Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge
Proposed Land Exchange EIS
L __ : Draft
! _..] Chapter 2 - Alternatives
L j Prepared for Prepared by
i __ J
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ENSR Corporation
,__ j !~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1-1
~~~ 1.1 Proposed Action ...... 1-1 1.2 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 1-4 1.2.1 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 1-4 r' 1.2.2 Background ...... 1-4 1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action ...... 1-7 1.4 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Other EISs ...... 1-8 ,-! 1.4.1 Exchange Authority ...... 1-8 1.4.2 Title XI of ANILCA ...... 1-9 1.4.3 Other Environmental Impact Statements ...... 1-9 1.4.4 Submerged Lands ...... 1-10 1.5 Decisions to be Made ...... 1-11 1.6 Cooperating Agencies ...... 1-11 1.7 Public Involvement, Scoping, and Significant Issues ...... 1-11 1.7.1 Public Involvement: Pre-scoping ...... 1-11 1.7.2 Public Involvement: Scoping ...... 1-13 1.7.3 Key Issues ...... 1-13 1.7.4 Issues Not Analyzed in Detail...... 1-16 1.8 Federal/State Permits and Approvals Required to Implement the Land Exchange ...... 1-16 1.8.1 Executive Orders ...... 1-17 1.8.2 Cultural Resources Compliance ...... 1-17 1.8.3 Subsistence Evaluation ...... 1-18 1.8.4 Essential Fish Habitat...... 1-18 1.9 Federal/State Permits and Approvals Required for Exploration and Development Activities ...... 1-18 1.9.1 The Clean Water Act...... 1-18 1.9.2 The Clean Air Act ...... 1-19 1.9.3 Other State Permits and Approvals ...... 1-19 1.9.4 Other Federal Permits and Approvals ...... 1-20 1.10 Organization of the EIS ...... 1-20 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Development of Alternatives ...... 2-1
Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 Chapter 2 -Alternatives
L_j 1\ u
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
2.2.1 Negotiation History ...... ~'...... 2-2 2.2.2 Exchange Land Prioritization ...... ::t; ...... 2-3 2.2.3 Equal Value Land Exchange ...... :...... 2-4 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 2-5 !'j 2.3.1 Proposed Action- Agreement in Principle ...... 2-5 2.3.2 Alternative 1 -Land Exchange with Conservation Easements ...... 2-9 2.3.3 Alternative 2 -Land Exchange Excluding the White-Crazy Mountains ...... 2-13 2.3.4 Alternative 4- No Action Alternative ...... 2-15 2.3.5 Summary of Lands Involved in Proposed Acti<>n and Alternatives ...... 2-17 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Excluded from Further Analysis ...... 2-17 2.4.1 Oil and Gas Leasing of USFWS Lands to Doyon ...... 2-17 2.4.2 No Action Alternative with No Oil and Gas Development...... 2-18 2.5 Responsiveness of Alternatives to Project Goals ...... 2-18 2.6 Responsiveness of Alternatives to Significant Issues ...... 2-19 3. References ...... 3-1
APPENDICES:
A AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE B ANILCA 810 SUBSISTENCE EVALUATION C APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND REQUIRED PERMITS
LJ
ii 212112007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives ,.. LIST OF TABlES
Table 2-1. Responsiveness of alternatives to project goals and objectives ...... 2-18 Table 2-2. Comparison of alternatives with respect to significant environmental issues ...... 2-19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Overview of the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge and Surrounding Area ...... 1-2 Figure 1-2 Proposed Action and Priority Rankings for Doyon Lands ...... 1-3 Figure 2-1 Proposed Action Phase I: Lands to be Exchanged and ANCSA 12(b) Selections to be Relinquished ...... :...... 2-6 Figure 2-2 Proposed Action Phase I: Consolidation Exchanges ...... 2-7 Figure 2-3 Proposed Action Phase I: Land Status after Completion of Phase I ...... 2-8 Figure 2-4 Proposed Action Phase II: Additional Service Acquisitions and ROWs ...... 2-10 Figure 2-5 Proposed Action Phase II: Land Status after Completion of Phase II...... 2-11 Figure 2-6 Alternative 1- Land Exchange with Conservation Easements ...... 2-12 Figure 2-7 Alternative 2- Land Exchange Excluding White-Crazy Mountains Phase I ...... 2-14 Figure 2-8 Alternative 2 - Land Exchange Excluding White-Crazy Mountains Phase II ...... 2-16
I~
Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 iii Chapter 2 -Alternatives ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act AOGCC Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission BLM Bureau of Land Management CATG Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations csu Conservation System Unit DOl U.S. Department of the Interior Doyon Doyon, Limited EFH Essential Fish Habitat EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NEP A National Environmental Policy Act NHP A National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NOA Notice of Availability :_j NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration Refuge Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge n ROD Record of Decision ROW Right of WAY Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TUS Transportation or utility system US ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USGS U.S. Geological Survey
iv 2/2112007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives
r-l Cha >tcr I: lntt·oduction: Pur Jose of and Need for Action
1. Introduction: Purpose of and Need for Action LJ 1.1 Proposed Action
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is considering a proposal to exchange certain lands within the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) with Doyon, Limited (Doyon). Doyon is an Alaska Native regional corporation established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA; 43 USC §1601 et. seq.) and the largest private landowner in the Refuge. The location of the Refuge and status of lands within the Refuge boundaries are indicated in Figure 1-1.
From the time the Refuge was established in 1980, Doyon has been interested in acquiring federal oil/gas interests in the south-central portion of the Refuge (USFWS 2005). The Service refused early proposals to exchange an oil and gas lease for conservation easements on Doyon's lands but is interested in a fee title exchange of lands.
In 2004, following years of negotiations, both parties tentatively agreed upon the terms of a proposed land exchange, as detailed in the Agreement in Principle (Appendix A). The proposed exchange would give Doyon title to: (1) 110,000 acres of Refuge lands that may hold developable oil and gas resources; and (2) oil and gas rights (no surface occupancy or access) to an adjacent 97,000 acres (Figure 1-2) of Refuge lands. In exchange, the United States Government (government) would receive a minimum of 150,000 acres of Doyon lands with quality fish and wildlife habitats. Doyon would also reallocate certain land entitlements to an area outside the Refuge. As a result of the reallocation, 56,517 acres of ANCSA land selections within the Refuge would remain in federal ownership instead of being conveyed to Native corporations. Furthermore, each party would exchange an additional132,000 acres (total of 264,000 acres, Figure 1-2) to consolidate ownerships and facilitate land management within the Refuge boundaries.
Doyon has committed to exchange at least 150,000 acres for 110,000 acres of Refuge land. However, the actual amount of Doyon land would increase if appraisals indicate that more than 150,000 acres are needed to equal the value of the Refuge parcel. IIJJIJJJfAIII ... __ t- --{ Formatted: Highlight ~~~ti~~~·~;~APAil!!!f~2'¥%VI~~;W,fii"AY·JliW"~~Ji?JWJW,;&t 1' 1 1 ~~~~~Bt.UI.,.~ll:•~•lliJiU>llSi~ll~f~f~ 1s t o f an d parce s th a t have been ranked based on habitat value. The rankings (Figure 1-2) and priority list were developed by the Service during the negotiation process.
If approved, the exchange could be completed as early as the end of 2008, and oil/gas exploration could begin within the next few years. If Doyon were to subsequently produce oil and/or gas on the exchange lands, the Service would receive a production payment of 1.25% of the resource value at the wellhead, or 1.5% if a transportation corridor were constructed across Refuge lands. These funds would allow the government to acquire additional lands within national wildlife refuges in Alaska and to construct refuge facilities. If oil or gas is produced on the exchange lands, Doyon has agreed to sell to the government an additional120,000 acres of its land holdings (surface and subsurface) within the Yukon Flats Refuge.
Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 1-1 Chapter 2 -Alternatives
l__j Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska
1 1 Kanutl I~ ; National " Ol : Wlldllr. I~ RMuge z - - ~ I Yukoo- Chaney Rivers National Park · v 10 20 30 Miles 10 20 30 Kilometers · ,· ~~-- w Pr oduced in lh e Division ofReahy Anchonage, Alaska Orrent to : Febnary 12,2007 =-14 21 Miles 18 27 Kilometers Service Oil & Gas Interests Conveyed Doyon Lands Conflicting Selections to Doyon (Halo Lands) (Stevens Village 12(a) and Doyon) Priorities 1- 8 Wild & Scenic River Corridor Doyon Lands to Service Conveyed Vi llagc Lands f'.../ (150,000 acres) in .. ._ ...... ANCSA 12(b) Selections - -c::::J Service Recommended Wilderness Area the exchange. to be Relinquished Remaining 12(b) Selections Service Lands to Doyon (Consolidation Exchange) Produced in the Division of Rea lty - ANCSA 12(b) Selections to be - to be Conveyed to Villages c::= Anchorage, Alaska - Reallocated outside the Refuge - - Doyon Lands to Service (Consolidation Exchange) w- Curren! to: February 12 , 2006 Chapter 2, Proposed Action and Alternatives, contains a detailed description of the proposed action and a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, including a no action (no exchange) alternative. A comparison of the effects of each of these is presented at the end of Chapter 2. 1.2 Need for the Proposed Action 1.2.1 Need for the Proposed Action As a public land management agency, the Service·has an inherent responsibility to consider input, proposals, and requests from the public. The Service's mission, working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants for the continuing benefit of the American people, encourages a cooperative partnership-based approach to natural resource management. When Doyon, a large landowner in several Alaska refuges, approached the Service with a proposal for a fee-title land exchange within the Yukon Flats Refuge, we agreed to objectively consider the proposal to see if we could negotiate an exchange acceptable to both the Refuge and Doyon. We believe that the exchange provisions I_ _j' negotiated with Doyon during development of the Agreement in Principle are mutually beneficial. For many Alaska Native corporations, land exchanges offer the only viable means of consolidating land holdings or obtaining lands more suitable for economic development. Service practice in Alaska has been to accommodate the needs of adjacent landowners if doing so can be accomplished in a way that also benefits the Service. For the Service, land exchanges are a means of adding quality fish and wildlife habitats to the refuge system and simplifying management by consolidating refuge lands into large, contiguous blocks of wildlife habitat. Doyon, a for-profit Native regional corporation, must balance responsible economic development with the need to protect the traditional lifestyle and culture of its Native shareholders. Doyon has a 30-year history of natural resource exploration on its lands and wishes to increase its holdings of lands with oil/gas potential. Doyon currently owns the subsurface estate of about 2.85 million acres within the Yukon Flats basin, much of which is within the Refuge boundary. However, the most promising location for oil/gas exploration is partially under Refuge control. Doyon proposes to exchange lands with the Service as a means of increasing its holdings of lands with oil/gas potential, generating revenue and creating job opportunities through oil/gas exploration and development, and consolidating its land holdings within the Refuge. 1.2.2 Background National wildlife refuges in Alaska are noteworthy for the huge amount of private lands within their boundaries. Alaska's refuges were created to conserve natural habitats and the many species of fish, wildlife, and plants they support. Yet many Alaska refuges are checkered with private lands, the majority under Native corporation ownership. These for profit corporations commonly seek ways to generate revenue and shareholder income while conserving traditional Native culture and lifestyle. One of the quandaries facing the refuge 1-4 2121/2007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives system is finding ways to fulfill our conservation mission without ignoring the needs of neighboring landowners. ANCSA and ANILCA Determined Land Ownership Patterns The current land ownership patterns in Alaska's national wildlife refuges resulted from two significant pieces of land legislation. The first of these settled the land claims of Alaska Natives- more than a century after the United States acquired Alaska. In 1971, following a long and contentious Congressional debate, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act passed into law. Among other things, ANCSA provided that settlement should be made "in conformity with the real economic and social needs of Natives." The Act authorized the establishment of 13 Native regional corporations and more than 200 Native village corporations. Under ANCSA, the corporations received $962.5 million in capital and the right to select 44 million acres of federal land in Alaska. Concurrent with Congressional deliberations to settle Native claims, environmental interests advocated the creation of new conservation areas in Alaska. In response to these interests, Congress passed a second major piece of legislation in 1980. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; P.L. 96-487) created new parks, refuges, and other Conservation System Units (CSUs) and expanded the boundaries of others. The boundaries were roughly drawn along major ecological features, such as watershed boundaries, regardless of existing land ownership patterns. Consequently the boundaries incorporated many lands previously conveyed to, or selected by, Native corporations under the ANCSA provisions. Native Claims Included Quality Habitats Considering the traditional subsistence lifestyle of Alaska Natives, it was predictable that Native land selections would include some of the most productive fish and wildlife habitats in the state. It is not surprising that there is considerable overlap of the lands used and occupied by Natives and lands worthy of protection for conservation purposes. Indeed, more than half of the Native selections and conveyances are located within the current boundaries of the 16 refuges in Alaska. Congress clearly recognized the importapce of preserving the biological integrity of these lands but also intended to provide for the socioeconomic needs of Alaska Natives. The challenge is finding the means to accomplish both. Because of their traditional subsistence lifestyles, many corporation shareholders share a land ethic that is generally consistent with sound resource management. Nevertheless economic pressures usually compel corporations to seek some form of responsible development. Doyon is the Largest Private Landowner in the Yukon Flats Like most Alaska refuges, the Yukon Flats Refuge contains a patchwork of private land (Figure 1-2) that pre-dates the establishment of the Refuge. About 20% of the land within the boundary of the Refuge is Native-owned. The exterior boundaries encompass 11.1 million acres of land and water, including about 2.5 million acres of land owned or selected by Native corporations or tribal governments. Doyon, the Native regional corporation for much of interior Alaska, currently has ownership interests in the surface and subsurface estates of Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 1-5 u Chapter 2-Alternatives 1.15 million acres of land and the subsurface estate of another 782,000 acres. Doyon's holdings will continue to increase as Native land selections are conveyed. Doyon is the largest private landowner in Alaska, with a land entitlement of 12.5 million acres and over 14,000 shareholders. Doyon Selected Oil/Gas Lands Under ANCSA During the ANCSA land selection process in the 1970s, Doyon recognized the importance of selecting lands with oil and gas potential and worked with the village corporations to maximize Native ownership of these lands. However, ANCSA conveyance rules limited the ability of the Native corporations to select all lands with oil and gas development potential within the Yukon Flats basin. The proposed land exchange would enable Doyon to gain title to lands it was unable to obtain under ANCSA. Over the past 30 years, Doyon has entered into a number of exploration ventures to ascertain resource development potential of its current land holdings. Currently, Doyon is promoting oil/gas exploration and development of lands it owns within the Yukon Flats Refuge. However, Doyon's interest in acquiring the proposed exchange lands is unlikely to wane. This area includes some of the deepest parts of the sedimentary basin and demonstrates potential for economically viable quantities of oil/gas. The proposed action would substantially increase the acreage of Doyon's lands with development potential and increase its attractiveness to the oil industry. Oil/gas exploration and development activities could provide a means of generating revenue and increasing job opportunities in the region. Consistency with Service Mission and Refuge Purposes The Service must ensure that any land management action it undertakes, including a land exchange, is consistent with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Refuge purposes specified in the establishing legislation. L.J Section 302(9)(B) of ANILCA specifies that the purposes for establishing and managing the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge include: 1-6 2121/2007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2-Alternatives ... (i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to canvasbacks and other migratory birds, Dall sheep, bears, moose, wolves, wolverines and other forbearers, caribou and salmon; (ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations ofthe United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats; (iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and (iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge. Successfully managing for these purposes depends in part on the cooperation and "buy-in" of the private landowners within the boundary. It is generally in the best interest of resource management to forge working relationships with adjacent landowners and attempt to find mutually beneficial solutions to problems. L.:J 1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action Each party to the proposed exchange has different reasons for pursuing an exchange. The goals of each party are listed below. If the goal was previously identified in another plan or mission statement, the source is identified in parentheses. Indicator measures that will be used to evaluate the responsiveness of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to these goals are provided as well where appropriate. Service goals: r' Work cooperatively with adjacent landowners [National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; 16 USC 668dd(a)(4)(E)] Add quality wildlife habitats to the Yukon Flats Refuge (habitat objective, Yukon Flats Land Protection Plan, pg. 35) Indicator: acres of habitat Consolidate land ownership patterns in the Refuge (land management objective, Yukon i__j Flats Land Protection Plan, pg. 35; andYukon Flats Comprehensive Conservation Plan, pg. XI) Indicator: acres of contiguous lands Increase the total amount of public lands managed for conservation purposes within the Refuge boundaries e acres of land under Service control Yukon Flats EIS 2/2112007 1-7 Chapter 2 -Alternatives n! Doyon goals: Provide economic opportunities for Doyon and its shareholders (economic objective, Mission Statement, Doyon, Limited) Indicator: jobs created and contributions to local economies Create a rural economy that would enable more people to live and work in their traditional villages rather than emigrating to urban centers Indicator: number of local residents employed Consolidate land ownerships in the Yukon Flats basin. Indicator: acres of contiguous lands Environmental Standards. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. As land stewards of the Yukon Flats Refuge, we must ensure that our land management actions will not limit our ability to: Sustain healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plants [16 USC 668ee(4); Yukon Flats Comprehensive Conservation Plan, pg. xi] Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge [16 USC 668dd(a)(4)(B)] Protect Refuge purposes [16 USC 668dd(a)(3)(A)] 1.4 Consistency with Laws, Regulations, Other EISs u 1.4.1 Exchange Authority The Service has broad land exchange authority under several different statutes. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 USC 669d(e)(3)] authorizes the Secretary of Interior (Secretary) to acquire lands through equal-value land exchanges. In Alaska both ANCSA and ANILCA specifically granted broad land exchange authority to the Secretary. Section 22(f) of ANCSA, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to exchange lands or land interests with village or regional corporations, individuals, or the State of Alaska to consolidate land ownerships, or to facilitate management or development. Section 1302(h) of ANILCA authorizes the Secretary to exchange lands or land interests with village or regional corporations, Native groups, urban corporations, other municipalities and corporations or individuals, the state, or any federal agency. Both ANCSA and ANILCA specify that the exchanged lands or interests must be equal in value, unless the Secretary determines it would be in the public interest to proceed with the exchange in spite of unequal values. Service policy requires the approval of the Director of the Fish & Wildlife Service (Director) for acquisition of lands by exchange (342 FW 5). In addition, if the lands being divested or acquired are worth more than $500,000, the exchange proposal must be sent to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for a 30-day review period before the Service is authorized to complete the exchange (Congressional Record H11370, October 19, 1998). 1-8 2/21/2007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives \_j 1.4.2 Title XI of ANILCA Oil and/or gas exploration and development could occur on lands owned by Doyon, with or without a land exchange. Currently, Doyon is promoting exploration on its lands, which includes the subsurface estate of about 2 million acres within the Yukon Flats Refuge. The only overland access to these lands would cross federal lands. To construct a road or pipeline (transportation or utility system or TUS) across federal land, Doyon must obtain a right-of way (ROW) permit under Title XI of ANILCA (43 CFR 36). The Service must provide adequate and feasible access to landowners like Doyon, who are effectively surrounded by Refuge land, but the Service may impose reasonable regulations to protect Refuge resources (ANILCA §1110(b); 43 CFR 36.10). Title XI provides a comprehensive statutory authority for approving these types of ROWs. The process is intended to minimize the adverse impacts of siting these systems on or across CSUs and requires a complete National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis (Sect. 1104 (e); 43 CFR 36.6). The NEPA analysis would require detailed, site-specific information about the location, size, and design of the proposed road and pipeline and would address impacts of the entire project, including the oil field development. Wherever possible, the analysis would reference this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). ll 1.4.3 Other Environmental Impact Statements Proceeding with the proposed exchange would require amending the Wilderness recommendation in a previous EIS document, the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and Wilderness Review (CCP; USFWS 1987). The Refuge CCP was developed by an interdisciplinary team following a thorough public review process. It provides long-range management direction and guidance for the Refuge and recommends Wilderness designation for about 658,000 acres of Refuge land in the White Mountains and the Crazy Mountains along the southern boundary (CCP; page 167). The proposed land exchange would trade about 26,000 acres of these lands to Doyon. Although the Wilderness recommendation was presented nearly 20 years ago, the U.S. Department of Interior (DOl) has taken no steps to complete the designation process. These additional steps would include a Secretarial recommendation, an Act of Congress, and the President's approval. Although these lands have no official designation, the signed decision to recommend them as Wilderness is binding under the current CCP. If the Service chooses to exchange some of these lands, the Record of Decision (ROD) for this EIS would include an amendment to the CCP. The CCP also addresses oil and gas development on Refuge lands. Current management direction does not allow oil and gas leasing and associated development. The CCP stipulates that future oil leasing could occur on non-Wilderness Refuge lands on! y if the Secretary of Interior determines it to be in the national interest and the Service determines that oil u development is compatible with the purposes of the Refuge (CCP; page 169). Any future oil development activities on Refuge lands would require amending the CCP. Private lands within the Refuge boundaries do not have similar constraints and may be developed at the landowner discretion, in accordance with existing state and federal laws and regulations. The proposed exchange would transfer ownership of some of the most prospective areas of the Refuge to private ownership. Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 1-9 Chapter 2 -Alternatives r·) The proposed exchange is consistent with other management direction provided in the CCP (CCP; page xi). For instance, the CCP directs the Refuge to: (1) work with Native corporations on the use and development of village lands, and to (2) explore land exchanges as a means of facilitating management and protecting fish and wildlife habitats. 1.4.4 Submerged Lands The proposed exchange area includes nearly 33,000 acres of ponds, lakes, and portions of streams and rivers. About 42% of the submerged lands beneath these water bodies belong to the State of Alaska or private landowners and would be excluded from the exchange. In general, ownership of submerged lands depends on whether the water body is navigable, I~ using criteria based on long-established federal case law. If the water body is "non navigable," the upland landowner(s) owns the bed of the water. If the water body is "navigable," the State of Alaska owns the submerged lands, unless withdrawn and reserved by the United States before statehood. Submerged lands beneath navigable waters were granted to the state at statehood by the provisions of the Equal Footing Doctrine (Pollard v. Hagen, 44 U.S. 212), the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 USC 1301 et seq.), and the Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 (72 Statute 339). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the federal agency authorized to convey public lands to ANCSA corporations, Native allottees, and other private landowners. For the purposes of these conveyances, the acreage of land beneath lakes of SO acres or more, rivers 198 feet or more in width, and all navigable bodies of water are excluded from the total acreage tally. Even though the acreage is not charged against the entitlement, the landowner may own all or part of the submerged lands provided the water body is non-navigable. These land/water boundary survey standards are not unique to Alaska; the BLM applies these same standards to conveyances throughout the United States (BLMManual of Survey 1973). Whenever the BLM conveys lands, it must also determine whether any associated water bodies meet navigability criteria. If navigable, the submerged lands (below ordinary high u water) belong to the state. If not, the adjoining upland landowner(s) owns the submerged lands to a stream's mid-line, a lake's mid-point, or the entire bed if the upland landowner 1-, owns all the adjacent land. In May 2006, we asked the BLM to research and prepare navigability determinations for all water bodies on federal lands within the proposed exchange area. Previously, the BLM had made navigability determinations for all water bodies on lands conveyed to Doyon from the public domain. The BLM completed navigability determinations for all other water bodies in the exchange area during the spring and summer of 2006. The beds of all navigable water bodies belong to the state and would be excluded from the proposed exchange. Also excluded would be the beds of non-navigable water bodies belonging to Native allottees. In total the BLM determined that about 14,035 acres of submerged lands belong to third party interests and would be excluded from the exchange. The BLM's navigability determinations are administrative decisions that could be challenged in a federal court of law. If ownership of submerged land is contested, the issue can be resolved through quiet-title actions in federal courts or by Recordable-Disclaimer-of-Interest- 1-10 2/2112007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives in-Land decisions by the DOL A Recordable Disclaimer of Interest is a legal document stating that the United States has no ownership interests in the land in question. 1.5 Decisions to be Made The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Director, Alaska Region, must decide whether or not to proceed with a land exchange with Doyon. This EIS will provide the Director with an analysis of the environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Action, two action alternatives, and a no action (no exchange) alternative, and will compare the potential impacts of implementing each alternative. The action alternatives differ in the acreage and types of land interests (i.e., fee title or conservation easements) that would be exchanged. If the Director decides to proceed with an exchange, he must also decide on the scope and extent of the exchange, including stipulations or mitigation measures necessary to protect Refuge resources. No sooner than 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final EIS, the Service will prepare a ROD. The ROD will include: An explanation of the decision, including a discussion of the factors that influenced the decision A summary of the alternatives Necessary mitigation measures or an explanation of why mitigation measures were not adopted If the Regional Director decides to proceed with the exchange, the exchange could proceed only if both parties agree to the terms of the exchange. Either party could terminate the exchange agreement if they believe it is in their best interests to do so. 1.6 Cooperating Agencies The BLM is a cooperating agency for the project in accordance with NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1508.26. Cooperating agencies either have discretionary authority, jurisdiction by law, or special expertise. The BLM has technical expertise in oil and gas exploration and development and is responsible for managing the subsurface mineral estate of most federal lands (Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 30 USC 181-262; and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, 30 USC 351-359). The BLM also administers lands adjacent to the Refuge boundary that could potentially be affected by future development on the proposed exchange lands. 