INTRODUCTION. DRAFT -- Port Gravina Quarry Project -- Decision Notice and FONSI Page 1 of 43

Transcription

1 DRAFT DECISION NOTICE AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT PORT GRAVINA QUARRY PROJECT U.S. FOREST SERVICE, CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST CORDOVA RANGER DISTRICT VALDEZ-CORDOVA BOROUGH, ALASKA INTRODUCTION In accordance with direction from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Forest Service Manual (FSM), the Cordova Ranger District of the Chugach National Forest (Forest Service) has completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) that evaluated an operating and reclamation plan submitted by Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC) (Appendix A) to access and develop CAC s outstanding mineral rights, including stipulations developed by the Forest Service (Appendix B). This document details my decision and the rationale behind my decision based on the analysis disclosed in the EA and contained in the project record. CAC s proposal is for the access and development of a quarry of privately owned minerals in Port Gravina, Prince William Sound, Alaska. CAC owns the outstanding mineral rights beneath the federally owned surface estate at the project location. I recognize that this project has a relatively complicated framework as it involves split estate outstanding mineral rights under a federal surface with protection covenants and a roadless area designation. The Forest Service has a responsibility to evaluate effects of the proposal and develop and negotiate reasonable stipulations for the use, management, and reclamation of the federal surface when responding to an operating plan for the development of outstanding mineral rights. The Forest Service is the steward of the surface estate and CAC owns the subsurface estate in the majority of the project area. The project area is approximately 145 acres; 96 acres are Forest Service surface and CAC subsurface, 43 acres are CAC surface and subsurface and 6 acres are tidelands. The area of direct surface impact, where ground disturbance is proposed to occur, is about 100 acres and includes approximately 83 acres of Forest Service managed lands. The Forest Service released an EA for public comment on March 25, 2016, which described the anticipated environmental consequences of the proposed project, including the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the federal action and of the connected action proposed by CAC. Appendix A is the November 10, 2016 version of the operating and reclamation plans submitted by CAC. CAC s project includes an access road, two stone quarry sites and two work pads, a temporary dock for project construction, a permanent dock for operations, and a lay down area. A worker camp and possibly an airstrip would be located on adjacent CAC privately owned lands. The Forest Service federal action is the development and negotiation of stipulations (Appendix B) related to the access, development, operations, and reclamation of the project area and the associated issuance of a Notice to Proceed and a decision regarding implementation of a Forest Closure Order. I received eleven comment letters on the EA. I evaluated these letters for Page 1 of 43

2 relevant issues that were not already addressed in the EA and for new information that may warrant additional stipulations or analysis. I appreciate the patience that the public, CAC representatives, other permitting agencies, and our Forest Service resource specialists have had as the Forest Service has worked through the complicated details associated with this project. The time between the release of the EA and this Decision Notice allowed for additional analysis to address comments provided by the public, other regulatory agencies, additional discussions with CAC, and refinements to the operating and reclamation plans by CAC. Additional analysis has also been conducted by other agencies for aspects of the project affected by other jurisdictions and regulatory authorities. Forest Service specialists worked with CAC representatives to incorporate changes to alternatives, project design, and stipulations where possible and appropriate. Forest Service specialists refined their analysis of the effects. The EA and appendices have been refined based on this process. I listened to and considered the concerns and comments of Alaska Natives through tribal consultation, the public, other agencies and organizations, and CAC as I have developed my decision. PURPOSE AND NEED Chugach Alaska Corporation s notification of its intent to exercise private mineral rights beneath National Forest System surface lands has prompted the need for this analysis. The purpose is to respond to CAC s notice of surface occupancy to access and develop its mineral estate by reviewing the proposal and developing and negotiating stipulations for inclusion into CAC s operating plan that are necessary for the protection and management of the National Forest System surface estate. The need is for the Forest Service to respond to CAC s notice of surface occupancy as required by Forest Service Manual DECISION Based upon the analysis contained within the Final Port Gravina Quarry Project EA and project administrative record, and taking into consideration CAC s private mineral rights, my regulatory authority, and public comment received, I have decided to select Alternative 2, the proposed action, and issue a Notice to Proceed (NTP) to CAC for the access and development of their private mineral estate in the Port Gravina Quarry Project area as outlined in their most recent operating and reclamation plans from November 10, 2016 (Appendix A). This decision requires that the stipulations outlined in Appendix B are incorporated and implemented as a part of the project site development in the operating and reclamation plans. CAC must abide by applicable State and Federal laws, regulations, and permitting requirements as highlighted in Appendix B. CAC is responsible for obtaining all of the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies and providing a copy of the approved permits to the Forest Service. The opportunity to dialogue and negotiate project stipulations with CAC has been beneficial and will result in a project that better addresses the need for use, management, protection, and eventual reclamation of the federal surface. In addition to the NTP, I am authorizing the issuance of a special use permit to CAC for the use of the proposed road associated with the project, as stipulated. This permit will allow for the construction, use, and maintenance of the road on the National Forest as described in the Page 2 of 43

3 operating plan. The authorized use of this road is limited to activities associated with subsurface rights and the permit specifies that the road shall be decommissioned and reclaimed at the conclusion of the project. Reclamation of the project site is a required aspect of the project and my decision. Reclamation includes both interim reclamation as materials are exhausted in a portion of the development area as well as final reclamation at the conclusion of the project. Appendix A includes a reclamation plan developed by CAC and Appendix B includes additional reclamation stipulations developed by the Forest Service. CAC s reclamation plan was reviewed by the Forest Service and was submitted to the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) by CAC for review and approval. Upon the issuance of a final decision notice for this project, I will concurrently submit a letter of concurrence to DNR on the reclamation plan, including any edits or modifications, if necessary, to ensure consistency with Forest Service reclamation requirements. I have determined that a closure of the project area to public access is necessary to provide for public health and safety, per 36 CFR (e), during periods of project construction, quarry operations, and during periods when public hazards exist in the project area. Prior to each operating season, CAC shall inform the Forest Service of its intent to operate the quarry and anticipated operation dates. As stipulated, CAC is required to post the Forest Order at the project site as specified by and in cooperation with the Forest Service to assist in providing for public notice of the area closure when in effect. A draft of the Forest Order is described in Appendix C of this decision notice. The issuance of a Forest Order for the closure of the project area to public access is subject to approval and authorization by the Forest Supervisor and would occur following the issuance of a final decision notice for this project. I have determined that minor modifications to existing outfitter and guide special use permits that overlap with the project area are necessary to ensure the safety of the permit holders and their clients. Applicable special use permits will be modified to exclude the public safety closure area from the permits during periods when the Forest Order for the closure of the project area is in effect. Any future refinements or modifications to the operating and reclamation plans will require written approval by the Cordova District Ranger. Any changes that are outside the scope and range of effects considered in the original analysis will not be authorized without additional analysis and a new decision notice. Future refinements should primarily serve to lessen the environmental consequences of the proposal. I have attached three appendices to this Decision Notice to further clarify my decision and to provide a detailed description of the selected alternative. Appendix A: Operating and reclamation plan submitted by CAC Appendix B: Required project stipulations Appendix C: Draft Forest Order for project area closure Page 3 of 43

4 DECISION RATIONALE Chugach Alaska Corporation has outstanding mineral rights to private minerals contained within the subsurface estate, which is the dominant estate. Outstanding mineral rights are those rights owned by a party other than the surface owner at the time the surface was conveyed to the United States. Generally, common variety minerals such as rock are part of the surface estate. However, on lands conveyed under the provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), these minerals belong to the subsurface estate. Chugach Alaska Corporation has a valid right to access and develop its subsurface estate including the rock resource that is associated with the proposed project and a right to reasonable use of the surface necessary for associated access and development. CAC s right to access and develop the subsurface is clarified in the deed for the surface acquisition acquired by the United States in 1999 and in the surface restriction covenants associated with this property as a result of the Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS)-funded acquisition. This allowance is consistent with the 2002 Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Although the project area is in the Fidalgo- Gravina Inventoried Roadless Area, the 2001 Roadless Rule has an exception for projects where there are outstanding rights. The Forest Service has a responsibility to develop, when necessary, reasonable stipulations for the use, management, protection and reclamation of National Forest System (NFS) lands in response to the application for subsurface use of outstanding mineral rights. Stipulations were developed (Appendix B) in order to minimize impacts to NFS resources and ensure consistency with the Forest Plan, laws, and applicable regulations and policies. The development of these stipulations involved negotiations between the Forest Service and CAC throughout the evolution of the operating plan. As directed by Forest Service Manual , stipulations were negotiated to minimized impacts to the NFS surface estate and upheld the standard in the Forest Plan to apply reasonable regulation of surface occupancy and use to manage the mineral activities to be as compatible as possible with the underlying (initial) management area prescription. The stipulations in Appendix B are a result of this lengthy process of negotiations. When determining prudent and reasonable use of the surface estate, I considered alternatives that minimized the use of the NFS lands (minimized the area of lands affected) and minimized impacts to NFS managed resources (wildlife, cultural resources, scenery, and other resources) while allowing for access to the subsurface in an operational and safe manner. I have evaluated the operating plan described in Appendix A for Alternative 2 and I have determined that it meets the requirements of FSM direction outlined in sections 2832 and as follows: 1) Proof of the right to exercise the mineral rights (deed) has been verified; 2) Advance written notice of surface occupancy has been provided through the submission of an operating plan; 3) Through the operating plan and correspondence with CAC, I have been provided with the required elements of a plan including maps of the proposed locations of roads and facilities, the identification of the area to be disturbed, methods for mineral extraction and waste management, reclamation plans, methods to control erosion and prevent water pollution, and the identification of the owner s agent. I have determined that for Alternative 2, as stipulated: Page 4 of 43

