United States Forest Service
Department of Agriculture
Tongass National Forest
Forest Plan Interdisciplinary Team
8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 586-8796
Reply to:
Date: November 27,1995
Subject:
Subsistence working group results - general discussion (see each specific
community in Chapter 3 of the DEIS for community specific results.)
To:
Bruce Rene, Document Coordinator, TLMP
cc:
Terry Shaw, Steve Kessler, Co Team Managers, TLIMP
From:
Guy Cellier, Social Scientist, TLMP
Introduction
On November 15 and 16, 1995, a group of subsistence specialists met to offer
professional judgment regarding the effects of implementing proposed TLMP
alternatives on 30 selected communities of Southeast Alaska. This memo documents
the background information supplied to the panelists, and summarizes the results of
the panel’s work.
Background material
Each person was supplied with: (1) a list of the 30 communities to be covered by the
analysis; (2) the description of each community that will be part of the Chapter 3
Affected Environment section; (3) a letter explaining the general panel process and a
brief description of the proposed alternatives (by Shaw); (4) a more detailed description
of the alternatives (by Iverson); (5) draft notes of the results of the fish panel (by
Dunlap); (6) draft output from the revised deer model; and (7) the draft deer habitat
standard and guide. All of these documents are attached.
Maps available to the group were: (1) Each of the proposed alternatives; (2) Expected
harvest in 100 years; (3) Forest-wide deer harvest map showing competition between
communities (ADf&G data); (4) 30 Community TRUCS maps; (5) 30 Community deer
harvest maps A D
data); (6) Recreation
n Home-Range map; (7) Current and
projected roads for Ketchikan Area. Also available were a set of Draft Standards and
Guides.
Participants
The group evaluation was done by seven participants, namely:
Cindy Hartmann - Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Services, Juneau;
Jack Kruse - Director, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska,
Anchorage;
Subsistence working group, 15/16 Nov. 1995 - Results - page I - (c:\guy\panel\subresl)
Hank Newhouse - Subsistence Coordinator, Ketchikan Area, Forest Service;
Larry Roberts - Subsistence Coordinator, Stikine Area, Forest Service;
Bob Schroeder - Regional Supervisor, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Subsistence Division;
Mike Turek - Researcher, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division;
Ted Schenk - Wildlife Biologist, Chatham Area, Forest Service.
In addition, Tom Thornton from the University of Alaska Southeast was invited, and
looked in for about an hour on each day. Richard Enriquez from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service was invited but could not attend due to the furiough. Ted Schenk
arrived at about 2pm on Wednesday, and left at about 9am on Thursday.
The facilitator was Guy Cellier, Research Social Scientist, TLMP. The scribe was Julie
Schaeffers, TLMP GIS specialist and economist. (The verbatim notes taken by the scribe
are attached .)
Process
The group heard a description of the planning process and a brief historical overview
from Bruce Rene. They then heard a description of the proposed new nine alternatives
from Chris Iverson. This was done on the morning of Nov. 7 in conjunction with the
Old-growth panel meeting which was held on the same day. In the afternoon the
subsistence group went to an independent room, and began its evaluation.
Ron Dunlap briefly discussed the results of the Fish Assessment Panel, discussing
handouts (attached) and explaining the panel process. He explained the panel had 2
hydrologists and 4 fish biologists. The hydrologists assessed the likelihood of
outcomes for physical attributes of streams across the Forest. The fisheries scientists
assessed the likelihood of outcomes for eight species of fish including the anadromous
and resident life strategies of two of the species.
The hydrologists determined that there could be negative effects, such as channel
degradation, could occur with any of the management options. The ranking of
alternatives in order of least to greatest risk of degradation of stream channel processes
is: Alternative 1, 5,4,3,6,8,2,9,7. As miles of roads construction and acres of timber
harvest increased , risks of degradation of streams increased.
The fish biologists found the chinook salmon were subject to the least risk because they
generally occur in very large rivers which are relatively immune to land management
impacts as compared to smaller river systems. Sockeye were also believed to be at a
relatively low level of risk because most populations spawn and their early life stages
rear, in lakes. The biologists believed lakes are more resilient to impacts from land
management activities.
The biologists believed pink and chum salmon, which spawn in freshwater but rear in
saltwater, were at less risk of being impacted by management activities than are coho
salmon, steelhead and cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden which both spawn and rear in
Subsistence working group, 15/16 Nov. 1995 - Results - page 2 - (c:\guy\panel\subresl)
Y
4
freshwater. However, the biologists agreed that as miles of roads constructed and acres
of timber harvested, increased across alternatives, the risks to fish increased. The
relative ranking of alternatives, ranked from least risk to greatest risk to fish, are
Alternatives 1,5,4,3,6,8,2,9,7.
Dunlap explained that factors considered by the panel in the risk rating included
timber harvest, timber, rotation, roads, riparian protection and reserves. Roads and
rotation were seen to be highly correlated. He also explained the fish value rating
system (FHIPS), and pointed out subsistence was not directly considered in the fish
panel assessment. He was asked how the changes of habitat are associated with change
in fish production - is it linear? He replied the coho habitat capability model was based
on the loss of large wood in the streams system and large wood leaves the system at a
slow but steady state. To simplify stream habitats was to risk losing fishing production
capacity.
It was pointed out by the subsistence group that even though Prince of Wales Island is
catch and release for steelhead trout, it was important to the subsistence communities
that the fish were there.
The group then heard discussion of the results of the deer panel from Chris Iverson
(Ted Schenck from Chatham had arrived bv this time). Iverson explained that the deer
panel assessment was not really a risk assessment as deer are not considered at risk
from a viabilitv perspective. The panel therefore decided to build a new deer habitat
capability model as the existing model had certain limitations. For the new models the
scores were averaged among the four deer panelists, the facilitator, and the deer
resource specialist, and then run. Iverson explained that if the model numbers were
used for subsistence, we need to be aware of assumptions. In general, it was better to
use model outputs a percentage or relative change and not the actual number of deer.
The deer model is a habitat capability model and not a population model to predict
deer population size. The model assumes that winter range is the limiting habitat
factor and does not explicitly consider effects on habitat used during other seasons such
as summer reproduction. Another limitation in the model is that actual deer
population outputs consider only overwinter habitat capability. Not being a
population model, it fails to consider spring fawn production and resulting net fall deer
populations available for sport or subsistence uses, which may be up to 50% greater
than winter habitat capability.