1.7 Public Involvement, Scoping, and Significant Issues 1.7.1 Public Involvement: Pre-scoping In the 2 years preceding release of the Agreement in Principle, Doyon leadership and staff met with village Tribal leaders and village corporation board members to discuss the Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 1-11 Chapter 2 -Alternatives proposed land exchange and solicit input that could be used to negotiate an agreement that addressed local concerns (Mery, pers. comm. 2006). In late 2004 Doyon held the first of three Fairbanks-based meetings with Yukon Flats Tribal leaders to discuss the proposed exchange, focusing on local economic opportunities. On November 22, 2004, the Service released the Agreement in Principle to the public. Three months later, the Service released the Evaluation and Review of a Proposed Land Exchange and Acquisition ofNative Lands (USFWS 2005), a document that explored the management implications and potential environmental impacts of the proposed exchange. The Service, in collaboration with Doyon, solicited input on the proposed exchange by placing notices in the principal daily newspapers in Anchorage and Fairbanks, issuing two joint Doyon-Service news releases to Alaska media offices, distributing a newsletter, posting information on the Service's Alaska web site, and by holding public meetings. The Service scheduled meetings in Anchorage, Arctic Village, Beaver, Birch Creek, Central, Chalkyitsik, Circle, Fairbanks, Fort Yukon, Stevens Village, and Venetie during the months of January through March 2005 and received 7,810 comments during a 6-month comment period. We received comments in person, by electronic mail (e-mail), standard mail, or facsimile. The majority (6,866) were submitted by email, including 6,737 e-mail messages generated by a Wilderness Society "action alert." Major issues identified during pre-scoping were: Would the exchange conflict with Refuge purposes or the Service mission to conserve fish and wildlife habitats? How would oil and gas development affect the Yukon Flats basin and the environment in general? How would the proposed exchange affect local communities and subsistence resources and opportunities? How would the proposed exchange affect special designation areas such as the recommended wilderness area, the Beaver Creek Wild River, and the White Mountains National Recreation Area? Is there enough information (land appraisals, biological data) to make an informed decision about the proposed exchange? How would the proposed exchange affect local, state, and national economies? • Should Doyon, or any Native corporation, sell or trade Alaska Native lands? Would the exchange simplify management and increase the amount of lands conserved for wildlife? 1-12 2/2112007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives To address these and other concerns, Doyon and others urged the Service to prepare an EIS to evaluate the impacts of the proposed exchange. Although NEP A compliance is not legally required for land exchanges conducted under the provisions of ANCSA and ANILCA, the Service agreed to evaluate the proposed exchange through the EIS process. 1.7.2 Public Involvement: Scoping The Service began the EIS process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on October 19,2005. The NOI summarized the major issues, the Agreement in Principle, and draft alternatives. A separate notice published on March 3, 2006, announced our plans to hold open-house scoping meetings in nine local villages and listed the date, time, and venue of meetings 'u scheduled for Anchorage and Fairbanks. Scheduling mid-winter meetings in remote Alaska villages is highly dependent on local weather conditions and other village commitments and activities. Because these schedules were likely to change, we did not publish dates and times in the Federal Register. Instead, we announced village meetings in a project newsletter sent to all village box holders and mail-list recipients and distributed flyers to Tribal offices one week prior to the meeting date. We advertised the meetings through the local media by issuing a news release and publishing meeting announcements in the Anchorage Daily News and Fairbanks Daily News Miner. The day before each meeting, announcements were broadcast three times over a local radio station (KZPA 900 AM Fort Yukon, KUAC 88.9 FM Fairbanks, or 91.1 FM Anchorage). The stations repeated the broadcast twice on the day of the meeting. The Anchorage radio station could not guarantee the announcement would be broadcast, but they did publish the meeting announcement on their on-line calendar of events. The Refuge Manager and EIS Project Coordinator also participated in a call-in radio show on KZPA 900 AM Fort Yukon sponsored by the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG). During the scoping period, February 23 to April15, 2006, we received a total of 164 submissions from which 770 individual comments were extracted. We received oral comments at public meetings or recorded on a toll-free phone line, and written comments through the U.S. mail, or submitted electronically from the project web site. The majority of the comments were oral (51%), followed by written comments received by mail (24%). More information about the scoping process is available in the Scoping Summary Report (ENSR 2006) and the Scoping Newsletter. Both are posted on the project website, http:// yukonflatseis.ensr.com. 1.7.3 Key Issues During the scoping process, we identified a number of issues that are analyzed in detail in this EIS. Most of the public comments focused on the potential impacts of oil/gas development in Li the Yukon Flats Refuge rather than on the land exchange itself. Because Doyon is promoting oil/gas development on their current land holdings within the Refuge, we must consider the impacts of development under both the exchange and no action alternatives. Specifically, we address how the proposed land exchange and a range of reasonable alternatives could affect: Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 1-13 Chapter 2 -Alternatives f I JIJIBBJlllfiBr&MRIBJJ~ fish and wildlife wetlands and aquatic habitats physical environment (water quality and quantity, hydrology, air quality, climate) subsistence cultural/archeological resources socioeconomics refuge purposes, integrity, and biodiversity land use (including special designation areas, recreation, visual resources) environmental justice (including human health) The relevant issues are briefly described below. Following each description, we list indicators (measures) that we use to measure the present and future predicted condition of the resource (to be added on/around February 22). Chapter 2 contains a table that summarizes and compares the alternatives and their potential effects. r~,, ' ' Fish and Wildlife. A primary purpose of the Refuge is conserving fish and wildlife populations in their natural diversity. The proposed exchange would increase the amount of Refuge land managed for fish and wildlife conservation. However, a common concern identified during scoping was that subsequent oil field development might have detrimental effects on local fish and wildlife populations. There is concern that increased human activity, noise levels, oil spills, and infrastructure (production facilities, roads, pipelines) could affect the health, distribution, migration patterns, or population size of species using the Refuge. Wetlands and Aquatic Habitats. The Yukon Flats wetlands are highly productive and biologically diverse systems. In addition to supplying important habitat for fish and wildlife, wetlands provide multiple ecological functions. Wetlands function as natural sponges, storing water and releasing it slowly. This reduces erosion and flood heights, and facilitates ground water recharge. Wetlands also serve as filtration systems. Suspended sediments, nutrients, and pollutants settle to the wetland floor where they can be absorbed by plant roots, broken down by microorganisms, or simply adhere to soil particles. The vast network of wetlands in the Yukon Flats stores and filters a tremendous amount of water. Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) directs federal agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance their natural and beneficial values. The proposed exchange would increase the amount of wetland acres under Refuge management. However, there is concern that oil/gas development or oil spills could degrade wetlands by altering the hydrology of the area or increasing pollution loads beyond filtration capacities. Some local residents are concerned that pollutants would enter rivers and streams and be carried far from their source. Others believe that increased water consumption at production facilities would exacerbate a drying trend on the Refuge. 1-14 212112007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives Physical Environment. The physical environment of the Yukon Flats Refuge is largely unaltered from historical conditions and supports healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plants. Yukon Flats residents depend on this relatively pristine environment for their subsistence needs. Some local residents are concerned that oil/gas development, related infrastructure, or subsequent oil spills would affect air quality, climate, water quality or L.J quantity, or hydrological processes. Others are concerned that development in one area would lead to satellite developments and a "spider-web" of connecting roads and pipelines that could fragment habitats and alter natural fire regimes (through increased suppression), the natural hydrological regime, or other physical processes. Subsistence. The residents of the Yukon Flats engage in a variety of subsistence activities, including hunting, fishing, trapping, berry picking, and gathering plants and fire wood. Subsistence is a way of life in these communities and is vital to the preservation of tribal cultures and economies. Some residents feel that the land exchange would have negligible impacts on subsistence resources and the subsistence way of life. However, many others are concerned about the potential for increased pollutants and questioned how these might affect the health of fish or animal populations or contaminate the food chain. Others fear that development might bring an influx of outsiders to the area, increasing competition for subsistence resources. Some residents argue that the best way to protect subsistence resources is to keep land under Native control and avoid any loss of Native lands (through sale or exchange). Cultural/Archeological Resources. Federal laws (National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979) require agencies to consider the effects of their actions on significant cultural resources and archaeological and historic sites. The Service is committed to protecting these resources on any lands acquired through purchase or exchange. However, there may be potential for future oil/gas development or "artifact hunting" by oil field employees to lead to increased disturbance of local historical, cultural, or archeological sites on lands Doyon would acquire in the exchange. Socioeconomics. The communities in the Yukon Flats support a mixed subsistence/cash economy. Most residents rely on hunting, fishing, and gathering to obtain food and materials for their own use or to share with others. Many local residents question how an oil/gas development project on the exchange lands would affect the local economy and the traditional Native way of life. Some think future development would provide long-term social and economic benefits to local communities and help preserve their way of life. Others ,---, are concerned that the benefits would be short-term, would not be realized at a local level, or would come at a high cost in terms of social impacts or health issues. Refuge Integrity, Biodiversity, and Purposes. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended, clearly states that conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats is the fundamental mission of the Refuge System. The Act directs the Service to maintain the biological integrity and diversity of the refuge system for the benefit of present and future generations. Each refuge is managed to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System, as well as the specific purposes for which that refuge was established. All our actions should be guided by these directives. Some commenters questioned how the proposed action would affect our ability to fulfill our mandates and protect the less tangible u Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 1-15 Chapter 2 -Alternatives values of the Refuge. Some are concerned that the exchange would split the Refuge into two discontinuous halves, separated by a large contiguous block of private land. They question how this might affect the Yukon Flats ecosystem. Some are concerned that the exchange would lead to more development on other private parcels, increase habitat fragmentation, and lower biodiversity. Land Use. The proposed action could significantly change land uses in the area. Some of the exchange lands are adjacent to the Beaver Creek Wild River corridor and the White Mountains National Recreation Area. If Doyon subsequently develops the exchange parcel, an access corridor potentially could be constructed across the National Recreation Area. In addition, the proposed action would trade about 26,000 acres of land the Service recommended for Wilderness designation in 1987. Some people question how future development, including roads and pipelines, might affect these areas. Some of the concerns include noise and visual impacts, disrupted animal movement patterns (especially moose and Dall sheep), habitat fragmentation, increased pollution potential, and the loss of Wilderness values. Vegetation. Seismic exploration could require clearing some vegetation; oil field development would result in more disturbance. There is some concern that removing vegetation to build infrastructure, or periodically controlling vegetation along roads or pipelines, could increase erosion, alter drainage patterns, or affect rare or sensitive plants or subsistence foods. Others question how dust from a dirt road would affect the surrounding vegetation. Environmental Justice. Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to assess whether their actions would have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Some Yukon Flats residents are concerned that pollutants from oil and gas development might ultimately affect human health. Some are concerned that diminished air or water quality would increase the rates of asthma, cancer, or upper respiratory disease. Others believe oil development would lead to an increased contaminant load in the subsistence food base, ultimately creating human health problems. 1.7.4 Issues Not Analyzed in Detail Several issues identified during scoping will not be considered in detail in this EIS. A full list of these issues is included in the Scoping Summary Report (ENSR 2006) posted on the project website, http://yukonflatseis.ensr.com. In general, these issues were either outside of the scope of this EIS, outside of the Service's jurisdiction, or were general opinions of the proposed project, the Service, or the government. 1.8 Federal/State Permits and Approvals Required to Implement the Land Exchange If approved by the Director, the proposed land exchange could proceed without additional I~ federal or state permits under the exchange authorities provided by the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, ANCSA, and ANILCA. However, an exchange of this magnitude (land values exceeding $500,000) requires a 30-day Congressional review. 1-16 2/21/2007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives II 'i The Service is not required to prepare Compatibility Determinations for land exchanges. By regulation (50 CFR 25.12) and policy (603 FW 2.10 A), the Service requires a Compatibility Determination before permitting a new or expanded use of a refuge, but not for refuge management activities. Management activities are actions the Service takes to accomplish refuge purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. The proposed land L_ J exchange is a refuge management activity, not a refuge use, so a refuge Compatibility Determination is not required. ll Although no permits are required, the proposed exchange would be subject to the various compliance requirements discussed below. 1.8.1 Executive Orders Several Executive Orders (EOs) that lack specific permit requirements must be considered when a federal agency proposes an action. The President of the United States has issued the r1 following EOs that would apply to the proposed exchange. EO 11988 and EO 11990 direct federal agencies to minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of floodplains and wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial value of floodplains and wetlands on federal lands. EO 12898 directs federal agencies to assess whether their actions have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. EO 13175 directs federal agencies to consult with affected Tribal governments for any action that has substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes. EO 13007 directs federal agencies to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of Indian sacred sites and to accommodate access and ceremonial use of sacred sites. EO 13112 directs federal agencies to take no action they believe is likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive (non-native) species, unless the benefits of the action clearly outweigh potential harm, and there are no feasible or prudent alternatives. EO 23212 directs federal agencies to expedite their review of permits or take other actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of energy-related projects, while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protection. 1.8.2 Cultural Resources Compliance Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800 requires federal agencies to consider the effects their actions may have on cultural resources. The proposed exchange would transfer federal lands into private ownership, possibly affecting the cultural resources on those lands. The regulations require a five-step review process, which includes: Identify and evaluate historic properties Yukon Flats EIS 2/2112007 1-17 Chapter 2-Alternatives Assess impacts Consult on mitigation measures Obtain comments from NHPA's Advisory Council Proceed with project On January 19, 2005, the Service initiated consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) who governs compliance with Section 106 regulations. A cultural resource inventory was completed on xxxx, 2006. The completed report was provided to the SHPO on xxx, 2006. The Consultation process ... (to be completed when we have the results of the cultural resources study). 1.8.3 Subsistence Evaluation Section 810 of ANILCA requires federal agencies to evaluate the effects on subsistence uses and needs when deciding whether to dispose of public lands in Alaska. If the action would significantly restrict subsistence uses, the agency must hold public hearings in the affected communities and seek ways to minimize the adverse impacts. Before proceeding, the agency must determine that the subsistence restriction is necessary and that the action is consistent with sound management principles and would involve the least amount of public land possible. The ANILCA 810 Subsistence Evaluation for the proposed exchange is included in Appendix B. 1.8.4 Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [MSA; 16 USC 1855 (b)] requires federal agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce (delegated to NOAA Fisheries) on any action, or proposed action, which may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). The Service initiated consultation with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries on xx .... (to be continued ....) 1.9 Federal/State Permits and Approvals Required for Exploration and Development Activities Any subsequent oil/gas exploration, development, and infrastructure construction would require additional state and federal permits. Doyon or its agents would be responsible for obtaining all permits and approvals necessary for any exploration, construction, and production activities. Many of the required permits and approvals stem from two major statutes, the Clean Water Act and the Clear Air Act. The following is a brief discussion of some applicable regulations and required permits; a more thorough list is presented in Appendix C. 1.9.1 The Clean Water Act Oil and/or gas exploration or development activities affecting state waters or wetlands would be subject to a number of permits. Regulations promulgating the Clean Water Act have 1-18 2121/2007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives resulted in permitting requirements administered by both state and federal agencies. Under Section 404 of the Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requires a permit to discharge fill material in water and wetlands. Constructing gravel drill pads, roads, airstrips, or other structures in wetland areas would require a 404 permit. Applicants must identify the type and extent of wetlands affected, describe anticipated impacts, and devise mitigation i __ j measures. A state agency, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), certifies that the 404 permit issued by USACE meets state water quality standards. The EPA issues National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits required by the Clean Water Act. This permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into surface waters. Any discharge of effluent (e.g., drilling fluids, cooling water, wastewater, etc.) into surface waters, including wetlands, requires a permit. Applicants must describe existing water quality, the amount of water required for the project, expected pollutants and their concentrations, and the quality and locations of wastewater treatment facilities and discharges. The EPA also administers a number of other Clean Water Act mandates, although the permits are issued by the ADEC. These include permits for Waste Water Authorization, Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans, Storm Water Discharge, and Underground Injection Authorizations. 1.9.2 The Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act provides the framework for national and state efforts to protect air quality. The EPA sets nationwide limits for air pollutants, but states may adopt stricter standards, if they choose, and are generally responsible for issuing permits. In Alaska, the ADEC issues Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permits. PSD permits are required during construction to ensure that air quality does not degrade beyond minimum standards needed to protect public health and welfare. After operations commence, facilities must secure a Title V Operating Permit if they are a major generator of air pollution. This permit is intended to reduce violations and improve enforcement of air pollution laws by requiring pollution sources to report how they track and control emissions and to certify on a yearly basis that they are meeting permit requirements. The permits and the monitoring information are available for public review. 1.9.3 Other State Permits and Approvals The ADEC is responsible for issuing several other permits and approvals for oil and gas exploration and development activities, including the storage and transport of oil, temporary drilling waste storage, and cleanup of spills. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) requires a water use permit if surface or well water is required to support drilling and production activities. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) requires a Fish Habitat Permit if a road or pipeline crosses a stream important to spawning, rearing, or migrating anadromous fish species, or any stream that supports resident fish species. The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) requires a permit to drill for oil or gas anywhere in Alaska, including privately owned land. The AOGCC oversees the use of appropriate equipment and practices to maintain well control, protect groundwater, avoid Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 1-19 Chapter 2 -Alternatives 'l r-1 !"I L_j waste of oil or gas, and promote efficient reservoir development. The AOGCC is responsible for reviewing and approving production, injection, and disposal plans for exploration and development activities. 