5 1) The proposal uses only as much of the surface as I have deemed prudent and reasonably necessary for the proposed operations; 2) The proposal is consistent with rights granted by deed; and 3) The proposal is consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan. My criteria for making my decision on this project were: 1) Recognition of CAC s outstanding mineral rights; 2) Consideration of the concerns that were raised during project scoping and the comment period on the EA; 3) Consideration of competing interests and values of the public; 4) Consideration of consistency with the 2002 Forest Plan; 5) If the alternative evaluated met the purpose and need of the project; 6) If the alternative minimized the impacts to the resources managed by the Forest Service; 4) If the alternative utilized only as much of the federal surface estate as is prudent and reasonably necessary for the project. Alternative 2 best meets the purpose and need of the project while minimizing impacts to the National Forest System lands. CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2002 CHUGACH FOREST PLAN All National Forest System lands managed by the Chugach National Forest have a management area designation in the 2002 Forest Plan. Lands in this project area are currently designated as part of Management Area (MA) 221, EVOS Acquired Lands. This MA includes all lands that were purchased with EVOS settlement funds. In most cases, the Forest Plan direction for MA 221 would apply to Forest Service permitted activities associated with lands in this project area. As described in the Forest Plan, there is one circumstance when Chugach National Forest lands temporarily adopt a different MA designation than the one they would normally fall under. This occurs when an operating plan for mineral development has been submitted and is in effect. Under this circumstance, MA 521 Minerals Management Area direction is applied to the lands included in the operating plan while the operating plan is in effect. This proposal was evaluated using Forest Plan direction for MA 521 because an operating plan will be in effect when these activities take place. The MA 521 acknowledges the rights of subsurface owners. It is less restrictive than MA 221, but does require the Forest Service to manage the minerals activities to be as compatible as possible with the underlying (initial) management area prescription (Forest Plan 4-87). Thus, the Forest Service is not required to comply with the standards and guidelines of MA 221 while the operating plan is in effect, but should strive to adhere with the management prescription as much as possible. Additionally, the direction for MA 221 clarifies exceptions allowed for the reasonable development of the subsurface estate. This project is compliant with the Forest Plan as it relates to MA 221 because every reasonable effort has been made to make the project compatible with the underlying Forest-wide and MA prescriptions while minerals-related activities are taking place. The resource reports for the EA describe consistency of the proposed project, as stipulated, with the Forest Plan, including the broader forest-wide direction, for each resource area. The fisheries Page 5 of 43

6 and hydrology reports do highlight an inconsistency between the proposed development and Forest Plan direction in the forest-wide guideline for fish, water and riparian areas (Forest Plan 3-23 and 3-24) and the associated Aquatic Ecosystem Management Handbook. Consistency with guidelines in project implementation is always a goal, however deviations from guidelines are allowed when analyzed and disclosed at the project level and documented in the Decision Notice. Deviations from guidelines do not require a Forest Plan amendment. At issue with this project is the riparian buffer on No-Name Creek. Normally this buffer, according to the Forest Plan would be 130 feet, but this has been adjusted to 20 feet for this project and for No-Name Creek to provide the space needed for quarry operations. This adjusted riparian buffer has been analyzed by the resource specialists and effects were disclosed in the EA and the project record. Additionally, the riparian buffer size was discussed and developed in negotiation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Additional measures have been developed to protect water quality in the newly constructed stream channel as described in the permit issued by USACE and may be included in the fish habitat permit from ADF&G. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED Alternative 1 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, the Forest Service would not issue a Notice to Proceed and would not develop or impose additional project stipulations. I considered but did not choose Alternative 1 because the Forest Service does not have authority to deny CAC s right to develop their subsurface estate. Alternative 1 does not meet the purpose and need of the project. Alternative 3 - Alternate dock locations Alternative 3 was considered but not evaluated in detail. This alternative evaluated alternate dock locations associated with the development of the project. Two alternate dock locations were analyzed in addition to the location and design described in the proposed action. One alternative dock site was considered on the east side of Secret Cove. This location would result in the need for a substantially longer access road across National Forest System lands and a large bridge spanning Plateau Creek capable of supporting heavy equipment, including trucks loaded with rock. This alternative dock site would also have greater visual impacts due to the dock being located on the more exposed side of the cove, impacts to known designated cultural heritage resources, and impacts to Plateau Creek, an anadromous fish-bearing stream. A second alternative dock site was considered on the small island peninsula on the west side of Secret Cove. This location would have largely engulfed the small island, resulting in greater visual impacts to Port Gravina, including the need for significant fill and an elevated access route across the peninsula. Construction at this site would result in impacts to known designated cultural heritage resources and potential impacts to historic bald eagle nesting/roost sites. For both alternative dock locations, concern was expressed regarding the bathymetry of the near shore zone and the potential for inadequate water depth for docking vessels. The Forest Service Page 6 of 43

7 determined that these alternative dock locations would not result in minimized impacts to the Forest Service surface estate while allowing access to the subsurface estate and, therefore, were not a reasonable and prudent use of NFS lands. Alternative 4 - Alternate camp/road location Due to the remote nature of the area, a worker camp and associated facilities including a camp access road are reasonably necessary for development of CAC s subsurface estate. The Forest Service considered an alternative location of a worker camp on NFS lands. Alternative 4 was considered but not evaluated in detail. This alternative would have resulted in a considerably larger area of impact to NFS lands, extending the project area to the south with the addition of an area roughly approximate to the area described for the impact proposed to the CAC surface estate (~40 acres). The site proposed for a worker camp on CAC property in Alternative 2 is topographically isolated from the project area, affording greater protection and safety for project employees. The opportunities for topographic isolation of the camp on NFS lands adjacent to the project area were not available, and sites on the National Forest were not suitable for providing potential access for a small plane landing strip. The location of a worker camp on National Forest System lands would have expanded impacts to the EVOS acquired surface estate and would not have been a prudent and reasonable use of the National Forest that minimized impacts to the Forest Service surface while allowing reasonable access to the subsurface. Alternative 5 - Land exchange/sale Some commenters suggested that the Forest Service negotiate with the EVOS Trustee Council and CAC on either a land exchange or sale in order to protect the area from the impacts associated with the development of the subsurface estate. Alternative 5 was considered but not evaluated in detail. This alternative was discussed informally between the Forest Service and CAC, however this approach would not meet CAC s goals for developing resources on their estate. Land exchange and acquisitions require mutual interest from both parties. CAC s proposal was for the development of the subsurface and not a proposal for a land exchange or sale. The purpose and need of this analysis is to respond to CAC s notice of surface occupancy to access and develop its mineral estate by providing stipulations for inclusion into CAC s operating plan, necessary for the protection and management of the National Forest System surface estate. A land exchange or acquisition is outside the scope of this analysis and was therefore not an alternative considered in a more detailed analysis in this environmental assessment. CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES A variety of issues were considered by the interdisciplinary team throughout the process of refining the proposed action, considering alternatives, and analyzing the environmental consequences of the proposal. Page 7 of 43

8 Four general areas of concern were identified during public scoping and by the interdisciplinary team. These areas of concern were analyzed in greater detail in the applicable resource reports in Chapter 3 of the EA and in the project administrative record. I have considered the project effects to these issues while making my decision. These four issues include the following: 1. Impacts to fish and wildlife 2. Effects to roadless character 3. Impacts to forest users 4. Effects to wetlands and streams Additional comments and concerns were raised as a result of the public comment on the EA. Eleven letters were received during the EA comment period. Comments from the letters were grouped into themes and a response was provided for each comment theme. Some of these issues and concerns resulted in additional analysis in the EA or modification of stipulations to minimize environmental effects. Appendix C in the EA provides responses to comments received during this period. Comments that reflected a personal opinion or value judgement were viewed as non-substantive and not further addressed. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife There is concern that development of the quarry will have effects to fish and wildlife species and their habitats. It is impossible to implement a project like the Port Gravina Quarry Project without some level of effects to fish and wildlife species and their habitats. These effects are disclosed in the EA, associated specialist reports including the biological evaluation and assessments developed for this project, and other documents that are included in the administrative record for this project. Additional analysis has also been completed by permitting agencies including the ADF&G, USACE, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In evaluating the significance of the effects disclosed to fish and wildlife, I have considered how the project affects: 1) Individuals or populations 2) Protected status species 3) Rare or uncommon habitats. Effects to Individuals or Populations The EA discloses the potential of this project to result in impacts to a variety of individual fish and wildlife species. Localized population level impacts for four species were specifically identified as a potential concern: black and brown bears, mountain goats, and coastal cutthroat trout. To address the concern regarding the potential for localized population level impacts to bears and goats, a stipulation was developed: The sport harvest of mountain goats, black bears, and brown bears on Chugach National Forest lands in Port Gravina by employees of the project operation is prohibited. The intent of this stipulation is multi-faceted. This stipulation is designed to ensure that focused sport hunting pressure does not increase as an indirect impact of the project in the Port Gravina area which may result in localized population level impacts to bears and mountain Page 8 of 43

9 goats. Additionally this stipulation helps protect subsistence resources for qualified rural residents and ensures that the project does not further affect currently authorized outfitters and guides. The coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) population occurring in No-Name Creek within the project area is described as small and relatively isolated due to relatively poor habitat. Although the cutthroat trout is not a Region 10 Forest Service sensitive species, the protection of individual populations remains important to me. The fisheries resource report discloses that the project may affect individuals and could potentially eliminate this local population: In the worst case scenario, the small population of trout in No-Name Creek could be killed. Numerous project stipulations were developed to help reduce the potential for this worst case scenario and those stipulations are identified in Appendix B. In addition to the stipulations developed by the Forest Service, CAC will be required to obtain fish habitat permits from ADF&G. ADF&G permits may result in additional requirements to reduce impacts to cutthroat trout. However, even with the addition of stipulations that reduce impacts, the future success of maintaining this small isolated population remains unknown. In my decision process, I have assumed there is a potential for a localized extinction of the cutthroat trout in No-Name Creek. At a broader scale, regardless of long-term persistence of this species in No-Name Creek, the cutthroat trout remain well distributed across the Chugach National Forest and there is not a population viability concern for cutthroat trout, as is stated in the fisheries specialist report- Even if the localized cutthroat trout population is eliminated, it is not expected to have an impact on the overall population of this species in Prince William Sound or the Chugach National Forest. Effect of the Project to Protected Status Species Protected status species are species that have a protected status as a result of law or policy, including species classified as threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), species such as marine mammals, which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and bald eagles, which have protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Additionally, the Forest Service has designated some species as sensitive including, for the Chugach National Forest, the dusky Canada goose. For this project, biological assessments (BA) and evaluations (BE) were developed to determine the potential for the project to impact species with protected status. Forest Service specialists developed these evaluations primarily for terrestrial and freshwater species which may occur, or be affected, within the management jurisdiction of the National Forest. The Forest Service specialist reports also address protected status species in the marine environment, an evaluation that was coordinated with the USACE. The USACE developed a separate biological assessment for this project with a specific focus on protected status species in the marine environment. This was a requirement of CAC s permitting process and USACE s jurisdictional responsibilities associated with permitting of the project s proposed dock. The biological assessments (BA) have disclosed the anticipated effects of the proposed project to protected status species. The Forest Service and the USACE consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and USFWS on these determinations for humpback whales and the Page 9 of 43

