This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
The Fish Habitat Management Unit Concept for Streams
on National Forests in Alaska 1
Dave R. Gibbons2
Abstract.--The occurrence of alternatives invariably
exists between the management of timber and fisheries
resources. The concept of Fish Habitat Management Units
(FHMU's) has been developed on National Forest Lands in
Alaska to describe the specific streamside management
requirements needed for the maintenance and improvement of
aquatic resources. This paper discusses the development and
management applications of FHMU's.
INrRODUCTION
addressing multiple-use objectives. While the
handbook ensures a consistent approach is
followed throughout the National Forest Lands
in Alaska, it allows latitude, in site specific
prescriptions to respond to regional habitat
differences.
The irrpacts of timber harvesting on the
habitat of salmonids vary from site to site,
seasonally, and with the forest practices
implemented. Spatial and temporal differences
in the effects of logging on the hydrology of
streams may be partially explained by climatic
regimes, physiographic differences, and in the
variations in the habits and life cycles of the
stocks and species. Thus, a problem of
specification exists, which prevents the
universal application of standards. The
continued vacuous use of direct regulations
(i.e., water-quality standards) will eventually
result in inefficiencies and inequities as they
do not provide the necessary flexibility to
balance the management between timber and
fish. Prescriptions should be sufficiently
flexible to allow for different levels and
types of control from habitat to habitat and to
optimize the forest and fish production from
each site. An important step towards balancing
these trade-offs was initiated in the Tongass
Land Management Plan with the development of
the concept of Fish Habitat Management Units
(FHMU).
FHMU DEVELOPMENT/DELINEATION
The concept of FHMU classes is based upon
fish habitat management concerns and the
possibility of potential impacts. Classes are
determined according to the importance of the
habitat to fish. These classes are defined as:
1. Class I FMHU Streams with anadromous
fish habitat or a high value resident sport
fisheries. Also included is the habitat
upstream from migration barriers known to
be reasonable enhancement opportunities.
Stream gradient generally ranges from 0-6%.
2. Class II FHMU Streams with resident
fish populations and 6-15% gradient (can
also include streams from 0-6% gradient
where no anadromous fish occur). These
populations have limited sport fisheries
values. They generally occur upstream of
migration barriers or steep gradient
streams and other habitat features that
preclude anadromous fish use.
The Fish Habitat Management Handbook
presented here further refines FHMU's into
three classes: (1) anadromous and high quality
resident fish habitat; (2) resident fish
habitat; and (3) water quality. It provides
guidance in facilitating fish habitat
management through prescriptions while
3. Class III FHMU Streams with no fish
present but have potential water quality
influence on downstream fish habitat.
Stream gradient is usually in excess of 15%
but may contain lower gradients.
I Paper presented at The Riparian Ecosystems
and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting
Uses Conference, Tucson, Arizona, April 18,
1985.
The three classes are depicited in figure 1 and
are determined in order of priority by: (1) a
review of all existing data; (2) local
knowledge; and (3) gradient.
2 Regional Fisheries Program Manager, USDA
Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK.
320
CLASS 2 FHMU
VCU 282 • FICK COVE
CLASS 3 FHMU
Figure 1.
Value comparison unit {watershed) number 282 displaying class I, II
and Ill FHMUs and channel types.
The magnitude and configuration is defined by
channel type sensitivity (Rosgen 1985 and
Paustian, Perkinson and Marion 1983) with a
minbnum width defined by the Alaska Regional
Guide of 100 feet.
Table l. Frequency that fish habitat
rnanagemP.nt concerns will result in
prescriptions affecting land management
activities
Management Concern
Salmonid habitat is complex but can be
partially described using measurable physical
elements. Maintenance of fish production
centers on key habitat parameters such as
proper water temperature, large organic debris,
substrate composition and others. A precise
blend of these key parameters creates good fish
habitat.
FMHU Classes
Class Class Class
When these key habitat paramenters are
related to the potential impacts from land
management activities, they encompass seven
fish habitat management concerns. These
concerns are the link between the FHMU concept
and the specific fish habitat management
objectives and prescriptions. These concerns
are listed in Table 1 and are related to FHMU
class applicability.