1.9.4 Other Federal Permits and Approvals Constructing a road, pipeline, or other transportation or utility system across the Refuge or adjacent BLM land (the White Mountain National Recreation Area or Steese National Conservation Area) would require a Title XI Right-of-Way Permit (43 CFR 36). The Title XI process, which is intended to minimize the adverse impacts of siting these systems on or across CSUs, would require a complete NEPA analysis (Sect. 1104 (e); 43 CFR 36.6) to analyze the site-specific impacts of the road and/or pipeline and oil field development. 1.10 Organization ofthe EIS The format and content of this EIS was guided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service NEPA handbook. The EIS consists of the following chapters: 1.0. Purpose of and Need for Action Summarizes the purpose and need for the proposed action, the major issues, and the decisions to be made 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives Describes and compares the proposed action and reasonable alternatives. Lists alternatives considered but rejected from detailed analysis. 3.0 Affected Environment Describes the current condition of relevant resources in the project area and establishes the baseline for comparing the predicted effects of the alternatives. 4.0 Environmental Consequences Analytically predicts and compares the consequences of implementing each alternative. The predictions include the direct, indirect, short term, long term, irreversible, irretrievable, and cumulative effects of each alternative. 5.0 Consultation and Coordination Documents compliance with consultation requirements and lists public comments and agency responses. 1-20 2121/2007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives Cha ltcr 2: Pro losed Action and Alternatives 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.1 Introduction This chapter presents the alternatives considered by the Service for the proposed land exchange and includes the following: A discussion of how alternatives were developed for the land exchange LJ A detailed description of the proposed action- Yukon Flats Land Exchange Descriptions of alternatives to the proposed action that were considered in detail v- Descriptions of alternatives considered but excluded from further detailed analysis A comparative assessment of the responsiveness of alternatives to project goals • A comparison of the effects of the alternatives ~--- 2.2 Development of Alternatives Details of the Proposed Action were developed by the Service in negotiation with Doyon as described below. The Service shared these details with the public and other interested parties in the pre-scoping effort, which yielded the issues and concerns listed in Section 1.7.1. The Service subsequently developed two action alternatives to the Proposed Action and a No Action Alternative in response to these pre-scoping issues raised during the pre-scoping and scoping efforts, and in light of the Refuge CCP, the Service and Doyon goals identified in Section 1.3, and the stated purpose and need for the land exchange. These alternatives were presented to the public and other interested parties in public scoping meetings, newsletters, consultations, and other scoping documents. The interdisciplinary team responsible for preparing this EIS reviewed the alternatives and determined that they represented a range of reasonable alternatives. No new alternatives were developed as a result of scoping; however, we modified the Proposed Action slightly based on comments received during scoping meetings. A member of the public identified land to the east of, and adjacent to, the Yukon River near Circle as the site of a historical settlement known as 22 Mile Village. This land was originally included in the Proposed Action as some of the exchange lands that could be transferred from Doyon ownership to Federal ownership during Phase II. This parcel of land was subsequently removed from the lists of lands that could be exchanged under the Proposed Action and any Action Alternative. With the exception of the parcel containing 22 Mile Village, the alternatives presented below are the same as those presented during the scoping process. The range of alternatives considered in detail includes the Proposed Action, two Action Alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Two additional alternatives were suggested during scoping and received some consideration by the Service, but they were excluded from further detailed analysis. Information about these alternatives and the reasons for their exclusion from further analysis are given in Section 2.4. Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 2-1 Chapter 2 -Alternatives 2.2.1 Negotiation History In November 1993 Doyon and the Refuge began discussions about an exchange in land interests. Doyon contacted the Service and suggested exchanging a noncompetitive oil and gas lease on Refuge lands for conservation easements or restrictive covenants on Native lands. In December 1993 the Service responded and acknowledged that a large percentage of important fish and wildlife habitat within the Refuge boundary is under Native ownership. The Service also identified the legal, regulatory, and policy issues that would need to be addressed before reaching an agreement. The Service was unsure about the long-term (_ __) benefits of acquiring conservation easements. However, there was interest in acquiring fee title interest to important wetland habitats. At this time it was not clear exactly how the .-~, Service would benefit from a land exchange . L_.J In April1995 Doyon submitted a formal "management partnership" proposal to the Service (Doyon 1995). This proposal, while based on discussions held in 1993, further refined how a land exchange would benefit both parties. The proposal stated that: " .. .in return for the conservation easements and other habitat protection tools by Doyon, the USFWS [Service] would grant noncompetitive oil and gas leases on refuge lands adjacent to and in the vicinity of Doyon lands. The leases would be similar to those for federal uplands for which Doyon would pay a production royalty and would be of limited duration." At this time the Service asked the DOl Solicitor's Office to review the proposal. The review was completed in May 1997, and in January 1998 the Service responded. The response stated that: (1) oil and gas leasing and development were not consistent with the selected management alternative in the Refuge CCP, and (2) noncompetitive oil and gas leases could not be issued under the authority of the Minerals Leasing Act of 1920; however, the Service could exchange interests in land. The response also stated that to justify such an exchange, the Service must: (1) acquire lands (or interests therein) that were consistent with the purposes for which the Refuge was established, and (2) the exchanged land interests must be of equal value. The Service's response concluded, "we would certainly be interested in considering any such proposal that is both in the public interest and consistent with the purposes for which the Yukon Flats Refuge was established." In December 1999 Doyon asked the DOl to consider a competitive oil and gas lease sale within the Refuge, under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. In January 2000 the Service responded and stated that the Refuge CCP does not allow for oil and gas leasing on the Refuge. The CCP would need to be amended before a lease could be issued and oil and gas leasing and development determined to be compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established. The Service response also stated it was unlikely that any large-scale development activities on Refuge lands would be determined to be compatible as they would negatively impact wildlife habitats. In November 2002 the Service and Doyon began discussions that led to the Agreement in Principle. A number of key differences exist between these negotiations and the earlier proposals from Doyon: 1. Doyon offered the government fee title ownership of quality wetland habitats. 2-2 212112007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives L_j 11 2. Doyon is willing to exchange fee title ownership (both surface and subsurface estates), ensuring development activities occur on Doyon's lands, not on Refuge lands. Therefore, a determination that oil and gas development is compatible with the purposes of the Refuge will not be required. 3. Doyon is willing to reallocate 56,517 acres of remaining ANCSA 12(b) entitlements outside the Refuge. 4. Doyon is willing to mitigate oil/gas development impacts by: (a) selling about 120,000 u acres of additional land to the United States; (b) increasing production payments from 1.25% to 1.5%, if access is through the Refuge; and (c) transferring to the United States one section of Doyon land for every linear mile of access corridor across the Refuge. A facilitator from the Conservation Fund was invited to attend negotiation meetings and suggested alternative approaches when the negotiators were unable to reach an agreement. In 2004 the Service and Doyon reached agreement. After public meetings held in early 2005 raised a number of concerns that were not considered in detail in the Evaluation and Review document (USFWS 2005), the Service and Doyon agreed to go through the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. 2.2.2 Exchange Land Prioritization A total of 123 townships (representing about 2.8 million acres) within the Refuge boundaries have been selected by, or conveyed to, Doyon or a Village Corporation; 57 townships are conveyed to Doyon, 42 are conveyed to village corporations, and 24 are selected by (not yet conveyed to) corporations. For the purpose of identifying which Doyon lands the Service would consider in exchange for the Refuge lands that Doyon was interested in, the Service prioritized all123 townships based on their wildlife habitat value. The existing Refuge Land Protection Plan identified high, medium, and low land protection priorities on private lands within the Refuge; however, other information was available that allowed a more detailed ranking system to be developed. The biological and physical measures used by the Service to assess the wildlife habitat value of the Doyon lands, and to prioritize them for acquisition, are described below. 1. Biological Measures Two biological data sets were available for all123 townships: the results of multiple years of (1) waterfowl breeding pair surveys and (2) trumpeter swan surveys. The Service used these two data sets to evaluate the biological resource values of each township as the Refuge was established primarily to conserve significant waterfowl habitats. The densities (birds per acre) of dabbling ducks, diving ducks, swans, and other waterbirds (primarily grebes, loons, and shorebirds) surveyed in each township were calculated for each of the 123 townships and summed to establish a biological rank. All 123 townships were then prioritized based on these biological ranks. Yukon Flats EIS 2/2112007 2-3 Chapter 2 -Alternatives u u 2. Physical Measures Wetland habitats are some of the most productive wildlife habitats in the Yukon Flats and digital hydrography data were available for all123 townships. The Service therefore used the following four physical measures to rank acquisition priorities: (1) number of lakes within \__ _j the township, (2) number of acres of lakes within the township, (3) number of miles of streams within the township, and (4) number of acres of the Yukon River (if within the township). Quantifying these abiotic factors gave a relative measure of riparian habitat, an important biotic factor. Each of the physical measures was given equal weight and the total l~J scores were summed for each township. All 123 townships were prioritized based on their physical rank. 3. Final Acquisition Priorities ' I '--' The biological and physical rankings were combined and an overall rank was established for each of the 123 townships. However, the Service used other important considerations to influence selection of the highest priority townships. Questions that were used to help make these decisions included: Was the township owned by Doyon? Was Doyon willing to make this township available for exchange or purchase? Would acquiring the township provide the Refuge with a large contiguous block of habitat? Was the township adjacent to other Refuge lands? Were there other special values within the township, such as important fish spawning areas? The Service identified 15 high priority parcels to be included in the exchange. These parcels were rated from 1 to 15, with 1 being the highest priority. The final priorities reflected both the biological/physical ranking process and best professional judgment of Service staff and identified the lands that would contribute most to Refuge purposes. Figure 1-2 shows the exchange lands marked with their priority ranking. If both phases of the exchange are "'! completed, the Service will acquire many of the high-priority fish and wildlife habitats identified on Doyon's lands. 