10 western distinct population segment of Steller sea lion. Both of these species were listed as endangered species under ESA at the time that the BA was prepared. This consultation process resulted in the development of project design and operational standards developed by other regulatory agencies with the purpose of minimizing the potential impact to protected status species utilizing the marine environment. The majority of the potential impacts described relate to disturbance that is temporary in nature. These assessments and consultations indicate that the project will not have a significant impact to protected status species when implemented within the requirements of the permitting agencies. Impact of the Project to Rare or Uncommon Habitats The specialist reports for wildlife, fisheries, and plants indicate that the project area does not contain any rare, uncommon, or protected habitats (designated critical habitat) that, if affected by the implementation of the project, may significantly affect rare fish, wildlife, or plant species. Effects to Roadless Character There is concern that the project will affect some of the roadless characteristics of the Fidalgo- Gravina Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). When the project area was included in the Fidalgo- Gravina IRA, CAC s subsurface rights were already established. Thus, the Forest Service was already aware that subsurface development was possible, that subsurface rights were outstanding, and that any development of the subsurface estate would likely affect the roadless character of the area. The area was still included as part of the Fidalgo-Gravina IRA, though it has never been included in a Wilderness recommendation. The intent of the IRA analysis in the EA is to determine the effects of this project on the Fidalgo- Gravina IRA and whether or not this project will impact the ability of the IRA to be eligible for Wilderness consideration in the future. The EA acknowledges that this project will impact roadless characteristics within a small portion of the 530,000-acre IRA. Although the area that will be impacted is small relative to the entire acreage of the IRA, the impacts within that small area will be substantial. The project will affect the natural appearance and integrity of the project area as well as opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Noise from blasting and other components of quarry operations may be heard within and beyond the project area. There will be considerable effects to the scenery and scenic integrity of the immediate project area, which will be visible by boaters along a certain trajectory in Port Gravina. The stipulations in Appendix B were developed to minimize impacts to NFS lands, including impacts to this IRA. Although this project will certainly affect roadless character in a small portion of the IRA, I do not believe that it will affect the IRA s eligibility for future wilderness consideration. CAC s outstanding mineral rights pre-dated the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. CAC s proposal is an assertion of its existing rights and the potential effects of implementation of those rights on roadless character were known when the area was originally designated. Roadless evaluations for the 2002 and current Forest Plan revision processes both acknowledge the management challenges for this IRA associated with the outstanding mineral rights. Impacts to Forest Users There is a concern that the project will impact forest users. The project has the potential to impact and displace users undertaking many activities including dispersed recreation, boating, Page 10 of 43

11 subsistence hunting, and sport hunting, including outfitters/guides and their associated clients. Three primary effects were disclosed: 1) lack of access to the project area as a result of the recommended public safety closure; 2) impacts from noise to forest users and; 3) impacts to scenery to forest users. A closure of the project area during periods when public safety concerns exist will be the most direct effect to forest users as a result of this project. The closure area will affect 235 acres. Anchorages within Secret Cove may be affected from boat traffic associated with project operations. The recreation analysis report indicates that this closure would likely affect a relatively small number of infrequent visitors and that numerous other anchorages and recreational opportunities exist within Port Gravina. The other two effects to forest users are impacts to noise and scenery. These are effects that will reach beyond the project boundary and affect the quality of forest users experience of Port Gravina. Several commenters expressed a concern of this impact. While it is true that this experience will be affected to some degree, this type of multiple use is anticipated on National Forest lands and within split-estate lands. Project design stipulations have been developed to reduce impacts to scenery and impacts from noise are anticipated to be relatively localized and of short duration. The anticipated impacts to forest users are described more fully in the EA. Effects on Wetlands and Streams There is a concern that the project will have effects on water resources, including increased turbidity and water quality degradation, loss of riparian and wetland habitat, and changes in streamflow and hydrologic connectivity. Increased turbidity and water quality degradation from erosion will likely occur during quarry development, but the analysis in the EA indicates that once the project footprint is constructed and Best Management Practice s (BMPs) and stipulations are implemented, water quality will improve. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), in a letter dated August 24, 2016 and addressed to CAC and the USACE certified that, as designed and with the addition of ADEC project implementation measures, that there is reasonable assurance that the project will be in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Alaska Water Quality Standards. Wetlands are extensive in the project area; it is not feasible to avoid all wetlands. Effects to riparian areas and wetlands from this project, including the filling-in of wetlands from road construction and construction of work pads, camps, docks, and the quarry development, will likely create a permanent loss of wetlands. Direct disturbance and permanent loss of wetlands within the project footprint will also have moderate long-term effects on the hydrologic connectivity and streamflows within the immediate project footprint of the No-Name Creek drainage, but the overall effects will be minor within the Plateau Creek Subwatershed, and negligible at the Port Gravina-Frontal Prince William Sound Watershed level. CAC has consulted with the USACE regarding wetland impacts and the USACE issued a section 404 permit to CAC on November 18, The permit indicated that a total of 49.6 acres is authorized to be permanently affected by the permit. Similar wetlands are extensive on the Chugach National Forest. The EA discloses in the hydrology report that the impact will be substantial at the site level (56.01% of wetlands affected) but minor at the sub-watershed level (1.33% of wetlands affected). Page 11 of 43

12 A 0.5 mile section of No-Name Creek will be diverted into a constructed channel, permanently altering the location of the creek. The design of the constructed channel will incorporate habitat features and material replicating the natural channel, including large boulders, at least one deep pool, and riffles. Most of the impacts will be constrained to the project footprint within the No- Name Creek drainage and there will be no significant affects at the watershed level. CAC is coordinating with the ADF&G for the required fish habitat permits associated with impacts to No-Name Creek and that permit process is anticipated to result in additional project design measures to help minimize impacts. TRIBAL CONSULTATION The Forest Service consulted with the Native Village of Eyak and the Native Village of Tatitlek regarding this project. The Eyak Corporation and CAC were also contacted. Consultation was conducted to elicit views of Alaska Native tribes and corporations on all aspects of the project and to ensure compliance and meeting the goals of the consultation process during the earliest feasible steps of project planning. The Forest Service also consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding the heritage resource findings and conclusions and shared these findings with the tribes. Two historic properties were documented and determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), but both are located outside the project area and will not be adversely impacted. One isolated feature is within the proposed lay-down area, will be adversely affected by project activities, but has been determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under any criterion. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurs with the Forest Service finding of no historic properties affected. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT This action was originally listed as a proposal on the Chugach National Forest s Projects page on July 1, 2015 and was posted to the quarterly Chugach National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions in October 2015 which has been updated throughout the analysis. A Scoping Notice was published in the Valdez Star on July 1, 2015 and in the Cordova Times on July 3, 2015 to notify the public that the Forest Service had received notice from CAC of surface occupancy for the exercise of outstanding rights. A detailed scoping letter was mailed to agencies, stakeholders, and other interested parties on July 3, Scoping comments were requested by August 3, Eleven comment letters were received during scoping from individuals, outfitters, nongovernmental organizations, and Alaska Native corporations during the scoping period and were considered when developing project issues. The Forest Service also consulted with the Eyak Corporation and the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources regarding the conservation easement the State of Alaska holds on NFS lands in the project area, on behalf of The Eyak Corporation. The Eyak Corporation has expressed support for the project proposed by CAC, as documented in the project record. The EA was released for comment on March 25, 2016 along with a legal notice that was published in the Cordova Times. The EA and cover letter were ed to those who commented Page 12 of 43

13 during the scoping period and other interested stakeholders. The EA comment period was open from March 25, 2016 until May 2, Nine comment letters were received from the public and two from other agencies. The EA includes a list of many of the agencies and organizations consulted during the analysis of this project. Additional public involvement occurred during the exploration phase of the project. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS This decision is consistent with applicable laws and regulations, including but not limited to the following: Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act requires that federal activities not jeopardize the continued existence of any species federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered (T&E), or result in adverse modification to such species designated critical habitat. Potential effects of this decision on listed species have been analyzed and documented in a BA prepared by the Forest Service. A second BA was prepared by the USACE. Forest Service specialists developed these assessments primarily for species which may occur or be affected within the management jurisdiction of the National Forest, primarily related to terrestrial and freshwater aquatic species. The Forest Service specialist reports do address T&E species in the marine environment and coordinated this assessment with the USACE. The USACE developed a separate BA for this project with a specific focus on T&E species in the marine environment. This was a requirement of CAC s permitting process and USACE s jurisdictional responsibilities associated with permitting of the project s proposed dock. The BAs have disclosed the anticipated effects of the proposed project to T&E species. The Forest Service and the USACE consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and USFWS on these determinations for humpback whales and the western distinct population segment of Steller sea lion. Both of these species were listed as endangered species under ESA at the time of consultation. This process resulted in the development of project design and operational standards developed by other regulatory agencies with the purpose of minimizing the potential impact to protected status species utilizing the marine environment. The majority of the potential impacts described relate to disturbance that is temporary in nature. These assessments and consultations indicate that the project will not have a significant impact to endangered species when implemented with the requirements of the permitting agencies. For reasons indicated in the BA s included in the project record and associated consultation, this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally listed Steller sea lion and humpback whale. This project would have no effect on any other listed or proposed species or designated critical habitat. Marine Mammal Protection Act The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the United States. The term take means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. As required by this Act, potential Page 13 of 43

