Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Anchorage Field Office (AFO) of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Ring of Fire planning area to provide a comprehensive framework for managing and allocating uses of the public lands and resources within the Anchorage District. This planning process meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through a detailed description of the alternatives and environmental consequences resulting from each alternative. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) requires the Secretary of the Interior, with public involvement, to develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land use plans that provide tracts or areas for the use of the public lands.

The Ring of Fire planning area encompasses an area from the Aleutian Islands at the southwestern tip of Alaska, through the Alaska Peninsula, parts of southcentral Alaska, through the southeast panhandle. The planning area is divided into four geographic regions: Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region, Kodiak region, southcentral region, and southeast region.

Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenarios provide a mechanism to analyze the effects that discretionary planning decisions have on mineral development based upon four alternatives. This RFD scenario is used to predict the type, location, and manner of potential disturbance due locatable minerals extraction in the planning area over the next 15 years. This report has been formulated to project and predict development regardless of specific land management authority (federal, State, Native, or private), but concentrates on the high mineral potential areas located on unencumbered BLM lands and State- and Native-selected lands.

A range of four alternatives was developed during the Ring of Fire PRMP/FEIS process. These include Alternative A — No Action (Current Management), Alternative B — Resource Development, Alternative C — Resource Conservation, and Alternative D — Proposed Action. Due to the diminutive amount of BLM-managed lands within the planning area, the level of disturbance from reasonably foreseeable locatable mineral activity would be minimal. If the maximum amount of activity is allowed (Alternative B — Resource Development), an estimated total of 59 acres could potentially be disturbed in the Ring of Fire planning area. If the least amount of activity is allowed (Alternative C — Resource Conservation), an estimated total of 5 acres could potentially be disturbed on existing valid operation in the Ring of Fire planning area. If reasonable accommodations are given to all parties, (Alternative D — Proposed Action), an estimated maximum total of 59 acres could potentially be disturbed in the Ring of Fire planning area. However, due to its sensitive nature, the Neacola Mountains-Blockade Glacier area could remain closed to mineral entry and thus diminish the disturbed acreage estimate.

Appendix G B-1 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Anchorage Field Office (AFO) of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Proposed Resource Management Plan (PRMP)/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in the Ring of Fire planning area to provide a comprehensive framework for managing and allocating uses of the public lands and resources within the Anchorage District. This planning process will meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through a detailed description of the alternatives and environmental consequences resulting from each alternative. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended, provides the authority for the BLM land use planning on public lands. In particular, Section 202 (a) requires the Secretary of the Interior, with public involvement, to develop, maintain, and when appropriate, revise land use plans that provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public lands. Implementing regulations are contained in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1610. BLM Manual, 1601 Land Use Planning, and a handbook (H-1601-1 Land Use Planning Handbook), provide procedures and guidance for the planning process.

The Ring of Fire planning area encompasses an area some 2,500 miles long, from the Aleutian Islands at the southwestern tip of Alaska, through the Alaska Peninsula, parts of southcentral Alaska, through the southeast panhandle. The planning area is divided into four geographic regions: (1) Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region, (2) Kodiak region, (3) southcentral region, and (4) southeast region. The southcentral region includes the Cook Inlet area, Matanuska- Susitna Valley, and Kenai Peninsula, but excludes eastern Prince William Sound (PWS) and the Wrangell Mountains to the east. The southeast region extends from Yakutat Bay to the southeastern tip of Alaska.

This Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) scenario: 1) provides a mechanism to analyze the effects that discretionary planning decisions have on mineral development, and 2) summarizes basic information used in developing the various alternatives analyzed in the NEPA document. By incorporating available geologic and economic information, as well as utilizing federal and State mineral assessment reports, this RFD scenario is used to predict the type, location, and manner of potential locatable mineral extraction in the Ring of Fire planning area over the next 15 years. RFD scenario's have been formulated to project and predict development regardless of specific land management authority, federal, State, Native, or private; but concentrates on the high mineral potential areas located on unencumbered BLM land and State- and Native-selected lands. The following sections present what has been identified about the geology, known mineral occurrences, and unknown potential of the Ring of Fire planning area.

Appendix G B-2� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGY

2.1.1 Mineral Terranes I The Ring of Fire planning area is underlain by 13 mineral terrane units whose geologic settings are considered highly favorable for the existence of metallic mineral resources (Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center [AEIDC] 1982, Resource Data, Inc. [RDI] et al. 1995). The geologic nature of each terrane will determine specific commodities and mineral deposit types. Unmapped areas are generally evaluated as having poor to only moderate mineral potential. Mineral terranes located within each region are discussed below and listed in Table 1 and shown in Figures 1 through 3.

Table 1.MMineral Terranes Identified in the Ring of Fire Planning Area

Map unit Name Description Favorable deposits IGA Alkalic granitic rocks Syenite, locally including Uranium, rare earth elements, peralkaline granite and monzonite and molybdenum IGF Felsic granitic rocks Granite and quartz monzonite Tin, tungsten, molybdenum, uranium, and thorium IGI Intermediate granitic Granodiorite and quartz diorite Copper, gold, and rocks molybdenum IGU Undivided granitic Granite Uranium, thorium, rare earth rocks elements, tin, tungsten, molybdenum, copper, and gold IMA Mafic intrusive rocks Gabbro, locally including mafic-rich Copper and nickel with intermediate rocks including mafic byproduct platinum and cobalt monzonite and diorite IUM Ultramafic rocks Peridotite and dunite Chromium, nickel, and platinum group metals with byproduct cobalt SCB Continental Coal-bearing sandstone, shale, Coal and uranium with sedimentary rocks and conglomerate byproduct vanadium SGS Graywacke and shale Interbedded with minor volcanic Gold or a variety of metals rocks VFI Intermediate volcanic Trachyandesite and andesite Uranium and thorium rocks VFU Felsic volcanic rocks Undivided hyolite and quartz latite Copper, lead, and zinc with b •roduct silver and •old VMU Mafic volcanic rocks Undivided primarily basalt Copper and zinc with b •roduct silver and •old VSF Sedimentary and Undivided rhyolite, quartz latite, Copper and zinc with felsic volcanic rocks and associated sediments b roduct silver and old VSM Sedimentary and Undivided basalt and associated Copper and zinc with 1.­ mafic volcanic rocks sediments byproduct silver and gold

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: Felsic granitic rocks; favorable for tin, tungsten, molybdenum, uranium, and thorium deposits. Intermediate granitic rocks; favorable for copper, gold, and molybdenum deposits. Coal-bearing sedimentary rocks; favorable for coal and uranium with byproduct vanadium deposits. Felsic and intermediate volcanic rocks; favorable for epithermal gold, silver, and mercury deposits. Undivided mafic volcanic rocks; favorable for copper and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold. Undivided sedimentary and felsic volcanic rocks; favorable for copper, lead, and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold. Undivided sedimentary and mafic volcanic rocks; favorable for copper and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold (Figure 1).

Appendix G B-3 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Kodiak Region: Felsic granitic rocks; favorable for tin, tungsten, molybdenum, uranium, and thorium deposits. Intermediate granitic rocks; favorable for copper, gold, and molybdenum deposits. Ultramafic rocks; favorable for chromium, nickel, and platinum group metal deposits with byproduct of cobalt. Graywacke and shale; favorable for gold deposits or a variety of metals. Undivided sedimentary and mafic volcanic rocks; favorable for copper and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold (Figure 1).

Southcentral Region: Felsic granitic rocks; favorable for tin, tungsten, molybdenum, uranium, and thorium deposits. Intermediate granitic rocks; favorable for copper, gold, and molybdenum deposits. Undivided granitic rocks: favorable for uranium, thorium, rare earths, tin, tungsten, molybdenum, copper, and gold deposits. Mafic intrusive rocks; favorable for copper and nickel deposits with byproducts of platinum and cobalt. Ultramafic rocks; favorable for chromium, nickel, and platinum group metal deposits with byproduct of cobalt. Coal-bearing sedimentary rocks; favorable for coal and uranium deposits with byproduct of vanadium. Interbedded graywacke and shale with minor volcanic rocks; favorable for gold or a variety of metal deposits. Felsic and intermediate volcanic rocks; favorable for epithermal gold, silver, and mercury deposits. Undivided mafic volcanic rocks; favorable for copper and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold. Undivided sedimentary and mafic volcanic rocks; favorable for copper and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold (Figure 2).

Southeast Region: Alkalic granitic rocks; favorable for uranium and rare earths deposits. Felsic granitic rocks; favorable for tin, tungsten, molybdenum, uranium, and thorium deposits. Intermediate granitic rocks; favorable for copper, gold, and molybdenum deposits. Undivided granitic rocks; favorable for uranium, thorium, rare earths, tin, tungsten, molybdenum, copper, and gold deposits. Mafic intrusive rocks; favorable for copper and nickel deposits with byproducts of platinum and cobalt. Ultramafic rocks; favorable for chromium, nickel, and platinum group metal deposits with byproduct of cobalt. Coal-bearing sedimentary rocks; favorable for coal and uranium deposits with byproduct of vanadium. Interbedded graywacke and shale with minor volcanic rocks; favorable for gold or a variety of metal deposits. Undivided felsic volcanic rocks; favorable for copper, lead, and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold. Undivided mafic volcanic rocks favorable for copper and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold. Undivided sedimentary and felsic volcanic rocks; favorable for copper, lead, and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold. Undivided sedimentary and mafic volcanic rocks; favorable for copper and zinc deposits with byproducts of silver and gold (Figure 3). 2.2 Known Mineral Deposit Areas

Known Mineral Deposit Areas (KMDAs) are described as a management tool for determining the likelihood of future discoveries in a particular area. They are based on a high concentration of historic mines and prospects, mineral occurrences in the Mineral Availability System/Mineral Industry Location System (MAS/MILS) database, and favorable geologic trends determined by mineral terrane mapping and have either been identified during mineral assessment studies or shown on the Mineral Terranes of Alaska map (Maas et al 1995; RDI et al. 1995). Bittenbender et al. (1999) and Still et al. (2002) define KMDAs as having a high concentration of mineral occurrences of a single type, which suggests an increased likelihood that the rocks host significant mineral deposits compared to other areas. The most recent version of KMDAs electronically available (RDI et al. 1995) is depicted on Figures 1 through 3. In some areas of the Ring of Fire planning area, more recent BLM or United States (U.S.) Geological Survey

Appendix G� B-4� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

(USGS) have resulted in revisions of KMDA boundaries investigations (e.g., Bittenbender et al. 1999; Nelson and Miller 2000; Still et al. 2002).

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: No KMDAs have been identified in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region.

Kodiak Region: No KMDAs have been identified in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: No KMDAs have been identified in the southcentral region.

Southeast Region: KMDAs were established in the southeast region during development of the Tongass National Forest (TNF) Land Management Plan in 1991, and during the mid-1990s for the rest of the Ring of Fire planning area by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBOM) (RDI et al. 1995). 2.3 High Mineral Occurrence Potential Areas

High, medium, and low mineral potential areas within the Ring of Fire planning area have been identified in the Mineral Occurrence and Development Report written by URS Corporation (URS) (2004) and are shown on the locatable mineral potential maps (Figures 1 through 3). The following section is based upon those findings.

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: Seven small areas with high mineral potential have been identified in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region. The sites include: Mount Chiginak area; northern Chignuk Bay-Black Peak area; the southern part of Unga Island; the Mount Dana area; two locations on Unalaska Island at the northwest and southeastern areas; and the central Umnak Island between Inanudak Bay and Thumb Point (Figure 4).

Kodiak Region: Three small areas with high mineral potential have been identified on Kodiak Island and two small areas on the Trinity Islands. The sites on Kodiak Island include: just north of Low Cape on the west end of the island; the area along Sevenmile Beach; east of Rocky Point; on the northwest end of the island; and the area between the head of Uganik Passage and Terror Bay on the northwest end of the island. The sites on the Trinity Islands include the western end of Tugidak Island and the southwestern edge of Sitkinak Island (Figure 4).

Southcentral Region: Thirty-four areas with high mineral potential have been identified in the southcentral region. The sites include: the headwaters of Crevice Creek; the north side of Bruin Bay; Mt. Spurr; the Tordrillo Mountains; the Camp Creek area; the Peters Creek and Cache Creek area; the Talkeetna Mountains; the Willow Creek and Chickaloon areas; the Girdwood area; Resurrection Creek to Cooper Landing area; Moose Pass to Seward area; Knight Island; and several sites in the western PWS (Figure 5).

Southeast Region: Thirty-three areas with high mineral potential have been identified in the southeast region. The sites include: two areas near Yakutat along Monti Bay and the Black sand Spit areas; the Minnesota Ridge in the Muir Inlet area; two areas on Mt. Seltat; four areas along Lynn Canal, three on the east side and on the west side; the Juneau area, two sites on the west side of Taku Inlet, the northern part of Admiralty Island; six sites scattered along Baranof Island; on the southeastern side of Kupreanof Island; the northwest and southeast sides of Cleveland Peninsula; five sites on the eastern to southern end of Prince of Wales Island; and the southcentral part of Duke Island (Figure 6).

Appendix G B-5� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 3.0 HISTORICAL EXPLORATION ACTIVITY

Historical exploration activity is discussed here to describe the extent of current mineral industry activity within the entire Ring of Fire planning area. This discussion creates a baseline of understanding as to which target areas the mineral industry is interested and to what extent their activity is occurring. Information for this section comes from numerous sources including the BLM and State mining claim databases, Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) 2003 Mineral Industry Activity Report (Szumagala et al. 2004), and URS's Draft Mineral Occurrence Potential Report (2004).

3.1.1 Mineral Claim Staking

Mining claims have been staked throughout the Ring of Fire planning area. Extensive claim staking has historically occurred on Unga Island, the Petersville-Cache Creek, Collinsville, Hatcher Pass, Crow Creek, Hope/Resurrection Creek, Haines-Skagway, Juneau-Admiralty Island, Chichagof-Baranof Island, Stikine, Ketchikan-Hyder, and Duke Island areas. The following discussion covers the entire area, and then defines those mining claims staked on BLM unencumbered, State- or Native-selected lands.

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: The only active claims in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region are State claims on Unga Island. These claims are not located on BLM unencumbered, State- or Native-selected lands.

Kodiak Region: There are no active federal or State mining claims on BLM unencumbered, State- or Native-selected lands on Kodiak Island.

Southcentral Region: Numerous active federal and State mining claims are located in the southcentral region. No active mining claims are located on BLM unencumbered lands. A dozen or so federal claims are located on state land in the Petersville-Cache Creek, Collinsville, and Hatcher Pass areas, and have federal subsurface estate. These claims were located prior to State selection, and the federal government retains the subsurface estate as long as these claims remain active. Very few active mining claims are actually located on State- and Native- selected lands. Those active mining claims are located in the Chickaloon, Knik River, Girdwood, Hope/Resurrection Creek, and the Moose Pass areas. The Chickaloon and Knik River areas are Native-selected and the Moose Pass area is State-selected. Girdwood, Hope/Resurrection Creek, and the Moose Pass areas are located within the Chugach National Forest (CNF).

Southeast Region: Numerous active federal and State mining claims are located in the southeast region. Active federal mining claims are located on BLM unencumbered lands on the west side of Silver Bay, Baranof Island. Active federal claims are located on State land in the Porcupine Creek area and have federal subsurface estate. These claims were located prior to State selection, and the federal government retains the subsurface estate as long as these claims remain active. Active mining claims are located on State-selected lands in the Porcupine Creek area, Tsirku River area, Juneau area, northern end of Admiralty Island, north of Hyder, head of Trocadero Bay Prince of Wales Island, and on the Duke and Kelp Islands. Most of the active mining claims in the southeast region are located within TNF.

Appendix G B-6� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 3.1.2 Exploration Activities

The DGGS publishes yearly reports outlining the exploration activity in Alaska. The following information is based on the current information for 2003 (Szumigala et al. 2004) covering the entire Ring of Fire planning area.

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: No current exploration activity is occurring in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region.

Kodiak Region: No current exploration activity is occurring in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: Current exploration in the southcentral region is occurring at Shulin Lake, located along the Kahiltna River, approximately 25 miles south of Peters Creek. This is a diamond property being explored by Golconda Resources, Ltd. and Shulin Lake Mining Co. by diamond drilling on a structure about 1.25 miles in diameter.

Southeast Region: Current exploration in the southeast region is occurring at four locations. These include: Greens Creek Mine, Woewodski Island, Union Bay, and Duke Island. Exploration is continuing at the Greens Creek silver mine by Kennecott Minerals Co. to extend the mineralized zones and resources of the mine. Drilling was conducted on the west side of the Gallagher Fault, which truncates the large ore body. Bravo Venture Group with Olympic Resources Group, LLC drilled the Lost Lake silver, lead, zinc prospect, on Woewodski Island, intersecting volcanogenic massive sulfide mineralization consisting of semi-massive and massive sphalerite, galena, and silver. Pacific Northwest Capital Corp., Freegold Ventures Ltd., and Lonmin PLC continued an extensive exploration program on their Union Bay platinum prospect, located near Ketchikan. Additional federal claims were staked and extensive channel sampling and diamond drilling was conducted on the Jaguar, Mt. Burnett, North, and Continental zones. Quaterra Resources, Inc. continued their exploration activities on Duke Island, south of Ketchikan, by staking new claims covering new copper discoveries identified from geophysical anomalies.

3.1.3 Federal and State Field Studies

No known field studies are currently being conducted in the Ring of Fire planning area by any pertinent federal or State agency. The USBOM and BLM, in cooperation with the USGS and DGGS, have completed mineral assessment studies and economic studies throughout the southeast region. Studies were completed for the Chichagof, Hyder, Juneau, Ketchikan, Kupreanof, and Petersburg mining districts.

3.1.4 Geophysical Surveys

Aeromagnetic surveys were conducted during the 1960s through the 1980s (URS 2004). Digital aeromagnetic surveys were conducted in the southcentral region in the early 2000s. Airborne geophysical programs have been flown in the Ketchikan and Stikine areas in the southeast region (Bittenbender et al. 2001) in support of the mineral assessment studies conducted for the Ketchikan and Sitka mining districts.

No other known airborne geophysical programs have been conducted by federal or State agencies within the Ring of Fire planning area.

Appendix G� B-7� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 3.1.5 New Deposit Discoveries

The DGGS publishes yearly reports outlining the exploration activity in Alaska. The following information is based on the current information for 2003 (Szumigala et al. 2004).

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: No new discoveries were reported during 2003 in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region.

Kodiak Region: No new discoveries were reported during 2003 in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: No new discoveries were reported during 2003 in the southcentral region.

Southeast Region: Quaterra Resources Inc. continued their exploration activities on Duke Island, south of Ketchikan, finding new copper discoveries identified from geophysical anomalies.

Appendix G B-8� Attachment B

Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 4.0 PAST AND PRESENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY

Past and present development activity is discussed here to characterize the extent of current mineral industry activity within the entire Ring of Fire planning area. This discussion creates a baseline of understanding regarding the mineralized targets of interest to the mineral industry and to what extent their development activities are occurring. Information for this section comes from numerous sources including the DGGS 2003 Mineral Industry Activity Report (Szumagala et al. 2004) and URS's Draft Mineral Occurrence Potential Report (2004).

