n-~ il .&. •I • If!\ U.S. Department of the Interior BLM-Aiaska Habitat Management Plan -I Bureau of Land Management BLMIAK/94/0141+6700+070 fj1 May 1994 I ~ Alaska State Office • 222 W. Seventh Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 • = I~ • II. - r ~ · ·------=---~--- ._,_-~=---~~~ • May 1994 ,-..'· II r- to II ) ~, l,_ • • Qlll • .; - .. I l II: 'I I· 01! ~-· o; '· ... [11 •• J
I [ l;jl r•• ,I I '•
I -:: ""~ t-.~.,, u ;~ •• 41 I I \. D ~ • r . •
I .. .. - • II - I • • J: • p
~ • E - == - = - - - - .. 0 0 Hogatza ACEC Aquatic D Habitat Management Plan
0 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 0 Kobuk District, Alaska
D Prepared by
Carl F. Kretsinger 0 Fisheries Biologist 0 Susan M. Will Surface Protection Specialist
0 Diane R. Hunt Student Intern 0 University of Alaska Fairbanks and
0 Matt I. Mahran Student Intern 0 University of Alaska Fairbanks 0 D 0 0 0 D 0 Table of Contents
CONCURRENCE & APPROVAL ...... iii ABSTRACT ...... iv Checklist ...... vi INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Goal ...... 1 Management Constraints ...... 1 Management Potential ...... 2 Objectives ...... 2 ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION ...... 2 Vegetation ...... 2 Climate ...... 5 Geology ...... 5 Soils ...... 5 Cultural ...... 5 Wildlife ...... 5 Fisheries ...... 4 Chum Salmon Life History ...... 6 Abundance ...... 6 Habitat ...... 6 Values ...... 7 LAND STATUS AND ADMINISTRATION ...... 7 MANAGEMENT ISSUES ...... 10 Access ...... 10 Leases and Permits ...... 10 Fire Suppression ...... 10 Forestry ...... 10 Mineral Development ...... 10 Subsistence ...... 12 Navigability ...... 12 Yukon River Salmon Treaty ...... 12 MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ...... 16 PLANNED ACTIONS ...... 16 INVENTORY AND MONITORING ...... 16 Inventory ...... 16 Inventory Methods ...... 16 Monitoring ...... 17 Monitoring Methods ...... 17 Data Storage and Availability ...... 17 Progress Report ...... 17 COORDINATION AND COOPERATION ...... 17 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ...... 17 COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS ...... 19 NEPA PROCESS ...... 19 CONSULTATION AND REVIEW ...... 20 LITERATURE CITED ...... 21
ii 0 APPENDICES Appendix A. Area of Critical Environmental Concern Definition & Process ...... 24 Appendix B. Definition of Mining Laws ...... 25 Appendix C. Bear Creek water quality data ...... 25 0 Appendix D. Boundary description for the Hogatza ACEC...... 25 Appendix E. Management Guidelines ...... 25 General ...... 26 0 Access ...... 26 Leases and Pemits ...... 26 Fire Supression ...... 27 Forestry ...... 27 0 Mineral Development ...... 23 Subsistence ...... 28 Other Guidelines ...... 28 0 Appendix F. HMP Progress Report ...... 29 TABLES 1. Combined summer chum salmon aerial escapement counts for Clear and Caribou Creeks (Hogatza 0 River), 1975-1991 (ADF&G 1992a) ...... 6 2. Turbidity values for Caribou and Bear Creek, 1983-1984 ...... 7 3. Estimated five year cost and implementation schedule for the Hogatza ACEC Aquatic Habitat 0 Management Plan ...... 18 FIGURES 1. HMP area location ...... 1 -0 2. Boundaries of the Hogatza ACEC and combined watersheds of Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek ... 3 3. Boundary of the proposed land withdrawals and upper limits of chum salmon spawning in :o Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek...... 8 4. Land status within the combined watersheds of Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek...... 12 5. Patented land and federal mining claims within the combined watersheds of Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek as of July 1992 ...... 13 0 0 0 D 0 D ~ ill 0 Abstract The Central Yukon Resource Management Plan (CYP) and Record of Decision (Prescription 9) designated 41% of the land within the combined watersheds of Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek, tributaries of the Hogatza River, as an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The primary purpose of this special designation was to identify sensitive and valu able aquatic resources that require special management. The ACEC contains important chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) production habitats that could be impacted by land-use activi ties. This aquatic Habitat Management Plan (HMP) describes actions to establish baseline data, sets objectives, and establishes management guidelines for the maintenance and protec tion of chum salmon production habitat.
I iv I 0 CONCURRENCE AND APPROVAL
This Habitat Management Plan, as written, meets with our concurrence and approval. 8 0 Kobuk District Manager 0 Bureau of Land Management D 0 0 ~cn-n 6~S~t.J lOi"r\ C\ * 5. Reviewed by A9M.Manager . 6. Reviewed by OUef of Resource Management 7. Draft HMP and EA reviewed by State Agency ~ ~svt\~~ / authorized officer (or other COOpe!'!_tors). f eeo~e.w ~~ zo 8. Final review (if appropriate) by State Director . 9. Reviewed and approved by District Manager 10. Approved by State Agency authorized officer Remarks: vi 0 INTRODUCTION Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) under the authority of the Sikes Act, Title II, Public Law 0 Background 93-452 (October 18,1974) and the Master Memo randum of Understanding between the BLM and ADF&G (AK-950-MU3-11, August 3,1983). One million eight hundred thousand acres of 0 land within the Yukon River Basin were desig nated as an ACEC, for fishery values by the CYP Goal (Appendix A). One unit within this group is the 0 Hogatza ACEC, which is comprised of a portion of The goal of this HMPis to ensure that the aquatic the Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek watersheds ecosystem within the combined watersheds of (BLM 1986a; Figure 2). Together these watersheds Clear, Caribou, and Bear creeks can sustain an constitute some of the most productive chum estimated annual production of 5 million chum 0 salmon production habitat within the Koyukuk salmon fry, worth $3.8 million (1992 dollars) over River drainage, a major tributary to the Yukon a 10-year period (see Cost/Benefit Analysis). Pro River. viding for a sustained production of chum salmon D requires that habitats used for spawning and rear There are over 65 stocks of chum salmon in the ing (production habitat) are protected and main Yukon River Basin and international attention is tained in good to excellent condition. Condition being focused on perpetuating the ability of the and trend ofchum salmon production habitat will D stocks and habitats within the basin to sustain also be used as an indicator of the overall health production. The Yukon River Salmon Treaty, cur and condition of the aquatic ecosystem within the rently undernegotiation between the United States ACEC. Maintenance of a healthy aquatic ecosys 0 (U.S.) and Canada, will be a major change agent tem will providebenefit to other resources, includ affecting management in the Yukon Basin. Other inga significant grayling fishery, moose, bear, and impacting factors include economic and nutri non-game bird populations. -0 tional demands of a growing population of con sumers, environmental, and political interest in The goal of this plan is directly related to the both protecting and augmenting natural, wild Yukon River Salmon Treaty being negotiated be ·o salmon runs. The BLM will be directly involved as tween the U.S. and Canada. According to this a major land manager in the basin. As a compo proposed treaty, salmon production in the U.S. nent of the Yukon Basin, the Hogatza ACEC will must be maintained in order to deliver Canadian require special management attention in order to origin salmon to the border without significantly 0 protect this major chum salmon production area disrupting Alaska's commercial and subsistence from the potential impacts of placer mining and fisheries. The Department of the Interior and the other surface disturbing activities. ADF&G are currently engaged in developing a 0 management strategy for the U.S. side of the Yukon The purpose of this Sikes Act HMP is to identify River Basin. and approve specific management objectives for the protection of chum salmon production habi Management Constraints 0 tats within the Hogatza ACEC. This HMP is being preparedandimplemented jointly withthe Alaska Approximately 41% (39,895 acres) of the land within the combined watershed of Clear, Caribou, 0 and Bear Creek was includedinthe ACEC inorder to protect salmon production habitat. However, the protection and optimal management of this habitat can be significantly affected by four fac 0 tors: 1) the entire ACEC, with the exception of private land, is currently open to mineral location under the General Mining Laws (Appendix B); 2) 0 approximately 1,440 acres along Clear, Aloha (tributary to Clear Creek), and Bear Creek are covered by active unpatented federal mining 0 claims; 3) 2,617 acres along Clear, Aloha, and Bear Creek, within the ACEC, are privately owned; and 4) 92% of the combined Clear, Caribou, Bear Creek watershed has been state and Native selected. 0 Figure 1. ACEC location. 0 1 spawnersinClear Creek and9,000 chumsalmon Management Potential spawners in Caribou Creek (these numbers are interim escapement objectives established by The CYPproposed land withdrawals along Clear, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and Caribou, and Bear Creek where salmon spawning were established and are monitored using aerial and rearing has been documented (Figure 3). Un survey technology. der the proposed land withdrawals, new mineral 3. Maintainor restore the natural substrate compo entry and location under the 1872 Mining Law sition, stream type and geometry (as defined by would not be allowed norwouldwithdrawnlands Rosgen 1993}, on all streams within the ACEC. be open to Federal Land Policy and Management 4. Maintain the minimumstream discharge neces Act (FLPMA) leases and sales. The withdrawals sary for the maintenance of aquatic life, natural would include the stream bed and 300 feet onboth stream channel configuration, and habitat com sides of the stream's meanhigh water line in: Clear position of all streams within the ACEC. Creek TlON, R15 and 16E; Caribou Creek and Bear 5. Maintain, restore, orimprove the existing stream Creek T9N, R15 and 16E Kateel River Meridian. bank stability, riparian cover, woody debris and The withdrawal would not apply to valid and other instream cover on all streams within the existing rights. Currently, no mining claims exist ACE C. on the 16 miles of Caribou Creek or 5 miles of Bear 6. Maintain the water quality within the ACEC to Creek proposed for withdrawal and no mining standards established by the Alaska Depart claims are recorded for approximately 13 of the ment of Environmental Conservation (18 AAC 15.5 miles of Clear Creek proposed for withdrawal. 