14 effects of this decision on marine mammal species have been analyzed and documented in a specialist report for wildlife (i.e. sea otter, harbor seal, humpback whale, and Steller sea lion) and in the biological assessments prepared by the Forest Service and the USACE. The Forest Service has conducted informal consultation with the USFWS and NMFS to determine any additional concerns with marine mammals and compliance with findings of minor impacts. The USACE determined specific project components that could result in impacts to marine species which includes marine pile driving and blasting operations for quarry development and operations. In addition, NFMS included vessel collisions and strikes due to increased barge and boat traffic associated with project activities. Avoidance guidelines were provided by the USFWS, USACE, and NFMS and were incorporated into the USACE recommendations. With the inclusion of these special conditions on the permit, if permitted, should have minor impacts to marine mammals. Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act This project, as designed, is compliant with ANILCA Section 810 with a finding that no reasonably foreseeable and significant decrease in the abundance of harvestable resources, no reasonably foreseeable alteration in the distribution of harvestable resources and no reasonably foreseeable limitations on harvester access have been forecasted to emerge as a function of the (action) that is analyzed in this document. (EA Page 43). Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112) This project meets the intent of Executive Order by incorporating stipulations designed to reduce the introduction of invasive species. Per the monitoring component of the stipulations, the project site should be surveyed for invasive plant species once every two years by the proponent during project operations and for 5-years following reclamation. Any invasive plant species within the project area must be controlled with appropriate treatment methods to eliminate introduced invasive species and control potential for spread onto areas outside of the project area. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) According to the 2004 revised regulations [36 CFR 800.4(d) (1)] for Section 106 of the NHPA (54 U.S.C ) and the analysis and consultation completed for this project, this project complies with the NHPA. Two historic properties were documented and determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) but are located outside the project area and will not be adversely impacted. One isolated feature is within the proposed lay-down area, will be adversely affected by project activities, but has been determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under any criterion. Under the implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) sites considered not eligible to the NRHP may be directly affected once adequately recorded, evaluated, and concurrence is received from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding NRHP eligibility. The report made the determination for the proposed project of no historic properties affected. The Forest Service also consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the heritage resource findings and conclusions of the assessment. The SHPO concurred with the Forest Service finding of no historic properties affected on February 11, Forest Service Page 14 of 43

15 stipulations were developed to further reduce the potential for affecting any existing or newly discovered cultural resources. In accordance with Section 101(d)(6)(B) of the NHPA, the Forest Service consulted with tribal delegates from the Native Village of Eyak, Native Village of Tatitlek, and with John Johnson, vice president for Cultural resources for the Chugach Alaska Corporation. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act No active bald eagle nests were found in the project area, though four nests sites historically existed near the project area. There are currently no known bald eagle nests. Golden eagles are not known to occur in the project area. Stipulations for the protection of bald eagles were developed and are included in Appendix B to ensure protection for this species and consistency with the Act, should eagles occupy the historic or new sites near the project in the future. Executive Order (Environmental Justice) This order requires consideration of whether projects would disproportionately impact minority or low-income populations. Neither input from the public nor consideration of local demographic information indicate that this project would cause disproportionate effects on minority or lowincome populations. During my discussions with tribal community members from the Native Village of Tatitlek, village members indicated that they hoped that this project may create economic opportunities for members of the village. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), require consultation with NOAA s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on all actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the Forest Service, that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine and anadromous fish species. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity (16 U.S.C. 1802(10)). EFH habitats on forest lands generally include freshwater anadromous fish streams and intertidal and subtidal marine habitats. This project is not expected to result in any adverse effects to essential fisheries habitat as defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Act because it has been determined that this activity, individually, will not cause any action that may adversely affect essential fish habitat as defined by the Act. A No Adverse Effect determination was made for this project (EA, Fisheries specialist report and addendum to fisheries specialist report). Informal consultation with NMFS indicated concurrence with this determination. A copy of this decision notice and refined NEPA analysis will be sent to NMFS regarding this determination. Fish Passage Act (AS ) The Fish Passage Act requires that an individual or government agency notify and obtain authorization from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat for activities within or across a stream used by fish if it is determined that such uses or activities could represent an impediment to the efficient passage of resident or anadromous fish. At this time, Page 15 of 43

16 No-Name Creek is not included in the Anadromous Waters Catalog; however, both a resident cutthroat trout population and juvenile coho salmon are documented in No-Name Creek. It is CAC s responsibility to obtain this Title 16 fish habitat permit, if required by the state, as clarified in the project stipulations, Appendix B. Executive Order (Floodplains) Executive Order provides direction to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Floodplains are defined by this order as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood-prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum that area subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Project stipulations developed by the Forest Service as well as implementation measures developed and required by the USACE during the section 404 permitting process will be incorporated to minimize impacts to floodplains, ensuring consistency with this order. Roads crossing floodplains are designed to pass floods in accordance with BMP (FSH ). Executive Order (Wetlands) Executive Order was promulgated to avoid adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. The development of this quarry will result in an unavoidable loss and destruction of wetlands; however, in accordance with this executive order, project design and stipulations included in this decision aim to minimize adverse impacts to wetlands as much as practicable. Wetlands are extensive in the project area; it is not feasible to avoid all wetlands. Effects to riparian and wetlands from this project, including the filling-in of wetlands from road construction and construction of work pads, camps, docks, and the quarry development will likely create a permanent or long-term loss of wetlands. Direct disturbance and permanent loss of wetlands within the project footprint will also have moderate long-term effects on the hydrologic connectivity and streamflows within the immediate project foot print of the No- Name Creek drainage, but the overall effects will be minor within the Plateau Creek Subwatershed and negligible within the Port Gravina-Frontal Prince William Sound Watershed. CAC has consulted with the USACE regarding wetland impacts and the USACE issued a section 404 permit to CAC on November 18, The permit indicated that a total of 49.6 acres is authorized to be permanently affected by the permit. Similar wetlands are extensive on the Chugach National Forest. The EA discloses in the hydrology report that the impact will be substantial at the site level (56.01% of wetlands affected) but minor at the subwatershed level (1.33% of wetlands affected). Clean Water Act Increased turbidity and water quality degradation from erosion will likely occur during quarry development but the analysis in the EA indicates that once the project footprint is constructed and Best Management Practices (BMPs) and stipulations are implemented, water quality will improve. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), in a letter dated August 24, 2016 to CAC and the USACE, certified that as designed and with the addition of ADEC project implementation measures, that there is a reasonable assurance that the project Page 16 of 43

17 will be in compliance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Alaska Water Quality Standards. The USACE subsequently addressed this in their letter to CAC on November 18, This decision complies with the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended, because soil and water conservation practices outlined within project design, implementation measures, Forest Service required stipulations and BMP s provide nonpoint source pollution controls and maintain water quality standards. Clean Air Act The proposed operating plan includes BMPs for minimizing dust and air pollution. The project would result in minimal and short-term seasonal increases in air pollutants in the analysis area. The primary source of air pollutants would be from exhaust emissions from heavy equipment, boat and barge traffic and power sources for the field camps. Sources of air pollutants would mostly be localized, and pollutants would quickly dissipate under most weather conditions. Air pollutants would not likely exceed Alaska State air quality standards (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 2015) and should meet Forest Plan Objectives and Forest Plan Standards as outlined in the 2002 Chugach National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 2002). These standards were developed to ensure consistency with the Clean Air Act. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The animal biological evaluation developed for this project addresses the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Stipulations developed for CAC s operating plan include requirements for compliance with this Act. Forest Service Sensitive Species A biological evaluation (BE) for plants was developed for this analysis. No sensitive plants or plant populations were found during a survey of the project area. There are no known sensitive plant populations in Port Gravina though suitable habitat exists for several Alaska Region sensitive plant species in the project area. The likelihood of these species occurring in the project area is low. The BE reached the determination that the project may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability in the planning area. Additional details are described in the plant biological evaluation prepared for this project. The biological evaluation for animals was developed for this analysis. The BE focused on two sensitive animal species: the dusky Canada goose and the black oystercatcher. The BE determined the project: may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Effects are considered minor for dusky Canada geese and black oystercatchers (EA page 38, BE). FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT I have reviewed the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed activities documented in the EA for this project. I have also reviewed the additional analysis in the project record. Based on this review, I have determined that this decision is consistent with Chugach National Page 17 of 43

18 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan direction, compliant with applicable laws, and responds to public concerns. After thorough consideration, I have determined that actions selected do not constitute a major federal action, individually or cumulatively, and these actions will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The site-specific actions of Alternative 2, in both the short- and long-term, although adverse, are limited in scope and time, are mitigatable, and therefore are not significant. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is not needed. This finding is based on the context and intensity of the actions (40 CFR ) as explained below. CONTEXT The significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts and varies with the setting. In the case of a site-specific action, significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. This decision and the project EA are tiered to the Forest Plan Record of Decision and incorporate by reference the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which analyzed and disclosed effects of potential Forest management at a larger scale. The legal context for this decision is described in detail in the EA. CAC's mineral rights were conveyed in ANCSA, pre-existed EVOS Trustee Council purchase of surface lands, and the subsurface is the dominant estate. The U.S. Warranty Deed language clearly states that nothing shall limit the rights of the mineral estate holder. The mineral owners rights to access and develop its minerals are established by law and are not discretionary federal actions. The federal action is limited to issuing a Notice to Proceed after: 1) determining whether the proposed use of National Forest System lands is prudently necessary for the proposed operations; 2) determining whether or not the operating plan is consistent with the Forest Plan; 3) Identifying reasonable stipulations to be incorporated into the operating plan for the protection and reclamation of National Forest System surface lands and resources; and, 4) consideration of implementing a closure order for public safety. In this context, the federal action is mitigative in nature. The environmental effects of applying the federal decision, modifications to the operating plan, and the application of the stipulations in Appendix B, were negotiated and agreed upon by the USFS and CAC to lessen impacts. The decision to add these stipulations serve to lessen impacts (see discussions EA; Appendix A, CAC Operating Plan; and Appendix B--Stipulations, Recommendations and Monitoring Requirements). The EA discusses the resources that will be affected by this project and displays the consequences of the proposed project for those resources. The environmental effects of this project are analyzed at varying scales, as described for each resource in Chapter 3 of the EA and specialist reports in the project record. I have reviewed the cumulative effects of past management, combined with this project and reasonably foreseeable future actions as they are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA, and determined that the context of this decision is limited to the land in and adjacent to the project area. The project will incur about 100 acres of direct ground disturbance to the local site, other resources such as scenery, including visuals and noise impacts, will have a greater extent of effect. Port Gravina is extensive and there are numerous other sheltered anchorages that would be out of sight and sound of the project. Less than ¼ -mile of Page 18 of 43