4.1.1 Past Development Activity

There has been extensive development activity within the Ring of Fire planning area boundary including large scale mining operations. These operations include the Apollo Mine in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region, the Independence Mine in the southcentral region, and the A-J and Kensington Mines in the southeast region. Extensive placer mining activity has occurred in the Petersville-Cache Creek, Collinsville, Hatcher Pass, Crow Creek, and Hope/Resurrection Creek areas in the southcentral region, and in the Yakutat, Haines-Skagway, Juneau-Admiralty Island, Chichagof-Baranof Island, Stikine, Ketchikan-Hyder, and Duke Island areas in the southeast region, to name a few. Only one inactive prospect (Belle) is located on BLM unencumbered lands within the Ring of Fire planning area, and is located east of Sitka in the southeast region. r Table 2 lists the mineral occurrences in the high mineral potential areas that are located on BLM unencumbered lands and State- and Native-selected lands in the Ring of Fire planning area boundary. Numerous properties located in the southcentral region are located in CNF, and in TNF in the southeast region. This information was derived using BLM's Alaska Mineral Information System (AMIS) (BLM 2004) and the USGS's Alaska Resources Data Files (ARDF) (USGS 2005).

Table 2.SSelect Mineral Occurrences Located in the High Mineral Potential Areas in the Ring of Fire Planning Area

Deposit Name ARDF/ Commodities Deposit Type Land Status Amis No. ALASKA PENINSULA/ALEUTIAN CHAIN REGION Native-Selected Lands Unnamed UK002/144-002 Cu, Mo Unknown Native-selected Steeple Point UK011/144-011 Au, Ag Hot Springs Au-Ag (Cox 25a) Native-selected Unnamed UN020/143-023 Cu Porphyry Cu (Cox 17) Native-selected Makushin Volcano S UN003/143-001 S Fumarolic Sulfur Native-selected PMRGX-18 PM025/138-041 Pb, Zn Unknown Native-selected Pyramid PM023/138-039 Cu, Mo Porphyry Cu-Mo (Cox 21a) Native-selected SOUTHCENTRAL REGION 11 Native-Selected Lands Kings Bay Placer 95-074 Au Placer Au (Cox 39a) USFS/Native-selected State-Selected Lands a Crown Point Mine 95-114 Au, Ag, Cu, Pb, Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Zn East Point Mine 95-095 Au, Ag Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Skeen-Lechner 95-116 Au, Ag, Pb, Zn Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Falls Creek Mine 95-113 Au, Aq Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected California Creek 95-115 Au, Pb, Zn Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Jones 95-160 Au Placer Au (Cox 39a) USFS/State-selected Mine 7-1/2 95-361 Au, Ag Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected

Attachment B 11 Appendix G B-9 Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Table 2 (continued). Select Mineral Occurrences Located in the High Mineral Potential Areas in the Ring of Fire Planning Area

Deposit Name ARDF/ Commodities Deposit Type Land Status Amis No. Canyon Creek 95-267 Au Placer Au (Cox 39a) USFS/State-selected Crow Creek Mine AN104/85-254 Au Placer Au (Cox 39a) USFS/State-selected Raggedtop Mountain AN106/85-322 Au Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Jewell/Monarch' AN107/85-101 Au Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Brenner AN108/85-296 Au, Mo, Pb, Zn Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Agostino AN109 Au Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Summit Mountain AN111/85-323 Au Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Bahrenberg Mined AN110/85-297 Au, Ag, Cu, Pb, Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected Zn Monarch Mine 85-295 Au, Ag, Cu, Mo Chugach-type (Bliss 36a.1) USFS/State-selected SOUTHEAST REGION BLM unencumbered Lands Belle 114-163 Ag, Cu, Au Unknown BLM Native-Selected Lands Situk Beach YA007 Au, Fe, PGE, Ti Beach placer (Cox 39a) Native-selected Yakutat Beach YA002/108-010 Au, Fe, Ti Beach placer (Cox 39a) Native-selected Crystal 119-030 Qtz crystals Unknown Native-selected Westlake CR214/119-060 Cu, Pb, Au, Zn Unknown Native-selected Hope CR213 Au, Ag, Cu Unknown Native-selected Bluebird CR214 Au Low-sulfide Au-Qtz (Cox 36a) Native-selected State-Selected Lands Nancy CR107/119-082 Cu Unknown USFS/State-selected Cable Creek CR106 Au, Cu, Zn Kuroko massive sulfide (Cox State-selected 28a) Judd Harbor 122-003 Fe, Ni, Cr Alaskan PGE (Cox 9) USFS/State-selected Tsiruku River 109-037 Au, Ag Placer Au (Cox 39a) State-selected Le Blondeau SK050/109-103 Au, Ag Polymetallic veins (Cox 22c) State-selected Salmon Creek JU131/112-168 Au Placer Au (Cox 39a) State-selected Goldstein JU133/112-196 Ag, Au, Cu Low-sulfide Au-Qtz (Cox 36a) State-selected Hallum JU144/112-129 Au Low-sulfide Au-Qtz (Cox 36a) State-selected Cottonwood Creek SK049/109-024 Au Placer Au (Cox 39a) State-selected Nugget Creek SK048/109-034 Au Placer Au (Cox 39a) State-selected Big Nugget Mine 109-057 Au Placer Au (Cox 39a) State Porcupine Creek SK041/109-036 Au Placer Au (Cox 39a) State KODIAK REGION State-Selected Lands None Native-Selected Lands None

Notes: 13,100 tons averaging 1.75 oz/ton gold and 0.75 oz/ton silver 2 Reserves at 344 tons Ag = silver Pb = lead Au = gold PGE =platinum group elements Cr = chromium Qtz = quartz Cu = copper S = sulfur Fe = iron Ti = tin Mo = molybdenum USFS = U.S. Forest Service Ni = nickel Zn = zinc

4.1.2 Present Development Activity

The DGGS publishes yearly reports outlining the development activity in Alaska. The following information is based on the current information for 2003 (Szumigala et al. 2004) covering the entire Ring of Fire planning area.

Appendix G B-10 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: No current development activity is occurring in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region.

Kodiak Region: No current development activity is occurring in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: No current lode development activity is occurring in the southcentral region. Placer gold development occurred in the Petersville-Cache Creek, Collinsville, and Hatcher Pass areas.

Southeast Region: Current development in the southeast region is occurring at two locations. These include: The Greens Creek Mine and Kensington Mine in the Juneau area. Development is continuing at the Greens Creek silver mine by Kennecott Minerals Co. and Hecla Mining Co. consisting of access drifting and underground diamond drilling. Coeur Alaska continued to permit the Kensington Mine in cooperation with federal, State, and local agencies. These properties are located within TNF. No development work was reported on placer deposits in the southeast region (Szumigala et al. 2004).

4.1.3 Mining Activity

The DGGS publishes yearly reports outlining the mining/production activity in Alaska. The following information is based on the current information for 2003 (Szumigala et al. 2004) covering the entire Ring of Fire planning area.

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: No current mining activity is occurring in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region.

Kodiak Region: No current mining activity is occurring in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: Three small placer operations reported mining activity in the southcentral region on Crow, Canyon, and Quartz Creeks. Crow Creek is the only placer operation located on State-selected lands within the southcentral region.

Southeast Region: The Greens Creek Mine was the only producing mine in the southeast region. Reported mill throughput was 781,200 tons of ore with metal recovery of 76,200 tons of zinc, 24,800 tons of lead, 11,707,000 ounces of silver, and 99,000 ounces of gold.

Appendix G B-1 1� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 5.0 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS

Industrial minerals have been identified within the Ring of Fire planning area as discussed in the URS's Mineral Occurrence Potential Report (2004). All of the occurrences discussed are located in the southeast region. Occurrences include gypsum on Chichagof Island, asbestos on Admiralty and Annette Islands, graphite near Stikine, fluorite near Wrangell, mica on Sitklan Island, wollastonite on Prince of Wales Island, and limestone, barite, and gemstones occur throughout the area. Limestones and marbles, pure enough to be considered for development, occur on Prince of Wales and DaII Islands. None of these deposits occur on or near BLM unencumbered or State- or Native-selected lands, and therefore are not considered as part of this report.

Appendix G� B-12� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 6.0 SALABLE MINERALS

Salable minerals including sand and gravel, building stone, pumice, clay, and limestone are common throughout the Ring of Fire planning area (URS 2004). Production of sand and gravel during 2003 is reported by the State of Alaska (Szumagala et al. 2004) to include a small amount from Bristol Bay Borough lands in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region. Totals include 5,138,000 tons of sand and gravel from 16 operations in the southcentral region and 1,124,200 tons of sand, gravel, and rock from nine operations in the southeast region. There are no known current salable mineral activities on BLM unencumbered or State- or Native-selected lands within the Ring of Fire planning area.

Building stone, including limestone and marble, has been reported to be quarried primarily in the southeast region. Prince of Wales and DaII Islands have large quantities of pure limestone and marble quarried (URS 2004). Kodiak Island, the Tumagain Arm area, both sides of lower Cook Inlet, and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, have had dimension stone quarried for riprap and construction purposes (URS 2004).

Pumice deposits occur throughout the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region (URS 2004). As there is no foreseeable development potential for this material due to the great distances from the markets, this material will not be considered as part of this report.

Clay deposits occur in the southcentral region in the Bootleggers Cove clay in the Anchorage area, Sheep Mountain in the Matanuska Valley, near Homer, and Moose Pass on the Kenai Peninsula (URS 2004). There is an extremely small foreseeable development potential for this material due to the lack of markets. This material will not be considered as part of this report.

Appendix G B-13 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 7.0 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT BASELINE SCENARIO ASSUMPTIONS AND DISCUSSION

In this section the discussion is concentrated upon mineral occurrences located on BLM unencumbered lands and the State- and Native-selected lands. This is where the estimated disturbances and cumulative impacts from future mineral resource development are identified and discussed by the alternatives derived during the PRMP/FEIS process. 7.1 Locatable Minerals Economic Assumptions

The following section is a discussion of the economic viability of mining within the Ring of Fire planning area. The purpose of this discussion is to present mine deposit models, estimate amount of activity by model, and estimate the amount of disturbance of the activities through the year 2020. All discussions are based upon the following assumptions.

All potentially productive areas are open to mineral entry, except those closed by law, regulation, or executive order (e.g., wild and scenic rivers, natural resource areas, special recreation management areas, and areas of critical environmental concern). Lands discussed in this report include BLM unencumbered lands and State- and Native- selected lands. Land conveyances will be completed and withdrawals will be lifted by 2010, which should allow for additional exploration. Additional exploration in some areas will increase the related reserve base to make mining economically feasible. Current management decisions influence current willingness to invest in exploration for long-term development, beyond 2020. In particular, restrictions on access now may preclude future development. The mine deposit models created for this report are hypothetical mining and milling scenarios made without exploration of potential mine sites or significant information about ore bodies and environmental conditions. All disturbance estimates would be increased or decreased by different terrain, ore grade, and mine development requirements. However, the bases for the estimates are active mines of a similar nature. 7.2 Mining Process Discussion

The mining process generally consists of exploration, development, extraction, processing, and reclamation.

Mineral exploration begins with prospecting, which is generally inexpensive and results in little environmental impact. Access to remote areas is generally the most expensive part of prospecting in Alaska, but other significant expenses include geochemical sampling, geophysical surveying, satellite remote sensing, and other sophisticated methods for identifying mineral deposits. After identifying a valuable target on open public (federal) land, the prospector will stake and record claims. A claimant begins target testing to confirm the presence of a deposit and determine its size, shape, characteristics, and mineral grade. This requires drilling test holes over an extended area. Because of the expense, drilling is generally limited to the extent necessary to identify sufficient reserves, which would support the costs of development.

Appendix G B-14 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Helicopter use can limit surface impacts where road building would otherwise be required. If the target location appears to be economic, the prospector will apply for appropriate permits to develop and operate a mine.

Mine development prepares the site for extraction, and primarily involves establishing the infrastructure necessary to mining. This includes power and water supplies, support and mineral processing facilities, and transportation facilities such as roads and airplane landing sites. Surface locations for ore stockpiles, waste rock, heap leach piles (if used), and tailings impoundments are also prepared. For an open pit mine, initial stripping of surface soils and overburden uncovers the ore body. For an underground mine, shafts or adits, drifts, crosscuts, ramps, and raises are excavated. Development generates substantial capital costs, and involves environmental impacts over the area of development. A large mine with facilities might cover a few thousand acres, with much of the surface disturbance occurring during development.

Extraction (or mining) is generally defined as drilling, blasting, loading, and hauling the ore out of the mine. Waste material may be used to backfill large mined-out areas in surface or underground mines. Continued mining will result in growing waste dumps, heap leach piles, tailings ponds, and other surface disturbances. With placer mining, generally a short section of a surface stream is relocated, the old streambed is cleared, and exposed gravels are processed through sluices. The stream is returned to its former location as part of the reclamation of the area. Suction dredging of placer deposits does not require stream relocation because a pump suctions sediment from the stream bottom to process through sluices.

Mineral processing at a mine site concentrates the ore material before shipment to a smelter or refinery. Exceptions to this include some copper ores, which may be produced on site. Concentrating includes crushing and grinding the ore, then putting the resulting material through physical or chemical processes to separate the valuable minerals from waste tailings. These tailings are disposed of in tailings ponds near the site, and the water may be recycled for reuse at the mine. The tailings may contain trace amounts of minerals, waste rock, and chemicals from processing. At some locations, tailings from old mines are remined with modern processes that allow additional mineral recovery. Tailings may be used to backfill underground stopes (voids). Tailings ponds are engineered to high standards to prevent discharge of acid runoff.

Reclamation is complete when the area is returned to beneficial non-mining use. Common practices include capping waste dumps and tailings piles with soil, removing buildings and roads, planting appropriate ground cover, and directing water flow to minimize acid runoff. This requires long-term monitoring to assure the efforts work as expected. 7.3 Forecast Deposit Model Types and Mining Production Rates

The following section uses information from similar reserves to estimate disturbance that could result from development of deposit types located on unencumbered BLM land and State- and Native-selected lands within the Ring of Fire planning area. The primary model source was Mineral Deposit Models (Cox and Singer 1986). Where information from the deposit or nearby deposits was substantially different from the Cox and Singer model, the local information was used rather than the models. Appendix 1 lists the deposits, models, reserves/resources, their estimated disturbed acreages and mine production rates.

Appendix G� B-15� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 7.3.1 Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region

Hot-spring Gold-Silver (Cox and Singer Model 25a)

Modeled deposit reserves: not modeled by Cox and Singer.

Deposit Name ARDF/AMIS No. Resources Reference Land Status Steeple Point UK011 None reported' Pilcher, 2000 Native-selected Notes: 'Samples contain arsenic, copper, gold molybdenum, silver, and zinc; all at low value; no reserve estimate.

The USGS ARDF (Pilcher 2000 and 2002) describes over 80 locations of epithermal gold vein deposits in this portion of the Ring of Fire planning area, with additional locations not assigned deposit types. Prospects with reserve estimates range from 30,000 to 110,000 short tons (st). No prospects have been mined. This analysis used a reserve of 135,000 st and production of 100 st per day (stpd). At that production rate, disturbance is estimated to be 40 acres for basic facilities with no specific terrain or mining considerations identified. If necessary, employee housing, marine access, and road construction would be an additional 30 acres, based on an 8.5-mile road.

Conclusion: Based on recurring interest in some occurrences and prospects, it is likely one or more areas will be further explored in the reasonably foreseeable future with disturbance less than 5 acres. The time required for conveyance, exploration, permitting, and development would put the start of production near the end of the 15-year period. Any development on or near BLM- managed lands could disturb up to 70 acres of the surface.

Porphyry Copper (Cox & Singer Model 17)

Modeled deposit reserves: median deposit is 155 million st, with 80 percent between 21 and 1,212 million st (Cox and Singer 1986).

Deposit Name ARDF/AMTS No. Resources Reference Land Status Unnamed UN020/143-023 None reported Wilson 1996 Native-selected Pyramid PM023/138-039 126 million st Pilcher 2002 Native-selected Unnamed UK002/144-002 None reported Pilcher 2000 Native-selected Notes: st = short ton

The Pyramid location was explored in 1974 to 1975 and found to have up to 0.403 percent copper and 0.25 percent molybdenum. The reserves were estimated at 126 million st, which compares favorably with the median of the Cox and Singer model. Much less is known about the unnamed occurrences, though descriptions suggest they may be porphyry copper or similar deposits.

A reserve of 126 million st could produce 17,000 stpd for 21 years. The resulting disturbance might reach 1,340 acres by the end of the mine life. However, the reported quality is 0.403 percent copper and 0.25 percent molybdenum, which in the present market would not support the costs of production.

Conclusion: For all sites, additional exploration might occur within the foreseeable future and might result in 5 acres of disturbance during the next 15 years. The limited information on the unnamed occurrences indicates substantial exploration may be required to determine development potential, and any development is unlikely before 2020. Developing the Pyramid

Appendix G B-16� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS location requires permitting after land conveyance, and may not occur within 15 years due to ore quality.

Fumarolic Sulfur (Cox & Singer Model not identified)

Modeled deposit reserves: not identified.

Deposit Name ARDF/AMIS No. Resources Reference Land Status Makushin Volcanic UN003/143-01 Reserve estimate 9,000 st Wilson 1996 Native-selected S high grade ore and up to 122,500 st low grade ore Notes: st = short ton

This occurrence may extend to 30 acres, though the high grade area is estimated to be about 5 acres. The depth of the mineral is up to 16 feet, but estimated to be only 2 feet for the high r grade area. The location is within the crater of a remote volcano with active fumaroles and vents, making it an unlikely target in the current sulfur market. Sulfur from oil and natural gas entirely replaced mining in 2000, and is expected to meet sulfur demand in the foreseeable future (Ober 2004). Given the limits of the crater and size of the reserve, any development might result in 40 to 60 acres of disturbance, depending on the ore grade cutoff used. Production rates range from 13 to 93 stpd for 2 to 4 years.

Conclusion: This location and any similar locations will not be developed in the foreseeable future.

Lead-Zinc (Cox & Singer Model not identified)

Modeled deposit reserves: not identified.

Deposit Name ARDF/AMIS No. Resources Reference Land Status PMRGX-18 PM025 None reported Pilcher, 2002 Native-selected

Information about this occurrence is limited, suggesting that the time necessary to explore and permit exceeds the foreseeable period. This occurrence may be similar to the Apollo Mine in the same region, though that operation targeted gold and silver. The Cox and Singer Model 22c (Polymetallic veins) is identified as representative of the Apollo Mine reserve (Pilcher 2002). This model indicates median 8,400 st, with 80 percent between 320 and 220,460 st (Cox and Singer 1986). A mine at the average of the model, reserves of 8,400 st, would require a very high grade ore body to be economic, and might result in 40 acres of disturbance. Production might occur at a rate of 12.5 stpd for less than 2 years.

Conclusion: With the time necessary for conveyance, exploration, and permitting, this occurrence will not be developed in the foreseeable future. Exploration might occur in the foreseeable future, with 5 acres disturbance.

7.3.2 Kodiak Region

No mineral deposits were identified on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Kodiak region. No deposit modeling was completed for this area.

LI

Appendix G B-17 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 7.3.3 Southcentral Region

Gold-Quartz Veins (Chugach-type) (Cox and Singer Model 36a)

Modeled deposit reserves: median deposit is 33,000 st, with 80 percent between 1,100 and 1 million st (Cox and Singer 1986).

