DOCSLIB.ORG

An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EPA 910-R-14-001ES | January 2014 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska Executive Summary Region 10, Seattle, WA www.epa.gov/bristolbay Executive Summary Tributary of Napotoli Creek, near the Humble claim Photo: Michael Wiedmer he Bristol Bay watershed in southwestern Alaska supports the largest Tsockeye salmon fishery in the world, is home to 25 federally recognized tribal governments, and contains significant mineral resources. The potential for large-scale mining activities in the watershed has raised concerns about the impact of mining on the sustainability of Bristol Bay’s world-class commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries and the future of Alaska Native tribes in the watershed, who have maintained a salmon-based culture and subsistence-based way of life for at least 4,000 years. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) launched this assessment to determine the significance of Bristol Bay’s ecological resources and evaluate the potential impacts of large-scale mining on these resources. It uses the well-established methodology of an ecological risk assessment, which is a type of scientific investigation that provides technical information and analyses to foster public understanding and inform future decision making. As a scientific assessment, it does not discuss or recommend policy, legal, or regulatory decisions, nor does it outline or analyze options for future decisions. 1 The Lower Nushagak River between Portage Creek and Ekwok Photo: Michael Wiedmer This assessment characterizes the biological and mineral resources of the Bristol Bay watershed. It is intended to increase understanding of potential impacts of large- Lake Clark scale mining on the region’s fish resources National Park and Preserve and serve as a technical resource for the r e KVICHAK rk r a iv l e C R v e public and for federal, state, and tribal i k a a R L!( n k t a a e Wood-Tikchik g a Riv r Port Alsworth h litn governments as they consider how best to a c C hu l State Park h NUSHAGAK u s u M Ko Nuy kt r Togiak akuk N u e Riv l v !( address the challenges posed by mining er i R i Nondalton National i R ve r n Wildlife ^ e l a Refuge oli Creek S h and ecological protection in the Bristol Bay Napot Koliganek tu Pedro Ba!(y y w !( a r I!(liamna hok Rive e N !( Klutu k C Newhalen watershed. It will inform ongoing discussions re K e o k kw o New Stuyahok Iliamna Lake k R !( of the risks of mine development to the ive r !( !( Kokhanok Aleknagik W Ekwok !( !( sustainability of the Bristol Bay salmon o r o e d v ver Igiugig i i R k R R ha i ic v k v e fisheries and thus will be of value to the many a K r g !( Katmai Cook Inlet !( a h er s Levelock Riv National Park u Al ak stakeholders in this debate. Dillingham agn and Preserve N !( Portage Creek The assessment also will inform the consideration of options for future government action, including, possibly, Bristol Bay by USEPA, which has been petitioned by multiple groups to address mining activity in the Bristol Bay watershed using its authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Approximate Pebble Deposit Location Should specific mine projects reach the 0 25 50 Towns and Villages Kilometers permitting stage, the assessment will enable 0 25 50 Parks, Refuges, or Preserves Miles state and federal permitting authorities to Watershed Boundary make informed decisions to grant, deny, or condition permits and/or conduct additional 2 The Nushagak River and Kvichak River Watersheds of Bristol Bay KVICHAK NORTH FORK KOKTULI UPPER TALARIK r e v NUSHAGAK i R i l u t k o K K k o r k o t F u l h i r t R No iv Present er SOUTH FORK KOKTULI Spawning r tuli Rive Kok k Rearing rk e Fo re South C ri k la Pebble 6.5 Components Ta r e p p Mine Scenario Watersheds U Watershed Boundary 0 2.5 5 Kilometers 0 2.5 5 Miles Iliamna Lake Iliamna Lake Reported Salmon (Sockeye, Chinook, Coho, Pink, and Chum Combined) Distribution in the South and North Fork Koktuli River and Upper Talarik Creek Watersheds. Designation of species spawning, rearing, and presence is based on the Anadromous Waters Catalog (Johnson and Blanche 2012). Life-stage- specific reach designations are likely underestimates, given the challenges inherent in surveying all streams that may support life-stage use throughout the year. Figure ES-2. Reported salmon (sockeye, Chinook, coho, pink, and chum combined) distribution in the South and North Fork Koktuli Rivers and Upper Talarik Creek watersheds. Lake Clark Designation of species spawning, rearing, and presence is based on the Anadromous Waters Catalog. Life- National Park and Preserve stage-specific reach designations are likely underestimates, given the challenges inherent in surveying all r research or assessment as a basis for these fisheries are expected to affect e KVICHAK rk streams that may support life-stage use throughout the year. r a iv l e C R v e i k a a R L!