HomeMy WebLinkAboutASCG_IRMP Final_111506
CChhuuggaacchhmmiiuutt FFaacciilliittaatteedd
IInntteeggrraatteedd RReessoouurrcceess MMaannaaggeemmeenntt PPllaann
FFoorr NNaannwwaalleekk aanndd PPoorrtt GGrraahhaamm
PPrreeppaarreedd bbyy::
AASSCCGG IInnccoorrppoorraatteedd
SSeepptteemmbbeerr 22000066
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 1
Nanwalek and Port Graham
TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss
11..00 SSttuuddyy PPuurrppoossee && PPrroocceessss..............................................................................3
IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn.................................................................................................................................. 3
PPuurrppoossee....................................................................................................................................... 3
MMeetthhooddoollooggyy................................................................................................................................ 4
OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonn ooff PPllaann.................................................................................................................... 5
22..00 PPllaannnniinngg AArreeaa OOvveerrvviieeww.................................................................................7
LLooccaattiioonn....................................................................................................................................... 7
CClliimmaattee ........................................................................................................................................ 8
HHiissttoorryy......................................................................................................................................... 9
SSooiillss aanndd TTooppooggrraapphhyy.................................................................................................................11
GGeeoollooggyy......................................................................................................................................13
TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn ............................................................................................................................16
LLaanndd OOwwnneerrsshhiipp..........................................................................................................................17
EEccoonnoommiiccss..................................................................................................................................17
CCoommmmuunniittyy PPllaannss........................................................................................................................18
33..00 NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess........................................................................................21
WWaatteerr..........................................................................................................................................21
WWeettllaannddss.....................................................................................................................................22
MMiinneerraallss......................................................................................................................................23
FFoorreessttrryy......................................................................................................................................23
MMaarriinnee HHaabbiittaatt aanndd MMaarriinnee RReessoouurrcceess .......................................................................................25
FFiisshheerriieess.....................................................................................................................................27
WWiillddlliiffee........................................................................................................................................30
TTrraaddiittiioonnaall MMaannaaggeemmeenntt.............................................................................................................30
44..00 VViissiioonn,, GGooaallss aanndd OObbjjeeccttiivveess......................................................................31
55..00 AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess IIddeennttiiffiiccaattiioonn............................................................................34
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 2
Nanwalek and Port Graham
IIRRMMPP VViillllaaggee SSuurrvveeyy...................................................................................................................34
AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess DDeessccrriippttiioonn..............................................................................................................35
66..00 AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess EEvvaalluuaattiioonn................................................................................39
TThhee IIRRMMPP AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess SSuurrvveeyy....................................................................................................39
SSeepptteemmbbeerr 22000066 WWoorrkksshhoopp RReessuullttss...........................................................................................40
77..00 RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss........................................................................................46
CCuullttuurraall UUssee ooff NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess.............................................................................................46
FFiisshheerryy && TTiimmbbeerr MMaannaaggeemmeenntt...................................................................................................46
EEccoonnoommiicc DDeevveellooppmmeenntt..............................................................................................................47
AAcccceessss && CCoonnttrrooll ooff NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess......................................................................................47
NNoonn--TTiimmbbeerr.................................................................................................................................47
MMiinneerraallss......................................................................................................................................47
IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree ..............................................................................................................................47
RReessoouurrcceess ..................................................................................................................................48
APPENDIX A.............................................................................................................44
•• MMeeeettiinngg NNootteess –– OOccttoobbeerr 1111--1122,, 22000055
•• MMeeeettiinngg NNootteess –– OOccttoobbeerr 1133,, 22000055
•• MMeeeettiinngg NNootteess –– JJuunnee 1122,, 22000066
•• WWoorrkksshhoopp NNootteess –– SSeepptteemmbbeerr 77,, 22000066
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 3
Nanwalek and Port Graham
11..00 SSttuuddyy PPuurrppoossee && PPrroocceessss
IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn
In 2005, Chugachmiut Inc. received funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Alaska
Region office to develop an Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) that included the
communities and natural resources of Nanwalek and Port Graham. The Plan was initially
proposed by Chugachmiut foresters to assist them as they updated their forestry
management plans. Foresters felt that by developing an IRMP that considered the
community’s preferences for management of all of the resources, they could develop a more
responsive Forestry Management Plan. The plan was facilitated by Chugachmiut and has
evolved to become a resource management guide that each community can use as they
develop their individual IRMPs. It also illustrates several areas where the communities have
common ground.
Chugachmiut selected ASCG Incorporated to assist in the development of this IRMP. This
planning effort follows work ASCG completed the previous year that analyzed water
resources and included a Geographical Information System (GIS) database. It also
incorporates information from the 2002 Port Graham/Nanwalek Watershed Plan and the
2001 Port Graham’s Tribal Natural Resource Action Plan.
The IRMP represents a holistic approach
to resource management that recognizes
that land, sea, coasts, freshwater
systems, their people and multiple land
uses are interconnected. It is a Tribal
policy document that is based on the
Tribe’s vision for its resources. It
describes the types of management
activities to be undertaken by the BIA and
Tribal resource management personnel.
It is intended to serve as a guide for each community’s resource planning and management
activities, and can be used by the Tribal Council’s, Native Allotment owners, federal, state
and Borough officials, developers, private businesses and others involved in activities that
impact the natural resources in Nanwalek and Port Graham.
PPuurrppoossee
By gathering input from all stakeholders and creating a thorough inventory of existing natural
resources, this plan provides guidelines for resource development and protection. The IRMP
also includes components that promote education to increase public awareness and
understanding of the value of natural resource management. The IRMP considers cultural
Chugachmiut Inc. is a Tribal consortium created to promote self-
determination to the seven Native communities of the Chugach Region.
Chugachmiut Inc. is a Tribal consortium created to promote self-
determination to the seven Native communities of the Chugach Region.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 4
Nanwalek and Port Graham
and economic priorities while delineating, characterizing, and prioritizing resource
development. This Plan establishes a basis for current and future natural resource and land
use planning.
This IRMP is not intended to replace the community’s individual IRMP but is intended to
provide an additional resource management tool to help guide plan development in the
communities of Nanwalek and Port Graham. In addition, the plan can be used by entities that
have an interest in understanding how these communities wish to manage their resources.
The IRMP includes goals and objectives for present and future resource managers and
provides a framework for project activity planning and decision-making. It is intended to help
resource managers and the Tribal Councils in planning special projects that consider the long
range resource management goals and prevent conflicting uses.
MMeetthhooddoollooggyy
The IRMP planning process began during the fall of
2005. The process began with a review of literature
pertaining to the natural resources in both
communities. Interviews were conducted with
Natural Resource managers and personnel from the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game in Homer and
Anchorage, the Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and other agencies.
During October 10-11, 2005, the Nanwalek Land Use
Planning Committee met to discuss the IRMP and
participate in a two-day planning workshop. The
workshop allowed the planning committee the
opportunity to introduce the IRMP process, identify
indigenous place names, and introduce the GIS
component being developed for the Plan to the
Planning Committee and to Nanwalek students.
Other planning workshops and discussions were held
in Nanwalek and in Port Graham in February and
May, 2006. In addition, a survey instrument was
developed and local residents in Port Graham and
Nanwalek conducted the survey with local residents
from May 3-5, 2006. The survey asked questions
about potential natural resource issues. This
information was used to assist with developing alternative actions for development.
Nanwalek IRMP GIS Demonstration, 2005
Nanwalek Land Managers IRMP Workshop, 2005
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 5
Nanwalek and Port Graham
On September 7, 2006 a workshop was facilitated in Homer with residents of Nanwalek and
Port Graham, Chugachmiut and ASCG staff. A facilitator from the University of Alaska,
Anchorage assisted with the event. At that workshop, the draft IRMP document was
reviewed and the survey results were analyzed. During the
workshop the following were also discussed: resource management
issues, the purpose of the plan, how the plan will be used and
other related items. Participants voiced concerns about Native
Allotment owners recently selling their Native Allotment property.
Participants wanted the IRMP to address the need for alternatives
to the Native Allotment owners that would allow them to retain their
ownership while still making on-going revenues from their land.
Participants wanted this to be stated in the plan. Representatives
from each community also expressed interest in developing an
IRMP specifically for their community.
OOrrggaanniizzaattiioonn ooff PPllaann
This Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) is organized
into seven chapters.
CChhaapptteerr 11.. SSttuuddyy PPuurrppoossee aanndd PPrroocceessss describes what an
Integrated Resource Management Plan
(IRMP) is, and the purpose and process of this
IRMP for the Nanwalek and Port Graham
area.
CChhaapptteerr 22.. PPllaannnniinngg AArreeaa OOvveerrvviieeww provides an overview
of the planning area that this IRMP covers.
CChhaapptteerr 33.. NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess describes the natural
resources located in the IRMP planning area.
CChhaapptteerr 44.. VViissiioonn,, GGooaallss aanndd OObbjjeeccttiivveess provides an
overview of the vision, goals and objectives
for this IRMP.
CChhaapptteerr 55.. AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess IIddeennttiiffiiccaattiioonn provides a brief
discussion of surveys conducted in Nanwalek
and Port Graham that helped to give shape to
this IRMP and identifies four potential
alternatives for development.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 6
Nanwalek and Port Graham
CChhaapptteerr 66. AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess EEvvaalluuaattiioonn provides an analysis of four alternative
development patterns and the preferred alternatives chosen by
Nanwalek and Port Graham.
CChhaapptteerr 77.. RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss includes action items developed from research,
community input and the September 2006 workshop. This chapter
also includes contact information for technical assistance and funding
resources.
This plan is intended to take an overarching analysis of the interrelatedness of the natural
environment with economic growth needs, cultural needs, traditional management and
habitat protection needs, infrastructure development needs, transportation needs, etc. Due
to this document’s broadly focused scope, the IRMP relies on the more narrowly focused
strategic plans, such as watershed management plans that solely focus on the natural
environment, transportation plans that focus solely on transportation, etc.
This Chugachmiut Facilitated IRMP relies on the quality of these other strategic plans, and is
not intended to conflict or take the place of these strategic plans. Instead, the IRMP is a
unique planning tool that specifically looks at the interrelations between these various, and
sometimes competing, strategies. For example, resource development and habitat
protection oftentimes compete for resources. The IRMP helps communities to carefully
consider their alternative choices in order to make good decisions about their natural
resources, and to plan for development and growth without compromising the community’s
vision for its future.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 7
Nanwalek and Port Graham
NNaannwwaalleekk aanndd PPoorrtt GGrraahhaamm NNaannwwaalleekk aanndd PPoorrtt GGrraahhaamm
22..00 PPllaannnniinngg AArreeaa OOvveerrvviieeww
LLooccaattiioonn
Nanwalek is located at the mouth of
Kachemak Bay between Shelikof Strait
and the Kenai Mountains, approximately
17 air miles southwest of Homer and 175
air miles southwest of Anchorage. The
geographical position is approximately 59
degrees 22 minutes north, 151 degrees
55 minutes west. Nanwalek is contained
within the boundaries of the Chugach
Regional Corporation and the Kenai
Peninsula Borough.
The community of Port Graham is located
at the southern end of the Kenai
Peninsula on the shore of Port Graham
Bay. It is about three miles northeast of
Nanwalek, 7.5 miles southwest of
Seldovia and 28 air miles from Homer. It
lies at approximately 59.351390 North Latitude and -151.82972 West Longitude. (Sec. 32,
T009S, R015W, Seward Meridian.) Port Graham and Nanwalek are located in the Seldovia
Recording District.
The two communities, Port Graham and Nanwalek, are both Alutiiq villages with populations
of 175 and 200 people, respectively. English Bay and Port Graham Village Corporations own
lands within the watersheds surrounding the villages and Native allotment lands. Individual
Native ownership was provided through the Native Allotment program under ANCSA. There
are 59 Native allotments in the area. Nanwalek IRA and Port Graham Village Councils are the
federally recognized Tribal entities. They also manage their communities serving as the
village councils.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 8
Nanwalek and Port Graham
CClliimmaattee
Nanwalek and Port Graham lie within the Maritime Climactic Zone of Alaska. This zone is
dominated by the moderating effects of a marine environment and is characterized by high
humidity, precipitation and fog cover as well as warm winters and cool summers. In addition,
the communities experience frequent winds from the inlet. Winter temperatures range from
14 to 27; summer temperatures vary from 45 to 60. Average annual precipitation is 24
inches.
Nanwalek
Port Graham
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 9
Nanwalek and Port Graham
HHiissttoorryy
NNaannwwaalleekk Of the two neighboring villages, Nanwalek is the older. This site holds one of
the oldest villages in the North Pacific. It was also used as a summer fish camp by
prehistoric coastal peoples from villages along the southern coast of the Kenai Peninsula
and Prince William Sound.
Nanwalek’s rich recorded history can be dated back to 1741, when Russian explorers noted
Native occupation of the site. In 1781, a fur trader from Siberia named Gregory Shelikov first
established the American Northeastern Fur Company here, because the location was a
strategic point for observing the ships of competitive fur traders. He named the fort
“Alexandrovsk.” This site became the first Russian settlement on the mainland of Alaska,
and for nearly a hundred years it provided an outpost for the Russians to observe the sea-
going movements of rival fur traders. The Russians maintained the fort until 1867, when the
United States along with the entire area of Alaska purchased it.
When the Russians departed, they shipped all of the local company records, including those
from all the other Russian outposts in Alaska, to Saint Petersburg, Russia. Unfortunately, all
these records were later dumped into a river, and much of the early written history of
Alexandrovsk was washed away with them. The interests of the American Northeastern Fur
Company were taken over by the Alaska Commercial Company (ACC), whose operations
continued there until 1900, when it reorganized.
After the Russians abandoned
Alexandrovsk, the Native population stayed
on. The eruption of Mount Augustine
volcano in 1883 sent residents of at least
seven other native villages in the region
fleeing to the relatively high ground here.
In the 1860s, John Moonin and his wife,
Helen, moved to Alexandrovsk and devoted
their lives to the people of that community as volunteer missionaries. When the Russian
Orthodox Church built in 1870 burned down in 1890, the ACC agreed to sell its old trading
post to the community for $500 in cash. The community had no money to pay for the
building, so ACC accepted two sea otter pelts donated by the late Riley Meganack as
payment. The church was quickly reconstructed and still stands today. Now listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, the church is in such a dilapidated and unsafe condition
that it is not usable. In 1930, a second church was built which joined part of the local store
and local dance hall to form the gable roof. Both Nanwalek and Port Graham remain active
seats of the Russian Orthodox faith.
In 1909, Alexandrovsk was renamed “English Bay” when it was misidentified by a USGS
survey and mapping party. The body of water bearing this name is actually found at Port
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 10
Nanwalek and Port Graham
Graham, but the erroneous name stuck to
the village until recently. Today, the Alutiiq
Native name of “Nanwalek” is the officially
recognized name. “Nanwalek” originally
meant, “place by a lake.” After the 1964
Alaskan earthquake, the coastal lands
dropped eight feet, and the tidal waters
entered the lake, creating a lagoon. So the
meaning of the name was changed to
“place by a lagoon.”
