United States Department of Agriculture

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement

Resurrection Creek Phase II:

Stream and Riparian Restoration Project 

and Hope Mining Company Proposed 

Mining Plan of Operations

Forest 

Service

Chugach

National Forest

Seward 

Ranger District

R10-MB-789

March 2015
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To 

file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 

720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Resurrection Creek Phase II Stream and Riparian Restoration Project and 

Hope Mining Company Proposed Mining Plan of Operations

Seward Ranger District, Chugach National Forest 

Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Forest Supervisor

Chugach National Forest

161 E. 1st Ave, Door 8

Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1639

For Information Contact: Karen Kromrey

Chugach National Forest

Seward Ranger District

PO Box 390

Seward, Alaska 99664

kkromrey@fs.fed.us

(907) 288-7745

Abstract: The lower six miles of Resurrection Creek near the town of Hope, Alaska was 

adversely impacted by early 20th-Century hydraulic placer mining, which left large mining tailings 

piles along the banks and straightened the stream channel, resulting in poor aquatic and riparian 

habitat conditions. The Forest Service completed Phase I of the Resurrection Creek Stream 

Restoration Project between 2005 and 2006, restoring a 1-mile section of Resurrection Creek 

about 5 miles upstream of Hope, Alaska.

Hope Mining Company owns federal mining claims along Resurrection Creek, located about 2 to 

4 miles upstream of the community of Hope. The Forest Service and Hope Mining Company 

reached agreement in 2007 on how similar restoration could occur on the claims in conjunction 

with current and future mining plans. Hope Mining submitted a proposed plan of operations in 

2007 for additional areas for mechanical mining operations with connected actions to support 

restoration activities.

The purpose of this project is to analyze Hope Mining Company’s proposed mining plan of 

operations and allow authorization of placer mining operations including any modifications of the 

terms and conditions of the plan of operations with requirements for surface resource protection.

A secondary purpose is to restore the degraded stream channel, floodplains, and habitat 

conditions along this 2.2-mile segment of Resurrection Creek.

Three alternatives are analyzed in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. Alternative 1 

(Existing Approved Mining - No Action) describes existing conditions in the project area including 

the existing approved mining operations. Hope Mining Company has a statutory right to explore 

and develop their claims for minerals under the General Mining Act of May 10, 1872, as amended 

(30 USC 22 et seq), and the Forest Service has a regulatory obligation to approve (36 CFR 

228.5) and may require modification of the terms and conditions of a proposed plan of operations 

to minimize adverse environmental impacts (36 CFR 228.1). Alternative 1 is displayed in this 

document for baseline comparison purposes only and may not be selected as it does not meet 

legal and regulatory requirements. Alternative 2 (Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration -

Proposed Action) would allow authorization of mining operations on 274 acres and associated 

infrastructure outside of a restoration corridor. Restoration would lengthen Resurrection Creek’s 

channel from 2.2 miles to 2.7 miles by adding sinuosity to the channel, restore floodplain, and 

encourage growth of streamside vegetation within a 74 acre, two-mile long restoration corridor.

Alternative 3 (Proposed Mining Only) would allow authorization of mining operations on 285 acres 

and associated infrastructure but does not include restoration of any portion of Resurrection 

Creek. 
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Contents

Preface........................................................................................................................................... vii

Summary ........................................................................................................................................ ix

Chapter 1.................................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter 2.................................................................................................................................... xi

Chapter 3.................................................................................................................................... xi

Chapter 4.................................................................................................................................. xiv

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action........................................................................................ 1

Location of the Project................................................................................................................ 1

Background ................................................................................................................................. 5

Changes in Resurrection Creek from Historic Mining............................................................ 5

Resurrection Creek Fisheries................................................................................................... 5

Resurrection Creek Landscape Analysis (2002) ..................................................................... 6

Existing Mining Operations .................................................................................................... 6

Stream Restoration Phase I (2005-2006)............................................................................... 10

Framework for Phase II Restoration...................................................................................... 11

Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................... 11

Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2002)................ 13

Legal and Regulatory Framework............................................................................................. 13

General Mining Act of May 10, 1872, as amended............................................................... 13

Organic Administration Act of 1897..................................................................................... 14

Multiple Surface Use Act of 1955......................................................................................... 14

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (1960) ..................................................................... 14

The National Historic Preservation Act (1966)..................................................................... 14

The National Environmental Policy Act (1970).................................................................... 14

Clean Air Act (1970, as amended 1977, 1990, 2004) ........................................................... 14

Executive Order 11593 - Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)15

Clean Water Act (1972)......................................................................................................... 15

Endangered Species Act (1973) ............................................................................................ 15

The National Forest Management Act (1976)....................................................................... 15

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980)..................................................... 15

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (1986, 1996) ............................................... 16

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976, as amended through 

1996)...................................................................................................................................... 16

Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management (1977).................................................... 16

Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands (1977)...................................................... 16

Executive Order 12962 - Recreational Fisheries (1995) ....................................................... 16

Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994) ................................................................ 17

Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species (1999)................................................................ 17

Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70) ..................................................................... 17

Proposed Action........................................................................................................................ 17

Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 20

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................... 20

Issues......................................................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.............................................................. 25

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 25

Alternatives Considered in Detail............................................................................................. 25

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)....................................................... 26

Chugach National Forest i
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)...................... 26

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only.................................................................................. 32

Comparison of Alternatives...................................................................................................... 35

Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................. 38

Monitoring............................................................................................................................. 48

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.................................................. 54

Full Channel Restoration of the Entire Valley Floor............................................................. 54

Restoration Excluding State Selected Lands......................................................................... 54

Limited Restoration............................................................................................................... 55

Restoration and Mining Outside of Inventoried Roadless Areas .......................................... 55

Comparison of Effects by Alternative....................................................................................... 56

Air Quality and Climate Change ........................................................................................... 56

Soils....................................................................................................................................... 56

Noise...................................................................................................................................... 57

Aquatic Resources and Hydrology........................................................................................ 58

Vegetation Ecology ............................................................................................................... 59

Wildlife.................................................................................................................................. 60

Heritage Resources................................................................................................................ 60

Recreation.............................................................................................................................. 61

Scenic Resources................................................................................................................... 61

Roadless Areas...................................................................................................................... 62

Social and Economic Resources............................................................................................ 62

Subsistence ............................................................................................................................ 63

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ......................................... 65

Air Quality and Climate Change............................................................................................... 65

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 65

Environmental Consequences – Air Quality and Climate Change........................................ 65

Geology and Soils..................................................................................................................... 70

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 70

Environmental Consequences – Geology and Soils.............................................................. 72

Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 81

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 81

Environmental Consequences – Noise .................................................................................. 85

Aquatic Resources and Hydrology............................................................................................ 90

Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 90

Environmental Consequences – Aquatic Resources and Hydrology .................................... 97

Vegetation Ecology................................................................................................................. 112

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 112

Environmental Consequences – Vegetation Ecology.......................................................... 113

Wildlife Habitat....................................................................................................................... 118

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 118

Environmental Consequences – Wildlife Habitat ............................................................... 121

Heritage Resources ................................................................................................................. 126

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 126

Environmental Consequences – Heritage Resources .......................................................... 128

Recreation ............................................................................................................................... 130

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 130

Environmental Consequences – Recreation ........................................................................ 132

Scenery Resource.................................................................................................................... 136

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 136

Environmental Consequences – Scenery Resources........................................................... 139

ii Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Inventoried Roadless Areas..................................................................................................... 143

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 143

Environmental Consequences – Inventoried Roadless Areas ............................................. 148

Social and Economic Resources ............................................................................................. 151

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 151

Environmental Consequences – Social and Economic Resources...................................... 152

Subsistence.............................................................................................................................. 158

Affected Environment ......................................................................................................... 158

Environmental Consequences – Subsistence....................................................................... 160

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity......................................................................... 164

Unavoidable Adverse Effects.................................................................................................. 165

Unavoidable Adverse Effects from Implementation of Alternative 2................................. 165

Unavoidable Adverse Effects from Implementation of Alternative 3................................. 165

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ..................................................... 166

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources for Alternative 2 ...................... 166

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources for Alternative 3 ...................... 166

Other Required Disclosures.................................................................................................... 167

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................. 169

Preparers and Contributors...................................................................................................... 169

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ............................................................. 172

Federal Agencies................................................................................................................. 172

State Agencies..................................................................................................................... 173

Local Agency ...................................................................................................................... 173

Local/Regional Groups........................................................................................................ 174

Tribes................................................................................................................................... 174

Native Corporations............................................................................................................. 174

Individuals........................................................................................................................... 174

References................................................................................................................................... 175

Glossary....................................................................................................................................... 187

Acronyms and Abbreviations...................................................................................................... 191

Appendix A. Biological Evaluation ............................................................................................ 193

Chugach National Forest - Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive 

Species .................................................................................................................................... 193

Affected Environment............................................................................................................. 194

Habitat ................................................................................................................................. 194

Wildlife................................................................................................................................ 194

Discussion of Cumulative Effects........................................................................................... 195

Mitigating Measures Required For All Alternatives............................................................... 196

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 196

Literature Cited in Biological Evaluation ............................................................................... 196

Appendix B. Maps....................................................................................................................... 197

Appendix C. Essential Fish Habitat Analysis.............................................................................. 213

Appendix D. Response to Comments.......................................................................................... 217

Other Agency, Organizations, and Individual Comments ...................................................... 218

Appendix E. Forest Service / Hope Mining Company December 3, 2007 Letter – Framework for 

Restoration................................................................................................................................... 265

Appendix F. Federal, State and Local Government Comments.................................................. 273

Index............................................................................................................................................ 285

Chugach National Forest iii
Resurrection Creek Phase II

List of Tables

Table 1. Permits, licenses, and other entitlements......................................................................... 23

Table 2. Alternative 1 - acres ........................................................................................................ 26

Table 3. Alternative 2 - acres ........................................................................................................ 26

Table 4. Alternative 3 - acres ........................................................................................................ 32

Table 5. Comparison of the alternatives a

...................................................................................... 36

Table 6. Mitigation measures........................................................................................................ 39

Table 7. Monitoring....................................................................................................................... 48

Table 8. Estimated detrimental disturbance rates used for analysis of each activity..................... 71

Table 9. Existing detrimental soil disturbance from mining ......................................................... 72

Table 10. Existing detrimental soil disturbances from mining infrastructure ............................... 72

Table 11. Alternative 2 – detrimental soil disturbance from mining activities............................. 75

Table 12. Erosion potential on steep slopes - risk categories and defined areas........................... 76

Table 13. Alternative 2 – existing detrimental soil disturbance in the restoration corridor.......... 78

Table 14. Alternative 2 - cumulative detrimental soil disturbance................................................ 79

Table 15. Alternative 3 - Detrimental soil disturbance from mining activities............................. 80

Table 16. Alternative 3 - Cumulative detrimental soil disturbance............................................... 81

Table 17. Decibel ranges and representative noise levels of common noises............................... 82

Table 18. Decibel readings in and around the project area ........................................................... 85

Table 19. Management indicator species (MIS) and species of special interest (SSI) in the project 

area ...................................................................................................................................... 118

Table 20. Cooper Landing subsistence resource use (August 1990 through July 1991)............. 158

Table 21. Most commonly used subsistence resources by Cooper Landing residents (August 1990 

through July 1991) .............................................................................................................. 158

Table 22. Hope subsistence resource use (August 1990 through July 1991).............................. 159

Table 23. Most commonly used subsistence resources by Hope residents (August 1990 through 

July 1991)............................................................................................................................ 159

Table 24. Aquatic species risk assessment for alternative 2........................................................ 214

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the project area ............................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Land ownership map of the Hope area ............................................................................ 3

Figure 3. Hope Mining Company claims within and near project area........................................... 4

Figure 4. Historic tailing piles along Resurrection Creek ............................................................... 5

Figure 5. Mechanical placer mining equipment.............................................................................. 8

Figure 6. Location of the Phase I Restoration Project and the Phase II Project Area ................... 10

Figure 7. Proposed action – proposed mining and stream restoration........................................... 19

Figure 8. Decibel level reading locations...................................................................................... 84

Figure 9. Oblique aerial photo of Resurrection Creek Valley (south view).................................. 90

Figure 10. Resurrection Creek hydrograph, 1968 to 1986 (U.S. Geological Survey 2007).......... 92

Figure 11. Historic tailings piles along Resurrection Creek.......................................................... 94

Figure 12. Pink salmon in a phase I restored side channel (2006) ................................................ 96

Figure 13. View of Resurrection Creek from the future interpretive area (historic mine tailings in 

foreground).......................................................................................................................... 127

Figure 14. Historic tailings piles along the riverbank serve as evidence of past mining activity, as 

seen from the Resurrection Pass trailhead located at the south end of the project area 

boundary.............................................................................................................................. 137

iv Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 15. Appearance of active mining operation ..................................................................... 137

Figure 16. Area where mining operations recently occurred and was subsequently reclaimed (this 

represents the short-term scenery effect)............................................................................. 138

Figure 17. Appearance of where mining operations occurred within the project area boundary and 

reclaimed per the plan of operations in the 1980s (this represents the long-term scenery 

effect) .................................................................................................................................. 138

Figure 18. Phase I riparian restoration effort that resulted in “high” scenic integrity level within a 

5 year timeframe.................................................................................................................. 141

Figure 19. Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area.................................................................... 144

Figure 20. Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area within the project area............................... 146

Chugach National Forest v
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Preface

The document is organized as follows:

o Summary: This section provides a summary of all the chapters in the EIS.

o Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the 

history of the project proposal, the purpose and need for the project, and the agency’s 

proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest 

Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. 

o Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more 

detailed description of the proposal and as well as alternative methods for achieving the 

stated purpose. This chapter also includes a discussion on measures taken to minimize

adverse environmental impacts. Finally, this section provides a summary of the 

environmental consequences associated with the proposal and each alternative. 

o Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposal and other alternatives. 

This analysis is organized by resource area. 

o Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers 

and agencies consulted during the development of the EIS. 

o References: This section lists the various literature and other references cited in the EIS.

o Glossary: The glossary provides definitions to terms commonly used in this EIS.

o Appendices: The appendices provide additional detailed information, including maps, to 

support the analyses presented in the EIS.

o Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic.

Additional documentation, including detailed analyses of project area resources, may be located 

in the project planning record located at the Seward Ranger District.

Chugach National Forest vii
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Summary

Chapter 1

The project area includes 418 acres of National Forest System lands on either side of 

Resurrection Creek near the town of Hope, Alaska. The project area encompasses 2.2 miles of 

Resurrection Creek channel approximately 2 miles south of the outlet of the creek at Turnagain 

Arm. Both anadromous and resident fish utilize Resurrection Creek. All five species of 

anadromous salmonids are present in Resurrection Creek; pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum 

(O. keta), coho (O. kisutch), Chinook (O. tshawytscha), and sockeye salmon (O. nerka).

Portions of the project area have been extensively mined since the early 1900s and historic 

mining has contributed most of the known cultural resources in and near the project area. The 

Hope Mining Company Historic Mining District, covering 138 acres, is located in the project area 

and has been properly documented and is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of 

Historic Places.

Hope Mining Company owns 28 federal placer mining claims throughout the project area and is 

currently approved for mining operations on 97 acres within the project area. Existing mining 

operations consist of mechanical mining with heavy equipment, hand mining, and suction 

dredging to process placer gravels for recovering gold. Reclamation requirements are specified in 

the individual plans of operations and generally include recontouring mined areas to natural 

contours, spreading any stockpiled soil, spreading large woody debris and boulders, filling and 

contouring any ponds or ditches not needed for future operations, and removal of mining 

equipment/infrastructure not identified in other approved mining operations.

Historic placer mining from the early 1900s through 1942 adversely impacted fish and wildlife 

habitat and soil productivity within the project area by washing away most of the soil,

straightening the creek, and producing mine tailings that occupy the majority of the valley floor in 

the project area. The mine tailings essentially function as dikes that confine the creek and cut off 

flood flows from the original floodplain, creating a nearly continuous riffle habitat for fish. Water 

velocities accelerate as they are compressed through the constricted channel concentrating the 

stream’s energy on the streambed, simplifying substrate and degrading the channel. Sediment and 

nutrients are transported through the project area, depriving riparian areas of soil and nutrients, 

which in turn slow the recovery and natural succession of disturbed areas. 

The aquatic habitat such as pools, side channels, beaver ponds and large woody debris are very 

limited within the project area compared to an unmined section of creek several miles upstream.

Because of the dominant riffle habitat and the confined nature of the floodplain, the project area is 

very limited in spawning habitat; the ditch-like geometry of the existing stream channel generates 

substrate sizes that are too large for trout or salmon spawning. In addition, vital Chinook salmon 

and coho salmon rearing habitat such as pools, side channels and beaver ponds are either buried 

or cut off by existing tailings piles. Natural hydrologic processes in Resurrection Creek have not 

substantially altered the condition of the tailing piles over the last century.

Historic mining practices and current mining activities also affect soil productivity. About half of 

the project area has been mined, is currently approved for mining, or has mining infrastructure 

currently in place and being utilized. An estimated 25 percent detrimental soil disturbance exists 

across the project area from historic and current mining activities. Historic tailings are composed 

Chugach National Forest ix
Resurrection Creek Phase II

of extremely well-drained large cobbles and very little topsoil. Growth of vascular plants and the 

development of a duff layer and soil formation have been inhibited by soil disturbance. Slow 

regeneration of vegetation has affected wildlife habitat availability for a variety of species. 

Phase I of the Resurrection Creek Stream and Riparian Project was completed between 2005 and 

2006 consisting of a one-mile section of Resurrection Creek about 5 miles upstream of Hope. The 

stream segment was restored to a more natural condition and greatly improved stream channel 

and aquatic habitat conditions. After completion of Phase I restoration, the Forest Service began 

collaborations with Hope Mining Company to develop a framework for additional restoration on 

Resurrection Creek through the segment that has federal mining claims owned by Hope Mining 

Company. The Forest Service and Hope Mining Company reached agreement in December of 

2007 on the elements of proposed restoration in conjunction with future mining plans (appendix

E, page 265) and Hope Mining Company submitted their proposed plan of operations.

The proposed action includes the following elements:

• Analyzing Hope Mining Company’s proposed plan of operations for approval of mechanical 

placer mining, hand mining, and dredging operations on 274 acres and construction and 

maintenance of mining related infrastructure with appropriate mitigation measures to 

minimize surface disturbance.

• Restoring the stream channel, riparian areas, and fish and wildlife habitat of a 2.2-mile 

segment of Resurrection Creek, within a designated 74 acre restoration corridor.

• Allowing approval of a supplement to the existing mining plans of operations which would 

be submitted by Hope Mining Company prior to implementation of restoration, eliminating

most existing approved mining activities from the restoration corridor.

The Forest Service has a regulatory obligation to approve a plan of operations (36 CFR 228.5). 

Based on the analysis of the proposed mining plan, the Forest Service can require modifications 

to the terms and conditions of the permit, and require additional surface resource protection 

measures (36 CFR 228.1). 

A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2008, and public scoping 

occurred between January 4, 2008 and June 13, 2009. Comments from the public and other 

agencies were analyzed and two unresolved issues were identified: the potential of restoration and 

mining activities to 1) increase the turbidity of Resurrection Creek affecting water quality and 2) 

harm salmon populations. These two issues were included in the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement released for public comment on July23, 2010.

Interdisciplinary discussion and site analysis in the project area since June of 2010 resulted in 

modifications to the issues. The issue of potential harm to salmon populations was recognized as 

a result of potentially lower water quality in Resurrection Creek and is considered part of the 

water quality issue. Further site analysis by the soil scientist led the interdisciplinary team to add 

soil productivity as an issue. The issues are now described as follows:

1. Water Quality: Restoration implementation has the potential to substantially increase 

turbidity in Resurrection Creek for short durations during the diversions of flow into the 

newly constructed sections of channels. Other instream restoration activities such as 

modifications of the channel cross-section, logjam construction, side channel construction, 

equipment crossings, and bridge construction may also cause increases in turbidity.

x Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

2. Soil productivity: Proposed mining and restoration activities will result in detrimental soil 

disturbance of varying levels as observed from past mining practices in the area and from the 

implementation of the previous Phase I restoration project.

The Forest Service developed an alternative to the proposed action which includes proposed 

mining operations only (alternative 3) and developed mitigation measures for both alternatives to 

reduce the effects from these issues (pages 38 to 47).

The Chugach Forest Supervisor is the Deciding Official and will decide on: 

1. What modifications to the proposed mining plan of operations are necessary, if any, to 

minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest surface resources; 

2. Whether to undertake restoration activities on Resurrection Creek, and if so, the nature, 

magnitude, and extent of those activities; 

3. What mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will be required, if any, for 

restoration activities and/or mining operations

Chapter 2

Hope Mining Company is currently approved for mining operations on 97 acres as is described 

under alternative 1 (Existing Approved Mining - No Action). Alternative 1 describes baseline 

conditions for comparison with the action alternatives. The Forest Service has a regulatory 

requirement to act on the proposed mining plan of operation; therefore alternative 1 may not be 

selected because taking no action would not fulfill this statutory requirement.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration - Proposed Action) allows authorization

of Hope Mining Company’s proposed plan of operations including mechanical placer mining, 

hand mining, and dredging on an additional 274 acres and construction and maintenance of 

mining related infrastructure. Authorization of the plan of operations may include requiring

modifications such as those listed in mitigation measures. This alternative includes terms and 

conditions for the approval of a supplement to the existing mining plans of operations, submitted 

by Hope Mining Company prior to implementation of restoration activities, which would exclude 

most existing, approved mining activities from within a designated 74 acre restoration corridor.

This alternative also includes restoration of the stream channel, riparian areas, and fish and 

wildlife habitat of a 2.2-mile segment of Resurrection Creek within the restoration corridor.

Alternative 3 (Proposed Mining Only) would allow authorization of mechanical placer mining, 

hand mining and dredging on an additional 285 acres and construction and maintenance of 

mining related infrastructure. This alternative would not establish a restoration corridor and no 

portions of Resurrection Creek would be restored. Approximately 2740 feet of Resurrection 

Creek channel would be relocated for mining purposes.

The Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team developed 29 mitigation measures to mitigate adverse 

effects of the activities proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 and 11 monitoring activities during 

project implementation. 

This chapter also contains information about four other alternatives that were considered but 

eliminated from detailed study.

Chapter 3

Major conclusions from the effects analysis include the following:

Chugach National Forest xi
Resurrection Creek Phase II

1) Water Quality: Heavy equipment used during restoration (May 15 to July 15 for up to 4 

years pending funding), would likely cause 6 to 10 short, controlled turbidity events of over 

300 nephelometric turbidity units in alternative 2. Turbidity, measured in Nephelometric 

Turbidity Units (NTU), is a measure of the cloudiness of water, typically the result of the 

transport of suspended sediment. Up to 10 turbidity pulses per day of up to 150 NTU could 

also occur while operating equipment in the channel during log jam construction, shaping 

banks, and side channel construction. In alternative 3, relocation of channel segments with 

use of heavy equipment in preparation for mining (May 15 to July 15) would be expected to 

generate 2 to 4 turbidity events of over 300 NTU; there is potential for continued increased 

turbidity levels from the channel relocations. Minimal impacts from effects of turbidity would 

be expected to occur from mining equipment crossings in both alternatives. The minimal 20-

foot wide, vegetated buffer zone along either side of the creek in both alternative 1 and 3 

poses a higher risk to water quality of the creek due to the close proximity of sediment laden 

settling ponds and ditches during high flow events and natural channel movement.

2) Channel Structure: Hydrologic function of the stream channel would be restored to more 

natural conditions under alternative 2 including adding 7 acres of wetlands to the existing 19 

acres and improving the quality of the existing wetland areas. Functional floodplains would 

promote growth of riparian vegetation and bank stabilization. The restored corridor would 

provide an adequate buffer between the riparian area and mining infrastructure. In 

alternatives 1 and 3, the stream channel would remain an impaired, confined channel with 

few pools and a disconnected floodplain. Relocated channel segments in alternative 3 would 

be similar to the existing condition, but with decreased stability for the first few years due to 

minimal design features of a naturally stable channel during relocation and the time needed 

for vegetation on the bank to reestablish. Alternative 1 would have 19 acres of lower quality 

wetlands and alternative 3 would increase in wetlands acreage to 21 acres but would remain 

as lower quality wetlands.

3) Aquatic Habitat: Salmon habitat would be greatly improved by the addition of pools, side 

channels, off-channel ponds, additions of large woody debris jams, and reduced stream 

velocities under alternative 2. Improved aquatic habitat would promote aquatic population

productivity. No improvement to aquatic habitat or population productivity would occur

under alternatives 1 and 3 and pools, woody debris, spawning areas, and off-channel habitat 

would continue to be very limited.

4) Aquatic Species: Direct mortality of aquatic species could occur at equipment crossings and 

during channel construction throughout the entire project area under alternative 2. Indirect 

mortality of aquatic species would be possible from high turbidities downstream up to 2 miles 

from where the creek is diverted into new channel segments in alternative 2. In alternatives 1 

and 3, direct mortality of aquatic species could occur at equipment crossings and during 

channel relocation in alternative 3. Indirect mortality of aquatic species would be possible 

from high turbidities in lower third of creek within the project area and up to two miles 

downstream during channel relocation in alternative 3.

5) Acres of Detrimental Soil Disturbance: The existing detrimental soil disturbance is 

estimated at 25 percent (approximately 105 acres) of the 418 acre project area. Alternative 2

would result in less detrimental soil disturbance (58 acres or 17 percent of the 348 acre 

restoration and mining area) than alternative 3 (75 acres or 26 percent of the 285 acre mining 

area) or alternative 1 (80 acres or 19 percent of the project area) after all mining reclamation 

occurs.

xii Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

6) Effects to nearby private landowners: Mining equipment is expected to produce levels of 

noise in the range of 55 – 68 decibels (dB) at active mining sites with spikes to 80 dB under 

alternatives 1, 2 and 3. Persistent equipment noises may impact private landowners within 1

mile of mining operations on Hope Mining Company claims during the months of March

through October over 20 years of operation. Noise levels generated by heavy equipment 

during restoration under alternative 2 would be identical in nature and level to that of mining 

operations and are expected to mask each other rather than detectably increase noise levels.

Private landowners living adjacent to the project area will experience a reduction in scenic 

integrity associated with mining activity under both alternative 2 and 3 due to the proximity 

of mining activities to private land. The scenic integrity would fall to an Unacceptably Low 

level during mining, but with reclamation, the mining areas will change to a Very Low scenic 

integrity until vegetation becomes reestablished again post-mining. Due to noise, proposed 

roads, and lowered scenic quality from mining in alternatives 2 and 3, private landowners 

may see a decrease in adjacent private property values.

7) Wildlife Habitat Affected by Mining and Restoration Activities: Mining operations would 

cause short- and long-term habitat loss of conifer, hardwood and riparian forest types on up to 

97 acres over an estimated 15 year period under alternative 1, 274 acres spread out over a 20 

year time period under alternative 2 and on 285 acres under alternative 3. Mature forest 

composition and structure with larger trees important for wildlife use by various species may 

be delayed in developing due to loss of soil productivity. Similar habitat loss and disturbance 

would occur within the 74 acre restoration corridor during restoration in alternative 2 until 

restoration was completed and riparian vegetation reestablished. Limited riparian vegetation 

would exist adjacent to Resurrection Creek in alternatives 1 and 3 resulting in limited wildlife 

habitat over a longer period of time.

8) Wildlife Habitat Restored: Restoration of 51 acres of floodplain, riparian vegetation, and 

development of 8,000 feet of new side channels within the 74 acre restoration corridor would 

create new habitat which favored species that feed on spawning or rearing salmon, breed or 

forage in side channels, den or nest in riparian vegetation, or forage for vegetation or for prey 

species in riparian areas under alternative 2. No habitat restoration would occur along 

Resurrection Creek under alternatives 1 and 3.

9) Wildlife Disturbance by Mining and Restoration: Disturbance to wildlife from noise, 

people, and machinery may cause habitat abandonment or avoidance in restoration corridor in 

alternative 2 (short term - up to 4 year period (pending funding availability for restoration) on 

74 acres) and mining areas (long term - 20 years) and up to one mile away from the project 

area under alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Direct mortality to individuals of a variety of birds and 

small mammals is possible from mining or restoration. Noise due to mechanized equipment 

used for mining or restoration has the potential to disturb wildlife in the project area at levels 

from 65 to 80 dB and up to one mile at levels up to 55 dB.

10) Historic Property Affected by Mining and Restoration: The project area has one historic 

property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the Hope 

Mining Company Historic Mining District. Historic mine tailings, a contributing feature of 

this property, will be destroyed as a result of mining under alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and 

restoration activities under alternative 2. The Forest Service consulted with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and executed a Memorandum of Agreement in 2009 addressing adverse 

effects of mining and restoration on the affected tailings (Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources 2009). The Memorandum of Agreement addresses the development of an 

interpretive area which will be located on the south end of the project, affording public access 

near Resurrection Creek Road, in which a representative section of intact historic mine 

Chugach National Forest xiii
Resurrection Creek Phase II

tailings will be interpreted. The Forest Service will continue to work in partnership with Hope 

Mining Company in developing the interpretive area and interpretive signing.

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 contains list of Forest Service employees who participated in the preparation of the 

Environmental Impact Statement, a list of agencies who will receive the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, References, and Glossary. 

xiv Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1. 

Purpose and Need for Action

The Chugach National Forest has prepared this environmental impact statement in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. 

This environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental

effects that could have impacts on the human environment as a result of the Forest Service’s 

regulatory requirement to process Hope Mining Company’s proposed plan of operations and the 

Forest Service proposal to implement restoration activities along Resurrection Creek, and 

modifications or alternatives to those proposals.

Location of the Project

The project area is located along Resurrection Creek on the northern end of the Kenai Peninsula, on 

the Seward Ranger District of the Chugach National Forest. The town of Hope, Alaska lies adjacent 

to the mouth of Resurrection Creek on Turnagain Arm (figure 1). The project area is located in 

Sections 4, 9, and 16 of T. 9 N., R. 2 W. on the Seward Meridian. The project area begins at river 

mile 2.1 (upstream from tidewater) and extends upstream to river mile 4.0. Figure 2 shows the land 

ownership near the project area and the town of Hope. The project area lies within Hope Mining 

Company’s block of federal mining claims (figure 3).

Chugach National Forest 1
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Figure 1. Location of the project area

2 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Figure 2. Land ownership map of the Hope area

Chugach National Forest 3
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Figure 3. Hope Mining Company claims within and near project area

4 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Background

Changes in Resurrection Creek from Historic Mining

Resurrection Creek was one of Alaska’s first gold rushes over a century ago. From the early 1900s 

through 1942, hydraulic and heavy equipment placer mining impacted six miles of Resurrection 

Creek upstream from Turnagain Arm. The historic mining methods resulted in loss of soil and 

changed the complex of stream channels and wetlands. Mine tailings entrenched the stream and 

eliminated its access to the historic floodplain. The direct impact of disturbance and loss of the 

stream’s ability to access the floodplain have adversely altered aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation 

composition (Bair et al. 2002). Natural hydrologic processes in Resurrection Creek have not 

substantially altered the condition of the tailing piles over the last century (figure 4).

Figure 4. Historic tailing piles along Resurrection Creek

Resurrection Creek Fisheries

Anadromous fish are found from the mouth of Resurrection Creek to river mile 19. The lower 6 miles

are identified as having the highest production potential and spawning and rearing habitat for coho 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum (O. keta), pink (O. gorbuscha) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)

(Hart Crowser Inc. 2002). Sockeye salmon (O. nerka) have also been documented within 

Resurrection Creek however it is unknown whether they are comprised of a rearing population within 

Resurrection Creek or are strays from other Kenai Peninsula river populations.

Deep pools and off-channel habitats such as side channels and beaver ponds are extremely important 

during the freshwater or juvenile life history stages of Chinook and coho salmon. Most populations of 

Chinook and coho on the Kenai Peninsula spend the first two to three years of their lives rearing in 

Chugach National Forest 5
Resurrection Creek Phase II

their natal streams. During the summer months when food is abundant, Chinook and coho juveniles 

depend on deep pools for foraging and log jams for hiding from predators. During the winter months 

off-channel habitats such as side channels and beaver ponds become critical to juvenile Chinook and 

coho survival. The juvenile salmon use side channels and beaver ponds in the winter months to 

escape the main stem stream channel as it freezes, and to avoid ice dam burst and peak flows during 

the spring thaw. 

From 1990 to 1992 an evaluation of the Resurrection Creek fisheries was conducted. The study 

evaluated juvenile salmon distributions, smolt out-migrations, and inventoried stream habitat. The 

results of the study were compared to three other stream systems on the Kenai Peninsula; Hidden, 

Moose, and Quartz Creek. The results showed that Resurrection Creek coho smolts were considerably 

smaller by age class (about 30 percent) than on the other streams. In addition, virtually all 

Resurrection Creek coho smolts were emigrating at age one; however 90 percent of coho smolts on 

the other streams emigrated at age two and three (Blanchet and Wenger 1993). 

The lack of growth and early age at which coho smolts emigrate from the watershed give a very 

strong indication that rearing within the system is severely limited. The tailings piles within the placer 

mined reaches have disconnected the stream from the historic floodplains and side channel habitat.

The side channels and alcoves within the now isolated or buried floodplains historically provided the 

flood flow refugia and over wintering habitat which were critical to salmonids, especially coho. 

Resurrection Creek Landscape Analysis (2002)

The Chugach National Forest completed a landscape analysis for the Resurrection Creek watershed in 

2002 to document conditions and uses of the watershed and its resources (Hart Crowser, Inc. 2002). 

The three main restoration and management components outlined in the analysis were aquatic habitat 

restoration, vegetation restoration and management, and management of heritage resources/human 

uses. Phase I restoration, completed in 2005-2006, and the proposed Phase II restoration are among 

several projects identified in this analysis. Both projects are consistent with the Chugach National 

Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan goals and objectives, desired future conditions, 

and are listed as potential projects (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, pages 3-5; 

3-15, C-6).

Existing Mining Operations

The project area includes all or portions of 28 federal placer mining claims, 20 to 40 acres in size. The 

earliest claims were located in the late 1800s and the most recent in 2014. Seven mining claims in the 

project area were located prior to 1955 but do not have surface rights per the Multiple Surface Use 

Act of July 23, 1955 (P.L. 84-167), a 1960 A.L.J. Decision, and a 1961Surface Rights Determination 

Final Decision. The Multiple Surface Use Act provided for the right of the United States to manage 

and dispose of surface resources on mining claims. Hope Mining Company is the current claimant for 

all claims within the project area.

Hope Mining Company acts as a leasing company working with multiple third party lessees that 

conduct the actual mining operations. Hope Mining Company owns and maintains the claims as 

required by Bureau of Land Management (43 CFR 3800) and maintains the basic durable mining 

infrastructure (roads, ditch/pond systems, camps, storage sheds, etc.) regulated by Forest Service 

surface management regulations (36 CFR 228A). Operational flexibility is an important business 

consideration for Hope Mining Company to allow for the dynamic needs of various operators, 

equipment capabilities, experience, rate of production, and living quarters.

6 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Hope Mining Company conducted exploration and leasing of areas for heavy equipment and hand 

mining operations along Resurrection Creek in 1975 after purchasing a number of the mining claims.

Hope Mining Company first submitted a plan of operations to the Forest Service and was approved 

for test holes drilling and digging test pits in three areas (areas 1 to 3) on 19 acres in 1985 (appendix 

B – existing conditions map). Mining plans of operations were submitted annually through 1991 

which increased the area approved for mining operations to about 33 acres and increased the scope of 

mechanized mining operations (areas 1 to 10, 17; Sourant’s mining area).

From 1988 through 1999, the Forest Service processed a plan of operations which approved an 

additional 44 acres for mining (areas 11 to 16). Construction of a new bridge over Resurrection 

Creek, relocation of 1000 feet of Resurrection Creek to a new channel through area 15, and defined 

specific reclamation requirements in each area were approved in this 1999 plan of operations. The 

1999 plan of operations also refers to activities approved in the 1986, 1991, and the 1989 Hale and 

Harty plans of operations. A bridge has not been built to date nor has the creek been relocated. The 

Forest Service approved a plan of operations on 20.6 acres (areas 5A, 19, 20A) for heavy equipment 

and hand mining in 2010.

The total area approved for existing mining operations within the project area is 97 acres (appendix B 

- existing conditions map). From 1968 to 1985, about 28 acres were mechanically mined within the 

project area. About 45 acres of the 97 acres currently approved have been mined since 1985.

The approved mining operations from 1986 to the present have included mechanical mining with 

heavy equipment, hand mining, and suction dredging. Preparation of the ground for mechanical 

mining involves clearing brush and overburden (trees and stumps) and stockpiling any topsoil. The 

placer gravels (deposit of gravel containing eroded particles of gold) are then excavated and 

processed by gravity separation through a wash plant. One common method of mechanical placer 

mining is excavating consecutive strips (commonly around 500 feet in length, approximately 50 feet

wide and ranging in depth from 10 to 25 feet). A stationary wash plant is also used where excavated 

placer gravels are transported short distances to the plant for processing (figure 5).

Hand mining operations include the use of hand tools (gold pans, picks and shovels, sluice boxes, 

highbankers, and small water pumps) for mining placer gravels. Mechanized equipment may be used 

to remove overburden, stockpiling soil, and completing reclamation of the hand mining areas.

A suction dredge is operated in a constructed pond and utilizes a high pressure water pump to suck up 

water, gravel, and gold. The material is classified with a screen and smaller material containing any 

gold particles washes through a sluice where the denser gold particles are gravity captured. Gravel 

tailings are expelled behind the dredge, filling the pond as the dredge is advanced. A cutter head is 

sometimes used on the dredge to loosen the underwater material to facilitate suction. Suction 

dredging may occur within Resurrection Creek (per Alaska Department of Fish and Game Title 16 

Habitat Permit for working within anadromous water). Dredge sizes currently approved are 4 to 12 

inch intake nozzle diameter.

Chugach National Forest 7
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Figure 5. Mechanical placer mining equipment

Settling pond/ditch systems are currently located on both sides of Resurrection Creek to support the 

mining operations. Settling ponds/ditch systems provide water to be pumped to the wash plant and for 

retention of process waters allowing additional time for suspended sediment to settle. The pond/ditch 

systems are currently being operated as a zero discharge facility per Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation standards under requirements of the Clean Water Act. A zero discharge 

facility means that no processed water from mining ditches and ponds is flowing directly into 

Resurrection Creek or into other surface water.

Current reclamation requirements are specified in the individual plans of operations and vary 

depending on the specific operation, area, and site conditions. Reclamation generally includes 

recontouring mined areas to natural contours, spreading any stockpiled soil, spreading large woody 

debris and boulders, filling and contouring any ponds or ditches not needed for future operations, and 

removal of mining equipment/infrastructure not identified in other approved mining operations. 

Reclamation requirements also include financial assurance (bonding) to ensure reclamation work 

would be accomplished by the Forest Service if the mining claimant/operator was not able to perform 

the work. Approximately 28 acres of the 45 acres mined have been reclaimed to date. The remaining 

acres are still being mined or will be reclaimed during the upcoming mining season. 

A typical mining season includes the following activities and approximate time periods:

• March to April: Removal of vegetation from mining areas with heavy equipment and repairing 

mining equipment within camps in preparation of active mining season. While typically done in 

spring months prior to ground thawing, these activities could occur any time of the year.

• May to October: Active processing of placer gravels with heavy equipment begins when ground 

thaws in the spring and ends when ground freezes in the fall; reclamation activities can occur 

anytime during this period.

• October to November: Winterizing equipment and mining areas (including soil erosion 

measures)

Currently there are ten temporary camp areas (about 4 total acres) that are approved and include uses

incidental to mining such as equipment storage and maintenance, concentrate processing, and lessee 

8 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

accommodations. Nine of the ten camps are located adjacent to the existing mining areas and one 

camp is within an existing mining area. A network of internal mining roads are approved under 

various plans including two equipment fords, two hand trams across Resurrection Creek and a

location approved for a bridge.

Hope Mining Company is currently authorized to use the Resurrection Pass Trail bridge with ATVs to 

access mining claims on the west side of Resurrection Creek until such time as a bridge is built by 

Hope Mining Company under a plan of operations or temporarily installed by Forest Service for

restoration implementation access and monitoring.

Patent Application

Hope Mining Company submitted a patent application to the Bureau of Land Management in March 

1993 for 42 claims; 27 of these claims are located within the project area. A patented mining claim is 

one in which the Federal Government has transferred fee-simple title to all minerals and surface 

resources (i.e. private land) to the claimant. The requirements for patenting a mining claim are given 

in detail in Title 43, Code of Federal Regulation, Part 3860. 

In 1994 the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act authorized a moratorium on spending 

appropriated funds for the acceptance of new mineral patent applications or processing of mineral 

patent applications that have not yet received the First Half of the Mineral Entry Final Certificate. 

Hope Mining Company’s patent application did not achieve First Half of the Mineral Entry Final 

Certificate and therefore remains unprocessed as long as the moratorium is in place.

Settlement Agreement and Stipulation of Dismissal (2004)

In June of 1999, Hope Mining Company submitted plans to use a cutting dredge with a 15 inch intake 

in existing approved areas. In August 1999, the Forest Service responded by stating a new 

environmental analysis would need to be prepared. All ground disturbing activities and occupancy of 

structures were halted in 2000 until either a new plan or a modified plan was approved. In August 

2001, the Forest Service required Hope Mining Company to modify their 1999 plan of operations per 

36 CFR 228.4(e). Hope Mining Company appealed the 2001 decision and the Regional Forester 

upheld the decision (April 2002). Hope Mining Company filed a civil suit in July 2002 with the U.S. 

District Court of Alaska and a petition for the court to review an Agency Order by the Forest Service 

on April 29, 2002 (Regional Forester Appeal Decision). In March, 2004, a “Settlement Agreement 

and Stipulation of Dismissal” was signed by a Department of Justice attorney and a Hope Mining 

Company attorney with the following stipulations:

• August 10, 2001 Forest Supervisor decision and April 29, 2002 decision by Regional Forester are 

both withdrawn.

• Forest Service shall not require pursuant to 36 CFR 228.4(e) (2002) any modification to the Plan 

of Operations approved in January 1999 based on any disturbance of surface resources allegedly 

due to any operations of Hope Mining Company conducted prior to April 29, 2002.

• Nothing in the agreement shall limit any duties, obligations, or rights of either Hope Mining 

Company or Forest Service under any laws and regulations of the United States.

• The settlement is entered into in compromise and shall not serve as precedent for any other 

litigation, and shall not be deemed to be an admission by any party hereto for any purpose.

The Forest Service continues to administer mining operations (74.6 acres total) approved under the 

1999 plan of operations with the above stipulations. The 1999 plan of operations currently limits the 

dredge intake to 12 inch size.

Chugach National Forest 9
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Stream Restoration Phase I (2005-2006)

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Resurrection Creek Phase I Stream Restoration Project 

(USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2004) was completed in November of 2004 and a 

Record of Decision signed November 4, 2004 for restoration efforts on a one-mile historic miningimpacted portion of Resurrection Creek about 5 miles upstream of Hope (figure 6). The proposed 

action for the Phase I project included reconstructing the main channel with increased sinuosity, 

installing large woody debris within the new stream channel, constructing side channels and ponds, 

and reestablishing vegetation in the riparian area. The Phase I project differs from the proposed 

project in that the Phase I project is located on National Forest System lands that were acquired from 

the State of Alaska by deed dated April 13, 1971. Acquired lands are withdrawn from mineral entry 

which means that location of mining claims is not allowed.

Figure 6. Location of the Phase I Restoration Project and the Phase II Project Area

Between 2005 and 2006, the Forest Service implemented Phase I project. Monitoring since 2007 

indicates restoration activities are resulting in a more complex stream channel structure, connectivity 

with the floodplain and improvement of aquatic and riparian habitat (MacFarlane et al. 2009), and a 

dramatic increase in salmon spawning for all species (chum, pink, coho and Chinook) and juvenile 

rearing for coho and Chinook salmon and resident Dolly Varden and rainbow trout within the restored 

section (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2014 unpublished data).

10 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Framework for Phase II Restoration 

The Forest Service began discussions with Hope Mining Company in 2006 to determine if restoration 

through Hope Mining Company claims were feasible after the implementation of the Phase I 

restoration project upstream had been completed. Over the next two years, the Forest Service and 

Hope Mining Company discussed alternatives that would provide mutual benefits such as improving 

fish and wildlife habitat along the creek and ensuring access for Hope Mining Company’s ongoing 

and future mining operations. Discussions included the need to establish a restoration corridor located 

in the lowest value sections of the mining claims, access needs for restoration and mining, 

replacement of existing mining infrastructure that would be obliterated in the restoration corridor,

sequencing existing mining operations within the proposed corridor area prior to restoration 

implementation, and future mining plans.

On December 3, 2007 the Forest Service and Hope Mining Company reached agreement on a 

framework for proceeding with the environmental analysis of the proposed restoration of 

Resurrection Creek (Phase II) and future mining operations; hereby referred to as 2007 Agreement

(appendix E). The points of agreement included a designated restoration corridor, procedures for 

replacing existing settling ponds and mining roads that would be obliterated by restoration, the need 

for and use of a temporary bridge over Resurrection Creek, and identification of areas outside of the 

restoration corridor that would be suitable as a source for restoration materials. Hope Mining 

Company proposed a supplement to their 1999 mining plan of operations that would exclude all 

mining operations from the restoration corridor with the exception of survey line maintenance, survey 

monument maintenance, water extraction to replenish settling ponds, bridge and equipment crossings, 

and operations associated with the patenting process( if moratorium were lifted or repealed). The 

supplement would enable the Forest Service to be in compliance with the March 22, 2004 “Settlement 

Agreement and Stipulation of Dismissal” during implementation of restoration activities on mining 

areas approved under the 1999 plan of operations located within the restoration corridor.

Hope Mining Company submitted a plan of operations for proposed mining activities in December of 

2007 that aligns with restoration activities as described in the December 3, 2007 agreement. The 

Forest Service is herein analyzing this proposed plan of operations concurrently with the stream 

restoration proposal since it has connected actions (see figure 7 and maps 2 and 3 in appendix B).

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this project is twofold: 1) process Hope Mining Company’s proposed plan of 

operations, and 2) create a more natural and complex stream channel structure, restoring floodplain 

connectivity with the stream, and improving aquatic and riparian habitat along 2.2 miles of 

Resurrection Creek. 

The need to act on the proposed mining plan of operation arises from the statutory right of a mining 

claimant to enter upon public lands to prospect, develop and mine valuable minerals conveyed by the 

General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, which states: “... all valuable mineral deposits in lands 

belonging to the United States, both surveyed and unsurveyed, shall be free and open to 

exploration...” (17 Stat. 91; 30 U.S.C. §§ 21 et seq.). The Forest Service has a regulatory obligation 

to approve (36 CFR 228.5) and may require modification to the terms and conditions for any 

proposed plan for additional requirements for surface resource protection (36 CFR 228.1).

Hope Mining Company lessees have actively mined portions of the 97 acres identified in existing 

plans of operations (approvals in 1986, 1991, 1999, 2010) leaving less approved acreage available for 

future leasing thus resulting in less operational flexibility for Hope Mining Company. Hope Mining 

Chugach National Forest 11
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Company developed its 2007 plan of operations in conjunction with the proposed restoration 

activities during discussions with the Forest Service, and has supplemented its 2007 proposed 

operating plan in the intervening years due to changes in mining operations and methodologies. 

Coordination and collaboration with Hope Mining Company has been and will continue to be 

essential because restoration activities in the project area would occur adjacent to mining operations.

Restoration actions are needed because historic mining activities from the early 1900s have 

significantly altered the natural stream channel processes and the aquatic habitat within the project 

area. Mine tailings generated nearly a century ago, are essentially functioning as levees, and confining 

all flood flows to a single channel. Without mechanical intervention, adversely affected habitat will 

limit fish and wildlife biological production within the project area conceivably for centuries. Key 

elements of the existing condition that do not meet desired conditions are as follows:

1. Flood-prone to bank-full channel width ratios were reduced from 7:1 prior to mining to the 

current condition of 1:1. The confinement of the stream channel has severely impacted both fish 

and wildlife habitat.

2. Historic mine tailings have confined and caused a straightened stream channel, which has 

increased the channel slope by almost 30 percent, from 0.12 to 0.15. The increase in channel 

slope has homogenized the creek, creating a nearly continuous riffle that has severely impacted 

salmonid habitat. Compared to reference conditions, the project area per river mile contains:

o 75 percent fewer pools with greater than three feet residual pool depth

o 90 percent less spawning substrate

o 95 percent fewer side channels

o 95 percent fewer pieces of in to stream large woody material

3. The historic mine tailings occupy approximately 50 percent of the historic floodplain and are 

composed primarily of cobble and boulders with very little soil, which is preventing natural 

recovery of riparian vegetation composition and structure.

4. The elevations and orientation of historic mine tailings prevent fine sediment and organics carried 

by floods from being deposited on the floodplain. Detachment of the stream channel from the 

historic floodplain prevents the natural fertilization and soil augmentation mechanisms needed to 

reestablish vigorous riparian plant communities.

5. Poor habitat conditions will be persistent without regeneration of riparian vegetation. Although 

the majority of disturbance occurred nearly a century ago, riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat 

have not recovered at a natural rate of succession; small diameter trees, snags, and large wood on

the ground are nearly nonexistent.

Restoration of the stream corridor would restore natural stream channel processes and aquatic habitat 

which can lead to increased aquatic rearing habitat, larger and more robust juvenile Chinook and coho 

salmon, and potentially improve populations of fish.

Existing mining infrastructure and mining areas are located in close proximity to Resurrection Creek.

Creating a restoration corridor would buffer the stream channel from mining activities; limiting the 

risk of turbid surface and subsurface flows from settling ponds and ditches entering creek; and 

reducing the potential of creek encroachment on settling ponds, ditches, and roads from natural creek 

channel movement.

12 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (2002)

The purpose and need for this project is found within the Chugach National Forest Revised Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a)

which provides management direction for lands and resources on the Chugach National Forest.

First, processing Hope Mining Company’s proposed plan of operation works towards achieving the 

Forest Plan goal of providing opportunities to develop minerals for commercial uses and meets the 

objective of providing exploration and development opportunities in areas with moderate to high 

locatable mineral potential (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-6).

Second, the restoration activities will restore this portion of Resurrection Creek to work toward 

achieving the Forest Plan goal of reestablishing proper functioning streams and riparian areas (USDA 

Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-2) by returning the stream system and riparian 

area towards the historic range of variability. Stream restoration will help achieve the Forest Plan goal 

of maintaining and restoring water quality (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a,

page 3-3) by reconnecting a more natural, complex channel to a functioning, restored flood plain 

reducing erosive energy of high flow events and providing a buffer between mining operations and 

infrastructure and the stream channel.

Part of improving the stream riparian area includes reestablishing top soil in the restoration corridor 

which will meet Forest Plan goals of improving soil conditions where degradation has occurred 

(USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-2) and restoring ecological processes 

and flora native to the area (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-3) in 

shorter time periods than what would occur without intervention.

With the return of a more natural ecological system within the corridor, fish and wildlife habitat will 

improve which meets the Forest Plan goal of maintaining habitat to produce and sustain fish and 

wildlife populations (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-4).

This project falls within the Forest Restoration Management Area in the Forest Plan and restoration 

activities meet the management intent of restoring plant communities (USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 4-68) and meet the guidelines for vegetation restoration 

priorities to occur within 100 feet either side of streams and lake riparian zones (USDA Forest 

Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 4-71).

Legal and Regulatory Framework

General Mining Act of May 10, 1872, as amended 

The General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, confers a statutory right upon a mining claimant to 

enter upon public lands to prospect, develop and mine valuable minerals. By location and entry, a 

claimant acquires certain rights against other citizens and against the United States. A mining claim 

creates a possessory interest in the locatable mineral estate which may be bartered, sold, mortgaged, 

or transferred by law in whole or in part as any other real property when the locator has complied 

with the applicable Federal and State laws. Federal mining claims exist throughout all of the project 

area, and care must be taken to respect the claimant’s property by avoiding claim corner markers, 

excavations, and mining equipment. The claimant shall be provided reasonable access in order to 

carry out mining operations.

Chugach National Forest 13
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Organic Administration Act of 1897

The Organic Administration Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish regulations to 

govern the occupancy and use of National Forests and to improve and protect the forest within the 

boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows. It also requires the 

Forest Service, as the land manager, to minimize environmental impacts without materially 

interfering with a mining claimant’s rights under the General Mining Act of May 10, 1872, as 

amended.

Multiple Surface Use Act of 1955

The Multiple Surface Use Act of 1955 removed common varieties of mineral materials from location 

under the General Mining Act of 1872, placed limitations on mining claimants’ surface rights, and 

gave authority to the Forest Service to manage surface uses, provided, however, that any use of the 

surface of any such mining claim by the United States, its permittees or licensees, shall be such as not 

to endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining or processing operations or uses 

reasonably incident thereto. In addition, the Multiple Surface Use Act requires that mining claimants 

shall not use claims for any purpose other than prospecting, mining, or processing operations and uses 

reasonably incident thereto, and restricts mining operators to using reasonable methods of surface 

disturbance that are appropriate to their stage of operation.

The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (1960)

The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop 

and administer the renewable resources of timber, range, water, recreation and wildlife on the national 

forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services.

The National Historic Preservation Act (1966)

The National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies having jurisdiction over proposed

federal or federally assisted projects in any state or ability to authorize or permit undertakings are 

required to analyze the effect of that project on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is 

included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Determinations of effects are reached in 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and/or the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, as defined in 36 CFR part 800.

The National Environmental Policy Act (1970)

The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to utilize a systematic and 

interdisciplinary approach which will insure the use of the natural and social sciences to integrate 

environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental impacts 

of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions.

Clean Air Act (1970, as amended 1977, 1990, 2004)

The Clean Air Act is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and 

mobile sources. Among other things, this law authorizes Environmental Protection Agency to 

establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and public welfare and to 

regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants.

14 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Order 11593 - Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment (1971)

Under this executive order, federal agencies will provide leadership in preserving, restoring and 

maintaining the historic and cultural environment of the Nation by: 1) administering the cultural 

properties under their control in a spirit of stewardship and trusteeship for future generations; 2) 

initiating measures necessary to direct their policies, plans and programs in such a way that federally 

owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural or archaeological significance are 

preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration and benefit of the people; and 3) in 

consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation , instituting procedures to assure that 

Federal plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of sites, structures and 

objects of historical, architectural or archaeological significance not owned by the federal 

government.

Clean Water Act (1972)

The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the 

waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The Clean Water Act 

made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source (discrete conveyances such as pipes 

or man-made ditches) into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. The Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation has full authority to administer the wastewater discharge permitting and 

compliance program in Alaska. This project falls under the regulations of Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act for dredge and fill within wetlands. 

Endangered Species Act (1973)

The Endangered Species Act provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered plants and 

animals and the critical habitats in which they are found. The law requires federal agencies, in 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat of such species. Environmental analysis for fish, wildlife, and vegetation 

for all action alternatives for this project includes an evaluation as to the existence of any threatened 

and endangered species within the project area and if so, effects to the animals and plants and their 

habitats.

The National Forest Management Act (1976)

The National Forest Management Act reorganized, expanded and otherwise amended the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 for the management of renewable resources 

on National Forest System lands. The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of 

Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustainedyield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest 

System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of national forests.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980)

Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act requires that federal agencies 

with jurisdiction over lands in Alaska evaluate the potential effects of proposed land use activities on 

subsistence uses and needs. This Act defines subsistence uses as the “customary and traditional uses 

by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption such 

as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools; for transportation; for the making and selling of handicraft 

Chugach National Forest 15
Resurrection Creek Phase II

articles out of fish or wildlife resources taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or 

sharing for personal or family consumption; and for customary trade.” 

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended (1986, 1996)

The Safe Drinking Water Act is the main federal law that ensures the quality of Americans' drinking 

water. This Act was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the 

nation's public drinking water supply. The law was amended in 1986 and 1996 and requires many 

actions to protect drinking water and its sources: rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs, and ground water 

wells. The Forest Service is required to protect source watersheds and Resurrection Creek has been 

identified as a source watershed for one business in Hope which has a public water system and has 

been determined by Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to be using groundwater 

under the direct influence of surface water from Resurrection Creek.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976, as 

amended through 1996)

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for the conservation and management of the nation’s fishery 

resources through the preparation and implementation of fishery management plans. The MagnusonStevens Act also mandates that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine 

Fisheries Service coordinate with and provide information to federal agencies to further the 

conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat. Federal agencies must consult with National 

Marine Fisheries Service on any action that might adversely affect essential fish habitat. When 

National Marine Fisheries Service finds that a federal or state action would adversely affect essential 

fish habitat, it is required to provide conservation recommendations.

Executive Order 11988 - Floodplain Management (1977)

Federal agencies will provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) 

acquiring, managing. and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing Federally 

undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal 

activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land 

resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. As required by this Order, the effects of the 

proposed activities on floodplains have been evaluated and have been documented relative to the 

purpose of this order.

Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands (1977)

Federal agencies will provide leadership and shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss or 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in 

carrying out the agency's responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands 

and facilities; and (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and 

improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but 

not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities. As 

required by this Order, the effects of the proposed activities on wetlands have been evaluated and 

have been documented relative to the purpose of this order.

Executive Order 12962 - Recreational Fisheries (1995) 

Federal agencies are required, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in 

cooperation with States and Tribes, to improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and 

16 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

distribution of United States aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities. As 

required by this Order, the effects of the proposed activities on aquatic systems and recreational 

fisheries have been evaluated and the effects have been documented relative to the purpose of this 

order. 

Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994)

The Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income 

populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The order is also intended to 

promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect human health and the environment, as well 

as provide minority and low-income communities’ access to public information and public 

participation.

Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species (1999)

The Executive Order 13112 for invasive species was enacted to prevent the introduction of invasive 

species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health 

impacts that invasive species cause. Each Federal agency whose actions may affect the status of 

invasive species is responsible, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, identify such actions;

prevent the introduction of invasive species; detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of 

such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; monitor invasive species 

populations accurately and reliably; and provide for restoration of native species and habitat 

conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded. Invasive species have been found within the project 

area and analysis has been conducted to determine the effects of all action alternatives on the 

potential introduction and spread of invasive plants.

Alaska Water Quality Standards (18 AAC 70)

The Forest Service is required to maintain water quality consistent with Alaska Water Quality 

Standards (18 AAC 70) and the Federal Clean Water Act. Water quality refers to the physical, 

chemical and biological components of a given stream and its assigned beneficial use classes. In 

Alaska, beneficial use classes are referred to as protected water use classes. The designated protected 

water use classes for Resurrection Creek are growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic 

life, and wildlife as well as water supply for drinking, culinary, and food processing.

Proposed Action

The proposed action has two primary components: proposed mining and stream restoration.

The Forest Service received a proposed mining plan of operations from Hope Mining Company on 

December 12, 2007 (and subsequent supplements) that is connected to and supports the proposed 

restoration activities along Resurrection Creek. The proposed plan of operations includes:

1. Placer mining on 274 acres located outside the restoration corridor boundary. Mining operations 

would include mechanized mining, hand mining, and dredging over an expected 20 year time 

period. Mechanical mining activities generally include the use of heavy equipment, such as 

bulldozers, excavators, front end loaders, and wash plants. Reclamation requirements would be 

specified in the individual plans of operations and vary depending on the specific operation, 

ground to be mined, and site specific conditions. Average annual area to be actively mined would 

be estimated at approximately 14 acres, although the actual area mined on any given year may be 

Chugach National Forest 17
Resurrection Creek Phase II

higher or lower depending on economic factors; operator production capabilities; mining 

infrastructure capacities; and environmental constraints. Multiple mining operations can be 

expected during any given season.

2. Construction of new and use of existing mining infrastructure needed for mining activities such as 

access routes, mining camps, settling ponds and ditches; all located outside the restoration 

corridor boundary. New infrastructure includes roads, ditches and ponds relocated outside the 

restoration corridor boundary and new infrastructure needed for mining new areas that is not 

currently in existence. Table 5 on pages 35 to 38 indicates the amount and types of new 

infrastructure proposed. 

A more detailed description of the proposed mining activities is in chapter 2. Processing the proposed 

plan of operations meets the regulatory obligation to approve or require modification to the terms and 

conditions for any proposed plan for additional requirements for surface resource protection (36 CFR 

228.5).

The action proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need for restoration includes the 

following activities:

1. Construction of a meandering river channel approximately 2.7 miles in length and adjacent side 

channels that mimic natural conditions which would reestablish a self-sustaining riparian 

ecosystem within the 74 acre restoration corridor. 

2. Install a temporary bridge over Resurrection Creek for access to the west side of the creek during 

restoration activities. 

3. Mechanical manipulation and grading of up to approximately 220,000 cubic yards of mine 

tailings to recover floodplain width and elevations. 

4. Selective removal of beetle killed spruce and cottonwood trees to be used for stream bank 

protection, creating and improving habitat, and floodplain stabilization. 

5. Placement of nutrient-rich, weed-free soils and organics on the newly constructed floodplains and 

riparian areas to improve growing conditions for native plant communities.

6. Natural revegetation and planting of native plant species on constructed floodplains and riparian 

areas.

The final element of the proposed action is Hope Mining Company providing a supplement to the 

1999 approved plans of operations to exclude most mining activities on 38 acres of mining areas 

located within the restoration corridor. The remaining 59 acres of existing mining areas outside the 

restoration corridor are not part of the 274 acres of proposed mining.

See figure 7 for a map of the components of the proposed action. A more detailed description of the 

proposed action is in chapter 2.

18 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Figure 7. Proposed action – proposed mining and stream restoration 

Chugach National Forest 19
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Decision Framework

The Chugach Forest Supervisor as the Deciding Official will review the proposed action, the other 

alternatives, the environmental consequences, and will consider the purpose and need for the project 

in order to make the following decisions:

1. What modifications to the proposed mining plan of operations are necessary, if any, to minimize 

adverse environmental impacts on National Forest surface resources; 

2. Whether to undertake restoration activities on Resurrection Creek, and if so, the nature, 

magnitude, and extent of those activities; 

3. What mitigation measures and monitoring requirements will be required, if any, for restoration 

and/or mining activities

Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on January 28, 2008. A scoping letter was 

sent to the public on January 4, 2008, and public comments were accepted until February 21, 2008.

The Forest Service received 13 written comments. Public meetings were held on February 12, 2008 in 

Hope, Alaska with nine community members attending and on February 13, 2008 in Anchorage, 

Alaska with seven Anchorage residents attending. A public meeting was held on June 13, 2009 in 

Hope, Alaska with a site visit to the project area in which 18 members of the public attended. The 

public comments, other agencies comments, and the interdisciplinary team comments were used to

develop a list of concerns (potential issues as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act). 

Per request by Alaska Center for the Environment, the Forest Service met with one of their employees 

and with a local resident on August 14, 2009 to discuss the completed Phase I restoration work and 

the proposed project. The group visited the Phase I project area and then met with Hope Mining 

Company to look at existing mining and the proposed restoration corridor.

The Forest Service had frequent meetings with Hope Mining Company to discuss specific elements of

the proposed mining activities, quarterly project status update meetings between Hope Mining 

Company and the Forest Service, and work sessions between Hope Mining Company and the 

Interdisciplinary Team leaders to update the proposed mining plan of operations as changes occurred 

in their proposed mining plans.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released to the public on July 23, 2010 for a 45 day 

comment period. The Forest Service received 12 comment letters from members of the public, 2 

comment letters from organizations, and 3 comment letters from other federal agencies. Hope Mining 

Company also submitted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The responses to 

these comments are located in appendix D (pages 217 to 265).

The Forest Service met with a representative from Alaska Center for the Environment and two private 

landowners on the project area on August 10, 2010 to discuss proposed mining activities and potential 

effects to adjacent private property. That evening the Forest Service held a public meeting in Hope to 

discuss the project and summarize key points within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Four 

people attended the meeting.

The Forest Service held a meeting on August 11, 2010 at the Residence Inn in Anchorage to discuss 

the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Five people attended the meeting.

20 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

A letter was sent out to interested members of the public and other agencies on June 15, 2012 to 

notify the public of a meeting on June 29, 2012 in Hope, Alaska, to update interested members of the 

public on the status of the project and answer any further questions. Six people attended the June 29th

meeting.

Issues

Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action, 

giving opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects by creating alternatives and 

mitigation measures and compare tradeoffs.

After the scoping period ended in February of 2008, concerns from the public and Forest Service 

specialists were analyzed and two unresolved issues were identified: the potential of restoration and 

mining activities to 1) increase the turbidity of Resurrection Creek affecting water quality and 2) to 

harm salmon populations. These two issues were included in the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement released for public comment in July 2010.

Interdisciplinary discussion and site analysis in the project area since July of 2010 resulted in 

modifications to the issues. The issue of potential harm to salmon populations was recognized as a 

result of potentially lower water quality in Resurrection Creek and is considered part of the water 

quality issue. Further site analysis by the soil scientist led the interdisciplinary team to add soil 

productivity as an issue. The issues are now described as follows:

1. Water Quality: Restoration implementation activities, including diversion of flow into newly 

constructed channel segments, logjam construction, side channel construction, bridge 

construction, and use of equipment crossings, have the potential to substantially increase turbidity 

in Resurrection Creek for short durations. Turbidity, measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units 

(NTU), is a measure of the cloudiness of water, typically the result of the transport of suspended 

sediment. Turbidity and sediment deposition can negatively affect aquatic organisms such as 

salmon and other fish species. 

The magnitude (level of turbidity measured in NTUs) and the duration (hours of increased 

turbidity) are variables used to measure the potential impacts turbidity has on water quality and 

aquatic organisms within Resurrection Creek. Mitigation measures 1, 2, 5, 25, and 27 (pages 39, 

39, 40, 45, 46) were developed to reduce the turbidity during activities and monitoring activity 3 

(page 49) was developed to monitor NTUs while actions are being implemented.

2. Soil productivity: Proposed mining and restoration will result in detrimental soil disturbance of 

varying levels as observed from past mining practices in the area and from the implementation of 

the Phase I restoration project. Placer mining involves removing all vegetation and soil layers to 

mine the gold from the underlying gravel. Removal of soil results in detrimental effects to soil 

productivity. Restoration activities are designed to improve overall condition of the Resurrection 

Creek riparian area including soil productivity but in reconstructing the main channel and side 

channels, some detrimental soil disturbance is anticipated. Design criteria and mitigation 

measures were developed using Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service Alaska 

Region 2006; USDA Forest Service 2012) for construction and maintenance of roads, the bridge, 

mining ditches and ponds; requiring specific reclamation measures for mining areas and 

infrastructure; and burying glacial clay material during mining reclamation and restoration 

activities (mitigation measure 15, page 43). While effects from mining activities are not required 

to stay within the soil disturbance standards for renewable resources governed by the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976, the same threshold of 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance 

Chugach National Forest 21
Resurrection Creek Phase II

will be used to disclose when anticipated detrimental soil disturbance would become a significant 

adverse impact.

During scoping in 2008 and the comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 

July23, 2010, other concerns were identified by the public including general and specific ways 

mining could impact scenery, heritage resources, adjacent private landowners, and the economy of the 

community of Hope, and also included concerns of the cost of restoration activities, impacts to the 

community with potential increases in sport fishing, suggestions of eliminating mining or creating 

buffers along private land and Resurrection Creek road, and introduction of invasive plant species.

Each concern was analyzed and a determination made whether the concern was beyond the scope of 

the project, already addressed by existing policy, law, or regulation, incorporated into the design or 

mitigation measures applicable to all action alternatives, or brought forward for analysis as an 

unresolved issue. Only the two issues above were determined to be unresolved issues. All comments 

submitted during the comment period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are addressed in 

the Response to Comments section in appendix D (page 217).

22 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 1. Permits, licenses, and other entitlements

Activity for which

permit is required Permit/Authorization/License Element requiring authorization Authority

Mining

(Alternative 2 and 3)

Alaska Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permit

Mineral operators within the State of Alaska are required to 

obtain an Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit 

to control quantity of turbid water entering surface/groundwater 

systems from mining activities. Alaska Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits include a Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan.

State of Alaska, Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

granted authority in 2010 under 

the Environmental Protection 

Agency Clean Water Act Section 

402.

Restoration 

(Alternative 2)

Mining

(Alternative 2 and 3)

Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game Title 16 Fish Habitat 

Permit

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Habitat 

requires prior notification and permit approval to “construct a 

hydraulic project, or use, divert, obstruct, pollute, or change the 

natural flow or bed” of a specified waterbody. Bridge or culvert 

installation and maintenance activities in fish-bearing 

waterbodies require a Fish Habitat Permit. All stream diversions, 

instream work, and stream crossings for mining and restoration 

activities will require a Title 16 permit and may be required to 

occur within the May 15 to July 15 construction window.

State of Alaska, Department of 

Fish and Game, Division of 

Habitat under Alaska Statute 

16.05.871 (Anadromous Fish 

Act)

Restoration 

(Alternative 2)

Mining

(Alternative 3 only)

Section 404 Permit -

Dredge and Fill

Section 401 Permit -

Water Quality

This project falls under the regulations of Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act for dredge and fill within wetlands. Project 

construction would need to follow U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

practices for minimizing impacts to wetland areas. This Section 

404 permitting process requires approval of a Section 401 

(Water Quality) permit from the Alaska Department of 

Conservation. Both Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will need to 

review proposed practices for the project to assure minimization 

of project impacts to water quality. Realignment of the stream 

channel by mining operator in alternative 3 would also require 

obtaining these permits.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Regulatory Division; Clean Water 

Act, Section 404. 

Alaska Department of 

Conservation; Clean Water Act, 

Section 401 

Mining

(Alternative 2 and 3)

Spill Prevention, Containment,

and Countermeasures Plan.

A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan is required 

by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for 

aggregate aboveground storage capacity of 1,320 gallons or 

more and minimum container size of 55 gallons of petroleum 

products. State of Alaska regulations require notification to 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation of fuel spills 

greater than 55 gallons within 5 hours, 10 to 55 gallons within 24 

hours, and less than 10 gallons within 7 days. 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; Clean Water Act, 

Regulation 40 CFR 112: Oil 

Pollution Prevention

Chugach National Forest 23
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Activity for which

permit is required Permit/Authorization/License Element requiring authorization Authority

Restoration

(Alternative 2)

Mining

(Alternative 2 and 3)

Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources Temporary Water 

Use Permit

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, 

Land, and Water oversee applications for water rights and 

temporary water use permits for use or diversion of the waters of 

the State of Alaska. Proposed diversions of Resurrection Creek 

for restoration purposes will need to be reviewed by the Division 

of Water and may require a temporary water use permit. Mining 

activities that utilize surface water may require a temporary 

water use permit.

Alaska Water Use Act (AS 46.15)

Mining

(Alternative 2 and 3)

Mining License Any mining activity in Alaska requires this mining license 

including activities on federal lands.

Alaska Department of Revenue 

(AS 43.65.010 - Mining License 

Tax)

Mining

(Alternative 2 and 3)

Small and Medium Suction 

Dredge, Mechanical Placer 

Permit

Owners and operators of facilities engaged in the processing of 

placer gold by suction dredging are authorized to discharge to 

water of the United States in accordance with effluent limitations 

and monitoring requirements

Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (AS 

46.03.100)

Mining

(Alternative 2 and 3)

Regional General 

Permit/Individual Permit 

(more than 10 Acres)

Regional General Permit (RGP 2006-1944-M1) for placer mining 

activity when surface disturbance is 10 acres or less and stream 

diversions less than 2000 feet in length. An individual permit is 

required and must be applied for separately for operations 

greater than 10 acres

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(33 CFR 330)

24 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2. 

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Hope Mining Company 

Proposed Plan of Operations and the Resurrection Creek Phase II Stream and Riparian Restoration 

Project. A description of each alternative considered is presented and in comparative form, sharply 

defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among 

options by the decision maker. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based 

upon the design of the alternative (e.g., the length of stream to be restored and the associated amount 

of material to be mechanically manipulated) and the environmental, social and economic effects of 

implementing each alternative.

Reclamation and restoration, although similar, have different standards. Reclamation is required 

rehabilitation of mine sites to prevent or control onsite and off-site damage. Reclamation techniques 

may include, where practicable (36 CFR 228.8(g)):

1. Control of erosion and landslides;

2. Control of water runoff;

3. Isolation, removal or control of toxic materials;

4. Reshaping and revegetation of disturbed areas, where reasonably practicable; and

5. Rehabilitation of fisheries and wildlife habitat.

Mine operators are required to reclaim surface disturbed in operations in the manner authorized in 

their approved plan of operations. Mine reclamation on placer operations such as those at Hope 

Mining Company would require the following reclamation activities: filling and recontouring mined 

areas; redistributing stockpiled soil and overburden (when available); backfilling unneeded ponds,

ditches, and other excavations; seeding overly steepened slopes to minimize soil erosion;

decompacting and recontouring any decommissioned roads and camp areas, and removal of any 

unnecessary equipment from the site.

