The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMitchell, Hood and Chaik-Whitewater Bays Special Attention Plan 1991Alaska Energy Authority ANG LIBRARY COPY 015 vol. A Mitchell, Hood and Chaik-Whitewater Bays Areas Meriting Special Attention Plan Concept Approved Draft April 1991 Angoon Coastal Management Program a ee The preparation of this report was financed in part by funds from the Alaska Coastal Management Program which is funded by the State of Alaska and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs, Municipal and Regional Assistance Division. Cover photo: Kootznahoo Village. Angoon, from Chatham Strait side beach, 1900. Alaska State Library Early Prints. #PCA 01- 283. Vincent Soboleff, photographer. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF ANGOON CITY COUNCIL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Daniel Johnson, Jr., Mayor George Johnson, Jr., Chairman Wally Frank, Sr. Lydia George Edward Gamble, Sr. Frank Lane George Johnson, Jr. Matilda Gamble Vivian James Cynthia Jim George Nelson, Jr. Harriet Silva Rodney Hunter Norman Nelson, Sr. COASTAL COORDINATOR Pauline Johnson In the preparation of any report, many people contribute information and assistance. I have enjoyed the contacts with people and the cooperative effort that went into the Concept Approved Draft. I appreciate the help that was so freely given. The opportunity to work with the people of Angoon has been the highlight of this project. Dan Johnson Jr., George Johnson Jr., and Pauline Johnson generously assisted in the preparation of the Concept Approved Draft. The members of the Planning Commission and City Council actively helped with review and revision. Pauline Johnson and several of the elders deserve special thanks for their work on the Tlingit traditional place name maps. They are Lydia George, Matthew Fred Sr., George Jim Sr., Charlie Joseph Sr., and Paul James Sr. Beth Jack and Lydia George both assisted with translation and orthography. Barbara Sheinberg gave initial direction, and expertly edited the AMSA Public Review Draft. I frequently referenced and plagiarized the AMSA Nomination Report and Angoon coastal district plan by Mike Macy. Other useful coastal management documents included the Hydaburg and Eyak Lake AMSA plans, and the Sitka, Hoonah, Bering Straits CRSA, and Cenaliulriit CRSA coastal district plans. I thank the following people who provided information on habitat, recreation, and subsistence, commercial, and sport harvest: Don Ingledue, Mike Bethers, John Palmes, Beverly Richardson, Kim Titus, and Butch Young-- all at ADFG; Paul Schaefer, Robin Inhelder and Connie Myers at USFS; Elaine Dinneford and Steve Williams at Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission; and staff at the International Halibut Commission. Other state and federal agency staff who contributed to the report include Mary Bixby, DGC Drue Grant, DNR Rob Bosworth, ADFG Peter McKay, DCRA Michael Fox, USFS Vivian Hoffman, USFS Ken Mitchell, USFS Brent Petrie, AEA Glenn Seaman, ADFG Matt Kookesh, ADFG Bob Palmer, DNR Ken Imamura, ADFG Jerry Madden, ADFG Andy Pekovich, DNR Carol Wilson, DNR Steve Klingler, DNR Mike Kaill, ADFG Bill Janes, DEC Marty Case, ADFG I would also like to mention Dick Powers, Whalers Cove Lodge; Rodger Painter, Alaska Mariculture Association; Frank Sharp, Kootznoowoo Corporation; Marlene Zuboff, Angoon Community Association; and Albert Kookesh, Kootznoowoo Corporation. Dick Sill of Montgomery Engineering and Lyle Kruger at Triad North expertly prepared the base maps and overlays. The Mac Station typeset the AMSA Concept Approved Draft, and Alaska Litho printed it. Sincerely, Reaves. Dror Roxanne Turner Consultant TABLE of CONTENTS List of Figures .. List of Tables.... List of Photographs INTRODUCTION The Alaska Coastal Management Program .. Areas Meriting Special Attention Angoon AMSA Planning Objectives The AMSA Nominations ... The Purpose and Goals of lanning .. AMSA Locations and Legal Descriptions .. Mitchell Bay... Hood Bay... Chaik-Whitewater Bay . LAND OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION ..........cssssssssssessesssssecsessesscsessesecsecsusaeenecassecsesaseneene 17 Traditional Social Organization .. Traditional Land Use and Ownership Mitchell Bay... Contemporary Land Ownership .. Transition ...... Mitchell Bay.. Hood Bay........ Chaik-Whitewater Bays. RESOURC 2 INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS .. Marine and Aquatic Habitats in the AMSAs Explanation of Data Presented in the Resource Inventories and Analyses... Mitchell Bay AMSA..... Resource Inventory .... General Setting Fish and Wildlife . Cultural Resources .. Resource Analysis ... Introduction ...... Traditional and Customary Fisheries Enhancement & Mariculture . Recreation ....s.sccssecssesesessseesseseseseeeeeees Minerals... Timber... Energy... Cultural Resources Hood Bay AMSA ......sssssssssesssssessssscsesaseneesesncsncnsensenscusencenseuecusessessesnssnecussassnscessseeeseneeesseeseancecesceeceescancanseceneeacees 73 Resource Inventory ......s.sssssssssssscsecssesssscssssessusssssscescencenceseecnsoneesesucenseocsnsensenssasssssssncsnssssssnssssasensasasssassnces 73 General Setting . 78 Fish and Wildlife 73 Fisheries ............ 17 Fisheries Enhancement & Mariculture . 17 Recreation 78 Timber... 78 Minerals 80 Cultural Resources ..........:sssceseeeeeseeneees ++.80 Resource Analysis . Introduction ... Traditional and Customary Natural Resource Use .. Fisheries .......c.cccsscsseseseeeeeesceeeeeneeeeeeeeeeees Fisheries Enhancement & Mariculture Recreation Cultural Resources Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA.. Resource Inventory .. General Setting . Fish and Wildlife .. 85 Fisheries ............0++ -..88 Fisheries Enhancement & Mariculture Recreation .... Cultural Resources .. Resource Analysis Introduction ...... Traditional and Customary Natural Resource Use .. Fisheries Enhancement & Mariculture Recreation .. Cultural Resources .. SUBJECT USES Uses of State or National Concern . Uses of State Concern .... Federal Subject Uses .. Proper and Improper Uses ENFORCEABLE POLICIES... 103 Introduction .... Definitions ...... Appendix D References Cited... Goals, Objectives and Policies Traditional and Customary Natural Resource Use 108 FROCPOARON |i cletssccososanscrcccsucesaseactssasuesesssesteen 109 Fisheries Enhancement and Mariculture .. 109 Timber ........cececeseseeeee 112 Firewood .........:0+00 115 Cultural Resources .. 116 Air, Land and Water Quality 118 Habitat .. 118 Mining .. 120 Transportation and Utilities . 121 Geophysical Hazard Areas .. -122 Energy Facilities IMPLEMENTATION titessssonssessnsesassnesssonscusususaussususassesusseceseueattunnssasnesondsetteseamee sett ste LLL LLL 125 Authority Responsible Parties .. Implementation in all of the AMSAs.. Coordination .......sscssssseseserseseneseeeseeesees Implementation in the Mitchell and Hood Bay AMSAs AMSA Land Within the Coastal District .. AMSA Land Outside the Coastal District . Implementation in the Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA . Receiving Notification of Proposed Actions ...........ss00 Checklist for Consistency Determinations and Response Time Consistency Determinations . Appeals .......... .132 Field Checking 133 Enforcement ........ssssssssssseossscsssssassssssssnsessscnenecesosonsnsesenssesuccessscanscsesoseuseseesasessesasassnsuscnsaraseeseececesasanse sescecesacseses 133 Appendix A Permits and Approvals Requiring Individual Project Review .........:s:ssssscsssssssssssesesesesececesseecseecece 135 Appendix B Angoon AMSA Plan Checklist for Consistency Recommendations ..........::::sssssssssssssesssessesesacsesesee 138 Appendix C Documentation of Public Involvement ...........ssssssssssssesssssessessesssssesnseneesessesssassecescsecscsscsessessesseeneens 142 LIST of FIGURES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Hood Bay AMSA Bounnda ty .........ssssssessssessssssssscsesesssssssssessssssessesessseeessssececsesesssacseseeseseceusesessasssssececsecesees 15 Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA Boundary ........cscssssssssssssssssscesssscscscsescsesesesesesesesesesesesesesesesessseseseecsecececs 16 Traditional Use Area of the Angoon Tlingit ............ssssssssssssesesecssssssscscecesacscscscseecsssessseseacecasscacacecneaczese 22 Mitchell Bay AMSA Traditional Place Names... Hood Bay AMSA Traditional Place Names ............sssssesssesssssssssesesssssssssssasseseasseseeceeseceseseseecsesescseseees 28-29 Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA Traditional Place Name...........scssssssssssssssescsescscscessesesessessescseaceeteee 32-33 Mitchell Bay AMSA Contemporary Land Ownership .........scssssssssscscsssescsesescsesssssesesesesesesescasseseseseseteeee 37 Hood Bay AMSA Contemporary Land Ownership ...........ssssssssssssssscecsceeseseseseceseessesesesessseseasseseseneeececes 38 Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA Contemporary Land Ownership ... Mitchell Bay AMSA Anadromous Fish Streams .........s.s:ssssssssessssesesscsssscsesssscsssacseseeecsesseesecsesscsesecaeeseacs 46 Angoon Seasonal Round of Harvest Activities Mitchell Bay AMSA Existing and Potential Future Land Uses Hood Bay AMSA Anadromous Fish Streams ...........:ssssssssssssssssssssesssesseascessnesecssenesssescseseeescesessceecseeneeses 74 Hood Bay AMSA Existing and Potential Future Land Uses Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA Anadromous Fish Streams Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA Existing and Potential Future Land Uses ..... LIST of TABLES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page Salmon Availability .........ccssssssssssssssssssssssssssssseesescsncsencsncncsesussanenscnsesenenssucassnesscesseseesensacacensecnsassensecssensesseaes 47 Salt Lake Coho Salmon Peak Escapement Count .........:sssssssesesesesssceseseseeeeseecaseseeeeaeaeseeseaseeeaeesaeeeneseeenenee 47 Mitchell Bay Peak Salmon Escapement Counts by Year Commercial Halibut Catch in Chatham Strait, 1984-1989 ........scsssssssssseseenenesssneneeeeneneeeeneneassnensneeeseneaees 51 Commercial Fishing Census Report for Angoon in 1988 1984-1989 Hand and Power Troll Catch in District 112 Purse Seine Landings in Chatham Strait by Salmon Species, Catch and Year ........sssssssssssssseneeseseeees 53 Chatham Strait Brown King Crab Commercial Landings ...........ssssssssssseeseeesesenenneeneeesenasasacnensacaeaeaeaeaeee 53 Dungeness Crab Commercial Landings in 1986/87 .........s:ssssssessesssesssessnsssessnessessesessssessesssesessneeenseseensesess 54 Sablefish Dress Weight in Pounds . Mitchell Bay-Salt Lagoon Sport Fish Harvest and Effort by Fisheries and Species .........:sssssseseseessesees 58 Deer Hunting Data - Fishery Creek to Pt. Gardner 1985-1989 ...........sssssssesesesseseeessesseesessesneeeseseaeseaeeeees 59 Sex of Brown Bears Taken in the A-3 Management Area by Year ........s:sssssscssesesesseseeseseseeseceeceseseeeseeseeeeee 59 Brown Bear Harvest on Admiralty Island by Hunter Residency...........s:ssssssssssssssesseesesseeeseeeeseeeeeeeeeeneesee 59 Subsistence Deer Harvest Estimates, Angoon 1984-1986... Angoon Deer Harvests 1984-1986 ..........ssssssssssssessessenseneessenseeseceneesssnecnseneeuccuneasenssecsesneeeseneneeacsnsansaneneeseeeee 65 Subsistence Salmon Permit Harvest Data in Mitchell Bay during 1984-1989 00.0.0... csssesssssssseseeeeeeeeees 66 Harvest of Small Mammals by Trapping ...........s:csssessssssssesesessessesesesesencaeeeesesesesceseaeeeeseseeeeeeseeesaeeeeseseneenenees 67 Estimated Sportfish Harvest of Coho in Mitchell Bay 1984-1989 ...........sssssssssssssseseeseseeeseeseesensseecsnsneseeees 69 Subsistence Coho Harvest from Salt Lake 1984-1989 Hood Bay Peak Salmon Escapement Counts by Year Purse Seine Landings in Hood Bay in 1986 and 1989 Sex of Bears Taken in the A-2 Management Area by Year ........scsscsscssssesssseseeseseeseeeseceeceeeeeeeaeeeeeeseeeeeeeees 78 Subsistence Salmon Permit Harvest Data, South Arm Hood Bay........c.ccssssssesssessesessesceeseeeeeesceececessesseeneee 81 Chaik Bay and Whitewater Bay Peak Salmon Escapement Counts by Year .... Purse Seine Landings in Chaik Bay in 1985 and 1986 ........sscscsssesssssseseseseseeseseseeeseseeseeeeeneneeeeesesseeeeeeeeees 89 Sex of Bears Taken in the A-2 Management Area by Year ..........:scssscsssesssseseseeesseseeeeseaceeseeseeeenesceneaeseenesees 90 Subsistence Salmon Permit Harvest Data for Chaik Bay Inlet and Chaik Bay .........sscsssssssesesssssseceeeeses 93 —_2— LIST of PHOTOGRAPHS Carving Totem Poles. Billy Webster, Angoon, 1900. Alaska State Library Early Prints. #PCA 01-3452. JS. MacKinnon, collector. ......cscssscssssssssscecsesescseseseeeeeeeseces Circa 1905, Tlingit Indian House at the village of Angoon. Alaska State Library Early Prints. #PCA 01-894. Vincent Soboleff, photographer. ..........s:scscssssssseecsesssescscscscsesessaceceenceeee Three Tlingit Chiefs at Angoon in ceremonial dress, circa 1905. Alaska State Library Early Prints. #PCA 01-897. Vincent Soboleff, photographer. ...........sssssssssssssssesecsesesessesesscsesesscsesesassesusacsesesecsesesscscesseeucece 41 Chief Mitlakatle and Wife. Basket Bay Chief. Angoon, 1901. Alaska State Library Early Prints. #PCA 01-15. Vincent Soboleff, photographer. ..........sssssssssscssssssssssssssesssssecsesscsessssessessseassucsesassucsecsecaessesevene! 97 Chief's House. Angoon, 1901. Alaska State Library Early Prints. #PCA 01-63. Vincent Soboleff, photographer, ...........:scsscsssssssssscessessesssasseceesscsseseceuceucesesse 103 Killisnoo Indians in Dance Costume. Alaska State Library Early Prints. #PCA 01-20. Vincent Soboleff, photographer. +125 INTRODUCTION OT STC — . we hk INTRODUCTION THE ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM At low tide the people go to the beaches. They dig clams and cockles. They gather mussels, seaweed and urchins. Others hunt geese and waterfowl and gather eggs from tidelands and wetlands. Summer brings berry pickers to the beach fringe. Harbors teem with activity as fishermen and hunters ready their boats and gear to fish or hunt. Long-liners and trollers plumb the depths for halibut and salmon. Others set pots for crab and shrimp. Coastal areas resound with boats and float planes as people labor to extract and transport minerals or timber. Tug boats tow huge bundles of logs to pulp mills. Kayakers quietly skim the scenic waters and hikers scale the coastal mountains. Tourists seek the coastline to fish and camp and relax for a while. Seventy-five percent of Alaskans live within 10 miles of the coast and draw upon the energy of the sea. Coastal resources serve the entire living community, including human society. Society’s improper use of even a small part of the complex chain of life endangers the whole system of life. After World War II, the United States experienced an alarming increase in haphazard coastal development with resultant destruction of coastal resources and habitats. The U.S. Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 in response to increased pressure and demands on coastal resources, and to reserve coastal areas for water-dependent uses. This law encourages states to balance resource development and preservation and to protect natural coastal ecosystems and cultural values. It authorizes federal funds for the develop- ment of state coastal management programs. In 1977 the Alaska State Legislature passed the Alaska Coastal Management Act, providing funds for local governments and rural regions to begin to develop their own coastal manage- ment programs. Now, thirty-three coastal communities and regions have or are preparing plans that guide development in their respective coastal areas and take part in decisions on permitting of proposed development projects. The intent of Alaska’s program is not to block coastal development, but to ensure that it proceeds in a culturally and environmentally-sound manner that makes the best use of coastal resources. Through the joint participation of development project applicants and affected coastal communities and state agencies, the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) serves as a forum for conflict resolution and eases the permitting process for proposed coastal development projects. The ACMP also helps ensure that local and state interests are met in coastal development involving planned federal actions. The Alaska Coastal Management Act, Alaska Statutes 46.40 and 44.19 provide authority for the program. After approval ofa local plan by the local government, the Alaska Coastal Policy Council and the Federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, these district programs become part of the Alaska coastal management program. Areas Meriting Special Attention (AMSAs) An Area Meriting Special Attention (AMSA) is a coastal area which coastal residents feel has significant value and that deserves special management attention for resource development or protection. LOCATION MAP Figure 1 LEGEND AMSA BOUNDARY LINE sw NORTH ARM COASTAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE = a= asa SOUTH ARM 4 MILES s ee ee eee ee ee 3 Le Ase 5 Eo / BAY ADMIRALTY 18. . monn (kgs pit NESS on on oe os dd 3 Fs CHAIK BAY = ® LAS CKILLISNOO HARBOR ~ Argo NES. aye i : Ry 1: a 7 KILLISNOO y) % KnGoON™>* ice DISTANT PONT” é ‘KOOTZNAHOO ROADS i Pat r 4 ea Is. A = i ! ! i COASTAL MANAGEMENT ln DISTRICT BOUNDARIES S CHATHAM STRAIT AND AMSA BOUNDARIES NORTH Figure 1a AMSAs may be within or outside a coastal district’s boundaries. The Hood Bay and Mitchell Bay AMSAs are mostly outside the coastal district boundary, although both contain lands that fall within the coastal district. The western end of the Mitchell Bay AMSA including Kootznahoo Inlet and Favorite Bay is within the coastal district boundary. In the Hood Bay AMSA, significant portions of the North Arm and the Bay itself are included within the coastal district boundary (see Figure 1-A). The Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA is entirely outside the Angoon coastal district boundary. The ACMP calls AMSAs outside district boundaries “extra-territorial.” The City of Angoon recommended to the Coastal Policy Council that these three coastal areas be designated extra- territorial AMSAs. Approval of the nominations came in 1989, and Angoon was given permission by the Council to proceed with AMSA planning. Extra-territorial AMSAs may eventually become part of state law, but unlike AMSAs within district boundaries which are implemented through local Title 29 authorities and federal and state consistency review processes, extra-territorial AMSAs are implemented through the federal and state consistency review processes only. ANGOON AMSA PLANNING OBJECTIVES A. The Angoon AMSA Nominations Alaska Statute 46.40.21 0(e) defines AMSAs and describes the seven types of land that qualify to be selected as AMSAs. Angoon’s AMSAs were selected because they qualify as ¢ land that provides unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat; ¢ land that has cultural value, historical significance, or scenic importance; ¢ land that has high natural productivity or provides essential habitat for living resources; and ¢ land that has substantial recreational value or presents special recreational opportunity, including scenic value. The three AMSAs contain most of the marine and aquatic habitats identified in the Alaska Coastal Management Act. Offshore areas, estuaries, wetlands and tideflats, rock islands and seacliffs, rivers, streams and lakes, and important upland habitats all occur in the AMSAs. Mitchell Bay’s strong tidal currents and extensive bays and estuaries make it both unique and vulnerable. All of the AMSAs possess land and water of high biological productivity and essential habitat for living resources. Each of the designated bays contains anadromous fish streams that support one or more of four species of salmon. Chaik Bay has a harbor seal haulout area. Mitchell, Hood and Chaik Bays have waterfowl] shorebirds spring and fall concentration areas. Mitchell Bay has nesting and brood rearing concentration areas for the trumpeter swan. The AMSAs support extremely productive bald eagle habitat. All of the AMSAs have brown bear spring concentration areas and known concentration areas along fish streams. The Sitka black tail deer abounds in each of the bays, ranging from the beach fringe to the alpine meadows. The land supports beaver, marten, land otter and other small —10— mammals. Salmon, trout, halibut, starry flounder, three species of crab, sablefish, herring and marine invertebrates thrive in the waters of the bays. All three AMSAs have historical and cultural significance. Many current Angoon residents lived in Hood Bay until the cannery burned in 1961. Whitewater Bay was the site of the village of Neltushkin, ancestral home of many Angoon Tlingits. Mitchell Bay has thirty-seven known prehistoric and historic sites. Hood Bay has eleven known cultural sites. Eighteen archeol- ogical sites have been identified and mapped in Chaik-Whitewater Bays. Recreationists come from all over the world to hike, hunt, fish and photograph the Monument and Wilderness. All three AMSAs are popular destinations for sport fishermen and hunters. Mitchell Bay includes portions of the Cross Admiralty Canoe Route. The growing commercial recreation industry based in Angoon and Juneau depends on all of the AMSAs to provide wilderness experiences to clients. In addition to the land values described above, a geographic area may be designated as an AMSA if it is ¢ land that is indispensable to the continuation of the indigenous culture, including locations of traditional and customary use for hunting, fishing, and food gathering; ¢ land that has special scientific value or presents special scientific opportunity, including land where ongoing research could be jeopardized by development or conflicting use; and ¢ land that has the quality of a potential estuarine or marine sanctuary. High traditional use value is the single most important criterion of Angoon’s nominated AMSAs. Each of the AMSAs contains locations of traditional and customary use for fishing, hunting and food gathering. As noted in the Traditional Land Use and Ownership section, the Tlingit do not hunt, fish or gather on every part of the lands and waters they use. However, areas that are not harvested have significance for survival by providing summer and winter ranges, and spawning, rearing and feeding habitat for the fish and wildlife they harvest elsewhere. While about half of the fish, wildlife and plants traditionally harvested probably come from the Mitchell bay AMSA, the other AMSAs produce a significant percentage of a - variety of resources the Tlingit people traditionally use. Hood Bay is special for its run of fall chum salmon. Both Hood and Chaik Bays are favored deer hunting areas. Although Whitewater Bay is the most distant, the people go there to hunt deer and seal, fish halibut, cohos and crab, and dig clams and cockles. Adjacent lands on eastern Baranof and Chichagof Islands and long Peril Straits are likely to experience continued, intensive timber harvest. The long-term effects of logging will include dislocation of recreational and subsistence activities f-om these areas and refocused competition for resources on the lands and waters nominated as AMSAs. This likelihood underscores the urgency of prioritizing traditional use through AMSA planning for Mitchell, Hood and Chaik-Whitewater Bays. Although the AMSAs are not currently the subject of intensive scientific investigations, their scientific value contributes to their designation. The high concentrations of bald eagle and brown bear in these areas have led to study by wildlife biologists. If Mitchell, Hood and Chaik- Whitewater Bays continue to be protected and managed largely in their wild state under the Wilderness desigr ation of the uplands, their scientific value as a control area will increase over time. —l1— No plans have been made to seek sanctuary designation. However, the three areas are biologically rich and productive enough to merit sanctuary designation some time in the future. B. The Purpose and Goals of AMSA Planning The ACMP Subsistence Standard allows a district to identify areas where subsistence is the dominant use of coastal resources, and to designate areas as subsistence zones in which subsistence uses and activities have priority over all nonsubsistence uses and activities (6 AAC 80.120(b) and (c). The people of Angoon are primarily interested in AMSA planning in order to gain greater local control over uses and activities in Mitchell, Hood, and Chaik-Whitewater Bays. They want to ensure that traditional and customary use will be recognized as the highest priority use and activity in the AMSAs through management policies protecting subsistence resources and maximizing subsistence opportunities. Consistent with the philosophy stated in the Angoon Coastal Management Program, de- velopment proposals in the AMSAs should meet two tests. They must a) benefit the great majority of the community; and b) not threaten natural habitats, resources, processes or activities upon which the community depends. AMSA LOCATIONS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS The City of Angoon is located on the western shore of Admiralty Island in Southeast Alaska (see Figure 1). It lies 62 air miles south southwest of Juneau, and 42 air miles north northeast of Sitka. In 1985 the population numbered about 630. Mitchell Bay AMSA The Mitchell Bay AMSA borders the town of Angoon and stretches eleven miles to the northeast and five miles to the southeast. The AMSA includes all waters of Kootznahoo Inlet, Mitchell, Favorite, and Kanalku Bays and Kanalku and Salt Lakes and the surrounding lands for a distance inland of 660 feet from mean high tide. The seaward boundary of the AMSA is sketched by a line running across from the intersection of sections 24 and 25, T 50 S, R 68 E on the Admiralty mainland to mid-channel, east of the Angoon peninsula. The boundary continues south at mid-channel along the peninsula to meet a perpendicular line extending from the intersection of sections 31 and 32. Angoon and most of the land on the Angoon Peninsula are excluded from the AMSA. However, the Mitchell Bay AMSA includes lands and waters within the coastal district. The 660 foot strip of land encircling the shores of Favorite Bay, and uplands adjacent to Stillwater Anchorage are within the Angoon coastal district and the municipal boundaries of the City of Angoon. Figure 2 shows the AMSA boundary. Hood Bay AMSA Hood Bay is the first major indent in the west Admiralty Island shoreline of Chatham Strait south of Angoon. The northernmost tip of the AMSA lies about two miles south of the end of the Killisnoo Harbor road and the state ferry terminal. The bay itself is located seven miles south of Angoon. The AMSA is about 15 miles long and one to three miles wide and includes both the North and South arms of Hood Bay. The Hood Bay AMSA includes all waters of Hood Bay east of the line running north from Distant Point across the bench mark on Sand Island to the marker named Killisnoo Northwest Base. All lands within 660 feet of mean high tide east of this line and within Hood Bay are also included. The Hood Bay AMSA includes lands and waters within the coastal district. The Angoon coastal district and municipal boundaries of the City of Angoon intersect the entrance to the Bay west of Cabin Point and extend well into the North Arm of Hood Bay at about mid- channel. Figure 3 shows the AMSA boundary. Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA South of Hood Bay Chaik and Whitewater Bays cut into the western shoreline of Admiralty Island. Whitewater lies 20 miles south of Angoon. Woody Point, a small projection of land, separates the two bays that are relatively open and exposed to Chatham Strait. Chaik Bay stretches about five miles eastward into the mountainous terrain of South Admiralty. Whitewater Bay extends nearly four miles inland. Both bays are shoaled and have foul bottoms that make large vessel maneuvering or anchoring unsuitable. The Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA includes all waters east of the line running north from Point Caution through Woody Point and on to the survey marker named “Bow” just north of Village Point. The landward boundary extends 660 feet inland from the mean high tide line on all waters. The Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA is entirely extra-territorial, or outside the Angoon coastal district boundary. Figure 4 shows the AMSA boundary. i @ 01n6 AYVGNNOd VSWV AV TISHOLIN isa) Niavqd SE yvT SIN rae ‘ < 3 > <& =a 2 oe oma Oo I by eanbi4 AY¥VAGNNOSd VSWV YALVMALIHM - MIVHD LAND OWNERSHIP and MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION LAND OWNERSHIP and MANAGEMENT JURISDICTION TRADITIONAL SOCIAL ORGANIZATION The sentiments of the Angoon people toward contemporary land ownership are closely related to their traditional kinship and land ownership concepts. A review of Tlingit social organiza- tion and land ownership will aid in understanding their views on contemporary land ownership and management. The Tlingit conceive of their total society in terms of a duality. A Tlingit is born into one of two equal groups known as moieties. Descent is reckoned from the mother’s line. Every clan has an animal or plant as a clan crest, and a clan may have several crests. The moieties are the Laayaneidee (Raven) and the Shangukeideei (Eagle). The traditional moiety organization set up a pattern for reciprocal relationships between groups and individu- als in the society. It classified all individuals into groups that could only marry into the opposite group. Each moiety was in a sense dependent on the other for marriage partners, economic aid, and potlatching. Each moiety included over twenty major clans or lineages. No single clan was present in every Tlingit village, and traditionally no villages contained representatives of all the clans. Historically, villages tended to contain about equal representation from the Raven and Eagle moieties and generally an equal number of clans from each. Most of the larger clans were known to be located in certain geographical areas. Minor lineages of clans existed as the localized clan segments within a village and were the most important social groups. Generally, each minor lineage was the property owning group in the society, with property including salmon streams, hunting grounds, berry patches, sealing rocks, house sites, rights to travel routes, and certain important stories, totems, and songs. In 1988 the following clans of either the Raven or Eagle moieties were represented in Angoon. Not all of the clans listed here have a tribal house in Angoon. Laayaneidee (Raven side) Deisheetaan (Angoon Raven) Dakk dain taan (Sea Bird) Anxakitaan (Dog Salmon) Kiks.adi (Frog) L'uknax.adee (Coho) Shangukeideei (Eagle side) Teikweidee (Brown Bear) Dukl'aweidee (Killerwhale) K aagwantaan (Sitka eagle) Tsaagweidee (Kake Killerwhale) Woosh kee taan (Shark) 190 TRADITIONAL LAND USE AND OWNERSHIP The following general description of the Angoon traditional use area is adapted from Goldschmidt and Haas (1946) who documented the use and occupancy of the Tlingit and Haida Indians in southeastern Alaska. Angoon lands and waters traditionally extended great distances up and down Chatham Strait. Traditional occupation included most of the west coast of Admiralty Island from Point Marsden southward and around the southern tip of Admiralty as far as Chapin Bay, and lands along the east coasts of Chichagof and Baranof Islands, from Basket Bay southward to Gut Bay. Oral history indicates that Tenakee Inlet, Freshwater Bay, and False Bay were once a part of the Angoon territory, but in later years they came to be owned and occupied by the Wooshkeetaan clan. The Wooshkeetaan clan (variation: Wuckitan) which probably originated from Auk Village near Juneau, had affiliations with the Angoon people but to some extent were separate from them. Angoon Tlingit and people from Kake jointly use the southern end of the west coast of Baranof Island below Gut Bay. Angoon and Kake generally agree that Herring Bay, Chapin Bay, and Eliza Harbor belong to Angoon people, while small Pybus and Pybus Bay are Kake territory. The Tlingits’ claim to extensive traditional use areas is explained by the anthropologist Frederica de Laguna (1960: 21) “For him the territory is rather conceived in terms of points, that is, spots and localities. We are accustomed to think of the land in terms of areas that are marked off by boundaries...If our picture of the world is that of farmer, property owner, and landlubber, the Tlingits’ is that of traveller, especially the mariner, who is concerned with places and the routes between them. The world of the Tlingit is probably visualized more as it is in our sailing and harbor charts...Sib (clan) territories do not refer to areas, but to specific spots: fishing streams, coves, berry patches, or house sites.” Traditional use areas were not static and they changed over time. The same holds true today. The ancestors of Angoon residents formerly lived in outlying villages and fish camps. This is the reason some current residents are known as the Basket Bay people, others as the Sitkoh Bay people. In the past, the Angoon clan territories overlapped with those claimed by other clans from Sitka and Hoonah. Many ofthese territories continue to be shared with Angoon non- clan members, and clan relations in other parts of