Table Of ContentHistoric, Archive Document
Do assume
not content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
* J- • r > •
Main Bay Salmon Hatchery Expansion
Prince William Sound
Chugach National Forest
Alaska
-
'
August 1993
United States
Department of
Agriculture
H I
National Agricultural Library
United States Forest Chugach Glacier R. D.
Department of Service National P.O. Box 129
Agriculture Forest Girdwood, Ak 99587
Reply To: 1950
Date: August 16, 1993
Dear Friend of the Chugach National Forest:
Prince William Sound Aquaculture Association has contracted with Dames & Moore Co. for the
preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the expansion of the Main Bay
Salmon Hatchery in western Prince William Sound.
The purpose of this DEIS is to provide information to public officials and citizens before a decision
is made and to give an opportunity to comment on the proposed action. The Regional Forester will
select an alternative to implement from the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and docu-
ment the decision in a Record of Decision. We anticipate the FEIS and Record of Decision will be
published at the end of the year.
Threealternativesweredevelopedandanalyzedindetail, includingthe NoAction alternative. Alterna-
tive 1 is proposedfor implementation. Alternative 1 focusesontheexpansion oftheexisting hatchery
site and facilityfrom the current production of5.1 million sockeye salmon smoltsto 20 million smolts.
We are seeking public comment before issuing the FEIS. This document is our invitation for your
participation inthe processtopreparetheenvironmentalimpactstatement.Wewouldappreciateand
can best respond to the comments on the DEIS ifthey are as specific as possible and address the
adequacy of the analysis and the merits of the alternatives.
In orderto ensure incorporation ofyourcomments inthe FEIS, yourcomments and responses must
be received by the close of business October 4, 1993. After the comment period ends on October
4, 1993,thecommentswill beanalyzedandconsideredinpreparingtheFEIS. Yourcommentsshould
be sent to John Dorio, Glacier Ranger District, P.O. Box 129, Girdwood, Alaska 99587
We look forward to receiving your comments on the DEIS.
Sincerely,
JOHN C. DORIO
Glacier District Ranger
Caring forthe Land and Serving People
FS-6200-28
Main Bay Hatchery Expansion
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prince William Sound, Alaska
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Chugach National Forest
Lead Agency: Alaska Region
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Chugach National Forest
201 East Ninth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Responsible Official: Michael A. Barton
Regional Forester
Alaska Region
For Further John Dorio, District Ranger
Information, or
Contact: Elaine Gross, Project Leader
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Chugach National Forest
Glacier Ranger District
Post Office Box 129
Girdwood, Alaska 99587
Reviewers must provide their comments to the Forest Service during the draft
environmental impact statement review period ending October 4, 1993. This will enable the
Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information
acquired in the preparation of the final environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue
delay in the decision making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their
participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts
the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
NRDC
v. 435 U.S. 519, 533 (1978). Environmental objectives that could have been raised at
.
the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental
impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages. Inc,
v. Harris 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental
.
impact statement should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the
CFR
merits of the alternatives discussed (40 1503.3).
Abstract: The Chugach National Forest proposes to modify an existing special use permit to
allow expansion of hatchery production of sockeye salmon in Prince William Sound. Three
alternatives are addressed in detail in this EIS: (1) No Action, (2) Expansion of the Main Bay
Hatchery, and (3) Expansion of the Esther Island Hatchery. Ten other alternatives were
considered but found to be infeasible. The Forest Service has identified the Expansion of the
Main Bay Hatchery as the preferred alternative.
U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
o NATIONALAGRICULTURAL LIBFi/
RECEIVED
-
—
-
- -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
S-l
PURPOSE AND NEED
1.0 1-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 1-1
PROPOSED ACTION
1.2 1-1
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-4
1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE 1-6
1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING LEVELS 1-6
1.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 1-7
1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1-7
1.8 ISSUES 1-8
1.9 ISSUES NOT CONSIDERED 1-9
1.10 CONTENTS OF THE DRAFT EIS 1-9
2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2-1
INTRODUCTION
2.1 2-1
2.2 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 2-1
2.3 MAIN BAY ALTERNATIVE 2-4
2.3.1 Introduction 2-4
2.3.2 Expansion of the Existing Facility 2-7
2.3.3 Expansion of Existing Production 2-10
2.4 THE ESTHER ISLAND ALTERNATIVE 2-12
2.4.1 Introduction 2-12
2.4.2 Expansion of Existing Facility 2-14
2.4.3 Expansion of Existing Production 2-17
2.5 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-19
2.5.1 Introduction 2-19
2.5.2 Existing Facilities 2-19
2.6 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 2-21
2.7 MONITORING 2-28
2.8 MITIGATION 2-29
2.9 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2-30
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 VEGETATION AND WETLANDS 3-1
3.2 FISH AND WILDLIFE 3-4
3.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3-7
3.4 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 3-12
3.5 WILDERNESS 3-14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
3.6 VISUAL 3-17
3.6.1 Visual Character and Variety Class 3-18
3.6.2 Visual Sensitivity 3-18
3.6.3 Visibility 3-19
3.6.4 Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) 3-19
3.7 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 3-20
3.8 LAND USE, OWNERSHIP, AND MANAGEMENT 3-20
3.8.1 Land Use 3-20
3.8.2 Land Ownership 3-22
3.8.3 Management Plans 3-27
3.9 SOCIO-ECONOMICS (NON-FISHERIES) 3-29
3.9.1 Hatchery Sites 3-29
3.9.2 Whittier 3-30
3.9.3 Seward 3-31
3.9.4 Cordova 3-32
3.9.5 Valdez 3-35
3.10 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES 3-39
3.10.1 Biology/Management 3-39
3.10.2 Economics 3-53
3.11 RECREATION AND TOURISM 3-53
3.11.1 Recreational Fisheries 3-53
3.11.2 Other Recreational Uses 3-60
3.12 SUBSISTENCE 3-68
3.12.1 Chenega Bay 3-69
3.12.2 Tatitlek 3-78
3.12.3 Cordova 3-82
3.12.4 Whittier 3-87
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 THE MAIN BAY ALTERNATIVE (PREFERRED) 4-1
4.1.1 Vegetation and Wetlands 4-1
4.1.2 Fish and Wildlife 4-2
4.1.3 Hydrology and Water Quality 4-6
4.1.4 Air Quality and Noise 4-7
4.1.5 Wilderness 4-8
4.1.6 Visual 4-11
4.1.7 Cultural and Historic Resources 4-12
4.1.8 Land Use, Ownership, and Management 4-12
4.1.8.1 Land Use 4-12
4.1.8.2 Land Ownership 4-13
4. 1 .8.3 Land Management 4-13
iv