Iverson also explained a specific deer habitat management Standard and Guideline that
applied to alternatives 1, 3 , 4 5, and 6. The objective of the Standard was to maintain
deer habitat capability in Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAA’s) where significant deer
harvest occurred in relation to net habitat capability. In WAA’s where current deer
harvest by humans (from ADF&G deer harvest statistics) exceeded 20% of the total deer
habitat capability (deer model outputs), the standard maintained all existing deer
habitat capability (e.g. no further timber harvest). In WAA's where current deer
Subsistence working group, 15/16 Nov. 1995 - Results - page 3 - (c:\guy\panel\subresl)
harvest exceeded 10% of current habitat capability, the standard maintained 25% of the
highest quality remaining important deer winter range. Iverson provided a handout
identifying those w a a that met these 2 conditions. A recognized limitation of this
analysis is that it fails to consider a potential redistribution of harvest demand and does
not account for an increase future demand for human deer use.
The panel concluded that to estimate cumulative effects, a time period of 20 vears was
adopted, a period necessary for the next generation to be able to harvest deer.
This ended the first day.
On the morning of the l6th, Kruse suggested that a Deer Subsistence Simulation
Procedure could be devised that would compare some of the output of the new habitat
model with the results of the TRUCS survey. He outlined how this could be done.
However, Cellier pointed out that time for the analysis was limited, and he would
prefer having the best judgment of the experts in the room. In part, his reason for this
was Iverson’s insistence that the model be used only for relative comparisons and not
for considering actual numbers, which a comparison with real numbers from TRUCS
would result in.
Newhouse then suggested that what was needed was a coarse screen of issues to
consider for each alternative for each community, such as roads, protection for streams,
etc. After some discussion, the following criteria evolved:
1.
New urban access. Would the alternative cause increased competition from nonsubsistence users (primarily Juneau and Ketchikan) as a result of increased road
density?
2.
New rural access. Would the alternative cause increased competition for the
specific community from other rural communities?
3.
Fish streams crossed. With the assumption that an increase in road density
would result in some degradation to streams and reduction in fish production
and availability to subsistence users, this criteria considers timber harvest and
road density around each community for each alternative.
4.
Substantial part of remaining old-growth in community home range cut.
Because old-growth forest in a community’s home range is important for a
variety of subsistence resources besides deer habitat (such as berries, bark, etc.,),
the assumption was that cutting a substantial part of a particular home range
would be detrimental to subsistence users.
5.
Projected deer harvest > 10% harvest. Using the output from the new deer
habitat model, WAA's which show that on average, more than 10% of the deer in
that WAA are being harvested, should be highlighted. This could lead to a
decline in deer available for subsistence users.
Subsistence working group, 15/16 Nov. 1995 - Results - page 4 - (c:\guy\paneI\subresl)
-
For each of these criteria, a “yes” would indicate substantial negative impacts expected
for local subsistence users, while a "no" would indicate no substantial impacts expected.
The group began with Alternative 1 (alt 1), checking off ves and no, but then found
that they preferred to look at a geographic area (generally including a number of
communities) and compare alternatives for that location. Some of that discussion is
shown below, and is further broken down under the Effects Analysis for each
community.
The group agreed that (Alt 1) was the best alternative for subsistence users, and would
result in the least effect on communities of all the 9 alternatives. The only drawbacks
associated with Alt 1 were possible increased competition from recreation users from
the forest (as this alternative favored recreation), and increased subsistence use and
competition could result from timber jobs being lost and people having to rely more
heavily on subsistence resources.
2 was seen by the group to affect virtually all communities except for Elfin Cove
and Pelican. And to some lesser extent Haines and Skagway will only be affected
insofar as some of their deer hunting areas may be impacted.
Alt 3 was generally favored by the subsistence group because of the deer habitat
standards/guides in conjunction with reserves.
4 was seen by the group as inferior to alt 5, especially for communities that could be
affected by the 4 provinces of reserves in alt 5. When alt 3 is compared to alt 4 , alt 4
has the 200 year rotation, but alt 3 has reserves. The group found that each alt could be
better for some communities depending on where the community was located in
relation to reserves.
Alt 5 in general was seen as better than Alt 3 because there would be no clear-cut
harvest activity on Prince of Wales and Kuiu Islands. The group favored the oldgrowth retention component of alt 5, preferring more edge and more cover for habitat
and resources. However, in some cases Alt 3 could be better than Alt 5 because of
greater stream protection, although this point was contested by some who said that the
fish panel had seen rotation length as more important than extra stream protection, so
that alt 5 would come out ahead of alt 3. Alt 5 was also preferred to Alt 2 as the 200year rotation appears to harvest less old-growth, leaving more old-growth forest for
people to have traditional access and resource use. Alt 5 could be improved for
subsistence use by adding better riparian protection.
For Alt 6, the group saw the reserves as being an important component, although alt 5
was generally seen as better than alt 6 for subsistence users because of the longer
rotation (200 years) in Alt 5. However, in the case of certain communities (ie those
located close to that community) a local reserve was a positive influence for that
community.
Subsistence working group 15/16 Nov. 1995 - Results - page 5 - (c:\guy\panel\subresl)
Alt 7 was seen by the group as very detrimental to subsistence use in virtually ail rural
Southeast communities.
Alt 8 was seen as a little better than Alt 2 due to the reserves and buffers.
9 was seen as likely to have similar negative impacts on communities as alt 7. Alt 7
has higher ASQ meaning more old-growth forest likelv to be impacted, but better
protection of beaches and estuaries. Alts 7 & 9 were seen as equally bad for subsistence
users.
There was some discussion among the group of rating the alternatives from best to
worst in terms of subsistence, and the most likely listing was 1,5,3,6,4,8,7,9, (2 was not
recorded) although it was agreed that this was not really possible as the group was not
trying to reach consensus, and the rating would vary depending on the location of a
particular community. For this reason the group felt communities should be
considered independently, and this analysis is provided as part of the community
effects analysis writeup.