70) for fresh water use classes (1)(A}, (1}(B}, and Additional conflicts could be avoided by amend (1)(C). ing the land withdrawals through amendment of the CYP to include any newly-documented chum Planned actions to accomplish these objectives salmon spawning habitat identified through fu are described later in the document. Values for ture inventory efforts. objectives 3 through 5 will be determined follow inganaquaticinventoryoftheACEC.Atthattime, Eight issues were identified as having the poten objectives within this plan will be amended to tial to influence management of or cause harm to include these values. chumsalmonproductionhabitatwithintheACEC. The issues are: access, leases and permits, fire ECOSYSTEM DESCRIPTION suppression, forestry, mineral development, sub sistence, navigability, and the Yukon River Salmon The Hogatza ACEC is located in the southwest Treaty.Forthepurposesofthisplan,chumsalmon comer of the Hughes subdistrict of the Central production habitat is defined as the physical and Yukon Planning Area approximately 35 mileswest chemical properties required by salmon during of the village of Hughes. The ACEC consists of a their life cycle from egg deposition to the out portionofthe combined watersheds of Clear, Cari migration of the fry. This takes into consideration, bou and Bear Creek, which originate in the Zane but is not limited to, water quality, stream dis Hills and flow eastward to their confluence with charge, substrate composition, stream-channel the Hogatza River. The following ecosystem de geometry, and the watershed plant community [ scription is derived from the Final Environmental including riparian vegetation. These factors all Impact Statement for the Central Yukon Planning play a role in determining the suitability of the Area (BLM 1986b) unless stated otherwise. aquatic environment to chum salmon. { Objectives Vegetation Elevations range from 250 feet on the eastern { The following objectives were designed to guide border along the Hogatza River to 1,000 feet along the management of lands within the ACEC, as the northern and western boundaries ofthe ACE C. well as fulfill the goal and intent of the Central The Zane Hills, from which Clear, Caribou and Yukon Plan ACEC designation. Bear Creek originate, have elevations exceeding 4,000 feet. Well-drained, hilly, or southerly-ex 1. Maintain the capability of aquatic habitat within posed sites are forested with a mixture of white the ACEC to sustain the annual production po spruce (Picea glauca) and deciduous species such tential of 5 million chum salmon fry. as paper birch (Betula papyrifera). Lowlands, poorly 2. Maintain the existing quantity and quality of drained sites and gentle slopes are dominated by salmon spawning habitat to support a mini open black spruce (P. mariana) forest. On the de mum annual escapement of 8,000 chum salmon positing slopes of smaller meandering streams, 2 0 the forest is largely white spruce, quaking aspen A lode occurrence for uranium exists in the Zane (Populus tremuloides), willows (Salix spp.), andbal Hills from which Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creeks 0 sam poplar (P. balsamifera). Treeline is about 1,000 drain and placer deposits of gold exist (Cobb 1973; feet on north-facing slopes and 1,500 feet onsouth J. Deininger, BLM, pers. comm). facing slopes. Elevations greater than2,000 feet are 0 generally tundra. Soils Climate The dominantsoil is Histic Pergelic Cryaquepts, loamy, nearly level to rolling association. This soil 0 Climatological records are not available for the is developed in loess or silty colluvium and is area covered by the ACEC, however, records are generally poorly drained and underlain by a shal available for the nearby village of Hughes. For the low permafrost table and has severe limitations period 1941-1970, temperature extremes ranged for any intensive use or development. 0 between-68° and 90°F. Average monthly summer (June-September) temperatures ranged from 42.3° Cultural to 60.1°F andaverage monthly winter (November 0 April) temperatures ranged from -9.8° to 22.7°F The ACEC is within an area utilized historically (Leslie 1986). The ACEC falls within an area hav and ethnographically by Koyukon Athapaskan ing a mean annual precipitationof20 inches (Lamke people, as well as, bothKovagmiut Eskimo people 1979). from the upperKobukand Nunamiutpeople from 0 the Anaktuvuk Pass region. Caribou, fish and Geology volcanic material for tools were the primary at tractions of the country to these various groups. 0 The Hogatza ACEC is located in the Hughes Archeological sites, including villages, hunting District of the CYP, a district drained by the and fishing sites, and quarry sites indicate prehis Koyukuk River andits tributaries below the Kanuti toric use of the country. In addition, the country River. The mountains are underlain mainly by provides a network of routes via rivers and low Late Jurassic and Early Cretaceous marine and passes which allowed for the establishment of an nonmarine clastic and volcanic rocks. The unit is important trading network for the exchange of _further described by Patton and Miller (1966) as coastaland inte~or resourcesandlater trade goods. consisting chiefly of andesitic crystal-bearing lithic tuff, tuff breccia, and agglomerate intercalated Wildlife with porphyritic pyroxzene andesite and trachyandesite flows. Some basalt flows are also The ACEC falls within the general range of present. Subordinates include volcanic graywacke, many species of wildlife. Some of the more com mudstone, and fossiliferous limestone; the unit is mon mammals include: moose (Alces alces), griz thermally altered near granitic plutons and a nar zly bear (Ursus arctos), beaver (Castor canadensis), 0 row zone of hornblende hornfels next to the con otter (Lutra canadensis), fox (Vulpes vulpes), marten tact grades outward into a broad band of incipi (Martes americana), and wolf (Canis lupus). Many ently re-crystallized rock which contains abun passerine birds and a few raptor species may be 0 dant chlorite, epidote, calcite, and sodic plagio found within the ACEC; some examples of these clase and probably belongs to the albite-epidote are: raven (Corvus corax), gray jay (Perisoreus hornfels facies. Some fresh-appearing tuff and tuff canadensis), common redpoll (Carduelis Jlammea), breccia near HogLanding maybeas youngas Late white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), 0 Cretaceous or Tertiary. Zones of thermal meta red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), rough-legged morphoses occur throughout the area (Patton and hawk (Buteo lagopus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus 0 Miller 1966). leucocephalus), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus). The surficial deposits in the area are character Fisheries ized by undifferentiated older glacial drift and The ACEC falls within the general range of alluvium. This includes discontinuous areas of 0 highly modified glacial till and outwash, broad several species of fish including: arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), northern pike (Esox lucius), alluvial terraces mantled chiefly with silt, and longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus), slimy hillslopes covered by colluvium and loess. Glacial sculpin(Cottus cognatus), andwhitefish (Coregonid 0 erratics have been found in the adjacent Hogatza spp.). In addition, Clear and Caribou Creek are Hills to an altitude of 1,600 feet. major producers of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus 0 Keta). 5 0 Chum Salmon Life History Table 1. Combined summer chum salmon aerial Two distinct runs of chum salmon occur in the escapement counts for Clear and Caribou Creeks Yukon River drainage: a summer run and a fall (Hogatza River), 1975-1991 (ADF&G 1992a). run. Those fish destined for the Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek are summer run fish which enter Year Number of Summer the Yukon River in early June, making it to the Chum Salmon spawning grounds by early July. The peak of 1975 22,355 spawning takes place between mid to late July, ~tt97~ti.:" ""'J:"l'~ . j 20!"d' . : ..:te: ~:...~ and a majority of the spawning is complete by l2Z~ 10734 early August (Winters 1983, Barton 1984b). ..,. ' ~ :G~a' •.. * . :..;.;:,~;,;;.L";.N..';r.;;,;. iJ~t.{)2"' ·"' :M. :-c,;i 1979 14221 Chum salmon within the Yukon River drainage . ,.. -•' ""'M<. ·.·".!