Deposit Name ARDF/ Resources Reference Land status AMIS No. Jewel/Monarch Mine AN107/85-101 3,100 st high Bickerstaff and Huss 1998 USFS/State-selected potential Brahrenberg Mine AN110/85-297 344 st Bickerstaff and Huss 1998 USFS/State-selected Agostino AN109 High potential Bickerstaff and Huss 1998 USFS/State-selected Raggedtop Mountain AN106/85-322 None reported Bickerstaff and Huss 1998 USFS/State-selected Brenner AN108/85-296 None reported Bickerstaff and Huss 1998 USFS/State-selected Summit Mountain AN111/85-323 None reported Bickerstaff and Huss 1998 USFS/State-selected Crown Point Mine 95-114 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/State-selected East Point Mine 95-095 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/State-selected Skeen-Lechner 95-116 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/State-selected Falls Creek Mine 95-113 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/State-selected California Creek 95-115 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/State-selected Mile 7-1/2 95-361 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/State-selected Monarch Mine 85-295 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/State-selected Notes: st = short ton USFS = U.S. Forest Service

The mines identified with high development potential have remained inactive since the 1930s or 1940s (Bickerstaff and Huss 1998). These locations have had very little activity for up to 70 years, so it appears that they have little economic value. If development were to occur, disturbance would be somewhat less than 70 acres with mill and marine facilities required by an underground operation. A reserve of 344 to 3,100 st would produce at 1 to 6 stpd for 1 or 2 years from startup, and require about 12 employees.

Conclusion: Additional exploration would likely result in 1 to 5 acres disturbance at any occurrence, with 13 acres for all. Additional development is not expected in the foreseeable future.

Placer Gold (Cox & Singer Model 39a)

Modeled Deposit Reserves: median is 1.2 million st, with 80 percent between 24,250 and 55 million st (Cox and Singer 1986).

Deposit Name ARDF/AMIS No. Resources Reference Land Status Crow Creek AN104/85-254 1.2 million cubic meters Bickerstaff and Huss 1998 USFS/State-selected Jones 95-160 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/State-selected Canyon Creek 95-267 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/State-selected Kings Bay Placer 95-074 None reported BLM, 2004 USFS/Native-selected Notes: USFS = U.S. Forest Service

The State of Alaska Annual Placer Mining Application (APMA) for the Crow Creek Mining Company indicated 4.5 acres currently disturbed, with 1 acre disturbed and reclaimed during the year (Alaska Department of Natural Resources [ADNR] 2004). This is indicative of placer operations throughout the area.

No estimate of production rate was made because of the variability possible in placer mining.

Appendix G� B-18� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Conclusion: Other than the operating Crow Creek Mine, there is no indication that any of these occurrences would begin production in the foreseeable future. Additional exploration might result in 1 to 5 acres disturbance at any occurrence, with 3 acres total for locations other than Crow Creek. The Crow Creek site is likely to disturb and reclaim 1 acre per year for 15 years.

7.3.4 Southeast Region

Alaskan Platinum Group Elements (Cox and Singer Model 9)

Modeled Deposit Reserves: not modeled by Cox and Singer.

Deposit Name ARDF/AMIS No. Resources Reference Land Status Judd Harbor/Duke Island PRO01/122-003 None reported, averages of Berg 1999 State-selected 0.037 ppm Pt, 0.033 ppm Pd, and 0.010 ppm Rh r � Pt = Platinum Notes: ppm = parts per� million Pd = Palladium Rh = Rhodium

Additional exploration would be required to determine the economic feasibility of this location. Quality parameters suggest the grade is too low to be economic, even at recent record prices. No reserve estimate was possible, so no production rate was estimated.

There is exploration in the area, with new copper discoveries on Duke Island. Development of other discoveries may make this occurrence economic in the future, but it is currently too speculative to suggest it will happen.

Conclusion: This occurrence will not be explored or developed in the foreseeable future.

Placer Gold (Cox and Singer Model 39a)

Modeled deposit reserves: median is 1.2 million st, with 80 percent between 24,250 and 55 million st (Cox and Singer 1986).

Deposit Name�- - ARDF/AMIS No. Resources • Reference Land Status I. Nugget Creek SK048/109-034 None reported Crafford 2001 State-selected Cottonwood Creek SK049/109-024 None reported Crafford 2001 State-selected Tsiruku River 109-037 None reported BLM, 2004 State-selected Salmon Creek JU131/112-168 None reported Barnett and State-selected 1.. Miller 2003 Situk Beach YA007 None reported Hawley 1999 Native-selected Yakutat Beach YA002/108-010 36 million cubic meters Hawley 1999 Native-selected Big Nugget Mine 109-057 None reported BLM, 2004 State-selected r. Porcupine Creek SK041/109-036 152,000 cubic yards Crafford 2001 State-selected

The APMA (ADNR 2004) for the Crow Creek Mining Company in the southcentral region 1_ indicated 4.5 acres currently disturbed, with one acre disturbed and reclaimed during the year. This is indicative of placer operations throughout the state.

The Porcupine Creek area, including the Porcupine Creek mine shown above, has reported production of 79,650 troy ounces of gold between 1898 and 1985. Recent production at the mine has been limited to times of high gold prices. Reserve estimates indicate there may be more than 1,611 troy ounces of gold remaining in the unmined gravels. These reserves have not supported sustained production at gold prices since 1945.

No estimate of production rate was made because of the variability possible in placer mining.

Appendix G� B-19� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Conclusion: There is no indication that any of these occurrences would begin production in the foreseeable future. If any placer mine is developed on or near BLM land in this region, disturbance at any time is expected to be five acres or less per operation, with direct employment of three to six miners. Exploration may disturb one to five acres at any location, with a total disturbance of eight acres for these occurrences.

Underground Copper (Cox and Singer Model not identified)

Modeled deposit reserves: not identified.

Deposit Name ARDF/AMIS No. Resources Reference Land Status Nancy CR107/119-082 None reported Grybeck 2004 USFS/State-selected

Information about this occurrence is limited, suggesting that the time necessary to explore and permit exceeds the foreseeable period. Such exploration might disturb up to five acres of surface. This copper occurrence may be similar to the Nelson and Tift Mine (ARDF PRO05) or White Knight prospect (ARDF KC053) in the same region.

The Nelson and Tift Mine is identified as a copper skarn model 18b, though the mine sold only gold (Berg, 1999). It had reserves estimated at 1,300 st. The larger White Knight prospect is identified as a polymetallic vein model 22c though staked claims were for gold (Berg 1999). The reserve median for this model deposit is 8,400 st, with 80 percent between 320 and 220,460 st (Cox and Singer 1986). Those reserves would allow for 12.5 stpd for less than two years, and require only eight employees. Surface disturbance would be up to 70 acres. A mine of this size would require a very high grade ore body.

Conclusion: With the time necessary for conveyance, exploration, and permitting, this occurrence will not be developed in the foreseeable future.

Low-Sulfide Gold Quartz (Cox and Singer Model 36a)

Modeled deposit reserves: median is 33,000 st, with 80 percent between 1,100 and one million st (Cox and Singer 1986).

Deposit name ARDF/AMTS no. Resources Reference Land status Goldstein JU133/112-196 None reported Barnett 2003 State-selected Hallum JU144/112-129 None reported Barnett 2003 State-selected Westlake CR214/119-060 None reported Grybeck 2004 Native-selected Bluebird CR214 None reported Grybeck 2004 Native-selected

Limited information and previous workings at these sites suggest little additional development potential, unless additional exploration identifies economic reserves. Even so, if the deposits were Low-Sulfide Gold-Quartz Veins, as ARDF indicates, initial reserves would have been about 33,000 st. Mine production would be about 35 stpd for 2.7 years, if most of the ore remains after the early mining. This would be similar to the Chugach-type mine with disturbance of up to 70 acres for development and about five acres during exploration. Development would require low access costs or high grade ore.

Conclusion: Exploration and development are unlikely before 2020.

Appendix G B-20 Attachment B

Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Kuroko Massive Sulfide (Cox and Singer Model 28a)

Modeled deposit reserves: median is 1.6 million st, with 80 percent between 133,000 and 20 million st (Cox and Singer 1986).

Deposit Name ARDF/AMIS No. Resources Reference Land Status Cable Creek CR106 None reported Grybeck 2004 State-selected

The occurrence at Cable Creek is at roadside and has been sampled by government and industry. The quality is low, but suggests a possible Kuroko-type massive sulfide deposit nearby. Additional exploration is required to identify such a deposit. Such exploration would result in about 5 acres disturbance. If a Kuroko-type deposit is identified, it might contain 1.6 million st. This would support production of 660 stpd for over 7 years and result in over 120 acres surface disturbance. While this could result in a large to very large mine for the region, it is speculative to suggest such a deposit could be located, explored, and developed in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion: Although development is unlikely before 2020, additional exploration may occur at this site, resulting in up to 5 acres of disturbance.

Polymetallic veins (Cox and Singer Model 22c)

Modeled deposit reserves: median is 8,300 st, with 80 percent between 320 and 220,000 st (Cox and Singer 1986).

Deposit Name ARDF/AMIS No. Resources Reference Land Status Le Blondeau SK050/109-103 None reported Crafford 2001 State-selected Belle 114-163 None reported BLM, 2004n BLM Hope CR213 None reported Grybeck 2004 Native-selected

The Le Blondeau prospect information is limited to sample results and a possible model type. Additional exploration is required, and might result in about 5 acres disturbance during exploration. The small deposit size for a silver-gold-cobalt mine makes development uneconomic, so exploration would be required to identify adequate reserves to support the cost of extraction. Production for this small of a deposit is estimated to be 12.5 stpd for less than 2 years, or higher production for a shorter period.

The Belle and Hope occurrences are not classified as polymetallic vein deposits, but have been included in this model based on minerals reported. While the model gives production and disturbance information that may apply, the lack of information makes it unlikely that any development will occur in the foreseeable future.

Conclusion: Although development is unlikely, additional exploration may occur at Le a Blondeau, resulting in up to 5 acres of disturbance. No activity is likely at Belle and Hope occurrences.

I.

Appendix G B-21� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 8.0 SURFACE DISTURBANCE DUE TO LOCATABLE MINERAL ACTIVITY

Information used to develop the estimated surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity with the Ring of Fire planning area was derived from the BLM's AMIS database, the USGS ARDF open-file reports, the URS's Draft Mineral Occurrence Potential Report (2004), USBOM mineral terranes map, federal and state mining claim databases, and DGGS yearly 2003 Mineral Industry Report. All mineral activities discussed are restricted to BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands. The following discussion is written to fit the development alternatives derived during the PRMP/FEIS process. 8.1 Estimate of Current Surface Disturbance Resulting from Locatable Mineral Activity

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: No locatable mineral activity is currently being conducted in this region (Szumigala et al. 2004). No active mining claims are located on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands.

There is no current surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region.

Kodiak Region: No locatable mineral activity is currently being conducted in this region (Szumigala et al. 2004). No active mining claims are located on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands.

There is no current surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State and Native-selected lands in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: Mineral activity reported during 2003 for the southcentral region includes one exploration project (Shulin Lake) and three small placer operations (Crow, Canyon, and Quartz creeks) (Szumigala et al. 2004). Active placer mining claims on Crow, Canyon, and Quartz creeks are located within CNF. Active placer mining claims located in the Petersville- Cache Creek, Collinsville, and Hatcher Pass areas (Szumigala et al. 2004) are on State land with federal subsurface estate, but are currently not actively being operated. No active mining claims are located on BLM unencumbered lands.

A total of four placer properties and 13 gold-quartz vein (Chugach-type) properties are located within the High Mineral Potential Areas listed in Table 2 and Appendix 1, and shown on Figure 5. Of these properties the only active placer operation, the Crow Creek Mine, is used mainly as a tourist recreational panning site. All the remaining placer properties and the gold-quartz vein properties are currently inactive.

Estimated current surface disturbance for the entire southcentral region includes 5 acres for the Shulin Lake exploration project and 15 acres for the Crow Creek, Canyon Creek, and Quartz Creek mines. Total estimated surface disturbance in the southcentral region resulting from active locatable mineral activity would be 20 acres.

Appendix G B-22 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Estimated current surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the southcentral region includes 5 acres for the Crow Creek Mine.

Southeast Region: Mineral activity reported during 2003 for the southeast region includes four exploration projects (Greens Creek Mine, Union Bay, and Duke and Woewodski islands), two development projects (Greens Creek and Kensington mines), one hard rock mining operation (Greens Creek Mine), and one placer operation (Big Nugget Mine) (Szumigala et al. 2004).

A total of eight placer properties and three low-sulfide gold-quartz; one each Kuroko massive sulfide, Alaskan platinum group elements (PGE), and polymetallic vein; and five unknown properties are located within the High Mineral Potential Areas listed in Table 2 and Appendix 1 and shown on Figure 6. Two placer operations on Porcupine Creek (Big Nugget Mine and Porcupine Creek) are located on State land with federal subsurface estate and are currently inactive. One historical inactive lode prospect (Belle) is located on BLM unencumbered land east of Sitka. Of these operations only the Big Nugget Mine has had any active mining during the recent past, but is currently inactive. No active mining claims are located on BLM unencumbered lands.

Estimated current disturbance for the entire southeast region area includes 20 acres for the exploration projects (Greens Creek Mine, Union Bay, and Duke and Woewodski islands), 140 acres for the development projects (Greens Creek and Kensington mines), and 200 acres for the mining operation (Greens Creek Mine). Total estimated surface disturbance in the southeast region resulting from active locatable mineral activity is 360 acres.

There is no current surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the southeast region.

8.2 Estimate of Future Surface Disturbance for Mines, Mills, Roads, and Locatable Mineral Related Infrastructure that May Result from Projections of Future Activity

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: There is expected to be a very small amount of reasonably foreseeable future locatable mineral activity in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region. Future exploration activities are estimated to occur at three locations (Steeple Point, PMRGX-18, and Pyramid). Three other locations (Makushin Volcano S and two unnamed) are unlikely to be developed. These locations are listed in Table 2 and Appendix 1, and shown on Figure 4.

Total estimated future surface disturbances resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region is 15 acres.

Kodiak Region: There is no estimated reasonably foreseeable future surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: There is expected to be a very small amount of reasonably foreseeable future locatable mineral activity in the southcentral region. Future yearly exploration activities are estimated to continue at one location (Shulin Lake), possible development of placer

Appendix G B-23� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS operations in the Petersville-Cache Creek, Collinsville, and Hatcher Pass areas, and continued mining at three placer operations on Crow, Canyon, and Quartz creeks.

A total of four placer properties and 13 gold-quartz vein (Chugach-type) properties are located within the High Mineral Potential Areas listed in Table 2 and Appendix 1, and shown on Figure 5. Of these properties the only active placer operation, the Crow Creek Mine, is used mainly as a tourist recreational panning site. All the remaining placer properties and the gold-quartz vein properties are currently inactive.

Estimated future surface disturbance for the entire southcentral region includes 5 acres for the Shulin Lake project, 15 acres for the Crow Creek Mine, three acres for the Kings Bay, Jones, and Canyon Creek placers, 5 acres for the Petersville-Cache Creek, Collinsville, and Hatcher Pass area placer operations, and 13 acres for the lode properties. Total estimated surface disturbance in the southcentral region resulting from active locatable mineral activity would be 36 acres if all the above properties were actively mining.

Total estimated future surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands is 31 acres, as listed in Appendix 1.

Southeast Region: There is expected to be a continuation of the activities occurring on the four exploration projects (Greens Creek Mine, Woewodski Island, Union Bay, and Duke Island), two development projects (Greens Creek and Kensington Mines), one hard rock mining operation (Greens Creek Mine) and one placer operation (Big Nugget Mine) in the southeast region (Szumigala et al. 2004).

A total of eight placer properties and three low-sulfide gold-quartz; one each Kuroko massive sulfide, Alaskan PGE, and polymetallic vein; and five unknown properties are located within the High Mineral Potential Areas listed in Table 2 and Appendix 1, and shown on Figure 6.

Estimated future disturbance for the entire southeast region includes 30 acres for the exploration projects (also includes Cable Creek and Le Blondeau), 140 acres for the development projects, 200 acres for the mining operation, and 8 acres for the placer operations. Total estimated future surface disturbance in the southeast region resulting from locatable mineral activity is 378 acres.

Total estimated future surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands is 18 acres, as listed in Appendix 1. 8.3 Estimate of Staged Future Surface Reclamation of Disturbance Activity

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: If the exploration activities were to occur at three locations (Steeple Point, PMRGX-18, and Pyramid) there would be 15 acres of disturbance requiring reclamation. As there is no current exploration activity in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region, an estimate of future staged reclamation cannot be made.

There is no reasonably foreseeable estimated staged future surface reclamation of disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region.

Appendix G B-24� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Kodiak Region: There is no reasonably foreseeable estimated staged future surface reclamation of disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: If all the estimated activities were to occur for the entire southcentral region, disturbance would include 5 acres for the Shulin Lake project, 15 acres for the Crow Creek Mine, 3 acres for the Kings Bay, Jones, and Canyon Creek placers, 5 acres for the Petersville-Cache Creek, Collinsville, and Hatcher Pass area placer operations, and 13 acres for the lode properties. A total estimated surface disturbance of 36 acres would need to be reclaimed in the southcentral region.

The only reasonably foreseeable estimated staged future reclamation of disturbance would be possible activity on the federal mining claims located on State land in the Petersville-Cache Creek, Collinsville, and Hatcher Pass area. That estimate would be no more than 5 acres per year resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native- selected lands in the southcentral region.

Southeast Region: If all the estimated activities were to occur for the entire southeast region, disturbance would include 30 acres for the exploration projects (also includes Cable Creek and Le Blondeau), 140 acres for the development projects, 200 acres for the mining operation, and 8 acres for the placer operations. A total estimated surface disturbance of 378 acres would need to be reclaimed in the southeast region.

The only reasonable foreseeable estimated staged future reclamation of disturbance would be possible activity on the federal mining claims located on State land in the Porcupine Creek area (Big Nugget Mine). That estimate would be no more than 5 acres per year from exploration, development, or mining work conducted on placer gold deposits.

8.4 Estimated Total Surface Disturbance

(Total surface disturbance = current # future disturbance)

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: The reasonably foreseeable estimated total surface disturbance in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region is zero acres of current disturbance plus 15 acres of future disturbance, for a total of 15 acres on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands.

Kodiak Region: There is no reasonably foreseeable estimated total surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands on Kodiak Island.

Southcentral Region: The reasonably foreseeable estimated total surface disturbance in the southcentral region is five acres of current disturbance plus 31 acres of future disturbance, for a total of 36 acres on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands.

Southeast Region: The reasonably foreseeable estimated total surface disturbance in the r" southeast region is zero acres of current disturbance plus 18 acres of future disturbance, for a total of 18 acres on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands.

La

Appendix G B-25� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 8.5 Estimated Total Net Surface Disturbance

(Total net surface disturbance = current # future disturbance — reclamation)

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: The reasonably foreseeable estimated total net surface disturbance in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region is zero acres of current disturbance plus 15 acres of future disturbance minus zero acres of reclamation, for a total of 15 acres on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands.

Kodiak Region: There is no reasonably foreseeable estimated total net surface disturbance resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: The reasonably foreseeable estimated total net surface disturbance in the southcentral region are 5 acres of current disturbance plus 31 acres of future disturbance minus 5 acres for reclamation, for a total net of 31 acres on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands.

