United States
Department of
Agriculture
Reply To: RS-G-b
Forest
Service
Tongass National Forest
Forest Plan Interdisciplinary Team
8465 Old Dairy Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 586-8700
Date: May 7, 1997
Subject:
Summary of the 1997 Fish Habitat Risk Assessment Panel
To:
Tongass Land Management Plan (TLMP) Planning File
From:
Ron Dunlap, T L M P IDT; Panel Resource Specialist
INTRODUCTION
A panel of four fisheries experts was convened on April 7 and 8, 1997 in Juneau, Alaska to assess levels of
risk to fish habitat associated with seven management alternatives from the TLMP Revision. Panel evaluators
were asked to provide professional judgments regarding the effects of full implementation for 100 years of
each alternative on the likelihood of maintaining habitat sufficient to support sustainable production of several
fish species.l! The judgment of effects considered:
l
the likelihood that management activities will degrade existing fish habitat
0 the likelihood that management activities will maintain current distributions of fish habitat
l
the likelihood that currently degraded habitats will recover during the 100-year period
These elements are expressed in five possible outcomes that were evaluated for each management alternative.
The panel was convened primarily to examine Alternatives 10 (RSDEIS Preferred Alternative) and 11 (FEIS
Preferred Alternative) that were not previously paneled.
The experts participating in this assessment also participated in the previous fish habitat risk assessment panel
held in November, 1995. Panel evaluators integrated their personal experience and knowledge of fish ecology
with technical information and details presented on TLMP alternatives. Using this information, they
developed professional judgments regarding likely outcomes related to the management scenarios inherent in
each alternative.
Generally the issues identified and discussed during this assessment were the same or similar to those
identified and discussed during the 1995 panel assessment. (Authors note: not all issues discussed during the
1995 panel assessment were re-addressed during the 1997 panels. Some of these issues appear to have been
omitted from the 1997 discussions because the issues were still fresh in the panel evaluators’ minds from the
1995 effort and they were simply not addressed again in detail. Important issues will be included by the
author as notes where necessary to explain differences between the 1995 and 1997 panels.) The panel
assessment process, including the list of participants in this assessment, is provided in Appendix 1.
1/
In this regard the fish panel is different from the various wildlife panels in that they evaluated the risk to providing
habitat sufficient to support well distributed, viable populations rather than a level of sustainable harvest well
distributed across the forest.
PRIMARY ISSUES OF CONCERN
Roads
The effect of roads on fish habitat was a paramount concern of panel evaluators across all alternatives and
species. The experts believed that, of all management actions proposed, roads presented the greatest risk to
degradation of fish habitat and thus effects on fishery resources. In general, the panel concluded that the risk
of roads damaging habitat increased directly with the slope of the terrain being roaded. Concern was
expressed that roads constructed on slopes classed as mass movement index 3 (MMI3) would cause
accelerated mass and surface erosion and subsequent sedimentation in fish habitat. A reduction of road
development in any alternative reduces risks to fish habitat.
Panel evaluators expressed concern that stream crossing structures, especially culverts, may block movement
of fish, particularly juveniles, and result in a long term reduction in available habitat to fish. Panel evaluators
had concern with both upstream and downstream fish passage.
Increased risk of over harvest of fish due to improved road access was a final concern that panel evaluators
expressed regarding road development. Small populations (of any fish species) in general were considered to
be at risk of over harvest due to improved access via roads. Particular fish spawning populations. such as
steelhead trout and sockeye, and resident populations of cutthroat trout were thought to be susceptible to over
harvest by anglers. even when initial populations are not small. (Authors note: panel evaluators were
instructed to focus their assessment on fish habitat issues. Increased harvest due to improved road access to
salmonid populations, one might argue, is an issue exogenous to fish habitat. However, because panel
evaluators expressed concerns about increased access and because the location of new roads (e.g., placing
them close to or farther away from riparian areas) and the management of access via roads are within the
authority of the Forest Service, these panel comments are included in this report.)
Prince of Wales Island, Kuprenoff Island, Kuiu Island and Chichagof Island were singled out by panel
evaluators as currently having road densities sufficient to be a concern for maintaining adequate fish habitat.