PPoorrtt GGrraahhaamm Port Graham was probably a
seasonal hunting and food gathering site
when it was first recorded in 1786 by Captain Portlock of the Cook party. Portlock found
unoccupied huts there and also noted a large coal vein at the mouth of the harbor. Within
ten years, the Russians had mined some of this coal for fuel to heat iron for the construction
of a ship at Resurrection Bay. The Russian-American Company opened the coal mine at Port
Graham in an attempt at a new business venture. At its peak, the coal mine company
employed 100 people. The company built a small town on the site and after a year’s work
exported 88 tons of coal to California. By 1857, the mine produced enough coal to support
the “colony”. Surplus coal was taken to San Francisco but it was ultimately sold at a loss.
The export venture failed because the coal could not compete with that obtainable from
Canada, Australia, England and Chile.
Never commercially successful, the mine
did supply Russian ships for some years
before closing in the early 1860s. Metal
lead shackles have been found in the area,
which indicates that forced labor was used
by Russian mining industry. The mine
continued to remain idle until just after the
turn of the century, when a Seldovian
named Whorf rediscovered it and operated
it briefly.
The Aleut name for Port Graham is
“Paluwik,” which means, “where people are sad.” It was named with this descriptive word
because the Native residents who settled it in 1897 often became homesick or lonesome for
the villages they came from. Port Graham’s first school was opened in 1930 at the log house
of Jesse Carlough; and subsequently moved to a pool hall the following year. The Johnson
O’Malley School was built in 1933. In 1935, the Bureau Indian Affairs (BIA) constructed a
View of Volcano taken from Coal Harbor
Coal Harbor, near Port Graham, 1786
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 11
Nanwalek and Port Graham
new school; adding a classroom in 1937.
Since 1965, the Kenai Peninsula Borough
has administered schools.
In 1970, the Homer Electric Association
(HEA) constructed electric lines through a
contract with the Port Graham Village
Council. On December 23, 1971, HEA
turned on the first electric powering the
village, and for the first time, Christmas
lights shone in Port Graham. In 1972, the
U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) designed
and constructed the community’s water
and sewer systems; these were upgraded
in 1979-1980. In 1988, the PHS built a new village dam and a new water treatment plant,
and replaced a portion of the water line between them.
Today, the two communities, Port Graham and Nanwalek, have populations that
approximately number 175 and 200 respectively.
SSooiillss aanndd TTooppooggrraapphhyy
Nanwalek is located in a small bay near the mouth of Nanwalek Creek. Upland from the
shoreline, the ground rises sharply into the Kenai Mountains, reaching elevations above
3,000 feet within one and one-half miles of the settlement.
In the early 1990s, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service mapped soils in the area. The following seven soil
map units are described within their soil survey report.
SSooiillss oonn FFlloooodd PPllaaiinnss,, SSppiittss,, SSttrreeaamm TTeerrrraacceess,, aanndd
AAlllluuvviiaall FFaannss::
These soils are found on approximately four percent of
the Lower Kenai Peninsula Soil Survey Area.
PPeettrrooff--PPoorrttddiicckk These soils are nearly level on flood
plains and low stream terraces. Petrof soils are very deep,
moderately well to somewhat poorly drained, loamy in texture, and formed in stratified
alluvium. Portdick soils are very deep, moderately well to somewhat poorly drained, loamy
over sandy textured, and formed in stratified alluvium.
These soils have a mixed forest of Sitka spruce and cottonwood with an under story of
riparian willow. Moose use this habitat throughout the year; black bear use it as cover for
Port Graham, 1940s. (Left to right: unknown, Phillip Anahonak,
Murphey Meganack, Marvin Norman, Johnny Malchoff).
Photograph by John Poleng. Copyright Chugach Heritage
Foundation
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 12
Nanwalek and Port Graham
feeding and reproduction; hawk and bald eagle use it for nest sites; and a variety of other
small mammals such as beaver, river otter, and mink live here as well.
JJaakkoollooff--TTyyppiicc CCrryyaaqquueennttss--IIssmmaaiillooff--TTaalluuwwiikk These soils are nearly level to moderately
sloping on flood plains, spits, stream terraces, and alluvial fans. Jakolof soils are very deep,
moderately well drained, loamy over sandy textured, and formed in a mantle of volcanic ash
over alluvium, with a mixed forest of Sitka spruce and cottonwood. Typic Cryaquents soils are
very deep, poorly drained, loamy over sandy textured, and formed in stratified alluvium, with
stands of willow and grass. Ismailof soils are very deep, moderately well drained, sandy
textured, and formed in marine deposits. They have a forest of Sitka spruce bordered by
stands of beach wild rye. Taluwik soils are very deep, well and moderately well drained,
loamy over sandy textured, and formed in volcanic ash over alluvium, with stands of grass
and forbs. This unit is utilized by black bear for foraging, by bald eagle for nesting, and by
mountain goat as a spring range for those sites that are close to other mountain goat
habitats. Other species present include snowshoe hare, porcupine, and spruce grouse.
Waterfowl and a variety of furbearers inhabit the wetland sites.
SSooiillss oonn MMoorraaiinneess,, BBeeddrroocckk BBeenncchheess,, aanndd MMoouunnttaaiinn SSiiddeessllooppeess
These soils are found on approximately 28 percent of the Lower Kenai Peninsula Soil Survey
area.
KKaassiittssnnaa--NNuukkaa These soils are nearly level to hilly on moraines. Kasitsna soils are very
deep, well drained, loamy textured, and formed in a mantle of volcanic ash over glacial till or
colluvium, with stands of Sitka spruce. Nuka soils are very deep, very poorly drained, peaty,
and formed in layers of organic material over glacial till. They have stands of low shrubs and
moss. Black bear use is common in these sites during summer and fall; snowshoe hare and
mountain goat spring range on these sites at higher elevations.
KKaassiittssnnaa--SSeellddoovviiaa These soils are rolling to very steep on moraines and mountainside
slopes. Kasitsna and Seldovia soils are very deep, well drained, loamy textured, and formed
in a mantle of volcanic ash over glacial till or colluvium. They have stands of Sitka spruce.
Black bear, spruce grouse, and snowshoe hare utilize these habitats. Wintering moose make
use of these sites at lower elevations, and higher elevations are used by mountain goats
during spring.
KKaassiittssnnaa--TTuuttkkaa These soils are rolling to very steep on moraines, bedrock benches, and
mountain sideslopes. Kasitsna soils are very deep, well drained, loamy textured, and formed
in a mantle of volcanic ash over glacial till or colluvium. Tutka soils are shallow and very
shallow, well drained, loamy textured, and formed in a mantle of volcanic ash and glacial till
over bedrock. These soils have a forest of Sitka spruce. Snowshoe hare, porcupine, spruce
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 13
Nanwalek and Port Graham
grouse, Northern goshawk, and black bear use these habitats. Marbled murrelet nesting may
occur within these habitats.
SSooiillss oonn CCooooll UUppllaannddss aanndd MMoouunnttaaiinnss
This group is found on approximately 46 percent of the Lower Kenai Peninsula Soil Survey
area.
NNaannwwaalleekk--KKaassiittssnnaa,, ccooooll--TTuuttkkaa These soils are moderately steep to very steep on uplands
and mountain sideslopes. Nanwalek soils are very deep, well drained, loamy textured, and
formed in a mantle of volcanic ash over reworked glacial till and colluvium. They have stands
of alder and grass. Kasitsna, cool soils are very deep, well drained, loamy textured, and
formed in a mantle of volcanic ash over glacial till or colluvium. They have stands of stunted
Sitka spruce. Tutka soils are shallow to very shallow, till over bedrock. These soils have a
forest of stunted Sitka spruce. These habitats are used by moose for summer range and by
black bear throughout the summer for feeding and reproduction. Ptarmigan, snowshoe hare,
and mountain goat also utilize these sites, along with a variety of passerines.
SSooiillss oonn CCoolldd MMoouunnttaaiinnss
These soils are found on approximately 22 percent of the Lower Kenai Soil Survey area.
CCrryyoorrtthheennttss--CCrryyooddss--RRoocckk OOuuttccrroopp These soils and miscellaneous areas are gently sloping
to very steep on mountain summits, cirques, and talus slopes. Cryorthents soils are shallow
to moderately deep, well drained, loamy and sandy textured, and formed in glacial till,
colluvium, and residuum. Cryods soils are moderately deep to deep, well drained, loamy
textured, and formed in glacial till, colluvium, and residuum. These soils have alpine tundra
vegetation. Black bear utilize these habitats during the early summer months, along with
ptarmigan and mountain goat.
GGeeoollooggyy
The terrain of the planning area is a result of intense glaciating during late advances of the
Pleistocene epoch. There are thin moraine deposits on hills and in valleys. Valley walls have
exposed bedrock and there is a very irregular coastline. This lower end of the Kenai
Peninsula, along with the rest of the Cook Inlet region, is located on the edge of the North
American Plate and is converging with the Pacific Plate. The movement of the Pacific Plate
beneath south-central Alaska has resulted in Alaska’s frequent and sometimes devastating
earthquakes, explosive eruptions of Cook Inlet volcanoes, and both uplifting and subsidence
of the Kenai Mountains.
The bedrock geology of the area consists of two different tracts of rock, which originated far
from each other and were later faulted together. These groups are separated by the Border
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 14
Nanwalek and Port Graham
Range Fault system that bisects the
watershed along a north/south axis
(from Seldovia to Dogfish Bay). To the
west of the fault are mildly folded
sedimentary and volcanic rocks, the
oldest of which are referred to as the
Port Graham Formation (Triassic).
This 1500+ meter thick formation
crops out along the shores of Port
Graham Bay and in the adjacent
highlands, and consists of
carbonaceous silty limestone plus less
abundant rock types including chert,
mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, and
volcanic rocks. The Talkeetna
Formation (Jurassic), which overlays
the Port Graham Formation to the
west near Cook Inlet, consists of at
least 5,270 meters of volcanic rocks, volcaniclastic sedimentary rocks (conglomerate,
sandstone, mudstone), and minor coal and limestone.
To the east of the Border Range Fault system, lies an area of extremely complex geology that
is divided up into six rock units. Within the planning area, the McHugh Complex is the most
dominant of these; consisting of sedimentary and volcanic rocks scraped off the deep-sea
floor. The main rock types are argillite, greywacke, chert, and pillow basalt, plus minor
limestone, gabbro, and ultramafic rocks. A broad
but poorly defined tract of probably Jurassic-age
greywacke underlies much of the high country in
the Port Graham drainages.
Ultramafic rocks (probably Mesozoic) occur in
fault-bounded blocks at Snow Prospect, along the
Seldovia-Port Graham divide. Mainly dunite,
pyroxenite, and serpentite, these rocks warrant
special mention because of their stark effects on
vegetation. They are nearly devoid of the so-
called incompatible elements, including
potassium, and therefore not much will grow on soils derived from their breakdown.
The surficial geology of the area shows abundant evidence of glacial erosion from a series of
Pleistocene glaciations. The mountains are heavily carved by cirques, although none is
currently occupied by glaciers. The cirques drain into broad valleys that have U-shaped
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 15
Nanwalek and Port Graham
profiles and are typically filled with Quaternary sediments, including glacial, fluvial, alluvial
fan, and lacustrine deposits. The U-shaped valleys reach all the way to the coast. Port
Graham’s valley is inundated with seawater and is therefore a true fjord.
The planning area lies within 100 km of three active volcanoes: Douglas, Augustine, and
Iliamna. Explosive eruptions are common at these and other volcanoes of the Aleutian-
Alaska Range magmatic arc, and occasionally ash has been laid down as a blanket across
the area. There is probably one major ash fall about every 500 years; about 5 cm of ash
accumulates per 1000 years. Because wind, water, and other agents redistribute thin ash
blankets, the resulting distribution of ash has become very patchy.
In early January 2006, Mount Augustine woke up and began to spew ash as far as eight miles in
the air. Smaller eruptions continued for several weeks not causing damage to life or property.
The geology of the coastal lowlands along the south side of Kachemak Bay is somewhat
distinct from the Kenai Mountains immediately behind it, typically structured with
sandstones and shales inter-bedded with volcanic flows and sediments. Local soil is
Augustine Volcano
Photo by Richard Waitt, U.S. Geological Survey, 1988
Steam and ash billow from Augustine Volcano
January 17, 2006
Recent earthquake activity on Mount Augustine
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 16
Nanwalek and Port Graham
essentially bedrock overlain with an organic
mat. There is no permafrost in Nanwalek or
Port Graham.
Additionally, both communities lie very near
the Border Range Fault system and
experience significant seismic activity. The
communities are also vulnerable to flooding
from tidal waves.
TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn
Neither Nanwalek nor Port Graham is
accessible by road. Boats are the primary means of local transportation. The State Ferry
provides service to nearby Seldovia. Seldovia is also making plans to design and build a ferry
for travel in Kachemak Bay which might include service to Nanwalek and Port Graham. Port
Graham also offers docking facilities.
A state-owned 1,975-foot by 45-foot dirt/gravel airstrip is available at Port Graham.
Nanwalek has a 1,850-foot by 50-foot gravel runway that follows the contour of the spit and
is exposed to storm surges, high tides, and winds from storms originating from the southeast.
The combination of storm surge, waves and high tides routinely causes flooding, overtopping
and erosion of the runway, and results in closing the runway until repairs can be made.
Repairs of winter storm damage and ongoing maintenance are a concern at the Nanwalek
airport. Variable winds and high terrain in the vicinity of the airport create turbulent and
unpredictable conditions. Nanwalek’s
airport has a well-documented history of
air accidents, including two that involved
fatalities. Strong cross-winds were a
factor a number of the events. The State
of Alaska is currently analyzing airport
relocation options for Nanwalek.
Homer Air and Smokey Bay Air pick-up
passengers and deliver mail in each
community. Travel time by air between
the communities is about 10 minutes,
and costs about $35 round trip. To Homer, travel time by air is about 25 minutes; to
Seldovia, about 15 minutes.
It is also possible to travel by all-terrain vehicle trail between Port Graham and Nanwalek
which can take 20 minutes to an hour. Trucks and cars cannot be used to travel between
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 17
Nanwalek and Port Graham
communities because of the trail size. The trail crosses native allotment land, village council
land, village corporation land, and village water sources.
LLaanndd OOwwnneerrsshhiipp
Native villages, village corporations, regional corporations, and individuals own land within
the planning area. The three Native village corporations formed under the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 that own land in the planning area include; the Port
Graham Corporation, the English Bay Corporation and the Seldovia Native Association.
Nanwalek Village Council has a 119-acre federal town site, and Port Graham Village Council
has a 327-acre federal town site. Within the village town sites, individuals own lots. All
remaining land within the town sites is owned by the two villages, except for the airport,
school, and church sites. The airports are owned by the State of Alaska. The Kenai
Peninsula Borough owns a 3.54-acre school site in Nanwalek and a 1.5-acre school site in
Port Graham. In Port Graham the Port Graham Corporation owns the Port Graham Cannery.
Most of the private ownership sites are Native allotments. Within the planning area, there
are 59 Native allotments totaling 7,660 acres (the maximum size of a Native allotment is
160 acres). Native allotments are lands given to individual Natives with restrictions on the
title, which is held by the federal government. Native allotment lands include 42 allotments
near Port Graham Bay and 17 allotments near Nanwalek.
Chugach Alaska Corporation, the ANCSA regional for-profit corporation, owns subsurface
resources.