Southeast Region: The reasonably foreseeable estimated total net surface disturbance in the ­ southeast region are zero acres of current disturbance plus 18 acres of future disturbance minus 5 acres for reclamation, for a total net of 13 acres on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands. 8.6 Estimated Number and Type of Infrastructure Facilities that May Impact Air Quality

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: There will be no reasonably foreseeable infrastructure facilities that may impact air quality resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region.

Kodiak Region: There will be no reasonably foreseeable infrastructure facilities that may impact air quality resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: Infrastructure facilities affecting air quality for one placer operation, located on State-selected land in the Petersville-Cache Creek area, would be limited to a small diesel or gasoline generator (50 kilowatts [kW]) and/or small water pumps (less than 40 horsepower), if the operation is located away from existing electric power lines. The one exploration effort might require similar infrastructure during the short summer season. The development project located on State-selected lands within CNF would also require diesel generators for electrical power (up to 1,200 kW peak load), if power lines to the location were not feasible. In addition, there would be emissions from heavy equipment and some potential for windborne dust from disturbed areas that were not stabilized. Operations would be required to meet applicable federal and State air quality standards for permitting.

The small size of the operations, as well as the short period of operation would create a minor impact on the local air quality.

Appendix G B-26� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Southeast Region: For the one exploration prospect and placer operation located on State- selected lands, each operation might require a small diesel or gasoline generator (50 kW) and/or small water pumps (up to 40 horsepower). The one development prospect, located on State-selected lands, might require diesel generators (800 to 3,534 kW peak load), if existing power lines to the location are not feasible. In addition, there would be emissions from heavy equipment and some potential for windborne dust from disturbed areas that were not stabilized. Operations would be required to meet applicable federal and state air quality standards for permitting.

The small size of the operations, as well as the short period of operation would create a minor impact on the local air quality. 8.7 Estimated Quantity and Quality of Produced Water Disposed on the Surface

Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain Region: There will be no reasonably foreseeable water disposed on the surface resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region.

Kodiak Region: There will be no reasonably foreseeable water disposed on the surface resulting from locatable mineral activity on BLM unencumbered or State- and Native-selected lands in the Kodiak region.

Southcentral Region: Water for the one possible operating placer operation, located on State- selected land in the Petersville-Cache Creek area, would be limited to the amount put through a gravity separation process (500 gallons per minute, possibly recycled), plus domestic use of 9,000 to 18,000 gallons annually. The one exploration effort would require smaller quantities of water for drilling and domestic use, assuming a much shorter work year. The development project, located on State-selected lands within CNF, would also require water for processing and domestic use. The size of the reserve makes on-site flotation milling unlikely, but if it occurs, it would be a closed circuit for water use, using only the initial input and makeup water for the amount remaining in the tailings. About 11,000 gallons would be required for the initial day of processing, and about 400,000 gallons per year for makeup water. It is assumed that mine discharge will generally provide this water, and surface water will be required infrequently and there would be no untreated discharge of produced water. It is estimated that employees will require up to 280,000 gallons per year of potable water from a local water source, which will be discharged appropriately. Operations would be required to meet applicable federal and State water quality standards for permitting.

The small size of the operations, as well as the short period of operation would create a minor impact on the local water quality.

Southeast Region: Each of the four placer operations located on State-selected lands and one placer operation located on Native-selected lands might require water for a gravity separation process (500 gallons per minute, possibly recycled), plus domestic use of 9,000 to 18,000 gallons annually. The exploration effort would require smaller quantities of water for drilling and domestic use, assuming a much shorter work year. The development prospect, located on State-selected lands, might require water for processing and domestic use. The on-site flotation milling is less likely for the smaller reserve size, but probable for the larger estimate. It would be a closed circuit for water use, using only the initial input and makeup water for the amount

Appendix G� B-27� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS remaining in tailings. Initial requirements would be 96,000 gallons for the first day, plus approximately 3.6 million gallons of makeup water during each year of operation. It is assumed that mine discharge will generally provide this water, and surface water will be required infrequently, and there would be not untreated discharge of produced water. It is estimated that employees will require 175,000 to 665,000 gallons per year of potable water from a local water source, which will be discharged appropriately. Operations would be required to meet all applicable federal and State water quality standards for permitting.

The small size of the operations, as well as the short period of operation would create a minor impact on the local water quality.

Appendix G B-28 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 9.0 REASONABLE FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO DISCUSSION BY ALTERNATIVE

9.1 Alternative 1 — No Action (Current Management)

Under the No Action Alternative (Current Management) BLM-managed lands are currently withdrawn from mineral entry either by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act d(1) withdrawals or by State- or Native selection. Currently no locatable mineral activity is occurring in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region or in the Kodiak region. All current activity is occurring in the southcentral and southeast regions.

Most of the locatable mineral activity in the southcentral region does not occur on BLM unencumbered land or State- or Native-selected lands. Only one placer operation is located on State-selected lands and several hard rock operations are located on state land with federal subsurface estate. In the southeast region, one exploration and four placer operations are located on State- and Native-selected lands. Two placer operations are located on State land with federal subsurface estate.

If locatable mineral activity were to occur on every existing operation, as allowable by present BLM authority, an estimated total of 5 acres could potentially be disturbed in the Ring of Fire planning area. The activity would be restricted to the Petersville-Cache Creek and Hatcher Pass areas in the southcentral region and the Porcupine Creek area in the southeast region. Due to the small size of the existing operations, as well as the short period of operation there would be a minor impact on the local air and water quality.

9.2 Alternative B — Resource Development

Under the Resource Development Alternative, all future mineral activities would be allowed in the Ring of Fire planning area as all withdrawals would be repealed. There is no reasonably foreseeable future locatable mineral activity in the Kodiak region. All reasonably foreseeable future mineral activity will occur in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain, southcentral, and southeast regions. However, due to its sensitive nature, the Neacola Mountains-Blockade Glacier area could remain closed to mineral entry.

All of the locatable mineral activity in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region is located on Native-selected lands. Most of the locatable mineral activity in the southcentral region area does not occur on BLM unencumbered land or State- or Native-selected lands. Only one placer operation is located on State-selected lands and several hard rock and placer operations are located on State land with federal subsurface estate. In the southeast region, one exploration and four placer operations are located on State and Native-selected lands. Two placer operations are located on State land with federal subsurface estate.

If locatable mineral activity were to occur on every existing operation, as allowable by present BLM authority, an estimated total of 59 acres could potentially be disturbed in the Ring of Fire planning area. The activity would be restricted to the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain, southcentral, and southeast regions. Due to the small size of the existing operations, as well as the short period of operation there would be a minor impact on the local air and water quality.

Appendix G B-29� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 9.3 Alternative C — Resource Conservation

Under the Resource Conservation Alternative, no future mineral entry would be allowed in the Ring of Fire planning area as all withdrawals would remain in place. However, locatable mineral activity would still be allowed in existing "grandfathered" operations in the southcentral and southeast regions. These operations occur in the Petersville-Cache Creek, Collinsville, and Hatcher Pass area in the southcentral region and the Porcupine Creek area in the southeast region, as identified in the No Action Alternative. Currently no locatable mineral activity is occurring in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain or Kodiak regions.

If locatable mineral activity were to occur on every existing operation, as allowable by present BLM authority, an estimated total of 5 acres could potentially be disturbed in the Ring of Fire planning area. Under this alternative no further disturbance would be allowed. Due to the small size of the existing operations, as well as the short period of operation there would be a minor impact on the local air and water quality. 9.4 Alternative D — Proposed Action

Under the Proposed Action, all future mineral activities would be allowed in the Ring of Fire planning area, as all withdrawals would be repealed. There is no reasonably foreseeable future locatable mineral activity in the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain or Kodiak regions. However, due to its sensitive nature, the Neacola Mountains-Blockade Glacier area of the southcentral region could remain closed to mineral entry.

Most of the locatable mineral activity in the southcentral region does not occur on BLM unencumbered land or State- or Native-selected lands. Only one placer operation is located on State-selected lands and several hard rock and placer operations are located on State land with federal subsurface estate. In the southeast region, one exploration and four placer operations are located on State- and Native-selected lands. Two placer operations are located on State land with federal subsurface estate.

If locatable mineral activity were to occur on every existing operation, as allowable by present BLM authority, an estimated total of 59 acres could potentially be disturbed in the Ring of Fire planning area, less depending upon classification of the identified sensitive areas. The activity would be restricted to the Petersville-Cache Creek and Hatcher Pass areas in the southcentral region and the Porcupine Creek area in the southeast region. Due to the small size of the existing operations, as well as the short period of operation there would be a minor impact on the local air and water quality.

Appendix G B-30 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 10.0 REFERENCES

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). 2004. Alaska Placer Mining Application (APMA) Mining Applications. November 2004. http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/discus/

Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center (AEIDC). 1982. Mineral terranes of Alaska -­ 1982; University of Alaska, Anchorage, 6 figures (1:1,000,000 scale).

Barnett, J.C., and Miller, L.D. 2003. Juneau quadrangle, Alaska Resource Data Files (ARDF); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Open-File Report 03-456, p. 304-05, 308-09, 331-332, 25 October 2004. http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Berg, H. 1999. Ketchikan quadrangle, ARDF; USGS, 25 October 2004. http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Bickerstaff, D., and Huss, S.W. 1998. Anchorage quadrangle, ARDF; USGS Open-File Report 98-599, p 222-224, 228-242, 25 October 2004. http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Bittenbender, P.E., Bean, K.W., and Still, J.C. 2001. Stikine airborne geophysical survey followup, central southeast Alaska; BLM Technical Report 37, 116 p.

Bittenbender P.E., Still, J.C., Mass, K.N., McDonald, M.E., Jr. 1999. Mineral resources of the Chichagof and Baranof Islands area, southeast Alaska; BLM Technical Report 19, 222 p., 3 plates.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2004. Alaska Minerals Information Service (AMIS); November 2004. (Available at the BLM Alaska State Office)

Cox, D.P., and Singer, D.A. 1986. Mineral deposit models; USGS Bulletin 1693, 379 p.

Crafford, T.C. 2001. Skagway quadrangle, ARDF; USGS Open-File Report 01-193, p. 87-89, 105-111, 25 October 2004. http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Grybeck, D.J. 2004. Craig quadrangle, ARDF; USGS Open-File Report 2004-1384, p. 236-239, 454-457, 25 October 2004. http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Hawley, C.C. 1999. Yakutat quadrangle, ARDF; USGS Open-File Report 99-333, p. 6-8, 17-18, 25 October 2004. http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Maas, K.M., Bittenbinder, P.E., and Still, J.C. 1995. Mineral Investigations in the Ketchikan Mining District, Southeastern Alaska: U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBOM) Open-File Report 11-95, 606 p.

Nelson, S.W, and Miller, M.L., 2000, Assessment of mineral resource tracts in the Chugach National Forest, Alaska; USGS Open-File Report 00-026, 16 p.

Ober, J.A. 2004. Mineral commodity summary 2004, Sulfur; USGS, 5 December 2004. http://minerals.usgs.gove/minerals/pubs/commodity/sulfur/sulfumcs04.pdf

Pilcher, S.H. 2000. Umnak quadrangle, ARDF; USGS Open-File Report 00-118, p. 5-6, 25-26, 25 October 2004. http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Pilcher, S.H. 2002. Port Moller quadrangle, ARDF; USGS Open-File Report 02-47, p. 47-49-52­ 53, 25 October 2004. http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Appendix G B-31 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Resource Data, Inc. (RDI), Alaska Earth Sciences, Inc., and USBOM. 1995. Mineral terranes and known mineral deposit areas; Published by USBOM, 5 p.

Still, J.C., Bittenbender, P.E., Bean, K.W., and Gensler, E.G. 2002. Mineral assessment of the Stikine area, central southeast Alaska: BLM Technical Report 51, 560 p.

Szumigala, D.J., Hughes, R.A., and Harris, R.H. 2004. Alaska's mineral industry 2003; Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS) Special Report 58, 71 p.

URS Corporation (URS). 2004. Mineral Occurrence Potential Report for the Ring of Fire Planning Area; 58 p., 33 figures.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2005. Alaska Resource Data Files; March 2005. http:// http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Wilson, F.H. 1996. Unalaska quadrangle, ARDF; USGS Open-File Report 96-270, p. 5-6, 30, 25 October 2004. http://ardf.wr.usgs.gov/

Appendix G B-32� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 11.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS rt Thanks goes to Nancy Darigo, URS, for the work she put into the Mineral Occurrence Potential Report for the Ring of Fire Planning Area, Alaska, from which much of this report is based upon. rt Thanks goes to Robert Brumbaugh, Minerals Specialist, BLM, Division of Energy and Solid Minerals for his guidance, input, and review during the writing of this document.

Thanks also goes to Jerry Kouzes, Cartographic Technician, BLM, Division of Energy and Solid Minerals, for the work he did in digitizing the High, Medium, and Low Mineral Potential maps used in the URS Mineral Occurrence Potential Report and all figures included in this report.

I

Appendix G B-33� Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 12.0 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

Mark P. Meyer, Physical Scientist and Darla D. Pindell, Mineral Economist, BLM, Division of Energy and Solid Minerals.

Appendix G B-34 Attachment B APPENDIX 1

Estimated Disturbance from Mineral Development within the Ring of Fire Planning Area Figures MP-� a�a�•

Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Appendix 1. Estimated Disturbance from Mineral Development within the Ring of Fire Planning Area

Mine Production Reasonably iDepositModel Type Disturbed Acreage PoD Deposit Name�' Status Reserves/Resources Rates Foreseeable (Cox and Singer) (Estimated) (Estimated) Alternative B ALASKA PENINSULA/ALEUTIAN CHAIN u Unnamed NS Cu, Mo Unknown, 126 million st Unknown, 17,000 stpd 5 acres for exploration, 40 to 0 acres used for analysis used for analysis 70 acres for development I Steeple Point NS 25a - Hot-spring Au- Unknown, 135,000 st Unknown, 100 stpd 5 acres for exploration, 40 to 5 acres Ag used for analysis used for analysis 70 acres for development u Unnamed NS 17 - Porphyry Cu? Unknown, 126 million st Unknown, 17,000 stpd 5 acres for exploration, 40 to 0 acres used for analysis used for analysis 70 acres for development u Makushin NS Fumarolic Sulfur 9,000 to 122,500 st 1 to 6 stpd 40 to 60 acres 0 acres Volcano S I PMRGX-18 NS Pb-Zn Unknown, 8,400 st used Unknown, 12.5 stpd 5 acres for exploration, 40 5 acres for analysis used for analysis acres for development I Pyramid NS 21a - Porphyry Cu- 126 million st 17,000 stpd 5 acres for exploration, 1,340 5 acres Mo? acres for development SOUTHCENTRAL u Kings Bay Placer NS 39a - Placer Au Unknown Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre u Crown Point USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre Mine (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u East Point Mine USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u Skeen-Lechner USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u Skeen-Lechner USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u Falls Creek Mine USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u California Creek USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u Jones USFS/SS 39a - Placer Au Unknown Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre u Mile 7-'/2 USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u Canyon Creek USFS/SS 39a - Placer Au Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development h Crow Creek USFS/SS 39a - Placer Au 1.2 million cubic meters Not estimated 4.5 to 5 acres currently 15 acres (active) disturbed; 15 acres additional disturbance and reclamation u Raggedtop USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre Mountain (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u Jewel/Monarch USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins 3,100 st 6 stpd 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre Mine (Chugach-type) <70 acres for development

� � Appendix G B1-1 Attachment B Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Appendix 1. Estimated Disturbance from Mineral Development within the Ring of Fire Planning Area (continued Mine Production Reasonably Deposit Model Type Disturbed Acreage PoD Deposit Name Status Reserves/Resources Rates Foreseeable (Cox and Singer) (Estimated) (Estimated) AlternativeB u Brenner USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u Agostino USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u Summit Mountain USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development u Brahrenberg USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins 344 st 1 stpd 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre Mine (Chugach-type) <70 acres for development u Monarch Mine USFS/SS 36a.1 - Au-Qtz veins Unknown, 344 st used Unknown, 1 stpd used 1 to 5 acres for exploration, 1 acre (Chugach-type) for analysis for analysis <70 acres for development SOUTHEAST ALASKA Belle BLM Ag, Cu, Au Unknown, 8,400 st used Unknown, 12.5 stpd 5 acres for exploration, 40 0 acres for analysis used for analysis acres for development u Situk Beach NS 39a - Placer Au Unknown Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre (Beach Placer) u Yakutat Beach NS 39a - Placer Au 36 million cu m Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre Crystal NS Qtz crystals Unknown Minimal disturbance for Minimal disturbance for 0 acres personal collection personal collection u Westlake NS Cu, Pb, Au, Zn Unknown, 33,000 used Unknown, 35 stpd used 5 acres for exploration, 40 to 0 acres for analysis for analysis 70 acres for development Hope NS Au, Ag, Cu Unknown, 8,400 st used Unknown, 12.5 stpd 5 acres for exploration, 40 0 acres for analysis used for analysis acres for development u Bluebird NS 36a - Low-sulfide Au- Unknown, 33,000 st Unknown, 35 stpd used 5 acres for exploration, 40 to 0 acres Qtz used for analysis for analysis 70 acres for development u Nancy USFS/SS Underground Cu Unknown, 8,400 st used 12.5 stpd 5 acres for exploration, 40 0 acres for analysis acres for development u Cable Creek SS 28a - Kuroko massive Unknown, 1.6 million st Unknown,658 stpd used 5 acres for exploration, 121 5 acres sulfide used for analysis for analysis acres for development nd Judd USFS/SS 9 - Alaskan PGE Unknown Not determined Not determined 0 acres Harbor/Duke Island u Tsiruku River SS 39a - Placer Au Unknown Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre u Le Blondeau SS 22c - Polymetallic Unknown, 8,400 st used Unknown, 12.5 stpd 5 acres for exploration, 40 5 acres veins for analysis used for analysis acres for development u Salmon Creek SS 39a - Placer Au Unknown Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre u Goldstein SS 36a - Low-sulfide Au- Unknown, 33,000 used Unknown, 35 stpd used 5 acres for exploration, 40 to 0 acres Qtz for analysis for analysis 70 acres for development u Hallum SS 36a - Low-sulfide Au- Unknown, Unknown, 35 stpd used 5 acres for exploration, 40 to 0 acres Qtz 33,000 used for for analysis 70 acres for development analysis

� � Appendix G B1-2 Attachment B

MAW" 110,...11111 =11111•111 � /1041.44011M I

Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Appendix 1. Estimated Disturbance from Mineral Development within the Ring of Fire Planning Area (continued) Mine Production Reasonably Deposit Model Type Disturbed Acreage PoD Deposit Name Status Reserves/Resources Rates Foreseeable (Cox and Singer) (Estimated) (Estimated i u Cottonwood SS 39a - Placer Au Unknown Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre Creek u Nugget Creek SS 39a - Placer Au Unknown Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre u Big Nugget Mine SS 39a - Placer Au Unknown Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre u Porcupine Creek SS 39a - Placer Au 152,000 cubic yards Not estimated 1 to 5 acres 1 acre

Notes: PoD = Probability of development: h = high, m = moderate, I = low with exploration required, u = unlikely Status: USFS = U.S. Forest Service, NS = Native-selected , SS = State-selected Ag = silver Mo = molybdenum Au = gold Qtz = quartz Cu = copper st = short ton Pb = lead stpd = short ton per day PGE = platinum group elements Zn = zinc