( the abundance and health of wildlife n such decisions. USEPA conducted this k t a a e Wood-Tikchik g a Riv r Port Alsworth h litn a c C u l h State Park h NUSHAGAK populations. Alaska Native cultures have u s u assessment consistent with its authority M Ko Nuy kt r Togiak aku N u e k Riv v !( er li R i Nondalton National i R strong nutritional, cultural, social, and ve r n Wildlife ^ e under the CWA Section 104(a) and (b). l a Refuge oli Creek S h Napot Koliganek tu Pedro Ba!(y spiritual dependence on salmon, so y w !( a r I!(liamna hok Rive e N !( Klutu k C Newhalen changes in salmon fisheries are expected re K e o k k Scope of the Assessment w o New Stuyahok Iliamna Lake to affect the health and welfare of Alaska k R !( ive r !( !( Kokhanok This assessment reviews, analyzes, and Native populations. Therefore, wildlife Aleknagik W Ekwok !( !( o r o e d r v ive Igiugig i R synthesizes information relevant to and Alaska Native cultures are also R k R ha i ic v k v e a K r g !( Katmai Cook Inlet !( a potential impacts of large-scale mine considered as assessment endpoints, but h er s Levelock Riv National Park u Al ak Dillingham agn and Preserve N development on Bristol Bay fisheries and only as they are affected by changes in !( Portage Creek consequent effects on wildlife and Alaska salmonid fisheries. Native cultures in the region. Given the economic, ecological, and cultural The assessment considers multiple importance of the region’s key salmonids geographic scales. The largest scale is the Bristol Bay (sockeye, Chinook, coho, chum, and Bristol Bay watershed, which is a largely pink salmon, as well as rainbow trout undisturbed region with outstanding and Dolly Varden) and stakeholder natural, cultural, and mineral resources. and public concern that a mine could Within the larger Bristol Bay watershed, affect those species, the primary focus the assessment focuses on the Nushagak of the assessment is the abundance, and Kvichak River watersheds. These are productivity, and diversity of these the largest of the Bristol Bay watershed’s fishes. Because wildlife in Bristol Bay are six major river basins, containing about intimately connected to and dependent 50% of the total watershed area, and are on these and other fishes, changes in identified as mineral development areas by the State of Alaska. Given its size and 3 Sockeye salmon near Gibraltar Lake Photo: Thomas Quinn (University of Washington) extent of characterization, the Pebble deposit. The final geographic scale is the deposit is the most likely site for near- combined area of the subwatersheds term, large-scale mine development in between the mine footprints and the the region. Because the Pebble deposit is Kvichak River watershed’s eastern located in the headwaters of tributaries boundary that would be crossed by a to both the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers, transportation corridor linking the mine both of these watersheds are subject to site to Cook Inlet. potential risks from mining. The third geographic scale is the watersheds of The assessment also addresses two the three tributaries that originate within periods for mine activities. The first is the potential footprint of a mine on the the development and operation phase, Pebble deposit: the South Fork Koktuli during which mine infrastructure would River, which drains the Pebble deposit be built and the mine would be operated. area and converges with the North This phase may last from 20 to 100 years Fork west of the Pebble deposit; the or more. The second is the post-mining North Fork Koktuli River, located to the phase, during which the site would northwest of the Pebble deposit, which be monitored and maintained. Water flows into the Nushagak River via the treatment and other waste management Koktuli and Mulchatna Rivers; and Upper activities would continue as necessary Talarik Creek, which drains the eastern and any failures would be remediated. portion of the Pebble deposit and Because mine wastes would be persistent, flows into the Kvichak River via Iliamna this period could continue for centuries Lake, the largest undeveloped lake in and potentially in perpetuity. the United States. The mine footprints We began the assessment with a in the three realistic mine scenarios thorough review of what is known about evaluated in the assessment make up the Bristol Bay watershed, its fisheries and the fourth geographic scale.
Recommended publications
  • Bristol Bay, Alaska