19 shoreline will be directly affected by the project versus the extensive miles of shoreline available in Port Gravina. This project would occur on the edge and affect a very small portion (0.02%) of the 530,000 acre Fidalgo-Gravina Inventoried roadless Area (EA page 19). Given the relatively short-term and localized nature of impacts described in the EA, this project will have no measurable effects at the regional or national levels. INTENSITY Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from Chapter 3 of the EA and the project record. I have determined that the interdisciplinary team has thoroughly considered the effects of this project in their analyses and is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. The interdisciplinary team took a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and their knowledge and direct experience of site-specific conditions. I have determined that while quarry development may have an adverse effect on the overall integrity and on some resources in the analysis area, effects can be mitigated such that there is not a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human environment based on the intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. The intensity of effects was considered in terms of the following: 1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that, on balance, the effect will be beneficial. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been taken into consideration when making this determination of significance. Impacts associated with the project are disclosed in chapter 3 of the EA and in supporting documents in the project record. These analysis documents do not describe significant adverse effects. While the selected development layout and stipulations do not avoid all adverse environmental effects, all reasonable discretionary stipulations have been applied. While adverse impacts to some resources are anticipated, they are relatively short-term and limited in scope, given negotiated project design stipulations and the nature of the proposal. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety. A Forest Order for the closure of the project area immediately surrounding the quarrying site, as analyzed and disclosed in the EA, would protect the public by mitigating safety hazards associated with implementation of this project. A closure order for safety would include about 235 acres of National Forest System lands when safety hazards are present. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. The proposed action will have direct and indirect effects to some of the roadless characteristics of the Fidalgo-Gravina IRA, wetlands, historic/cultural properties, and Page 19 of 43

20 lands acquired for EVOS conservation objectives. These effects will not be significant for the following reasons. Effects to roadless character and rational for why I do not consider this project a significant effect on the IRA is summarized on page 10 of this Decision Notice and additional detail is available in the EA on pages Due to the relatively small scale (0.02%) and scope of the activities and effects within the context of the 530,000-acre Fidalgo-Gravina IRA, the project is not expected to affect the overall character of the IRA. Given the management challenges associated with split-estate lands in the Fidalgo- Gravina IRA, as disclosed in the EA and project record, it is unlikely that any split-estate lands, including those in the project area, would be recommended for Wilderness designation. Effects to wetlands and rational for why I do not consider this project a significant effect to wetlands is summarized on page of this Decision Notice and additional detail is available in the EA on pages Wetlands are extensive on the Chugach National Forest and in the project area. Avoidance of wetlands is not feasible with project implementation; loss of wetland habitat will be constrained to the project footprint in the No-Name Creek drainage. At the watershed level wetland loss is estimated at 0.45%. This direct disturbance and long-term loss of wetlands within the project footprint is described as having moderate long-term effects on the hydrologic connectivity and streamflows within the immediate project foot print of the No-Name Creek site. These effects are described as minor within the Plateau Creek drainage and negligible within the Port Gravina-Frontal Prince William Sound sub-watershed levels. Significant effects to wetlands are not described in the analysis in the EA Two historic cultural properties were documented and determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), but both are located outside the project area and will not be impacted. One isolated cultural feature is within the proposed lay-down area, will be affected by project activities, but has been determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under any criterion. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurs with the Forest Service finding of no historic properties affected. The proposed project will affect a relatively small portion of the EVOS acquired surface estate and this affected surface will be eventually reclaimed at the conclusion of the project, estimated to be approximately 20 years. The EVOS protections were established with the knowledge that they do not restrict the development of the subsurface and that developments like the Port Gravina project potentially may occur in the areas acquired and added to the National Forest with EVOS acquisitions. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. In the context of the National Environmental Policy Act, controversy refers to a substantial dispute in the scientific community regarding the effects of an action, not social opposition. In this case, effects are not likely to be highly controversial because resource effects (e.g. hydrology, visual, wildlife) from rock quarries are generally well Page 20 of 43

21 known as are the mitigating effects of project design measures and stipulations (see EA Chapter 3 and Appendix B). 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The proposed rock quarry s effects do not pose unique or unusual risks. Reclamation of a quarry is straight forward: bench quarry highwalls, cover shallower slopes with stockpiled soils, and natural regeneration of plants is expected. Plant regeneration of reclaimed areas is rapid in the Alaska Region when there are adequate soil depths and this site has adequate soil availability to expect similar results. Numerous examples exist, the most readily visible locations are the many roadside quarries alongside the state s major highways. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The scope of this specific Forest Service decision is very limited as outlined in the EA. The decision does not establish a precedent. The development of outstanding mineral rights is a common occurrence on federally managed public lands with extensive existing precedent. Rock material quarries on the Chugach National Forest are not without precedent and are consistent with the USFS policy, as the Forest has been authorizing rock material quarries for many years. Any proposed future project must be evaluated on its own merits and effects. Every project has unique situations and site specific conditions that warrant a hard look at the individual circumstances. The potential for a development like the Port Gravina Quarry Project was fully anticipated and is clarified both in the deed for the surface acquisition acquired by the United States in 1999 and in the surface restriction covenants associated with this property. This allowance is consistent with Forest Plan and, while this project occurs in the Fidalgo- Gravina IRA, the 2001 Roadless Rule has an exception for projects where there are outstanding rights. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Chapter 3 of the EA discloses the existing condition incorporating past and current actions. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of alternative implementation, in combination with the Affected Environment, are also disclosed in the EA (Chapter 3). Recreational and personal use of the area including subsistence uses and outfitter and guide supported activities are the primary existing human uses of the lands in the project area. Land management actions for habitat improvement and other historic management actions are described for the broader IRA (EA pages 14-20), but are not near the project area. No other current authorized actions, besides permitted outfitter and guiding, are currently occurring in the project area, and no additional future projects are known. Based on the information presented in the EA, the cumulative impacts are not significant. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Page 21 of 43

22 Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. Two historic cultural properties were documented and determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), but both are located outside the project area and will not be impacted. One isolated cultural feature is within the proposed lay-down area, will be affected by project activities, but has been determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under any criterion. The Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurs with the Forest Service finding of no historic properties affected. Additional detail are in the EA pages and in the report prepared for SHPO that may be found in the project record. On February 11, 2016, the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) provided written concurrence to the Forest Service that the recommended determination of a finding of no historic properties affected on districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of A biological assessment (BA) was developed by the Forest Service and a second BA was developed by the USACE to evaluate the effects of the project on threatened, endangered species and designated critical habitat. After requesting a list of species to consider in the assessment, these BA s focused on humpback whales and the western distinct population segment of Steller sea lion, both of which are currently listed as endangered species under ESA. It was determined that the Forest Service action and the associated connected action from CAC will not likely adversely affect any endangered or threatened species or any designated critical habitat. The determinations reached in the BA s were consulted on and concurred with by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Through this consultation process, project implementation requirements were developed that minimize the potential for effects to endangered species. The measures developed by NMFS are included in a letter dated July 27, 2016 (NMFS #AKR ). 10. Whether the action threatens to violate Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. The Forest Service action will not violate Federal, State, or local laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations that were considered in the EA (see EA, Chapter 3) are stipulated in Appendix B. The action is consistent with the 2002 Forest Plan. I am directed to administer outstanding mineral rights (FSM ) in a manner that minimizes damage to National Forest System resources and I have selected a set of design criteria in the way of stipulations, that when implemented, will minimize effects so that no significant impact will occur in implementation of the Forest Service decision for this project. The Port Gravina Quarry Project EA and project record document the environmental analysis conducted and conclusions upon which my decision is based. Page 22 of 43

23 After considering the effects of the actions analyzed in terms of context and intensity, I have determined that these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (OBJECTION) OPPORTUNITIES After this decision and EA are made available to the public, a legal notice announcing the objection period for this project will be published in the Cordova Times, the newspaper of record. The publication date in the Cordova Times is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection of this project. Those wishing to object to this proposed project should not rely upon dates or timeframes provided by any other source. Objections will be accepted only from those who have previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project during scoping or other designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with 36 CFR 218.5(a). Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed project unless based on new information arising after designated comment opportunities. Individual members of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the requirements of eligibility as an individual. Objections received on behalf of an organization are considered as those of the organization only. If an objection is submitted on behalf of a number of individuals or organization, each individual or organization listed must meet the eligibility requirement (36 CFR 218.7). Names and address of objectors will become part of the public record. The objection must be in writing and meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 218.8(d). Written objections, including any attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, , handdelivered, or express delivery) with the Reviewing Officer, Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor, within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice in the Cordova Times. Incorporation of documents by reference in any objection is permitted only as provided for at 36 CFR 218.8(b). Objections may be sent to: Terri Marceron, Forest Supervisor USDA Forest Service Chugach National Forest Office 161 E. 1st Avenue, Door 8 Anchorage, AK fax: (907) objections-alaska-chugach@fs.fed.us The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are: 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronics objections must be submitted in a format such as an message,.pdf, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and word (.doc or.docx). It is the responsibility of objectors to ensure their objection is received in a timely manner (36 CFR 218.9). Page 23 of 43

24 IMPLEMENTATION DATE The release of this DRAFT decision coincides with the publication of a legal notice in the Cordova Times initiating a 45 day objection period. If an objection is filed, an objection review process begins. Pursuant to 36 CFR , I may not sign the Decision Notice until the Reviewing Officer has responded in writing to all pending objections. Based on the discussions and findings in that review, I will issue a final decision. My decision will be consistent with the final review on the project. The project may be implemented after my final decision. No appeal period will be provided after the final decision is made. If no objections are received, I may sign the decision notice five (5) business days after the close of the objection period. Implementation may begin immediately after the decision is signed. CONTACT For additional information concerning this decision, contact: Steve Hohensee, Forest Geologist, Kenai Lake Office, Seward Highway, Seward AK 99664, The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Page 24 of 43