2.2.3 Equal Value Land Exchange Sections 1302(h) of ANILCA and 22(f) of ANCSA authorize the Secretary of Interior to exchange lands or interests in lands with village and regional corporations, individuals, or the State to consolidate land ownerships, or to facilitate management or development of the land. i! The exchanged lands must be equal in value unless the Secretary determines it is in the public interest, in which case the exchange may be made for other than equal value. The provisions permit the addition of cash to the exchange by either party in order to make the exchange be of equal value. Any land exchange between Doyon and the Service will be of equal value. The value of exchange lands will be "fair market value" as determined by an independent appraisal of all potential exchange lands conducted according to the Uniform Appraisal ll, 2-4 212112007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 ~Alternatives [_j Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (ILAC 2000). The appraisal will be conducted by the DOl Appraisal Services Directorate in the summer/fall of 2007, with a final report due in 2008. Acreages involved in the land exchange will be adjusted as needed based on the appraisal. 2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail The following section details the Proposed Action and the three alternatives developed by the interdisciplinary team. Descriptions of each alternative are found in Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.4, followed by a summary and comparison table in Section 2.3.5. 2.3.1 Proposed Action - Agreement in Principle The Agreement between Doyon and the Service would provide Doyon title to lands within the Refuge that may hold developable oil and gas resources. In exchange, the Service would receive lands characterized as quality habitat for fish and wildlife. Under the terms of the Agreement, the proposed exchange would proceed in two Phases. Key features of each Phase of the Agreement are listed below: Phase I o{the Proposed Action Doyon would receive from the Service 110,000 acres (surface and subsurface) that may have developable oil and gas resources (core lands identified in Figure 2-1). Doyon would receive from the Service 97,000 acres of subsurface oil and gas interests (halo lands identified in Figure 2-1) that surround the core lands. No surface occupancy for oil and gas development would be allowed on these lands. The Service would receive from Doyon a certain amount of land with quality fish and wildlife habitats that is equal in value to the core and halo lands identified above. The amount is estimated for impact assessment purposes at 150,000 acres (indicated in Figure 2-1) but will be adjusted based on land values established by the appraisal. Any additional lands required to make the exchange equal in value will be selected by the Service based on the priorities established by the Service and indicated in Figure 1-2. Doyon would reallocate remaining ANCSA 12(b) land selections (56,517 acres) outside Refuge boundaries (Figure 2-1). Doyon would retain a subsistence easement on lands conveyed to the Service. To protect public access, the Service would reserve a 1-mile-wide public use easement along the segment of Beaver Creek (Figure 2-1) that flows through the core lands that would be received by Doyon. i.J • Both parties would exchange additional lands to consolidate ownerships and facilitate land management. This exchange would be on an acre-for-acre basis and would include up to u 132,000 acres by each party. The locations of these lands are indicated in Figure 2-2. The status of lands within the Refuge after completion of Phase I is indicated in Figure 2-3. Yukon Flats EIS 2121/2007 2-5 Chapter 2 -Alternatives 10 20 ... ~F\atsNWR 10 20 30 K.ilometen; Service Oil & Gas Interests , ,:J~Foi•nh Conveyed Village Lands o::o't"' rage to Doyon (Halo Lands) Conflicting Selections (Stevens Village 12(a) and Doyon) Doyon Lands to Service ANCSA 12(b) Selections to be \ · .. -...... ~ - Reallocated outside the Refuge IV Service Recommended-wilderness area ANCSA 12(b) Selections to - be Relinquished Remaining 12(b) Selections flrod.occd in the Division of Realty Wild & Scenic River Corridor .ti Anchorage, Alaska IV Yukon Flats NWR - to be Conveyed to Villages Current to: February 15, 2007 v 7.5 15 22.5 Miles 14 21 Kilometers Doyon Oil & Gas Interests Conveyed Doyon Lands Wild & Scenic River Corridor Service Surface Rights (Halo) - Doyon Lands to Service - Conveyed Village Lands Service Recommended Wilderness Area .· ...... - Remaining 12(b) Selections - Selected Village Lands Produced in lhe Division of Reali)' to be Conveyed to Villages ;., Anchorage, Alaska 1 . ~. Currcnllo: February 12, 2006 u 7.5 15 22 ,5 Miles Doyon Oil & Gas Interests Conveyed Doyon Lands Conflicting Selections 14 21 Kilometers Service Surface Rights (Halo Lands) (Stevens Village 12(a) and Doyon) Remaining 12(b) Selections - Conveyed Village Lands /"-.../ Wild & Scenic River Corridor to be Conveyed to Villages - - Yukon Flats NWR - Selected Village Lands c:::J Service Recommended Wilderness Area Produced in the Division or Real ty Anchorage, Alaska ~ Current to: February 12, 2006 Phase II o{the Proposed Action If Doyon locates and produces oil and/or gas resources on the lands acquired in Phase I, then certain mitigations would be required: The Service would receive a 1.25% production payment generated from any oil and gas production on lands received by Doyon in the exchange. The Service could use these funds to buy additional land from willing sellers or to construct Refuge facilities. Doyon would sell up to 120,000 acres more of its land holdings in the Refuge to the Service. These lands are indicated in Figure 2-4. The status of lands within the Refuge after completion of Phase II is indicated in Figure 2-5. Produced oil and/or gas would have to be transported to market by pipeline. Two probable pipeline routes to the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline have been identified. Depending on the route selected, Doyon would file an application with the BLM or the Service for a ROW to construct such a pipeline. If a ROW were granted across Refuge land, Doyon would convey to the Service 640 acres of land for every linear mile of ROW crossing the Refuge and increase the Service's production payment to 1.5%. 2.3.2 Alternative 1 - Land Exchange with Conservation Easements This alternative was developed in response to concerns that lands would leave Alaska Native ownership and become Federal property. Under this alternative Doyon would gran~ conservation easements on additional Doyon lands during Phase I ins oU:..o.wmitt.i.og.to sell additional lands to the 1ce m ase , w 1c is the case for the Proposed Action~ These easements would restnct surface uses. These restrictions would provide environmental protections similar to Refuge lands managed by the Service. Two important differences are: (1) Federal subsistence regulations would not apply on easements as they do on Refuge lands; and (~raJ public has access to Refuge l~ds but would notha;e acc~s to lapds with. easements.____. Phase I ofA/terative 1 -Land Exchange with Conservation Easements Phase I of the land exchange under Alternative 1 would occur as described above for the Proposed Action, with the addition of the following: Doyon would donate conservation easements precluding oil and gas deyelQpment on. !20,000 acres of Doyon's l~ds within the Refuge boundaries (Figure 2-6). The easements would be on the same lands that would be available for purchase by the Service in Phase II of the Proposed Action. - Phase II ofAlterative 1 -Land Exchange with Conservation Easements Under this alternative there would be no commitment from Doyon to sell the Service any a~tjonal lands uodeiJ'bjiSe Iffi__Qgyon were to locate and produce oil and/or gas resources . on lands acquired in Phase I; however: If Doyon were to produce oil and gas on the lands exchanged in Phase I, the Service ...-- would receive a production payment of~~%. Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 2-9 Chapter 2 -Alternatives 14 .C1 r I I l: l II~ E. v 7.5 IS 22.5 Miles 14 21 Kilometers Doyon Lands to Service - Conveyed Doyon Lands !'.../ Potential ROWs - Purchase Remaining 12(b) Selections - Conveyed Village Lands !'.../ Wild & Scenic River Corridor -~ . to be Conveyed to Villages Produced in lhe Division of Realty - Selected Village Lands f"'..../ Service Recommcndcd-wildemcss area Anchorage, Alaska ~ Curren11o: February 12.2006 " 7.5 15 22 .5 Miles /'../ Potential ROWs 14 21 Kilometers Remaining 12(b) Selections - Conveyed Village Lands c::J Service Recommended Wi ldemcss Area to be Conveyed to Villages - Yukon Flats NWR - Selected Village Lands /'../ Wild & Scenic River Corridor Produced in the Division of Realty Anchorage, Alaska ~ Current to: February 12 ,2006 ~~rwl~ =-14 21 Miles Yukon Flats NWR - Doyon Lands to Service ANCSA 12(b) Selections Wild & Scenic River Corridor to be Relinquished 14 21 Kuomcters Service Oil & Gas Interests - Conveyed Village Lands - Doyon-Donated /'../ Potential ROWs to Doyon (Halo Lands) Conservation Easements ·--- ...... ~ ..,....- Conveyed Doyon Lands - Remaining 12(b) Selections - Conflicting Selections r::::::J Service Recommended Wilderness Area to be Conveyed to Villages (Stevens Village 12(a) and Doyon) Service Lands to Doyon ANCSA 12(b) Selections to be Produced in the Division of Realty - Selected Village Lands Anchorage, Alaska Reallocated outside the Refuge ~ Current to: February 16, 2007 2.3.3 Alternative 2- Land Exchange Excluding the White-Crazy Mountains This alternative was developed in response to concerns over wilderness values of lands involved in the exchange, and specifically that land previously recommended by the Service for Wilderness designation under the Wilderness Act of 1964 was included as part of the core lands that would leave Federal ~~~ers hlj? uil"ert e Viopose 'Action. Phase I ofAlternative 2 -Land Exchange Excluding the White-Crazy Mountains Approximately 26,270 acres of the core lands under Phase I of the Proposed Action were previously recommended by the Service for Wilderness designation. Under Alternative 2, these lands would be excluded from the core land exchange, although Doyon would receive some subsurface oil and gas rights (but no surface occupancy) within and along the northern edge of the Wilderness-recommended area. The acreage of associated halo lands would also be reduced under this alternative. Doyon would receive from the Service 83,630 acres (surface and subsurface) that may have developable oil and gas resources (core lands identified in Figure 2-7). Doyon would receive from the Service MM.OOO acres of subsurface oil and gas interests (halo lands identified in Figure 2-5) that surround the core lands. No surface occupancy for oil and gas development would be allowed on these lands. The Service would receive from Doyon a certain amount of land with quality fish and wildlife habitats that is equal in value to the core and halo lands identified above. The amount is estimated for impact assessment purposes at 150,000 acres (indicated in Figure 2-7) but will be adjusted based on land values established by the appraisal. Any additional lands required to make the exchange equal in value will be selected by the Service based on the priorities established by the Service and indicated in Figure 1-2. Doyon would reallocate remaining ANCSA 12(b) land selections (56,517 acres) outside Refuge boundaries (Figure 2-7). These are the same lands proposed for consolidation under the Proposed Action and depicted in Figure 2-2. Doyon would retain a subsistence easement on lands conveyed to the Service. To protect public access, the Service would reserve a 1-mile-wide public use easement along the segment of Beaver Creek (Figure 2-7) that flows through the core lands that would be received by Doyon. Both parties would exchange additional lands to consolidate ownerships and facilitate land management. This exchange would be on an acre-for-acre basis and would include up to 132,000 acres by each party. The locations of these lands are indicated in Figure 2-7. Yukon Flats EIS 2/21/2007 2-13 Chapter 2 -Alternatives 7.5 15 22.5 Miles Service Lands to Doyon Yukon Flats NWR Selected Village Lands Wild & Scenic River Corridor !'