    Bristol Bay, Alaska

    EPA 910-R-14-001C | January 2014 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska Volume 3 – Appendices E-J Region 10, Seattle, WA www.epa.gov/bristolbay EPA 910-R-14-001C January 2014 AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Seattle, WA CONTENTS VOLUME 1 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska VOLUME 2 APPENDIX A: Fishery Resources of the Bristol Bay Region APPENDIX B: Non-Salmon Freshwater Fishes of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages APPENDIX C: Wildlife Resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Watersheds, Alaska APPENDIX D: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Characterization of the Indigenous Cultures of the Nushagak and Kvichak Watersheds, Alaska VOLUME 3 APPENDIX E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values APPENDIX F: Biological Characterization: Bristol Bay Marine Estuarine Processes, Fish, and Marine Mammal Assemblages APPENDIX G: Foreseeable Environmental Impact of Potential Road and Pipeline Development on Water Quality and Freshwater Fishery Resources of Bristol Bay, Alaska APPENDIX H: Geologic and Environmental Characteristics of Porphyry Copper Deposits with Emphasis on Potential Future Development in the Bristol Bay Watershed, Alaska APPENDIX I: Conventional Water Quality Mitigation Practices for Mine Design, Construction, Operation, and Closure APPENDIX J: Compensatory Mitigation and Large-Scale Hardrock Mining in the Bristol Bay Watershed AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J Appendix E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values John Duffield Chris Neher David Patterson Bioeconomics, Inc.
  • COMPARISON of the PEBBLE MINE with OTHER ALASKA LARGE HARD ROCK MINES

    COMPARISON of the PEBBLE MINE with OTHER ALASKA LARGE HARD ROCK MINES

    COMPARISON of the PEBBLE MINE with OTHER ALASKA LARGE HARD ROCK MINES Stuart Levit and David Chambers Center for Science in Public Participation February, 2012 Summary If permitted, the Pebble mine will be North America’s, and one of the world’s largest mines. It has been suggested that in spite of its size the Pebble mine is comparable to other Alaska mining projects. The amount of ore mined and the area that would be disturbed by development at the Pebble mine is on a scale entirely of its own in Alaska, and even enormous on a global scale. Size alone does not determine impacts, but based on other factors such as acid producing potential, easy movement of water away from the mine, a world class fishery, wet climate regime, etc., the mine’s potential impacts could be significant and irreparable. Several of Alaska’s large mines have potentially acid producing ore, but none are truly comparable with the size of the proposed Pebble mine. The Pebble Mine is unique compared to Alaska’s other large, hard rock mines when looking at characteristics such as size, geochemistry, geomorphology, fisheries, and hydrology. When viewed through the aggregate of these factors, the Pebble mine is distinctly different from any other present or past hard rock mine in Alaska. More important is Pebble’s massive potential to impact the pristine lands with industrial development. The Bristol Bay watershed is unique in Alaska because it comprises Alaska’s, and one of the world’s, greatest salmon fisheries. It supports cultural, subsistence, commercial, recreational, economic, and environmental values that are unparalleled.
  • Petition to List the Iliamna Lake Seal, a Distinct Population Segment of Eastern North Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca Vitulina Richardii), Under the U.S

    Petition to List the Iliamna Lake Seal, a Distinct Population Segment of Eastern North Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca Vitulina Richardii), Under the U.S

    Before the Secretary of Commerce Petition to List the Iliamna Lake Seal, a Distinct Population Segment of Eastern North Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina richardii), under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Photo Credit: NOAA Fisheries/Dave Withrow Center for Biological Diversity 6 February 2020 i Notice of Petition Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected], [email protected] Dr. Neil Jacobs, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20230 Email: [email protected] Petitioner: Kristin Carden, Oceans Program Scientist, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway #800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510.844.7100 x327 Email: [email protected] On November 19, 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity (Center, Petitioner) submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) a petition to list the Iliamna Lake population of eastern North Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). (See generally Center 2012.) On May 17, 2013, NMFS issued a positive 90- day finding “that the petition present[ed] substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petition action may be warranted” and initiated a status review. (78 Fed. Reg. 29,098 (May 17, 2013).). On November 17, 2016, NMFS issued a determination that listing was not warranted because “the seals in Iliamna Lake do not constitute a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment (DPS) under the ESA.” (81 Fed.
  • Walrus Hunting at Togiak, Bristol Bay, Soutwest Alaska