EEccoonnoommiiccss
The school, traditional management activities, and summer employment at the Port Graham
cannery provide income. Seven residents hold commercial fishing permits. A new $4.5
million fish cannery opened on June 19, 1999 in Port Graham. The former plant and salmon
hatchery were destroyed by fire in January 1998. Locals organized funding to rebuild the
facilities because insurance covered only part of the loss. The cannery provides seasonal
employment for 70 Port Graham and Nanwalek residents. The hatchery was rebuilt in a
separate but adjacent building during the summer of 1999.
Employment in Port Graham and Nanwalek fluctuates seasonally and yearly. The amount of
work available depends on needs associated with projects such as construction, logging, and
fishing in each community. Some positions with the village councils and corporations are
more permanent. Some of the potential employers are listed below:
• Port Graham Village Council
• Port Graham Corporation
• Nanwalek IRA Council
• English Bay Corporation
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 18
Nanwalek and Port Graham
““BByy pprraaccttiicciinngg oouurr ttrraaddiittiioonnaall lliiffeessttyyllee wwee
ccoonnttiinnuuee ttoo cceelleebbrraattee oouurr rriicchh ccuullttuurraall
hheerriittaaggee,, iinncclluuddiinngg tthhee pprruuddeenntt uussee ooff oouurr
hhuummaann aanndd nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess..””
Port Graham Strategic Plan, 2001
• Kenai Peninsula Borough School
District
• North Pacific Rim Housing
Authority
• Chugachmiut, Incorporated
• Chugach Regional Resource
Commission
• Homer Mental Health
• Smokey Bay Air and Homer Air
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Alaska Fish and Game
• United States Postal Service
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 5.1% are unemployed in Nanwalek and 22.4% in Port
Graham. The median family income in Nanwalek is $45,750 and in Port Graham it is
$43,438.
CCoommmmuunniittyy PPllaannss
Port Graham and Nanwalek have completed
several planning efforts that considered
their natural resources. In 1992, the Alaska
Coastal Management Program received
funding by the State of Alaska and the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. This funding
was used to develop a report for Port Graham and
Nanwalek that documented this area’s status as an
Area which Merits Special Attention (AMSA). The report
focused on the area’s importance for subsistence
hunting, fishing and food gathering by area residents
and its unique cultural value and historical significance.
In 1997 the federally recognized tribes of Port Graham
and Nanwalek, with approval and support of all tribes in
the region, began a planning process for local wetland
management and education. The planning process
included an inventory of resources, an account of
dependent species on local wetlands, identification of
stakeholders, a legal review of applicable laws and
regulations affecting wetlands, and an outline for a management plan. A community
education program was also part of the program. The result was the 2001 Port
Graham/Nanwalek Wetland Conservation Plan.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 19
Nanwalek and Port Graham
Port Graham began to develop the Tribal Natural Resource Management Plan in 1999. The
draft plan contains a vision statement, goals, objectives, issues, background, inventory and
an action plan. This plan was completed in 2000, and revised in 2002 and again in 2003.
In 2001, the Port Graham IRA Council prepared the Port Graham Strategic Plan. In 2003, the
Nanwalek IRA Council published the Nanwalek IRA Council Strategic Plan. The plans
included a vision statement and an outline of community goals, objectives and priorities.
See below for a select list of Nanwalek and Port Graham community plans. This list is not
inclusive but provides a summary of recent or relevant planning documents reviewed in
preparation of the IRMP.
SSeelleecctteedd NNaannwwaalleekk PPllaannnniinngg DDooccuummeennttss
Nanwalek Transportation Plans, 2005 and 2006
Nanwalek Airport Site Reconnaissance Study, 2006
Nanwalek Emergency Preparedness Plan, 2006
Nanwalek Wastewater Discharge Dilution and Mixing Zone and Sludge Disposal Plan,
2004
Nanwalek Wetland Conservation Plan, 2001
Nanwalek Sanitation Plan
SSeelleecctteedd PPoorrtt GGrraahhaamm PPllaannnniinngg DDooccuummeennttss
Port Graham Hatchery/Cannery Feasibility Study, 2005
Port Graham Community Response Plan, 2005
Port Graham Sanitation Plan
Port Graham’s Tribal Natural Resource Action Plan, 2003
Port Graham’s Tribal Natural Resource Management Plan, 2000 (revised in 2002
and 2003)
Port Graham Strategic Plan, 2001
Port Graham’s Tribal Natural Resource Action Plan, 2001
Port Graham Natural Resources Five-Year Plan, 2001
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 20
Nanwalek and Port Graham
SSeelleecctteedd PPoorrtt GGrraahhaamm//NNaannwwaalleekk PPllaannnniinngg DDooccuummeennttss
Port Graham/Nanwalek Watershed Plan, 2002
Port Graham/Nanwalek Wetland Conservation Plan, 2001
Port Graham/English Bay Area Which Merits Special Attention, 1992
SSeelleecctteedd RReeggiioonnaall PPllaannnniinngg DDooccuummeennttss
Chugachmiut Fire Management Plan for Native Allotments, 2000
Kenai Peninsula Borough Hazard Mitigation Plan
Kenai Peninsula Borough Solid Waste Management Plan
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 21
Nanwalek and Port Graham
33..00 NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess
The natural resources in the planning area are vast, diverse and abundant. This section
provides details about water, wetlands, minerals, forestry, fishermen, wildlife and
subsistence.
WWaatteerr
The streams, lakes, and wetlands of the project area
are clear water systems with water quality
characteristic of pristine watersheds. The streams
support native populations of anadromous and
resident fish species. Several threats to these
conditions have been identified, including road
building, planned timber harvest, and community
development; however, there is no documented
degradation of water quality conditions at the present time. Since the historical trail between
the two villages crosses water sources, its potential impacts on both villages’ water quality
must be considered.
NNaannwwaalleekk Nanwalek has a piped water and sewer system which serves all homes in the
village; most are fully plumbed.
WWaatteerr CCaappaacciittyy//DDeessiiggnn CCrriitteerriiaa.. The current water system in Nanwalek is designed to use
approximately 48,500 gallons per day, with a design population of 220 people at 175
gallons per person per day. Additional commercial demand is included within the design
flows, at an average commercial demand of 5,000 gallons per day. The village’s daily
requirement is 0.07 cubic feet per second.
WWaatteerr CCaappaacciittyy.. Community potable water storage totals 200,000 gallons, with one
150,000 tank and one 50,000 wood stave tank.
WWaatteerr SSoouurrccee.. Nanwalek’s water source is a small dam located northeast of the village
adjacent to a watershed. Consequently the flow depends on precipitation levels. Rain and
snowmelt from the watershed collects in the dam where the water is then treated,
disinfected and stored in a water tank. In 2002, Nanwalek began experiencing water
shortage due to an unusually warm summer and low winter snowfall which reduced the
amount of water in the watershed. In 2002 and 2003 the dam water level dropped so low
that serious water rationing had to take place and water eventually had to be delivered from
outside of the community. Working with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium engineers,
the community identified Switchback Creek as a viable option to supplement the current
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 22
Nanwalek and Port Graham
water supply. Local workers constructed a pipeline from Switchback Creek and the water
behind the dam quickly filled up ending the 2002 and 2003 water crisis.
PPoorrtt GGrraahhaamm Port Graham water is derived from a surface source that is treated and
stored in a 50,000-gallon redwood tank. Port Graham has a piped water system and sewage
disposal in a community septic tank. A sludge lagoon was completed that serves 66 homes
and facilities of which almost 90% of households are fully plumbed.
WWaatteerr CCaappaacciittyy//DDeessiiggnn CCrriitteerriiaa.. The water system is designed to use approximately 100,800
gallons per day, with a design population of 215 people at 400 gallons per person per day.
Additional commercial demand is included within the design flows, at an average commercial
demand of 10,800 gallons per day. Community potable water storage totals 246,000
gallons, with one 246,000 gallon bolted steel tank. The water source for the community is
raw water reservoir located on an unnamed source within the Port Graham watershed.
WWaatteerr SSoouurrccee.. The watershed that feeds Port Graham is approximately 424 acres in size, and
includes numerous streams that branch down from the mountains. The streams to the west
of Port Graham feed a reservoir that has an intake structure for the water treatment plant.
The average flows in those streams ranged from 2.7 to 3.2 cfs. This is more than adequate
flow for any needs the community may have. In the winter, intake structure icing has caused
problems with the treatment plant receiving water.
The village is currently investigating their outfall system to prevent freeze up.
WWeettllaannddss
The Port Graham/Nanwalek Watershed Council was formed to protect and preserve an area
that includes two adjacent watersheds; English Bay River and Port Graham River and their
tributaries. The two watersheds consist of approximately 100,000 acres of steep
mountainous terrain and glacially developed river valley with elevations ranging from 3,000
feet to sea level. The valley bottoms and lower slopes are covered with Sitka spruce old
growth forests; alpine tundra meadows occur in the higher elevations.
The planning area represents a typical pristine marine coastal ecosystem of South-central
Alaska. There is a large number of wetlands that provide high-quality spawning and rearing
habitat for silver, king, pink, sockeye, and chum salmon as well as for Dolly Varden.
Marine, estuarine, riverine, palustrine and lacustrine type wetlands are represented in the
two watersheds. A large number of these wetlands provide high-quality spawning and
rearing habitat for resident and anadromous fish.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 23
Nanwalek and Port Graham
MMiinneerraallss
No major gravel deposits have been identified in the Kenai Mountains. There is assumed to
be a good quantity of sand available from the beaches around Nanwalek, although the actual
quality of this material is unknown. The most likely source of material for road construction
in the area is from the fragmenting of local rock outcrops either through blasting or, in cases
where weathering has created usable fracture plains, mechanical reduction equipment.
Additional processing will probably be necessary to develop acceptable material gradation.
The community reports that a borrow source, owned by the Port Graham Village Council
exists to the west of the village.
FFoorreessttrryy
The relatively long growing season, high annual precipitation, and mild temperatures of this
area support a large variety of coastal forest, scrub, wetland and alpine communities. The
area is dominated by plant communities of forest, tall alder shrub, halophytic grass wet
meadows, halophytic sedge wet meadows, sedge moss bog meadows, tundra, bog meadows,
and intertidal vegetation. The forest cover type is found from sea level to mountain slopes,
up to elevations of 1100 feet; the upper elevations can vary depending on slope, aspect, and
other conditions. The forest cover is found on a variety of soils from poorly drained to well-
drained. Intermixed with the forest cover type are communities of tall Sitka alder, bogs, and
grasslands. Above tree line, the vegetation consists of a mosaic of Sitka alder, grasslands,
alpine scrub and herbs.
Beginning in the 1960s, commercial timber harvest performed by South Central Timber
Development, Inc. occurred extensively across approximately 8,000 acres of Port Graham
Corporation ownership in the vicinity of Rocky and Windy Bays. Originally operated under a
"clear-cut" forest management scheme, these formerly harvested timber stands have
successfully regenerated and generally exist in an "overstocked" condition today.
Though no comprehensive intensive forest inventory has been performed by Chugachmiut or
other entities on these lands, past timber inventories of individual parcels indicate average
volumes of 13 MBF per acre. Current overseas (traditional) market revenues for pulp and
low grade sawlogs originating from this Region are insufficient to attain harvest cost
recovery. Future market forecasts do not indicate that this situation will likely change for the
better. A definitive study does not exist for the direct evaluation of a net percentage growth
but certain Chugachmiut timber inventory appraisals, spanning a 13-year time span, detail
this growth percentage at approximately 0.5% per year.1
1 Native Village of Port Graham, Renewable Energy Development on Tribal Lands grant, February, 2006.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 24
Nanwalek and Port Graham
The following is a brief description of the most common plant communities within the
planning area:
FFoorreesstt Sitka Spruce (naparpiaq) dominates the overstory. Mature spruce range in height
from 60 to 120 feet and 12 to 32 inches in diameter at chest height. Mature dominant trees
are more than 200 years old. Sitka Alder usually dominate a tall shrub layer 10 to 20 feet
high and can be found throughout the forest type. A low shrub layer 2 to 6 feet in height is
dominated by devil’s club (cukilanarpak), salmonberry (alagnaq), blueberry (atsaq), highbush
cranberry (qalakuaq), and rusty menziesia. Lady fern, oak fern, lace flower, rose, and various
species of moss dominate the forest floor. Yellow skunk
cabbage (tuqunaq) is found in wet, poorly drained depressions.
Sitka spruce forest occurs at low elevations and along coastal
lines. Sometimes the mature forest is found on steep
mountain slopes. Generally the forest community occurs
below 1000 feet in elevation. Cottonwood (ciquq) occurs
infrequently along waterways.
TTaallll AAllddeerr SShhrruubb These communities have an open canopy of tall shrubs, primarily Sitka
alder. Trees species occur occasionally and provide less than 10 percent of the cover.
Associated low shrub species are blueberry, salmonberry, and devil’s club. Sedges and
fescue dominate the herb layer. Tall alder communities are found intermixed with the forest
communities and above tree line.
HHaalloopphhyyttiicc GGrraassss WWeett MMeeaaddoowwss These are communities dominated or co-dominated by
salt-tolerant forbs and grasses on beaches. Woody plants, mosses, and lichens are absent
here but are found at the seaward edges of coastal marshes subject to regular tidal
influences.
HHaalloopphhyyttiicc SSeeddggee WWeett MMeeaaddoowwss These communities form the main coastal marshes. Tidal
inundations are less frequent, ranging from several times per month to once per summer.
Stands of coarse sedge are found at the seaward edges of coastal areas and border grass
wet meadows communities. Farther inland the communities form a broad ecotone with
freshwater wetlands.
SSeeddggee MMoossss BBoogg MMeeaaddoowwss Mosses dominate these communities. Sedges, other herbs,
scattered low shrubs, and lichens grow out of a matrix of sphagnum moss. Low shrubs and
lichens are not dominant. Stunted Sitka spruce is found as scattered individuals and small
thickets.
AAllppiinnee SSccrruubb Dwarf scrub is found on mountain slopes and ridges in the alpine zone.
Scrub cover ranges from open to closed, and scrub height is generally less than about 6
inches. Shrub composition varies widely depending on soil and site characteristics: black
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 25
Nanwalek and Port Graham
crowberry, mountain heath, bog blueberry, arctic willow, and luetkea dominate most stands.
Sedges are the most common herbs. Ground surface cover varies widely and consists of
patches of moss and lichen, litter, and rock fragments. Dwarf scrub is found on mountain
slopes in the alpine zone above 1400 feet elevation.
BBlluueejjooiinntt RReeeeddggrraassss--FFoorrbb MMeeaaddooww Herbaceous
communities dominated by bluejoint reedgrass and a wide
variety of forbs are found in forest openings below elevations
of about 400 feet. Principal forbs include common fireweed,
goldenrod, boreal yarrow, and northern geranium.
PPoonnddlliillyy The aquatic community is dominated by
pondlilies, although a variety of other aquatic plants may be present. Pondlilies
(qaltuutesaaq) are common in ponds, shallow lakes, and bog pools scattered throughout the
forest. Water depths range from 10 to 30 feet. The substrate is usually a well-decomposed
organic-rich muck.
MMaarriinnee HHaabbiittaatt aanndd MMaarriinnee RReessoouurrcceess
Phytoplankton are the plant life of the sea upon which all marine life is sustained. They are
the food source for shellfish and invertebrates, and small animals, called zooplankton.
Phytoplankton are essentially free-floating creatures, whereas zooplankton have some
motility in the water column.
The review and synthesis published by Sambrotto and Lorenzen (1987) on studies of the
primary productivity of Cook Inlet led them to conclude that, during the summer months, the
lower Inlet was one of the most productive high latitude shelf areas in the world. Lower
trophic-level communities can be thought of as either planktonic (floating or drifting in the
water column), pelagic (swimming in the water column) or benthic (living on or in the sea
bottom). Plankton populations include both animals (zooplankton) and plants
(phytoplankton) (AEIDC, 1974:151). The abundance and distribution of plankton depend on
many factors associated with the physical environment such as available sunlight, wind,
currents, turbidity, temperature, nutrient availability, competition, and predation.
Estuaries and some bays and coves are important nursery sites for juvenile fishes, shrimp,
and crabs and also provide an important food source for sea birds, fish, and marine
mammals. In Cook Inlet, marine species diversity generally decreases to the north with
increased siltation and fresh water input. The intertidal communities include a rich
environment suitable for this wide variety of sea life.
BBrroowwnn aallggaaee ((FFuuccuuss sspp..)) aanndd rreedd aallggaaee Brown algae (Fucus sp.) and red algae dominate
benthic plant communities of lower Cook Inlet tidelands. Filamentous green algae (Urospora
sp.), sea lettuce (Ulva sp.), and Laminara also inhabit the inter-tidal zone and provide
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 26
Nanwalek and Port Graham
important housing, food, and predator protection for many marine creatures. Kelp are
present in the low intertidal areas out to about three meters in depth but are absent beyond
the five-meter depth. The movement of winter ice is a possible cause for the lack of seaweed
within the midtidal zone (Lees et al. 1986).
EEeellggrraassss Communities dominated by eelgrass normally
occur as pure stands of this species. Eelgrass communities
occur in subtidal and lower intertidal zones in protected
bays, inlets, and lagoons with clear water along the coast.
The substrate is usually marine silts and clays, but
sometimes cobbles.
MMaarriinnee AAllggaaee Marine algae communities are dominated by various species, including
Fucus, Laminaria, Gigartina, Porphyra, and Ulva. Plants other than algae are not present.
Marine algae communities are widespread on subtidal and intertidal rocky shores.
MMaarriinnee RReessoouurrcceess Dominant animal species inhabiting the intertidal and sub-tidal fringe
south of the Forelands include sea urchins, chitons, limpets, whelks, mussels, clams,
cockles, polychaetes, bryozoans, sponges, sea stars, sea cucumbers, snails, octopus, skate,
barnacles, crabs, forage fish, and small flat fishes (Feder and Jewett, 1987) (Kessler, 1985).
Marine invertebrates of nearshore and offshore waters include
sea cucumbers, many species of sea star, nudibranches,
octopus, tunicates, worms, and sea leeches (Kessler, 1985).
Shellfish begin life as planktonic eggs released into ocean
currents by gravid females. Mollusks usually settle to the
bottom and with the exception of snails and octopus,
permanently attach themselves to a suitable substrate in the
sub-tidal zone. Most crustaceans sink to the bottom and spend their adult life there where
they must find protection or be consumed by cod, halibut, flounder, octopus, skate, and other
shellfish.
Razor clams (Siliqua sp.) are abundant in commercial quantities in Cook Inlet. Stocks are
concentrated in the Polly Creek area on the west side, and along the east side from Anchor
Point to the Kasilof River, although harvest in the latter vicinity is limited to sport and
personal use (Ruesch and Fox, 1995:2) (See Figure 3.1). Littleneck (Protothaca sp.) and
butter clams (Saxidomus sp.) also settle in Kachemak Bay to the south of the area. Other
clams (Axe sp., Mya sp., Tresus sp., Spisula sp., Telina sp., Macoma sp.) inhabit beaches of
Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska (Kessler, 1985). Migrating birds and resident shorebirds
may depend on Macoma stocks of saltwater marsh habitat. A small stock of scallop
(Patinopecten caurinus) inhabit Kamishak Bay and some may be found in outer Kachemak
Bay (Kessler, 1985) (ASMI, 1995).
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 27
Nanwalek and Port Graham
Historically, commercially significant populations of tanner, king, and Dungeness crab; and
several species of shrimp have inhabited the lower inlet. Kachemak Bay once supported
healthy commercial harvests of shrimp and king crab during peak fishing efforts in the
1970s and early 1980s (CFEC, 1995). However, populations of these species have been
depressed since the middle 1980s (Trasky, 1995:5, citing RPI, 1994) (ADF& G, 1995a).
FFiisshheerriieess
The Port Graham/Nanwalek fisheries include five
species of salmon, halibut, cod and trout. These
fisheries are managed by the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game’s commercial, subsistence and
sports fish divisions, which take direction from the
Board of Fisheries. The Board of Fisheries meets to
consider changes to the regulations every three
years, with the next meeting scheduled for 2007.
Current commercial management allows fishing on or after June 1st to the end of September
with two 48-hour open periods per week. The commercial fishing industry ends their fishing
by the middle of July, after the sockeye run is essentially over.
The subsistence fishery is generally open from about April 1st to the end of September with
one long weekly open period from Thursdays at 10 pm until Wednesday at 6 am. When
escapement numbers are low, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has the
authority to close the commercial and sports fishery and as a last resort, if needed, the
subsistence harvest. Closures are done when the escapement numbers are determined to
be too low to meet the demand.
Most salmon spawn in freshwater streams between June and September, although some
pink salmon also spawn intertidally. Eggs and juveniles are present in freshwater year-round,
and smolt migrate to the ocean from mid-April through mid-July. Young salmon may be found
in marine waters throughout the year (Trasky, 1995:4, citing to Bucher and Hammerstrom,
1993; Ruesch and Fox, 1995; USCG/EPA/ADEC, 1995). Pacific salmon spend up to seven
years in the open ocean before migrating back to freshwater in Alaska to spawn and die.
Ten million adult salmon returned to Cook Inlet (1995), beginning in early May and
continuing into October. Sockeye salmon are the most numerous species (7 million), followed
by pink, Coho, chum, and Chinook. Three-fourths of these fish return to or pass through the
area (Trasky, 1995:4).
NNaannwwaalleekk SSaallmmoonn EEnnhhaanncceemmeenntt PPrroojjeecctt In 1985, escapement of the English Bay River
system sockeye salmon was at a low of 5,000 adults. The historical high exceeded 40,000
adult sockeye returning to the English Bay lakes. At that time, the ADF&G had closed the
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 28
Nanwalek and Port Graham
fishing season, recognizing that the sockeye salmon run needed to return to levels that could
support subsistence and commercial fishing again.
To meet the need, the Nanwalek Salmon Enhancement Project was developed. Its goals are
to produce one million fry, which will be reared in English Bay lakes and later released into
them to produce a returning run of 200,000 to 400,000 adult sockeye salmon. With these
returns, the village should ensure that subsistence and commercial fishing needs are met;
additionally, marketing the fish and their products should create significant economic
development opportunities.
Project operation consists of pen rearing in twelve
net pens in the Second Lake of the English Bay
system. The egg-take phase takes place in Second
Lake in the fall, when 1.35 million eggs are taken
from spawning sockeye. The eggs are then
transported to the Port Graham Hatchery to hatch.
In June of the following year, the hatchlings are
transported back to Second Lake to be reared in
the twelve net pens. The pre-smolt are usually released in early winter. In 2004, a few were
kept over winter to try to increase the over winter survival rates. During the outmigrating
season of the smolt, a weir is set up in the lower river to count the smolt and record data
before they go out to sea. Just above the smolt weir, an adult weir is set up during the return
of the adult sockeye salmon for counting and data retrieval.
Project operations began in 1990 with the direct release of fry into the English Bay lake
system. In 1991, with only a few people working, about 100,000 fry were released into a net
pen in Second Lake. In 1996, approximately 20 people were employed on a part-time basis,
with one person employed throughout the year.
The return of 1996 was estimated at over 34,000 adult sockeye salmon; for 1997, a return
of approximately 44,000 was expected. The first year of cost recovery for the project was
1996. Cost recovery is one way for the project to support itself as grant funding disappears.
In the future, as the runs increase, the project is working towards marketing the surplus fish
and establishing a hatchery as an economic development activity for the village. Keeping in
mind how critical this natural resource is for Port Graham and Nanwalek, one must also be
mindful of the need to sustain and protect the larger environment on which it depends, and
of the importance of using all natural resources sensibly so that their renewal is assured.
PPoorrtt GGrraahhaamm HHaattcchheerryy The Port Graham Hatchery Program was developed in 1990 when
the Port Graham Village Council worked together with the Community Economic
Development Corporation (CEDC) to provide construction and operating funds for a hatchery.
CEDC is a State chartered corporation whose mission is to assist communities in rural Alaska
in developing their economies. The hatchery’s aim was to rebuild local pink salmon runs and
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 29
Nanwalek and Port Graham
provide economic development opportunities for village residents. The hatchery program
initially used a scientific/educational permit and then applied for a private non-profit
hatchery permit on July 3, 1991. The hatchery was located in an old cannery building. A new
rearing building was added for a Coho salmon program, which now serves as the hatchery
warehouse and Council apartments. The hatchery currently produces Port Graham River
Pink Salmon and English Bay River Sockeye Salmon, both of which are principal sources of
subsistence food and commercial fishing income for Port Graham and Nanwalek.
Port Graham River pink salmon escapements have ranged from 2,000 to 50,000. They
averaged 15,100 from 1960 to 1989. The commercial pink salmon catches have ranged
from lows of 1,000 in 1971 and 1972 and 1,600 in 1961 to highs of 124,700 in 1979 and
45,900 in 1981. The chart below summarizes the annual commercial salmon catches since
1959. Please note that during the years of 1990 through 1996 no commercial fishing
occurred. This is because the Port Graham River Pink Salmon and the English Bay River
Sockeye salmon runs were so low during those years that no commercial openings occurred.
No one knows for sure what happened but this was clearly the impetus for the Port Graham
Hatchery project.
The new hatchery has a capacity of 110 million pink salmon
eggs, 5 million sockeye eggs and 2 million Coho eggs. The
current permit is for 110 million pink salmon eggs and 1.35
million sockeye salmon eggs. The hatchery has a contract
with the Native village of Nanwalek to incubate sockeye
salmon eggs for its Nanwalek Salmon Enhancement Project.
This project has resulted in restoring yearly returns of
approximately 40,000 adult pink salmon in the English Bay Lakes.
The Port Graham Hatchery Board guides the Port Graham Hatchery Program with oversight
and administration from the Port Graham Village Council. This board is comprised of Council
members, elders, and commercial and subsistence fishers. Their responsibility is to oversee
the broad scope of the project, ensuring that the project staff is carrying out their duties in
concert with the wishes of the community. Their input in various key aspects of the project is
vital to the success of the project, in that community members can only maintain ownership
through direct involvement.
Commercial fishing boats and set nets provide the primary income for many Nanwalek and
Port Graham residents. Fish buying and process have taken place in Port Graham when the
processing facility was open, but no dock or cold storage facilities exist in Nanwalek.
Personal use set gillnets are used along the coastline from Cape Dangerous to Point
Pogibshi. There is some commercial purse seining for all five species of salmon and
commercial harvest of rockfish and Dungeness crab takes place in Rocky and Windy Bays.
Red king crab is also harvested commercially along the coast.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 30
Nanwalek and Port Graham
WWiillddlliiffee
Numerous types of shellfish, waterfowl such as duck and geese,
marine birds, eel, harbor seals, sea lions, sea otters moose, black
bear, mountain goat, porcupine, rabbit and otter are present. Other
wildlife species of importance include moose, mountain waterfowl,
goat, ptarmigan, and grouse. Trappers previously hunted land
otter, mink, and weasel. Marine mammals such as orca and seals
and are important resources to the two villages’ traditional
management based economies.
TTrraaddiittiioonnaall MMaannaaggeemmeenntt
Subsistence resources include king salmon, chums, silvers, humpies, halibut, gray cod,
greenling, flounder, herring, tom cod, black bass, Irish lords, eels, shellfish, Dolly Varden trout
and clams (five different kinds, but no razor clams).
From the Upper Cook Inlet residents harvest crabs (Dungeness crabs and king crabs),
shrimp, mussels, snails, chitons (bidarka), sea urchins, Chinese hats, octopus, seaweed, and
goose tongues. They also hunt and use seal, sea lion, sea otter, black bear, goat, moose,
groundhog, porcupine, grouse, ptarmigan, and ten different
kinds of ducks. Some of these resources need special
attention because prevalence is becoming scarce or, in
some cases, are not available any longer.
Plant communities include Sitka spruce forest, tall alder
shrub, halophytic grass wet meadows, halophytic sedge wet
meadows, sedge moss bog meadows, alpine scrub,
bluejoint reedgrass-form meadows, pondlily, eelgrass, and
marine algae. Each one of these plants and animals
constitutes an integral part of the two villages’ Traditional
management-based economies. Medicinal plants and
berries in the area are important culturally as well as
providing medicine for village members.
Medicinal plants and berries found in the two areas include:
• yarrow
• Bethlehem star
• devil’s club bark
and root
• licorice fern
• mountain ash
• rose petals and hips
• cranberry
• salmonberry
• blueberry
• mossberry
• trailing raspberry
• nangoon berry
• watermelon berry
• fiddleheads
• wild celery
• goose tongues
• wild onion
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 31
Nanwalek and Port Graham
VViissiioonn
TToo mmaaiinnttaaiinn aanndd pprrootteecctt oouurr ccuullttuurraall aanndd ttrraaddiittiioonnaall
vvaalluueess,, ttoo gguuaarraanntteeee oouurr ffuuttuurree,, ttoo pprroommoottee oouurr pphhyyssiiccaall
wweellll--bbeeiinngg aanndd ssaaffeettyy wwhhiillee ssttrriivviinngg ttoo bbee ssoocciiaallllyy aanndd
eeccoonnoommiiccaallllyy sseellff--ssuuffffiicciieenntt,, ddeevveellooppiinngg tthhee vviillllaaggee,,
pprrootteeccttiinngg oouurr rreessoouurrcceess aanndd ccoonnttiinnuuiinngg ttoo aaddvvaannccee oouurr
wwaayy ooff lliiffee..
VViissiioonn
TToo mmaaiinnttaaiinn aanndd pprrootteecctt oouurr ccuullttuurraall aanndd ttrraaddiittiioonnaall
vvaalluueess,, ttoo gguuaarraanntteeee oouurr ffuuttuurree,, ttoo pprroommoottee oouurr pphhyyssiiccaall
wweellll--bbeeiinngg aanndd ssaaffeettyy wwhhiillee ssttrriivviinngg ttoo bbee ssoocciiaallllyy aanndd
eeccoonnoommiiccaallllyy sseellff--ssuuffffiicciieenntt,, ddeevveellooppiinngg tthhee vviillllaaggee,,
pprrootteeccttiinngg oouurr rreessoouurrcceess aanndd ccoonnttiinnuuiinngg ttoo aaddvvaannccee oouurr
wwaayy ooff lliiffee..
44..00 VViissiioonn,, GGooaallss aanndd OObbjjeeccttiivveess
A vision statement is a description of the community’s desired future based on residents’ values.
The community will continually strive toward achieving this vision of an ideal future condition that is
shared as well as agreed upon. Goals and objectives identify specific ways to achieve the vision.
Establishing a goal is a way of taking aim or charting a course for the community. Goals define the
direction that the community wants to
take.
Once goals are established, then
objectives can be developed. Objectives
are specific actions that the community
will perform in order to achieve the goals.
Objectives can also be seen as a tangible
measure for success of the plan.
Based on information gathered through
community involvement and from past planning efforts, the following goals and objectives were
developed to help guide the plan.
GGooaall 11.. TToo mmaaiinnttaaiinn aanndd pprrootteecctt tthhee bbiiooddiivveerrssiittyy ooff oouurr nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess..
OObbjjeeccttiivvee AA.. Analyze and summarize all available local natural resource data.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee BB.. Work to reduce threat of disease in fisheries.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee CC.. To encourage timber management and harvest methods which minimize
impact on water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, Traditional management of
resources and tourism potential.
GGooaall 22.. TToo rreessppeeccttffuullllyy uuttiilliizzee oouurr nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrcceess ttoo pprroovviiddee ssoocciiaall aanndd eeccoonnoommiiccaall bbeenneeffiittss ttoo oouurr
ppeeooppllee..
OObbjjeeccttiivvee AA.. Responsibly market fisheries, berries and natural resources.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee BB.. Continue salmon enhancement program while minimizing impact to wild
salmon.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee CC.. Develop a local saw mill business.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee DD.. Create economically enhancing and viable alternatives for Native Allotment
owners other than selling their land to outsiders.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 32
Nanwalek and Port Graham
GGooaall 33.. TToo pprreesseerrvvee oouurr ttrraaddiittiioonnaall rreellaattiioonnsshhiipp wwiitthh tthhee aaiirr,, sseeaa aanndd llaanndd..
OObbjjeeccttiivvee AA.. Develop a comprehensive record of traditional ecological knowledge
regarding each species and resource of interest including each contributor’s
comments on historic populations and characteristics over time.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee BB.. Provide education for local children and others about our traditional ways and
the nature of our dependence on our natural resources.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee CC.. Utilize local traditional ecological knowledge and cultural traditions to help
develop a natural resource program that is meaningful and effective for our
traditional lifestyle.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee DD.. Develop small scale tourism.
GGooaall 44.. TToo ffaacciilliittaattee aanndd pprroommoottee iinnddiivviidduuaall aanndd vviillllaaggee iinnvvoollvveemmeenntt iinn nnaattuurraall rreessoouurrccee iissssuueess aanndd
mmaannaaggeemmeenntt..
OObbjjeeccttiivvee AA.. Develop IRMPs in Nanwalek and Port Graham that consider this Chugachmiut
Facilitated IRMP.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee BB.. Work with the school and provide quarterly classroom presentations and
projects.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee CC.. Conduct community meetings and presentations to provide program updates
and information as well as solicit and document input from all participants.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee DD.. Provide education, public information and community outreach to local
citizens on natural resource issues and information
OObbjjeeccttiivvee EE.. Record community input on flip charts at meetings or on community natural
resource survey forms, summarize and enter into the tribal natural resources
data base.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee FF.. Contribute information to the village newsletter about the natural resources
and the salmon hatchery program.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee GG.. Coordinate the implementation of IRMP with other village groups,
government agencies and other stakeholders.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee HH.. Monitor and report on the implementation of Integrated Tribal Natural
Resource Management Plan action plans to the Councils.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 33
Nanwalek and Port Graham
OObbjjeeccttiivvee II.. Review tribal strategies and provide the Councils with accurate information
regarding local issues and projects.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee JJ.. Review the IRMP at least every five years and coordinate with other natural
resource agencies and update as needed.
OObbjjeeccttiivvee KK.. Create and develop open channels of input and information sharing from
village residents, elders and others who are interested in natural resource
issues or local traditional ecological knowledge.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 34
Nanwalek and Port Graham
55..00 AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess IIddeennttiiffiiccaattiioonn
Alternative growth scenarios that support the goals, objectives and public input were formulated to
assist in setting direction for managing natural resources in the study area. To assist in identifying
reasonable alternatives, the IRMP Villages Survey was conducted. Two local residents were hired to
conduct the study. This survey helped to identify community preferences and assisted in the
development of the four alternative scenarios. After the IRMP Villages Survey was completed, a
second survey, the IRMP Alternatives Survey, was conducted to help evaluate the four alternatives.
IIRRMMPP VViillllaaggee SSuurrvveeyy
In April 2006, ASCG worked with Chugachmiut to develop the IRMP Villages Survey for Nanwalek
residents, Port Graham residents, and Native Allotment owners that would be used to help direct the
development of the alternative growth scenarios. In June 2006, ASCG worked with Chugachmiut to
develop a second survey to gain input from both communities on each of the alternatives. Detailed
results of these surveys were provided to each community for their use.
The first survey (the IRMP Villages Survey) was conducted from May 4-6, 2006 by a representative
from ASCG and one local resident from Port Graham and another from Nanwalek. A total of 52
surveys were completed which included participation by 22 Nanwalek and 30 Port Graham
residents. Of those 52 responses, 22 also answered questions regarding their Native Allotment (11
responses from Nanwalek and 11 from Port Graham).
The Villages Survey included 23 questions about natural resource issues. Potential solutions to
these issues and potential natural resource management strategies were directed at traditional as
well as non-traditional uses of natural resources. The survey also contained nine additional
questions directed at Native Allotment owners which related to issues or concerns about the use of
their Native Allotment. This chapter includes a summary of these survey results.
Specific research objectives for this survey were to:
• Probe and expand issues surrounding natural resource management;
• Gain a better understanding of the public’s preferences with regard to traditional and
non-traditional use of local natural resources; and
• Communicate information to residents about the IRMP process.
Generally, there were only minor differences in the way survey participants responded from Port
Graham and Nanwalek. The strongest response received was to support natural resource
management strategies that consider and enhance the traditional culture.
The following highlights the general findings from this survey:
Culture: The results indicate that traditional cultural use of natural resources is important to a
majority of the Port Graham and Nanwalek residents that responded to the survey.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 35
Nanwalek and Port Graham
Timber/Fisheries: Generally, for each of the survey questions regarding fishery and timber
management, there was a high percentage of survey respondents that answered “don’t know.”
This may indicate a need for more information about fishery and timber management in both
communities.
Tourism: There is an overall agreement between survey respondents from both Nanwalek and
Port Graham regarding support for low impact types of tourism.
Access: A significant number of respondents indicated that perhaps only Tribal members
should have access to natural resources; however there was also a strong indication that there
is more division or uncertainty about what level of access and control is needed.
Native Allotment Access: Native Allotment land owners were asked about free access, selling
and leasing their native allotments. Generally, survey respondents indicated that they don’t
want to sell their property, and there may need to be more discussion regarding leasing.
Native Allotment Land Use: Survey respondents agreed that they would like to generate
income from their lands. The strongest support was for timber and mineral extraction.
AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess DDeessccrriippttiioonn
Using the results of the IRMP Villages Survey and public input, a “no action” and three “action”
alternatives were identified for growth scenarios that include a mix of different strategies which
relate to each specific resource. Timber and non-timber harvest options may range from minimal
harvest levels to allow maximum protection of soil, water, cultural and esthetic resources to an
increased harvest level to meet economic demands of the Tribes. Transportation and infrastructure
options may range from unrestricted location of infrastructure through various forms of restrictions
to protect natural areas. Recreation options may range from small scale commercial development of
recreation opportunities to creating large scale tourism opportunities. Cultural resource
management options may range from minimal protection of resources to defining standards for
protection of cultural properties and cultural landscapes which are uniquely important to the Tribes.
The four alternatives are described below:
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 11 NNoo AAccttiioonn MMaannaaggeemmeenntt ooff tthhee NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess iinn tthhee ssttuuddyy
aarreeaa wwoouulldd rreemmaaiinn tthhee ssaammee.. NNoo nneeww ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff
ttiimmbbeerr,, nnoonn--ttiimmbbeerr,, ttoouurriissmm,, eettcc wwoouulldd ooccccuurr..
Current timber and non-timber management practices would continue. No additional timber harvest
would take place that were not already part of the general timber management strategy. The current
cultural use of resources and Traditional management activities would remain with no special steps
taken to ensure their protection. No mineral extraction would occur.
Current fish enhancement activities would remain. The Port Graham Fish Hatchery would continue its
current operation. Planning for housing and other infrastructure projects would be done during
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 36
Nanwalek and Port Graham
project development. No specific areas would be designated, restricted or prohibited from
development except on an as-needed basis. No pro-active creation of jobs through the use of
natural resources would occur.
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 22 RReedduuccee GGrroowwtthh AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee RReessoouurrcceess wwoouulldd bbee mmiinniimmaallllyy mmaannaaggeedd aanndd iinn ssoommee
iinnssttaanncceess aatttteemmppttss wwoouulldd bbee mmaaddee ttoo rreevveerrssee ccuurrrreenntt
mmaannaaggeemmeenntt pprraaccttiicceess..
This alternative would provide policies to reverse some areas of growth. Timber harvest, organized
wood cutting, and other timber practices would be reduced or cease. Residents would still be
allowed access to wind blown trees for personal use. Limited harvest may be considered if it
improved habitat for wildlife. No change would occur in the use of non-timber resources. Mineral
extraction would not be allowed.
The traditional management of natural resources would be encouraged. Policies would be
developed to limit entry onto local lands to prevent outside use of subsistence resources. Fishery
management would be eliminated or greatly reduced.
Only critical infrastructure would be allowed and would have to be contained within the existing
footprint of the communities.. No new roads or airports would be developed. Use of the trail from
Nanwalek to Port Graham would be discouraged to protect habitat degradation. Projects that protect
natural resources would also be considered such as bridges over spawning streams
No pro-active creation of jobs through the use of natural resources would occur. Tourism would be
discouraged.
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 33 SSeelleecctteedd GGrroowwtthh AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee NNaattuurraall rreessoouurrccee ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn wwoouulldd bbee eemmpphhaassiizzeedd
wwhhiillee mmaaiinnttaaiinniinngg aa wwoorrkkiinngg llaannddssccaappee ffoorr nnaattuurraall
rreessoouurrccee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt wwhheerree ccoommppaattiibbllee..
This alternative seeks to selectively use natural resources in order to improve the quality of life while
limiting any growth that might impact traditional practices. The Tribes would work with Chugachmiut
and the federal and State resource agencies to develop timber harvest management practices which
would minimize erosion and impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and traditional
resources as well as identifying an appropriate location for timber storage and transfer facilities.
Policies would be developed for the protection of non-timber products such as berries, grasses, etc.
for traditional use and for potential job creation.
Any plans for mineral extraction, such as coal or gravel would be carefully reviewed by each
community to ensure it is compatible with current land uses and traditional activities. A land
restoration plan would be required.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 37
Nanwalek and Port Graham
Efforts would be made to preserve traditional resource habitats and traditional hunting areas for use
by future generations. The Tribes would work with private landholders at their request to establish
“best management practices” for development activities to minimize impacts on resources and
traditional harvest areas. Grants would be sought to assist in identifying, preserving and protecting
historic, prehistoric and archaeological sites or resources which are important in documenting or
understanding the cultural heritage of the area. A cultural committee would be formed to assist in
the preservation of the cultural use of natural resources.
To assist in protection of important fish spawning and wildlife rearing habitats they would be
identified, inventoried and mapped. Tribes would work with ADF&G to design and establish buffer
strips along anadromous streams and the coastline to protect important habitat. The hatchery would
remain open with minimal growth expected.
A land use plan would be developed and appropriate areas for different types of development would
be identified and set aside. The land use plan would focus on identifying areas that would not
conflict with traditional uses of resources or impact the ecosystem. The land use plan would be
shared with resource agency and funding sources when new development is recommended.
Existing roads would be maintained and new roads or airports would only be developed after careful
consideration of the potential impacts to natural resources. Projects that improve access and
protect natural resources would be considered such as bridges over spawning streams.
Job creation would be compatible with the traditional lifestyles of local residents. Non-timber
products such as berry production and other non-timber resource use would be explored and a
business plan developed to maximize the return while minimizing natural resource impacts. Small
scale tourism and recreation would be considered. In sensitive areas and critical habitats, off road
vehicles such as snowmachines, or ATVs would be limited to minimize adverse environmental
impacts or interfere with traditional practices.
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 44 IInntteennssiivvee GGrroowwtthh AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess wwoouulldd bbee mmaannaaggeedd ttoo mmaaxxiimmiizzee
ggrroowwtthh aanndd ddeevveellooppmmeenntt..
This alternative is the most aggressive alternative and takes a pro-active strategy to maximize the
use of the natural resources. A timber and non-timber management plan would be developed to
maximize harvest, organized wood cutting, and other timber practices. Timber roads would be
constructed to improve access. Convenient areas would be developed for timber storage and
transfer. Mineral extraction would be encouraged. A Minerals Development Plan would be
developed and areas would be identified for maximum production. Funding for infrastructure would
be sought to allow rapid transfer to markets. The alternative would recognize cultural use of
resources and traditional activities and these would remain, but no special steps would be taken to
ensure their protection. The communities would try and increase fishery production in order to
expand potential commercial and sports fishing opportunities. Small and large scale fish and
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 38
Nanwalek and Port Graham
hunting guiding operation and lodges would be encouraged. Outside companies would be sought to
assist in this effort and guiding and lodges would be encouraged.
A land use plan would be developed and appropriate areas for different types of development would
be identified and set aside. The land use plan would focus on identifying areas that would not
conflict with proposed natural resource economic development projects. Existing roads would be
maintained and new roads or airports would be developed as needed to support additional growth
and to support the development of natural resources.
The following provides a summary of each alternative described above.
Table 5.5: Major Elements of Alternatives
MMaajjoorr
EElleemmeennttss
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 11
NNoo AAccttiioonn AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 22 RReedduuccee
GGrroowwtthh
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 33
SSeelleecctteedd GGrroowwtthh
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 44
IInntteennssiivvee GGrroowwtthh
Cultural
The current cultural use of
resources and traditional
activities would remain
with no special steps taken
to ensure their protection.
The traditional uses of
natural resources would be
encouraged. Policies
would be developed to limit
entry.
Develop protection policies
for the continued harvest
of fish, wildlife, and plants
for traditional uses by area
residents
The current cultural use of
resources would remain
with no special steps taken
to ensure their protection.
Timber
Current timber
management practices
would continue in their
current form.
Timber harvest, organized
wood cutting, and other
timber practices would be
reduced or cease.
Maintain local access to
wind blown timber.
Timber management and
harvest methods which
minimize impact on water
quality, fish and wildlife
habitat, traditional use of
resources and tourism
potential would be
prioritized.
An aggressive timber
management plan would
be developed to maximize
timber harvest and other
practices.
Non-Timber
No change would occur in
the use of non-timber
resources.
No change would occur in
the use of non-timber
resources.
Policies would be
developed to support
development and to
protect non-timber
products.
A plan would be developed
that includes a strategy for
maximum use of non-
timber resources.
Minerals
No mineral extraction
would occur
Policies would be put in
place to prevent mineral
extraction.
Mineral Extraction would
be allowed if compatible
with traditional land uses.
A Mineral Development
Plan would be developed
and mineral extraction
encouraged.
Fishery
Current fish enhancement
activities would remain.
Fishery management
would be eliminated or
greatly reduced.
Identify, inventory, map
and protect important
habitats for traditional
uses.
Identify ways to enhance
the fishery and maximize
commercial opportunities.
Infrastructure
Proposed infrastructure
would be decided on an
as-needed basis.
Only critical infrastructure
would be allowed in the
existing footprint of the
communities.
A land use plan would be
developed and appropriate
areas for different types of
development would be
identified and set aside.
A land use plan would be
developed and areas that
would not conflict with
proposed natural resource
economic development
projects.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 39
Nanwalek and Port Graham
66..00 AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess EEvvaalluuaattiioonn
The focus of the evaluation of alternatives was to compare the major elements in each alternative
and to examine how each alternative addressed the goals. The goals were used to assist in the
evaluation of the alternatives. This information was presented at a meeting on June 12th in
Nanwalek and Port Graham.
The second survey (the IRMP Alternatives Survey), conducted in Port Graham and Nanwalek, asked
residents which alternative growth pattern they agreed with for each of the elements of the IRMP.
Results indicate that a majority of survey respondents from both communities preferred Alternative 3
– “Selected Growth.” As a general statement, a majority of the survey respondents from Nanwalek
tended to lean towards a more conservative growth pattern (less development) for timber and
minerals. Comparatively, a majority of Port Graham survey respondents preferred a more intensive
growth pattern for timber, infrastructure and transportation. Neither community showed significant
support for the “Reduced Growth” Alternative.
TThhee IIRRMMPP AAlltteerrnnaattiivveess SSuurrvveeyy
The second survey (the IRMP Alternatives Survey) was conducted in Nanwalek during June 2006,
and conducted in Port Graham during July 2006. ASCG hired one resident from each community to
conduct the survey. A total of 63 surveys were collected from Nanwalek and a total of 26 surveys
were collected from Port Graham. Specific objectives for this survey were to:
• Gain input from both communities’ residents regarding each alternative growth scenario
as it relates to the various elements of the IRMP. The elements of the IRMP including
culture, timber, non-timber resources, mineral resources, forestry, fisheries,
infrastructure development, transportation, and job creation.
• Identify which alternatives the communities most agreed with.
• Formulate recommendations for implementation steps that are based on these findings,
results from the first survey, and input from residents, leaders, and other
resources/research done throughout the IRMP process.
CCuullttuurraall A majority of both Nanwalek and Port Graham survey respondents agreed that their
communities need to develop protection policies for the continued harvest of fish, wildlife, and
plants for subsistence uses by area residents.
TTiimmbbeerr A majority of Nanwalek survey respondents agreed that current timber management
practices should continue in their current form. A majority of Port Graham survey respondents
agreed that an aggressive timber management plan should be developed to maximize timber
harvest and other practices. The two communities have different preferences for timber
management practices.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 40
Nanwalek and Port Graham
NNoonn--TTiimmbbeerr The selected alternative for non-timber management practices was agreed on by
both communities. A majority of both Port Graham and Nanwalek survey respondents agreed that
policies should be developed to support development and to protect non-timber products.
MMiinneerraallss A majority of Nanwalek survey respondents agreed that no mineral extraction should
occur. However, a majority of Port Graham survey respondents agreed that mineral extraction
should be allowed if compatible with land use and subsistence.
FFiisshheerryy A majority of both Port Graham and Nanwalek survey respondents agreed that the
communities need to identify, inventory, map and protect important habitats.
IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree Both Nanwalek and Port Graham survey respondents agree that a land use plan
should be developed that specifies areas that would not conflict with proposed natural resource
economic development projects.
TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn A majority of Nanwalek survey respondents agreed that existing roads should be
maintained and new roads or airports should only be developed after careful consideration to the
potential impacts to natural resources. A majority of Port Graham survey respondents agreed that
existing roads would be maintained and new roads or airports would be developed as needed to
support additional growth.
JJoobb CCrreeaattiioonn Both communities agree that non-timber products use and small scale tourism and
recreation should be explored and a business plan developed.
SSeepptteemmbbeerr 22000066 WWoorrkksshhoopp RReessuullttss
The workshop held in September 2006, was valuable in assessing the preferred alternative (See
Appendix A – Workshop Notes, September 7, 2006). The workshop was facilitated and ten people
from the communities participated. Generally, the group agreed with the Selected Growth
Alternative. They also stated that it was very important for each community to develop their own
IRMP. In this way, the communities could expand the Chugachmiut Facilitated IRMP to identify
specific action items needed to fulfill the IRMP goals. The group also supported the development of
economically viable options for Native Allotment owners to selling their lands. They also wanted to
pursue development of a land use plan that supports traditional uses.
RReessoouurrccee AAnnaallyyssiiss
Each alternative was analyzed to determine their effect on the resources. In addition, the combined,
incremental effects of human activity, referred to as cumulative impacts, were also examined. While
cumulative impacts may be insignificant by themselves, cumulative impacts accumulate over time,
from one or more sources, and can result in the degradation of important resources.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 41
Nanwalek and Port Graham
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 11 NNoo AAccttiioonn..
Though no new practices would be put into place with the No Action Alternative, this does not mean
that it is without consequence. Resources such as timber, non-timber, minerals, and fisheries would
remain the same and no changes to the current resource development would occur.
Cultural – The no action alternative would not institute any changes to cultural practices, this
includes education in traditional ways and subsistence living. In the long term, this could mean a
greater reliance on non-traditional food and practices, a reduction to locally harvested resources,
and in the extreme, the potential loss of cultural identity.
Infrastructure - This alternative would not plan for long term infrastructure development. This has
the potential to inhibit organized and beneficial growth within the community which could lead to
development in areas that have either cultural or subsistence value to the community. Additionally,
potentially developable resources may not be utilized to their fullest potential or in the most
economically sound method.
Transportation - No action would not enhance the limited transportation options currently available
to those in the villages of Nanwalek and Port Graham. Further, it would not improve transportation
to and from the village nor would there be a focused effort to enhance inter- or intra-village
transportation.
Cumulative – The no action alternative has the potential to negatively affect the overall health of the
communities economically and culturally. This action would do nothing to assist the communities to
develop their potential resources and therefore not adequately develop the villages to their fullest
potential. There is no provision to create or enhance the job market within the communities and
does not acknowledge the need for community awareness of the surrounding environment.
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 22 RReedduuccee GGrroowwtthh AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee
Alternative 2 would minimally manage natural resources and in some instances attempts would be
made to reverse current management practices.
Cultural – This alternative encourages the cultural aspects of the community and limits access to
outsiders. Traditional substance practices would be encouraged through education in the schools
etc. Tourism would be discouraged thereby limiting the spread of cultural awareness outside the
immediate community.
Timber – This alternative would allow harvest of wind blown trees (for personal use only) thereby
decreasing some of the available fuel on the forest floor. Limited harvest of timber resources may
be considered only if it has the potential to improve habitat for wildlife. Discouraging timber harvest
has the potential to increase wildfire danger by not removing potential fuel sources which can lead to
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 42
Nanwalek and Port Graham
a build up of the forest duff layer. This layer of dead plant material may increase the areas potential
for a devastating forest fire that could potentially threaten lives and property
Non-Timber – This alternative would have not changes in non-timber resources. Traditional
management of natural resources would be encouraged; however, policies would be developed to
limit entry onto local lands to prevent outside use of subsistence resources.
Minerals – This alternative would not allow for mineral extraction and therefore roads and mining
activities and their potential impacts to natural resources would not occur.
Fishery - Fisheries management in this alternative would be eliminated or greatly reduced. This has
the potential to limit the protection of the biological resource in order to make a sustainable yield
possible.
Infrastructure - Only critical infrastructure would be allowed within the existing footprint of the
communities. Tourism would be discouraged. This alternative only addresses critical maintenance
and does not encourage any new development which could enhance the economic development of
the communities.
Transportation - This alternative does not allow for development of new roads or airports and use of
the trail that connects the villages of Nanwalek and Port Graham would be discouraged. Not
encouraging the construction of a new airport(s) continues to be a safety concern. Discouraging
access between the communities would reduce environmental impacts along this route.
Cumulative: This alternative is very limiting to the community, will not encourage economic growth,
and will not be pro-active in the creation of jobs within the community. There are additional potential
long term affects such as no increase in the tax base by discouraging development of the community
outside the existing footprint. Discouraging tourism will limit the potential to tap into a very
renewable and reliable revenue source and limits the spread of cultural awareness outside the
immediate community. The diminishment of the Port Graham Hatchery would result in the loss of
jobs and a source of taxation revenue for the community.
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 33 SSeelleecctteedd GGrroowwtthh AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee
This alternative would emphasize natural resource conservation while maintaining a working
landscape for natural resource development where compatible.
Cultural – This alternative is pro-active in identifying and preserving historical and culturally sensitive
areas and structures. This alternative advocates the formation of a cultural committee to assist in
the cultural use preservation of natural resources found in and around the Villages of Port Graham
and Nanwalek. This would result in compatible development in the community in order to maintain
and preserve cultural resources.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 43
Nanwalek and Port Graham
Timber - Local Tribes would work with Chugachmiut, Federal, and state resource agencies to develop
sustainable timber harvests and management practices to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife
habitat, water quality, and traditional resources. Sustainable timber harvest encourages new growth
while helping the community by creating jobs will also add a potential revenue source.
Non-Timber – Policies would be developed for the protection of non-timber products such as berries,
for traditional use and for potential job creation. Non-timber products would be explored and a
business plan developed to maximize the return while minimizing natural resource impacts with the
traditional lifestyles of local residents. Additionally, job creation would be compatible with traditional
values and has the potential to increase traditional uses of the resources found surrounding both
communities which would decrease reliance on non-traditional foods.
Minerals – Mineral extraction for resources such as coal and gravel would be carefully reviewed by
each community to ensure its compatibility with current land uses and traditional activities. If the
activities should prove to be profitable and compatible with the environmental, social, and economic
plans of the community it would be recommended; land restoration plans would be required.
Traditionally, growth associated with mining can have detrimental impacts to the environment and
has the potential to diminish the traditional lifestyle currently practiced in the communities.
Conversely, encouraging mining will bring much needed capital into the communities through jobs
and adding to the tax base.
Fishery – Protection of the native fisheries would be a priority. Tribes would work with government
agencies to identify and map habitats and areas critical to the success of the naturally occurring fish
stocks found in and around Nanwalek and Port Graham streams and coast. The addition of buffer
strips along streams and the coastline will be part of this effort. In this alternative the fishery will be
maintained and efforts may be made to secure additional funding to potentially expand or enhance
the hatchery/fishery capabilities. Sustainable growth through protection of habitat for natural stocks
has the potential to maximize yield of naturally occurring returning fish stocks. Enhancing the
hatchery also has the potential to maximize gross tonnage of returning biomass but it could come at
a cost to the naturally occurring fisheries through the potential of disease introduction from the
hatchery stocks to the indigenous fisheries if not managed properly and closely monitored.
Infrastructure – Land use planning would be developed focusing on compatible use and
discouraging development that has the potential to negatively impact traditional uses or the
ecosystem. This alternative encourages development through planning and incorporating resource
agencies and funding sources. Attaining sustainable development within this alternative means
assuring that infrastructure development is compatible with mining and other development options
while making certain that there is not an undue toll taken on the environment.
Transportation - This alternative calls for roads to be maintained. New roads and airports would be
developed only after careful consideration of the potential impacts to natural resources. This
alternative offers the potential to increase safety through construction of airport improvements or
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 44
Nanwalek and Port Graham
relocation. A safer airport could bring additional tourist to the area which could be a boost to the
local economies.
Cumulative – This alternative takes a balanced approach, complementing the Tribes need to
maintain autonomy but also acknowledging the necessity of judiciously accessing and utilizing
resources for the economic health and well being of the communities. This alternative is a move
toward sustainable development of the area and has the potential to benefit the communities while
balancing the need for good stewardship of the environment.
AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee 44 IInntteennssiivvee GGrroowwtthh AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee
This alternative would manage natural resources to maximize growth and development. This
alternative has the potential to negatively impact resources and not fully realize the cultural needs of
the communities.
Cultural – This alternative recognizes the importance of the cultural use of resources and traditional
activities, but no special steps would be taken to ensure their protection. This has the potential to
inadvertently reduce the cultural identity in the area and potentially diminish the quality of life and
traditional uses of the land surrounding the villages.
Timber and Non-timber – This alternative encourages the development of a Timber Management
Plan for both timber and non-timber resources that would maximize harvest, organized wood cutting
and other timber practices. The Timber Management plan would include a reclamation plan for
revegetation of the sites where extensive timber removal has occurred. Roads would be constructed
to improve timber access, and areas would be developed for convenient timber storage and transfer
facilities. Care needs to be taken when pursuing this alternative to ensure that rampant
development does not diminish the quality of life for those within the communities. This alternative
also does have the potential to be a revenue stream for the communities through sale of goods,
potential tax revenue, and the potential to add jobs within the communities.
Minerals – Mineral extraction would be encouraged though development of a Minerals Development
Plan that would identify areas for maximum production thereby potentially minimizing the negative
environmental impacts. Included in the Minerals Management Plan would be a reclamation plan
that would require the extractor to leave the mined area in as good or better condition than before
the extraction took place. This alternative has the potential to greatly diminish the environmental
quality of the areas surrounding the villages if sustainable development practices are not
incorporated into minerals extraction planning.
Fishery – The communities would try to increase fishery production in order to expand potential
commercial and sports fishing opportunities. Expanding the hatchery will add to the biomass of
returning species but has the potential to negatively impact the indigenous stocks if not done
properly. Additionally, increasing the commercial and sport fishing in the area has the potential to
negatively impact the quantities of fish available for local subsistence users. Conversely, managing
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 45
Nanwalek and Port Graham
the fisheries (both hatchery and native) for increased use by commercial and sport fishing has the
potential to be a revenue stream for the communities if managed properly.
Infrastructure – Commercial development of the area would be encouraged by soliciting outside
companies to assist in the establishment of guiding services, and the operation of small and large
scale fish and hunting ventures including encouraging the establishment of hunting and fishing
lodges. Additionally, funding for infrastructure would be sought to allow rapid transfer to markets.
Though economically, this alternative would be very beneficial to the communities, careful
coordinated planning would need to take place so no particular resource would be unduly diminished
which has the potential to negatively impact the whole ecosystem.
Transportation – Existing roads would be maintained and new roads and airports would be
developed as needed to support additional growth and to support the development of natural
resources. Resource development is a large part of this alternative and with that will come with the
need to improve the village’s road system so the resource development will be economically feasible.
Careful planning and coordinated efforts between the villages and federal, state, and local agencies
will be needed for the development and construction of the needed transportation infrastructure to
the benefit of both communities. Improving airport facilties will benefit all those traveling to and
from the communities of Nanwalek and Port Graham. The safety quotient would be increased
greatly by not using the existing Nanwalek runway that has had a history of misses and near misses
with navigation into and out of the current runway. Additionally adding a safer airport has the
potential to increase tourism to the area thereby increasing the potential for a positive economic
impact to the communities.