25 APPENDIX A CAC OPERATING & RECLAMATION PLAN REVISED 11/10/2016 Port Gravina Quarry Project Description The Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC) is pursuing permits to start work on a long-term commercial hard rock quarry project and associated infrastructure located in Secret Cove in Port Gravina. CAC intends to phase the construction of the project site based on the expansion of the quarry. The project site is approximately 30 miles south of Valdez and 16 miles west/northwest of Cordova. The project lies in the Copper River Meridian, Township 13 South, Range 5 West, Sections 28, 29, 32, and 33. The majority of the surface estate is held by the U.S. Forest Service and the subsurface mineral estate by CAC; however, CAC owns both surface and subsurface in a portion of the project area (Section 33). If developed, Port Gravina will be a multiphase project that will provide material for infrastructure development, construction, and repair projects throughout Alaska and the Pacific Northwest for approximately 20 years. Two operating quarry sites are planned within the project area, referred to as West Quarry and East Quarry. The quarries and additional project components including roads, docks, and work pads are described below. Temporary Barge Dock The Temporary Dock will be constructed off of the Lay Down pad, with no fill being placed below Mean High Water (MHW). The top of the temporary dock landing and associated work pad between the dock face and the beach will be at an elevation of +20 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). A modular pile supported steel trestle will be connected to the pad and extended out into the water approximately 255 feet to achieve the required water depth for the barge. The trestle will be supported by a total of (24) 24-inch diameter driven steel pipe piles. Two breasting dolphins will support a lifting frame to handle a 59-foot ramp. The dolphins will be constructed of a 36-inch diameter king pile and (2) 24-inch diameter batter piles each. The hinged ramp will allow for operation through the tidal cycle. An unlighted buoy (regulatory marker) will be anchored to the top of a 30-foot rock that sits in 40 feet of water approximately 180 feet to the northwest of the dock as an aid to navigation. Additionally, a Coast Guard-permitted light will be installed on one of the dolphins for navigational purposes. Following the receipt of a state tideland lease and expiration of the tideland permit, the piles that will not be needed for the permanent dock will be removed. The navigational buoy, the dolphins, and some of the piles will remain in place as part of the permanent tidelands lease. Lay Down Pad Above the MHW, adjacent to the Temporary Dock, a lay down pad will be constructed of rock and soils excavated during construction of the Quarry. Construction of the Lay Down Pad will potentially impact 4.5 acres of wetlands. The fill total will be approximately 2,400 cubic yards. Of this total fill, approximately 1,000 cubic yards will be armor rock for erosion protection. Camp Access Road & Pad The Camp Access Road will consist of a 30-foot wide road between the Main Work Pad to the east onto CAC property. The road will then widen to 40 feet along a straight stretch heading Page 25 of 43

26 south towards the Camp Facilities Pad. The road is approximately 3,320 feet in length and will require placement of 70,800 cubic yards of material. This road also crosses an unnamed stream that runs between the Main Work Pad and East Quarry, and will require a single span bridge that will span approximately 40 feet. The camp access road is also oriented to allow the road to double as an airstrip in the future; however, plans for the airstrip would be submitted at a later time. The Camp Pad (400 feet x 200 feet) will consist of approximately 63,300 cubic yards of fill over an area of approximately 4.0 acres. The camp itself will consist of an ATCO trailer (or similar) camp consisting of multiple attached structures that will be easily removable upon completion of the work. Dock Access Road The Dock Access Road will consist of a 30-foot wide switchback roadway that connects the Main Work Pad and the Lay Down Pad. It traverses a steep area, moving from the uplands down to the beach. The Dock Access Road will be approximately 800 feet in length and will require placement of approximately 13,000 cubic yards of fill material and a small amount of excavation in order to build into the steep hillside. The road will cover an area of approximately 3.2 acres. Excavated material will be used to construct the Lay Down Pad and/or the Main Work Pad. The drivable roadway surface is 30 feet in width graded for drainage and has a maximum gradient of 10 percent. Along the cut slope side(s) of the road a ditch will be constructed to collect stormwater runoff and rock fall from the cut slope(s). A 4-foot tall berm will be constructed on the fill side of the roadway per Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) requirements, and a runaway truck ramp is proposed towards the bottom of the road to prevent haul trucks from having to maneuver the sharp turn at the bottom in the case of failing brakes. The distance from MHW to the blasting will vary between 50 and 600 feet along the roadway. The distance from non-anadromous streams to blasting areas will be approximately 500 feet. Quarry & Main Work Pad The quarry will consist of two sections, the East Quarry and the West Quarry. These sites will be operated and expanded over an estimated timespan of 20 years with the full 20-year extents shown in the drawings. The quarries amounts and locations will be developed based on production needs in order to minimize impacts to the existing site. Both quarry sections will eventually be mined down to the elevation of the proposed work pad (approximately 100 feet MLLW). Materials recovered from quarry operations will be sold or used onsite for construction purposes. Any overburden will be stored on site for later use and reclamation. Locations for overburden storage will vary. A designated spot is located directly to the southeast of the main settling pond above the Camp Access Road. Other locations will be within the quarry footprint once the area is quarried, and to the south of the pad. As work progresses, the overburden may have to be relocated within the project footprint as the quarry is expanded. Additionally, overburden will be placed on benches for reclamation once quarrying in a specific area is complete. This will decrease the overall quantity of overburden storage required during the life of the project. The Main Work Pad is divided by an unnamed stream that runs from south to north adjacent to the East Quarry. Its close proximity to the eastern quarry operations would make operations difficult, and potentially create issues while blasting and maneuvering around the site. To counter this, the stream would be permanently diverted to the west, equidistant between the two Page 26 of 43

27 quarries, allowing more room to maneuver and creating a greater distance from the operations. The diverted stream would be a constructed channel with habitat features, consisting of large boulders and material replicating the contents of the natural channel, a few pools, and some riffles. This reconstruction would introduce more habitat than the existing channel in this area, as the existing channel is extremely shallow and wide with no undercut banks. The new channel banks will consist of vegetation, root wads and riprap in some areas that may be prone to erosion. A 30-foot bridge will be constructed over the full width of the stream to allow traffic between the East Quarry and West Quarry sites and either side of the Main Work Pad. Diversion of this unnamed stream will be postponed until absolutely necessary, and will be completed during a period of low flow and following all Alaska Department of Fish & Game s Fish Habitat Permit stipulations. Sediment settling ponds will be constructed adjacent to the quarry sites. The ponds will be designed to collect stormwater runoff from the quarry area and from the quarry work pad. The Main Work Pad will be graded in such a way to direct surface runoff into drainage ditches or towards the main settling pond at the north end of the site. The East Quarry and associated work pad will be graded/benched to drain to the northeast (away from the unnamed stream) into another settling pond. The ponds will be sized to accommodate a maximum water depth of 4 feet and maximum impoundment meeting all ADEC requirements. The distance from the bottom of the pond to the top of the berm will be no higher than 8 feet. Quarry operations will be performed by a qualified contractor who will be responsible for obtaining the applicable local, state, and federal permits. Operations and timelines will be market driven and begin following receipt of applicable infrastructure permits. Quarry Operations The quarry buildings will staff fewer than 20 people during normal mining operations. Surface water will be pumped from an undiscovered water source or from a drilled well. All domestic wastewater will either be collected in a holding tank and removed off site via barge to an approved Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) disposal site or will be discharged into an onsite secondary treatment system. Permits will be submitted to ADEC as the final design is generated and quarry operations begin. Permanent Barge Dock Development activities for the quarry include constructing a barge dock along the shore of Secret Cove. The proposed fill dock will include approximately 145,000 cubic yards of nonfrost susceptible (NFS) fill with a 2.75:1 (H:V) armor rock revetment. The width of the dock will be approximately 500 feet, with a length of approximately 300 feet out into the cove (to the toe of the revetment), consisting of approximately 5.0 acres. The location of the toe of the armor rock revetment will vary, but will range from -15 feet MLLW to -20 feet MLLW at the front of the dock. Once the lease is obtained for the dock, fill placement will begin. Fill will be placed in such a way as to continue use of the temporary dock trestle until fill encompasses the area, and certain piles are no longer needed. Temporary dock piles will be removed as the permanent dock fill progresses. Some of the temporary dock piles will remain in place as needed to support the modular ramp (of the temporary dock), and as needed for structural stability. The two dolphins Page 27 of 43

28 of the temporary dock will remain in place, and two more identical dolphins will be installed for mooring assistance for full-scale operations. The navigational light on the dolphin, and the regulatory marker buoy will also remain in place for use with the permanent dock. The fill dock will handle barge mooring and loading for quarried rock transport. Once the permanent barge dock is constructed, full-scale quarry operations can begin. Safety of the general public is of primary concern along the shoreline and within the boundaries of Secret Cove, though the proposed development and operations will have minimal impact on public access. Access along the gravel beach will still be allowed except during activities that could impact the safety of the public. Public access to water within Secret Cove will only be restricted during times of vessel maneuvering. Tidelands Lease The project is not requesting to limit the public s use of the waters of the cove except for the area of the actual improvements (i.e. the dock or the beach landing area when it is being used). In addition, for public safety purposes only, the project may exclude the public from the waters needed for a barge or other craft to maneuver to and from the dock. Any exclusion will be for the minimum time and area necessary to protect public safety and operations of the ship or barge. An area of approximately 15 acres is proposed for the tidelands lease boundary area. The tidelands boundary is sized to accommodate the Permanent Barge Dock and moorage of a 100- foot by 400-foot barge and tug boat. Barge traffic at the dock will vary depending on market demands. With an estimated volume of 250,000 tons per year and two quarry supply barges per month, there could potentially be 39 barges per year or 3.25 barges per month calling at the dock. Quarry Sediment settling ponds will be constructed adjacent to the quarry site. The ponds will be designed to collect stormwater runoff from the quarry area and from the quarry work pad. They will be sized to accommodate a maximum water depth of 4 feet and maximum impoundment of 40 acre-feet. The distance from the bottom of the pond to the top of the berm will be no higher than 8 feet. Quarry operations will be performed by a qualified contractor who will be responsible for obtaining the applicable local, state, and federal permits. Operations and timelines will be market driven and begin following receipt of applicable infrastructure permits. Proposed Project Timeline The planned construction start for the proposed project is summer Construction of the main work pad and quarry will be phased over a 20-year period. In order to meet the proposed construction start date, permitting agencies were contacted informally in February of 2015 in an effort to identify any activities that might hold up permitting the project. Noise During construction of the roads from the beach to the quarry area, it is likely that some of the blasts may be audible in close proximity such as to Port Gravina recreational users. During regular quarry operations, which will be mainly market driven, blasting noise will be limited and likely not an issue for nearby recreational users. Weather, topography, direction of blasting, and Page 28 of 43

29 many other factors affect audible range, which makes it difficult to give definitive distances and decibel levels at this point in the permitting process. Dust The nature of the land (mostly solid granite and generally moist) doesn't lend itself to significant potential for dust pollution. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) both have guidelines for dust control to protect employees and the public. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) have clean air and water regulations aimed at protecting the environment, which CAC and all subcontractors will be following. Best Management Practices will be followed to limit dust or any potential negative effects on the community, lands, or environment generated by the quarry project. Reclamation Following completion of the project, current Best Management Practices for quarry closeout will be followed. Due to the long-term nature of the project, it is difficult at this time to estimate the exact procedures that will be taken. At a minimum for safety, a fence and signage will be installed to prevent inadvertent entry from the rock face, the face will have steps to limit rockfall hazards, and signs will be posted to prevent entry without knowledge of the terrain. The area, including all road and pad footprints, will be restored to a look similar to the local surroundings using re-vegetation (with native seed mixes and plant stocks if available), addition of topsoil, and will occur in such a way, to the best extent feasible, that the area will return to a natural look within a reasonable amount of time. Construction Sequence A possible construction sequence for this project is as follows: 1. Survey and stake clearing limits. 2. Clear and grub quarry sites. 3. Clear vegetation and overburden at Lay Down Pad site adjacent to the shoreline and along the shoreline roadways. 4. Mine material for infrastructure. 5. Construct Dock Access Road. 6. Construct Main Work Pad, Camp Access Road and Pad. 7. Construct Temporary Dock. 8. Construct drainage swales and sediment/settling pond to collect stormwater runoff from quarry and quarry work pad. 9. Begin quarry operations. 10. Construct Permanent Dock (dependent on tidelands lease). Permitting and contractor preferences may dictate a different development plan from that described above. Page 29 of 43