    Walrus Hunting at Togiak, Bristol Bay, Soutwest Alaska

    WALRUS HUNTING AT TOGIAK, BRISTOL BAY, SOUTHWEST ALASKA James A. Fall, Molly Chythlook, Janet Schichnes, and Rick Sinnott’ Technical Paper No. 212 ’ Fall: Division of Subsistence, Anchorage Chythlook and Schichnes: Division of Subsistence, Dillingham Sinnott: Division of Wildlife Conservation, Anchorage Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence Juneau, Alaska October 1991 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game operates all of its public programs and activities free from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap. Because the department receives federal funding, any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against should write to: O.E.D. U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 , ABSTRACT The report provides an overview of historic and contemporary uses of Pacific walrus in the Bristol Bay region of southwest Alaska. It focuses on the community of Togiak (population 613) and its traditional use areas, including Round Island (Yup’ik Qayaciq, “place to go in a kayak”). As part of the Walrus Islands State Game Sanctuary, Round Island, a critical haul out site, has been closed to walrus hunting since 1960. In 1991, the Togiak Traditional Council submitted a proposal to the Alaska Board of Game to allow a limited hunt for 10 walrus on Round Island in October. Hunting of walrus and other marine mammals in western Bristol Bay, including Round Island, by the Native people of the Togiak area over the last 2,500 years is documented by archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence. Until the late 1930s and early 1940% well-organized groups of hunters from Togiak traveled in kayaks to Round Island (the most reliable hunting location) and other islands armed with spears and harpoons to harvest walrus.
  • ORPC Rivgen Wake Characterization

    ORPC Rivgen Wake Characterization

    ORPC RivGen Wake Characterization Maricarmen Guerra Paris* Jim Thomson University of Washington University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA Seattle, WA, USA *Corresponding author: [email protected] in turbulence due to eddies shed by turbine blades; and iii) complex interactions between natural and turbine ABSTRACT induced turbulent structures [6]. In this investigation we assess the wake formed behind Baseline and post-deployment flow conditions were mea- a horizontal cross-flow turbine installed on the Kvichak sured at the ORPC RivGen turbine site on the Kvichak river in southwest Alaska, USA, just downstream of the river in the vicinity of Igiugig village, Alaska. Mean sur- village of Igiugig. The small village is home to 70 peo- face flow and turbulence measurements were collected ple and its electricity source currently depends on an from a drifting platform equipped with a Nortek Signa- isolated power grid fed by diesel generators. The Ocean ture 1000Hz five beam AD2CP. Baseline measurements Renewable Power Company (ORPC) has set a pilot hy- indicate a maximum flow of 2.5 m/s and a 10% turbu- drokinetic energy project on the Kvichak river stream to lent intensity in the turbine vicinity. Measurements af- provide Igiugig with a renewable and locally produced ter turbine deployment and grid connection show a sig- source of energy. nificant decrease in surface velocity up to 200 m down- ORPCs RivGen turbine was successfully deployed, stream from the turbine and an increase in turbulence tested and connected to the local power grid during intensity up to 20% that extends about 75 m down- the summers of 2014 and 2015.
  • Fish Surveys in Headwater Streams of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2008 - 2010

    Fish Surveys in Headwater Streams of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages Bristol Bay, Alaska, 2008 - 2010

    FISH SURVEYS IN HEADWATER STREAMS OF THE NUSHAGAK AND KVICHAK RIVER DRAINAGES BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA, 2008 - 2010 December, 2010 ©Bridget Besaw/TNC Prepared for by Dr. Carol Ann Woody & Sarah Louise O’Neal Fisheries Research and Consulting Anchorage, Alaska PREFACE The Nature Conservancy is an international not-for profit organization with a mission to preserve the biodiversity of the earth. Several years ago the Conservancy refocused programs to advancing local conservation efforts that contribute most to protecting globally significant strongholds of biodiversity. The Alaska Chapter determined that the loss of wild Pacific salmon productivity in Alaska would have a global impact because wild salmon have been severely compromised in other parts of the world. A focus on wild salmon in Alaska inevitably leads to Bristol Bay – home to the world’s largest remaining salmon runs. In the late 1990s the Conservancy began developing partnerships with local organizations to protect the long term viability of Bristol Bay’s salmon resource. A partnership with the Curyung Tribe of Dillingham, the Bristol Bay Native Association and the Nushagak- Mulchatna Watershed Council led to the development and the publication in 2007 of The Nushagak River Watershed Traditional Use Area Conservation Plan. During the time the Conservancy was working with this partnership, the discovery of a large copper and gold ore body on state lands in the watersheds of the Nushagak and Kvichak Rivers was announced. A flurry of new mining claims followed. The discovery, now known as the Pebble Prospect, is under active exploration and environmental assessment by a consortium of mining interests. The Anadromous Fish Act (AS 16.05.871) is the key State of Alaska statutory protection for freshwater habitats of fish in Alaska.
  • Surface Water Quality in the Nushagak, Kvichak, and Chulitna Watersheds, Southwest Alaska 2009-2010