>' ~-4980 - '>il~}'}a~L~ return to their natal streams to spawn at ages 1981 not available ranging from three to six years, -with four-year It; &-~~~~~:; '-?i.e':' ;.1 - .Y:4l The ADF&G has used Clear and Caribou Creek the total spawning population and should be as an index to monitor the annual escapement of treated as such (Cousens et al. 1982). ADF&G has summer chum salmon into the Hogatza River found thataerial survey counts offall chum on the drainage since 1975. The combined chum salmon Fishing Branch and Sheenjek River must be ex aerial escapement counts for Clear and Caribou panded by a factor of 2.7 and 2.9 respectively in Creeks have ranged from a high of28,566 to a low order to approximate total escapement estimates of2,177duringthe period 1975through 1991 (Table derived using sonar and weir technology (Lou 1). The low count in 1990 was attributed to an Barton, ADF&G, pers. comm.). incomplete survey or poor survey conditions. In addition to the chum salmon runs on Clear Interim escapement objectives for chum salmon and Caribou Creek, chum salmon have also been havebeensetby ADF&G at8,000 and 9,000 fish for documented in two smaller tributaries within the Clear and Caribou Creeks respectively (Barton ACEC. Barton (1984a) counted 179 live and five 1991 andADF&G 1992a). These escapement objec dead adult chum salmon in the lower three miles tives represent an average of historic point esti of Bear Creek on July 18,1984 and Gary Bamford mates obtained using aerial survey technology (1987), a local trapper, reported" salmon at end of andareconsidered to be the the minimumnumber Clear Creek runway and Aloha Creek extremely of spawners necessary to maintain the reproduc thick" on July 13, 1981. tive potential of each stock. The actual number of fish represented by these interim escapement ob Habitat jectives is about 3 x 17,000 fish or 51,000 fish. The basis for the 3.0 expansion factor is that aerial The upstream extent of chum salmon spawning surveys are generally conducted on or near peak was reported to beapproximately 18 and20 stream spawning and do not represent total escapement miles up from the mouth of Clear and Caribou or even a consistent portion of total escapement, Creek respectively (Webb 1987; Figure 3). Barton due to variability in spawning timing and dura (1984a) reported that a large beaverdamappeared tion. Aerial counts are at best an index of escape to act as a barrier to fish passage at three-mile Bear ment based on a usually unknown proportion of Creek. 6 D Information concerning the current physical The village of Huslia located approximately 135 and chemical characteristics of chum spawning river miles downstream from the ACEC is prob 0 habitat within theACECislimited. Winters (1983) ably one of the primary users of summer chum and Barton (1984a) documented turbidity levels salmon produced within the ACEC. In 1990,7,368 for Caribou and Bear Creek (Table 2). These tur summer chum salmon were harvested for subsis bidity measurements show the detrimental effect tence purposesby the residents of Huslia (ADF&G of the Bear Creek mining operations on water 1992a). quality in Bear and lower Caribou Creek. Mining was active in 1983 and inactive in 1984. In addi Thechum salmon that return annually to spawn 0 tion, Barton (1984a) found the substrate within in streams within the ACEC are also important to Bear Creek and Caribou Creek, downstream of local wildlife. The returning spawners provide the confluence of Bear Creek, to be very embed prime foraging opportunities for raptorsandbears. ded and heavily compacted. Barton attributed the 0 heavy siltation to the mining operation on Bear Creek since no other activities had taken place LAND STATUS AND within this area at the time that accounted for the ADMINISTRATION 0 increased sediment yield. The proposal to designate the combined water sheds of Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek as an Other water quality sampling efforts within the ACEC was published in the Federal Register No ACEC include a detailed contaminant baseline 0 tices (Vol. 51, No. 72,April15, 1986). The proposed study by the USFWS (1992) and grab samples designation was approved in the CYP onSeptem collected from Bear Creek by U.S. Geological Sur ber 26, 1986. The area within the ACEC was esti vey (1978; Appendix C). 0 mated to be39,895 acres using a digital plannimeter on the land boundary as described in Appendix D. Values The CYP reported 35,000 acres for this ACEC. The D Chum salmon produced within the ACEC area discrepancy between the two acreage estimations contribute to downstream subsistence, commer for the ACEC is dueto the inclusion of the Comstock cial and sport fisheries within the Yukon River Creek watershed. The original USGS 1:250,000 Basin. The majority of the harvest occurs during scaleHughesSubunit Resource Management Plan ·0 the subsistence and commercial fisheries. The Map in the CYP did not show Comstock Creek as 1991 commercialharvestofsummerchumsalmon, a tributary to Clear Creek and, therefore, did not . . from the mouth of the Yukon to the village of include the Comstock Creek watershed within the Koyukuk (that portion of the Yukon River down ACEC boundary as shown in the CYP. A more stream of the ACEC), was 327,509 fish. The 1990 recent USGS 1:63,360 scale topographic map, and subsistence harvest of summer chum salmon for infrared aerial photos of the area show Comstock 0 this same area was 86,471 fish (ADF&G 1992a). Creek as a tributary to Clear Creek. Prescription 9 Summer chum salmon are not a highly sought within the CYP mandates that the combined wa after sport fish. Mills (1991) reported that the 1990 tersheds of Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creeks be summer chum salmon sport catch for the entire designated as an ACEC. In addition, the Decision 0 Yukon River drainage was 2,149 fish. Record (BLM 1986:7) stated: "Watershed ACECs have been established for all portions ofthe water shed lying above the lower limit of the above 0 identified river withdrawals;" therefore, the ACEC Table 2. Turbidity values for Caribou and Bear boundary, as shown in the CYP, was expanded to Creek, 1983-1984 (Winters 1983 and Barton 1984a). include the Comstock Creek watershed. D Location Turbidity (NTU) Aug . 1983 uly 1984 BLM currently has management authority over Caribou Creek 360 n/a approximately 97% (94,395 acres) of the combined (near mouth) watersheds of Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek. 0 Caribou Creek 0.75 4.8 This includes all landswithin the combined water (above Bear Cr.) shed area with the exception of 2,617 acres of BearCreek 1200 4.6 private patented mining claims within the ACEC. 0 (near mouth) Approximately 54,500 acres outside of the ACEC BearCreek 2.2 0.35 but within the watershed have been selected by 0 (above mine) Doyon Limited. 7 0 Duringpreparation of this HMP, additional State tures associated withshelterandstorage. Examples selections have been identified. These selections of potential impacts include leakage of hazardous include approximately 35,052 acres within the materials such as fuel and stove oil; increased ero ACEC. In the event the state and Native selections sion due to the clearing of campsites, cabin sites, or are conveyed, approximately 4,843 acres (5%) of trails; and alterations in water quality due to im the land within the combined watershed would proper gray water and solid waste disposal. Cur remain with BLM, including a four-mile section of rently, no permits or leases have been issued for Clear Creek and a two-mile section of Caribou commercial or subsistence activities within· the Creek. ACEC. The following is a summary of the land status Fire Suppression and approximate acreage within the combined . . . . . watersheds of Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek (Fig The pnmary rmpact associated w1th fire sup ure 4): - · ·· ·- ·· pFession i!Hfta.t.-offire-H:ne-t:enstruction, which can lead to erosion problems and increased sediment • Total watershed area ...... 97,012 ac. yield. Lands within the ACEC and the watershed • Doyon Limited selected land area outside of the ACEC boundary have been (outside of ACEC) ...... 54,500 ac. assigned the Limited Action fire suppression op • ACEC (all land within boundary) ...... 42,512 ac. tion. Within the ACEC, fires will be contained only • Patented land within ACEC ...... 2,617 ac. to the extent required to prevent an undesirable • State selected land (within ACEC) .... 35,052 ac. escape of that fire from the immediate area, with • Non-selected BLM managed land ...... 4,843 ac. the exception of Critical Protection Areas (Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan 1993). MANAGEMENT ISSUES Forestry Eight issues were identified as having the poten tial to influence management of, or cause harm to, Removal of trees adjacent to the stream can re chum salmon production areas within the ACEC. duce stream shading, increase stream tempera The effects of each of the issues are outlined below. tures, and remove potential sources of instream cover (fallen trees). In addition, road and trail Access construction conducted in conjunction with log ging activities can lead to increased erosion. Cur The useof stream beds as roads and the construc rently, commercial or subsistence harvest of trees tion of new roads and trails have the potential to within the ACEC is not known to occur. adversely impact salmon spawning and rearing habitat in a variety of ways. Examples include: Mineral Development direct physical injury to eggs and alevins, removal of riparian vegetation and other vegetation that Some of the impacts associated with mineral stabilizes soils, increased erosion and sediment development include: direct loss ofaquatic habitat input into streams, and creation of barriers to fish brought about by modification or relocation of the passage. New road and trail construction would be stream channel, increased sediment yield, reduced done primarily in association with mineral devel water quality, increased water temperatures, re opmentordevelopment of transportation systems. duced water availability and introduction of haz Currently, about four miles of unimproved road, ardous and solid wastes. A general description of several miles of trails, and an airstrip (located on a mineral exploration and development activities federal claim) are located within the ACEC. The with impacts that would likely happen can be Alaska Statehood Omnibus Act (1959) does notlist found in BLM (1986b). the road or trails as being deeded to the State of Alaska from the federal government: however, the potential for the road and trails to be asserted under R.S. 2477 still exists. As with many surface disturbing activities, one of the most detrimental impacts associated with Leases and Permits mining is increased sediment yield. Significant in creases in sediment yield can lead to alteration of This issue wasidentified primarily inresponse to stream channel morphology, substrate composi the potential impacts associated with the location tion, and surface-groundwater interaction. It can of long-term field camps or construction of struc also lead to decreased survival offish intheeggand 8 0 season. (BLM casefiles AKFF090602 and young-of-the-year stages; changes in macro- in AKFF090577) vertebrate community structure; and decreased 0 primary production (Madison 1981, Van There are currently 54 federal mining claims Nieuwenhuyse1983, Weberand Post1985, Bjerklie within the combined watershed area of Clear, and LaPerriere 1985, Lloyd et al. 1987, Reynolds et Caribou, and Bear Creek. As of July 1992, 28 of the at. 1989, Buhl and Hamilton 1990). claims comprising 740 acres were within the ACEC 8 boundary and 26 claims covering 700 acres were In the late 1960s, prior to the use of settling outside of the ACEC. In addition, 2,617 acres of ponds, sediment-laden water coming from the land has been patented within the ACEC (BLM 0 Bear Creek mine was noticeable atthe mouth of the 1992; Figure 5). Hogatza River, approximately 34 miles down stream (U.S. Dept. of Interior Fed. Water Poll. Subsistence Cont. Admin. 