The FHMU delineation has application to
both broad level (allocation) and project level
planning, however, only project level
application will be discussed. The management
guidance provided in the Handbook is organized
within three levels. Class-! FHMUs have the
most specifically defined, restrictive
prescriptions, and Class-!! and III
respectively less restrictive. FHMU's require
a range of management options from no cutting
to complete harvest of commercial volumes of
timber along streams. A brief discussion of
the Class-! FHMUs seven fish habitat management
concerns, and objectives follows.
I
II
l.
Maintenance of stream1
bank and stream channel
stability
1
1
2.
Maintenance and/or
enhancement of optimum
stream temperature
1
l
2
3.
Fish passage through
stream crossing
structures
1
2
3
4.
Maintenance of water
quality within
established State
standards
1
1
1
5.
Maintenance of
1
existing and
providing future sources
of large woody debris
2
3
III
(LWD)
6.
Maintenance or
1
irrprovement of
primary and secondary
biological productivity
within or adjacent
to streams (including
Second-Growth management) •
3
3
7.
Timing of bridge and
culvert construction
3
3
1 - Always
321
2 - Occasionally
2
3 - Never
Streambank and Stream Channel Stability
IMPLEMENT~riON/MONITORING
Objective. Maintain existing stream channel
and bank conditions with specific reference
to: (1) channel width-to-depth ratio; (2)
pools and riffles (sequence, volume, and
depth); (3) maintenance of 100% of undercut
banks, stable debris, and other in-stream cover
characteristics; and (4) avoiding stream
sedimentation.
Once the specific prescriptions had been
developed, procedures to insure implementation
and monitoring were next developed. The
"project input procedure" that was developed
provides verification and record on the degree
of desired fish habitat protection activity
applied insitu after preparation of the timber
sale Environmental Analysis and selection of
the preferred alternative. A format for
documentation of input was established. 'The
input procedures are directly linked to the
Land Management activity such as timber harvest
and road construction. The procedures
additionally provide a permanent reference for
subsequent monitoring and land management
actions.
Stream Temperature Sensitivity
Objective. Maintain average daily maximum
summer temperatures below sao on streams with
baseline temperature below Sa° F. On streams
with normal, daily summer maximum temperatures
in excess of sao F, maintain unaltered summer
maximum temperature (see appendix 740).
Fish Passage Through Stream Crossings
Structures
The monitoring procedure tracks management
accomplishments. The effectiveness of any
proposed fish habitat management prescription
is only as good as its on-the-ground
implementation. Implementation efficiency of a
timber sale for example is the degree to which
the prescribed management activities have been
carried out from planning through completion.
If management prescriptions are not properly
administered, the planned activities will be
incomplete and detrimental fish habitat impacts
may occur. The monitoring procedure
(implementation efficiency analysis)
established is aimed at: (1) determining if
the prescriptions were implemented and
objectives subsequently met and (2) providing a
mechanism for modifying the prescriptions to
meet the objectives. Figure 2 depicts a
representative timber sale implementation
efficiency analysis.
Objective. Maintain the.natural migration of
adult or juvenile anadromous and high-quality
resident sportfish.
Special Road Construction Mitigative Measures
Objective. Prevent siltation of spawning areas
at or downstream of construction sites when
eggs or young fish are in the substrate.
Prevent mechanical damage to fish eggs or
changing channel flow dynamics in the project
vicinity.
Maintenance of Water Quality Standards
Objective. Maintain water quality for the
propagation of fish and other aquatic life as
defined by the State of Alaska, Water Quality
Standards, Feb. 1979, amended.
Large Woody Debris
Objective. Provide, in perpetuity, future
sources of large woody debris to aquatic
habitats while maintaining and/or enhancing
quantities of existing instream debris.
Primary and Secondary Aquatic Production
Objective. Increase primary and secondary
biological production in streams without
adversely affecting juvenile salmonid habitat.
Class-II and III objectives will not be
described but are less restrictive. Specific
prescriptions to meet these objectives were
developed by an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT)
using data specific to southeast Alaska. Some
of the most important references used to
develop these standards are listed in the
special literature cited section.
Figure 2. Irnplanentation efficiency analysis.
322
decisions have long been treated as
constraints. Under optimization techniques,
these other considerations are treated as an
equal objective, side by side with all other
concerns. This component of equal
consideration is prescribed in the Alaska
Regional Guide (USDA Forest Service 1983) •
Equal resource consideration, maximized with
the use of the Fish Habitat Management
Handbook, will provide a viable system, which
can be used to both manage timber and fisheries
production in southeast Alaska.
DISCUSSION
Tbday in Southeast Alaska, resource managers
are confronted with the responsibilities of
making many significant decisions relating to
the future use of Alaska's renewable natural
resources. In the past 10 years, increased
public attention has focused on critical
environmental issues affecting the use of many
natural resources, including timber and fish.
Timber and fish are the two resources with the
greatest present economic value in Southeast
Alaska, and since, in many instances, each
watershed produces both resources, it is
inevitable that conflicts will arise when
resource decisions are made in favor of one
resource over the other. These potential
conflicts which can arise from unaltered
maintenance of streamside vegetation, culvert
construction to pass salmonids and others) will
continue to occur as demands increase for a
variety of goods and services produced from a
static or declining land base. It is not a
question of fish or timber since both resources
are highly used, but rather integration of
management and effective use of existing
guidelines. As Martin (1976) points out,
timber harvesting/fisheries issues are not
simple to answer, but can only be resolved
through proper application of existing
knowledge, and for the most part, by the
application of existing laws, regulations, and
management guidelines. Recent legislative
activities, special interest group pressures,
judicial rulings, standards and prescriptions
promulgated by private conservation groups,
state and federal land management agencies
provide ample evidence that the resolution of
the timber/fisheries conflicts is one of our
current pressing problems.
LITERATURE CITED
Freeman, A., R. Haveman, and A. Kneese. 1973.
The economics of environmental policy.
John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. 439 pp.
Martin, D. J. 1976. The effects of sediment
and organic detritus on the production of
benthic macroinvertebrates in four
tributary streams of the Clearwater River,
Washington. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Univ.
wash., Seattle. 79 pp.
Paustian, Steven J., Douglas Perkinson,
Daniel A. Marion. 1983. An aquatic value
rating procedure for fisheries and water
resource management in southeast Alaska.
USDA Forest Service, Admin. Rept. Sitka, AK
29 pp.
Rosgen, Dave. A stream classification system.
Presented at N. Amer. Riparian Con£., April
16-18, 1985. Tucson, AZ.
USDA Forest Service. 1983. Alaska Regional
Guide Report. No. 126. Juneau 112 pp. and
11 appendices.
It is clear that one of the major problems
concerning timber and fisheries
managementinvolves the management itself:
namely, the effective application of existing
guidelines and continued development of sound
resource guidelines and techniques. Many past
management guidelines have been developed for
southeast Alaska as a result of studies on the
effects of timber harvesting on fish, water and
soil throughout the Pacific Northwest. The new
tiered prescriptions described are principally
based upon recent research in southeast
Alaska. These prescriptions expand upon
standards and guidelines in the TLMP and the
Alaska Regional Guide providing the impetus and
direction toward providing greater protection.
Prescription Developing References
Anderson, L. and M. Byrant. 1980. Fish
passage at road crossings: an annotated
bibliography. USDA Forest Service, Pac.
N.W. Forest and Range Expt. Sta., Gen.
Tech. Rept. PNW-117. Portland, OR. 10 pp.
Bryant, M. D. 1983. The role and management
of woody debris in west coast salmonid
nursery streams. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgrnt.
'3:322-330.
Bryant, M. D. 1981. Evaluation of a small
diameter baffled culvert for passing
juvenile salmonids. USDA Forest Service,
Pac. NW Forest and Range Expt. Sta.,
Research Note PNW-384. Juneau, AK 8 pp.
Economic theory (Freeman et al. 1973) suggests
that optimal management strategy is to minimize
externalities, such as human-caused
sedimentation, to levels at which the costs of
further constraints will not balance the
expected benefits. Other considerations (i.e.,
fisheries and wildlife) in land-use plans and
323
Meehan, William R., Fredrick J. Swanson, and
James R. Sedell. 1977. Influences of
riparian vegetation on aquatic ecosystems
with particular reference to salmonid
fishes and their food supply. .!,n: A
Symposium on the Importance, Preservation
and Management of Riparian Habitat. p.