Appendix G B1-3 Attachment B This page intentionally left blank. 172°00' 170'00' war 166'00' 104'00' 162'00' 100'00' 158'00' 156'00 154'00' 152'W 150'00' ree Ekuk o • ge IGI Naknek Clark's Point . King Salmon VF • South ek VSM

Egegik SCB IGF VSM Afognak Island SCB Vl\ry— • &Aide VSM IGF SGS Kodiak m IUMv- sm er,,itcs Ugartik Chiniak uk • IGI 56'00' IGFKaZ IUMi; - IGI

Port Heiden IGI Bristol B y IGI SF

VF _Nelson Lagoon !GI'

le IGI 0 d

54'W 4111 e VMU. SC Bering I 0

N 04 Pacific Ocean

EXPLANATION

Mineral occurrence VOLCANIC-SEDIMENTARY TERRANES M Known mineral deposit areas (KMDA) Felsic Volcanic Rocks VSF Undivided sedimentary and felsic volcanic VFI Felsic and intermediate volcanic rocks Mineral Terrane Mafic Volcanic Rocks UNIT classifications INTRUSIVE TERRANES VMU Undivided mafic volcanic rocks Granitic Rocks VSM Undivided sedimentary and mafic volcanic IGF Felsic granitic rocks Continental Rocks IGI Intermediate granitic rocks 50 0 50 too Miles Kodiak Island SCB Coal-bearing sandstone and shale Mafic-ultramafic Rocks SGS Graywacke and shale 50 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometers apir 4. IUM Ultramafic rocks Ring of Fire Scale Aleutian Chain Area

Figure 1. -- Locatable mineral occurrence and mineral terrane map of the Ring of Fire RMP, Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain, and Kodiak Island planning areas. 154'00' 152'00' 150'00' 1413'00' 146°00'

Grath

Glenr

•

Ring of Fire 62°00' Southcentral Area

SGS EXPLANATION e Village Valdez

Mineral occurrence

VSM Known mineral deposits (KMD) Tatitlek / VSM Mineral Terrane

UNIT classifications INTRUSIVE TERRANES

Nikiskl Granitic Rocks • Kenai IGU Undivided granitic rocks Salamatof Soldotna• IGF Felsic granitic rocks Kasilof IGI Intermediate granitic rocks Clam GuIck Port Alsworth Mafic-ultramafic Rocks

Ninilchik IMA Mafic intrusive rocks 60°00' Nondalton IUM Ultramafic rocks SCB Nikolaevsk VOLCANIC-SEDIMENTARY TERRANES Pedro Bay "nt • Martina • Felsic Volcanic Rocks Newhalen HomerVechemak VSM • VFI Felsic and intermediate volcanic rocks

IGU Mafic Volcanic Rocks Kokhanok Seldovea- Nanwalek 4 IUM VMU Undivided mafic volcanic rocks ,• • Port Gr It VSM VSM Undivided sedimentary and mafic volcanic Continental Rocks

VSM SCB Coal-bearing sandstone and shale SGS Graywacke and shale GI

25 0 25 50 75 100 125 Miles I-1 I-1 150 Kilometers CB 50 50 100 IGF Scale Figure 2. -- Locatable mineral occurrence and mineral terrane map of the Ring of Fire RMP, Southcentral Alaska planning area. 128°00' 140'00' 138'00' 60°00' 138'00' 134°00 132°00' 130°00'

58°00'

IGU

Ring of Fire Southeast Area IGI IGF

EXPLANATION VSM 128°00' Mineral occurrence Eg Known mineral deposit IMA CANADA Mineral Terrane IG UNIT classifications INTRUSIVE TERRANES SGS Granitic Rocks SGS IGU Undivided granitic rocks 56°00'

IGA Alkalic granitic rocks IG 1 „,4—VMU IGF Felsic granitic rocks VMU IGI Intermediate granitic rocks VMU Mafic-ultramafic Rocks VMU. Nyder

IMA Mafic intrusive rocks IGI

IUM Ultramafic rocks

VOLCANIC-SEDIMENTARY TERRANES

Felsic Volcanic Rocks

VFU Undivided felsic volcanic rocks

VSF Undivided sedimentary and felsic volcanic

VFI Felsic and intermediate volcanic rocks

Mafic Volcanic Rocks

VMU Undivided mafic volcanic rocks UPI VSM Undivided sedimentary and mafic volcanic Continental Rocks

SCB Coal-bearing sandstone and shale

SGS Graywacke and shale

0 75 50 75 hem

O 0 50 100 101orslart I---1 Scale 54'00'

Figure 3. -- Locatable mineral occurrence and mineral terrane map of the Ring of Fire RMP, Southeast Alaska planning area. 152'00' 150'00' 172'00' WOO' 170'00 168'00' 166"00' 164'00' 162"00' 160°00' 158°00 156'00' 154'00' ge ree Ekuk Naknek Clark's Point . King Salmon South Naknek •

56'00'

Nelson Lagoon

54'00'

EXPLANATION

Mineral occurrence ALASKA 50 0 100 Miles Occurrence Potential I--1

High mineral potential 50 0 60 100 150 200 Kilometers I-4 1-1 I-1 Land Status Scale Bureau of Land Management

Native Selected Kodiak Island State Selected

Town/village Ring of Fire Aleutian Chain Area

Figure 4. -- Locatable mineral potential map of the Ring of Fire RMP, Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain, and Kodiak Island planning areas. 154°00' 152'00' 150'00' 145'00' 146'00'

:Grath

ti

SCB 1/4

Ring of Fire Southcentral Area

Houstoh WasIlla • Big Lake • Knik Eklutna 'le Village I: Valdez

EXPLANATION

eo Mineral occurrence

Occurrence Potential sca Nikiski High mineral potential Kenai Mogiie Pass Coope Landing: •wn P. gs Salamatof Soldotna ast Po • alifo nia r ek teen-Lachn ails ireek Mine Land Status Kasilof • Bureau of Land Management Clam Gulch S...S.\\N"Mine 7-1/2 Port Alsworth Seward Native Selected

Ninilchik State Selected Nondalton Town/village Nikolaevsk Pedt0 Anchor Point • Iliamna •• • • Newhalen HomerKachemA

Seldovi Nanwatek •-Port Graha

0 25 50 75 100 Mos

50 0 50 100 150 Knomellars

Scale

Figure 5. -- Locatable mineral potential map of the Ring of Fire RMP, Southcentral Alaska planning area. 140°00' 138°00' 60°00' 136°00' 134°00' 132°00' 130°00' 128'W

58'W

Big Nugget NV Porcupine ALASKA Tsiruku

Ring of Fire 1/4 Southeast Area

128°00'

56°00'

EXPLANATION

Mineral occurrence

Occurrence Potential High mineral potential

Land Status

Bureau of Land Management

Native Selected

State Selected

TownNillage

25 25 50 AIN

50 50 Kilometers

Scale

54°00'

Figure 6. -- Locatable mineral potential map of the Ring of Fire RMP, Southeast Alaska planning area. Appendix H

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Report Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION H-1 2.0 METHODOLOGY H-1 3.0 DEFINITION AND EXAMPLES OF RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM CLASSES H-2 4.0 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS) PRESCRIPTION TABLES H-3 5.0 SUMMARY H-5

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BLM Bureau of Land Management GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement OHV Off-Highway Vehicle PRMP Proposed Resource Management Plan ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum VRM Visual Resource Management

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Report H-i Appendix H This page intentionally left blank. Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) used by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) provides a framework for integrating recreation opportunities and non-recreation activities on public lands so that managers can make sound land use decisions. The BLM approach to ROS applies criteria to a land area's physical, social, and managerial parameters to describe the existing conditions that define a land area's capability and suitability for providing a particular range of recreational experience opportunities. For example, some recreationists seek an undeveloped setting emphasizing solitude and self- reliance while others seek an experience with more comfort, security, and social opportunities. The ROS framework helps provide managers guidance to ensure that recreational opportunities are provided for a wide range of users.

Typically, ROS is divided into six major classes:

Urban/developed; Rural; Roaded natural; Semi-primitive motorized; Semi-primitive non-motorized; and Primitive.

These six classes describe conditions that range from high-density urban environments to primitive settings. Along this continuum physical, social, and managerial conditions will vary. Physical conditions for the urban classification include areas with relatively easy access and a high degree of human alteration, such as buildings, roads, and powerlines. In contrast, the physical environment classification is remote and relatively free of human alteration. The social environment varies from settings with abundant opportunities for solitude to areas where other people are nearly always within sight and sound. The managerial environment is the degree and type of management actions taken to control visitation. Urban/developed sites may have more on-site aids such as interpretive and directional signing whereas at primitive sites, less interpretation is desired or necessary. 2.0 METHODOLOGY

This assessment was conducted during the summer of 2002-2003 field season and included: aerial overflights and photography, on-the-ground field visits, and GPS and GIS mapping. The objectives were multi-focused because this information was to be used for visual resource assessments, off-highway-vehicle (OHV) classifications, rivers and special area inventories. Aerial observations provided a landscape scale view of the conditions throughout the planning area. Aerial overflights also provided an overall picture of the recreation opportunities and the competing resources for those opportunities.

Aerial assessments documented human features, such as roads, trails, powerlines, bridges, structures, clearings, and other evidence of human use. Remoteness and accessibility from roads, trails, and settlements were also assessed. In addition to physical characteristics current and potential future activities were addressed. For example, helicopter tourism is a

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Report H-1 Appendix H Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS large and growing industry that may compete with recreationists seeking solitude. Thus, it is important to analyze and consider resource protection, recreation values, and the demand on these resources by a variety of users. 3.0 DEFINITION AND EXAMPLES OF RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM CLASSES

For the Ring of Fire Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) select classes were chosen to best represent this area. They are:

ROS Class Setting Area is typically characterized by a remote unmodified natural environment of fairly large size. Concentration of users is rare and evidence of other users is minimal. Sights and sounds of the road systems are nonexistent. Human-built structures are few and far between or are inconspicuous. In general, visual resources are natural Primitive and unaltered. Vegetation and soils remain in a natural state. This class may include areas accessed by aircraft and helicopter and is therefore motorized unless otherwise noted. 11

Example: Mountains of the Haines and Skagway region, Alaska Peninsula, Neacola Mountains. 11 Area is characterized by a predominantly unmodified natural environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. Area is more accessible than primitive class, but is free of maintained motorized trails and Semi-primitive non-motorized roads. Sights and sounds of the road system are possible but from a distance. Vegetation, soils, and visual resources are predominantly natural but some effects may exist such as a foot or game trail.

Example: Chugach Mountains Area is characterized by a predominantly unmodified natural environment of moderate to large size. Concentration of users is moderate, and evidence of use is present but rare. Area is accessible to OHVs less than 1,500 gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and generally, is not accessible to most street four-wheel drive vehicles. Sights and sounds of the road system may or may not be dominant. Semi-primitive motorized Some portions of the area may be distant from road systems, but all portions are near motorized trails. Vegetation and soils are predominantly natural but localized areas of disturbance may exist such as an impacted trail. ll Example: Knik River Basin Area is characterized by a substantially modified natural environment. Resource modification and utilization practices are obvious. Sights and 11 sounds of humans are readily evident and concentration of users is moderate to high. Areas typically are readily accessible to conventional motorized vehicles and are in areas where homes, businesses, and other structures are common. Traffic levels are fairly Rural constant since area is populated. Large areas of extensively modified soil and vegetation exist.

Example: Campbell Tract Facility and other small parcels that remain 11 in BLM management but may be directly and cooperatively managed by State, borough, municipal, and Native entities. These will not be identified on ROS maps due to the small scale of such lands.

11

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Report H-2 Appendix H Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 4.0 RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM PRESCRIPTION TABLES

Physical Criteria — Resources and Facilities

Semi-Primitive Semi-Primitive Primitive Rural non-motorized motorized High opportunity for Moderate opportunity Moderate opportunity Low opportunities solitude and self for solitude and self for solitude and self for solitude reliance reliance reliance High feeling of More than 5 miles Within 5 miles of a road Adjacent to or easily safety accessible to access Remoteness from any road Human improvements points or trail systems On or near No improvements may be within distant primary roads within sight sight or sound Human improvements near a town or may be within distant city sight or sound. Undisturbed natural Naturally appearing Naturally appearing Natural or landscape landscape, landscape, viewable modifications not modifications not landscape visibly readily noticeable readily noticeable modified by Naturalness human Trails may or may not Trails are evident but development be present not dominant to landscape Generally none, but Non-motorized foot Motorized trails (may Modern facilities may contain remote trails that are have seasonal or other available either cabins and single somewhat maintained restriction) that are on-site or within a Facilities track game trails. maintained short driving Cross-country travel distance is unrestricted

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Report� H-3� Appendix H Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

Social Criteria - Visitor Use and Users

Semi-Primitive Semi-Primitive Primitive Rural non-motorized motorized Little probability of Moderate possibility of Moderate possibility of High probability of visual or direct social visual or direct social visual or direct social social encounters encounter encounter encounter. Likely to be Social of similar recreational Group size highly Encounters Small group size Group size (<5) interest variable (<3) Group size (<5) People frequently in view Footprints or Footprints and some Footprints, motorized Well improved evidence of old camp vegetative trampling vehicle tracks, trails hide site airstrips, engine noise footprints or tracks Evidence of Increased frequency of but social trails Use camp sites or human Increased frequency of are evident use camp sites and tracks deeper into the back Increased country likelihood of trash

Administrative — Management Controls and Service Settings

Semi-Primitive Semi-Primitive Primitive Rural non-motorized motorized Basic maps Maps with locations of Maps with locations of Community known trails identified known trails identified bulletins, Primarily self and regulations newspaper ads, researched and Guided opportunities associated with those radio broadcasts guided depending upon trails and other multi­ Visitor Services services requested media mediums to Guided opportunities Guided opportunities alert recreation depending upon depending upon opportunities services requested services requested Numerous guides readily available No visitor controls No visitor controls or Visitor controls in Rules clearly use limits areas that have posted No use limits specific restrictions Management Enforcement presence Routine Controls Enforcement rare but available Potential use limits enforcement presence very rare patrols Enforcement presence rare but available None None None Where applicable

(Fees associated (Fees associated with (Fees associated with (Fees associated User Fees with Commercial Use Commercial Use Commercial Use with Commercial Permit Required) Permit Required) Permit Required) Use Permit Required)

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Report H-4 Appendix H Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 5.0 SUMMARY

The Ring of Fire planning area spans a large geographic area ranging from Southeast Alaska to the Aleutian Islands. BLM-managed lands are quite fragmented, making it difficult to provide and apply long-term recreation management prescriptions unique to a specific area. To this end, the ROS applications are fairly general. Figures 3.6-1 through 3.6-3 in Appendix A show the ROS prescriptions based on the earlier described resource assessments and other resource uses such as OHV use, visual resource management (VRM) values and special area classifications.

Because a large portion of the BLM-managed lands within the planning area are selected for conveyance, many recreation management prescriptions are also made cooperatively with neighboring land management agencies, private landowners, and the public.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Report H-5� Appendix H This page intentionally left blank.

11

11

11

11

11 Appendix I

Section 810 Analysis Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page A. Subsistence Evaluation Factors ...... 1-4 B. ANILCA Section 810(a) Evaluations and Findings for All Alternatives and the Cumulative Case ...... 1-5 B.1 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ...... l-5 B.1 .2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved ...... 1-6 B.1.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes ...... 1-6 B.1.4 Findings ...... 1-7 B.2 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative B (Resource Development Alternative).l-7 B.2.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs ...... l-7 B.2.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved ...... 1-8 B.2.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes ...... 1-8 B.2.4 Findings ...... 1-8 B.3 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative C (Resource Conservation Alternative) 1-9 B.3.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs ...... 1-9 B.3.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved ...... l-10 B.3.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes ...... 1-1 0 B.3.4 Findings ...... 1-10 B.4 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) ...... 1-1 0 B.4.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs ...... l-11 B.4.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved ...... 1-11 B.4.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes ...... 1-12 B.4.4 Findings ...... l-12 B.5 Evaluation and Findings for the Cumulative Case ...... l-12 B.5.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Such Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs ...... l-13 B.5.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved ...... 1-14 B.5.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes ...... 1-15 B.5.4 Findings ...... l-15 C. Notice and Hearings ...... l-15 D. Subsistence Determinations Under ANILCA Section 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) ...... 1-15

Section 81 0 Analysis 1-i Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ANILCA Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act BLM Bureau of Land Management CBNG coalbed natural gas CNF Chugach National Forest EIS Environmental Impact Statement FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act GIS Geographic Information System NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPS National Park Service OHV Off-Highway Vehicle RFFA reasonably foreseeable future action RMP Resource Management Plan ROP Required Operating Procedure ROW right-of-way SRMA Special Recreational Management Area TNF Tongass National Forest U.S. United States USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WSR Wild and Scenic River

Section 81 0 Analysis I-ii Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS ANILCA SECTION 810 ANALYSIS OF SUBSISTENCE IMPACTS

Section 810(a) of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires that an evaluation of subsistence uses and needs be completed for any federal determination to "withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands." The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has developed the Ring of Fire Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) to establish broad guidelines for 1.3 million acres of BLM-managed lands in the Southeast, Southcentral, Kodiak Island, and the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain regions as required under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976. In a portion of the planning area, this plan will update the provisions of the Southcentral Management Framework Plan completed in 1980. The BLM Ring of Fire PRMP/FEIS is a federal land management action subject to the requirements of Section 810.

The Section 810 analysis is developed in tandem with the Final EIS required by National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Section 810 analysis builds upon the description and analysis of impacts to subsistence uses found throughout the PRMP/FEIS, as subsistence uses were recognized as a highly valued use of resources and lands. A detailed description of the status of important subsistence resources and use patterns is found in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Then Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, provides an analysis of the potential environmental effects on subsistence resources and uses, including cumulative impacts, that could result from implementation of the various alternatives. This appendix uses the information presented in the PRMP/FEIS to evaluate the potential impacts to subsistence pursuant to Section 810(a) of ANILCA. While the same data on resources and human use patterns is used for both the NEPA review and the Section 810 review, the geographic scope of analysis is not identical. Under NEPA, Chapter 4 analyzes environmental consequences of activities under the PRMP on all BLM-managed lands, whether unencumbered or selected, while the Section 810 analysis applies to unencumbered BLM-managed lands on which the ANILCA federal subsistence priority applies.

The BLM-managed lands in the Ring of Fire planning area include a few comparatively large blocks, and many small parcels widely dispersed across a large portion of Alaska. In total, the 1.3 million acres of BLM-managed lands represent two percent of the 61.4 million acres of land within the planning area (see Table 1). In addition, some 62 percent of the BLM-managed lands, amounting to 798,427 acres, are selected by the State of Alaska or Alaska Native corporations, and much of which will be conveyed out of BLM long-term management. Moreover, these selected lands are outside the jurisdiction of the federal subsistence management program, established in Title VIII of ANILCA. A total of 485,902 acres, or 38 percent of the BLM-managed lands, are unencumbered by other selections and are subject to the Federal rural subsistence priority. This Section 810 Analysis focuses on those 485,902 acres of unencumbered BLM- managed lands on which the federal rural subsistence priority applies.