30 Page 30 of 43

31 Page 31 of 43

32 Page 32 of 43

33 CHUGACH ALASKA CORPORATION- PORT GRAVINA QUARRY- RECLAMATION PLAN 1.1 Reclamation Plan The Port Gravina Reclamation Plan will be devised and conducted under accordance of Alaska Statute This Statute was enacted by the Alaskan Legislature to ensure mining operations are conducted in a manner that prevents unnecessary and undue degradation of land and water resources. Additionally the quarry operation shall be reclaimed as contemporaneously as practicable with operations to leave the site in a stable condition. The reclamation plan for Port Gravina Quarry has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the AS The statute and regulations, as they exist at the time of preparation of this plan, are dated January 2016 (Appendix B, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act and Implementing Regulations ). Objectives of this reclamation plan are designed to meet AS by: of soils and surface waters; es and quarry benches space; 1.2 Description of Reclamation Actions The design and order of operations is intended to limit the visibility of development from the majority of the viewshed in Port Gravina by the public as much as feasibly possible. Areas planned for reclamation once operations have concluded are the work pads and quarry sites. A concurrent reclamation operation may not be reasonable or feasible due to safety or economic constraints to apply with this type of hard rock quarry operation, however reclamation will occur as expeditiously as reasonably and feasibly possible. Reclamation will be limited to depleted quarry areas were the hard rock material has been exhausted and will likely not start until year 5 (five) of operations. The primary infrastructure areas that include the haulage road, workpads, camp roads, and tideland areas will not be reclaimed until operations have ceased at Port Gravina. The table below shows the total area in acres that will be disturbed and reclaimed over the course of the 10 year quarry and reclamation plan outlined. Please keep in mind that the proposed life of the quarry is 20 years, however AS states that an approved reclamation plan cannot exceed 10 years. Page 33 of 43

34 Below is an approximate timeline for reclamation activities. The bulk of these activities will occur after operations have concluded, however the first phase of clearing and stockpiling of soils will occur prior to quarry operations. The monitoring period will likely take 5-10 years of periodic site visits to ensure recontoured slopes and revegetation has taken hold. The primary equipment that will be used for the reclamation will include excavator(s), front end loader(s), haul trucks, and dozers. The equipment used for any given reclamation task will be the equipment most suitable for completing that task. Soils will be stockpiled and retained in approved designated areas, away from waterbodies (see figure below). Soil stockpiles will be located outside of quarry sites but within quarry basement and workpad areas. Stockpile locations are likely to change as construction and reclamation progresses through development. The stockpiles will be stabilized to prevent soil loss. Trees cut may be used to stabilize soil stockpiles and for mulching used in reclamation. Areas to be reclaimed will be backfilled, graded and recontoured using strippings, overburden, and topsoil. The redistribution of soils will be at a minimum of 6 (six) inches of depth. This will be completed in a manner that allows for the reestablishment of native plant species on the site within a reasonable period of time. Preference will be given to plant materials from the local project area to maximize adaptation to the site specific environment and local genetic composition. Application of seeded plant materials will be coordinated with the U.S. Forest Service. Non-indigenous plant material will not be used for revegetation. It will be stabilized to a condition that will allow sufficient moisture to be retained for natural revegetation. Stockpiled topsoil will be spread over the reclaimed areas to promote natural plant growth that can reasonably be expected to revegetate the area within five years. Topsoil that is not promptly redistributed to an area being reclaimed will be separated and stockpiled for future use. This material will be protected from erosion and contamination and preserved in a condition suitable for later use. The tideland areas including the temporary pile-modular dock and permanent bulkhead dock and fill material will also be reclaimed in a manner that restores, as reasonably can be done, the tideland areas to a natural state. Piling will be pulled, modular dock units will be removed and the pad area will have stockpiled topsoil distributed over and vegetated with approved seed. Any stream channel diversions will be relocated to a stable location in the flood plain. Brush piles, vegetation, topsoil, and other organics will be spread on the backfilled surface to inhibit erosion and promote natural revegetation. All roads, airstrips or other facilities constructed on USFS surface estate to provide access to the mining operation shall be reclaimed (unless otherwise authorized) and included in the reclamation plan. Infrastructure constructed on CAC full fee lands may be repurposed and may not be included in the initial reclamation. As is common with hard rock mining operations, post mining revegetation is limited to those areas that can be sufficiently covered with overburden and topsoil to establish vegetation. Those areas undisturbed during mining operations will remain. Page 34 of 43

35 1.3 Erosion Control Erosion control measures would be used in, but not limited to, areas of surface disturbance, including: Vegetation or overburden will be removed incrementally as necessary to execute quarrying operations. Surface runoff and drainage from disturbed surfaces will be controlled through a variety of erosion control measures depending on the scale of surface disturbance, terrain, and location of waterways and stormwater control facilities. Potential erosion control measures may include, but would not be limited to, grading berms, silt fences, revegetation, or hay bales. Any disturbed areas not actively planned as part of future mining or used in processing activities will be revegetated. Revegetation will be completed using native seed blends. Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled consistent with a site specific stormwater pollution and prevention plan (SWPPP) and applicable regional water quality control board and State Water Resources Control Board regulations. The SWPPP includes the following site controls related to erosion and sedimentation: Best Management Practices Structural has secondary containment or is double walled, sufficient to hold 110% of the tank. Stormwater outside the containment will not contact fuel. Best Management Practices Non Structural ive Maintenance: o Storm water pond shall be checked for adequate freeboard and capacity. o The secondary containment on the diesel tanks shall be checked to make sure there is no standing liquid or debris. o Quarry personnel shall inspect settling ponds on a frequent basis, but at least monthly. If problems are found, corrective action shall be taken. o Freeboard is checked for compliance. Sediment settling ponds will be constructed adjacent to the quarry sites. The ponds will be designed to collect stormwater runoff from the quarry area and from the quarry work pad. Soils and organic materials dredged from settling ponds will be stored in soil stockpiles for reclamation. The main work pad will be graded in such a way to direct surface runoff into drainage ditches or towards the main settling pond at the north end of the site. The ponds will be sized to accommodate a maximum water depth of 4 feet and maximum impoundment meeting all ADEC requirements. The distance from the bottom of the pond to the top of the berm will be no higher than 8 feet and engineered to allow for wildlife to move freely. Page 35 of 43

36 APPENDIX B - STIPULATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS General Stipulations Chugach Alaska Corporation must comply with all required permits and plans and provide a copy of approved permits to the Forest Service, which may include the following: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) (AS 0.10, AS 09.25, AS 11.81, AS 12.55, AS 22.10, AS 31.05, AS 38.05, AS 39.52, AS 40.25, AS 44.46, AS 44.62, AS 44.64, AS 45.50, AS 46.03, 18 AAC 75, 18 AAC AAC 83, 2 AAC 96, 11 AAC 110, 18 AAC 50, 18 AAC 60, 18 AAC 70, 20 AAC 25) (this results in adoption of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)) Solid waste disposal permit. (AS , AS , AS , AS , 18 AAC 15, 18 AAC 60) Approval to construct engineered wastewater disposal system. (18 AAC 72) Waste disposal permit (wastewater discharge). (AS , AS & 110, AS & 710, 18 AAC 15, 18 AAC 70, 18 AAC 72) 401 Water Quality Certification-Certificate of Reasonable Assurance Section 401. (AS , 18 AAC 15, 18 AAC 70, 18 AAC 72) DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Title 16 Fish Habitat Permit Fish Resource Permit Removing fish/diverting water (5 AAC 41) DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Mining, Land and Water Lease of Tidelands. (AS , 11 AAC 62). Water Use Permit. (AS 46.15, 11 AAC 93) Water Rights (AS 46.15, 11 AAC 93) Mining reclamation plan approval. (AS 27.19, 11 AAC 97). Temporary water use permits for water withdrawals, except for withdrawals from sources classified as categorically consistent or generally consistent approvals. (AS , 11 AAC 93) Tideland use permit. (AS , 11 AAC 96) U.S. FOREST SERVICE (Code of Federal Regulations: Title 36 - PARKS, FORESTS, AND PUBLIC PROPERTY) Notice to Proceed (FSM 2832), which accepts the operating plan and associated stipulations. Approval of Mining Reclamation Plan, in collaboration with ADNR. Temporary access road special use permit. (36 CFR ) DEPARTMENT OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS Compliance with section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of (33 U.S.C. 403) Page 36 of 43

37 Compliance with section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (33 U.S.C. 1344) NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Compliance with Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act through consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (50 CFR , 50 CFR , 50 CFR , 50 CFR , 50 CFR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Compliance with the Endangered Species Act, as needed, for Threatened or Endangered Species through consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act, 87 Stat. 844) Compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act US Environmental Protection Agency/State Fire Marshal Aboveground Storage Tanks (Clean Water Act - 33 U.S.C. 1251, 40 CFR 112) Heritage Resource Stipulations 1. Discovery and Education Stipulation: Any cultural and/or paleontological resources (historic or prehistoric site or object) discovered by the Chugach Alaska Corporation or any person working on the Chugach Alaska Corporation s behalf, on public or Federal land shall be immediately reported to the Chugach National Forest Authorized Officer in Cordova, Alaska. The Chugach Alaska Corporation or its contractors shall suspend all operations in the immediate area of such discovery until written authorization to proceed is issued by the Authorized Officer. An evaluation of the discovery will be required and presented to the Authorized Officer to determine the appropriate actions to follow to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values. Any decision as to proper mitigation measures to be taken will be made by the Authorized Officer after consultation with the Alaska State Historical Preservation Office. Collection or disturbance of artifacts and other archaeological, historical, and paleontological materials by the Chugach Alaska Corporation employees, its representatives, or contractors, shall not be allowed. Offenders shall be subject to prosecution under the appropriate State and Federal laws. 2. The proposed project will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and FSM , if the heritage resource recommendations above are followed. If the undertaking would likely alter the characteristics of these sites as defined in 36 CFR parts 800.2(0) and or if additional prehistoric or historic materials are found during the course of this project, work in that area should cease until the District Ranger has been notified. Work in the area of the cultural resource may not resume until the cultural materials and the potential effects have been evaluated by a professional archaeologist. Final notification to proceed will be given by the District Ranger. 3. The areas that include COR and COR are outside of the project area and therefore these sites should not be affected by project implementation. Any actions in these areas would be outside of the project area and is therefore not authorized. Page 37 of 43