1969). 0 Chum salmon produced within the ACEC con Oil and Gas: No known testing for oil and gas has tribute significantly to downstream subsistence been conducted nor is proposed within the ACEC harvest. A loss of quality or quantity of chum 0 orin the watershed area outside of the ACEC (BLM salmon production habitat dueto foreseeable land 1986b) and no resource specific recommendations use activities occurring within the ACEC would have been considered at this time. result in diminished production capability and ultimately could restrict subsistence use. 0 Lode Mining: A lode occurrence for uranium exists in the Zane Hills from which Clear, Caribou, Navigability and Bear Creek drain However the potential for 0 lode development in the ACEC is thought to be Navigability determinations are required to de minimal due to the poor economics of the uranium termine whether the state, the federal govern market. Currently, there are no lode claims within ment, or a third party owns the submerged lands. the ACEC or within the combined watershed of Waters determined to be navigable are under the Clear, Caribou and Bear Creek. management jurisdiction of the State of Alaska. This includes the streambed up to the ordinary Placer Mining: The only documented placer min high water mark. Under the Alaska Constitution, ing activity within the ACEC has been conducted the state also has authority over water appropria by the Alaska Gold Company or its predecessor. tions and water quality regardless of navigability. 1 This company has been actively prospecting and ·.o ·-,"- mining in the Hogatza River area since 1939 when The upper 24 miles of the Hogatza River have a drilling program was initiated. All operations been formally designated non-navigable. The were stopped during the war years, and in 1954 lower river, from the mouth up to Clear Creek, plans were made to proceed with a dredging op and possibly up to Kobuk Portage, maybeconsid 0 eration on Bear Creek. During 1955 and 1956, ered navigable although no formal designation roads, a camp, and a barge landing were all con has been made. No determinations have been structed,anda bucket-line dredge wasdismantled made for Hogatza river tributaries, which include 0 and moved from Livengood and reassembled on Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek (Arndorfer 1987), Bear Creek. The dredge started digging in May of and with the exception of private in-holdings, 1957, and continued digging through 1975, a total BLM has management authority for the beds of 0 of 19 seasons. The dredge was reactivated in 1981 these streams. and remained active through 1983 when mining wascompleted for all the mapped reserves (Alaska Yukon River Salmon Treaty Gold Co. 1985 and Cobb 1973). One of the factors influencing the management of chum salmon stocks within the Yukon River After six years of no activity, the Taiga Mining Basin is the gradual diminishment of production Company, Inc., of Anchorage re-mined dredge habitat. As more and more habitat is lost due to tailings on patented claims along Bear Creek dur various land-use activities, it will become increas ing the 1990-91 seasons. Work continued on Bear ingly difficult to meet the demands of Alaska's Creek during 1992-93 and current plans call for commercial, subsistence, and sport fishing inter limited drilling and bulk sampling along previ ests and yet fulfill international obligations and J ously drilled lines on both federal and patented escapement goals. It is the goal of this HMP to claims on Clear and Aloha Creek during the 1993 J 11 J ensure that the aquatic ecosystem within the com included: access, equipment, frequency of sam bined watersheds of Clear, Caribou, and Bear pling, data analysis, and man-power. Creek can sustain anestimated annual production of 5 million chum salmon fry. Inventory Initial inventory efforts will focus on four ele MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ments: Proposals for surface-disturbi.I:tg activities within 1. Obtaining aerial photography for use in map the Hogatza River ACEC above the level of casual ping habitat types and discrete spawning con use would require an environmental assessment. centrations of chumsalmon, as well as, aid with Project-specific environmental assessments would stream channel classification. The existing ri analyze proposed actions andimpacts to the ACEC parian vegetation cover and condition along in relation to the purpose and objectives of this streams within the ACEC will also be docu HMP. When developing mitigation measures for mented using aeriaf photography. environmental documents, BLM shall consider the management guidelines listed in Appendix E. 2. Collecting channel geometry from representa tive reaches of all target streams. Data on the PLANNED ACTIONS physical stream channel features will provide a model for channel design and reclamation stan The planned actions within this HMP are to: (1) dards.Inaddition, stream channels will betyped establish a serialized case file for the ACEC and according to the Rosgen (1993) stream classifi amend the Master Title Plats to show the ACEC cation system allowing comparisons between boundary, (2) obtain large scale aerial photogra altered and unaltered channels. phy of streams within the ACEC, (3) collect chan nel geometry from representative reaches of Clear, 3. Obtaining aquatic habitat data on all target Caribou, Bear, and Aloha Creek (topographic sur streams. Aquatic habitat inventory (level3, BLM veys), (4) conduct aquatic habitat inventories on Aquatic Habitat Manual6720) will allow for the Clear, Caribou, Bear, and Aloha Creek, and (5) evaluation post-mining reclamation and iden conduct annual compliance inspections of mining tify habitat deficiencies within reclaimed chan and other surface disturbing land-use activities nels. Aquatic habitat inventory will also docu occurring within the ACEC to ensure protection of ment the quanity and quality ofexisting habitat the aquatic resources. and provide a basis for instream flow evalua tions. INVENTORY AND MONITORING 4. Collection of stream flow data to be used for The following inventory and monitoring plan channel design, as a component of the monitor was based on four criteria: ing program, and to determine instream flow requirements within the ACEC. 1. The management goal and objectives set forth in the Introduction. The initial target streams are those portions of Caribou, Clear, Bear, and Aloha Creek that lie 2. The designated use of water within the ACEC. within the ACEC boundary. Other streams within The Alaska Administrative Code, 18 AAC the ACEC may be included at a later date. 70.050, designates the waters within the ACEC as having the following freshwater use classes: Inventory Methods water supply; water recreation; and the growth Large scale aerial photography ( 1:6,000) will be and propagation of fish, shellfish, and other taken of all target streams within the ACEC ac aquatic life, and wildlife. cording to procedures outlined bytheBLM Branch of Mapping Science. 3. The potential impacts associated with the issues identified in this plan, particularly those of sur A topographic survey using an automatic level face disturbing activities which may physically shooting stadia will be used to collect information alter the stream channel or increase sediment concerning stream geomorphology. Features sur yield. veyed will be those as defined by Rosgen (1993) and will include bank-full width, flood-prone 4. The cost of conducting inventory and monitor width, water edge, and upper and lower limits of ing within this ACEC. Budgetary considerations 12 0 pools. These surveys will be plotted as plan views, cross sections, and longitudinal views. Information 3. Evaluation Level. Monitoringat this level will 0 as to the streams entrenchment, width:depth ratio, involve evaluation of reclamation work on sinuosity, gradient, meander geometry, riffle/pool federal mining claims and other surface dis sequence, bank erosion potential, and stream type turbing activities under permit. Topographic will be obtained from survey data. In addition, a and aquatic habitat survey methods, as well B pebble count based on the procedure described by as visual inspections will be used to deter Wolman (1954) will be used to determinebed mate mine ifbonding requirementshavebeen met. rial particle size distribution. This level of monitoring will be continued on 0 an annual basis until bonding requirements Aquatic habitat will be inventoried according to have been met. proceduresdescribedbyBissonet al. (1982). Bisson's 0 method of classifying habitat types has become a Monitoring Methods standard within the Bureau and is commonly re Base level and evaluation level monitoring ferred to as the BasinWideMethod. Using the Basin methods will be the same as those described Wide approach, the stream is stratified habitat type under Inventory Methods. Under the Mid-Level 0 which are then quantified by length, width, depth, monitoring scenario, stream discharge data will substrate type, and cover type. Stream discharge be collected using a stream flow recorder. Tur will be recorded during the habitat inventory and bidity and suspended sediment samples will be 0 will provide a reference stage. collected using ISCO water samplers and ana lyzed using standard procedures as outlined by Stream flow data willbe measured using conven the EPA (1983). 