Section 810 Analysis� 1-1� Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Table 1. Acres within the Ring of Fire Planning Area by Region

BLM-managed Lands BLM- All managed Planning Region ownerships'* Unencumbered Selected Landas%of w Region Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain 15,500,000 28,100 83 ,587 <1% Kodiak 3,200,000 2,729 13,796 <1% South central 21 ,200,000 453,140 382,614 4% Southeast 21 ,500,000 1,933 318,430 1% Total 61,400,000 485,902 798,427 2% Notes: * All acres in this column rounded to nearest 100,000. 1) Acres summarized are based on geometrically-calculated areas in the general land status geographic information system (G IS) dataset, as subsetted by geoprocessing methods to the Ring of Fire planning area boundary. GIS datasets provided by BLM .

As a first step in analyzing impacts to subsistence uses resulting from this PRMP/FEIS, it is important to examine the proportion of BLM lands included with community subsistence use areas in the fou r planning regions. The following paragraphs discuss the location and character of the unencumbered BLM-managed lands subject to the federal subsistence priority within the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain, Kod iak, Southcentral, and Southeast planning regions.

In the Alaska Peninsula/Aleutian Chain region, unencumbered BLM-managed lands total 28,100 acres, or less than 0.2 percent (two tenths of one percent), of the region. Visual inspection of Figure 1.2-2 (Appendix A), Land Ownership Map of Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island, demonstrates that only Native-selected lands in this region are of sufficient scale to appear in this display. Thus, the parcels of unencumbered lands are very small and are widely dispersed across a very large region. When community subsistence areas are mapped, and the underlying land status is shown on Figure 3.5-2 (Appendix A), Subsistence Use Areas of the Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island, it becomes apparent that the communities rely on a very large majority of the total land base of the region for subsistence uses. With a few exceptions, the BLM-managed Native-selected lands fall within these subsistence areas. The notable exceptions are several Native-selected parcels on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula between Herendeen Bay and lzembek Lagoon that fall outside of the mapped subsistence use areas. More specifically for this analysis, the unencumbered BLM-managed lands are small and dispersed to the point that they do not appear on a map at this scale. Thus, it is not possible to precisely analyze the location, the ecological character, nor the specific role these small parcels may play in the seasonal round of subsistence harvests. This information shows that the unencumbered BLM-managed lands make up an exceedingly small portion of the total subsistence use area in this region.

In the Kodiak region, unencumbered BLM-managed lands total 2,729 acres, or less than 0.09 percent (nine hundredths of one percent), of the total land. Visual inspection of Figure 1.2-2 (Appendix A), Land Ownership Map of Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island, demonstrates that only three parcels are of sufficient size to appear on the map at this scale. The largest of these is a Native-selected parcel adjacent to Kodiak, south and west of the city. A small parcel of State-selected BLM-managed land is found at the head of Sharatin Bay, south and east of Port Lions. A small parcel of unencumbered BLM-managed land is found further to the southwest of the city of Kodiak. The remaining acreage of unencumbered lands is very small and dispersed across the island. When community subsistence areas are mapped, and the underlying land status is shown in Figure 3.5-2 (Appendix A), Subsistence Use Ares of the Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island, it becomes apparent that the communities rely on a band of near shore

Section 81 0 Analysis 1-2 Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS waters and coastal lowlands around nearly the entire island, with particularly extensive use of Afognak Island to the north of Kodiak Island. More specifically for this analysis, the unencumbered BLM-managed lands are small and dispersed to the point that they do not appear on a map at this scale. Thus, it is not possible to precisely analyze the location, the ecological character, nor the specific role these parcels may play in the seasonal round of subsistence harvests. This information shows that the unencumbered BLM-managed lands make up an exceedingly small portion of the total subsistence use area in this region.

In the Southcentral region, unencumbered BLM-managed lands total 453,140 acres, or approximately two percent, of the total land in the region. Visual inspection of Figure 1.2-3 (Appendix A), Land Ownership Map of the Southcentral Region, shows that the majority of the unencumbered BLM-managed lands are found in two large parcels at the western boundary of the region in the Neacola Mountains, together representing 372,000 acres, or 82 percent, of the total unencumbered lands in the planning region. Another significant parcel is found on the eastern boundary of the region, northwest of College Fiord, high in the Chugach Mountains and adjacent to the Chugach National Forest (CNF) boundary. Finally, a smaller parcel is found to the west of Redoubt Bay in the vicinity of Harriet Creek. Any remaining acreage of unencumbered lands is very small and dispersed across the region. When community subsistence areas are mapped, and the underlying land status is shown in Figure 3.5-3 (Appendix A), Subsistence Use Areas of the Southcentral Region, it becomes apparent that the communities rely on several broad zones of land. Much of the Kenai Peninsula is used for subsistence purposes, as are the waters of Kachemak Bay and Cook Inlet extending to the western shore from Tuxedni Bay north to the Susitna River. Also on the west side of Cook Inlet, the community use area for the village of Tyonek extends a distance inland to overlap with the eastern portion of the State-selected lands adjacent to the unencumbered BLM-managed lands in the Neacola Mountains. The Tyonek use area, as mapped in the 1980s, does not extend to the unencumbered BLM-managed lands in the Neacola Mountains, although historic trails through these mountains to the inland Dena'ina communities are documented (see discussion of Southcentral regional subsistence patterns in Section 3.5.6.5 in this PRMP/FEIS). The other large blocks of unencumbered BLM-managed lands in the Southcentral region do not fall within mapped subsistence use areas. Any remaining unencumbered BLM-managed parcels are small and dispersed to the point that they do not appear on a map at this scale. Thus, it is not possible to precisely analyze the location, the ecological character, nor the specific role these additional parcels may play in the seasonal round of subsistence harvests. This information shows that the unencumbered BLM-managed lands make up an exceedingly small portion of the total subsistence use area in this region.

In the Southeast region, unencumbered BLM-managed lands total 1,933 acres, or less than 0.009 percent (nine thousandths of one percent), of the total land in the region. Visual inspection of Figure 1.2-4 (Appendix A), Land Ownership Map of the Southeast Region, reveals several large State-selected parcels in the Haines and Skagway area, accounting for nearly all of the 382,614 selected BLM-managed lands in this planning region. The unencumbered BLM- managed lands in the region are concentrated in the Lake Carlanna Municipal Watershed (1,835 acres) located adjacent to Ketchikan (see Figure 2.3-2, Appendix A). Any remaining unencumbered acres, amounting to approximately 100 acres, are dispersed across the planning region. When community subsistence areas are mapped, and the underlying land status is shown in Figure 3.5-4 (Appendix A), Subsistence Use Areas of the Southeast Region, it becomes apparent that the communities employ a large proportion of all lands in the region for subsistence, including the major islands and near shore marine waters, along with limited areas

Section 810 Analysis 1-3 Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS on the mainland, and a wide range of land in the vicinity of Yakutat in the north of the region. More specifically for this analysis, the unencumbered BLM-managed lands are small and dispersed to the point that they do not appear on a map at this scale. Thus, it is not possible to precisely analyze the location, the ecological character, nor the specific role these parcels may play in the seasonal round of subsistence harvests. This information shows that the unencumbered BLM-managed lands make up an exceedingly small portion of the total subsistence use area in this region. A. Subsistence Evaluation Factors Section 810(a) of ANILCA requires that the evaluation of effects on subsistence uses and needs include findings addressing three specific issues:

The effect of use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and needs. The availability of other lands for the purpose sought to be achieved. Other alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes (16 United States Code 3120). The evaluation and findings required by ANILCA Section 810 are set out for each of the four alternatives and the cumulative case considered in the Ring of Fire PRMP/FEIS.

A finding that any of the alternatives may significantly restrict subsistence uses imposes additional requirements, including provisions for notices to the State and appropriate regional and local subsistence committees, a hearing in the vicinity of the area involved, and the making of the following determinations, as required by Section 810(a)(3):

such a significant restriction of subsistence uses is necessary, and consistent with sound management principles for the utilization of the public lands; the proposed activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of use, occupancy, or other disposition; and reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse effects upon subsistence uses and resources resulting from such actions. To determine if a significant restriction of subsistence uses and needs may result from any one of the alternatives discussed in the Ring of Fire PRMP/FEIS, including their cumulative effects, the following three factors in particular are considered:

a reduction in the availability of subsistence resources caused by a decline in the population or amount of harvestable resources; reductions in the availability of resources used for subsistence purposes caused by alteration of their normal locations and distribution patterns; and limitations on access to subsistence resources, including from increased competition for the resources. A significant restriction to subsistence may occur when the proposed action results in substantial and enduring (e.g., more than localized and temporary) reductions in subsistence resource population abundance, reductions in availability due to displacement of the subsistence resource populations, or reductions in access due to legal or physical barriers or increased competition. Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Section 3.5.6 Subsistence, provides information on areas and resources important for subsistence use, and the degree of reliance of the affected communities on the subsistence resource populations found on, or relying on, the

Section 810 Analysis� 1-4� Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS habitat provided by BLM-managed lands. Additional information on important subsistence resources is found in Sections 3.2.8 Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat, and Section 3.2.9 Wildlife. Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, provides an assessment, within the constraints of available data, on levels of reductions and limitations under each alternative. Section 4.3.4.2 examines Subsistence uses, Section 4.3.1.4 examines Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat, and Section 4.3.1.5 examines Wildlife. These assessments of effects to subsistence resources and uses were used to determine whether the action may cause a significant restriction to subsistence. The information contained in this PRMP/FEIS is the primary data used in this analysis.

The subsistence evaluation and findings under ANILCA Section 810 must also include a cumulative impacts analysis. Section B.2 of this analysis begins with evaluations and findings for each of the four alternatives discussed in the PRMP/FEIS. Finally, the most intensive cumulative case, as discussed in Section 4.4 Cumulative Effects, is evaluated. This approach helps the reader to separate the subsistence restrictions that would potentially be caused by activities proposed under the four alternatives from those that would potentially be caused by past, present, and future activities that could occur, or have already occurred, in the surrounding area. B.AANILCA Section 810(a) Evaluations and Findings for All Alternatives and the Cumulative Case The following evaluations are based on information relating to the environmental and subsistence consequences of implementation of Alternatives A through D, and the cumulative case as presented in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the Ring of Fire PRMP/FEIS. The stipulations discussed in Chapter 2, Alternatives, and in Appendix D, are also considered for the alternatives to which they apply. The evaluations and findings focus on potential impacts to the subsistence resources themselves, as well as access to the resources.

Timber development, realty actions to grant rights-of-way (ROW), mineral development, off- highway vehicle (OHV) management, and growing recreation, all have the potential to adversely affect subsistence uses (see discussion of direct and indirect effects on subsistence in Chapter 4). However, the extent of these effects depends on the configuration of BLM-managed lands in relation to community subsistence use areas, BLM management actions to authorize or regulate activities, and the resource potential to support development. As previously noted, unencumbered BLM-managed lands throughout the planning area generally make up an extremely small portion of the community subsistence use areas or do not fall within a community subsistence area.

B.1AEvaluation and Findings for Alternative A (Current Management) Alternative A in the PRMP/FEIS is the Current Management alternative. Selection of this alternative would result in continued management of the lands within the planning area through existing programs, including those guidelines established in the 1980 Southcentral Management Framework Plan, as amended. Under Alternative A, the current levels, methods, and mix of multiple use management of BLM-managed lands in the planning area would continue, and resource values would receive management attention at present levels. No lands would be open to oil and gas leasing, including leasing for coalbed natural gas (CBNG), and large tracts would remain closed to the operation of the mineral laws due to retention of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 17(d)(1) withdrawals. No special management areas would be established. No classifications for OHV management would be established. In general under

Section 810 Analysis 1-5 Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Alternative A, most activities would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, and few uses would be limited or excluded as long as they were consistent with State and federal laws.

B.1.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs Effects from future management under Alternative A are estimated to be limited to a very small portion of the unencumbered BLM-managed lands and to be highly localized in scale. The potential for development of timber resources on BLM-managed lands is extremely limited (see Section 3.3.1), estimated at 20 acres of disturbance per year for the entire planning area (see Section 4.6 Forestry). So adverse impacts to subsistence fish and wildlife resources would be minor and on an extremely local scale. As described in Appendix G, areas with the potential for disturbance from mineral development represent 2,618 acres, of which 2,558 is for oil and gas development throughout the entire planning region and 60 acres is for locatable (or hard rock mining) on the BLM managed lands. Even if all this were to occur on BLM lands, it would represent less than one percent of the BLM-managed lands within the planning area. Unrestricted OHV use on BLM-managed lands has the potential for localized impacts, which may include changes in stream morphology, increased levels of pollution, impacts to wildlife habitat, and disturbance of wildlife, but the scale of these impacts depends upon the proportion of unencumbered BLM-managed land within the subsistence use areas of communities, and the characteristics of these lands, including the value as harvest areas and the proximity to the community (see Section 4.3.4.2.2). Moreover, the greatest potential for impacts from unrestricted OHV use is found in the Knik River area on selected lands beyond the scope of this Section 810 Analysis. While increases in recreation may result in subsistence users avoiding areas of intense recreational use, little such conflict is estimated for unencumbered BLM- managed lands, given the small scale and dispersal of these lands.

B.1.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved The PRMP/FEIS examined and developed management guidelines for all unencumbered BLM- managed lands located within the Ring of Fire planning area. These are the lands on which the federal rural subsistence priority applies. In terms of BLM land management actions to support the federal rural subsistence priority, selected lands and lands conveyed to other parties cannot be substituted for the lands on which the federal subsistence priority does apply. Other federal lands managed by the National Park Service (NPS), the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service cannot be included. State and Native corporation lands within the planning area cannot be considered available for BLM-managed activities in a BLM land use plan. Since this land use plan comprehensive addresses all BLM-managed lands within the planning area, by definition, there are no other lands available for the BLM land management purposes sought to be achieved in the PRMP/FEIS.

B.1.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes The PRMP/FEIS examines all the BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Alternative A, the Current Management alternative, would continue the status quo, and as noted above, will result in minimal, localized impacts on subsistence resources and their habitats, and on federally protected subsistence uses of BLM lands. In relative terms, two other alternatives considered within the Ring of Fire PRMP/FEIS (Alternatives C and D) would further reduce the use,

Section 810 Analysis� 1-6� Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes. The specific effects of these two alternatives are analyzed more fully in subsequent sections.

The limit case of eliminating the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence would be at odds with the BLM legal mandates under FLPMA, which require that the lands be managed for multiple uses. The only alternative that would completely eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence would be an alternative that prohibited any activities that conflicted with subsistence uses on the lands used for this purpose. However, this alternative is not viable given BLM's legal mandates. Changing FLPMA, and thus management of public lands, would require an act of Congress.

B.1.4 Findings Under Alternative A, management would continue under the existing guidelines, including direction for those areas covered by the Southwest Management Framework Plan of 1980. The effects analysis of the Alternative A on subsistence presented in Chapter 4 considers the potential impacts from management of timber, mineral development, changes in land selections and status, OHVs, and recreation. This analysis concludes that Alternative A would have a negligible effect on abundance and availability of subsistence resource populations and on access to subsistence resources, and that standard stipulations developed by BLM for all activities would serve to minimize, to the extent possible, impacts to subsistence uses of unencumbered BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Alternative A will not significantly restrict subsistence uses.

B.2 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative B (Resource Development) Alternative B would provide for active management to facilitate resource development. Nearly all unselected lands would be open to oil and gas leasing and development and all ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals would be revoked, allowing increased mineral exploration and development, although actual levels of development would depend upon the occurrence of mineral resources on BLM-managed lands. BLM-managed lands would be designated as "open" to OHV use, so travel and trail restrictions would be minimal. No special management areas for resource conservation or recreation would be established. Resource values, including subsistence, would be protected through stipulations and Required Operating Procedures (ROPs) implemented in specific areas in response to proposed actions as opposed to broad areas in special designations.

B.2.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs Under Alternative B, the potential for timber development on BLM lands is extremely limited (see Section 3.3.1), resulting in an estimated 20 acres of disturbance per year for the entire planning area (see Section 4.6 Forestry). Lifting the 17(d)(1) withdrawals would open significant areas to mineral leasing, but based on resource potential described in Appendix G, 2,618 acres have the potential for disturbance from mineral development. Of this total, 2,558 acres are for oil and gas development throughout the entire planning area, not just on the BLM lands. The depiction of the Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Basin in Appendix G-Attachment A shows little overlap between this basin and the BLM-managed lands in the Southcentral region. The potential area of development represents less than one percent of the BLM-managed lands in the planning area. In addition, any such developments would be subject to stipulations and ROPs (Appendix D) that further limit the potential for adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats. OHV

Section 810 Analysis� 1-7� Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS management and growth in recreation under Alternative B would be similar to the case in Alternative A, and while localized impacts may occur, these are limited to relatively small areas, and most likely in areas removed from unencumbered BLM-managed lands on which the federal subsistence priority applies. In sum, impacts to subsistence resource abundance and availability are minimal and limited to a localized level. Effects on access and competition for subsistence resources are similarly rated minimal.

B.2.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved The PRMP/FEIS examined and developed management guidelines for all unencumbered BLM- managed lands located within the planning area. These are the lands on which the federal rural subsistence priority applies. In terms of BLM land management actions to support the federal rural subsistence priority, selected lands and lands conveyed to other parties cannot be substituted for the lands on which the federal subsistence priority does apply. Other federal lands managed by NPS, USFWS, and USDA Forest Service cannot be included. State and Native corporation lands within the planning area cannot be considered available for BLM- managed activities in a BLM land use plan. Since this land use plan comprehensively addresses all BLM-managed lands within the planning area, by definition, there are no other lands available for the BLM land management purposes sought to be achieved in the PRMP/FEIS.

B.2.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes The PRMP/FEIS examines all the BLM-managed lands in the planning area. While Alternative B, the resource development alternative, would facilitate development, given the small scale and dispersal of unencumbered BLM-managed lands and the low level of resource potential and development pressure for timber, oil and gas, and locatable minerals, this alternative will result in minimal, localized impacts on subsistence resources and their habitats, and on federally protected subsistence uses of BLM lands. In relative terms, two other alternatives considered within the Ring of Fire PRMP/FEIS (Alternatives C and D) would further reduce the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes. The specific effects of these two alternatives are analyzed more fully in subsequent sections.

The limit case of eliminating the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence would be at odds with the BLM legal mandate under FLPMA, which requires that the lands be managed for multiple uses. The only alternative that would completely eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence would be an alternative that prohibited any activities that conflicted with subsistence uses on the lands used for this purpose. However, this alternative is not viable given BLM's legal mandates. Changing FLPMA, and thus management of public lands, would require an act of Congress.

B.2.4 Findings This analysis considers the effects of management of timber, lands and realty, mineral development, special management areas, OHVs, recreation, and the effectiveness of the associated stipulations and ROPs (Appendix D) as presented by BLM. The analysis concludes that the effect of Alternative B to subsistence would be greater than that of any of the other alternatives, but would remain localized and would not significantly affect subsistence species or resources on a population scale. In sum, even with the more development oriented provisions of Alternative B, the configuration of unencumbered BLM-managed lands relative to subsistence

Section 810 Analysis 1-8 Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS use areas and the limited resource potential for development means that impacts to subsistence are minimal and highly local in scale. BLM management activities under Alternative B will not significantly reduce abundance or availability of subsistence resources, nor significantly limit access to these subsistence resources. Alternative B will not significantly restrict subsistence uses.