Finally there was some genera1 discussion on the variables used to distinguish between
the alternatives in the matrix handout, namely:
l
The Deer Habitat Standard and Guide was a seen as a critical element for
protecting subsistence use of the Forest;
There are implicit tradeoffs between reserves and rotation-length. A reserve
close to a community was seen as better for the community than having the
longer rotation-length for that community;
*
Longer rotations are better than shorter rotation in that they maintain understory
vegetation which contains important subsistence species, and also provides for
deer habitat. Longer rotations also maintain tree size which are important for
totem poles;
0
Reserves and longer rotations in combination is a very good mix for subsistence
use;
0
Uneven age management generally favors subsistence use. The group preferred
UM, then 2a, then ES;
*
Riparian management; the more restrictive the prescription, the better for
subsistence. Option 1 with lowest risk was favored by the subsistence group,
followed by option 2 and then option 3;
l
Beach fringe was seen by the group as a critical need for subsistence users, and
the more an alternative provided the better subsistence was protected;
Subsistence working group, 15/16 Nov. 1995 - Results - page 6 - (c:\guy\panel\subresl)
*
l
0
l
Estuary protection was also seen as very necessary for subsistence users;
Some VCU harvest threshold was seen as good by the subsistence group, with
25% better than 50% which is better than none at all;
Old growth retention. Although the concept is good it does not indicate where
the 33% is located. There was some suspicion that in some cases this percentage
may simply refer to inaccessible areas that could not be harvested. However, the
group felt that 33% is better than nothing.
Roads are very important for two reasons; one being access, and the other being
their impact on streams. A related potential effect is that of distribution - the
cumulative effect of turning off one VCU to hunting, for example, may cause
increased impact on surrounding VCU's
The working group concluded business at 4.00 p.m. on the 16th.
Subsistence working group, 15/16 Nov. 1995 - Results - page 7 - (c:\guy\panel\subresl)
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
COMMUNITY EFFECTS ANALYSIS - RESULTS OF THE
SUBSISTENCE WORKING GROUP
(c:\guy\chapter3\subeffl .doc, 11 Dec.)
After considerable discussion the Subsistence Group derived the following
indicators for assisting them in focussing on the likely effects on subsistence
resources for each community. These are listed below. However, it should
be noted that these were not the only factors taken into account by the group,
which drew heavily on their own individual experience with subsistence use
and knowledge of communities across the Tongass. The focus areas were:
1.
New urban access. Would the alternative cause increased competition
from non-subsistence users (primarily Juneau and Ketchikan) as a
result of increased road density?
2.
New rural access. Would the alternative cause increased competition
for the specific community from other rural communities?
3.
Fish streams crossed. With the assumption that an increase in road
density would result in some degradation to streams and fall off in fish
production and availability to subsistence users, this criteria considers
timber harvest and road density around each community for each
alternative.
4.
Substantial part of remaining old growth in community home range cut.
Because old growth forest in a community’s home range is important
for a variety of subsistence resources (berries, bark, etc., besides deer
habitat), the assumption was that cutting a substantial part of a
particular home range would be detrimental to subsistence users.
5.
Projected deer harvest > 10% harvest. Using the output of the new
deer habitat model, consider the WAAs which show that on average,
more than 10% of the deer in that WAA are being harvested. This
could lead to a decline in deer available for subsistence users.
For each community, the conclusions arrived at by the group are shown
below:
1/26/96, page 1
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
STIKINE AREA
Kake
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Kake due to its low impact on surrounding areas. It was
noted, however, that Kake was one the few communities that would have
some surrounding timber harvest under alternative 1. The subsistence group
saw alternative 3 as being good for subsistence use due to the deer habitat
standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. Increased
competition for subsistence resources, particularly deer, was not seen as
likely for Kake residents from people coming in off the ferry because of the
current ADF&G bag limits (two antlered deer) making the area somewhat
unattractive when compared to Admiralty Island (which has a limit of six
deer). The lack of beach fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7
and 9 were also seen as detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8
was preferred for ‘the same reason.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for Kake because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of
Wales and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
Petersburg
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods, The Subsistence
Group did not believe that Petersburg hunting areas would be affected by
increased competition from urban residents due to the current ADF&G bag
limits Mitkoff and Kupreanof Islands. The lack of beach fringe and estuary
l/26/96, page 2
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to
subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the same reason.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
Alternative 3 was preferred to alternative 6 because of the reserves around
Petersburg.
Wrangell
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy *
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels around Wrangell, particularly under alternative 7, were seen
aspotentially harmful to subsistence users due to increased competition from
access on new logging roads. The lack of beach fringe and estuary protection
under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to subsistence use,
whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the same reason.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
Alternative 3 was seen by the Subsistence Group as better than alternative 6
for Wrangell subsistence users.
l/26/96, page 3
.
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
KETCHIKAN AREA
Coffman Cove
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Cofftman Cove due to its low impact on surrounding
areas. The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for
subsistence use becuase of the deer habitat standards and guides and the
reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods, High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition
for subsistence resources, particularly deer, was seen as possible for residents
from people coming in off the ferry. The lack of beach fringe and estuary
protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to
subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for having the beach and
estuary Standards and Guides. The Honker Divide reserve designation was
also seen as a positive component of alternative 8 for Coffman Cove
residents.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for Coffman Cove because of restricted timber harvest on
Prince of Wales and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to
alternative 6 for subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under
alternative 5, as well as the uneven-aged timber management strategy which
was seen as likely to provide more mature forest edge. However, the
Subsistence Group preferred alternative 6 to alternative 3 for Coffman Cove.
Craig
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Craig, although it was noted that Craig (along with
Klawock and Kake) is one of the few communities that would have nearby
timber harvest under alternative 1. The subsistence group saw alternative 3
as also being good for subsistence use due to the deer habitat standards and
guides and the reserve strategy.
l/26/96, page 4
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were not seen as increasing competition due to
increased logging activity and roads, as logging will likely occur in areas
already roaded. Increased competition for subsistence resources was
therefore not seen as likely for residents from people coming in off the ferry.
The lack of beach fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9
were also seen as detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was
preferred for having the beach and estuary Standards and Guides. The
Honker Divide reserve designation was also seen as a positive component of ,
alternative 8 for Craig residents.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for Craig because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of
Wales Island. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5, as
well as the uneven-aged timber management strategy which was seen as
likely to provide more mature forest edge. However, the Subsistence Group
preferred alternative 6 to alternative 3 for Craig.
Edna Bay
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition
for subsistence resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents
from people coming in off the ferry. The lack of beach fringe and estuary
protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to
subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the having the beach
and estuary Standards and Guides. The Honker Divide reserve designation
was also seen as a positive component of alternative 8 for Edna Bay
residents.
l/26/96, page 5
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Resuits
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
Island. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for subsistence use
because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5, as well as the
uneven-aged timber management strategy which was seen as likely to provide
more mature forest edge. However, the Subsistence Group preferred
alternative 6 to alternative 3 for Edna Bay.