137-145. Tucson, AZ.
Bryant, M. D. 1981. Organic debris in
salmonid habitat in southeast Alaska:
rreasurement and effects. !n= Proc.
Symposium on Acquistion of Aquatic Habitat
Inventory Information p. 259-265. Amer.
Fish. Soc., Portland, OR.
Bryant, M. D. 1980. Evolution of large
organic debris after harvest: Maybesco
Creek 1949-1978. USDA Forest Service, Pac.
NW Forest and Range Expt. Sta., Gen. Tech.
Rept PNW-101. Portland, OR. 30 pp.
Murphy, Michael L. 1983. Relationship between
rearing salmonids and stream habitat
account for effects of logging in
southeastern Alaska. Northwest and Alaska
Fisheries Center, Auke Bay Laboratory,
Juneau, AK. Unpublished Report.
Dolloff, C. A. 1983. The relationship of
wood debris to juvenile salmonid production
and microhabitat selection in small
southeast Alaska streams. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Montana State Univ.,
Bozeman. 100 pp.
Marine Fisheries Service. 1983.
Effectiveness of buffer zones in protection
fish habitat in small streams during
clearcut logging in southeastern Alaska.
Executive Sununary, Auke Bay Laboratory,
Watershed and Estuarine Ecosystems
Project. Juneau, AK 13 pp.
Natior~l
Elliott, s. T. 1983. The sumner standing
crop of juvenile coho salmon in southestern
Alaska streams logged during the 1960's:
Alaska Departrrent of Fish and Game Report
to the Alaska Working Group on Cooperative
Forestry/Fisheries Research. November 21,
1983. Juneau. 7 pp.
Sheridan, W. L. 1977. The temperature
sensitive stream. USDA Forest Service,
Adm. Report, R-10. Juneau. 8 pp.
Elliott, Steven and Dennis Hubartt. 1978.
Study of land use activities and their
relationship to sport fish resources in
Alaska. Alaska Dept. Fish and Game, Annual
Performance Rept., Study No. D-I, Vol. 19.
Juneau. 51 pp.
Sheridan, w. L. and A. M. Bloom. 1975.
Effects of canopy removal on temperatures
of some small streams in southeast Alaska.
USDA Forest Service, Adm. Report, R-10.
Juneau. 12 pp.
Gibbons, Dave R. 1982. A streamside management
plan for the protection of salmonid habitat
in southeast Alaska. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Univ. washington. Seattle. 166 pp.
Swanston, D. N., w. R. Meehan and
J. A. McNutt. 1977. A quantitative
geomorphic approach to predicting
productivity of pink and chum salmon
streams in southeast Alaska.
USDA Forest
Service, Res. Pap. PNW-227,
Portland, OR. 16 pp.
Heifetz, J., M. L. Murphy, and K. V. Koski.
In press. Effects of logging on winter
habitat of juvenile salmonids in Alaska
streams. N. Amer. Jour. Fish. Mgmt. 6(1).
Tyler, R. w. and Dave R. Gibbons. 1973.
Observations of the effect of logging on
salmon producing tributaries of the Staney
Creek watershed and the Thorne River
watershed. F.R.I., Univ. of washington,
Final Report to Alaska Loggers
Association. Seattle. 58 pp.
Meehan, w. R. 1970. Some effects of shade
cover on stream temperatures in southeast
Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Res. Note
PNW-113. Portland, OR. 9 pp.
Meehan, W. R. 1974. The forest ecosystems of
southeast Alaska - 3. fish habitat. USDA
Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rept., PNW-15.
Portland, OR. 41 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1979. Roadway drainage
guide for installing culverts to
accommodate fish. Eng. and Aviation
Management Div., Alaska Region Rept. No.
42. Juneau. 121 pp.
Meehan, William R. and Douglas N. Swanston.
1977. Effects of gravel morphology on fine
sediment accumulation and survival of
incubating salmon eggs. USDA Forest
Service, Res. pap. PNW-220. Portland, OR.
16 pp. and Illus.
324