the region. Several areas of continuing traditional use importance to Angoon people are located outside of the Angoon coastal district on Baranof and Chichagof Islands. These areas are Sitkoh, Basket, Kelp and Hanus Bays. Authority for coastal management planningis held by the Sitka coastal district rather than Angoon. Nevertheless, the people have requested that a brief history of these areas traditionally owned by Angoon clans be included. The information below is taken from Goldschmidt and Haas, 1946. Before the arrival of the Russians, Sitkoh Bay on Chicagof Island was claimed by the Ganaxadi clan of Angoon. A disagreement led to separation from the Angoon community. Many of the Decitan (Angoon Raven) formerly smoked fish there, and fished sockeyes, humpies and dogs, and gathered seaweed. Basket Bay on Chichagof Island belongs to the Kaukwedi (Basket Bay Beaver) who are connected to the Angoon people but had a tribal house at Basket Bay. Angoon people go there to seine, and people from other villages now also use the Bay for commercial fishing. Kelp Bay on Baranof Island had good fish streams at the head of Middle Arm and South Arm where people camped and smoked fish. A later decline in the runs was thought to be caused by too many fish traps. Kelp Bay was rich in dog salmon, humpies, halibut, seal, blueberries, wild currants, mink, land otter, clams, horse clams, mussels, black and ribbon seaweed, and devilfish. “In the old days we went to Kelp Bay in March and would stay there all summer and smoke fish and gather food for winter use. About fall we would come back to Angoon and harvest our potatoes. I still frequently go to Kelp Bay and get such foods as I can” (Billy Jones, p. 62). There was formerly a fox farmer in Kelp Bay, and a camp on Crow Island. Now any of the Angoon people can go to Kelp Bay to trap or fish. Hanas Bay on Baranof Island is claimed by the Teokwedi (Brown Bear). Angoon’s Brown Bear people formerly lived in Hanas Bay. The bay was used for drying sockeyes in smokehouses. There was once a fort at Dead Tree Island in the bay. Figure 5 depicts the Traditional Use Area of the Angoon Tlingit, adapted from Goldschmidt and Haas, 1946. Clan ownership may not be as clear as this map depicts. Some members of the community maintain that a few areas are incorrectly shown. They say that Kelp Bay is owned by the Angakitan (Dog Salmon) and that Sitkoh Bay is claimed by the Decitan (Angoon Raven). The Tlingit did not hunt, fish, or gather on every part of the lands and waters they considered their territory. As mentioned above, Angoon clan territories include spots claimed by clans from Sitka and Hoonah. Yet the “spot” concept does not mean that areas which are not harvested do not have significance for survival. These other lands and waters provide summer and winter ranges, and spawning, rearing and feeding habitat for the fish and wildlife that the Angoon people harvest elsewhere. Concepts of property and ownership were recognized by all clans. Possession of land and its resources by a clan or its localized segment evoked certain rights, including the priority right to use the life-sustaining resources in the area. Resource territories included valued sockeye salmon streams, hunting areas, halibut fishing grounds, berry and root gathering areas, hot springs, trade routes and shellfish grounds. Typically aclan shared a house, but very large clans needed several houses. The clans and their associated houses were primary economic units. The heads of localized clan house groups were known as yitsati, “keeper of the house.” The yitsati were responsible for coordinating the harvest and management of the lineage’s resource areas. The Tlingit regulated land and resource tenure in a way that allowed for sustained yield, escapement, and management of whole ecosystems. Clan leaders used biological, social and spiritual techniques to ensure that their territories remained productive. Although they have possessed for centuries the technology and expertise to deplete a salmon stream by over —21— Basket \ Bay Little Bay \ KAUKWEDI | yt GANAXADI SON) FI ran eee - TEOKWEDI White rR Bay mason ove BARANOF ISLAND * ANQAKITAN me 4 t 3 Cc UPREANOF ; ISLAND Gardner USED WITH KAKE PEOPLE TRADITIONAL USE AREA OF THE ANGOON TLINGIT adapted from Goldschmidt and Haas 1946 eme==exe Use Area Boundary 15 20 Miles dO vayv 3asn TWNOILIGVEL STATE OF ALASKA DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME Subsistence Division LISNITL NOODNV G e1nbi4 fishing, the Tlingit have expertly managed stream conditions, escapements, harvest levels and other aspects of the fishery. Many Tlingit elders use the English phrase “take care of? when referring to a relative’s or ancestor’s relationship to a stream or bay, as in “My uncle used to take care of that creek.” (Thornton 1990:19) The clan territory system worked quite well. The economic viability of a clan unit depended upon a resource territory of adequate size, diversity and abundance to sustain its members year in and out. Ifa particular salmon run failed or hunting was poor in a particular year, the clan could count on receiving permission to hunt or fish in another clan’s territory. Each clan had specialists who were expert hunters or fishermen or gatherers. A clan would trade or give away the surpluses rather than sell the food or goods to other clans. Trade was a means to lessen shortfalls in resource harvesting. For example, if the coho run in Mitchell Bay was thought to be threateningly low, the clan house leaders might decide to harvest fewer cohos than usual and to supplement their supply through trade or access to another fishery. As alternatives to overharvesting, trade and reciprocity among clans also enabled the Tlingit to protect their resources for future generations. Formal and informal kin and trade networks are still used to distribute subsistence resources today. Anon-clan member needed permission from a clan leader before he could harvest from an area. Non-residential kin invoked clan ties for access rights to resource areas. Agreements permit- ting outsiders access to resource areas were very common and provided a network of relationships that could be called upon in case of hardship in the local owner’s territory. “When salmon or other fish are taken from that area, duty is paid to the land owner. Likewise, when game is taken, duty is paid to the land owner.” (statement by Yunyeidee, a Tlingit landowner, in Peck 1986:25) The ownership of important sites was often symbolized in totemic carvings or potlatches. MITCHELL BAY Ethnographic accounts reveal prehistoric settlement of the Angoon, Kootznoohoo Inlet, and Mitchell Bay areas by Tlingit peoples known as the Decitan and the Teikweidee. Although Angoon is outside of the Mitchell Bay AMSA boundary, its settlement is described here because of its importance in past and present traditional land use. Decitan The Decitan (variation: Deisheetaan) say that they have lived in this area since the time of The Flood. During the Flood they travelled to the interior of Alaska but migrated back to their coastal homes some time afterward. The Decitan say they returned to the salt waters at the Haines area and lived there for some time. The Chilkat area Tlingits point to a mountain near Haines that belongs to the Angoon Decitan. Subsequently, the Decitan moved to Freshwater Bay, and later to Tenakee. After thet, the Decitan moved to the Killisnoo area but felt that it was too noisy. The surf kept them awake, so they moved to Kootznahoo Inlet and the Kanalku Bay and Salt Lake/ Hasselborg River areas. Kootznoowoo Inlet, called iklen, was claimed by the Decitan clan. “From way back it was claimed by them. Itis along story about how we got the place. Beaver led us there.” (Billy Jones in Goldschmidt & Haas, 1946:113) The Decitan moved again, to Stillwater Anchorage, and remained there until they finally settled at the present site of Angoon. Some of the sites that they had previously settled continued to be used as summer fish camps. The Decitan generally maintained two seasonal residences, a winter village and a summer camp or village. The Decitan clan includes both the Kaukwedi (variation: K'akweidee, Basket Bay people) and the Ganaxadi (variations: Ganaxedi or Gaanax'adi, people of Gaanax). The Basket Bay people are considered a separate group of the Decitan, without ownership or use rights in Kootznahoo Inlet. The Decitan of Angoon say that when the first members of their clan arrived at the new village site, there were already people living in the area. They were known as the Ganaxadi, and are said to have been the first Ravens in Chatham Strait. They originally owned all of Kootznahoo Inlet, including the Angoon townsite and Sitkoh Bay across Chatham Strait. The Decitan asked permission to move to the area, and lived alongside the Ganaxadi for some time. Trouble between the two clans caused the Ganaxadi to move out of the area, leaving their land holdings and rights of use to the Decitan. No people calling themselves Ganaxadi were left in the Angoon area, but probably a few Ganaxadi (Raven) women married to Eagle moiety men stayed on and their children became Decitan (Goldschmidt & Haas: 1946: 171). Today the Decitan are known as the Raven Beavers. The Decitan use the beaver crest as well as the raven because the beaver showed the Decitan the site of Angoon: “According to Tlingit history, the site of Angoon was discovered by three Deisheetaan hunters who had followed a beaver they had spotted swimming in Kootznahoo Inlet. They followed it to the beach, now known in Angoon as the little skiff harbor,’ and followed its trail to a beach on what is now known as Chatham Strait. The hunters saw that the place the beaver took them was a good site for their house so they went back to inform their people of their find. The decision was made to move to the site and the Deisheetaan built their house at the end of the beaver trail. The house was called Deishoo-hit, ‘end of the trail house.” (George & Bosworth, 1988:14) Angoon is so old that no precise date can be established for the original occupation of the village site. All the people of Angoon used the head of Favorite Bay near the fish stream to get herring, and continue to use it. There was a fish camp for rendering oil and smoking fish. The people gathered seaweed from the shores of Favorite Bay and berries from the land, and fished halibut in the bay. The Decitan had about nine houses, gardens and smokehouses here. There were smokehouses and cabins in Kanalku Bay, but no villages. “The natives of Angoon use the Kootznahoo Inlet, including Mitchell Bay, Favorite Bay and Kanalku Bay and the environs for hunting, trapping and fishing. They also secure their fuel wood from this neighborhood. They catch here herring, kings, dog salmon, humpies, sockeyes, bears, beaver, mink and sea otter. They have gardens on Turn Point, and several smokehouses on Sullivan Point...” (Andrew Gamble in Goldschmidt & Haas,1946:114) Teikweidee While the Decitan claimed all of Kootznoowoo Inlet, it was recognized that the very head of Mitchell Bay belonged to the Teikweidee clan (variations: Teokwedi, Teoquedi). “Mitchell Bay was given to the Teokwedi.” (Billy Jones in Goldschmidt & Haas,1946:113) The Salt Lake/Hasselborg area was given to the Teikweidee, the Bear clan, in payment for the death of a Bear woman and her child. (George & Bosworth, 1988:91) George & Kookesh (1982) confirm that in the 1800’s Mitchell Bay - meaning the headwaters - belonged to the Decitan clan who had a summer village on the shores of Hasselborg River for harvesting and processing salmon for winter use. Later in the century ownership passed to the Teikweidee clan who subsequently moved the summer camp further west into Salt Lake. Today, the area at the mouth of the narrows is used for trapping, and the Teikweidee own houses there. The large lakes up Hasselborg Creek belong to the Teikweidee, but all the Angoon people use the area for hunting, fishing and gathering berries. In the old days there were smokehouses. This area was used in the winter of 1945-46 by many Angoon people for trapping beaver. At that time, bears discouraged summer use of the lakes region for berry picking. Figure 6 depicts traditional Tlingit place names in Mitchell Bay. HOOD BAY Daklawedi There are varying accounts of traditional ownership of Hood Bay. Today, the people of Angoon say the Decitan clan owns the North Arm of Hood Bay, and the South Arm belongs to the Daklawedi or Killer Whale clan. The ethnographic literature does not describe ownership of Hood Bay by the Decitan. It is possible that the Decitan claim ownership of the North Arm through mutual agreement with other Angoon clans. The Daklawedi (v¢ riation: Daklaweidee) clan joined with the Tsagwedi clan at an earlier time. The Daklawedi clzim only Hood Bay, Angoon, and Eliza Harbor as places where they have a right to live and to get food. They share Hood Bay with the Tsagwedi, although the Tsagwedi have not exercised their rights for many years. Present day Tlingi ‘s confirm that parts of Hood Bay are owned by the Daklawedi or Killer Whale clan, and otL.er sources verify that they are the last recognized Tlingit owners of the Bay. The Daklawedi say they have used this area since before The Flood and a traditional place name is suggestive of long occupation. The mountain top at the head of the South Arm of Hood Bay, is called “Tsa qwa canuk,” meaning “Hood Bay old woman” and the people say they took refuge on this mountain during The Flood. The Daklawedi are the original owners of the South Arm, named “Tsa qwa,” and they obtained the North Arm through the accidental death of a young boy of the Killer Whale clan who was Legend for Figure 6: MITCHELL BAY AMSA, TRADITIONAL PLACE NAMES JE HE HBF HEHEHE HEI HEB HEHE EPH TBI HELI THEI HEI HEFT GBEI GHEE HEHE HEHE ont DOF Wr PPP WWWWW WWW WWNDND NY ND NN NNN ND —] |] | SS HS SS HS SP KS NynRHP ODO WON DNF WMH HK TOW WON TDN F WH HK COW WON DHT fF WDHY | OO OO Tlingit Place Name Yat haatwudé Keixitu.Aan L ukwo-qani Taakw Aani Sho Dax, haat kanadanoow Dax haat kanadaa Yai cai nu Caiyakw yeil-tcali N&ndé xa-t&n Hit Sha yah nahxate Daykee nahgooshgee Kunit @t x'attee N&s'ginax kaaT'aak Ka klu aday S'eek Naz' Yel fy3 aas ayah dah tonehya' Xunyéishak' Sayi yel-'xanax-gwali N&s'ginax kaa Qoots kahagoo Yeil guxu Quix Goon dugscan xux Ka'nalka Shak'Aayee Katl'k Yeil'xoo tsi Aut xanahnee Ka dado heenay Xun yéi-'Sa Dd6 kah ahnahyu Taakw Aani Sho Xicwan-'ani Wan kagéiy Wan kagéiy Yeil gooxu X'éat' Anté ytg English Name Turn Point Village Stillwater Anchorage Channel Point Village - Coho Salmon Village Sullivan Point Island Stillwater Anchorage Fort Where the tide passes back and forth Whales Head Fort Where the female tide runs dry at low tide; "Ladies Pass" Halibut Trail "Raven's Halibut" Marten's Hole Its mouth faces inside (points backwards) Cabin Anchor Stone Target Island South American Island Klushkan Rock Camp Island of the Eyes Soaked Black Bear Skin Windy Smokehouse Village The Falls "Raven's Tidal Current" Canoe Wood Area Salt Lake Mitchell Bay Myth: "Raven mouth - through blow-off" Three Brothers Steamboat Shelter Camp Passage Island "Crabapple Island" Kanalku Bay "Raven's Slave" Kanalku Bay Village "inside" "Island" "Chase that dog off" Kanalku Lake Creek Camp Kanalku Bay coal mine "Raven's Black Marker" Dryfish Camp coho stream "Trout moves out of there" Mitchell Bay Inside Baby Pouch Sullivan Point (Winter Village) Fishing Village Favorite Bay Mud Flats Favorite Bay Smal] Rocky Knoll JIMS LAK 35 CABIN (FS) i, Kostznehoo Head? f an of tn me mH me wal, ole Ae + MITCHELL BAY AMSA TRADITIONAL PLACE NAMES Figure 6 Legend for Figure 7: HOOD BAY AMSA, TRADITIONAL PLACE NAMES FEHB HEHEHE HHH HEHEHE EHH HEHE HATHA AAA SAAMI ISAS AAA SAAS SSIS AS SSA ASAA AAAS ASA On Onn fF Wn — oo oo a FP wn oO wo 15 16 Tlingit Place Name Tsaagwaa X'aySa Tsaagwaa heen Tayx'aafi Kuxu Nuwu Lax'4as L'ook Héenak'u X'aageigi Dld6wax'aa Tanjwus xeik X'Zat' toode du &xch Héende Keit] giohk'eeyi Sax'aayi Héen Gil'yat'ak Aan Daasakw t'aagaanoow (or) S&x'adda dzaayi Aan Kei xee tu Aan English Name Hood Bay North Arm South Arm Creek Farm Hood Bay Fort "Marten's Fort" Creek "Cut Timber there in 1940" Coho Creek Point Distant Point Cabin Point Hear Some Noise at Point Dogs fall into water off of cliff Creek Going into the creek Fort Winter Village Winter Village Hood Bay Cannery PLACE NAMES <q 22 = > qe moa <x ox oF <= attacked by a bear while fishing in the salmon stream named “Xa yah.” This happened before western contact. A dramatic change in the use of the area has taken place since the early 1800’s when the Killer Whale people migrated each spring from the winter villages to summer fish camps at Hood Bay. Canoes originally carried the people to Hood Bay subsistence fish traps and smoke houses. By 1916 power boats improved transportation possibilities and involvement in commercial fisheries. Other hunting and fishing areas began to be used. The Hood Bay Daklawedi migrated to Killisnoo/Angoon in the late 1800’s for employment opportunities and to meet school attendance requirements. During the early 1900's the Daklawedi fished Hood Bay for a winter subsistence salmon supply and had at least eight smokehouses in the area. They planted extensive vegetable gardens along the south-facing shores until the 1940's and still used the last garden in the 1960’s. They hunted both deer and brown bear in this area, and one account tells of an Angoon hunter selling bear skins to people in Kake. Bear hunting ended when it was believed to be illegal. People still trap in Hood Bay. The Hood Bay cannery was built in the early 1920's but it is not known how many local people were initially employed there. The Angoon Community Association bought the cannery and 14 seine boats in 1947, heralding dramatic though shortlived changes in traditional use patterns. The seine boats made it possible to safely travel long distances, participate in the commercial seine fishery, and harvest food resources while traveling to and from the canneries. When Killisnoo was destroyed by fire in 1928, the people moved to Angoon and during these years continued to use Hood Bay for hunting, fishing and gathering. Many current Angoon residents summered at Hood Bay while they or their parents worked at the Hood Bay Cannery. The cannery operated until it burned down in 1961. After that time, the Angoon commercial seine fleet deteriorated and the opportunity to continue seining decreased. From 1961-1980, the fleet composition converted from seiners to hand trollers due to economic factors and to limited entry in the fisheries. The 12 to 36 foot hand trollers have also had an impact on the use of resources in the Angoon area. These boats carry hunters quickly to hunting areas without overnight stays. Figure 7 depicts traditional Tlingit place names in Hood Bay. CHAIK BAY Decitan ! Most of Chaik Bay, including the right to the halibut banks, is presently claimed by the Decitan clan. The Decitan includes both the Kaukwedi clan (Basket Bay people) and the Ganaxadiclan who were assimilated at an earlier date. Many years ago there was acommunity at Village Point where some of the relatives of Angoon people were raised. There was also a fort at Village Point at one time. There were gardens at Village Point, and smokehouses at the head of the Bay. Smokehouses were scattered along the northwestern part of Chaik Bay from Village Point eastward. WHITEWATER BAY Ganaxadi/Tlenedi/Decitan Sources vary regarding the changes in clan ownership in Whitewater Bay. According to Garfield (Goldschmidt & Haas 1946:171), the Ganaxadi clan were in Whitewater Bay when the Tlenedi people arrived. Because of internal trouble the Ganaxadi moved out of the Angoon area but some were absorbed into the Decitan clan by marriage. The Decitan later replaced the Tlenedi in the Angoon area. Angakitan The Tlingit people claim use and occupancy of the Whitewater Bay area since the time of The Flood, and name Table Mountain as a place where they took refuge from the rising waters. George and Bosworth (1988) state that the Leeneidee, the original name for the Angakitan, were the first owners of Whitewater Bay. The clan name is variably shown as Anxakitaan and Aanxakeetan. The Angakitan or Dog Salmon Clan had a winter village at Neltushkin on the outer north shore of the bay. Here they built their homes, smokehouses and gardens. There were also smokehouses near the opening to the salt lake. The Angakitan claim “Titilhini” or Dog Salmon Creek flowing into Whitewater Bay. Some of the Angoon elders spent their childhoods at Whitewater, and others once lived year round in the area, originally accessing the Bay by canoe. In the early 1920’s salt lake was fished for cohos with beach seines. Before that time the people from Neltushkin used traditional gaff hooks and subsistence fish traps. Frederica de Laguna (1960) described the use of impaling stakes for the harvesting of salmon in the salt lake area. The Dog Salmon people of Neltushkin moved to the Angoon/Killisnoo area in the early 1900’s to seek employment and to meet school attendance requirements. When they moved to Angoon, the Decitan people welcomed them by moving their houses apart at the center of town and had the Dog Salmon house built in the middle of the village. Thus, the Leeneidee people came to be locally known as Angakitan which means “people from the center of the village house.” Today, the Dog Salmon people claim ownership of Whitewater Bay. The remains of village houses, smokehouses, gardens and storage pits are still visible. Figure 8 depicts traditional Tlingit place names in Chaik and Whitewater Bays. CONTEMPORARY LAND OWNERSHIP TRANSITION Passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971 ended Native land claims forever, in exchange for 35.5 million acres of land, creation of regional and village native —31— Legend for Figure 8: CHAIK-WHITEWATER BAY AMSA, TRADITIONAL PLACE NAMES GHEE EE HIIHEE EHH HHH EH EHH HEHEHE AAAS ALAS AAAS SAIL AI AAS AAAAAN AAA ASA AAA ASA SAM On DoF Wn — WNHNMA NN NN NNN |—- HS KF SP errrrea CWO WAN DNF WDH KK TOW WAN DT fF wWDNY H OO WO Tlingit Place Name Chayéek Chayéek L'uk Héenak'u Noow yeyee {sh KGt1 gu noo é Teel' Kwask'ee Téos' Kaadi X'aa geigh Guwa kaan X&goo Xaat téis'k'ee Tuwooli Héen Kawsigaani X'Sat Chayéek X'ayanook Noldéoshg4n Eech Lugei Kak'wtaan X'aa Nacchdéo Noow L'ax L'ux yatx'ee Téaa ege Xak x'aayée Keewaeesh xati Chayéek Saange Xdt dak héen Wat xla xak Xut tes ge Toowooxle Héen Nuth déoshkin Auk At xunaahne Tukaanee English Name Chaik Bay Creek Itself Coho Creek Creek with Flats Mud Fort Dog Salmon Stream Shark Area Point Hunt for Deer Fish Stream Rock with hole and creek behind Burnt Island Whitewater Bay Point Caution Woody Point Fortified place by Creek Table Mountain Two Smaller Mountains Reef "Seal" In Middle of Whitewater Bay Island Stream behind Island Humpy Creek Smal] Island Water Coming up from the sand - Humpy Salt Lake Smal] Fish Camp Winter Village Kn WHITEWATER BAY AMSA TRADITIONAL PLACE NAMES Figure 8 corporations, and nearly a billion dollars in compensation. The settlement was considered a significant achievement since the claims had never been recognized by the government. Nevertheless, many Natives were reluctant to surrender claim to their aboriginal territories, and some maintain that they have an inalienable right to possess and use these lands as they deem fit. Some of the Native elders do not recognize federal, state, or native corporation land ownership and still believe the lands are owned and managed by the clans. Until the Supreme Court challenge to the state subsistence law in December 1989, harvesting privileges were granted to residents of “rural” communities that met the criteria established by state law, regardless of ethnicity. At this writing, the Alaska Legislature has not acted on the issue and a state constitutional amendment was not placed before Alaskan voters in 1990 to continue the present law’s “rural” preference. Without a constitutional amendment or statutory revision, all Alaskan residents are eligible for subsistence as of July 1,1990. Rural preference on federal lands, as mandated by the Alaska National Interests Lands Conserva- tion Act (ANILCA), will continue. A dual management system for subsistence on state lands and federal lands was instituted on July 1, 1990. Several Alaska Native groups lobbied the 1990 Alaska Legislature for a change in the state law that would reflect a “Native” as well as a “rural” preference. Many Tlingits continue to emphasize ethnicity, moiety, clan or house ties, and other principles of social organization as important criteria for evaluating subsistence and territorial rights: “Thus, Angoon elders felt compelled to establish not only that Sitkoh Bay was Angoonkwaan (localized community) territory, but also that it was Deisheetaan clan territory, and furthermore that only one ‘side’ of that clan (i.e. those who could trace descendency from a particular house) had legitimate possessory rights to the bay.” (Thornton 1990:18) Property title to traditional lands previously used and occupied by clan groups passed to the United States as public lands managed by the U. S. Forest Service. The Tongass National Forest is owned by the federal government and managed by the Forest Service for the public as part of the National Forest System (NFS). President Carter created the Admiralty Island National Monument in 1978 by Presidential Proclamation under the Antiquities Act. The legislation creating Admiralty Island National Monument specifically requires the land to be managed such that subsistence resources and opportunities are maintained (ANILCA Title VIII). In 1980, ANILCA set aside hundreds of millions of acres of land in Alaska for fish and wildlife refuges, new parks, and wilderness areas. ANILCA designated all of the Admiralty Island National Monument as wilderness except for 18,000 acres held by the Greens Creek Mining Company. Greens Creek operates a silver mine at Hawk Inlet north of Angoon. Most of the 1.1 million acres of designated wilderness on Admiralty Island is managed for purposes including wildlife habitat, hunting and fishing, other forms of recreation, and limited use of timber exclusive of commercial harvesting. All three of the Angoon AMSAs are within or adjacent to the Admiralty Island National Monument and Kootznoowoo Wilderness. Kootznoowoo Corporation and Shee Atika, Inc., the Angoon and Sitka village corporations, hold title to over 26,000 acres of land on Admiralty Island. Other private landowners share title to about 6,000 acres on Admiralty Island. Thirty miles north of Angoon, Shee Atika Inc. has commercially harvested timber in the Cube Cove uplands since 1983. MITCHELL BAY Land ownership in Mitchell Bay is depicted in Figure 9. Under ANCSA, Kootznoowoo Corporation selected additional lands from the Tongass National Forest in the Angoon, Kootznahoo Inlet and Mitchell Bay areas. Kootznoowoo Corporation received more than 3,500 acres of land on Admiralty Island in addition to commercial timber land on Prince of Wales Island. The Corporation is reserving much of the land near Angoon for traditional use activities and wildlife habitat. The City of Angoon owns 18.16 acres within the townsite and has annexed lands as a Second Class City for which it has jurisdiction over development. The extent of the Angoon Municipal/ Coastal District Boundary is shown in Figure 1-A. About half of the uplands in Mitchell Bay are owned by Kootznoowoo Corporation and are jointly managed with the Forest Service. The Kootznoowoo Corporation holdings form a corridor stretching 660 feet inland from the mean high tideline of Mitchell, Kanalku and Favorite Bays as far east as Diamond Island. The Forest Service corridor lands are east of Diamond Island and include the eastern tip of Kanalku Bay. The Mitchell Bay corridor corresponds with the AMSA upland boundary and the corridor land is included within the AMSA. There is public access on all corridor lands where the Forest Service has asked for a public right of way. The surface estate of these corridor lands in Mitchell Bay is owned in title by Kootzoowoo Corporation, with ownership of the timber, surface resources, and sub-surface retained by the U.S. Government and managed by the Forest Service. Accordingly, the U.S. Forest Service must approve all Kootznoowoo development proposals for these lands. The corridor lands are designated “alienated land within wilderness boundary.” Although the corridor lands are not designated wilderness, management will probably be predominantly for habitat protection rather than resource development. Sealaska, the regional native corporation, and Kootznoowoo Corporation share title to the subsurface of all Kootznoowoo Corporation lands through ANILCA, except for the corridor land in Mitchell Bay. Kootznoowoo Corporation retains subsurface rights to about 1,700 acres in the Angoon area. The Corporation owns 120 acres in Kanalku Bay, including the old coal mine and deposit. Other patented land is located on the shores of Turn Point directly across Kootznahoo Inlet from the City of Angoon and the floatplane dock. Native allotment land totalling 160 acres has been awarded in Favorite Bay to an Angoon family but the land transfer is pending. Kootznoowoo Corporation is legally contesting the award because it believes that these lands were given to the Corporation through ANCSA. The Forest Service has issued a special use permit for a cultivation site at Turn Point. Several non-permitted structures exist in the AMSA, including a storage building at the trail head to Thayer Lake Lodge and one or two trespass cabins. All tidelands and submerged lands from the Mean High Water (MHW) line to the three-mile limit are owned by the State of Alaska. HOOD BAY Land ownership in Hood Bay is depicted in Figure 10. Nearly all of the land surrounding Hood Bay is owned by the federal government and managed by the Forest Service as the Admiralty Island National Monument and Kootznoowoo Wilder- ness. These lands are classified as Land Use Designation I (LUD I) wilderness areas. LUD I wilderness is managed according to the 1964 Wilderness Act, as amended by ANILCA. Timber harvesting, mining, roads, and most motor vehicles will not be allowed. Private land in Hood Bay is limited to the North Arm and includes the old Hood Bay cannery site owned by the Angoon Community Association, and lands owned by the IRA shareholders. There are one or two private homesites on the North Arm. A split parcel of native allotment land totalling 160 acres has been awarded to an Angoon family on the South Arm and extending around toward Chaik Bay. It is not yet patented. Alaska Pulp Corporation owns 53 acres situated inland from Cabin Point. The Corporation intends to de velop the land sometime in the future but has not formally announced its plans. All tideland:, and submerged lands from the Mean High Water (MHW) line to the three-mile limit are owned by the State of Alaska. CHAIK-WHITEWATER BAYS Land ownership in Chaik and Whitewater Bays is depicted in Figure 11. There are small parcels of native allotment land in the Chaik-Whitewater AMSA. It is difficult to determine whether the land has been transferred and patented. The Forest Service manages most of the land surrounding Chaik and Whitewater Bays as part of the Admiralty Island National Monument and Kootznoowoo Wilderness. These lands are classified as Land Use Designation I (LUD I) wilderness areas. LUD I wilderness is managed according to the 1964 Wilderness Act, as amended by ANILCA. Timber harvesting, mining, roads, and most motor vehicles will not be allowed. All tidelands and submerged lands from the Mean High Water (MHW) line to the three-mile limit are owned by the State of Alaska. PATENTED (PRIVATE) NATIVE ALLOTMENT APPLICATION KOOTZNOOWOO CORPORATION ANGOON MUNICIPAL AND COASTAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT AND WILDERNESS SSN! eae a ONDE NOS S MITCHELL BAY AMSA CONTEMPORARY LAND OWNERSHIP Figure 9 LEGEND eaten te cerivate) NATIVE ALLOTMENT APPLICATION Aube p mine peak’ =~ VILLAGE SELECTION TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT AND WILDERNESS ANGOON MUNICIPAL AND COASTAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY Ly TL NS fi HOOD BAY CONTEMPORARY LAND OWNERSHIP Figure 10 PATENTED (PRIVATE) NATIVE ALLOTMENT APPLICATION TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST NATIONAL MONUMENT AND WILDERNESS oS CHAIK - WHITEWATER BAY AMSA ~.