Hollis
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition
for subsistence resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents
from people coming in off the ferry. The lack of beach fringe and estuarv
protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to d
subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the same reason.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for Hollis residents because of restricted timber harvest on
Prince of Wales Island. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5, as
well as the uneven-aged timber management strategy which was seen as
likely to provide more mature forest edge. However, the Subsistence Group
preferred alternative 6 to alternative 3 for Hollis.
Hydaburg
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Hydaburg due to its low impact on surrounding areas.
The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence
use due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
l/26/96, page 6
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition
for subsistence resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents
from people coming in off the ferry and hunting in traditional areas. The lack
of beach fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also
seen as detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred
for the same reason.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for Hydaburg residents because of restricted timber harvest
on Prince of Wales Island. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative’ 6
for subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5,
as well as the uneven-aged timber management strategy which was seen as
likely to provide more mature forest edge. However, the Subsistence Group
preferred alternative 6 to alternative 3 for Hydaberg.
Hyder
The Subsistence Group saw Hyder as being largely unaffected by any of the
proposed TLMP alternatives due to Hyder’s geographic location. However,
Hyder residents do use the Tongass for gathering subsistence resources, and
as with all other Southeast subsistence communities, the Subsistence Group in
principle saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for subsistence uses
due to its low impact all areas of the Tongass.
Alternatives 2,7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. The lack of beach
fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as
detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the
same reason.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
l/26/96, page 7
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
Kasaan
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Kasaan due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. The lack of beach
fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as
detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the
same reason.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
However, for subsistence use in Kasaan, Alternative 3 was seen by the
Subsistence Group as better than alternative 6.
Klawock
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Craig, although it was noted that Klawock (along with
Craig and Kake) is one of the few communities that would have nearby
timber harvest under alternative 1. The subsistence group saw alternative 3
as also being good for subsistence use due to the deer habitat standards and
guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition
for subsistence resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents
l/26/96, page 8
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
from people coming in off the ferry and hunting in traditional areas. The lack
of beach fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also
seen as detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred
for the same reason. The Honker Divide Reserve under alternative 8 was
considered beneficial for Klawock subsistence use.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for Klawock because of restricted timber harvest on Prince
of Wales and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6
for subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5,
although alternative 6 was preferred to alternative 3.
Metlakatla
The Subsistence Group saw alternative I as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Metlakatla due to its low impact on surrounding areas.
The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence
use due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence resources. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition
for subsistence resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents
from people coming in off the ferry and hunting in traditional areas. The lack
of beach fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also
seen as detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred
for the same reason.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
Alternative 6 was preferred to alternative 3.
Meyers Chuck
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Meyers Chuck due to its low impact on surrounding
areas. The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for
l/26/96, page 9
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
subsistence use due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve
strategy.
Alternatives 2,7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition
for subsistence resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents
from people coming in off the ferry and hunting in traditional areas. The lack
of beach fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also
seen as detrimental to sub tencevuse, whereas alternative 8 was preferred
for the same reason.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for Meyers Chuck because of restricted timber harvest on
Prince of Wales and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to
alternative 6 for subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under
alternative 5, although alternative 6 was preferred to alternative 3.
Naukati Bavyy
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in old-growth
forest which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest
levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. The lack of beach
fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as
detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the
same reason. The Honker Divide Reserve under alternative 8 was considered
beneficial for Naukati Bay subsistence use.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for Naukati subsistence use because of restricted timber
harvest on Prince of Wales and Kuiu Islands. (It should be noted that the
l/26/96, page 10
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
Subsistence Group focussed purely on subsistence use, and did not consider
the potential conflict of interest between the economic base of Naukati, which
is logging, and subsistence use.) Alternative 5 was also preferred to
alternative 6 for subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under
alternative 5, although alternative 6 was preferred to alternative 3.
Point Baker
Note: The Subsistence Group did not distinguish between Point Baker and
Port Protection in their analysis of effects of the proposed alternatives
on subsistence use in these two communities. Thus, the following
description is identical to that of Port Protection.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Point Baker due to its low impact on surrounding areas.
The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence
use due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in traditional
resource-use areas of old-growth forest which provide a wide variety of
subsistence goods. High harvest levels under these alternatives were also
associated with increased competition due to increased access on logging
roads. Increased competition for subsistence resources, particularly deer,
was seen as likely for residents from people coming in off the ferry and
hunting in traditional areas, and non-rural use of these areas was seen as a
particular problem for these two communities. The lack of beach fringe and
estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to
subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the same reason. The
Honker Divide Reserve under alternative 8 was considered beneficial for
Point Baker subsistence use.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5,
although alternative 6 was preferred to alternative 3.
l/36/96, page 1 I
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
Port Protection
Note: The Subsistence Group did not distinguish between Point Baker and
Port Protection in their analysis of effects of the proposed alternatives
on subsistence use in these two communities. Thus, the following
description is identical to that of Port Protection.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 11as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Port Protection due to its low impact on surrounding
areas. The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for
subsistence use due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve
strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in traditional
resource-use areas of old-growth forest which provide a wide variety of
subsistence goods. High harvest levels under these alternatives were also
associated with increased competition due to increased access on logging
roads. Increased competitio n for subsistence resources, particularly deer,
was seen as likely for residents from people coming in off the ferry and
hunting in traditional areas, and non-rural use of these areas was seen as a
particular problem for these two communities. The lack of beach fringe and
estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to
subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the same reason. The
Honker Divide Reserve under alternative 8 was considered beneficial for Port
Protection subsistence use.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5,
although alternative 6 was preferred to alternative 3.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy
l/26/96, page 12
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due the likely reduction in old-growth forest
which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest levels
under these alternatives were also associated with increased competition due
to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition for subsistence
resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents from people
coming in off the ferry and hunting in traditional Saxman areas. The lack of
beach fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen
as detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the
same reason. The Honker Divide Reserve under alternative 8 was considered
beneficial for Saxman subsistence use.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
Thome Bay
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Thome Bay due to its low impact on surrounding areas.
