FIELD NOTES

Alaska Resource Advisory Council

Ivotuk Arctic Field Camp, AK

July 19-22, 2006

**DAY 1-Thursday, July 20, 2006**

**Council Members Present:** Tom Crafford, Barbara Fullmer, Scott Hala,
Sandra Key, June McAtee, Suzanne McCarthy, Susan Olson, Jim Posey, and
David van den Berg. **Council Members Absent:** Greg Beischer, Charlie
Boddy, Phil Driver, Teresa Imm, and Keith Tryck.

**BLM Representatives Present:** Dixie Cheshire, Bob Karlen, Lon Kelly,
John Mehlhoff, and Bob Schneider.

The hour long discussion began at approximately 8:00 p.m.

**DAILY RECAP:** Key asked for comments on favorite part of today's trip
or lessons learned. Viewing wildlife, observing the geology, learning
about the history, and vastness of the country were common themes. Key
asked for input on improving tomorrow's trips; little was suggested.

**COMMUNITY BASED PLANNING (CBP):** Bob Schneider shared a Tom Lohman
email about the status of CBP. Planning began after the April 2006 RAC
meeting and includes map-centered meetings with the North Slope Borough
(NSB), the cooperating agency. NSB is asking the Northwest Arctic
Borough to be a partner. Meetings will start in August and involve a 2-
pronged planning approach. (See email from Tom Lohman to Bob Schneider
dated 07-18-06).

Olson asked what the BLM means when it says it will "consider" a Borough
alternative? Schneider said the proposed alternative will fall within
BLM's range of alternatives. BLM will consider the alternative and may
cherry pick parts of the alternative or it may be a standalone
alternative. The group discussed the communities' expectations since the
NSB could spend a lot of time on an alternative that may not be used.
The RAC asked if NSB was aware of this. This could lead to the BLM
feeling obligated to use NSB's alternative. Key said the map based
planning is good, but she has concerns with the process. If the BLM
works with NSB on the plan to consensus, how could they not use it all?
Crawford commented on a parallel to the State's Coastal Management
Program with planning efforts based in local areas versus the state.
There were issues.

Bob Schneider commented that the NSB may be better at gathering
subsistence information and the group agreed. Kelly noted the Audubon
Society has proposed an alternative and that it may be redundant to what
the NSB is trying to do. Schneider stated the alternative was within
range and the BLM took some parts but did not use the entire
alternative. Kelly asked van den Berg if the Audubon Society felt their
efforts were worthwhile. Van den Berg responded yes, he believed so.

**RAC MEMBERSHIP:** Key asked if the RAC could nominate members and if
Tom Lohman's was a current nominee. Schneider responded he did not know.

**RAC's ROLE IN NPR-A SOUTH PLANNING:** Key was concerned the CBP
affects on the RAC. Schneider stated the BLM would highly value RAC
input. BLM can help facilitate updates on the status of the Borough's
planning effort to the RAC. Key noted she wants to see input from the
Borough to track community sentiment. Schneider stated the BLM would do
so.

The group should plan to provide feedback to Schneider on Saturday about
what the RAC would want from the NSB.

The planning timeline is still on schedule for 2007. The BLM is paying
the NSB to conduct community meetings.

**MEETING DATES:** Key noted the next meeting will be moving to October
25 and 26. She will send an email out. \*Meeting date has changed.

**ITEMS FOR TOMORROW:**

-   **Mineral Resolution**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Sideboards/Feedback to BLM**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Videos for viewing**

**DAY 2---Friday, July 21, 2006**

**Council Members Present:** Tom Crafford, Barbara Fullmer, Scott Hala,
Sandra Key, June McAtee, Suzanne McCarthy, Susan Olson, Jim Posey, and
David van den Berg. **Council Members Absent:** Greg Beischer, Charlie
Boddy, Phil Driver, Teresa Imm, and Keith Tryck.

**BLM Representatives Present:** Dixie Cheshire, Bob Karlen, Lon Kelly,
Mike Kunz (second part of meeting), Joe Kurtak (first part of meeting),
John Mehlhoff, Bob Schneider, and Dave Yokel (later part of meeting).

Discussion began at approximately 9:00 a.m. and lasted for 2 hours.

**RED DOG MINE:** Kurtak presented a video on the Red Dog Mine. After
the video RAC members discussed the mine and similarities to mining in
the South NPR-A. Similarities in process, technologies, and regulations
were discussed. Crawford provided information on mining specifics.
Environmental consequences (and lack of) and reclamation requirements
could be the same.

**MESA SITE:** Mike Kunz presented a video on the Mesa Site its
archeological significance. Mesa site was discovered in 1978 when hard
materials to top the airstrip was being pursued, during the development
of the Lisburne well. Carbon dating was done and more artifacts were
found. In 1990, more work was done at the site. The BLM wanted major
media coverage of the findings. The find made the front page of the NY
Times. Due to this article, Senator Stevens wanted to do a program with
BLM archaeologist Mike Kunz and Richard Reanier The video shown is that
program with Stevens. Mesa site led to researching climate when the site
was inhabited. Data was gathered by looking at the lake bottom and the
ecology of the time. Mike described core sampling and a find that led
them to not be limited to usual sampling methods. The crew carbon dated
wildlife remains to verify wildlife present. The area was like "prairie"
lands of today but 8,000 to 5,000 years ago. Transition started 14,000
years ago.

**MINERALS RESOLUTION:** RAC decided to discuss at a later time since
the most current copy is unavailable.

**REVISIT QUESTIONS ON SOUTH NPRA:** Idea is to give BLM sideboards or
recommendations to pass on to NSB.

Crawford asked where community based planning has worked well. Schneider
referenced the Nevada Test range, a military project. Mehlhoff stated
Moab, Utah. Olsen asked about Moab: With the national attention, how
were they successful? Mehlhoff stated the BLM staff worked very hard on
the planning process.

Olsen -- But this will not have all the stakeholders at the table.

Schneider agreed, but will have those affected by subsistence.

Mehlhoff noted past community plans had a common thread, grazing rights,
water rights, etc. Schneider agreed South NPR-A is a multi-use plan and
will be more difficult. Key spoke to her concerns on BLM's "hands off"
approach to the cooperating agency agreement. Olson spoke to the idea of
providing pros and cons to the BLM rather than advising on how community
based planning should be done.

Crawford requested a copy of the cooperating agency agreement. Schneider
would provide.

Posey related the cooperating agency process to coastal management
plans.

Key stated she was concerned about the use of the term "alternative."

Kelly spoke about differences with this plan and other areas where
community based planning has worked well. Typically there is one primary
issue to consider or make compromises on.

Posey asked about the timeline. Would splitting into North and South
make sense? Mineral finds are in the south area only. People do not have
enough information on what mining would mean to the area to comment.

Van den Berg noted the Northwest Arctic Borough did not receive funding
(from BLM) such as the NSB. The BLM still has to pursue public comment
from those areas outside of the NSB. Schneider and Kelly noted the
funding was for being a cooperating agency not community based planning.

General comment that villages [could]{.underline} be cooperating
agencies, but this hasn't been pursued at this time.

Brief discussion on plans for the following day.

**REVISIT QUESTIONS ON SOUTH NPRA:** Key turned over meeting to van den
Berg, subcommittee chair.Questions to discuss:

-   Should hardrock and coal mining be considered?

-   Any additional special areas (concerns) needed?

Group discussion on the management options, are they limited? Designate
"Special Areas" or not lease area at all. Discussed the leasing process.
Have companies nominated the South

NPR-A, unknown. Can areas be nominated for Wild and Scenic Rivers? Yes.
Kelly discussed the nomination process for W&S Rivers briefly. Yokel and
others discussed the oil and gas potential for the area.

Van den Berg spoke of the timeline and favored the conservative
approach. No development in this planning process, but it could be
opened in next iteration of plan.

Group discussed what "Special Areas" means. Temporary designation? What
does it specifically protect or prohibit? Not clearly defined.

Posey spoke of creating multiple plans but BLM appeared opposed to this
idea.

Crawford spoke about mining laws and the differences between hardrock
and coal development. Hardrock mining is through staking mining claims,
coal mining is done on an area lease basis. The management process
between the two is quite different.

Fullmer said mining should be considered and spoke of the economic
potential for surrounding villages. She also mentioned the positive
economics derived from the operation of the Red Dog Mine.

Since the beginning of the planning effort, Van den Berg said mining and
oil/gas development has been considered but not conservation. Group
discussion on chances of Congress to change anything is unlikely.
Direction from Congress is given, not going to greatly change.

Posey asked about the similarity to the Teshepuk Lake area. Schneider
said the terrains are different so mitigation will be different.

Group discussion on resource potential maps. What does oil and gas
"moderate" potential mean? It is relative to the area surveyed on the
map, not a global type designation. BLM will look at impacts under
alternative. Could lease deferral be considered? Yes. It was done later
in planning process for west NPRA. Special areas will be accounted for
in the alternatives, required stipulations will be specific to the area
analyzed.

Group discussion on deferred leasing. Would it be 10 years? Then BLM
would consider leasing again.

Further discussion on protection alternatives. Deferral is one.
Wilderness designation is highly unlikely, and RAC would not come to a
consensus on that designation.

Question, does the BLM consider caribou on State lands? Yokel said yes,
the Central Arctic herd.

Group discussion again on the deferred leasing idea. Coal and hardrock
are currently out of scope and not economic at this time. Why even
consider in range of alternatives? Crawford noted coal and hardrock
mining should be considered separate, at least in analyzing economic
feasibility. No clear consensus on deferred leasing idea for protection.
Discussed timeline again, state "for the life of the plan." If
development became feasible, industry would push BLM to revise plan at
that time.

Discussion on economic feasibility of resource development in general.
If one resource was developed, others may become feasible. Economics
would become more favorable due to infrastructure already in place.