0 tional direct flow measurement techniques at vari ous stage heights. In addition, a stage recorder will Data Storage and Availability be used to provide a continuous measurement of water surface elevation on Clear Creek. The stage Inventory and monitoring data collected in recorder will be operated from approximately May throughOctober each year, for a periodoffive years. conjunction with this HMP will be stored on a data base in the BLM Kobuk District Office. The Crest gauges may be installed to assist in determin data will be available in either electronic or hard ingpeakflows. Itisassumed peakflows will have to 0 be measured by indirect methods due to limited copy format. access. Progress Report 0 Monitoring Implementationof the HMPwillbe tracked on Theland-use activities occurring withinthe ACEC an annual basis using the form in Appendix F. will dictate the frequency and level of monitoring. 0 Three levels of monitoring are described below: COORDINATION AND COOPERATION 1. Base Level. This monitoringlevel will be initiated 0 in the event that only casual use activities or The implementation of this HMP shall be in activities not considered to be a threat to aquatic cooperation with ADF&G. The role and respon resources are occurring within the ACEC. Moni sibilities of ADF&G are as follows: o. toring under this level will consist of repeating aquatic habitat surveys every ten years on all 1. The Commercial Fisheries Division is respon target streams. sible for monitoring the annual escapement of chum salmon into streams within the 0 2. Mid-Level. This monitoringlevel will be initiated Hogatza ACEC; in theevent thatland-use activitiesare occurring 2. the Habitat Division is responsible for the within the ACEC that have the potential to ad issue and compliance ofTitle 16 permits; and 0 versely impact aquatic resources. Monitoring at 3. the BLM shall be responsible for implementa this level will consist of collecting stream dis tion of the management guidelines and in charge, turbidity, and suspended sediment data ventory and monitoring activities set forth in 0 using a paired watershed approach. Activities this HMP. Meetings between BLM and under this level of monitoring are to be con ADF&G shall be held as necessary to discuss ducted on an annual basis during periods of concerns and exchange data. The HMP shall 0 active placer mining within the ACEC. be amended as necessary to include any fu 0 17 Table 3. Estimated five year cost and implementation schedule for the Hogatza ACEC Aquatic Habitat Management Plan. Cost Item Estimated work months (WM) and operations dollars ($000) vearl vear2 vear3 year4 vear5 #WM $000 #WM $000 #WM $000 #WM $000 #WM $000 Administration and 4.0 - 6.0 - 3.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 - preparation (incl. updating, revision and reports) Large scale aerial - - 1.0 7.5 ------photography of Clear, !Caribou, Bear and Aloha Creek Topography survey and - - 1.0 16.5 ------channel typing on Clear, !caribou, Bear, and Aloha Creek (incl. mid-level monitoring) Collection of stream ------1.0 22.0 1.0 15.0 flow data on Clear, !caribou, Bear and Aloha Creek Aquatic habitat inven - - - - 1.0 20.5 1.0 15.0 1.0 15.0 tory on Clear, Caribou and Aloha Creek Maintenance ------Research ------Equipment - - - - - 7.5 - 1.0 - 1.0 trotal BLM costs 4.0 o• 8.0 24.0 4.0 27.5 3.0 38.0* 3.0 31.0* Estimated ADF&G 0.5 2.0 0.5 2.0 0.5 2.0 0.5 2.0 0.5 2.0 !commercial Fish Division ost for escapement jsurvey and reporting ADF&G Habitat Division 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 cost of issue and comp liance of Title 16 permits (expenditures not nee essarily on an annual ~asis-dependanton development activity) *Detail of BLM Operations Dollars: Year 2- four days helicopter time ($8,000); fuel delivery and fixed-wing support ($7,500), round trip personnel and gear transport Fairbanks to Galena ($500); flight time, pilot per diem, fuel, film costs for aerial photo. ($7,500), miscella neous equipment and per diem ($500). Year 3- three days helicopter time ($6,000); purchase of two 12ft. pack canoes ($1,500); per diem and miscellaneous equipment ($1,{)00); fuel delivery and fixed-wing support ($7,500), round trip personnel and gear transport Fairbanks to Galena ($500); two work months for seasonal ($5,000); purchase of stream stage recorder and assoc. hardware (6,000). Year 4- four days helicopter time ($8,000); six days fixed-wing time (winter access for instream flow work- $7,500); fuel delivery and fixed-wing support ($8,000); round trip personnel and gear transport Fairbanks to Galena ($500); two work months for seasonal ($5,000); costs associated with administrative site ($7,000); per diem and miscellaneous equipment ($2,000). Year 5 - four days helicopter time ($8,000); six days fixed-wing time (winter access for instream flow work- $7 ,500); fuel delivery and fixed-wing support ($8,000); round trip personnel and gear transport Fairbanks to Galena ($500); two work months for seasonal ($5,000); per diem and miscellaneous equipment ($2,000). The cost estimate for the HMP and associated project work was carried out for five years. The year in which a particular project is iniated may vary due to budgetary limitations. 18 0 ture projects requiring cooperative funding or use of personnel. expansion factor of 3.0 to the combined interim escapement objective established for Clear and 0 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Caribou Creek, we have 51,000 fish (3.0 expansion factor x 17,000 fish) as a basis for our analysis (see The cost estimate (Table 3) was based on the Ecosystem Description Fisheries Abundance for following assumptions: explanation of the 3.0 expansion factor). Assum 0 ing half of these fish are females and that each 1. The use of a helicopter for access atanestimated female produces 2,500 eggs (Trasky 1974, Regnart $2,000 per day. etal.1966inGrootandMargolis 1991), we have the 0 2. Implementation of Mid-Level monitoring on potential for producing 63.8 million eggs (51,000 Bear Creek due to the Taiga Mining Company fish x 1 female/2 fish x 2,500 eggs/female). If7.8% operation proposed for 1993-1994. ofeggs survive to be fry and 2.8% of the fry survive 3. Workmonths cost of $4,500. to become adults, we have 139,230 fish (63.8 mil 0 lion eggs x 0.078 fryI egg x 0.028 adult/fry; Parker 1962 in Groot and Margolis 1991). Minus the es COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS capement goal of 51,000 fish for Clear and Caribou 0 Creek, we are left with 88,230 fish as a harvestable The commercial value ofsummer chum salmon surplus. Assuming each fish weighs 6.7 pounds, produced within the ACEC over a 10-year period we have 591,141 pounds of fish worth $0.18 per 0 was estimated to be $3.8 million. The estimated pound (Upper Yukon price) or $106,405 (ADF&G implementation cost for the HMP over a similar 1992a). In addition to the price paid for the fish, period is $395,000, or 10% of the resource value. summerchumsalmon produce high quality caviar. For the purposeof generating a monetary value of Again, assuming half of the harvestable surplus 0 the resource this estimate assumes that the entire are females and each female produces 1.5 pounds harvestable surplus would be available for com of roe and the value of roe is $4.21 per pound - mercialharvestanddoesnotconsider a subsistance (88,230 fish x 1 female/ 2 fish x 1.5 pounds roe/ ·o harvest. Itis important thatthe reader understand female x $4.21/pound roe) we arrive at an addi that if social, cultural, and environmental values tional value of $278,586 (ADF&G 1992a). The esti of these fish are considered, that the overall value matedannualcommercial value for summerchum ·o· of the resource would be much greater than the salmon produced within the ACEC is the sum of $3.8 million estimate. $106,405 and $278,586 or $384,991. Over a 10 year period this equals $3.8 million at a 1992 dollar The following outlines the procedure used to value. 