October 2004.
>
> Power, Thomas M. February 2002. [The Role of Metal Mining in the
> Alaskan Economy]{.underline}. A report prepared for the Southeast
> Alaska Conservation Council Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
>
> Schaff, Ross G. September 1983. [Coal Resources of
> Alaska]{.underline}. Information Circular 17. Department of Natural
> Resources, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
>
> [State Coal Profile]{.underline}: Alaska.
> www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/**coal**/st\_**coal**\_pdf/0576e.pdf.
>
> Stephensen, Shawn W. and Irons, David B. September 2003. "Comparison
> of Colonial Breeding Seabirds in the Eastern Bering Sea and Gulf of
> Alaska," [Marine Ornithology]{.underline}, Vol. 31, 167-173.
>
> Szumigala, D. J. and Hughes, R.A. March 2005. [Alaska's Mineral
> Industry 2004: A Summary]{.underline}. Information Circular 51,
> Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
>
> Tongass National Forest. Forest Facts: Fact Sheet -- Final Rule,
> Amending the Roadless Area Conservation Rule for the Tongass National
> Forest.
> http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/forest_facts/resources/forest/roadless.html.
>
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Press Release: "Army Corps of Engineers
> Regulatory Program plays a major role in the use of Alaska's
> Wetlands." Setpember 8, 2000.
> http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/releases/Alaska.htm
>
> U.S. Department of the Interior. April 1987. [Arctic National Wildlife
> Refuge, Alaska; Coastal Plain Resource Assessment]{.underline}.
>
> U.S. Department of the Interior. 1995. [Biologue Series: Muskoxen in
> the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}.
>
> U.S. Department of the Interior. November 2005. [FEIS: Renewal of the
> Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
> Right-of-Way]{.underline}.
>
> U.S. Department of the Interior. [The Impact of Federal Programs on
> Wetlands]{.underline}. <http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch13.html>
> (also chapter 14)
>
> U.S. Department of the Interior. January 2005. [Significant Events,
> Trends, and Issues]{.underline}. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington,
> D.C.
>
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. [The Particle Pollution
> Report; Current Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through
> 2003]{.underline}. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
>
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 2003. [Tribal Needs
> Letter & Notes]{.underline}. EPA 910-R-01-003, Region 10, Seattle, WA.
>
> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Army, U.S.
> Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA).
> May 1994. [Alaska Wetlands Initiative; Summary Report]{.underline}.
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -- Alaska. Fact Sheets: Polar Bear,
> Walrus: <http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pbmain.htm>,
> http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/walrus/nhistory.htm
>
> U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service News Release: "Federal Subsistence
> Board Begins Review of Rural/Nonrural Status of Alaska Communities."
> January 31, 2005. http://alaska/fws.gov/asm/newsrel/r013105.html.
>
> U.S. Geological Survey. Alaska Biological Center. Research Program
> (Birds). http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/programs/birds.htm.
>
> U.S. Geological Survey. April 2001. [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
> 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic
> Analysis]{.underline}. USGS Fact Sheet FS-028-01.
>
> U.S. Geological Survey. [Eskimo Curlew; A Vanishing
> Species?]{.underline} Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center.
> http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/curlew/curlew.htm
>
> U.S. Geological Survey. March 2001. [The National Petroleum
> Reserve---Alaska (NPRA) Data Archive]{.underline}. USGS Fact Sheet
> FS-024-01.
>
> U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. [Oil and Gas Assessment of Central North
> Slope, Alaska, 2005]{.underline}. National Assessment of Oil and Gas
> Fact Sheet, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005-3043, Version 1.1,
> 2005. http://pubx.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3043.
>
> U.S. Geological Survey. 2002 [U.S. Geological Survey 2002 Petroleum
> Resource Assessment of the National Petroleum Reserve in
> Alaska]{.underline}. U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 045-02.
> <http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs045-02>.
>
> U.S. Geological Survey. May 2002. "USGS Revised Estimates of
> Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in NPRA," News Release. Reston,
> Virginia. May 16, 2002.
> http://www.usgs.gov/public/press/public_affairs/press_rel.
>
> Westerners for Responsible Mining. [Hardrock Mining in
> Alaska]{.underline}. http://www.bettermines.org/reddog.cfm.
>
> Westerners for Responsible Mining. [Red Dog Zinc Mine,
> Alaska]{.underline}. http://www.bettermines.org/reddog.cfm
>
> Wiita, Amy. [The Alaska Wood Products Industry in 2001]{.underline}.
> Institute of Social and Eocnomic Research, University of Alaska
> Anchorage. Anchorage, Alaska.
>
> Williams, J. Gregory. March 2004. "Population." [Alaska Economic
> Trends]{.underline}.
>
> Williams, J. Gregory. February 2005. "Population Projections:
> Projections for Alaska Population 2005---2009." [Alaska Economic
> Trends]{.underline}.
>
> Williamson McDiarmid, G., Goldsmith, Scott, Killorin, Mary and Sharp,
> Suzanne. November 1988. [Expanding Job Opportunities for Alaska
> Natives]{.underline}.
> http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/publications/client/afnjobs/afnjobs.htm
>
> Wolfe, Robert. [Frequently Asked Questions; Myths: What Have You
> Heard?]{.underline}. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of
> Subsistence. http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us
>
> Wolfe, Robert J. and Utermohle, Charles J. June 2000. [Wild Food
> Consumption Rate Estimates for Rural Alaska Populations]{.underline}.
> Technical Paper No. 21, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division
> of Subsistence, Juneau Alaska.
>
> Wolfe, Robert J. and Walker, Robert J. 1987. [Subsistence Economies in
> Alaska: Productivity, Geography, and Development Impacts]{.underline}.
> Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 56-81, 1987.
>
> Wolfe, Robert J. [Wild Food Harvests in Alaska, Nutritional
> Contributions Sorted by Harvest and by Place]{.underline}. Division of
> Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
>
> Wolfe, Robert J., Ph.D. August 1996. [Subsistence Food Harvests in
> Rural Alaska and Food Safety Issues]{.underline}. (Paper presented to
> the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences Committee on
> Environmental Justice, Spokane, Washington.