The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence
use due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due the likely reduction in old-growth forest
which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest levels
under these alternatives were also associated with increased competition due
to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition for subsistence
resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents from people
coming in off the ferry. The lack of beach fringe and estuary protection under
alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to subsistence use, whereas
alternative 8 was preferred for the same reason. The Honker Divide Reserve
under alternative 8 was considered beneficial for Thome Bay subsistence use.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for Thome Bay because of restricted timber harvest on
Prince of Wales and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to
alternative 6 for subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under
alternative 5, although alternative 6 was preferred to alternative 3.
l/26/96, page 13
9
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
Whale Pass
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due the likely reduction in old-growth forest
which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. The Subsistence Group
saw alternative 7 as particularly bad for Whale Pass subsistence use because
of further impacts on an area that has already been heavily harvested. High
harvest levels under these alternatives were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition
for subsistence resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents
from people coming in off the ferry. The lack of beach fringe and estuary
protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to
subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the same reason. The
Honker Divide Reserve under alternative 8 was considered beneficial for
Whale Pass subsistence use.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 4 and alternative 5 as being better
than alternative 3 for because of restricted timber harvest on Prince of Wales
and Kuiu Islands. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
l/26/96, page 14
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
CHATHAM AREA
Angoon
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Angoon due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due the likely reduction in old-growth forest
which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest levels
under these alternatives were also associated with increased competition due
to increased access on logging roads. Increased competition for subsistence
resources, particularly deer, was seen as a particular problem for Angoon
under alternative 7 with the high harvest levels, with a likely influx of people
coming in off the ferry and hunting in Angoon's traditional areas, Catherine
Island was seen as especially vulnerable. The lack of beach fringe and
estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to
subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the same reason.
Alternatives 5 and 6 were considered better than alternative 3 for Angoon.
although alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for subsistence use
because of its longer timber rotation.
Elfin Cove
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Elfin Cove due to its low impact on surrounding areas.
The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence
use due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2 and 7 were seen as likely to cause little impact on Elfin Cove
subsistence resources.
Alternative 9 was the only alternative seen by the Subsistence Group as
potentially detrimental to subsistence users in Elfin Cove. The lack of beach
fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as
detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the
same reason.
l/26/96, page 15
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
Alternative 5 was preferred to alternative 6 for subsistence use because of the
longer timber rotation under alternative 5, although alternative 6 was
preferred to alternative 3.
Gustavus
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Gustavus due to its low impact on surrounding areas.
The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence
use due to the deer habitat standards and guides in combination with the
reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due the likely reduction in old-growth forest
which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest levels-particularly on Point Adolphus-were also associated with increased
competition due to increased access on logging roads. The lack of beach
fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as
detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was preferred for the
same reason.
Alternative 5 was preferred to alternative 6 for subsistence use because of the
longer timber rotation under alternative 5, although alternative 6 was
considered better than alternative 3 for Gustavus users.
Haines Borough
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Haines due to its low impact on habitat across the forest.
As with Skagway, Haines residents come South to hunt and fish, and
therefore the group felt that the alternatives generally providing better
protection for fish and game would favor subsistence users in Haines.
In general, the subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for
subsistence use due to the deer habitat standards and guides in combination
with the reserve strategy. The lack of beach fringe and estuary protection
under alternatives 7 and 9 were seen as potentially detrimental to Haines
hunters and fishers through there possible impact on habitat, whereas
alternative 8 was preferred for the same reason. Alternative 5 was preferred
to alternative 6 for subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation.
l/26/96, page 16
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
Hoonah
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Hoonah due to its low impact and protection of remaining
old growth areas around Hoonah. The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as
also being good for subsistence use due to the deer habitat standards and
guides and the reserve strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due the likely reduction in old-growth forest
which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest levels
under these alternatives were also associated with increased competition due
to increased access on logging roads in addition to Hoonah’s already
extensive road network. Increased competition for subsistence resources,
particularly deer, was seen as very likely for Hoonah residents from people
coming in off the ferry and hunting in traditional subsistence areas. The
potential for additional roads linking Hoonah to Tenakee Sound was
additionally seen as reason for concern. The lack of beach fringe and estuary
protection under alternatives 7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to
subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was marginally preferred.
Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative 6 for subsistence use because
of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
Pelican
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Pelican due to its low impact on the forest.
While alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group
as detrimental to subsistence users in most communities, the group saw
Pelican as being largely unaffected because of the likely location of future
harvest.
Port Alexander
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Port Alexander due to its low impact on surrounding
areas.
l/26/96, page 17
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due the likely reduction in old-growth forest
which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. However, given Port
Alexander’s location and subsistence resource use patterns (see the maps in
Appendix K), the group saw little likely effect under these altematives for
residents besides some potential impact to trapping in Kuiu Island.
In general, the subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for
subsistence use due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve
strategy, whereas the lack of beach fringe and estuary protection under
alternatives 7 and 9 were seen as detrimental to subsistence use, while
alternative 8 was preferred. The group also preferred alternative 5 because of
the longer timber rotation. These potential effects can be generally applied to
Port Alexander use areas.
Sitka
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Sitka due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy whereby
Nokasina Passage is protected.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen by the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due to the likely reduction in much of the oldgrowth forest which currently provides a wide variety of subsistence goods
for Sitka residents. The group did not foresee increased urban competition,
but could see increased rural access resulting in further competition for
resources. The lack of beach fringe and estuary protection under alternatives
7 and 9 were also seen as detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative
8 was preferred for the same reason. Alternative 8 was also seen as better
than alternative 2 for Sitka subsistence use.
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 5 as preferable to alternative 6 for
subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative 5.
Skagway
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Skagway due to its low impact on habitat across the
forest. As with Haines, Skagway residents come South to hunt and fish, and
l/26/96, page 18
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
therefore the group felt that the alternatives generally providing better
protection for fish and game would favor subsistence users in Skagway. As
noted above, however, per capita subsistence harvest is relatively low, with
very little deer harvest. None of the alternatives are therefore likely to impact
severly on Skagway subsistence use.
Tenakee Springs
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Tenakee Springs due to its low impact on surrounding
areas. The subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for
subsistence use due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve
strategy.
Alternatives 2, 7 and 9 were generally seen bv the Subsistence Group as
detrimental to subsistence users due the likely;- reduction in old-growth forest
which provides a wide variety of subsistence goods. High harvest levels
under these alternatives were also associated with increased competition due
to increased access on logging roads. Although Increased competition for
subsistence resources, particularly deer, was seen as likely for residents from
people coming in off the ferry and hunting in traditional Tenakee areas. The
group was also concerned with the potential for new access from Hoonah
under the more intense alternatives.
The lack of beach fringe and estuary protection under alternatives 7 and 9
were also seen as detrimental to subsistence use, whereas alternative 8 was
preferred for the same reason. Alternative 5 was also preferred to alternative
6 for subsistence use because of the longer timber rotation under alternative
5. The group also saw alternative 3 as better for Tenakee than alternative 6.
Yakutat
The Subsistence Group saw alternative 1 as offering the best potential for
subsistence users in Yakutat due to its low impact on surrounding areas. The
subsistence group saw alternative 3 as also being good for subsistence use
due to the deer habitat standards and guides and the reserve strategy.
The question of access and competition in the forest was not seen bv the
subsistence group as critical for Yakutat, where the hunting is for moose,
which is already highly regulated, and which will not be impacted by any of
the proposed alematives. The substantial subsistence reliance on seafood
l/26/96, page 19
Subsistence working group of 15/16 November 1995, Results
harvesting around Yakutat was not seen by the group as being affected by the
alternatives.
l/26/96, page 20
Scribe’s notes - Subsistence Working group: starting lpm on November 15, 1995
Chris Iverson Guy Cellier, Jack Kruse, Hank, Cindy, Larry Robertson, Ron Dunlap
Introduction by Guy: First hear about deer and fish panel results, question, and then have
general discussion of alternatives and Affects on subsistence. There is currently no formal
process and no indicators to evaluate. There are 30 communities, we have summaries of
each.
Today give thought to what the different components of alternatives would do for deer
and fish, and not necessarily by community. Where are the intersections.
Information needed, that would be helpful is the 10 year project list, especially for timber
harvesting. We can get a list of the miles of roads build in the 1st decade by VCU??
We need a VCU map of the roads query or at the very least a blank VCU map
FISH STUFF
Ron Dunlap - Fish assessment panel
discussion of handout
4 possible outcomes for fish and for physical ecosystem
How does management effect the physical attributes that are directly related to fish
production?
Viability of the fish species - thriving to extirpation
More fish handouts
Cut throat Anadromous and resident
dolly Varden - andromous and resident
coho salmon
steelhead -
all the above are combined into stream rearing species
chinook
chum and pink are ocean rearing
sockeye
the fish panel rated each alternative for each of these species.
So... a 92 is that the group felt that out of 100 point, they assigned 92 point to alt 1, so
they are very certain that management of alt 1 would not greatly effect the species. Alt 1
will have a very low risk in alt 1.
The panel had 2 hydros and 5 fishy people. The hydros rated on different, physical
outcomes that the fish people.
Of interest: none of the alternatives for the physical fell into the outcome 1.. . so there will
be effects with any management options, There will be channel degradation. The least
impact is alt 1, then 5,4, 3, 6, in order of increasing risk to fish. Then 8,9,7 with the
increase in harvest with different standards and guides.
the standard and guides were being valued almost more than just the colors on the map.
Alt 2 has the lowest protection measures, although alt 7 has highest ASQ
to the fish people there is some high probability that outcome 1, no real effect, can be
done under the management options.
Chinook - big river, mainland streams - so they were considered less effected by the
alternatives.
Sockeye and ocean rearing fish - there is more effect than in the Chinook, but less than
stream rearing. The use of lakes for spawning and rearing, lakes are less likely to be
effected by management than streams.
What is the sensitivity of commercial fishing and subsistence fishing.
Ocean rearing fish - common trends, 1,5,4,3,6,8,2. . . the magnitude of the effect changes
among fish species. The greater risk and lower average outcomes are assigned to coho,
cut throat, dolly varden, steelhead. POW is catch and release, but at least having them
there it is important to the subsistence communities.
Factors of fish rating: Rotation, Roads, Reserves, Riparian Protection. Roads and
rotation are highly correlated.
FHIPS - values assigned to watershed, then transferred to VCU Values to sportfishing
(60%) and the rest to commercial fishing. Subjective as well as physical condition. No
subsistence consideration in the analysis. End with ranked VCU's - 1/3 are high level, and
high protection, the wilderness and ludII were not considered as they are already
protected. Revisiting and looking at the indicators use, and will be adding subsistence and
fish considerations.
How are the changes of habitat associated with change in fish production - is it linear?
Based on the loss of large wood in the streams system. Large wood was leaving at a slow
but steady rate. Simplify system and fish rearing habitat will be lost. With 100 foot
buffers, consider what we are doing on greater slopes - upstream channels, roads with an
immediate effect/impact.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of roads? For people, for species, for fish.. .
for subsistence? This will be a huge part of discussion. It varies by community, depends
on past access, and if the new roads open up a previous area that had been closed.
DEER STUFF
Chris Iverson tells of the deer panel outcomes
Deer is an issue because there is agreement that roads and harvest does effect deer
populations- not so set on effects of management on other resources.
Deer habitat capability model - a suitability model, rating attributes ability to provide deer
winter range. High quality elements receive a high HSI score. After the statistically
analysis of the timtype map.. . the model is usable with old 4 vol. Classes. With updated
timtype h.m.l vol classes. Combining with soils map. So... rebuilt model - collapsing into
3 vol. classes. No explicit wildlife objective in the past, so looking for an objective for
what we want to produce before doing the analysis to see ‘what is left’. Combining the
use of deer (all human uses from 87-94) All land is included in reports, adjusted for land
in WAA that is just federal lands. Adjusted by % of productive forest lands on non-forest
service and forest service. THIS IS CAPABILITY.. . NOT POPULATION, the two are
not usually linkable, population will fluctuate around the HSI score through the years.
Optimum deer habitat will support 75 deer/acre. And as slope decreases, or habitat
attributes decrease, the HSI score will decrease. A 10% level of harvest is the best for
continuing high harvests. It is very conservative. 20% is sustainable and still efficient.
There are limitations of the approach - there are problems showing that are not habitat
related, more mgt., demand, access, modeling outside conditions beyond our control, the
populations is low, but stacked into the habitat, access of people to the areas with winter
habitat.
there is a hunter capability as well.
It would be good to look at the WAA ‘s with high harvest that may be adjacent to other
was that are supplying the winter habitat. So that it is a more natural break of habitat
instead of a WAA break alone.
In defining between Forest service land and private land - depending on the method,
answers will have different effects. Is better to use the average or the current use and use
a trend based on population growth
Handout of S&G’s
To have a specific wildlife objective:
NO - business as usually, no need to meet an actual objective, 2, 7,8, 9
YES - puts in standard and guides... moving target with most current/updated data.
Maintain all deer habitat with waas that are over 20% - timber harvest will be turned off in
each of the yes alternative. Except the uneven age management. Maintain waas with HSI
score of the highest deer habitat to maintain what is left of the remaining The upper 25%
of the most important habitat winter ranger. These waas are then turned off for harvest.
It has built in flexibility for districts to swap better on the ground habitat for modeled
habitat.
Panel assessment - not really a risk assessment as deer are not at risk.