38 Visual Stipulations 4. Retain a no-disturbance strip of beach fringe timber on the west-side of the dock/lay down area to minimize visual impacts of the laydown area from Port Gravina. 5. Post Construction, utilize excavated soil and other organics where practicable (i.e. road and pad fill slopes), after initial construction, to mask the white color of the rock and provide a seedbed for revegetation. Soils Stipulations 6. Vehicular traffic and other surface impacts to adjacent, non-project areas are prohibited. 7. Develop an erosion control plan for road, quarry, and work pad construction to minimize or mitigate erosion and sedimentation. 8. Silt and sediment should not enter waterbodies. Use appropriate control or containment measures such as filter or fabric fences, fiber matting, settling ponds, drainage control, and trenches and waterproof covers over material piles and exposed soils. 9. Stockpile excavated soil, vegetation and organics in a designated area away from water bodies. 10. Design the quarry plan to ensure the retention of soils upon hillslopes at quarry sites until areas are planned for active blasting/quarrying. 11. Minimize traffic and other surface disturbance to soils until they are to be removed for development. 12. Armor outlets as necessary to avoid scour and erosion of adjacent slopes. Fish/Hydrology Stipulations 13. All bridges and structures crossing No-Name Creek will be designed and constructed to pass fish and floods in accordance with State regulations, EO 11988, and BMPs and (FSH ). 14. Service and refuel equipment a minimum of 100 feet away from streams or waterbodies when practicable. Equipment operators will carry absorbent pads and spill response kits, provide containment and cleanup for portable fuel tanks (including hose and nozzle), follow approved disposal methods for waste products and repair leaky equipment promptly (FSH ). 15. Complete a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan as required by state and federal regulations. 16. Re-establish and maintain a vegetated buffer strip a minimum of 20-foot wide above the ordinary high water level on each bank of the constructed channel. 17. In the deep pool(s) proposed for the constructed channel, placement of spawning gravel will replace the spawning area lost in the dewatered section of the creek. A 1-foot layer of 1/2 to 1.5-inch gravel should be placed in the tailout of the pool centered on the thalweg. The gravel mixture should have less than 15% sand or smaller material. The gravel area should be a minimum of 9 square meters per pool to allow multiple pairs of fish to spawn. Additionally, ensure lateral flow connectivity to the stream such that adequate portions of the pool and tailout are suitable winter habitat. This will Page 38 of 43

39 maintain overwintering salmonid habitat and ensure capacity for egg development in spawning gravels. This stipulation may be modified by the Forest Service to ensure consistency with ADF&G fish habitat permit requirements. Invasive Species Stipulations 18. All heavy equipment used in project area should be cleaned prior to entry on Forest Service lands to prevent the introduction or spread of invasive species. The DOI Technical Memorandum (No : Inspection and Cleaning Manual for Equipment and Vehicles to prevent the Spread of Invasive Species) is a good reference for equipment cleaning. Wildlife Stipulations 19. The sport harvest of mountain goats, black bears, and brown bears on Chugach National Forest lands in Port Gravina by employees of the project operation is prohibited. 20. Food and garbage should be secured or stored in bear-proof containers or by other acceptable methods that makes it unavailable to bears or other wildlife. Garbage should be disposed on a routine schedule to prevent creating a wildlife attractant. 21. Bald eagle nest protection standards to be followed are outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Appendix G of the 2002 Chugach National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, processes referenced in standards and guidelines, Bald Eagle MOU). There is a minimum 330-foot retention zone (no tree removal) around known eagle locations. The active bald eagle nesting season is generally from March 1 to August 31. Refer to the MOU for restrictions pertaining to other management activities. Special Uses Stipulations 22. The occupancy and use of National Forest System surface lands may not directly impact a larger area than is as described and accepted in the Operating Plan, without advanced notification to the Forest Service. 23. The use of roads and associated infrastructure on National Forest System surface lands is limited to purposes directly associated with accessing and developing the subsurface estate. Reclamation Stipulations These stipulations apply to different phases of reclamation including: post construction (following development in a particular area), interim reclamation (following completion of a portion of the project area or as an aspect of continued operations) and final reclamation (at the conclusion of the project). 24. The presence of infrastructure associated with site access and other surface occupancies is limited to the term of the project. During reclamation all disturbed areas including roads and pad footprints will be reclaimed through contouring, top soiling, and revegetation. Page 39 of 43

40 25. The reclamation shall provide for all roads and pad footprints to be contoured to resemble natural conditions upon project completion. 26. In reclaimed areas: soil should be at least 6 inches deep, as the minimum soil depth observed naturally pre-activity. 27. During reclamation, heavily trafficked or compacted areas (i.e. roads, work/lay down pads, stockpile areas, etc.) shall be ripped. 28. After reclamation (soil spreading), further equipment traffic and/or other surface impacts will be avoided. 29. The reclamation plan shall specify that removed soil must be retained and stockpiled in USFS approved designated areas, located away from waterbodies, for future reclamation. Soil stockpiles should be located outside of quarry sites, when practicable, to avoid relocation/material loss and ensure that soils remain relatively clean. Soil stockpiles should be stabilized to prevent soil loss. Trees cut for project area clearing may be used to stabilize soil stock piles and for mulching in future reclamation efforts. 30. Any soil and organic material dredged from settling ponds should be stored in soil stockpiles for reclamation. 31. The quarry development plan shall specify that soil removal and recovery will be maximized utilizing equipment most suitable for this goal. An excavator should be utilized in areas where there is uneven/variable subsurface rock contact. 32. Natural revegetation should be utilized where seed source and site conditions are favorable or use native plant species in revegetation/restoration projects when natural revegetation conditions are not favorable. Preference should be given to plant materials from the local project area to maximize adaptation to that environment and maintain local genetic composition. Under no circumstance may nonindigenous plant material be used for revegetation. Application of any seeded plant materials must be coordinated in advance with the Forest Service. 33. Interim reclamation shall be implemented in quarry areas that are no longer being utilized as per the approved quarry and reclamation plans. Safety Stipulations 34. Prior to each operating season, CAC shall inform the Forest Service of its intent to operate the quarry and anticipated operation dates. CAC will post any Forest Closure order at the project site as specified by and in cooperation with the Forest Service to provide for public safety during and following project implementation. CAC will notify the Forest Service if public safety hazards, as a result of operations, exist at the project site during periods when operations are not occurring. RECOMMENDATIONS Heritage Resources: There is an opportunity to remove the significant portion of the culturally modified tree (CMT) at COR for use as an interpretive medium (i.e. Ilanka Cultural Center, Cordova Forest Service Office) and also to core and date the scar. It is also recommended that a cookie be cut from the base of the CMT to include a portion of the scar and can also be used for dating and mobile interpretation on dendrochronology and cultural Page 40 of 43

41 practices. This could be a valuable tool in sharing information regarding this cultural practice historically done by many of the Tribes in the area. Additionally, cores of the live CMTs and wedges from a sample of the dead CMTs in the Secret Cove Grove (COR-00581), just outside of the project area, could be taken to procure additional scar dates that could better inform the chronology of the cultural practice in the general area and assist in the interpretation of the COR Visual Resources: If the area between the cut and fill from the main work pad and the access road has adequate room, Chugach should consider transplanting alder in the development of the quarry plan in order to reduce visual impacts. Noise: Limit the hours of operations. Noise impacts are less significant during the daytime. To the extent possible, limit and consolidate blasting to minimize the extent and duration of the effects during quarrying operations. To the extent possible, take advantage of topography and dense vegetation to create noise barriers for both blasting and establishing locations to place noise producing quarrying equipment. Enclose high noise sources with acoustic barriers to dampen the sound. MONITORING Forest Service shall monitor operations as needed to ensure compliance with the operating plan, required stipulations and reclamation plans. Invasive Plant Species: The project site should be surveyed for invasive plant species once every two years by the proponent during project operations and for 5-years following reclamation. Any invasive plant species within the project area must be controlled with appropriate treatment methods to eliminate introduced invasive species and control potential for spread onto areas outside of the project area. Heritage Resources: Monitoring will occur in the lay-down area in the location of the single CMT (COR-00581) during construction by a cultural resource specialist. The area was tested for subsurface cultural deposition with negative results. However, because of the potential for this area to be a prehistoric basecamp from which people peeled trees at sites COR and COR , site monitoring is required during construction at this location. Page 41 of 43

42 Appendix C draft safety closure order and closure area map CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST Order No xx-xx-xx OCCUPANCY AND USE Forest Supervisor s Order Pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations (a) and (b) the following acts are prohibited as described below, within the Chugach National Forest. These restrictions are in addition to those enumerated in Subpart A, Part 261, Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, and become effective when signed and will remain in effect until rescinded. 36 CFR (e) Public health or safety For the purpose of this order the following are prohibited: Being present within the Forest Order Closure Area as described in Attachment A during periods when the area has been determined unsafe for public occupancy by the Forest Service. Exceptions: Pursuant to Title 36 CFR (e) the following are exempt from this order: 1. Any person with a permit authorizing the otherwise prohibited act or omission. 2. Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer, or member of any organized rescue or fire fighting force in the performance of an official duty. These prohibitions are in addition to the general prohibitions in 36 CFR Part 261, Subpart A. Executed in Anchorage, Alaska, this day of Terri Marceron Forest Supervisor Chugach National Forest Date Penalty: Violations of these Prohibitions are punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000 for an individual or $10,000 for an organization, or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both. [16 U.S.C. 551, and 18 U.S.C and 3571] Notification: A copy of this order shall be posted as prescribed under 36 CFR Page 42 of 43

43 Attachment A Forest Order Closure Area Page 43 of 43