B.3�Evaluation and Findings for Alternative C (Resource Conservation) Alternative C emphasizes active measures to protect and enhance resource values, which for the most part enhances subsistence opportunities. Oil and gas leasing and mineral exploration and development would be more constrained than in other alternatives. On a substantial portion of the BLM-managed lands within the planning area, leasing and mineral location would be excluded to protect important resources. Three special management areas, one to protect unique resources in the Neacola Mountains, and two to more closely manage recreational opportunities (one each in the Knik River area and the Haines Block), would be established. All BLM-managed lands would be classified as "limited" in reference to OHV management, under which OHV use would be limited to existing roads and trails. This limitation is the same as the Generally Allowed Uses on State land (Appendix E). This designation generally provides for more focused regulation to protect habitat, soil and vegetation, and recreational experiences, when compared to the undesignated status in Alternative A and the "open" designation in Alternative B. ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals would be maintained as an interim measure while other withdrawal or land management actions are developed to protect important resources. Finally, management actions would include Stipulations and ROPs to further protect specific resources.

B.3.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs Under Alternative C, timber development is estimated to result in 20 acres of disturbance per year (see Section 4.6 Forestry), in light of the extremely limited potential for timber development (see Section 3.3.1). With retention of the 17(d)(1) withdrawals, mineral development would be less than the 2,618 acres identified in Alternative B, based upon the assessment of mineral potential in Appendix G. Significant additional protections to resources come with the establishment of specially designated areas. The Neacola Mountains Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) protects important wildlife habitats in the southernmost block (229,000 acres) of unencumbered BLM-managed land in the Southcentral region. This special management area will be in the vicinity of, but to the west of, the contemporary subsistence use area for the residents of Tyonek. Although outside of unencumbered lands subject to this analysis, special Recreational Management Areas (SRMAs) would be established on selected lands in the Knik River area of the Southcentral region, and the Haines Block of the Southeast region. These designations require that implementation level plans be developed to protect the resources and uses for which the designation was made. Generally, this would result in closer management of OHV and recreation activities. Segments of 14 rivers were determined eligible, but not suitable for WSR designation, which would generally protect subsistence fishery resources and habitat. However, all river segments are on selected lands, not subject to the federal subsistence priority. Identified resource values of these rivers will be taken into consideration when evaluating future proposed actions in those areas. Overall, impacts to subsistence fish and wildlife resources and their habitats and to subsistence uses would be very minimal and highly localized.

Section 810 Analysis� 1-9� Appendix I

Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

B.3.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved The PRMP/FEIS examined and developed management guidelines for all unencumbered BLM- managed lands located within the Ring of Fire planning area. These are the lands on which the federal rural subsistence priority applies. In terms of BLM land management actions to support the federal rural subsistence priority, selected lands and lands conveyed to other parties cannot be substituted for the lands on which the federal subsistence priority does apply. Other federal lands managed by NPS, USFWS, and USDA Forest Service cannot be included. State and Native corporation lands within the planning area cannot be considered available for BLM- managed activities in a BLM land use plan. Since this land use plan comprehensively addresses all BLM-managed lands within the planning area, by definition, there are no other lands available for BLM land management purposes sought to be achieved in the PRMP/FEIS.

B.3.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes The PRMP/FEIS examines all the BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Alternative C emphasizes protection of resource values. When compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C would result in the lowest level of use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes.

The limit case of eliminating the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence would be at odds with the BLM legal mandate under FLPMA, which requires that the lands be managed for multiple uses. The only alternative that would completely eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence would be an alternative that prohibited any activities that conflicted with subsistence uses on the lands used for this purpose. However, this alternative is not viable given BLM's legal mandates. Changing FLPMA, and thus management of public lands, would require an act of Congress.

B.3.4 Findings This analysis considers the effects of management of timber, lands and realty, mineral development, specially designated areas, OHVs, recreation, and the effectiveness of the associated stipulations and ROPs (Appendix D) as presented by BLM. The analysis concludes that Alternative C would have a negligible effect on subsistence species, access to subsistence resources, or subsistence use, and that the effect would be less than that of any of the other alternatives. Effects would be highly localized and would not significantly affect subsistence fish and wildlife resources on a population scale. Adequate stipulations and ROPs (Appendix D)have been incorporated into Alternative C to ensure that significant reduction to subsistence species and resources is unlikely to occur. Alternative C will not significantly affect the abundance or availability of subsistence resources, nor the access or competition for subsistence resources on unencumbered BLM-managed lands. Alternative C will not significantly restrict subsistence uses. B.4 Evaluation and Findings for Alternative D (Proposed Action) Alternative D emphasizes a balance of protection, use, and enhancement of resources and services. Constraints to protect resources would be implemented, but would be less restrictive than those implemented under Alternative C. The majority of unselected lands, and those selected lands whose selection would be relinquished or rejected, would be open to oil and gas leasing and development and mineral locations, though certain unique or sensitive areas would

Section 810 Analysis 1-10 Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS remain closed, and ROPs and lease stipulations, outlined in Appendix D, would apply. ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals would be revoked. Three special management areas would be established. The Neacola Mountain ACEC would protect unique resources through an implementation-level plan. The Knik River and Haines Block SRMAs would require development of implementation- level plans to more closely manage OHV and recreation activities. All BLM-managed lands would be classified as "limited" in reference to OHV management, which provides for more focused regulation to protect habitat, soil and vegetation, and recreational experience. This alternative represents the mix and variety of actions that, in the judgment of BLM, best resolve the issues and management concerns in consideration of all values and programs. Alternative D is BLM's proposed action.

B.4.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs Effects to subsistence resources and uses from future management under Alternative D are likely to be limited in scale to specific, localized areas. Based on extremely limited development potential (see Section 3.3.1), timber development would be limited to an estimated 20 acres of disturbance per year (see Section 4.6 Forestry). Revocation of ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals would open significant areas to oil and gas leasing as in Alternative B, but given the limited resource potential described in Appendix G, a total of 2,618 acres, or less than one percent of BLM-managed lands, are estimated likely to see disturbance from all forms of mineral development. All permitted activities, including timber and mineral development, would be subject to ROPs and stipulations identified in Appendix D, including 15 standards to protect soils from erosion and 20 standards to protect fish and wildlife from disturbance and adverse impacts. Key examples include standards for stream crossings (FWH-3), set-backs from fish- bearing streams and lakes (FWH-6), and buffers from water bodies in timber sales (FWH-10). As in Alternative C, three special management areas (the Neacola ACEC and the Knik River and Haines Block SRMAs) would be established. The ACEC is focused on protecting resources and habitat, while the SRMAs provide for closer management of OHV and recreation activities. All other BLM-managed lands would be designated as "limited" in terms of OHV management, providing for closer regulation and reduced impacts to habitat and resources.

B.4.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved The PRMP/FEIS examined and developed management guidelines for all unencumbered BLM- managed lands located within the Ring of Fire planning area. These are the lands on which the federal rural subsistence priority applies. In terms of BLM land management actions to support the federal rural subsistence priority, selected lands and lands conveyed to other parties cannot be substituted for the lands on which the federal subsistence priority does apply. Other federal lands managed by NPS, USFWS, and USDA Forest Service cannot be included. State and Native corporation lands within the planning area cannot be considered available for BLM- managed activities in a BLM land use plan. Since this land use plan comprehensively addresses all BLM-managed lands within the planning area, by definition, there are no other lands available for BLM land management purposes sought to be achieved in the PRMP/FEIS.

Section 810 Analysis� 1-11� Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

B.4.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes The PRMP/FEIS examines all the BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Alternative D incorporates a balanced mix of the resource development provisions of Alternative B and the resource protection provisions of Alternative C. While Alternative C would result in the lowest level of impacts on unencumbered BLM-managed lands used for subsistence, Alternative D will also result in very low levels of impacts to subsistence resources and their habitats, and to subsistence uses, while better meeting BLM's legal mandate to provide for a range of permitted uses.

The limit case of eliminating the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence would be at odds with the BLM legal mandate under FLPMA, which requires that the lands be managed for multiple uses. The only alternative that would completely eliminate the use of public lands needed for subsistence would be an alternative that prohibited any activities that conflicted with subsistence uses on the lands used for this purpose. However, this alternative is not viable given BLM's legal mandates. Changing FLPMA, and thus management of public lands, would require an act of Congress.

B.4.4 Findings it This analysis considers the effects of management of timber, lands and realty, mineral development, special management areas, OHVs, recreation, and the effectiveness of the associated stipulations and ROPs (Appendix D) as presented by BLM. The analysis concludes that Alternative D (the proposed action) would have a negligible effect on subsistence species, access to subsistence resources, or subsistence uses. The effects would be localized and would not significantly affect subsistence species or resources on a population scale. Adequate stipulations and ROPs (Appendix D) have been incorporated into Alternative D to further reduce the potential for significant reductions in the abundance and availability of, access to, or competition for subsistence species and resources on the unencumbered BLM-managed lands. Alternative D will not significantly restrict subsistence uses.

B.5 Evaluation and Findings for the Cumulative Case The goal of the cumulative analysis is to evaluate the additive or synergistic impact of the current action in conjunction with all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions in or near the planning area. The cumulative analysis considers activities, described in Section 4.4.2, that are likely to occur. These activities include ongoing timber sales in the Tongass National Forest (TNF) most of which would be distant from the BLM unencumbered lands in the region, since these latter are concentrated in the Lake Carlanna Municipal Watershed near Ketchikan. Several significant transportation and utility corridors are foreseen for the planning area, notably the Cook Inlet to Bristol Bay corridor which commences at Williamsport on the west side of Cook Inlet within the planning area, and in the vicinity of Native-selected parcels of BLM-managed lands in the Iniskin River and Ursus Cove areas. For the Pebble Mine project, located in the vicinity of Lake Clark outside of this planning area, an industrial road from Iniskin Bay to the mine area is also under review by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Several significant potential developments for oil and gas and locatable minerals are noted for the planning area, include Alaska Department of Natural Resources tentatively scheduled oil and gas leasing on State lands in the Alaska Peninsula area, additional leasing in Cook Inlet, and the 40 acre Wishbone Hill Coal field near Sutton in the Southcentral region. A private mining firm, Coeur Alaska, is proceeding with plans to renew operations at the 11

Section 810 Analysis 1-12 Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Kensington and Jualin mines in the Southeast region. Continuing growth in heli-skiing operations is forecast for CNF in the Southcentral region and on the State, State-selected and Forest Service (TNF) lands near Haines in the Southeast region.

B.5.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Such Use, Occupancy, or Disposition on Subsistence Uses and Needs The evaluation of direct and indirect effects of each of the four alternatives in the PRMP/FEIS concluded that impacts to subsistence uses would not rise to the threshold of creating significant restrictions as a result of BLM management activities. The cumulative case adds consideration of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) initiated by other parties, including several important infrastructure and resource development prospects for the planning area as summarized above in the previous section. RFFAs are described in Section 4.4.2, and include climate change, forestry, transportation infrastructure development, mineral developments, and recreation. The comparatively modest BLM land base and the low development pressure on BLM-managed lands in the planning area were key in the conclusion that overall impacts from BLM-managed activities are small and local in scale. The RFFAs, in contrast, generally operate at a larger geographic scale and over longer time frames. Some of these actions will damage habitat, disturb resources, and displace other uses, though various regimes of environmental review and mitigation would be employed, and the contribution to overall impacts on BLM lands will depend on scale, extent, and location.

The specific question in this component of the Section 810 Analysis is whether or not the BLM- managed actions and the RFFAs, taken together, would result in a significant restriction on subsistence uses of the unencumbered BLM-managed lands on which the federal subsistence priority applies. The proximity of the RFFAs to the unencumbered BLM lands is a key factor in assessing their contributions to impacts and the potential to significantly restrict subsistence uses.

A major potential development is found in the Bristol Bay-Cook Inlet transportation and utility corridor, concluding at tidewater in Iniskin Bay, particularly when combined with the possibility of serving as a primary transportation corridor to the large-scale Pebble Mine prospect in the Lake Clark area beyond the Ring of Fire planning area. Although BLM manages some selected parcels of land nearby in the vicinity of Iniskin River and Ursus Cove, this area is well outside of the community subsistence use areas of Tyonek to the north on the west side of Cook Inlet, and of the Kenai Peninsula communities, for which the subsistence use areas extend to the west side of Cook Inlet, which is considerably to the north of this location (see Figure 3.5-3, Appendix A, Subsistence Use Areas of the Southcentral region).

Also potentially of significant scale over time are the proposed State oil and gas leases on the Alaska Peninsula, additional leases in Cook Inlet, and the coal mine near Sutton. Each of these developments affects lands and waters within the community subsistence use areas in the Alaska Peninsula and Southcentral regions. However, in all three cases, the development initiatives would not occur in proximity to unencumbered BLM-managed lands on which the federal rural subsistence priority applies (see Figure 3.5-2, Appendix A, Subsistence Use Areas of the Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island, and Figure 3.5-3, Appendix A, Subsistence Use Areas of the Southcentral Region). The Kensington and Jualin mines in the Southeast region are major industrial projects, closely managed for environmental effects, with the potential to disturb some resources and uses in the vicinity. However, these mines are sited to the north of

Section 810 Analysis 1-13 Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Juneau, outside of the mapped community subsistence use areas shown in Figure 3.5-4, Appendix A, Subsistence Use Areas of the Southeast Region.

Heli-skiing operations on the Kenai Peninsula within CNF would occur in part within the mapped community subsistence areas, shown in Figure 3.5-3 (Appendix A), but during limited times of year and not in proximity to unencumbered BLM-managed lands on which the federal subsistence priority is implemented. The heli-skiing operations on State, State-selected (BLM­ managed) and USDA Forest Service lands in the vicinity of Haines have met with public controversy, and could potentially affect resources on State-selected BLM-managed lands, which are proposed as an SRMA under Alternatives C and D. These lands are outside of the mapped subsistence use area, as displayed in Figure 3.5-4 (Appendix A), Subsistence Use Areas of the Southeast Region.

The assessment of the cumulative effects case for subsistence in the Section 810 Analysis builds upon the cumulative effects analysis of key subsistence resources and their habitats. The analysis of impacts on Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat, Section 4.3.3.3, concluded many of the RFFAs have the potential to adversely effect drainage patterns, water quality, fish habitat, and fish, depending on the location of the activity, and the management measures under the various alternatives to the PRMP/FEIS. The analysis of wildlife in Section 4.4.2.4.3 concludes that the RFFAs might contribute to site specific loss or fragmentation of habitat, disturbance of wildlife species, and impediments to migratory patterns, depending on the location of the activity and the management measures adopted under the PRMP/FEIS. Alternatives C and D generally provide greater protection for fish and fish habitat, because they hold to minimums the direct and indirect effects of BLM managed or permitted activities through ROPs and stipulations (Appendix D), limitations on OHV use, and future implementation planning in three special management areas. Alternatives A and B retain existing management or open new opportunities for resource uses, and thus would offer less protection to buffer the additive effect of any RFFAs

However, given the general locations of key RFFAs in relation to the unencumbered BLM- managed lands on which the Federal subsistence priority applies, the widely dispersed character of the BLM lands, and the very low proportion of BLM land within overall community subsistence use areas, it is reasonable to conclude that extremely small additive, and no synergistic impacts are likely to the abundance and availability of resources for subsistence uses on these lands. The locations of these RFFAs and the unencumbered BLM lands also make it unlikely that the cumulative effects will significant diminish the physical or legal access of subsistence users to these lands and resources, or significantly increase competition for use of these lands.

In sum, the activities reviewed in the cumulative case will have no or negligible additive impact on subsistence resources and their habitats, or on subsistence uses of the unencumbered BLM- managed lands on which the Federal subsistence priority applies.

B.5.2 Evaluation of the Availability of Other Lands for the Purposes Sought to be Achieved The PRMP/FEIS examined and developed management guidelines for all unencumbered BLM- managed lands located within the Ring of Fire planning area. These are the lands on which the federal rural subsistence priority applies. In terms of BLM land management actions to support the federal rural subsistence priority, selected lands and lands conveyed to other parties cannot be substituted for the lands on which the federal subsistence priority does apply. Other federal

Section 810 Analysis� 1-14� Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS lands managed by NPS, USFWS, and USDA Forest Service cannot be included. State and Native corporation lands within the planning area cannot be considered available for BLM- managed activities in a BLM land use plan. Since this land use plan comprehensively addresses all BLM-managed lands within the planning area, by definition, there are no other lands available for BLM land management purposes sought to be achieved in the PRMP/FEIS.

B.5.3 Evaluation of Other Alternatives That Would Reduce or Eliminate the Use, Occupancy, or Disposition of Public Lands Needed for Subsistence Purposes The cumulative case analysis identified a set of reasonably foreseeable future developments in the planning area and evaluated the extent to which these might affect unencumbered BLM- managed land, and the extent to which activities on the BLM managed lands would contribute to the cumulative impacts. In Alternatives C and D, BLM examined two approaches that would minimize the use, occupancy or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence. However, the development project identified in the cumulative place occur outside of BLM-managed lands, in locations driven by resource occurrence and abundance. Given the site-specific requirements of the infrastructure and resource development projects identified as RFFAs, it is not feasible to substitute other lands for these projects.

The limit case of eliminating the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence would be at odds with the BLM legal mandate under FLPMA, which requires that lands be managed for multiple uses. The only alternative that would eliminate the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes would be an alternative that prohibited any activity that conflicted with subsistence use or subsistence users. However, this alternative is not viable given the BLM's legal mandates. Changing FLPMA, and thus management of public lands, would require an act of Congress.

B.5.4 Findings The cumulative case, as presented in this analysis, results in no or negligible additional impacts on subsistence resources and their habitats on and near the unencumbered BLM-managed lands on which the federal subsistence priority applies. As a result, the cumulative case will not significantly restrict subsistence uses. Notice and Hearings ANILCA Section 810(a) provides that no "withdrawal, reservation, lease, permit, or other use, occupancy, or disposition of the public lands which would significantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected" until the federal agency gives the required notice and holds a hearing in accordance with ANILCA Section 810(a)(1) and (2). The evaluation of potential impacts to subsistence uses concluded that for all four alternatives and the cumulative case the plan will not significantly restrict subsistence uses of the unencumbered BLM-managed lands on which the federal subsistence priority applies. This concludes the requirements for compliance with Section 810. No notice or hearings are required in light of this finding. Subsistence Determinations Under ANILCA Section 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) ANILCA Section 810(a) provides that no "withdrawal, reservation, lease, permit, or other use, occupancy, or disposition of the public lands which would significantly restrict subsistence uses shall be effected" until the federal agency gives the required notice and holds a hearing in

Section 810 Analysis 1-15 Appendix I Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS accordance with ANILCA Section 81 O(a)(1) and (2), and makes the three determinations required by ANILCA Section 810(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C). The three determinations that must be made are:

1) that such a significant restriction of subsistence use is necessary, consistent with sound management principles for the utilization of the public lands;

2) that the proposed activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to accomplish the purposes of such use, occupancy, or other such disposition; and

3) that reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts to subsistence uses and resources resulting from such actions (16 USC 3120(a)(3)(A), (B), and (C)).

The evaluation of potential impacts to subsistence uses concluded that for all four alternatives and the cumulative case, the Ring of Fire PRMP/FEIS will not significantly restrict subsistence uses of the unencumbered BLM-managed lands on which the federal subsistence priority applies. This concludes the requirements for compliance with Section 810. No further determinations are required in light of this finding.