    Surface Water Quality in the Nushagak, Kvichak, and Chulitna Watersheds, Southwest Alaska 2009-2010

    Investigations of Surface Water Quality in the Nushagak, Kvichak, and Chulitna Watersheds, Southwest Alaska 2009-2010 Kendra L. Zamzow, Ph.D. Center for Science in Public Participation PO Box 54 Sutton, Alaska 99674 July 2011 for The Nature Conservancy 715 L Street Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Investigations of Surface Water Quality in the Nushagak, Kvichak, and Chulitna Watersheds, Southwest Alaska 2009-2010 Prepared for: The Nature Conservancy 715 L Street Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501 Prepared by: Kendra L. Zamzow, Ph.D. Center for Science in Public Participation PO Box 54 Sutton, AK 99674 with editorial review by: Ann Maest, Ph.D. Stratus Consulting 1881 Ninth St., Ste. 201 Boulder, CO 80302 and Molly Welker Bristol Environmental Remediation Services, LLC 111 W. 16th Avenue, Third Floor Anchorage, AK 99501 July 2011 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................1 2.0 Study Area and Sampling Locations ...............................................................................3 3.0 Methods, Data Availability, and Relevant Standards .....................................................7 3.1 Methods .......................................................................................................................7 3.2 Available Data .............................................................................................................7
  • Climate Change in Port Heiden, Alaska

    Climate Change in Port Heiden, Alaska

    Climate Change in Port Heiden, Alaska Strategies for Community Health Project Contributors: Erica Lujan - Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Community Environment and Health Mike Brubaker - Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Community Environment and Health John Warren - Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Department of Environmental Health and Engineering Jaclyn Christensen - Native Village of Port Heiden, Brownfields Program Scott Anderson - Native Village of Port Heiden, Environmental Program Melissa O’Domin - Native Village of Port Heiden, Environmental Program Jeremy Littell - Alaska Climate Adaptation Science Center Richard Buzard - University of Alaska Fairbanks, Department of Geosciences Jacqueline Overbeck - Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Coastal Hazards Program Davin Holen - Alaska Sea Grant, Adapt Alaska Sue Flensburg - Bristol Bay Native Association, Environmental Program Elizabeth Powers - Western Alaska Landscape Conservation Cooperative The writing team would like to thank all of the community and regional contributors to this project. We appreciate your time and support. Port Heiden Contributors: Gerda Kosbruk Scott Anderson Hank Matson Nefuti Orloff Jaclyn Christensen Jimmy Christensen John Christensen Jr. Annie Christensen Tisha Kalmakoff Bruce Bishop Melissa O’Domin Amber Christensen-Fox Delores Anderson © 2018 Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium. Council Members: Gerda Kosbruk - Administrator Paid for with funds from the Bureau of Indian Affairs John Christensen Jr. - President
  • Population Dynamics and Trophic Ecology of Dolly Varden in The

    Population Dynamics and Trophic Ecology of Dolly Varden in The

    Population Dynamics and Trophic Ecology of Dolly Varden in the Iliamna River, Alaska: Life History of Freshwater Fish Relying on Marine Food Subsidies Troy A. Jaecks A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science University of Washington 2010 Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Graduate School This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a master’s thesis by Troy A. Jaecks and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the final examining committee have been made. Committee Members: _______________________________________________ Thomas P. Quinn _______________________________________________ Andre Punt _______________________________________________ David Beauchamp _______________________________________________ James Hasbrouck Date: ___________________________________________ In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Any other reproduction for any purposes or by any means shall not be allowed without my permission. Signature ________________________________ Date ____________________________________ Table of Contents List of Figures
  • Bristol Bay Subarea Contingency Plan