0 calculate the commercial value of summer chum salmon produced within the ACEC. Applying an 0 NEPA PROCESS The environmental assessment (EA) Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact 0 for this HMP was approved on May 15,1994. Prior to approval the EA was subject to public comment. On January 30, March 5, August 6 and 25, and September 1, 1993, a notice stating 0 that an EA for the Hogatza HMP was being prepared was published in the Anchorage Daily J News. No public comment was received. J J J 19 J CONSULTATION AND REVIEW BLM Fairbanks Support Staff: Stan Bloom- Public Affairs, Cartographic Technician Nelda Garrett- Records and Public Service Sharon Wilson- Writer-Editor BLM Kobuk District Staff: John R. Barnes, Supervisory Realty Specialist Elizabeth Bonnell, Realty Specialist Herbert A. Brownell, Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist Boyce D. Bush, Realty Specialist James W. Deininger, Geologist Larry W. Field, Natural Resource Specialist Randi R. Jandt, Wildlife Biologist Larry N. Knapman, Natural Resource Specialist Stephen K. Lundeen, Natural Resource Specialist David L. Mobraten, Reality Specialist Anne E. Morkill, Wildlife Biologist Joseph F. Webb, Fishery Biologist BLM State Office Staff: Craig Altop, Wildlife Biologist Thomas H. Boyd, Subsistence Program Leader and Section Supervisor Mike Brown, Supervisory Navigable Waters Specialist Ed Earnhardt, Navigable Waters Specialist Dwight R. Hovland, Soil, Water, and Air Program Leader John Payne, Wildlife Program Leader John F. Santora, Deputy State Director for Mineral Resources Bunny Sterin, State Hydrologist Gene R. Terland, Branch Chief Biological Resources Dennis L. Tol, Fisheries Program Leader Curtis Wilson, Land Use Planner Sue A. Wolf, Branch Chief Land Resources Other Agencies and Public: Bill Arvey, ADF&G, Sport Fish Division A YK, Fairbanks. Louis H. Barton, ADF&G, Commercial Fisheries Division A YK, Fairbanks. Richard Cannon, ADF&G, Commercial Fisheries Division A YK, Anchorage. Conrad Christianson, Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Fairbanks. Sharri Howard, Alaska Department of Transportation, Fairbanks. Fred A. Magmum Ph.D., Aquatic Biologist, Brigham Young Univ., Utah. Keith C. Shultz, ADF&G, Commercial Fisheries Division A YK, Fairbanks. John Thompson, Chief of Planning and Program Support, Montana State Office, BLM, Billings, Montana Alan H. Townsend, ADF&G, Habitat Division, Fairbanks. Jim Wise, Alaska Environmental Information Data Center Climatologist, Anchorage. 20 0 LITERATURE CITED Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1992a. Salmon Division of Commercial Fisheries, A YK Re 0 Fisheries in the Yukon River, Alaska. Regional gion, Anchorage, Alaska. 25p. Information Report No. 3A92-0l. Alaska De partment of Fish and Game, Division of Com Bisson, P.A., J.L. Nielsen, R.A. Palmson, and L.E. 0 mercial Fisheries, A YK Region, Anchorage, Grove. 1982. A system of naming habitat types Alaska. 36p. in small streams with examples of habitat uti lization by salmonids during low streamflow. 0 __. 1992b. Temporary resident fish stream by Pages 62-73 inN.B. Armantrout, editor. Acqui pass design guidelines (Draft). Alaska Depart sition and utilization of aquatic habitat inven ment ofFish and Game, Habitat Division, Fair tory information. American Fisheries Society, 0 banks, Alaska. lOp. Western Division, Bethesda, Maryland. Alaska Gold Company. 1985. Public comment con Bjerklie, D.M. and J.D. LaPerriere.l985. Gold-min cerning the proposed Resource Management ing effects on stream hydrology and water 0 Plan for the Central Yukon Planning Area. quality, Circle quadrangle, Alaska. Water Re Page 302 in Bureau of Land Management: Pro sources Bulletin 21:235-243. posed Resource Management Plan and final 0 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cen Buhl, K.J. and S.J. Hamilton. 1990. Comparative tral Yukon Planning Area. Document No. BLM toxicity of inorganic contaminants released by AK-PT-86-010-1610-026,FF-085208.KobukDis placer mining to early life stages of salmonids. trict Office, Fairbanks, Alaska; 1986. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 0 20:325-342. Alaska Interagency Fire ManagementCouncil.l993. Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan. Op Bureau of Land Management. 1986a. Resource 0 erational draft. Alaska Interagency Fire Man Management Plan and Record of Decision for agement Council working group, Fairbanks, the Central Yukon Planning Area. Document Alaska. BOp. No. BLM-AK-PT-86-031-1610-026, FF085208. Kobuk District Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. 66p. 0 Amdorfer, R.W. 1987. Navigability determinations for water bodies in the Alatna River Group __.1986b. Proposed Resource Management Plan survey area (282), Window 1653. Memoran and Final Environmental Impact Statement for 0 dum No. Hughes-G5-FY87-#l, Survey Pass the Central Yukon Planning Area. Document G5-FY'87-#l, F-15196 (2620), (961). Bureau of No. BLM-AK-PT-86-010-1610-026, FF-085208. Land Management, Alaska State Office, An Kobuk District Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. 425p. 0 chorage Alaska. lOp. __. 1992. Township file extracts for Township Bamford, G. 1987. Letter to BLM-Kobuk District and Range: 9N,l4E; 9N,l5 E; 10N,l4E; lON, Fisheries Biologist Joe Webb concerning chum 15E; Kobuk District Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. 0 salmon spawning in the Hogatza River drain 7p. age. 6p. Cobb, E.H. 1973. Placer deposits of Alaska. U.S. 0 Barton, L.H. 1984a. Examination of Bear and Cari Geological Survey Bulletin 1374. 216p. bouCreeks-Hogatza River mining area. Memo randum. Alaska Department ofFish and Game, Cousens, N.B.F., G.A. Thomas, C.G. Swann, and c Division of Commercial Fisheries, Fairbanks, M.C. Healey. 1982. A review of salmon es:. Alaska. 4p. capement estimation techniques. Canadian Technical Report C?f Fisheries and Aquatic __. 1984b. A catalog of Yukon River Salmon Sciences No. 1108. Nanaimo, British Colum 0 Spawning Escapement Surveys. Technical Data bia. 122p. Report No. 121. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. __. 1991. Yukon River Salmon Escapement Sur Technical Report No. EPA 600-4-79-020, Envi veys, 1990. Regional Information Report NO. ronmental Monitoring and Support Labora J 3F91-09. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, tory, Office of Research and Development, U. J 21 S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincin Patton, WW., Jr. and T.P. Miller. 1966. Regional nati, Ohio. 464p. Geologic map of the Hughes Quadrangle, Alaska. Miscellaneous Investigations Map 1 Groot, C. and L. Margolis. 1991. Pacific Salmon Life 459. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 564p. Regnart, R.I., P. Pridgen, and M. Geiger. 1966. Age, sex and size compositions of arctic and subarc Lamke. R. L. 1979. Flood characteristics of Alaskan tic Alaska stocks of chum and sockeye streams. U. S. Geological Survey Water-Re salmon.(Submitted to the annual meeting In source Investigations 78-129. 61p. ternational North Pacific Fisheries Commis sion, Vancouver, BC, November 1966.) Alaska Leslie, L.D.1986. Alaska Climate Summaries. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Climate Center Technical Note No. 3. Arctic Commercial Fisheries, Juneau, Alaska. 9p. Environmental Information and Data Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Reynolds,J.B., R.C. Simmons, andA.R. Burkholder. 1989. Effects of placer mining discharge on Lloyd,D.S.,J.P.Koenings,andJ.D. LaPerriere.1987. health and food of arctic grayling. Water Re Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of Alaska. sources Bulletin 25:625-635. North American Journal of Fisheries Manage ment 7:18-33. Rosgen, D.L. 1993. A classification of natural riv ers. Draft. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Madison, R.J. 1981. Effects of placer mining on Springs, Colorado. 66p. hydrologic systems in Alaska. BLM-Alaska Technical Report 7. Bureau of Land Manage Trasky, L.T. 1974. Yukon River anadromous fish mentAnchorage,Alaska.32p. investigations. Anadromous Fish Conserva tion Act completion report for period July 1, Martin, D.J., D.R. Glass, C.J. Whitmus, C.A. 1973 to June 30, 1974. Alaska Department of Simenstad, D.A. Milward, E.C. Volk, M.L. Fish and Game, Commercial Fisheries Divi Stevenson, P. Nunes, M. Savvoie, and R.A. sion, Juneau, Alaska. 111p. Grotefendt. 1986. Distribution, seasonal abun dance, and feeding dependencies of juvenile U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water salmon and non-salmonid fishes in the Yukon Pollution Control Administration.1969. Effects River Delta. U.S. Dep. Comm. NOAA OCSEAP of placer mining on water quality in Alaska. Final Report 55(1988):381-770. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fed. Water Pollution Control Administration, Northwest Region, Mills, M.J.1991. Harvest,catch,and participation in Alaska Water Laboratory, College, Alaska. Alaska sport fisheries during 1990. Alaska De partment of Fish and Game, Division of Sport U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Contaminant Fisheries, Anchorage, Alaska. 183p. data for water, sediments, and fish of Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge and the northern unit Morrow, J.E. 1980. The freshwater fishes of Alaska. of Innoko National Wildlife Refuge. Technical Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, An Report NAES-TR-92-04. U.S. Fish and Wildlife chorage, Alaska. 248p. Service, Fairbanks, Alaska. 78p. Nelson, R.K., K.H. Mautner, and G.R. Bane. 1982. U.S. Geological Survey. 1978. Water Resources Data Tracks in the wildland, a portrayal of Koyukon for Alaska Water Year 1977. Water-Data Re and Nunamiut subsistence. Walsworth Pub port AK-77-1. Water Resource Division, An lishing Company, Marceline, Missouri. 426p. chorage, Alaska. 439p. Parker, R.R. 1962. A concept of the dynamics of Van Nieuwenhuyse, E.E. 1983. The effects ofplacer pink salmon populations, p. 203-211. In: N.J. mining on the primary productivity of interior Wilimovsky (ed.) Symposium on Pink Salmon. Alaska streams. Master's thesis. University of H. R. Mac Millan Lectures inFisheries. Institute Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska. of Fisheries, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. 22 0 Webb J. 1987. Hogatza River Investigations. Un Winters J. 1983. Trip to Bear Creek; August 5,1983. published report. Bureau of Land Management, Memorandum. Alaska Department ofFish and 0 Kobuk District Office, Fairbanks, Alaska. 4p. Game, Habitat Division, Fairbanks, Alaska. 2p. Weber, P. and R. Post.1985. Aquatic habitat assess ments in mined and unrnined portions of the Wolman, M.G. 1954. A method of sampling coarse B Birch Creek Watershed. Technical Report No. river-bed material: American Geophysical 85-2. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Union Transactions 35 (6):951-956. 0 Division of Habitat, Juneau, Alaska. 