Section 81 0 Analysis 1-16 Appendix I Appendix J

BLM Policy for Structure Protection Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS Bureau of Land Management Policy for Structure Protection 2006

The following policy and procedures are meant to serve as guidance to the Alaska Fire Service (AFS) and the Alaska Division of Forestry (DOF), as appropriate, concerning cabin/structure protection priorities in relation to wildland fire monitoring and suppression activities on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management in Alaska. Item 2 lists the protection priorities on BLM managed lands. This policy recognizes that availability of resources may preclude protection of some sites indicated for protection during portions of the fire season.

1. The safety of the public and fire suppression personnel will remain the first priority when fire suppression/protection decisions are made.

2. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will provide protection of structures on Bureau lands using the following criteria:

A. Regardless of the value of the cabin/structure, the protection and safety of human life will take precedence. This means that high value cabin/structures may not be protected if suppression puts human life at risk. Conversely, low value cabin/structures may be protected to ensure public safety.

B. It is necessary to preserve structures to save human life due to an imminent threat of the structure(s) being burned over.

C. If the structure has been evaluated and is on or has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

D. If the structure has not been evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, the Evaluating Structures for Historic Value process (attached below) will be initiated.

E. Public funds have been expended in the construction and/or maintenance of the structure. These federal facilities should receive protection commensurate with their monetary or resource management value as established by the Field Office Manager.

F. When fire suppression resources are available to provide the necessary protection of authorized structures.

3. Field Offices will initiate the actions to reduce hazardous fuels adjacent to federal facilities, structures that have been identified for protection.

4. The policy for unauthorized structures will be consistent with policy items 1-3 above.

5. Decisions made pursuant to this policy will be recorded on the fire map atlas. Keeping the fire maps current is a joint responsibility of the field office specialist, field office fire personnel, and the AFS/DOF fire management officers. Changes in fire maps should be initiated as part of the annual fire plan. Part of the annual review will be to re-evaluate any fire operations that included cabin/structure protection actions in the preceding year.

BLM Policy for Structure Protection J-1 Appendix J Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS 6. In a wildfire situation, if information on the fire map atlas is not sufficient, AFS/DOF fire management officers will contact the field office fire personnel for a decision. The decision will be made on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the appropriate field office manager. Evaluating Structures for Historic Value

The Normal Situation

The current fire map atlas or an equivalent source will be kept updated with current information, including protection standards for structures based in part on an assessment of their historic value. Part of this historic assessment will be a determination of eligibility arrived in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in exactly the same fashion as we do for other activities.

Sites will be designated for full protection unless they have been determined to be not eligible for the National Register. In a Wildfire Situation

In a wildfire situation, it may be necessary to try to determine appropriate levels of protection for structures whose eligibility to the National Register has not been determined, or it may be necessary to provide priorities among structures designated for full or critical protection. In those cases, the following process will be followed . All decisions that are based on this process will be documented and submitted to the Field Office Manager.

1. A qualified cultural resource specialist is available.

1 A. If at all possible , a qualified cultural resource specialist will evaluate structures to determine if they appear to have sufficient historic value to warrant protection. The specialist will also try to assign relative value to multiple structures so that resources can be concentrated on the most important sites.

B. If time and circumstances allow, the cultural resource specialist will arrive at determinations of historic value only after an on-site visit to the structures involved.

C. If circumstances do not allow for an on-site visit by a cultural resource specialist, the determination will be made by the cultural resource specialist on the basis of the best available information.

i. If AFS/DOF personnel can get to the site, they should try to obtain the following information for use by the cultural resource specialist:

1 If the home Field Office cultural resource specialist is not available, attempts will be made to contact a cultural resource specialist from another Field Office or the State Office to provide assistance.

BLM Policy for Structure Protection J-2 Appendix J Ring of Fire Proposed RMP/Final EIS

photograph(s)- digital or Polaroid images

• number of structures

• conditions of structures (collapsed, standing, ruin)

• construction materials (logs, plywood, sheet metal)

• associated features (bottle/can dumps, equipment)

ii. Use of a standard data gathering form, which would be available for fire personnel, is encouraged. This would greatly facilitate determinations of the historic value of structures and sites.

D. Once information has been gathered regarding structures involved in a wildfire situation, protection status and protection priorities will be made after communication with the SHPO if time and circumstances allow. Use of current technology may assist in this communication. (For example, digital images might be gathered and posted on a web page or transmitted via e-mail.)

i. If circumstances do not allow for communication with the SHPO, a determination of historic value will be made by the cultural resource specialist.

2. A qualified cultural resource specialist is not available.

2 A. Historic evaluations will be made by the Field Office fire personnel.

B. Training will be provided to the Field Office fire personnel to allow him/her to better make these evaluations. The details and extent of this training will be worked out by the FMO and the field archaeologists

3. If the Field Office Manager or their acting cannot be contacted

A. If no other options are available, evaluations should be made by AFS/DOF personnel on site. The following is meant to provide some guidance in making these evaluations. B. An older structure is probably more important than a younger one. Several characteristics of structures can be used to estimate relative age, such as the state of collapse; construction materials (logs vs. plywood); vegetation re-growth around the structure; and associated artifacts (wagon vs. 1934 Dodge) C. A settlement, meaning a site with multiple dwelling structures, is probably more important than a single structure. D. A site with a single dwelling structure and associated outbuildings, such as barns, sheds, outhouses or caches, is more important than an isolated structure. E. A site with associated non-structural features, such as can or bottle dumps is probably more important than one without.

2 If the home Field Office fire personnel are not available, attempts will be made to contact the Field Office Manager or their acting.

BLM Policy for Structure Protection J-3 Appendix J This page intentionally left blank. Appendix K

Master Memorandum of Understanding Between ADF&G and BLM AZie44-G/3.1"i

MASTER MEMORANDUM�UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Juneau, Alaska

AND

THE U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Anchorage, Alaska

This Master Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, hereinafter referred to as the Depart­ ment, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Man­ agement, hereinafter referred to as the Bureau, reflects the general policy guidelines within which thE two agencies agree to operate.

WHEREAS, the Department, under the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the State of Alaska, is responsible for the management, protection, maintenance, enhancement, rehabilitation, and extension of:the fish and wildlife resources of the State on the sustained yield -principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses; and

WHEREAS, the Bureau, by authority of the Constitution, Laws of Congress, executive orders, and regulations of the U.S. Department of Interior has a mandated responsibility for the management of Bureau lands, and the conservation of fish and wildlife resources on these lands; and

WHEREAS, the Department and the Bureau share a mutual concern for fish and wildlife conservation, management, and protection programs and desire to develop and maintain a cooperative relationship which will be in the best interests of both parties, the concerned fish and wild­ life resources and their habitats, and produce the greatest public benefit; and

WHEREAS, it has been recognized in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and subsequent implementing Federal regu­ lations that the resources and uses of Bureau lands in Alaska are substantially different than those of similar lands in other states; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress and the Alaska Legislature have enacted laws to protect and provide the opportunity for continued subsistence use of Alaska's fish and wildlife resources by rural residents; and

WHEREAS, the Department and the Bureau recoanize the increasing need to coordinate resource planning, policy development, and program implementation; NUW, THEREFORE, the partie~ herela do hereby agree as follows: THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AGREES:

1. To recognize the Bureau as the Federal agency responsible multiple-use for management of Bureau lands including wildlife ha.bitat in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, AriiLCA, and other applicable law~

2. To regulate and manage use of fish and wi1 dl ife populations Bureau on 1 a.nds in such a way as to maintain or improve the qua 1 ity of fish and wildlife habitat and its productivity. 3. To consult with the Bureau in a timely manner and comply applicable with Federal laws and regulations before embarking on enhancement or construction activities on or which wouLd Bureau lanqs. affect 4. To act as . the primary agency responsible for management of a 11 uses of fish and wildlife on State and Bureau· to 1 ands • p~rsuant applicable State and Federal laws. · 5. To notify the Bureau of any animal damage control activi1:ies on Bureau 1 ands; and to obtain Bureau approva 1 for the cides, use of: pesti­ herbicides, or other toxic chemic~l agents in the course of animal damage contro1. 6. 10 provi·de all maintenance an facilities, structures, or other construction· owned by the Department on Bureau lands; and the to hold Bureau harmless for lia~ility claims resulting from these constructions, facilities, and/or structures.

THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AGREES: 1. To recognize the Department as the primary agency responsible for management of use and conservation of fish and wildlife resources on Bureau lands. · 2. To recognize the right of the Department to enter onto Bureau 1 ands at any time to conduct routine management activities do which not involve construction, disturbance to the land, or alter­ ations of ecosystems. 3. .To recognize the Department as the primary agency responsible for policy development and management direction relating fish to uses of and wildlife resources on State and Bureau lands. pursuant to appl i cab 1 e State and Federa 1 1 aws. 4. To incorporate the Department's fish and wildlife objectives management and guidelines in Bureau land use plans unless such

2 provisions are not consistent with multiple use management principles established by FLPHA, J\NILCA, and applicable Federal law. 5. To adopt the State's regulations to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law 'tlhen developing new or modifying existing Federal regulations governing or affecting the taking of fish and wildlife on Bureau lands in Alaska. 6. To notify the Department of any portion of the Department's fish and wildlife .management objectives~ guidelines s or State regu­ · lations that the Bureau determines to be incompatible 'tJith the purposes for 'tihich Bureau lands are managed. 7.. To manage Bureau lands so as to conserve and enhance fish and wildlife populations.

B. lo inform the Department of proposed development activities on Bureau I ands which may affect fish and wildlife resources, sub­ sistence and other uses, and to provide or require appropriate. mi:tigation wherP. feasible. 9. To permit, under appropriate agreement or authorization. the . erection and maintenance of facilities or structures needed to further fish and wildlife w~nagement activities of the Department on. Bureau lands, provided their intended use is not in conflict · \·lith Bureau pol icy and land-use plans. . 10. To recognize that the taking of fish and wildlife by hunting, . trapping, or fishing on Bureau lands in Alaska is authorized in accordance with applicable State apd Federal law unless State regulations are found to be incompatible with Bureau regulations.

THE DEPARTMiNT OF FISH AND GAHE AND BUREAU OF LAUD HANAGEHENT MUTUALLY AGREE: .

1. To coordinate planning for management of fish and wild1 ife resources on Bureau 1 ands and adjacent 1 ands having common fish· and wildlife resources so that conflicts arising from differing· legal mandates., objectives, and policies either do not ari.se or· are minimized. 2. To cooperate in planning, enhancement, or deve1optr.ent activities· on Bureau lands \'Jhich require pennits. environmental assessments. compatibility assessments, or similar regulatory documents ·by responding in a timely manner· with requirements, time tables, and any other necessary input. 3. lo consult vrith each other \·lhen developing or implementing poli­ cy. legislation, and regulations which affect the attainment of wildlife resource management goa 1 s and objectives of the other agency.

3 1 4. To cooperate in the management ot fish and \'Jildlife resources and habitat (including planning, regulation, enforcement, protection, restoration. researchs inventories, and habitat enhancement} on Bureau lands and adjacent- lands having common fish and \ltildlife resources consistent \'lith the species and habitat management plans and objectives of both agencies. · 5. to develop specific plans for cooperative development and joint management of habitat areas determined ·to be essential to the continued productivity or existence of fish and \-tildlife populations. 6. To consult with the Department prior to entering into any cooper­ ative land management agreements which cou1 d affect fish and wi 1 dl i fe resources .. 7. To cooperate in the development of fire management . plans which may include establishment of priorities for the control of \t~ild­ fires, or use of prescribed fires. 8. To make facilities, equipment and assistance mutually available on request for use in fish and wildlife work and nabitat improvement consistent with Bureau and Department requirements. 9. Neither to make nor sanction any introduction or tran~plant of any fish cr wildlife species on or affecting Bureau lands without first consulting with the other party and complying with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations.· 10. To provide to each other upon request fish and wildlife data including subsistence and other uses, information, and recommendations for consideration in the formulation of policies, plans and management programs regarding fish · and wildlife resources. · 11. To cooperate in the preparation of announcements and publications and the dissemination of fish and wildlife information; any material obtained from cooperative studies may be published or reproduced with credit given to the agencies or organizations responsible for its acquisition or development·. Any news release relating specifically to cooperative programs \'Jill be made only by mutual consent of the agencies. · 12. To cooperate and coordinate in the issuance of permits to per­ sons, industry, or government agencies for activities affecting designated anadromous fish streams on Bureau lands, in accordance ~lith Alaska Statute 16.05 ..870 and to cooperate in the formulation of comments and recommendations on permits issued by other governmental agencies in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife · Coordination Act, Clean Water Act and other applicable laws. 13. To resolve, at field office levels, all disagreements pertaining to.. the cooperative work of the two agencies which arise in the · field and to refer a 11 matters of disagreement that cannot be resolved at equivalent field levels to the State Director and to the Commissioner for resolution before either agency expresses its position in public. 14. To meet annually at the Director/Commissioner level and discuss matters relating to the manageme~t of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats on, or affected by,· respective programs; to provide for other meetings at various administrative levels for discussion of law enforcement, educational programs. cooperative studies, research. fish and wildlife surveys, habitat development. hunting, fishing, trapping seasons, and such other matters as may be relevant to fish and wildlife populations and . their habitats. 15. To develop such supplementa.l memoranda. of understanding ar.d cooperative ttgreements between the Bureau and the Department as may be required to implement the policies contained herein ..

16. That this Master ~1emorandum is subject. to the laws of the State of Alaska and . the United States. Nothing herein is intended to conflict with current directives. laws or regul ation.s . of the signatory agencies. If conflicts arise or can be foreseen, this Memorandum will be amended or a new Memorandum of Understanding will be developed.

17. That this Master ~emorandum of Understanding is subje~t to the GVailability of appropriated Stat~ and Federal funds. 18. That this. Master Memorandum of Understanding establishes procedu­ ral guidelines by which the par:ties shall cooperate, but does not create legally enforceable obligations or rights. 19. That this Master Memorandum of UnderstaRding supersedes all pre­ vious Master Memoranda of Understanding. between the Bureau and Departrr.ent and a 11 supplements and amendments thereto. 20. That this Master Memorandum of Understanding shall become effec­ tive when signed by the Conlffiissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the State Director of the Bureau of Land ~1anagement and shall continue in force until terminated by either party by providing notice in writing 120 days in advance of the intended date of termination. 21. That amendments to this t·1aster Memorandum of Understanding may be. proposed by either party and shall become effective l:lpon approval by both parties.

s' STATE OF ALASKA� U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Department of Fish and Game Bureau cf Land Management

/;// byakkikel li By�

Don W. Collinsworth Curtis V. McVee

Commissioner Director

Date -2g- 83 Date 67/3/46 4;?

6 Supplement to the f-lASTER f.1EMORANDUH OF UNDERSTANDING between THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEr-lENT U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ALASKA

SIKES ACT IMPL~ffiNTATION This supplemental memorandum of understanding is pursuant the Master Memorandum to of Understanding between the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and l4anagement the Bureau of Land (BUl) , Alaska, dated AUG 3 1983 Public Law 93-452, . of October 18, 1974, 16 u.s.c. 670a et seq., commonly referred to as the Sikes Act, provides the broad authority to: 1) Plan 3.nd carry conservation out fi;:;h and wildlife and habitat rehabi'li tation programs lands consistent on Bureau with overall land use plans;. 2) significant habitat Protect for threatened and endangered species; and 3) Enforce regulations to control off traffic road vehic~e (ORV) or other public use of lands subject to and rehabilitation conservation programs conducted under the Act. The Act in no way ·diminishes the authority Alaska of the State of · to manage resident fish and wildlife populations. It is the purpose and intent of this supplement wor}

2) Habitat Management Plan (HMP) - BU1's intensiv~, detailed action plan for wildlife management specific on a geographic area of biological interest Bureau lands. on The HHP is a cooperative plan with the State \Vildlife agency and is based public on current input. The HHP shall be the implementing document for the Sikes Act. 3) Bureau Lands - These are public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land t·1anagernent. -2-

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENT­ ING P.L. 93-452, ADF&G and BLM mutually agree to the following: 1) HMPs will be implemented for areas where land-use plans have been prepared 1 • unless otherwise authorized hT the State Director, BLM. 2) HMPs will be based on priorities within Alaska, as mutually selected by the Commissioner, ADF&Gr and the State Director, BLM. Guidelines for estab­ lishing BMP. priori ti~s shall be based on the following: a) The basic resource values which may be enhanced and benefits produced by implementa­ tion of active management programs and/or regulations. b) The identification, through the BLM or ADF&G planning systems, of ar~as having a need for intensive wildlife management. c) The potential for wildlife hahi tat to be altered by land use activities _such as energy and industrial uevelopment, urban expansion, and ORV traf~ic . road. constructi:on, d) The need to protect important and/or ·critical fish and wildlife habitat such as salmon spawning areas, moose winter range, or the habitats of endangered or threatened species .. 3) Protection will be afforded· to those fish and wildlife species designated as threatene~ or endangered by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game or by the Secretary. of the Interior pursuant to Section 4 o.f the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 4) HMPs will. specify fish and wildlife habitat improvements or modifications needed. 5) Rehabilitation of Bureau lands will be undertaken where necessary to support f~lP recommendations and consistent \

6) Bunting, fishing, and trapping of resident fish and wildlife on HMP a:t"eas will be in accordance with applicable laws and regulations of the State of Alaska. ·

7) It is herein recognized that the Secretary of the Interior bas the . authority to promulgate regulations to centre] the public use of Bureau lands consistent with the HMP, including 1 but not limited to ORV use. BLM and ADF&G will coordinate federal land use and state hunting, fishing and trapping regulations during Sikes HMP development.

8} Funds authorized and appropriated for RMP imple­ mentation on Bureau lands in Alaska shall include, but not be limited to all activities associated with scientific resource management, such as the following: protection, research, census, law enforcement, habitat management, propag9-tion, live trapping, transp,lantation, and regulated t:aking. Funds may be allocated for hiring of personnel, contractual services, physical habitat £roprovement projects, and grants to colleges. It shall be the joint responsibility of the Commissioner, ADF&G, and 'the State Director, BLM, to define areas and projects for priority funding under the Sikes Act. It shall ·be the responsibility qf the State Director, BU.1 to secure funding through BLM 1 s program funding procedures. Final disbursement of Sikes Act Funds shall be made through the State Director, BLM, after consultation with the Commissioner, ADF&G.

9) Plans and programs initiated on Burea~ lands under the Sikes Act in Al.aska sha11 not conflict with comprehensive plans required of the State under any Federal or State Acts.

~0) BLM and ADF&G will discuss the following Sikes Act items during the course of their · annual coordination meeting:

a) A progress report on the current status of ~lP implementation.

b) The review of wildlife values produced under the -exis'ting conservation and rchabilita tion. programs. ')

-4-

for IU1P implementation. c) The priorities for and budget recommendations d) The program fiscal years. the upcoming and succeeding when last effective on the date supplement shall become by mutual This in force until ~erminated signed and shall remain of the Act by Con­ amendment or abol.ishment wr~. ting . agreement, by t .hirty days notice in or by either party upon upon a date gress, its intention to terminate to the other party of indicated.

THE INTERIOR U .. S. DEPARTMENT OF STA'!E OF ALASKA

Curt~s V., Mc'Vee Don ~'l. Collinsworth State Director Commissioner Date t1/S-,4?3 Date __.~.c__...:-?.a~c;..-__,.~~----