Restoration can include a variety of treatments intended to bring a damaged site back to functional or 

improved condition. The proposed restoration activities along Resurrection Creek would improve 

conditions in the riparian area that were impacted by historic mining practices.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed three alternatives:

• Alternative 1 - Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

• Alternative 2 - Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

• Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

A comparison of the alternatives is presented in table 5 (page 36), and maps of the alternatives are 

located within appendix B (page 197). Alternative 2 and 3 have three maps each; one showing basic 

features such as existing mining areas, proposed mining subunits (i.e. 1a, 6a, 15, 24) and restoration 

features (alternative 2 only), one map showing existing and proposed mining infrastructure such as 

Chugach National Forest 25
Resurrection Creek Phase II

mining access routes, camps, ponds, and ditches, and a third map showing the inventoried roadless 

area overlay.

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

The project area is approximately 418 acres in size and is located on both sides of Resurrection 

Creek. Alternative 1 includes only the existing approved mining activities within the project area. 

Under the current approved plans of operations, mining would continue to occur on 97 acres in areas 

1 – 12, 14 – 17, 19, 20a, and on Sourant’s Area and as described in chapter 1 under Existing Mining 

section (pages 6 to 9) and as shown on map 1 in appendix B (page 199). No new areas would be

analyzed for mining nor would any restoration activities occur along the creek. Mining would 

continue to occur in the existing approved areas until the extraction of gold was completed, estimated 

at 10 to 15 years. All mining areas and infrastructure (roads, ditches/ponds, and camps) would be 

reclaimed. Table 2 contains the estimated acres of the various elements of alternative 1.

Table 2. Alternative 1 - acres

Components of Project Area – Alternative 1 Estimated Acres

Existing mining areas approved in plans of operations (2010, 1999, 1986) 97

Resurrection Creek plus 20 foot buffer 28

Gravel Pit 2

Mining Interpretive Area 2

Resurrection Creek Road 2

Remaining project areaa 384

Total Project Area 418

a - The remaining project area is not specifically approved for gold extraction but does include approved mining infrastructure 

such as mining access roads, settling ponds, and camps 

The Forest Service has a regulatory obligation to approve or require modifications to any proposed 

plan of operations (36 CFR 228.5). Because of this, alternative 1 cannot be selected because taking no 

action would not fulfill this regulatory requirement. However, a no-action alternative is required by

the National Environmental Policy Act and is used in this analysis for the purpose of comparing other 

alternatives with the existing conditions.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Table 3 contains the estimated acres of the various elements of alternative 2.

Table 3. Alternative 2 - acres

Features within Project Area – Alternative 2 Estimated Acres

Existing mining areas approved in plans of operations (2010, 1999, 1986) 59

Proposed Mining Areas 274

Restoration Corridor – Resurrection Creek 23

Restoration Corridor - Riparian areas 51

Resurrection Creek (not within restoration corridor) 2

Steep Slopes not proposed for mining 4

Gravel Pit 2

Mining Interpretive Area 1

Resurrection Creek Road 2

Total Project Area 418

26 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Proposed Mining Operations

Hope Mining Company’s proposed plan of operations would occur on new mining areas totaling 274

acres outside the restoration corridor boundary. The restoration corridor would eliminate 38 acres of 

existing mining areas approved under previous plans of operations. Mining on the 59 acres of 

remaining existing mining areas outside the corridor would continue as approved in previous plans of 

operations. The mining activities proposed on the 274 acres would be conducted with the same type 

of equipment and process as what is described for existing mining operations in chapter 1(pages 6 to 

9). Hope Mining Company supplemented their 2007 proposed plan of operations by eliminating 

mining on the steep slope in area 16a after discussion with Forest Service Soil Scientist regarding risk 

of erosion on the slope if mining were to occur. The 4 acres of steep slope have been eliminated and 

are not part of the 274 acres. Refer to map 2 and map 3 in appendix B (pages 201 and 203) for 

locations of mining areas, mining infrastructure, and the restoration corridor.

The following is a summary of the proposed operations.

Types of Mining

Placer mining methods includes use of heavy equipment, hand equipment, and dredges up to and 

including 15 inch nozzle intake size to sort and extract gold from placer gravels. 

Durable Mining Infrastructure 

Durable mining infrastructure refers ponds, ditches, roads, and camps that Hope Mining Company

requires for periods of longer than one mining season. Forest Service would replace in-kind any 

existing durable mining infrastructure removed as a result of the restoration. New mining 

infrastructure would be integrated into approved plan of operations and Hope Mining Company 

would maintain all mining infrastructure and would be responsible for reclamation of infrastructure 

when no longer necessary for mining operations. 

Camps: The term “camp” broadly refers to operational areas that include camping areas, fuel storage, 

equipment maintenance; repair; and storage. The proposed action includes the use of the ten existing 

approved camp areas (approximately 3.6 acres total area); camp 5 would be increased to 2 acres and 

would expand in scope of the facilities to support operations on west side of Resurrection Creek. The 

approval of camp areas and support systems would be commensurate and incidental to the size and 

type of mining operations approved. Fuel is proposed to be stored at camp 5 and would continue to be 

stored at camp 2. Camps are not necessarily assigned to specific mining areas or operations and some 

camps may support more than one operation.

Settling pond/ditch systems: New drainage ditches and/or ponds would be established where 

necessary to allow opportunity for settling of suspended sediment from process water. All new and 

existing settling ponds and ditches require maintenance for them to remain efficient. Hope Mining 

Company could also set up pipe and withdraw water from Resurrection Creek in various places 

within the restoration corridor if needed to fill ponds located outside the corridor.

All ditches and ponds on the west side of Resurrection Creek would be connected (on the bench and 

valley floor) from area 22 downstream to area 15b. All ponds and ditches on the east side of 

Resurrection Creek would be connected from area 8 downstream to area 16. Locations of new ponds 

and ditches are conceptual and would be field-fit in the most logical location for the topography and 

for proper gradient and located away from the new stream channel (minimum of 20 feet but farther 

away where feasible) to minimize the potential for flooding during high water flow events.

Chugach National Forest 27
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Roads/Trails/Bridges to access mining areas: Proposed mining operations in areas 15b, 16a, 18, 20, 

21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 would require access routes be established for truck and equipment access. The 

remaining proposed mining areas have existing road and trail access but these routes may require 

brushing and leveling of the travel surfaces. Hope Mining Company would construct approximately 

2.5 miles of new mining roads which will generally be 16 feet wide with a 4 foot vegetative clearing 

limit on either side of the road. The surfacing substrate would be with material (cobble/gravel) 

located within the project area. The Forest Service and the mining operator would layout proposed 

roads and use design criteria that fit the specific location with appropriate erosion control measures 

(as specified in mitigation measures 1, 4, 5, and 6; pages 39 to 40). Routes into mining areas would be 

used for access by mining equipment (dozers, excavators, and loaders), pickup trucks, and ATVs. The 

two main roads from Resurrection Creek Road are gated to prevent unauthorized motorized access. 

The new road leading into area 21 from Resurrection Road and a new road leading from camp 1 into 

area 20 would be gated to prevent unauthorized motorized access. Hope Mining Company would 

maintain routes by brushing, surface grading, filling potholes, culvert maintenance, and resurfacing 

roads with onsite materials. Hope Mining Company would also utilize two existing equipment fords, 

seek authorization from Alaska Department of Fish and Game for two new equipment fords across 

Resurrection Creek as shown on the map 3 for alternative 2 (appendix B, page 203), and reestablish 

two hand trams.

Per the 2007 Agreement, the Forest Service has agreed that Hope Mining Company could use the 

temporary bridge that would be constructed for restoration (location shown in appendix B, map 3, 

page 203). Use of the temporary bridge would be described and authorized in any new plans of 

operations and would need to be authorized for each operation. The Forest Service would conduct 

routine bridge inspections to evaluate bridge safety. When the temporary bridge is no longer needed 

for restoration and associated monitoring, the Forest Service would remove the bridge.

Transient Mining Infrastructure and Equipment

Hope Mining Company and lessees would utilize infrastructure and equipment for each mining 

season that is temporary in nature. Examples are camping trailers, storage units for seasonal 

operations, and equipment on short-term leases.

Mining Reclamation

After mining operations have been completed, mined areas, and any ponds and ditches not needed for 

future operations, would be recontoured to match slopes and features of the surrounding landscape. 

Stable slopes and soil surfaces would be attained, and stockpiled organic material (including 

vegetation, topsoil, and overburden) would be spread over the recontoured areas to hold moisture and 

promote natural plant growth. All temporary roads and other compacted surfaces that are not needed

in foreseeable future operations would be reclaimed by breaking up the surface layers and covered

with stockpiled top soil and organic material.

Approval of Mining Operations

The requirements for submission of a proposed plan of operations are located at 36 CFR 228.4 and

include the following: 1) The name and legal mailing address of the operators (and claimants if they 

are not the operators) and their lessees, assigns, or designees; 2) A map or sketch showing 

information sufficient to locate the proposed area of operations on the ground, existing and/or 

proposed roads or access routes to be used in connection with the operations, and the approximate 

location and size of areas where surface resources will be disturbed; and 3) Information sufficient to 

describe or identify the type of operations proposed and how they would be conducted, the type and 

standard of existing and proposed roads or access routes, the means of transportation used or to be 

28 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

used, the period during which the proposed activity will take place, and measures to be taken to meet 

the requirements for environmental protection.

Hope Mining Company is the mining claimant and acts as a leasing company to makes their claims 

available to operators. Since the name and mailing address and other operational details were not 

available at the time of submission of the 2007 plan of operations, the 2007 plan of operations is 

considered an initial plan of operations as described in 36 CFR 228.4 (d):

The plan of operations shall cover the requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of this 

section, as foreseen for the entire operation for the full estimated period of activity: 

Provided however, That if the development of a plan for an entire operation is not 

possible at the time of preparation of a plan, the operator shall file an initial plan 

setting forth his proposed operation to the degree reasonably foreseeable at that time, 

and shall thereafter file a supplemental plan or plans whenever it is proposed to 

undertake any significant disturbance not covered by the initial plan.

At such time when a lessee is identified, Hope Mining Company would submit a supplemental plan 

of operations describing the details of the operation. A reclamation bond (36 CFR 228.13 Bonds; 

Forest Service Manual 2800, Chapter 2810; Section 2817.24 - Bonds) would be required for that 

operation and the operation would be approved once the bond is posted.

Stream Restoration

Alternative 2 includes full restoration of the Resurrection Creek stream channel, floodplain, and 

riparian areas within an approximate 200 to 500-foot wide restoration corridor for about a two mile 

distance. The 74-acre restoration corridor is described in the 2007 Agreement between the Forest 

Service and Hope Mining Company (see appendix E, page 265) which outlines the framework for 

proposed restoration.

Restoration would include the following components:

1. About 220,000 cubic yards of historic placer mine tailings in the floodplain would be recontoured 

by pushing with a bulldozer to recover the original floodplain elevations and width. These actions 

would increase average flood prone width to bankfull width ratios from 1:1 to 4:1 and would 

allow flood flows access to an additional 51 acres of the historic floodplain and off-channel fish 

habitat within the corridor boundary.

2. Floodplains and riparian areas would be revegetated, either through planting native species or by 

natural revegetation, to create a mosaic of vegetation of different species and ages. Topsoil and 

fine alluvial sediments washed away during historic placer mining operations would be replaced

on more than 80 percent of the restored floodplain surface (51 acres) to enhance revegetation 

efforts. Replaced soil would come from proposed mining areas within the project area that have 

adequate soil depths to ensure enough soil would remain onsite for mining reclamation. Coarse 

woody material would be increased from 16 to about 120 pieces per acre in the floodplains. 

Riparian tree species would be planted, seeded, and/or natural recruitment encouraged, to 

represent reference conditions in an undisturbed section of creek located approximately 2 miles 

upstream. The long-term riparian restoration objective for species composition at and beyond 20 

years after implementation is 30 to 50 percent spruce, 40 to 60 percent cottonwood, and 10 to 30

percent birch/hemlock/aspen with a grass (calamagrostis) understory. During the 20 year period 

after implementation, some thinning of existing overstocked riparian sapling spruce and 

cottonwood stands adjacent to Resurrection Creek may occur. Long-term restoration objectives 

Chugach National Forest 29
Resurrection Creek Phase II

(100 to 150 years) include a riparian stand structure typical of a low gradient flood plain riparian 

area as follows:

• 10 to 20 percent large trees (greater than 16 inches diameter) 

• 15 to 25 percent small trees (9 to 16 inches in diameter) 

• 20 to 30 percent poles (5 to 9 inches in diameter) 

• 30 to 40 percent seedling/saplings (0 to 5 inches diameter)

• about 40 snags per acre

3. Tracked excavators and dozers would be used to construct a new meandering pool and riffle 

channel to mimic a naturally formed channel. Segments of the existing channel would be used as 

part of the final channel wherever feasible. New channel segments would be constructed to final 

grade “in the dry” before diverting water into the new segment. After new channel segments are 

constructed, “push-up” dams composed of native boulders and substrate would be constructed to 

divert water quickly into the newly constructed channels.

4. By creating a new meandering channel, stream channel length would be increased by 

approximately 2,640 feet (from 2.2 miles to a total stream channel length of 2.7 miles), channel 

gradient would be decreased from about 1.5 percent to 1.3 percent, and channel sinuosity would 

be increased from about 1.1 to 1.3. Due to active mining outside of the restoration corridor about 

half of the historic floodplain would be available for restoration and therefore channel sinuosity 

cannot be increased to the full extent (1.7) found at the reference section of creek. The following 

aquatic habitat features would be constructed in the restored channels:

• Residual pools (increase from less than 3 pools per mile to 7 pools per mile)

• Rock structures

• Rock and log structures (increase large instream woody debris from 12 pieces per river 

mile to about 340 pieces per river mile)

• Constructed logjams

• Spawning areas consisting of shallow gravel beds (increase aerial extent from 600 to 

3,600 square yards)

• Approximately 8,000 feet of new side channels and ponds would be constructed in 

floodplains and in some of the abandoned sections of the existing channel constructed for 

off-channel habitat. Side channels, wetland complexes, and off-channel rearing ponds 

would be designed and constructed to maintain between 5 percent and 20 percent of the 

perennial flow.

The majority (greater than 90 percent) of the channel and floodplain construction would occur before 

flowing water is diverted into the new channel.

Source of Materials for Restoration Activities

Restoration materials such as boulders for construction of the restored channel, trees for logjam 

construction, and soil for spreading on restored floodplain areas to enhance revegetation efforts would 

be obtained from the restoration corridor and adjacent mining areas within the project area, as 

described in the 2007 Agreement between the Forest Service and Hope Mining Company. Up to 2,000 

trees, with and without rootwads, would be used for bank and floodplain stabilization on the new 

stream channel and floodplain and would be harvested from the project area.

30 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Restoration Access

A temporary bridge over Resurrection Creek could be constructed near the middle of the project area 

for use during implementation of restoration activities (location shown in appendix B, map 3, page 

203). The bridge would be designed to pass fuel and repair trucks and would be rated to pass 40,000 

pounds. The Forest Service anticipates a need to keep the bridge in place for five years after 

implementation of the restoration for monitoring and for any necessary adjustments to the new stream 

channel. Aquatic habitat such as side channels, rearing ponds and log jams could be maintained for 

five years or more after restoration. The Forest Service would remove the bridge once its use is no 

longer deemed necessary for restoration activities. All heavy equipment would utilize fords rather 

than the bridge.

Hope Mining Company currently has access routes developed on both sides of Resurrection Creek for 

accessing different parts of their claims. The Forest Service would use the established mining access 

routes during construction in the restoration corridor. Use of these routes would be coordinated 

between the restoration contractor(s), Hope Mining Company, and the Forest Service.

Mining roads and ATV trails currently located within the restoration corridor boundary would be 

relocated outside of the corridor by the Forest Service, as outlined in the 2007 Agreement.

Replacement roads and trails would be of equal quality so that Hope Mining Company can maintain 

motorized access to their claims. About 1.8 miles of replacement road construction would be required 

to relocate existing sections of mining roads out of the restoration corridor. 

Existing Mining Settling Ponds within the Restoration Corridor

Hope Mining Company has a number of settling ponds adjacent to Resurrection Creek. Settling ponds 

within the restoration corridor would be decommissioned during restoration. The Forest Service 

would construct replacement ponds outside the restoration corridor on a water volume for water 

volume basis, as outlined in the 2007 agreement. Some of the abandoned segments of the 

Resurrection Creek channel outside of the restoration corridor would be utilized for replacement 

settling ponds. Ponds would be constructed to an elevation equivalent to a 10 year flood event to 

minimize the potential that future flood water could capture the ponds.

Future Mining Activities within the Restoration Corridor

As outlined in the 2007 Agreement, Hope Mining Company would submit a supplement to the 1999 

mining plan of operations that would exclude most mining activities (mechanical placer operations, 

dredging, and hand mining) from the restoration corridor prior to the Forest Service implementing 

restoration. Hope Mining Company would still need access to the restoration corridor for the 

following activities: 

• maintain survey lines and monuments

• extract water to replenish settling ponds 

• utilize bridge, equipment crossings, and trams

• conduct operations associated with the patenting process

Implementing restoration in the corridor cannot preclude future mining within the restored area. Any 

future mining activities proposed within the corridor, other than those approved in the supplemented 

1999 plan of operations, would require submittal of a new plan of operations, and submittal of a bond 

which would provide financial assurance that reclamation activities would occur to bring the corridor 

area back to the restored conditions. The restoration corridor is located in areas determined by Hope 

Chugach National Forest 31
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Mining Company to be of lowest value for gold recovery (i.e. areas that have been previously mined 

several times) to minimize the potential for mining in the future.

Timing of Project Implementation

Mining and subsequent reclamation would occur sequentially over a period of approximately 20 

years, and would generally be conducted between March and October of each year. Hope Mining 

Company would work with the lessee-operators and the Forest Service to define specific operations 

(area to be mined, equipment, reclamation bonding) as required by Forest Service surface 

management regulations. The Forest Service minerals administrator would conduct compliance 

inspections of surface uses pertaining to mining activities.

Operational flexibility is an important business consideration for Hope Mining Company to allow for 

the dynamic needs of various operators’ equipment capabilities, experience, rate of material 

processing, and camp quarters. Annually or as requested if more frequent, new, detailed plans of 

operations would be approved and existing plans supplemented within the scope of the alternative, 

mitigations, and monitoring as decided by the Deciding Official and within the context of the 

environmental effects disclosed herein.

Implementation of restoration would be completed as funding becomes available. Instream channel 

work would be conducted between May 15 and July 15 of each construction season to minimize the 

impacts on fish populations; revegetation of the restoration corridor would occur in June of the year 

following completion of construction in each area. Restoration work would occur first in sections of 

the corridor that Hope Mining Company has already completed mining operations and would 

continue in other sections of the restoration corridor as existing approved mining operations are 

completed.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

The Forest Service has a regulatory obligation to approve (36 CFR 228.5) and may require 

modifications to the terms and conditions of the proposed plan of operations submitted by Hope 

Mining Company (36 CFR 228.1); irrespective of whether any restoration of Resurrection Creek 

occurs. Alternative 3 was developed to analyze the effects of proposed mining operations without 

restoration. Table 4 contains the estimated acres of the various features of alternative 3.

Table 4. Alternative 3 - acres

Features within Project Area – Alternative 3 Estimated Acres

Existing mining areas approved in plans of operations (2010, 1999, 1986)

minus new creek alignment (3 acres) through area 16 94

Proposed Mining Areas 285

Resurrection Creek plus 20 foot buffer 28

Steep Slopes/riparian areas not proposed for mining 5

Gravel Pit 2

Mining Interpretive Area 2

Resurrection Creek Road 2

Total Project Area 418

32 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Proposed Mining Operations

Under alternative 3, mining and reclamation would occur over 285 acres (in addition to the 94 acres 

of existing approved mining), over a period of approximately 20 years, and would be conducted 

between March and October of each year. Similar to alternative 2, operational flexibility is an 

important business consideration for Hope Mining Company to allow for the dynamic needs of 

various operators equipment capabilities, experience, rate of material processing, and camp quarters. 

Annually or as requested if more frequent, new, detailed plans of operations would be approved and 

existing plans supplemented within the scope of the alternative, mitigations, and monitoring as 

decided by the Responsible Official and within the context of the environmental effects disclosed 

herein.

A restoration corridor would not be established under this alternative; mining operations would 

continue to occur adjacent to Resurrection Creek in approved areas except in a 20-foot wide 

vegetative buffer which would be required to be maintained along the edge of the creek as has been 

required in previous approved plans of operations.

Alternative 3 has a greater number of acres for proposed mining than alternative 2 because there is no 

restoration corridor along the creek. The Forest Service developed this alternative with Hope Mining 

Company input to disclose how their proposed mining operations would change with no restoration 

corridor.

Types of Mining

Placer mining methods includes use of heavy equipment, hand equipment, and dredges up to and 

including 15 inch nozzle intake size to sort and extract gold from placer gravels.

Durable Mining Infrastructure and Equipment

Mining Camps: The camps would be the same as those described in alternative 2.

Ponds/Ditches: The existing drainage ditches and settling ponds located on either side of 

Resurrection Creek would mostly be kept intact. Some existing ponds would need to be expanded for 

greater capacity for settling of suspended sediment from process waters. New settling ponds and 

ditches would be needed for some of the proposed mining areas. All new and existing settling ponds 

and ditches would be maintained over time until no longer needed for mining operations. 

Ditches and ponds on the west side of Resurrection Creek would be connected in one system from 

area 22 downstream to area 15b. All ponds and ditches on the east side of Resurrection Creek would 

be part of one system from area 8 downstream to area 16. Locations of new ponds and ditches are 

conceptual and would be field-fit in the most logical location for the topography and for proper 

drainage. Properly located and maintained drainage systems would prevent turbid, sediment laden 

water from entering Resurrection Creek. 

Roads/Trails to Access Mining Areas: The existing access routes would continue to be used in this 

alternative. Some proposed mining operations in areas 15b, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25 would 

require new access routes to be established for truck and equipment passage. The remaining areas 

have preexisting roads and trail access which may require brushing and leveling of the travel surface.

A new road alignment would also be required in two areas where the creek channel would be 

relocated in area 15a and area 16 at the northern end of the project area. Approximately 2.6 miles of 

new mining roads would be constructed.

Chugach National Forest 33
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Access routes to mining areas would be used by mining equipment (dozers, excavators, and loaders),

pickup trucks, and ATVs. There are two roads leading into mining areas from the Resurrection Creek 

Road. These two roads currently are gated to prevent unauthorized vehicular access, and would be 

maintained under this alternative. The new road leading into area 21 from Resurrection Road and a 

new road leading from camp 1 into area 20 would also be gated to prevent unauthorized motorized 

access. Hope Mining Company would maintain routes by keeping brush cleared, grading of surface, 

filling potholes, resurfacing roads with gravels from a gravel pit on claims on the north end of project 

area or from existing mining operations in approved areas, and keeping culverts clear and functional.

Hope Mining Company would build a bridge at the northern end of area 5 (approved under their 1999 

plan of operations) and would utilize it to access proposed mining activities on the west side of 

Resurrection Creek as well as existing approved mining operations (location shown in appendix B, 

map 5, page 207). Hope Mining Company would also utilize two existing equipment fords and hand 

trams (at the same locations as the fords described under alternative 2) and seek authorization from 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game for two new equipment fords across Resurrection Creek as 

shown on the map 5 for alternative 3 (appendix B, page 207). The Forest Service may continue to 

authorize Hope Mining Company to utilize the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail pedestrian 

bridge across Resurrection Creek for ATV access until the bridge near area 5 is built.

Transient Mining Infrastructure and Equipment

Hope Mining Company operators would utilize some infrastructure and equipment for each mining 

season that is temporary in nature. Examples are camping trailers, storage units for seasonal 

operations, and equipment on short-term leases.

Mining Reclamation

After mining operations have been completed, mined areas, and any ponds and ditches not needed for 

future operations, would be recontoured to match slopes and features of the surrounding landscape. 

Stable slopes and soil surfaces would be attained, and stockpiled organic material (including 

vegetation, topsoil, and overburden) would be spread over the recontoured areas to hold moisture and 

promote natural plant growth. All temporary roads and other compacted surfaces that are not needed

in foreseeable future operations would be reclaimed by breaking up the surface layers and covering 

with stockpiled top soil and organic material.

Approval of Mining Operations

Approval of mining operations would be the same as described in alternative 2.

Resurrection Creek Realignment 

Hope Mining Company would move Resurrection Creek from its current alignment in two locations

for an estimated total of 2,740 feet. About 1,890-foot long section of the stream channel between 

mining areas 16 and 18 would be moved east approximately 300 feet. The relocated channel would 

reenter the existing creek channel before the steeper walled valley near the Sourant’s Camp location 

in area 18. The abandoned stream channel would then be mined and utilized for part of the settling 

pond/ditch system on the west side of the valley. An estimated 850-foot long section of the stream 

channel between mining areas 15a and 15b would be moved 200 to 300 feet to the east. The relocated 

section of stream would enter the existing alignment where the channel narrows into a canyon to the 

north. The abandoned creek channel would be mined as part of area 15b.

34 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Timing of Project Implementation

The proposed mining and subsequent reclamation would occur over a period of approximately 20 

years. Most mining activities would be conducted between March and October of each year.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 5 summarizes the elements of each alternative.

Chugach National Forest 35
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Table 5. Comparison of the alternatives a

Component

Alternative 1

Existing Mining 

(No Action)

Alternative 2

Proposed Mining and Restoration (Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

Proposed Mining Only

Total area of 

proposed new 

mining areas

within 418

acre project 

area

0 acres 274 acres (outside of the restoration corridor) 285 acres 

Total area of 

existing 

approved 

mining areas 

97 acres 59 acres outside of restoration corridor

Limited mining activities to occur within restoration corridor:

 maintain survey lines and monuments

 extract water to replenish settling ponds 

 utilize bridge, equipment crossings, and trams

 conduct operations associated with the patenting 

process

94 acres

(Same as alternative 1 minus 3 acres of new creek 

alignment through area 16)

Mining Roads 7.3 miles existing 

roads 4.8 miles existing roads 

(2.5 miles of existing roads decommissioned within 

restoration corridor)

Forest Service constructs 1.8 miles of replacement roads 

Hope Mining Company constructs 2.5 miles of new mining 

roads

9.1 total miles of roads

7.3 miles of existing road

Hope Mining Company constructs 2.6 miles of new 

mining roads

9.9 miles total roads

Bridge

(same location 

for all 

alternatives)

Hope Mining 

Company approved 

to construct bridge

– no bridge on site 

at present

Forest Service constructs and maintains temporary bridge

for up to 5 years beyond end of restoration implementation; 

Hope Mining Company would utilize bridge for mining 

operations

Hope Mining Company approved to construct and 

maintain a bridge

Stream

Crossings

2 equipment fords 

and 2 hand trams

for mining access

4 equipment fords for restoration and mining access

2 hand trams for mining access 

4 equipment fords and 2 hand trams for mining

access

36 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Component

Alternative 1

Existing Mining 

(No Action)

Alternative 2

Proposed Mining and Restoration (Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

Proposed Mining Only

Mining 

Infrastructure

10 camps covering 

3.3 acres

27 settling ponds

1.8 miles of settling 

ponds and ditches

10 camps covering approx. 5 acres (Camp 5 expanded)

Approximately 59 settling ponds

4.0 miles of settling ponds and ditches

No infrastructure within restoration corridor except stream 

crossing features

10 camps covering 5 acres (Camp 5 expanded)

Approximately 62 settling ponds

3.9 miles of settling ponds and ditches

Stream 

Restoration

and /or 

Channel 

length within 

Project Area

2.2 miles of 

Resurrection Creek 

channel length – no 

restoration 

activities

19 acres of existing 

main channel 

wetlands

Reconstruct Resurrection Creek to a length of 2.7miles 

within a 74-acre restoration corridor

Create 51 acres of new floodplain within the restoration 

corridor 

Harvest approximately 2,000 trees to construct log jams and 

floodplain structures

26 acres of main channel and off channel wetlands

No restoration activities

2.2 miles of Resurrection Creek channel length 

2,740 feet of channel relocated for mining purposes

21 acres of main channel wetlands

Aquatic 

Habitat 

Enhancement

None Increase sinuosity from 1.1 to 1.3 and stream length from 

2.2 to 2.7 miles

Decrease average channel slope from 1.5% to 1.3%

Increase pool frequency from 3 pools per mile to 

approximately 7

Increasing the average flood prone width to average bankfull 

width ratio from 1:1 to 4:1

Construct approximately 8,000 feet of side channels and 4.3 

acres of off-channel rearing ponds

Increase large instream woody debris from 12 pieces per 

river mile to about 340 pieces per river mile

None 

a - All numbers in this table are approximate (miles, acres, etc.)

Chugach National Forest 37
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Mitigation Measures

The Council on Environmental Quality defines mitigation as avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, 

and reducing or eliminating impacts and compensating for unavoidable impacts (40 CFR 

1508.20). Table 6 presents the mitigation measures for alternatives 2 and 3. These mitigation and 

control measures generally address the significant issues identified during scoping. The 

mitigation measures will be incorporated in the approved plans of operations and/or restoration 

contract requirements. Mitigation measures for Alternative 1 - Existing Approved Mining (No 

Action) are not listed as these have been described in previous environmental analysis documents 

for existing approved mining operations.

38 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 6. Mitigation measures

Mining 

Activities 

(Alt 2 and 3)

Restoration 

Activities (Alt 

2 Only)

Issues and/or 

Effects Addressed

Mit. 

Num. Mitigation and Control Measures Need for Mitigation Measure

X X Water Quality

Soil Productivity 1

All disturbed areas within the restoration corridor and mining 

areas (alternatives 2 and 3) such as stockpiled soil areas, 

reclaimed areas, roads, trails, camps and fueling areas must 

have an appropriate mechanism in place (i.e. berms, silt fences, 

ditching, mulch, seeding) as specified in restoration contract and

plan of operations to limit erosion of soil from disturbed sites.

Forest Service will work with restoration contractor or Hope 

Mining Company to determine best location for these features 

(field fit) and appropriate mechanism. Where feasible, mulch 

would include organic material from the site.

This mitigation measure will limit the amount of soil eroded

into surface water and into Resurrection Creek. With this 

measure in place, State water quality standards are 

expected to be met for maximum NTUs (no more than 25 

NTUs) found in Resurrection Creek above normal 

background turbidity (chapter 3, page 101).

This measure will also help limit detrimental soil 

disturbance by minimizing soil erosion (chapter 3, page 74) 

(USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 2006. Soil and 

Water Conservation Handbook, Best Management 

Practices 14.8, 17.5); (USDA Forest Service 2012, National 

Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands - Min-4).

X Water Quality 2

Restoration-related stream crossings will be held to a minimum 

(no more than twice per day per piece of equipment where 

practicable) and will be limited to the designated equipment fords.

Crossings will occur from May 15 to July 15 per Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game specifications.

Crossing Resurrection Creek with equipment causes small 

turbidity pulses and through limiting these crossings during 

restoration work, overall effects on water quality can be 

reduced and stay within State water quality standards (no 

more than 25 NTUs above background turbidity) (chapter 

3, page 101).

X X Soil Productivity 3

After contouring disturbed areas, a minimum of 4 inches (where 

practicable) of top soil should be distributed across the disturbed 

area. If top soil is not available, use 3/4 inch minus size material 

or smaller, where available from mining operations, to cover 

disturbed areas and cover with a layer of organic debris (slash)

that was stockpiled prior to mining. If excess soil is available, 

keep stockpiled for use in areas that are deficient in soil. Do not 

spread glacial clay on surface.

Covering the surface with top soil, or at a minimum, 3/4 

inch minus size material or smaller and organic debris will 

reduce detrimental soil disturbance (chapter 3, page 74)

(USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 2006. Soil and 

Water Conservation Handbook, Best Management 

Practices 14.8, 17.5).

Chugach National Forest 39
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Mining 

Activities 

(Alt 2 and 3)

Restoration 

Activities (Alt 

2 Only)

Issues and/or 

Effects Addressed

Mit. 

Num. Mitigation and Control Measures Need for Mitigation Measure

X Water Quality

Soil Productivity 4

Erosion control design features for mining access route 

construction and maintenance will be determined during field 

review and discussion between Forest Service and Hope Mining 

Company prior to the start of any new road construction. Design 

features may include one or more Best Management Practices 

identified in the Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation 

Handbook.

The purpose of this measure is for roads to maintain 

integrity through effective drainage of water and reduce 

adverse effects to water quality by limiting the amount of 

soil eroded into surface water and into Resurrection Creek.

With this measure in place, State water quality standards 

are expected to be met for maximum turbidity (no more 

than 25 NTUs) found in Resurrection Creek above normal 

background turbidity (chapter 3, page 101)..

This measure will also help limit detrimental soil 

disturbance by minimizing soil erosion (chapter 3, page 74

; (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 2006. Soil and 

Water Conservation Handbook, Best Management 

Practices 14.5, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, 14.20); (USDA Forest 

Service 2012, National Best Management Practices for 

Water Quality Management on National Forest System 

Lands - Road-2, Road-3)

X X Water Quality 5

Design and install culverts, bridges or hardened fords across 

Resurrection Creek, constructed side channels, and mining ditch 

crossings capable of enduring expected traffic such as dozers, 

excavators, loaders, fuel trucks, highway vehicles, and ATVs and 

capable of passing expected 100 year peak flow discharges

including 24 hour maximum precipitation events. Inlets and 

outlets of culverts and bridge abutments should be hardened with 

large rock to prevent scour and erosion. Fords should be armored 

with large rock to prevent streambed and stream bank deformity.

Rock size will be determined by vehicle and equipment size and 

frequency of use; small cobble could be used for ATV crossings 

whereas large cobble and boulders should be used in areas 

where articulated rock trucks, excavators and bulldozers are 

crossing frequently.

This mitigation measure will help limit the amount of 

turbidity produced with daily equipment crossings and 

ensuring that crossings and bridge construction and 

placement will withstand higher flow events with limited 

erosion. With this measure in place, State water quality 

standards are expected to be met for maximum turbidity 

(no more than 25 NTUs) found in Resurrection Creek 

above normal background turbidity (chapter 3, page 101) 

(USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 2006. Soil and 

Water Conservation Handbook, Best Management 

Practices 14.7); (USDA Forest Service 2012, National Best 

Management Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands - Road-7).

X Soil Productivity 6

As specified in mining operating plan, all temporary roads and 

other compacted surfaces that are not needed in foreseeable 

future operations will be reclaimed. Where applicable, reclaim by 

breaking up the surface layers and covering with top soil and 

organic material

This measure reclaims areas of soil compaction and will 

allow the old road bed to recover more quickly (chapter 3, 

page 74 (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 2006. Soil 

and Water Conservation Handbook, Best Management 

Practices 14.24; USDA Forest Service 2012, National Best 

Management Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands - Road-6).

40 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Mining 

Activities 

(Alt 2 and 3)

Restoration 

Activities (Alt 

2 Only)

Issues and/or 

Effects Addressed

Mit. 

Num. Mitigation and Control Measures Need for Mitigation Measure

X Water Quality 7

The use of mechanized equipment within the ordinary high-water 

mark during restoration will only occur if work cannot be 

performed in the dry above the ordinary high water mark and will 

be accomplished under the supervision of the Forest Service 

construction engineer or representative. Approved equipment 

working within the ordinary high water will have biodegradable 

hydraulic fluid conversions. All equipment will be cleaned and free 

of leaks before use on the restoration implementation.

This measure will reduce the potential of petroleum 

products entering the surface and ground water in the 

project area. This mitigation measure follows the State of 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's 

"Recommendations for General Construction Projects near 

a Public Water System" to limit the potential sources of 

contamination within 1,000 feet from the surface water 

source component of a known public water system using 

groundwater under the direct influence of surface water

(chapter 3, page 101).

X X Water Quality 8

The minimum separation distance between the mean annual high 

water level of a lake, river, stream, spring, or slough, or the mean 

high water level of coastal waters, and a lift station, holding tank, 

septic tank, soil absorption system, seepage pit, pit privy, or other 

wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal system is 100 feet, 

measured horizontally.

This measure will reduce the potential of human waste or 

other waste water entering the surface water system from 

all camps utilized by restoration contractors and Hope 

Mining Company personnel and lessees. The measure 

meets the direction in the State of Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation's "Recommendations for 

General Construction Projects near a Public Water 

System" to limit the potential for contamination to enter the 

water source used by a known public water system

(chapter 3, page 101) (USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, 

Best Management Practices 12.15, 12.16); (USDA Forest 

Service 2012, National Best Management Practices for 

Water Quality Management on National Forest System 

Lands - Road-10); 

X Air Quality 9

Dust abatement through the use of water trucks is required during 

dry conditions when making multiple daily trips on Resurrection 

Creek Road using large equipment or large trucks related to 

restoration. The Forest Service Contracting Officers 

Representative will determine the frequency of watering/dust 

abatement.

Reduction in air quality occurred during Phase I restoration 

project implementation due to dust suspended in air from 

frequent restoration truck traffic on Resurrection Creek 

road. Local residents brought up this concern for this 

project as well. Implementing this measure will keep air 

quality impacts to a minimum during restoration 

implementation (chapter 3, page 67).

Chugach National Forest 41
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Mining 

Activities 

(Alt 2 and 3)

Restoration 

Activities (Alt 

2 Only)

Issues and/or 

Effects Addressed

Mit. 

Num. Mitigation and Control Measures Need for Mitigation Measure

X X

Damage to 

archeological 

cultural resources

10

Although unlikely to be encountered, any and all human remains 

shall at all times be treated with dignity and respect. Should 

human remains or any prehistoric objects be encountered, work 

will be stopped at once in the locality to prevent further 

disturbance and the Forest Service will be immediately notified. If 

undocumented historic artifacts such as those commonly used in 

hydraulic placer mining are discovered during restoration or 

mining activities, these items may be set aside and restoration or 

mining activities may continue, and the Forest Service will be 

notified of these discoveries. The historic dragline located in area 

16 is listed as a contributing feature of the Hope Mining Company 

Historic Mining District and would be moved by the Forest Service 

to a location within the boundaries of the Historic Mining District 

where it won’t be damaged by restoration or mining activities.

Hydraulic mining operations occurred in all of the 

restoration corridor and parts of the proposed mining areas 

so it is likely that some artifacts from the hydraulic mining 

era may be discovered during implementation of these 

projects. Hope Mining Company has followed this measure 

during past mining operations and notified the Forest 

archeologist when mining related artifacts have been 

uncovered. This measure keeps the Forest Service 

informed of mining artifacts discovered without unduly 

delaying mining operations or restoration contract 

implementation. This measure also provides for the 

protection of the historic dragline (chapter 3, page 129).

X X

Damage/ 

destruction of 

Historic Mining 

Features

11

Destruction of historic tailings from mining operations and 

restoration activities within the Hope Mining Company Historic 

District is unavoidable. The adverse effects were resolved 

through the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with the 

State Historic Preservation Office on December 17, 2009 

concerning the development of interpretive displays in the 

interpretive area near Resurrection Pass National Recreation 

Trailhead. These displays will be developed in partnership with 

Hope Mining Company and will describe the formation of the 

historic tailings and other features of the hydraulic mining period 

on Resurrection Creek.

The destruction of historic tailings piles is an adverse effect 

on the historic resources within the project area. Per 

discussion and agreement with SHPO's office through the 

Memorandum of Agreement, the Forest Service will 

continue to work with Hope Mining Company to develop 

interpretive panels to educate visitors about the hydraulic 

mining era and the resulting tailings (chapter 3, page 129).

X X Public safety 12

Hope Mining Company and Restoration contractors shall install 

signing indicating potential hazards from heavy equipment when 

operating near Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail and 

trail bridge. Forest Service will work with Hope Mining Company 

and restoration contractors to provide wording and placement of 

signs.

The visitors using Resurrection Pass National Recreation 

Trail will be walking directly adjacent to mining operations 

in area 22 (alternative 2 and 3) and potentially restoration 

operations on the south end of the restoration corridor 

(alternative 2 only). Cautionary signing at the start of the 

trail will help visitors be aware heavy equipment operations 

they may encounter along the first section of trail (chapter 

3, page 156).

X X Public Safety 13

No equipment associated with the restoration project or mining 

operations will be staged at the Resurrection Pass North 

Trailhead or the dispersed camping area upstream from the 

trailhead.

This measure will ensure that heavy equipment operations 

are kept separate from recreation visitor use areas 

reducing public safety hazards (chapter 3, page 156).

42 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Mining 

Activities 

(Alt 2 and 3)

Restoration 

Activities (Alt 

2 Only)

Issues and/or 

Effects Addressed

Mit. 

Num. Mitigation and Control Measures Need for Mitigation Measure

X

Establishment or 

spread of noxious 

and invasive 

plant species

14

All materials brought from off-site to be used for mulching, 

erosion control, rehabilitation, soil establishment, fill, or other 

uses should be free of invasive plant species, seeds or plant 

roots identified in the Forest Service publication, Selected 

Invasive Plants of Alaska (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 

2009).

This measure will reduce the potential of invasive plant 

species becoming introduced within the restoration corridor 

and within proposed mining areas (chapter 3, page 116; 

(USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, 

page 3-25)

X X Soil Productivity 15

If material such as buried clay layers or materials determined by 

the Forest Service to be unsuitable for surface placement are 

discovered during ground disturbing activities (restoration channel 

construction, mining of gravel layers, constructing and 

maintaining settling ponds, reclamation of mined areas, etc.),

these materials will either be placed at least 12 inches below the 

layer of suitable material that plants will grow in (top soil, finer 

tailings, etc.), where practicable, or will be buried deeper in a 

constructed landform such as a terrace or pond bottom during 

reclamation and/or restoration. 

This measure will reduce detrimental soil disturbance by 

keeping materials which limit productive soil development 

and vegetation reestablishment well below the surface 

layer and not interfere with how water drains through top 

layers of soil and gravel substrates (chapter 3, page 74).

X X Soil Productivity 16

Equipment and vehicles will avoid newly placed topsoil on 

restored and reclaimed areas to avoid compaction.

This measure will reduce detrimental soil disturbance by 

avoiding compaction and will give plants the best possible 

growing medium (chapter 3, page 74).

X Soil Productivity 17

Mulch should be applied to newly exposed ground in the 

restoration corridor as early as possible after completion of the 

finished placement and/or exposure. Organic mulch such as 

weed seed free straw, fine wood chips, or moderately ground 

plant material is recommended. Where feasible, mulch would 

include use of organic material from the project area. A single 

layer of mulch is expected to be sufficient (approximately 1 ton 

per acre). Tackifier may be recommended by the Forest Service

depending on expected conditions during and after application.

This measure will reduce detrimental soil disturbance by 

reducing soil erosion (chapter 3, page 74).

X X

Control of 

noxious and

invasive plant 

species

18

Heavy equipment mobilized into the project area for mining or 

restoration will be spray washed including wheel wells, 

undercarriages, tires, tracks before it is brought into the project 

area so that it is free of all foreign plant materials and soil.

This measure will reduce the potential of new invasive 

plant species becoming established within the restoration 

corridor and within previously undisturbed proposed mining 

areas (chapter 3, page 116 ; (USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-25).

Chugach National Forest 43
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Mining 

Activities 

(Alt 2 and 3)

Restoration 

Activities (Alt 

2 Only)

Issues and/or 

Effects Addressed

Mit. 

Num. Mitigation and Control Measures Need for Mitigation Measure

X X

Reestablishment 

of native plant 

species after 

disturbance

19

Reclamation of proposed mining areas: Allow areas to naturally 

revegetate where top soil availability, site conditions, and seed 

source are favorable towards reestablishing vegetation to meet 

reclamation objectives.

Restoration corridor: Allow areas to naturally revegetate where 

top soil availability, site conditions, and seed source are favorable 

towards reestablishing vegetation to meet restoration objectives.

When natural revegetation conditions are not favorable, plant 

native plant species (seed source, cuttings) from the local 

environment of the project area to maintain local genetic 

composition.

This measure will help reestablish native plant species to 

the disturbed site meeting Forest Plan guidelines (chapter 

3, page 115); (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National 

Forest 2002a, page 3-25); (USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, 

Best Management Practices 12.6).

X X

Habituation and 

food conditioning 

of bears 20

Food, fuel, and garbage will be stored in a manner that bears 

cannot obtain them (bear proof containers, vehicles, and 

container storage units) to reduce potential for negative 

bear/human interactions or bear habituation. All garbage must be 

removed regularly from the site and properly disposed.

This measure will avoid habituation and food conditioning 

of bears (chapter 3, page 124); (USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-28); (USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region 2006. Soil and Water Conservation 

Handbook, Best Management Practices 12.16).

X Wildlife habitat 21

Where feasible, retain clumps of largest old cottonwoods and 

spruce in the existing flood plain in area 19, the interpretive area, 

northwest of bridge crossing location, and area 16 to maintain 

diverse wildlife habitat components that would otherwise take 

many decades to become reestablished.

This measure keeps some components of wildlife habitat 

intact during restoration activities and is a seed source for 

areas that have been disturbed (chapter 3, page 123).

X

Damage to 

mining 

improvements 

and equipment

22

Protect all known mining operations improvements (such as claim 

corner monuments, camps, equipment, and survey monuments, 

etc.), during restoration activities by clearly identifying items and 

areas on the ground, documenting locations with global 

positioning system (GPS) equipment, and adding specifications to 

the restoration contracts that documented items will be replaced 

by contractor at their expense if disturbed.

This measure meets the intent described in the 2007 

agreement with Hope Mining Company describing 

protection of Hope Mining Company property for the 

duration of the restoration implementation (appendix E, 

page 265).

X X

Mining operations 

and restoration 

coordination and 

safety

23

Agreement on gate closures, operation procedures, camps and 

protection of Hope Mining Company private property and 

equipment will be reached between Hope Mining Company and 

the Forest Service before mobilization of restoration equipment.

Mining operations and restoration implementation activities will be 

separated by the greatest distance possible. Regular safety 

meetings between Hope Mining Company, mine operators, the 

Forest Service, and restoration contractors will occur to maintain 

communication and safety.

This measure meets the intent described in the 2007 

agreement with Hope Mining Company describing 

protection of Hope Mining Company property, coordination 

of operations, and reducing hazards to Hope Mining 

Company lessees and restoration contractors for the 

duration of the restoration implementation (appendix E, 

page 265)

44 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Mining 

Activities 

(Alt 2 and 3)

Restoration 

Activities (Alt 

2 Only)

Issues and/or 

Effects Addressed

Mit. 

Num. Mitigation and Control Measures Need for Mitigation Measure

X

Mining operations 

and restoration 

coordination 24

Hope Mining Company shall retain reasonable access to all 

approved mining operations during restoration activities. If an 

existing mining access route is taken out during restoration, a

new route will be constructed to the same standard outside 

restoration corridor prior to decommissioning. Settling ponds 

within restoration corridor will be replaced on a volume for volume 

basis outside the corridor by the Forest Service. Any mining ditch 

segments within the restoration corridor will be replaced by the 

Forest Service to maintain a comparable ditch system outside the 

restoration corridor.

This measure meets the intent described in the 2007 

agreement with Hope Mining Company describing keeping 

reasonable access, ponds, and ditches for mining 

operations during restoration implementation (appendix E, 

page 265).

X X Water Quality 25

Forest Service will work with Hope Mining Company for design 

and placement of settling ponds and ditch networks to contain all 

sediment laden process water as well as runoff, seepage and 

expected precipitation. Settling ponds will be designed for 10 

year, 24 hour storm event. The 10 year discharge elevations will 

be designated by the Forest Service and/or Department of 

Environmental Conservation and are on average four feet above 

the bed of the stream channel. New or reconstructed settling 

ponds and storage areas will be located in places where they will 

not be washed out by reasonably predictable seasonal 

fluctuations in water level and freeze/thaw action. When cleaning 

out settling ponds, place materials from ponds in locations where 

liquids ("sludge") from materials cannot flow overland into 

Resurrection Creek and its tributaries.

This mitigation measure will help reduce adverse effects to 

water quality by limiting the amount of turbid water entering 

Resurrection Creek. With this measure in place, State 

water quality standards are expected to be met for 

maximum NTUs (no more than 25 NTUs) found in 

Resurrection Creek above normal background turbidity 

(chapter 3, page 101). (USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, 

Best Management Practices 14.3, 14.5).

Chugach National Forest 45
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Mining 

Activities 

(Alt 2 and 3)

Restoration 

Activities (Alt 

2 Only)

Issues and/or 

Effects Addressed

Mit. 

Num. Mitigation and Control Measures Need for Mitigation Measure

x x Water Quality 26

Fuel delivery and transfer processes will be conducted in a 

manner that minimizes the potential for spills and contamination 

of soil and water and will follow all state and federal regulations.

Fuel and oil storage facilities will be located, designed, 

constructed, and maintained in manner that minimizes the 

potential for contamination of surface and subsurface soil and 

water resources. All active fuel storage containers will be in good 

repair and will be repaired or removed if leaking is detected. An 

impermeable liner will be placed under and around fuel storage 

and filling areas that is large enough to capture 110 percent of 

container capacity as required by Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation. Heavy equipment used in mining 

and restoration work will be kept in good repair to prevent spills 

and persistent leaking of petroleum fluids.

This measure will reduce the potential of petroleum 

products entering the surface and ground water in the 

project area. This measure is also required by Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation in the 

Aboveground Storage Tank Operator Handbook (Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation 2003, section 

1, page 8). This mitigation measure follows the State of 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's 

"Recommendations for General Construction Projects near 

a Public Water System" to limit the potential sources of 

contamination within 1,000 feet from the surface water 

source component of a known public water system using 

groundwater under the direct influence of surface water 

(chapter 3, page 101). (USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, 

Best Management Practices 12.8).

X Water Quality

Soil Productivity 27

When determined necessary by the Forest Service, mining 

operator will recontour steep slopes to their natural slope angle, 

not to exceed 35 degrees (about 72 percent) and revegetate 

steep areas (greater than 35 percent) with seed mixture, mulch, 

and/or organic materials and use other erosion control measures 

as specified by Forest Service in plan of operations. When 

bedrock is exposed during mining, mining operator will recontour 

tailings around and covering bedrock where reasonably 

practicable.

This mitigation measure will help reduce adverse effects to 

water quality by limiting the amount of soil eroded into 

surface water and draining into Resurrection Creek. With 

this measure in place, State water quality standards are 

expected to be met for maximum NTUs (no more than 25 

NTUs) found in Resurrection Creek above normal 

background turbidity (chapter 3, page 101). This measure 

will also minimize risk of landslides by keeping the slope 

angle to below 72 percent or 35 degrees, (chapter 3, page 

76).; (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 2006. Soil and 

Water Conservation Handbook, Best Management 

Practices 14.7).

X X Water Quality 28

If any concentrations of mercury are encountered or observed 

during mining or restoration operations, work within the 

immediate area will cease and the Forest Service will immediately 

be notified. The Forest Service will coordinate with Hope Mining 

Company or the restoration contractor to safely implement 

established protocols for mercury cleanup (US Environmental 

Protection Agency 2009).

Hope Mining Company does not use mercury in any of its 

operations. Historic placer mining operations used 

elemental mercury for separating fine gold particles from 

the collected concentrate captured in the sluice box and 

some mercury may have been lost or spilled. Mercury can 

pose a threat to the survival of fish eggs and younger life 

phases, as they are more susceptible to mercury toxicity. 

This measure is to ensure immediate cleanup of any 

concentrations of mercury if found during mining or 

restoration activities (chapter 3, page 101).

46 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Mining 

Activities 

(Alt 2 and 3)

Restoration 

Activities (Alt 

2 Only)

Issues and/or 

Effects Addressed

Mit. 

Num. Mitigation and Control Measures Need for Mitigation Measure

X

(Alt 3 only)

Floodplain 

functionality 29

To increase flood-prone area and improve aquatic habitat 

conditions, Hope Mining Company will be allowed to mine historic 

tailings piles that are within the 20-foot stream buffer as approved 

by the Forest Service in the mining plan of operations approval.

Hope Mining Company would be allowed to remove the tailings 

piles down to the natural bank elevation in existing mining area 

12, 19, and any mining areas with the same conditions, and as 

designated and staked on the ground by the Forest Service. No 

equipment would be allowed to work in Resurrection Creek 

without Hope Mining Company acquiring appropriate permits 

(ADF&G Title 16 Habitat permit, Army Corps of Engineers Section 

401, 404 permits)

By allowing Hope Mining Company to mine historic tailings 

piles within the required 20 foot buffer, some flood plain 

functionality will be restored by redistribution of tailings and 

lowering the height of the remaining banks to a more 

natural bank elevation. This mitigation measure would help 

meet part of the purpose and need in alternative 3 where 

full restoration would not be done (chapter 3, page 110).

Chugach National Forest 47
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Monitoring 

Monitoring activities provide a means to assess the effectiveness of achieving project objectives as well as effectiveness of implementing mitigation measures to 

reduce effects of the project activities. Table 7 displays the specific monitoring actions for each alternative.

Table 7. Monitoring

Monitoring Activity Elements Description

Monitoring Activity 1

Effectiveness of location, design, and maintenance of pond and ditch systems in keeping turbid 

processed water separate from surface waters during mining operations

When Applicable? Mining Activities (alternatives 2 and 3) and Restoration Activities (alternative 2)

Method of Measurement

Visually inspect and document if turbid water is present in Resurrection Creek or other surface water tributaries. If 

turbid water is present take turbidity measurement above and below the pond and ditch systems to ascertain if 

there is any increase in turbidity levels.

Frequency of Measurement Varies, Weekly when turbid water is present in pond/ditch system

Threshold of Variability

Visual evidence or water quality data collected that demonstrate nonpoint source pollution control measures are 

not installed correctly, maintained, or operationally effective. 

Nonconformance with Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.

Turbidity measurements may not exceed 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) above natural conditions when 

the natural turbidity is 50 NTU or less, and may not have more than 10% increase in turbidity when the natural 

turbidity is more than 50 NTU, not to exceed a maximum increase of 25 NTU.

Action To Be Taken Contact mining operator and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to determine actions necessary 

to bring mining activities into compliance

Authority Plan of Operations, 36 CFR 228.8(b)

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Minerals Administrator, Hydrologist

48 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Monitoring Activity Elements Description

Monitoring Activity 2

Effectiveness of mitigation measures in preventing soil from eroding off of disturbed sites and reclaimed 

areas into surface waters during mining operations

When Applicable? Mining Activities (alternatives 2 and 3)

Method of Measurement Visually inspect areas near mining activities and reclaimed areas to verify if soil erosion is occurring and is 

causing, or potential to cause, turbid water to enter surface waters

Frequency of Measurement Varies, Weekly at a minimum when mining activities are occurring

Threshold of Variability

Fine soil particles eroding from coarser gravels, rills, water flowing down road surface rather than channeled off 

surface. Visual evidence or water quality data that demonstrate erosion control measures are not installed 

correctly, maintained, or operationally effective. Non-compliance with Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System Permit and pertinent Best Management Practices

Action To Be Taken

Contact mining operator and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to determine actions necessary 

to bring mining activities into compliance. Require additional or improved erosion control measures be 

implemented to prevent erosion

Authority Plan of Operations, 36 CFR 228.8(b)

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Minerals Administrator, Hydrologist, Soils Scientist

Monitoring Activity 3 Effectiveness of design criteria in reducing turbidity during channel relocation and construction

When Applicable? Mining Activities (alternatives 2 and 3) and Restoration Activities (alternative 2)

Method of Measurement Measuring amount of suspended solids in Resurrection Creek with hand held turbidimeter.

Frequency of Measurement During each diversion, measure turbidity with upstream from diversion, at diversion, and 1/2 mile downstream 

from diversion at 1/2 hour intervals

Threshold of Variability Non-conformances with Army Corps of Engineer permit, Title 16 permit, Clean Water Act, State of Alaska water 

quality standards.

Action To Be Taken Require additional or improved turbidity control measures, such as pumps or alternative methods of diversion 

(partial diversion or staged diversion).

Authority Restoration contract, Plan of Operations, 36 CFR 228.8(b).

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Forest Service Hydrologist, Contracting Officer's Representative, Minerals Administrator

Chugach National Forest 49
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Monitoring Activity Elements Description

Monitoring Activity 4

Effectiveness of mitigation measures and designs of reclaimed areas, roads, ponds, ditches, and other 

mining infrastructure in shedding storm water in compliance with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

When Applicable? Mining Activities (alternatives 2 and 3)

Method of Measurement Visually inspect mining areas and infrastructure for signs of turbid water entering surface waters

Frequency of Measurement Varies; during or as soon after a five year flood event as feasible (defined at 1400 cubic feet per second or about 

50% higher than bankfull at 800-900 cubic feet per second)

Threshold of Variability Non-compliance with Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and measures specified in 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

Action To Be Taken Contact mining operator and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to determine actions necessary 

to bring mining activities into compliance.

Authority Plan of Operations, 36 CFR 228.8(b)

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Minerals Administrator, Hydrologist

Monitoring Activity 5

Effectiveness of construction designs in maintaining stable, self- maintaining stream channels, banks, 

and streambed features

When Applicable? Restoration Activities (alternative 2)

Method of Measurement

Monitor new stream channels and side channels/ponds for vertical and horizontal stability by measuring 

topographic stream channel features of permanent cross-sections, longitudinal profiles, and taking linear 

measurements of stream banks and area of streambed.

Frequency of Measurement

Monitored yearly for the first five years after spring peak flow runoff. After first five years the project area should 

be monitored once every five years or after a significant peak flow flood as determined by the Forest Hydrologist, 

and if notable streambed degradation or aggradation has occurred and/or stream channel avulsions occur.

Threshold of Variability

Plus or minus 15% change in vertical or horizontal change is expected to occur as a result of natural channel 

dynamics. Percentage of linear stream banks measured as unstable (actively eroding, no vegetation) greater 

than 20% of total stream bank and/or exposed clay layers in streambed producing turbidity.

Action To Be Taken Forest Service specialists determine necessary actions for improving restored channel stability

Authority Forest Service Record of decision, 

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Forest Service Hydrologist, Fisheries Biologist

50 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Monitoring Activity Elements Description

Monitoring Activity 6

Adult salmon utilization and population trends during spawning season in Resurrection Creek within 

project area boundary

When Applicable? Mining Activities (alternatives 2 and 3) and Restoration Activities (alternative 2)

Method of Measurement

Conduct pink, chum, Chinook, coho and sockeye redd surveys and adult presence snorkel and bank surveys 

within the project area to develop spawner ratios by species compared to those recorded in Phase I restoration 

area and area before the implementation of restoration and proposed mining activities

Frequency of Measurement Monitor salmon spawning at least every two weeks during peak spawning periods for five years after stream 

channel changes are implemented

Threshold of Variability Significant changes in salmon spawning or presence 

(+/- 25%) in Resurrection Creek within project area.

Action To Be Taken Assessment of aquatic habitat and salmon spawning substrate would be conducted within the project area

Authority Forest Service Record of Decision

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Forest Service Fisheries Biologist

Monitoring Activity 7 Effectiveness of stream channel reconstruction in providing aquatic habitat within the project area

When Applicable? Restoration Activities (alternative 2)

Method of Measurement Quantify linear length of habitat features (pools, riffles and glides) and photograph aquatic habitat (e.g., spawning 

glides, riffles, pools), substrate size, vegetation, and woody debris in Resurrection Creek.

Frequency of Measurement One year prior to implementation, within two years after implementation, and after the first 25 year sized flood 

event that occurs following implementation

Threshold of Variability Greater than + or - 15% change in percent glide, pool & riffle area (+/- 15% is expected to occur as a result of 

natural channel dynamics)

Action To Be Taken Forest Service specialists determine necessary actions for improving restoration channel stability if vertical or 

horizontal differences of greater than +/-15% occur.

Authority Forest Service Record of decision

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Forest Service Hydrologist, Fisheries Biologist

Chugach National Forest 51
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Monitoring Activity Elements Description

Monitoring Activity 8 Slope Reclamation on slopes originating at 35% grade

When Applicable? Mining Activities (alternatives 2 and 3)

Method of Measurement Conduct inspection of resulting slope grade and materials used for reclamation

Frequency of Measurement At start of, during, and immediately after reclamation, then 1 year, 3 years and 5 years after reclamation is 

complete.

Threshold of Variability Visible signs of any landslides, surface erosion, slumping, and lack of successful revegetation

Action To Be Taken Contact mining operator to determine necessary steps to remove non- conforming materials, reduce slope, 

and/or require further erosion control measures be implemented

Authority Plan of Operations, 36 CFR 228.8(g)

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Forest Service Minerals Administrator and Soils Scientist

Monitoring Activity 9 Effectiveness of reclamation measures to re-establish vegetation on mined areas.

When Applicable? Mining Activities (alternatives 2 and 3)

Method of Measurement Vegetation surveys measuring % plant cover/species composition and soil depth after reclamation.

Frequency of Measurement Vegetation surveys yearly for 5 years; measure soil depth on vegetation survey plots first year only

Threshold of Variability At year five, verify 60% of plots in reclaimed area have at least 50% of vegetation (herbaceous and woody) reestablished.

Action To Be Taken

Determine feasible actions Forest Service can take to increase vegetation reestablishment: increase soil 

coverage/depth, reseeding or planting. Use information collected to develop better reclamation techniques for 

future plans of operation approvals.

Authority Forest Service Record of Decision

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Forest Service Minerals Administrator, Ecologist

52 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Monitoring Activity Elements Description

Monitoring Activity 10

Effectiveness of restoration activities within the restoration corridor to meet objectives for reestablishing 

vegetation.

When Applicable? Restoration Activities (alternative 2)

Method of Measurement Conduct standard vegetation stocking survey plots within restoration corridor specifically for tree species. Include 

photo points with stocking survey plots.

Frequency of Measurement Conduct baseline vegetation survey prior to restoration, then at year 3, 5 and 10 after completion of revegetation 

activities following stream restoration.

Threshold of Variability

At 5 years after revegetation, stocking surveys should meet R10 stocking certification (300 tree species stems 

per acre, minimum 4 inch height). After 10 years, 60% of stocking survey plots should show tree species 

composition that meets restoration objectives.

Action To Be Taken

If stand not fully stocked at 5 years or species composition not developing toward species composition objectives, 

consider options of additional topsoil distribution, planting, and seeding spruce/birch. Re-do stocking surveys at 

year 5 after actions taken.

Authority Forest Service Record of Decision

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Forest Service Ecologist and Forester

Monitoring Activity 11 Introduction of or increased populations of non-native plant species within project area.

When Applicable? Mining Activities (alternatives 2 and 3) and Restoration Activities (alternative 2)

Method of Measurement Conduct invasive plant surveys within project area (disturbed areas, reclaimed areas, and restoration corridor).

Frequency of Measurement 1st and 3rd year after first complete growing season following completion of restoration activities and reclamation 

of mining areas.

Threshold of Variability New non-native populations have been introduced or existing populations are expanding.

Action To Be Taken Design and implement feasible control measures for specific species. Conduct vegetation survey 3rd year after 

additional control work is completed.

Authority Forest Service Record of Decision

Responsible Party to Conduct Monitoring Forest Service Ecologist

Chugach National Forest 53
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act to rigorously explore and 

objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating 

any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in 

response to the Proposed Action and Draft Environmental Impact Statement provided suggestions 

for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives are outside 

the scope of the need to restore Resurrection Creek and the associated riparian, aquatic and 

wildlife habitats, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be 

components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. The Forest Service does not have 

the authority to choose an alternative that eliminates mining on some or all of the lands on federal 

mining claims near private property. Mining activities on federal mining claims are governed by 

the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, and the 1955 Multiple-Use Mining Act (69 Stat. 

367; 30 U.S.C. 601, 603, 611-615). By location and entry, a claimant acquires certain rights 

against other citizens and against the United States. Alternatives were considered but dismissed 

from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.

Full Channel Restoration of the Entire Valley Floor

Full channel and floodplain restoration of the 2-mile section within the project area could be 

conducted within the constraints of the entire valley floor, both inside and outside of the proposed 

restoration corridor. A meandering channel could be constructed with numerous side channels and 

abundant floodplains beyond the 200 to 500 foot wide corridor. However, this restoration 

alternative would not be in accordance with framework for restoration developed between Hope 

Mining Company and the Forest Service. Approximately 60 percent of the restoration would 

occur outside of the agreed upon corridor. This alternative was dropped from further 

consideration based on Hope Mining Company’s existing mining operations and proposed mining 

activities in areas outside the corridor. Hope Mining Company has agreed to exclude mining only 

within the specified restoration corridor therefore any restoration work done outside the corridor 

would be subject to mining activities at any time.

Restoration Excluding State Selected Lands

This alternative was proposed to conduct channel, floodplain, and riparian restoration of only the 

southern 1-mile section of the project area, within the restoration corridor. The northern 1-mile 

section of the project area that is selected by the State of Alaska under provision in the Alaska 

Statehood Act, (figure 2, page 3) would not be restored. Restoration components, including 

stream channel creation, floodplain development, side channel creation, habitat development, and 

revegetation would be the same as the restoration activities described in the Proposed Action, but 

only on the southern 1 mile of the project area.

This alternative was conceptualized to address concerns associated with the potential 

development of the State selected lands in the lower half of the project reach. Although 

conveyance of these lands to the State in the future could result in development of these lands, the 

resources would still be protected by the State of Alaska’s laws and statutes regarding 

development in floodplains and along salmon bearing waters. Title to the lands encumbered by 

federal mining claims would not convey to the state if the claimant was determined to possess 

valid and existing rights. Because possible conveyance of these lands is not likely to affect the 

proposed restoration due to the protections afforded by state regulations, this alternative is not 

needed and was dropped from further consideration. Correspondence with the State of Alaska 

relative to the project and State selected lands is ongoing at this time.

54 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Limited Restoration

This alternative considered potential negative effects to water quality and salmon populations that 

would occur during stream restoration activities such as stream channel construction and 

relocation. Only the upper mile of the project area would be restored, using a minimalist approach 

to channel and floodplain restoration. The main channel would not be moved, but the historic 

tailings piles along the banks would be pulled back from the stream channel to create a channel 

width of floodplain along one or both sides of the channel. These actions would result in minimal 

turbidity plumes compared to the magnitude expected with full channel reconstruction and water 

diversions. Minimalist restoration activities would not occur in the lower mile of the project area 

because that portion of the existing channel is not within the restoration corridor agreed upon by 

the Forest Service and Hope Mining Company and would be subject to existing and future mining 

operations. This alternative is not in accordance with the 2007 agreement with Hope Mining 

Company and does not fully meet purpose and need for restoring fish habitat and channel to more 

natural and functional condition. The alternative was not analyzed in further detail. 

Restoration and Mining Outside of Inventoried Roadless Areas

Approximately one third of the project area (147 acres) lies within the Resurrection Inventoried 

Roadless Area (figure 20, page 146). An alternative that would only conduct restoration and 

respond to the proposed mining plan of operations outside of the boundary of the Resurrection 

Inventoried Roadless Area was considered but eliminated from detailed study for the following 

reasons:

1. Hope Mining Company is proposing to construct 0.73 miles of temporary mining roads in the 

Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area for access to conduct proposed mining activities on 

125 acres of mining claims located within the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area. The 

General Mining Act of May 10, 1872, as amended, confers a statutory right upon a mining 

claimant to enter upon public lands to prospect, develop and mine valuable minerals. By 

location and entry, in compliance with the 1872 Mining Law, a claimant acquires certain 

rights against other citizens and against the United States. This alternative would violate 

Hope Mining Company’s right of reasonable access to the mineral estate within the 

Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area. 

2. Approximately 4 acres of the 74 acre restoration corridor is located within the Resurrection 

Inventoried Roadless Area. To be effective, the channel in this portion of Resurrection Creek 

must be moved or modified. No options exist for alternate locations of the stream channel 

outside of the inventoried roadless area because over half of the available valley width at this 

location is within the inventoried roadless area boundary.

3. It would be necessary for the Forest Service to construct 0.12 miles of temporary mining 

access routes in the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area to replace mining access routes 

that would be obliterated by the restoration corridor. The road replacement location is 

confined by the stream corridor and adjacent steep slopes; no option exists to locate this road 

outside of the inventoried roadless area.

4. Up to 2,000 trees would need to be harvested for materials for construction of log jams within 

the new channel sections. Approximately 750 spruce and hemlock trees of the 2,000 are 

located within mining areas in the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area. While most of 

these 750 trees could be taken from other proposed mining areas located outside the 

Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area, it would require hauling the trees a greater distance 

and crossing the stream with them. The result would be increased project cost and potentially 

increased turbidity in Resurrection Creek.

Chugach National Forest 55
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Comparison of Effects by Alternative

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementation of each alternative. Information 

is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be 

distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Air Quality and Climate Change

Air Resources

Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would all produce localized sources of air pollutants. Any pollutants 

would generally dissipate quickly, resulting in minimal direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on

air resources.

Climate Change

Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would produce comparable amounts of greenhouse gas emissions as a 

result of fossil fuel combustion. It is not possible to quantify the effects of greenhouse gas 

emissions from this project on climate change in a global context. Under alternative 2, 

restoration would reestablish vegetation within the restoration corridor more quickly, increasing 

the capacity to sequester carbon dioxide in the long term. Under alternatives 1 and 3, slower 

riparian regeneration and poorer riparian conditions would result in lower capacity to sequester 

carbon dioxide

Effect of Climate Change on Project

Although the effects of climate change on the project cannot currently be quantified, the lack of 

channel complexity, deep pools, large woody debris and floodplain connectivity in the current 

incised stream channel for alternatives 1 and 3 may be less resilient to the effects of warming air 

temperatures on stream temperatures and have less ability of the system to dissipate the energy of 

flood flows than alternative 2. The restored channel in alternative 2 would be constructed to be 

semi-dynamic, allowing the channel to change under natural processes as it constantly adjusts to 

changing environmental conditions

Soils 

Proposed mining operations and stream restoration activities will have a detrimental effect on soil 

productivity in all alternatives. Forest Service Alaska Region detrimental soil conditions 

monitoring guidelines (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 2006, Soil Quality Monitoring, 

FSM 2554.05-13) are used as the analysis tool to compare effects of the alternatives and 

determine significant effects on soil productivity. Greater than a 15 percent loss of soil 

productivity for any activity area is considered significant. 

Total Disturbance from Proposed Restoration and Mining Activities

Detrimental soil disturbance levels are estimated as follows for the alternatives:

Alternative 1: 

• Before reclamation of mining infrastructure: 105 acres (25 percent of project area) 

• After reclamation: 80 acres (19 percent of project area)

56 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 2:

• After restoration and before reclamation of mining infrastructure: 78 acres (22 percent of the 

348 acre restoration and mining activity area) 

• After restoration and reclamation: 58 acres (17 percent of the 348 acre restoration and mining 

activity area)

Alternative 3: 

• Before reclamation of mining infrastructure: 75 acres (26 percent of the 285 acre mining 

activity area) 

• After reclamation: 58 acres (20 percent of the 285 acre mining activity project area)

Effects of Mining on Steep Slopes

The proposed mining operations in alternative 2 and 3 include mining activities on and near 

steeper slopes. Mining on one slope in area 16a has been eliminated by Hope Mining Company in 

both alternatives to reduce risk of landslides from occurring. Mitigation measures have been 

developed for erosion control and effective reclamation practices for mining on other slopes.

Alternative 2 and 3 have a proposed mining road in area 20 north of camp 1 that has a high risk 

of soils becoming easily saturated and overloading the adjoining steep slope which may result in 

a landslide or slump potentially affecting Resurrection Creek Road and the flood plain below.

Noise 

Decibel Level of Noise from Mining Activities

Under alternatives 1, 2 and 3, noise generated by mining equipment is expected to produce 

decibel levels in the range of 65 to 80 dB at active mining sites. The persistent equipment noise 

may disturb private landowners living within 1 mile of mining operations March through October

for an estimated 15 year period for alternative 1 and for a 20 year period for alternatives 2 and 

3. When mechanical mining is occurring at the extreme southern end of the project area in areas 9 

and 12 for alternative 1 and areas 8, 9, 12, and 22 for alternatives 2 and 3, recreation visitors at 

the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trailhead may be able to detect equipment noise. The 

majority of proposed mining within the middle and northern sections of the project area is not 

expected to affect recreational users at the trailhead due to the masking effect of the high level of 

ambient noise of Resurrection Creek.

Decibel Level of Noise from Restoration Activities

Under alternative 2, noise levels generated by restoration equipment would be identical in nature 

and level to that of mining operations and are expected to mask each other rather than detectably 

add or increase noise levels. The majority of restoration activities would occur from May 15 

through July 15 for an estimated four year time period. Noise from restoration equipment would 

be audible and likely impacting to private landowners near the north end of the project area in the 

short term. Recreation users at the Resurrection Pass North Trailhead could be directly affected 

by restoration noise only when machines are operating at the extreme southern end of the project 

area. The majority of restoration in the southern section of the project area is estimated to be 

completed in two to four weeks with impacts to any recreational users at the trailhead limited to 

that time period. The remainder of restoration proposed in alternative 2 (within the middle and 

northern sections of the project area) is not expected to affect recreational users at the trailhead 

due to the masking effect of the high level of ambient noise of Resurrection Creek.

Chugach National Forest 57
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Aquatic Resources and Hydrology 

Water Quality

Under alternative 1, water quality has met standards identified by the State of Alaska for the 

beneficial uses for Resurrection Creek and is expected to continue into the future. A potential 

impact to water quality is the proximity of mining infrastructure to the creek; a 20-foot wide 

vegetative buffer separates the creek from some of the settling ponds and ditches. The closer 

these features exist in relation to the creek, the higher the potential risk of Resurrection Creek 

eroding or overtop the banks, particularly in storm events, and capturing the sediment laden 

settling pond/ditch systems.

Under alternative 2, during restoration activities 6 to 10 short, controlled turbidity events of over 

300 NTU are likely to occur (May 15 to July 15) spread over approximately 4 years (pending 

funding availability). Up to 10 turbidity pulses per day of up to 150 NTU would also occur while 

equipment is working in the channel. Elevated turbidity from mining and restoration equipment 

crossings would cause minimal effects. Mining activities are not anticipated to affect water 

quality due to the use of ponds for settling turbid water. Any outflow from the settling pond 

systems would be required to meet State of Alaska water quality standards.

Under alternative 3, during relocation of channel segments for mining purposes (May 15 to

July 15), 2 to 4 turbidity events of over 300 NTU would occur, as would the potential for 

continued increased turbidity levels as the channel stabilizes in its new location. Minimal impacts 

from elevated turbidity would occur from mining and equipment crossings. The proximity of 

settling ponds and ditches to Resurrection Creek is the same as alternative 1 with the same 

potential for impacts to water quality during high water events.

Channel Structure

Under alternative 1 and 3, Resurrection Creek channel would remain in its present impaired 

condition, with low sinuosity, high channel gradient, large creek bed substrate, few pools, low 

channel complexity, and few functional floodplain areas. The 20-foot wide vegetated buffer along 

Resurrection Creek would continue to be limited in its functionality as a riparian zone to provide 

large wood and habitat complexity to the stream channel. Recovery of the channel to a more 

natural condition would not likely occur within the next 100 years. Alternative 1 would continue 

to have 19 acres of existing wetlands and alternative 3 would increase wetlands by up to two 

acres but of lower quality with no off-channel wetlands being created.

Under alternative 2, hydrologic function of the stream channel would be restored closer to 

natural conditions. Functional floodplains would promote riparian vegetation and stable stream 

banks. The restored corridor would provide an adequate riparian buffer zone from mining 

operations and infrastructure. Alternative 2 would reconstruct much of the existing wetlands and 

increase the acreage to about 26 acres with higher quality channel and off-channel wetlands 

created.

Aquatic Habitat

Under alternative 1 and 3, no improvement to aquatic habitat or populations would occur. Pools, 

woody debris, spawning areas, and off-channel habitat would be very limited.

Under alternative 2, aquatic habitat would be greatly improved in the short term and long term. 

Improved aquatic habitat will increase aquatic species productivity by increasing available 

58 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

spawning and rearing habitat. The percentage of increase in fish populations is unknown as 

salmon populations are largely determined on ocean survival.

Aquatic Species

Under alternative 1, direct mortality to aquatic species would not be expected to occur. 

Equipment crossings would be limited to existing fords and there would be a very low risk of 

direct mortality of fish because of the limited crossings with the existing lower levels of mining 

activity. Indirect mortality of aquatic species is also not expected because turbidity levels in 

Resurrection Creek are not expected to increase. Alternative 1 would result in no benefit to 

aquatic species because fish habitat within Resurrection Creek would remain limited into the 

future

Under alternative 2, direct mortality of aquatic species could occur at equipment crossings and 

during channel construction throughout the entire project area. Indirect mortality of aquatic 

species would be possible from high turbidities in the entire project area and up to 2 miles 

downstream during restoration. Restoration would result in short- and long-term indirect benefits 

for both juvenile and adult salmonids by creating large lateral pools for rearing and resting during 

migrations and over-wintering, and refugia from high flows for a variety of aquatic species. In the 

long term, salmonids would also benefit from restored and self-maintained levels of channel 

complexity.

Under alternative 3, direct mortality of aquatic species could occur at equipment crossings and 

during channel relocation. Fish mortality could occur from stranding in the old channel. Indirect 

mortality of aquatic species would be possible from high turbidities in lower third of the project 

area and up to 2 miles downstream during channel relocation.

Vegetation Ecology

Amount of Revegetation

Under alternatives 1 and 3, vegetation cover would not return to the historic tailings pile areas 

for many decades and tailings piles would continue to prevent flood flows from delivering fine 

sediment to the floodplain areas, thereby limiting riparian vegetation growth.

Under alternative 2, restoration would initiate reestablishment of native vegetation in the 

restoration corridor where it is currently lacking. There would be a change in the forested 

structure and composition of the project area by the removal of all vegetation and reduction of 

soil productivity through mining activities. The successional pathway of the project area’s 

forested stands would be altered. These changes may linger in the mining areas as vegetation 

reestablishes, particularly if nonnative plant populations become more established.

Under alternative 3, there would be a change in the forested structure and composition of the 

project area by the removal of all vegetation and reduction of soil productivity through mining 

activities.

Nonnative Species

Under alternative 1, nonnative plant abundance would be expected to continue and may continue 

to spread in the project area. However, no new ground would be impacted beyond what has 

already been authorized in existing plans of operations. Infestation and spread beyond existing 

mining plans of operations would likely be limited. Under alternative 2, restored areas 

revegetated to native species would reduce the overall presence of nonnative species. 

Chugach National Forest 59
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Disturbances associated with restoration and mining have the potential to increase nonnative plant 

abundance in the project area through influx of nonnative species on equipment and by producing

bare soil conditions. Under alternative 3, the increase of nonnative plant abundance in the project 

area would have a greater area to become established due to the larger area of disturbance due to 

proposed mining activities.

Sensitive Plants

Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, implementation is not expected to adversely affect sensitive 

plants because while potential habitat occurs for the one region 10 sensitive species, the pale 

poppy, this species has not been found within the project area.

Wildlife

Habitat Affected by Mining Activities

Under alternatives 1, 2 and 3, mining effects to wildlife habitat are adverse in the short- and 

long-term. Habitat quality and quantity will decrease as vegetation is removed and vegetation 

composition and structural diversity decreases. Site quality will be lower after reclamation due to 

some inevitable loss of topsoil during the removal, stockpiling and reclamation process. With 

lower soil productivity, vegetation may not respond with as much vigor or density as under 

natural conditions and may take longer (up to 100 years) to reach a mature forest stand structure.

Wildlife Disturbance by Mining Activities

Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, noise and physical disturbance from people, camps, vehicles, and 

heavy equipment during mining and restoration activities (alternative 2 only) may cause habitat 

abandonment or avoidance to a wide variety of wildlife species. Nesting migratory birds and 

small mammals may have nests destroyed and young or adults killed when vegetation is removed. 

Noise has the potential to disturb wildlife in the project area at decibel levels from 65 to 80 dB at 

active mining sites or within the restoration corridor, and adjacent to the project area up to one 

mile out at decibel levels up to 55 dB. Persistent equipment noise may disturb and displace 

wildlife during the months of March through October over the 20 years of operation. 

Acres of Habitat Restored

Under alternative 2, effects to wildlife habitat from restoration activities are adverse in the short

term but beneficial in the long term for 74 acres within the restoration corridor. Short-term 

removal of habitat would be replaced with higher quality habitat throughout the restoration 

corridor as riparian vegetation composition and structural diversity increases over the long term. 

Improved riparian habitat would favor species that feed on spawning or rearing salmon (brown 

bear, otters, eagles, and wolves), breed or forage in side channels (harlequin ducks and other 

birds), den or nest in riparian vegetation (river otters, bald eagles, and migratory birds), or forage 

for vegetation or for prey species in riparian areas (moose, lynx, wolverine, wolves, bears, eagles, 

and goshawks). Alternatives 1 and 3 would not have these riparian wildlife habitat 

improvements over the long term.

Heritage Resources

Loss of Historic Properties

The project area has one historic property, the Hope Mining Company Historic Mining District, 

and historic mine tailings, a contributing feature of this property, will be destroyed as a result of 

mining under alternatives 1, 2 and 3 and restoration activities under alternative 2. The Forest 

60 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Service consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer and executed a memorandum of 

agreement in 2009 addressing adverse effects of mining and restoration on these tailings and the 

development of an interpretive area in which a representative section of intact historic mine 

tailings will be interpreted. The Forest Service will continue to work in partnership with Hope 

Mining Company in developing the interpretive area and interpretive signing.

Recreation

Recreation Use within the project area

Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3 local residents who wish to use the project area for nonmotorized 

recreational activities may continue to do so but may choose not to due to safety concerns of 

being in close proximity with heavy equipment operations that would occur throughout the 

project area March through October over the next 20 years.

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail 

Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, access to the trail will continue and would not be affected by 

mining and/or restoration activities. Hope Mining Company and lessees have authorization to 

utilize the trail bridge and a short section (about 100 feet) of the trail for ATV access to the west 

side of Resurrection Creek and mining operations located downstream from the bridge under 

alternative 1 and would likely have this authorization under alternative 3. This access would not 

be authorized under alternative 2 when the temporary bridge is in place for restoration access. 

This ATV use occurs infrequently and has not raised complaints by the recreating public.

Sport Fishing

Under alternative 2, restoration activities will increase aquatic species productivity by increasing 

available spawning and rearing habitat. The percentage of increase in fish populations is unknown 

and with salmon populations, is largely determined by ocean survival. It is unknown if an 

increase in fish populations will result in an increase in sport fishing. Under alternatives 1 and 3

there are no anticipated changes in sport fishing. 

Recreational Experience

Under alternatives 1, 2 and 3, the recreation setting within and adjacent to the project area would 

be consistent with the recreation opportunity spectrum classes identified in the Forest Plan which 

are: “rural” within the project area; and “roaded modified” and “semiprimitive motorized”

adjacent to the project area. Visitors using recreation facilities directly adjacent to the southern 

edge of the project area would spend minimal time in sight of or within audible range of the 

mining and/or reclamation activities. This exposure is not anticipated to disrupt recreation 

experiences in a way that would cause visitors to recreate elsewhere.

Scenic Resources

Under alternatives 1, 2 and 3, adjacent private landowners and visitors traveling along 

Resurrection Creek Road and using the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail will continue 

to experience sights associated with mining activity, but such activity would have the potential to 

be much closer in proximity and more frequent as Hope Mining Company’s areas of operations 

expand from their currently approved mining areas. Mining activity will continue to produce 

visual conditions that have “unacceptably low” scenic integrity when operations are active. Upon 

completion of mining activity, reclaimed areas will meet the minimum scenic integrity objective 

Chugach National Forest 61
Resurrection Creek Phase II

of “very low” in the short term, and improve with time to meet higher scenic integrity objectives

in the long term as more vegetation becomes established.

Under alternative 2, restoration activities would restore the stream corridor’s natural appearance 

and ecological function. “Moderate” to “high” scenic integrity objectives can be expected in the 

short term (1 to 5 years) in the restoration corridor area. 

Roadless Areas

Natural Appearing Landscape and Wilderness Suitability

Under alternative 2, 147 acres, less than one percent of the total acres of Resurrection 

Inventoried Roadless Area, would appear more unnatural and would be less capable of being 

suitable for wilderness designation because evidence of mining would be apparent. After 

reclamation, the affected portion of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area would appear 

more natural. Resurrection Creek would more closely represent natural conditions over time after 

restoration because it would appear and function as it did before historic mining channelized the 

creek. 

Under alternatives 1 and 3, the effects associated with mining activities would be the same as in 

alternative 2. However, Resurrection Creek would remain channelized, fish habitat would 

continue to be poor, and evidence of human disturbance would be apparent. This portion of the 

Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area would continue to be less suitable for wilderness

designation.

Social and Economic Resources

Net Present Value

Under alternative 1, the net present value would be negative $182,866 (in 2009 U.S. dollars).

The cost to taxpayers would be less than under the alternatives 2 or 3. 

Under alternative 2 the net present value for all activities under this alternative is negative 

$1,785,900. This includes the cost of restoration as well as mining administration and monitoring 

costs. To be considered economically efficient, benefits from the project must outweigh the total 

costs. However, the ecological benefits from restoration are not quantifiable. 

Under alternative 3, the only direct costs assumed by the Forest Service would be those 

associated with minerals administration. The net present value of mining administration and 

monitoring would be $306,403, which is simply the discounted sum of total costs because there 

are no benefits that can be displayed in dollar values.

Employment

Under alternative 1, Hope Mining Company and mining lessees may continue to spend up to 

about $50,000 in the Hope community on fuel, food, housing, wages, equipment, and services. 

Under alternative 2, restoration activities would have employment and income impacts similar to 

those that occurred under Phase I restoration; working with local stakeholders and interest groups 

to perform restoration activities could allow some jobs to be performed by local residents. Under 

alternatives 2 and 3, additional mining areas may make it feasible to have additional mining 

lessees working in the area. New mining lessees could drive additional economic activity, as 

food, fuel, and other services are purchased in the local economy.

62 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Property Values

Under alternative 1, property values would be affected relative to existing conditions. Under 

alternatives 2 and 3, the road construction and mining activities may decrease adjacent 

residential property values.

Public Health and Safety

Alternative 1 would not affect public health and safety relative to existing conditions. Under 

alternative 2, public access would be prohibited on the proposed temporary bridge to reduce 

safety risks. Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, mining activities could negatively affect quality of 

life for those living near the project area through proximity of mining roads to private property 

and safety concerns. Mitigation measures, such as signage indicating potential hazards may 

minimize the potential for public health and safety consequences. Under alternative 2, 

restoration activities could also negatively affect quality of life for adjacent private property 

owners due to the effects from noise but for a shorter period of time.

Subsistence

Subsistence Fisheries

There is no established subsistence fishery in the Resurrection Creek watershed therefore there is 

no effect from alternatives 1, 2, and 3. 

Subsistence Wildlife 

Under alternatives 1, 2, and 3, there no anticipate direct or indirect effects to wildlife subsistence 

uses. 

Chugach National Forest 63
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the physical, biological, and social environments of the project area and 

the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents a basis for the 

comparison of effects of alternatives presented in the chapter 2.

Air Quality and Climate Change

Affected Environment

Air quality in Southcentral Alaska is relatively undisturbed from human sources as a result of 

sparse populations and large distances from major pollution sources. Some regional sources of air 

quality impairment include smoke from forest fires, glacial dust, volcanic ash, urban pollution, 

and haze from global sources. Adjacent to the project area and near Hope, sources of air pollution 

include road dust, wood stove smoke, and vehicle combustion. Road dust from the gravel-surface 

Resurrection Creek Road is a localized source of particulates in the air during dry spells in the 

summer when traffic levels are highest. Existing mining operations in the project area produce a 

minimal amount of air pollutants. Local sources of greenhouse gas emissions, a contributor to 

climate change, include smoke and vehicle combustion.

The effects of climate change are evident in Alaska and on the Kenai Peninsula. Average 

temperatures have risen by as much as several degrees Fahrenheit over the past 60 years on 

portions of the Kenai Peninsula (Alaska Climate Research Center 2009 and Fresco 2012). This 

warming trend is also evident in the rapid rates of recession and thinning of most glaciers in 

Southcentral Alaska over the past century (Molnia 2008, Arendt et al. 2002). Climate change 

projections for southern coastal Alaska indicate that the area will significantly warm with 

increased precipitation, but decreased snowfall (Fresco 2012). 

Impacts to water resources from climate change on the Kenai Peninsula may include changes to 

the hydrograph, such as increased flood frequency and magnitude, glacial recession, and changes 

in the timing of peak and low flows. Additionally, increased stream temperatures, and increases in 

fire potential, invasive species and loss of wetlands are also predicted (Klein et al. 2005, Berg et 

al. 2006, Haufler et al. 2010, Fresco 2012). Changes in timing and magnitude of freshwater 

delivery to the Gulf of Alaska may impact coastal circulation as well as biogeochemical fluxes to 

near-shore marine ecosystems and the eastern North Pacific Ocean (Neal et al. 2010).

Environmental Consequences – Air Quality and Climate Change

Issues

During scoping and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement comment period, no issues for this 

project were expressed by the public related to air resources or climate change.

Measurement Indicators

Qualitative assessments based on professional judgment are used to discuss the effects of the 

proposed project on air resources and climate change.

Chugach National Forest 65
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Methodology

The effects of the project on air resources are determined through past observations. It is not 

currently possible to quantifiably determine the effects of the proposed project on climate change 

because of the global nature of this issue. Alternatives are compared primarily using qualitative 

indicators.

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Air Resources

The existing activities would result in current levels of air pollutants in the area surrounding the 

project area. Sources of current air pollutants are seasonal and localized, and pollutants quickly 

dissipate under most weather conditions. Current air pollutants do not exceed Alaska State air 

quality standards (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2013). 

The primary source of current air pollutants are from exhaust emissions from heavy equipment, 

producing fine particulates, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. Under alternative 1 there 

would be no changes in current exhaust emissions from heavy equipment.

A secondary source of current fine particulates exists from dust from vehicles and equipment 

traveling on access roads during dry periods. Under alternative 1 there would be no changes in 

large truck traffic and likely no changes in dust levels. 

Climate Change

Fossil fuel combustion is a source of greenhouse gas emissions that can contribute to climate 

change. Emission sources for the mining activities, occurring for up to 6 months per year for 20 

years, include use of heavy equipment, mobilization of equipment, transportation of personnel 

and supplies, and generation of electricity. Greenhouse gas emissions as a result of alternative 1 

would continue at current levels. It is not possible to quantify the effects of greenhouse gas 

emissions from this project on climate change.

No additional vegetation will be removed or restored under alternative 1 other than what has 

already been approved under the existing mining plans of operation. Current vegetation levels 

would exist to sequester carbon. In the long term, less vegetation would be available for carbon 

sequestration than under the proposed action because riparian restoration would not occur and the

reestablishment of riparian vegetation along Resurrection Creek would be slower. 

Effects of Climate Change on the Project

Climate change is likely to increase stream temperatures and the magnitude of peak flows in 

Resurrection Creek as a result of changes in air temperature, precipitation, snowpack, and 

weather patterns. The current incised channel, lack of riparian vegetation and location of the 

current settling ponds may not be able to accommodate and dissipate the energy of increased 

flood flows related to climate change. Effects from these increased flows may include increased 

streambed scouring, streambank erosion and settling pond failures. The lack of channel 

complexity, deep pools, large woody debris and floodplain connectivity in the current incised 

stream channel may be less resilient to the effects of warming air temperatures on stream 

temperatures than alternative 2. 

66 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of alternative 1 and all other activities occurring in the Hope area on air 

resources would not change. A number of activities are being conducted in the Hope area that 

could increase or decrease the effects of climate change. While increased development of Kenai 

Peninsula Borough lands in the area can result in increased greenhouse gas emissions and 

decreased carbon sequestration, hazardous fuel reduction projects in the area reduce the risk of 

stand-replacing wildfire that would otherwise produce huge carbon dioxide emissions. The 

activities occurring in this watershed are very small in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in a 

global context, and because climate change functions on a global scale, it is not possible to 

quantify the cumulative effects of any number of particular projects on climate change.

Compliance or conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 1 complies with the forestwide standard for air quality (USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-22) because existing mining activities comply with state 

standards for visible and particulate air quality. The Forest Plan does not specifically address 

climate change.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework 

Alternative 1 is consistent with the regulatory framework because existing mining activities are 

not likely to result in violations of the Clean Air Act or the Alaska State air quality standards 

(Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2013).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Air Resources

The proposed action would result in minimal short-term increases in air pollutants in the area 

surrounding the project area. Sources of air pollutants would be seasonal and localized, and 

pollutants would quickly dissipate under most weather conditions. Air pollutants would not likely 

exceed Alaska State air quality standards (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

2013). 

The primary source of air pollutants would be from exhaust emissions from heavy equipment, 

producing fine particulates, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. The stream restoration work 

would involve an average of 5 pieces of heavy equipment and an estimated total of about 2,500 

machine-hours per season (May 15 through July 15) for up to 4 years. The proposed mining 

activities would likely involve a variable number of pieces of heavy equipment and an estimated 

total of 1,000 to 10,000 machine-hours per season (March through October) for 20 years. 

A secondary source of fine particulates would be dust from vehicles and equipment traveling on 

access roads during dry periods. Although heavy equipment would be primarily confined to the 

project area, access vehicles would also utilize the gravel-surfaced Resurrection Creek Road, 

which currently receives moderate traffic during the summer from residents, recreationists, and 

miners. The additional large truck traffic as a result of the proposed action would only slightly 

increase dust levels because dust abatement through the use of water trucks would be required

(mitigation measure 9, page 41). Earth moving activities during restoration and mining would

cause little or no dust because of the course nature of the primarily gravel and cobble substrate. 

Placer mining operations utilize water to process the material, resulting in relatively little dust.

Chugach National Forest 67
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Climate Change

Fossil fuel combustion is a source of greenhouse gas emissions that can contribute to climate 

change. Emission sources for restoration activities would include heavy equipment, mobilization 

of equipment, and transportation of personnel and supplies. Emissions from these activities are 

expected to occur for 2 months per year for up to 4 years. Emission sources for the mining 

activities, occurring for up to 6 months per year for 20 years, would include heavy equipment, 

mining equipment, and mobilization of equipment, transportation of personnel and supplies, and 

generation of electricity. The effects of this project would be very small in terms of greenhouse 

gas emissions in a global context. Currently, it is not possible to quantify the effects of 

greenhouse gas emissions from this project on climate change.

The proposed stream restoration work would reestablish the riparian area in 51 acres within the 

restoration corridor in the long term. Much of this area is currently bare ground or covered by 

only sparse vegetation and little soil as a result of historic mining activities. In the long term, 

restoration would provide a healthy, diverse riparian area that would help offset the impacts of 

climate change by increasing the capacity to sequester carbon dioxide. However, the proposed 

mining activities outside of the restoration corridor would remove vegetation from the proposed 

mining areas outside of the restoration corridor. It is expected that because operations would be 

sequenced and reclamation would be ongoing, only a portion of the 274 acres proposed for 

mining would have vegetation removed at any one time, and these disturbed areas would lose 

their capacity to sequester carbon. These effects would diminish over time as the land is 

reclaimed. Taken together, alterations in vegetation from the restoration and mining activities are 

expected to have very little or no influence on climate change on a global context because of the 

limited area that would be actively mined at any one time and the benefits of restoring the 

riparian ecosystem.

Effects of Climate Change on the Project

Stream and riparian restoration within the restoration corridor would make this ecosystem more 

resilient to the impacts associated with climate change. Climate change is likely to increase the 

magnitude of peak flows in Resurrection Creek as a result of changes in precipitation, snowmelt, 

and weather patterns. Reconstructing the stream channel, floodplains, and riparian areas to 

accommodate and dissipate the energy of flood flows would improve the resiliency of the system 

to floods as compared to the confined nature of the existing stream channel. The restored channel 

would be constructed to be semi-dynamic, allowing the channel to change under natural processes 

as it constantly adjusts to changing environmental conditions. Climate change is not likely to 

affect the proposed mining activities.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the proposed action and all other activities occurring in the Hope area 

on air resources would be minimal. A number of activities are being conducted in the Hope area 

that could increase or decrease the effects of climate change. While increased development of 

Kenai Peninsula Borough lands in the area can result in increased greenhouse gas emissions and 

decreased carbon sequestration, hazardous fuel reduction projects in the area reduce the risk of 

stand-replacing wildfire that would otherwise produce huge carbon dioxide emissions. The 

activities occurring in this watershed are very small in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in a 

global context, and because climate change functions on a global scale, it is not possible to 

quantify the cumulative effects of any number of particular projects on climate change.

68 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Compliance or conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 2 complies with the Forestwide standard for air quality (USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-22) because proposed mining and restoration activities 

would comply with state standards for visible and particulate air quality. The Forest Plan does not 

specifically address climate change.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework 

Alternative 2 is consistent with the regulatory framework because proposed mining and 

restoration activities are not likely to result in violations of the Clean Air Act or the Alaska State 

air quality standards (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2013).

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only 

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Air Resources

Alternative 3 would result in minimal short-term increases in air pollutants in the area 

surrounding the project area. Sources of air pollutants would be seasonal and localized, and 

pollutants would quickly dissipate under most weather conditions. Air pollutants would be 

comparable to those of alternative 2. Air pollutants would not likely exceed Alaska State air 

quality standards (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2013).

The primary source of air pollutants would be from exhaust emissions from heavy equipment, 

producing fine particulates, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide. The mining activities 

proposed under alternative 3 would likely involve a variable number of pieces of heavy 

equipment and an estimated total of 1,000 to 10,000 machine-hours per season (March through 

October) for 20 years, with additional equipment time needed to move the stream channel as 

proposed. 

A secondary source of fine particulates would be dust from vehicles and equipment traveling on 

access roads during dry periods. Although heavy equipment would be primarily confined to the 

project area, access vehicles would also utilize the gravel-surfaced Resurrection Creek Road, 

which currently receives moderate traffic during the summer from residents, recreationists, and 

miners. The additional large truck traffic as a result of alternative 3 would only slightly increase 

dust levels on Resurrection Creek road. Earth moving activities during mining would cause little 

or no dust because of the course nature of the primarily gravel and cobble substrate. Placer 

mining operations utilize water to process the material, resulting in no dust.

Climate Change

Fossil fuel combustion is a source of greenhouse gas emissions that can contribute to climate 

change. Emission sources for the mining activities, occurring for up to 6 months per year for 20 

years, would include use of heavy equipment, mobilization of equipment, transportation of 

personnel and supplies, and generation of electricity. Greenhouse gas emissions as a result of 

alternative 3 would be comparable to those of the proposed action. The effects of alternative 3

would be very small in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in a global context. It is not possible to 

quantify the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from this project on climate change.

The proposed mining activities would remove vegetation from active mining areas. It is expected 

that because operations would be sequenced and reclamation would be ongoing, only a portion of 

the 285 acres proposed for mining would have vegetation removed at any one time, and these 

Chugach National Forest 69
Resurrection Creek Phase II

disturbed areas would lose their capacity to sequester carbon. These effects would diminish over 

time as the land is reclaimed. In the long term, less vegetation would be available for carbon 

sequestration than under the proposed action because riparian restoration would not occur and the 

reestablishment of riparian vegetation along Resurrection Creek would be slower. Vegetation 

removal from mining activities is expected to have very little influence on climate change on a 

global context because of the limited area that would be actively mined at any one time. 

Effects of Climate Change on the Project

Climate change is not likely to affect the proposed mining activities.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 3 would have the same cumulative effects as alternative 2.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 3 complies with the Forestwide standard for air quality (USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest, 2002a, page 3-22) because proposed mining activities would comply 

with state standards for visible and particulate air quality. The Forest Plan does not specifically 

address climate change.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework 

Alternative 3 is consistent with the regulatory framework because proposed mining activities are 

not likely to result in violations of the Clean Air Act or the Alaska State air quality standards 

(Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2013).

Geology and Soils

Affected Environment

Geology

Resurrection Creek flows northward from its headwaters through a broad valley 21 miles in 

length, floored with a thick deposit of gravels, and then enters Turnagain Arm at the town of 

Hope. Throughout the greater part of its length, the stream has incised a deep canyon-like 

channel. Near the lower end of the valley the stream’s flood plain widens and has a width of 500 

feet a short distance below the confluence with Palmer Creek. High bench gravels flank the 

floodplain along both sides of the valley.

Bedrock in the drainage is slate and graywacke of the Upper Cretaceous Valdez Group (Nelson 

1984). Stream and bench gravels consist of sandstone, slate, conglomerate, granite, and minor 

amounts of clayey matrix. Boulders are common up to three feet wide and are much larger 

locally. Graywacke boulders predominate while granite and conglomerate boulders are less 

abundant. The productive gold-bearing gravels typically overlay bluish-yellow clay pseudo 

“bedrock” layers which vary in thickness. 

Soils

Soil is a fundamental part of a forest ecosystem; soil health and productivity influence the longterm forest productivity. Forest Service policy (USDA Forest Service 2010, FSM 2554.05-13) 

defines soil productivity as the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specific plant 

communities. Soil productivity is inversely related to detrimental soil disturbance. Soil 

productivity is maintained by minimizing detrimental soil disturbance. 

70 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Well drained, deep, coarse-textured soils form the bulk of the project area. The valley bottom

floodplain in the project area is a disturbed, well drained, coarse-textured soil of map unit 305A. 

Soil map unit 305A is about 153 acres, mostly in the historical floodplain (Davidson 1989). This 

map unit contains surface material that has been extensively manipulated through historic and 

modern gold mining. It is typically 5 to 35 feet high tailing piles of rounded cobbles and boulders. 

This material may also be spread out over the floodplain. It is estimated to have about 50 percent

detrimental soil disturbance from hydraulic mining activities dating to the early twentieth century

due to loss of topsoil and surface fines. About half of the area previously mined has vegetative 

cover of mostly cottonwood, birch and some spruce but with relatively limited ground cover 

vegetation. The rest of the disturbed area has not yet returned to a vegetated state, but it is 

expected to eventually revegetate.

The remaining portion of the project area has been minimally disturbed by historic mining. There 

is anecdotal evidence of a fire that burned through the valley in the early 1900s, changing the 

dominant vegetation from spruce to birch. 

Impacts to the soil resource are defined by the type of activity and the number of acres each 

activity occurs. The disturbance rates are estimates based on observation of existing mining areas 

around Resurrection Creek and Resurrection Creek Phase 1area (table 8).The disturbance rates 

for mining assume that topsoil is stockpiled prior to mining and then respread once mining is 

completed.

Table 8. Estimated detrimental disturbance rates used for analysis of each activity 

Activity Estimated percent detrimental 

soil disturbance

Mechanical Mining on gentle ground (less than 35 percent) 8

Mechanical Mining on steep ground (more than 35 percent) 20

Existing Historical Mining disturbance 50

Road or trail, constructed and in use 100

Road or trail, reclaimed (recontoured, ripped and closed) 25

Camps, in use 100

Camps, reclaimed 25

Ponds and ditches, in use 100

Ponds and ditches, reclaimed (filled in, recontoured) 25

Restoration activities within corridor 3

About 71.6 acres of the project area are currently detrimentally disturbed from mining activities 

(table 9). There are about 7.4 miles of mining road and 2 miles of specified Forest Service road in 

the project area. Existing mining infrastructure include about 10.8 acres of settling ponds, 0.7 

acres of ditch line, and 3.6 acres of camps in the project area. The mining disturbances and 

infrastructure total about 104.8 acres of existing detrimental soil disturbance or about 25.1

percent of the 418 acre project area (table 9 and table 10). The detrimental soil disturbance from 

the fire is negligible and not included.

Chugach National Forest 71
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Table 9. Existing detrimental soil disturbance from mining 

Activity Acres

Estimated 

Detrimental 

Disturbance Rate

Acres detrimental 

disturbance

Existing approved mining areas 97

Infrastructurea (13.2)

slopes over 35 percent 15.0 20% 3.0

slopes under 35 percent 16.3 8% 1.3

Historical Mining Lands within Existing 

approved mining areas 52.8 50% 26.4

Historical Mining Lands in Project Area 81.8 50% 40.9

Total detrimental disturbance 71.6

a - The infrastructure in table 9 are features which are within approved mining areas but soil disturbance acres from these 

features are accounted for in table 10 which has soil disturbance acreage from all infrastructure within the project area.

Table 10. Existing detrimental soil disturbances from mining infrastructure 

Activity Measure Acres Estimated Detrimental 

Disturbance Rate

Acres Detrimentally 

Disturbed

Existing Roadsa 7.4b Miles 17.9 100% 17.9

Existing ATV 

trail 0.1 miles 0.1 100% 0.1

Camps 10 3.6 100% 3.6

Ponds 27 10.8 100% 10.8

Ditches 1.9 milesc 0.7 100% 0.7

Total Acres 33.2

a - All roads are estimated at 20 feet in width and trails are 6 feet wide

b - Total road in the Resurrection Creek project area is 9.4 miles. 2 miles is specified road (Resurrection Creek Road) 

which does not count as detrimental soil disturbance.

c - Ditches are assumed to be about 3 feet wide, about the width of an excavator bucket and do not include ponds.

Most of the disturbed areas, regardless of the current vegetation condition, generally have lower 

soil productivity than undisturbed areas due to lack of topsoil resulting from historic mining. 

Environmental Consequences – Geology and Soils

Issues

Soil productivity and potential erosion was identified by the public and the Interdisciplinary Team 

as an issue. Proposed mining and restoration activities will result in detrimental soil disturbance 

of varying levels as observed from past mining practices in the area and from the implementation 

of the Phase I restoration project. Members of the public and Forest Service specialists raised 

concerns specifically about road construction and erosion in areas 16 and 21, and mechanical 

mining on steep (greater than 35 percent) side slopes. These concerns resulted in changes to the 

mining proposal and the development of additional mitigation measures (pages 39 through 47).

Effects of mining on steep slopes are discussed in the Effects of Mining Activities sections below.

72 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Measurement Indicators

The indicator for the soil resource is detrimental soil disturbance. The effects of mining activities 

and restoration activities on soil productivity will be measured by determining percent 

detrimental soil disturbance by the activity type and applied to the activity area.

Methodology

Impacts to the soil resource are defined by the type of activity and the number of acres where

each activity occurs. The types of activities for both action alternatives and estimated percent 

detrimental soil disturbance are described in table 8 (page 71). The scale of analysis, referred to 

as the activity area, for direct and indirect effects for alternative 2 is the proposed restoration 

corridor and mine areas (348 acres) and the proposed mine areas for alternative 3 (285 acres). The 

activity area for alternative 1 and for cumulative effects of all alternatives is the entire project 

area (418 acres) and considers detrimental soil disturbance effects on historically mined lands 

(alternative 1 only), existing and proposed mining activities (all alternatives), and restoration 

(alternative 2 only).

Forest Service Alaska Region detrimental soil conditions monitoring guidelines (USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region, 2006, Soil Quality Monitoring, FSM 2554.05-13) are used as the

analysis tool to compare effects of the alternatives and determine significant effects on soil 

productivity. Greater than a 15 percent loss of soil productivity for any activity area is considered 

significant. 

The time frame for the effects to soil resource is very long term, more than 20 years. Detrimental 

soil conditions are considered a significant impairment to the productivity of the land. Significant 

impairments are by definition loss of soil productivity that lasts beyond the planning horizon; 

typically a rotation age for forestry practices (300 years). It is reasonable to assume that 

detrimental impacts from mining may last well beyond 300 years.

The following are assumptions used in this analysis:

• Roads are 20 feet wide (16 foot surface and 2 foot ditches on either side).

• ATV trails are 6 feet wide

• Ditches are 3 feet wide (the width of an excavator bucket)

• Gentle ground is defined as less than 35 percent gradient and steep ground is greater than 35

percent gradient.

• The mining lessees, Hope Mining Company, and the Forest Service will follow all proposed 

mitigation, attain all required permits, and follow all applicable laws for the proposed 

activities.

• Reclamation activities after mining will not reduce detrimental soil disturbance to zero; there 

will still be places of residual compaction and impaired productivity compared to a natural, 

undisturbed forested area.

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 includes the 97 acres of existing approved mining areas. About 52 acres have not 

been mined to date. These will be mined and reclaimed as approved under previous plans of 

operations. The discussion under existing conditions describes the effects for alternative 1. 

Chugach National Forest 73
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Detrimental disturbance from the existing approved mining areas is about 71.6 acres (table 9, 

page 72). Once mining is completed all areas are expected to be reclaimed. Once reclaimed, the 

detrimental soil disturbance from infrastructure would be about 8.3 acres. The total detrimental 

disturbance from mining would be about 79.9 acres. This is about 19 percent of the 418 acre 

project area.

Cumulative Effects 

Past activities within the project area that affected soil productivity include the historic mining 

activities (included in soil mapping unit 305A) and existing approved mining areas. Cumulative 

effects are similar to the direct and indirect effects. After reclamation there would be about 80.3 

acres of detrimental soil disturbance, about 19.2 percent of the 418 acre project area. There would 

be no restoration activities to improve the area beyond required mining reclamation. The site 

would slowly revegetate and recover; likely taking decades to recruit surface fines and rebuild 

topsoil. This level of detrimental soil disturbance exceeds the 15 percent threshold and would be 

considered a significant effect to soil productivity.

Compliance or conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 1 meet the forestwide standards for soils in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-22 and 3-23) through implementing Best Management 

Practices specified in the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region 2006, FSH 2509.22)

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 1 is consistent with regulatory framework for the soil resources because even though 

the detrimental soil disturbance is greater than the 15 percent threshold, this standard is applicable 

to renewable resources per the National Forest Management Act and does not apply to mining 

activities.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of Mining Activities

Loss in soil productivity would result from the construction of new and replacement roads, 

various mining activities, ditches, and settling ponds. Loss of soil productivity is total and 

permanent in constructed features such as roads or camps as long as those features remain. Loss 

of soil productivity in the mined area would be variable, because not all of the proposed acres 

would necessarily be mined, and because the resulting mixed soil following reclamation would be 

highly variable in quality and productive potential.

Some of the proposed mining is in areas in the valley bottom floodplain where past mining 

activity occurred. The cumulative disturbance rate for these lands is 50 percent. Additional 

proposed mining in these areas is not expected to leave the area more disturbed than the current 

condition.

Much of the material at and near the surface following mining is expected to be boulder, cobble, 

and coarse sand. These soil materials are very slow to support and grow adequate vegetation. Site 

productivity improves immensely if at least 4 inches of topsoil is spread over an area. In the past 

where topsoil was present or placed during mining reclamation, moderately good vegetation 

cover resulted.

74 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

To ensure the site maintains soil productivity, all mined lands and mining infrastructure must be 

reclaimed. This analysis assumes that mined areas that started with topsoil will have topsoil 

stockpiled and then respread once mining activities have been completed which is critical for

maintaining soil productivity. Greater impacts to the soil resource would be avoided through 

completion of reclamation and implementation of mitigation measures 1, 3, 4, 6, 15 to 17, 27

(pages 39 through 47).

Table 11 shows the estimated acres of detrimentally disturbed soils for each of the mining 

activities. The figures are based on new mining areas being reclaimed but new infrastructure

continuing to be used. By leaving roads, camps, ponds and ditches in place the estimated rate of 

detrimental soil disturbance would be about 74.6 acres of the 274 proposed mining acres or about 

27 percent of the mining activity area. By reclaiming just the roads, camps, and ponds, the acres 

of detrimental soil disturbance drops to about 54.8 acres, or about 20 per cent of the mining 

activity area.

Table 11. Alternative 2 – detrimental soil disturbance from mining activities

With mining infrastructure 

remaining in use

With reclamation of mining 

area and infrastructure 

Activity Acres

Estimated 

Disturbance 

Rate

Acres 

Detrimentally 

Disturbed

Estimated 

Disturbance 

Rate

Acres 

Detrimentally 

Disturbed

Mechanical mining on 

gentle slopes 119 8% 9.5 8% 9.5

Mechanical mining on 

gentle slopes (previously 

mined areas)

46.2 50% 23.1 50% 23.1

Mechanical mining on 

steep slopes 78.1 20% 15.6 20% 15.6

Roads

 New Mining Road 6.2 

(2.5 miles) 100% 6.4 25% 1.6

 Replacement Mining 

Road

4.3

(1.8 miles) 100% 4.3 25% 1.1

Mining Infrastructure

 Camps 1.7 100% 1.7 25% 0.4

 Ponds 13.1 100% 13.1 25% 3.3

 Ditches 1.0 100% 1.0 25% 0.3

Total Acres 269.2a,b 74.6b 54.8b

a - Smaller than the 274 proposed mining acres by the existing roads, ditches, and ponds.

b - Rounding error

Since mining activities may continue at varying levels over a period of years, the rate of 

detrimental disturbance at any one time will be between 20 and 27 percent of the mining activity 

areas. Soil impacts of the proposed mining activities would exceed the threshold of 15 percent 

detrimental soil effects for an activity area and therefore would be considered a significant 

adverse impact to soil productivity.

Chugach National Forest 75
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Effects to Soils from Mining on Steep Slopes

In 2011, Hope Mining Company supplemented their initial 2007 plan of operations by including 

mechanical mining on steep slopes through the project area. Mining is currently proposed on 78.7

acres of steep slopes that range from 35 percent to more than 80 percent slope. These areas 

typically are the terraces above the floodplain on the eastern side of Resurrection Creek. The 

western portion of the project area is underlain by bedrock. The Forest Plan requires a landslide 

analysis for any ground disturbing activities greater than 0.1 acre on slopes greater than 72

percent slope and on areas greater than 0.5 acre on 56 to 72 percent slope (USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region 2002a, page 3-22).

The soils that comprise these terraces are deep, unconsolidated sands and gravels deposited by 

glacial processes then reworked by river processes. The slopes are short, the longest is about 100 

feet, but this material has a tendency to erode when vegetation is removed. The risk of chronic 

surface erosion is high across all steep areas if not properly reclaimed. The surface erosion would 

consist of a constant sediment movement into the restored area and Resurrection Creek rather 

than in the form of landslides. Proper reclamation includes recontouring steep slopes to their 

natural slope angle, not to exceed 35 degrees (about 72 percent) and revegetating steep areas 

(greater than 35 percent) with seed mixture, mulch, and/or organic materials as would be 

specified by the Forest Service in authorizing a mining plan of operations. With these reclamation 

measures, the risk of chronic surface erosion is low. Table 12 defines the risk categories and 

situations where they occur in the project area.

Table 12. Erosion potential on steep slopes - risk categories and defined areas

Risk Category Acres Defined areas of Risk Category

1

(Lower risk) 15

Slopes are moderately steep (45 to 65 percent), at risk are 

Resurrection Creek and/or the restoration corridor.

Slopes are very steep (65 to 75 percent), resources are not at risk.

2

(Moderate Risk) 18

Slopes are very steep (65 to 75 percent), at risk are Resurrection 

Creek and the restoration corridor.

Slopes are extreme (greater than 75 percent), resources are not at 

risk.

3

(Highest Risk) 5

Slopes are extremely steep (greater than 75 percent), at risk are 

Resurrection Creek, the restoration corridor, and adjacent private 

lands.

Category 1 and 2 slopes have a moderate risk of mass wasting (landslides) after mining activities 

have been completed. Landslides would likely be small and there would be few resources at risk; 

chances of a landslide reaching the main stem of Resurrection Creek would be low. 

The area with the highest risk (category 3) is located in mining area 16a. The Forest Service soil 

scientist discussed this potential risk with Hope Mining Company during a field trip on August 6, 

2012. After reviewing the area and discussing potential risks, Hope Mining Company agreed to 

remove the steep slope within area 16a from their proposed mining operation. This change is 

reflected in both alternative 2 and 3 maps and acreage figures for proposed mining. Hope Mining 

Company also agreed to the soil scientist’s recommendations for reclamation of steep slopes as 

described in mitigation measure 27 (page 46). The proposed road at the top of the terrace where

the proposed mining area narrows between the private land boundary and the top edge of the 

slope is of further concern for the stability of this slope. Hope Mining Company agreed to reduce 

76 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

the proposed road width from 14 feet to 8 to 10 feet wide and place gates at either end to 

minimize use of road and reduce the potential for erosion of the adjacent steep slope.

A proposed road along the top of the terrace in area 20 just north of camp 1 also poses concerns 

for stability of the nearby steep slope. The soils are deep, unconsolidated sands and gravels prone 

to eroding when bare of vegetation. The road would be situated on a narrow strip (56 feet at the 

narrowest) between the very steep (60 percent) slope and Resurrection Creek Road. The road 

would cross a small, deep drainage that initiates at a culvert on Resurrection Creek Road. There is 

a risk that the new culvert on the proposed mining road could plug or fail which would divert and 

concentrate flow from the existing Resurrection Creek Road and the new road segment, 

potentially overloading the very steep slope below. Vegetation clearing widths are assumed wider 

than the road bed itself. In building the road all the vegetation between Resurrection Creek road 

and the steep slope break would be removed. Roots of vegetation hold soil particles in place, 

process water, and are critical for slope stability (Zeimer 1981). Soils could easily become 

saturated and overload the steep slope and cause a landslide or slump into the restored floodplain, 

potentially compromising Resurrection Creek Road and damaging any restored stream segments. 

This road poses a very high risk to existing road infrastructure and restoration work.

Effects from Restoration Activities

The expected impacts and restoration potential of the 74 acre corridor is based on observation and 

experience from the Resurrection Creek Phase I project located one mile upstream. The Phase I 

project area currently has varying degrees of soil and vegetative recovery. None of the Phase I 

restored area is as productive as undisturbed areas but it is more productive than if restoration had 

not occurred. It will take many years, possibly decades, to approach soil productivity and function

that was at site prior to disturbance.

Approximately 56.6 acres of historically mined lands are within the restoration corridor and they 

have an estimated detrimental soil disturbance rate of 50 percent, and about 32.3 of these acres 

are within existing approved mining areas. There are about 2.5 miles of road, and 5.9 acres of 

mining operation areas that will be restored within and adjacent to the 74 acre restoration 

corridor, resulting in the repair of about 40.2 acres of detrimental soil conditions (table 13). Soils 

within the restored corridor are expected to be more productive than the unrestored area as a 

result of the following:

• the restoration of floodplain processes on previously mined areas,

• obliteration and rehabilitation of roads, ditches, and ponds

• spreading topsoil over coarse substrate (gravel and cobble) resulting from historic mining

• regrading existing tailings piles

Most of these 74 acres have been disturbed and partially restored through passive processes since 

the time historic mining was abandoned, or reclaimed after mining over the past three decades. 

About one third (27 acres) of this area may be redisturbed during channel reconstruction. 

Restoration activities are expected to reduce detrimental disturbance from the existing 40.2 acres 

down to 2.2 acres; resulting in about 3 percent of the 74 acres still in a detrimental disturbed state

(due to flooding and compaction). There will be about 0.6 acres of road left in the restoration 

corridor, bringing the total detrimental soil disturbance acreage up to 2.8 acres.

Chugach National Forest 77
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Table 13. Alternative 2 – existing detrimental soil disturbance in the restoration corridor

Restored Existing Mining Acres Estimated 

Disturbance Rate

Acres Detrimentally 

Disturbed that will be 

restored

Existing Approved Mining Areasa 32.3 50% 16.2

Historical Mining Areasa 24.3 50% 12.2

Roads 6.0 100% 6.0

Ponds and Ditches 5.9 100% 5.9

Totals 68.5b 40.2b

a - Does not include any infrastructure

b - Rounding error

Indirect Effects to the Soil Resource from Restoration Activities

About one third of the restoration corridor (25 acres) may need topsoil replacement. An estimated 

minimum of 13,444 cubic yards of topsoil would be necessary to cover to a depth of four inches 

the 25 acres to be restored. An area of soil extraction proportional to the amount of topsoil 

necessary to meet the revegetation objectives is expected to be available onsite. Excavated topsoil 

from mining operations will be used for restoration through cooperation with Hope Mining 

Company and their lessees. Excavation of topsoil from mining areas would not increase the 

detrimental soil disturbance to the mining area beyond what will occur with mining activities as 

long as enough top soil remains to adequately reclaim the mining area (4 inches depth, or more, 

spread over the area). If there is not enough soil available in the mining areas for restoration 

work, it will have to be purchased from a commercial source. 

Total Disturbance from Proposed Restoration and Mining Activities

Total disturbance from mining and infrastructure development is about 77.5 acres (74.6 acres 

from mining activities and 2.8 acres from restoration activities) or about 22 percent of the 348

acre mining and restoration activity areas. Following mining and after the required mitigation and 

reclamation of all proposed mining infrastructure, this drops to about 57.6 acres (55.1 acres from 

mining activities and 2.8 acres from restoration activities) or about 17 percent of the 348 acre 

mining and restoration activity areas.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have short- and long-term benefits to soil, vegetation, and riparian function 

in the Resurrection Creek valley bottom by adding more flood-prone area in the valley bottom

and directly replacing soils. Historic mining related impacts would be reduced, such as the valley 

bottom and floodplain disconnection from the channel. This soil and vegetation benefit would be 

enhanced over time by the deposition of sediments and organics on the floodplain during flood 

events.

Prior to any mining reclamation occurring, detrimental disturbance is about 119 acres or about 29 

percent of the project area (table 14). When restoration activities are coupled with reclamation 

activities the overall disturbance is about 83 acres or about 20 percent of the 418-acre project 

area. This level of detrimental soil disturbance exceeds the 15 percent threshold and would be 

considered a significant effect to soil productivity.

78 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 14. Alternative 2 - cumulative detrimental soil disturbance 

Activity Acres of 

Activity

Acres detrimental 

disturbance (prior to

mining reclamation)

Acres detrimental 

disturbance (after 

mining reclamation)

Mining Roads and 

trails 22.9 22.9 5.7

Camps 5.3 5.3 1.3

Ponds 18.4 18.4 4.6

Ditches 1.3 1.3 0.3

Past and Present 

Mining disturbance 295 68.5 68.5

Restoration 

Disturbance 74 2.8 2.8

Totals -- 119.2 83.3

Percent of project area 28.5% 19.9%

Compliance or conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 2 and its mitigation measures meet the forestwide standards for soils in the Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-22 and 3-23) through 

implementing Best Management Practices specified in the Soil and Water Conservation 

Handbook (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 2006, FSH 2509.22), conducting a landslide 

risk analysis on steep slopes for situations prescribed by the Forest Plan, and evaluating soil 

stability and potential soil mass wasting. The high risk of slope failure resulting from the 

construction of the proposed road along the top of the terrace in area 20 north of camp 1 does not 

meet the management intent under management area prescription 521 – Minerals Management 

Area where the desired condition states, “Mining activities are carried out so that any long-term 

adverse effects on other resources are minimized, and all resource protection requirements are 

met” (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 4-84).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 2 is consistent with regulatory framework for the soil resources because even though 

the detrimental soil disturbance is greater than the 15 percent threshold, this standard is applicable 

to renewable resources per the National Forest Management Act and does not apply to mining 

activities. Alternative 2 is consistent with the Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 473

to 475) because the restoration work, mitigation measures for minimizing detrimental soil 

disturbance, and prescribed reclamation practices will help improve and protect forest lands.

Alternative 3 - Proposed Mining Only

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects of Mining Activities 

The effects from mining are similar to those discussed in alternative 2. Table 15 shows the 

estimated acres of detrimentally disturbed soils for each of the mining activities. The figures are 

based on the assumption that new mining areas would be promptly reclaimed but that new 

infrastructure would continue to be used for an extended period of time. For the duration that 

proposed infrastructure are being utilized and not reclaimed, the estimated rate of detrimental soil 

Chugach National Forest 79
Resurrection Creek Phase II

disturbance would be about 74.6 acres of the entire 285 acre mining activity area. This translates 

to about 26.1 percent of the mining activity area.

This analysis assumes that mined areas that started with topsoil will have topsoil stockpiled and 

then respread once mining activities have been completed. This is absolutely critical to 

maintaining soil productivity. By reclaiming just the roads and infrastructure, the acres of 

detrimental soil disturbance drops to about 58.0 acres, or about 20.3 percent of the mining activity 

area.

To minimize long-term impacts to the soil resource, reclamation activities noted above are 

recommended to maintain soil productivity. Since mining activities may continue at varying 

levels over a period of years, the rate of detrimental disturbance at any one time will be between 

20.3 and 26.1 percent of the mining activity areas. 

Table 15. Alternative 3 - Detrimental soil disturbance from mining activities

With mining infrastructure 

remaining in use

With reclamation of mining 

area and infrastructure

Activity Acres

Estimated 

Disturbance 

Rate

Acres 

Detrimentally 

Disturbed

Estimated 

Disturbance 

Rate

Acres 

Detrimentally 

Disturbed

Mechanical mining on 

gentle slopes 119.7a 8% 9.6 8% 9.6

Mechanical mining on 

gentle slopes of 

historically mined areas

54.3 50% 27.1 50% 27.1

Mechanical mining on 

steep slopes 78.7 20% 15.7 20% 15.7

Road

 New Mining Road 6.5 (2.7

miles) 100% 6.5c 25% 1.6c

New Mining 

infrastructure

 Camps 1.7 100% 1.7 25% 0.4

 Ponds 13.1 100% 13.1 25% 3.3

 Ditches 0.9 100% 0.9 25% 0.2

Total Acres 274.8b 74.8c 58.0c

a - This number is based on a GIS layer, (located within the Soils Resources Report, appendix E)

b - Smaller than the 285 proposed mining acres by the existing roads, ditches, and ponds.

c - Rounding Error

Effects to soils from mining on steep slopes

The effects of mechanical mining on steep slopes are similar to those discussed above in 

alternative 2. There are about 78.7 acres of mechanical mining on slopes greater than 35 percent

in alternative 3 compared to 78.0 acres in alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects 

Total disturbance from existing and proposed mining and infrastructure development is about 

152.4 acres of detrimental soil disturbance or about 37 percent of the 418 acre project area. 

80 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Following mining and after the required mitigation and reclamation of all proposed mining 

infrastructure, the detrimental soil disturbance drops to about 110.9 acres or about 27 percent of 

the activity area (table 16) This level of detrimental soil disturbance exceeds the 15 percent 

threshold and would be considered a significant effect to soil productivity. 

Table 16. Alternative 3 - Cumulative detrimental soil disturbance 

Activity Acres of 

Activity

Acres detrimental 

disturbance (prior to

mining reclamation)

Acres detrimental 

disturbance (after mining 

reclamation)

Mining Roads and 

trails 24.4 24.4 6.1

Camps 5.4 5.4 1.4

Ponds 23.9 23.9 6.0

Ditches 1.6 1.6 0.4

Mining disturbance 364.2 97.1 97.1

Totals -- 152.4 110.9a

Percent of project area 36.5 % 26.5 %

a - Rounding error

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 3 is in compliance with the Forest Plan for the same reasons as alternative 2.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework 

Alternative 3 is consistent with regulatory framework for the same reasons as alternative 2. 

Noise

Affected Environment

Noise levels or energy are often measured in decibels (dB). Decibels are units of sound pressure 

reported on a logarithmic scale (similar to the measurement of earthquake intensity on the Richter 

scale) (Engineering Tool Box 2009a, 2009b). Each 10 dB increment is a ten-fold increase in 

sound pressure. A sound level of 10 dB is therefore 10 times the acoustic energy as 0 dB, 20 dB is 

100 times the acoustic energy as 0 dB, and 30 dB is 1,000 times the acoustic energy of 0 dB 

(Ludwig 1996). By definition, 1 dB is the smallest change in volume the human ear can detect 

(U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 2009). 

While the Environmental Protection Agency does not regulate noise, it has established guidelines 

for protecting human health as it may be affected by noise. Environmental Protection Agency

suggests that noises greater than 55 dB will interfere with outdoor activities and cause annoyance, 

and noises greater than 70 dB will result in hearing disruption. Noises greater than 90 dB may 

result in hearing loss, long before actual pain is experienced as noise approaches levels in excess 

of 120 dB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1974). The Environmental Protection Agency

places as much emphasis on duration of noise levels, or total noise exposure, as on peak levels. 

Understanding the implications of existing noise outputs as reported by decibel is best understood 

when compared with common activities and their representative noise levels (table 17). 

Chugach National Forest 81
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Table 17. Decibel ranges and representative noise levels of common noises

Decibel (dB) 

Ranges Representative Noise Levels

101 -121+

(125 dB – Pain 

beginsb

)

140 dB – Small caliber rifle (at 3 feet)

a

126 dB – Jet take-off (at 200 feet)

c

117 dB – Chainsaw (at 3 feet)

d

112 dB – Hammering on a steel plate (at 2 feet)

c

107 dB – Power mowerb,d

71-100

(90-95 dB –

Level at which 

sustained 

exposure may 

result in hearing 

loss2

)

100 dB – Diesel truck (at 30 feet)

d

100 dB – Jackhammer (at 7 feet)

e

90 dB – Food blender (at 3 feet)

d,e

80 dB – Automobile (at 25 feet)

d

75 dB – Loud singing (at 3 feet)

d

31-70

70 dB – Busy traffic (at 16 feet)

e

60 dB – Normal conversationd

52 dB – Average day-night sound level for wooded residentialf

39 dB – Average day-night sound level for rural residentialf

35 dB – Average day-night sound level for wilderness ambientf

32 dB – Very soft musicc

21-30 30 dB – Theater, no talkinge

25 dB – Quiet auditoriumc

0-20

20 dB – Whisperinge

18 dB –Quiet whisper (at 5 inches)

f

10 dB – Leaves rustlingc

10 dB – Human breathinge

0 dB – Threshold of hearingc,d,e

Sources:

a - Carol (2007)

b - Ludwidg (1996)

c - Cambridge Street Publishing (1999)

d - Martin (1929) and Stevens (1957)

e - Engineering Tool Box (2009a, 2009b)

f - EDAW Inc. (2009)

It is important to consider that a person’s perception of “noise” may differ from that of “sound,” 

and that simple decibel measurement alone is likely insufficient to describe what is acceptable 

and unacceptable to individual people. It may depend upon the setting where the noise is 

experienced as well as the volume. According to the Federal Highway Administration, “sound” 

(considered as a neutral concept) may become “noise” (considered as a negative concept) when it 

is too loud, unexpected, and uncontrollable, occurs unexpectedly or has pure tone components.

Research into the effect of noise has largely been centered on flight paths of commercial aircraft 

and impacts to private residences and business areas. In regard to recreational users, the majority 

of studies have focused on backcountry settings and have been limited to aircraft and helicopter 

flights within congressionally designated wilderness areas and national parks. While these results 

may be limited to the effects of aircraft and helicopters it is not beyond reason that comparable 

noise sources might yield similar reactions on the part of recreation users and private landowners 

to the noise generated by mining and restoration activities.

Gramann (1999) points out that the National Park Service does not rely principally on acoustical 

approaches to assessing noise impacts, largely because there are no widely used noise exposure 

standards. Accordingly, much discussion of the effects of noise is based on psycho-acoustical 

82 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

survey and experimental approaches that focus on human perceptions and preferences rather than 

on strict decibel measurement. One of the major points of the author is that ambient noise (that is 

noise resulting from the forces of nature) is generally not regarded as objectionable to recreational 

users (and to some extent they are viewed as restorative). Further, the presence of objectionable 

noise may tend to reduce one’s perception of the aesthetic quality of an area. 

People’s expectation of noise clearly appears to be a key determinant in the perception and 

acceptability of noise impacts. Unexpected noise, or noise types and levels not viewed as 

consistent with a specific setting, is likely to be considered more undesirable than similar but 

expected noise outputs.

Existing Ambient Noise 

As shown in table 17, wooded residential areas, such as those adjacent to the project area, have 

ambient (or environmental background) noise levels. General forested areas and “wilderness” 

areas are estimated to have ambient noise levels in the range of 35 to 45 dB (EDAW Inc. 2009; 

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a).

On September 25, 2009 and October 1, 2009, Forest Service personnel recorded decibel levels at 

five sites in and around the project area. The ambient noise levels on the streambank of 

Resurrection Creek near the Resurrection Pass North Trailhead exceeded 60 dB. At several other 

sites further away from the existing mining areas, the ambient noise levels averaged between 35 

and 40 dB. Ambient noise levels in and around the project area would vary somewhat throughout 

the day and year given the vegetative cover, river noise, insects and wildlife, and other normal 

climatic conditions (flowing water of the river, wind, rain and occasional thunder). In addition, 

other human caused ambient noise includes vehicle traffic on Resurrection Creek road, aircraft 

fly-over, and recreational user-generated activity noise ranging from snow machines in the winter 

to a simple conversation from a group of hikers. 

Existing Mining Noise Levels

The intensity of mining and noise generated within and around the project area has varied greatly 

over the years since 1896, ranging from no mining activity to large-scale heavy equipment 

operations. Under the existing plan of operations, 97 acres of mining with 10 mining camps 

totaling 3.6 acres to support activities are currently approved. During the mining period of the 

months of March through October, the following activities create various levels of noise: clearing 

of ground vegetation, excavation of tailings, washing gravels with a wash plant, material 

stockpiling, diesel water pumps and power generation.

In response to public concerns about noise, decibel readings were taken in September and 

October 2009 to document the level of existing noise at the following sites (figure 8):

1. 400 feet away from the active mining equipment

2. “Bench” site on Resurrection Creek Road 0.2 mile south and east of the mining operations

3. Resurrection Pass North Trailhead

4. Resurrection Creek road at the National Forest boundary near private residences 0.8 miles 

from the active mining

5. Resurrection Creek Road and Palmer Creek Road intersection 2.9 miles south of the active 

mining.

Chugach National Forest 83
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Figure 8. Decibel level reading locations

During the September 2009 readings, active mining operations were ongoing in area 5 including 

use of one excavator, a diesel water pump, and wash plant with sluice. Decibel readings taken 400 

feet away from the equipment averaged 64 to 68 dB. One spike of 80 dB occurred when a sixwheel ATV passed the decibel reader. Decibel readings taken at the “Bench” site on Resurrection 

Creek road 0.2 mile south and east of the mining operations averaged 55 to 60 dB with one spike 

of 68 dB. The dominant noise recorded at this site was mining equipment. Decibel readings taken 

at the Resurrection Pass North Trailhead ranged from 57 to 62 dB. However, Resurrection Creek 

(cascading water) was the only discernible sound that could be heard. The equipment noise at the 

84 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

project site could not be heard. Decibel readings taken on Resurrection Creek road at the forest 

boundary near private residences 0.8 miles from the active mining averaged from 35 to 40 dB 

with a spike of 60 dB when two motor vehicles passed by. Equipment noise from mining 

operations could not be heard at the time of the recording; however it was also raining during this 

time and may have been masked by white noise. Decibel readings taken at the Resurrection Creek 

Road and Palmer Creek Road intersection 2.9 miles south of the active mining ranged from 35 to 

40 dB, and no mechanical noise was detected.

On October 1, 2009 decibel readings were repeated at four out of five sites during active mining.

Decibel readings were not taken at the “bench” site on Resurrection Creek Road 0.2 miles from 

active mining. One excavator, a diesel water pump and a wash plant were all operating at this 

time. Readings were taken approximately 200 feet away from the operating equipment with 

decibel levels averaged 67 to 72 dB with one recorded spike of 79 dB. Measurements taken at the 

Resurrection Pass North Trailhead ranged from 55 to 60 dB and were the result of the noise 

generated by Resurrection Creek flowing water, and mining equipment noise could not be heard. 

Decibel readings taken on Resurrection Creek Road at the forest boundary near private residences 

0.8 miles from the active mining averaged 53 dB, however this time mining equipment noise 

could be heard. Measurements taken at the intersection of Palmer Creek Road and Resurrection 

Creek Road averaged 51 dB with no mining equipment noise detected. Table 18 summarizes the 

recorded decibel levels within and near the project area. 

Table 18. Decibel readings in and around the project area

Primary Audible 

Noise Source

Evaluation Sites (average decibel range recorded) 

Site 1

Active 

Mining Site

Site 2

Road Above 

and 

Adjacent to 

Project Area

Site 3

Resurrection 

Pass North 

Trailhead

Site 4

Forest 

Boundary 

near Private 

Land (North)

Site 5 

Intersection 

of Palmer 

Creek Road 

and

Resurrection 

Creek Road

Ambient Environment --- --- --- 35-40a 35-51

Resurrection Creek --- --- 55-60 --- ---

Existing Mining 

Activity 65-72 55-60 --- 53b ---

Source: Decibel readings in the project area (September – October 2009).

a - September 29, 2009 reading

b - October 1, 2009 reading

Based on the data collected above, mining equipment produced noise levels averaging 65 to 72 

dB with infrequent spikes of 72 and 80 dB. Mining equipment noise may be detectable to over 

one mile from the active mining site with decibel levels potentially reaching 50 to 55 dB at that 

distance.

Environmental Consequences – Noise

Two groups of people may be affected by noise generated from this project; nearby private land 

owners and recreating visitors. Per the Kenai Peninsula Borough parcel map, there are 98 parcels 

of private property within one mile of the project areas (Kenai Peninsula Borough 2009). Eleven 

parcels are directly adjacent to proposed mining areas and five of these parcels have at least one 

structure. Recreating visitors who may be affected include those people who are using 

Chugach National Forest 85
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail and those who are camping along Resurrection Creek 

upstream from the trailhead.

Issues

No issues regarding noise were identified.

Private landowners expressed concerns about potential noise levels generated by mining 

activities. Comments were submitted suggesting the Forest Service require hours of operations, 

exchange adjacent proposed mining areas with areas farther from private land, create vegetative 

buffers, or deny approval of some or all mining activities next to private lands. Under the General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, Hope Mining Company has the right to access minerals on their 

claims, including those adjacent to private lands. The Forest Service does not have the authority 

to implement an alternative or require mitigation measures (such as vegetative buffers, hours of 

operation, and denial of approval of mining areas) that denies access to the mineral estate, 

therefore no alternatives or mitigation measures were considered to address the concerns of noise 

impacts on private land owners. While these concerns are critical in understanding the effects of 

the alternatives, the concern about noise is not considered an issue as defined by the National 

Environmental Policy Act.

Measurement Indicators

The effects of noise from proposed activities on private landowners and recreation users are

described in expected level (decibel), proximity, and duration.

Methodology

The effects analysis includes use of the onsite noise measurements of mining activities and 

ambient sounds at various locations within and adjacent to the project area and review of 

literature documenting research into the effects of various levels, durations, and impacts of noise 

on humans. The following key points have particular relevance for the analyzing effects of noise:

• True noise measurement can be complex and there are a number of subtle differences in 

reported noise measurement metrics.

• Noise associated with multiple activities is likely to add only incrementally to the noise level 

of the loudest single activity.

• Based on literature and data collected in the project area, it is not unreasonable to assume that 

peak ambient natural or “white” noise levels at the Resurrection Creek project site may be as 

high as 62 dB (EDAW Inc. 2009).

• The levels of noise disturbance of both mining and restoration activities are similar. 

• It is assumed that mining activities and the associated noise impacts would occur in 

alternative 1 for the next 15 years and alternatives 2 and 3 for the next 20 years.

The geographic bounds for direct and indirect effects are within 1 mile surrounding the project 

area. The geographic bounds for cumulative effects are on the watershed scale. 

The temporal scale for short- and long-term effects is 1 to 4, and 5 to 20 years respectively, for 

the operating season of March through October annually. These time frames were chosen to 

reflect the potential duration of project activities within each alternative.

86 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 1 –Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Noise from Mining Activities

Under alternative 1, the noise generated from mechanical mining operations is the same as 

described in the existing condition. The direct short- and long-term effects are that the decibel 

levels generated by mining equipment are expected to produce noise levels in the range of 65 to 

80 dB within the immediate area of active mining sites. This level of noise generated in 

remaining mining areas would potentially impact all of the eleven private residences however 

would vary by the intensity and scale of mining activities. It is uncertain what the duration of this 

maximum noise disturbance might be due to uncertainty on numbers and types of lessees and 

capabilities of equipment that will be onsite mining under the existing authorized mining plans of 

operations. In addition, scale of operations varies with mining operator equipment, their 

production, and volume of placer gravel to process. Noise in mining areas farther away but within 

one mile of the private land may be audible with decibel levels reaching 50 to 55 dB. Even with 

lower decibels, audible mining activities may still impact private land owners. These impacts 

would be experienced March through October each year for the duration of the existing approved 

plans of operations.

Recreation visitors at the Resurrection Pass North Trailhead would potentially be directly affected 

by mining noise only when mechanical mining is occurring at the extreme southern end of the 

project area (area 9 and 12). Recreation visitors camping along Resurrection Creek south of the 

project area may hear mining noise only when mechanical mining is occurring at the extreme 

southern end of the project area. Due to their close proximity to Resurrection Creek, most of the 

mining noise may be masked by the ambient sound of the creek.

Noise from Restoration Activities

Under alternative 1, restoration activities would not occur.

Cumulative Effects

Other sources of noise at the site besides the mining operations include running water from 

Resurrection Creek, vehicle traffic and human activity associated with fishing, recreational 

suction dredging, or hiking. These sources of noise do not constitute much of a cumulative effect 

above that generated by mining and restoration activities; mining and restoration activity noise 

would likely simply mask other noises rather than detectably add to those noise levels. The noise 

of Resurrection Creek would likely mask the majority of mining and other noises near the 

Resurrection Pass North Trailhead. 

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The Forest Plan does not specifically address noise resulting from restoration or mining activities.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

There are no Federal laws regarding noise produced from mining. However the Environmental 

Protection Agency has established guidelines for protecting human health as it may be affected by 

noise. The Environmental Protection Agency suggests that noise greater than 55 dB will interfere 

with outdoor activities and cause annoyance and noise greater than 70 dB will result in hearing 

disruption.

Chugach National Forest 87
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Noise from Mining Activities

Under alternative 2, the noise generated from mechanical mining operations is expected to be 

similar to the noise generated from mechanical mining operations described in the existing 

conditions and alternative 1. In alternative 2, proposed mining areas are located immediately 

adjacent to private parcels of land therefore noise would be generated in closer proximity than in 

existing conditions or alternative 1. The proposed mining areas are larger in size therefore the 

duration of mining would be increased from an estimated 15 years for alternative 1 to a 20 year 

time period for alternative 2.

Mechanical mining operations could occur in various mining areas across the project area during 

the course of any one season. Mining equipment is expected to produce noise levels in the range 

of 65 to 80 dB within the immediate area of active mining sites. This level of noise generated in 

mining areas 15a, 16a and 21 would potentially impact all of the eleven private parcels due to 

their close proximity. While mining is occurring in these three areas, private residents could 

expect maximum noise disturbance including sounds from heavy machinery moving rocks and 

gravel, excavators dumping loads of rock into wash plants, generators and water pumps, and 

machinery back up alarms. It is uncertain what the duration of this maximum noise disturbance

might be as the length of time operations would occur in each of the three areas varies with 

mining operator equipment, their production, and volume of placer gravel to process. Noise in 

mining areas farther away but within 1 mile of the private land may be audible with decibel levels 

reaching 50 to 55 dB. Even with lower decibels, audible mining activities may still impact private 

land owners. These impacts would be experienced March through October each year for the 

duration of the approved plans of operations (assumed to be 20 years for alternative 2). 

Recreation visitors at the Resurrection Pass North Trailhead would potentially be directly affected 

by mining noise only when mechanical mining is occurring at the extreme southern end of the 

project area in areas 8, 9, 12 and 22. The majority of mining proposed under alternative 2 (within 

the middle and northern sections of the project area) is not expected to affect recreational users at 

the trailhead due to the masking effect of the high level of ambient noise of Resurrection Creek

which measured 55 to 60dB when directly adjacent to the creek at the Resurrection Pass 

Trailhead (table 18, page 85). Recreation visitors camping along Resurrection Creek south of the 

project area may hear mining noise only when mechanical mining is occurring at the extreme 

southern end of the project area. Due to the campers close proximity to Resurrection Creek, most 

of the mining noise may be masked by the ambient sound of the creek.

Noise from Restoration Activities

Under alternative 2, restoration activities could be occurring simultaneously with mining 

operations during the period of May 15 to July 15 for up to four years (or a total of four years 

spread over a longer period if restoration is done in phases). Noise levels generated by restoration 

equipment would be identical in nature and level to that of mining operations and are expected to 

mask each other rather than detectably add or increase noise levels. Restoration activities would 

be spread out over a greater area and would likely involve more equipment. During restoration 

there would potentially be up to 10 machines (dump trucks, excavators, front-end loaders, dozers) 

and other equipment (chain saws, service trucks and personnel carriers) operating at the peak of 

restoration. Therefore in the short term (one to four years during the May 15 to July 15 restoration 

88 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

operating season), restoration equipment would generate the majority of noise throughout the 

project area and potentially mask noise from mining equipment.

The restoration equipment noise is likely to impact private landowners near the project area from

May 15 through July 15 in the short term. Typical equipment, such as a large dozer (D9) or an 

excavator, moving large rocks, cobble and gravel would likely produce decibel readings of 65 to 

80 dB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1995). Restoration equipment noise would likely 

be detectable to over one mile from the project area with decibel levels potentially reaching 50 to 

55 dB at that distance. The northern half of the restoration corridor ranges from 400 feet to 1⁄2 

mile from the nearest private lands therefore noise from restoration activities is likely to be 

audible and potentially impacting.

Recreation visitors using Resurrection Pass North Trailhead and camping along Resurrection 

Creek would potentially be directly affected by restoration noise only when machines are 

operating at the extreme southern end of the project area. The majority of restoration in the 

southern section of the project area is estimated to be completed in two to four weeks with 

impacts to any recreational visitors limited to that time period. The remainder of restoration 

proposed under this alternative (within the middle and northern sections of the project area) is not 

expected to affect recreational visitors at the trailhead due to the masking effect of the high level 

of ambient noise of Resurrection Creek (55 to 60 dB directly adjacent to the Resurrection Pass 

North Trailhead).

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of the proposed action and all other activities occurring in the Hope area 

on noise would be minimal. Other sources of noise at the site besides the mining and restoration 

operations include Resurrection Creek water sounds, vehicle traffic and human activity associated 

with fishing, recreational suction dredging, or hiking. These sources of noise do not constitute 

much of a cumulative effect above that generated by mining and restoration activities; mining and 

restoration activity noise would likely simply mask other noises rather than detectably add to 

those noise levels. The noise of Resurrection Creek would likely mask the majority of restoration, 

mining, and other noises near the Resurrection Pass North Trailhead. 

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The Forest Plan does not specifically address noise resulting from restoration or mining activities.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

There are no Federal laws regarding noise produced from mining. However the Environmental 

Protection Agency has established guidelines for protecting human health as it may be affected by 

noise. The Environmental Protection Agency suggests that noise greater than 55 dB will interfere 

with outdoor activities and cause annoyance and noise greater than 70 dB will result in hearing 

disruption.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Noise from Mining Activities

Mechanical mining operations and noise generated from mining are expected to be the same as 

described in alternative 2. The rate of mining and duration of mining activities in alternative 3 is 

expected to be approximately the same as alternative 2. With no restoration activities, mining 

Chugach National Forest 89
Resurrection Creek Phase II

would be the only source of noise but overall noise impacts to privately landowners and 

recreation visitors would be comparable to levels described in alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of alternative 3 are the same as alternative 2.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The Forest Plan does not specifically address noise resulting from restoration or mining activities.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

There are no Federal laws regarding noise produced from mining. However the Environmental 

Protection Agency has established guidelines for protecting human health as it may be affected by 

noise. The Environmental Protection Agency suggests that noise greater than 55 dB will interfere 

with outdoor activities and cause annoyance and noise greater than 70 dB will result in hearing 

disruption.

Aquatic Resources and Hydrology

Affected Environment

Resurrection Creek Watershed

The Resurrection Creek watershed covers 161 square miles (103,230 acres) and drains into 

Turnagain Arm of Cook Inlet. Resurrection Creek drains to the south through a large, glacially 

formed, U-shaped valley. Steep valley sides lead to elevations up to about 5,000 feet, with the 

majority of the watershed at elevations between 1,000 and 4,000 feet. The project area lies at 

elevations of about 190 to 350 feet, located about 2 to 4 miles from the mouth of Resurrection 

Creek near the town of Hope (figure 9).

Figure 9. Oblique aerial photo of Resurrection Creek Valley (south view)

90 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Deposition of alluvial gravels in the watershed occurred during glacial recession, when it is likely 

that the lower valley floor was a glacial outwash plain. Following glacial retreat, Resurrection 

Creek carried much smaller sediment loads, allowing it to cut down 50 to 100 feet over much of 

its length into the alluvial gravels and in some areas bedrock. As a result, high terraces are seen 

on both sides of the Resurrection Creek valley. Where only alluvial gravels exist, Resurrection 

Creek developed a wide floodplain between the high terraces. Where the down cutting stream 

encountered resistant bedrock, V-shaped canyons were cut, with very little floodplain. 

Resurrection Creek flows through three short bedrock canyons on the lower 8 miles of 

Resurrection Creek. The lower canyon is located just downstream of the project area, and the 

middle canyon is located just upstream of the Phase I restoration project.

Hydrology

The U.S. Geological Survey collected 18 years of flow data on Resurrection Creek at a gauging 

station near the northern end of the project area. Data were collected between 1968 and 1986 

(U.S. Geological Survey 2007).

Peak flows on Resurrection Creek are typically generated by summer snowmelt. Snowmelt runoff 

generally starts in early May, with peak flows averaging about 800 cubic feet per second in mid to 

late June (figure 10). Large peak flow events can occur during summer warm spells as well as 

during heavy fall rainstorms that create short duration, high water events lasting 1 to 3 days. 

Winter flows from December through April are generally less than 200 cubic feet per second 

(cfs), as snowpack covers most of the watershed. The bankfull discharge is estimated to be about 

980 cubic feet per second.

The peak flow of record on Resurrection Creek was 3,380 cubic feet per second on July 12, 1980. 

This corresponds to about a 25-year flood event. The estimated 10-year flood event would be 

approximately 2,480 cubic feet per second, and the 100-year flood event is approximately 4,780 

cubic feet per second (Curran et al. 2003). The lowest recorded flow on Resurrection Creek was 

38 cubic feet per second in early April, 1985.

Chugach National Forest 91
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Figure 10. Resurrection Creek hydrograph, 1968 to 1986 (U.S. Geological Survey 2007)

Water Quality

The Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for the State of Alaska does not 

list any streams within the Resurrection Creek watershed (Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation 2012). All of the waters in the watershed, including those within the project area, 

are meeting water quality standards as defined by Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation Water Quality Standards 18 AAC 70; dated April 8, 2012 for designated beneficial 

uses. For Resurrection Creek, beneficial uses include water supply for drinking, culinary, and 

food processing as well as growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life.

Sediment loads and turbidity generally increase during high flows, as finer particles become 

suspended. The sources of sediment naturally delivered to the stream include landslides or bank 

erosion, or sediment from disturbance related to activities such as mining, road construction, bank 

trampling, or channel alterations. Natural turbidities on Resurrection Creek vary depending on 

flow levels; generally from 0 NTU during low flow and up to 10 NTU on moderate and higher 

flows.

Historic placer mining operations used elemental mercury for separating fine gold particles from 

the collected concentrate captured in the sluice box. Mercury bonds with gold, forming a gold and 

mercury amalgam that can be readily captured. Gold was separated from mercury through a 

distilling process and the resulting mercury vapor was cooled and condensed back to liquid 

mercury that could be reused. Some Alaskan miners in the early 1900s were known to pour 

mercury directly into their sluice riffles during the sluicing process. Invariably some mercury was 

lost or spilled and is likely to have settled through alluvial gravels and collected at impermeable 

bedrock or clay layers.

92 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Mercury is highly toxic, particularly when in a methyl-mercury compound. In order to exist in 

water, mercury must be attached to organic or inorganic particles suspended in the water, as 

elemental mercury is insoluble in water. Mercury can pose a threat to the survival of fish eggs and 

younger life phases, as they are more susceptible to mercury toxicity. 

The Forest Service conducted a series of mercury studies in the Phase I project area (MacFarlane 

2004a; MacFarlane 2004b) prior to implementation. A similar study was conducted on both the 

restored area and the proposed project area in 2008 (MacFarlane and Olegario 2008) and found 

low levels of mercury within resident fish, sediment, and water in Resurrection Creek. Mercury 

levels in fish captured in off-channel habitats were slightly higher than those caught in the main 

channel and the reference site, suggesting that a small amount of mercury may be present in these 

areas, but all fish tissue sampled remained below the thresholds for human consumption set by 

the Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury levels in water in Resurrection Creek were well 

below the Alaska State water quality standards (Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation 2012). Mercury levels in sediment samples were low, and similar to published 

results from unmined streams in the Cook Inlet area. Modern mining practices employed by Hope 

Mining Company do not include the use of mercury or other harmful chemicals that were used in 

the historic mining practices.

Groundwater

Numerous springs are found throughout the watershed, most commonly along lower portions of 

the valley side slope, below long slopes. Groundwater on the side slopes trickles through the soil 

layers and the fractured bedrock below, and emerges lower on the slopes. The greywacke and 

shale bedrock geology of this area is not porous enough to create significant aquifers. Alluvial 

gravels within the Resurrection Creek valley floor are porous and can contain a sizeable aquifer. 

The depth of the alluvial gravels is limited in some places by clay layers and bedrock near the 

surface. Most homes in Hope use wells, which tap into this aquifer, for their water source and 

approximately 100 wells exist in the Hope community area. 

The project area falls within the Zone E Drinking Water Protection Area for a Transient 

Noncommunity public water system. A public water system located downstream of the project 

area uses one active well which has been determined to be using groundwater under the direct 

influence of surface water from Resurrection Creek. In order to protect the water quality, Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation has identified a Zone E Drinking Water Protection 

Area which encompasses a 1,000 foot buffer on each side of Resurrection Creek and all 

tributaries. Prior to any authorizing management activities in source watersheds for public water 

systems, the Forest Service must consult with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

and the water system owner/operator.

Channel Structure

Resurrection Creek, in its natural state and prior to historic mining, was a low gradient floodplain 

channel through most of the project area as classified using the Tongass National Forest channel 

classification system (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 1992a). Features typical of this 

channel type are low gradient (slope less than 2 percent), sinuous or meandering in shape, with 

wide floodplains. These types of channels will act as a depositional reach, although high flows 

will mobilize sediment. Large woody debris is important for the maintenance of channel form and 

habitat, and the channels are sensitive to sediment inputs from the watershed or bank erosion. 

Riparian and floodplain protection is important for the off-channel features such as side channels, 

alcoves and beaver ponds that provide critical rearing habitat for Chinook and coho during peak 

flow events and winter months.

Chugach National Forest 93
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Resurrection Creek valley floor area ranges from 400 to 1,100 feet wide throughout most of the 

project area. The lower half-mile of the project area is partially confined by bedrock in the 

canyon, with valley floor widths ranging from 70 to 450 feet and a slightly steeper gradient.

Portions of Resurrection Creek and its tributaries have been mined for gold using various 

techniques since 1896. The majority of impacts to the stream channels and riparian areas in the 

project area arose from historic hydraulic placer mining, which occurred mostly in the first four

decades of the 1900s. Miners during this period physically relocated the lower six miles of 

Resurrection Creek multiple times to accommodate mining activities, and in many places the 

channel does not lie within its original location. Tailings generated from hydraulic mining rise as 

high as 20 feet and occupy the majority of the alluvial valley floor within the project area (figure 

11).

Figure 11. Historic tailings piles along Resurrection Creek 

Throughout the project area, the channel of Resurrection Creek is now confined by historic mine 

tailings along the edges of both banks, confining the available floodplain to a very narrow 

corridor. Because high flows are not able to spread out onto the floodplain, flood flows are 

confined to the channel, causing increased shear stress, increased bank erosion, and limited 

distribution of sediment and nutrients onto the floodplain.

Sinuosity is a measure of the channel length divided by the valley length. Historic hydraulic 

mining and relocation of the Resurrection Creek channel over the last 100 years has resulted in a 

very straight stream channel with a low sinuosity of 1.1. There are sections of the project area 

where the channel is naturally straight. Sinuosity in the reference site upstream on Resurrection 

Creek is 1.7 (Bair et al. 2002). The lack of meanders results in a straight channel with little 

complexity. 

The majority of the bed of Resurrection Creek consists of substrate such as gravel-sized material,

cobble, and numerous boulders. These boulders are evidence of past glacial activity.

The existing channel has a relatively high channel gradient (slope), as compared to the reference 

site and premining conditions. The steeper channel slope results in increased stream velocity and 

increased shear along the bed and banks. These high velocity flows can transport larger material 

and have caused an increase in substrate size. The channel gradient averages 1.5 percent, which is 

higher than the 1.2 percent slope measured at the reference site of Resurrection Creek. The 

average valley slope of the project area is 1.7 percent.

94 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Riparian Areas and Wetlands

Much of the riparian area along the Resurrection Creek project area has been disturbed by past 

mining activities; the vegetation growing on the banks and streamside tailings piles consists of 

early seral hardwoods. In a survey conducted in 2002, it was estimated that approximately 86 

percent of all riparian trees in the Resurrection Creek disturbed reach (in which the project area 

was included), were less than 15 centimeters in diameter (Bair et al. 2002). It is assumed this 

figure has slightly improved due to growth since then but is strongly representative of the current 

situation in the project area. Riparian vegetation has little species or age class diversity.

From geographic information system analysis, it was estimated that approximately 19 acres of 

mapped wetlands exist within the Resurrection Creek project area. These wetlands are located in 

the Resurrection Creek channel within the proposed restoration corridor. Although settling ponds 

associated with Hope Mining Company operations exist within the project area, these ponds are 

not considered jurisdictional wetlands and are not under the regulatory authority of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Hope Mining Company has the approval from previous plans of operations 

to construct and move these ponds for mining purposes on the valley floor within the project area. 

The floodplain area outside of the main channel has been altered to the point where wetland 

hydrology, soils, and vegetation are not present.

Aquatic Habitat

Over 95 percent of the project area consists of riffle habitat, and the area has little complexity in 

habitat features. Small pools exist downstream of several large boulders that were placed in the 

channel in the past as habitat enhancement features. Small pools have formed on the complex 

meander bend near area 17. A small pool also exists in the channel constriction where a new 

channel was blasted through bedrock 500 feet upstream of the entrance to the canyon. Spawning 

gravel typically exists at the ends of pools in this channel type. Because of the limited pools in the 

project area, spawning gravel is very limited (estimated to be less than 8 percent of what is found 

in the reference reach)(Bair et al. 2002), with the majority of the channel substrate containing 

cobble sized material that is too large for effective spawning habitat. Other habitat features such 

as point bars and scour pools typical of a meandering channel are also very limited.

The project area presently contains little off-channel habitat, such as side channels and overwinter 

rearing ponds, that is accessible to fish. Bair et al. (2002) estimated that the disturbed reach, 

which contains the project area, has only 4 percent of side channels compared to the surveyed 

Resurrection Creek reference reach and provides approximately 1 percent of the perennial flow.

Although much of the valley floor is covered by settling ponds used for modern mining 

operations, these ponds are purposely separated from the main channel by tailings piles and 

berms and allow no access for aquatic species. Beaver dams exist on many of the settling pond 

outlets throughout the valley floor. In comparison with the upstream reference site, the project 

area is a simplified channel with limited high flow refugia and limited rearing habitat suitable for 

fish.

Large woody debris is important for hydrologic function and fish habitat in this type of channel

and has important roles in trapping and slowing sediment movement, creating a diverse range of 

habitats, and forming pools and cover. The physical effects large woody debris has on streams 

includes increasing the stability of stream banks and channels, storage of sediment, dissipation of 

stream energy, and alteration of channel flows (Bryant 1983; Everest and Meehan 1981; Harmon 

et al. 1986). Recruitment of large wood from the banks is limited because of the lack of large 

trees in the riparian areas due to historic and modern mining; resulting historic tailings piles along 

the banks limit the growth of cottonwoods. It is estimated that less than 12 pieces of large woody 

Chugach National Forest 95
Resurrection Creek Phase II

debris per mile are currently present in the project area (Bair et al. 2002). This is estimated to be 

approximately 5 percent of what was found in the reference reach surveyed upstream of the 

project area in 2002.

Aquatic Species

Both anadromous and resident fish utilize Resurrection Creek. Five species of anadromous 

salmonids are present in Resurrection Creek, including pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum 

(O. keta), coho (O. kisutch), Chinook (O. tshawytscha) and sockeye salmon (O. nerka). Pink 

salmon are the most abundant species with runs estimated at 20,000 to 35,000 returning adults in 

even-numbered years. Chum salmon are much less numerous, with about 1,000 to 2,000 adults 

returning yearly. Annual coho peak counts in Resurrection Creek range from 100 to 500 returning 

adults. Chinook counts range from less than 50 to 500 returning adults. Sockeye, which usually 

are restricted to systems with lakes, are rare and likely strays from other watersheds that, unlike 

the Resurrection watershed, contain lakes.

The presence of Chinook is of particular note, as this species is not widely distributed across the 

Kenai Peninsula and where it does occur, the number of adults has been in steep decline in recent 

years. The Chinook population in Resurrection Creek is very important to the conservation of this 

species across the region.

Resident fish include Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 

whitefish (Prosopium sp.), sculpin (Cottidae spp.), and stickleback (Gasterosteidae spp.). There is 

no population information for resident species within the Resurrection Creek watershed. The 

lower six river miles of Resurrection Creek have been identified as critical habitat for spawning 

and rearing habitat for coho, chum, pink and Chinook salmon (Hart Crowser, Inc. 2002). 

The response of fish to the Phase I Resurrection Creek Stream Restoration Project conducted in 

2005 and 2006 has been very positive. All five species of Pacific salmon have been observed in 

the restored channel and side channels, with nearly 70 Chinook, over 4,000 pink, 175 coho, and 

nearly 100 chum spawning in this reach following restoration in 2006 (figure 12).

Figure 12. Pink salmon in a phase I restored side channel (2006)

96 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Listed, Proposed and Candidate Aquatic Species

No Federal or State listed, proposed or candidate aquatic species are located in the project area or 

vicinity.

Environmental Consequences – Aquatic Resources and Hydrology

Issues 

Increased turbidity and sedimentation from the proposed mining and restoration activities 

resulting in lower water quality is an issue identified by the public and Forest Services specialists.

Disturbance and transport of fine sediment in Resurrection Creek is the primary cause of turbidity 

and the primary water quality parameter affected by this project.

Measurement Indicators

Water Quality

The indicator to compare the effects on water quality is the level of turbidity. Turbidity can be 

measured in the field using a turbidimeter. A turbidimeter measures the transmission of light 

through a sample of water and reports a turbidity value in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).

The measurement will estimate what increase, if any, in NTUs would occur above background by 

alternative, duration of this occurrence and how many times this would occur.

The State of Alaska standard for turbidity, when it pertains to the growth and propagation of fish, 

shellfish, or other aquatic life is that turbidity may not exceed 25 NTUs above natural conditions

(Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2012). The analysis will evaluate what 

activities, proposed by alternative, will exceed this standard.

State water quality standards for drinking water only pertain to those water systems where the 

intake comes directly from surface water. Resurrection Creek does not provide drinking water 

from surface water intake. Therefore, turbidity standards as they pertain to drinking water 

obtained from a groundwater well are not applicable (Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation 2012). 

Channel Structure

Indicators to compare the effects of each alternative on channel structure include:

• channel gradient (slope) measured in percent

• channel sinuosity (channel length divided by the valley length)

• the ratio of floodplain width to channel width

• number of pools per mile of channel

Aquatic Habitat

Indicators to compare effects of each alternative on aquatic habitat include:

• area of spawning habitat

• pieces of large woody debris (LWD) per mile

• length of off-channel habitat

Chugach National Forest 97
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Aquatic Species

Indicators to compare the effects of each alternative on aquatic species include:

• level of direct and indirect mortality of fish

• direct mortality of aquatic macroinvertebrates

Methodology

Turbidity would be measured during project implementation using a turbidimeter. Turbidity

measured during channel diversions in the Phase I Resurrection Creek Stream Restoration Project

(MacFarlane 2005) were used to estimate the magnitude and duration for turbidity pulses 

anticipated for this project. The proposed project would presumably create similar turbidity levels 

as the Phase I project. The effects of high turbidities on fish were determined through literature 

review.

The effects of the project on channel structure, aquatic habitat, and aquatic species were

determined based on conceptual and desired restoration design parameters (Bair et al. 2002) and 

monitoring data from the Phase I project (MacFarlane et al. 2009). Methodologies are established 

to measure channel morphology and habitat parameters (Harrelson et al. 1994; USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region 2001; Rosgen 2006). The final design of the stream restoration would be 

similar to the design of the Phase I restoration project. The effects of mining activities on aquatic 

resources and hydrology are determined through prerestoration analysis (Bair et al. 2002) and 

past field visits to active mining areas.

The scale of analysis for direct and indirect effects of this project is the project area and all 

downstream reaches of Resurrection Creek and for cumulative effects; the analysis scale is the 

Resurrection Creek watershed. The temporal scale of the effects of the project on turbidities and 

aquatic populations is short term, defined as the length of the project and the duration of a salmon 

life cycle (5 years). The temporal scale of the effects of the project on channel structure and 

aquatic habitat is both short term (1 to 5 years) and long term (5 to 50 years). Fifty years is the 

minimum time frame anticipated to reestablish the riparian forest and provide large woody debris 

to the stream channel.

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Water Quality

The existing approved mining activity is governed by the Hope Mining Company Plan of 

Operations dated January 14, 1999. Operational requirements defined in this document provide 

the framework for protecting water quality. Turbidity levels in Resurrection Creek would not 

likely increase above state water quality standards and other water quality parameters would not 

be negatively impacted as a result of activities within the existing approved mining areas because 

of implementation of the following requirements within the 1999 plan of operations:

• Hope Mining Company will monitor water quality to ensure that water quality standards 

(Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2012) are met.

• All fuel will be properly stored.

• Sanitation facilities will be located at least 100 feet from any stream.

98 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

• Settling pond systems would be used to capture all sediment created during the mining 

process. Any outflow from the settling pond systems would continue to be required to meet 

State of Alaska water quality standards.

• Top soil will be placed so that it will not be rehandled or exposed to an excess of wind and 

water erosion.

• Hope Mining Company will take steps necessary at the close of each operating season to 

assure that sediment movement associated with surface runoff over the area is minimized. If 

necessary, this could be done with snow fences, chemical binders, and mulching.

• Revegetation will be carried out in a manner which encourages rapid stabilization of the soil 

surface with respect to erosion and recovery of productivity levels comparable to which the 

land supported prior to mining.

• An undisturbed natural 20-foot wide vegetation buffer will be maintained along the main 

channel of Resurrection Creek and side channels to provide streamside shading, cover, and a 

source of large organic debris.

These requirements have been in place for approximately 15 years and water quality, as deemed 

by the State of Alaska, has met standards designated for beneficial uses for Resurrection Creek 

during this time (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2012). Water quality 

standards would continue to be met under alternative 1.

It is recognized that there will be localized effects to water quality over the course of various 

mining operations. Equipment crossings will produce small pulses of turbidity each time 

equipment crosses the stream. These pulses would be short in duration (less than 30 minutes) and 

would not likely cause turbidity to exceed the state water quality standard of 25 NTU for the 

growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic species.

A potential impact to water quality is the proximity of mining infrastructure to the creek; a 20-

foot wide vegetative buffer separates the creek from some of the settling ponds and ditches 

currently. The closer these features exist in relation to the creek, the higher the potential risk of

Resurrection Creek eroding or overtop the banks, particularly in storm events, and capturing the 

sediment laden settling pond and ditch systems.

Channel Structure

The Resurrection Creek channel would remain in its present impaired condition, with low 

sinuosity (1.1), high channel gradient (1.5 percent), inadequate spawning gravel (160 m2

), few 

pools (approximately 5 pools per mile), low channel complexity, and few functional floodplain 

areas (entrenchment ratio of 1:1) (Bair et al. 2002). The 20-foot wide vegetated buffer along 

Resurrection Creek would continue to be limited in its functionality as a riparian zone to provide 

large wood and habitat complexity to the stream channel. Recovery of the channel to a more 

natural condition would not likely occur within the next 100 years. These channel structure

characteristics would continue to limit and negatively impact fish habitat and fish production.

Some historic tailings piles may be selectively pulled back and mined from the banks within the 

20-foot buffer along Resurrection Creek. This would incrementally help return some of the banks 

to a natural bank height and recover some of the floodplain that was impaired by these historic 

tailings piles, improving channel function.

Chugach National Forest 99
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Aquatic Habitat

Aquatic habitat conditions in Resurrection Creek would remain similar to existing conditions.

The lack of large woody debris (less than 12 pieces per mile) within the project area would 

continue to inhibit juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, suitable spawning sites, and habitat 

diversity. The quantity of large woody debris would potentially decrease because of limited 

recruitment of new trees, limited riparian areas, and the ability of the straight, simplified channel 

to flush existing large woody debris downstream. Off-channel habitat, which is estimated to 

produce less than 1 percent perennial side channel flow for salmonid rearing, would continue to 

be very limited in the project area, with few side channels or backwater areas. Pool frequency

(about 5 pools per mile) and quality would also continue to be limited in the project area and 

would continue to have direct and indirect negative effects on the production of adult and juvenile 

salmon and char.

Aquatic Species

Direct mortality to aquatic species would not be expected to occur. Mining would be limited to 

the 97 acres currently approved and there would not be any channel relocation. In addition 

equipment crossings would be limited to existing fords and there would be a very low risk of 

direct mortality of fish because of the limited crossings with the existing lower levels of mining 

activity. 

Indirect mortality of aquatic species is also not expected because turbidity levels in Resurrection 

Creek are not expected to increase. Alternative 1 would result in no benefit to aquatic species

because fish habitat within Resurrection Creek in the project area would remain limited into the 

future

Essential Fish Habitat

Resurrection Creek drains into the Turnagain Arm of Cook Inlet and salmon (Chinook, coho, pink 

and chum) are part of the commercial catch along the Kenai Peninsula. The essential fish habitat 

for these species extends up Resurrection Creek to long-standing natural barriers (river mile 31). 

The term "essential fish habitat" means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, 

breeding, feeding or growth to maturity (U.S. Department of Commerce 2014), and encompasses 

the water quality, channel structure, aquatic habitat, and aquatic species sections discussed above. 

Section 305 (b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires 

each federal agency to consult with the Secretary of Commerce regarding all actions or proposed 

actions authorized, funded or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect essential fish 

habitat. This consultation is documented in appendix C for alternatives 2 and 3. For alternative 1, 

essential fish habitat would not be affected because no alterations of the fish habitat would occur. 

There would also be no long-term improvements to essential fish habitat.

Wetlands

The location of the Resurrection Creek stream channel would not be changed or altered under 

alternative 1. The existing approved 97 acres does not allow for channel alteration under 

alternative 1. Therefore, the estimated 19 acres of wetlands associated with the project area would 

not be changed unless a significant flood event unrelated to mining reshapes the channel. 

As was disclosed in the affected environment discussion, no jurisdictional wetlands, as 

determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, exist within the floodplain area outside of the 

stream channel, due to the alteration that has occurred from past mining. The settling ponds 

constructed by Hope Mining Company can be decommissioned and moved to approved locations 

without concurrence from the Corps; therefore, these ponds are not considered wetlands. 

100 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Cumulative Effects

Other activities occurring in the Resurrection Creek watershed are concentrated primarily along 

the lower several miles of Resurrection Creek and adjacent to the town of Hope and these 

activities cover less than 10 percent of the watershed. Mining operations in the watershed other 

than those authorized for Hope Mining Company are small-scale operations, and State water 

regulations limit the amount of sediments that may enter Resurrection Creek. Fuel reduction 

projects in the watershed have shown to produce very limited surface disturbance or erosion, and 

are not located adjacent to the riparian corridor, and would not be expected to create additional 

stream sedimentation into Resurrection Creek.

The Resurrection Creek Road and the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail are known to 

produce very limited sedimentation or surface erosion. Proposed developments on private lands 

adjacent to and downstream of the project area are not expected to produce sedimentation into 

Resurrection Creek, as they are not located adjacent to the riparian corridor.

The combined effects of existing mining activities in the project area and other mining activities 

in the area are unlikely to exceed state water quality standards.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The existing activities are consistent with the forestwide guideline for fish, water, and riparian 

areas as stated in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-

23 and 3-24) and are consistent with management area intent under management area 

prescriptions, Minerals Management Area (521) and Forest Restoration Management Area (314)

(page 4-84 through 87 and 4-68 through 72). Alternative 1 does not meet forestwide objectives of 

restoring riparian habitat and near stream vegetation where it has been determined that the 

stream’s proper functioning condition is outside the historic range of variability (USDA Forest 

Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-2). Alternative 1 does not meet the desired 

condition of restoring productivity to degraded fish habitat in Resurrection Creek (USDA Forest 

Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-15).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Examination of the State of Alaska 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment 

report indicates that no streams in the Resurrection Creek watershed have been listed as water 

quality impaired. The existing mining activities comply with the state anti-degradation policy 

(Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2012) to prevent deterioration of water 

bodies that currently meet state water quality standards. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Water Quality

Stream channel restoration activities would create a number of short-term increases in turbidity 

and suspended sediment loads in Resurrection Creek. In the restoration corridor, each new

channel segment would be fully constructed prior to diverting creek water into the new segment

(referred to as constructing “in the dry”) which minimizes the amount of sedimentation created. 

Using berms of material to quickly divert the flow into the newly constructed channel segment 

also minimizes the duration of the turbidity plumes. Directly downstream of the diversion site, 

suspended sediment and turbidity would increase considerably in Resurrection Creek as the flow 

picks up loose particles, dirt, silt, and clay when the flow is redirected to the newly constructed 

Chugach National Forest 101
Resurrection Creek Phase II

channel segment. These short-term plumes of fine-grained sediment produced during 

approximately 6 to 10 individual stream channel diversions of Resurrection Creek into newly 

created channel segments would occur over a period of 2 to 4 years during the implementation.

The turbidity plumes would occur during the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s instream 

construction window (May 15 to July 15), minimizing the effects of sediment on emerging and 

spawning salmon. This construction window corresponds to a period of naturally elevated 

turbidity which occurs during snowmelt runoff and when impacts to fish from increased turbidity 

are the lowest. 

Based on observations and turbidity monitoring during the Resurrection Creek Phase I 

Restoration Project in 2005 (MacFarlane 2005), turbidity levels immediately downstream of the 

diversion site are likely to exceed 300 NTU for up to 30 minutes during each channel diversion, 

returning quickly to normal levels. Turbidity levels decrease with distance from the diversion site 

as particles settle out of suspension. The highest turbidities would occur within 1 mile 

downstream of the diversion site, but moderate turbidity levels (up to 150 NTU) would be 

expected after each diversion for up to 1 hour all the way to the mouth of Resurrection Creek.

Each stream channel diversion would create a turbidity plume that would temporarily exceed the 

state water quality standard (25 NTU above background conditions) for the growth and 

propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life (Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation 2012).

Smaller, more frequent pulses of turbidity would also occur during other instream restoration 

activities. These include modifications of the channel cross-section (shaping the banks), logjam 

construction, side channel construction, filling the replaced channel segments, equipment

crossings, and bridge construction. Groundwater seepage into the newly constructed channels is 

likely to also cause increased turbidity as a result of equipment use in wet conditions. These 

turbidity pulses would quickly decrease to background levels shortly after equipment use ceases

(within 30 minutes). Up to 10 small pulses of turbidity per day (if equipment is working in the 

channel) of up to 150 NTU may occur up to 1 mile below the work site with reductions to below 

25 NTU further downstream toward the mouth of Resurrection Creek.

Stream channel design for restoration would incorporate measures to minimize the risk of 

dynamic changes where the valley floor is narrowest, such as between the proposed areas 21 and 

26 and where the restoration corridor is only 200 feet wide and where settling ponds, ditches, and 

roads would be located within 70 feet of the Resurrection Creek channel. Monitoring measure 5

(page 50) was developed to verify the new creek channel remains stable after implementation.

Construction of access roads, floodplain construction, and spreading of soil on the floodplains, 

have the potential to cause small increases in turbidity in Resurrection Creek and are not likely to 

cause turbidity that exceeds the State water quality standards for the propagation of fish, shellfish, 

other aquatic life (less than 25 NTU). Mitigation measure 1 (page 39) would require the

appropriate mechanisms to limit erosion from these sites. 

Some of the stream banks along the project area are high, actively eroding historic tailings piles 

that cause small, localized increases in sedimentation and turbidity. The proposed restoration 

would improve long-term water quality conditions by redistributing these historic tailings piles 

and creating stable stream banks that are not likely to have persistent erosion issues. In the long

term, these banks would also be stabilized by healthy riparian vegetation.

Channel and floodplain restoration would require the redistribution of historic tailings piles, 

increasing the potential for the release of mercury into the environment. The potential that any 

102 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

large concentrations of mercury would be found is low (MacFarlane and Olegario 2008). If 

elemental mercury is disturbed during restoration or mining activities, mitigation measure 28

(page 46) requires immediate attention and cleanup procedures which would minimize its spread

into the environment. If released, mercury would likely settle deeper into the sediment and would 

not likely be carried downstream.

The mining activities under alternative 2 would occur outside of the restoration corridor.

Although substantial ground disturbance would occur as a result of mining (274 acres), turbidity 

levels in Resurrection Creek would not increase as a result of normal mining operations because 

settling pond systems would be used to capture all sediment created during the mining process

(mitigation measure 25; page 45) and reclamation practices on steep slopes (mitigation measure 

27, page 46). Any outflow from the settling pond systems would be required to meet state water 

quality standards. Of the limited mining activities that would be authorized within the restoration 

corridor, the equipment fords would have the potential to create small turbidity increases.

However these pulses would create turbidity of less than 25 NTU, be very short in duration, and 

not cause turbidity to exceed the State water quality standards. The banks and channel at the 

equipment ford areas would be hardened using larger substrate in order to minimize any water 

quality impacts (mitigation measures 2 and 5; pages 39 to 40).

Fuel and oil spills and drips from mining equipment operating adjacent to Resurrection Creek 

could also potentially impact water quality however; the potential for these water quality impacts 

would be minimal under alternative 2and would meet state water quality standards (Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation 2012) because of the implementation of mitigation 

measures 7 and 26 (pages 41 and 4646), following the Forest Service Best Management Practices

(USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 2006; USDA Forest Service 2012) and the greater 

separation between mining activities and the creek.

The restoration and mining activities will not have an effect on the public water system in Hope 

that is influenced by surface water because the intake for the public water system is a 

groundwater well that is over 1,000 feet from the Resurrection Creek channel. Turbid waters do 

not have the ability to seep into the groundwater and impact the water supply intake.

The Forest Service has consulted with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the 

public water system owner on the proposed activities. No comments have been received from the 

public water system owner and consultation with Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation noted that the project will likely improve the quality of water contributing to this 

public water system in the future. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation also noted 

that the project activities may prompt additional treatment or monitoring requirements for the 

public water system, and this is at the discretion of the public water system owner or the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation drinking water program compliance specialist for this 

public water system. Similar projects have been completed in the watershed (Resurrection Creek 

Phase I) and no water quality impacts were reported from the public water system. Best 

management practices (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 2006; USDA Forest Service 2012) 

will be followed consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and the Alaska Department of

Environmental Conservation water quality standards (Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation 2012) to protect overall water quality.

Mining activities are not anticipated to affect the ground water within the project area. Water table 

elevations would only be compromised if water was taken out of the Resurrection Creek system 

through out of basin diversions or if enough impervious surfaces were constructed to cause runoff 

to not soak back into the ground and replenish groundwater resources. Mining activities would 

Chugach National Forest 103
Resurrection Creek Phase II

use surface water from small streams from the adjacent slopes and then let that water infiltrate

back into the ground through use of settling ponds to be constructed outside the restoration 

corridor. A majority of the water used for mining will soak back into the ground, thereby 

protecting the integrity of the groundwater in the area.

Reviews of several of the existing wells that are located on the bluff above Resurrection Creek 

indicate that they are approximately 55 feet above Resurrection Creek stream channel. Review of 

the logs for these wells indicates that the static elevation is 101 feet for one of the wells and 75 

feet for the other; both being at least 20 feet or more below the elevation of the Resurrection 

Creek stream channel. The location of the wells in addition to the fact that no water will be 

removed from the Resurrection Creek system are the two indicators that water table integrity 

would not be compromised by future mining and road building activity and water quality would 

be protected. 

No adverse effect to water quality from sanitation or wastewater collection sites is anticipated.

The minimum separation distance between the mean annual high water level of a lake, river, 

stream, spring, or slough, or the mean high water level of coastal waters, and a designated 

wastewater collection system is 100 feet, measured horizontally as required by state regulations

(Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2012) (mitigation measure 8; page 41).

Channel Structure

Under alternative 2, Resurrection Creek would be reconstructed into a meandering pool and riffle 

channel, increasing the main channel length by about 2,640 feet (about 23 percent), decreasing 

the average channel gradient (slope) from 1.5 percent to about 1.3 percent, and increasing the 

channel sinuosity from 1.1 to about 1.3. Pool frequency would be increased from less than 5 

pools per mile to about 20 pools per mile. Historic tailings piles would be redistributed creating

wide floodplains, increasing the average flood-prone width to bank-full width ratios from 1:1 to 

at least 4:1. These floodplains would allow normal flood waters to flow onto the historic 

floodplain. About 8,500 feet of new side channels and 4.3 acres of new off-channel Chinook and 

coho salmon rearing ponds would be constructed in the floodplain to provide additional channel 

function and habitat.

Reconstruction of this section of Resurrection Creek within the restoration corridor would restore 

the natural hydrologic function of the stream channel in the short term and would continue to 

improve over the long term. Restoration would provide a stable, yet semi-dynamic channel 

system modeled after an undisturbed reference site. Recontoured floodplains would allow flood 

flows to deliver nutrients to riparian areas, decrease peak flow magnitudes by temporarily storing 

water on the floodplain, and increase channel stability by reducing shear stresses on the channel 

bed and banks which would allow for the growth of healthy riparian vegetation, further benefiting

ecologic and hydrologic function. A riparian buffer zone of one channel width, where feasible, on 

each side of Resurrection Creek would protect the stream channel from activities occurring 

outside of the restoration corridor. The increased sinuosity and decreased channel gradient would 

decrease flow velocities, reduce shear stresses, allow for stable pool and riffle structure, and 

increase channel complexity. The pool and riffle sequences would allow for natural sorting of 

gravels and cobbles, improving channel function and habitat. 

The proposed mining would have slight to no effect on channel structure as the majority of the 

mining activities would occur outside of the restoration corridor. The two proposed and two 

existing equipment fords across Resurrection Creek and the associated roads through the 

restoration corridor would have a minimal impact the riparian area during the active mining 

104 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

period. Mitigation measures 1, 2, 4, and 5 (pages 39 and 40) would reduce effects from these

activities. Reduced riparian vegetation and bank armoring in these localized areas would produce 

bank erosion on an estimated 120 feet of the approximately 23,000 total feet of bank within the 

project area, approximately 0.5 percent of the entire area. This amount of disturbance is

considered within the natural range of disturbance for the system.

Aquatic Habitat

The proposed restoration would improve aquatic habitat in Resurrection Creek and within the 

restoration corridor. Approximately 3,600 square yards of new spawning areas would be 

constructed in the lower gradient areas of the channel, and the designed channel morphology 

would allow for natural sorting and retention of spawning gravels in these areas. This large 

increase in available spawning gravel would dramatically increase Chinook, coho, pink, and 

potentially chum salmon utilization and production within the project area. Also, Dolly Varden 

and sculpin would benefit from the increase in prey base.

The number of pools would increase from less than 5 pools per mile to about 20 pools per mile. 

The increase in primary pools would directly and indirectly benefit all species and life stages of 

fish by providing low water velocity resting habitat, and bubble curtains and depths that provide 

hiding cover from predators. However, Chinook and coho in particular will benefit the most from 

this type of habitat because unlike pink and chum, juvenile Chinook and coho do not migrate to 

the ocean after hatching, but rather spend an additional 1 to 3 years in freshwater before they are 

ready for their marine migration. Pool habitat is particularly important for juveniles of these two 

species to survive the winter period. The increase in pool habitat would also indirectly increase 

foraging efficiency for juvenile and resident life stages of fish.

Approximately 2,000 trees, including the root wads, would be incorporated into the restored 

channel as constructed logjams, instream structures, and to provide floodplain roughness. 

Instream large woody debris would increase from about 12 pieces per mile to over 300 pieces per 

mile. Benefits to adult and juvenile salmonids from the addition of large woody debris include 

increased channel complexity, increased cover, increased pool depths, and retention of fish 

carcasses and other organics. Salmon carcasses can contribute 20 to 30 percent of the available 

nitrogen and phosphorus in a particular stream system (Bilby et al. 1993). The marine-derived 

nutrients associated with salmon carcass decomposition are known to play a major role in the 

productivity of aquatic and riparian systems in anadromous watersheds in the Pacific Northwest 

(Cedarholm et al. 2000). The addition of large woody debris and the increased retention of these 

nutrients would benefit all levels of the ecosystem, from stream microorganisms and benthic 

macroinvertebrates to top level predators.

The proposed stream restoration would in the short and long term indirectly benefit both juvenile 

and adult salmonids by creating large lateral pools for rearing and resting during migrations and 

overwintering. In the long term, salmonids would also benefit from restored and self-maintained 

levels of channel complexity. Large woody debris would provide roughness elements that would 

help regulate bed load movement of the stream channel and fine sediment deposition on the 

floodplain. Log complexes would also assist in the regulation of water velocity and volume 

within side channels.

Approximately 8,500 feet of side channels would be constructed and designed to carry 5 to 20

percent of the flow of Resurrection Creek. The creation of side channels, side channel pond 

complexes, and other off-channel habitat areas would increase the amount of high flow refugia 

for a variety of species. These areas would provide the greatest benefits to juvenile coho salmon, 

Chugach National Forest 105
Resurrection Creek Phase II

although other species such as Dolly Varden and Chinook salmon would also benefit directly and 

indirectly from the increase in off-channel habitat.

The proposed mining in alternative 2would have little effect on aquatic habitat, as most mining 

activities would occur outside of the restoration corridor. The two proposed and two existing 

equipment fords across Resurrection Creek would impede habitat along the banks at these sites by 

limiting vegetation growth and the development of vegetated overhanging banks that provide 

cover and habitat. This would impact less than 0.1 acres of stream channel, approximately 0.5 

percent of the stream channel within the project area. The widened and armored bed of the 

channel at the equipment fords would also limit spawning habitat at these sites.

Aquatic Species

Direct mortality of individual fish may occur during the proposed stream restoration as a result of 

heavy equipment crossing the stream, excavation of the streambed, and channel diversions. The 

impacts to fish would be minimized because pink, chum, coho, and Chinook salmon, resident 

Dolly Varden char, mountain whitefish, and sculpin are all outside of their susceptible early life 

stages (egg to fry) during the May 15 to July 15 instream construction window.

Indirect fish mortality may also occur as a result of increased turbidity. High turbidities have been 

shown to cause gill abrasion and reduce the feeding ability of salmonids and could kill juvenile 

coho and Chinook salmon, resident Dolly Varden char, and sculpin within and downstream of the 

project area (Sigler 1980; Sigler et al. 1984; Lloyd 1987). Many studies have shown that fish can 

tolerate sediment exposure for short periods (McLeay et al. 1987). When exposure duration is 

considered as well as concentration, a duration time exposure limit appears to apply to most fish.

Salmonids have a harder time feeding when turbidities reach 30 NTU or above and show signs of 

physical stress at 230 NTU and greater. Mortality has been documented during prolonged 

exposure to high levels of turbidity (greater than 200 NTU for 96 hours) (Newcombe and 

MacDonald 1991).

Turbidity was monitored during Resurrection Creek Phase I Restoration Project in 2005 

(MacFarlane 2005). Turbidity levels immediately downstream of the diversion exceeded 300 

NTU for up to 30 minutes during each channel diversion, returning quickly (within an hour) to 

normal levels. The creek channel diversions in this project should be similar in effects to the 

Phase I restoration work. Adverse effects to fish would be short term, occurring during channel 

construction activities. Due to the short duration of turbidity pulses (1 hour) and work occurring 

within the Alaska Department of Fish and Game instream work window, the impact to the overall 

populations is expected to be very small and limited to resident fish and juvenile Chinook and 

coho salmon within and downstream of the project area. The instream restoration work would 

occur after fry emergence from gravels and smolts have immigrated to the ocean. Direct impacts 

within the project area would be limited to age 0 and over 1 year old Chinook and coho salmon, 

resident Dolly Varden, and sculpin. Direct and indirect mortality of fish are not expected to occur 

as a result of bridge or road construction.

Because salmon fry will have emerged from stream gravels before any stream diversions are 

initiated, the previous winter’s eggs would not be threatened by sedimentation of the downstream 

spawning gravels. Stream flows and flow velocities generally peak during the instream 

construction window from snowmelt runoff, fine-grained sediments that could potentially deposit 

in salmon redds (nests) are much more likely to stay in suspension. 

106 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Direct mortality of aquatic macroinvertebrates is expected and would be limited to the restored 

segments and approximately 1 mile downstream. Based on research by Novotny and Faler 

(1982), recolonization of aquatic invertebrates from upriver reaches would occur. Gersich and 

Brusven (1981) estimated that full aquatic insect recolonization of rock substrates within 

disturbed areas would take 47 days. 

Essential Fish Habitat

For 1 to 2 years, the project may adversely affect essential fish habitat, therefore formal 

consultation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries has been 

initiated (see appendix C, page 213). The long-term indirect and cumulative effects of

implementing this project would be the restoration of riparian vegetation, increased spawning 

substrate, increased pool habitat, and increased perennial side channel flows and associated 

overwintering habitat, which would improve aquatic habitat quantity and quality for fish 

populations and aquatic invertebrates. Aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate populations are 

expected to respond positively to the stream channel and riparian rehabilitation. Increased 

spawning and rearing habitat are expected to provide a long-term benefit to the aquatic ecosystem

and the fisheries resources for the foreseeable future.

Wetlands

Much of the existing 19 acres of wetlands would be filled and reconstructed in other locations of 

the project area through implementation of alternative 2. Alternative 2 proposes to construct a 

new stream channel as well as side channels and off channel wetlands to replace the current 

stream channel through the project area. 

Conceptual designs estimate that alternative 2 would increase wetland areas in the project area by 

up to 7 acres with higher quality wetlands than currently exist. Wetlands would include the main 

stem of Resurrection Creek, which would be constructed as a meandering and dynamic channel 

through the area as well as side channels and off channel wetlands which do not currently exist. 

Therefore, alternative 2 would be a net benefit to wetland resources in terms of quantity and 

quality over the existing condition discussed in alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects

Small scale suction dredging activity is occurring on mining claims not owned by Hope Mining 

Company along Resurrection Creek to the south of patented claim (about 4 miles upstream from 

the project area). Between the Resurrection Creek trailhead and the patented mining claim is an 

area of Chugach National Forest lands that is acquired lands and withdrawn from mineral entry 

(not available for location of mining claims) and is an area that is used extensively for 

recreational gold recovery by gold panning and suction dredging. These recreational activities are 

small scale, localized, and insignificant in relation to the size of the cumulative effects area of the 

watershed.

Other activities occurring in the watershed are concentrated primarily along the lower several 

miles of Resurrection Creek and adjacent to the town of Hope. These generally include impacts 

from roads, houses, and community infrastructure. The majority of this infrastructure is located 

away from the Resurrection Creek stream channel and riparian corridor and does not affect water 

quality as is evidenced by the fact that the overall water quality of the Resurrection Creek system 

is considered acceptable by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

Vegetation management projects in the area have shown to produce very limited surface 

disturbance or erosion, are not located adjacent to the riparian corridor, and would not be 

Chugach National Forest 107
Resurrection Creek Phase II

expected to create additional stream sedimentation into Resurrection Creek. The Resurrection 

Creek Road and the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail are known to produce very 

limited sedimentation or surface erosion. Proposed developments on private lands adjacent to and 

downstream of the project area are not expected to produce sedimentation into Resurrection 

Creek, as they are located on terraces above the stream channel and not adjacent to the riparian 

corridor.

Alternative 2 would have long-term benefits to the health and function of the riparian corridor,

water quality, aquatic and riparian habitat, aquatic species populations, and the overall function of 

the watershed. With the one mile of restoration completed in the Phase I Resurrection Creek 

Restoration project, and the two miles of restoration that would be completed in alternative 2, 

about 3 miles out of the 4.5 miles of stream channel impaired by historic mining would be 

restored to a naturally functioning condition.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The proposed activities are consistent with the forestwide guideline for fish, water, and riparian 

areas and the general wildlife guideline (which includes fish) for important habitat sensitivity and 

seasonality as stated in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, 

page 3-23 and 3-24, 3-28). The proposed restoration work meet the desired future condition in the 

Forest Plan for fish habitat restoration in Resurrection Creek and all proposed activities are 

consistent with management area intent under management area prescriptions, Minerals 

Management Area (521) and Forest Restoration Management Area (314), (USDA Forest Service,

Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-15, 4-68 through 71, page 4-84 through 87). 

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

No streams listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies are located 

within or downstream of the project area. The proposed action would comply with the state antidegradation policy (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2012) to prevent 

deterioration of water bodies that currently meet state water quality standards. The proposed 

action would result in a number of short-term turbidity pulses which would exceed the State of 

Alaska water quality standards for turbidity (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

2012) during the course of the stream restoration work, but water quality conditions following 

restoration would be equal to or better than the existing conditions. All stream restoration work 

and mining operations would follow all applicable State and Federal permitting requirements, 

including the regulations under the Clean Water Act Section 404 for dredge and fill within 

wetlands and the Clean Water Act Section 401 for compliance with water quality standards.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Water Quality

Substantial ground disturbance would occur as a result of mining but turbidity levels in 

Resurrection Creek would not likely increase as a result of mining activities outside of the stream 

channel because settling pond systems would be used to capture sediment created during the 

mining process (mitigation measure 25, page 45). Mining infrastructure, including stockpiled soil 

areas, reclaimed areas, roads, trails, and camps, would have appropriate mechanisms in place to 

limit erosion and sediment to project area stream channels (mitigation measure 1, page 39). Any 

108 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

outflow from the settling pond systems or other mining infrastructure would be required to meet 

State of Alaska water quality standards before entering back into Resurrection Creek. 

Equipment fords used during mining activities would have the potential to create small pulses of 

turbidity. Mitigation measure 5 (page 40) would ensure that these fords are constructed properly 

to withstand a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. The fords would be constructed over the course of 

30 minutes to an hour. It is anticipated that turbidity effects of approximately 100 NTU would be 

seen 1 mile below the work site with reductions to below 25 NTU further downstream toward the 

mouth of Resurrection Creek. When equipment is moved across the stream at these sites after 

construction, turbidity pulses are expected to last less than 30 minutes in duration and produce no 

more than 25 NTU, which is less than the State of Alaska water quality standard for turbidity for 

the growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic life. The banks and channel at the 

equipment ford areas would be hardened using larger substrate in order to minimize any water 

quality impacts (mitigation measure 5, page 40).

Fuel and oil spills from mining equipment operating adjacent to Resurrection Creek could also 

potentially impact water quality however; the potential for these water quality impacts would be 

minimal under alternative 3 and would meet state water quality standards (Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation 2012) because of the implementation of mitigation measure 26

(page 46) and following the Forest Service Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region 2006; USDA Forest Service 2012). 

A potential impact to water quality is the proximity of mining infrastructure to the creek; a 20-

foot wide vegetative buffer separates the creek from some of the settling ponds and ditches 

currently. The closer these features exist in relation to the creek, the higher the potential risk of 

Resurrection Creek eroding or overtop the banks, particularly in storm events, and capturing the 

sediment laden settling pond/ditch systems. Mitigation measures 1, 3, 4, 19, 25, and 26 (pages 39

through 46) incorporate use of Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region

2006) to minimize the opportunity for water quality impacts due to increased turbidity.

Between 2 and 4 short-term turbidity pulses of greater than 300 NTU would likely occur during 

the relocation of approximately 2,740 feet of Resurrection Creek. Channel restoration design 

features intended to maintain channel stability would not be implemented as they would be in the 

alternative 2. Sediment sources from eroding banks, down cutting, and other channel adjustment 

would continue to cause moderate turbidities of approximately 150 NTU for hours or days after 

each segment of channel is relocated. Any additional adjustments to the relocated channel made 

by Hope Mining Company would cause additional turbidity increases. Measures to stabilize 

banks would include those required in permits from U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (table 1, page 

23). Channel stability would improve slowly, and persistent eroding banks would likely cause 

long-term effects on water quality.

Mining activities will not have an effect on the public water system in Hope. This is because the 

intake for this system is over 1,000 feet from the edge of Resurrection Creek and it is a 

groundwater well which is not impacted by sediment and turbidity. Best management practices 

(USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region 2006 and USDA Forest Service 2012) consistent with the 

Federal Clean Water Act, will be followed to protect the water quality. 

No adverse effects to water quality from sanitation or wastewater collection sites are anticipated. 

The minimum separation distance between the mean annual high water level of a lake, river, 

stream, spring, or slough, or the mean higher high water level of coastal waters, and a designated 

Chugach National Forest 109
Resurrection Creek Phase II

system is 100 feet, measured horizontally (mitigation measure 8, page 41); ensuring protection of

water quality near these facilities.

Channel Structure

The Resurrection Creek channel would remain similar to conditions described in alternative 1 

with low sinuosity (1.1), high gradient (1.5 percent), large streambed substrate, few pools (less 

than 5 per mile), low channel complexity, and few functional floodplains. The 20-foot wide 

vegetated buffer along Resurrection Creek would continue to be limited in its functionality as a 

riparian zone to protect the stream channel. Recovery of the channel to a more natural condition 

would not likely occur within the next 100 years and channel structure characteristics would 

continue to limit and negatively impact fish habitat and fish production. 

Approximately 2,740 feet of channel segments would be relocated and would be similar to the 

existing channel, with low sinuosity, high gradient, large substrate, few pools, low channel 

complexity, and few functional floodplain areas. This new channel segment would likely look and 

function similar to the existing stream channel and its conditions within the project area. The 

potential for dynamic channel changes occurring in this channel segment during high flow events 

is high.

Some historic tailings piles may be selectively pulled back and mined from the banks within the 

20-foot buffer along Resurrection Creek. This would incrementally help return some of the banks 

to a natural bank height and recover some of the floodplain that was impaired by these tailings 

piles, improving channel function (mitigation measure 29, page 47).

Floodplain and riparian condition would continue to be impaired under alternative 3 because 

mining activities would be allowed on the floodplains to within 20 feet of the banks. Floodplains 

generally function to moderate flood flows, and removal of riparian vegetation in these 

floodplains could impact flood dynamics. Fine sediments would be removed from the floodplain 

substrate through the mining process, increasing the ground permeability. Riparian productivity 

would remain greatly impaired in the long term. Implementation of mitigation measures 1, 3, 6, 

15 to 17, and 19 (pages 39 through 44) for reclamation work would help to partially restore 

riparian function, but many decades would be required after mining to reestablish the riparian 

ecosystem along the creek.

Aquatic Habitat

Aquatic habitat conditions would remain similar to existing conditions in the long term; channel 

sinuosity would remain at 1.1, channel slope 1.5 percent, less than five pools per mile, and floodprone width to bankfull width ratios 1:1. The lack of large woody debris would continue to inhibit 

juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, suitable spawning sites, and habitat diversity. The quantity of 

large woody debris would potentially decrease because of limited recruitment of new trees, 

limited riparian areas, and the ability of the straight, simplified channel to flush existing large 

woody debris downstream. Off-channel habitat for salmonid rearing would continue to be very 

limited, with few side channels or backwater areas. Pool frequency and quality would also 

continue to be limited in the project reach and would continue to have direct and indirect negative 

effects on the production of adult and juvenile salmon and Dolly Varden char. 

Aquatic habitat conditions in the channel segments relocated by Hope Mining Company would be 

minimal in the short term. Bank stability would be poor, and riparian vegetation would be limited

because no beneficial habitat features such as pools, logjams, undercut banks, side channels, or 

spawning areas would be incorporated into the new channel. Bank stability and riparian 

110 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

vegetation would likely improve over the long term; the overall stability of the new channel 

segments would be reduced.

Aquatic Species

Under alternative 3, direct mortality to aquatic species would occur as a result of equipment 

crossings and relocation of approximately 2,740 feet of the Resurrection Creek channel. These 

impacts are similar to those described in the effects of alternative 2, but on a smaller scale 

because only about 30 percent of project area would be affected by the channel relocation. Fish 

mortality (adult resident and juvenile salmon) would also occur as a result of individual fish that 

are stranded in the old stream channel segment after relocation of the channel.

Indirect mortality of aquatic species would occur as a result of increased turbidity levels in 

Resurrection Creek resulting from channel relocation, as described in the effects of the proposed 

action. Fewer pulses of turbidity would be created than under the proposed action, and it is likely 

that the magnitude and duration of the turbidity pulses would be greater under alternative 3 

because the new channel would not have natural design features for stability. Therefore, mortality 

from prolonged exposure to higher levels of turbidity (greater than 200 NTU for 96 hours)

(Newcombe and MacDonald 1991) is likely under alternative 3.

Alternative 3 would result in no benefit to aquatic species due to no habitat improvement, flood 

plain creation, and side channel availability. The relocated segments of Resurrection Creek would 

not be restored, just relocated. These segments would be similar to the existing channel in 

character, with limited fish habitat. Fish production in the new segments would not be expected to 

increase as a result of the channel relocation because of no net increase in spawning gravels and 

juvenile rearing areas.

Essential Fish Habitat

In the short term, the project may adversely affect essential fish habitat as a result of the channel 

relocation proposed in alternative 3. Hope Mining Company would be required to consult with 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concerning essential fish habitat prior to 

relocating the channel.

Wetlands

In alternative 3 a small portion of the existing 19 acres of wetlands in the northern part of the 

project area would be filled and moved to accommodate new mining proposed under alternative 

3. Alternative 3 proposes to reconstruct two sections of the Resurrection Creek stream channel 

with a channel that is similar in structure to the current channel. No side or off channel wetlands 

would be constructed under this alternative.

Conceptual designs estimate that alternative 3 would increase wetland areas by up to 2 acres with 

similar quality wetlands that currently exist. Wetlands would only include the main stem of 

Resurrection Creek with no off channel wetlands.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future activities occurring in the Resurrection Creek watershed are the same as 

were discussed under the alternative 2 cumulative effects section. The effects from alternative 3 

when added to the past, present, and future activities would have slightly higher impacts to water 

quality than both alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 3 would have similar effects as alternative 1 

and substantially greater negative effects than alternative 2 in terms of stream channel function 

and aquatic habitat. Overall water quality could be impacted continuously from the project area to 

Chugach National Forest 111
Resurrection Creek Phase II

the mouth of Resurrection Creek until the channel stabilizes, which could take many years, 

therefore it is likely that water quality, in terms of turbidity and sedimentation, would not be 

within State standards until stabilization occurs. 

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The proposed activities are consistent with the forestwide guideline for fish, water, and riparian 

areas as stated in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-

23 and 3-24) and are consistent with management area intent under management area 

prescriptions, Minerals Management Area (521) and Forest Restoration Management Area (314).

Alternative 3 does not meet forestwide objectives of restoring riparian habitat and near stream 

vegetation where it has been determined that the stream’s proper functioning condition is outside 

the historic range of variability (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-

2). Alternative 3 does not meet the desired condition of restoring productivity to degraded fish 

habitat in Resurrection Creek (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-15).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

No streams listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies are located 

within or downstream of the project area. Alternative 3 may comply with the state antidegradation policy (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2012) to prevent 

deterioration of water bodies that currently meet state water quality standards. Alternative 3 

would result in a number of short-term turbidity pulses that would exceed the State of Alaska 

water quality standards (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2012) during the 

course of the channel relocation. All channel relocation and mining operations would follow all 

applicable State and Federal permitting requirements, including the regulations under the Clean 

Water Act Section 404 for dredge and fill within wetlands and the Clean Water Act Section 401

for compliance with water quality standards.

Vegetation Ecology

Affected Environment 

Historic and modern placer mining operations have influenced development of riparian and 

floodplain vegetation plant communities including those dominated by willow (Salix spp.), black 

cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa), and Sitka alder (Alnus crispa ssp. sinuata). 

Mining activities tend to shift vegetation to earlier seral state of ecological succession consistent 

with some of the tall scrub and broadleaf or mixed forest types described by DeVelice et al. 

(1999).

Hydraulic placer mining from the early 1900s generated numerous tailings piles within the 

project area. The piles are composed of large cobbles which are extremely well drained which 

prevents the growth of vascular plants, eliminating the development of a duff layer and soil 

formation, and leaving the tailings piles barren of most vegetation growth other than lichens and 

mosses. Some tailings piles support individual scattered black cottonwood trees or shrubs.

Forested areas near and within the project area (primarily on the terraces above the valley floor)

have been affected by the spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) infestation over the past 

twenty years. Major changes in the vegetation composition and structure have been documented 

in the first ten years following a spruce bark beetle outbreak within a watershed (Holsten et al. 

1995). Many of the dead spruce (Picea glauca and P. x lutzii) are now falling over, creating areas 

of coarse woody debris. Regeneration of both spruce and paper birch (Betula papyrifera) is 

112 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

slowed in these areas due to increased cover of dead woody material, dense growth of bluejoint 

reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and lack of scarified or open soil for seedling 

establishment. 

Disturbances within the project area created a high proportion of seedling/sapling stage trees, 

mostly black cottonwood. Approximately half of the forested sections are open or in a 

seedling/sapling stage, with a mix of pole, medium, and large size trees. Very large trees are rare, 

and are mainly black cottonwood with a few Lutz spruce. Stands of medium to large size 

mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) are found in the uplands. With succession, the black 

cottonwood component would eventually be replaced by Lutz spruce, although areas being 

actively mined will be in a constant state of early succession. Steep areas with bedrock are 

bordered by spruce and mountain hemlock. Overall forest structure is erratic given the site history 

and current use, but patches of three structural stages (stand initiation, stem exclusion, overstory 

reinitiation) are evident (Oliver and Larsen 1990). Old growth is not present except in isolated 

pockets of very old black cottonwoods. A comprehensive description of the vegetation 

composition and structure is in the wildlife habitat specialist report in the project record.

Development and other human caused disturbances have allowed the introduction of nonnative 

species to the project area. Nonnative species are most typically found immediately around 

developed and disturbed areas. Known populations have not presented a threat to native 

vegetation, although populations can spread rapidly with increased activity (Myers and Bazely 

2003). Known populations of nonnative plant species include a fairly high concentration of 

common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), populations of narrowleaf hawksbeard (Crepis 

tectorum), and scentless false mayweed (Triplospermum perforata) along access roads on the east 

side of Resurrection Creek. Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) is found scattered on both 

sides of the creek. Other nonnative species include Linaria vulgaris (butter and eggs), white and 

red clover (Trifolium repens and T. pratense, respectively), pineapple weed (Matricaria 

matricarioides), timothy (Phleum pratense), and common plantain (Plantago major).

Based on the bioenvironmental database used in the Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest 2002a), the only Alaska Region sensitive plant species potentially 

occurring in the project area is the pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum) but no specimens have been

have been observed.

Environmental Consequences – Vegetation Ecology

Issues

No issues regarding vegetation ecology were identified.

Measurement Indicators

Comparison of alternatives in terms of vegetation ecology will be based on the following 

parameters:

• Amount of area with vegetation reestablished

• Area of potential sensitive plant habitat affected

• Area of potential nonnative species introduction and spread

Chugach National Forest 113
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Methodology

The following data sources were used to analyze vegetation resources:

Landcover Classification GIS Raster Dataset (Markon and Williams 1996): A satellite image 

based classification that for the main trail corridor was primarily derived from SPOT 

multispectral imagery from August 1990. Each 30-meter pixel was assigned to one of 25 classes. 

The vegetation classes basically follow the first three levels of the five level hierarchy of Viereck 

et al. (1992). 

Cover Type GIS Coverage (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 1997): An air photo 

based map developed from interpretation of aerial photography from the 1950s through 1970s. 

Minimum map unit size is 10 acres (about 4 hectares). Each polygon was assigned to one of 21 

classes. 

Nonnative Plants Report (Duffy 2003): The list of nonnative plant species reported by Duffy 

(2003) from the Kenai Mountains is presented and the potential implications of the proposed 

project to nonnative plant occurrences are summarized.

Nonnative Plant Inventory: Kenai Trails (DeVelice 2003): The list of nonnative plant species 

reported by DeVelice (2003) from the Kenai Trails is presented and the potential implications of 

the proposed project to nonnative plant occurrences are summarized.

Field Work: Sensitive and invasive plant surveys (Bella and McKee 2007; Mohatt and Charnon 

2008).

Sensitive Plants GIS Coverage (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 1998): This 

coverage was created from data obtained from the Alaska Natural Heritage Program.

The geographic bound for direct and indirect effects is the project area boundary. Cumulative 

effects include the entire Kenai Mountains. 

Short-term impacts are generally those that occur throughout the duration of the proposed 

activities. Long-term impacts can occur for decades after activities have ceased, particularly 

where vegetation composition has changed. 

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Area of Revegetation

Under this alternative, existing mining activities would continue to occur. Vegetation cover 

typical of Southcentral Alaskan stream systems would not return to the historic tailings pile areas 

for many decades and tailings piles would continue to prevent flood flows from delivering fine 

sediment to the floodplain areas, thereby limiting riparian vegetation growth.

Nonnative Species

Existing mining areas are expected to continue to have nonnative plant abundance and may 

continue to spread in the project area. No new ground would be impacted beyond what is 

authorized in existing plans of operations. Infestation beyond existing mining plans of operations 

would likely be limited.

114 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Sensitive Plants

Since no new activities would be proposed, no sensitive plants would be adversely affected by 

alternative 1. 

Cumulative Effects

This alternative does not propose any new activities beyond what has already been analyzed in

past projects. Other existing or reasonably foreseeable future projects in vicinity of the this 

project include past vegetation management projects along Hope Highway and Palmer Creek 

Road, the Resurrection Creek Phase I restoration project, private land development in the Hope 

area, Porcupine Campground reconstruction, new trailhead development for Hope Point Trail and 

Gull Rock Trail, Hope Point Trail reconstruction, ongoing trail use of Resurrection Pass National 

Recreation Trail, and small scale suction dredging mining operations on Palmer Creek. Across the 

Kenai Peninsula portion of the Chugach National Forest, there are vast areas of potential habitat 

(over one million acres). Cumulatively, the loss of habitat for sensitive plants on the existing 

approved mining operations of the Hope Mining when added to the above activities would be an 

insignificant effect to sensitive plant habitat when over one million acres of potential habitat still 

exist on the Kenai Peninsula.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Vegetation condition would not be restored as described in the desired future condition for 

vegetation in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a; page 3-13) 

by the mining operator completing required reclamation. This alternative does meet Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines for vegetation management (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National 

Forest 2002a; page 3-25 through 3-27).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 1 is consistent with the Endangered Species Act. Biological evaluations were 

completed for threatened and endangered plant species and no threatened and endangered plant 

species or their habitats are located within the project area. Alternative 1 is also consistent with 

Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species because existing populations of nonnative species

spreading beyond existing mining plans of operations would likely be limited because no 

additional area would be impacted and mined areas would be required to be reclaimed following 

the cessation of mining.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Area of Revegetation 

Initially there would be a loss of riparian vegetation during construction of the new channel

alignment and would appear mostly barren since the current conditions of these areas are highly 

disturbed. Restoration activities following new channel construction would include spreading soil

on the restored floodplains to support native vegetation, and native vegetation establishment 

through planting and seeding on sites where conditions for natural regeneration are not favorable. 

The increased diversity in vegetation composition and structure following restoration activities 

may improve potential habitat increase for several rare or sensitive plant species, particularly in 

the riparian zone. 

Reclamation would occur after mining of placer gravels is completed and would include 

recontouring of mined areas, spreading stockpiled top soil or fines (3/4 inch minus material from 

Chugach National Forest 115
Resurrection Creek Phase II

mining operations, if available), and spreading organic debris (vegetation stockpiled from 

clearing operations). Most proposed mining areas have some amount of top soil available for 

reclamation and would rely on natural revegetation (from seed source/roots in stockpiled top soil 

or blown in from surround vegetation). Vegetation would become reestablished but could take 

more time and may not be uniformly distributed.

Nonnative Species

There is a high likelihood of nonnative species being introduced and existing populations being 

spread by equipment, vehicles, and foot traffic, or with materials used for revegetation. The 

potential for nonnative plant increases would be particularly high in areas of exposed soil. Under 

this alternative, a maximum of 333 acres (existing/proposed mining areas) would be impacted by 

ground-disturbing activities with high potential for exposed soil over 20 years. Areas within the 

restoration corridor would have vegetation becoming reestablished more quickly reducing the 

time period of exposed soil. The 274 acres of mining areas outside of the restoration corridor 

would be reclaimed but it would likely take longer for vegetation to become reestablished 

lengthening the time bare soil is exposed, thus increasing the potential for existing nonnative 

species in the area to spread. Any materials that are brought in from off-site locations to be used 

for mulching, erosion control, rehabilitation, soil establishment, fill, or other uses should be free 

of invasive plant species (mitigation measure 14, page 43). In addition, heavy equipment 

mobilized for mining or restoration would be spray washed including wheel wells, 

undercarriages, tires, tracks before it is brought into the project area so that it is free of all foreign 

plant materials and soil (mitigation measure 18, page 43). Monitoring of reclaimed and restored

areas for nonnative plant species would help identify those areas which may require more 

aggressive weed treatment strategies (monitoring activity 11, page 53).

Sensitive Plants

Potential habitat occurs for one region 10 sensitive species, the pale poppy. Habitats for the pale 

poppy include gravel bars, dry meadows, and rock outcrops. This species has not been found 

within areas likely to be affected by project activities (Bella 2007). In addition, this species 

tolerates moderate levels of disturbance. Therefore, the implementation of this alternative is not 

expected to adversely affect this sensitive plant. 

Cumulative Effects

Other existing or reasonably foreseeable future projects in vicinity of this project include those 

projects listed under alternative 1. Across the Kenai Peninsula portion of the Chugach National 

Forest, there are vast areas of potential habitat (over one million acres). Cumulatively, the loss of 

another 274 acres of vegetation would be an insignificant effect to sensitive plants or their 

habitats when over one million acres of potential habitat still exist on the Kenai Peninsula.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 2 maximizes the opportunity to achieve the desired future conditions for vegetation 

within active mining claims as specified by the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, Chugach 

National Forest 2002a, page 3-13) within the restoration corridor. This alternative also meets

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for vegetation management (USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest 2002a, pages 3-25 through 3-27).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 2 is consistent with the Endangered Species Act. Biological evaluations were 

completed for threatened and endangered plant species and no threatened and endangered plant 

116 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

species or their habitats are located within the project area. Alternative 2 is also consistent with 

Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species because existing populations of nonnative species

spreading beyond existing mining areas would likely be limited because of mitigation measures 

required to limit introduction of new infestations (mitigation measures 14, 18, 19; pages 43 and 

44), monitoring specified in chapter 2 to determine establishment of any new nonnative species

and spread of existing nonnative populations (monitoring activity 11, page 53), and reclamation

measures that will encourage revegetation of mining areas with native species as soon after 

mining is completed (mitigation measure 19, page 44).

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Area of Revegetation

Reclamation of mining activities would have the same effects as described in alternative 2.

Vegetation cover typical of Southcentral Alaskan stream systems would not return to the historic 

tailings pile areas for many decades and tailings piles would continue to prevent flood flows from 

delivering fine sediment to the floodplain areas, thereby limiting riparian vegetation growth.

Nonnative Species

Proposed mining activities are expected to increase nonnative plant abundance and spread due to 

existing nonnative plants in the project area, the amount of disturbed bare soil from mining 

activities, and the length of time it may take for vegetation to become reestablished after 

reclamation. Cleaning heavy equipment prior to mobilizing on site and effective reclamation 

practices (mitigation measures 18 and 19, page 43) would minimize any new introductions of

nonnative plant species.

Sensitive Plants

Similar to alternative 2, potential habitat for one sensitive species occurs in the project area (the 

pale poppy). Habitat for the pale poppy includes gravel bars, dry meadows, and rock outcrops. 

This species has not been found within areas likely to be affected by project activities (Bella 

2007). In addition, this species tolerates moderate levels of disturbance. Therefore, the 

implementation of this alternative is not expected to adversely affect this sensitive plant.

Cumulative Effects

Other existing or reasonably foreseeable future projects in vicinity of the project are the same as 

those described in alternative 2 with the same cumulative effects. Across the Kenai Peninsula 

portion of the Chugach National Forest, there are vast areas of potential habitat (over one million 

acres). Cumulatively, the loss of another 285 acres of vegetation would be an insignificant effect 

to sensitive plants or their habitats when over one million acres of potential habitat still exist on 

the Kenai Peninsula.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Vegetation condition would not be restored as described in the desired future condition for 

vegetation in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-13)

with required mining reclamation work on mining areas. Alternative 3 does meet Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines for vegetation management (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National 

Forest 2002a, pages 3-25 through 3-27).

Chugach National Forest 117
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 3 is consistent with the regulatory framework for the same reasons as listed for 

alternative 2.

Wildlife Habitat

Affected Environment 

Placer mining nearly a century ago has greatly altered the wildlife habitat in the project area 

through removal of riparian and forest vegetation and changes in ecological succession capability.

The wildlife specialist report in the project record notes all species and habitats documented 

during wildlife surveys, as well as species considered but not analyzed further due to lack of 

existing or potential habitat.

Vegetation Composition and Structure

The Resurrection Creek project area contains a mixture of primarily pole size to large hardwoods 

(cottonwood, birch) and seedling/sapling to large conifers (white and Lutz spruce and mountain 

hemlock). Current vegetation is a mix of some early succession species that have reestablished 

after mining activities and later successional species in areas that have had relatively little 

disturbance to natural composition and stand structure. More details on the vegetation 

composition and structure are listed in the wildlife specialist report and in the Vegetation Ecology 

section in this chapter (pages 112 through 118).

Wildlife 

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

There are no threatened, endangered, sensitive or proposed species, or designated critical habitat

likely to occur in the project area.

Management Indicator Species and Species of Special Interest

Management indicator species and species of special interest and existing or potential are listed in

table 19.

Table 19. Management indicator species (MIS) and species of special interest (SSI) in the project 

area

Species MIS SSI Existing Habitat Potential Habitat

Brown Bear X Yes Yes

Moose X Yes Yes

Bald Eagle X Yes Yes

Northern Goshawk X No Yes (foraging)

Gray Wolf X Yes Yes

Lynx X Unknown Yes

River Otter X Unknown Yes

Townsend’s Warbler X Yes Yes

Wolverine X Unknown Yes

118 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Management Indicator Species

Moose: Moose populations on the Chugach National Forest are stable or declining according to 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game Harvest and Management Reports (McDonough 2010, 

Selinger 2012). Moose are primarily associated with early- to mid-successional habitat and 

riparian areas. On the Kenai Peninsula the factor limiting the growth of moose populations is the 

availability of early- to mid-successional habitat, and the main mortality factors are predation, 

hunting, and mortality from collisions with vehicles along the highway and railroad (LottsfeldtFrost 2000). Selinger (2012) lists severe winters and deep snows as contributing to high mortality 

in game management unit 7. Recent declines in animals observed in Resurrection Creek and 

Juneau Creek during composition counts in 2010, caused Alaska Department of Fish and Game to 

lower the population estimate in GMU 7 from 700 to 1,000 animals in 2010 to 600 to 800 animals 

in 2012 (Selinger 2012).

Moose use the project area during the rut and as winter range (Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game 1985) and were noted during surveys in the summer. Moose sign is present throughout the 

project area.

Brown Bear: Brown bears have large home range requirements and an intolerance of human 

disruption and development. The primary limiting factor for brown bears on the Kenai Peninsula 

is spring and summer feeding habitat. South-facing hillsides and avalanche chutes, big-game 

winter ranges, and salmon streams provide the high quality forage needed by bears before and 

after denning (Suring et al. 2005). The project area does not contain primary bear habitat (Graves 

et al. 2007) although bears are known to travel through and forage for salmon in Resurrection 

Creek.

Species of Special Interest

Gray Wolf: Wolves are highly social animals and usually live in packs that include parents and 

pups of the year. Wolves are adaptable and exist in a wide variety of habitats (Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game 2007). One pack was reported by Alaska Department of Fish and Game to exist 

in Resurrection Creek (personal communication with Ted Spraker, Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game 2001). Mining lessees also reported seeing wolves in the past ten years. 

Lynx: Lynx inhabit much of Alaska's forested terrain and use a variety of habitats, including 

spruce and hardwood forests, and both sub alpine and early seral communities. The best habitat 

occurs where there is a diversity of vegetation types with an abundance of early successional 

growth, which provides habitat for snowshoe hare and other small prey species. Hares also like 

dense conifer thickets of seedlings and saplings for food and cover. Lynx sign was not evident 

during surveys, yet potential habitat exists because of the diverse mix of spruce and hardwood 

forest and patches of early-seral growth. The project area occurs close to the community of Hope. 

Local trapping efforts may influence lynx numbers or potential use of the project area.

River Otter: River otters are associated with coastal and fresh water environments and the 

immediately adjacent (within 100 to 500 feet) upland habitats. Beach characteristics affect the 

availability of food and cover, and adjacent upland vegetation provides cover. Old-growth forests 

have the highest habitat value, providing canopy cover, large-diameter trees and snags, and 

burrow and den sites. Younger successional stages provide lower quality habitat. River otters hunt 

on land and in fresh and salt water and eat snails, mussels, clams, sea urchins, insects, crabs, 

shrimp, octopi, frogs, a variety of fish, and occasionally birds, mammals, and vegetable matter. 

High quality habitat for otters does not occur in the project reach. Otters were not noted during 

Chugach National Forest 119
Resurrection Creek Phase II

wildlife surveys. Lower quality habitat exists and otters may use the project area for traveling, 

foraging or denning.

Townsend’s Warbler: Townsend's warblers are fairly common breeding birds on the Chugach 

National Forest and can be found primarily in coniferous forests or mixed forests where 

coniferous trees comprise a predominant feature of the habitats (Bent 1953; Erskine 1977). The 

Townsend’s warbler is found almost exclusively in mature white spruce dominated forests in 

Southcentral Alaska (Matsuoka et al. 1997). The Townsend’s warbler population has declined in 

the past 10 years in Southcentral Alaska; however, the regional and national level population 

trends are believed to be stable (Prosser 2002; Sauer et al. 2011). Townsend’s warblers were

observed in the project area during surveys but did not appear to be abundant.

Wolverine: The wolverine is an animal of montane forest, tundra, and taiga. Several factors 

appear to influence wolverine habitat selection at the landscape and forest stand levels. The 

distribution and density of large mammal carrion is a primary factor along with the level of 

human disturbance. Other habitat parameters such as escape cover from predators, availability of 

den sites, prey concentrations, and cover can affect daily movement and habitat use patterns 

(Howell 1999). Wolverine tracks were observed in Resurrection and Palmer Creeks during a 1992 

interagency survey (Golden 1994). In 2004, another survey was conducted, and no tracks were 

noted in the area (Golden 2004). The project area probably does not provide suitable denning 

habitat. Wolverines may travel through the project area while foraging.

Bald Eagle: Bald eagles are often found along Alaska’s coast, offshore islands, and interior lakes 

and rivers. Bald eagles often use and rebuild the same nest each year. Eagles in Southcentral 

Alaska nest in old cottonwood trees near water. The majority of bald eagle nests on the Seward 

Ranger District are in mature cottonwood trees with an average diameter of 31 inches and within 

one quarter mile of an anadromous fish bearing streams. There is a substantial lack of such trees 

in the watershed, in part due to past mining activities. No nests are known to occur in the project 

area.

Northern Goshawk: The northern goshawk is a forest raptor that feeds in the understory on 

squirrels, birds and snowshoe hares. The amount and combination of feeding and nesting habitat 

appears to be the primary limiting factors (Iverson et al. 1996). The majority of goshawk nests on 

the Seward Ranger District are in old-growth hemlock-spruce stands characterized by a closed 

canopy, large average diameter, gap regeneration and an open understory. No nests have been 

located in the project area. Much of the large spruce has been killed by spruce bark beetles. The

majority of birch and hemlock in the project area does not appear large enough to provide optimal 

goshawk nesting habitat. Goshawks may use the project area for foraging, however potential 

nesting habitat is limited.

Migratory Birds

Neotropical migratory birds nest and breed in North America, generally spending their wintering 

months south of the United States. Priority species identified in the most recent publication of the 

Birds of Conservation Concern (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) were reviewed. The 

project area may contain suitable habitat for the rufous hummingbird and olive-sided flycatcher, 

although they were not detected during surveys.

• Rufous Hummingbird: Rufous hummingbird tends to prefer open conifer forests, along 

edges of open conifer forests, and in shrub alpine habitats. The global population of the 

rufous hummingbird has a decline of 2 percent per year range wide, with a decline of 2.9

120 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

percent within the Pacific rainforest bioregion, although with a global population of 6.5 

million the population is generally considered secure (Sauer et al. 2011). 

• Olive-sided Flycatcher: Olive-sided flycatchers tend to prefer to nest in mid-seral hardwood 

forests, forests that have regenerated from fire, and other disturbances. Olive-sided flycatcher

population has a range wide annual decline of 3.5 percent, with a decline of 3.7 percent in the 

Pacific rainforest bioregion. Local population decreases have been documented in parts of 

California (Shuford and Gardali 2008).

Environmental Consequences – Wildlife Habitat

Issues 

No issues regarding wildlife were identified.

The public expressed concerns about disturbance to wildlife and habitat abandonment from noise, 

people, and machinery. They also suggested adding buffer widths and protecting mature trees for 

wildlife habitat. Under the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, Hope Mining Company has 

the right to access minerals on their claims, including areas with mature trees and wildlife habitat.

The Forest Service does not have the authority to implement an alternative that denies reasonable 

access to the mineral estate therefore alternatives were not considered with these suggestions.

While these concerns are critical to the effects of each alternative, they are not considered an 

issue as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act.

Measurement Indicators

Units of measure to describe and compare relative effects on wildlife include the following: 

• Acres of habitat affected by mining or restoration 

• Acres of habitat restored

• Duration of disturbance to wildlife

Methodology

The Forest Plan and other documents were reviewed for direction regarding wildlife and habitat 

management. Wildlife surveys were conducted in 2008 and 2009 and a variety of bird and 

mammal species or their sign were observed. Hope Mining Company employees and several 

lessees were interviewed on what species they had observed over the past 10 years. Results from 

these surveys and interviews are detailed in the Wildlife Specialist report located in the project 

record and have been incorporated into the analysis in this section. Factors used for analysis 

includes wildlife species present, habitats, and effects from each alternative. Mitigation measures 

20 and 21 were designed, where possible, to minimize those effects (page 44).

The assumptions for this analysis include the following:

• There is no existing or potential habitat for, and thus no effect on threatened, endangered, 

sensitive or proposed species in the project area.

• Mining operations at varying levels will occur over the next 20 years. Mining operations will 

include use of heavy equipment, use of camps, and use of vehicles on existing and proposed 

mining roads.

• Mining operations and restoration activities will generate similar levels of noise and human 

presence. Noise from both activities may extend up to one mile beyond the project area.

Chugach National Forest 121
Resurrection Creek Phase II

• All acres are considered habitat for one or more wildlife species.

Geographic bounds for direct and indirect effects were considered to be the project area plus an 

area that extends one mile from the project area (approximately 5,444 total acres). This boundary 

was selected because vegetation would be removed from the project area, and noise from mining 

or restoration operations could extend one mile beyond the project area boundary.

The watershed was considered for cumulative effects because many wide ranging species such as 

wolverines, bears, moose, goshawks and others may move through or use habitat within the 

project area and throughout portions of the entire watershed.

Short-term effects would be considered those lasting 1 to 4 years and long-term effects would be 

5 to 100 years (potential timeframe for vegetation to be restored to mature structure and 

composition).

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat Affected by Mining Activities

Removal of all or most vegetation during proposed mining activities on the remaining approved 

acres would have a direct short-term negative effect on wildlife habitat for most species through 

destruction of nesting and foraging habitat and cover. Approximately 45 acres out of 97 have 

already been mined and 28 acres have been reclaimed. Removal of vegetation and disturbance of 

soil layers over the entire 97 acres may cause long-term effects on soil productivity which would 

likely be reduced for many decades. Lower soil productivity alters the manner and rate at which 

these areas reestablish vegetation influencing the type of vegetation and habitat the project area 

would provide into the future. Vegetation species that are more tolerant of lower soil productivity, 

such as alder, would be the dominant species to become reestablished initially. Alder is a less 

preferred browse species for moose. Some limited early seral hardwood browse (cottonwood and 

willow) would also reestablish in the reclaimed areas. Alder does provide nesting and roosting 

habitat for many birds or cover for small mammals. With lower soil productivity, vegetation may 

not respond with as much vigor or density as under natural conditions and may take longer (up to 

100 years) to reach a mature forest stand structure. Species that depend on mid-aged or mature 

forest would experience longer-term habitat loss. 

Wildlife Disturbance by Mining Activities

Wildlife species may be disturbed and avoid or abandon habitat during mining operations over an 

estimated 15 year operating period. Noise disturbance within 1 mile of the mining areas may 

cause habitat avoidance, abandonment, or behavioral changes by some species or individuals.

Acres of Habitat Restored

The riparian area along Resurrection Creek was previously mined by hydraulic mining methods

and has very limited topsoil. Riparian vegetation would remain sparse indefinitely, retaining poor 

habitat conditions for riparian species.

Alternative 1 may impact individual animals; however none of the activities are expected to affect 

populations or viability of any species. More detail on effects on specific management indicator 

species and species of special interest can be found in the wildlife specialist report in the project 

record.

122 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Cumulative Effects

The following projects were considered for cumulative effects: 

• Past fuel reduction projects/harvesting/pile burning along Hope Highway and Palmer Creek 

Road, about 800 acres

• Resurrection Creek Restoration Project Phase I in 2005 and 2006

• Past, ongoing and future development on private land at Mile 14 of Hope Highway and along 

Resurrection Creek Road 

• Porcupine Campground Reconstruction completed in 2012

• Past trailhead development for Gull Rock and Hope Point Trail along Cripple Creek Road 

• Hope Point Trail reconstruction 

• Ongoing recreation use of Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail 

• Small-scale suction dredging on Palmer Creek 

• Development on patented mining claims at the end of Resurrection Creek Road

These projects modify wildlife habitat by affecting vegetation through removal or modification of 

forest structure and composition. Approximately 5 percent of all wildlife habitat (both forested 

and unforested) within the watershed has, is or likely will be affected by mining, fuel reduction, 

recreation or other development. Cumulatively, this level of habitat change within the watershed 

is not expected to affect populations or viability of any species.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 1 complies with Forest Plan for the wildlife resource by complying with the 

forestwide standards and guidelines for wildlife management (USDA Forest Service, Chugach 

National Forest 2002a; page 3-28 through 33).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 1 is consistent with the Endangered Species Act with regards to wildlife. No 

threatened and endangered wildlife species or their habitats are located within the project area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects 

Mining and restoration can have effects on both wildlife individuals and their habitats. Direct 

effects to wildlife habitat are caused by vegetation removal for mining or restoration activities 

and direct effects to individual animals are primarily related to the disturbance. Indirect effects to 

wildlife species and habitat occur as a result of the long-term beneficial effects of riparian habitat 

restoration.

Habitat Affected by Mining and Restoration Activities

Effects on wildlife habitat from mining for alternative 2 are the same as described in alternative 1 

but take place over 274 acres of mining areas.

Restoration activities would result in similar short-term direct effects of habitat loss from 

vegetation removal and disturbance occurring within the 74 acre restoration corridor during 

creation of the new stream channel and side channels and ponds. These activities would occur 

over a 4 year period (pending funding availability). Most of the vegetation in the restoration 

Chugach National Forest 123
Resurrection Creek Phase II

corridor has already been removed by past mining operations but some existing vegetation

(estimated at less than 3acres) may need to be removed during reconstruction of the channels and 

side channels. Clumps of larger trees in the existing intact floodplain within the corridor would be 

left undisturbed where feasible (mitigation measure 21; page 44).

Habitat Restored

Over the long term restoration will benefit a variety of wildlife species. Within the 74-acre 

restoration corridor, restoration of 51 acres of floodplain and riparian vegetation, and 

development of 1.6 miles of new side channels would create new habitat favoring species that 

feed on spawning or rearing salmon such as brown bear, otters, eagles, and wolves (see wildlife 

specialist report in project record), breed or forage in side channels (harlequin ducks and other 

birds), den or nest in riparian vegetation (river otters, bald eagles, and migratory birds), or forage 

for vegetation or for prey species in riparian areas (moose, lynx, wolverine, wolves, bears, eagles, 

and goshawks). The riparian vegetation would have the potential to grow into mature forest over 

time benefiting bald eagles by providing nesting habitat. The riparian vegetation in the restoration 

corridor would offer 200 to 500 feet of screened foraging habitat for bears and cover for animals 

using the creek as a travel corridor (bears, wolves, otters, and moose).

Wildlife Disturbance by Mining and Restoration Activities

Noise and physical disturbance from people, camps, vehicles, and heavy equipment during 

mining activities on 274 acres over a 20 year period and restoration activities on 74 acres up to a 

4 year period may cause direct effects such as habitat abandonment or avoidance to a wide variety 

of wildlife species. Nesting migratory birds and small mammals may have nests destroyed and 

young or adults killed when vegetation is removed.

Decibel levels generated by mining equipment are expected to produce noise levels in the range 

of 65 to 80 dB at active mining sites and may be detectable up to 1 mile from the active mining 

site with decibel levels ranging from 50 to 55 dB (refer to the Noise section in this chapter, pages 

81 through 90). The total area that could be disturbed by noise within and outside the project area

is approximately 5,444 acres (acres contained within the project area and within 1 mile of the 

project boundary). Noise levels would be variable based on topography and vegetation. Persistent 

equipment noise may disturb and displace wildlife annually during the months of March through 

October.

The potential effect of mining or restoration noise to different species or individuals at various 

distances and decibel levels is difficult to quantify. Animals rely on meaningful sounds for 

communication, navigation, avoiding danger and finding food (Kaseloo and Tyson 2004). The 

effect of noise on wildlife has only recently been considered a potential threat to animal health 

and long-term survival. Little research has been done on the effects of mining noise on animals; 

most of the research focus has been on vehicles, roads and aircraft. Research into the effects of 

noise on wildlife often presents conflicting results because of the variety of factors and variables 

that can affect and/or interfere with the determination of the actual effects that human-produced 

noise is having on any given animal. Most researchers agree that noise can affect an animal’s 

physiology and behavior, and if it becomes a chronic stress, noise can be injurious to an animal’s 

energy budget, reproductive success and long-term survival. The diversity of effects that noise 

can have among and between species makes it difficult for the scientific community to present 

definitive evidence for wildlife as a whole. Management or protection through mitigation is 

difficult because each species could potentially have different thresholds of disturbance (Radle 

2005). Noise disturbance may impact individual animals of a variety of species to varying 

degrees, causing direct effects such as habitat abandonment or avoidance. 

124 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 2 may impact individual animals through disturbance from noise, physical 

disturbance, and effects to habitat from mining or restoration; none of the activities are expected 

to affect populations or viability of any species. More detail on effects on specific management 

indicator species and species of special interest can be found in the wildlife specialist report in the 

project record.

Cumulative Effects

The same projects listed under alternative 1 were considered for cumulative effects with the 

addition of existing approved mining operations within Hope Mining Company claims north of 

Resurrection Pass Trail Bridge on both sides of Resurrection Creek (97 acres).

Wildlife habitat is affected by changes in vegetation through removal or modification of forest 

structure and composition. Approximately 5 percent of all wildlife habitat (both forested and 

unforested) within the watershed has, is or likely will be affected by mining, fuel reduction, 

recreation and development. Most of these activities are concentrated in forested habitats which 

are limited to 25 percent of the watershed. Human use may increase in the watershed through 

development on private lands and recreation. These activities can affect wider ranging species 

such as bears, moose, wolverines, wolves, and lynx that use forested areas. Mature forested 

habitats may continue to decline with spruce bark beetle impacts, development, mining and 

recreation, affecting species such as northern goshawks, Townsend’s warblers and bald eagles in 

riparian zones. Approximately 20 percent of the forested habitat within the watershed may 

experience varying levels of habitat degradation. The species living in these forested habitats may 

experience continued disturbance and temporary or longer term displacement from these habitats. 

The Resurrection Creek Restoration Project Phase 1 has provided beneficial effects to wildlife 

habitat. Cumulative effects are not expected to affect populations or viability of any species.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 2 complies with Forest Plan for the wildlife resource by complying with the 

forestwide Standards and Guidelines for wildlife management (USDA Forest Service, Chugach 

National Forest 2002a; page 3-28 through 33):

• Requiring removal of garbage and correct storage of food by mining operators or restoration 

contractors (mitigation measure 20, page 44)

• Evaluation of project area for threatened or endangered species habitat or species 

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 2 is consistent with the Endangered Species Act for wildlife. Biological evaluations 

were completed for threatened and endangered wildlife species. No threatened and endangered 

wildlife species or their habitats are located within the project area.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only 

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat Affected by Mining Activities

Mining operations would occur over 285 acres, 11 acres more than alternative 2. Many of the 

mining activities would be similar in intensity and area to those described in alternative 2 causing 

short- and long-term habitat loss and reduction of soil productivity, disturbance, and associated 

effects to wildlife as in alternative 2. 

Chugach National Forest 125
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Wildlife Disturbance by Mining Activities

Wildlife species may be disturbed and avoid or abandon habitat during mining operations on 285

acres over the 20-year operating period, similar to alternative 2. Noise disturbance within 1 mile 

of the project area may cause habitat avoidance, abandonment, or behavioral changes by some 

species or individuals.

Acres of Habitat Restored

Alternative 3 would not offer the benefits to enhancing wildlife habitat (food, cover, foraging 

areas) on the 74 acres through restoration. In alternative 3 most of the riparian area can be mined 

and would have the same effects as in other mining areas. Because the riparian area was 

previously mined by hydraulic mining methods, it has very limited topsoil. Riparian vegetation 

would remain sparse indefinitely, retaining poor habitat conditions for riparian species.

Alternative 3 may impact individual animals; however none of the activities are expected to affect 

populations or viability of any species. More details on effects on specific management indicator 

species and species of special interest can be found in the wildlife specialist report in the project 

record.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for alternative 3 are the same as listed for alternative 2.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 3 complies with Forest Plan for the same reasons listed under alternative 2.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 3 complies with the Endangered Species Act for wildlife. No threatened or 

endangered species habitats or species occur within the project area.

Heritage Resources

Affected Environment

Placer gold mining on Resurrection Creek began in the late 1800s. Extensive hydraulic and heavy 

equipment placer mining began in the early 1900s and continued until 1942 (Jansons et al. 1984).

There was an unsuccessful attempt to use a hydraulic elevator on Resurrection Creek which failed 

due to lack of water and presence of large boulders (Moffit 1906). The productive portion of 

Resurrection Creek is from its junction with Palmer Creek to Turnagain Arm.

The town of Hope was established in 1895 and in 1896, 3,000 people came to the Turnagain Arm 

gold field. It was estimated that 2,000 to 2,500 people came to the adjacent Sunrise District. The 

initial surge of gold production, mining activity, and production decreased quickly because the 

deposits which could be easily worked profitably by hand methods were exhausted and the small 

size of higher grade deposits which were usually confined to the channels of the present day 

stream courses. Substantial amounts of lower grade stream placer and low grade glacial deposits 

remained but required the development of hydraulic mining systems and considerable capital 

investment. 

By 1908 there were approximately 50 people working on claims in the area. In 1931 only 20 

people worked mines in the Moose Pass and Hope Mining Districts and the adjacent town of 

Sunrise had dwindled to a population of two people by 1930. During the 1930s, 60 to 70 people 

126 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

lived between Hope and Moose Pass and in the summer an additional 25 miners came into the 

area. Gold mining was halted in 1942 due to World War II; mining resumed at a much slower 

pace in the 1950s and 1960s.

Historic mining resources constitute the greatest part of the known cultural resources in and near 

the project area. Numerous Euro-American historic properties have been documented within the

Resurrection Creek watershed. Of these sites, one lies within this current proposed project area, 

the Hope Mining Company Historic Mining District. This site has been properly documented and 

is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. 

On March 30, 2009, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 was signed, designating 

Alaska’s first national heritage area, known as the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National 

Heritage Area, and focuses on the theme of transportation for mining and settlement. This project 

area falls within the boundaries of this National Heritage Area and the Forest Service anticipates 

working closely with the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm Heritage Corridor Communities 

Association and National Park Service (who administers the National Heritage Area) to interpret 

the historic resources in the area.

The Forest Service is currently in partnership with Hope Mining Company to develop an 

interpretive area and interpretive panels in the southern part of the project area to interpret the 

geology and mining history of the area (figure 13).

Figure 13. View of Resurrection Creek from the future interpretive area

(historic mine tailings in foreground)

Chugach National Forest 127
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Environmental Consequences – Heritage Resources

Issues

No issues regarding heritage resources were identified.

All alternatives would affect historic tailings which are contributing elements of the Hope Mining 

Company historic mining district. Under the General Mining Act 1872, as amended, Hope 

Mining Company has the right to access minerals on their claims where the historic tailings are 

located. There is no physical way to avoid disturbance of these tailings and the effects are 

discussed in this section for all alternatives.

Measurement Indicators

Measurement indicators are the number of historic properties affected and changes to the 

characteristics of a property that make it eligible to the National Register of Historic Places.

There is one historic property in the project area, the Hope Mining Company Historic Mining 

District.

Methodology

Knowledge of the current range, distribution and condition of cultural resources is dependent on 

the research of historic records, reports, archives and field investigations. The information 

available for the known cultural resources comes primarily from research and field investigations 

conducted by the Chugach National Forest Heritage Staff and the private sector archaeological 

contracts for various Chugach National Forest projects. Investigations follow current research 

methodologies and techniques as described in Forest Service policy (USDA Forest Service, 

Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management 2008a, Chapter 2363). An existing 

data review was conducted for this project and an intensive field survey implementing a complete 

pedestrian examination of the area of potential effect was completed to identify cultural 

resources. Investigations follow current research methodologies and techniques, and are reviewed 

by the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure the latest acceptable scientific methods and 

protocols are followed. The area of potential effect has been surveyed by heritage specialists and 

all known cultural resources have been documented.

The geographic boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is the project area. The time 

frame considered for effects to cultural resources for this project is only long term; once a historic 

property is adversely affected, those effects are irreversible. 

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

The Hope Mining Company Historic Mining District is a historic property that will be affected by 

the existing mining activities. Historic tailings, which are a contributing feature for the Hope 

Mining Company Historic Mining District, will be destroyed in area 19. These effects have been 

analyzed through past environmental documentation (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National 

Forest 2009) and mitigated through a Memorandum of Agreement with the State Historic 

Preservation Office (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 2009). Historic tailings located 

outside of existing mining area boundaries will remain undisturbed, although seasonal flooding

and erosion will minimally redistribute some tailings along the banks of the creek and in low 

lying areas prone to flooding.

128 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects for alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

The restoration and new mining activities would result in the redistribution of approximately 7.2 

acres of historic mine tailings piles. The tailings are contributing features for the Hope Mining 

Company Historic Mining District, and redistribution would constitute an adverse effect that is 

unavoidable. The Forest Service consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer and 

executed a memorandum of agreement in 2009 addressing adverse effects of mining on these 

tailings on a previous mining project; the effects from this project were also included in the 

memorandum (Alaska Department of Natural Resources 2009). To mitigate this adverse effect, 

the memorandum of agreement describes the development of an interpretive area which will be 

located on the south end of the project, with public access near Resurrection Creek Road, where a 

representative section of intact historic mine tailings will be interpreted (mitigation measure 11, 

page 42). The Forest Service is working in partnership with Hope Mining Company to develop 

the interpretive area and interpretive signing.

A dragline, which is a piece of historic mining equipment is located within the restoration 

corridor and would need to be moved prior to restoration activities in that location. The dragline

is listed as a contributing feature of the Hope Mining Company Historic Mining District and the 

Forest Service would coordinate with Hope Mining Company to move it to a location still within 

the boundaries of the Historic Mining District where it will not be damaged by restoration or 

mining activities. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the Forest Service 

finding that since this equipment was designed to be mobile, relocation within the Historic 

Mining District will result in no adverse effect to historic properties.

Mitigation measure 10 (page 42) was developed to address any additional undocumented mining

artifacts actions that would be uncovered by mining operator and/or restoration contractor.

Cumulative Effects

The past approval and implementation of mining operations within Hope Mining Company 

claims north of Resurrection Pass Trail Bridge on both sides of Resurrection Creek (97 acres) was 

the only activity that was considered under cumulative effects for alternative 2 because it is the 

only activity that has taken place within the project area (which is the cumulative effects 

geographic boundary also). Approximately 5 acres of historic tailings have been or will be 

disturbed through existing mining operations described in alternative 1. These 5 acres are in 

addition to the approximate 7 acres that would be disturbed through proposed activities in 

alternative 2. All historic tailings within the project area are contributing features of the Hope 

Mining Company Historic Mining District.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 2 complies with Forest Plan in that site surveys were completed to determine effects 

to heritage resources as is required by a forestwide standard (USDA Forest Service, Chugach 

National Forest 2002a, page 3-34) when surface or subsurface activities disturb more than one 

square meter of ground or when this ground disturbance occurs in areas of known heritage 

resources, sites, or districts on, or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Chugach National Forest 129
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Heritage site surveys completed for effects analysis and the development of the mitigation 

measures 10 and 11 (page 42) were done in consultation with the State Historic Preservation

Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and are consistent with Section 106 

and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Operations Only

Proposed mining operations have the same potential to affect the historic tailing of the Hope 

Mining Company Historic Mining District. The short- and long-term direct and indirect effects as 

well as the cumulative effects would be the same as alternative 3. 

Recreation

Affected Environment

Recreation Opportunities 

The Forest Service utilizes a system called the recreation opportunity spectrum to describe 

different recreation settings across the Forest. The recreation opportunity spectrum system 

describes different settings as classes with specific, defined attributes such as scenic quality, 

access, remoteness, and social encounters expected. The recreation opportunity spectrum classes 

range from highly modified and developed places (“rural” class – i.e. Begich Boggs Visitor 

Center, approved mining operations) to primitive, undeveloped settings (“primitive” class – i.e.

Black Mountain Research Natural Area on the Kenai Peninsula near Moose Pass, Icy Bay in 

Prince William Sound). The recreation opportunity spectrum class for all mining claims is “rural”

which includes the entire project area. The recreation opportunity spectrum class immediately 

adjacent to the project area on the east side is “roaded modified” (within 1⁄4 mile of Resurrection 

Creek Road) and “semiprimitive nonmotorized” west and south of project area boundary.

Recreation Use within the Project Area

Limited summer and winter recreation use occurs within the project area. Recreation use that 

does occur is most likely from local Hope residents that live in the vicinity who walk and/or ski 

along the main mining road on the east side of the creek and parallel to the Resurrection Creek 

road. The mining road is gated on both the south and the north end of the project area and 

therefore only allows nonmotorized public access. This section of Resurrection Creek does not 

provide fishing opportunities that are desired by a majority of sport anglers. The Resurrection 

Creek road bounds the east edge of and crosses a small portion of the project area. The recreation 

visitors using the Resurrection Creek road are likely travelling from the town of Hope to the 

trailhead for the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail or to the recreational gold panning 

area just upstream from trailhead. The road ends at private land boundary approximately 1 mile to 

the south of the project area.

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail 

The primary recreation activity immediately adjacent to the project area is use of the Resurrection 

Pass National Recreation Trail. By definition, national recreation trails represent the more 

outstanding trail opportunities of the Forest developed trail system, offer extended trail 

experiences reasonably close to population centers, and possess significant natural and cultural 

features. The scenic features along the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail include alpine 

meadows, mountain lakes, and Juneau Falls near Cooper Landing. Cultural features include 

remnants of the mining and trapping era. The Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail is 

130 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

nationally recognized for mountain biking opportunities as well as hiking. The 38.8 mile long 

trail is used year round for nonmotorized activities including hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, 

and horseback riding. The north trailhead is located at the southern boundary of the project area. 

Every other year from December 1 to April 30, the trail is open to snow machine use when there 

are adequate snow conditions. It is open to horse and bicycle use from July 1 to March 31.

Hope Mining Company and lessees have authorization to utilize the trail bridge and a short 

section (about 100 feet) of the trail for ATV access to the west side of Resurrection Creek and 

mining operations located downstream from the bridge. This ATV use occurs infrequently and has 

not raised complaints by the recreating public.

First time visitors to the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail may expect a relatively 

undeveloped recreation setting driving to and at the trailhead based on literature available online 

and in tour books about the trail. The recreation setting as defined by the recreation opportunity 

spectrum class is roaded modified along Resurrection Creek road in which visitors will see very 

evident modifications to the landscape (homes, powerlines, small airstrip, etc.). Active mining 

operations (rural recreation opportunity spectrum class) are evident along a short section of 

Resurrection Creek Road which may be a different visual experience than visitors would be 

expecting.

Recreational Gold Panning, Sluicing, and Dredging; Dispersed Camping

Gold panning, sluicing, and dredging for recreational purposes are important outdoor activities on 

the Forest as indicated by the number of participants, investment in equipment and supplies, 

impact on local economies, and the frequency of this type of activity. Gold panning, suction 

dredging and dispersed camping occurs just upstream and south of the project area along a one 

mile section of Resurrection Creek. The only site amenity is a vault toilet. Recreation use is 

typically higher from May 15 to July 15 when suction dredging is permitted by Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game within anadromous creeks. 

Sport Fishing

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is responsible for regulating fishing on National Forest 

System lands. According to Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulations, Resurrection 

Creek is closed year-round to sport fishing for all Chinook salmon, and open to sport fishing for 

other salmon, trout, and char (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2009). Fishing for Chinook 

salmon is closed because at this time there is a lack of information on the status of Resurrection 

Creek Chinook salmon. In other locations that Chinook salmon are known to occur (e.g., Kenai 

River) the number of returning adults has been in steep decline in recent years affecting sport 

fishing opportunities. Several small populations of Chinook salmon are present in Cook Inlet, and 

low abundance combined with limited information on population status preclude establishment of 

a viable harvest oriented Chinook salmon sport fishery (Begich 2009, personal communication). 

Sport fishing regulations, including for Resurrection Creek, are only changed through the Alaska 

Board of Fisheries regulatory process.

Sport fishing for pink salmon mainly occurs at the mouth of Resurrection Creek. Anglers can be 

seen fishing downstream of the highway bridge on any given day during the salmon season. 

Limited sport fishing occurs along Resurrection Creek between the highway bridge and the 

footbridge on Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail.

From 2006 to 2012, an average of 3,078 sport anglers fished 4,279 days per year in the 

Resurrection Creek watershed (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2013, Alaska Sport Fishing 

Chugach National Forest 131
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Survey). During this 7-year period, the average annual catch of pink, chum, and coho salmon was 

3,004; 49; and 194 fish, respectively.

Environmental Consequences – Recreation

Issues 

No issues were identified for the recreation resources.

During the public comment period of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, a member of the 

public identified a concern associated with recreational access through the project area.

Nonmotorized public access is allowed on active mining claims as long as it does not interfere 

with mining operations. No alternatives were developed as a result of this concern.

Measurement Indicators

The measurement indicator is the number of recreation opportunities affected by proposed 

activities and the extent of disruption of participation in the recreation activity.

Methodology

Effects to recreation are described in a qualitative assessment of impacts from implementation of 

restoration and proposed mining activities. Recreation use figures are used in the analysis where 

available. Refer to the Noise analysis in this chapter for noise impacts to recreating visitors

(beginning on page 81).

Geographic bounds for direct and indirect effects were considered to be the project area and the 

area immediately adjacent to both sides of Resurrection Creek from the Resurrection Pass 

Trailhead to the private land to the south of the trailhead. 

The lower Resurrection Creek drainage from the confluence of Palmer Creek to Turnagain Arm 

plus Palmer Creek valley is the boundary for cumulative effects because recreation visitors 

typically travel most of this area in pursuit of recreation opportunities.

Short-term effects are when mining operations are active (1 to 20 years) or when restoration 

implementation is occurring (1 to 4 years).

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreational Use of Project Area

Existing mining activities would continue to limit recreation use from March through October

because of the presence of heavy equipment operating on the mining areas, noise, and lower 

scenic quality during and after mining operations (see Noise Analysis, beginning on page 81 and

Scenery Resources Analysis, beginning on page 136). The limited winter recreation use of the

project would not change with the continuation of the existing mining activities.

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail

Continuation of existing mining activities is not expected to have any effect on visitors accessing 

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail in summer or winter months.

132 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Sport Fishing

The continuation of existing mining activities is not anticipated to have any effect on sport fishing 

opportunities because mining activities will not change the stream channel habitat or water 

quality.

Recreational Experience 

The recreation setting within and adjacent to the project area is consistent with the recreation 

opportunity spectrum class identified in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a) which is 

rural, roaded modified, and semiprimitive motorized with the continuation of existing mining 

activities. Recreation visitors using Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail would drive

adjacent to existing mining areas (area 6, 14, 19) on the Resurrection Creek Road and then hike 

adjacent to the project area over the trail bridge and along the first several hundred feet upstream 

on the trail. While sights and sounds of mining may be much different than what recreation 

visitors might be expecting based on information in online literature and tour books, they would 

be traveling through the existing mining areas and be in visible and audible range of the mining 

operations for a short duration. It is not anticipated that this proximity to the mining area and the 

difference of expectations would disrupt recreation visitors enough to cause them to recreate 

elsewhere.

Authorized ATV use of the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail by Hope Mining 

Company mining operators and lessees to access the west side of Resurrection Creek would 

continue but anticipated ATV use would be infrequent (twice a day) and of very short duration 

(less than 2 minutes to cross bridge and travel north into the mining areas within the project area).

Recreation visitors camping in and using the recreation area upstream from the Resurrection Pass 

National Recreation Trailhead for recreational gold panning, sluicing, and dredging activities 

would be out of sight of the mining area and it is anticipated they would not be disrupted by 

continuation of mining activities.

Cumulative Effects 

Visitors seeking recreation activities in the Hope area are mainly influenced by the availability of 

camping sites (National Forest System lands or privately owned lands), parking availability at 

trailheads, and sport fishing opportunities along Resurrection Creek. Several projects in the 

Resurrection Creek drainage have changed the availability of these opportunities. The Porcupine 

Campground reconstruction project completed in 2012 increased the number of campsites (from 

24 sites to 34 sites). The reconstruction of the Hope Point and Gull Rock Trailhead at a different 

location increased the overall capacity for trailhead parking. The continuation of mining activities 

within the project area is not anticipated to further change or affect recreation opportunities in the 

broader context of the lower Resurrection Creek drainage and Palmer Creek valley.

Visitor expectations of a pristine, undeveloped area near Resurrection Pass National Recreation 

Trail, as advertised online and in available tour books may be different than the actual 

experiences of driving to and accessing the Resurrection Pass National Recreational Trail due to 

the following activities and development:

• Sights and sounds created by the use of heavy equipment in various projects along Hope 

Highway and along Resurrection Creek Road

• Development on private land at Mile 14 of Hope Highway and along Resurrection Creek 

Road

Chugach National Forest 133
Resurrection Creek Phase II

• Sights and sounds from suction dredge in the recreational gold panning, sluicing, and 

dredging area on Resurrection Creek

It is not anticipated that these differences between expectations and actual experience would 

cause a disruption in visitors using the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail because the 

visitor use of trail has remained consistent over the past decade.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The continuation of mining activities are in compliance with the Forest Plan because the activities 

meet the recreation opportunity spectrum class for the project area as defined by a forestwide 

standard for recreation and tourism (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a; page 

3-35) and existing activities also meet forestwide guideline ensuring the levels of use and 

development are consistent with recreation opportunity spectrum class characteristics (USDA 

Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, pages 3-35 – 3-40).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 1 is consistent with Executive Order 12962 – Recreational Fisheries because it will

not impact the public’s ability to recreationally fish in the project area or downstream from the 

project area.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreational Use of Project Area

Opportunities for local residents for summer nonmotorized recreational activities within the 

project area may continue to be limited due to heavy equipment operations occurring throughout 

the project area from March through October over the next 20 years. These limitations would not 

differ from current conditions. The project area has limited winter recreation use by local 

residents which would not change with implementation of this alternative.

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail

Alternative 2 is not expected to have any effect on visitors accessing Resurrection Pass National 

Recreation Trail in summer or winter months.

Sport Fishing

The effects of alternative 2 on sport fishing cannot be accurately predicted with the information 

currently available. Consistent with the Phase I restoration projects results, the proposed 

restoration activities is expected to increase productivity by increasing available spawning and 

rearing habitat (see Aquatic Resources and Hydrology section, page 106 to 107). The percentage

of increase in fish populations is unknown and with salmon populations, is largely determined on 

ocean survival.

Recreational Experience

After implementation of restoration and mining activities for alternative 2, the recreation setting 

within and adjacent to the proposed project area would still be consistent with the recreation 

opportunity spectrum class identified in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a) which are 

“rural”, “roaded modified”, and “semiprimitive motorized”. Recreation visitors using 

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail would drive through more extensively mined areas 

(area 6, 6a, 8, 14, 20, 21) on their way to the trailhead and then travel adjacent to the project area 

over the trail bridge and along the first several hundred feet upstream on the trail. While sights 

134 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

and sounds of mining may be much different than what recreation visitors might be expecting 

based on information in online literature and tour books, they would be traveling through the 

existing mining areas and be in visible and audible range of the mining operations for a short 

duration. It is not anticipated that this proximity to the mining area and the difference of 

expectations would disrupt recreation visitors enough to cause them to recreate elsewhere.

Authorized ATV use of the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail bridge by Hope Mining 

Company mining operators and lessees to access the west side of Resurrection Creek would 

temporarily cease when the bridge is constructed for the restoration activities thereby eliminating 

some motorized use of the bridge and a very short section of trail beyond the bridge. After 

restoration implementation and monitoring is completed and the temporary bridge removed, Hope 

Mining Company may request authorization to use the trail bridge for ATV access to the west side 

of Resurrection Creek. 

Recreation visitors camping in and using the recreation area upstream from the Resurrection Pass 

National Recreation Trailhead for recreational gold panning, sluicing, and dredging would be out 

of sight of the project area and it is anticipated they would not be disrupted by mining activities.

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects for alternative 2 are the same as alternative 1.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The project is in compliance with the Forest Plan because the proposed mining and restoration 

activities meet the recreation opportunity spectrum class mapped for the project area as defined 

by a forestwide standard for recreation and tourism (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National 

Forest 2002a, page 3-35) and proposed activities also meet forestwide guideline ensuring the 

levels of use and development are consistent with recreation opportunity spectrum class 

characteristics (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, pages 3-35 – 3-40).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

The project is consistent with the policies and laws that relate to recreation resources as stated in 

alternative 1.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreational Use of Project Area

The effects of proposed mining operations would be the same as alternative 2.

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail

The effects of proposed mining operations would be the same as alternative 2.

Sport Fishing

There would be no anticipated change on sport fishing with implementation of alternative 3. No 

increase or decrease of fish populations would be anticipated as a result of this alternative.

Recreational Experience

The effects would be the same as alternative 2.

Chugach National Forest 135
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The project is in compliance with the Forest Plan as described for alternative 2.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

The project is consistent with the policies and laws that relate to recreation resources as described

in alternative 1.

Scenery Resource

Affected Environment

The project area has been influenced by human activities for over a century including mining 

activities that started in the late 1800s. Past and current mining activities are partially visible from 

the Resurrection Creek Road which is the main transportation system adjacent to the project area.

Power lines, driveways, homes, private lands, developed recreation, and dispersed recreation sites 

can also be seen in the vicinity. Mining has had the greatest impact on scenery because of its

quantity, scale, proximity to the road system, proximity to adjacent property, and length of time 

required for visual recovery of these landscapes.

Existing Scenic Integrity

Scenic integrity is the measure of the degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be 

complete. The highest scenic integrity ratings are given to those landscapes which have little or 

no deviation from the character valued by constituents for its aesthetic appeal. Scenic integrity is 

used to describe an existing situation, or can be applied as a standard for management called a 

scenic integrity objective (USDA Forest Service 2003; Recreation, Wilderness, and Related 

Resource Management (FSM 2300, Section 2380)). 

Existing scenic integrity within the project area ranges from “moderate” to “unacceptably low”.

The description of these existing conditions is as follows. 

• Moderate – Human activities are evident but are visually subordinate to the attributes of the 

existing landscape character. They may repeat form, line, color or texture common to these 

characters but changes in quality, size, number, intensity, etc. must remain visually 

subordinate to the attributes, qualities or traits of a landscape that give it an image and make 

it identifiable or unique. 

• Low – Human activities of vegetative and landform alterations may dominate the original, 

natural landscape character, but should appear as natural occurrences when viewed at 

background distances. 

• Very Low – The valued landscape character appears heavily altered. Deviations may strongly 

dominate the valued landscape character and may not borrow from valued attributes such as 

size, shape, edge effect, pattern of natural openings, changes in vegetation type, or 

architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. Deviations must be shaped 

by and blend with the natural terrain so that elements such as unnatural edges, roads, 

landings, and structures do not dominate the composition. 

• Unacceptably Low – The valued landscape character being viewed appears extremely 

altered. Deviations are extremely dominant and borrow little if any form, line, color, texture, 

pattern, or scale from the landscape character. Landscapes at this level of scenic integrity 

need to be rehabilitated. “Unacceptably low” existing scenic integrity is never used as 

136 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

objective for scenery management. This level is only used to discuss the existing condition 

(USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002b). 

In most areas viewed from the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail, the existing landscape 

character can be described as naturally appearing to modified or altered, a result of past mining 

activities (figure 14). The scenic integrity of these areas would be “moderate”.

Areas where active mining operations are occurring would appear extremely altered compared to 

surrounding areas. Areas of heavily altered landscapes are considered to have an “unacceptably 

low” level of scenic integrity, since they so strongly dominate the natural landscape character 

(figure 15). 

Figure 14. Historic tailings piles along the riverbank serve as evidence of past mining activity, as 

seen from the Resurrection Pass trailhead located at the south end of the project area boundary

Figure 15. Appearance of active mining operation

In areas where mining activity occurred, reclamation completed by the mining operator has

prevented the existing scenic integrity from staying at an “unacceptably low” level. A site within 

the project area reclaimed in the mid-1980s can be considered naturally appearing to the casual 

Chugach National Forest 137
Resurrection Creek Phase II

observer since vegetation has reestablished. Figure 16 and figure 17 depict how newly reclaimed 

placer mining sites typically appear, and how they typically appear after years of regeneration of 

vegetation. 

Figure 16. Area where mining operations recently occurred and was subsequently reclaimed (this 

represents the short-term scenery effect)

Figure 17. Appearance of where mining operations occurred within the project area boundary and 

reclaimed per the plan of operations in the 1980s (this represents the long-term scenery effect)

Hope Mining Company is currently approved for mining operations on 97 acres within the project 

area. As part of the plan of operations, mined areas would be reclaimed (i.e., recontouring of 

disturbed areas to harmonize better with the landforms that surround them, and spreading

stockpiled soil and larger woody debris). 

The public traveling along Resurrection Creek Road and using the Resurrection Pass Trailhead 

and private land owners on adjacent properties will continue to experience sights associated with 

mining activity. Adjacent areas not currently being mined act as vegetated buffers and provide 

varied levels of visual screening between viewers and the existing mining areas. 

Mining activity will continue to produce visual conditions that have “unacceptably low” scenic 

integrity where active operations are occurring. Upon completion of mining, reclaimed areas will 

continue to meet the minimum scenic integrity objective of “very low” in the short term, and 

improve with time to meet higher scenic integrity objectives in the long term as vegetation 

continues to reestablish. 

138 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

The existing condition within the project area will continue to meet the Forest Plan prescribed 

minimum scenic integrity objective of “very low” in the short term, and increase slowly over the 

long term to achieve “low” to “moderate” scenery integrity objectives. The public will continue 

to experience the sights associated with active mining activity over an indefinite period from 

adjacent lands and roads.

Environmental Consequences – Scenery Resources

Issues

There are no issues related to scenery resources. 

Numerous concerns were raised by the public during scoping and review of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement regarding scenery resources. Comments received included 

concerns about sights associated with mining operations and how mined areas might appear 

afterwards and affect those that see it, including adjacent property owners. Some suggestions 

included retaining vegetation for visual buffers along Resurrection Creek Road and private lands. 

Under the General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, Hope Mining Company has the right to 

access minerals on their claims including areas directly adjacent to Resurrection Creek road and 

to private land boundaries, therefore, no alternatives were considered that included buffers as a 

way to mitigate effects to the scenery resources.

Measurement Indicators

The key measurement indicator is the level of scenic integrity change from the prescribed scenic 

integrity objectives for the area.

Methodology

This analysis was conducted using ArcMap and relevant geographic information system data 

layers from the Forest. A photo record to document existing conditions was created based on a 

field visit September 18, 2012 and is in the project record.

The potential impacts to scenery resources from the proposed project were determined based on 

the site visits within the project area, review of photos of the project area, use of geographic 

information system data, and review of similar projects.

Effects to scenery in terms of meeting scenic integrity objective are analyzed for the period after 

project implementation and include assessing how the landscape appears following reclamation

measures as prescribed in the plan of operations.

“Unacceptably low” existing scenic integrity is never used as an objective for scenery 

management and is only used to discuss the existing condition (USDA Forest Service Chugach 

National Forest 2002b). For the purposes of this analysis, “unacceptably low” describes the visual 

condition of the landscape prior to reclamation or restoration and reflects sites that are being 

worked by people, machines, and equipment for minerals extraction or restoration activities. 

The following assumptions were used:

• Analysis assumes all best management practices, project design features, or mitigation 

measures identified under each alterative are applied.

Chugach National Forest 139
Resurrection Creek Phase II

• The timeline for implementing the proposed mining activities is variable and based on mining 

operator interest, equipment capability, and economics (predicting when an area will be 

mined and reclaimed and, over time, adopt higher scenery integrity objective is speculative).

• Scenery conditions described as “unacceptably low” (i.e., how the landscape settings can 

appear while mining activity takes place) may be seen by the public who own adjacent 

property, travel along Resurrection Creek Road, and use the Resurrection Pass Trailhead for 

indefinite periods of time.

The spatial context for effects analysis is based on visibility of the project area from Resurrection 

Creek Road, Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail, and from sites both inside and outside 

the National Forest boundary. Also included in the cumulative effects analysis are areas of past, 

ongoing, and potential future activities outside the actions of the proposed project which have the 

potential to impact scenery.

The temporal context of the effects to the visual resource can be described as short and long term.

The proposed mining operations do not have a set implementation date, therefore, visitors, users 

of the forest, and residents on adjacent private lands can expect exposure to sights of temporary 

roads, settling ponds, workers, trucks and equipment, wood piles, slash piles, wash plants, etc. for 

an indefinite period of time, and in various locations within the project area boundary at various 

times and areas in the project area.

Short term is defined as 1 to 5 years after mining or restoration activities have been completed.

Long term is defined as 6 to 30 years after mining or restoration activities have been completed.

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

The public who own adjacent property, travel along Resurrection Creek Road, and use the 

Resurrection Pass Trailhead would continue to experience sights and sounds associated with 

mining activity, but such activity would remain at current levels. Vegetative buffers would 

continue to provide varied levels of visual screening between viewers and the existing approved 

mining areas. 

When operations are active in existing approved areas, mining activity would continue to produce 

visual conditions that have “unacceptably low” scenic integrity when seen. Upon completion of 

mining activity, reclaimed areas would continue to meet the minimum scenic integrity objective

of “very low” in the short term, and improve with time to meet higher scenic integrity objectives 

in the long term as vegetation reestablishment continues.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of alternative 1 are the combination of the following elements:

• Existing condition as a result of past mining activities

• Continuation of current trends in land use and natural processes 

• The effects on scenic resources of other activities or projects in the foreseeable future

The scenic integrity objective for the project area is “very low” due to its mineral management 

area designation, and is the lowest scenic integrity objective managed on the Forest. There are no 

activities or projects in past, present, or foreseeable future that would change the existing visual 

condition to one that is either lower or higher, therefore, there are no cumulative effects.

140 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Compliance with Forest Plan 

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan because the existing mining activities and 

their effects on scenery resources meet the scenic integrity objectives defined by the Forestwide 

standard (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, pages 3-35 – 3-36).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 1 is consistent with numerous federal laws requiring federal land management 

agencies to consider scenery and aesthetic resources in land management planning, resource 

planning, project design, implementation, and monitoring including the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960 and the National Forest Management Act (1976).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Restoration would restore the stream corridor’s natural appearance and ecological function. 

Results from the recently implemented Resurrection Creek and Riparian Restoration Phase I 

Project (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2004), located a short distance south of 

the project area boundary, demonstrate that “moderate” to “high” scenery integrity levels can be 

expected in the short term (1 to 5 years). “Moderate” and “high” scenic integrity levels exceed the 

Forest Plan prescribed minimum scenery integrity objectives of “very low” for the project area.

Figure 18 shows photos taken in 2012 depicting results of the Phase I riparian restoration project 

implemented in 2005 and 2006.

The public travelling along Resurrection Creek Road and using the Resurrection Pass Trailhead 

and private land owners on adjacent properties will continue to experience sights associated with 

mining operations, but such activity would have the potential to be much closer in proximity and 

more frequent as Hope Mining Company’s areas of operations expand from their currently 

approved areas.

Figure 18. Phase I riparian restoration effort that resulted in “high” scenic integrity level within a 5 

year timeframe

The existing vegetation currently serving as buffers may be reduced or eliminated with expanded 

mining areas providing limited or no visual screening between viewers and the associated mining 

activity. 

Chugach National Forest 141
Resurrection Creek Phase II

It is expected that mining activity will continue to produce visual conditions that have an 

“unacceptably low” scenic integrity level during active operations. Reclaimed areas will continue 

to meet the minimum scenery integrity objective of “very low” in the short term (1 to 5 years).

Vegetation on reclaimed sites should start to recover and soften the landscape by year 5. Visual 

recovery will begin to occur and start to mask visible signs associated with the previous mining 

activity. A “very low” scenic integrity level will visually improve, but slowly, to “low” scenic 

integrity. The restoration corridor is expected to reflect a “moderate” scenic integrity level within 

this timeframe because of the added details associated with ecosystems design that reclamation 

alone lacks.

In the long term (6 to 30 years) visual scenery will improve as vegetation becomes established. At 

the end of this time period, vegetation should be well established and visual recovery is expected 

to occur to the point where most previous mining activity is unnoticed to the casual observer and 

may resemble “moderate” to “high” scenic integrity level. The restoration corridor is expected to 

reflect “high” scenic integrity level conditions within this timeframe because of the added details 

associated with ecosystems design that reclamation alone lacks.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of alternative 2 are the combination of the following elements:

1. Existing condition as a result of past mining activities

2. Continuation of current trends in land use and natural processes 

3. The effects on scenic resources of other activities or projects in the foreseeable future

The scenery integrity objective for the project area is “very low” due to its mineral management 

area designation and this is the lowest scenery integrity objective that the Forest manages for. 

There are no activities or projects in the past, present, or foreseeable future that will change the 

existing visual condition to one that is either lower or higher. Therefore, there would be no 

cumulative effects. 

Compliance with Forest Plan

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan because the proposed activities and their 

effects on scenery resources meet the scenic integrity objectives defined by the Forestwide 

standard (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, pages 3-35 – 3-36).

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 2 is consistent with numerous federal laws requiring federal land management 

agencies to consider scenery and aesthetic resources in land management planning, resource 

planning, project design, implementation, and monitoring including the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960 and the National Forest Management Act (1976).

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

It is expected that mining activity in alternative 3 will have a larger adverse effect to scenery in 

the short term than alternative 2. Mining activities would continue to produce visual conditions 

that have “unacceptably low” scenic integrity level throughout the entire project area when 

mining operations are active. Upon completion of mining activity, reclaimed areas will continue 

to meet the minimum scenery integrity objective of “very low” in the short term, and improve 

142 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

with time to meet higher scenery integrity objectives in the long term as more vegetation becomes 

established.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of alternative 3 would be the same as alternative 2. 

Compliance with Forest Plan

This alternative would have similar compliance as alternative 2. 

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

This alternative would have similar consistency as alternative 2. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Affected Environment

In January 2001, the United States Department of Agriculture adopted the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule to protect and conserve inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System 

lands (see 36 CFR 294.10 through 36 CFR 294.14 (2001). Inventoried roadless areas are large 

relatively undisturbed landscapes. The following features generally characterize inventoried 

roadless areas:

1. High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air

2. Sources of public drinking water

3. Diversity of plant and animal communities

4. Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land

5. Primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized and semiprimitive motorized classes of dispersed 

recreation

6. Reference landscapes

7. Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality

8. Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites

9. Other locally identified unique characteristics

Location and Background

The Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area is located on the Kenai Peninsula. It is 224,460 acres 

and is one of 16 inventoried roadless areas on the Chugach National Forest. The Resurrection 

Inventoried Roadless Area lies south of the community of Hope and north of the community of 

Cooper Landing. It is bounded on the east by the Seward Highway; on the south by the Sterling 

Highway; and the west by the Kenai Wilderness Area and proposed wilderness within the Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge (figure 19). The Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area has numerous 

access points along the Seward and Sterling Highway.

The boundary of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area begins approximately 1/4 mile from 

the Seward Highway, Sterling Highway, Palmer Creek Road, and Resurrection Creek Road. 

There are non-National Forest System lands adjacent to the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless 

Chugach National Forest 143
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Area near the communities of Hope, Sunrise, and Cooper Landing and near the junction of the 

Seward and Hope Highways, and the Summit Lakes area. The above highways and non-National 

Forest System lands have been subject to human influences and development. 

As evidence of human influence and development are more apparent in some areas adjacent to 

the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area, the presence of roadless area characteristics within 

these adjacent portions of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area are somewhat diminished. 

Approximately 147 acres of the project area lie within the inventoried roadless area. Human 

influences that are noticeable from the portion of the project area within the Resurrection 

Inventoried Roadless Area include ongoing placer mining and traffic along Resurrection Creek 

Road. 

Figure 19. Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area

144 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Roadless Area Characteristics

A description of the general roadless area characteristics and a discussion on whether these 

characteristics are present in the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area is provided below. The 

description also includes a discussion on the extent to which these characteristics are present 

within the project area portion of the inventoried roadless area (figure 20).

Chugach National Forest 145
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Figure 20. Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area within the project area

146 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Soil, Water, and Air: The soils throughout the entire Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area are 

generally in good condition and are well or moderately well drained, and moderately deep to 

deep. Most soils within the inventoried roadless area have a surface organic layer, which is 

thickest under a forest canopy or in wetter areas. Soils in the valley bottoms are usually formed in 

alluvial deposits and are well to poorly drained, depending on the depth of the water table, and 

slightly acid (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002b). Soils within the 

inventoried roadless area portion of the project area are a combination of generally well drained, 

deep, coarse-textured soils on the side slopes and disturbed, well drained, coarse-textured soil on 

the valley bottom floodplain that has been extensively manipulated through placer gold mining 

and is estimated to have about 50 percent detrimental soil disturbance dating to the early 

twentieth century (see Geology and Soils Affected Environment section, page 70).

The majority of homes in Hope use wells for their water source. Approximately 100 wells exist in 

the area. Numerous springs are found throughout the watershed, most commonly along lower 

portions of the valley side slope, below long slopes. Groundwater on the sideslopes trickles 

through the soil layers and the fractured bedrock below, and emerges lower on the slopes. The 

greywacke and slate bedrock geology of this area is not porous enough to create significant 

aquifers. Alluvial gravels within the Resurrection Creek valley floor are porous and can contain a 

sizeable aquifer. Most wells in Hope tap into this aquifer. In the project area, the depth of the 

alluvial gravels is limited in some places by clay layers and bedrock near the surface (USDA 

Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002b) (Aquatic Resources and Hydrology analysis, 

pages 91 to 93).

Air quality in Southcentral Alaska is relatively undisturbed from human sources as a result of 

sparse populations, large distances from major pollution sources, and climate (see Air Quality 

analysis, page 65).

Diversity of Plant and Animal Communities: The Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area is 

characterized by conifer forest trees include white spruce, Lutz spruce, mountain hemlock, and 

occasional black spruce. Mountain hemlock occurs primarily on sideslopes at low to mid 

elevations while the spruces may dominate on both valley bottoms and sideslopes. Paper birch is 

a dominant broadleaf forest species and a major component of the mixed forests. Sitka alder 

characterizes the tall scrubland. Natural and human caused fires are common and significantly 

affect forest vegetation succession in this area. The spruce bark beetle caused extensive mortality 

within the spruce forests of this area over the past two decades. Undergrowth species common 

within the forest zone include bluejoint reedgrass, rusty menziesia, early blueberry, devil's club, 

wood fern, lowbush cranberry, crowberry, splendid feathermoss, and Schreber feathermoss. 

Broadleaf forests of black cottonwood and willow (especially Barclay and feltleaf) are normally 

found in the valley bottoms. Alpine vegetation consists of dwarf scrublands and herbaceous 

vegetation types often dominated by such species as crowberry, starry cassiope, bog blueberry, 

luetkea, white mountain-avens, bluejoint reedgrass, and rough fescue. These plant species all can 

be found in the inventoried roadless area portion of the project area.

Moose, black and brown bears, some sheep, wolves, and coyotes are the dominant large wildlife 

in the inventoried roadless area. A small herd of caribou inhabits the northern half of the 

inventoried roadless area. Wolverine, fox, lynx, marten, mink, otter, red squirrel, grouse, 

ptarmigan, hare, bald eagle, owls, hawks and a variety of passerine birds are present. Many of 

these wildlife species may occur in the project area portion of the inventoried roadless area. No 

federally listed threatened or endangered species or Alaska Region sensitive wildlife species 

Chugach National Forest 147
Resurrection Creek Phase II

occur within the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area (Wildlife Affected Environment 

analysis, pages 118 to 120).

The pale poppy is the only Alaska Region sensitive plant species known or suspected to occur 

within the inventoried roadless area (see Vegetation Ecology analysis, page 112).

Reference Landscapes: The majority of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area appears 

unmodified and in a predominately natural condition; however, there are minor modifications, 

such as the Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail and public use cabins (USDA Forest 

Service, Chugach National Forest 2002b, appendix C, pp C-10 through C-11).

The project area portion of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area is not a representative 

example of a reference landscape due to the presence of past mining within the inventoried 

roadless area and because of human influences on the lands adjacent to the inventoried roadless 

area.

Landscape Character and Recreation Settings: The Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area

provides primarily primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and semiprimitive motorized 

recreation settings and opportunities. The majority of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area

appears unmodified and in a predominately natural condition and provides spectacular scenery 

(USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002b, appendix C, pg. C-11). Although the 

majority of the inventoried roadless area represents natural conditions, the project area portion of 

the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area is not a naturally appearing landscape due to the 

historic and present day mining activities and the proximity to Resurrection Creek Road (Scenery 

Resources analysis, page 136 to 139).

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites: There are no known traditional cultural 

properties or sacred sites within the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area.

Environmental Consequences – Inventoried Roadless Areas

Issues

There are no issues concerning roadless areas.

Measurement Indicators

The change to the natural appearing landscape and wilderness suitability

Methodology

The following analysis is qualitative and examines two specific characteristics of the inventoried 

roadless area as proposed activities are implemented: natural appearing landscape and wilderness 

suitability. The temporal scope for the short term is 1 to 5 years, and long term is 20 years. The 

geographic bounds of the analysis for direct and indirect effects are the project boundary, and for 

cumulative effects it is the entire Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area.

148 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Natural Appearing Landscape and Wilderness Suitability

The project area encompasses approximately 147 acres of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless 

area. Approximately 18 acres of existing mining areas and 1.9 miles of existing mining access 

roads fall within the inventoried roadless area. Approximately 13 of the 18 acres have already 

been mined or are currently being mined. Most of the trees have been removed from these acres.

Timber cutting and road building have the potential to adversely affect roadless area 

characteristics. The mining areas currently appear less natural and would be less capable of being 

suitable for wilderness designation because evidence of mining is apparent. All areas would be 

reclaimed after completion of mining operations and affected portions of the Resurrection 

Inventoried Roadless Area would appear more natural over the long term (20 years and later after 

reclamation) and may become suitable for wilderness designation.

Cumulative Effects

Roadless area characteristics within the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area are somewhat 

diminished due to past activities where the boundary is adjacent to highways, non-National Forest 

System lands or other development. The project area portion of the inventoried roadless area is 

specifically affected by Resurrection Creek Road and present mining activities (18 acres of 

existing mining areas and 1.9 miles of existing mining roads within the inventoried roadless area). 

The inventoried roadless area is still predominately an undisturbed landscape. Existing activities 

(18 acres) would affect only a fraction of one percent of the entire Resurrection Inventoried 

Roadless area (224,460 acres). Alternative 1 would not meaningfully affect the wilderness 

suitability for the majority of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area because only a very 

small portion of the inventoried roadless area is expected to be affected and these effects would

not be permanent.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The Forest Plan Record of Decision states that inventoried roadless areas within the Forest will be 

managed consistent with all interim direction and the final roadless rule. Alternative 1 is 

compliant with this direction as described below in the Consistency with Regulatory Framework 

section.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

The mining plan of operations would require tree removal on the remaining 5 acres of approved 

mining areas. Alternative 1 is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Tree removal for mining 

activities is exempted at 36 CFR 294.12(b)(3) because of a prior existing mineral right was 

established in 1974 when the federal mining claims were located.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Natural Appearing Landscape and Wilderness Suitability

The project area encompasses approximately 147 acres of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless 

area (see figure 20, page 146). The mining plan of operations is expected to take place over 20 

years. Trees would be removed from 125 acres of the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area

during mining activities, and approximately 0.85 miles of road would be constructed for mining 

Chugach National Forest 149
Resurrection Creek Phase II

access. Timber cutting and road building have the potential to adversely affect roadless area 

characteristics. The 125 acres would appear less natural and would be less capable of being 

suitable for wilderness designation because evidence of mining would be apparent. All areas 

would be reclaimed after completion of mining operations and affected portions of the 

Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area would appear more natural over the long term (20 years

and later) and may become suitable for wilderness designation.

Approximately 4 acres of the proposed restoration corridor lie within the inventoried roadless 

area. The restoration effort is expected to take up to four years. It is expected that this portion of 

the restoration corridor within the inventoried roadless area would appear more unnatural during 

the short term (1 to 5 years) after implementation. In the long term (6 to 20 years), Resurrection 

Creek would more closely represent natural conditions because it would appear and function as it 

did before mining channelized Resurrection Creek early in the 20th century. It is expected that 

this area would gradually appear more natural as revegetation and proper functioning of the 

floodplain returns and the evidence of human disturbance from restoration becomes less 

noticeable. It is also expected that the 4-acre portion of the restoration corridor within the 

inventoried roadless area would become more suitable for wilderness designation for this reason. 

Cumulative Effects

Roadless area characteristics within the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area are somewhat 

diminished due to past activities where the boundary is adjacent to highways, non-National Forest 

lands or other development. The project area portion of the inventoried roadless area is 

specifically affected by Resurrection Creek Road and present mining activities (18 acres of 

existing mining areas and 1.9 miles of existing mining roads within the inventoried roadless area). 

The inventoried roadless area is still predominately an undisturbed landscape. Proposed activities 

and existing activities (147 acres) would affect only a fraction of one percent of the entire 

Resurrection Inventoried Roadless area (224,460 acres). Alternative 2 would not meaningfully

affect the wilderness suitability for the Resurrection Inventoried Roadless Area because only a 

very small portion of the inventoried roadless area is expected to be affected and these effects 

would not be permanent.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

The Forest Plan Record of Decision states that inventoried roadless areas within the Forest will be 

managed consistent with all interim direction and the final roadless rule. Alternative 2 is 

compliant with this direction as described in the Consistency with Regulatory Framework section.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 2 is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule for the following reasons:

• The restoration of Resurrection Creek would require tree removal on 4 acres. The trees in this 

area are generally small diameter hemlock (less than 24 inches d.b.h.). Once removed, the

trees would be used to accomplish restoration. Timber cutting for the restoration is exempted 

under the 2001 Roadless Rule at 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(ii) because the restoration project 

restores ecosystem characteristics that were adversely affected by historic mining. 

• The mining plan of operations would require both tree removal and road building. The 

mining plan of operations proposes cutting of small diameter (less than 24 inches d.b.h.) 

birch, hemlock, and spruce trees on 125 acres and 0.85 miles of temporary road construction 

within the inventoried roadless area. Tree cutting and road construction for mining operations

150 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

is exempted under the 2001 Roadless Rule at 36 CFR 294.12(b)(3) because of a prior existing 

mineral right established in 1974 when the federal mining claims were located.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Natural Appearing Landscape and Wilderness Suitability

Resurrection Creek would remain channelized; fish habitat would continue to be poor through the 

small section of Resurrection Inventoried Roadless area and evidence of human disturbance along 

the creek would remain apparent. In addition, timber would be removed from approximately 125

acres of the inventoried roadless area and 0.76 miles of road would be constructed (see Map 7 in 

appendix B, page 211). The portion of the inventoried roadless area within the project area would 

appear less natural and would be less capable of being suitable for wilderness designation in the 

short term because evidence of mining would be apparent. After completion of mining 

operations, areas would be reclaimed. It is expected that after reclamation, the affected portion of 

the inventoried roadless area would appear more natural over time (20 years and later) and may 

become suitable for wilderness designation.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects under alternative 3 would be the same as under the proposed action.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 3 would be compliant with the Forest Plan for the same reasons as alternative 2.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 3 is consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule because the mining plan of operations 

would require both timber cutting and road building. The mining plan of operations proposes 

cutting of small diameter (less than 24 inch d.b.h.) birch, hemlock, and spruce trees on 125 acres 

and 0.76 miles of temporary road construction within the inventoried roadless area. Tree cutting 

and road construction for mining activities is exempted under the 2001 Roadless Rule at 36 CFR 

294.12(b)(3) because of a prior existing mineral right established in 1974 when federal mining 

claims were located.

Social and Economic Resources

Affected Environment 

Activities occurring on National Forest System lands play a role in the economic health of Hope 

and Sunrise. Recreational activities that bring tourists into the area include use of Resurrection 

Pass National Recreation Trail, Gull Rock Trail, Hope Point Trail, Porcupine Creek Campground, 

recreational gold panning, and the Palmer Creek road for dispersed recreation activities. These 

recreation visitors may utilize local businesses in Hope including stores and restaurants. Salmon 

fishing in mid-summer also brings visitors to the town of Hope. Commercial mining on 

Resurrection Creek and Palmer Creek also play a small role in economic support. Many residents 

rely to some extent on subsistence uses tied to Resurrection Creek drainage. Subsistence uses 

include hunting, fishing, gathering of wood products for building materials and firewood, and the 

harvest of special forest products such as mushrooms, berries, and moss (Hart Crowser, Inc. 

2002).

Chugach National Forest 151
Resurrection Creek Phase II

The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section 

reports that the estimated 2011 population was 193 in Hope and 14 in Sunrise (Alaska 

Department of Commerce 2011a and b). According to the Alaska Department of Commerce, 88 

and 94 percent of the sampled populations in Hope and Sunrise reported their race as white.

Seven percent of Hope residents reported that they were American Indian or Alaska Native (no 

Sunrise residents reported American Indian or Alaska Native heritage). The median age was 

reported as 54.3 in Hope and 47.5 in Sunrise (Alaska Department of Commerce 2011a and b).

Limited community-level employment and income data are available. The most recent data come 

from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. In 2010, 63 Hope residents 

and 9 Sunrise residents were employed. The largest sectors employing Hope residents are leisure 

and hospitality (20 workers), construction (8 workers), and trade, transportation, and utilities (7 

workers). There are only four sectors employing Sunrise residents: educational and health 

services (3 workers), local government (3 workers), leisure and hospitality (2 workers), and 

construction (1 worker) (Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 2011). 

Average wages in Sunrise were $29,199 and $26,816 in Hope (Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development 2011). Per capita income and poverty estimates are not available for 

Sunrise. In Hope, per capita income is estimated at $38,641 and 14 percent of individuals live 

below the poverty line (Alaska Department of Commerce 2011). The per capita income in the 

United States is $26,059 and $30,598 in Alaska (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2010b). In 2010, 15 

percent of Americans and 10 percent of Alaskans lived below the poverty line (U.S. Bureau of the 

Census 2010b).

The school and local retail businesses provide the only employment in Hope. There is also a 

small sawmill used by the community. One resident holds a commercial fishing permit (Alaska 

Department of Commerce 2011a and b). Some mining activity occurs in area; four Hope residents 

are employed in the natural resources and mining sector (Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development 2011). Many Hope community members rely on subsistence uses, which 

lower the level of labor force participation and median incomes (USDA Forest Service, Chugach 

National Forest 2004).

Hope Mining Company conducts placer gold mining operations on Resurrection Creek south of 

Hope, Alaska. Between 1979 and 2000, Hope Mining Company lessees produced 2,795 ounces of 

gold (Johnson et al. 2004); production has likely been much higher in recent years but no figures 

have been made available by Hope Mining Company. Annually, the company and mining lessees 

spend approximately $50,000 in the Hope on fuel, food, housing, wages, equipment, and services. 

These purchases support employment in local retail businesses. The mining lessees buy additional 

fuel, parts, and supplies and services in Seward and Anchorage (Al Johnson, personal 

communication, February 1, 2013).

Environmental Consequences – Social and Economic Resources

Issues

There were no issues identified for the social and economic resources.

The public identified several concerns regarding the proposed action. The concerns are as 

follows:

1. Road construction and mining in areas 16a and 21 could negatively affect residential property 

values.

152 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

2. Mining activities could affect public safety, with particular risks to young children who live 

nearby.

3. The project poses financial costs on government, and therefore, taxpayers.

4. Restoration could increase demand for recreation in the area (particularly sportfishing) 

resulting in impacts to Hope’s limited infrastructure to handle visitors and impacts to the 

residents.

These concerns were not brought forward as issues in the analysis because alternatives that 

reduce the mining activity or provide buffers to private landowners were not feasible based on the 

mining operator’s right to access the locatable mineral estate. The Forest Service worked with 

Hope Mining Company to move one proposed road further away from the private land in area 21 

and reduced the size and proposed traffic on the proposed road in area 16a. Commenters also 

expressed a desire to see employment opportunities provided in Hope in association with the 

proposed restoration activities. 

Measurement Indicators

Social and economic effects are discussed in the following terms:

• Economic efficiency

• Employment 

• Property values

• Public safety and quality of life

Methodology

The following tools and data sources were used to analyze social and economic effects:

IMPLAN Professional Version 2.0: an economic input-output analysis tool, which estimates the 

employment and income consequences of projects on a local or regional economy (Minnesota 

IMPLAN Group 2008). 

Quick-Silver 6: an analysis tool developed by the Forest Service to generate measures of 

financial efficiency, including net present value (USDA Forest Service 2008b).

TMECA: a spreadsheet tool that interfaces with IMPLAN to develop estimates of the economic 

consequences of recreation on national forests (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Peer-reviewed literature on effects to residential property values: this literature examines the 

relationship between road traffic and open space on residential property values (Anderson and 

West 2006, Bateman et al. 2001, Nicholls and Crompton 2005). 

Alaska State Economic and Demographic Data: state agencies collect data on population size, 

race and ethnicity, housing occupancy, employment, and income (Alaska Department of 

Commerce 2011a and b; Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 2011). 

The study area for the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative social and economic effects for 

the proposed project is the Resurrection Creek drainage, including the communities of Hope and 

Sunrise, Alaska.

Chugach National Forest 153
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Activities for this project are expected to occur over a 20-year period with the main restoration 

activities occurring over a 4 year period followed by monitoring of project effectiveness and 

administration of minerals resources. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts are assumed to 

occur during this period.

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Economic Efficiency

The Forest Service would continue to oversee mining activities and reclamation procedures 

conducted by Hope Mining Company. The only direct costs assumed by the Forest Service would 

be those associated with minerals administration. The discounted cost of this project to the Forest 

Service would be $182,866 (in 2009 U.S. Dollars), assuming existing mining at the site continues 

for 10 years. Since there are no monetary benefits, the net present value would be negative 

$182,866. The cost to taxpayers would be less than under the alternative 2 or 3.

Employment

Hope Mining Company and mining lessees would continue to spend up to about $50,000 in Hope 

on fuel, food, housing, wages, equipment, and services. These purchases support employment in 

local retail businesses. The mining lessees would also continue to buy additional fuel, parts, and 

supplies in Seward and Anchorage. These expenditures would continue for an estimated 10 to 15 

years, until the remaining 52 acres of the existing approved mining acres have been mined and 

reclaimed.

Property Values

Alternative 1 would not affect property values relative to existing conditions.

Public Safety and Quality of Life

Alternative 1 would not affect public health and safety relative to existing conditions.

Cumulative Effects

None of the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected to interact with 

the effects of the alternative to measurably affect social and economic well-being in the project 

area. 

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

There is no specific social or economic direction in the Forest Plan.

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 1 is consistent with Executive Order 12898 - Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minorities and Low Income Populations because the demographic data 

for the project area revealed no environmental justice communities. Implementation of existing 

activities would not result in environmental justice consequences under alternative 1.

154 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would present a cost to the Forest Service and result in changed ecological 

conditions in the watershed. Restoration costs and improved ecological conditions could affect 

the social and economic environments in many ways.

Economic Efficiency

The effects analyzed for alternative 2 would occur as a result of implementation of full restoration 

and the continuation of mining operations. The net present value for all activities under this 

alternative is negative $1,785,900 (in 2009 U.S. Dollars). This includes the cost of restoration as 

well as administration and monitoring costs. The discounted cost of restoration activities 

themselves would be negative $1,479,497; and the discounted cost of mining administration and 

monitoring would be $306,403.

The proposed restoration activities and mining administrative costs would be funded by the 

Forest Service, resulting in the expenditure of funds supplied by U.S. taxpayers. Various 

ecological benefits, described elsewhere in this document, are anticipated to occur because of this 

project. For the project to be considered economically efficient, benefits from the project must 

outweigh the total costs. Since the majority of benefits are unquantifiable and must be measured 

in qualitative terms, there is no distinct decision criterion representing economic efficiency, and 

much is left to the discretion of the deciding official.

There exists a potential for mining activities to occur in the restoration corridor after 

implementation as Hope Mining Company still would own the locatable mineral rights within the 

mining claims in the restoration corridor and would be granted reasonable access if mining was 

proposed in the future. It is assumed that the probability of future mining in the restoration 

corridor is low because the improved technology used now for mining should allow for the 

majority of gold to be extracted prior to restoration implementation, greatly reducing the potential 

benefit of future mining. If future mining were to occur in the restoration corridor, the mining 

operator would be required to reclaim the landscape to post-restoration conditions. Therefore, it is 

assumed that benefits from restoration would last well into the future.

Economic benefits to Hope from recreation tourism are not expected to change. It is unknown 

how restoration activities may change salmon populations and the level of sport fishing into the 

future. Recreation use is not anticipated to change as a result of proposed mining activities (page

134).

Employment

Restoration activities would have employment and income impacts similar to those that occurred 

under Phase I restoration; some restoration activities could be performed by local residents. 

Alternative 2 may generate new mining lessees which would drive additional economic activity, 

as food, fuel, and other services are purchased in the local area.

Property Values

Most research related to property values and natural amenities are based on urban areas. The 

validity of these studies for rural areas is uncertain but provides guidance on the direction and 

magnitude of potential effects. Road views have a statistically significant negative effect on 

residential property values and it is estimated that “each decibel increase in traffic noise decreases 

property price by 0.20 percent” (Bateman et al. 2001). In contrast, other studies have found that 

Chugach National Forest 155
Resurrection Creek Phase II

greenways and open space increase residential property values (e.g., Nicholls and Crompton 

2005). The mining activities under alternative 2 may decrease adjacent residential property values

due to the anticipated increase in noise decibels and decrease in scenic integrity while mining 

operations are ongoing.

Public Safety and Quality of Life

Members of the public raised concerns about safety related to mining activities. Public access 

across the proposed bridge would be prohibited to reduce public exposure to hazards associated 

with heavy equipment operations for restoration and mining activities. The Forest Service would 

require Hope Mining Company and restoration contractors to install signing indicating potential 

hazards from heavy equipment when operating near Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail 

and trail bridge (mitigation measure 12, page 42) and would not allow equipment associated with 

the restoration project or mining operations to be staged at the Resurrection Pass National 

Recreation Trailhead or the dispersed camping area upstream from the trailhead (mitigation 

measure 13, page 42). Mining road construction would occur in close proximity to private

property which may adversely affect those property owners. Based on public comments, Hope 

Mining Company changed their planned road width and use and have proposed gating either end 

of the proposed road in area 16a to limit the size and amount of mining traffic on this road and 

has moved a proposed road location away from the private land boundary in area 21 in an effort 

to reduce some impacts to nearby private landowners. Traffic volume on Resurrection Creek 

Road from restoration activities is expected to be light but the increase in truck traffic and noise 

may adversely affect area residents during implementation. Dust created from restoration truck 

traffic on Resurrection Creek Road will be minimized with dust abatement actions when dry 

conditions occur during restoration implementation (mitigation measure 9, page 41).

Cumulative Effects

Existing and proposed mining activities may increase the demand for support services in the local 

economy beyond what is described here. The cumulative effect of increased demand may 

increase economic feasibility for more services to be provided locally. Given the relatively small

scale of these activities, much of the economic activity will continue to occur outside the local 

economy.

Proposed development on private land may increase exposure to social and economic 

consequences. The proposed residential development on Resurrection Creek Road may increase 

recreational demand in the project area, increase exposure to potential safety concerns, and affect 

private property values. However, these effects are not expected to meaningfully differ from the 

direct and indirect effects described above.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Chugach Forest Plan

There is no specific social or economic Forest Plan direction. 

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 2 is consistent with Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minorities and Low Income Populations because the demographic data for the project 

area revealed no environmental justice communities and no public comments raised concerns 

related to environmental justice. The implementation of restoration and mining operations under 

alternative 2 would not result in environmental justice consequences.

156 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Economic Efficiency

Restoration would not occur under alternative 3 and the Forest Service would continue to 

administer surface mining and reclamation conducted by Hope Mining Company. The only direct 

costs assumed by the Forest Service would be those associated with minerals administration. The 

discounted cost of this project to the Forest Service would be $306,403 (in 2009 U.S. Dollars).

Since there are no monetary benefits, the net present value would be negative $306,403. The cost 

to taxpayers would be less than under the proposed action, but no restoration activities would take 

place and no associated ecological benefits would be realized. Recreation visitor use and 

associated economic benefits to Hope is not anticipated to change with alternative 3 (Recreation 

analysis, page 135).

Employment

There would be no impacts to local employment and income resulting from restoration activities. 

Alternative 3 may generate new lessees which would drive additional economic activity, as food, 

fuel, and other services are purchased in the local area. 

Property Values

The effects would the same as alternative 2.

Public Health and Safety

Under alternative 3, Hope Mining Company would construct a bridge and approximately 2.6 

miles of new mining roads. The bridge across Resurrection Creek would be used only for mining 

related purposes. The Forest Service would require Hope Mining Company to install signing 

indicating potential hazards from heavy equipment when operating near Resurrection Pass 

National Recreation Trail and trail bridge (mitigation measure 12, page 42) and would not allow 

equipment associated with the mining operations to be staged at the Resurrection Pass National 

Recreation Trailhead or the dispersed camping area upstream from the trailhead (mitigation 

measure 13, page 42). Mining road construction would occur in close proximity to private

property which may adversely affect those property owners with the same effects as alternative 2.

Traffic volume on Resurrection Creek road is not expected to change from existing conditions 

with alternative 3.

Mining activities could negative affect quality of life for those living near the project area. Design 

criteria and mitigation measures, such as signage indicating potential hazards (mitigation 12, page 

42) and limiting public access in mining and restoration areas may reduce public safety hazards

and some of the potential for adverse effects to quality of life for nearby property owners.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of alternative 3 would be consistent with the cumulative effects described 

under alternative 2. 

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

There is no specific social or economic direction in the Forest Plan.

Chugach National Forest 157
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 3 is consistent with Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minorities and Low Income Populations for the same reasons as alternative 2.

Subsistence

Affected Environment 

Subsistence is important to rural Alaska residents. Residents may rely on subsistence to 

supplement or replace income derived from seasonal employment or to take advantage of 

renewable natural resources that are less expensive than store-purchased products. For some 

cultures, the harvest, use, and redistribution of subsistence resources is an integral part of cultural

and social value systems.

Cooper Landing and Hope are small unincorporated communities within the Kenai Borough.

Residents of Cooper Landing and Hope are classified as rural, and therefore qualify for

subsistence use under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The subsistence 

resources around the communities abound and consist of moose, black and brown bears, caribou, 

mountain goats, sheep, wolves, coyote, foxes, lynx, marten, mink, land otter, wolverines, marmot, 

hares, and beaver (Seitz et al. 1992). Fish are also a major part of the subsistence resource.

Table 20. Cooper Landing subsistence resource use (August 1990 through July 1991)

Type of Subsistence Resource Pounds of usable resource

per person

Percent of total wild 

resources

Salmon 40 43

Land Mammals 29 32

Other Fish 14 16

Wild plants, eggs, marine invertebrates 9 9

Totals 92

Table 21. Most commonly used subsistence resources by Cooper Landing residents 

(August 1990 through July 1991)

Type of Subsistence Resource Percent of households using this resource

Sockeye Salmon 77

Berries 71

Halibut 65

Dolly Varden 57

Coho Salmon 53

Moose 43

Other Plants 35

Grouse 33

Chinook Salmon 30

Lake Trout 25

Cooper Landing residents are dependent on a wide diversity of fish and wildlife resources, 

harvesting an average of 8.3 different kinds of resources, similar to other road-connected 

158 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

communities on the Kenai Peninsula. From August 1990 through July 1991, all households in 

Cooper Landing were estimated to have used at least one wild resource. Ninety-four percent 

harvested some kind of wild resource. The per capita harvest of wild resources, measured in 

pounds of useable weight, was 91.5 pounds while the mean household harvest was 238 pounds. 

Table 20 refers to specific resources harvested (Seitz et al. 1992). The most commonly used 

subsistence resources by residents of Cooper Landing are shown in table 21 (Seitz et al. 1992).

Hope households use an average of 9 kinds of wild resources during the year (Seitz et al. 1992).

Almost all households (93.9 percent) hunted, fished, or gathered wild foods and 100 percent used 

at least one type of wild resource. The per capita harvest of wild resources was 111 pounds per 

person while the mean household harvest was 262 pounds. Table 22 refers to specific resources 

harvested (Seitz et al. 1992). The most commonly used subsistence resources by residents of 

Hope are shown in table 23 (Seitz et al. 1992).

Table 22. Hope subsistence resource use (August 1990 through July 1991)

Type of Subsistence Resource Pounds of usable resource per 

person

Percent of total wild resources

Salmon 50 45

Land Mammals 33 30

Other Fish 16 14

Wild Plants 6 5

Marine invertebrates 4 4

Birds and eggs 2 2

Totals 111

Table 23. Most commonly used subsistence resources by Hope residents (August 1990 

through July 1991)

Type of Subsistence Resource Percent of households using this resource

Berries 78

Moose 67

Dolly Varden 59

Sockeye Salmon 59

Pink Salmon 55

Coho Salmon 54

Halibut 53

Other Wild Plants 39

Chinook Salmon 35

Ptarmigan 30

Subsistence Fisheries

Resurrection Creek has documented all five species of salmon present as well as resident fish 

species such as Dolly Varden (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2013). The rural community 

of Hope has documented use of salmon and other fish species in Resurrection Creek (Seitz et al.

1992). There is no established subsistence fishery in this area. Fishing by Cooper Landing and 

Chugach National Forest 159
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Hope residents in the Resurrection and Palmer Creek Watersheds is considered a sport and a 

personal use activity regulated by Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Subsistence Wildlife

The Chugach National Forest, Seward Ranger District is within Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game’s game management unit 7. Within game management unit 7 under subsistence 

management regulations for the harvest of wildlife on federal public lands in Alaska, all rural 

residents are permitted to harvest black bear, beaver, coyote, hare, lynx, wolf, and wolverine as 

well as grouse and ptarmigan under regulatory seasons. Cooper Landing and Hope are the rural 

communities that have documented use of wildlife resources for subsistence purposes within the 

Chugach National Forest (Seitz et al. 1992). The community of Cooper Landing has documented 

use within the Hope area but not to the extent of Hope residents. The communities of Hope and 

Cooper Landing currently have customary and traditional use for Moose within game 

management unit 7, which Resurrection Creek drainage occupies. The community of Hope also 

has customary and traditional use of caribou. The community of Cooper Landing may be 

provided customary and traditional use for caribou starting in the future.

Moose and black bear are the main wildlife species that are found within the project area that 

have been documented being harvested by Hope community members and a consistent pattern of 

use has been demonstrated for the Resurrection Creek drainages (Seitz et al. 1992). Other wildlife 

species, such as furbearers are also available for trapping, and documented use has occurred 

within the watershed (Seitz et al. 1992). No moose or caribou were harvested in the proposed 

project area under Federal harvest during the timeframe that Cooper Landing and Hope have had 

rural preference under the Federal subsistence program. It is expected that the immediate project 

area has not been hunted by subsistence users; no documented subsistence use in the immediate 

project area exists. 

Environmental Consequences – Subsistence

Issues

There were no issues identified for subsistence resources.

Measurement Indicators

Qualitative assessments based on professional judgment are used to discuss the effects of the 

alternatives on fisheries and wildlife subsistence resources.

Methodology

The following are the basis for the analysis of effects to subsistence resources:

• The Forest Plan direction (USDA Forest Service. 2002b) and Title VIII of the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act regarding protection of subsistence resources 

• Rural communities and other subsistence users and their uses and needs

• The potential for subsistence use to occur within the project area based on existing or 

potential habitat

• Potential impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources as a basis to describe the impacts on 

subsistence uses and needs.

Geographic bounds for direct and indirect effects were considered to be the project area plus an 

area that extends one mile from the project area (approximately 5,444 total acres). This boundary 

160 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

was selected because vegetation would be removed from the project area, and noise from mining 

or restoration operations could extend one mile beyond the project area boundary. The watershed 

was considered for cumulative effects because many wide ranging species such as furbearers, 

moose, bears and others may move through or use habitat within the project area and throughout 

portions of the entire watershed.

Short-term effects would be considered those lasting 1 to 4 years and long-term effects would be 

5 to 100 years (potential timeframe for vegetation to be restored to mature structure and 

composition).

Alternative 1 – Existing Approved Mining (No Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Subsistence Fisheries

The rural community of Hope has documented use of salmon and other fish species in 

Resurrection Creek (Seitz et al. 1992). There is no established subsistence fishery in this area so 

alternative 1 does not currently impact the subsistence fishery users. 

Subsistence Wildlife

No moose or caribou have been harvested in the project area under Federal harvest during the 

timeframe that Cooper Landing and Hope have had rural preference under the Federal subsistence 

program. Documented subsistence use in the project area does not exist so alternative 1 does not 

currently impact subsistence wildlife users in the short term but it is unknown whether any 

subsistence use would begin to occur in the project area over the long term. Under indirect 

effects, the current condition of the project area affects the habitat for commonly hunted large 

mammals such as moose and black bear. Wildlife habitat will continue to change as existing 

approved areas are mined and reclaimed. It is not anticipated that this level of wildlife habitat 

acreage change would affect species population and thereby availability of wildlife for 

subsistence use (page 122).

Cumulative Effects

The following activities on National Forest System Lands and adjacent non-National Forest lands 

were considered for cumulative effects:

• Reconstruction of Porcupine Campground completed in 2012

• Past fuel reduction projects/harvesting/pile burning along Hope Highway and Palmer Creek 

Road, about 800 acres (from 2005 – 2013)

• Resurrection Creek Restoration Project Phase I implemented in 2005 and 2006

• New trailhead development for Gull Rock and Hope Point Trail along Cripple Creek Road –

Completed in 2012

• Hope Point Trail reconstruction – partially completed by end of 2013

• Ongoing recreation use of Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail

• Small-scale suction dredging on Palmer Creek

• Maintenance of side channel in Resurrection Restoration Phase I project completed in June of 

2014

Chugach National Forest 161
Resurrection Creek Phase II

• Ongoing recreational gold panning and suction dredging along Resurrection Creek south of 

project area

• Past, ongoing and future development on private land at mile 14 of the Hope Highway and 

along Resurrection Creek Road

• Subdivision and potential future development of Borough land near Resurrection Creek 

Road/Palmer Creek Road intersection

• Development on the patented mining claim at the end of Resurrection Creek Road

• Small scale channel realignment of Resurrection Creek just south of Hope Highway along 

private land to protect privately owned structures from creek movement implemented in 2013

All of these activities have had no adverse effects on subsistence uses. Because there are no 

expected direct and indirect adverse effects on subsistence uses and no adverse effects from other 

projects within the watershed on subsistence uses, alternative 1 would have no adverse 

cumulative effects. 

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 1 is consistent with the Forest Plan because the existing activities do not adversely 

affect access for subsistence activities as specified by forestwide standards (USDA Forest 

Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-41 and 3-42). Alternative 1 also meets the 

desired future condition of wildlife and fisheries species being available for subsistence uses 

(USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-13). 

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 1 is consistent with Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act because the effects on subsistence uses on federal lands have been evaluated and findings of 

no significant restriction of subsistence uses have been disclosed for this alternative. This 

alternative is also consistence with Section 811 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act because the existing activities do not impede reasonable access for rural 

residents engaged in subsistence uses. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Mining and Stream Restoration (Proposed Action)

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Subsistence Fisheries

Fishing by Cooper Landing and Hope residents in the Resurrection and Palmer Creek Watersheds 

is a sport and a personal use activity regulated by Alaska Department of Fish and Game. There is 

no established subsistence fishery in the Hope area so the implementation of stream restoration 

activities and proposed mining operations would not result in a significant restriction on 

subsistence fishery uses. 

Subsistence Wildlife

A search of the Federal Subsistence Permit System harvest report data shows that no subsistence 

hunting for wildlife has occurred in the immediate project area. All reported Federal subsistence 

hunting has occurred above Palmer Creek in the Moose Creek drainage and in the Palmer Creek 

drainages outside of the project area. There are no known direct effects to subsistence users as 

they do not currently utilize the project area and it is unknown if subsistence users would begin 

162 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

using the project area in the long term as wildlife habitat changes with restoration and mining 

operations.

An indirect effect to subsistence users would be the change in population of animals in the 

Resurrection Creek watershed as a result in the reduction in the amount or availability of these 

types of habitat in the project area. Changes to wildlife habitat occur in both the short term and 

long term as restoration and mining activities are implemented. During the short term, wildlife 

habitat conditions will be impacted during the proposed restoration activities but will improve 

over time within the proposed restoration corridor. Mining operations will adversely impact 

wildlife habitat in the short term and in the long term, it may take decades to reestablish wildlife 

habitat composed of mature tree species. Wildlife habitat change is not anticipated to adversely 

affect wildlife populations and should not result in a significant restriction of subsistence wildlife 

uses (page 124). The long-term projection of the proposed action would improve the habitat in the 

area and potentially increase availability of subsistence resources.

Cumulative Effects

The activities considered for cumulative effects would be the same as alternative 1 except the

addition of the Hope Mining Company’s existing approved mining operations within the project 

area (97 acres). Alternative 2 would have no adverse cumulative effects because the proposed 

activities would not result in a significant restriction of subsistence uses and no significant 

restriction of subsistence uses are anticipated from other projects within the watershed on

subsistence uses.

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 2 is consistent with the Forest Plan because the proposed activities do not adversely 

affect access for subsistence activities as specified by forestwide standards (USDA Forest 

Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, pages 3-41 and 3-42). Alternative 2 also meets the 

desired future condition of wildlife and fisheries species being available for subsistence uses 

(USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-13) and the goal of maintaining 

habitat to produce viable and sustainable wildlife populations that support the use of fish and 

wildlife resources for subsistence (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-

4). 

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 2 is consistent with Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act because the effects on subsistence uses on federal lands have been evaluated and findings of 

no adverse effect on subsistence resources have been disclosed for this alternative. This 

alternative is also consistence with Section 811 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act because the proposed activities do not impede reasonable access for rural 

residents engaged in subsistence uses.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Mining Only

Short- and Long-term Direct and Indirect Effects

Subsistence Fisheries

Fishing by Cooper Landing and Hope residents in the Resurrection and Palmer Creek Watersheds 

is considered a sport and a personal use activity regulated by Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game. There is no established subsistence fishery in the Hope area so the implementation of 

Chugach National Forest 163
Resurrection Creek Phase II

stream restoration activities and proposed mining operations not result in a significant restriction 

on subsistence fishery uses. 

Subsistence Wildlife

Similar to alternatives 1 and 2, there are no known direct effects to subsistence users as they do 

not currently utilize the project area and it is unknown if subsistence users would begin using the 

project area in the long term as wildlife habitat changes with proposed mining operations. 

Similar to alternative 2, an indirect effect to subsistence users would be the change in population 

of animals in the Resurrection Creek watershed as a result in the reduction in the amount or 

availability of these types of habitat in the project area. Mining operations will adversely impact 

wildlife habitat in the short term and it may take many years to reestablish wildlife habitat reliant 

on mature tree species. Wildlife habitat changes are not anticipated to result in a significant 

restriction of subsistence wildlife uses (page 126).

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be the same as alternative 2. 

Compliance or Conflicts with the Forest Plan

Alternative 3 is consistent with the Forest Plan because the proposed mining activities do not 

adversely affect access for subsistence activities as specified by Forestwide standards (USDA 

Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-41 and 3-42). Alternative 3 also meets the 

desired future condition of wildlife and fisheries species being available for subsistence uses 

(USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 3-13). 

Consistency with Regulatory Framework

Alternative 3 is consistent with Section 810 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act because the effects on subsistence uses on federal lands have been evaluated and findings of 

no adverse effect on subsistence resources have been disclosed for this alternative. Alternative3 is 

also consistence with Section 811 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act because 

the proposed activities do not impede reasonable access for rural residents engaged in subsistence 

uses. 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

National Environmental Policy Act requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term 

uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 

CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and 

measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and 

promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can 

exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present 

and future generations of Americans (National Environmental Policy Act Section 101).

Short-term uses are those expected to occur on the Forest over the next five years. These uses 

include commercial placer mining, recreation opportunities (both noncommercial and guided 

opportunities), and fuel reduction and vegetation treatments. Long-term productivity refers to the 

capability of the land to provide resource outputs for a period of time beyond the next five years.

Restoration activities within alternative 2 will increase the long-term productivity of Resurrection 

Creek through improvements in aquatic and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife. Alternative 3 

does not include these long-term benefits to the riparian habitat. Mining operations to recover 

164 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

gold are considered to be a short-term and long-term use of the project area and will occur in all

alternatives. The mining operations will affect long-term soil productivity of areas where gold is 

extracted and areas where mining roads, camps, and settling pond and ditch systems are located.

Upon reclamation, these areas will slowly start to recover their soil productivity but it will take 

many decades. Loss of soil productivity also lengthens time of vegetation reestablishment and 

may affect species composition into the future.

Monitoring specified in this Environmental Impact Statement and the Forest Plan validates that 

the management requirements and mitigation are effective in protecting long-term productivity.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

The following information is a summary of the unavoidable adverse effects analyses in this 

chapter.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects from Implementation of Alternative 2

Noise: Noise from mining activities may impact private landowners located within 1 mile of the 

activities for the next 20 years during the months of March through October. Restoration 

activities would occur farther from private landowners but noise would likely still be audible and 

may be an impact from May 15 to July 15 for the 4 year period of implementing restoration.

Hydrology/Aquatic Resources: Turbidity pulses from construction of new stream channel could 

impact aquatic populations in the short term, but the impact of these turbidity pulses on the 

overall fish populations is expected to be small and limited to the project area and two miles 

downstream. 

Wildlife: Removal of the majority of vegetation during mining operations on up to 274acres may 

adversely affect wildlife habitat and the resulting delay in developing mature forest stand 

structure due to loss of soil productivity cannot be avoided or mitigated. About 58 acres of 

detrimental soil disturbance (17 percent of the 348 acre mining and restoration activity area) 

would occur due to flooding, compaction, or lack of topsoil prolonging early seral revegetation 

and resulting habitat.

Scenic Resources: Mining activity will produce visual conditions that have “unacceptably low”

scenic integrity over the next 20 years when mining operations are active and seen from adjacent 

private land, Resurrection Creek Road, and Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail. Upon 

completion of mining activity, reclaimed areas will meet the minimum scenic integrity objective 

of “very low” in the short term, and improve with time to meet higher scenic integrity objectives 

in the long term as vegetation continues to become reestablished.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects from Implementation of Alternative 3

Noise: Noise from mining activities may impact private landowners located within 1 mile of the 

activities for the next 20 years during the months of March through October. 

Hydrology/Aquatic Resources: Alternative 3 would result in short-term increases in turbidity 

during the course of the channel relocation. These turbidity pulses could impact aquatic species in 

the short term, but the impact on the overall fish populations is expected to be small and limited 

to the lower portion of the project area and two miles downstream. 

Wildlife: Removal of the majority of vegetation during mining operations and the resulting delay 

in developing mature forest stand structure due to loss of site productivity will result in short- and 

Chugach National Forest 165
Resurrection Creek Phase II

long-term adverse effects on up to 285 acres of wildlife habitat. About 58 acres of detrimental 

soil disturbance (20 percent of the 285 acre mining activity area) would occur due to compaction 

or lack of topsoil prolonging early seral vegetation and resulting habitat.

Scenic Resources: Mining activity will produce visual conditions that have “unacceptably low”

scenic integrity over the next 20 years when mining operations are active and seen from adjacent 

private land, Resurrection Creek road, and Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail.

Reclaimed areas will meet the minimum scenic integrity objective of “very low” in the short

term, and improve with time to meet higher scenic integrity objectives in the long term as 

vegetation continues to become reestablished.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined mineral concentrate. Irretrievable commitments are those that 

are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas 

that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources for Alternative 2

Minerals: The extraction of gold is an irreversible commitment of resources. Approximately 274

acres of placer gravels would be mined for gold.

Soils: About 58 acres of detrimental soil disturbance would likely be permanent due to flooding,

compaction, or lack of topsoil.

Ecology: The change in the forested structure of the project area by the removal of trees is an 

irretrievable commitment of resources. The successional pathway of the project area’s forested 

stands would be altered and potential long-term changes in forest composition of the project area 

could occur. These changes may linger in the mining areas due to nonuniform establishment of 

natural vegetation and if nonnative species become more established.

Heritage Resources: Loss of portions of the historic landscape (historic mine tailings) would be 

an irreversible commitment of resource.

Social and Economic Resources: Commitment of Forest Service fiscal and labor resources to 

conduct restoration, oversee mining operations, and monitor reclamation activities are 

irretrievable. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources for Alternative 3

Minerals: The extraction of gold is an irreversible commitment of resources. Approximately 285

acres of placer gravels would be mined.

Soils: There are about 58 acres of detrimental soil disturbance would likely be permanent due to 

flooding, compaction, or lack of topsoil.

Ecology: The change in the forested structure of the project area by the removal of trees is an 

irretrievable commitment of resources. The successional pathway of the project area’s forested 

stands would be altered and potential long-term changes in forest composition of the project area 

could occur. These changes may linger in the mining areas due to nonuniform establishment of 

natural vegetation and if nonnative species become more established.

166 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Heritage Resources: Loss of portions of the historic landscape (historic mine tailings) would be 

an irreversible commitment of resources.

Social and Economic Resources: Commitment of Forest Service fiscal and labor resources to 

oversee mining operations and monitor reclamation activities are irretrievable.

Other Required Disclosures

National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, 

agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated 

with ...other environmental review laws and executive orders.”

The biological evaluation for wildlife (see appendix A) indicates that no formal or informal 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is necessary for wildlife species because 

there are no federally listed or proposed wildlife species or designated or proposed critical 

habitats in the action area. 

The Forest Service consulted with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office concerning the 

destruction of the historic mine tailings through implementation of proposed restoration and 

mining activities. The historic mine tailings are a contributing feature of the Hope Mining 

Company Historic Mining District which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places. The Forest Service and the State Historic Preservation Officer signed a memorandum of 

agreement in 2009 outlining mitigation of producing interpretive panels that address the historic 

tailings as they relate to the post-gold rush mining (mitigation measure 11, page 42).

The Forest Service is required to maintain water quality consistent with Alaska Water Quality 

Standards (18 AAC 70) and protect source watersheds consistent with federal Safe Drinking 

Water Act and Alaska Drinking Water Regulations (18 AAC 80). As part of this process, the 

Forest Service consulted with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the 

owner/operator of the public water system located in Hope regarding proposed activities. No 

comments have been received from the system owner. Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation recommended mitigation measures for actions within the zone E drinking water 

protection area and these have been incorporated in the mitigation measures (see mitigation 

measures 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 25, 26, 27, and 28, pages 39 through 47)

Chugach National Forest 167
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this Environmental Impact Statement:

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Brian Bair US Forest Service TEAMS - Fisheries Biologist

Project Role Interdisciplinary Core Team Member: Fisheries, Noise; Lead Project 

Designer

Education Bachelor of Science in Biology, Montana State University 1990

Experience 19 years of experience in watershed and aquatic habitat condition 

assessment, water quality and habitat restoration / rehabilitation project 

planning, design and implementation. 

Cheryl Beck US Forest Service TEAMS – Cartographic Technician

Project Role Interdisciplinary Core Team Member, GIS; Map Production

Education Utah State University, Fish &Wildlife/Forestry

Experience 20 years of substantial and varied GIS experience in natural resource 

management.

Mary Ann Benoit Chugach National Forest - Wildlife Biologist

Project Role Wildlife Biologist

Education Bachelor of Science in Biology, Northern Arizona University, 1994. 

Bachelor of Arts in Interior Design, Mount Vernon College, 1980

Experience 28 years of experience in wildlife biology, natural resource 

management, and environmental analysis, 4 national forests in regions 3 

and 10.

Matthew Boisseau US Forest Service TEAMS - Landscape Architect (now Deputy District 

Ranger on Ruby Mountains/Jarbidge Ranger District on the Carson 

National Forest)

Project Role Landscape Architect for Scenery Analysis

Education Master of Landscape Architecture, Texas Tech University

Experience 9 years as Forest Service employee for NEPA and other special projects 

in areas of vegetation management, fires and fuels, transportation 

planning, and recreation resources. 

Betty Charnon Chugach National Forest - Ecologist

Project Role Ecologist

Education Bachelor of Arts in Human Ecology, Connecticut College 1988

Master of Forestry, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies 

1991

Experience 21 years’ experience as ecologist/botanist for the Forest Service.

Chugach National Forest 169
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Ruth D’Amico Chugach National Forest – Subsistence Biologist (now Fisheries 

Biologist on the Fremont-Winema National Forest)

Project Role Interdisciplinary Core Team Member, Subsistence uses

Education Bachelor of Science in Environmental Policy, Institutions and 

Behaviors, Minor Fisheries Management, Rutgers, the State University 

of New Jersey, 2001

Experience 12 years of experience in fisheries (region 10), with the past 2 years 

focus on subsistence management (region 10).

Jacquie Foss Tongass National Forest – Forest Soil Scientist

Project Role Soils investigation, analysis, and interpretation.

Education Bachelor of Science General Engineering & Soil Science, 2002 

California State Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Experience 10 years of experience as a Soil Scientist for the Tongass National 

Forest

Chad 

Hermandorfer

US Forest Service TEAMS - Hydrologist

Project Role Hydrologist 

Education Environmental Science degree, Bowling Green State University, 1994; 

Master’s degree candidate in Watershed Management, Humboldt State 

University, 1999

Experience 14 years of experience with the US Forest Service in watershed and 

stream condition assessment and project planning.

Steve Hohensee Chugach National Forest - Forest Geologist

Project Role Forest Geologist, Mineral Examiner, and Certified Minerals 

Administrator. Advisory role on mining law, mineral management 

regulations, financial assurance and bonding, mining methodology, etc.

Education MS in Geology, University of Missouri-Columbia, 1989

BS in Geology, Northwest Missouri State University, 1985

Experience 13 years managing large mining projects from environmental analysis to 

construction/implementation, administration during operations, 

maintaining adequate financial assurance for reclamation; and 13 years 

in geodetic survey, satellite geodesy, and cartography.

Delilah Jaworski US Forest Service TEAMS - Social Scientist

Project Role Social and Economic Analyst

Education Master of Science in Environment and Development, London School of 

Economics, 2008; Bachelor of Arts in Middle Eastern Studies, George 

Washington University, 2007

Experience 5 years of experience conducting social and economic analysis for 

NFMA and NEPA compliance 

Sherry Kime Chugach National Forest - District Heritage Program Manager

Project Role SHPO Consultation

Education MA Anthropology, History and Historic Preservation, University of 

Oregon 2002; BA Anthropology, Minor Geological Sciences, University 

of Oregon, 2000

Experience 7 years with the Forest Service

Karen Kromrey Chugach National Forest - Public Services Staff Officer – Planning 

Project Role Interdisciplinary Core Team Member, Mining Administration; Team 

170 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Leader

Education Bachelor of Science in Forestry, Colorado State University, 1987

Experience 27 years of experience in forest management, recreation management, 

with the past eight years focus on minerals management (regions 2 and 

10).

Bill MacFarlane Chugach National Forest Hydrologist (now Forest Hydrologist on the 

Salmon-Challis National Forest)

Project Role Interdisciplinary Core Team Member: Hydrology, Air/Climate Change; 

Project GIS/mapping specialist

Education Master’s degree in Watershed Science, Colorado State University, 2001

Experience 8 years of experience in watershed and stream condition assessment, 

project planning, and stream restoration implementation.

Josh Milligan Chugach National Forest - NEPA Coordinator (now Forest Planner on 

the Arapahoe-Roosevelt National Forest)

Project Role NEPA Assistance

Education Masters in Environmental Law/J.D.

Experience 10 years with the Forest Service in natural resource management.

Robert Nykamp US Forest Service TEAMS – Archaeologist (since retired)

Project Role Archaeologist; assist in the preparation of cultural resource mitigation 

factors and contribution to NEPA document

Education BA, Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder (1978); Graduate 

Studies program, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1982-1985

Experience Professional archaeologist since 1977; Forest Archaeologist for 10 

years, 3 years Wild and Scenic River planner; NEPA IDT member and 

project leader; TEAMS Heritage Resources Program Lead (manager) 

since 2001

Barbara Ott US Forest Service TEAMS – Economist (now TEAMS Planning 

Director)

Project Role Social and Economic Analyst responsible for the Social and Economic 

Affected Environment analysis.

Education MS in Management from Colorado State University. BA in Business 

Administration, Chadron State College.

Experience 30 years of experience in social and economic analyses for NFMA and 

NEPA compliance, forest plan revisions, resource management plans, 

and projects, with experience in all 9 regions of the Forest Service. 

Bobbie Jo Skibo Chugach National Forest - Recreation Specialist

Project Role Recreation Environmental Analysis

Education Master of Applied Science- Environmental Management and Policy, 

University of Denver, 2009; Bachelor of Arts-Ecopsychology, Prescott 

College, 2002.

Experience 10 years of experience working on broad-based interagency and 

interdisciplinary natural resource issues on the Chugach National Forest.

Chugach National Forest 171
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Jan Spencer US Forest Service TEAMS - Landscape Architect

Project Role Interdisciplinary Team Leader and Writer-Editor

Education Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, Utah State University, 1988

(Sigma Alpha Zeta); Associate of Science, Northwest Community 

College, 1985

Experience 23 years of experience regarding environmental analysis, with an 

emphasis on scenery management in Forest Service regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 

8 and 10.

Joshua Wilson US Forest Service TEAMS – Economist (now TEAMS Executive 

Officer)

Project Role Social and Economic Analyst Environmental Consequences

Education BS Managerial Economics, UC Davis 2003; MS Ag and Resource 

Economics, Colorado State University 2005

Experience 1.5 Years as a STEP Economist for the Forest Service Ecosystems 

Management Coordination, 1.5 Years as a contractor Economist for 

TEAMS, and permanent TEAMS employee since April 2009.

Kristin 

Whisennand

US Forest Service TEAMS - Writer-Editor

Project Role Document editing and publication layout

Education BA Anthropology, Dartmouth College 1984

BS Resource Conservation Management, University of Montana 2006

Graduate study in archaeology and invertebrate paleontology University 

of Montana, 1989-1993

Experience 12 years as a writer-editor of environmental documents for TEAMS, 4 

years as an assistant team leader for the Content Analysis Team, and 7

years as an archaeological technician

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document. In addition, copies of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and/or a website link were made available to the following Federal agencies, federally 

recognized tribes, Native Corporations, State and local governments, organizations, and 

individuals:

Federal Agencies

Congress

Honorable Don Young, U.S. House of Representatives

Honorable Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senate

Honorable Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senate

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director of Planning and Review

172 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

Natural Resources Conservation Service

National Agricultural Library

Department of Interior (DOI)

Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Office

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

Department of Commerce (DOC)

NOAA Office of Policy and Strategic Planning

NOAA Restoration Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

Department of Defense (DOD)

Army Corp of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division

Department of Energy (DOE)

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

Department of Transportation (DOT)

U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Impact Branch

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Federal Aviation Administration, Alaska Region Headquarters

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Ecological Services

Office of Subsistence Management

State Agencies

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)

Office of Habitat Management and Permitting

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR)

Division of Mining, Lands & Water

Alaska Department of Environment Conservation (ADEC)

Division of Water

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Local Agency

Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB)

Chugach National Forest 173
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Local/Regional Groups

Alaska Center for the Environment

Alaska Miners Association, Inc. 

Chugach Outdoor Center, Jay Doyle

Hope Mining Company, Al Johnson

Hope Sunrise Historical Society, Diane Olthius

Hope/Sunrise Neighborhood Development Association, Jeanne Berger

Tribes

Kenaitze Indian Tribe

Native Corporations

Chugach Alaska Corporation

Cook Inlet Incorporated

Individuals

Jill Brekkan

Todd Bureau

Jamie Carlon

Art and Lynn Copoulos

Willie Davidson

Shawn and Marnie DeFord

Allison Erickson

Chelton Feeny

Julian Fischer 

Ray Gillespie

Carol Griswold

Frank Gwartney

Andy and Susie Hall

Greg and Beth Kaser

Angela Palmer 

Jim Roberts

B. Sachau

Dave Scanlan

Erin Schumacher

Joel Schumacher

Fred Scriver

Fayrene Sherritt

Jim Skogstad

Dru Sorenson

Frank Von Hippel

Gordon and Shirley Wisdorf

174 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

References

Alaska Climate Research Center, 2009. Temperature Change in Alaska. University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, Geophysical Institute, Alaska Climate Research Center. Accessed July 2009 at 

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html.

Alaska Department of Commerce. 2011a. Community Database Online: Hope, AK. Accessed 

May 2, 2012 at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.cfm.

Alaska Department of Commerce, 2011b. Community Database Online: Sunrise, AK. Accessed 

May 2, 2012 at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_BLOCK.cfm.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2003, Aboveground Storage Tank Operator 

Handbook, Second Edition accessed June 6, 2014 at 

http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/ipp/docs/astmanual.pdf

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2012. 18 AAC 70 Water Quality Standards, 

as amended through April 8, 2012.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 2013. 18 AAC 50, Air Quality Control

Regulations, as amended through October 6, 2013.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1985. Alaska Habitat Management Guide. Guidelines for 

the Protection of Wildlife and their Habitat and on Human Use of Fish and Wildlife. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. 32 pp.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2007. Wildlife Notebook Series. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska. Accessed October 25, 2009 at

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/furbear/wolf.php.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2009. 2009 Sport Fishing Regulations. Accessed 

November 2009 at http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/reghome.cfm.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 2012. Moose management reports. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game. Juneau, Alaska at 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2013. Alaska Sport Fishing Survey. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Anchorage, Alaska, Accessed February 2014 at 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/sportfishingsurvey/index.cfm?ADFG=area.home

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2013. Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, 

Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Anchorage, Alaska, Accessed February 2014 at 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/SARR/AWC/. 

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 2009. Memorandum of Agreement between the U. S. 

Forest Service, Chugach National Forest and the Alaska State Historic Preservation 

Officer, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, December 17, 2009.

Chugach National Forest 175
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section 

(ADLWD). 2011. Estimated Population: Alaska Places. Accessed May 1, 2012 at 

http://labor.alaska.gov/research/pop/popest.htm.

Anderson, S.T., and S.E. West. 2006. Open Space, Residential Property Values, and Spatial 

Context. Regional Science and Urban Economics 36: 773-789

Arendt, A. A., Echelmeyer, K.A., Harrison, W.D., Lingle, C.S., and Valentine, V.B. 2002. Rapid 

wastage of Alaska glaciers and their contribution to rising sea level. Science. Vol. 297 p. 

382-386.

Bair, B., P. Powers, and A. Olegario, 2002. Resurrection Creek Stream Channel and Riparian 

Restoration Analysis. Wind River Watershed Restoration Team. USDA Forest Service, 

Wind River Ranger District, Carson, Washington.

Bateman, I., B. Day, I. Luke, and A. Lovett. 2001. “The Effect of Road Traffic on Residential 

Property Values: A Literature Review and Hedonic Pricing Study.” Scottish Executive 

Development Department. January 2001

Begich, R., 2009. Personal Communication. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Cook Inlet 

Area Sportfish Manager, November 2009.

Bella, E., 2007. Biological Evaluation for Plants, Resurrection Creek Restoration Project Phase II. 

Unpublished. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Seward, Alaska.

Bella, E. and C. McKee, 2007. Sensitive plant surveys on Resurrection Creek, conducted July 5 

and 16, 2007. Field data forms on file at the Seward Ranger District, Chugach National 

Forest, Seward, Alaska.

Bent, A., 1953. Life Histories of the North American Wood Warblers. U.S.Natl. Mus. Bull. 203.

Berg., E. E., Henry, D. J., Fastie, C. L., De Volder, A. D., and Matsuoka, S. M. 2006. Spruce 

beetle outbreaks on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, and Kluane National Park and Reserve, 

Yukon Territory: Relationship to summer temperatures and regional differences in 

disturbance regimes. Forest and Ecology Management 277: 219-232. 

Bilby, R.E., P.A. Bisson, and B.R. Fransen, 1993. Role of Coho Salmon Carcasses in Maintaining 

Stream Productivity: Evidence from Nitrogen and Carbon Stable Isotope Analysis. Paper 

presented at 123rd Annual Meeting of the American Fisheries Society. Portland, OR. 

August 29-September 2, 1993.

Birnhaum, C.A., 1994. Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of 

Historic Landscapes. Preservation Briefs: 36. National Parks Service, Preservation 

Assistance Division, Washington, D.C.

Blanchet, D., 1981. Water Quality Effects of Placer Mining on the Chugach National Forest, 

Kenai Peninsula, Field Season, 1980. Chugach National Forest, USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region, 23 pp.

Blanchet, D. and M. Wenger, 1993. Fisheries Habitat Restoration in Placer Mined Reaches of 

Resurrection Creek. In Papers of the Second EPA Placer Mine Reclamation Workshop. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication #EPA 910-R-93-015.

176 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Bryant, M.D., 1983. The Role and Management of Woody Debris in West Coast Salmonid 

Nursery Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3:322-330, in

Meehan, W.R., editor., Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management. USDA Forest 

Service, American Fisheries Society Publication 19.

Cambridge Street Publishing, 1999. Decibel Acoustics / Noise. Accessed October 21, 2009 at 

http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/handbook/Decibel.html

Carol, G., 2007. Loudness. Galen Carol Audio, San Antonio, Texas. Accessed October 19, 2009 

at http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html.

Carter, H.R. and S.G. Sealy, 1986. Year-round Use of Coastal Lakes by Marbled Murrelets. 

Condor. 88: 473-477.

Cedarholm, C.J., M.D. Kunze, T. Murota, and A. Sibatani, 2000. Pacific Salmon Carcasses, 

Fisheries 24 (2000), pp. 6–15.

Crone, L., P. Reed, and J. Schaefers, 2002. Social and Economic Assessment of the Chugach 

National Forest Area. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-561.

Curran, J.H., D.F. Meyer, and G.D. Tasker, 2003. Estimating the Magnitude and Frequency of 

Peak Streamflows for Ungaged Sites on Streams in Alaska and Conterminous Basins in 

Canada. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4188, 

prepared in cooperation with the State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities.

Daum, D., 1994. Bald Eagle. In Wildlife Notebook. Juneau, Alaska: State of Alaska, Department 

of Fish and Game.

Davidson, D.F., 1984. Resurrection Creek Valley below Wolf Creek, Maps of Slope, Soil 

Wetness, Landslides. Unpublished Report, Chugach National Forest, USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region.

Davidson, D.F. 1989. Soil Survey of the Road Corridor of the Kenai Peninsula. Chugach National 

Forest. USDA Forest Service Region. Technical Report R10-TP-16. 

Davidson, D., 1999. Ecological Hierarchy of the Chugach National Forest, updated 5/19/99. 

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska.

Davis, Arlene, David Rak, Dean Davidson, and Robert Huecker. 1980. Soil Resource Inventory 

of the Kenai Peninsula. Chugach National Forest, Alaska. Alaska Region Report 110.

DeVelice, R.L., 2007. Non-Native Plants Observed and Controlled at the Resurrection Creek 

Restoration Area. Unpublished. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, 

Alaska.

DeVelice, R.L., C.J. Hubbard, K. Boggs, S. Boudreau, M. Potkin, T. Boucher, and C. Wertheim, 

1999. Plant Community Types of the Chugach National Forest: Southcentral Alaska. 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Technical Publication R10-TP-76, Anchorage, AK. 

DeVelice, R.L. 2003. Non-Native Plant Inventory: Kenai Trails. USDA Forest Service, Chugach 

National Forest, Alaska Region Technical Publication R10-TP-124. Anchorage, Alaska.

Chugach National Forest 177
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Duffy, M. 2003. Non-Native Plants of Chugach National Forest: a Preliminary Inventory. USDA 

Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region Technical Publication R10-TP111. Anchorage, Alaska.

EDAW Inc., 2009. Typical Outdoor Noise Levels. Accessed October 22, 2009 at 

http://www.bixby.org/parkside/documents/EIR/VolumeII/tableq.html.

Engineering Tool Box, 2009a. Adding Decibels. Accessed October 19, 2009 at 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/adding-decibel-d_63.html.

Engineering Tool Box, 2009b. EPA Protective Noise Levels and Decibels. Accessed October 26, 

2009 at http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/epa-protective-noise-level-d_720.html.

Erskine, A.J., 1977. Birds of Boreal Canada. Can. Wildl. Serv. Rept. Ser. No.41.

Everest, F.H., and W.R. Meehan, 1981. Forest Management and Anadromous Fish Habitat 

Productivity. Pages 521-530 in K. Sabol, editor., Transactions of the Forty-sixth North 

American Wildlife Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

Foss, Jacqueline 2012. Resurrection Creek Reconnaissance Report 8/6/12. Field notes

Fresco, N. 2012. Chugach climate change scenarios project. Draft report. Scenarios for Alaska & 

Arctic Planning, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. 25 pp.

Gersich, F.M. and M.A. Brusven, 1981. Insect Colonization Rates in Near-shore Regions 

Subjected to Hydroelectric Power Peaking Flows. Freshwater Ecol 1:231–236.

Golden, H.N., 1994. Wolverine Survey for Upper Turnagain Arm and Kenai Mountains. 

Interagency Collaborative Project Progress Report. Unpublished report prepared by 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Golden, H.N., 2004. Wolverine Survey for Upper Turnagain Arm and Kenai Mountains. 

Interagency Collaborative Project Progress Report (unpublished). 4pp.

Gramann, J., 1999. The Effect of Mechanical Noise and Natural Sound on Visitor Experiences in 

Units of the National Park System. U.S. National Park Service, Social Science Research 

Review. Vol, 1, No. 1, Winter.

Grau, K.L., 2005. Acceptability of Social Conditions in Zion National Park: Incorporating 

Auditory Elements into a Visual Crowding Research Method. Master’s thesis presented 

in partial fulfillment for degree of Master of Science, the University of Montana. 

December, 2005.

Graves, T., S. Farley, M. Goldstein, and C. Servheen, 2007. Identification of Functional Corridors 

with Movement Characteristics of Brown Bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal 

of Landscape Ecology 22 (5):765-772.

Harmon, M.E., J.F. Franklin, F.J. Swanson, P. Sollins, S.V. Gregory, J.D. Lattin, N.H. Anderson, 

S.P. Cline, N.G. Aumen, J.R. Sedell, G.W. Lienkaemper, K. Cromack, Jr., and K.W. 

Cummins, 1986. Ecology of Coarse Woody Debris in Temperate Ecosystems. Advances 

in Ecological Research 15:133-302.

178 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Harrelson, C.C., C.L. Rawlins, and J.P. Potyondy, 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites, An 

Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, General Technical Report RM-245, Fort Collins, CO.

Hart Crowser Inc., 2002. Resurrection Creek Landscape Analysis, Hope Alaska. Prepared for 

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, January 31, 2002. Document 12556-01.

Haufler, J.B., Mehl, C.A., and Yeats, S. 2010. Climate change: anticipated effects on ecosystem 

services and potential actions by the Alaska Region, U.S. Forest Service, Ecosystems 

Management Research Institute, Seeley Lake, Montana, USA. 53 pp.

Holsten, E.H., R.A. Werner, and R.L. DeVelice, 1995. Effects of a Spruce Beetle Outbreak and 

Fire on Lutz Spruce in Alaska. Environmental Entomology. December 1995. Pp. 1540-

1547. 

Hope Chamber of Commerce, 2008. Accessed October 18, 2008 at 

http://www.advenalaska.com/hope/default.htm. 

Howell, S., 1999. Draft Conservation Assessment for the Kenai Wolverine (Gulo gulo 

katschemakensis) of Southcentral Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National 

Forest. Anchorage, Alaska.

Hults, C., 2004. Denali National Park & Preserve Soundscape Annual Report 2004. Center for 

Resources, Science, and Learning, Denali National Park & Preserve, December 2004.

Iverson, G.C., G. Hayward, K. Titus, E. Degayner, R. Lowell, D. Crocker-Bedford, P. Schempf, 

and J. Lindell, 1996. Conservation Assessment for the Northern Goshawk in Southeast 

Alaska. Forest Service PNW-GTR-387. 101pp.

Jansons, U., Hoekzema, R.B., Kurtak, J.M., and Fechner, S.A., 1984. Mineral Occurrences in the 

Chugach National Forest, Southcentral Alaska. U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Lands 

Assessment Open File Report 5-84.

Johnson, Al. 2013, February 1. Personal communication

Johnson, A., T. Hinderman and R. Retherford. 2004. Placer Gold Resources of the Hope Mining 

Company Claims Resurrection Creek Valley, Alaska. Accessed May 3, 2012 at 

http://www.hopemining.com/about.html.

Kalli, G and D. Blanchet, 2001. Resurrection Creek Watershed Association Hydrologic Condition 

Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest.

Kaseloo, P.A. and K.O. Tyson, 2004. Synthesis of Noise Effects on Wildlife Populations, Office 

of Research and Technology Services, Federal Highway Administration, Report No. 

DTFH61-03-H-00123.

Kenai Peninsula Borough, 2009. Kenai Peninsula Borough Parcel Viewer. Accessed November 9, 

2009 at http://www.borough.kenai.ak.us/gisdept/ims/disclaimer.htm.

Klein, E., Berg, E., and Dial, R. 2005. Wetland drying and succession across the Kenai Peninsula 

lowlands, south-central Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 1931-1941.

Chugach National Forest 179
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Lloyd, D.S., 1987. Turbidity as a Water Quality Standard for Salmonid Habitats in Alaska. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management, 7:43-45.

Lottsfeldt-Frost, J., 2000. Draft Specialist Report on Moose (Alces alces). USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska. 19 pp.

Ludwig, T., 1996. Decibels. The Sound Institute. Accessed October 21, 2009 at 

http://soundinstitute.com/article_detail.cfm/ID/95.

Mace, B.L., P.A. Bell, and R.J. Loomis, 1999. Aesthetic, Affective, and Cognitive Effects of 

Noise on Natural Landscape Assessment. Society and Natural Resources, 12:225-242.

MacFarlane, B., 2004a. Mercury Concentrations in Fish in Resurrection Creek, Alaska. USDA 

Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, AK.

MacFarlane, B., 2004b. Mercury Concentrations in Water and Sediment in Resurrection Creek, 

Alaska, Final Report. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, 

Alaska.

MacFarlane, B., 2005. Field notes on turbidity readings taken during the Resurrection Creek 

Phase I Stream Restoration Project, May 31 to June 16, 2005. USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska.

MacFarlane, B., R.L. DeVelice, and D. Davidson, 2009. Resurrection Creek Stream and Riparian 

Restoration Project, Stream Channel and Vegetation Monitoring Report, 2005 through 

2008. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Seward Ranger District, Alaska.

MacFarlane, B. and A. Olegario, 2008. Mercury Concentrations in Fish and Sediment in 

Resurrection Creek, Alaska, July 2008. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, 

Anchorage, Alaska.

Markon, C.J., and B.E. Williams, 1996. Development of a Geographic Information System for the 

Chugach National Forest. In: Greer, J.D., ed., Remote Sensing: People in Partnership 

with Technology, Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial Forest Service Remote Sensing 

Applications Conference, Denver, CO. April 29-May 3, 1996, American Society for 

Photogrammetric and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, Maryland, p. 155-163.

Marshall, D.B., 1988. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North America: with Special Emphasis 

on Populations in California, Oregon, and Washington. Biological Report 88. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC: 19 pp.

Martin, W.H., 1929. DeciBel--The New Name for the Transmission Unit. Bell System Technical 

Journal, January. 

Matsuoka, S.M., C.M. Handel, D.D. Roby, 1997. The Condor, Vol. 99, No. 2, pp. 271-281.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1369933 .

McDonough, T. 2010. Unit 7 Moose Management Report/ Pages 110-115 in P. Harper, editor. 

Moose Management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 2007=30 June 2009. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau, Alaska. 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/10_moose.pdf

180 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

McLeay, D.J., I.K. Birtwell, G.G. Hartman, and G.L. Ennis, 1987. Responses of Arctic grayling 

(Thymallus arcticus) to Acute and Prolonged Exposure to Yukon Placer Mining 

Sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44:658-673.

McNamara, J.P, D. Chandler, M. Seyfried, and S. Achet, 2005. Soil Moisture Status, Lateral 

Flow, and Streamflow Generation in a Semi-arid, Snowmelt-driven Catchment. Hydrol. 

Proces. Vol. 19, 4023-4038. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG), 2006. Version 2.0, 2006 IMPLAN Data.

Moffit, F.H., 1906. Gold Fields of the Turnagain Arm Region, in Moffit, F.H., and Stone, R.W., 

Mineral Resources of Kenai Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 277, p. 

7-52.

Mohatt, K. and B. Charnon, 2008. Sensitive plant surveys on Resurrection Creek, conducted June 

17, 2008. Field data forms on file at the Glacier Ranger District, Chugach National 

Forest, Girdwood, Alaska.

Molnia, B.F., 2008. Glaciers of North America -- Glaciers of Alaska, in Williams, R.S., Jr., and 

Ferrigno, J.G., eds., Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 1386-K, 525 p.

Myers, J.H. and D.R. Bazely, 2003. Ecology and Control of Introduced Plants. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, UK. 

Neal, E.G., Hood, E., and Smikrud, K., 2010. Contribution of glacier runoff to freshwater 

discharge into the Gulf of Alaska. Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 37. pp. 1-5. 

Nelson, S. W.; Miller, M. L.; Barnes, D. F.; et al.1984. Mineral Resource Potential of the Chugach 

National Forest, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey Summary Report, pp 24 and Map MF 

1645-A

Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald, 1991. Effects of Suspended Sediments on Aquatic 

Ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 11: 72-82.

Nicholls, S. and J.L. Crompton. 2005. The Impact of Greenways on Property Values: Evidence 

from Austin, Texas. Journal of Leisure Research 37(3): 321-341.

Novotny, J.F. and M.P. Faler, 1982. Diurnal Characteristics of Zoolplankton and 

Macroinvertebrates in the Tailwater Below a Kentucky Flood Control Reservoir. Journal 

of Freshwater Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 4.

Office of Management and Budget, 1992. Circular No. A-94 (OMB Circular A-94). Subject:

Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs. Office of 

Management and Budget, Washington D.C.

Oliver, C. and B. Larsen. 1990. Forest Stand Dynamics. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. 

Page-Dumroese, D.S., A.M. Abbott, and T.M. Rice, 2009. National Forest Soil Monitoring 

Protocol and the Soil Disturbance Field Guide. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC.

Prosser, S.M., 2002. The Effects of Boreal Forest Succession on Bird Abundance and Species 

Diversity on the Kenai Peninsula, Southcentral Alaska. Unpublished manuscript.

Chugach National Forest 181
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Pure White Noise, 2009. When White Noise matters, get the best from Pure White Noise. 

Accessed October 20, 2009 at

http://sleepdisorders.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=sleepdisorders&cd

n=health&tm=161&gps=403_854_1091_621&f=00&su=p284.5.420.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bt

s=0&zu=http%3A//www.purewhitenoise.com/.

Radle, A.L., 2005. The Effect of Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review. University of Oregon, 

Eugene, OR.

Reed, P., 2007. Spencer Mineral Materials Project Noise Impact Report. USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest. 

Rosgen, D., 1996. Applied River Hydrology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Rosgen, D., 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). 

Wildland Hydrology, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Sauer, J.R. Hines, J.E., Fallon, J.E., Pardieck, K. L., Ziolkowski, J. D., and Link, W. A. 2011. The 

North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis 1966-2009. Version 

3.23.3011. (online), USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2010.html

Seitz J., L. Tomrdle and J.A. Fall, 1992. The Use of Fish and Wildlife in the Upper Kenai 

Peninsula Communities of Hope, Whittier, and Cooper Landing, USDA Forest Service, 

Chugach National Forest, Anchorage, Alaska. 

Selinger, J. 2012. Unit 7 moose management report. (unpublished) in P. Harper, editor. Moose 

management report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2009–30 June 2011. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Project 1.0. Juneau.

Shuford, W.D. & Gardali, T., eds., 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked 

assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate 

conservation concern in California. Sacramento, California: Western Field Ornithologists 

and CA Department of Fish and Game

Sigler, J.W., 1980. Effects of Chronic Turbidity on Feeding, Growth and Social Behavior of 

Steelhead Trout and Coho Salmon. Doctoral dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, 

ID.

Sigler, J.W., T.C. Bjornn, and F.H. Everest, 1984. Effects of Chronic Turbidity on Density and 

Growth of Steelhead and Coho Salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 

113:142-150.

Spraker, Ted. 2001. personal communication, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Stevens, S.S., 1957. On the Psychophysical Law. Psychol Rev 64 (3): 153–81.

Suring, L.H, S. Farley, G. Hilderbrand, S. Howlin, W. Erickson, and M. Goldstein, 2005. Patterns 

of Landscape Use by Female Brown Bears on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. In Press. 

Journal of Wildlife Management: 31pp.

Tuck, R., 1933. The Moose Pass-Hope District, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 849-I, p. 469-530.

182 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000. Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 

2000. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce. 2010b. Decennial Census, Summary File 1. 

Accessed May 1, 2012 at http://factfinder2.census.gov.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2014. 

Magnuson-Stevens Act: Statutory authority including Essential Fish Habitat provision

(page7), accessed July 25, 2014 at 

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/aboutus/statutoryauthorities.html

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2009. Effective Noise 

Control. Accessed October 20, 2009 at 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible.Schexnayder_paper.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise 

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.

EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004, March 1974. Accessed October 27, 2009 at 

http://www.nonoise.org/library/levels/levels.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Noise Management, January 1995. Accessed 

November 9, 2009 at http://epa.qld.gov.au/register/p01206ai.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Treatment Technologies for Mercury in Soil, 

Waste, and Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. Mercury webpage. Accessed October, 2009 at 

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/#cleaningup.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2007. Alaska National Water Inventory System Website Data Retrieval 

Page. Downloaded May 2007 from http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis.

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 1992a. A Channel Type Users Guide for the Tongass 

National Forest, Southeast Alaska. R10 Technical Paper 26, 179 pages.

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 1992b. Memorandum of Agreement between the Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation and the Forest Service, Alaska Region. 

Signed March 26, 1992.

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 2001. Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (FSH 

2090.21). USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook (FSH 

2509.22). USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 2006. Soil Quality Monitoring. (FSM2554 R-10

Amendment No. R-10 2500-2006-1), USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, May 2006.

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 2009. Selected Invasive Plants of Alaska. USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region (R10-TP-130B).

Chugach National Forest 183
Resurrection Creek Phase II

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest,1997. Geographic Information System Cover 

Type Layer, USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest,1998. Geographic Information System Sensitive 

Plans Coverage, USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, 2002a. Revised Land and Resource Management 

Plan, Chugach National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, R10-MB-480c, 

May 2002.

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region, R10-MB-480d, May 2002.

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement:

Resurrection Creek Stream and Riparian Restoration Project. Seward Ranger District, 

Chugach National Forest. Management Bulletin R10-MB-539. November 2004.

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, 2009. Environmental Assessment, Decision 

Notice, and Finding of No Significant Impact, Hope Mining Company Area 5A, 19, 20A 

Mining Plan of Operations. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Seward 

Ranger District, May 29, 2009.

USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2014. Resurrection Creek Fish Count 2005 to 

2014. Unpublished data. Forest Service, Chugach National Forest

USDA Forest Service, 2003. DEMOsthenes2002, Version 2.3, June 2003.

USDA Forest Service, 2003. Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management (FSM 

2300, Chapter 2380). USDA Forest Service, May 2, 2003.

USDA Forest Service, 2008a. Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management (FSM 

2300, Chapter 2360). USDA Forest Service. July 25, 2008.

USDA Forest Service, 2008b. Travel Management Economic Contribution Application 

(TMECA). Version June 23, 2008.

USDA Forest Service, 2010, Soil Management (FSM 2500, Chapter 2550), USDA Forest Service, 

November 23, 2010.

USDA Forest Service, 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management 

on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. 

s.l.:USDA Forest Service, FS-990a.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. Arlington, Virginia: 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management.

Viereck, L.A., C.T. Dyrness, A.R. Batten, and K.J. Wenzlick, 1992. The Alaska Vegetation 

Classification. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR286, Alaska.

Western Regional Climate Center, 2007. Alaska Climate Summaries Webpage. 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmak.html. Downloaded May, 2007.

184 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Zeimer, Robert R. 1981. The role of vegetation in the stability of forested slopes. International 

Union of Forest Research Organizations 1981 proceedings.

Chugach National Forest 185
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Glossary

Anadromous – migrating up rivers from the sea to breed (i.e. salmon species)

Anoxic — The condition of oxygen deficiency or absence of oxygen. Soils that have undergone a 

long period of oxygen deficiency lack biological attributes important for plant growth and have an 

altered chemistry that is not conducive to near surface soil processes.

Bank full channel — The stream channel that is formed by the dominant discharge, also referred 

to as the active channel, which meanders across the floodplain as it forms pools, riffles, and point 

bars.

Bar or Gravel Bar — (1) A sand or gravel deposit found on the bed of a stream that is often 

exposed during low-water periods. (2) An elongated landform generated by waves and currents, 

usually running parallel to the shore, composed predominantly of unconsolidated sand, gravel, 

stones, cobbles, or rubble and with water on two sides. 

Bed Load — (1) Sediment particles up to rock, which slide and roll along the bottom of the 

streambed. (2) Material in movement along a stream bottom, or, if wind is the moving agent, 

along the surface. (3) The sediment that is transported in a stream by rolling, sliding, or skipping 

along or very close to the bed. Contrast with material carried in Suspension or Solution.

Bed Shear Stress — The force per unit area exerted by water as it shears over a surface.

Entrenchment Ratio — Flood-prone width divided by bankfull width; a measure of floodplain 

accessibility and inundation.

Floodplain — (1) (FEMA) Any normally dry land area that is susceptible to being inundated by 

water from any natural source. This area is usually low land adjacent to a river, stream, 

watercourse, ocean or lake. (2) A strip of relatively smooth land bordering a stream, built of 

sediment carried by the stream and dropped in the slack water beyond the influence of the 

swiftest current. It is called a living flood plain if it is overflowed in times of high water but a fossil 

flood plain if it is beyond the reach of the highest flood. (3) The lowland that borders a stream or 

river, usually dry but subject to flooding. (4) The transversely level floor of the axial-stream 

drainage way of a semi-bolson or of a major desert stream valley that is occasionally or regularly 

alluviated by the stream overflowing its channel during flood. (5) The land adjacent to a channel 

at the elevation of the bankfull discharge, which is inundated on the average of about 2 out of 3 

years. The floor of stream valleys, which can be inundated by small to very large floods. The onein-100-year floodplain has a 0.01 chance per year of being covered with water. (6) That land 

outside of a stream channel described by the perimeter of the maximum probable flood. Also 

referred to as a flood-prone area.

Flood-prone Width — Width or extent of floodwaters within a valley.

Graminoid — A grass or grass-like plant.

Highbanker – A portable piece of mining equipment used to separate gold from placer gravels.

Hyporheic — The hyporheic zone is a region beneath and lateral to a stream bed where there is 

mixing of shallow groundwater and surface water.

Instream Large Woody Material — Coarse wood material such as twigs, branches, logs, trees, 

and roots that fall into streams.

Length of Meander — One full sine wave of a stream meander.

Meander — (1) The turn of a stream, either live or cut off. The winding of a stream channel in the 

shape of a series of loop-like bends. (2) A sinuous channel form in flatter river grades formed by 

the erosion on one side of the channel (pools) and deposition on the other side (point bars).

Chugach National Forest 187
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Meander Belt Width — Amplitude or width containing the meander.

Mine tailings — Rock spoils from mining activity.

Montane – Pertaining to, growing in, or inhabiting mountainous regions. 

Morphology — (1) The science of the structure of organisms. (2) The external structure form and 

arrangement of rocks in relation to the development of landforms. River morphology deals with 

the science of analyzing the structural makeup of rivers and streams. Geomorphology deals with 

the shape of the Earth’s surface.

Net Present Value (NPV) — The discounted sum of monetizable costs and benefits.

Office of General Counsel – The Office of General Counsel provides legal advice and services 

to the Forest Service.

Organic — Matter derived from living organisms.

Overburden – Soil and other organic material covering gravel or bedrock

Palustrine – Relating to a system of inland, nontidal wetlands characterized by the presence of 

trees, shrubs, and emergent vegetation (vegetation that is rooted below water but grows above 

the surface). Palustrine wetlands range from permanently saturated or flooded land (as in 

marshes, swamps, and lake shores) to land that is wet only seasonally (as in vernal pools). 

Placer gravels –Gravels that potentially also contain gold flakes and nuggets.

Pool — (1) A location in an active stream channel, usually located on the outside bends of 

meanders, where the water is deepest and has reduced current velocities. (2) A deep reach of a 

stream; a part of the stream with depth greater than the surrounding areas frequented by fish. 

The reach of a stream between two riffles; a small and relatively deep body of quiet water in a 

stream or river. Natural streams often consist of a succession of pools and riffles.

Push up dam – a berm composed of cobble and gravel from the streambed that is pushed into 

place by a bulldozer to divert water 

Reclamation – those actions performed during or after mineral activities to shape, stabilize, 

revegetate, or otherwise treat the affected lands in order to achieve a safe and ecologically stable 

condition and land use that is consistent with long-term forest land and resource management 

plans and local environmental conditions.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) — A system developed by the Forest Service that 

classifies recreation settings on National Forest lands according to their physical, social, and 

managerial characteristics. These ROS settings are formally applied to National Forest lands and 

not adjacent private lands. However, the presence and condition of private lands influence the 

ROS settings assigned to National Forest lands. 

Recurrence Interval — In statistical analysis of hydrologic data, based on the assumption that 

observations are equally spaced in time with the interval between two successive observations as 

a unit of time, the return period is the reciprocal of 1 minus the probability of a value equal to or 

less than a certain value; it is the mean number of such time units necessary to obtain a value 

equal to or greater than a certain value one time. For example, with a one-year interval between 

observations, a return period of 100 years means that, on the average, an event of this 

magnitude, or greater, is not expected to occur more often than once in 100 years.

Redd — A depression in gravel created by salmon and trout to deposit and incubate their eggs. 

Reference Reach — Undisturbed reach of stream that possesses similar channel morphology, 

hydrology, sediment regime and biota relative to the disturbed site to be analyzed, rehabilitated or 

restored.

188 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Refugia – Referring to side water channels or ponds where aquatic organisms can escape injury 

or mortality from higher water velocity.

Restoration – A set of activities that help improve the environmental health of a river or stream. 

These activities aim to restore the natural state and functioning of the river system in support of 

terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and fluvial processes.

Riffle — (1) A shallow rapids, usually located at the crossover in a meander of the active 

channel. (2) Shallow rapids in an open stream, where the water surface is broken into waves by 

obstructions such as shoals or sandbars wholly or partly submerged beneath the water surface. 

(3) Also, a stretch of choppy water caused by such a shoal or sandbar; a rapid; a shallow part of 

the stream.

Riparian Areas (Habitat) — (1) Land areas directly influenced by a body of water. Usually such 

areas have visible vegetation or physical characteristics showing this water influence. 

Streamsides, lake borders, and marshes are typical riparian areas. Generally refers to such areas 

along flowing bodies of water. 

Salmonid -belonging or pertaining to the family Salmonidae, including the salmons, trouts, chars, 

and whitefishes. 

Sediment — (1) Soil particles that have been transported from their natural location by wind or 

water action; particles of sand, soil, and minerals that are washed from the land and settle on the 

bottoms of wetlands and other aquatic habitats. (2) The soil material, both mineral and organic, 

that is in suspension, is being transported, or has been moved from its site of origin by erosion 

(by air, water, gravity, or ice) and has come to rest on the earth’s surface. (3) Solid material that is 

transported by, suspended in, or deposited from water. It originates mostly from disintegrated 

rocks; it also includes chemical and biochemical precipitates and decomposed organic material, 

such as humus. The quantity, characteristics, and cause of the occurrence of sediment in 

streams are influenced by environmental factors. Some major factors are degree of slope, length 

of slope, soil characteristics, land usage, and quantity and intensity of precipitation. (4) In the 

singular, the word is usually applied to material in suspension in water or recently deposited from 

suspension. In the plural the word is applied to all kinds of deposits from the waters of streams, 

lakes, or seas, and in a more general sense to deposits of wind and ice. Such deposits that have 

been consolidated are generally called sedimentary rocks. (5) Fragmental or clastic mineral 

particles derived from soil, alluvial, and rock materials by processes of erosion, and transported 

by water, wind, ice, and gravity. A special kind of sediment is generated by precipitation of solids 

from solution (i.e., calcium carbonate, iron oxides).

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized — An area characterized by a predominantly natural or natural

appearing environment. Interaction with between other users is low, but there is often evidence of 

users.

Seral – A seral community (or sere) is an intermediate stage of vegetation growth found in 

ecological succession in an ecosystem advancing towards its climax community of vegetation. In 

many cases more than one seral stage evolves until climax conditions are attained.

Side Channel — Typically small stream channel which branches off of the mainstream channel.

Snag — A tree or branch embedded in a lake or streambed. A stub or stump remaining after a 

branch has been lopped or torn off.

Smolt — A juvenile, silvery salmon up to 15 cm long, which has lost its parr marks and has 

attained the silvery coloration of the adult. This coloration signifies the readiness of the young fish 

to migrate to the seas and its ability to adapt to the water environment. 

Spawning Gravel — Streambed substrate suitable for salmonid spawning.

Subsoiling — The breaking up of subsoils without inverting them. 

Chugach National Forest 189
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Succession — (Biology) (1) The ecological process of sequential replacement by plant 

communities on a given site as a result of differential reproduction and competition. (2) 

Directional, orderly process of change in a living community in which the community modifies the 

physical environment to eventually establish an ecosystem which is as stable as possible at the 

site in question.

Thalweg — (1) The line connecting the deepest points along a stream. (2) The lowest thread 

along the axial part of a valley or stream channel. (3) A subsurface, groundwater stream 

percolating beneath and in the general direction of a surface stream course or valley. (4) The 

middle, chief, or deepest part of a navigable channel or waterway.

Turbidity - A measure of light obscuration by water. Turbidity increases as the amount of 

suspended sediments in the water column increase.

Vascular Plants – Any plant that has a specialized conducting system consisting mostly of 

phloem (food-conducting tissue) and xylem (water-conducting tissue).

Wash plant – A large piece of mining equipment that gravity separates gold from placer gravels.

White Noise – a constant background noise; especially one that drowns out other sounds 

Woody Debris — Coarse wood material such as twigs, branches, logs, trees, and roots that fall 

into streams. 

190 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACMP Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program

ACOE Army Corps of Engineers

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ATV all-terrain vehicle

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

cfs cubic feet per second

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CNF Chugach National Forest 

dB decibel

d.b.h. diameter at breast height (Forestry)

DEIS draft environmental impact statement

EFH essential fish habitat

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS final environmental impact statement

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HMC Hope Mining Company

IRA inventoried roadless area

LAA likely adversely affected

LRMP land and resource management plan

MIS management indicator species

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NHA National Heritage Area

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI notice of intent

NPV net present value

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

OGC Office of General Counsel

OHV off-highway vehicle

OMB Office of Management and Budget

R10 SQS Forest Service Region 10 Soil Quality Standards

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIO scenic integrity objective

USC United States Code

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

Chugach National Forest 191
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix A. Biological Evaluation

Chugach National Forest - Biological Evaluation for 

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species

Date: 10-31-13

Project Name: Resurrection Creek Restoration II

District: Seward Ranger District

Project Type: Riparian area restoration and mining operations

Location: Seward District – Resurrection Creek, Hope Mining Company claims near Hope 

Alaska.

Project Actions: Restoration of 74 acres of floodplain, and mining on up to 285 acres.

Vegetation/Habitat Type: Pole size to large hardwoods (cottonwood, birch) and seedling/sapling 

to large conifers (white spruce and mountain hemlock). 

I. Prior Biological Evaluation No Yes

Prior Project BE: Wildlife Date: 8-11-09 X

II. Species and/or Habitat No Yes

2. Previous Species Observation X

3. Federally Listed Species Present X

4. Habitat For Federally Listed Species Present X

5. Sensitive Species Present X

6. Habitat For Sensitive Species Present X

III. Analysis of Effects No Yes

1. Significant Habitat Alteration X

2. Effects Outside Project Area X

3. Cumulative Effects on Listed Species or Habitat X

4. Cumulative Effects on Sensitive Species or Habitat X

IV. Determination of Effects No Yes

1. No Affect Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species X

2 May Affect Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species X

3. May Affect Individual Sensitive Species X

4. May Affect Sensitive Species' Population Viability X

V. Consultation Requirements No Yes

1. Formal Consultation Required X

2. Additional Informal Consultation Required X

Prepared and 

Approved By

Mary Ann Benoit Date: 10-31-13

Chugach National Forest 193
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Affected Environment

Habitat

The Resurrection Creek project area is approximately 418 acres, containing a mixture of 

primarily pole size to large hardwoods (cottonwood, birch) and seedling/sapling to large conifers 

(white spruce and mountain hemlock). Details are listed in the affected environment section of 

the wildlife specialist report.

Wildlife

Effects on Federally Threatened and Endangered Species or Critical Habitat 

The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) is an endangered species that occurs in all 

oceans of the world. Humpback whales do not occur in the project area. Determination of Effect: 

No effect to humpback whales or their habitat.

The Steller’s sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) is an endangered species with centers of abundance 

and distribution in the Gulf of Alaska and Aleutian Islands. The Steller’s sea lion does not occur 

in the project area. Determination of Effect: No effect to Steller’s sea lions or their habitat.

Steller’s eiders (Polysticta stelleri) are a threatened species that do not breed on the Chugach 

National Forest. They may winter on the south end of the Kenai Peninsula, but not on the Seward 

Ranger District (Shuster 2003). Determination of Effect: No effect to Steller’s eiders or their 

habitat.

Effects on Proposed or Candidate Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Critical Habitat

The Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris), is a candidate species for listing as 

endangered or threatened. This small diving seabird inhabits Alaskan coastal waters. During the 

breeding season, this species prefers habitat near tidewater glaciers, and to a lesser extent, 

offshore of remnant high-elevation glaciers and deglaciated coastal mountains. Breeding habitat 

requirements are less well known. Available information indicates this species nests in 

unvegetated scree fields, coastal cliffs, barren ground, rock ledges, and talus above timberline in 

coastal mountains, generally in the vicinity of glaciers, cirques near glaciers, or recently glaciated 

areas. During the breeding season they are often found in mid-bay waters and within 200 m of 

shore. Outside of the breeding season they often occur farther offshore. Breeding and 

nonbreeding habitat does not likely exist in the project areas. Determination of Effect: No effect to 

Kittlitz’s murrelets or their habitat.

Effects on Sensitive Species 

The dusky Canada goose (Branta canadensis occidentalis) is a region 10 sensitive species. The 

breeding distribution is restricted primarily to the Copper River Delta (Campbell 1990). It winters 

primarily in the Willamette Valley in Oregon, and along the Columbia River in Washington 

(Cornely et al. 1985). The dusky Canada goose does not occur in the project area. Determination 

of Effect: No effect to dusky Canada geese or their habitat.

The Aleutian tern (Sterna aleutica) is a region 10 sensitive species that generally arrives at the 

Kenai Peninsula between the 4th and 16th of May. Fall migration begins shortly after individuals 

abandon colonies, typically in August. Staging sometimes occurs in coastal areas, but birds 

usually depart directly for the sea. Breeding colonies are restricted to coastal sites, typically 

194 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

located at heads of bays, reefs, permanent and ephemeral islands, estuaries in lagoons and at river 

mouths (Haney et al. 1991, North 1997). They often nest with Arctic terns. Nests are a depression 

in vegetation, usually on grassy or mossy flats, sand spits, sandbars, sand dunes, pebbly seacoasts, 

vegetated summits of flat-topped islands, reticulate and string bogs, wet coastal marshes, or 

tundra (Haney et al. 1991, North 1997). Colony locations frequently shift from year to year 

among traditionally used sites; as a result, local populations may fluctuate greatly (Haney et al. 

1991). They usually forage in shallow water, including tidal rips, along rivers, and over inshore 

marine waters, and freshwater ponds and marshes, bays or fjord habitats. Summer diet is 

primarily small fishes; capelin and sand lance are favored. They may also consume marine 

invertebrates and some insects. In summer, they forage mostly in shallow water, near colonies and 

within 1 to 10 km of land, but also well out to sea. 

Individuals lay clutches of 1 to 3 eggs in mid-May to late June. Hatching occurs mid-June to late 

July. Young fledge in 4 weeks, mid-July to late August; and may remain at nest for 1–2 weeks 

after they are able to fly. They forage alone, in monospecific flocks, or in mixed-species flocks. 

They are frequently associated with Arctic tern in North America. Due to the species tendency to 

concentrate in a few areas, contamination as a result of oil spills is a potential threat. Heavy 

predation by birds and mammals and mortality associated with exposure to inclement weather 

may contribute to low reproductive success. Species is sensitive to disturbance at nesting 

colonies; complete colony abandonment has been observed following a single visit by humans 

(Haney et al. 1991). On nonbreeding range, threatened by over fishing of prey species, 

uncontrolled waste disposal, and land-based pollution (Haney et al. 1991).

The project area does not contain suitable nesting habitat, but potential habitat may exist near the 

mouth of Resurrection River. The project area is within 10 km of this site and the coast so the 

project area may contain potential foraging habitat. This species has not been documented to 

occur in the area. Surveys have not been done in the area as it was just added to the sensitive 

species list. Mining operations are not expected to affect fish habitat or induce contaminants into 

the river due to mitigation measures, state regulations, and best management practices required 

during this operation. Mining activities are unlikely to affect tern populations. Restoration 

activities will benefit fish habitat, but the project is limited in scale so may only have minor 

beneficial effects to individuals. Determination of Effect: No effect to Aleutian terns or their 

habitat.

The black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) is a region 10 sensitive species.

Completely dependent on marine shorelines for its food and nesting, this is a monogamous, longlived bird. Breeding pairs establish well defined, composite feeding and nesting territories and 

generally occupy the same territory year after year, often along low-sloping gravel or rocky 

shorelines where intertidal prey are abundant. Pairs nest just above the high tide line and use the 

intertidal zone to feed themselves and provision their chicks. Diets of adults and chicks consist 

mainly of mollusks; principally mussels and limpets. No existing or potential nesting or foraging 

habitat exists in the project area. Determination of Effect: No effect to black oystercatchers or 

their habitat.

Discussion of Cumulative Effects

This project will not cause short- or long-term changes to sensitive wildlife habitat as a direct 

result of mining activities. There should be no adverse cumulative effects on endangered, 

threatened, or sensitive species due to mitigation measures and best management practices 

followed to reduce any impacts to fish populations or potential contamination of the creek.

Chugach National Forest 195
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Mitigating Measures Required For All Alternatives

Mitigation measures are listed in detail in the environmental impact statement for this project.

Conclusion

The Resurrection Creek II Restoration Project is not likely to have an adverse effect on vertebrate 

endangered, threatened or endangered species or their habitats, nor should it impact sensitive 

species or their habitats.

Literature Cited in Biological Evaluation

Campbell, B. H. 1990. Factors affecting the nesting success of Dusky Canada Geese, Branta 

canadensis occidentalis , on the Copper River delta, Alaska. Can. Field-Nat. 104: 567–

574. 

Cornely, J. E., B. H. Campbell and R. L. Jarvis. 1985. Productivity, mortality, and population 

status of dusky Canada Geese. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 50: 540–548.

Haney, J. C., J. M. Andrew, and D. S. Lee. 1991. A closer look: Aleutian Tern. Birding, December 

1991: 347-351.

North, M. R. 1997. Aleutian Tern (Sterna aleutica). In: The Birds of North America, No. 291 (A. 

Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the 

American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Shuster, Bill. 2003. Seward Ranger District Resource Staff Officer, personal communication re: 

Steller’s eider

196 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix B. Maps

The following maps are provided in this section:

Map 1. Map of existing condition, which is the same as the no-action alternative..................... 199

Map 2. Map of alternative 2, the proposed action....................................................................... 201

Map 3. Map of infrastructure proposed in alternative 2.............................................................. 203

Map 4. Map of alternative 3, proposed mining only ................................................................... 205

Map 5. Map of infrastructure proposed in alternative 3.............................................................. 207

Map 6. Map of alternative 2 and inventoried roadless area overlay............................................ 209

Map 7. Map of alternative 3 and inventoried roadless area overlay............................................ 211

Chugach National Forest 197
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Map 1. Map of existing condition, which is the same as the no-action alternative

Chugach National Forest 199
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Map 2. Map of alternative 2, the proposed action

Chugach National Forest 201
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Map 3. Map of infrastructure proposed in alternative 2

Chugach National Forest 203
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Map 4. Map of alternative 3, proposed mining only

Chugach National Forest 205
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Map 5. Map of infrastructure proposed in alternative 3

Chugach National Forest 207
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Map 6. Map of alternative 2 and inventoried roadless area overlay

Chugach National Forest 209
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Map 7. Map of alternative 3 and inventoried roadless area overlay

Chugach National Forest 211
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix C. Essential Fish Habitat Analysis

The Forest Service consulted with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration /National 

Marine Fisheries Service per the procedures outlined in the June 26, 2007 agreement signed by 

the Forest Service Region 10 Regional Forester and the Administrator for National Marine 

Fisheries Service. The steps followed are outlined below. 

The Forest Service sent the project scoping letter on January 4, 2008 to National Marine Fisheries 

Service. No written reply was received.

In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service made a determination that 

alternative 2 may adversely affect essential fish habitat in the short term (1 to 2 years), and 

therefore consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service was initiated. Our essential fish 

habitat consultation consisted of including an essential fish habitat assessment in the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement which was sent to National Marine Fisheries Service during the 

public comment period.

The findings for the essential fish habitat assessment for alternative 2 included the following:

“In the short term (1 to 2 years) the project may adversely affect essential fish 

habitat, therefore consultation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration Fisheries has been initiated. However, the long-term indirect and 

cumulative effects of implementing this project would be the restoration of 

riparian vegetation, increased spawning substrate, increased pool habitat, and 

increased perennial side channel flows and associated over-wintering habitat, 

which would improve aquatic habitat quantity and quality, fish populations and 

aquatic invertebrates. Aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate populations are 

expected to respond positively to the stream channel and riparian rehabilitation. 

Increased spawning and rearing habitat created by the project are expected to 

provide a long-term benefit to the project area, the aquatic ecosystem, and 

fisheries resources for the foreseeable future.”

Mitigation measures were also developed to reduce the impacts of restoration activities (using 

best management practices) during construction of channels, excavation of new channels “ in the 

dry”, bank stabilization practices, minimizing the number of diversions and magnitude of plumes, 

and minimizing equipment used below ordinary high water.

The aquatic species risk assessment for alternative 2 is shown in table 24.

Chugach National Forest 213
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Table 24. Aquatic species risk assessment for alternative 2

Species

Probability 

of Effect

Consequence 

of Effect

Cumulative 

Effect Determination of Effect

Pink salmon

O. gorbuscha Low Low Low

Low risk of impacting individuals 

or habitat in the short term and 

would likely contribute to 

increased production and viability 

for the species in the long term.

Chum salmon

O. keta Low Low Low

Low risk of impacting individuals 

or habitat in the short term and 

would likely contribute to 

increased production and viability 

for the species in the long term.

Coho salmon

O. kisutch

Moderate to 

Low

Low – Some 

mortality of 0 –

1+ parr

Low

May impact individuals or habitat 

in the short term but would likely 

contribute to increased production 

and viability for the species in the 

long term.

Chinook salmon

O. tshawytscha Moderate

Low – Some 

mortality of 0 –

2+ parr

Low

May impact individuals or habitat 

in the short term but would likely 

contribute to increased production 

and viability for the species in the 

long term.

Whitefish

Prosopium sp.

Low

Low – Some 

mortality of 

juveniles

Low

May impact individuals or habitat 

in the short term but would likely 

contribute to increased production 

and viability for the species in the 

long term.

Sculpin

Cottidae Moderate

Moderate –

Mortality of 

adult and

juvenile sculpin 

within project 

reach expected

Low

May impact individuals or habitat 

in the short term but would likely 

contribute to increased production 

and viability for the species in the 

long term.

Stickleback

Gasterosteidae Moderate Low Low

May impact individuals or habitat 

in the short term but would likely 

contribute to increased production 

and viability for the species in the 

long term.

Dolly Varden

Salvelinus 

malma

Moderate

Low – Some 

mortality of 

juveniles

Low

May impact individuals or habitat 

in the short term but would likely 

contribute to increased production 

and viability for the species in the 

long term.

The findings for the essential fish habitat assessment for alternative 3 included the following:

In the short term, the project may adversely affect essential fish habitat as a result 

of the channel relocation [by Hope Mining Company] proposed in alternative 3. 

Because no stream restoration would occur, no long-term improvements to 

essential fish habitat would occur as they would under the proposed action.

Hope Mining Company would be permitted through Army Corps of Engineers 

and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for design and 

construction of the new stream channel.

214 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

National Marine Fisheries Service sent a response (August 5, 2010) during the public comment 

period for draft including three recommendations:

a. Supporting alternative 2

b. Implementing a monitoring plan to evaluate the success of the restoration project

c. Conducting a repeat of the Blanchet/Wenger 1993 study to test the hypothesis that 

poor overwintering habitat manifests as shorter juvenile residence time, and smaller 

size smolt.

The Forest Service contacted National Marine Fisheries Service on September 12, 2014 asking 

for clarification on their recommendation of conducting a repeat of the Blanchet/Wenger 1993 

study. National Marine Fisheries Service indicated they would support a decision for restoration 

even though funding would not be available to repeat the 1993 study. The Forest Service sent a 

letter to National Marine Fisheries Service on November 26, 2014 confirming this conversation 

and giving a project status update noting when National Marine Fisheries Service could expect to 

receive the Final Environmental Impact Statement and a request for Essential Fish Habitat 

concurrence.

Chugach National Forest 215
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix D. Response to Comments

Commenter 

Number Commenter Name

1 Jean Public

2 Art and Lynn Copoulos

3 National Marine Fisheries Service - James Balsiger

4 Alaska Miners Association, Inc - Steven Borell

5 United States Department of the Interior, 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance - Pamela Bergmann

6 Frank Gwartney

7 Joel Schumacher

8 Angela Palmer

9 Julian Fischer

10 Jill Brekken 

11 Frank Von Hippel

12 Erin Schumacher

13 Shawn and Marnie DeFord

14 Allison Erickson

15 Alaska Center for the Environment - Valerie Connor

16 Andy and Susie Hall 

17 United States Environmental Protection Agency -

Christine B. Reichgott

18 Hope Mining Company

Chugach National Forest 217
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Other Agency, Organizations, and Individual Comments

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

1.01 I oppose allowing Hope Mining Company to expand to 

pollute Alaska. It is clear mining is horribly polluting. It is 

time to stop allowing profiteers like this to destroy earth so 

completely. Most of earth won’t be fit to live in if we keep 

giving profiteers these rights to destroy so easily. The toxic 

chemicals in mining pollute earth for hundreds of years. 

Especially in a cold hostile climate like Alaska.

The General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, is a United States federal law that authorizes 

and governs prospecting and mining for economic minerals, such as gold, platinum, and 

silver, on federal public lands. This law, approved on May 10, 1872, codified the informal 

system of acquiring and protecting mining claims on public land. All citizens of the United 

States, 18 years or older, have the right under the 1872 mining law to locate a lode (hard 

rock) or placer (gravel) mining claim on federal lands open to mineral entry. The Forest 

Service cannot prohibit mining on National Forest System Lands open to mineral entry. 

Under 36 CFR 228 Subpart A regulations, the Forest Service works with mining operators 

to minimize adverse impact to surface resources through approval of mining plans of 

operations which include reclamation of surface resources after mining is completed.

2.01 We support the proposed action contingent on the public 

having access. Phase 1 was a huge success and based 

on that success this project should proceed providing that 

the public has access to phase 2 areas and to areas on 

the west side of the creek. All new roads, access points, 

bridges, that are in the project area or in the expanded 

mining area and that are built as a part of this project 

should be open to the public. No gates with "road closed" 

signs should be installed that effectively block off access to 

the restored areas or to the west side of the creek. If the 

public is paying to restore the area they must have 

complete access to it. If the roads, bridges, etc., are not 

open to the public then the project and mining areas 

should be scaled back or cancelled.

The public would be allowed nonmotorized pedestrian access to the entire project area. If 

an area is being actively mined it may be necessary to temporarily restrict public access 

due to safety concerns with having members of the public in areas where heavy 

mechanized equipment is operating (36 CFR 228.9 Maintenance during operations, public 

safety). Hazardous sites or conditions resulting from operations shall be marked by signs, 

fenced or otherwise identified to protect the public in accordance with Federal and State 

laws and regulations (page 156). The proposed temporary bridge would be constructed 

specifically for the purposes of access to the restoration activities on the west side of 

Resurrection Creek by the restoration contractor and Forest Service. Forest Service has 

agreed that Hope Mining Company can also use this bridge for mining access while the 

bridge is in place (page 27). The public will not be allowed to use this bridge for pedestrian 

foot traffic due to safety concerns. The trail bridge on the Resurrection Pass National 

Recreation Trail on the south end of the project area serves the purpose of providing public 

access to the west side of Resurrection Creek.

2.02 A trail to link up the west side of Resurrection Creek to the 

new Gull Rock Trail head should be included as a part of 

the proposed project. This project will open up the west 

side of the creek. It is important to also open that area to 

hikers and to link the area with the new Gull Rock 

trailhead. The West side of the Creek is not a "miners only" 

area.

A new trail on the west side of Resurrection Creek that would link the Gull Rock/Hope Point 

trail with the Resurrection Pass Trail is outside the purpose and need for this project 

(restoration of stream channel and approving proposed mining) and will not be considered 

in this project. The public may use the west side of Resurrection Creek at any time for 

nonmotorized recreation as long as their activities do not interfere with the operators right to 

reasonable access to the mineral estate.

218 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

2.03 The proposed restoration and planned future mining 

projects have positive benefits for the community, public, 

and miners. It’s good to see both projects go forward to 

stimulate economic activity and growth.

Comment noted.

3.01 National Marine Fisheries Service supports Alternative 2, 

the Proposed Action. Increases in turbidity would occur 

during the course of the stream restoration work. These 

turbidity pulses could impact aquatic populations in the 

short term, but impact of these turbidity pulses on the 

overall fish populations is expected to be small and limited 

to the project area and two miles downstream. Increased 

spawning and rearing habitat created by the project are 

expected to provide long-term, positive benefits to the 

project reach, the aquatic ecosystem, and fisheries 

resources.

The effects to aquatic resources have been analyzed and disclosed in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (pages 90 to 112).

3.02 National Marine Fisheries Service recommends that a 

monitoring plan be implemented to evaluate the success of 

the restoration project. Specifically we recommend a 

repeat of the Blanchet and Wenger 1993 study to test the 

overall hypothesis that poor overwintering habitat quality 

manifests as shorter juvenile residence time, as well as 

smaller sized smolt, when compared to un-mined 

reference reaches. This relationship should reverse after 

the physical habitat goals of the project are met, with both 

residence time and smolt size coming in line with reference 

systems.

The Forest Service has reviewed National Marine Fisheries Service's recommendation to 

repeat the Blanchet and Wenger 1993 study to evaluate juvenile fish within the restored 

sections of Resurrection Creek. The Forest Service has been monitoring spawning adult 

salmon both within the restored creek sections and within the proposed Phase II project 

area since 2005. The adult monitoring results of Phase I restoration work show dramatic 

increases in adult spawning and utilization. The Phase II proposed restoration work will 

build on the Phase I project. Funding would not be available to repeat the Blanchet and 

Wenger study unless it could be funded and implemented in partnership with other interest 

groups/agencies such as Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, National Marine Fisheries 

Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (pages 213 to 217)

4.01 This proposed restoration project is an excellent example 

of how mining is a temporary use and how mining and 

environmental enhancement can co-exist and ultimately 

result in increased benefits to future users of the land.

Support for the project noted.

4.02 Under the 1872 Mining Law as amended, mining claimants 

have the statutory right to prospect for and develop mineral 

resources on lands that are open to mineral entry. We 

favor the proposed project that ensures those mining rights 

both within and outside the restored stream corridor.

Comment noted.

Chugach National Forest 219
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

4.03 Proposed mitigation measures should be designed to 

protect the environment to the extent feasible, while still 

allowing mining to occur without being unnecessarily or 

unreasonable burdensome to the miner.

All mitigation measures pertaining to Hope Mining Company's proposed plan of operations 

have been disclosed to Hope Mining Company to ensure that the measures are feasible for 

mining operator to implement.

4.04 The DEIS is generally well written and easy to understand.

However, definitions for several additional scientific terms 

used in the document should be included in the glossary. 

Examples include: seral hardwoods, palustrine wetlands.

Noted and added to Final Environmental Impact Statement (page 187 to 191).

4.05 Page 8 Minerals. A discussion of an objective for saleable 

minerals (such as sand and gravel and other common 

variety materials) might be appropriate here.

The objective to provide saleable minerals (such as sand, gravel, and common variety 

materials) from the project area is not within the scope of the purpose and need for the 

project (page 11 to 13) and was not added to the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

4.06 Page 18, Revegetation. Source areas for soil and sod 

used for revegetating constructed flood plains should be 

selected to avoid using materials that would be needed for 

closure and reclamation of new mining areas.

This comment has been addressed in the effects analysis for the soils resource (page 74 to 

78). There is a large stockpile of soil in area 16 and additional soil is available in areas 

currently approved for mining operations.

4.07 Top of Page 29 Continuation of Table 1 Comparison of 

Alternatives – Dust Abatement. This mitigation measure 

should be included under Air/Climate Change rather than 

Recreation.

Dust Abatement is listed as mitigation measure 9 with air quality as the concern being 

addressed (page 41).

4.08 Page 29 Table 1 Vegetation Ecology. Cleaning 

mechanized equipment off-site before bringing them into 

the project area could be difficult, especially in that this 

would have to include vehicles used by project visitors 

such as officials from regulatory agencies. The miner has 

no control over such vehicles.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement has been revised to include only heavy 

equipment in mitigation measure 18 (page 43).

4.09 Page 32 Table 1Soils. We suggest replacing the word 

“wasted” in the 4th line of the first mitigation measure with 

“disposed of”. Such materials might have utility, as 

suggested, for construction of terraces and ponds.

The wording has been changed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement to address 

this comment in mitigation measure 3 (page 39). Some material may not be deemed 

suitable for construction for terraces or ponds and will need to be buried.

220 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

4.10 Page 34 Monitoring Common to all Action Alternatives -

Mining. Inspection for this operation should be no different 

than for other mines, There is no need for weekly 

compliance inspections. Such inspections become unduly 

burdensome on the mine operators if they result in delay of 

the operation. This would also unnecessarily increase 

Forest Service compliance cost. The timing and duration of 

compliance inspections should be based on the nature of 

the operation and its compliance record. We also suggest 

coordination of compliance visits with personnel from other 

regulatory agencies to minimize disruption of the 

operation.

Forest Service has a regulatory responsibility to ensure that the 36 CFR 228 Subpart A 

regulations are implemented. These regulations govern how the Forest Service monitors 

surface resources that may be affected by Hope Mining Company operations. The nature of 

the proposed restoration project requires the Forest Service to work in a collaborative 

relationship with Hope Mining Company to develop a restoration project that can be 

implemented without negatively impacting Hope Mining Company's right of access to the 

mineral estate in proposed corridor and other areas in the project area. The monitoring 

section was revised in the Final Environmental Impact Statement to reflect the resource or 

item to be monitored during the inspections and frequencies of inspections (page 48 to 54).

4.11 Page 48, Line 5. The sentence “The proposed Action 

would have no adverse effects” seems incomplete. We 

suggest adding “on air quality or climate change”.

Summarization of all the adverse effect findings have now been grouped into one section at 

the end of chapter 3 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and are no longer 

separated out in each resource section (page 165).

4.12 Page 68, Environmental Consequences, General Health 

Effects of Noise. Reference should simply be made to 

MSHA noise standards without further details.

http://www/msha.gov/MEDIA/PRESS/1999/NR990909.HT

M

The environmental consequences for the noise section of chapter 3 was substantially 

rewritten to better reflect the methodology used in the effects analysis (page 85 to 90).

4.13 Page 72, Alternative 3 - No Restoration, last paragraph.

"Alternative 3 would mechanically mine 3 acres more than 

Alternative 2." Elsewhere in the document you suggest that 

200 acres would be mined in alternative 2. If so, the 

sentence should read: "Alternative 3 would mechanically 

mine 7 acres less than Alternative 2."

The Environmental Consequences for the noise section of chapter 3 was substantially 

rewritten; this section under alternative 3 does not refer to specific acre figures (page 89 to 

90).

4.14 Page 76, 2nd paragraph. On page 75 sockeye salmon are 

mentioned as being present in Resurrection Creek.

However, no observational data is included in this 

paragraph. This suggests that they are rarely present and 

the statement should be worded that way.

Sockeye show up in Resurrection in small numbers every year. It is unknown if the sockeye 

in Resurrection Creek are small river rearing population or strays from the Kenai Peninsula 

meta population. The wording in the Final Environmental Impact Statement has been 

changed to reflect this (page 96). 

Chugach National Forest 221
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

4.15 Page 78, paragraph 3. The presence of large boulders in 

Resurrection Creek is in large part due to glacial transport 

and deposition. Large blocks of country rock fall onto and 

become entrained by glacial ice and can be transported 

many miles by the glacier before ultimately being 

deposited at the terminus or where the glacier ceases to 

advance. Depending upon boulder characteristics (size 

and shape, etc.) gradients, and quantities of melt water, 

large boulders may be transported shorter distances by 

water or via processes of mass wasting (slides, solifluction, 

etc.).

This paragraph has been updated to reflect the role that glaciation has had on boulder 

transport in the Resurrection Creek watershed (page 93).

4.16 Page 81, line 4. "...and some mercury vapor may have 

been deposited..." Mercury metal may have been 

deposited but not mercury vapor unless it has been 

distilled.

The paragraphs referring to historic use of mercury have been rewritten to address this 

comment (page 92).

4.17 Page 81, 4th paragraph, line 7. "Lead concentrations 

violating State standards were measured upstream of a 

mining site on Palmer Creek." Palmer creek valley hosts 

numerous mineral prospects. Galena, a lead sulfide 

mineral, is a relatively abundant gangue mineral. Lead 

concentration in the water likely reflects local geology and 

occurs naturally in water.

This entire paragraph referring to heavy and trace metals was deleted from the Water 

Quality section of the Affected Environment discussion for Aquatic Resources and 

Hydrology because the discussion wasn't pertinent to understanding the effects of the 

alternatives on water quality (page 92).

4.18 Page 82, Groundwater, line 9. "...the depth of the alluvial 

gravels..." This would make more sense if the word gravels 

was changed to aquifers.

This section of the document is describing the affected environment for hydrology. This 

paragraph is referring to a physical attribute of the subsurface material common to the 

Resurrection Creek valley and not a groundwater attribute. The word "gravels" is more 

appropriate in this usage and therefore is retained (page 92).

4.19 Page 116, 1st paragraph. The discussion here should 

reflect that many of the existing ponds and ditches are post 

1975 in origin.

This paragraph was deleted from the Affected Environment section for the heritage 

resources because the cultural landscape is addressed and analyzed as part of the 

determination if a property (such as the Hope Mining Company Historic Mining District) is 

eligible for the National Register of Historic places rather being analyzed as a historic 

property by itself (page 126).

4.20 Page 116, Environmental Consequences, line 2. "The 

tailings are contributing features for the Hope Mining 

Company Historic Mining District..." Mining Company 

should be deleted from the name of the district.

The Hope Mining Company Historic District was recorded under this name in 1991 when it 

was evaluated and determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic 

places. The name will be corrected throughout this document.

222 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

4.21 Page 123, Inventoried Roadless Area, Location and 

Background. What is the official boundary of the 

Resurrection IRA? What public document shows the 

boundaries? All reference to IRA's should be removed 

from the DEIS due to the fact that the IRA program does 

not apply to the State of Alaska.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement revision includes a map (page 144) showing the 

entire Resurrection IRA. The commenter appears to be referring to the 2001 Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (36 CFR Part 294 (2001). This rule does apply to the Chugach National 

Forest.

4.22 Page 138, Recreation Capacity & Visitor Days, line 7. 

There is an extra "that" in this sentence

The Social and Economic Environmental Consequences section was substantially rewritten 

(Page 154 to 158) and no longer refers to Recreation Capacity and Visitor Days.

Information on effects to Recreation resources is now found in the Recreation 

Environmental consequences section (page 132 to 136).

4.23 Page 140, NPV. An NPV of over $689,000 seems 

excessive for administration of a single mining operation 

over 20 years even though this apparently reflects more 

stringent administration in the future. The administration 

should be based on current requirements, not some 

hypothetical future. Any reference to future requirements 

not yet promulgated through rulemaking is purely 

speculative. 

The Net Present Value analysis has been updated to more accurately reflect the cost of 

administration under alternative 3. The discounted cost of alternative 3 is estimated to be 

$306,403 (page 157).

4.24 Alaska Miner's Association supports the proposed action.

The economic benefits and the long term environmental 

and socio-economic benefits, though difficult to quantify, 

will likely greatly exceed the short term financial costs and 

minimal environmental risks of restoring the two-mile long 

section of Resurrection Creek.

Support for the project noted.

5.01 No Comments

6.01 Having attended the public meeting of 8/11/10 and having 

witnessed the magnificent restoration results accomplished 

by Phase I, I wish to express my wholehearted support of 

the Phase II plan to restore and protect that vital part of 

this waterway. I look forward to an enhanced Coho fishery 

and increased Chinook numbers.

Support for the project noted.

Chugach National Forest 223
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

6.02 My only concern is the ambivalence of Hope Mining Co. 

toward this fragile environment and the consequences of 

their actions. I realize that an antagonistic approach is 

unhelpful but the collegial relationship that developed 

between Hope Mining Co. and the Forest Service under 

Duane Harp was harmful, costly and did a lot to damage 

the Forest Service image in the community and beyond 

(the ensuing struggle made three feature articles in the 

ADN).

Hope Mining Company has a right of access to the mineral estate within the project area 

and is required to follow all state and federal regulations to protect resources and to 

complete reclamation to control erosion, control water runoff, and reshape and encourage 

revegetation, where practicable. Forest Service strives to maintain a professional and 

collaborative relationship with all mining operators, including Hope Mining Company as well 

as engaging with local residents to understand how proposed mining operations may affect 

the local communities (page 20).

7.01 A new road along the top of the steep embankment on the 

west side of the Horse Creek Subdivision will most 

certainly compromise the property values of the area in-somuch as there is very limited space between the edge of 

the hillside and our property line to construct a road

without encroaching on the existing property line along that 

stretch of National Forest. Please consider that there is 

less than one hundred feet of National Forest land 

between our property line and the edge of the steep 

hillside, which provides inadequate space there for a new 

road without severely degrading the value of our property.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to disturbance to adjacent private land owners from proposed mining activities. The General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for 

economic minerals on federal public lands. Under this Act, Hope Mining Company has the 

right to access minerals on their claims. The Forest Service has reviewed Hope Mining 

Company's proposed operations and has verified that proposed roads provide reasonable 

access to proposed mining areas. Potential effects on property values were not addressed 

in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. An analysis of how proposed mining roads 

may affect property values has been included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(page 155 and 157). The analysis finds that road construction may have a negative effect 

on property values. After discussion with the Forest Service, Hope Mining Company has 

agreed to moving one proposed road away from the private property boundary in area 21 

and building a narrower road with gates on either end that would limit the vehicles that

would use the road in area 16a (pages 76 and 155 ).

7.02 The current road system affords excellent access to the 

mining operations without imposing additional impacts on 

the property owners and recreational public, who are also 

rightful users of National Forest lands. Therefore, the 

addition of a road in the proposed area is not only 

unnecessary for the continued operation of the mines, but 

would most certainly have a negative impact on the current 

property owners and recreational public.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to disturbance to adjacent private land owners from proposed mining activities. The General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for 

economic minerals on federal public lands. The Forest Service has reviewed Hope Mining 

Company's proposed operations and has verified that all proposed roads provide 

reasonable access to proposed mining areas. After discussions with Hope Mining Company 

about property owner concerns on proposed road in area 16a and area 21, Hope Mining 

Company has agreed to limit the use of the road in area 16a between the private land and 

slope break, and has moved proposed road location away from the private land boundary in 

area 21 (pages 76 and 155). The recreation effects analysis concluded that recreation 

visitor's short duration in travelling along and through mining activity would not cause 

visitors to recreate elsewhere (page 132).

224 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

7.03 As we recognize that mining has a long history in the area 

and is likely to continue, please consider that the 

Resurrection Valley of today also provides tremendous 

recreational benefits to a population that far outnumbers 

the small few who benefit from the mining operation.

Currently, the negative impacts on the area of the mining 

operation are significant, and Hope Mining Company and 

its affiliates seem to operate with little to no consideration 

for the cost to other users in the area. 

The Forest Service recognizes concerns of how mining activity might affect recreation 

opportunities for local residents and visitors and has completed effects analysis for 

recreation resources and scenery resources (pages 130 and 136). The General Mining Act 

of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for economic 

minerals on federal public lands. The Forest Service has reviewed Hope Mining Company's 

proposed operations and has included mitigation measures, where feasible, to minimize 

potential impacts of mining operations on surface resources (pages 39 to 47). Several of 

these mitigation measures includes addressing public safety at Resurrection Pass National 

Recreation Trailhead and along the first part of the trail (page 42) and would be 

incorporated as part of the mining operating plan.

7.04 In the interest of reasonable compromise, please consider 

allowing reasonable continuation without the unmitigated 

expansion that impassively disregards the wants and 

needs of everyone else involved. Please deny the proposal 

to construct a new road in the area considered.

See comment 7.02

8.01 The north-south road proposed in Area 16b and the eastwest road in Area 21 are either impractical, unnecessary or 

both. This corridor is too narrow for a road. No room exists 

for a buffer between the bluff and the road and between 

the road and the private property in the Horse Creek 

Subdivision No.2. This will result in drainage and erosion 

problems. According to 36 CFR 228.8 mining roads have 

to be built to assure adequate drainage and minimize or 

eliminate damage to soil resources.

See comment 7.02

8.02 Additionally the north-south road in Area 16b is 

unnecessary because of other road access to these areas.

Currently a road exists at the toe of the bluff, and roads are 

proposed at the toe of the bluff in both Alternatives 2 and 

3. Furthermore, another entry point is indicated on the map 

in Area 14 making the section of road on the north end of 

Area 21 and leading into Area 16b redundant.

The General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and 

mining for locatable minerals on federal public lands. Under this mining law, Hope Mining 

Company has the right to access minerals on their claims. The Forest Service understands 

and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative to mining activity. The Forest 

Service has reviewed Hope Mining Company's proposed operations and has verified that all 

proposed roads are reasonable for access to proposed mining areas and for maintenance 

of mining infrastructure such as ditches or water pipeline. The existing roads at the bottom 

of the slope in area 21 and 16 do not provide access to the portion of the mining area at the 

top of the slope. As mentioned in response to Comment 7.02, the Forest Service worked 

with Hope Mining Company to move the location of the proposed road in area 21 and 

reduce the scope of the road in area 16a (pages 76 and 155).

Chugach National Forest 225
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

8.03 Finally the east-west road in Area 21 and the north-south 

road in Area 16b would highly degrade our property value, 

and the experience on our land. The proposed new access 

road in Area 21 and 16b should be eliminated for the 

above reasons.

See comment 7.01

8.04 If roads are built in Areas 21 and 16b we urge the proposal 

to include a 200 feet minimum buffer from private property.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to disturbance to adjacent private land owners from proposed mining activities. The General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for 

economic minerals on federal public lands. The Forest Service cannot impose restrictive 

buffers that restrict mining access within a mining claim. Adjacent landowners would have 

the ability to keep a buffer on the private property. The Forest Service has reviewed Hope 

Mining Company's proposed operations and has verified that all proposed roads are 

reasonable for access to proposed mining areas. After discussing with Hope Mining 

Company about property owner concerns on proposed road in area 16a and area 21, Hope 

Mining Company has agreed to change road in area 16a to a narrower, limited use road in 

narrow section between private land and slope break, and has moved proposed road 

location away from private land boundary in area 21 (pages 76 and 155 .

8.05 We also suggest that any proposed road be clearly defined 

in the EIS in terms of its width and substrate. Roads 

should be the minimal width to allow mining equipment into 

claims.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement more clearly defines proposed roads width and 

substrate (page 27). Approved roads will be the minimum necessary to reasonably access 

the mineral estate. 

226 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

8.06 We are concerned that settling and pumping ponds 

proposed in Areas 16b and 21 pose threats to the water 

table for future wells on our property and in our 

subdivision. Ponds should be built well away from private 

property and comply with Federal and State water quality 

standards. We suggest ponds be moved to Area 14 or the 

southern boundary of Area 21, away from private property.

Water table elevations would only be compromised if water was taken out of the

Resurrection Creek system through out-of-basin diversions or if enough impervious 

surfaces were constructed to cause runoff to not percolate back into the ground and 

replenish groundwater resources. Neither one of these is the case. Mining activities would 

divert water out of Resurrection Creek and then let that water percolate back into the 

ground through settling basins that will be constructed along the Resurrection Creek stream 

channel. Therefore, a majority of the water used for mining will percolate back into the 

ground, thereby protecting the integrity of the groundwater in the area. The amount of road 

to be constructed along Resurrection Creek is minor in comparison to the size of the 

watershed and the amount of disturbance that would have to take place to impact 

hydrologic function of the system. Reviews of several of the existing wells that are located 

on the bluff above Resurrection Creek indicate that they sit approximately 55 feet above 

Resurrection Creek stream channel. Review of the logs for these wells indicates that the 

static elevation is 101 feet for one of the wells and 75 feet for the other, well below the 

Resurrection Creek stream channel. The location of the wells as well as the fact that no 

water will be removed from the Resurrection Creek system are two indicators that water 

table integrity and water quality would not be compromised by future mining and road 

building activity (page 101).

8.07 We are greatly concerned with the potential of forest 

clearing and noise pollution associated with mining in 

Areas 21, 16b and 14. In terms of noise pollution, currently 

mining is active at the south end of the project area far 

from our cabin. Despite this distance from our cabin, we 

can hear equipment running late into the evening above 

the roar of the Resurrection River. We fear that if mining 

occurs in direct proximity to our property in Areas 21 and 

16b it will directly degrade the quiet solitude we heard 

when we purchased our land. Vegetative buffers will at 

least help reduce noise pollution on private property.

There is a north-south road proposed for area 16a that would be constructed to access the 

water pumps and equipment to support mining operations. This would generate noise 

during mining of claims on the east side of the river. Hope Mining Company agreed to 

reduce the mining traffic and scope of the road to reduce impacts to adjacent private lands. 

The east west road in area 21 was moved further south away from private property which 

may reduce impact of noise from use of mining road (page 156). Area 16a and area 21 

would still be mined and noise impact to adjacent private land owners will result. See 

chapter 3 Effects Analysis for Noise effects (page 85 to 90). Vegetative buffers are not 

feasible within the project area due the mining operator's right to mine the entire surface 

estate on the mining claim, including those areas adjacent to the private land boundary.

Chugach National Forest 227
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

8.08 Under 36 CFR 228.8 miners must harmonize operations 

with scenic values and one method suggested is 

vegetative screening. We urge 200 foot buffers along the 

Resurrection Road and along all boundaries with private 

property to ensure scenic values.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to reduction of scenic quality from mining activity near private land boundary and 

Resurrection Creek Road. The General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and 

governs prospecting and mining for economic minerals on federal public lands. Under this 

Act, Hope Mining Company has the right to access minerals on their claims. The Forest 

Service cannot impose restrictive vegetative buffers that unnecessarily restrict mining 

access. The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 4-

86) specifies mining operations meet, at a minimum, the very low scenic integrity objective. 

Hope Mining Company's proposed operating plan requires reclamation measures which 

recontours (or harmonizes) disturbed sites to represent a more natural land form and 

ensures this objective is met in the short term. As reclamation is completed, vegetation will 

again provide screening (page 136 to 143). The very low scenic integrity objective can be 

met without leaving a buffer for vegetative screening.

8.09 We support the creation of better fish and wildlife habitat 

through restoration of Resurrection Creek proposed in 

Alternative 2

Support for the project noted.

9.01 I strongly suggest the Proposed Mining Plan of Operations 

be modified in the Final EIS to remove Area 16b and the 

northern portion of Area 21 in exchange for an area of 

equal acreage away from private property. Area 16b and 

the northern portion of Area 21 represent a very small 

fraction of the land specified in the Proposed Mining Plan 

of Operations, but it is this area where the rights of 

landowners most directly compete with those of the mining 

industry.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to disturbance to adjacent private land owners from proposed mining activities. The General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for 

economic minerals on federal public lands. Under this Act, Hope Mining Company has the 

right to access minerals on their claims. The Forest Service has no authority to suggest or 

require mining operators to switch proposed mining areas with other areas not proposed 

based on the anticipated impacts to adjacent private land owners.

228 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

9.02 Prior to purchase, all prospective buyers reviewed and 

accepted Declarations, Covenants, Conditions and 

Restrictions (DCCRs) specific to this subdivision.

Provisions of these DCCRs specify Reasonable Use to 

protect owners’ rights to use and enjoy their respective 

properties; specify limitations on tree clearing; prohibit 

noxious or offensive activity including loud sounds and 

unenclosed or above ground generators; and prohibit 

mining operations. While the authority of these DCCRs 

does not extend beyond private lots, the DCCRs clearly 

reflect the interests of individual landowners to maintain 

the current aesthetics of the landscape and soundscape 

that are jeopardized by the Proposed Mining Plan of 

Operations.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to disturbance to adjacent private land owners from proposed mining activities. The General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for 

economic minerals on federal public lands. Under this Act, Hope Mining Company has the 

right to access minerals on their claims. Hope Mining Company is required to comply with 

their approved plans of operations which do not include provisions outlined in the 

Declarations, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions specific to the private land 

subdivision. The effects of mining operations as it pertains to noise and scenery are 

disclosed on pages 85 to 90 and pages 139 to 143, respectively. 

9.03 Page S-9 of the DEIS states that the Scenic Integrity 

Objective (SIO) will decrease to “very low” under 

Alternatives 2 and 3. This change will have the greatest 

acute and long-term impact to landowners whose 

properties are adjacent to Area 16b and Area 21 in the 

Proposed Mining Plan of Operations. Under 36 CFR 228.8 

subpart a, federal law addresses Scenic Values 

specifically, stating that mining operations, facilities and 

means of access should harmonize and blend with the 

landscape. Areas 16b and 21 are characterized by mature 

closed canopy forest. Unfortunately, the Proposed Mining 

Plan of Operations, as currently drafted, could significantly 

change habitat in these areas, reducing scenic values 

immediately adjacent to private property where the impact 

will be experienced most directly.

The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest 2002a, page 4-86) states 

that the minimum allowable scenic integrity objective is very low. The Forest Plan states on 

page 4-84, under the heading Social Systems Desired Condition (for minerals management 

areas), "Developed mines can display significant evidence of site disturbance. Users can 

expect to see other humans and evidence of resource development areas. Management 

activities will generally dominate most visible areas." The proposed mining plan of 

operations is expected to reduce scenic qualities in previously undisturbed areas as 

anticipated in the Forest Plan. On page 4-84 under the Ecological Systems Desired 

Systems heading, the Forest Plan states, "Mining activities are carried out so that any long 

term adverse effects on other resources (to include scenery) are minimized...". Based on 

past reclamation efforts by Hope Mining Company, the scenery setting will meet the Forest 

Plan requirement of Low Scenic Integrity in the short term as recontoured landscapes will 

appear bare but intact. Scenic integrity will increase to moderate or even high as the area is 

revegetated over time (page 141 to 143). Mining sites reclaimed within the project area in 

the mid-1980s are barely noticeable now to the casual observer. 

9.04 The Proposed Mining Plan of Operations provides 

approval for a road to be built through the length of Area 

16b that is unnecessary. Mining access could be achieved 

via a spur road from the southern portion of Area 21, south 

of private land holdings. Any unnecessary road approved 

would be in conflict with the intent of 36 CFR 228.8 subpart 

a.

See comment 8.02. The road through area 16b is necessary to service and maintain ditch 

or water pipeline adjacent to the proposed road.

Chugach National Forest 229
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

9.05 In addition, the sighting of the proposed road through Area 

16b runs in a very narrow corridor between a steep bluff 

and private homes, a situation that will cause erosion to 

the bluff and clearing of vegetation along private property 

lines.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to disturbance to adjacent private land owners from proposed mining activities. The General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for 

economic minerals on federal public lands. Under this Act, Hope Mining Company has the 

right to access minerals on their claims. The Forest Service has reviewed Hope Mining 

Company's proposed operations and has verified that all proposed roads are reasonable for 

access to proposed mining areas. After discussions with Hope Mining Company about 

property owner concerns with proposed roads in area 16a and area 21, Hope Mining 

Company has agreed to limit the use of roads in area 16a between the private land and 

slope break (page 76), and has moved a proposed road location away from boundary in 

area 21 (page 156). Hope Mining Company can clear vegetation adjacent to the property 

boundary for mining purposes as approved in a mining plan of operations.

9.06 Moreover, road construction and associated mining 

activities in that area may impact the water table thereby 

compromising existing and planned wells on private 

property. 

See comment 8.06

9.07 Taken together, the proposed road in Area 16b is 

unnecessary for access and if constructed would result in 

increases in noise and dust and decreases in privacy and 

land value for private landowners.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to disturbance to adjacent private land owners from proposed mining activities. The General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for 

economic minerals on federal public lands. Under this Act, Hope Mining Company has the 

right to access minerals on their claims. The Forest Service has reviewed Hope Mining 

Company's proposed operations and has verified that all proposed roads are reasonable for 

access to proposed mining areas. Potential effects on property values were not addressed 

in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. An analysis of how proposed mining roads 

may affect property values has been included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(page 154). The analysis finds that road construction may have a negative effect on 

property values. After discussing with Hope Mining Company about property owner 

concerns on proposed road in area 16a and area 21, Hope Mining Company has agreed to 

change road in area 16a to a narrower, limited use road in narrow section between private 

land and slope break, and has moved proposed road location away from private land 

boundary in area 21 (page 154). The effects of mining operations as it pertains to noise and 

scenery are disclosed on pages 85 to 90 and pages 139 to 143, respectively.

230 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

10.01 The north-south road proposed in Area 16b and the eastwest road in Area 21 are either impractical, unnecessary or 

both. This corridor is too narrow for a road. No room exists 

for a buffer between the bluff and the road and between 

the road and the private property in the Horse Creek 

Subdivision No.2. This will result in drainage and erosion 

problems. According to 36 CFR 228.8 mining roads have 

to be built to assure adequate drainage and minimize or 

eliminate damage to soil resources.

See comment 7.02

10.02 Additionally the north-south road in Area 16b is 

unnecessary because of other road access to these areas.

Currently a road exists at the toe of the bluff, and roads are 

proposed at the toe of the bluff in both Alternatives 2 and 

3. Furthermore, another entry point is indicated on the map 

in Area 14 making the section of road on the north end of 

Area 21 and leading into Area 16b redundant.

See comment 8.02

10,03 Finally the east-west road in Area 21 and the north-south 

road in Area 16b would highly degrade our property value, 

and the experience on our land. The proposed new access 

road in Area 21 and 16b should be eliminated for the 

above reasons.

See comment 7.01

1004 If roads are built in Areas 21 and 16b we urge the proposal 

to include a 200 feet minimum buffer from private property.

See comment 8.04

10.05 We also suggest that any proposed road be clearly defined 

in the EIS in terms of its width and substrate. Roads 

should be the minimal width to allow mining equipment into 

claims.

See comment 8.05

10.06 We are concerned that settling and pumping ponds 

proposed in Areas 16b and 21 pose threats to the water 

table for future wells on our property and in our 

subdivision. Ponds should be built well away from private 

property and comply with Federal and State water quality 

standards. We suggest ponds be moved to Area 14 or the 

southern boundary of Area 21, away from private property.

See comment 8.06

Chugach National Forest 231
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

10.07 We are greatly concerned with the potential of forest 

clearing and noise pollution associated with mining in 

Areas 21, 16b and 14. In terms of noise pollution, currently 

mining is active at the south end of the project area far 

from our cabin. Despite this distance from our cabin, we 

can hear equipment running late into the evening above 

the roar of the Resurrection River. We fear that if mining 

occurs in direct proximity to our property in Areas 21 and 

16b it will directly degrade the quiet solitude we heard 

when we purchased our land. Vegetative buffers will at 

least help reduce noise pollution on private property.

See comment 8.07

10.08 Under 36 CFR 228.8 miners must harmonize operations 

with scenic values and one method suggested is 

vegetative screening. We urge 200 foot buffers along the 

Resurrection Road and along all boundaries with private 

property to ensure scenic values.

See comment 8.08

10.09 We support the creation of better fish and wildlife habitat 

through restoration of Resurrection Creek proposed in 

Alternative 2.

Support for the project noted.

11.01 However, the construction of a road in Area 16b and the 

northern part of Area 21 will directly impact families. Some 

of these potential problems are obvious, such as noise, 

traffic and dust adjacent to what is now a quiet forested 

area.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to disturbance to adjacent private land owners from proposed mining activities. The General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for 

economic minerals on federal public lands. The Forest Service has reviewed Hope Mining 

Company's proposed operations and has verified that all proposed roads are reasonable for 

access to proposed mining areas. The Forest Service cannot impose restrictive buffers that 

restrict mining access. After discussing with Hope Mining Company about property owner 

concerns on proposed road in area 16a and area 21, Hope Mining Company has agreed to 

change road in area 16a to a narrower, limited use road in narrow section between private 

land and slope break, and has moved proposed road location away from private land 

boundary in area 21 (page 154). The effects of mining operations as it pertains to air quality 

and noise are disclosed on pages 65 to 70 and pages 85 to 90, respectively.

232 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

11.02 Other problems that are likely to induce conflict include 

unrestrained dogs and ATV use that pose a safety concern 

for our children. Similarly, a new road along the bluff will 

inevitably lead to high speed ATV traffic there, which 

poses a safety concern for small children like mine.

Mining operator/lessees are required to comply with all Mining Safety and Health Act 

requirements regarding warning and mitigation of hazardous operations including heavy 

equipment operations and settling ponds and ditches. Forest Service will also discuss with 

mining operator private land owners concerns when operating in areas adjacent to private 

land. After discussing with Hope Mining Company about property owner concerns on 

proposed road in area 16a and area 21, Hope Mining Company has agreed to change road 

in area 16a to a gated, narrower, limited use road in narrow section between private land 

and slope break, and has moved proposed road location away from private land boundary 

in area 21 (page 154).

11.03 A new road along the bluff would also reduce property 

values, could potentially lead to erosion along the bluff, 

and would likely reduce community support for mining in 

Hope.

See comment 7.01. Hope Mining Company has responded to community concerns by 

listening to private landowners' concerns and agreeing to change the location of the road in 

area 21 and limiting the scope and use of the road in 16a (pages 76 and 154). 

12.01 I am in support of the Stream Restoration Project Phase II 

Alternative II with modifications to the Hope Mining 

Company Proposed Mining Plan of Operations. 

Support for the project noted.

12.02 1) Our quality of life in Hope has been compromised by the 

operations by HMC. There is incessant noise from sunup 

to sundown. We no longer hear the owl that would hoot at 

dawn. 2) Currently mining is active at the south end of the 

project area far from our property. Despite this distance, 

we can hear equipment running late into the evening. We 

fear that if mining occurs in direct proximity to the 

residences in Areas 21 and 16b it will greatly impact the 

peace and quiet that our family so enjoys.

The Forest Service understands and recognizes the concerns of local land owners relative 

to disturbance to adjacent private land owners from proposed mining activities. The General 

Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for 

economic minerals on federal public lands. Under this Act, Hope Mining Company has the 

right to access minerals on their claims. The effects of mining operations as it pertains to 

noise and scenery are disclosed on pages 85 to 90 and pages 139 to 143, respectively.

12.03 We accept that the noise is part of owning land near a 

mining company. However, we do not support the proposal 

of a new road being put in behind the properties of Horse 

Creek Subdivision. The new road will compromise the 

safety of young children whose parents own land along the 

bluff, diminish property values, and take away privacy from 

landowners.

See comment 7.01 and comment 11.02. The effects of mining operations as it pertains to 

noise and scenery are disclosed on pages 85 to 90 and pages 139 to 143, respectively. 

Chugach National Forest 233
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

12.04 Another concern is the proposed new settling ponds, 

mining drainage ditches, and pumping ponds in Area 16 

and Area 21. Property owners depend on wells for water 

and the proposed ponds and ditches could lead to water 

contamination.

See comment 8.06. The settling ponds are constructed to allow the turbid water created by 

the mining operations to settle out before percolating back into surface water such as 

Resurrection Creek. Turbid waters do not have the ability to seep into the groundwater and 

impact the water supply intake from ground wells (page 101). No addition chemicals are 

added during mining operations except for flocculants, which are also used to reduce 

turbidity in public drinking water supplies.

12.05 Open water ponds and mining equipment would also 

become another safety concern for property owners in the 

area with children.

See comment 11.02

13.01 We feel that it is a worthy goal to restore resurrection creek 

to its natural environment.

Support for the project noted.

13.02 However, at this time and with the current agreement with 

HMC and the Forest Service, we feel it is impractical to 

pursue a restoration project of this scale with so many 

unresolved variables connected with HMC. For instance, 

HMC is currently mining within the restoration corridor and 

may continue to do so at their leisure, regardless of the 

restoration projects approval.

The Forest Service is pursuing a restoration project within active mining claims based on 

the success of the restoration project upstream and the agreement with Hope Mining 

Company that would allow restoration to occur on Hope Mining Company claims. The 

Forest Service and Hope Mining Company conducted extensive negotiations that resulted 

in identifying low value areas for mining (i.e. those areas that had been mined numerous 

times) for the location of the proposed restoration corridor. While Hope Mining Company (or 

any future mining claim owners) has the right to propose mining within the restored corridor 

at a future date, the Forest Service would require a reclamation bond which would ensure 

that the restored area would be reclaimed back to the restored condition. The likelihood of 

this being an economically feasible option is low (page 155).

13.03 HMC has a number of their claims under application to be 

patented, we should know if any of these claims are in the 

restoration corridor.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement better defines Hope Mining Company claims 

within the restoration corridor that were in the process of being patented when the 

Congressional moratorium on processing any further patents occurred in 1994 (page 9).

234 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

13.04 At the expense of the taxpayers the Forest Service would 

be doing reclamation on mining claims that should be done 

by HMC, as well as building roads and a bridge that would 

greatly assists HMC with present and future mining on 

both east and west sides of the creek, we feel this is very 

inappropriate. 

Hope Mining Company is required to complete reclamation activities for all areas that are 

being actively mined. If the mined area falls within the proposed restoration corridor and 

required reclamation activities would have a negative effect on proposed restoration 

activities, then Forest Service may not require certain reclamation activities (i.e. respreading 

stockpiled soil after mining is completed when restoration activities would need to stockpile 

it again prior to using it after restoration is completed). Forest Service acknowledges that 

some restoration activities benefit mining operations (use of temporary bridge to access 

west side of Resurrection Creek) but primary purpose of these activities, such as 

construction of a bridge or use of trees from mining areas, is for restoration purposes. When 

the bridge is no longer needed, it will be removed by the Forest Service (page 31). Building 

replacement ponds and roads are a necessity as the restoration corridor would eliminate 

these existing mining infrastructures and would interfere with allowing reasonable mining 

access if not replaced (page 31).

13.05 We recommend that this road [area 16] be removed from 

HMC plan of operations for the following reasons: It is not 

necessary for access, as there is currently an existing road 

at the base of the very steep embankment directly west of 

the proposed road. In both alternative II & III, there is the 

existing road as well as new roads that would allow HMC 

access to their claims. 

36 CFR 228.108 (a) Surface Use Requirement. The 

operator shall conduct operations on leasehold on National 

Forest System lands in a manner that minimizes effects on 

surface resources, prevents unnecessary or unreasonable 

surface resource disturbance, and that is in compliance 

with other requirements of this section.

The referenced regulation is only applicable to mineral leasing and does not apply to 

locatable mineral operations. See comment 7.02 and comment 8.02. The road through area 

16a is necessary to service and maintain ditch or water pipeline adjacent to the proposed 

road.

13.06 There are seven private lots with homes and cabins that lie 

directly east of the proposed road [area 16]. Along several 

of these lots there is less than 70ft between private land 

and nearly vertical embankment. Building a road would in 

all likelihood erode the embankment and possible private 

land.

See comment 7.02

13.07 Our house as well as neighboring cabins is built along the 

west border for privacy and serenity. A mining access road 

would greatly devalue our quality of life as well as our 

property value.

See comment 7.01

Chugach National Forest 235
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

13.08 There is not enough area to build a road without causing 

erosion along the steep embankment. 36 CFR 228.108 (j) 

(2) states “The operator shall take measures to minimize or 

prevent erosion and sediment production. Such measures 

include, but are not limited to, siting structures, facilities 

and other improvements to avoid steep slopes and 

excessive clearing of land.”

The referenced regulation is only applicable to mineral leasing and does not apply to 

locatable mineral operations. See comment 7.02

13.09 This section of road [area 21] is not necessary for access 

to area 21, because if approved the north south road 

through area 21 & 14 would allow adequate access.

See comment 8.04

13.10 Our concern is that these settling ponds [in area 21 and 16 

should be removed because they] would contaminate the 

water quality. It is our understanding that several of these 

ponds would be in a close system which in all likely hood 

wood increase the risk for water contamination. We feel 

that clean water has a substantially greatly value than any 

amount of gold that may or may not be found. 36 CFR 

288.8 (b) Water Quality. Operator shall comply with 

applicable Federal and State water quality standards, 

including regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1151 et 

seq.)

See comment 8.06 and comment 12.04. All mining operations are required to comply with 

the Clean Water Act which is enforced by the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation.

13.11 The clearing of land, construction of ponds and constant 

noise pollution from large pumps, heavy machinery and 

shaker plants greatly devalues our quality of life and 

property value. Allowing these proposed ponds would have 

the same negative affects to our neighbors.

See comment 8.06, comment 9.07 and comment 12.04.

236 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

13.12 Prior to any approval to start restoration, HMC should give 

a specific date as to when they will cease mining 

operations within the entire restoration corridor. HMC 

should be required to reclaim portions of the corridor and 

then remove any and all equipment owned or used by 

them within the restoration corridor.

Forest Service will obtain a written supplement from HMC that would update HMC's 

approved plan of operations for all mining areas located within the restoration corridor which 

would eliminate most mining activities from the corridor as outlined in the proposed action 

(page 31). HMC is required to complete reclamation activities for all areas that are being 

actively mined (page 28). If the mined area falls within the proposed restoration corridor and 

required reclamation activities would have a negative effect on proposed restoration 

activities, then FS may not require certain reclamation activities (i.e. respreading stockpiled 

soil after mining is completed when restoration activities would need to stockpile it again 

prior to using it after restoration is completed). All mining equipment would be removed from 

restoration corridor with exception of those items described in the proposed action (pumps 

for replacement water in ponds, etc.) (page 31).

13.13 HMC should withdraw any claims from the patent process 

that may be within the restoration corridor. 

The Forest Service has no authority to require HMC to withdraw any mining claims from the 

patent process. Effective October 1, 1994, Congress imposed a moratorium on spending 

appropriated funds for the acceptance or processing of mineral patent applications that had 

not yet received First Half Final Certificate or were not in Washington, D.C. for Secretarial 

review on or before September 30, 1994. Until the moratorium is lifted, the Bureau of Land 

Management will not accept any new applications. No HMC claims received the First Half 

Final Certificate prior to the moratorium going into effect (page 9).

13.14 Furthermore any portion of the claims that are within the 

restoration corridor should be surrendered by HMC to the 

Forest Service.

The Forest Service has no authority to require HMC to surrender mining claims that are 

located within the restoration corridor. The Bureau of Land Management manages mining 

claims (but not the surface mining operation); if Bureau of Land Management were to 

attempt to assert authority and declare a mining claim null and void, it would be considered 

an adverse action against HMC.

13.15 Any future access into the restoration corridor by HMC 

should be explained in detail.

Per the 2007 agreement with Hope Mining Company and outlined in the proposed action, 

certain mining activities would still be allowed to occur within restoration corridor. These 

would be outlined in detail in the supplemented mining plan of operation which would 

update the existing mining plans of operations of all existing approved mining areas within 

the proposed restoration corridor ((page 31). Hope Mining Company can still enter the 

restoration corridor in the future with another mining proposal. The likelihood of this 

occurring is low and if it were to occur, the Forest Service would require a reclamation bond 

to ensure restored areas are reclaimed back to the restored state (page 155).

Chugach National Forest 237
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

13.16 "We feel that HMC should not have the use of this bridge 

at any time during or after the restoration. If the Forest 

Service are going to use tax dollars to construct a 

temporary bridge for the purpose of stream restoration 

then that is all it should be used for. If Hope Mining 

Company would like the use of a bridge to access their 

claims on the west side of Resurrection Creek, they can 

apply for the necessary permits and build a bridge at their 

expense not that of the U.S. tax payer.

Forest Service acknowledges that some restoration activities benefit mining operations (use 

of temporary bridge to access west side of Resurrection Creek) but primary purpose of 

these activities such as construction of bridge is for restoration purposes and when the

need is complete, then the bridge will be removed at Forest Service prerogative (page 31).

Having two bridges crossing Resurrection Creek unnecessarily increases the potential 

impact to resources and the restoration corridor. After the Forest Service removes the 

temporary bridge, Hope Mining Company can build a bridge that would meet their continued 

needs for access to west side of creek. Hope Mining Company is currently approved to 

build a bridge per the 1999 approved plan of operations.

13.17 If it is to be a temporary bridge it should then be 

dismantled at the completion of the restoration project. If 

the goal is to restore the creek and surrounding landscape 

to its natural environment there is no place for a bridge.

See comment 13.16

14.01 I support the Stream and Riparian Restoration Project that 

is included in this DEIS. In seeing the restoration work that 

has been done previously, I am impressed with how much 

commitment, effort and money is needed to restore the 

habitat after mining is conducted in a creek.

Restoration support noted.

14.02 "The activity proposed in areas 16b and 21 directly impact 

land 

See comment 9.03 and 9.05. The effects of mining operations as it pertains to noise and 

scenery are disclosed on pages 85 to 90 and pages 139 to 143, respectively.

14.03 It appears that Alternatives 2 and 3 conflicts with the intent 

of 36 CFR 228.8, as this activity does not harmonize and 

blend with the landscape.

See comment 9.03

238 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

14.04 I am concerned that this increased mining activity 

intrinsically conflicts with recent and ongoing investments 

in the Hope area that are pursuant in building a unique 

Alaskan town surrounded in natural beauty. The Kenai 

Peninsula Borough has recently developed residential land 

plots, which would most certainly be a draw for vacationers 

or small eco-tourism business owners. All of the restoration 

money and work that has taken place (and is planned to 

take place) along the Resurrection Creek is surely an effort 

to enhance the natural beauty, the flora, and the fauna –

another key draw for those visiting the area. Increasing the 

scale of the mining activity along the creek seems to be in 

direct conflict with the economic investment that has been 

employed here.

The General Mining Act of 1872, as amended, authorizes and governs prospecting and 

mining for economic minerals on federal public lands. Under this Act, Hope Mining 

Company has the right to access minerals on their claims. The Forest Service also 

recognizes that restoration activities could greatly enhance riparian areas with long term 

benefits remaining long after mining of the project area has been completed. The proposed 

action addresses both the right to access mining claims but also enhancing riparian health 

(pages 17).

14.05 I encourage the project team to closely evaluate whether 

there are options within the scope of this operation that will 

minimize impact to landowners. Vegetative buffers, limiting 

road construction, instituting hours of operation would be 

helpful in minimizing the impact felt by landowners and 

their visitors.

See comment 8.04 and 8.08. In addition, restricting Hope Mining Company to specific hours 

of operations would restrict their access to the mineral estate (pages 14 and 86). 

15.01 However, it does appear that the restoration of the creek 

will actually have the effect of enabling Hope Mining 

Company to access new undisturbed areas for mining 

activities. This includes access provided by the Forest 

Service into the eastern portion of Hope Mining Company’s 

claims. A proposed bridge, additional roads, limited 

reclamation responsibilities and clearing of trees will not 

only benefit the restoration project, but will have the added 

effect of making Hope Mining Company’s mining plan of 

operations more economically feasible. Though we are 

supportive of restoration efforts to return Resurrection 

Creek back to a functioning river system, we are 

circumspect about using public lands and funding to 

benefit a private corporation. 

See comment 13.04 and 13.16

Chugach National Forest 239
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

15.02 Additionally, we are concerned about the fate of the 

restoration corridor and heartily encourage the Forest 

Service to work towards withdrawing the restoration 

corridor from mineral entry. Despite the challenges of 

obtaining a withdrawal, it makes sense in the long-term 

protection of the area, especially after putting such a 

considerable investment into restoration efforts.

A mineral withdrawal would only withdraw lands from mineral entry that are not already 

encumbered by mining claims. The entire restoration corridor is encumbered by mining 

claims so no lands could actually be withdrawn under this scenario. Existing mining claims 

within a withdrawn area possess valid existing rights; therefore a withdrawal would not be 

an effective way to preclude additional mining activities in the restoration corridor.

15.03 In reviewing the DEIS and attending a site visit, we 

contend that the proposed road in Area 16 in Alternatives I 

and II is unnecessary and unreasonable. This road would 

cut through a very narrow swath of land between a steep 

slope and private property and would remove a stand of 

old growth mountain hemlock. The Hope Mining Co. has 

reasonable access provided by existing roads. To reinforce 

our findings the following regulations are sited: 36 CFR 

228.108(a).

The referenced regulation is only applicable to mineral leasing and does not apply to 

locatable mineral operations. See comment 8.02

15.04 "§ 228.8 (d) Scenic Values. Operator shall, to the extent

practicable, harmonize operations with scenic values 

through such measures as the design and location of 

operating facilities, including roads and other means of 

access, vegetative screening of operations, and 

construction of structures and improvements which blend 

with the landscape."

See comment 9.03

240 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

15.05 The DEIS identifies the Resurrection IRA as being 

unmodified and predominantly in natural condition. The 

new proposed road in areas 1, 23, 24 and 25 are located 

inside of an IRA. Because of this, we wish to reiterate that 

such road construction must be conducted in a manner 

that minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents 

unnecessary or unreasonable surface disturbance. In most 

cases, a road would not be allowed. An exception is made 

for 36 CFR 294.12(b) (7) with the following requirements: 

A road is needed in conjunction with the continuation, 

extension, or renewal of a mineral lease on lands that are 

under lease by the Secretary of the Interior as of January 

12, 2001 or for a new lease issued immediately upon 

expiration of an existing lease. Such road construction or 

reconstruction must be conducted in a manner that 

minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents 

unnecessary or unreasonable surface disturbance, and 

complies with all applicable lease requirements, land and 

resource management plan direction, regulations, and 

laws. Roads constructed or reconstructed pursuant to this 

paragraph must be obliterated when no longer needed for 

the purposes of the lease or upon termination or expiration 

of the lease, whichever is sooner.

New roads will meet the requirements of the Forest Plan for road design and maintenance 

and within accordance to mitigation measures on pages 38 to 47. All new roads not 

previously approved under an existing plan of operation will be required to be removed 

during final reclamation.

15.06 Steep slopes should be left undisturbed to prevent 

increases in erosion, slumping and water runoff. 

Watershed protection. (1) Except as otherwise provided in 

the approved surface use plan of operations, the operator 

shall not conduct operations in areas subject to mass soil 

movement, riparian areas and wetlands.

The steepest, most prone to mass wasting section in the project area (area 16) will not be 

mechanically mined (page 76). This issue was addressed in the soil and hydrology resource 

reports updates between the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements. The mining 

operator is allowed to conduct operations in areas approved in a plan of operations and 

must comply with all state and federal laws.

Chugach National Forest 241
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

15.07 The DEIS admits on p.S-6 that 22 acres of disturbance 

outside of the restoration corridor would be permanently 

degraded. This is simply not acceptable and we site the 

requirements for reclamation: "(1) Unless otherwise 

provided in an approved surface use plan of operations, 

the operator shall conduct reclamation concurrently with 

other operations. (2) Within 1 year of completion of 

operations on a portion of the area of operation, the 

operator must reclaim that portion, unless a different 

period of time is approved in writing by the authorized 

Forest officer. (3) The operator must: (i) Control soil 

erosion and landslides; (ii) Control water runoff; (iii) 

Remove, or control, solid wastes, toxic substances, and 

hazardous substances; (iv) Reshape and revegetate 

disturbed areas."

This comment is further addressed in the updates to the Soil Resource Report and the 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences section in chapter 3 for the 

geology and soils resource between Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(pages 72 to 81). There is a difference between reclamation and restoration, which is also 

addressed in the chapter 2 under the description of the alternatives (page 25). Forest 

Service soil conditions monitoring guidelines (USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 2006, 

Soil Quality Monitoring, FSM 2554.05-13) are used as the analysis tool to compare effects 

of the alternatives and determine significant effects on soil productivity. Greater than a 15 

percent loss of soil productivity for any activity area is considered significant (page 73).

Robust design criteria through utilizing Best Management Practices as noted in the 

mitigation measures (pages 38 to 47) and monitoring (pages 48 to 54) help to minimize 

erosion and sedimentation concerns. Reclamation requirements include spreading 

stockpiled topsoil where available. Some areas within the project area do not have sufficient 

soils to stockpile prior to operations. It is not reasonably practicable to bring in topsoil from 

off-site as stated in 36 CFR 228.8 (g)(4).

15.08 The proposed river crossings (fords and bridge) through 

the restoration corridor should be reconsidered, and we 

believe another option should be found after restoration is 

completed. 

Currently Hope Mining Company is permitted by the State of Alaska to move equipment 

through the stream as many times through the year as they need at two crossings. By 

having designated stream crossings, the amount of creek channel disturbance is limited 

(mitigation measures 2 and 5 on pages 39 and 40 and effects analysis of creek crossings 

on page 101).