Cumulative – This alternative is rather aggressive towards the development and utilization of the
local resources, such as minerals, timber, and the wildlife in the area. In order to maintain
sustainable development careful coordination and planning incorporating all potentially affected
parties needs to take place. Through thoughtful and careful planning this alternative offers the
potential to realize economic benefits in both communities. This alternative also has the potential to
negatively impact resources and important habitat essential for traditional uses.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 46
Nanwalek and Port Graham
77..00 RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss
The recommendations below represent action items developed from research, community input and
the September 2006 Workshop. The overall recommendation was to continue this planning effort by
developing IRMPs in each community using the guidelines presented in this document. Included
below are technical and funding resources that the community can consider as they move forward
with their individual efforts.
CCuullttuurraall UUssee ooff NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess
Develop protection policies for the continued harvest of fish, wildlife and plants for subsistence uses
by area residents.
• Take action to maintain culture.
• Identify ways for families to be encouraged to take an active role in passing on traditional
uses of natural resources.
• Identify action plans, resources in the schools and in the community to develop cultural
classes for youth.
• Establish a cultural committee to actively work towards enhancing cultural use, knowledge
and practices throughout both communities, with a special focus on passing on traditional
uses to youth and future generations.
• Establish programs and activities for sharing knowledge and practices involving a wide range
of community members including youth, elders, adults and teens.
• Monitor activities and uses of resources that might adversely impact the goal of assuring that
cultural uses of natural resources will continue through multiple future generations.
FFiisshheerryy && TTiimmbbeerr MMaannaaggeemmeenntt
There is a need for further discussion in this area and for each community to explore their
preference for fishery and timber management through development of their own IRMP and by
continuing to explore mutually beneficially fishery and timber management.
• Initiate discussions during the community IRMP process on fishery and timber management.
• Develop policies consistent with maintaining habitat for the continuation of traditional uses
of fishery and timber.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 47
Nanwalek and Port Graham
EEccoonnoommiicc DDeevveellooppmmeenntt
Increase economic opportunities that do not conflict with the traditional uses of Natural Resources.
• Develop an economic development plan that focuses on activities with minimal impacts to
natural resources such as tourism activities like bird watching, bed and breakfasts, wildlife
tours, lodges, independent tourists, local fish and wildlife guides, and arts and crafts.
• Encourage small-scale tourism and recreation activities that will enhance economic
opportunities in the communities while not damaging or threatening the natural resources of
the area.
AAcccceessss && CCoonnttrrooll ooff NNaattuurraall RReessoouurrcceess
Identify appropriate policies and procedures to put in place so that natural resources are protected.
• Identify options for Native Allotment owners that want to sell their lands.
• Visit each Native Allotment owner and discuss alternatives to selling their land.
NNoonn--TTiimmbbeerr
Establish policies to support the development and protection of non-timber resources and products.
MMiinneerraallss
Further discussions are needed regarding mineral development. This can be accomplished during
the development of the individual communities IRMP.
IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree
Develop infrastructure projects that do not conflict with desired levels of protection and use of
natural resources in the area.
• Develop a land use plan that considers traditional values as determined in the IRMP.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 48
Nanwalek and Port Graham
RReessoouurrcceess
The following resources are recommended to assist each community as they proceed with
developing their individual IRMPs.
Grants
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD),
Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG)
Contact: David Vought
Phone: (907) 271-4169
Email: David_Vought@hud.gov
State of Alaska, Dept of Community & Economic Development, Division of Community Advocacy
Mini-Grant Program
Contact: Jo Grove
Phone: (907) 452-4468
Email: jo_grove@dced.state.ak.us
USDA, Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D)
Services: Technical assistance
Phone: (907) 761-7757
RurAL CAP - VISTA Program
Services: Can place an individual from the community to help do the plan.
Contact: Christine Goetfert
Phone: (907) 279-2511
Email: cgoetfert@ruralcap.com
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Region
Integrated Resource Management Plan Program
Contact: Bryan Rice
P.O. Box 25520
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: (907) 586-7204 Fax: (907) 586-7120
Chugachmiut Regional Resources Commission, Community Planning
Contact: Christine Celentano
805 Frontage Road, Suite 110
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Phone: (907) 283-4271 Fax: (907) 283-4708
Email: Christine@crrcalaska.org
State of Alaska, Dept of Community & Economic Development, Division of Community Advocacy
Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) Program
Services: Can place an individual in or from the community to help do a community plan.
Contact: Midge Clouse
Phone: (907) 269-4587
Email: midge_clouse@dced.state.ak.us
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 49
Nanwalek and Port Graham
AAppppeennddiixx AA
MMeeeettiinngg SSuummmmaarriieess
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 50
Nanwalek and Port Graham
Meeting Notes
Project: Chugachmiut IRMP Reporter: Nicole McCullough
Date: October 11-12, 2005 Location: Nanwalek
Purpose: To provide information about the Integrated Resource Management Plan (IRMP) to
the Nanwalek Land Management Committee, illustrate the IRMP with the GIS developed for the
plan and to inform Nanwalek that ASCG has been contracted to do the IRMP for Nanwalek and
Port Graham.
Present:
Sally Ash, IRA Council, Land Management Committee
Alma Moonin
Kelly Yeaton, Environmental Coordinator
Pricilla Evans, Environmental Assistant
Cornelius Kvasnikoff, Land Management Committee
James Kvasnikoff, IRA Council, Land Management Committee
Wally J. Kvasnikoff, IRA Council, Land Management Committee
Kathy Brewster. IRA Council? Land Management Committee
David Holmes, North Pacific Regional Housing Authority
Olen Harris, North Pacific Regional Housing Authority
Paul Whipple, Karluk Engineering
Meeting Summary: On the morning of October 11th, Charlie Sink, Arlene Thomas and Nicole
McCullough traveled to Nanwalek to meet with the Nanwalek Land Management Committee.
The meeting lasted until the afternoon of October 12th.
On the first day, the agenda presented was as follows:
Introductions
Land Use Planning Overview
Integrated Resource Management Plan –Charlie Sink
Scope of Work – Nicole McCullough, Arlene
Thomas, ASCG
Schedule
Mapping
Housing – David Holmes
Next Steps
Charlie began by giving an overview of the IRMP process and
the benefits of the plan. He explained that it is very important for
grant purposes and that it can give the community the information it needs to make important
decisions regarding land in and around the community. He also said that part of his job is to
make sure the Native Allotment owners are treated fairly and are justly compensated.
Arlene Thomas, ASCG looks over
Kelly Yeaton’s group drawing of things
they like to do.
Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan page 51
Nanwalek and Port Graham
Nicole reviewed the scope of work and schedule. She said that the planning process will
depend in a large part on a Geographical Information System (GIS). She gave a GIS
demonstration projecting maps of Nanwalek and Port Graham. The maps contained allotment
information, aerial photography, slope, aspect and other information.
We broke into two groups and drew and discussed things people liked to do and places they like
to go. Fishing, swimming, New Year’s dance, bear hunting, chopping firewood, playing
volleyball, eating, flying, fishing and walking/hiking to Dogfish were drawn as things people like
to do. Places people liked to go included home, lakes, berry-picking/subsistence harvesting,
couch, kitchen, Ilaraalek (Homer), Qutekcak (Seward), Llurwik (Kenai), Qugyugtulig (Dogfish),
Arulaiyak (Port Chatham), Qitertaq (Kodiak).
Sally led a discussion on traditional place names. These were
captured on a white board in front of the group and were referred to
on the GIS map. Nicole said that ASCG would send a map and list of
the place names for the community to correct and to indicate on the
maps. This will become one of the layers on the IRMP GIS database.
On the second day the agenda was as follows:
Integrated Resource Management Plan Re–cap
Values Exercise
Resource Issues Exercise
Future Projects
Nicole and Charlie presented a re-cap of the previous days work. We talked about the mapping
layers.
Local/ Traditional Names
Cultural Resources
Subsistence
¾ Berry picking
¾ Wood gathering
¾ Hunting
¾ Plants
¾ Egg Gathering
Forestry
Watersheds/Wetlands
Geology/Soils
Transportation
Water bodies
Infrastructure/Utilities
Future development
Water Currents
Reef
Emergency Information
¾ Tsunami Safe Zone
¾ Earthquake Potential area
¾ Flooding
Nicole also said that the vision statement, goals and objectives would help to guide
Next, participants talked about their values and things they would like the IRMP to
accomplish.
Charlie Sink – I want to know what each person wants.
Arlene – Identify important places to preserve.
Sally leads a discussion of
traditional place names.
Alma – preserve and control natural growth in the community.
Olen – To see NPRHA projects reflect community values.
Priscilla – To keep as natural as possible so we can live off the land.
James – Same as Priscilla’s but also to provide economic development with natural
resources and sustain financial securing for the Tribe.
Wally – Limit community development but allow development outside of community.
Kelly – Ensure protection of our natural resources before developing.
David – Would like to see the planning process be as open to the community.
Nicole – For Nanwalek to continue to be friendly.
Sally – To preserve culture and learn about our natural resources for economic
development and natural development.
Next we discussed what resource issues concerned participants.
Charlie – The bridge across the English Bay River.
Arlene – In the North Slope we worry that industry can destroy land and subsistence.
Alma – Worry about future leaders’ knowledge of preserving Natural Resources and
traditional values.
Priscilla – Concerned about the use of oil instead of wood stoves. We have wood.
James – Concerned about effect of global warming on natural resources.
Wally – Concerned about historic site preservation, church etc. and also the road next to
the village site – environmental concerns.
Sally – Garbage/landfill site is a concern and also what to do with sludge.
Kelly – Landfill and sludge site is a concern. We need to document environmental
changes and other changes to the land and water recourses.
David – Fresh water shortage is an issue.
Nicole – Airport, current and new DOT airport location could be a concern.
Olen – Where do we locate the next development and what impacts are there to
consider.
Corn – The bridge across the river is a concern.
Katherine – The airport location is an issue.
We also talked about proposed projects for Nanwalek.
Charlie – Forest Management Plan for Native Allotments
Arlene – BIA Roads inventory and development
Katherine – Erosion control planning when development occurs, land management
program
Alma – Land management plan, site plans for development
James – Economic Development Plan
Wally – 10-year development plan for the village
Corn – Subdivision development action plan
Sally – Improved Health and social services plan and projects; sludge, garbage, re-
cycling education
Nicole – Feasibility and soils studies
Wally – Elder housing, accessibility, transportation planning for elders
Olen – Health clinic location plan
Alma – Larger community hall plan
Charlie – Wood biomass electricity and waste heat
Alma – Wind generators
Marlene – Garbage incinerator, look at equipment at Dogfish Bay
Priscilla – Drug and alcohol treatment facility plan
Wally – Would like a road built to Dogfish
Wally – Build the new a church right behind the existing church
In order to have a completed Integrated Resource Management Plan all the entities
need to work together.
Wally — for the individuals that do not know Nanwalek celebrates Russian Christmas on
January 7 and New Years is on January 14.
Olen Harris, NPRHA will be updating the council of the entire upcoming projects for
Nanwalek at the regular council meeting.
Olen Harris stated that there is project where students can receive heavy equipment
training by Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium.
That concluded the IRMP portion of the program. Nicole visited the school and
presented the GIS program to the students. They were very interested.
Olen Harris, NPRHA, and Paul Whipple, of Karluk Engineering, gave a presentation
concerning the housing. They were looking for input as to site locations due to the
limited footprint of the town site and the steep slope located in Tract B. A lot in
Nanwalek costs between $10,000 and $15,000. There is over 1 million dollars to build
houses next year. They understand that the location for the houses is important. There
was also discussion about rental units and the costs for them. Olen explained the rates
were based on income. Olen stated he would work with Sally and Brenda to come up
with the rental rate scale. Paul stated that he can built 3 houses with 4 to 5 bedrooms,
and would have to buy the land from the corporation.
Larry Hoyer gave a presentation about the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Roads program
and the importance of the roads inventory that he has been working on. The inventory
included about 36 miles of roads. Larry described 7-road segments. So far, about 12
miles have been accepted. Larry submitted the inventory update to the Juneau office of
BIA but does not know yet about the acceptance by the BIA Albuquerque office.
Meeting Notes
Project: Integrated Resource Management Plan Reporter: Arlene Thomas
Date: October 13, 2005 Location: Port Graham
Meeting Purpose: On the morning of October 13th, Charlie and I met with Pat Norman,
Tribal Chief and Violet Yeaton to discuss the Integrated Resource Management Plan for
Nanwalek and Port Graham. Charlie informed Pat and Violet that ASCG would be doing
the plan, and that this project is being funded by BIA. It will be a 10-year plan.
Meeting Attendance: The following people that Charlie Sink, Chugachmiut and I met
with were Pat Norman, Tribal Chief and Violet Yeaton, Environmental Coordinator.
Meeting Summary: We informed Pat and Violet that ASCG, Inc. will be gathering all
land issues for Port Graham and Nanwalek, and identify existing and future projects.
Pat stated that he would like to see tourism for Port Graham, but wants to make sure
that that the Native Allotment lands are not harmed in anyway. He said that The Nature
Conservancy has millions of dollars that are available that may be able help promote the
idea of tourism in a conservative way.
Charlie stated that the majority of the landowners do not have the knowledge of what
their land rights are, nor do they have a complete understanding of the value of their
lands. So, through the IRMP there will be an educational training, such as a review of
the value of the land and what the fair market value is. The recommendation is to have
meeting with the Native Allottees before Thanksgiving.
Pat and Violet said they have a grant from BIA to do a Traditional Harvesting and
Medicinal Plant Guide Book. It is a 2 year grant. They also have a grant to gather
traditional natural resource information for Port Graham. They are using the elders of
the community to gather traditional knowledge and to identify historical sites. The Tribe
is seeking information for alternate processing techniques for their cannery. Port
Graham has a road design to the landfill, and they were informed by BIA that it needed
to be scaled down, because of the reduced funding. Our road has gone from 3.0 miles
to 1.1 miles with a narrower width and we know that the normal BIA road widths are 19
feet and they have scaled it down to 14 feet wide, which is BS and if it should be
reduced to 14 feet it will become a safety issues. Port Graham has a Watershed Plan
and Violet will be emailing the plan as soon as she is able to locate the file.
Charlie recommended to Pat and Violet that they form a core working group of five to
help with the IRMP. Violet recommended that we us the tribe’s environmental
committee for the core working group. We are planning to be back in January to work
with the group and it will be a 3 to 4 day workshop.
Pat & Violet were informed that there will be four meetings on the IRMP and that we will
email the schedule to them.
Meeting Notes
Project: Integrated Resource Management Plan Reporter: Arlene Thomas
Date: June 12, 2006 Location: Port Graham
Meeting Purpose: Nicole McCullough, ASCG and Charlie Sink, Chugachmiut
conducted public meetings in Port Graham (9:30am – 11:30am) and Nanwalek (1:30pm
– 3:30pm) on June 12, 2006 where they presented the results of the Integrated
Resource Management Plan Village Survey and the Integrated Resource Management
Plan Native Allotment Survey conducted in both of these communities during May 2006.
Nicole and Charlie also presented four potential alternative scenarios for natural
resource management to discuss with meeting participants.
At both the Port Graham and Nanwalek community meetings, Nicole (ASCG) gave a
presentation of the May 2006 survey results. Some of the survey results she covered
included the following:
• Cultural uses of Natural Resources is strongly supported;
• small scale, low impact tourism is preferred;
• there is no clear consensus on how to best manage fisheries or timber;
and
• there is a need for more information regarding options for Native
Allotment land access.