65p. 0 0 0 0 .0 0 ~o 0 0 0 0 D J J 23 J APPENDICES Appendix A. Area of Critical Environ ment processes. Through the ACEC process, BLM mental Concern definition and process has a mandate to both: (BLM 1986 6b). (a) provide special management attention that will protect important environmental resources, The objectives of an ACEC designation are to and protect human life and property from impor identify, designate, and manage areas within the tant natural hazards; and public lands where special management attention is required to protect (a) important historic, cul (b) do this without unnecessarily or unreason tural and scenic values, fish and wildlife resources ably restricting users of these lands from uses that and other natural systems and processes; and (b) are compatible with that protection. human life and property from natural hazards. Development May Occur in Some Authority and Mandate. ACECs. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act As the Senate Committee Report on FLPMA of 1976 contains the following key provisions re (Senate Report 94-583) said, "Unlike wilderness gardingAreas of Critical Environmental Concern. areas ... (ACECs) are not necessarily areas in which no development can occur. Quite often, Definition. limited development, when wisely planned and An"Area of Critical Environmental Concern" is properly managed, can take place in these areas an area "within the public lands where special withoutunduly risking life orsafetyorpermanent management attention is required (when such damage to historic, cultural or scenic values or areas are developed or used,or wherenodevelop natural systems or processes." Thus, a particular ment is required) to protect and prevent irrepa ACEC designation may provide for a range of rable damage to important historic, cultural or multiple-use activities, including specified kinds scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other and degrees of development and commodity-pro natural systems or processes, or to protect life and duction activities, provided that the important safety from natural hazards" (Sec. 103[a]). environmental resources within that area, or hu man property or lives, are not damaged or endan Identification Priority and Effect. gered. Identification of potential ACECs shall be given The ACEC Process Is Part of the Plan "priority" in the "inventory of all public lands and ning Process. their resources and other values," and identifica tion "shall not, of itself, change or prevent change Identification of potential ACECs and designa of the management or use of public lands" (Sec. tion ofACECs will bedone through BLM' son-the 201[a]); ground planning process, in accord with BLM's procedures for preparation, approving, and revis Designation Priority and Process. ing Resource Management Plans. This planning process incorporates environmental analysis pur The designation of ACECs shall begiven "prior suant to the National Environmental Policy Act. ity" in the "development and revision of land use An ACEC is designated through approval by a plans" (Sec. 202[c][3]), and BLM District Manager of a Resource Management Plan. This designation decision is made after re Special Management Priority. view and concurrence by the BLM State Director. The protection of ACECs shall be given "prior Where a proposed ACEC contains an environ ity" (Sec. 202[c][3]) in applying the required spe mental resource of multi-State, national, or inter cial management attention. national significance, concurrence by the BLM Director and, in some cases by the Secretary, also The ACEC Process is Part of Multiple may be required. Use Management. ACEC Designations May Complement The ACEC identification, designation, andman Other Forms of Management. agement process is an integral part of BLM's on the-ground multiple-use planning and manage ACEC and other special management area des ignations are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 24 0 An ACEC may overlay another form of designa Appendix C. Bear Creek water quality tion, in whole or in part, so as to complement the data collected August 8,1977 (U.S. Geo 0 management provided through the other form for example, a unit of the National System of Wild logical Survey 1977). and Scenic Rivers, within the public lands. 0 Opportunity for Public Involvement Is Appendix D. Boundary description for Provided at Each Step. the Hogatza ACEC. 0 Opportunity for public participation at each The following metes and bounds description phase of the ACEC process will be provided by describes an area within the Kateel River Merid BLM officials, pursuant to FLPMA and the Na ian, Alaska which will hereafter be referred to as tional Environmental Policy Act, the Deparbnent the Hogatza ACEC. The metes and bounds de D of the Interior's policy on public participation in scription is as follows: Beginning at the intersec decision making, and BLM's resource manage tion of the Hogatza River and the south boundary ment planning regulations. of section 32, TlON RI6E; proceed west to NW 0 comerof section 5, T9N RI6E; thence south4 miles Appendix B. DefinitionofMiningLaws to SE comer of section I9, T9N RI6E; thence at a as per 43 CFR 3809.0-5 (e). bearing approximately south 72 degrees west ap 0 proximately 6.3 miles, continue to theSE comer of "Mining laws" means the Lode Law of July 26, section 3I, T9N RISE; thence approx. west I mile I866, as amended (I4 Stat. 25I); the Placer Law of to SW comer of section 3I,T9N RISE; thence north 0 July 9, I870, as amended (I6 Stat. 2I7); and the approx. I2 miles to NW comer of section 6, TlON Mining Law of May IO, I872, as amended (I7 Stat. RISE; thence east approx. I mile to NE comer of 9I); and all laws supplementing and amending section 6, TlON RISE; thence follow the ridge line those laws, including among others the Building at bearing approximately south 62 degrees east :0 Stone Act of August 4, I892, as amended (27 Stat. approx. 0.8 miles, to peak 9IO ft in section 5, TlON 348); and the Saline Placer Act of January 3I, I901 RISE; thence continue atbearing approx. south I2 (3I Stat. 745). degrees west approx. 0.8 miles to hilltop 825 ft in section 5, TlON RISE; thence continue along ridge top bearing approx. south 55 degrees east approx. Parameter Value l.I miles to hilltop 892 ft within section 9, TlON --== Instant. Discharge (cfs) 6.0 RISE; thence continue east approx. 1.0 miles to - Sp. Conductance (Micromhos) ----- 70 hilltop 695ft within section IO, TlON RISE; thence Temperature(0 C) ------IS.O continue at bearing approx. south 80 degrees east Color (Platinum Cobalt Units ------8 approx.l.I milestohilltop5I7ftwithinsection 11, 0 Hardness (CA, MG) (mg/1) ------42 TlON RISE; thence continue ata bearing of approx. Non carbonate Hardness (mg/1)------5 south 39 degrees east to Hogatza River within SE Dissol. Calcium (CA) (mg/1)------I2 I/4 section 32, TlON RI6E; thence south approx. 0 Dissol. Magnesium (MG) (mg/1) ------2.9 0.2 miles to the intersection of the Hogatza River Dissol. Sodium (NA) (mg/1) ------1.9 and the south boundary of Section 32, TlON RI6E Dissol.Potassium (K) (mg/1) ------0.4 and the point of beginning. This description de Bicarbonate (HC03) (mg/1)------45 scribes an area containing approximately 42,5I2 0 acres of federal land as depicted on Figure 2. ) Dissol. Sulfate (504 (mg/1) ------3.9 Dissol. Chloride (CL) (mg/1) ------9.I Dissol. Floride (F) (mg/1) ------O.I Appendix E. Management Guidelines. 0 Dissol. Silica (S102) ------9.9 Dissol. Solids (Residue at I80°C) (mg/1) -- 63 Managementof the Hogatza ACEC is guidedby Dissol. Solids (Sum of Constituents) (mg/1) -- 63 several different sources. The regulations, hand Dissol. Nitrite Plus Nitrate (N) (mg/1) ---- 0.05 books, and policy for permitting actions under 0 Dissol. Ortho. Phosphorus (PO 9mg/l) --- 0.05 Rights-of-Ways (43 CFR 2800), Land Use Actions Total Arsenic (AS) (ug/1) ------0 (43 CFR 2920), or the General Mining Laws (43 Dissol. Iron (FE) (ug/1) ------490 CFR 3809), in addition to other federal and state 0 Dissol. Manganese (MN) (ug/1)------60 regulations, must be referred to prior to permit Total Mercury (HG) (ug/1) ------0 ting any of these activities on BLM land. The Susp. Sediment (mg/1) ------3 Central Yukon Resource Management Plan/Envi 0 Susp. Sediment discharge (T/Day) ------0.05 ronmental Impact Statement established the ACEC, 25 D the purpose and goals for the ACEC, and identi b. Vehicles should be restricted to established or fied withdrawals to be implemented to meet those approved roads and trails during periods in goals (primarily for the protection of salmon habi which snow cover is less than one foot in depth tat). This Habitat Management Plan and Environ and soils are not frozen in order to protect the mental Assessment are the next step in the BLM vegetation mat and minimize erosion. planning hierarchy to provide for more specific identification and protection of the fisheries habi c. Saturated soils are susceptible to slides and tat within the ACEC. slumps, excessive settlement, severe erosion, BLM shall consider the following management and soil creep. Areas having saturated soils should be avoided during thawed periods. guidelines during the development of environ mental documents pertaining to land use activi d. Roads should beputtobedfollowing the comple ties occurring within the ACEC. tion of the land-use activity unless otherwise authorized. Proper, well protected drainage and General common revegetation practices should be used to prevent erosion. 1. All surface disturbing activities, including fire suppression, mining, road construction, andoth e. Material sites should not be located within the ers should be conducted so as to minimize im active flood plain of anystream within the ACEC. pacts to aquatic life, in particular spawning and rearing salmon and their habitat. 