15.09 The width of the restoration corridor should be increased to 

introduce a buffer. There are several places where steep 

slopes lie adjacent to the corridor or stands of mature trees 

which would enhance the restoration corridor and allow for 

wildlife to pass along the river and improve water quality in 

the watershed. 

The restoration corridor is between 200 and 500 feet and will allow for the reestablishment 

of functioning floodplain and riparian areas over time. One section of excessively steep 

slope will not be mechanically disturbed by proposed mining (page 76). Implementation of 

alternative 2 will provide a function alluvial river channel thus providing improved water 

quality, fish and wildlife habitat for the area (pages 101 and 123). Hope Mining Company 

has proposed mining in areas outside of the identified restoration corridor for proposed 

mining including most of the steeper slopes (with exception of the slope near area 16). The 

Forest Service cannot unilaterally increase the restoration corridor width and prohibit 

access to the mineral estate (page 54).

242 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

15.10 The rules seem very clear that no further mining plan of 

operations should be approved before reclamation has 

occurred on sites that are no longer being actively mined.

Additionally, revegetation appears to be a requirement, 

where reasonably practicable. We reason that if mining 

activities preclude an area from ever being vegetated 

again, resulting in irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments to resources then the Forest Service has 

grounds for disallowing mining to occur in that specific 

area. 

Reclamation has occurred on all sites at the conclusion of mining operations. Reclamation 

requirements include spreading stockpiled topsoil, where feasible. Some areas within the 

project area do not have sufficient soils to stockpile prior to operations. It is not reasonably 

practicable for the mining operator to bring in topsoil from off-site (36 CFR 228.8(g)(4)). In 

addition, the mining operator may propose a plan of operations in the future that includes 

areas that have been previously mined and reclaimed. The operator would still be required 

to reclaim these areas once the mining operations have ceased.

15.11 After walking through the Hope Mining Company’s current 

mining operations along Resurrection Creek, it appears 

that some of the requirements as outlined in their approved 

mining plan of operations are not being complied with. In 

particular, the dimensions of the open trenches are larger 

than what was agreed upon, the trenches have been left 

open beyond the end of the year’s operating season, and 

the maximum amount of 1⁄2 acre of open trenches at any 

given time appear to be in violation of the Record of 

Decision. The operators should be held to the highest 

standard possible while upholding the public process.

Hope Mining Company has many areas approved through several different decisions. All 

current operations are in compliance with their respective approval parameters and 

subsequent supplements.

15.12 The DEIS mentions throughout the document that the 

impacts will be noticeable for 20 years or more. A more 

realistic estimate should be made and included in the final 

EIS. 

Long term effects for soils, wildlife, and vegetation ecology resources have been modified 

between Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements and include longer, more 

realistic time frames for productive soil establishment (page 73), wildlife habitat 

reestablishment (page123) and vegetation reestablishment (page 115) after mining 

reclamation.

15.13 Alaska Center for the Environment recognizes the efforts 

by the Forest Service to mitigate impacts to the 

environment caused by mining and restoration activities.

We would suggest replacing the word “should” with “will” or 

“shall” in the mitigation section. “Should” is used 11 times 

and in most cases “will” or “shall” is a more appropriate 

word.

Noted. Mitigation measures section has been updated in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (pages 38 to 47).

Chugach National Forest 243
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

16.01 Our property lies directly east of area 16 and we are in the 

process of developing cabin rentals which border both 

area 16 & 21. We are currently and will be further affected 

by Hope Mining Co. operations and any activities 

associated with the proposed stream restoration.

See comment 7.01. The effects of mining operations and restoration activities as it pertains 

to noise and scenery are disclosed on pages 85 to 90 and pages 139 to 143, respectively. 

16.02 However, at this time and with the current agreement with 

HMC and the forest service, we feel it is impractical to 

pursue a restoration project of this scale with so many 

unresolved variables connected with HMC. For instance, 

HMC is currently mining within the restoration corridor and 

may continue to do so at their leisure, regardless of the 

restoration projects approval.

See comment 13.02

16.03 HMC has a number of their claims under application to be 

patented, we should know if any of these claims are in the 

restoration corridor.

See comment 13.03

16.04 At the expense of the taxpayers the Forest Service would 

be doing reclamation on mining claims that should be done 

by HMC, as well as building roads and a bridge that would 

greatly assists HMC with present and future mining on 

both east and west sides of the creek, we feel this is very 

inappropriate. 

See comment 13.04

16.05 We recommend that this road [area 16] be removed from 

HMC plan of operations for the following reasons: It is not 

necessary for access, as there is currently an existing road 

at the base of the very steep embankment directly west of 

the proposed road. In both alternative II & III, there is the 

existing road as well as new roads that would allow HMC 

access to their claims. 

See comment 7.02 and comment 8.02. The road through area 16a is necessary to service 

and maintain ditch or water pipeline adjacent to the proposed road.

16.06 There are seven private lots with homes and cabins that lie 

directly east of the proposed road [area 16]. Along several 

of these lots there is less than 70ft between private land 

and nearly vertical embankment. Building a road would in 

all likelihood erode the embankment and possible private 

land.

See comment 7.02

244 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

16.07 Our house as well as neighboring cabins is built along the 

west border for privacy and serenity. A mining access road 

would greatly devalue our quality of life as well as our 

property value.

See comment 7.01

16.08 There is not enough area to build a road without causing 

erosion along the steep embankment. 36 CFR 228.108 (j) 

(2) states “The operator shall take measures to minimize or 

prevent erosion and sediment production. Such measures 

include, but are not limited to, siting structures, facilities 

and other improvements to avoid steep slopes and 

excessive clearing of land.”

The referenced regulation is only applicable to mineral leasing and does not apply to 

locatable mineral operations. See comment 7.02

16.09 This section of road [area 21] is not necessary for access 

to area 21, because if approved the north south road 

through area 21 & 14 would allow adequate access.

See comment 8.04

16.10 Our concern is that these settling ponds [in area 21 and 16 

should be removed because they] would contaminate the 

water quality. It is our understanding that several of these 

ponds would be in a close system which in all likely hood 

wood increase the risk for water contamination. We feel 

that clean water has a substantially greatly value than any 

amount of gold that may or may not be found. 36 CFR 

288.8 (b) Water Quality. Operator shall comply with 

applicable Federal and State water quality standards, 

including regulations issued pursuant to the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1151 et 

seq.)

See comment 8.06 and comment 12.04. All mining operations are required to comply with 

the Clean Water Act which is enforced by the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation.

16.11 The clearing of land, construction of ponds and constant 

noise pollution from large pumps, heavy machinery and 

shaker plants greatly devalues our quality of life and

property value. Allowing these proposed ponds would have 

the same negative affects to our neighbors.

See comment 8.06, comment 9.07 and comment 12.04.

Chugach National Forest 245
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

16.12 Prior to any approval to start restoration, HMC should give 

a specific date as to when they will cease mining 

operations within the entire restoration corridor. HMC 

should be required to reclaim portions of the corridor and 

then remove any and all equipment owned or used by 

them within the restoration corridor.

See comment 13.12

16.13 HMC should withdraw any claims from the patent process 

that may be within the restoration corridor. 

See comment 13.13

16.14 Furthermore any portion of the claims that are within the 

restoration corridor should be surrendered by HMC to the 

Forest Service.

See comment 13.14

16.15 Any future access into the restoration corridor by HMC 

should be explained in detail.

See comment 13.15

16.16 We feel that HMC should not have the use of this bridge at 

any time during or after the restoration. If the Forest 

Service is going to use tax dollars to construct a temporary 

bridge for the purpose of stream restoration then that is all 

it should be used for. If Hope Mining Company would like 

the use of a bridge to access their claims on the west side 

of Resurrection Creek, they can apply for the necessary 

permits and build a bridge at their expense not that of the 

U.S. tax payer.

See comment 13.16

16.17 If it is to be a temporary bridge it should then be 

dismantled at the completion of the restoration project. If 

the goal is to restore the creek and surrounding landscape 

to its natural environment there is no place for a bridge.

See comment 13.17

17.01 As with the previous Phase I project, EPA supports the 

Forest Service's efforts to restore the degraded stream 

channel, floodplains, and habitat conditions caused by the 

historical placement of mine tailings in the alluvial valley 

bottom of Resurrection Creek. We are particularly pleased 

that recent (2008) studies determined that historic mercury 

concentrations throughout the project are relatively low, 

and there is low probability of encountering mercury in the 

remaining tailings.

Support for restoration noted.

246 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

17.02 Through the re-creation of a complex of stream channels 

and wetlands, the project holds great potential for restoring 

high quality habitat for salmon, bears, bald eagles, moose, 

and other fish and wildlife species. Also, by allocating 

mining and operational area acreage outside of the 

restoration corridor, the potential for success for the 

restoration activities will be substantially increased. As a 

consequence, we support the selection of Alternative 2 as 

it would maximize the restoration efforts in the corridor, as 

well as amend the existing HMC's Plan of Operation to 

reflect the restoration goals for the corridor. Because 

Alternative 3 would not include the restoration activities 

proposed in Alternative 2, we have identified Alternative 2 

as the environmentally preferred alternative.

Support for alternative 2 noted.

17.03 It is assumed that the information gleaned from the

implementation of Phase I has contributed to the 

development of the proposed action. It is unclear, 

however, how this information has been incorporated and 

is being used to improve the chances of success for this 

project or future projects. We recommend that additional 

discussion be included in the final EIS regarding the 

"lessons learned" from Phase I.

Monitoring of Phase 1 has shown an immediate and overwhelming biological response to 

the restoration activities. Aside from the dramatic increase in fish use within the project 

area, the stream channel has responded extremely well (page 10). Use of reference 

information and studying channel morphology appears to have been on the mark.

Information from Phase I area monitoring and surveys of reference areas would be 

thoroughly assessed during design phase of restoration activities specified in alternative 2.

17.04 Finally, the potential impacts, and particularly cumulative 

impacts, relating to the mining company should be 

included in the final EIS

Cumulative impacts from mining and restoration actions are included in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for all resources affected by this project.

Chugach National Forest 247
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

17.05 We are particularly interested in the statements on pages 

89 and 95 regarding the possibility that State water quality 

standards could be temporarily exceeded. We support 

consideration of additional best management practices and 

strategies that will further minimize sedimentation and 

avoid possible exceedance of the turbidity standard. This 

may include use of settling ponds or expanding the project 

schedule to allow for disturbance to smaller quantities of 

material at any given time. We recommend that such 

strategies be developed and incorporated into the 

proposed action in the final EIS.

The project has been designed to reduce sediment delivery and turbidity. State of Alaska 

and Forest Service Best Management Practices will be used to their fullest extent to reduce 

impacts to water quality (pages 27, 32). Approximately 90 percent of the restoration stream 

channel work will be conducted without the flow of water in it. A portion of the newly 

constructed stream channel consists of high clay content, meaning that when water is 

released a pulse of sediment is expected. Further exacerbating the issue is the fact that 

instream work and water release can only be conducted from May 15th through July 15th, 

during the highest typical peak flows. This is due to the fish spawning window set by the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Therefore, sediment and turbidity caused by the 

restoration work cannot be totally eliminated from the system. It should be noted that during 

the May 15th through July 15th window, the stream typically has sediment and turbidity 

loads that are naturally high. It is recognized that short term impacts to water quality may 

occur but overall water quality and aquatic habitat will be improved in the long term (page 

101). 

18.01 The document does not address contractor or Forest 

Service security requirements during the restoration 

project.

Gate usage and potential security concerns would be addressed during project 

implementation and has been included as mitigation measure 23 (page 44).

18.02 Protection of memorial in cottonwood stand near bridge 

location is not included.

Memorials are not allowed on National Forest System lands. Activities to implement 

alternative 2 or alternative 3 will not disturb this cottonwood stand, however, due to its 

proximity to the proposed bridge location and the value of keeping large mature 

cottonwoods in place where possible in the restoration corridor or in alternative 3 along the 

creek (mitigation 21, page 44).

18.03 The existing Hope Mining Company trams are not 

included.

Trams will be included in the alternative maps (pages 199 to 211) and are specified in the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (pages 27, 36).

18.04 Dangerous chemicals such as mercury and arsenic are not 

used at Hope Mining Company and Hope Mining Company 

is compliant with all existing regulations and requirements.

The historic use of mercury and disclosure that modern mining practices employed by Hope 

Mining Company do not include the use of mercury is clarified (pages 28 and 92).

18.05 The Forest Service cites reaching a “conceptual 

agreement” with Hope Mining Company. Hope Mining 

Company has it documented that the agreement is legal 

and binding.

Discussions with Hope Mining Company since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

was released have resulted in changing how the 2007 agreement is referenced (page 11).

248 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.06 New ground to be approved within the Environmental 

Impact Statement framework and proposed operating plan 

approximates 101 acres. The Environmental Impact 

Statement consistently cites 264 acres, leading the reader 

to believe that this is additional new mining area. The 

Environmental Impact Statement does not consistently 

credit “replacement acres” and steep bench slopes that are 

factored into the original agreement. The perceived impact 

by the public is unnecessarily inflated. Regardless of the 

outcome of the project decision, this is unnecessarily 

damaging to Hope Mining Company’s efforts to use 

mineral resources prudently within the scope of applicable 

law.”

The Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision will clearly define the 

areas and acreage proposed for mining based on Hope Mining Company’s 2007 proposed 

plan of operations, with supplements, that have been submitted to the Forest Service 

(pages 17, 26, 32, 197).

18.07 Hope Mining Company has several comments and 

questions regarding how the Forest Service described 

approval of individual operations in the future after the 

Record of Decision is signed.

The Record of Decision would make available for authorization the mining operations 

described in the decision. Approval of mining operations would occur when Hope Mining 

Company submits supplements to the 2007 plan of operations which describe scope of the 

individual mining operation and the equipment and infrastructure that would be used, and 

provide financial assurance (bonding) for required reclamation work (36 CFR 228.13 Bonds; 

Forest Service Manual 2800, Chapter 2810; Section 2817.24 - Bonds) (page 28).

18.08 Hope Mining Company noted that their mining operations 

are also under the scrutiny of and bound by other 

regulatory agencies and state and Federal laws.

A list of the permits Hope Mining Company is required to obtain was added to chapter 1 

(page 23).

18.09 Hope Mining Company noted that the 200 to 500-foot wide 

restoration corridor may need to be “narrower in some 

areas where not feasible or not in support of joint 

agreements between the Forest Service and Hope Mining 

Company.

The wording was changed to the description of the restoration corridor in the proposed 

action in chapter 1 to give some flexibility on the width of the corridor (page 29).

18.10 Hope Mining Company noted concern about a statement 

on page 18 where the proposed action states that the 

public could use the bridge to be built for restoration 

access. Hope Mining Company’s concerns were for public 

safety and liability when mining operators would utilize the 

bridge.

After further internal discussion about public safety and restoration and mining uses of the 

proposed bridge, this wording was removed (page 31). The Resurrection Pass National 

Recreation Trail bridge provides public pedestrian access to the west side of Resurrection 

Creek. Wording was added to chapter 3 (page 156) in the social and economic section that 

public access on the proposed bridge would be prohibited.

Chugach National Forest 249
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.11 Hope Mining Company expressed concern about the 

description of the proposed bridge being temporary; they 

understood the bridge would remain in service as long as 

it’s maintained and inspected.

The proposed bridge for restoration would be temporary as described in the 2007 Forest 

Service/Hope Mining Company Agreement (page 265). The Forest Service would keep the 

proposed bridge onsite for restoration activities and will remove it once restoration activities 

including monitoring and any necessary restoration maintenance activities are completed 

(page 31).

18.12 Hope Mining Company noted concern about a statement 

on page 18 that mining operator use of the proposed 

bridge would need to be approved in a plan of operations.

Maintenance and use of the bridge would need to be described in individual plans of 

operations submitted once lessees are identified. Any maintenance of the bridge by Hope 

Mining Company or lessees would be described and approved through a supplement to the 

2007 plan of operations (page 28).

18.13 Hope Mining Company estimated their relocation of 

Resurrection Creek from its current alignment in two 

locations would be 2140 feet rather than the 2500- foot 

estimated given in the Draft. Hope Mining Company would 

like this number verified.

The Forest Service worked with the Geographic Information Specialist who created the 

maps and the distance of stream channel realignment by Hope Mining Company in 

alternative 3 is now estimated at a total of 2,740 feet for the two locations. Wording was 

changed to reflect the approximate nature of these realignments (page 34).

18.14 Hope Mining Company noted that access routes for Areas 

17, 18, 11, and 12 were missing in the description of 

mining access needed.

Areas 17, 11, and 12 all have existing mining access and are not included in the description 

of proposed mining access routes for this reason (page 27). Area 18 is now included in the 

list of mining areas needing new access because a small segment of new access was 

added through this area (maps for alternative 2; pages 201 and 203).

18.15 Hope Mining Company wanted a change of wording in the 

mining description for Alternative 3 which described the 

bridge Hope Mining Company is approved to build from 

their 1999 plan of operations and access to new mining 

areas on the west side of the creek. Hope Mining 

Company wanted to delete "existing approved mining area 

and new proposed mining areas." and add "mining claims 

on the west side of Resurrection Creek" as was discussed 

at the 11/03/10 Forest Service /Hope Mining Company 

meeting.

The 1999 Plan of Operations approved the use of a bridge to access those areas listed in 

the 1999 plan. The use of the proposed bridge to access new mining areas would need to 

be defined in plans of operations that would supplement the 2007 plan of operations (page 

28).

250 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.16 Hope Mining Company noted that their lessee’s use of 

large vehicles on Resurrection Creek Road is minimal and 

very rarely uses it for any mining related activities. 

Movement of vehicles is within the Hope Mining Company 

claims behind the gates. New and replacement equipment 

is brought to and from Hope Mining Company claims but at 

a frequency and volume insufficient to require dust 

mitigation measures.

In recognition of the infrequent mining use of the Resurrection Creek Road, mitigation 

measure 9 (page 41) was changed so that dust abatement is required for equipment used 

during restoration activities only.

18.17 A new box needs to be added in mitigations concerning 

security during restoration efforts that specifically 

addresses the use of Hope Mining Company gates, 

keeping them locked, the distribution of keys, and respect 

for the private property of miners on site including their 

camp areas. This may be addressed separately through 

agreements with contractors.

A new mitigation measure, 23, was added to address this concern (page 44).

18.18 Hope Mining Company would like to have it documented 

where the camps, fuel storage area, equipment storage 

areas and camp areas will be for crews engaging in 

restoration work.

Logistics of restoration activities will be discussed with Hope Mining Company during the 

contract development phase for restoration (Mitigation Measure 23, page 44).

18.19 Hope Mining Company objects to the requirement that new 

settling ponds and long-term drainage ditches connecting 

these settling ponds are located a minimum of 70 feet from 

either bank of Resurrection Creek. The imposition of a 70 

foot rule is unfounded and unacceptable.

Per discussions with Hope Mining Company and Forest Service hydrologist, wording was 

changed to reflect that the minimum distance is 20 feet but wider separation is preferable 

for alternative 2: “Locations of new ponds and ditches are conceptual and would be field-fit 

in the most logical location for the topography and for proper gradient and located away 

from the new stream channel (minimum of 20 feet but farther away where feasible) to 

minimize the potential for flooding during high water flow events” (pages 27 and 33) and “A 

riparian buffer zone of one channel width, where feasible, on each side of Resurrection 

Creek would protect the stream channel from activities occurring outside of the restoration 

corridor” (page 104). For alternative 3, the minimum 20 feet separation would be required: 

“...mining operations would continue to occur adjacent to Resurrection Creek in approved 

areas except in a 20-foot wide vegetative buffer which would be required to be maintained 

along the edge of the creek as has been required in previous approved plans of operations” 

(page 33).

Chugach National Forest 251
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.20 Hope Mining Company has no real issue with weekly 

inspections described on page 34 because they welcome 

the feedback about their ongoing efforts to operate within 

the auspices of all applicable laws and regulations. 

However, Hope Mining Company feels that this is 

discriminatory treatment based on the ease of access to 

Hope Mining Company. Hope Mining Company is drafting 

a letter to the Forest Service in the form of a Freedom of 

Information Act request to produce documentation of the 

imposition of similar inspection requirements on other 

mines operating on Forest Service lands.

The monitoring activities were substantially rewritten (pages 48 to 54). Forest Service will 

inspect mining operations on a frequency based on level of mining operations occurring. 

This is congruent with frequency of inspections for all other mining operations occurring on 

the Chugach National Forest.

18.21 Hope Mining Company noted that during the channel 

diversions, the Forest Service stated they would monitor 

turbidity upstream from the diversion, at the diversion and 

about 1⁄2 mile downstream from the diversion and was 

wondering why Hope Mining Company isn’t held to this 

lenient standard. They would like to be able to measure 

turbidity 1⁄2 mile downstream.

The monitoring of turbidity during restoration channel diversions is described in monitoring 

activity 3 (page 50) and would be what would be required under Army Corps of Engineer 

permit to verify that turbidity is not exceeding permitted levels. Under alternative 3, Hope 

Mining Company would be held to the same turbidity monitoring during realignment of 

stream channel sections. Concerns with other potential turbidity sources may be monitored 

differently (monitoring activities 1,2, and 4; page 49 and 50).

18.22 Hope Mining Company indicated that wording about Forest 

Service projects not materially interfering with mining 

activities and the regulatory obligation to approve plans of 

operations are a good defense for why Alternative 1 is not 

viable and if provided in the summary, it might set the tone 

for the document in a different way.

The abstract and the summary were substantially rewritten to provide readers information 

early in the document about the regulatory requirement to approve plans of operation 

(abstract; page ix to xiv).

18.23 Hope Mining Company expressed concern about the 

wording on page 60 that states “...it is not known what 

time frames this [mining in Alternative 3] would occur in 

over the twenty-year life of the proposed operation, so it is 

assumed that the roads, settling ponds, ditches, and 

camps would exist as permitted for the 20 year duration of 

the permit”. They state “The camps already exist and 

therefore are protected under the original operating plan, 

as are some of the replacement settling ponds and roads. 

This language is an intrusion into existing operating plans 

and must be stricken.”

The Soils Resource effects analysis was substantially rewritten and recognizes that 

previous plans of operations govern existing infrastructure and timing of reclamation into the 

future (pages 72 to 81).

252 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.24 Hope Mining Company questioned what the word 

“temporary” means when the Forest Service referred to 

1.06 miles of temporary road that would be built in the 

inventoried roadless area (page 129).

Temporary roads are roads that would be obliterated during final reclamation at the 

cessation of mining activities. Temporary roads may stay in use for a number of years while 

mining is occurring but will ultimately be obliterated during reclamation (page 28).

18.25 Hope Mining Company expressed several concerns about 

where boulders, soil, and large woody debris would come 

from to support restoration.

Soil, rock, boulders, and large woody debris material for restoration will come from the 

restoration corridor and adjacent mining areas within the project area. Soil sources for 

restoration alternative 2 have been updated (page 30).

18.26 Hope Mining Company asked if the lack of soil and soil 

nutrients entirely caused by mining or is some of this area 

naturally lacking in soil? “If so, it should be mentioned that 

the soil conditions are at least partially naturally poor.”

This question has been addressed in the revised soil analysis (page 72 to 81). Once the 

nutrient-rich surface horizons are removed from the soil surface then the site is impaired, 

but not necessarily permanently.

18.27 Hope Mining Company commented that no one has any 

idea how many cubic yards will be mined because the 

mining depth varies from anomaly to anomaly and area to 

area. They suggested that the reference to the yardage 

should be removed from the Geology/Soils section in 

Chapter 3.

The references to yardage have been removed and only a general reference remains about 

where productive gold-bearing gravels are located within the geology of the watershed 

(page 70).

18.28 Hope Mining Company stated that the reference to the 

production grades of the placer gravels is very dated and 

in fact Hope Mining Company testing and records indicate 

otherwise.

This reference was deemed not necessary and has been removed from the Affected 

Environment section for Geology and Soils analysis (page 70).

18.29 Hope Mining Company noted that camp areas measure 

more than 3.3 acres and also that not all camps are active 

nor is it likely that they would all be active at one time. 

“Another example of where, without clarification or 

additional supporting language, the impression that is that 

mining on all 95 acres and 9 operational camps at once is 

going to be producing these levels of noise.”

The total camp area as measured from the aerial photos of the project area total around 3.6 

acres. The noise analysis accounts for all activities which could occur within the proposed 

mining areas but recognizes that noise in different areas may mask one another rather than 

add increase cumulatively (page 86).

18.30 Hope Mining Company noted an error in the description of 

the noise study done by the Forest Service in 2009. The 

statement in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

says that active mining was only occurring at one location 

in the southern portion of the project area, at Area 5. Both 

Mike and Phillip and Lynn’s plants and supporting 

equipment were in operation.

This section of the Noise Affected Environment now lists only the equipment for the 

operation occurring in area 5 (Mike and Phillip’s) (page 83).

Chugach National Forest 253
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.31 Hope Mining Company expressed concern about how the 

“Bench” site for the noise study was selected and to” just 

admit that this is a direct response to a private property 

owner’s concerns and that this monitoring was done on 

this area to either reinforce or refute those concerns. Hope 

Mining Company sees this degree of collaboration as 

deceitful on the part of the Forest Service and may identify 

it publicly. A member of Hope Mining Company has 

property along that area and no one asked him if he 

needed sound monitoring.”

During project scoping private landowners expressed concerns about potential noise levels. 

Decibel levels were recorded within close proximity to mining activities, near the 

Resurrection Creek Trailhead, along the Palmer Creek Road and along the private land 

boundary. The decibel data was taken to assess actual noise levels and potential impacts 

to recreating visitors and private land owners (page 83).

18.32 Hope Mining expressed concern about how spikes in 

decibels were used in representing the findings of the data; 

the “spike” for when an ATV passed the decibel reader is 

used to establish the upper range in Table 3 under the 

“Site 1” column; spikes for when cars passed by the 

Resurrection Creek road site were also used.

The wording for the Noise Affected Environment section was changed to reflect the average 

level of noise recorded for that site but did still recognize the ATV noise and cars as spikes 

in noise for those sites (page 83).

18.33 Hope Mining Company noted that in the document the 

Forest Service states that the Environmental Protection 

Agency seems to place as much emphasis on duration of 

noise levels, or total noise exposure, as on peak levels. 

“Why are the peaks used rather than the sustained levels 

identified? This makes the effect seem worse than it is.”

Table 3 in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been modified (now table 17, 

page 82) and uses the average range of decibels recorded rather than the spikes being the 

upper limit of the range, but still acknowledges infrequent spikes of noise to those 

magnitudes measured at the various sites.

254 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.34 Hope Mining expressed concern about statements in the 

Noise effects analysis that mining noise duration and 

proximity is not fairly represented. “In the pre-2007 

agreement meetings, Hope Mining Company and the 

Forest Service worked cooperatively in scheduling mining 

in areas closest to residences to coincide with restoration 

work in those areas. The Forest Service’s inability to move 

this project into the operational stage prior to mining 

occurring in Areas 5 and 19 directly results in Hope Mining 

Company having to move into these adjacent areas before 

Forest Service restoration work could begin. Hope Mining 

Company gets no credit for attempting to do this which is 

outside of the 2007 agreement that the Forest Service and 

Hope Mining Company would garner equal representation 

and credit for their efforts to ensure project success.”

The Noise effects analysis recognizes that mining noise may mask or be masked by 

restoration related noise (page 87). Mining noise is anticipated to occur every year whereas 

restoration work would occur as funding becomes available. The effects analysis more 

clearly demonstrates relative magnitude and duration of mining operations and restoration 

by being analyzed separately.

18.35 Hope Mining Company expressed concern about a 

statement that noise generated from mining combined with 

that of restoration would likely be a source of nuisance for 

some residents living within one mile of the project area 

and potentially make some parcels of land less suitable for 

some uses. “This is speculative and as far as Hope Mining 

Company is concerned, it is a reference to mining dragging 

down property values in the area. HMC has been mining in 

this area long before private residences were established.”

Analysis of the effects of mining on property values of adjacent private land was included in 

the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the conclusion was that some decrease in 

property value could be anticipated with new mining roads built adjacent to private property 

and with an increase in noise (page 155).

18.36 “The description of existing hydrologic conditions of 

Resurrection Creek implies that all of the lack of sinuosity 

within the proposed project area is due to mining. This is 

not true. Some of the existing channel is naturally straight. 

By omission, this language is discrediting to Hope Mining 

Company.”

The description of existing hydrologic conditions refers to early 20th-century mining, which 

predates when Hope Mining Company was operating in the area. Therefore, the Forest 

Service does not feel this is a discredit to Hope Mining Company but rather a statement of 

fact regarding historical events and resulting conditions. The Affected Environment section 

of the Aquatic Resources and Hydrology analysis in chapter 3 does acknowledge there are 

sections of channel in the project area that are naturally straight (page 93).

18.37 Hope Mining Company questioned the statement that the 

restoration activities were to occur from May 15 to July 15 

with no description of any work outside that timeframe

This statement was reworded to read that all instream work would occur from May 15 

through July 15. Restoration of floodplains and any other restorative actions not generating 

turbidity would be permitted outside of that window (page 32).

Chugach National Forest 255
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.38 Hope Mining Company questioned the statement that the 

relocated channel segments would be similar to the 

existing condition, but with decreased stability and 

challenges the Forest Service to provide documentation 

indicating that the existing 20 foot buffer rule is insufficient. 

In earlier meetings this was specifically addressed and 

Hope Mining Company specifically disagreed with this 

proposal. Hope Mining Company also disagreed with the 

statement that a moderate to high potential for catastrophic 

water quality impacts would exist from settling pond failure 

or erosion.

The Forest Service has worked with Hope Mining Company about a location south of area 

16 where Resurrection Creek shifted to the east and was starting to erode a mining road 

and encroach on a settling pond and ditch. The Aquatic Resources and Hydrology section 

has been rewritten but still recognizes that a potential impact to water quality is possible 

due to the proximity of mining infrastructure to the creek; the closer these features exist in 

relation to the creek, the higher the potential risk of Resurrection Creek eroding or overtop 

the banks, particularly in storm events, and capturing the sediment laden settling pond/ditch 

systems (page 101). The channel relocation proposed in alternative 3 would not likely have 

some of the stabilizing features that the restored channel in alternative 2 would have 

therefore may take more time to stabilize and cause long term effects on water quality with 

persistent eroding banks (page 108).

18.39 Hope Mining Company questioned the statement that the 

effects of Alternative 3 on sport fishing cannot be 

accurately predicted with the information currently 

available and that an increase in fish populations is not 

expected to occur from implementation of mining activities. 

Hope Mining Company felt this statement was 

unnecessary. “The river’s been this way since it’s been 

straightened and historical tailings have been deposited 

there. It’s another example of an unnecessary statement 

that adds to the overall negative tone of the Environmental 

Impact Statement.”

This section of the recreation effects analysis was rewritten and mentions only that there 

would be no anticipated changes in fish populations for alternative 3 (page 135).

18.40 Hope Mining Company expressed concern about how the 

Forest Service represented the events leading up to 

settling pond “O” failing and the status of the pond 

presently throughout the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement.

The references to Pond “O” have been deleted from the document during the revising of the 

Aquatic Resources and Hydrology section of chapter 3. This analysis section still 

recognizes that a potential impact to water quality is possible due to the proximity of mining 

infrastructure to the creek; the closer these features exist in relation to the creek, the higher 

the potential risk of Resurrection Creek eroding or overtop the banks, particularly in storm 

events, and capturing the sediment laden settling pond/ditch systems (pages 101and 108).

256 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.41 Hope Mining Company expressed concern about 

statements concerning potential water quality impacts from 

a large precipitation event eroding through a disturbed 

mining area and potentially delivering large amounts of 

sediment to the stream channel. “No such event has 

happened or has been recorded since mining has taken 

place in the valley over the years. This is conjecture. Yes, 

anything can happen, but the writer is not balanced from 

the perspective of not adding additional language 

indicating that although the likelihood is there, it hasn’t 

happened in the recorded history of mining operations in 

the area. The use of the phrase “the clearing of ANY 

portion...” is inciting. That means that even if just the small 

hand mining operation was the only permitted operation, it 

poses the threat of wanton and widespread destruction. 

What constitutes a large precipitation event? In 2010 the 

area saw rainfall that broke all existing recorded 

precipitation records and there was no negative effect. The 

Forest Service simply cannot defend this degree of 

conjecture.”

During the revision of the Aquatic Resources and Hydrology section of chapter 3 (page 101

to 104), this language was removed. The Forest Service soils scientist worked with Hope 

Mining Company on mitigation measures that will minimize erosion from disturbed mining 

areas, particularly on steeper slopes (mitigation measure 25 and 27; pages 45 and 46).

18.42 Hope Mining Company questioned how mining activities 

would introduce non-native species.

Nonnative species are introduced by vehicles, foot traffic, and other equipment. Specifically, 

nonnative plant materials attached to vehicles, footwear, or equipment could be deposited 

into areas where vegetation has been cleared (page 116).

18.43 Hope Mining Company requested more concise wording 

regarding sensitive plants and habitat and that these plants 

are not found within the project area.

The Vegetation/Ecology section of chapter 3 was revised with more concise language 

regarding sensitive plants (page 112.

18.44 Hope Mining Company expressed concern about a 

statement in the Inventoried Roadless Area effects 

analysis (page 129) that a small portion of small diameter 

hemlock that would be cut during restoration activities may 

be made available for personal use firewood. “This should 

not be non-specific because this does not imply that there 

would be public gathering of firewood, nor would the public 

be granted access to Hope Mining Company areas with 

motorized vehicles.”

The Forest Service retains the jurisdiction over the surface resources including the use of 

any timber harvested for restoration or mining purposes. Hope Mining Company may be 

authorized to utilize the wood for mining purposes, however, the Forest Service may also 

sell or permit the wood to the public as long as Hope Mining Company retains reasonable 

access the mineral estate and the public does not materially interfere with mining 

operations. The Consistency or Conflicts with Regulatory Framework section of the 

Inventoried Roadless area analysis for alternative 2 in chapter 3 has been revised and 

specific wording about use of trees harvested has been removed due to other possible uses 

of the wood in addition to firewood for the public (page 150).

Chugach National Forest 257
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.45 “Please reference the type and number of wildlife species 

known to have abandoned this area due to past or current 

operations. Hope Mining Company has been mining in this 

area for 100 years.”

The actual number and type of species that may have avoided or abandoned habitat in the 

mining area over the last 100 years would be impossible for anyone to know. The 

statements regarding disturbance to wildlife from noise which may cause avoidance was 

made based on literature on disturbance to wildlife from mining, other similar activities or 

noise (page 122 to 126).

18.46 Hope Mining Company questioned why beaver and black 

bear don’t’ show up on the Management Indicator Species 

Table.

Beaver and black bear are not considered Management Indicator Species or Species of 

Special Interest in the Chugach National Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement 

(USDA Forest Service, 2002b; page 3-209), so are not included in that table. Beaver and 

black bear were considered in the analysis along with all other species we know occur or 

have potential to occur in the project area.

18.47 Hope Mining Company questioned inclusion of in-depth 

analysis of research into the effects of noise on wildlife 

when there are conflicting results and in doing so, the 

information contributes to the overall negative tone of the 

document.

The intent of this sentence is to inform the reader that the research on wildlife effects from 

human generated noise is conflicting; some research indicates that human generated noise 

has a negative impact on wildlife while other research shows that it has little if any impact 

(page 124).

18.48 Hope Mining Company questioned the inclusion of mining 

effects into the analysis of effects to wildlife across the 

Resurrection Creek watershed and how that gives the 

document a negative spin towards mining.

The purpose of this section is to explain cumulative effects of all activities, including mining, 

which may have affected wildlife within in the watershed over time. Not all of the area is 

forested within the watershed. The larger number only refers to percent of the forest 

affected in the watershed and is noted because the paragraph is describing effects on 

species that only use forested habitats (page 125).

18.49 Hope Mining Company questioned why the table on page 

103 didn’t list black bears, but now on page 114 the 

conclusion for Alternative 3 leads the reader to believe all 

bears are affected. “Introducing more fish into the river or 

increasing the King species isn’t going to make a 

difference to the average bear that forages for food in the 

area; they will eat anything they can capture and digest 

and are prolific in the area, concurrent with mining when 

the fish are running and at all times for that matter. The 

same applies to moose.”

The conclusion section of the Wildlife effects analysis was integrated in with each 

alternative effects analysis and does not specifically address effects to management 

indicator species (pages 122 to 126). Full effects analysis for each management indicator 

species is in the Wildlife Resource Report in the project record.

258 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.50 “The description of the start of the gold rush in Hope and 

Sunrise does not reflect Russian prospecting earlier than 

that.”

Mary Barry 1997 [1973]:13 stated that some Russian artifacts were reportedly recovered 

from Resurrection Creek, Devils Gulch, and Shaft Creek, but these claims have yet to 

receive substantiation. The peak of the Klondike gold rush was in 1898, but it began in 

1897. This date is documented in “Prospects and Producers: Historic Context for Mining 

Properties, Chugach and Tongass National Forests, Alaska, 1850s-1950s” by Simon 

Bruder; and “Memories of Old Sunrise” by Albert Weldon Morgan and Rolfe G. Buzzell.

18.51 Hope Mining Company expressed concerns with how their 

involvement in the establishment of the mining interpretive 

area and partnering with the Forest Service on developing 

interpretive signing about the mining history is 

represented.

The Heritage Resource section of chapter 3 (pages 126 to 130) and mitigation measure 11 

(page 42) has been rewritten to clarify Hope Mining Company’s involvement in developing 

the interpretive area and interpretive signing.

18.52 Hope Mining Company expressed concerns with 

description of process of what happens if they or their 

mining lessees should find historic artifacts during mining 

operations. “Hope Mining Company will set the find aside 

for periodic inspection by the District Archeologist, but will 

not call every time a cultural resource is discovered. If it is 

significant, Hope Mining Company will, but reserves the 

right to manage their operations accordingly. Thus far, in 

the last three mining seasons, the Forest Service has 

remained distinctly disinterested when Hope Mining 

Company has shared small discoveries.”

The word “immediately” will be deleted. However, Forest Service must be notified of 

inadvertent discoveries to be in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) which requires Federal agencies to take into account the 

effects of their undertakings on historic properties (page 42, mitigation measure 10). 

Notification need only consist of a phone call and shouldn’t affect operations. To date this 

approach has worked well between Forest Service and Hope Mining Company.

18.53 Hope Mining Company expressed several concerns with 

the statements that the majority of impacts to the stream 

channels and riparian areas in the project area arose from 

hydraulic placer mining, which occurred mostly in the first 

two decades of the 1900’s and that historic mining that 

took place after 1942 is not well documented. “Hydraulic 

mining was actually at its peak in the ‘30’s and ‘40’s and 

was the height of activity for placer mining in Resurrection 

Valley. Hope Mining Company retains records; this is 

another example of the Forest Service not working in 

concert with Hope Mining Company on this project. It’s 

disheartening that the FS did not consider Hope Mining 

Company a creditable source for information and instead 

relied exclusively on dated historical data.”

These statements were in the Aquatic Resources/Hydrology and Minerals Affected 

Environment sections. The whole minerals section has been deleted and the aquatics 

resource report was modified to include Hope Mining Company’s information about the 

hydraulic mining phase (page 93). The Heritage Resources Affected Environment analysis 

covers generally the level of mining activity in the 1950s and 1960s (page 126).

Chugach National Forest 259
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.54 Hope Mining Company questioned the accuracy of the 

name of the historic property within the project area. “On 

page S-4, it is listed as the Hope Mining Company Historic 

Mining District and on page 115 it is listed as Hope Historic 

Mining District. Hope itself and the Hope area was not 

included in the study, just the Hope Mining Company 

Historic area, so this title is incorrect.”

The correct title for the historic property is the Hope Mining Company Historic Mining 

District and the document has been revised to correct this error (pages ix, xi, 60, 126).

18.55 Hope Mining Company noted that they are not 

relinquishing mineral rights in the interpretive area. “The 

language in the document (page 118) suggests that what 

was before a nicety afforded by Hope Mining Company 

has become a requirement for compliance. There is no 

mention of the agreement between Hope Mining Company 

and the Forest Service which is what this all about. Note 

that the State Historic Preservation Office has not once 

convened with Hope Mining Company on this initiative as 

was agreed upon in 2007.”

Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is required for any 

undertaking by the federal government, including approving surface use on mining claims. 

Because historic tailings will be redistributed during mining and restoration work and the 

historic tailings are considered a contributing feature to the Hope Mining Company Historic 

Mining District, the Forest Service is required to consult with the State Historic Preservation 

Office on this adverse effect. The 2009 Memorandum of Agreement formalizes this 

consultation and agreement on mitigation. This process does not involve any suggestion of 

relinquishment of mineral rights by Hope Mining Company nor does it change anything in 

the 2007 agreement between the Forest Service and Hope Mining Company. The Heritage 

effects analysis was revised to help clarify why consultation and mitigation was necessary 

(page 128).

18.56 Hope Mining Company had concerns about the statement 

that their potential continued use of ATV’s crossing 

Resurrection Pass Trail bridge to access mining operations 

on the west side of Resurrection Creek by Hope Mining 

Company may cause safety concerns with recreation 

users. “Hope Mining Company has the established right to 

use the bridge for ATV access to areas on the west side of 

the river. Although there have been no document safety 

concerns (more Forest Service conjecture here) about this 

minimal use, all Hope Mining Company personnel that use 

the bridge have been briefed on protocol concerning use of 

the bridge. This includes not approaching or using the 

bridge while it is in use by non-Hope Mining Company 

entities. Hope Mining Company personnel are instructed to 

stop well before the bridge approach and wait for complete 

vacancy of the bridge and approaches to it before using it.”

Hope Mining Company has authorization to use the footbridge for mining related access to 

the west side and this use may continue to be authorized until a bridge is built either for 

restoration activities (alternative 2) or by Hope Mining Company for mining access 

(alternative 3) (pages 9, 33, and 135). The Forest Service would require Hope Mining 

Company (alternatives 2 and 3) and restoration contractors (alternative 2 only) to install 

signing indicating potential hazards from heavy equipment when operating near 

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail and trail bridge (mitigation measure 12, page 

42) to reduce potential for safety concerns (page 156).

260 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.57 Hope Mining Company had several comments regarding 

the Scenic Integrity Objective and how scenic quality can 

change for the landscape when the area has always been 

a mining area and how scenic integrity is measured.

The scenery resources affected environment and effects analysis sections were removed 

from the Recreation Resource section and analyzed as a separate resource and 

substantially rewritten to include more information and figures to illustrate changes in 

scenery with mining and restoration (pages 136 to 143). The scenery management system 

used by the Forest Service to manage scenery resources was developed to help meet the 

public’s expectation for scenic beauty while allowing for multiple resource use. The scenic 

integrity objective scale is based on naturally appearing landscapes and is measured by 

considering how dominant human activities appear in the context of a natural environment 

(page 136). The scenic integrity objective for the project site while the mining operations are 

active is prescribed by the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2002a; page 4-86) as very 

low (meaning the existing scenery has been disturbed and altered by humans and does not 

appear as a natural landscape). The existing scenic integrity description is consistent with 

this Forest Plan scenery prescription. Requires mining reclamation of disturbed sites serves 

to move an unacceptably low scenery description to a very low scenery objective.

18.58 Hope Mining Company expressed concern about a 

statement requiring a 20-foot vegetative screening along 

Resurrection Creek Road in mining Areas 14 and 21 to 

retain some scenic values for visitors and residents driving 

Resurrection Creek Road. “Area 14 is already approved for 

mining under the 1999 Plan of Operations. The 20 foot 

vegetative screening was mentioned as “desirable” in 

conversation with Hope Mining Company, but is not part of 

the 2007 agreement. There is no requirement and no 

agreement surrounding any vegetative buffer. Is this 

included in the 1872 mining law as amended? If the 

requirement is imposed then the Forest Service will have 

to calculate additional replacement areas or afford financial 

reimbursement for the lost acreage.”

Hope Mining Company’s 2007 plan of operations for new mining areas included retaining a 

20 foot vegetative buffer along Resurrection Creek Road. Hope Mining Company has since 

supplemented their proposed plan of operations to withdraw this element and the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement will reflect this change (pages 27, 140 to 143).

18.59 Hope Mining Company expressed concern about 

statements scenic integrity objective and “how the 

landscape has not changed since the area was first mined, 

before the first resident, recreationist or bureaucrat came 

to make some arbitrary decision that an always existing 

feature has a low Scenic Integrity Objective. What 

happened to the happy reference to the “sense of place to 

the community of Hope” referenced on page 119?”

The scenery resources affected environment and effects analysis sections were removed 

from the Recreation Resource section and analyzed as a separate resource and 

substantially rewritten to include more information and figures to illustrate changes in 

scenery with mining and restoration. This section no longer contains this reference to 

“sense of place” (pages 139 to 143).

Chugach National Forest 261
Resurrection Creek Phase II

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.60 Hope Mining Company questioned what was included in 

the net present value figures and the cost estimates of 

administering the mining activities.

The net present value analysis consists of a detailed estimate of costs and year of 

occurrence of restoration and mining administrative activities over a 20-year period. The 

mining administration cost figures are based on estimates of frequency of visits to the 

mining operations at levels of operating activity seen over the past 3-5 years (page 155).

18.61 Hope Mining Company asked what information the 

statements about employment were based on. “As the 

price of gold, which is a variable, continues to increase, 

mining becomes more attractive. As mining becomes more 

attractive there are more lessees and hence more 

employment. This is of course unless the Forest Service is 

discounting Hope Mining Company as a source of income 

for those that work there. Note that Hope Mining Company 

uses resources within the town of Hope and uses local 

vendors. For instance, certain lessees buy their fuel 

exclusively from the Davidson’s gas station in Hope, and 

periodically use the grocery store and local dining areas for 

some meals and provisions.”

Information regarding economic effects of mining operators' spending in local community 

was not known at the time the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published. This 

information has been included (pages 151, 154, 155, and 157).

18.62 Hope Mining Company questioned where numbers come 

from in Table 7 on page 132 and the statement about 

“some mining activity continues to occur” on page 133.

The Social Economic section has been revised and no longer includes Table 7. The 

Affected Environment Analysis does still include statistics about employment in the Hope 

areas and the source is noted. This section also acknowledges that mining does employ 

people in the area and has been clarified with Alaska Department of Commerce data (page 

151).

18.63 Hope Mining Company questioned if the inflation rate 

being left at zero for the Net Present values calculations 

would also apply to reclamation bond calculations.

Inflation is assumed at zero for the purposes of calculating future costs and Net Present 

Value from recommendations in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94. This level 

of detail is no longer in the Environmental Impact Statement but is in the Social Economic 

Resource Report in the project record (page 153). Bonding calculations use the latest 

information available for calculating inflation. Bonds also are updated frequently to ensure 

up-to-date costs/values are being used.

18.64 Hope Mining Company questioned the statement that they 

would be responsible to reclaim the watershed to its 

current state on page 140. Hope Mining Company 

suggested deleting the wording "to its current state" and 

adding "in accordance with applicable reclamation 

guidelines (reference this)." They will reclaim but not to the 

current state, and in accordance with published and 

mandated reclamation guidelines.

The social and economic section has been revised and no longer includes the Ecological 

Health section. The description of reclamation practices is within the existing mining section 

(page 6), within the description of proposed mining in alternative 2 (page 28), and within 

federal regulations at 36 CFR 228.8(g).

262 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Commenter/

Comment 

Number

Comment Response

18.65 Hope Mining Company questioned the statements on page 

140 that the Forest Service would increase administrative 

oversight of mining operations and reclamation activities 

for more oversight of mining activities, and more 

assurance that Hope Mining Company would comply with 

the standards set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

The Forest Service determines how frequently a mining operation warrants inspection 

based on the level of mining activity and potential level of impact to surface resources. For 

the type of activity occurring in the past several years at Hope Mining Company operations, 

weekly inspections have been warranted to ensure all specifications in the mining plan of 

operations are being adhered to by mining operator's lessees (monitoring activities 1, 2, 4, 

and 8), pages 48 to 54). The social and economic section has been revised and no longer 

references the Settlement Agreement (described on Page 9 in the Existing Mining section 

of chapter 1).

18.66 Hope Mining Company questioned the statement on page 

141 about Forest Plan direction to work with local 

communities and interest groups to identify, record, 

restore, or preserve heritage resources on National Forest 

System lands. “Who are the interest groups, unless this is 

a broad generalization? No one is working with Hope 

Mining Company to identify cultural resources. Some of 

these things no one knows about but Hope Mining 

Company”.

This reference to the Forest Plan was removed from the social and economic section (page 

156). The Heritage Resource section of chapter 3 (page 126) and mitigation measure 11 

(page 42) has been rewritten to clarify Hope Mining Company’s involvement in developing 

the interpretive area and interpretive signing about the mining history of the area.

18.67 Hope Mining Company questioned the statement on page 

141 about the Forest Service having greater administration 

over Hope Mining Company’s mining and reclamation 

activities. “If this alternative is a no change alternative, why 

would administration be greater and where does this come 

from?”

Forest Service inspections of mining operations would not be substantially different 

between alternative 2 and 3. The level of mining activity occurring and potential level of 

impact to surface resources is what drives the frequency of inspections and administrative 

tasks. This effects analysis was changed to reflect the same cost of mining administration 

between alternatives 2 and 3 (pages 155 to 157).

18.68 Hope Mining Company had questions about the 

cumulative effects section and the relationship of small 

scale suction dredging in Palmer Creek, fuel reduction 

work, recreation activities, and development on private 

lands in relation to the proposal.

Cumulative effects as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality is: “the impact on 

the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 

(Federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7)”. 

Resource specialists determine how other activities within the Resurrection Creek 

watershed might cumulatively affect the environment in addition to proposed mining in the 

project area.

Chugach National Forest 263
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix E. Forest Service / Hope Mining 

Company December 3, 2007 Letter – Framework 

for Restoration 

Chugach National Forest 265
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chugach National Forest 267
Resurrection Creek Phase II

268 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chugach National Forest 269
Resurrection Creek Phase II

270 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Chugach National Forest 271
Resurrection Creek Phase II

272 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix F. Federal, State and Local Government 

Comments

Chugach National Forest 273
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
August 5, 2010

Bill MacFarlane

Chugach National Forest

3301 C Street, Suite 300

Anchorage, AK 99503

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Resurrection Creek Phase II Stream and Riparian 

Restoration Project and Hope Mining Company Proposed Mining Plan of Operations

Dear Mr. MacFarlane:

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed the above referenced Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The purpose of the proposed action is to 

1) restore the stream channel, riparian areas, and fish and wildlife habitat of a 2-mile segment of 

Resurrection Creek on National Forest System lands within a designated restoration corridor; 2) approve a 

supplement to the existing mining plans of operations in order to exclude most existing approved mining 

activities from the proposed restoration corridor; and 3) approve new mining operations within proposed 

mining areas outside of the restoration corridor only after Hope Mining Company (HMC) defines specific 

operations and provide acceptable reclamation bonds. 

Under Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), federal agencies are required to consult with the Secretary of Commerce on any 

action that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH has been designated in the project 

area for anadromous salmon. EFH for salmon consists of the aquatic habitat necessary to allow salmon 

production needed to support a long-term sustainable salmon fishery and salmon contributions to healthy 

ecosystems. 

Project Area and Background

Resurrection Creek drains in the Turnagain Arm of Cook Inlet near Hope, Alaska. The Resurrection basin 

is EFH for populations of Chinook, coho, pink and chum salmon, which contribute to commercial catch 

along the Kenai Peninsula. Pink salmon are the most abundant species with runs estimated at 20,000 to 

35,000 returning adults in even-numbered years. Chum salmon are much less numerous, with about 200 

adults returning yearly. Annual coho peak counts in Resurrection Creek range from 100 to 500 returning 

adults. Chinook counts range from less than 100 to upwards of 500 returning adults. The lower six river 

miles of Resurrection Creek (the project area) have been identified as habitat for spawning and rearing 

habitat for all four species.
A 1990-1992 study evaluated juvenile salmon distributions, smolt out-migrations, and stream habitat 

(Blanchet and Wenger 1993). The results show that Resurrection Creek coho smolts were considerably 

smaller by age class (about 30%) than on three other study streams on the Kenai Peninsula. In addition, 

virtually all Resurrection Creek coho smolts were emigrating at age 1; however 90% of coho smolts on 

the other streams emigrated at age two and three. The lack of growth and early age at which coho smolts 

emigrate from the watershed indicate that rearing within the system is severely limited. This was found to 

be a result of tailings piles within the placer-mined reaches that have disconnected the stream from the 

historic floodplains and side channel habitat, which historically provided the flood flow refugia and overwintering habitat which were critical to salmonids, especially coho. 

The USFS has developed three alternatives. Under Alternative 1 the No Action alternative, no restoration 

would occur, and existing approved mining activities would continue to take place in the project area. 

Alternative 2, the Proposed Action, would restore two miles of Resurrection Creek’s channel, floodplain 

and streamside vegetation within a designated restoration corridor and made available for approval 264 

acres of mining areas and operational areas outside of the restoration corridor, pending HMC defining 

discrete operation and providing acceptable reclamation bonding. Alternative 3 would not restore any 

portion of Resurrection Creek, and no restoration corridor would be established. This alternative would 

make 267 acres of mining areas and operational areas throughout the project area available for approval 

pending HMC defining specific operations and providing acceptable reclamation bonding. 

The proposed stream restoration would occur within federal mining claims held by HMC. The USFS 

reached a conceptual agreement with HMC on December 3, 2007 that establishes a designated restoration 

corridor, identified procedures for replacing existing settling ponds and mining roads that are within the 

restoration corridor, stipulates use of a temporary bridge over Resurrection Creek, and identifies areas 

outside of the restoration corridor that are suitable for restoration source materials. Under the conceptual 

agreement, HMC would submit a proposed mining plan of operations that would exclude mining 

operations from the restoration corridor, with the exception of survey line maintenance, survey monument 

maintenance, and water extraction to replenish settling ponds, bridge and equipment crossings, and 

operations associated with the patenting process. The proposed plan of operations also proposes mining 

operations on additional areas outside of the proposed restoration corridor. Because the proposed plan of 

operations would support and protect the restoration activities by excluding mining from the restoration 

corridor, the DEIS analyzes the proposed stream restoration activities as well as the proposed mining plan 

of operations.

EFH Conservation Recommendations

NMFS supports Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Increases in turbidity would occur during the course 

of the stream restoration work. These turbidity pulses could impact aquatic populations in the short term, 

but the impact of these turbidity pulses on the overall fish populations is expected to be small and limited 

to the project area and two miles downstream. Increased spawning and rearing habitat created by the 

project are expected to provide long-term, positive benefits to the project reach, the aquatic ecosystem, 

and fisheries resources.

NMFS recommends that a monitoring plan be implemented to evaluate the success of the restoration 

project. Specifically we recommend a repeat of the Blanchet and Wenger 1993 study to test the overall 

hypothesis that poor overwintering habitat quality manifests as shorter juvenile residence time, as well as 

smaller sized smolt, when compared to un-mined reference reaches. This relationship should reverse after 

the physical habitat goals of the project are met, with both residence time and smolt size coming in line 

with reference systems.

276 Chugach National Forest
Please note that, under section 305(b)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the USFS is required to respond 

in writing within 30 days to NMFS EFH Conservation Recommendations. If the USFS does not make a 

decision within 30 days, the USFS should provide NFMS with a letter to that effect, and indicate when a 

full response will be provided.

Should you have any questions regarding the issues we have identified, please contact Brain Lance at 

907-271-1301 or Brian.Lance@noaa.gov.

Sincerely,

cc:

wamacfarlane@fs.fed.us

north.phil@epa.gov

Lynnda_Kahn@fws.gov

kkromrey@fs.fed.us

bbair@fs.fed.us

ppi.nepa@noaa.gov

Chugach National Forest 277
References:

Blanchet, D. and M. Wenger, 1993. Fisheries Habitat Restoration in Placer Mined Reaches of 

Resurrection Creek. In Papers of the Second EPA Placer Mine Reclamation Workshop. US Environmental 

Protection Agency publication #EPA 910-R-93-015.

278 Chugach National Forest
9043.1 August 25, 2010

ER10/627

PEP/ANC

Chugach National Forest

Attn: Forest Supervisor

c/o Bill MacFarlane

3301 C Street, Suite 300

Anchorage, AK 99503

Dear Mr. MacFarlane:

The U.S. Department of the Interior has reviewed the July 2010 Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the proposed Resurrection Creek Stream Restoration Project Phase II. We have no comments to offer 

at this time. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions, you may contact me at 907-271-5011.

Sincerely,

Pamela Bergmann

Regional Environmental Officer - Alaska

Chugach National Forest 279
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
September 7, 2010

Bill MacFarlane

Chugach National Forest

3301 C Street, Suite 300

Anchorage, AK 99503-3998

RE: EPA comments on the USFS Draft EIS for the Resurrection Creek Phase II Stream and Riparian 

Restoration Project and Hope Mining Company Proposed Mining Plan of Operations, EPA Project #08-

073-AFS

Dear Mr. MacFarlane:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Resurrection Creek Stream Phase II Stream and Riparian Restoration 

Project and Hope Mining Company Proposed Mining Plan of Operations (CEQ No. 20100266) in 

accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 309 of the 

Clean Air Act. The draft EIS evaluates a No Action alternative and two (2) action alternatives that 

propose restoration or protection activities along a two-mile segment of Resurrection Creek near Hope, 

Alaska. The draft EIS identifies Alternative 2 as the agency proposed action.

As with the previous Phase I project, EPA supports the Forest Service’s efforts to restore the degraded 

stream channel, floodplains, and habitat conditions caused by the historical placement of mine tailings in 

the alluvial valley bottom of Resurrection Creek. We are particularly pleased that recent (2008) studies 

determined that historic mercury concentrations throughout the project are relatively low, and there is low 

probability of encountering mercury in the remaining tailings. This was our primary concern with Phase 

I.

Through the re-creation of a complex of stream channels and wetlands, the project holds great potential 

for restoring high quality habitat for salmon, bears, bald eagles, moose and other fish and wildlife species. 

Also, by allocating mining and operational area acreage outside of the restoration corridor, the potential 

for success for the restoration activities will be substantially increased. As a consequence, we support the 

selection of Alternative 2 as it would maximize the restoration efforts in the corridor, as well as amend the 

existing Hope Mining Company’s Plan of Operations to reflect the restoration goals for the corridor. 

Because Alternative 3 would not include the restoration activities proposed in Alternative 2, we have 

identified Alternative 2 as the environmentally preferred alternative.

We do have some recommendations for your consideration in the preparation of the final EIS. It is 

assumed that the information gleaned from the implementation of Phase I has contributed to the 

development of the proposed action. It is unclear, however, how this information has been incorporated 

and is being used to improve the chances of success for this project or future projects. We recommend 

that additional discussion be included in the final EIS regarding the “lessons learned” from Phase I.

Chugach National Forest 281
Also, it is unclear why Phase I and Phase II were not evaluated under the same EIS, or if future 

restoration activities are being planned. We recommend that if future activities are being planned 

adjacent to the current restoration corridor, that they are included in this analysis, or that the final EIS 

provide a clear explanation as to why this phased approach is appropriate.

Finally, the potential impacts, and particularly cumulative impacts, related to the mining and operations 

activities associated with the proposed new acreage for the Hope Mining Company should be included in 

the final EIS. We are particularly interested in the statements on pages 89 and 95 regarding the possibility 

that State water quality standards could be temporarily exceeded. We support consideration of additional 

best management practices and strategies that will further minimize sedimentation and avoid possible 

exceedance of the turbidity standard. This may include use of settling ponds or expanding the project 

schedule to allow for disturbance to smaller quantities of material at any given time. We recommend that 

such strategies be developed and incorporated into the proposed action in the final EIS.

Based on our review and evaluation, we have assigned a rating of LO (Lack of Objections) to the draft 

EIS. This rating, and a summary of our comments, will be published in the Federal Register. A copy of 

the rather system used in conducting our review is enclosed for your reference.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft EIS. Please contact Jennifer Curtis of 

my staff in Anchorage, if you would like to discuss our comments. Ms. Curtis may be reached at 907-

271-6324 or curtis.jennifer@epa.gov.

Sincerely,

Christine B. Reichgott, Manager

Environmental Review and Sediments Management Unit

Enclosure

282 Chugach National Forest
Draft Environmental Impact Statements

Definitions and Follow-Up Action*

Environmental Impact of the Action

LO - Lack of Objections

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review has not identified any potential environmental 

impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application 

of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.

EC - Environmental Concerns

EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the 

environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitigation 

measures that can reduce these impacts.

EO - Environmental Objections

EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to provide 

adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred 

alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no-action alternative or a new 

alternative). The EPA intends to work with lead agency to reduce these impacts.

EU - Environmentally Unsatisfactory

EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are 

unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with 

the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS 

state, this project will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 

Adequacy of the Impact Statement

Category 1 – Adequate

EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alternative and 

those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collection is 

necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information.

Category 2 - Insufficient Information

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should 

be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA has identified new reasonably available alternatives 

that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts 

of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses or discussion should be included in the final EIS.

Category 3 – Inadequate

EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the 

action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of 

alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant 

environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are of 

such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is 

adequate for the purposes of National Environmental Policy Act and or the Section 309 review, and thus should be 

formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the 

potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.

Chugach National Forest 283
Resurrection Creek Phase II

This page intentionally left blank

Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Index

A

aquatic invertebrates, 107, 213

aquatic species, iv, 214

artifacts, 42, 129, 259

B

Best management practices, 103, 109

bridge, x, 7, 9, 11, 18, 21, 23, 28, 31, 34, 36, 40, 42, 

44, 61, 63, 102, 106, 125, 129, 131, 133, 134, 135, 

156, 157, 218, 235, 238, 239, 242, 244, 246, 248, 

249, 250, 260

buffers, xii, 12, 13, 26, 32, 33, 47, 58, 93, 99, 104, 109, 

110, 121, 225, 226, 228, 231, 242, 251, 256, 261

C

channel structure, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 105, 110, 188, 

247

Clean Water Act, i, 8, 15, 17, 23, 49, 92, 103, 108, 109, 

112, 236, 245

climate, ii, 56, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 147, 171, 175, 

178, 179, 184, 218, 220, 221

D

diversion, 21, 24, 49, 101, 102, 106, 252

dredge, 7, 9, 15, 23, 24, 108, 112, 134

E

economic effects, 25, 153, 262

economic efficiency, 153, 155

employment, 62, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 262

entrenchment, 99

Essential Fish Habitat, iii, 100, 107, 111, 183, 213, 215

F

flood, ix, 6, 12, 13, 16, 29, 30, 31, 37, 44, 47, 50, 51, 

56, 57, 59, 65, 66, 68, 70, 78, 91, 94, 100, 104, 110, 

111, 114, 117, 181, 187, 220

floodplain, 3, i, ix, xii, xiii, 5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 29, 30, 

37, 47, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 66, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 78, 

91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 100, 102, 104, 105, 110, 112, 

114, 117, 124, 147, 150, 187, 193, 242

G

gold, ix, 5, 7, 21, 24, 26, 27, 32, 33, 46, 70, 71, 92, 94, 

107, 126, 127, 131, 147, 152, 155, 165, 166, 167, 

179, 181, 187, 188, 190, 218, 236, 245, 253, 259, 

262

greenhouse gas, 56, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69

groundwater, 16, 23, 41, 46, 93, 97, 102, 103, 109, 

147, 187, 190, 222, 227, 234

H

habitat, 3, ii, iii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 

15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25, 29, 30, 37, 44, 47, 51, 54, 55, 

58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 

104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 

116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 

126, 133, 134, 143, 151, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 

166, 169, 173, 175, 176, 178, 183, 189, 191, 193, 

194, 195, 213, 214, 215, 219, 228, 229, 232, 238, 

242, 243, 246, 247, 248, 257, 258

aquatic, 31, 100, 110

Essential Fish Habitat, iii, 100, 107, 111, 183, 213, 

215

rearing habitat, ix, xiii, 5, 6, 10, 12, 30, 31, 37, 59, 

60, 61, 93, 95, 96, 100, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111, 

124, 134, 175, 213, 219, 221

wildlife habitat, 44, 125, 161, 163, 164

Hope, 1, 3, iii, iv, ix, x, xi, xiii, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 

16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 

34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 54, 55, 57, 60, 

61, 62, 65, 67, 68, 70, 73, 76, 78, 86, 89, 90, 93, 95, 

98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 107, 109, 110, 111, 115, 119, 

121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 

135, 138, 139, 141, 143, 144, 147, 151, 152, 153, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 

167, 174, 175, 179, 182, 184, 191, 193, 214, 217, 

218, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 

230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 242, 

243, 244, 246, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 

255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 265

hydraulic mining, 3, 42, 71, 94, 122, 126, 259

I

income, 2, 17, 62, 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 262

inventoried roadless area, ii, iii, v, 55, 62, 143, 144, 

145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 223, 257

L

large woody debris, ix, xii, 8, 10, 56, 66, 93, 95, 97, 98, 

100, 105, 110, 253

logjam, x, 21, 30, 102

M

mercury, 46, 92, 93, 102, 180, 183, 222, 246, 248

migratory birds, 60, 120, 124

Chugach National Forest 285
Resurrection Creek Phase II

mining claims, 3, ix, x, 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 54, 55, 

107, 116, 123, 130, 132, 149, 151, 155, 218, 234, 

235, 237, 239, 240, 244, 250, 260

mitigation measures, iv, x, xi, 20, 21, 22, 28, 38, 39, 

40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 57, 63, 67, 72, 75, 76, 

79, 86, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 116, 117, 

121, 124, 125, 129, 130, 139, 156, 157, 167, 195, 

196, 213, 220, 225, 241, 242, 243, 248, 251, 257, 

259, 260, 263

monitoring, ii, iv, xi, 9, 10, 20, 21, 24, 28, 31, 32, 33, 

48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 62, 73, 98, 101, 102, 103, 

116, 117, 135, 141, 142, 154, 155, 165, 180, 181, 

183, 215, 219, 221, 242, 247, 250, 252, 254, 263

N

noise, ii, iv, xiii, 57, 60, 63, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 

88, 89, 90, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 132, 155, 156, 

161, 165, 169, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 190, 

221, 227, 229, 230, 232, 233, 236, 238, 244, 245, 

253, 254, 255, 258

nonnative species, 59, 113, 115, 116, 117, 166, 257

nutrients, ix, 94, 104, 105, 253

O

off-channel habitat, xii, 5, 30, 58, 93, 95, 97, 100, 105, 

110

P

permitting, 15, 23, 108, 112, 173

Phase I, 1, 3, i, iv, v, x, xi, 6, 10, 11, 20, 21, 25, 41, 51, 

62, 72, 77, 91, 93, 96, 98, 102, 103, 106, 108, 115, 

123, 134, 141, 155, 161, 176, 180, 219, 223, 233, 

246, 247

plan of operations, 1, 3, v, x, xi, 1, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 

20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 39, 46, 47, 48, 49, 

50, 52, 55, 76, 83, 98, 138, 139, 149, 150, 151, 184, 

220, 228, 229, 230, 233, 235, 237, 238, 239, 241, 

242, 243, 244, 249, 250, 261, 263

pool, 12, 30, 37, 51, 95, 100, 104, 105, 107, 110, 188, 

213

property value, xiii, 63, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 

176, 181, 224, 226, 230, 231, 233, 235, 236, 245, 

255

public health and safety, 63, 154, 157

R

realignment, 23, 34, 162, 250, 252

rearing habitat, ix, xiii, 5, 6, 10, 12, 30, 31, 37, 59, 60, 

61, 93, 95, 96, 100, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111, 124, 

134, 175, 213, 219, 221

reclamation, ix, xii, xiii, 7, 8, 17, 21, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 

32, 33, 34, 35, 43, 44, 52, 53, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 68, 

69, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 103, 110, 115, 

117, 137, 139, 142, 149, 151, 154, 157, 165, 166, 

167, 170, 176, 188, 218, 220, 224, 228, 229, 234, 

235, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 249, 252, 253, 

261, 262, 263

recreational gold panning, 130, 133, 134, 135, 151, 

162

reference reach, 95, 96, 219

restoration corridor, 3, iv, x, xi, xiii, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 

20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 

45, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 68, 73, 76, 77, 78, 89, 

95, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 116, 123, 124, 

129, 142, 150, 155, 163, 234, 235, 237, 238, 240, 

242, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251, 253

Resurrection Pass National Recreation Trail, 34, 42, 

57, 61, 86, 101, 108, 115, 123, 130, 131, 132, 133, 

134, 135, 137, 140, 148, 151, 156, 157, 161, 165, 

166, 218, 225, 249, 260

revegetation, 18, 25, 29, 30, 32, 44, 52, 53, 54, 59, 78, 

99, 114, 115, 116, 117, 150, 165, 220, 224, 243

riparian areas, ix, x, xi, xiii, 13, 18, 26, 29, 32, 60, 68, 

94, 95, 100, 101, 104, 108, 110, 112, 119, 124, 189, 

239, 241, 242, 259

S

salmon, iv, ix, x, xii, xiii, 5, 6, 10, 12, 21, 51, 54, 55, 59, 

60, 61, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 105, 106, 110, 111, 

119, 124, 131, 132, 134, 151, 155, 158, 159, 161, 

171, 176, 177, 182, 187, 188, 189, 214, 219, 221, 

247

scenic integrity, v, xiii, 61, 62, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 

141, 142, 156, 165, 166, 191, 228, 229, 261

scenic resources, 140, 142

sediment, ix, xii, 12, 21, 33, 45, 58, 59, 76, 91, 92, 93, 

94, 95, 97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 114, 

117, 180, 181, 182, 187, 188, 189, 236, 245, 248, 

256, 257

suspended, xii, 8, 21, 27, 33, 101, 190

sensitive plants, 60, 115, 116, 117, 257

sensitive species, 60, 116, 117, 143, 194, 195, 196

Settlement Agreement, 9, 11, 263

settling ponds, xii, 8, 11, 12, 18, 26, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 

37, 43, 45, 58, 66, 71, 74, 95, 99, 100, 102, 103, 

104, 108, 109, 140, 165, 233, 234, 236, 245, 248, 

251, 252, 256

side channels, iv, ix, x, xii, xiii, 5, 6, 10, 12, 18, 21, 30, 

31, 37, 40, 50, 54, 60, 93, 95, 96, 99, 100, 102, 104, 

105, 107, 110, 111, 123, 124, 161, 213

Soil disturbance

detrimental, iv, ix, xi, xii, 21, 39, 40, 43, 70, 71, 72, 

73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 147, 165, 166

soil productivity, ix, x, xi, xiii, 21, 56, 59, 60, 70, 72, 73, 

74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 81, 122, 125, 165, 242

spawning, ix, xii, xiii, 5, 10, 12, 30, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 

95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 102, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111,

124, 134, 175, 189, 213, 219, 248

286 Chugach National Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement 

sport fishing, 22, 61, 131, 133, 134, 135, 155, 256

stand structure, 30, 60, 118, 122, 165

State selected lands, 54

stream channel, 3, ix, x, xi, xii, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 23, 

27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 45, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 66, 68, 

69, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 107, 

108, 110, 111, 123, 133, 165, 187, 188, 189, 190, 

213, 214, 218, 227, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 

257, 259

subsistence, ii, iii, iv, 15, 63, 151, 152, 158, 159, 160, 

161, 162, 163, 164, 170, 173

substrate, ix, 12, 28, 30, 51, 58, 67, 69, 77, 94, 95, 

100, 103, 107, 109, 110, 189, 213, 226, 231

surface water, 8, 15, 16, 24, 39, 40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 50, 

93, 97, 103, 104, 187, 234

T

tailings, 3, iv, ix, xiii, 5, 6, 7, 12, 18, 29, 42, 43, 46, 47, 

55, 59, 60, 77, 83, 94, 95, 99, 102, 104, 110, 112, 

114, 117, 127, 128, 129, 137, 166, 167, 188, 222, 

246, 256, 260

topsoil, x, 7, 28, 29, 34, 43, 53, 60, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 

78, 80, 122, 126, 165, 166, 242, 243

traffic, 40, 41, 65, 66, 67, 69, 82, 83, 87, 89, 116, 144, 

153, 155, 156, 157, 176, 218, 227, 232, 233, 257

trail, 9, 28, 33, 42, 61, 71, 72, 86, 114, 115, 123, 125, 

129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 151, 156, 157, 161, 

218, 225, 260

turbidity, x, xii, 21, 39, 40, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 55, 58, 

59, 92, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 

109, 111, 112, 165, 180, 182, 190, 191, 219, 234, 

248, 252, 255

V

vegetation ecology, 113, 243

W

water quality, x, xii, 13, 17, 21, 23, 39, 40, 45, 46, 48, 

49, 55, 58, 92, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 133, 167, 169, 222, 

227, 231, 236, 242, 245, 248, 256, 257

wetland, i, xii, 5, 15, 16, 23, 30, 37, 58, 65, 95, 100, 

107, 108, 111, 112, 179, 188, 189, 220, 241, 247

wildlife disturbance, xiii, 60, 122, 124, 126

Chugach National Forest 287