\ CONTEMPORARY LAND OWNERSHIP Figure 11 RESOURCE INVENTORY and ANALYSIS RESOURCE INVENTORY and ANALYSIS MARINE AND AQUATIC HABITATS Six types of coastal habitats occur within or adjacent to the AMSAs. The only two habitat types not found are barrier islands and lagoons, and exposed high energy coasts. The anadromous fish streams in each AMSA are mapped on Figures 12, 15, and 17. The coastal habitats in the AMSAs are e Offshore areas: Submerged lands and waters seaward of he coastline. ¢ Estuaries: Semi-enclosed bodies of water such as bays, inlets, salt chucks, and stream mouths where sea water is measurably diluted by fresh water flowing from the land. ¢ Wetlands and tideflats: Those shallow submerged lands characterized by plants and animals adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Tideflats are alternately submerged and exposed by the daily rise and fall of the tides, while wetlands may or may not be saltwater-influenced. ¢ Rock islands and seacliffs: islands, seastacks, reefs, and precipitous shorelines. These areas furnish specialized habitats for seabirds, marine mammals, eagles, and shorebirds. They are often characterized by diverse and productive marine life. ¢ Rivers, streams, and lakes: Freshwater drainages lying within the zone of coastal influence. Included are spawning and rearing habitat for anadromous fish(salmon); waters with important biological productivity; and waters that directly influence the nature of adjacent streams, lakes, and estuaries. ¢ Important upland habitats: Vegetative communities, natural features, water- sheds, critical habitat areas, aquifer recharge areas, etc. that are considered to perform important biological and physical functions in the coastal zone. EXPLANATION OF DATA PRESENTED IN THE RESOURCE INVENTORIES AND ANALYSES The statistical reporting areas for sport and commercial harvest of fish and game are large, and reporting areas vary for different species. Often the data cannot be isolated to show only the participation of Angoon permit holders or residents, or the actual level of activity in each of the bays designated as AMSAs. Additionally, some ADFG data is confidential in order to protect the small number of permit holders participating in a fishery. Despite its limitations, the data is a good indicator of peak counts and levels of species harvest in recent years. The data presented in the Mitchell Bay resource inventory and analysis is footnoted to indicate if itincludes ayea-wide activity around Angoon, or if it is specific to Mitchell Bay or areas within Mitchell }3ay. When the data is area-wide, it may be assumed that it includes at least some activity in Hood and Chaik-Whitewater Bays. ae RESOURCE INVENTORY and ANALYSIS of the MITCHELL BAY AMSA The biophysical and socioeconomic information in this chapter provides the basis for the AMSA policies. RESOURCE INVENTORY General Setting The Mitchell Bay AMSA consists of interconnected bays scattered with reefs and islands surrounded by mostly low-lying terrain. These waterways possess unusually strong tidal currents, tidal falls, and wide daily tidal ranges that combine with large tidal flats and estuaries to yield extremely productive waters. The productivity of the marine waters contributes to the productivity of the surrounding terrestrial environments including muskegs and old growth forests. Fish and Wildlife The sheltered waterways of the Mitchell Bay AMSA access one of Angoon’s most important and abundant traditional fish and wildlife use areas with several anadromous fish streams and miles of prime wildlife habitat. The anadromous fish streams produce abundant pinks and chums, small runs of sockeyes, and provide wintering grounds for Pacific herring. All salmonids except king salmon spawn in the Angoon area. Figure 12 depicts the anadromous fish streams in the AMSA. Most of the streams in the region support very small runs of coho with less than 100 spawning fish, but cumulatively the streams are very important to the regional fisheries. At the head of Mitchell Bay, Salt Lake is fed by the Hasselborg River, Jims Creek, Freshwater Creek and other smaller creeks that together support the largest run of cohos on Admiralty island. A population of sockeye also rear in the brackish water of Salt Lake. Residents claim that Salt Lake has the best silver salmon run in the fall, and the best sea-run cutthroats in the spring. Favorite Bay is known for its dog salmon, and Kanalku Creek for its sockeyes. Dolly varden and steelhead trout are also prevalent in the area. The salmon runs begin with sockeye in June. Coho are the last to arrive, beginning their ascent into the sytem in late August and continuing throughout October. Chums and pinks seem to prefer spawning areas nearest to salt water, while cohos and sockeyes spawn in areas farther upstream. Herring play a vital role in many marine food chains. They primarily feed on planktonic crustaceans and occasionally pink salmon fry, and in turn, the herring feed numerous terrestrial and aquatic species including salmon, halibut, eagles, and marine mammals. Prevalent bottom-dwelling fish include the walleye pollock, halibut, sablefish or blackcod, arrowtooth flounder or turbot, Pacific perch, Pacific cod, and flathead, Dover and rex soles. Common shallower water fish include starry flounder, greenling, ling cod, shiner perch, ratfish, dogfish, surf smelt, tomcod, yellowfin sole, shortspine thornyhead or idiotfish, and various rockfish and sculpins. —45— Suneee nee Jims £ 36 PABIN (FS) ' { i aSsage Py CHUM COHO PINK SOCKEYE ANADROMOUS FISH STREAM ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS Figure 12 Common marine invertebrates include clams, scallops, mussels, abalone, snails, crabs, shrimp, barnacles, urchins, sea stars and sea cucumbers. Eight known edible species of mussels, clams, and cockles occur in the intertidal and shallow subtidal zones. Gumboots or chiton are found in Favorite Bay and Mitchell Bay. Crab species include Dungeness, King and Tanner. Marine mammals commonly found year-round in the Angoon area include Steller sea lions, harbor seals, sea otters, Dall and harbor porpoise, and killer and humpback whales. Other marine mammals occuring occasionally in the area include Northern fur and elephant seals, minke and sei whales, and North pacific whiteside dolphins. Table 1 Salmon Availability Salmon Spawning Age Available in Mean Adult Species (years) Shallow Water Weight (Ibs) Sockeye 3-6 late June-early August Pink 2 mid-July thru September Chum 3-5 mid-July thru October Coho 3-4 late August thru October Langdon 1977, pg. 38; Ingledue 1982 Table 2 Salt Lake Coho Salmon Peak Escapement Counts Hasselborg River Jim’s Creek Freshwater Lake 2000 1075 226 208 189 68 1800 NS. NS. 700 183 24 550 156 NS. 1100 1 NS. 1300 NS. NSS. 2300 120 NS. 600* NS. NSS. 2000* NS. NS. Note: This is not total escapement, just the peak number recorded at one time. Peak number is based on 1-2 ADFG stream walks and aerial reconnaissance flights per year. N.S. means that no survey was done that year. * Peak number in 1989 & 1990 based on aerial survey only. —47— Table 3 Mitchell Bay Peak Salmon Escapement Counts by Year PEAK COUNTS AT: Hasselborg Kanalku Kanalku Kanalku Favorite River Lake Creek Lake Inlet Lake Creek 500 50 500 2,000 200 150 Source: ADFG, Commercial Fisheries Division, 1991. Peak count is the highest number of fish counted in all of the surveys during the year. Surveys are either aerial or by boat or foot. ae Deer and brown bear are the only large mammals found on Admiralty Island. Sitka black-tailed deer is the game species of primary importance. The forest provides excellent habitat, and the deer range from the beach fringe to the alpine meadows. Fawns are born in late spring in trees edging muskeg or beach. Deer are in the Mitchell Bay area throughout the year and are hunted during the August 1 - January 31 season. (mn Admiralty, the brown bears are thought to range widely from the beach fringe to the alpine rieadows, and their sign is found in all habitats. The island contains excellent alpine habitat, end the bear population is probably higher than on Baranof or Chicagof Islands. Bear censuses have been attempted on the island since the 1930s, when an estimate of 900 bears (or 0.6 bears per mile) was obtained from track counts. Mark-recapture efforts in 1988 indicated a population of 0.83 bears per mile. Analysis of aerial census data and hunter harvest results indicates brown bear populations on Admiralty are stable (Morgan, p. 7,8). Other mammals include mink, land otter, marten, marmot, beaver, short-tailed weasels, squirrel, voles, shrews, mice, and bats. The coastal forest provides important cover and habitat for most of these species. Marine foods taken from the intertidal zone can make up an important part of the diet of mink, land otter, and - to a lesser extent - marten. Beaver, marten and otter are taken by subsistence trappers. During the last glaciation of the Pleistocene, nearly all of Southeast Alaska was buried under ice as much as 6,000 feet deep. About 11,000 years ago, a warming climate caused the glaciers to retreat and the land to slowly lift. For a relatively short time after the ice left Southeast Alaska, land connections existed between islands, making it possible for mammals to become established on what are now island areas. The continental ice sheet continued to melt, releasing more and more water into the oceans. The blacktail deer simply swam the open waters between the mainland and the island to join the brown bear on Admiralty. But other animals common to Southeastern Alaska’s mainland and some of the adjacent islands are notably absent from Admiralty because they did not migrate over. These include mountain goat, moose, black bear, wolverine, fox, wolf, coyote, porcupines, squirrels, muskrats and rab- bits. Game birds include the blue grouse and rock ptarmigan. Birds of prey are the bald eagle; the red-tailed, gos-, sharp-shinned, sparrow, and marsh hawks; great gray and great horned owls; and peregrine and gyrfalcons. Admiralty Island is the most productive bald eagle habitat in existence. In the mid-seventies, the Fish & Wildlife Service nest surveys recorded 780 nests known along the coastline of the island. One thousand nests was a conservative estimate at that time, making Admiralty the densest nesting area known. Roughly 45 percent of these nests are active in any given year. Average annual nest production is about 1.2 birds per nest, or about 500-600 young per year. Common birds breeding in the forest and in other upland habitats include the rufous hummingbird; yellow-bellied sapsucker; western flycatcher; tree and barn swallows; raven; crow; chestnut-backed chickadee; ouzel; winter wren; varied, hermit and Swainson’s Thrush; orange-crowned, Townsend’s myrtle, and Wilson’s warblers; fox and Lincoln’s sparrow; pine siskin; red crossbill; and dark-eyed junco. —49— Each spring during the annual migration to their northerly breeding grounds, thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds pass through Chatham Strait which is part of the Pacific Flyway. Estuaries and wetlands like those found in Mitchell Bay provide critical resting and feeding habitat, especially in years when breakup further inland is late or temporarily delayed by weather. Nesting waterfowl concentrate at the heads of most bays, and along lakes and streams. Nesters include red-throated and common loons, Vancouver Canada geese, trum- peter swans, mallards, harlequin ducks, and common and red-breasted mergansers. A popu- lation of wintering trumpeter swans uses Salt Lake, the Hasselborg River and Freshwater Lake. Pintail, shoveler and teal also pass through the area. Waterfowl constitute an important subsistence food source. Inshore waters, especially along the shores of bays and inlets, provide needed habitat for overwintering gulls, mallards, scaup, common and Barrow’s goldeneye, buffleheads, oldsquaws, harlequins, white-winged, surf and common scoters, common and red-breasted merganser, Vancouver Canada geese, loons, grebes, marbled murrelets, murres, guillemots, and other alcids, puffins, eider, and pelagic cormorants. Important fall and winter food for these birds includes eelgrass, sea lettuce, and other algae, marine invertebrates, small fish, and spawned- out salmon and their roe. Shorebirds such as black turnstones, black oystercatchers, rock sandpipers, surfbirds, and dunlins frequent the rocky shores during winter. Migrating whimbrel, golden, black-bellied, and semi-palmated plover, and wandering tattlers also rest in the area, frequently stopping at low tide. Snipe and greater and lesser yellowlegs nest along the shore of marine and freshwater bodies, swamps, and muskegs. Puffin, petrels, gulls, guillemots, jaegers, murres, murrelets, and phalaropes are found in the area at various times of the year. Fisheries Anadromous fish, particularly salmonids, support a major commercial fishery, as well as a sport fishing industry and the traditional and customary use economy. In terms of commercial harvest abundance, pink salmon take the lead, followed by cohos, chums, and kings. Coho are valued and highly sought by sport and subsistence fishermen as well. Angoon-area sockeye runs are small because of the limited number and size of lakes necessary for rearing their offspring. Although sockeye are not commercially fished near Angoon, they are prized by sport fishermen and subsistence users. Currently, halibut long-lining and handtrolling are the two commercial fisheries commonly conducted in the nearby waters of Chatham Strait, mostly by local residents. These fisheries are an outgrowth of traditional use. Commercial fishing is economically important to Angoon, providing fishermen with cash income and supplying the community with fish for domestic use. Commercial fishing within Mitchell Bay is not expected to occur. Table 4 gives the commercial halibut catch in Chatham Strait in net pounds for the years 1984- 1989. —50— Table 4 Commercial Halibut Harvest in Statistical Area 171* NET WEIGHT 117,000 lbs. 128,000 lbs. 224,000 lbs. 280,000 lbs. 447,000 lbs. 351,000 lbs. 181,000 Ibs.** Source: International Halibut Commission, February, 1991. *Statistical Area 171 includes all of Chatham Strait west of Admiralty Island and north of Frederick Sound. **1990 figure is preliminary and subject to change. Permit holder data (number, residency) is not available. Table 5 shows only the participation of Angoon permit holders in the 1988 fisheries for which data on poundage and/or estimated gross earnings is available. Table 5 Commercial Fishing Census Report for Angoon in 1988 Fish Number of Estimated Ticket Permits Total Gross Fisheries Fished Pounds Earnings Halibut Hand Troll 6 9,846 Halibut Longline 52 117,036 Halibut Longline boats>5 net tons 71,677 Salmon Hand Troll 81,402 248,080 Power Troll 34,249 85,570 Source: Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission, 1991. Note: The original table did not show poundage in several fisheries in order to maintain con- fidentiality. For example, salmon purse seine poundage was not shown because only 3 permit holders participated in 1988. Both the troll and purse seine commercial fisheries harvest Salt Lake coho stock. The troll fishery brings in the majority of the coho catch sold in Angoon. The purse seine fishery incidentally harvests coho while targeting pink salmon. Coho sold to buyers in Angoon are generally caught in Fishing District 12, 13-C, and to a limited extent, District 9. The commercial coho fishery in Chatham Strait is considered a mixed stock fishery. Coho caught commercially just outside Kootznahoo Inlet could be destined to return to Favorite Bay, Hood Bay, Chaik Bay, the Salt Lake system, or to numerous other streams in the area. The Salt Lake system is believed to be the largest coho system on Admiralty Island. However, presently it is not possible to determine what percent of the total coho commercial catch at Kootznahoo Inlet is destined for Salt Lake. Table 6 1984-1989 Hand and Power Troll Catch in District 112 Year Chinook Sockeye Coho Pink Chum Boats 1984 2,057 3 9,542 4,448 393 90 1985 2,749 29 7,696 2,454 655 114 1986 2,384 3 8,722 933 293 102 1987 2,428 28 9,210 4,912 232 92 1988 2,666 34 5,748 5,891 507 120 1989 1,558 26 10,300 6,874 155 104 1990 2,474 17 8,743 4,681 251 POWER TROLL 1984 2,074 8 2,305 1,444 72 42 1985 1,830 35 5,669 1,340 313 73 1986 938 11 2,255 432 78 38 1987 1,126 14 3,060 2,574 54 39 1988 1,447 21 7,600 5,723 512 112 1989 1,274 278 10,166 3,001 231 81 3,663 Source: ADFG, Commercial Fisheries Division, 1991. District 112 includes all waters of Lynn Canal and Chatham Strait south of the latitude of Little Island Light to the latitude of Pt. Gardner, west of a line from Little Island Light to Pt. Retreat Light, east of a line from Pt. Couverden to Pt. Augusta, and east of a line from Pt. Hayes to Pt. Thatcher. The 1990 total boat figure is not available. —52— Table 7 Statistical Area 112-118 Purse Seine Landings in Chatham Strait Chinook Chum Pink Sockeye 34 34 34 499,358 1,049 8 4,920 29 460,862 13 Source: ADFG, Commercial Fisheries Division, 1991. Stat Area 112-118 is District 112, Chatham Strait. Commercial king and tanner crab fisheries take place in Chatham Strait, and Dungeness crab is commercially fished in Mitchell, Hood, Chaik and Whitewater Bays. Table 8 District 112-18 Shatham Strait Brown King Crab Commercial Landings Average Catch in Number of Number of Pounds Per Season Pounds* Permits Landings Landing 1987/88 53,595 5 12 4,466 1988/89 63,109 4 16 3,944 7 1989/90 70,156 23 3,050 Source: ADFG, Commercial Fisheries Division, 1991. District 112-18 includes Chatham Strait from Danger Point Reef off Mitchell Bay to just south of Lone Tree Islet off Whitewater Bay. * Catch in pounds includes deadloss. There were no landings in 1986/87. The commercial crab harvest data is confidential when there are three or fewer permit holders fishing. This was the case for tanner crab in District 112-18, Chatham Strait, for the following seasons: 1985/86, 1987/88, 1988/89, and 1989/90. There were no landings reported in the 1986/ 87 season. The Dungeness crab fishery had only one season in recent years when more than three permit holders participated; the data appears in Table 9. The catch information is confidential for 1985/86, 1987/88, 1989/90 and 1990/91. There were no landings in 1988/89. Table 9 District 112* Dungeness Crab Commercial Landings in 1986/87 Average Catch in Number of Number of Pounds Per Pounds Permits Landings Landing 1986/87 17,130 ~ 8 2,141 Source: ADFG, Commercial Fisheries Division, 1991. * District 112 subunits include Mitchell, Hood, North Arm of Hood, South Arm of Hood, Chaik and Whitewater Bays. A significant sablefish (Black Cod) commercial fishery takes place in Chatham Strait. Catch information is given in Table 10. Table 10 Sablefish Dress. Weight in Pounds Stat Area Stat Area Both Stat 345701* 345731** Areas Landings Pounds Landings Pounds Total 70 1,330,872 48 874,116 2,204,988 52 1,320,784 29 741,934 2,062,718 50 645,050 33 390,498 1,035,548 45 644,526 27 324,567 969,093 43 615,556 25 310,409 925,965 32 465,843 20 277,216 743,059 Source: ADFG, Division of Commercial Fisheries, 1991. ADFG cautions that in-season catch data shown above should be considered very preliminary. Data may be updated daily. *Stat Area 345701 includes Chatham Strait southward from Kootznahoo Head off Mitchell Bay to Pt. Gardner. **Stat Area 345731 includes Chatham Strait northward from Kootznahoo Head to just south of Pt. Augusta. Sportfishing activity in the Mitchell Bay area has increased in recent years. Sportfishing harvest information is presented in the resource inventory for recreation. The Mitchell Bay AMSA is the site of subsistence fisheries for coho, sockeye, chum and pink salmon. The subsistence coho fishery in Salt Lake was created by regulation in January 1981, and in recent years the fishery has been limited to Angoon residents by the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Permits for this fishery are issued by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the time period August 1 to October 31. Following recent court decisions regarding the state subsistence law, other subsistence fisheries in Mitchell Bay, including sockeye at Kanalku Creek, are open to all Alaska residents. Sockeye fishing permits are issued for the period June 1 to July 31. Pink and chum salmon fishing permits are issued for the period July 1 to October 30. The usual method of subsistence salmon harvest in Mitchell Bay is with the use of a beach seine. Subsistence harvest data is presented in the resource analysis for traditional and customary natural resource use. Fisheries Enhancement and Mariculture In 1989 the IRA Council, Angoon Community Association (ACA) conducted site surveys for mariculture development at four locations in Mitchell Bay. The sites were located as follows: the slough at SE extreme from main channel flow through Mitchell Bay narrows (near Favorite Bay)-- hereafter called the “salt water lagoon”; the head of Mitchell Bay, in the cove on northernmost arm (north of South American Island); the cove NW of the north mouth of Davis Creek; and the north shore of Kanalku Bay. Further site testing was conducted in 1990 because the conditions during the 1989 testing were unusually dry and atypical. The 1990 summer project included small scale test culturing of Pacific oysters at the head of Mitchell Bay and at the salt water lagoon, and data collection at the other sites, with sporadic collection at the salt water lagoon. Growth tests indicated that at least eighty percent of an oyster crop would be marketable within two growing seasons, a growth rate considered very good by industry standards. A complex set of criteria are considered in site selection for shellfish farming, including biological suitability, land use conflicts, upland ownership and area management status, weather protection, transportation, access, fouling, potential pollution sources, and proximity to staging areas. After consideration of these criteria, Sea Culture of Alaska, a Juneau consulting firm, submitted a proposal to the ACA in late 1990 for development of commercial shellfish farms in the Angoon area. The proposal involves the application for commercial permits to develop oyster farms at the Mitchell Bay salt water lagoon site and one site in Hood Bay. The proposal has gained conceptual approval by the ACA Board and is now awaiting a final funding decision by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Angoon Aquaculture Association (AAA) has had a permit pending since 1982 at Favorite Bay along Favorite Bay stream to build a hatchery for chum, pink and coho salmon. The AAA is a non-profit hatchery organization formed by the IRA Council. The project proposes an annual capacity of 20 million chum eggs, 7.5 million pink eggs, and 1.5 million coho eggs. Issuance of a permit by ADFG Fisheries Rehabilitation and Enhancement Division (FRED) is Wu conditional upon the construction of a dam and reservoir for an adequate, stable and controlled water source. Although the dam and reservoir projects were once included in the Alaska Power Authority capital budget, they were later deleted and no initial funding was ever secured. Other factors affecting development include the prohibitive cost of waterlines and an access road, and agency stipulations on avoiding environmental impacts. A hatchery two to four times larger than originally proposed would probably be needed to make the project economi- cally feasible. The proposal is inactive at this time. Kootznoowoo Corporation has several fishery enhancement proposals still in the conceptual phase. These include a sockeye hatchery (with some coho) at the headwaters of Mitchell Bay, a hatchery at Favorite Bay, and a coho rearing area at Stillwater Anchorage. Feasibility studies have not been conducted. The ADFG Fisheries Rehabilitation and Enhancement Division may develop remote release net pens and outstocking projects in the Angoon area in the future. Recreation The recreational values of Admiralty Island National Monument make Mitchell Bay a popular destination. Anglers from all over the world fish in these waters. Float planes drop tourists on the Island. Boats from outside the community traverse the Mitchell Bay waterways during summer and early fall. Local recreational guide boats carry clients to popular sportfishing spots. Visitors at Thayer Lake Lodge north of town hike the trail and fish Salt Lake for cohos. Kayakers charter wilderness trips in Kootznahoo Inlet through Alaska Discovery, a recrea- tional guiding company inJuneau. Canoeists follow the Cross Admiralty Canoe Route through connected waterways to Mitchell Bay. Other recreationists hike the high country, photograph wildlife, climb the mountains and cross-country ski. The first documented sportfishery in Alaska occurred around Angoon, with historic use dating back tothe turn of the century. As early as 1898 the steamer Queen carried tourists to Killisnoo Island, adjacent to the Mitchell Bay AMSA, to fish halibut. The Queen usually fished between Danger Point, at the entrance to Kootznahoo Inlet, and Kenasnow Rocks near Angoon. At that time, Kootznahoo Inlet was known for its large schools of herring which attracted the halibut (Moser, page 46). In the 1960’s ADFG produced a sportfishing film about the Hasselborg River which it considered the finest coho sportfishery in the state. Hasselborg River flows into Salt Lake at the east end of the AMSA. The recreation industry has continued and expanded, providing opportunities for visitors who might not otherwise experience the wilderness. Sportfishing is so popular that five local residents conduct sportfish guiding services in or near Mitchell Bay. Today the industry makes significant contributions to the local economy. Adjacent to the AMSA, Thayer Lake Lodge and Whaler’s Cove Lodge host fishing and non-fishing recreationists. Whaler’s Cove Lodge alone employed sixty local people during the 1990 season. On Killisnoo Island, Favorite Bay Inn operates as a bed and breakfast and also rents out small boats, canoes and kayaks. In Angoon, four other bed and breakfast establishments and Kootznahoo Inlet Lodge host tourists. In addition, Alaska Discovery, Sealaska Cruises, M/V Creole and numerous charter boats depend on the Mitchell Bay AMSA to provide their guests with recreational experiences. The Forest Service maintains trails to Kanalku Bay, Freshwater Lake and Thayer Lake. In cooperation with the Angoon Monument Committee, a group of local residents, the Forest Service has identified fifteen recreational campsites which receive substantial use. Some of the shelters date back to the days of the Civilian Conservation Corps. These campsites are not located near any cultural resources. The public is encouraged to use the campsites through Forest Service pamphlets and contacts with the Wilderness Rangers who patrol the area. The Forest Service has monitored visitor use of the Cross Admiralty Canoe Route during the past few years. During the 1990 season, 23 groups with an average group size of six used the canoe route. Use was higher in 1989, when 38 groups with an average group size of four used the route. Outfitter/Guide use of the canoe route comprised 28% of the total use during the 1984-1990 seasons. Kootznoowoo Corporation and others have considered lodge development although formal plans have not been announced. Someday the Corporation may develop a recreation and tourist-oriented Indian village in Kootznahoo Inlet. Sport Fishing Table 11 describes the sport fish harvest by species for 1984-1989. The high king salmon harvest figures indicate that a fair number of fish reported were actually taken in salt water around Angoon, not just from Mitchell Bay-Salt Lagoon. Sport Hunting The deer hunting data in Table 12 is area-wide for Angoon. The area covered extends from the Fishery Creek drainage north of Angoon to Point Gardner at the southernmost point of Admiralty Island. It therefore includes deer harvests in Hood, Chaik and Whitewater Bays. Brown bear harvests have increased steadily since ADFG imposed a mandatory sealing program in the 1960s. Hunting is popular with non-resident hunters, who are required by law to employ registered guides. Probably at least eighty percent of all hunting activity is boat- based and occurs on the tidelands. The major harvest occurs shortly after bears leave the dens and begin to feed on beach grasses and sedges in the spring, but bears are also harvested in the fall months. In the 1930s the Salt Lake Bay was established as a brown bear viewing area that is legally closed to bear hunting. As the data in Table 13 indicate, Mitchell Bay is seldom used by hunters, probably due to sensitivity to the residents of Angoon. Table 14 indicates numbers of resident and non-resident bear hunters on all of Admiralty Island during a five-year period. Minerals There are coal deposits on the south shore of Kanalku Bay. Kootznoowoo Corporation owns both the surface and subsurface rights to this land. The coal deposits were mined for a while in the early 1900s, but several factors discouraged continuation of the industry. The tunnel flooded and could not be pumped out. The deposits did not yield high grade coal, and it became apparent that the thin beds were separated by massive layers of overburden. According to a Kootznoowoo Corporation spokesman, it is unlikely that mining will be resumed. —57— Table 11 Mitchell Bay-Salt Lagoon Sport Fish Harvest and Effort by Fisheries and Species Anglers Trips Days Fished King Salmon under 28" King Salmon Coho Salmon Red Salmon Kokanee Land-locked cohos or kings Pink Salmon Chum Salmon Halibut Steelhead Rainbow Trout Cutthroat Brook Trout Dolly Varden Grayling Smelt Rockfish Other: Sole, Cod, etc. Source for Table 11: ADFG Sport Fish Division, 1991. Note: ADFG cautions that the data contains an unknown level of mis-reporting. The data should be considered area-wide for salt water around Angoon, rather than Mitchell Bay-Salt Lagoon. Angler = any person who fished during the year. Trip = one or more journeys to a fishery during a day, or a journey lasting several days. Days fished = one angler fishing during any part of a 24-hour day. Table 12 Deer Hunting Data - Fishery Creek to Pt. Gardner # of # of # of # of Hunters by Residence: Year Bucks Does Deer’ Hunters Ang SE AK N.R. 1985 364 220 584 - 1986 425 95 520 439 - 1987 380 196 576 221 128 1988 220 139 359 183 77 1989 151 57 208 134 82 Source: ADFG, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1991. - means that data is not available. Ang = Angoon SE = Juneau, Kake, Petersburg, Wrangell and Sitka. AK = hunters froin other Alaskan towns. N.R. = non-resident hunters. Table 13 Sex of Brown Bears Taken in the A-3 Management Area by Year 1990 Pop. Year Male Female Sex Unknown Total Estimate 1984 1985 1986 1987 “988 1989 1990 Totals RINOrFOOCOOF e;rocoooo0co miCoorFrocoSo aiINnonooor Source: ADFG, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1991. A-3 Managemen: Area is restricted to Mitchell Bay. Table 14 Brown Bear Harvest on Admiralty Island by Hunter Residency Resident Non-Resident 26 23 8 18 15 21 22 24 32 21 103 107 Source: ADFG, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1991. —59— No commercial-grade mineral deposits have been identified in or near the AMSA. Timber The Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest is the dominant forest type from sea level to timberline, which varies from 2,000 to 3,000 feet. The most common conifers are western hemlock, Sitka spruce, mountain hemlock, and Alaska cedar. Of all terrestrial habitats, old-growth forest is generally considered the most important for wildlife in northern Southeast Alaska. The most critical and productive old-growth habitat consists of the highest volume stands on south-facing slopes between the beach and 1,000 feet elevation. Stands with highly variable tree spacing of many large trees with full crowns interspersed with trees of varying age, size, and crown development and an understory abundant in bunchberry, blueberry, trailing raspberry, and goldthread provide first class fodder and shelter for deer, bear, and smaller mammals and birds. Typically these stands are found on south-facing slopes within a few miles of the beach or in riparian corridors. Deer frequent the beach fringe in winter and spring, and subalpine areas in summer and fall, but they depend on old-growth forest year-round and especially during winter and spring. The bulk of their food comes from browse along the edge of the forest openings or adjacent to the tidelands. The crowns, needles, and branches of spruce and hemlock form a canopy which reduces snow accumulation on the ground. This allows species such as deer to continue to access the understory plants. The forest canopy intercepts the heavy snows near the tidal areas where winter survival temperatures are moderated by the salt water. The canopy also reduces radiant heat loss so that temperatures in the woods may be as much as ten or fifteen degrees warmer than those in muskegs, meadows and clearcuts. With the additional wind protection afforded by heavy timber and brush, the old-growth forest becomes critical habitat in periods of extreme cold and periods of deep snow. The Vancouver Canada goose depends on old-growth forests and rich estuaries. Unique among geese which tend to nest in marshes, it nests in old-growth trees in the spring and migrates to intermediate altitude muskegs during summer. Instead of migrating south, many of the Vancouver sub-species are year-round residents in bays, estuaries, and tide flats near their nesting areas. The forest also plays an important role in regulating in-stream water volumes and tem- peratures. Tall trees growing along river banks shade stream courses from thermal extremes, both the intense mic-summer sun and intense mid-winter cold. Trees and their root systems regulate the rate of run-off, storing water received during wet periods and releasing it slowing during dry periods. The forest steadily contributes small amounts of bark, needles, leaves, insects, and other nutrients essential to the aquatic lifeforms found in lakes, rivers, and streams. Periodic blow downs of patches of forest by high winds during fall and winter storms oc- casionally block anadromous fish streams, but generally the effect of trees and stumps on streams is positive. Blow downs provide shelter for fish and animals and growing platforms for algae and insects. Attached