Timber Harvest
The total acres of timber to be harvested in an alternative had the second highest influence on the panel
evaluators’ opinions regarding risks to fish habitat. Risks to fish habitat increased as the number of acres
harvested increased. Panel evaluators expressed a concern that windfirm buffers may be difficult to design
and suggested monitoring and additional research to address this concern.
Reserves
Panel evaluators identified reserves as contributing in a general sense to the reduction in risk to stocks. The
presence of reserves served to reduce the number of acres available for harvest within a given watershed and
therefore may reduce risk to a specific population of fish. Panel evaluators did, however, say that a true fish
reserve system should be designed around a meta-population concept. Protection of individual stocks may not
insure adequate protection of fish habitats over the long run (centuries). Panel evaluators also stated that
having reserves in a watershed may be better for fish than not having reserves, but reserves still may not
insure protection of watershed function.
In addition, panel evaluators expressed concern that to be effective in protecting fish habitat, reserves needed
to encompass entire watersheds rather than only parts of watersheds. Protection of less than an entire
watershed left watershed function vulnerable to changes due to management activities.
3
Alternative 10
Similar to alternative 5, panel evaluators believed that alternative 10 did not provide enough riparian
protection. Although Option 2 riparian protection provides adequate riparian protection measures, it is
applied to a relatively small portion of the landscape (FHIP I areas only). The remainder of the fish habitats
(about 80%) receive only option 3 level of protection.
Panel evaluators also stated that the projected level of harvest in old-growth and the associated development
of roads over the next 100 years caused them to assign more likelihood points to outcomes III and IV than
they might otherwise have done.
Alternative 11
The relatively few miles of roads projected to be constructed and the moderate levels of timber to be harvested
over the next 100 years reduce risks of degradation to fish habitat. Panel evaluators also believed that the
forest-wide application of a relatively high level of riparian protection (2a) reduced the risks to fish habitat.
Alternative Summary
For all fish species evaluated, the order of ranking by alternative was similar. Generally, ranking from least
risk to fish habitat to greatest risk to fish habitat by alternative was 1, 11, 5, 10,2, 9, 9’. For steelhead and
resident Dolly Varden, alternatives 11 and 5 were reversed while ratings for sockeye and chinook were the
same for alternatives 11 and 5.
Based on the mean sum of scores for outcomes I & II, alternatives 1, 5, 10, and 11 were grouped noticeably
higher than were alternatives 2, 9, and 9’ for the stream-rearing species--coho salmon, steelhead trout,
cutthroat trout, and Dolly Varden char. Groupings also occur for the ocean-rearing pink salmon and chum
salmon. However, in the grouping for these species, alternative 2 is included at the tail end of the higher
group. This shift is likely attributed to a lower importance being placed on riparian protection for these fish
as compared to stream-rearing fish. Alternatives are clustered at a relatively high level for sockeye and
chinook salmon. As previously discussed this result is attributed to the freshwater habitats for these fish
being more capable of buffering management impacts.
FEATURES
Panel evaluators rated features used to design alternatives for their importance to maintaining fish habitat
(Appendis 3.) The rating of these features provides additional insight into the panel evaluators thoughts
regarding the assignment of likelihood points to different outcomes in the various alternatives. Consistent
with the evaluators assignment and discussions of likelihood points, the features which represent potential
negative impacts to fish habitat were rated as very detrimental. These features are timber harvesting
(including acres harvested on steep slopes (MMI3) and road and access management.
Features that remove acres from consideration for timber harvesting activities were considered to be
important positive features in maintaining fish habitat. One exception is the small island protection feature
in alternative 11. Panel evaluators indicated that small islands (<1,000 acres) do not have significant fish
habitat. Longer rotations were thought to be positive features while high levels of riparian protection were
critical to maintaining fish habitat. Watershed analysis was rated conceptually as a positive feature but
evaluators noted that only alternative 11 included this feature. Firmness of standards and guidelines and
monitoring were features which were rated as important positive features by two of the panel evaluators and
as a critical feature by the other two evaluators. Generally the appraisal of the alternative features were
consistent with the panel evaluators scores and the notes taken of their discussion.
11
.
Appendix 1. The Panel Assessment Process
List of panel evaluators, facilitator, resource specialists, scribe, and silent observer
Facilitator:
Gordon Reeves, Research Fish Scientist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA-FS, Corvalis
Oregon.
Evaluators:
Dolloff, Research Fish Scientist, Southern Research Station, USDA-FS Blacksburg, Virginia.
Steve Elliott, Research Fish Biologist, Sport Fish Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Douglas, Alaska.
Jeff Kershner, National Aquatic Ecologist, USDA-FS, Logan, Utah.
Mike Murphy, Fish Biologist, National Marine Fishery Service, Auke Bay Laboratory, Juneau,
Alaska.
Andy
Resource Specialists:
Ron Dunlap, Alaska Region Fish Habitat Relationship Coordinator, USDA-FS, Juneau, Alaska.
Steve Kessler, Tongass Land Management Team - Assistant Team Leader, USDA-FS, Juneau,
Alaska.
Rick Woodsmith, Research Hydrologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station - Forest Sciences
Laboratory, USDA-FS, Juneau, Alaska.
Scribe:
Cal Casipit, Alaska Regional Fish Program Leader, USDA-FS, Juneau, Alaska.
Silent Observer:
Lynn Humphrey, Recreation Resources Specialist, Tongass Land Management Team, USDA-FS,
Juneau, Alaska.
List of information provided to panel evaluators
l
0
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Overview video of forest planning: Bruce Rene’, TLMP.
Overview presentation of alternatives; Chris Iverson: TLMP (including the handout copy of overheads
used “Tongass Land Management Plan Framework for Alternative, Panel Assessments. Spring, 1997”)
Tongass Maps illustrating 7 alternatives and land use designations (I. 2. 5. 9, 9’. 10 and 11): 1954
productive old growth; 1995 productive old growth abundance and distribution and second growth;
anticipated old growth condition in 2095 for all alternatives.
Controlling Stability Characteristics of Steep Terrain with Discussion of Needed Standardization of Mass
Movement Hazard Indexing: A Resource Assessment by Douglas Swanston.
Evaluation of the Use of Scientific Information in Developing the Final Alternative for the Tongass Land
Management Plan (Everest et. al. 1997)
Conceptual Approaches for Maintaining Well-Distributed, Viable Wildlife Populations: A Resource
Assessment (Iverson and Rene 1997 in GTR #392).
Multivariate Geomorphic Analysis of Forest Streams: Implications for Assessment of Land Use Impacts
on Channel Condition. Publication in Earth Surface Processes and Landforms by R. Woodsmith.
Evaluation of the Use of Scientific Information in Developing the Final alternative for the Tongass Land
Management Plan. Draft report by Everest, Swanston, Shaw, Smith, Julin, and Allen.
Risk Assessment Panels as a component of the TLMP Revision Process; information on the process.
12
l
Map of the Tongass
Scientific information and the Tongass Land Management Plan: Key Findings From the Scientific
Literature, Species Assessments. Resource Analysis, Workshops, and Risk Assessment Panels. PNW
GTR # 386.
Summary of the Revised Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan - goals and objectives, fish and riparian
related standards and guidelines, resource schedules, and appendix J (watershed analysis direction).
Channel Type User Guide, Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska, (R10-TP-26, 4/92)
General Information Sheet
Forest Description
water resources
riparian resources
wilderness designation
mass movement index ratings
total past timber harvest acres
past timber harvest map
past timber harvest by mass movement index
estimated past harvest in riparian areas
miles of existing roads
Alternative components (All numbers refer only to VCU’s with scheduled timber harvest unless other
wise indicated.)
# VCU’s with timber harvest scheduled
total acres of VCU’s with timber harvest scheduled
acres scheduled for harvest
miles of existing roads
miles of new roads (100 yr.)
road density/sq.mi.
miles of temporary roads
miles of streams classed PHIP I, class 1,2 & 3
miles of streams classed FHIP I, class 1
total stream miles
total class 1 stream miles
total class 2 stream miles
total class 3 stream miles
Riparian management levels by alternative
Overview of Riparian Standards and Guidelines
Diagrammed examples of riparian buffers
Channel type user guide
Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment
Best Management Practices
Harvest Threshold Summary
Watershed Analysis direction
FHIP Map (Forest Habitat Integrity Map - fish)
Fish species and possible outcomes considered
The fisheries scientists rated five possible outcomes for each of eight species of fish, including both resident
and anadromous life strategies for two of the species. The fish considered in the assessment were:
sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)
chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha )
chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus gairdneri)
cutthroat trout - anadromous (Oncorhynchus clarki)
cutthroat trout - resident (Oncorhynchus clarki)
Dolly Varden char - anadromous (Salvelinus malma)
Dolly Varden char - resident (Salvelinus malma)
The outcomes used by the fisheries scientists to predict habitat conditions, for purposes of relative comparison
of Forest plan alternatives, were:
Outcome L New management activities will not cause additional degradation of freshwater habitat for the
species. Productive habitat will be well distributed across the Forest, or the historic range of the species
within the Forest. Habitats that are currently degraded will recover or be moving toward recovery after 100
years.