    Bristol Bay Subarea Contingency Plan

    BRISTOL BAY SUBAREA CONTINGENCY PLAN RESOURCES SECTION RESOURCES: PART ONE – COMMUNITY PROFILES ............................................................. B-1 A. Regional Organizations................................................................................ B-1 B. Community Profiles ..................................................................................... B-6 RESOURCES: PART TWO – EQUIPMENT ................................................................................. B-79 A. Commercially Available Equipment ......................................................... B-81 B. Government Spill Response Equipment .................................................... B-83 C. Industry/Spill Cooperative Equipment ...................................................... B-88 RESOURCES: PART THREE – INFORMATION DIRECTORY .............................................. B-89 A. Airports and Air Services .......................................................................... B-90 B. Bird and other Wildlife Response .............................................................. B-94 C. Contractors: BOA and Term ..................................................................... B-95 D. Historic Properties Protection .................................................................... B-95 E. Emergency Services/Managers .................................................................. B-96 F. Fishing Fleets and Organizations ............................................................... B-96 G. Government Contacts and Information
  • Alaska Peninsula Becharof National Wildlife Refuges

    Alaska Peninsula Becharof National Wildlife Refuges

    Fishery Management Plan ALASKA PENINSULA BECHAROF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES July 1994 Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Department of the Interior FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN ALASKA PENINSULA AND BECHAROF NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES Fiscal Years 1994 - 1998 Prepared By: King Salmon Fishery Resource Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 277 King Salmon, Alaska 99613 May 1994 SUMMARY STATEMENT The Alaska Peninsula and Becharof National Wildlife Refuges Fishery Management Plan (Plan) provides the management direction necessary to ensure conservation of fishery resources and habitat. In addition, the Plan provides for continued use of fishery resources by subsistence, commercial, and recreational users consistent with the purposes for which the Alaska Peninsula and Becharof refuges (Complex) were established and are managed. The Complex's biological and physical environment is described and fishery resources, human use, management history, and major issues and concerns are discussed. This information was obtained from the Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans, a literature search, and discussions with Alaska Department of Fish and Game personnel. Objectives and tasks are developed to address the issues and concerns. Federal tasks are assigned priorities and costs for each year of continuation. The Plan encompasses a five year period, at which time it will be revised. Major issues and concerns identified include the following: competition between user groups; incomplete salmon escapement data bases to refine management of the Complex fish populations; and inadequate fishery law enforcement. In some cases, concerns were identified because of the perception that they would develop into serious problems if current levels of use or consumption were allowed to continue or expand.
  • Geographic Names

    Geographic Names

    GEOGRAPHIC NAMES CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ? REVISED TO JANUARY, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 PREPARED FOR USE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOGRAPHIC BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY, 1911 ) CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. The following list of geographic names includes all decisions on spelling rendered by the United States Geographic Board to and including December 7, 1910. Adopted forms are shown by bold-face type, rejected forms by italic, and revisions of previous decisions by an asterisk (*). Aalplaus ; see Alplaus. Acoma; township, McLeod County, Minn. Abagadasset; point, Kennebec River, Saga- (Not Aconia.) dahoc County, Me. (Not Abagadusset. AQores ; see Azores. Abatan; river, southwest part of Bohol, Acquasco; see Aquaseo. discharging into Maribojoc Bay. (Not Acquia; see Aquia. Abalan nor Abalon.) Acworth; railroad station and town, Cobb Aberjona; river, IVIiddlesex County, Mass. County, Ga. (Not Ackworth.) (Not Abbajona.) Adam; island, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester Abino; point, in Canada, near east end of County, Md. (Not Adam's nor Adams.) Lake Erie. (Not Abineau nor Albino.) Adams; creek, Chatham County, Ga. (Not Aboite; railroad station, Allen County, Adams's.) Ind. (Not Aboit.) Adams; township. Warren County, Ind. AJjoo-shehr ; see Bushire. (Not J. Q. Adams.) Abookeer; AhouJcir; see Abukir. Adam's Creek; see Cunningham. Ahou Hamad; see Abu Hamed. Adams Fall; ledge in New Haven Harbor, Fall.) Abram ; creek in Grant and Mineral Coun- Conn. (Not Adam's ties, W. Va. (Not Abraham.) Adel; see Somali. Abram; see Shimmo. Adelina; town, Calvert County, Md. (Not Abruad ; see Riad. Adalina.) Absaroka; range of mountains in and near Aderhold; ferry over Chattahoochee River, Yellowstone National Park.