marine algae and eelgrass are often torn loose and deposited _60— on beaches. As these plants are broken down by physical and chemical processes, they become an important winter food source for shellfish and marine invertebrates. The forestis alsoimportant as a source of firewood. Firewood is a traditional resource essential toa majority of Angoon households for heat, domestic hot water and cooking. Demandis heavy, and wood consumption per household may exceed several cords a year. Energy There are currently no energy projects under development in the AMSA. Around 1982 the Alaska Power Authority (APA) conducted a reconnaissance study of tidal power at Little Pass, between Village Rock and Angoon. However, because of the small power market in Angoon, the APA did not request funding for further study or project development. In 1979 the APA, now the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), studied the potential of Thayer Creek, north of the AMSA, to support a small-scale hydroelectric project. Although the work was completed, the AEA deferred development at that time. Kootznoowoo Corporation later requested that AKA review the previous findings, resulting in completion of the Angoon Hydro Study in August, 1989. The study recommends alternative development of Thayer Lake and Thayer Creek. The study primarily investigated Thayer Lake as a potential diversion site which would bring water directly from the Lake over a divide to a stream which runs into Mitchell Bay. It also inves- tigated the dam site at the mouth of Thayer Creek, initially studied in 1979. Either site would provide large amounts of energy to Angoon for potential uses including space heating, greenhouses, a hatchery operation, a freezer plant for seafood, or a mariculture operation. Either of the proposed systems would economically benefit the community through utilization of considerable local labor during construction. Both alternative systems would have to ensure protection of the pink and chum salmon runs at the mouth of Thayer Creek. Environmental problems with the Thayer Creek site involve the site requirements of a pow- erhouse down near the tidewater line and an overhead transmission line along the coastline of Chatham Strait. The Thayer Lake diversion site is considered the more environmentally sound and suitable site. A diversion scheme could provide a continuous water supply to a protected area for either hatchery or mariculture development. Freshwater Lake could receive some of the water and perhaps become suitable as a sockeye rearing ground. Cultural Resources Thirty-seven known prehistoric and historic sites dot the shores of the Mitchell Bay AMSA. The cultural inventory includes village middens, gardens, fort sites, cemeteries, fish weirs, petrographs, and a myth site. Adjacent to the AMSA, the thirteen clan houses in Angoon are valued resources as well. There may be significant unknown sites of great age in the Mitchell Bay AMSA. —61— RESOURCE ANALYSIS Introduction In the following Resource Analysis, existing and potential future uses, issues and conflicts in Mitchell Bay are explored. Figure 14 shows existing and potential future land and water uses in the Mitchell Bay AMSA. Issues identified in the Resource Analysis are addressed in the AMSA policies. Traditional and Customary Natural Resource Use Traditional Tlingit culture has a rich and close relationship to the environment. The survival of Tlingit traditions depends upon both the continuation of the land and sea to provide resources, and access to those resources by the people. Angoon residents regularly share wild foods with friends and relatives both inside and outside the community. Traditional and customary natural resource use is integral to the way of life of most Angoon residents. The Mitchell Bay AMSA may be the most valued and most productive traditional use area of the Angoon Tlingit. Kootznahoo Inlet is both an historic and contemporary use area shown in a1985 survey to be the most frequently used of all Angoon hunting and fishing areas. Tradi- tional use has fluctuated through time from nearly 70 percent of Angoon households in 1955 to just over 90 percent of all households in 1984. Probably at least half of all the fish, wildlife and plants traditionally harvested by the people of Angoon come from the Mitchell Bay AMSA alone. Nearly all the species that are included in the diet of Angoon people can be found in this area. Mitchell Bay yields salmon, crab, shrimp, octopus, clams, cockles, urchins, sea cucumbers and other invertebrates, dolly varden, steelhead, halibut, rockfish, other bottomfish, grouse, bird eggs, seal, firewood, alder for smoking fish, and small mammals by trapping. On the major tides of the month chitons, or gumboots, are gathered from the reefs near town. Figure 13 shows the seasonal round of harvest activities in the Angoon area. In a1988 random survey, interviews were conducted at 46 Angoon households to find out how much meat and fish residents harvested for subsistence use in 1987. The measure of subsistence used is the average (mean) number of pounds of edible meat and fish harvested in a single year per community resident (per capita, including both adults and children). The sample of Angoon households reported an average of 242 pounds of edible meat and fish harvested per capita in 1987. This estimate may have been a bit higher or lower if the survey had included interviews of every household in Angoon. Nevertheless, the surveyers found the lowest possible per capita harvest was about 178 pounds, the best estimate of actual per capita harvest was 242 pounds, while the highest possible per capita harvest was about 306 pounds. Angoon residents harvest on average about eight different types of resources, and through sharing, households receive an average of over six different resources. The survey determined the relative importance of different subsistence resources. Relative importance was calculated as the percentage of total edible pounds harvested in each resource category. Deer ranked highest (30%), followed closely by salmon (29%). “Other Mammals” and “Other Finfish” each comprised 14%, for a total of 28% of edible pounds harvested. Inverte- —62— Angoon Seasonal Round of Harvest Activities Fish King salmon Chum salmon Coho salmon Pink salmon Red salmon Halibut Dolly Varden Cod Herring Herring Eggs Flounder Sole Snapper Sculpin Mammals Deer Black bear Furbearers Seal Birds Geese Ducks Grouse Bird eggs Shellfish Dungeness crab Tanner crab King crab Clam Cockle Gumboot Sea Urchin Sea Cucumber Plants Blueberry Salmonberry Thimbleberry Seaweed Jan Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Senn 88 r SEER - SRER BERS CaS a eee REESE eee Eee NEES Ree EEN se 2XS| ROE ee og ¥% occasional harvest effort M@ primary harvest effort Seasonal Round of Harvest Activities: Source: ADF&G Subsistence Division Angoon Figure 13 brates (9%) and Other (unspecified resources, at roughly 3%) made up the remainder of resources harvested (Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey, 1988). Sitka black-tailed deer is the most valued game species, and as stated above, a significant component of the Angoon diet. Deer are smoked, frozen, dried, canned or eaten immediately. Deer harvest shown in the two tables below is area-wide for Angoon, and the numbers probably include deer taken in one of more of the AMSAs. In 1982 interviews, hunters stated that when they hunt the southwest shore of Admiralty, they prefer Hood Bay, Chaik Bay, Whitewater Bay, and Wilson Cove. Nearly all of them stated that the weather plays an important role in where and when they hunt. Generally, Kootznahoo Inlet in Mitchell Bay is hunted when rough waters in Chatham Strait prevent them from going to their preferred places (George & Kookesh, p. 8). Of 46 households surveyed in 1988, 86% reported that old-growth forest is their most reliable deer hunting area, and the average (median) distance travelled to hunt deer is 13 miles (Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey, 1988). Table 15 Subsistence Deer Harvest Estimates, Angoon Based on Mailed Surveys by ADFG, Division of Game 1984 Number of Harvest Tickets 130 Number of Hunters 95 Percent of Successful Hunters Number of Deer Harvested Source: George & Bosworth, ADFG Technical Paper 159. George & Bosworth note that the harvest estimates in this table probably under-represent the contribution of households that take large numbers of deer: “It is likely that some hunters who have exceeded the legal bag limit are reluctant to provide a complete reporting of their harvests.” Additionally, mail survey response rates are low for Angoon and most rural communities. Bosworth and George (p. 82) state that the data shown in Table 16 for 1985 and 1986 “probably best represent actual harvest levels, due to the face-to-face survey method and the large survey sample for those years.” The harvest of 490 deer in 1986 contributed over 39,000 pounds of meat to the community, or 71 pounds per person. In 1988 the average cost of domesticated meat at the Angoon store was $3.00 per pound. If deer meat is assigned the same value, the replacement value of the 1986 deer harvest would be $117,600. In many cases, household needs are met by sharing among households. The high harvest households are depended on to provide others with the number of deer needed for consumption (George & Bosworth, p 149-50). —64— ea MEG Table 16 Angoon Deer Harvests ADFG Division of Subsistence Surveys 1985** 1986** Number of households attempting to harvest 81 86 Percent of all households harvesting 57 61 Number of deer harvested+ Mean number of deer per active household Mean number of deer per household Source: George & Bosworth, Technical Paper #159, p. 80, 82. + Total Angoon harvest, extrapolated from survey data. * N=38 (26% household sample) Division of Subsistence data files. ** N=136 (93% household sample) Division of Subsistence data files. Table 17 shows subsistence salmon permit harvest data for the Mitchell Bay AMSA during the years 1984-1986. Information on t::apping of small furbearers indicates there is not a lot of activity in the Angoon area. The reporting area in Table 18 extends from the Fishery Creek drainage north of Angoon to Point Gardner on southern Admiralty Island. It therefore includes Mitchell, Hood, Chaik and Whitewater Bays. The greatest concern in the Mitchell Bay AMSA centers on competing uses perceived to threaten traditional and customary use of natural resources. The average Angoon household depends heavily on food harvesting for its year-to-year survival. Traditional and customary use, rather than government welfare, is the primary means of supplementing income. Because both their cultural and physical livelihoods depend on the traditional use of natural resources, the people of Angoon give the highest priority to the preservation and use of these resources. Fisheries Enhancement and Mariculture As discussed in the resource inventory, the Angoon Community Association (ACA) is proposing development of the salt water lagoon site in Mitchell Bay for oyster farming (see Figure 14). This site is located within the Wilderness, with State control of the tidelands, and joint management of ‘he corridor land by Kootznoowoo Corporation and the USFS. Wilderness management generally opposes commercial shellfish farms in tidelands adjacent to Wilder- ness. However, an IRA Council proposal (e.g. ACA) for a low-impact farm in a lightly used area could be approved. The ACA dropped the most promising site at the head of Mitchell Bay because it is located near a USFS campsite and the area is used by kayakers. —65— Table 17 Subsistence Salmon Permit Harvest Data in Mitchell Bay 1984-1989 Permits Issued*/ Sockeye Chum i Permits Returned** 1984 Favorite Bay 0 75 325 Kanalku Bay 359 70 15 Salt Lake 0 0 162 Note: in 1984, 1,006 fish totalling 5,804 pounds were harvested. 1985 Favorite Bay 0 65 245 0 81*/20** Kanalku Bay 398 0 0 0 30*/26** Salt Lake/ Hasselborg 0 0 5 260 1084/53* Note: in 1985, 973 fish totalling 5,432 pounds were harvested. 1986 Favorite Bay 0 0 54*/8** Kanalku Bay 0 0 58*/33** Salt Lake/ Hasselborg 0 0 0 55*/18** Salt Lake 0 0 0 26*/2** Note: in 1986, 886 fish totalling 5,405 pounds were harvested. 1987 Favorite Bay 0 0 115 0 Qe Kanalku Bay 583 0 0 0 18** Salt Lake/ Hasselborg 45 0 0 105 Hee: Note: 1987 was the first year of “catch /ealendar permit” which was good for the whole season and allowed fishing anywhere. : 1988 Mitchell Bay Kanalku Bay Hasselborg 1989 Kanalku Bay Salt Lake Source: ADFG, Division Commercial Fisheries, 1991. Note: The Number of Permits is understood to indicate all requests for fish, whether it be the permittee’s first, second, or third choice. Thus, if someone requests 12 fish from one location, 8 more from another, and 5 more fish from a third, they have effectively been issued three permits. Likewise, if two different species are requested from the same location, two permits are considered to have been issued. No king salmon were harvested in Mitchell Bay during the reported years. weg Table 18 Harvest of Small Mammals by Trapping Trappers by Residence Beaver Marten Otter Angoon Other* Total Source: ADFG, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1991. Other*: Juneau, the Chatham cannery site in Sitkoh Bay, and Sitka. The ACA proposes to design an environmentally sensitive project to minimize impacts on wilderness values. The project would ease impacts by (1) confining commercial activities to the salt water lagoon which is very lightly used for subsistence and has virtually no recreational use; (2) using longlines to reduce the visual impacts of raft culture; (3) shifting hardening and defouling areas to non-wilderness areas closer to town; and (4) agreeing to avoid the use of washdown pumps, hydraulic hoists, and other equipment requiring the use of gasoline engines in the wilderness areas. The ACA is applying for state and federal permits for a demonstration longline during the 1991 season, and for start-up of commercial farming in the 1992 growing season. The ACA would need to secure grant or loan funds prior to the 1992 growing season for purchasing gear and equipment needed to support initial commercial farming operations. If permits are secured, the Angoon mariculture project would be Alaska’s first tribally owned shellfish farm. The salt water lagoon site would be operated by tribal members trained in farming techniques and business management. A leasing arrangement would allow the farmers to build their own business while the tribal council would hold the permits and tideland leases. The Kootznoowoo Corporation’s fishery enhancement proposals are still in the conceptual stage. The District has not taken a strong position regarding hatchery development in the AMSA. Hatcheries might provide local employment opportunities and more fish for traditional and customary use. However, they also might lead to increased sportfishing and commercial fishing activities in the AMSA. As enhancement proposals become better defined in the future, careful resource management will be needed. In addition, hatchery projects would be required to operate in an environmentally sound manner. Recreation Recreational fist ing throughout Mitchell Bay is currently perceived by some Angoon residents as a use conflict that threatens subsistence resources. —67— The perceived conflict specifically centers on the Salt Lake coho resource. Some residents consider guided sportfishing direct competition for Salt Lake cohos. However, several competing uses exert pressure on the coho stocks. A sport fishery of undetermined size harvests coho from Salt Lake. In addition, a commercial troll fishery operating in the waters outside Kootznahoo Inlet harvests fish from Salt Lake coho stocks. During the peak season of early August to mid-September, the Salt Lake area is used by subsistence fishermen and hunters from Angoon, guided and non-guided fishermen, and other recreationists who might incidentally catch coho. Neither the actual number of people who visit the lake nor the total sport fishery coho catch is presently known. USFS visitor statistics include Salt Lake and all of Mitchell Bay. In1990, visitor use in Mitchell Bay was monitored for 12 days during the “peak season” (August 10- September 15) and for three days during the non-peak season. During the 15 sample days, there was an average of six visitors per day. Visitors came in 25 groups that averaged close to four people per group (94 people total). Of the 25 groups, just over six percent were guided. The average length of stay during the peak season was about two and a half days compared to 10 days during the non-peak season. Due to minimal monitoring in 1990, the sampling of the non-peak visitor use is probably not reflective of actual use (Robin Inhelder,USFS, 1991.) The effect of the commercial harvest on Salt Lake coho is presently unknown because there are no biological data identifying the extent of the Salt Lake stock coho harvest by the commercial fishing fleet. The Hasselborg/Jim’s Creek system is considered an extremely productive coho system and the total number of coho is probably twice the peak count of 2300 shown on Table 2 (Ingledue, personal communication to Gary Morrison, USFS, 1989). The USFS authorizes Outfitter/Guide services for fishing and non-fishing activities on National Forest lands in the Salt Lake area. In December 1989, the agency conducted an Environmental Assessment of the Amount and Type of Outfitter/Guide Services in Mitchell Bay. The Decision Notice for this assessment included a Finding of No Significant Impact which concluded there were no significant effects on subsistence opportunities as a result of the outfitter/guide activities. The Finding was based on the ADFG sport harvest data for 1984- 1989 in Table 19 below, which indicate a maximum of 1200 fish were taken during one year from the Mitchell Bay area. ADFG believes that this harvest level does not impact coho populations. The permits issued for authorized outfitter/guides on National Forest lands require the permit holders to minimize effects on other wilderness users, including subsistence users; however, it does not prohibit them from utilizing the same sites as other users. The Forest Service stated in the EA, “Subsistence users will likely continue to perceive impacts from these sport anglers, especially from guided anglers, until better information on escape- ment and harvest of cohos is obtained by ADFG. The Forest Service will continue to recom- mend to ADFG that Salt Lake coho be further studied in order to more accurately portray effects of guided angler harvest. In addition, the Forest Service will recommend that the local Angoon Fish and Game advisory board take the issue before the State Fish Board to evaluate the number of coho taken by sport anglers and to make changes to bag limits if necessary.” —68— Table 19 depicts the estimated total sportfish harvest of all coho in Mitchell Bay, not just Salt Lake. The data are based on the annual ADFG statewide mail survey rather than creel census or field checks. Table 19 Estimated Sportfish Harvest of Coho in Mitchell Bay* Survey Respondents Estimated Total Harvest+ 27 729 37 610 45 559 32 1219 ? 728 ? 905 *Source: ADFG Sportfish Division, 1989 and 1990. +Estimated total harvest annually of all coho in Mitchell Bay Table 20 shows recent reported subsistence harvests of coho salmon from Salt Lake. The numbers of fish harvested are variable depending on harvest information voluntarily submit- ted by the users. Table 20 Subsistence Coho Harvest from Salt Lake Permits Harvest Issued Returned Reported Estimated 80 32 176 440 108 53 260 530 83 33 250 629 92* 6* 105* * 2* 2* 35* 2* ? 1 40 ? Source: ADFG, Commercial Fish Division, June 1989. *In 1987 and 1988 permit issuing procedures were changed and the number of returned permits (which report number of fish harvested) were especially low. As a result, no estimates for total subsistence harvest have been made. Sport hunting pressures currently are not heavy in Mitchell Bay. However, as logging continues on East Chichagof and East Baranof, emergency closures and reduced bag limits will increase hunting pressures on West Admiralty. Any increase in guided deer hunts, or outfitting of non-resident hunters could have a serious impact on local traditional users. —69— The international reputation and recreational value of Admiralty Island National Monument will encourage future tourism and recreational use of the Mitchell Bay AMSA. Recreational use can potentially result in habitat and scenic impacts that include littering, firewood cutting debris, disturbance of traditional berry picking areas, and stowage of boats on tidelands within sight of other boaters. Kootznoowoo Corporation has informal plans to finance a tourism facility in Kootznahoo Inlet sometime in the future. The Corporation takes a conservative approach to development in Mitchell Bay, and feels that any tourism activities should be tightly restricted. Proposed tourist activities would include sportfishing, viewing of traditional cultural events, and the sale of locally made items. With proper management, a tourism site in Mitchell Bay might be compatible with traditional use. Another site the Corporation may consider for a tourist facility is adjacent to the AMSA at the unnamed lake on the Angoon Peninsula south of the ferry terminal. Although the site is outside of the AMSA boundary, future development may be evaluated for spillover impacts. Minerals Most of the Mitchell Bay AMSA and its waters are surrounded by Admiralty Island National ‘Monument. The wilderness and monument designation does not allow mineral development. Ifthe privately held Kanalku Bay coal deposits were considered economically viable sometime in the future, there potentially would be serious conflicts between development of the mine and both recreational use and traditional and customary use in the area. Timber There are currently no timber lease sales or proposed forestry activities anywhere near the AMSA, and none are expected because of the wilderness designation of the uplands. However, the Mitchell Bay corridor lands corresponding with the 660 foot AMSA upland boundary are jointly managed by the Forest Service and Kootznoowoo Corporation and are not designated wilderness. Logging would not be prohibited because of management designation of these lands. There also could be minimal timber harvesting associated with road construction and residential development on private land. Kootznoowoo Corporation, the owner of the old Kanalku Bay coal mine, does not intend to mine the deposits but has suggested it may log the 102-acre surface lands at some future time. Any logging activities would be subject to conditions and stipulations that ensure maximimum protection to all other resources and to traditional and customary use. Habitat change from activities including logging is considered the most important factor affecting eagle populations. Pre-logging nesting densities are not known, but the density of eagle nests corresponds neatly and inversely to the amount of logging and human disturbance. Several gaps in nest distribution on Admiralty are mostly in old logging areas or disturbance areas around canneries or navigational aids. Nest failure may also be the result of shooting, and other human activity including traffic and noise. It is generally believed that logging would probably have fewer detrimental effects on brown bear than it would on deer, eagles or fish. If the bears range as widely on Admiralty as is believed, they would not suffer the impact of clearcutting that home-range species such as deer would suffer. Beach log salvage may be a future activity. Beach log salvage is a low impact activity found to be generally consistent with the ACMP, with general stipulations to avoid tideland impacts and cultural resource sites. The ongoing yearly harvest of firewood has depleted the readily available stands of timber close to town. Access to new sources further from town and the roadways must be ensured. Road construction or residential development may yield some firewood, but people will increasingly rely on sources within the AMSA. Associated harvesting problems of debris, conflicts with other users, and potential fire hazards during dry weather must be addressed. The Forest Service allows harvesting of dead and down wood for personal use without a permit. Although the agency has never issued permits, the Forest Service would regulate harvesting of green wood for house logs or trolling poles. Currently the Forest Service does not regulate the cutting of green alder in Mitchell Bay for smoking fish. Energy The proposed Thayer Lake diversion scheme for hydroelectric power is located in designated Wilderness, and a land transfer may be complicated. A provision in ANILCA allows energy development by a local native corporation of an outlet to Thayer Lake at the township and range description of the Thayer Creek alternative site. A small amendment to ANILCA exchanging townships would be needed. Congressional approval and a USFS analysis, probably involving the NEPA process, would be required. More study including field work, an accurate cost estimate, and a benefits analysis is needed. The AEA has requested state funding in the FY 92 budget for continued study of the Thayer Lake diversion site. Congressman Young has pledged his assistance in gaining the amend- ment to ANILCA to exchange the township at Thayer Creek to that at the Thayer Lake diversion site. If the land exchange is successful, the hydro project would be developed and owned by Kootznoowoo Corporation, and Tlingit-Haida Regional Electric Authority would buy power from the Corporation. Cultural Resources Protection of known and undiscovered cultural resources is essential in preserving the cultural heritage of the Tlingit people. Protective measures must include the classification of site information so that people will not trespass or desecrate the sites, and careful review of the site inventory before approval of any proposed development activity to avoid the destruction of cultural resources. —m1— JIMS LAK ¢ 35 CABIN (FS)% y TRADITIONAL HUNTING, FISHING, AND GATHERING OCCURS THROUGHOUT THE AMSA SPORT HUNTING AND FISHING OCCURS THROUGHOUT THE AMSA SUBSISTENCE FISHERY: SALT LAKE - COHO SALMON KANALKU CREEK - SOCKEYE SALMON Wr ot A_ RECREATIONAL CAMPSITES <> POTENTIAL SALMON HATCHERY @ POTENTIAL MARICULTURE STATION POTENTIAL TIMBER HARVEST th POTENTIAL TOURISM FACILITY . \ Lhe & MITCHELL BAY AMSA EXISTING AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USES Figure 14 RESOURCE INVENTORY and ANALYSIS of the HOOD BAY AMSA The biophysical and socioeconomic information in this chapter provides the basis for the AMSA policies. RESOURCE INVENTORY General Setting The Hood Bay AMSA has great value to the general public and specifically to Angoon as a traditional and customary use area. Hood Bay provides important traditional anadromous fish streams, and deer and waterfowl hunting grounds for the people of Angoon. The magnificent scenery makes it a popular destination for sport fishermen and hunters. The Bay is also used by subsistence hunters from other nearby communities. Fish and Wildlife The marine and terrestrial habitats of the Hood Bay AMSA support a rich and diverse range of fish and wildlife.Anadromous fish in the area include pink, chum, sockeye, coho, and king salmon and dolly varden, cutthroat, and rainbow or steelhead trout. Hood Bay has a wintering and spawning school of herring. Weir Creek in the South Arm of Hood Bay is one of only two streams around Angoon that support chum salmon. Figure 15 depicts the anadromous fish streams in the AMSA. Although there are no king salmon spawning streams nearby, commercial handtrollers and subsistence fishermen spend a lot of time pursuing this species during the spring and early summer. Most of the harvest effort is concentrated in Hood Bay and along Chatham Strait. The most common bottom-dwelling fish include the walleye pollock, halibut, sablefish or blackcod, arrowtooth flounder or turbot, Pacific perch, Pacific cod, and flathead, Dover and rex soles. Common shallower water fish include herring, salmonids, starry flounder, greenling, lingcod, shiner perch, ratfish, dogfish, surfsmelt, tomcod, yellowfin sole, shortspine thornyhead or idiotfish, and various rockfish and sculpins. Common marine invertebrates include clams, scallops, mussels, abalone, snails, crabs, shrimp, barnacles, urchins, sea stars and sea cucumbers. Eight known edible species of mussels, clams, and cockles occur in the intertidal and shallow subtidal zone. Crab species include Dungeness, king and tanner. Marine mammals commonly found year-round in the Angoon area include Steller sea lions, harbor seals, sea otters, Dall and harbor porpoise, and killer and humpback whales. Other marine mammals occurring occasionally in the area include Northern fur and elephant seals, minke and sei whales, and North pacific whiteside dolphins. Sitka black-tailed deer and brown bear are the only large mammals found on Admiralty Island, and both range from the beach fringe to the alpine meadows. The brown bear is believed to range widely but in a 1976 study there was found to be very little movement of brown bears —73— = < Ww a = an = 2 Ts a > ° = ° a a < 2 < e e e e e Figure 15 HOOD BAY AMSA ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS Location Table 21 Hood Bay Peak Salmon Escapement Counts by Year CHUM COHO PINK Location North Arm (Northwest Head) 1985 1986 1989 Weir Creek (North Arm) 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 North Arm (Hast Head) 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 South Arm (Head) 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Source: ADFG, Commercial Fisheries Division, 1991. Peak count is the highest number of fish counted in all of the surveys during the year. Surveys are either aerial or by boat or foot. South Arm (North Shore) 1984 1985 1986 1987 South Arm (Head North) 1984 1985 1986 1989 1990 Weir Creek (South Arm) 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1st Stream northwest of Weir Creek 1984 1985 1986 1987 1989 1990 There are no sockeye salmon streams in Hood Bay. from Hood Bay. Eight out of ten tagged bears were taken by hunters in the drainage where they had been tagged (Morgan, p. 9). Hood Bay is known for its abundant deer. Other mammals include mink, land otter, marten, marmot, beaver, short-tailed weasels, squirrel, voles, shrews, mice, and bats. The coastal forest provides important cover and habitat for most of these species. Marine foods taken from the intertidal zone can make up an important part of the diet of mink, land otter, and -- to a lesser extent -- marten. Some of these mammals are taken by subsistence trappers. Game birds include the blue grouse and rock ptarmigan. Birds of prey are the bald eagle; the red-tailed, gos-, sharp-shinned, sparrow, and marsh hawks; great gray and great horned owls; and peregrine and gyrfalcons. Common birds breeding in the forest and in other upland habitats include the rufous hummingbird; yellow-bellied sapsucker; western flycatcher; tree and barn swallows; raven; crow; chestnut-backed chickadee; ouzel; winter wren; varied, hermit and Swainson’s Thrush; orange-crowned, Townsend’s myrtle, and Wilson’s warblers; fox and Lincoln’s sparrow; pine siskin; red crossbill; and dark-eyed junco. Each spring during the annual migration to their northerly breeding grounds, thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds pass through Chatham Strait which is part of the Pacific Flyway. Estuaries and wetlands like those found in Hood Bay provide critical resting and feeding habitat, especially in years when breakup further inland is late or temporarily delayed by weather. Nesting waterfowl concentrate at the heads of most bays, and along lakes and streams. Nesters include red-throated and common loons, Vancouver Canada geese, trum- peter swans, mallards, harlequin ducks, and common and red-breasted mergansers. Pintail, shoveler and teal also pass through the area. Waterfowl constitute an important subsistence food source. Inshore waters, especially along the shores of bays and inlets, provide needed habitat for overwintering gulls, mallards, scaup, common and Barrow’s goldeneye, buffleheads, oldsquaws, harlequins, white-winged, surf and common scoters, common and red-breasted merganser, Vancouver Canada geese, loons, grebes, marbled murrelets, murres, guillemots, and other alcids, puffins, eider, and pelagic cormorants. Important fall and winter food for these birds includes eelgrass, sea lettuce and other algae, marine invertebrates, small fish, and spawned- out salmon and their roe. Shorebirds such as black turnstones, black oystercatchers, rock sandpipers, surfbirds, and dunlins frequent the rocky shores during winter. Migrating whimbrel, golden, black-bellied, and semi-palmated plover, and wandering tattlers also rest in the area, frequently stopping at low tide. Snipe and greater and lesser yellowlegs nest along the shore of marine and freshwater bodies, swamps, and muskegs. Puffin, petrels, gulls, guillemots, jaegers, murres, murrelets, and phalaropes are found in the area at various times of the year. Fisheries A commercial king salmon fishery occurs mostly in the outer reaches of the Bay to the west of the old cannery site, and not in the North or South Arms. Cohosalmon are commercially fished, and are incidentally taken while fishing for chums with