Each panelist built a new model, then the scores were averages, compared with ‘new
model coefficients and then it was run as a new, new model. Numbers were run again. If
the model numbers is to be used: need to be aware of assumptions. Better to use % or
relative change - not THE number of deer - that isn’t what the model tells us. Assumes
constant harvest demand and no redistribution of demand. The limiting factor is still the
winter range for deer populations. The model does not account for what happens to the
deer the rest of year - reproduction and hunting. It is the minimum deer we have to make
withdrawals on. 100 pregnant deer, normal winter = 196 fauns by spring with a 60%
mortality - no info on bucks, reported 3 : 1, so on an annual bases of 100 does, expect at
least 40 more does by the spring.
Criteria of what we will be using to evaluate the alternatives. How far out is far enough
for cumulative effects. Long enough for your children to be able to harvest deer - 20 year
period. Chris will try to run a 10 year period numbers, but not expecting a large or
meaningful change. The incremental change will be little to none, but the cumulative
effects could be great.
NOVEMBER 16, 1995
Deer Subsistence Simulation Suggested Procedures:
1- Start with ADF&G file of 1989- 1994
2- Add 92-94 data and recompute means
3- Compare 84-94 mean harvest with TRUCS harvest by community. Flag means which
.
are less than [50%] of TRUCS estimates.
4- For flagged means, examine 84-94 annual data for evidence of under or non-reporting
a. Recalculate means to exclude outliers
b. Where systematic underreporting, multiply WAA means by ratio of TRUCS
deer harvest by community mean.
5- Identify fewest WAA's that account for [90%] of harvest.
6- Calculate projected demands by community by WS using SE CHICH method
( I. 14%/yr) for IO - 100 years.
7- Calculate total rural, total urban, total non-resident by WAA.
8- Obtain deer habitat capability model output for 10- 100 years. Using 6 expert
coefficients, [. 75] deer/acre
9- calculate 1995 percentages of deer harvested by WAA
-total, urban, rural, and non resident
discuss doe vs. Buck hunting areas
10- Calculate total 2005, 2095 percentages by WAA for
Decide if you adjust here for WAAS with high percentages but where deer are
temporarily higher concentrations.
1 1 - Identify:
a. WAA'S already above 20% pp harvest N, see 9]
b. WAA'S already 10- 19% pp harvested
c. WAA’s which by [2005,2095]
i. Change from < 10% to >10%
ii. Change from >10% and , 2 0 % to ge 20%
12- Flag WAA's implicated by hall map analysis
13- For WAA's identified as i, or ii in 12,
.
a. Which WAA’s are community 90% fWAA's by community
b. For ‘a’ WAA's
I. % of harvest = community, other rural, urban, non-resident
14- Qualitative analysis
a. Possible redistribution of demand - competition
b. Possible redistribution of demand - effort
THEN: Community conclusions
It may be more important that we interpreter the qualitative analysis for each community
to show the impacts of the alternatives. More important than crunching numbers to
determine waas to leave out of the timber base. Need to show effects of alternatives
NEXT:
1. Deer Procedure/demand model % change
2. Subsistence s/g’ s
3. Coarse Screen: by alternative
- stream rear fish
-riparian habitat
- 100/200 rotations
-roads
4. Fine screen - by community/place
+ the trucs data will revival more, better data than the ADF&G numbers with face to face
interviewing. We now know where and for what we are under or over reporting, it is a
way for us to validate our harvest numbers. The differences between communities are
used to model decisions. BUT the community people tell us not to use trucs because they
lied on trucs. But the mail in survey is high in non response.
We can tell where on the ground that is important for the people, we know where they are
using the forest, the habitat.. . maybe not how many they are killing there
Need to capture in the plan, what the experts and experience consider of the altematives.
Do we want an overall up or down for forest wide subsistence and then what the
alternative does for each community?
Do we want a narrative - or a ranking matrix of 3 or so ‘things’ that matter for
subsistence? Have to separate out fish from deer from other subsistence.
TED: from chatham area.. . list of WAA's in alts without S/Gs and without protection will
be badly impacted.
Road system- hoonah is the community that is most effected - tenakee and hoonah
There is a problem of access and distribution - cumulative effect of turning off one VCU
and then hammering the heck out of surrounding VCU's needs some considerations.
More quantitative analysis is needed with the qualitative to ensure the impacts of timber
and roads is not destroying the community areas.
Moving on to the rating of ail communities by alt 1.
Only yes = substanial effect to subsistence users in the negative from the communities
perspective - (it may have good effects for the urban communities)
no = no substantial effect to subsistence users.
Criteria;
New urban access - access increased for non rural users into subsistence use areas, any
roads that are accessed by ferry is this just negative considerations, is there any positive
elements to increasing access to the community?? For the most part... it will be considered
negative effect on subsistence for the community
New Rural Access - brings in another community or logging camp into their community
area - roads are allowing more people
Crossing fish streams due to harvest - road building. Gives increased access as well as
increased impacts to the fish resource
OG cut in home range - based on trues use areas, looking for traditional use areas for the
community - lose of OG will impact their resource use associated with the forest.
ANGOON:
all no’s - alternative 1 has no substantial effect on angoon's subsistence uses.
For alternative 1, all except KAKE KLAWOCK and CRAIG
KAKE-all no’s
CRAIG - road access, the timber harvesting to occur is in the area they harvest in heavily,
but the harvesting will be where roads are already located.
KLAWOCK - similar use areas to Craig, harvesting will be occurring there, but with low
impact harvesting, no real impact.
Discussion on alt 1 - this is the best alternative for all subsistence communities. The least
amount of effect. We know that subsistence is a part of peoples income, but if the
alternative greatly limits jobs so that may have a great negative impact due to reduction of
income. And with greater recreation focus... there will be more competition between rural
and non resident and the subsistence users.
Alternative 2
communities which will not be effected by alt.2
Elfin Cove, Pelican,
Haines and Skagway only ‘come down’ for deer harvest, not other types of subsistence
uses. So the only thing that would impact them would be the deer habitat - if the
alternatives cares for the habitat, their harvest level will be protected.
Alt 5 with 200 year rotation appears to harvest less og, more green left meaning more
green for people to have traditional access and resource use.
Alternative 7 Elfin cove, pelican, same as alt2
Hoonah - Bad news for their subsistence, the last of their old growth will be gone.
Fishing is not protected within the FHIPS, access is totally opened up - into tenekee
springs, more roads off ferry system, road connection of port fredrick with tenekee
sound. . .
Tenekee Springs - new rural access and competition, fish impact and a depletion of old
growth, but there are ludII's which are their key use areas, but areas will get increased
competition.
Angoon will receive huge infection of people from other islands as the og is harvested.
Lots of competition. Fishing opportunities decrease, their traditional og use on admiralty
will be intact, but Catherine island will be devastated and that is an important traditional
use.
Sitka - no new urban access - that is positive. Rural access is increase, as well as the
competition from others, and themselves Fish streams will be impacted and their
traditional og areas will be devastated
Port Alexander - getting off the island is dangerous in the winter, so only trapping on Kuiu
would be effected, but the rest of their issues, no effect
Haines -for purposes of deer - it is a yes. With increase in access, they will be effected by
displaced communities.. . greater competition. Old growth is not effected in their area,
only affected by state sales, not by our sales.
Skagway - deer harvest would be effected by habitat and the access of other communities
with increased competition in what habitat is left. Fishing and old growth not effected.
Kake - Devastated. And they are angry! With harvest regs, the outsides coming in will
not be an issue for deer hunting, no road connections to other communities. Other people
may be coming in for other resources besides deer and creating some competition for
Kake, with the increase in the road building.
Petersburg - Where don’t they hunt ? there will be increased urban competition and more
interest with the increase in road building.. . more places to ride a 3 wheeler and hunt with
little to no effort.
Port protection/point baker - Heavy harvesting in traditional areas. Road development
and increase in competition.. . lots of non rural use.
Wrangell -over harvested- devastated
Whale Pass - devastated, already have a problem waa, small community with small harvest
surrounding area will be harvested heavily
Edna Bay - also devastated
Coffman Cove - 5 yes votes for the criteria
Thome Bay - 5 yes votes - already harvested a lot and will have more taken
Klawock, Craig, Kasaan, Hollis, Hydaberg - 5 yes votes
Hyder - status quo
Saxman - 5 yes votes
Metlakatla - 5 yes votes
Meyers Chuck - 5 yes votes
Gustav-us - harvest in part of their major use of deer harvest. Point Adolphis will be greatly
harvested. And this will be upsetting for gustavus. Their og will be effected and their
access will be effected with the increase in competition.
Yakutat harvest will not effect access, people will come in to hunt moose, but there is
great regulation. Still their subsistence use of moose will be effected by the harvest level
fishing no effected??.
Alternative 7 this alternative will create great havoc for subsistence users
The ratings for alternative 7 and 9 will be the same for all communities, but alternative
9 is actually a little better. 7’s asq is higher. BUT 9 has no beach fringe or estuary buffer
- and that is a very bad thing for subsistence. Hard to say which is better - they are both
very bad in terms of subsistence resources.
Alt 8 is a little better than 2
it has reseveres, and extended beach buffers.
Whale Pass, Coffman Cove, Thome Bay will be in better shape in 8 than 2 or 7 or 9
because of the honker divide reserve.. . improves their condition - klawock, craig and edna
bay. Most north POW is better off in 8
South POW is also better of with more reserve and more og protection
Sitka will also be better off with 8
Hoonah is not really improved by 8, not worst, but not a great deal. It is a marginal
change.
Alternative 3
We love 3 with the deer habitat standards/guides and reserves.
It is better for sitka with the reserves, and vcu’s of heavy impact turned off. Nockasina
passage is protected.
The alt3 deer s/g vcu’s selection does not seem to be working.
Alternative 5
in general it is better than 3 because no harvest activity on POW and Kuiu
oldgrowth retention is a good thing in 5 - more edge, more cover for habitat and
resources. Visualize will suffer greatly in all alternatives.
Vcu threshold, done for the constraint of forplan to consume all - it is a constraint for
for-plan to only schedule 1/4 of a watershed every 50 years.
In general 5 is better than 3 - with these exceptions:
sitka, better to have more surrounding reserves turned on. And 6 is better than 3
Kake - 5 is better than 3 and 6 - not a big difference between 3 and 6
for fish subsistence, 3 is better than 5 because- only one with opt 1stream protection, with
rotation, trading off with road impacts. fish people rated rotation more importantly that
riparian with rotation you trade off with reserves, one or the other.
Alternative 6 The differences between 5,6 and 3 is the reserves that are turned on around some
communities.
6 is better than 3 for everyone . . . . except
skagway,haines, hoonah, tenakee angoon, sitka, wrangell, Petersburg, whale pass, saxman,
kasaan
5 is clearly superior to 6 with the longer rotation
Alternative 4
no contest -‘with no reserves - 5 is much better than 4,
5 is better than 4 especially for northern POW’s, Hoonah, - those communities that are
within the reserve providences and within listed reserves.check your handout for listing.
Alternative 3 and 4 , 4 has the 200 year rotation, but 3 has reserves, 3 would be better
than 4 in the same cases that 3 is better than 5 due to the included reserves. 3 is better
than 4 for northern POW, it really is kinda a wash. Which is better, reserves with a
concentrated harvest, or a lighter touch all over???
4 is especially better than 3 for Kake for the same reasons that 5 is better than 3
a standard overall rating, 1,5,3,6,4,8,7,9
And now for a little summary and discussion:
what did we considered is
the DEER HABITAT GUIDE LINE is the MOST important part of the whole 9 yards.
implicit tradeoffs between reserves and rotation - if the reserve is close to a community
then it was better for the community than having the longer rotation period - for that
community.
Longer rotation is better than shorter rotation - maintain understory veg, subsistence plant
use maintain tree size, totem poles, habitat is maintained,
Reserves and longer rotation in combination is a very good mix for subsistence
uneven age management has a more instant effect on harvest and habitat. Rated as 1- urn,
2-2a and3. es
Riparian - the more restrictive the rx, the better for subsistence. Option 1 lowest risk and
is our favorite.. then option 2, option 3
Beach - beach fringe is a critical need for subsistence the more the better
Estuary is definitely necessary for the subsistence use
alt5 could be made better by adding in better riparian - and that would better meet
subsistence needs.
Alt3 - bad because it is 100 year rotation , it is 2a
harvest threshold is good - with 25% better than 50% which is better than none
old growth retention you leave some % by vcu that should be left , all the stuff that needs
to be left, ripiarain, high risk slopes, beach fringe, no actual reserves- just stuff that gets
left cause they can’t get to it. But in any case, old growth retention: this is kinda throw
away. There is just 33% left, but it doesn’t indicate a hands off. But 33% is better than
nothing. And it is the threshold used to turn off vcu’s from harvest- if they are already
greater than 33%.
Roads: access of communities and to communities, and the impact on streams and the fish
resource and habitat.