Nicole then described the four alternative scenarios for natural resource management
which included the following:
“No Action” Alternative: Management of the natural resources in the
study area would remain the same. No new
development of timber, non-timber, tourism, etc.
would occur.
“Reduced Growth” Alternative: Resources would be minimally managed and, in
some instances, attempts would be made to
reverse current management practices.
“Selected Growth” Alternative: Natural resource conservation would be
emphasized while maintaining a working
landscape for natural resource development
where compatible.
“Intensive Growth” Alternative: Natural resources would be managed to
maximize growth and development.
Port Graham Meeting:
In addition to Charlie Sink and Nicole McCullough, the following individuals were present
at the Port Graham meeting.
Karen M. Moonin Pat Norman Violet Yeaton
Stella Meganack Paul Moonin Walter Meganack, Jr.
Wes Breedlove
Pat Norman asked how many surveys were taken and if it was statistically valid. Nicole
responded that the survey was intended to assist in getting ideas and direction for
development of alternatives but there was no attempt to get a random representative
sample – that “no” the survey was not intended to be statistically valid. Pat said that
many of the results agreed with results from a similar survey done in the 1980’s,
particularly as it relates to tourism. Respondents to the May 2006 survey indicated that
small scale tourism is preferred. The 1980s survey (that Pat mentioned) showed
residents did not want tourists to visit Port Graham, walk around the community,
snapping photos and disturbing locals.
Violet suggested that the summary of survey results should indicate that the survey did
not include all residents of Port Graham. She also asked who designed the questions.
Nicole responded that ASCG designed the questions with review by Chugachmiut.
Violet expressed concern that the Native Allotment landowners’ response to the survey
was minimal.
There was also a question about how the IRMP relates to on-going infrastructure
projects like the airport. Charlie said that the IRMP is intended to be the beginning of the
planning process. He said that any infrastructure planning should involve Native
Allotment landowners since doing just about anything would involve the use of Native
Allotments.
There was a discussion about fishery management and the need to examine the chain
of command to better understand who actually makes the decisions. Karen is working
on this issue.
Violet was concerned that the IRMP stated that it was a Tribal Policy document. She
said that the Watershed Management Plan was intended as a guide but not a regulation.
She would prefer that the IRMP be used as a guide rather than a policy document.
Charlie said that BIA would like the IRMP to set policy on how the Tribe wants to
manage its natural resources. He said that “Port Graham could develop their own
IRMP.”
Walter stated that it would be good to look at the similarities between Port Graham and
Nanwalek and work from there. He suggested that the communities look at the common
ground that’s shared, and to establish a unified approach. We should look at what is
good for the resources. – Walter
Pat said there are some areas that, by unspoken agreements, are not usually used by
both Tribes. For instance, there were some areas that were separated by users from
either Port Graham or Nanwalek - like set nets. He was not sure why that was, but it had
been that way for a long time. The Tribes were traditionally unified. He agreed that it
would be good to examine ways to successfully manage the resources that would be
good for the resources.
Walter stated that there was still a need to stay out of some areas and he restated that
the Tribes must look at traditional uses of the areas, and not something different. He
favored not doing anything compared to further dividing the Tribes. Let’s look at
resources as ours, rather than “this is mine” and “this is yours.” – Walter
Violet asked if it was really going to be an “integrated” plan. She commented that the
Nanwalek Airport plans could really impact the natural resources. Charlie said that it
was important to look at the airport and to consider its impacts on the natural resources
ten years from now or beyond. Walter suggested putting the burden on both
communities to consider impacts to the natural resources. Both Tribal Councils should
consider what the impacts are. We (the Tribes) need more control.
Pat said that recently there was a tidal wave run-up analysis that examined what might
happen in the coastal areas if Mount Augustine erupted. He said that currently there is
work being done to get better bathymetry data. He believes there is a great need for
this.
Walter said there is good satellite imagery that they have used as a planning tool. He
thought it would be useful for managing natural resources. Walter asked if maybe there
is a grant for satellite imagery or that maybe the airport project will include satellite
imagery.
Pat thought the May 2006 IRMP surveys pointed out several areas of commonality
between the communities and suggested that be the focus. We need to have a
traditional as opposed to western focus.
Charlie stated that the plan is intended to set a philosophy for development. It should
provide a base understanding of how the communities want to manage their resources.
Walter thought it was important to also look regionally. He asked, "Does the IRMP also
fit in with other Kachemak Bay Plans?" He said that others can use the local resources
no matter what the plan might say. This could be a stumbling block to managing control
of the resources. For instance, outsiders can fish in the local waters. There could be a
battle with Alaska Department of Fish and Game on this. Walter also commented that
they are looking at a bigger picture. Homer is more of a tourist center. There are other
concerns like the bears at Windy Bay. Bears are no longer eaten and their may be an
overpopulation of bears. It is important that there is no meaningful waste of bear meat.
Pat agreed with Walter and said that there had been instances where outside hunters
took the bear’s skull and fur and left the meat.
Violet wanted to know what the next step is. She wanted to get more stakeholders
involved in the IRMP, such as the State agencies and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Charlie said that Chugachmiut can help the Tribe apply for BIA funding next March or
April to continue with the IRMP.
Violet would like to see more participation from the local entities and more stakeholder
groups.
Charlie said that often people complete smaller plans, like forestry management plans or
fire management plans before completing the IRMP but he believes this way is better.
He said that it will set up the general management philosophy which will help to guide
those other plans.
Another question asked was about Native Allotments and what is in place to prevent the
Native Allotment owners from selling their lands? Charlie said that the Tribe can not
stop a Native Allotment landowner from selling their land to someone for a use that is not
supported by the community. Pat said he expects more Native Allotment lands to be
sold. People need the money.
Charlie suggested that the Tribe do an Economic Development Plan so that Native
Allotment landowners can find other ways to make money and not feel compelled to sell
their land.
Nicole said that a future meeting in Homer - with representatives from both Nanwalek
and Port Graham - is proposed for sometime in August or September. At that time, Meg
King (a facilitator) would be brought into the process to assist the group develop some
specific strategies for managing the resources that would reflect the overall IRMP
approach.
Nanwalek Meeting Summary: Jackie Avery, Chugachmiut, joined Charlie Sink and
Nicole McCullough at the Nanwalek meeting. Also present were Melanie Greene, David
DeHuss, Jerry Demas and Kelly Yeaton.
Melanie Greene said that the village is growing very fast. There are 52 children under
the age of 5. She asked who had developed the May 2006 Integrated Resources
Management Plan Village Survey and had questions about the way some of the
questions were crafted. Melanie thought that some of the questions were ambiguous
and might be misinterpreted later.
David DeHuss said that he would like to see the survey results for Port Graham and
Nanwalek separated out. In reviewing the survey results in the back, he commented
that many questions showed a difference between the communities’ responses by 15-
20%. Melanie agreed on this.
Charlie Sink said that it was important to involve Native Allotment landowners in
community planning since most any project that is located outside the community would
affect Native Allotment land.
Melanie wanted to know if the consultants were talking to Native Allotment landowners
and suggested that about 70% of the population of Port Graham were Native Allotment
landowners.
Jackie Avery provided information about Native Allotment landowners that did not have
Wills and said that this can be a problem. Jackie is available to talk to Native Allotment
landowners about their legal rights.
Melanie emphasized that it was important that the Native Allotment landowners be
further brought into this planning process. She asked Jerry if he thought the Native
Allotment landowners were informed about the community plans. Jerry said that some,
like the Kasnikoffs’ were very well informed, but others were not. Melanie suggested
that training specifically designed for Native Allotment landowners be held. She
suggested that perhaps the training could be by appointment. If the Native Allotment
landowners lived elsewhere, like outside, it might be better if the training could be held in
Anchorage.
Melanie said there are many upcoming infrastructure projects that need to be
considered, like housing, the airport, roads, and a new clinic. She expressed concern
over how the IRMP and these projects would be coordinated.
There was a discussion about the airport and how the Native Allotment landowners
could potential stop any airport project if it was proposed to be located on their land and
they did not agree to the terms.
David said that the draft IRMP looked like a good plan. He would like this effort to
continue, and suggested that more information about grants for continuing this effort at a
Tribal level be brought in by Chugachmiut. David also commented that the plan did had
a negative assumption on culture. He suggested that the fourth alternative listed should
be called the “exhaustive alternative” not “intensive alternative.” He commented that the
community could pursue intensive growth and still have it be culturally acceptable.
Melanie asked how her office could help in the process. She suggested that the
“Alternatives” exercise be more widely distributed in the community. She suggested
that perhaps Lisa (not at this meeting) could help. Charlie (Chugachmiut) agreed that
someone would be hired from the village to distribute the survey more widely in the
community.
Melanie commented that one of the driving factors of this planning is human growth.
There is a population explosion in Nanwalek and no one wants to see families move.
Jerry talked about a letter the State recently sent to Native Allotment landowners. Jackie
asked for a copy of the letter and Jerry said he would try and get her a copy.
Melanie stated that it was very important to educate the Native Allotment landowners
about their legal rights and what the community plans are. She said, they do not have
the information, they do not even know what questions to ask. The Corporation also
makes decisions but may not know all of the plans the village has in place.
Charlie said that stakeholders are important to bring into the planning process. Charlie
said that over the course of the summer additional “Alternatives” exercises will be
distributed in the communities and analyzed prior to developing the preferred alternative.
David had a correction on page 21 of the draft IRMP.
Nicole distributed a survey regarding the preferred alternative. She asked if the Council
members could distribute. Charlie said that he would pay for someone locally in each
community to conduct the survey.
Workshop Notes
Project: Integrated Resource Management Plan Reporter: Nicole McCullough
Date: September 7, 2006 Location: Homer
Workshop Purpose: The purpose of the workshop was to review and discuss the
IRMP and to have facilitated exercises and discussions to assist in preparing the final
planning document.
Present:
Charlie Sink, Tom Hines, Jackie Avery Chugachmiut, Incorporated
Christine Celentano, CRRC
Bryan Rice BIA
Nicole McCullough, Arlene Thomas ASCG Incorporated of Alaska
Marvin Adams Alaska Travel Banker
Meg King UA Anchorage
Katherine Brewster Nanwalek
Priscilla Evans Nanwalek
Eugenia Moonin Nanwalek
Kelly Yeaton Nanwalek
Karen Moonin Port Graham
Violet Yeaton Port Graham
Dorothy Moonin Port Graham
John Moonin Port Graham
Patrick Norman Port Graham
Simeon Kvasnikoff Port Graham
Workshop Summary: Meg King facilitated the workshop and began with an
introduction and a summary of the agenda. Charlie Sink described the reasons that
Chugachmiut sought funds from BIA for the plan. He said Chugachmiut had forestry
plans that were 10 to 15 years old and they wanted to tie them into an integrated
planning process. He recognized that it would have been better to have the IRMP
completed first. The Forestry Management Plans detail how to manage the forests. The
IRMP is intended to detail what type of resource management is preferred by the
communities. The plan is supposed to help illustrate the commonalities in resource
management by each community.
Christine mentioned several other plans that also provide some overlap with the IRMP.
She thought that it would be good to mention in the IRMP how other plans can be used
and what the IRMP has in common with the other plans. Violet mentioned the Economic
Summit in Anchorage the following week and how there may be useful information
coming from that event.
Violet said that there was an economic development workshop in Anchorage the
following week and that information from that effort might be useful in this plan.
There was discussion about what the plan should be called and Bryan Rice from BIA
was asked if the name could be changed to something like “Chugachmiut Facilitated
IRMP for Nanwalek and Port Graham”. The plan could be used to illustrate
commonalties between communities and would assist each community as they go forth
with their own IRMP. The way the plan is structured it is really an assessment tool. The
plan should also clearly describe who the plan is for, Village Councils, Tribes, community
members, Chugachmiut and outside agencies.
There was a discussion about Native Allotment owners selling to non-Tribal members.
Pat Norman thought there needed to be more long range alternatives to economic
development on Native Allotments than selling out. Selling out brings one-time money
while other opportunities could bring annual benefits for many years. These options
should be identified and land owners should be informed about these alternatives. This
notion should be clearly stated in the IRMP.
Nicole reviewed the results of the initial survey. She explained that the survey assisted
the planners identify the alternatives. There was discussion about the survey and how
the results could be misinterpreted. Marvin Adams said that lenders and granting
agencies would likely want to see the results of the survey, that it helps document what
the community wants which is important. The group agreed that it would be better to
use general results of survey but not include the details in the plan.
Simeon discussed the need for economic development and said that the Tribes should
look into tourism. He said the hatchery could be a tourist attraction. You could also
construct cabins for tourist. Pat agreed and said that could be a follow on strategy.
Charlie presented a demonstration of the Geographical Information System that was
developed as part of the plan. He explained that it could assist the communities as they
confront individual development projects and supplies them with a powerful tool for
managing their natural resources.
Alternatives Workshop
Meg then broke the participants into two groups to discuss the alternatives. Members
were assigned roles of Council Members or Native Allotment owners and asked to
choose a preferred alternative for several Natural Resource categories. Afterwards each
group reported on the results.
One of the results of the discussion was a request to change the wording in several of
the alternatives to clarify the intent. Both groups agreed that protection policies to
preserve the culture were needed and that timber and non-timber management should
minimize impacts to natural resources. Clarification was requested for mineral
extraction. Marvin Adams said that gravel was not considered a mineral and that Native
Allotment owners could not sale minerals from their lands. A request was made to
clarify this.
Both groups thought that it was important to identify inventory, map and protect
important habitat for traditional use of the fishery and to develop a land use map to
assist in developing infrastructure projects. The land use map should prioritize projects
that do not negative impact important habitat. Discussion was held on the wording of the
alternatives for transportation development. The conclusion was that new transportation
projects are likely needed but that they development must be compatible. There was
also discussion on job creation. There was debate on whether it could be considered a
human resources and whether it belonged in the plan. There was a discussion about
calling it economic development or leave out altogether. There was also a comment that
more jobs would have a domino effect and would result in more impacts.
Marvin Adams then presented information about financing tourism projects. He has
developed self contained tourist cabins in Yakutat that he rents out to fishers and
hunters. They are very successful and were inexpensive to build. He thought
something similar might work in Nanwalek or Port Graham. He also said that he would
like to find three communities to work for to develop their fisheries. He described the
regulations governing the fishery and said that if either community was interested he
could provide more information.
There was further discussion of the alternatives and the survey that was implemented to
gather alternative preferences. The group results were compared to the survey results
and generally agreed.
The group then talked about recommendations to the plan.
Recommended Changes to Plan
There was discussion of what changes are needed in the plan:
• Change title to “Chugachmiut Facilitated IRMP for Nanwalek and Port Graham”
• Expand introduction to include:
o who the plan is for;
o how it will be used;
o describe the issue of Native Allotments being sold;
o include names of other related plans: and
o include other resources that the Councils can use as they develop their
own plans.
• Add discussion of allotment issue to the cultural section when discussing the
cultural committee. The cultural committee narrative should include discussion
of education, talking with the land owners and N/A owners about options to
selling their lands.
• Use general results of survey but do not include the details in the plan.
• Use “Traditional Management” instead of Subsistence.