subsistence gear in the South Arm. Table 22 Statistical Area 112-71 Purse Seine Landings in Hood Bay in 1986 and 1989 Chinook Chum Source: ADFG, Commercial Fisheries Division, 1991. Statistical Area 112-71 is District 112, Hood Bay. Data was unavailable for 1985, 1987, 1988 and 1990. Halibut and Dungeness crab are also commercially harvested. The shorelines of the entire Bay comprise the halibut commercial fishery. Dungeness crab are commercially taken at the head of the North Arm and at the mouth of streams in the South Arm. Area-wide harvest data on Dungeness crab, including Hood Bay, is presented in the Mitchell Bay fisheries resource inventory. In 1990 a new sea cucumber commercial fishery opened at Distant Point and extended south to Chaik Bay, an area adjacent to both the Hood Bay and the Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSAs. Fisheries Enhancement and Mariculture There are no hatchery or mariculture developments in the Hood Bay AMSA. However, in 1989 the Angoon Community Association (ACA) mariculture project surveyed conditions for commercial oyster farming at one site near the north shore of the South Arm of Hood Bay. Data was collected again during the 1990 summer months because of atypical conditions during the 1989 test season. Currently the ACA has decided not to develop the site in the South Arm, and will apply for commercial permits for oyster farming for the 1992 growing season on tidelands adjacent to the ACA-owned cannery site in Hood Bay. The ADFG FRED may develop remote release net pens and outstocking projects in areas close to Angoon, but specific sites have not been selected. Recreation The reputation for good fishing and deer hunting, and the beautiful scenery within the Admiralty Island National Monument make the Hood Bay AMSA popular with recreationists. Sport Hunting Deer harvested in Hood Bay for the years 1985-89 are included in Table 12. The reporting area extends from the Fishery Creek drainage north of Angoon to Point Gardner on south Admiralty Island. Brown bear hunting is popular in Hood Bay. The Bay is heavily used by bear hunters for an estimated two out of every four days for one month in the spring and one month in the fall. Table 23 shows recent bear harvests in Management Area A-2, which includes Hood, Chaik, and Whitewater Bays. Numbers of resident and non-resident hunters are not known. Table 23 Sex of Bears Taken in the A-2 Management Area by Year 1990 Bear Female . Estimate 8 4 7 8 6 3 5 » = Source: ADFG, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1991. A-2 Management Area includes Hood Bay, Chaik Bay, Whitewater Bay and the area southward to Pt. Gardner. Timber The Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest is the dominant forest type from sea level to timberline, which varies from 2,000 to 3,000 feet. The most common conifers are western hemlock, Sitka spruce, mountain hemlock, and Alaska cedar. Of all terrestrial habitats, old-growth forest is generally considered the most important for wildlife in northern Southeast Alaska. The most critical and productive old-growth habitat consists of the highest volume stands on south-facing slopes between the beach and 1,000 feet elevation. Stands with highly variable tree spacing of many large trees with full crowns interspersed with trees of varying age, size, and crown development and an understory abundant in bunchberry, blueberry, trailing raspberry, and goldthread provide first class fodder and shelter for deer, bear, and smaller mammals and birds. Typically these stands are found on south-facing slopes within a few miles of the beach or in riparian corridors. —78— Deer frequent the beach fringe in winter and spring, and subalpine areas in summer and fall, but they depend on old-growth forest year round and especially during winter and spring. The crowns, needles, and branches of spruce and hemlock form a canopy which reduces snow accumulation on the ground. This allows species such as deer to continue to access the understory plants. The canopy also reduces radiant heat loss so that temperatures in the woods may be as much as ten or fifteen degrees warmer than those in muskegs, meadows and clearcuts. With the additional wind protection afforded by heavy timber and brush, the old- growth forest becomes critical habitat in periods of extreme cold and periods of deep snow. The Vancouver Canada goose depends on old-growth forests and rich estuaries. Unique among geese which tend to nest in marshes, it nests in old-growth trees in the spring and migrates to intermediate altitude muskegs during summer. Instead of migrating south, many of the Vancouver sub-species are year-round residents in bays, estuaries, and tide flats near their nesting areas. The marbled murrelet feeds in saltwater but nests in old-growth forests growing on steep hillsides, sometimes as much as twenty or more miles inland. Liquidation of nesting habitat by logging has endangered the species in California, Oregon and Washington. Marbled murrelet numbers in Southeast Alaska remain high, but the impact on their population by logging activities has not been assessed. It is believed that marbled murrelets feed along the entire western shore of Admiralty Island. Nesting is likely to be especially concentrated on the steep slopes above Hood Bay. The forest also plays an important role in regulating in-stream water volumes and tem- peratures. Tall trees growing along river banks shade stream courses from thermal extremes, both the intense mid-summer sun and intense mid-winter cold. Trees and their root systems regulate the rate of run-off, storing water received during wet periods and releasing it slowing during dry periods. The forest steadily contributes small amounts of bark, needles, leaves, insects, and other nutrients essential to the aquatic lifeforms found in lakes, rivers, and streams. Patches of forest are periodically blown down by high winds that accompany the frequent fall and winter storms. Blow downs occasionally block anadromous fish streams but generally the effect of trees and stumps on streams is positive. Blow downs provide shelter for fish and animals and growing platforms for algae and insects. Attached marine algae and eelgrass are often torn loose and deposited on beaches. As these plants are broken down by physical and chemical processes, they become an important winter food source for shellfish and marine invertebrates. The forest is also important in providing firewood. Firewood is a traditional resource essential toa majority of Angoon households for heat, domestic hot water and cooking. Demandis heavy, and wood consumption per household may exceed several cords a year. Sections of the Hood Bay old growth forest were logged in the past. The commercial harvest of timber probably began in the late 1870’s for wood to build and operate canneries. Timber was also commercially harvested for pilings and floats for commercial fish traps owned by the canneries. Between 1913 and 1947, many trees were cut along the beach fringe individually or in small clearcuts. —79— A private logging company clearcut 154 acres in the South Arm in 1947. An additional 524 acres were harvested at the extreme end of south Hood Bay between 1948 and 1951. Minerals There are no known economic concentrations of minerals in Hood Bay. The Forest Service manages the federally-owned subsurface estate. The agency has classified the area as wilderness and mining is incompatible with this land use designation. Cultural Resources Eleven cultural sites in the Hood Bay AMSA have been identified and mapped. These include aprehistoric settlement, and evidence of historic villages and a mythical fish camp. The Tlingit people have occupied Hood Bay for along time and itis likely that significant unknown cultural sites exist. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Introduction In the following Resource Analysis, existing and potential future uses, issues and conflicts in Hood Bay are explored. Figure 16 shows existing and potential future land and water uses in the Hood Bay AMSA. Issues identified in the Resource Analysis are addressed in the AMSA policies. Traditional and Customary Natural Resource Use Hood Bay was noted in a 1985 survey as one of the more important traditional fish and wildlife use areas for Angoon. Traditional resources harvested in Hood Bay include king salmon, sockeye salmon by beach seine and troll gear, halibut, herring, crab, deer, seals, birds and bird eggs, seaweed, firewood, mussels, clams, cockles and other invertebrates, and small mammals by trapping. Over 50 percent of the active Angoon households reported using the Hood Bay area in 1957. That number increased to 75 percent in 1985, with use averaging 55 percent over the 28-year period. The Angoon people have strong cultural ties to the area and continue to use it today for a variety of food harvesting activities. Proximity to Angoon and relatively protected harbors enhance use of the Bay. Table 24 shows subsistence salmon permit harvest data for the South Arm of Hood Bay during the years 1984-1988. Patterns of use of Hood Bay for deer hunting fluctuated between 40 percent to 60 percent of Angoon households until recently when nearly 80 percent of the households reported using the area. This may be because deer populations are reportedly low in Mitchell Bay, and Chaik- Whitewater Bays are more distant and invol'e greater travel time and costs. Beach hunting is prevalent, as well as forest hunting. Muskeg and alpine hunting are not as common. There are no roads in Hood Bay, and very few people hunt the old clearcuts. Table 24 Subsistence Salmon Permit Harvest Data, Angoon. Location: Hood Bay (South Arm) Permits Total Issued*/ Number Returned** Sockeye Chum i Coho Fish 158* 0 275 275 6*/1** 0 0 28*/7** 0 20 1** 0 I an 50 - Source: ADFG, Division Commercial Fisheries Note: In this table, the Number of Permits is understood to indicate all requests for fish, whether it be the permittee’s first, second or third choice. Thus, if some-one requests 12 fish from one location, 8 more from another, and 5 more fish from a third, they have effectively been issued three permits. Likewise, if two different species are requested from the same location, two permits are considered to have been issued. No king salmon were harvested in Hood Bay during the years eported. Several important factors have influenced changes in traditional and customary resource use of Hood Bay. Use has been greatly influenced by the purchase and operation of the Hood Bay Cannery in 1947, the ownership of commercial seine boats, and employment of many local people in the cannery operation. In 1961 the cannery burned down. The loss of the cannery resulted in a shift in employment location for many Angoon residents and an eventual change in the composition of the fishing fleet to trollers. With the shift to a troll fleet, Hood Bay began to be used more for day trips to harvest areas. The trollers also brought about an increase in beach hunting for deer. The average Angoon household depends heavily on food harvesting for its year-to-year survival. Traditional and customary use, rather than government welfare, is the primary means of supplementing income. Because both their cultural and physical livelihoods depend on the traditional use of natural resources, the people of Angoon give the highest priority to the preservation and use of these resources. Fisheries The sea cucumber fishery in Southeast Alaska developed from a zero harvest in 1986 to 1.3 million pounds harvested in 1989. At the time of the 1990 spring opening at Distant Point, Sitka, and Ketchikan, the ADFG Division of Commercial Fisheries did not have a management plan for this species. The Tlingit & Haida Central Council publicly voiced its concerns that unlimited entry without a management plan could thrzaten depletion of this traditional resource by non-Natives. The 1990 fishery was closed early in order to address biological data needs, as well as development of a comprehensive management plan. Ug ADFG has completed a management plan for sea cucumbers that was passed by the Board of Fish. Regulations for this fishery were established in February 1991. Hood Bay was closed by the Board of Fish in January 1991 to provide ADFG with a fisheries control study area. The closure may be permanent and a future sea cucumber fishery at Distant Point is unlikely. Fisheries Enhancement and Mariculture As mentioned in the resource inventory, the ACA is applying for state and federal permits for an oyster farm site on tidelands adjacent to the ACA-owned cannery site in Hood Bay (see Figure 16). The ACA believes the Hood Bay site would create few land use conflicts because ofits location in a lightly used area of the Monument. Approval chances are improved by ACA ownership of the uplands which also would provide land for staging activities. If permitted, commercial farming is planned for the 1992 growing season. Recreation The alpine country in the Hood Bay area is accessible by several well known deer and bear trails. The Angoon people generally agree that they do not want to identify or write a policy on trails because of concern that identification will lead to increased use and accompanying littering and habitat destruction. The Forest Service may build a trail and issue temporary camp permits in the future on land within or upland from the AMSA. These changes would result in greater recreational use of Hood Bay, and would increase the potential for littering and other impacts on habitat and traditional and customary use. The abandoned Hood Bay Cannery site is owned by the ACA. The ACA has indicated it may decide to build a tourist facility at this site someday. The Alaska Pulp Corporation may develop its land near Cabin Point in the future, and a corporate spokesman has stated that the land “lends itself to a remote lodge.” Timber As discussed in the Resource Inventory, commercial timber harvest activities occurred in south Hood Bay in the past. The Angoon Tlingit were not involved in the harvest, although some residents were employed in logging elsewhere. The impacts from these activities on traditional and customary natural resource use can still be felt today. The clearcut timber harvest of 1947 has affected use of portions of the bay. An Angoon elder testified at a public meeting held by the Forest Service in 1982 to discuss a five-year timber harvest sale. He said that nothing is found in the Hood Bay clearcut areas because the trees in that area are so close together that nothing can move. Another Angoon resident told George and Bosworth (1988:130) “I avoid areas like this, and I have learned early on that deer are not found in areas like this, for there is nothing here for them.” —82— There are currently no timber lease sales or proposed timber harvests in the Hood Bay AMSA. Most of the Hood Bay AMSA lands are designated wilderness in the Admiralty Island National Monument and are not available for timber harvest. However, the privately owned lands within the AMSA could be harvested at some future time. Beach log salvage may be a future activity. Beach log salvage is a low impact activity found to be generally consistent with the ACMP, with general stipulations to avoid tideland impacts and cultural resource sites. Firewood is another use for timber in the Hood Bay AMSA. The on-going yearly harvest of firewood has depleted the readily available stands of timber close to town. Access to new sources further from town and the roadways must be ensured. People will increasingly rely on sources within the AMSA. Associated harvesting problems of debris, conflicts with other users, and potential fire hazards during dry weather must be addressed. The Forest Service allows harvesting of dead and down wood for personal use without a permit. Although the agency has never issued permits, the Forest Service would regulate harvesting of green wood for house logs or trolling poles. Cultural Resources Several of the cultural resource sites in Hood Bay are visible from the water, and others are known by local residents. Protection of known and undiscovered cultural resources is essential in preserving the cultural heritage of the Tlingit people. Protective measures must include the classification of site information so that people will not trespass or desecrate the sites, and careful review of the site inventory before approval of any proposed development activity to avoid the destruction of cultural resources. —83— LEGEND TRADITIONAL HUNTING, FISHING, AND GATHERING OCCURS THROUGHOUT THE AMSA SPORT HUNTING AND FISHING OCCURS THROUGHOUT THE AMSA POTENTIAL MARICULTURE STATION POTENTIAL TOURISM FACILITY COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERY COMMERCIAL HALIBUT FISHERY COMMERCIAL DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY HOOD B ‘EXISTING AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USES Figure 16 RESOURCE INVENTORY and ANALYSIS of the CHAIK-WHITEWATER BAY AMSA The biophysical and socioeconomicinformation in this chapter provides the basis for the AMSA policies. RESOURCE INVENTORY General Setting Chaik and Whitewater Bays have value to the general public for recreation, and to Angoon as traditional and customary use areas. Both possess anadromous fish streams and valuable deer and waterfowl habitat. Chaik Bay consists mostly of forest and mountains with limited alpine country. The south shore of Whitewater Bay has some reefs, woods and muskegs, and a mountain with limited amounts of alpine. The rest of the bay is primarily wooded with some muskeg areas up both valleys. Fish and Wildlife Anadromous fish in the area include pink, chum, sockeye, coho, and king salmon; dolly varden, cutthroat, and rainbow or steelhead trout. Chaik River in Chaik Bay is one of only two streams around Angoon that support chum salmon. Whitewater Bay has fall chum salmon but no summer chums. Figure 17 depicts the anadromous fish streams in the AMSA. All species except king salmon spawn in the Angoon area. The most prevalent bottom-dwelling fish include the walleye pollock, halibut, sablefish or blackcod, arrowtooth flounder or turbot, Pacific perch, Pacific cod, and flathead, Dover and rex soles. Common shallower water fish include herring, salmonids, starry flounder, greenling, lingcod, shiner perch, ratfish, dogfish, surfsmelt, tomcod, yellowfin sole, shortspine thornyhead or idiotfish, and various rockfish and sculpins. Common marine invertebrates include clams, scallops, mussels, abalone, snails, crabs, shrimp, barnacles, urchins, sea stars and sea cucumbers. Eight known edible species of mussels, clams, and cockles occur in the intertidal and shallow subtidal zones. Crab species include Dungeness, King and Tanner. Marine mammals commonly found year-round in the Angoon area include Steller sea lions, harbor seals, sea otters, Dall and harbor porpoise, and killer and humpback whales. Other marine mammals occurring occasionally in the area include Northern fur and elephant seals, minke and sei whales, and North pacific whiteside dolphins. Seals are harvested on the reefs of Whitewater Bay’s south shore incidental to deer hunting trips. Sitka black-tailed deer and brown bear are the only large mammals found on Admiralty Island, and both species range from the beach fringe to the alpine meadows. Deer are plentiful in both Chaik and Whitewater Bays. The wooded and muskeg areas of Whitewater Bay are known to be an area where large deer may be found (George and Bosworth, p. 106). —85— AMSA ANADROMOUS FISH STREAMS Figure 17 Table 25 Chaik Bay and Whitewater Bay Peak Salmon Escapement Counts by Year PEAK COUNTS AT: North Arm Head Chaik Bay Whitewater Whitewater Chaik Bay Creek Creek S Arm HD Source: ADFG, Commercial Fisheries Division, 1991. Peak count is the highest number of fish counted in all of the surveys during the year. Surveys are either aerial, or by boat or foot. There are no sockeye salmon streams in Chaik or Whitewater Bays. Other mammals include mink, land otter, marten, marmot, beaver, short-tailed weasels, squirrel, voles, shrews, mice, and bats. The coastal forest provides important cover and habitat for most of these species. Marine foods taken from the intertidal zone can make up an important part of the diet of mink, land otter, and -- to a lesser extent -- marten. Some of these mammals are taken by subsistence trappers. Game birds include the blue grouse and rock ptarmigan. Birds of prey are the bald eagle; the red-tailed, gos-, sharp-shinned, sparrow, and marsh hawks; great gray and great horned owls; and peregrine and gyrfalcons. Common birds breeding in the forest and in other upland habitats include the rufous hummingbird; yellow-bellied sapsucker; western flycatcher; tree and barn swallows; raven; crow; chestnut-backed chickadee; ouzel; winter wren; varied, hermit and Swainson’s Thrush; orange-crowned, Townsend’s myrtle, and Wilson’s warblers; fox and Lincoln’s sparrow; pine siskin; red crossbill; and dark-eyed junco. Each spring, during the annual migration to their northerly breeding grounds, thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds pass through Chatham Strait which is part of the Pacific Flyway. Estuaries and wetlands like those found in Chaik Bay provide critical resting and feeding habitat, especially in years when breakup further inland is late or temporarily delayed by weather. Nesting waterfowl concentrate at the heads of most bays, and along lakes and streams. Nesters include red-throated and common loons, Vancouver Canada geese, trum- peter swans, mallards, harlequin ducks, and common and red-breasted mergansers. Pintail, shoveler and teal also pass through the area. Waterfowl constitute an important subsistence food source. Inshore waters, especially along tke shores of bays and inlets, provide needed habitat for overwir tering gulls, mallards, scaup, common and Barrow’s goldeneye, buffleheads, oldsquaws, harlequins, white-winged, surf and common scoters, common and red-breasted merganser, Vancouver Canada geese, loons, grebes, marbled murrelets, murres, guillemots, and other alcids, puffins, eider, and pelagic cormorants. Important fall and winter food for these birds includes eelgrass, sea lettuce, and other algae, marine invertebrates, small fish, and spawned- out salmon and their roe. Shorebirds such as black turnstones, black oystercatchers, rock sandpipers, surfbirds, and dunlins frequent the rocky shores during winter. Migrating whimbrel, golden, black-bellied, and semi-palmated plover, and wandering tattlers also rest in the area, frequently stopping at low tide. Snipe and greater and-lesser yellowlegs nest along the shore of marine and freshwater bodies, swamps, and muskegs. Puffin, petrels, gulls, guillemots, jaegers, murres, murrelets, and phalaropes are found in the area at various times of the year. Fisheries There are commercial dungeness crab fisheries and commercial halibut fisheries in both Chaik and Whitewater Bays. Dungeness are taken in the shallow waters of the flats inside the head of each Bay. Information on Dungeness harvest in Chaik and Whitewater Bays is presented —8s— in the Mitchell Bay fisheries resource inventory. Halibut are fished in the deeper waters at the entrance to each Bay. The coho troll fishery occurs off Village Point in Chaik Bay and seining takes place within Chaik Bay. There are no commercial purse seine openings in Whitewater Bay. . Table 26 Statistical Area 112-80 Purse Seine Landings in Chaik Bay in 1985 and 1986* Source: ADFG, Commercial Fisheries Division, 1991. Statistical Area 112-80 is District 112, Chaik Bay. *Most recent information. Subsistence chum and pink salmon are taken by beach seine in Chaik and Whitewater Bays from July 1 through September 30. Fall chum salmon are fished from August 1 until October 30. King and coho salmon may be taken incidentally under a subsistence permit. Subsistence halibut are fished in the spring and summer when the halibut move into shallow waters. Fisheries Enhancement and Mariculture Presently there are no hatchery site proposals or mariculture study sites in Chaik and Whitewater Bays. Recreation Chaik and Whitewater Bays attract visitors who hunt and fish, and enjoy the scenic values of Admiralty Island National Monument. Although the bays reportedly are not suitable for anchoring large vessels and are fairly exposed to Chatham Strait weather, these conditions don’t seem to discourage boat-based sportfishing and hunting activity. Sport Hunting Deer harvested in Chaik Bay and Whitewater Bay for the years 1985-89 are included in Table 12. The reporting area extends from the Fishery Creek drainage north of Angoon to Point Gardner on south Admiralty Island. —s9— Brown bear hunting is popular in Chaik and Whitewater Bays. Both of the bays are heavily used by bear hunters for an estimated two out of every four days for one month in the spring and one month in the fall. Table 27 shows recent bear harvests in Management Area A-2, which includes Hood, Chaik, and Whitewater Bays. Numbers of resident and nonresident hunters are not known. Table 27 Sex of Bears Taken in the A-2 Management Area by Year 8 4 7 8 6 3 5 ~ = Source: ADFG, Division of Wildlife Conservation, 1991. A-2 Management Area includes Hood Bay, Chaik Bay, Whitewater Bay and the area southward to Pt. Gardner. There are no Forest Service recreational trails in either Chaik or Whitewater Bay. At this time there is no private or public sector tourist facility development proposed in the Chaik-Whitewater AMSA. Timber The Sitka spruce and western hemlock forest is the dominant forest type from sea level to timberline, which varies from 2,000 to 3,000 feet. The most common conifers are western hemlock, Sitka spruce, mountain hemlock, and Alaska cedar. Of all terrestrial habitats, old-growth forest is generally considered the most important for wildlife in northern Southeast Alaska. The most critical and productive old-growth habitat consists of the highest volume stands on south-facing slopes between the beach and 1,000 feet elevation. Stands with highly variable tree spacing of many large trees with full crowns interspersed with trees of varying age, size, and crown development and an understory abundant in bunchberry, blueberry, trailing raspberry, and goldthread provide first class fodder and shelter for deer, bear, and smaller mammals and birds. Typically these stands are found on south-facing slopes within a few miles of the beach or in riparian corridors. Deer frequent the beach fringe in winter and spring, and subalpine areas in summer and fall, but they depend on old-growth forest-year round and especially during winter and spring. The crowns, needles, and branches of spruce and hemlock form a canopy which reduces snow accumulation on the ground. This allows species such as deer to continue to access the understory plants. The canopy also reduces loss of radiant heat, so that temperatures in the woods may be as much as ten or fifteen degrees warmer than those in muskegs, meadows and clearcuts. With the additional wind protection afforded by heavy timber and brush, the old- growth forest becomes critical habitat in periods of extreme cold and periods of deep snow. The Vancouver Canada goose depends on old-growth forests and rich estuaries. Unique among geese which tend to nest in marshes, it nests in old-growth trees in the spring and migrates to intermediate altitude muskegs during summer. Instead of migrating south, many of the Vancouver sub-species are year-round residents in bays, estuaries, and tide flats near their nesting areas. The marbled murrelet feeds in saltwater but nests in old-growth forests growing on steep hillsides, sometimes as much as twenty or more miles inland. Destruction of nesting habitat by logging has endangered the species in California, Oregon and Washington. Marbled murrelet numbers in Southeast Alaska remain high, but the impact on their population by logging activities has not been assessed. It is believed that marbled murrelets feed along the entire western shore of Admiralty Island. Nesting is likely to be especially concentrated on the steep slopes above Chaik Bay. The forest also plays an important role in regulating in-stream water volumes and tem- peratures. Tall trees growing along river banks shade stream courses from thermal extremes, both the intense mid-summer sun and intense mid-winter cold. Trees and their root systems regulate the rate of run-off, storing water received during wet periods and releasing it slowing during dry periods. The forest steadily contributes small amounts of bark, needles, leaves, insects, and other nutrients essential to the aquatic lifeforms found in lakes, rivers, and streams. Blow downs of pathes of forest during storms occasionally block anadromous fish streams but generally the effect of trees and stumps on streams is positive. Blow downs provide shelter for fish and animals and growing platforms for algae and insects. Attached marine algae and eelgrass are often torn loose and deposited on beaches. As these plants are broken down by physical and chemical processes, they become an important winter food source for shellfish and marine invertebrates. The forest is alsoimportant as a source of firewood. Firewood is a traditional resource essential toa majority of Angoon households for heat, domestic hot water and cooking. Demandis heavy, and wood consumption per household may exceed several cords a year. Sections of Whitewater Bay were logged in the past. The first commercial timber harvests were probably for logs for commercial fish traps, followed by small scale commercial hand logging and select logging of spruce trees in the 1920s. Small scale logging changed in 1911 when 80 acres were harvested at once. From 1911 to 1960 just over 323 acres of timber were commercially harvested. A road system was put in by a logging company and over 1870 acres were clearcut from 1962 to 1964. Minerals There are no known economic concentrations of minerals in Chaik Bay or Whitewater Bay. The Forest Service owns the subsurface estate. The agency has classified the area as wilderness, —91— and mining is incompatible with this land use designation. Cultural Resources Eighteen archeological sites in Chaik and Whitewater Bays have been identified and mapped. Investigations have yielded historic period artifacts from village and fort sites and fish camps throughout the AMSA. Anum>er of unknown but significant prehistoric cultural sites may exist, as the Tlingit people have inhabited this area of Southeast Alaska for several thousand years. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Introduction In the following Resource Analysis, existing and potential future uses, issues and conflicts in Chaik and Whitewater Bays are explored. Figure 18 shows existing and potential future land and water uses in the Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA. Issues identified in the Resource Analysis are addressed in the AMSA policies. Traditional and Customary Natural Resource Use Chaik and Whitewater Bays have been traditional fish and wildlife use areas for a very long time. Neltushkin in Whitewater Bay was once an enduring Tlingit village with over 50 residents. Many years ago there was a community at Village Point in Chaik Bay where some of Angoon’s elders were raised. A fort also existed at Village Point at one time. Chaik and Whitewater Bays yield salmon, halibut, deer, seal, seaweed, crab, clams, cockles, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, mussels and other invertebrates, ducks, geese, as well as other waterfowl, bird eggs, firewood, and small mammals by trapping. The AMSA, especially Whitewater Bay, is considered by Angoon people as “too far” to be an easy day trip. It is described as “a day trip with an overnight stay.” Special trips are undertaken to harvest specific resources. People travel to Whitewater to hunt deer and seal, to fish halibut, chums, king and dungeness crabs, and to dig clams and cockles. Table 28 shows subsistence salmon permit harvest data for Chaik Bay Inlet and Chaik Bay during the years 1984-1988. Data are not available for Whitewater Bay. The high mountain peaks behind Chaik provide good deer hunting in August and September. Later in the season deer are hunted within two or three miles of saltwater, and in late winter, beach hunting prevails. The patterns of use of Whitewater Bay for deer hunting have fluctuated since the 1950s, due to several factors including logging. The relative abundance of deer plays a major role in the traditional use patterns of Whitewater Bay because veportd. of good hunting are an incentive for hunters to travel 20 miles to the Bay. Other factors affecting hunter selection of Whitewater for deer in recent years include the cost of gasoline to get there, and safety. Small boat owners are discouraged by hazardous travel across the open water and several reefs between Angoon and Whitewater Bay. —92— Table 28 Subsistence Salmon Permit Harvest Data, Angoon. Chaik Bay and Chaik Bay Inlet Permits Issued*/ Returned** Sockeye Chum Pink Coho 1984 Chaik Bay 161* 176 1985 Chaik Bay 90*/36** 1986 Chaik Bay 44*/13** Chaik Bay Inlet 9*/2** 1987 Chaik Bay 1988 Chaik Bay Source: ADFG, Division Commercial Fisheries Note: In this table, the Number of Permits is understood to indicate all requests for fish, whether it be the permittee’s first, second or third choice. Thus, if someone requests 12 fish from one location, 8 more from another, and 5 more fish from a third, they have effectively been issued three permits. Likewise, if two different species are requested from the same location, two permits are considered to have been issued. Deer hunters avoided the Whitewater Bay area and were essentially displaced during the period of active logging. There was a general feeling that logging would drive away the deer. Peak use of the area occurred in 1967, shortly after the logging stopped. After the loggers left Whitewater Bay in 1965, Angoon hunters began using the roads and clearcuts in the Bay. Use of the roads and clearcuts decreased to 10-20% in the 1980s, partly because the logging road was overtaken by the growth of alder. Although beaches were not used in the 1940s-1950s, beach hunting increased to 75% of all hunters in the 1970s, and it remained high in the 1980s. Seal hunting is incidental to deer hunting and occurs during most of the year except during the pup calving season, mid-May to early July. Fisheries Enhancement and Mariculture The ADFG FRED has indicated that remote release net pens and outstocking projects may be planned near Angoon sometime in the future. Shoals and exposure to weather from Chatham Strait may make Chaik and Whitewater Bays unsuitable for temporary or permanent anchorages for fish processing, floating facilities, or mariculture facilities. Recreation The Forest Service may build a trail or issue temporary camping permits on Monument land in the future. Increased recreational use of the AMSA would increase the potential for habitat and scenic impacts such as littering, debris from firewood cutting, disturbance of traditional berry picking areas, and stowage of boats on tidelands within sight of other boaters. Chaik and Whitewater Bays have deer trails that are used for traditional hunting and trapping. Some residents do not want a policy to identify existing trails because of potential litter problems and habitat damage by recreational users. Timber Whitewater Bay has a history of timber use that began in order to meet the domestic needs of the Leeneidee people for houses, smokehouses, cooking utensils, fishing gear, and cooking and heating fuel. The commercial timber harvests occurring between 1911-1964 displaced hunters who traditionally used Whitewater Bay, and probably impacted traditional and customary use in other ways as well. “ Although private holdings exist in Chaik and Whitewater Bays, there are currently no timber sale leases or plans to harvest timber. The surrounding uplands are designated wilderness in the Admiralty Island National Monument. Beach log salvage may be a future activity. Beach log salvage is a low impact activity found to be generally consistent with the ACMP, with general stipulations to avoid tideland impacts and cultural resource sites. Firewood is another use of timber within the AMSA. The on-going yearly harvest of firewood has depleted the readily available stands of timber close to town. Access to new sources further from town and the roadways must be ensured. People will increasingly rely on sources within the AMSA. Associated harvesting problems of debris, conflicts with other users, and potential fire hazards during dry weather must be addressed. The Forest Service al'ows harvesting of dead and down wood for personal use without a permit. Although the agency has never issued permits, the Forest Service would regulate harvesting of green wood for house logs or trolling poles. Cultural Resources The remains of the old settlements in Chaik and Whitewater Bays are visible today. Protection of known and undiscovered cultural resources is essential in preserving the cultural heritage of the Tlingit people. Protective measures must include the classification of site information so that people will not trespass or desecrate the sites, and a careful review of the site inventory before approval of any proposed development activity to avoid the destruction of cultural resources. LEGEND ¥ es TRADITIONAL HUNTING, FISHING, AND GATHERING ji © OCCURS THROUGHOUT THE AMSA SPORT HUNTING AND FISHING OCCURS THROUGHOUT THE AMSA 4 4 y # ~ 1 a M bem = COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERY a” COMMERCIAL HALIBUT FISHERY he COMMERCIAL DUNGENESS CRAB FISHERY CHAIK - WHITEWATER BAY EXISTING AND POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USES Figure 18 SUBJECT USES SUBJECT USES 6 AAC 85.070. Subject uses include all land and water uses and activities occurring on public and private lands, and all habitats and resources in a coastal district. They include permitted activities that are subject to individual project review under coastal management regulations. In the AMSAs within the coastal district, land and water uses and activities, habitats and resources occurring on public and private lands are subject to consistency with the state standards, the AMSA policies and the district program under 6 AAC 50. In the AMSAs outside the coastal district, land and water uses and activities, habitats and resources occurring on public and private lands which directly affect the coastal resources within the AMSAs are subject to consistency with both the state standards and the AMSA policies. Activities on municipal, state or private lands adjacent to the AMSA may also be reviewed for consistency for all potential spillover impacts. Subject uses include ¢ land and water uses within the AMSA boundary which require approvals, permits or certifications of the city, state or federal governments; and ¢ resource leasing activities that require city, state or federal permits, land disposals, regional plans, and community plans. USES OF STATE OR NATIONAL CONCERN Subject uses also include “uses of state or national concern,” which are defined as those land and water uses which would significantly affect the long-term public interest. These uses are subject to Coastal Policy Council definition of their extent. They include uses of national interest, including the use of resources for the siting of ports and major facilities which contribute to meeting national energy needs, construction and maintenance of navigational facilities and systems, resource development on federal land, and national defense and related security facilities that are dependent upon coastal locations; uses of more than local concern, including those land and water uses which con- fer significant environmental, social, cultural, or economic benefits or burdens beyond a single coastal district; the siting of major energy facilities or large-scale industrial or commercial development activities which are dependent on a coastal location and which, be- cause of their magnitude or the magnitude of their effect on the economy of the state or the surrounding area, are reasonably likely to present issues of more than local significance; facilities serving state-wide or inter-regional transportation and communica- tion needs; and uses in areas established as state parks or recreational areas under AS 41.20 or as state game refuges, game sanctuaries, or critical habitat areas under AS 16.20. USES OF STATE CONCERN State agencies have identified uses of state concern that have been adopted by the Coastal Policy Council in Resolution Number 13. A list of those state agency concerns follows. Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) DOTPF has listed transportation facilities as uses of state concern that include “Capital projects that have statewide, inter-regional and inter-district uses which impact the state’s transportation system including highways, roads, trails, railroads, pipelines, airports (for land and sea planes), the Marine Highway System (ferries, docks, piers, or terminals), boat docks, and harbors.” Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) DEC has identified some general uses of concern under their purview: ¢ conservation and maintenance of air quality in compliance with Alaska Air Quality Standards (18 AAC 50.020); * conservation and maintenance of water quality in compliance with the Alaska Water Quality Standards 18 AAC 70); * assurance of proper solid waste disposal in compliance with requirements set forth in 18 AAC 60.050; ¢ seafood processing and mariculture activities; and ¢ petroleum storage, handling, and transportation. Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) ADFG has identified the following general uses of state concern under their purview: conservation of anadromous fish waters; harvest of fish and wildlife; research, management, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; and protection of refuges, sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) DNR has identified several uses of state concern that may occur: —100— use, development, and conservation of state energy resources; siting of major energy facilities; use, development, and conservation of all state minerals and materials; large-scale industrial and commercial development associated with state resource development; transportation facilities associated with state resource development; ¢ use, development, and conservation of all lands and waters belonging to the state; and ¢ management of state historic, prehistoric, and archeological resources. FEDERAL SUBJECT USES National Forest System and other federal lands are excluded from the coastal program (Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 1972, 15 CFR 923.33). Local districts and the state do not have authority through the CZMA to directly regulate federal activities. The CAMA directs that activities on federal lands will be carried out in a manner consistent with the coastal program to the maximum extent practicable. “Consistent to the maximum extent practicable” means that, wherever legally permissable, the requirements of the coastal program will be adhered to, in addition to existing Forest Service mandates (15 CFR 930.32(a)). The Forest Service works under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the State of Alaska, dated October 7, 1981. There have been several subsequent draft revisions to the MOU but none have been approved. There is currently a revision effort underway that will spell out coordination requirements consistent with the State of Alaska 1990 Forest Practices Act (FPA). However, this MOU is not yet in effect. Forest Service interim direction reflects consistency with the FPA, and applies specifically to land management plans, timber sales and associated development, capital projects, and federally permitted activities that require ground-disturbing activities. The federal regulations in 15 CFR 930 provide direction for federal agencies conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone, and issuing permits and approvals for coastal projects. These regulations, and section 307 of the CZMA, mandate consultation and concurrence with an approved coastal management program prior to federal action. Upland activities on federal lands will be reviewed for consistency with this AMSA plan for all potential “spillover impacts.” 15 CFR 930 requires that federal agencies identify which of their activities will have spillover impacts that affect the coastal district, or AMSA. PROPER AND IMPROPER USES In the AMSAs within the coastal district, all land and water uses will be considered proper if they are consistent with the policies of this AMSA management plan, the district plan, the ACMP standards, and applicable local, state or federal ordinances or regulations. In the AMSAs outside the coastal district, all land and water uses will be considered proper if they are consistent with the policies of the AMSA Plan, the state standards, and applicable state or federal regulations. No uses are categorically ‘prohibited within the AMSA boundaries. Uses of state and national concern will not be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded from the AMSAs. —101— ENFORCEABLE POLICIES Le a | abbr it ioe APPR 2 GTO Rg ' ENFORCEABLE POLICIES INTRODUCTION Use conflicts exist because of competition for scarce resources. The major issues raised in the AMSA Plan are the potential effects of recreation and resource development on traditional resources, and the continued adequacy of habitats and fish and wildlife resources to meet traditional and customary natural resource use needs. In resolving the conflicts, it is expected that there will be compromises between resource development and resource protection in order to achieve the balance needed to allow human presence on the land. A management plan for an AMSA must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or values for which the area was designated. The AMSA management plan for Mitchell, Hood and Chaik-Whitewater Bays preserves and protects the traditional use value of these lands for traditional and customary hunting, fishing, and food gathering. As defined below, “traditional and customary uses” means subsistence, and is not intended to include sport and commercial fishing and hunting activities. The AMSA policies are written to ensure preservation and protection of traditional use resources, and access to those resources by traditional users. Most of the following enforceable policies are preceded by an introductory statement, or goal and objective statements. Goals are the coastal district’s general statements of its philosophy and the outcome it desires in relation to uses or activities in the AMSAs. Objectives establish direction toward the goals and describe the district’s achievable intent in relation to uses or activities in the AMSAs. Neither the goals nor the objectives are enforceable. Policies are the enforceable rules of the AMSA plan. They guide management decisions about the use and development of specific coastal resources. The Alaska Coastal Management Program includes State Standards (6 AAC 80.040 - 80.150) and district program policies. The State Standards are in effect throughout Alaska’s coastal zone. The Angoon distict coastal management program (CMP) policies are in effect within the Angoon coastal district boundary. For AMSA lands inside the Angoon district, these AMSA policies supplement the State Standards and the policies in the Angoon CMP. For AMSA lands outside the Angoon district, the policies in this AMSA plan supplement the State standards only. DEFINITIONS A “floating facility” is defined as a boat, houseboat, barge, or any structure located on a raft, whether the facility is powered or not, that is moored or anchored in any certain location, excluding harbors and marinas, for a period of 14 days or more, and is not primarily used for transportation during that period. Floating facilities can generally be separated into the following use categories, including, but not limited to Fishing related - processors, buying scows; Mariculture/aquaculture related - operations facilities and bunkhouses, re- search or educational stations, net pens; —105— Transportation and/or Tourism related - seaplane, tour boat, or other water- based operations; Timber related - floating logging camps, reconnaissance or other short-term projects; Mining related - floating mining camps, dredges, claim development support, and exploration support; Wild Resource Use - trapping camps, sport fishing or hunting lodges, base, or spike camps; wildlife watching stands, recreational activity base camps. Floathouses - primarily designed, intended, fitted out, or used as a residence or place of habitation and not an integral component of another use category. For the purpose of this section, “public benefit” means the broad-based socioeconomic gains accruing to the public from a use or activity which creates jobs, resource development and economic base, or in other ways serves the public good to a greater extent than the use or activity adversely impacts the general public and/or environment. “Individual benefit” means those socioeconomic gains accruing only to the individual or a limited number of individuals from the use or activity, while at the same time having minimal benefit to or not benefitting and in some cases adversely impacting the general public. “Traditional and customary use” means the same thing as “subsistence.” The terms are often used interchangeably. Though the District prefers the former, the word subsistence is used when quoting from the Alaska Coastal Management Program and other public documents. The phrase “traditional and customary uses” is not meant to include sport and commercial fishing and hunting activities. “Wetlands” are “those areas inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstance do support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (833 CFR 328.3(b)). “Essential habitats,” also referred to as “critical habitats.” These are areas which support essential life history requirements of fish or wildlife species. These essential areas encompass one or more of the following: (1) pupping, calving, colonial nesting, spawning, rearing, wintering, migration, important feeding, and haul-out areas; (2) highly productive breeding and nesting areas; (3) sites providing unique population elements including high seasonal use and concentration areas or isolated occurrences; (4) habitats and use areas regularly associ- ated with endangered species; (5) unique ecological systems; and (6) areas supporting a large portion of the individuals or species of a fish or wildlife population in the region during specific seasons. A “commercial development” is a use or activity which provides finished goods and services. Examples include, but are not limited to, service stations,lodges, warehouses, and retail stores. An “industrial development” is a use or activity which provides raw materials for other uses and activities. Examples include, but are not limited to, timber harvest and log transfer, mining, commercial fishing, manufacturing, canneries, pulp mills, and construction or transportation routes, utilities, and other facilities. —106— “Water-dependent” are those uses and activities which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body (6 AAC 80.900(17)). “Water-related” are those uses and activities which are not directly water-dependent but which provide goods and services that are directly associated with water-dependence and which, if not located adjacent to water, would result in a public loss of quality in the goods and services offered (6 AAC 80.900(18)). “Feasible and prudent” means consistent with sound engineering practice and not causing environmental, social or economic problems that outweigh the public benefit to be derived from compliance with the standard which is modified by the term “feasible and prudent” (6 AAC 80.900(20)). “Avoid” means to prevent from occurring. “Maintain” means to provide for continuation of current conditions and functions. “Minimize” means to select from a comprehensive review of alternatives the option which uses the best available technology to limit or reduce environmental impact to the smallest amount, extent, duration, size, or degree. “Affected coastal resource district” means a coastal resource district as defined in AS 46.40.210(2) in which a project is proposed to be located, or which may experience a direct and significant impact from a proposed project (6 AAC 50.190(2)). “Significant” means likely to have an influence or effect greater than that attributable to mere chance. Section 46.40.21 0(5) of the Alaska Coastal Management Act defines “use of direct and significant impact” as a use, or an activity associated with the use, which proximately contributes to a material change or alteration in the natural or social characteristics of a part of the state’s coastal area and in which a) the use, or activity associated with it, would have a net adverse effect on the quality of the resources of the coastal area; or b) the use, or activity associated with it, would limit the range of alternative uses of the resources of the coastal area; or c) the use would, of itself, constitute a tolerable change or alteration of the resources within the coastal area but which, cumulatively would have an adverse effect. Under 6 AAC 50.190(10), “Direct and significant impact” means an effect of a project which will likely contribute or lead to a significant change in or alteration of the natural, social, cultural, or economic characteristics of a coastal resource district. “Due deference” means that deference which is appropriate in the context of the commenter’s expertise and area of responsibility, and all the evidence available to support any factual assertions. A coastal resource district whose district program has been incorporated into the ACMP is considered to have expertise in the interpretation and application of its program. —107— TRADITIONAL AND CUSTOMARY NATURAL RESOURCE USE Traditional and customary natural resource use of plants, fish, and wildlife is the primary and highest priority use of all land and waters within the AMSAs. Monument and Wilderness management by the Forest Service ensures that multiple use of these public lands will cause the least impact on subsistence users. The Forest Service considers nonwasteful subsistence use of fish, wildlife and other renewable resources as the first priority consumptive use of these resources. Goal 1.1: Ensure access to subsistence resources and use areas for the continuation of subsistence as a way of life. Objective 1.1.1: Coordinate competing land and water uses in a manner that maintains or enhances the productivity of important subsistence resources. Policies: A. Access to subsistence resources and areas shall not be restricted except when necessary to protect resources or when no alternative exists. B. Districts sharing migratory fish and game resources must submit compatible plans for habitat management. C. Before a potentially conflicting use or activity may be authorized, an analysis of the possible adverse impacts upon subsistence use must be conducted and appropriate safeguards must be provided to ensure subsistence uses. D. A potentially conflicting use or activity shall not cause significant adverse impacts to essential fish and wildlife habitats of those species of importance to the Tlingit people. Important fish and wildlife species include crab, shrimp, octopus, gumboots, herring, herring eggs, black seaweed, sea ribbons, clams, cockles, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, dolly varden, steelhead, halibut, rockfish, grouse, bird eggs, harbor seal, deer, and sock- eye, coho, pink, chum and king salmon. E. Traditional and customary subsistence uses is a high priority within the AMSAs. Potentially incompatible uses and activities shall mitigate significant adverse impacts on subsistence activities in accordance with Policy A-4 of AMSA Development. NOTE: The Angoon AMSA Plan had intended to address questions of fish and game resource allocation in recommendations appended to the Plan. For example, Angoon believes there are conflicts between customary and traditional resource harvests and current resource allocations in the AMSAs that should be resolved. With the existing structure of State agencies and the ACMP interpretation of the Subsistence Standard (6 AAC 80.120), the AMSA authorities cannot address allocation issues. Appendix A (Recommendations to Agencies) and Appendix B (Salt Lake Coho User Conflict) were removed from the Concept Approved Draft. The City will use Appendix A as a separate workplan for pursuing regulatory change. —108— RECREATION The recreational values of the Monument and Wilderness will draw increasing numbers of people to the Angoon area and the AMSAs. The recreation industry contributes significantly to the local economy, and provides tourists with unique wilderness experiences. Goal 2.1: To promote recreational uses and activities on the coastal lands and waters. Objective 2.1.1: To balance sport fishing, sport hunting and other recreational uses and activities with maintenance of the subsistence economy and culture. Policies: A. Public access to coastal resources within the AMSAs shall be maintained and, where appropriate, increased. B. Hunting and fishing are recognized as the dominant recreational activities in the AMSAs. Recreational projects and activities, including commercial recreational use, will be located, designed, and conducted to avoid or minimize loss or displacement of ex- isting fish and wildlife populations; interference with subsistence or recreational har- vest; and adverse impacts on the physical and cultural features which contribute to the high recreational quality of the AMSAs. At a minimum, this includes maintaining pub- lic access, water quality, fish migration, rearing and spawning areas, cultural re- sources, and scenic values. FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT AND MARICULTURE Fisheries are vital to the Angoon lifestyle and economy. Commercial fishing provides the most important source of personal income, while subsistence fishing meets a high percentage of the nutritional needs of local residents. The cultivation of shellfish and sea vegetables is a newly developing industry in Southeast Alaska. The Forest Service cannot endorse maricultural projects in waters adjacent to designated or proposed Wilderness, Wilderness study areas, developed recreation sites, and high use undeveloped recreation areas. Additionally, the agency cannot endorse these activities adjacent to private lands within the Wilderness boundary. While the Forest Service does not control activities on State-owned lands and waters, as- sociated upland activities not consistent with Wilderness values will not be permitted. Associated upland activities might include shoreties, freshwater lines, storage, and cabins. All fisheries enhancement proposals, which are within or adjacent to the Wilderness and proposed by ADFG or another party must be evaluated through the ANILCA Section 507(a) planning process, and a NEPA analysis by the Forest Service. Generally speaking, fisheries enhancement is not allowed inside or adjacent to a Wilderness area unless it can be demonstrated that the project cannot be conducted on non-Wilderness lands, and the project is essential to meet public need. Enhancement proposals will be carefully evaluated on a case- by-case basis. —109— Any enhancement or mariculture projects using anadromous fish streams or tidelands in the AMSAs would require state permits. Goal 3.1: Encourage investigation of the area’s potential for development of mariculture. Objective 3.1.1: Determine the compatibility of mariculture with pre-existing uses and the traditional way of life. Goal 3.2: Encourage hatchery and enhancement projects to promote healthy salmon stocks for future generatiors. Objective 3.2.2: Determine the compatibility of enhancement projects with pre-ex- isting uses and the traditional lifestyle. Goal 3.3: Maintain healthy populations of high-quality edible fish and marine organisms and plants. Objective 3.3.3: To prevent over-harvesting and resultant long-term damage to local fisheries, encourage the Department of Fish and Game to develop escapement goals for all user groups, fisheries, harvest areas, and drainage systems in the AMSAs. Policies: A. Development which may have a significant adverse impact on fisheries resources, recreational fishing, enhancement projects, subsistence or personal use fishing, or commercial fishing shall incorporate appropriate designs and measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts to these resources and uses. B. Piers, pilings, breakwaters, outfalls and other in-water structures must be designed, sited, and maintained so as to maintain or enhance the natural characteristics of nearshore marine and intertidal habitats. C. In addition to the above, mariculture facilities must fulfill a significant public benefit, and must satisfy the following criteria: (1) Mariculture and aquaculture projects must be designed, sited, and maintained to be compatible with appropriate culture practices and so as to minimize the risk of disease transmission. (2) Sites must have appropriate flushing characteristics and proper depth to maintain environmental quality. (3) Mariculture projects shall be sited in areas of low conflict with existing uses. The following areas shall be avoided: * anadromous fish streams (see Policy E (4)); ¢ tidelands or wetlands identified as important habitat areas (see Policy E (1)); ° areas of extensive vessel traffic or hazards to navigation (see Policy E (3)); —110— ¢ areas of point or non-point sourcewater pollution; and ¢ areas with concentrations of predators on the proposed species, where predation cannot be avoided through other safe methods. (4) Applicable local, state and federal regulations must be met. . Floating facilities must meet the following criteria: (1) Notification of Upland Owner - Floating facilities shall be permitted only after notification of the upland owner as per AS 38.05.945 (a)(3). The upland owners have first preference to the use of the tidelands adjacent to their property. (2) Grounding - Floating facilities shall avoid shallow areas where they could settle on or abrade the substrate during low tides. To the extent feasible and prudent, floating facilities shall be moored in a minimum of 12 feet of water present during mean lower low water of 0.0 foot tide stage. (3) Proper Anchoring - Floating facilities shall utilize anchoring methods similar to a marine vessel and shall not utilize shore ties or other means which restrict passage around their location unless specifically approved by the appropriate agency or agencies as meeting regulatory requirements. Anchors shall be of sufficient weight and holding capacity to assure consistent proper location, and to ensure against the facility’s dragging, drifting, or being washed up on shoals, rocks, or beaches. (4) Removal - An owner or operator shall be responsible for promptly removing and disposing of floats, docks, rafts, boats, and floathouses or other related materials when the structure no longer is used for the originally announced purpose, fails to meet maintenance requirements as specified by the permitting agency, or the lease or permit lapse. Abandonment, casting loose, or disposal on a beach are prohibited as disposal methods. The permitting agency may require a surety bond to guarantee proper removal. (5) Exception to the Above Requirements - The above requirements apply to publicly- owned tidelands rather than floating facilities tied with the permission of the dock owner to a private dock on privately-owned tidelands. However, all floating facilities must meet regulatory requirements for permits and/or leases, including all applicable provisions for avoiding grounding, proper anchoring, sewage dis- posal, and removal. (6) Mitigation of Significant Impacts - When, in the judgement of the appropriate managing agency, significant adverse impacts on other users of the area, or on the environment, are generated by a facility, the owner/operator of the facility shall be required, to the extent feasible and prudent, to mitigate the impacts, in order to minimize conflicts. . Floating facilities shall be prohibited in the following areas unless a significant public benefit results from the proposed use, and there are no feasible and prudent alter- natives for the proposed use: —111— (1) Habitat or Harvest Areas - Areas identified by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as having significant concentrations of shellfish, waterfowl, shorebirds, marine mammals; extensive productive tideflats, salt marshes, kelp or eel grass beds; conflicts with eagle trees; and heavily used harvest sites. (2) Historic, Archaeological, or Recreational Sites- Sites listed by the Alaska Depart- ment of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Officer as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; sites identified by the U.S. Forest Service or other management agencies as historic or archaeological sites, or sites identified by the District as areas of significant recreational use. (3) Navigational Hazards - No floating facility shall moor, anchor, or otherwise block narrow waterways or passages or impact the free passage of waterborne traffic, as specified in the U.S. Coast Guard requirements. (4) Anadromous Fish Streams - No floating facility shall be located within 500 lineal feet of the mouth of any anadromous stream, defined by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as the seaward limits of the stream at mean lower low water MLLW). In no case shall the floating facility moor directly in front of the mouth of the stream, unless the facility is an integral part of an approved fisheries project meeting all agency requirements. (5) Wilderness Areas - Floating facilities will not be permitted adjacent to federal land designated by Congress as wilderness unless the facility is considered a high- priority use as defined in AMSA Development Policy (C) and a public benefit derives from the proposed use. Both short-term and long-term benefits and impacts must also be evaluated. TIMBER The traditional lifestyle of Angoon residents is closely linked with the maintenance of large areas of old growth spruce and hemlock forest. Timber harvest activity depleting these forests reduces populations of Sitka black-tailed deer and other wildlife, and disturbs the nesting patterns of the bald eagle. Logging and related activities can harm anadromous fish streams. Log storage and transfer facilities can harm marine habitat. Timber harvest is not allowed on National Forest lands within the Wilderness. The “corridor” lands in Mitchell Bay are owned in title by Kootznoowoo Corporation. However, the timber rights are retained by the federal government and will be managed in a manner consistent with the surrounding