Outcome II. New management activities will result in minor additional degradation of freshwater habitat for
the species. Productive habitat will be adequately distributed across the Tongass National Forest, or the
historic range of the species within the Forest. Most habitats that are currently degraded will recover or be
moving toward recovery after 100 years.
Outcome III. New management activities will result in moderate additional degradation of freshwater
habitat for the species. Distribution of productive habitat across the Tongass National Forest, or the historic
range of the species within the Forest, will contain some gaps where the species will not occur or where
populations will be severely reduced. Many habitats that are currently degraded will not recover or be
moving toward recovery after 100 years.
Outcome IV. New management activities will result in major additional degradation of freshwater habitat
for the species. Distribution of productive habitat across the Tongass National Forest, or the historic range of
the species within the Forest, will contain large gaps where the species will not occur or where populations
will be severely reduced. Most habitats that are currently degraded will not recover or be moving toward
recovery after 100 years.
Outcome V. New management activities will result in severe additional degradation of freshwater habitat for
the species. The species will be extirpated or populations will be decimated over much of its historic range
on the Tongass National Forest. Habitats that are currently degraded will not recover or be moving toward
recovery after 100 years.
The risk assessment panel’s conclusions are presented for each of the fish species (including the anadromous
and resident strategies for cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden char) considered and for each of the management
alternatives assessed. A discussion of elements considered by the panelist to be significant, is included.
14
Appendix 2. Rational for combining likelihood point assignment sums for outcomes I and II, and for
outcomes III, IV and V.
Outcome Sums
The mean scores for outcomes I and II are combined, as are scores for outcomes III, IV and V, to assist with
comparisons among alternatives. Combining these outcomes is based on the assumption that a distinction
can be made between outcomes II and III (words below in bold are excerpted from outcomes II and III)
regarding amount of habitat degradation, habitat distribution, and extent of habitat recovery in 100 years.
Outcomes I and II define the effects of new management activities as causing “no” or “minor” degradation,
describe the distribution of habitat as “well distributed” or “adequately distributed”, and currently degraded
habitats will be moving toward recovery or most will be moving toward recovery at the end of 100 years.
Outcomes III, IV, and V define the effects of new management activities as causing moderate to severe
degradation, species population distribution will exhibit some gaps or the species will be extirpated from
some parts of it’s historic range, and many to all habitats will not have recovered or be moving toward
recovery at the end of 100 years.
Alternatives can be grouped based on distinctions observed between likelihood points distributions.
Alternatives 1,5, 10, and 11 are broadly similar to each other in likelihood point distributions, as are
alternatives 2, 9, and 9’.
.
a.
I.
.-
-.
.*-
.-_..
.
1
..
I
-.
_
-.
.
Appendix 3. Individual panel evaluators appraisals of important features to maintaining fish habitat.
Key to appraisal’s:
Ratings of the contribution of fish habitat
0: Feature is Neutral
DK: Don’t Know
+: Important Positive Feature
++: Critical Feature
- : Detrimental
-- : Very Detrimental
> : More Than
< : Less Than
= : Comparable
NA : Not Applicable
_
..a1
,,..:
we.
.A,
-~,’
. . T. 1..- 16
^.
- . .-- ..-. ---~-C-w.-~“~.
: -. -- -“-.
. me-. -. ” -q...
_.
._ “‘.*- ----L.aD.-r
‘&r-W ;,r- .--. --.”I _ ---\ .-_ .-. - -.-., . _
.- - - ,“.
A-----...
..
.y.c.-..-
-
-.u.a*‘m..’
-
_.?.
;-‘.*
*
”
__
..
Ir