-.../ lU zu 30 Kilometers Service Oil & Gas Interests Conveyed Doyon Lands Conflicting Selections c:::J Service Recommended Wilderness Area to Doyon (Halo Lands) (Stevens Village 12(a) and Doyon) Doyon Lands to Service Conveyed Village Lands ANCSA 12(b) Selections to be ·-- - Reallocated outside the Refuge Remaining 12(b) Selections ANCSA 12(b) Selections Produced in the Division or Realty to be Conveyed to Villages *~ Anchorage, Alaska to be Relinquished « f - - Current to: October 12, 2006 Phase II ofAlternative 2 -Land Exchange Excluding the White-Crazy Mountains If Doyon locates and produces oil and/or gas resources on the lands acquired in Phase I, then certain mitigations would be required: The Service would receive a 1.25% production payment generated from any oil and gas production on lands received by Doyon in the exchange. The Service could use these funds to buy additional land from willing sellers or to construct Refuge facilities. Doyon would sell up to 80,000 acres more of its land holdings in the Refuge to the Service. These lands are indicated in Figure 2-8. This upper limit is reduced from that in the Proposed Action, as fewer acres are being transferred in Phase I. Produced oil and/or gas would have to be transported to market by pipeline. Two probable pipeline routes to the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline have been identified. Depending on the route selected, Doyon would file an application with the BLM or the Service for a ROW to construct such a pipeline. If a ROW were granted across Refuge land, Doyon '1 would convey to the Service 640 acres of land for every linear mile of ROW crossing the l Refuge and increase the Service's production payment to 1.5%. 2.3.4 Alternati~ No Action Alternative Under this~ative the Service would not enter into a Land Exchange with Doyon. The Service would continue to manage their lands according to the provisions of the Refuge CCP. Under Federal statutes, Service policy, and Refuge guidance, consolidation exchanges could take place; however, no such exchanges are planned under this alternative. Doyon has stated their intentions to pursue oil and gas exploration and development on Doyon or other Native-owned lands inside the boundaries of the Refuge, regardless of whether lands are exchanged with the Service. The effects of Alternative 4- No Action Alternative are therefore assessed with and without oil and gas exploration and development occurring on private lands within the Refuge boundaries. If oil and/or gas were to be located and produced on private properties, a pipeline would be needed to transport produced hydrocarbons to market. Because the subject Doyon lands are inholdings within the larger Refuge boundary, the pipeline would cross Federal lands. Under provisions of ANILCA, the Service would be required to provide a ROW across Refuge lands if warranted by oil/gas exploration and production. As is the case with oil and gas development under all alternatives, this ROW permitting process would include a complete NEPA analysis to evaluate site-specific impacts of the proposed transportation corridor and development project. The ROW permit could contain appropriate stipulations and mitigation requirements to minimize adverse impacts to Refuge resources. Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 2-15 Chapter 2 -Alternatives ~rwl ~~ Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska 16 24 Kilometers - Service Lands with - Selected 12(a) Village Lands Potential ROWs Doyon Oil & Gas Ownership (Halo Lands) .·-...... - - Remaining 12(h) Selections - Conflicting Selections c::::J Service Recommended Wilderness Area to be Conveyed to Villages (Stevens Village 12(a) and Doyon) Produced in the Division of Realty Conveyed Doyon Lands - Yukon Flats NWR Anchorage, Alaska ~ Current to: February 12,2007 2.3.5 Summary of Lands Involved in Proposed Action and Alternatives Proposed Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Description Action Exchange with Exclude White- No Action Easements Crazy Mts. Core lands (subsurface & surface) transferred to Doyon 110,000 ac 110,000 ac 84,000 ac 0 ac Halo lands (subsurface rights) transferred to Doyon 97,000 ac 97,000 ac 97,000 ac 0 ac ll 1IIW .·if· d?'JI!i :@%; '@@g :!if; ~~' Exchange lands (subsurface & surface) to USFWS 150,000 ac 150,000 ac 150,000 ac 0 ac Selections reallocated out of Refuge 56,517 ac 56,517 ac 56,517 ac 0 ac Public easement along Beaver Creek 1 mi 1 mi 1 mi NA 1 Subsistence easements on lands from Doyon Yes Yes Yes No Conservation easements on Doyon lands 0 ac :5120,000 ac 0 ac 0 ac @@, t%1 ·1w twr•·:w rf@" • :-: 'r • w; "'" • lw %1$0: "· :: ::18 iii!' /' Consolidation lands to Doyon 132,000 ac 132,000 ac 132,000 ac 0 ac Consolidation lands to USFWS 132,000 ac 132,000 ac 132,000 ac 0 ac White-Crazy Mts. Lands Excluded No No Yes Yes /!. :r,w: /A h !W@!· 1&: ·'?0 '·'lit !@). '*iii 4'% iff!!! fWI' ::: :::.% *' Production payment 1.25% m•mm% m.mm% 0.00% 2 Production payment with ROW 1.5% m.mm% ll);mm% 0.00% Additional Lands Available for Purchase by USFWS :5120,000 ac 0 acres :S 80,000 ac 0 acres 0% #2% :':: i)i'f "{!If# "{!' if!( ., }! -~ Exploration occurs on Doyon-owned lands Yes Yes Yes Yes Notes: 1 Not applicable, under this alternative the land is retained by the Service. 2 Production takes place on Doyon lands so no production payment is required. 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Excluded from Further Analysis The Service is required to develop a reasonable range of alternatives and may exclude alternatives if they are not considered to be reasonable. Two additional alternatives were raised during the development process and were considered for inclusion in the EIS by the Interdisciplinary Team. Both alternatives were excluded from further analysis as they were considered unreasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action. The reasons for exclusion are given below. 2.4.1 Oil and Gas Leasing of USFWS Lands to Doyon Comments were received during scoping efforts, which suggested that the Service should consider leasing lands for oil and gas exploration and development instead of exchanging lands. This alternative was considered, but it was rejected as unreasonable and excluded from detailed analysis by the Service. Current management policies prohibit the leasing of any Refuge lands for oil and gas exploration or development (CCP; page 166). Exceptions to this prohibition would require a finding by the Secretary of the Interior that such leasing would be in the national interest (National Interest Determination) and compatible with Refuge purposes (Refuge Compatibility Determination) as established under ANILCA. Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 2-17 Chapter 2 -Alternatives 2.4.2 No Action Alternative with No Oil and Gas Development Commenters during the scoping effort suggested that an alternative should be considered in which oil and gas development would not occur. Under this alternative the Service would not enter into a Land Exchange with Doyon and no oil and gas exploration or development would take place within Refuge boundaries. Management on all lands would continue according to current plans and customs. This alternative was suggested during the scoping process. The Service does not have the authority to decide what happens on privately owned lands within the Refuge boundaries. Doyon has indicated its intent to proceed with exploration activities on lands it currently owns whether or not the Land Exchange is completed. This alternative was rejected as unreasonable as oil and/or gas development is not dependant on the outcome of the Land Exchange process and will likely occur regardless of any decision made as a result of this NEP A process. As noted in Section 2.3.4, any ROW required through Refuge lands as a result of exploration/development would require a separate NEPA analysis. 2.5 Responsiveness of Alternatives to Project Goals The Service's and Doyon's goals for this project are identified in Chapter 1. The responsiveness of alternatives with regard to meeting these goals are summarized and compared in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Responsiveness of alternatives to project goals and objectives. Alt 8 • Exchange Alt C • Exchange Alt A • Proposed AltD Goal with Conservation Excluding White I Action Easements CrazyMtns. No-Action iff$' ;j#i !Wfu, ',2ft! Servlc:e"Golf" • !iif,W , ,.(6 • i/1flii ; !?t; ~4 Cooperate with • Landowners Add quality wildlife habitat Consolidate land ownership Increase conservation lands ''M% ';j/!i'i'""ff* ff ''01' .!;! !tfA ,f;!'fP F#!!' M Doyo.i~ ' '*"'' '; ~!" Economic opportunities Create rural economy Consolidate land ownership 2-18 212112007 Yukon Flats EIS Chapter 2 -Alternatives 2.6 Responsiveness of Alternatives to Significant Issues Significant issues of concern were identified by interested parties during pre-scoping and scoping efforts. These issues are listed in Chapter 1. Table 2-2 presents a comparison if the alternatives with regard to their relative efficacy in addressing concerns over the following issues/resources. Table 2-2. Comparison of alternatives with respect to significant environmental issues. Alt B • Exchange Alt C • Exchange Alt A • Proposed AltD Issue with Conservation Excluding White I Action No-Action Easements CrazyMtns. Fish Wildlife 1Wetlands Water Quality Hydrology Air Quality Climate Subsistence Cultural Resources Socioeconomics Refuge Purpose Refuge Integrity Biodiversity Recreation Visual Resources Special Areas Health Environmental Justice Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 2-19 Chapter 2 - Alternatives ( h.,,,,., \: Rd,·~t·n"'' 3. References Doyon, Limited (Doyon). 1995. Ecosystem management in the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. A proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a management partnership. Correspondence. ENSR Corporation (ENSR). 2006. Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge Proposed Land Exchange EIS, final, public scoping summary report. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Doc. No. 09090-092-104, August. Interagency Land Acquisition Conference (ILAC). 2000. Uniform appraisal standards for federal land acquisitions. Washington, D.C. ISBN: 0-922154-66-X. Mery, J. 2006. Personal communication. Senior Vice President, Lands and Natural Resources, Doyon, Limited. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1987. Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge final comprehensive conservation plan, environmental impact statements, wilderness review. Anchorage, Alaska . 420 pp. _____. 2005. Evaluation and review of a proposed land exchange and acquisition of native lands. Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Region 7, Anchorage, Alaska. February. Yukon Flats EIS 212112007 3-1 Chapter 2 -Alternatives