Wilderness. Accordingly, the harvest of the timber is extremely unlikely. Storage of logs on uplands is not consistent with the management of the Wilderness and will not be permitted on National Forest System lands. Goal 4.1: Minimize environmental impacts from logging and associated activities. Objective 4.1.1: Where proposed logging activities seem likely to cause environmental damage, require operator to develop measures to mitigate the damage to the fullest extent possible. —112— Policies: A. Acomplete logging plan consistent with the State Forest Resources and Practices Act (AS 41.17) will be required for timber harvest activities. B. If no alternative exists, timber harvest activities shall be sited in areas of high traditional and customary use. A logging plan must include protective measures to mit- igate potentially adverse effects on traditional use resources. C. Timber harvest activities shall be managed so as to protect the AMSA from adverse visual impacts. D. Timber harvest activities shall be prohibited within 330 feet of bald eagle nest trees, and within 100 feet of anadromous fish steams and other sensitive habitats. E. Mitigation plans describing how habitat, air, land and water, and visual impacts will be minimized shall be developed by the land managing agency or land owner, and approved by the land managing agency. Compliance with the mitigation plan is re- quired. F. Log storage in wetlands and intertidal zones is prohibited. In-water log storage below mean low tideline is allowed. G. Timber wastes must be disposed of by methods and at sites approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation and the District. H. Where possible, timber-harvesters should make non-marketable debris available for firewood gatherers. AMSA DEVELOPMENT The wilderness designation of most lands adjacent to the AMSAs will largely preclude future development activities. Development activities on the National Forest System lands will only be those consistent with the objectives of Wilderness management. Similarly, the Forest Service would not endorse development on State tidelands, or other lands within the Kootznoowoo Wilderness boundary that conflict with Wilderness management objectives. Development activities proposed on or adjacent to designated wilderness lands will be evaluated by the Forest Service for compati- bility with wilderness, ANILCA, and the National Environmental Policy Act. In all of the AMSAs, most upland activities would require access across the tidelands and the 660 foot shoreline strip that falls within the AMSA boundaries. These activities (including shoreties, freshwater lines, storage or cabins) would be subject to state permits and approvals, and would be evaluated by the Forest Service for consistency with Wilderness management objectives. Potential Forest Service activities include trails and public use cabins. These activities may not actually occur, but future management may require such development. Any development —113— would be coordinated with Angoon, as well as other appropriate agencies. In the Mitchell Bay AMSA, most development activities would be sited on or within 660 feet of the shore of the Bay or one ofits associated water bodies. Therefore, nearly any development proposal would be reviewed by both the Forest Service and Kootznoowoo Corporation, joint managers of the “corridor” lands. The wilderness values of Admiralty Island National Monument and interest in the indigenous culture will draw increasing numbers of tourists to Angoon and the adjacent AMSAs. While most residents want to encourage local tourism, they feel that control over tourism activities and services is needed to protect the resources and the traditional lifestyle from impacts associated with recreational users. If properly managed, a local tourism facility might be compatible with wilderness and traditional use values. Goal 5.1: Promote limited tourism including sightseeing and overnight camping, and non- consumptive wilderness guiding that does not conflict with traditional and customary use. Objective 5.1.1: Encourage the involvement of local residents in the development of tourism-related services and businesses that are focused on: ¢ local lodges; ¢ locally-based guiding including sport fishing and non-consumptive wilderness guiding; ¢ sightseeing tours; ¢ cultural and historical interpretation; and ¢ locally-based retail services. Policies: A. Allland and water uses and activities shall be conducted with appropriate planning and implementation to mitigate potentially adverse effects on the following resources of local, state, or national importance: fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, including wetlands; commercial fishing uses and activities; subsistence uses and activities; water resources; cultural resources; and designated wilderness areas. Mitigation shall include and be considered in the following order of preference: (1) avoid the loss of the affected resource or activity through modification of the proposed use or activity; (2) when the loss cannot be avoided, minimize the loss and the need for restoration, maintenance or compensation efforts; (3) when the loss of resources and/or associated activities of local, state or national importance cannot be minimized, restore or rehabilitate the resource to its predis- turbance condition, to the extent feasible and prudent; and (4) when the loss or damage to existing resources and associated activities of local, state or national importance is substantial and irreversible (including, for example, a seasonal loss in commercial fishing or subsistence harvest) and the above objectives —114— cannot be achieved, compensation for resource and/or harvest loss shall be con- sidered. Compensation may be in kind or out of kind and off site or on site. The preferrred alternative is in kind and on site. In the case of loss of habitat production potential, enhancement of other habitats shall be considered as one alternative means of compensation. The cost of mitigation, relative to the benefits to be gained, will also be considered in the implementation of this policy. B. Any proposed action must be sensitive to the implications of the action on the Tlingit way of life. Adequate information about the Tlingit culture, its traditional economy, and the ecosystem shall be obtained before deliberation takes place concerning new development or changes in administrative practices. The Angoon coastal district will provide information to decision makers when requested. C. Priority shall be given to water-dependent and water related uses and activities for which there is no feasible and prudent upland alternative. Examples of use and activ- ities under this category may include, pending evaluation of project specific circum- stances, fish processors, fish buying scows, water-based transportation facilities, and aquaculture or mariculture facilities. D. Uses and activities that are neither water-dependent nor water-related shall only be allowed if there is no feasible or prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity. E. Where feasible and prudent, developments in or over the water, such as piers, docks and protective structures shall be located, designed, and maintained in a manner which prevents adverse impacts upon air and water quality, fish, wildlife, scenic and vegetative resources. F. Residential uses of private waterfront land shall not be arbitrarily or unreasonably excluded or restricted. FIREWOOD Firewood is a traditional resource essential to many households for heat, domestic hot water and cooking. Residents must have continued access to sources of firewood. The on-going harvest of firewood is depleting supplies close to town that are accessible by motor vehicle or boat. People will increasingly need to harvest wood available within the AMSAs. The associated harvesting problems of access, debris, conflicts with other user groups, and fire hazards need to be addressed. Firewood is an authorized subsistence or personal use of the Wilderness monitored by the Forest Service. Within the Wilderness, permits are required for use of motorized equipment, including chainsaws, and the cutting of green hemlock, spruce and cedar trees for subsistence uses only. Green alder or dead or down trees may be used without a permit. Firewood gathering within the streamside zoneis to be avoided. Contact the Monument Office in Angoon for permit information. —115— Goal 6.1: Make firewood available for residential use in a manner that minimizes effort, environmental impacts, and conflict with other user groups. Objective 6.1.1 Establish a firewood gathering policy that protects the resource and the public. Policies: A. Conduct firewood gathering activity in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts, protects shoreline and stream-side habitats, and maintains public safety. (1) Felling trees is prohibited within 100 feet of anadromous fish streams and within 330 feet of oald eagle nest trees. (2) Before beginning felling operations, wood-gatherers must make sure that berry pickers, root-gatherers, children and others are safely out of the area. (3) Toensure access to wildlife and other users after gathering activities are completed, wood gatherers must remove the entire tree down to a four-inch top. Tops and other unused portions of trees must be limbed. Unused portions of trees and associated limbs and debris must be removed from ditches, stream courses, and to well above the high tide mark. (4) When the weather is dry and fire hazards become extreme, wood cutting and gathering will be temporarily prohibited. CULTURAL RESOURCES Dating of artifacts and other evidence suggest that humans have inhabited Southeast Alaska for at least 10,000 years. Tlingit oral histories date their presence in Southeast Alaska to the last glaciation. Many migration stories collected from Angoon and Sitka residents chronicle the Tlingits’ endurance of a great flood and their subsequent resettlement in various areas of Southeast Alaska. Archeologists have found traces of human habitation throughout the AMSAs. The Carbon 14 dating of remains of a Tlingit-style fish weir unearthed in Favorite Bay in the Mitchell Bay AMSA suggests that Tlingit people as a distinct group have inhabited Southeast Alaska for at least the past 3,000 years. Section 14(H\1) of ANILCA provides for Native regional corporations to acquire title to historic and cemetery sites. When cultural resource activities are proposed for National Forest System lands, coordination will occur with the U.S. Forest Service, which can often assist the community of Angoon with these activities. Excavation of sites and/or the collection and archiving of any artifact on federal lands are subject to several federal laws and executive orders. Specific management direction is provided in the Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209), the National Historic Preservation Act of —116— 1966 (PL 89-665, as amended : PL 91-243; PL 93-54; PL 94-422; PL 94-458; PL 96-199; PL 96- 244; and PL 96-515), Executive Order 11593 (1971), Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (PL 86-523 as amended in the Archeological Conservation Act of 1974- PL 93-291), American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (PL 95-341), Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (PL 96-95), and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (PL 103-601). In addition, activities on National Forest System lands must follow strict policies and guidelines for the survey, study, and preservation of cultural resource sites, as well as monitoring of activities to prevent disturbance to or destruction of known sites, and inves- tigation and protection of all newly-found sites. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, essentially allows “destruction” of a site if the site is professionally evaluated and impacts are mitigated, once the process has been carried through as laid out in Section 106 of the Act. Artifacts such as a stone chip may be professionally collected and archived - “destroying the site”- thereby mitigating the impacts of the activity. “Artifact” is defined as “anything made or manufactured by humans.” Goal 7.1: To have local Tlingit history and prehistory studied, protected and preserved for future generations. Objective 7.1.1: Identify and protect all valuable historic and prehistoric sites. Prevent destruction of known historic and prehistoric sites. Policies: A. Aproposed development activity or action shall not interfere with, destroy, or desecrate sites including cemetery sites or structures. B. A development site found by archeologists to be of exceptional historic or prehistoric value shall be protected for future generations. C. Federal and state agencies charged with cataloging historic and prehistoric sites shall provide available documentation for a development site prior to construction. D. When a cultural resource has been discovered, archeologists and professionals in other relevant disciplines shall have adequate opportunity to study the development site prior to construction. E. Coordination with the U.S. Forest Service shall occur when cultural resource activities are proposed for wilderness lands. F. The City of Angoon must be immediately notified if, in the course of any project on state or federal land, cultural or archeological artifacts or evidence of historical or prehistori- cal occupation are encountered. After notification, the City of Angoon shall inform the Department of Natural Resources and the Forest Service, and shall work with these agencies. —117— AIR, LAND AND WATER QUALITY Goal 8.1: To maintain and protect the quality of the air, land and water. Objective 8.1.1: To ensure continued traditional and customary use, and all other land and water uses and activities. Policies: A. Notwithstanding any other provision of Air, Land & Water Quality (6 AAC 80.140), the statutes pertaining to the regulations of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land and water quality are incorpo- rated into the Alaska Coastal Management Program and, as administered by that agency, constitute the components of the AMSA management program with respect to those purposes. Construction including roads in muskeg/high organic content soils must be carefully planned and designed to minimize structural failures and adverse impacts to local drainages. Developers must adhere to the conditions set forth under Transportation Policy (C). The extraction or discharge of dredge or fill material shall be sited, designed, and conducted to avoid adverse impacts to public water supplies. . No dredging shall occur in marine environments with sensitive or critical habitat. Fill materials, pilings, and other infrastructure placed in fresh and marine waters shall not contain hazardous or toxic substances in excess of levels allowed by state and federal water quality standards. Placement of fill materials shall avoid adverse impacts on nearshore habitat or water quality resulting from interference with natural circulation patterns, including accel- erated or restricted flows. Shoreline and wetland fills shall avoid adverse impacts of erosion and other non-point sources of pollution on adjacent habitats. HABITAT In the Wilderness, habitat enhancement projects that maintain or increase fish and wildlife populations may occur, while other activities may cause degradation. The intent of Wilderness management is to prevent excessive destruction of fish and wildlife habitat, while recognizing that any activity may disturb or destroy some part of some habitat. If activities allowed by the Forest Service severely affect a given habitat, those activities may be restricted or curtailed. Goal 9.1: To protect or enhance habitat which supports living resources. Objective 9.1.1: To ensure that management policies protect habitat important to traditional and customary use and all other uses and activities. —118— Policies: A. Habitats in the coastal area which are subject to the Alaska Coastal Management Program include: (1) offshore areas; (2) estuaries; (3) wetlands and tideflats; (4) rocky islands and sea cliffs; (5) barrier islands and lagoons; (6) exposed high energy coasts; (7) rivers, streams, and lakes; and (8) important upland habitat. The AMSAs contain all of the above habitats except exposed high energy coasts and barrier islands and lagoons. The habitats occurring in the AMSAs must be managed so as to maintain or enhance the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the habitat which contribute to its capacity to support living resources. B. In addition to the policy contained in (A) of this section, the following policies apply to the management of the following habitats: (1) offshore areas must be managed so as to maintain or enhance the state’s sport, commercial, and subsistence fisheries; (2) estuaries must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, natural circulation patterns, nutrients, and oxygen level, and must avoid the discharge of toxic wastes, silt, and destruction of productive habitat; (3) wetlands and tideflats must be managed so as to assure adequate water flow, nutrients, and oxygen levels, and must avoid adverse effects on natural drainage patterns, the destruction of important habitat, and the discharge of toxic sub- stances; (4) rocky islands and sea cliffs must be managed so as to avoid the harassment of wildlife, the destruction of important habitat, and the introduction of competing or destructive species and predators; and (5) rivers, streams and lakes must be managed to protect natural vegetation, water quality, important fish or wildlife habitat and natural water flow. C. Uses and activities in the AMSAs which will not conform to the standards in (A) or (B) of this section may be allowed if the following are established: (1) there is a significant public need for the proposed use or activity; (2) there is no feasible or prudent alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity which would conform to the standards contained in (A) and (B) of this section; and —119~— (3) all feasible and prudent steps to maximize conformance with the standards contained in (A) and (B) of this section will be taken. D. In applying this section, the District and state agencies may use appropriate expertise, including regional programs referred to in 6AAC 80.030(b). E. Maintaining critical fish and wildlife habitats shall be given first priority when weighing resource use conflicts. F. Uses and activities shall avoid adverse impacts to anadromous fish streams; associated holding, spawning, and rearing areas; and associated riparian habitats. MINING Although no mineral deposits located within the boundaries of the AMSAs are currently economically viable, changes in the marketplace could make marginal deposits worth devel- opment. New mineral discoveries are possible. To some extent, all mining operations impact adjacent areas by displacing wildlife, importing labor, and impairing land, water and air quality. All mineral rights on the Mitchell Bay “corridor” lands are retained by the federal government and will be managed consistent with Wilderness direction. Since there are no existing valid claims, mineral development would be precluded. All activities must be coordinated with Kootznoowoo Corporation, providing for additional control of proposed activities. There are no known valid existing mining rights on National Forest System lands within the AMSAs. All National Forest lands within the Kootznoowoo Wilderness Management Area have been withdrawn from future mineral entry. Goal 10.1: To encourage environmentally and culturally sensitive mining activities. Objective 10.1.1: To consider all environmental, economic, and social aspects of any mining or mineral processing proposal. Objective 10.1.2: To accomodate mineral exploration and extraction activities that occur in ways that do not threaten or impede traditional and customary subsistence uses and activities. Policies: A. Mining and mineral processing in the AMSAs must, be regulated, designed and conducted so as to be compatible with the standards contained in 6 AAC 80.110, adja- cent uses and activities, statewide and national needs, and the ACMP. B. Sand and gravel may be extracted from coastal waters, intertidal areas, barrier islands, and spits, when there is no feasible and prudent alternative to coastal extraction which will meet the public need for sand or gravel. C. Sand, gravel and shotrock extraction shall be located to minimize environmental impacts and conflicts with nearby uses and activities. —120— D. In the case of any in-water material extraction, all protective measures available to minimize habitat degradation in adjacent waters must be used. Any in-water activities should be scheduled so as to minimize disruption to seasonal biological processes. Mining activities (including treatment and disposal of overburden, tailings, and waste materials) shall be designed and operated so as to prevent and minimize soil erosion, slope failure, ground and surface water contamination, and sedimentation and to maximize habitat and resource protection. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES A. Transportation and utility routes and facilities in the coastal area must be sited, designed, and constructed so as to be compatible with the Angoon CMP. Transportation and utility routes and facilities must be sited inland from beaches, shorelines and stream banks unless the route or facility is water-dependent or no inland alternative exists. Transportation and utility routes and facilities must be sited in the least envi- ronmentally sensitive locations, to the extent feasible and prudent. Soils and geology must be considered in planning for future development. The two greatest considerations are the presence of soils with high organic content (such as muskegs) and steep slopes. Unless no feasible and prudent alternatives exist, the following practices must be followed: (1) Soil disturbance in general must be kept to a minimum; (2) Areas of high biological productivity must be protected from disturbance, erosion and deposition; (3) To the extent feasible and prudent, the following procedures must be used when planning, designing, constructing and maintaining roads: (a) Road construction in muskeg/high organic content soils must be carefully planned and designed to minimize structural failures and adverse impacts to local drainages. In most cases the existing soils must be removed and replaced with structurally-sound fill materials. (b) Steep valleys must be avoided whenever possible. Road construction in steep slope areas must be designed to utilize natural contours and to minimize impacts on drainage. Cuts must be kept toa minimum and should be carefully planned, designed, executed, and maintained. Whenever possible, cutbanks must be laid back at 1:1. (c) When construction activities cannot be avoided on slopes, the goal must be to minimize the disturbance to the vegetative cover. This will help maintain slope stability and minimize erosion. Disturbed areas must be revegetated and stabilized. Natural drainage processes must be maintained. —121— (d) Construction in muskegs shall include the removal of the existing muskeg soils to bedrock or other stable materials. Structurally-sound fill materials shall be brought in, including proper crushed rock for driveways and roads. Waste materials shall be properly disposed of to avoid erosion or wasting of adjacent soils. If, on the other hand, it is impractical to remove the muskeg and the construc- tion strategy entails pilings, they shall be driven to solid material or friction- depth. Precautions must be taken to prevent frost jacking. (e) Prior to construction, areas of questionable soil strength must be investigated to bedrock or other base material. Soil stability and drainage evaluations shall be made on-site to determine the appropriate building strategy. (f) Before building in flat muskegs, drainage conditions shall be evaluated in order to avoid foundation failures and surface and subsurface drainage problems. (g) Filter strips of undisturbed soil shall be maintained between streams and any section of road that parallels them. Filter strips shall be at least 100 feet wide to assure interception of runoff sediments, and this distance shall be increased when the intervening soils slope steeply or are muskegs subject to surface runoff. (h) Culverts and water-bars must be properly spaced and located in order to minimize sediment production. Discharge shall be onto undisturbed soils or armored fill slopes to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Roads no longer used that appear to be serious sediment producers shall be seeded with grass, preferably in late May or early June. (i) Where development activities result in habitat destruction and environmental degradation, every effort must be made to mitigate damage. GEOPHYSICAL HAZARD AREAS A. Where alternatives exist, development in areas of known or potential geophysical hazard is prohibited. Where no feasible alternative exists, development in known or potential geothermal hazard areas shall be allowed only if siting, design, construction, and maintenance measures have been provided to minimize property damage and avoid loss of life. ENERGY FACILITIES A. The siting and approval of major industrial or commercial facilities by districts and state agencies must be based, to the extent feasible and prudent, on the following standards: (1) Site industrial or commercial facilities so as to minimize adverse environmental and social effects while satisfying industrial requirements; —122— (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) Site industrial or commercial facilities so as to be compatible with existing and subsequent adjacent uses and projected community needs; Consolidate industrial or commercial facilities; Consider the concurrent public use of industrial or commercial facilities for public or economic reasons; Cooperate with landowners, developers, and federal agencies in the development of industrial or commercial facilities; Select sites with sufficient acreage to allow for reasonable expansion of industrial or commercial facilities; Site industrial or commercial facilities where existing infrastructure, including roads, docks, and airstrips, is capable of satisfying industrial requirements; Select harbors and shipping routes with least exposure to reefs, shoals, drift ice, and other obstructions; Encourage the use of vessel traffic control and collision avoidance systems; Select industrial or commercial sites where development will require minimal site clearing, dredging and construction in productive habitats; Site industrial or commercial facilities so as to minimize the probability, along shipping routes, of spills or other forms of contamination which would affect fishing grounds, spawning grounds, and other biologically productive or vulner- able habitats, including marine mammal rookeries and hauling out grounds and waterfowl nesting areas; Site industrial or commercial facilities so the design and construction of those facilities and support infrastructures in coastal areas of Alaska will allow for the free passage and movement of fish and wildlife with due consideration for historic migratory patterns and so that areas of particular, scenic, recreational, environ- mental, or cultural value will be protected; Site industrial or commercial facilities in areas of least biological productivity, diversity, and vulnerability and where effluents and spills can be controlled or contained; Site industrial or commercial facilities where winds and air currents disperse airborne emissions which cannot be captured before escape into the atmosphere; Select sites in areas which are designated for industrial or commercial purposes and where industrial traffic is minimized through population centers; and Select sites where vessel movements will not result in overcrowded harbors or interfere with fishing operations and equipment. —123— B. The district shall consider that the uses authorized by the issuance of state and federal leases for mineral and petroleum resource extraction are uses of state concern. —124— IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORITY The authority to implement this management plan is premised on the Coastal Policy Council’s authority to formally designate an AMSA outside a coastal district boundary (6 AAC 80.170), and the existing laws and regulations of the state and federal governments. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES The City of Angoon’s chief administrative officer, the mayor, is responsible for implementing the AMSA plan for AMSA lands within the coastal district boundary. The mayor may assign coastal-management related duties to administrative staff, but final responsibility for im- plementation rests with him. In conducting the consistency review, the mayor or administrative staff will consult with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council in a liaison capacity. Contact The Honorable Daniel Johnson, Jr., Mayor, or Pauline Johnson, Coastal Coordinator, at 788-3653 or write to City of Angoon, P.O. Box 189, Angoon, AK 99829. IMPLEMENTATION IN ALL OF THE AMSAs The consistency review is a required evaluation of any proposed activity either inside or outside of a coastal boundary that may affect the coastal resources. The review ensures that the activity or development is consistent, or in line, with the coastal management policies. The consistency review process outlined in 6 AAC 50.070 will be in effect in the AMSAs. However, new implementation strategies will come into play because the Mitchell and Hood Bay AMSAs are partly within and outside the coastal district boundary while the Chaik- Whitewater Bay AMSA is entirely extra-territorial (see Figure 1-A). The AMSA Plan will be implemented by the state through project reviews under the state consistency review regulations. A “project” is defined to include: (1) activities which require one or more state permits; and (2) a use or activity which is located in or may affect the coastal zone and is subject to consistency under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (6 AAC 50.190(14). With respect to state implementation, the state can only implement the plan where a state or federal permit is required. Since much of the AMSA uplands are federal Wilderness and Monument lands, the review of federal agency actions, permits and approvals may be the primary means through which the plan can be implemented. Appendix A lists permits and approvals requiring individual project review. For actions proposed on or adjacent to the designated Wilderness and Monument that require one or more federal permits, the Forest Service will evaluate their compatibility with Wilderness management directives, ANILCA, and the National Environmental Policy Act. —127— On private lands in the AMSAs, the policies will be effective through voluntary participation, and whenever state or federal permits are needed for actions. Once permits are required, these policies are binding rather than voluntary. Compliance can also be achieved through public awareness of the AMSA plan. The district could develop a brochure, user guide or newsletter to help project applicants, private landowners, and the public understand the plan. Any of these implementation tools could describe in simple terms the AMSA goals and boundaries, the consistency review process (especially local review procedures and permit requirements), and give phone numbers of the coastal coordinator and local resource agency staff. COORDINATION In all of the AMSAs, reviews of development projects will be coordinated by the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) if ¢ the project requires permits from two or more state agencies; e the project requires a permit from a federal agency; or e the project applicant is a federal agency. DGC coordinates the review and makes the final or conclusive determination of consistency for projects requiring permits from two or more state agencies. For all federal projects, the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) mandated that federal agencies must make their own determination of whether the project is consistent with a coastal management program. DGC coordinates the consistency review of a federal plan or project, or a federally sponsored, licensed, or permitted project. In other words, DGC reviews the federal agencies’ determination on behalf of the state. State agencies that protect or manage resources (DEC, ADFG, and DNR) are called “state resource agencies.” Ifa project needs permits from only one state agency and no federal permits, that agency coordinates the review process and is\called the “coordinating state resource agency.” IMPLEMENTATION IN THE MITCHELL BAY AND HOOD BAY AMSAs m@ AMSA LAND WITHIN THE COASTAL DISTRICT Local Implementation The district is responsible for reviewing all activities affecting coastal resources in the Mitchell and Hood Bay AMSAs that require only local permits and approvals for consistency. State agencies will not be involved. The Angoon Planning and Zoning commission will be preparing and recommending to the City Council a comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, watershed protection ordinance and subdi- —128— vision ordinance. The City can use these ordinances and other Title 29 authorities to locally implement their AMSA plan for those lands that are within the coastal district boundary. Chapter 18.24 in the City’s Title 18 Zoning ordinance outlines permitted uses and conditional uses in the Rural Zone. The rural zone presently involves waterfront land on the Angoon Peninsula that includes the cemetery area (and private property) and land beyond the boat harbor as far as the ferry terminal. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the City Council that the following areas be zoned as rural: Killisnoo Harbor, private property on Killisnoo Island (the rest of the island would be zoned historic), Favorite Bay, and land north of Hood Bay. Zoning will not be completed until these areas are identified by section and legal description. Section 18.24.010 states “The purpose of the rural zone is to retain the character of undevel- oped land until growth of the other districts requires expansion. The expansion can occur in a planned and contiguous manner under the direction of the city.” Permitted uses include subsistence use. Conditional uses in the rural zone are permitted only after review by the Planning Commis- sion. Conditions or standards relating to design, location, operation, and materials or other means appropriate will be required of the developer before approval is granted. Conditional uses in the rural zone are Mining and support facilities; Lodges and resorts; Resource recreation; Log processing and storage; Public utility facilities; Fire stations; Solid waste disposal sites; Governmental buildings; Commercial-- retail sales, wholesale sales, open material and equipment storage, service and maintenance, and professional services; Industrial; Timber harvesting; L. Seafood processing; and M. Rock extraction. (Prior Code 11.03.06(d)) MMOS OOD > AG The Alaska Administrative Code, Section 6 AAC 50.070, requires agencies to involve “affected coastal districts” in the review of the coastal projects (6 AAC 80.190(14)). Affected coastal district means “a coastal resource district as defined in AS 46.40.210(2) in which a project is proposed to be located, or which may experience a direct and significant impact from a proposed project.” Direct and significant impact means “an effect of a project which will likely contribute or lead to a significant change in or alteration of the natural, social, cultural, or economic characteristics of a coastal resource district (6 AAC 50.190(10)).” The project consistency regulations also accord an affected coastal district the right to due deference in the interpretation and application of its approved program (6 AAC 50.120(a)) and the right to elevate a project under review (6 AAC 50.070(j)). A district’s right to due deference —129— and elevation is determined on a project-by-project basis according to the potential of each project to directly and significantly affect the district. Basically, due deference means following the recommendations of the agency or district having the most expertise in a particular field. It is defined in 6 AAC 50.120(a)) as deference which is appropriate in the context of the commenter’s expertise and area of responsibility, along with supporting factual assertions. A coastal resource district whose district program has been incorporated in the ACMP is considered to have expertise in the interpretation and application of its program (6 AAC 50.120(a). “Elevation” or the appeal process ensures further review when concurrence with a proposed determination on a project is not reached. As an affected coastal district, the City will participate with the state agencies in consistency reviews of proposed activities on AMSA land within the district that require state or federal permits. The review will be coordinated by DGC or a state resource agency. m@ AMSA LAND OUTSIDE THE COASTAL DISTRICT State Implementation The plan for an AMSA outside a district is a state plan because the AMSA is located outside the district’s municipal boundaries. Therefore, the district does not have the authority to manage or implement this type of AMSA. The district does not receive due deference or elevation rights on a proposed project under review for consistency with an AMSA located outside of a district unless the district will experience a direct and significant impact from the project. Due deference and elevation rights will be determined on a project-by-project basis. The district must state in its comments to the state coordinating agency the effects it anticipates from a project outside of the district, whether in an AMSA or not, to justify its request for full participation in the review. The coordinating agency has discretion in determining whether due deference and elevation rights are warranted. Ifthese rights are granted, the district may then participate in the consistency review for that project as an “affected coastal district.” The state coordinating agency that reviews a project proposed within an AMSA outside of a district will give careful consideration to a district’s comments in those cases where no potential for direct and significant impact from the project is likely to occur. IMPLEMENTATION IN THE CHAIK-WHITEWATER BAY AMSA State Implementation The Chaik-Whitewater Bay AMSA is entirely extra-territorial, or outside the coastal district boundary. Because the AMSA is located outside the district’s boundary, it is a state plan and the district does not have the authority to manage or implement this type of AMSA. The district does not receive due deference or elevation rights on a proposed project under review for consistency with an AMSA located outside of a district unless the district will —130— experience a direct and significant impact from the project. Due deference and elevation rights will be determined on a project-by-project basis. The district must state in its comments to the state coordinating agency the effects it anticipates from a project outside of the district, whether in an AMSA or not, to justify its request for full participation in the review. The coordinating agency has discretion in determining whether due deference and elevation rights are warranted. Ifthese rights are granted, the district may then participate in the consistency review for that project as an “affected coastal district.” The state coordinating agency that reviews a project proposed within an AMSA outside of a district will give careful consideration to a district’s comments in those cases where no potential for direct and significant impact from the project is likely to occur. RECEIVING NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS The district will be informed of proposed state and federal actions by receiving notices of permit applications, public notices of actions, and general “mailing list” notifications. Appendix A lists the notices the district will routinely receive for review and possible comment. Actions that require only local approval (municipal or private actions that are not initiated or regulated by a state or federal agency) will all be screened by the district. Notification will be required for local actions through planning and zoning procedures (for example, building permits, sewer extension approvals, water hook-ups). CHECKLIST FOR CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS AND RESPONSE TIME Following receipt of a notice for a proposed action, the district will conduct an initial screening of the project. The consistency checklist (See Appendix B) will be used to determine if the proposed action is consistent with the AMSA plan. The district will participate in coordinated consistency reviews of state and federal projects through the process outlined in 6 AAC 50.010- 50.190. The district will use the checklist to prepare a consistency recommendation and submit it to the coordinating state agency by the specified deadline. If additional time is required by the district, the district will consult with the coordinating agency to ensure that the additional time is permissable. If the district concludes that the proposed project is inconsistent with the policies in the AMSA plan, it will work with the project applicant to revise the project in order to make it consistent. The district recommendation to the coordinating agency will contain the following information ¢ State of Alaska project identification number; e AMSA policies with which the project is inconsistent; ¢ Recommended stipulations which would make the project consistent, if any; and e Brief rationale for each recommended stipulation. For local actions, if the proposed action is consistent, the district will inform the applicant of the decision within 30 days of application. If the proposed local action is inconsistent, the —131— district will inform the applicant of the decision within 30 days of application. The proposed action will be denied, or conditions or modification to the proposed action that would make the action consistent will be offered. If conditions or modifications are incorporated into the proposed action, the application will be resubmitted to the district and treated as a new action proposal. CONSISTENCY DETERMINATIONS In rendering a conclusive consistency determination, the coordinating agency shall give careful consideration to all comments, and shall give due deference to the comments of resource agencies and affected coastal districts. DEC would be considered the expert on air and water quality; DNR, the expert on oil and gas drilling, mining, or forestry; ADFG on fish, wildlife, or habitat issues. Both ADFG and the local district would be given due deference on issues affecting subsistence, but the district would be considered the expert on many aspects because of local knowledge. To make consistency determinations, the district will directly apply its policies to specific activities proposed in the AMSAs within the coastal district boundary. Through an established process the district will receive notification of proposed actions, complete a step-by-step checklist (see Appendix B) that provides the information necessary for a consistency determi- nation, and respond to the appropriate parties. The State of Alaska system for reviewing and processing permits, leases, and approvals for proposed projects in the coastal district requires completion of a coastal project questionnaire. DGC reviews the federal agencies’ determinations on behalf of the state. DGC will coordinate a consistency review and render a response concurring or objecting to a federal consistency certification or determination which is required or authorized by Section 307 of the CZMA. APPEALS The elevation or appeal process ensures further review when concurrence with a proposed determination on a project is not reached. Two kinds of appeals may occur with respect to a consistency determination: an appeal of the district’s determination by a local proponent of the project, and an elevation by the district or a state resource agency regarding a proposed decision. If a proposed local action is determined to be inconsistent and is denied, the district may suggest changes or conditions that could make the action consistent. The proponent can choose to incorporate these suggestions into the proposed action and resubmit the action for consideration. It will then be treated as a new action, and the sequential steps of the consistency determination process will be repeated. Ifno modifications are recommended by the district, or ifthe proponent chooses not to make any changes, the proponent can appeal the district’s determination of inconsistency. In that case, the city council will sit as the board of adjustment, and will issue a written statement of its findings within 14 days of the appellate hearing. —132— ‘ The coordinating state agency shall notify the City and the applicant of a proposed consistency determination. In accordance with 6 AAC 50.070(i), (j) and (k), the City or the applicant may request review of the determination by elevating the decision to the resource agencies’ division directors and finally to the commissioners. FIELD CHECKING There are two reasons for field checking the decisions that have been made based on the AMSA plan: to ensure that approved projects are actually being properly conducted, and that activities needing a consistency determination have received one. Techniques for field checking the AMSAs located within the coastal district include: a. Routine field inspections of significant projects by city personnel; b. Periodic checking on specific projects or locations of concern; and c. Requests for copies of field reports and trip reports from state and federal personnel who make field observations; and coordination of site inspection with state and federal personnel when appropriate. The coastal coordinator will conduct field inspections and periodic checks of AMSA projects within the coastal district boundary. The Wilderness and Monument status of the uplands in the AMSAs will preclude most kinds of development on or adjacent to Wilderness. Field checking and site inspection of projects or activities in the extra-territorial AMSAs will be the responsibility of the state. Field and trip reports from state and federal personnel regularly in these areas will help monitor compliance of activities in the AMSAs outside the coastal district. Mitchell Bay and Salt Lake is regularly patrolled by the USFS wilderness rangers during August and September, and ADFG conducts annual stream surveys in all of the AMSAs. ENFORCEMENT Enforcement actions are initiated when a person, organization, or agency has violated the requirements of the AMSA plan or has violated an approval that included a consistency determination (including possible conditions) that was based on the plan. The first step in an enforcement action is an attempt at informal resolution. In most cases this will end the problem, because people may not be aware of what was required of them for compliance. If informal means fail, one of three enforcement actions may be appropriate: Local Enforcement The district has the authority to enforce its consistency determinations for actions in the AMSAs within the coastal district boundary. It can enforce violations of the AMSA plan that occur through non-compliance with the local building code, local zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, or other local permitting systems. The district can gather the necessary informa- tion and proceed as it would with any other ordinance violation. —133— State Enforcement Ifthe district finds that a violation ofits AMSA plan has occurred as part of a violation ofa state permit condition, it can report the violation to the responsible state agency. The state agency will then handle the matter in conjunction with the Department of Law. Federal Enforcement Ifa violation has occurred through non-compliance with a federal permit condition, the district can report the violation to the responsible federal agency. The federal agency will then handle the matter. —134— Appendix A PERMITS and APPROVALS REQUIRING INDIVIDUAL PROJECT REVIEW The following list is not all inclusive, but it contains those state and federal permits that might logically be expected to come into play in the AMSAs, and which are subject to individual project review for consiste icy. The District will be notified of applications for these permits within the AMSA boundaries. STATE AGENCIES: m@ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Land and Water Management Review Schedule Permit/Approval 30-day Site Suitability Permit for Aquatic Farming 30-day Tideland use permits 30-day Temporary water use permits for water withdrawals, except for withdrawals from sources classified as categorical or general concurrence approvals 50-day Approval of plan of operations or plan of development on leased lands (deadline does not apply when the plan is included in the lease at the time of the sale) 30-day General land use permits, except for those classified as categori- cal or general concurrence approvals Division of Parks 50-day Permit for the removal of historic or archeological resources m@ DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME Review Schedule Permit/Approval 30-day Fish Habitat Permit (for activities in anadromous fish streams) 50-day Aquatic Farm Operations Permit 30-day Scientific and educational collecting permits for aquatic farming operations 30-day Hatchery Permits 30-day Critical Habitat Areas —135— 30-day 30-day Refuges Game Sanctuaries —@ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Review Schedule Permit/Approval 50-day Air Quality Control Permit to Operate (will likely require an extended review due to complex issues) 50-day Solid Waste Management Permit (includes disposal ofoil cleanup debris) 50-day Waste Disposal Permit (Waste Water Discharge) 50-day 401 Certifications Certificate of Reasonable Assurance, Sec. 401 50-day Oil Discharge Contingency Plan for offshore facilities and on- shore fuel storage facilities with a capacity of 10,000 bbls or greater @ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES: DISPOSALS Division of Land and Water Management BIF* BIF BIF BIF BIF 1. Aquatic Farm Site Permits and Leases 2. Lease of Land 3. 4. Right-of-way or easement permits for roads, trails, ditches, pipelines, drill sites, Lease of Tidelands log storage, telephone or transmission lines, outfall lines, or access corridors Material Sales, except sales from approved upland sources and personal use contracts BIF = Best Interest Findings. No schedule is applicable for issuance of DNR disposals of state interest. The consistency review will begin at a date that DGC and DNR agree will most effectively allow for both the consistency review and DNR’s own statutory responsibilities. FEDERAL AGENCIES At aminimum, the following federal actions and permitting or authorization activities will be reviewed for consistency. The District will be notified of applications for these federal permits within the AMSAs. Federal agencies will make their own determinations of consistency, and coordination of the review will be conducted by DGC. 7 —136— ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES: 1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) U.S. FOREST SERVICE 1. Mariculture ¢ generally not consistent with Wilderness management, but USFS would review on a case-by-case basis Aquaculture and Habitat Improvement Projects ¢ allowed uses in ANILCA, but USFS would review on a case-by-case basis Commercial Use of the Uplands ¢ includes associated upland activities involving shoreties, freshwater lines, storage or cabins above he MHW line ¢ requires NEPA process and public review Personal Use of the Waterline ¢ an allowed use but must be compatible with Wilderness management; may require NEPA process Special Use Permit for Temporary Facility ¢ temporary facilities include tent platforms, tents, camps and outhouses e ANILCA allows temporary facilities for the taking of fish and game ¢ requires NEPA process and scoping for public review U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1. 2. Rivers and Harbors Act Clean Water Act ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1. Permits for ocean dumping (40 CFR 200) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1. Bald Eagle Protection Act 2. Endangered Species Act 8. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act aw —137— Appendix B ANGOON AMSA PLAN CHECKLIST for CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATIONS PART I: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 1. Who is the proponent or lead agency for the proposed action? Federal (Name of Agency) State (Name of Agency) Local (Name of Agency) 2. How was the District notified of the proposed action? Permit application (Name and number) Public Notice (Describe) Mailing List (Describe) Other (Describe) 3. When is the District’s recommendation due to the lead agency? ,19 (Date) 4. What action is proposed? (Describe briefly; for example, “dredging Ferry Terminal,”or “widening Killisnoo Road.”) 5. Where is the proposed action located? District (Identify by streets, etc.) AMSA (Name of AMSA and location within it) —138— PART I: IMPACT EVALUATION 1. Check below any uses, activities, resources, and habitats which will be altered by the proposed action. Coastal development and land use Geophysical hazard areas Recreation Energy Facilities Transportation or utilities Community services Fish and seafood processing Timber harvest and processing Mining and mineral processing Economic and employment development Traditional and customary natural resource use Habitats Air, land, or water quality Historic, prehistoric, and archeological resources 2. Ifany uses, activities, resources, or habitats will be affected, please explain how for each one. 3. What type of habitat or area will be affected by the proposed action? (Mark “D” for areas directly affected, or “I” for areas indirectly affected.) D I Waterway or wetland area: Marine water Shoreline/tidal Wetland habitat (marsh, etc.) Stream or lake Riparian corridor Muskeg Upland and non-aquatic area: Within major drainage — Directly adjacent to water body — Generally unrelated to water body —139— . Describe zoning or management plan designations (if known) . What is the quality of the affected habitat(s)? (If not known, District may consult with ADFG and other agencies) Exceptional Good Marginal to average . Have the affected uses, activities, resources, and habitats been mapped or inventoried in the AMSA plan? Yes No . What is the nature and significance of the potential alteration(s)? (Example: Access toa significant recreation area will be obstructed) The District may conclude at this point that it has insufficient information to fully evalu- ate the impacts and significance of the proposed action. Ifso, the following means may be used to obtain further information or assistance: a. Consult with appropriate city council advisory groups or persons with specific knowledge of project, area, or resources; b. Hold a public meeting to obtain public opinion; c. Consult with the proponent or lead agency; d. Consult with other appropriate agencies (ADFG, DEC, DNR, USFS, etc.) For state and federal actions, the lead agency normally has responsibility for obtaining review comments from other agencies. The District should contact the lead agency for this information. . Are alternative sites available for the proposed action? Yes No (If necessary, explain why alternatives are unfeasible) —140— 9. Has the proponent or lead agency considered alternative sites? Yes No PART III: CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION 1. Are the alterations resulting from the proposed action consistent with all applicable policies of the AMSA plan? Yes No Name the policies with which the action is consistent/ inconsistent. (Attach additional sheets if necessary) What is the District’s determination for the proposed action? Consistent with the AMSA Plan: Inconsistent with the AMSA Plan: May be made consistent if certain conditions or changes are applied: (Go to Question 4) What changes or conditions does the District recommend that may resolve conflicts and make the action consistent with the AMSA Plan? ’ (For District use only) Does the District request that “great weight” be given its deter- mination because of the significance of the proposed action? Please include brief justifi- cation. Yes: No: What additional comments does the District have to support its consistency determina- tion? What, ifany, measures does the District recommend to mitigate potential habitat damage? —141— Appendix C DOCUMENTATION of PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PUBLIC NOTICES Public hearings were publicized throughout the community on available bulletin boards and via community-wide CB radio. PUBLIC MEETINGS IN ANGOON Jan. 22 & 23, 1990 Discussion of AMSA issues and preparation of questionnaire with Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council Feb. 22, 1990 Public Hearing on Future Land Uses, Issues, and Activities in the AMSAs May 14, 1990 Public Hearing for comments on AMSA Public Review Draft May 15, 1990 Joint Executive Session with City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to review policies and agency recommendations September 17, 1990 Public Hearing on Public Review Draft following 60-day review period December 10, 1990 Joint Worksession with City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to review agency comments on Public Review Draft Acommunity-wide questionnaire on future land uses in the AMSAs was available at the City office and distributed by staff in February 1990. In addition to the participants at the public hearing, other individuals received the questionnaire from the consultants through meeting contacts or at the Senior Center. Extra copies were kept available at the City office. A pre-publication copy of the Draft AMSA Plan was made available to people in Angoon and members of the City government in early May, 1990. The printed AMSA Public Review Draft was distributed for public review by DGC on July 30, 1990. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearing on Future Land Uses, Issues and Activities in the AMSAs February 22, 1990 Attendance List: 1. George Jim Sr. 8. Cynthia Ann Jim 2. Mary Willis 9. Frank Lane 3. Charlie Joseph 10. Matilda Gamble 4. Floyd Kookesh 11. George B. Johnson, Jr. 5. Gilbert Willard 12. Norman Nelson 6. Jean Hogue 13. Pauline Johnson 7. Dennis Eames 14. Roxanne Turner, Consultant Synopsis: Five members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and seven members of the public attended the hearing. Most of the testimony did not focus on future land uses. Several of the speakers discussed the perceived use conflict between guided sportfishing and subsistence fishing. Others discussed resource allocation issues —142— including the impacts on traditional resources from commercial fishing, tourists, and sports hunters. All issues on the questionnaire were addressed, although specific information was not forthcoming about locations where certain uses and activities might be compatible. Seven questionnaires were completed and returned to the consultants. Public Hearing on Draft AMSA Plan May 14, 1990 Attendance List: 1. George Jim Sr. 6. Matilda Gamble 2. George B. Johnson, Jr. 7. Pauline Johnson 3. Lydia George 8. Mary Bixby, DGC 4. Cynthia Jim 9. Roxanne Turner, Consultant 5. Norman Nelson Synopsis: Five members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and one member of the public attended the hearing. Roxanne Turner gave an overview of the contents of the Public Review Draft. Mary Bixby discussed the coastal management program and implementation of AMSA plan. Discussion focused on the policies in the management section and the agency recommendations in Appendix A. Several revisions were proposed and adopted by a majority of those present. Public Hearing on AMSA Public Review Draft September 17, 1990 Attendance List: 1. Paul James Sr. 9. Martha Nelson 17. Norman Nelson 2. Maggie James 10. Mary Starr 18. Cynthia Jim 8. Anthony Johnson 11. Mary B. Johnson 19. Harriet Silva 4. Gabriel George 12. William Samato 20. Frank Lane 5. Jason Lane 13. Annie Tiemeyer 21. Pauline Johnson 6. William Albert 14. George Johnson Jr. 22. Roxanne Turner, Consultant 7. Dick Powers 15. Dan Johnson Jr. 8. Mary Willis 16. Lydia George ‘ Synopsis: Several members of the public debated the recommendations contained in Appendix A and Appendix B of the Plan. Others commented on resource allocation issues, including Fish and Game regulations anda perceived need for new subsistence fisheries. Inaccuracies in the narrative were pointed out for correction, and several ref- erence documents were recommended. The history and current economic contributions of the recreation industry in the Angoon area were discussed. Several elders testified to the traditional use importance of the AMSAs. CONSULTANT PRESENTATIONS TO ANGOON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION and/or CITY COUNCIL Presentations were made and questions and comments were addressed on the draft AMSA Plan during five trips to Angoon. The joint worksessions in May and December involved the Council and Commission’s review of policy language and other issues. Barbara Sheinberg, Project Manager, attended the January meetings, and Roxanne Turner, Consultant, facilitated all of the meetings that followed. January 22 and 23, 1990 September 17, 1990 February 22, 1990 December 17, 1990 May 14 and 15, 1990 All presentations and discussions were open to the public and have been tape-recorded with copies available from the City of Angoon. —143— Appendix D REFERENCES CITED Admiralty Island in Contention, Vol. 1, No. 3. Alaska Geographic Society, Alaska Northwest Publishing, 1973. Alaska Heritage Resources Survey. Office of History and Archeology. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Amount and Type of Outfitter/Guide Services at Mitchell Bay, Admiralty Island, Environ- mental Assessment. USDA Forest Service, December 1989. Angoon AMSA Nomination Report to the Coastal Policy Council. September 19, 1988. Angoon AMSA Public Hearing Tape. Angoon, Alaska. March 1989. Angoon Coastal Management Program. Concept Approved January 1990. Superscript Consultants. Juneau, Alaska. Angoon Hydro Study. Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. polarconsult alaska, inc., Anchorage, August 1989. Angoon Land Use Plan, CH2M Hill. December 1982. The Angoon Subsistence Coho Fishery. Technical Paper No. 39 by J.E. Hall, Alaska Depart- ment of Fish and Game, Subsistence Division, Juneau, 1981. Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Board. Conceptually Approved October 1986. Volumes 1, 2, and 3. Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission. Moser, Page 46, 1898. Cenaliulriit Coastal Management Program. Bethel, AK. Effective March 1985. Concept Approved Areas Which Merit Special Attention in Southern Southeast Alaska (Hy- daburg). July 1983. de Laguna, Frederica. The Story of a Tlingit Community. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 172. Washington D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1960. Etolin Island Mariculture Pilot Project. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management. Southeast Regional Office. 1988. Eyak Lake AMSA Cooperative Management Plan. Conceptual Approval March 1985. Profes- sional Fishery Consultant. Cordova, Alaska. George, Gabriel and Robert G. Bosworth. Use of Fish and Wildlife by Residents of Angoon, Admiralty Island, Alaska. Technical Paper No. 159. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Juneau. April 1988. —144— George, Gabriel and Matthew Kookesh. Salt Lake Coho Subsistence Permit Fishery. Technical Paper No. 70. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Juneau. 1982. Goldschmidt, Walter and Theodore Haas. Possessory Rights of the Natives of Southeastern Alaska. Unpublished report. Washington, D.C. Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 1946. Hoonah Coastal Management Program. Revised reprint of February 1984 concept approved plan which was prepared and printed by CH2M Hill, Portland, OR. June 1984. Ingledue, Donald. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Commercial Fish Division, 1982. Personal communication to Gabriel George. Kookesh, Albert. Personal communications, 1990. Kookesh, Matthew. Personal communications, 1990. Langdon, Stephen John. Technology, Ecology, and Economy: Fishing Systems in Southeast Alaska. PhD Dissertation. Stanford University, California. Ann Arbor Michigan: University Microfilms. 1977. Mitchell, Ken. Personal communications, 1990. Morgan, Sid O., Brown Bear, ADFG Division of Wildlife Conservation, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities, 1 January 1988-31 December 1988, Vol. XX, Part V, Project W-23-2, Study 4.0, June 1990. Oberg, Kalervo. The Social Economy of the Tlingit Indians. University of Washington Press, Seattle. 1973. Olson, Ronald Leroy. Social Structure and Social Life of the Tlingit in Alaska. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1967. Painter, Rodger. Angoon Mariculture Project Final Report. Sea Culture of Alaska, Inc. January 3, 1990. Painter, Rodger. Final 1990 Mariculture Project Report. Sea Culture of Alaska, Inc. December 26, 1990. Painter, Rodger. 1991 Angoon Mariculture Project. Sea Culture of Alaska, Inc. November 20, 1990. Peck, Dr. Cyrus E. The Tides People: A Narrative Account of Tlingit Culture and Values Written by a Tlingit. February 1986. Powers, Richard L. Public Involvement and Admiralty Island, Alaska: Effects of Interest Groups on Natural Resource Allocation. M.A. Thesis, University of Alaska, Juneau. 1972. Revised Sitka District Coastal Management Program. Concept Approved Draft. City and Borough of Sitka. April 1988. YW —] 45— Sharp, Frank. Personal communications, 1990. Stanley, Samuel. Report to the Bureau of Indian Affairs on Changes in Tlingit Social Organization. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Juneau. 1965. Swanton, John R. Social Conditions, Beliefs, and Linguistic Relationship of Tlingit Indians. Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology for 1904-1905. 1908. Thornton, Thomas F. Utilization and Management of the Sitkoh Bay Sockeye Salmon Fishery. January 1990. Draft of Technical Report Number 174. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey, Volume 1. Report to the Community of Angoon. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, in cooperation with U.S. Forest Service and ADFG Division of Subsistence. Prepared by Jack Kruse and Rosyland Frazier. September 20, 1988. Zuboff, Marlene. Personal communication, 1990. —146—