2. Culverts and bridges should be designed to optimize fish passage and minimize harm to 2. Surface disturbing activities conducted within aquatic life. Measures should be taken to main the boundaries of the ACEC should be bonded. tain natural stream gradients andensure stream channel stability. Fill material for drainage struc 3. Handling of fuels, hazardous and toxic materi tures should not be placed within the active als will be in compliance with DEC/EPA stan flood plain without authorization. dards. In addition, with the exception of boat refueling, all fuel storage, transfer, or refueling Leases and Permits operations should be conducted outside of the proposed land withdrawals on Clear, Caribou, and Bear Creek and a minimum of 150 feet from The following measures apply to leases and other water bodies. permits for long-term field campsused in conjunc tion with commercial and subsistence activities, 4. Compensatory mitigation for disturbance of including camps used in conjunction with mining. aquatic habitat should be considered by BLM For the purposes of this plan a long-term field prior to permitting any surface disturbing activ camp is defined as a camp which is used for 15 or more days during the year. ity. 1. All activities should be conducted so as to avoid [ Access or minimize disturbance to vegetation. Camp sites and structures should be located outside of 1. All roads, trails, and airstrips should be located the proposed withdrawals on Clear, Caribou, l and constructed so as to minimize erosion and and Bear Creek. The proposed withdrawals in sedimentation and impacts to riparian areas clude the streambed and300 feet onbothsides of according to the stipulations outlined in BLM the stream's mean high water level. Campsites, ( Manual H-2801-1 for Right of Way Plans of in areas other than those adjacent to the pro Development and Grants and other BLM manu posed withdrawals, should be located a mini als and guidance. For example: mum of 100 feet from water bodies. Removal of vegetation will be under conditions specified in ( a. Streams that serve as critical spawning and a permit. rearing habitat should not be used as roads or trails. No vehicles, other than boats and snow 2. Gray water and human waste should be dis machines, should be operated within stream posed of on land, outside of the proposed with channels except at existing or authorized road drawals on Clear, Caribou, or Bear Creek and and trail crossings. 100 feet from other water bodies. Solid waste 26 0 may be burned pursuant to state standards upon demonstration that the area reclaimed is (Alaska Administrative Code, 18 ACC 50); items stableandapproximates the desired habitat prior 0 which cannot be burned or are left as a residue to the completion of the five year evaluation from burningshouldbebackhauledattheend of period (e.g., if a 50-year stream flow event oc the season. curred twoyears after reclamation and the chan nel appeared to be stable and approximate the 0 3. All applicable permittees will be expected to desired habitat the bond may be released after complete and submit a written Post Use Report only a two-year evaluation period). annually according to BLM Handbook H-8372-1. 2. Mining within known salmonproduction areas Fire Suppression or production areas documented during future inventory should not be allowed until July 1 of the initial disturbance year to allow recently 0 Within the ACEC fires will be contained only to hatched fish to outmigrate from the area. the extent required to prevent an undesirable es cape of that fire from the immediate area with the 3. Bypass channel construction should be done in 0 exception of Critical Protection Areas (Alaska In a manner thatensures fish passage and does not teragency Fire Management Council1993). resultinexcessive erosion. The bed andbanks of the bypass channel should be constructed of 0 1. Fire suppression activities within the ACEC material that will not significantly erode and should be based on fire management policies create a fish passagebarrier. Inorderto decrease and suppression constraints identified in the bank erosion, the side slopes ofbypass channels Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan should be contoured to a 3:1 slope unless slope 0 (AIFMP). material consists of bedrock or material having a similar resistance to erosion. Other measures 2. Heavy equipment should be used for fireline that may be required to stabilize stream bypass -o construction only after completion of an Escape channels are: energy dissipating structures and Fire Situation Analysis report and upon authori structures to maintain stream gradient above zation by the District Manager. Other methods and below the bypass channel (e.g. vortex rock 0 such as fireline explosives or handlines are pre weirs). Guidelines established by ADF&G for ferred (AIFMP). TemporaryResident Fish Stream Bypass Design Guidelines for Placer Mining Operations (1992b) Forestry should be used in the event that stream channel :D geometry data is not available for the site. Timber harvest will be restricted to an area out side of the proposed withdrawal area along Clear, 4. Prior to mining a new segment of stream and 0 Caribou, and Bear Creek as per prescription in the constructing a new bypass channel, operators Central Yukon Resource Management Plan. will be expected to plug and backfill the old bypass channel with suitable, erosion resistant 0 material. The streambed and stream banks Mineral Development should be reconstructed in the lowest partofthe valley using data collected during topographic surveys and Rosgen (1993) stream channel clas 0 All miningoperationswithinthe HogatzaACEC sification. This step may be omitted if a suitable will be conducted in compliance with the 43 CFR channelwasconstructed priorto miningand the 3809 regulations and reasonable measures shallbe channel is stable and approximates the desired 0 taken to ensure undue and unnecessary degrada habitat. tion to aquatic life does not occur, for example: 5. Settling ponds should be placed to allow for 1. A reclamation bond will ensure thatreclamation stream relocationin the lowest partofthe valley 0 work restores an approximation of the pre-dis in a natural meander configuration. turbed habitat complexity and channel configu ration (based on topographic survey and aquatic 6. Reclamation of mined sites may include: redis 0 inventory data) and that the stream channel is tributionofvegetationremoved priorto mining, stable under natural events such as high flows planting of willow cuttings or plugs, and the and aufeis conditions. The bond willbe released application of fine mesh geo-textile matting or D at the end of a five-year evaluation period or straw over disturbed areas. 27 Subsistence which would reduce or eliminate the use, occu pancy, or disposition or public lands needed for subsistence purposes (Section 810 ANILCA, 16 In determining whether to lease, or otherwise usc 3120). permitthe use, occupancy, ordisposition of public lands underany provision of law authorizing such actions, the head of the Federal agency having Other Guidelines primary jurisdiction over such lands or his desig nee shall evaluate the effect of such use, occu Future administration or management actions pancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and such as the signing and ratification of the Yukon needs, the availability of other lands for the pur River Salmon Treaty may require amendment of pose sought to be achieved, and other alternatives thisHMP. 28 c:::J CJ c::J c:=J CJ c:J c:J c::::J c::J c:::J CJ c:::J CJ c::J c:::J o::J Appendix F. Hogatza ACEC aquatic Habitat Management Plan progress report. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PROGRESS REPORT DA"lli DA"lli DA"lli OBJECilVES COMPLETED PLANNED ACTIONS COMPLETED EVALUATION/MONITORING COMPLETED •Maintain the capability of aquatic habitat within the ACEC to • Establish habitat specific management • Monitor the aquatic resources within the sustain the annual production potential of 5 million chum objectives for fisheries resources in the ACEC at the appropriate level (base, mid, salmon fry. ACEC. or evaluation level). •Maintain the existing quantity and quality of salmon spawning • Establish management guidelines for habitat to support a minimum annual escapement of 8,000 chum mining and other surface disturbing land- salmon spawners in Clear Creek and 9,000 chum salmon use activities within the ACEC. spawners in Caribou Creek (these numbers are interim escapement objectives established by the Alaska Department of • Establish a serialized case file for the Fish and Game and were established and are monitored using ACEC and amend the Master Title Plats to aerial survey technology. show the ACEC boundary. I •Maintain or restore the natural substrate composition, stream • Obtain large scale aerial photography of type and geometry (as defined by Rosgen 1993), on all streams Clear, Caribou, Bear, and Aloha Creeks. within the ACEC. i • Collect channel geometry from •Maintain the minimum stream discharge necessary for representative reaches of Clear, Caribou, maintenance of aquatic life, natural stream channel Bear, and Aloha Creek (topographic configuration, and habitat composition on all streams within the surveys). ACEC. ~ • Conduct aquatic habitat inventory on • Maintain, restore, or improve the exisiting stream bank stability, Clear, Cariou, Bear, and Aloha Creeks. riparian cover, woody debris and other instream cover on all streams within the ACEC. • Conduct annual compliance inspections of mining and other land-use activities •Maintain the water quality within the ACEC to standards occurring within the ACEC to ensure established by the Alaska Department of Environmental protection of aquatic resources. Conservation (18 AAC 70) for fresh water use classes (l)(A), (1)(8), and (l)(C). INSfRUCTIONS 1. List specific HMP objectives from RMP /MFP planning documents or as otherwise approved 2. List specific planned actions to be initiated to meet each specific objective. 3. List scheduled evaluation/monitoring study(s) planned to evaluate accomplishments. 4. Enter completion date for each objective, action, or evaluation/monitoring study as accomplished. Form 6780-2 Ouly 1981) ( formerly 6620-3) [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [