The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA1681[ r . l ~ L E [ r L [ [ L 1 L resources. These goals were: l) to maintain intact a land base of habitat that can continue to produce wildlife resources for use and enjoyment, 2) to maintain access to these resources, and 3) to mitigate losses of fish, wildlife and their habitats. A fourth goal promoting economic diversity was introduced by the Department of Natural Resources and also is served by this alternative. Once the planning alternative was completed, management guidelines for the various wildlife habitat categories proposed in this el~ment were prepared. These are outlined in Chapter 9. Information presented in the Fish and Wildlife Element Paper demonstrated that these resources provide the base for highly demanded, high benefit activities to residents and visitors in the Tanana Basin. Recogniz1ng the low cost and renewable nature of these ·resources, it is obvious that habitat lands deserve strong consideration during the. land allocation process. Chapterl Introduction [ [ [ r~ L [ 8 c [ t [ r- t b - 'Ihis report summarizes the infonnation gathered by the Tanana Basin Area Planning staff and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game concerning the fish and wild! ife resources of the Tanana Basin. It is part of a resource inventory of seven resources including fish and game, agriculture, forestry, minerals, outdoor recreation, settlement and water. 'Ihe purpose of the paper is to present the infonnation on fish and wildlife in the Basin in a concise form for use during preparation of the Tanana Basin Area Plan. 'Ihis plan will allocate state-owned land in the Basin to different uses and will stipulate management guidelines for each allocation. 'Ihe Final Plan is due for completion in March, 1984. The first t\\Q chapters were prepared by the Department of Natural Resources and Chapters 3 through 9 were prepared by the Department of Fish and Game. 1-1 1 Chapter:! Issues and Local Preferences [ [ r L [ [ r.~ L [ r L [ u [ [ [ t . t 6 r : I. INTRODUCTION Issues and local preferences are important pieces of information which must be incorporated into the planning process. Issues concerning the use of a specific resource provide a focus and framework for-the planning process~ local preferences show how the public feels these issues should be resolved. In this section of this report, issues and local preferences are documented for incorporation in the planning process through the work of the Planning Team Members. A. Issues An issue is something which is debated. For example, the amount of land to be disposed of is an issue~ some people favor more land and others would prefer less. Another issue is the effect of agriculture on fish and game; some feel that the effect is positiv~ :others feel that it is negative or neutral. The purpose of _this paper is simply to report the issues objectively without siding with any particular viewpoint. These issues are then to be addressed in the Tanana Basin Area plan which will create policies to deal with them. The issues reported here are those which the plan can affect through classifications or management guidelines. The issues identified in this chapter were collected and summarized from three sources._ The public meetings that were held in the Tanana B-asin during the spring of 1982 was the first source of issues used for this chapter. Planning team members, after reading the comments from the public meetings developed a series of issues concerning the resource they represent. The Tanana Basin Plan sketch ele- ments were a second source used to identify issues. The sketch elements ~ere developed in 1~81 to provide a start- ing point for the Tanana Basin Area plan. The issues iden- tified in the sketch elements were-based on conversations with agencies, resource experts and public interest groups. The third source was interviews with agency repre- sentatives. B. Local Preferences ~ocal preferences about how these issues should be addressed were determined from two principal sources. One of -the sources which will be used in the planning process for developing local preferences is a series of community originated land use plans. Several communities are currently working on proposed plans for state land in their area; others have already submitted proposals to DNR. 2-1 [ [ [ [ r· [ r~ L: [ L c ,L_._ I -I ~ II I [ c These local land use plans provide a clear indication of what a community prefers. This is particularly true when a proposal receives endorsement of village councils, city councils, native corporations, and other interest groups in the area. The possibility of doing land use plans was mentioned at the public meetings and in a newsletter that was sent to all communi ties. Only a few o·f the communj. ties, however, have decided to submit proposals. Most of these proposals will not be completed until February, but some have been on file with the State Department of Natural Resources and are included in this report. The Tanana Basin Public Meetings are the other source of information on local preferences. Public meetings were held in all communities in the Basin in the spring of 1982 to discuss the Tanana Basin Area Plan. The ·notes from these meetings were then given to members of the planning team who then developed the summaries included here. The summaries represent the planning team members'understanding of how residents want state land in their area managed for a specific resource. These sources of local preferences are not as accurate as a public survey, but in most cases, they represent the only information available. They should not be considered to be representative of the entire community; they are simply indications of the opinions of some o-f the resi- dents. A survey now being conducted by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs will provide a better in- dication of local preferences in the Tok area. The results of this survey will be available to the planning team by March of 1983. 2-2 [' [ [ [ [ [ T" t L II. ISSUES CONCERNING FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES The sketch elements and the public meetings were used to develop the following list of issues: 1. 2. 3 . Potential loss of state owned fish and wildlife habitat land base. Maintenance, in the face of increased development, of a·viable base of habitat lands for the procuction of existing or enhanced levels of wildlife resources. The Tanana Basin contains vast areas of important fish and wildlife habitat. Not only is this habitat critical to maintenance of the species but it also supports extremely important subsistence, recreational, and commercial uses by local and state residents and non-residents. These uses provide mill.ions of dollars worth of food, furs, and commercial income. Recreational uses provide thousands of hours of pleasure and some of the main attractions supporting the booming tourism industry. (Sketch Element) Fish and wildlife management on state lands. Under AS 16.20.230(5) the Department of Fish and Game is mandated to preserve and protect habitat areas especially crucial to the perpetuation of wildlife. The demand for and use of fish and wildlife resources is high in the Tanana Basin. Management practices will affect the numbers of fish and wildlife present for use and the habitat available to support these populations. Fire is often beneficial and can be a useful management tool but it can negatively impact adjacent resources and activities. (Sketch Element) Loss of access to prime and important fish and wildlife habitat areas for the purpose of fishing, hunting, trapping, subsistence, and non-consumptive use of the resource. Maintenance and enhancement, in the face of increased development, of the uses of wildlife resources, including subsistence, recreational hunting resources, trapping and fishing non-consumptive uses, and livlihood. Land allocations and decisions are being made so that settlement and agricultural developments can occur in the Tanana Basin. Depending upon the nature of these decisions, access to major fish and wildlife use areas may be lost. Proper identification, recognition and protection of these access routes is important in order to maintain traditional fish and wildlife related uses aready established in the Tanana Basin. (Sketch Element) 2-3 [ [ [ [ C' L [ [ c L L-- - L III. LOCAL PREFERENCES FOR FISH AND GAME MANAGEMENT A. Community Originated Land Use Plans. The following section lists the various community origin- ated plans that have been completed 1 or are in p;ogress for state lands in the Basin For detailed information on each plan listed here, contact the Division of Research and Development. 1. Minto Flats Minto Village Council passed a resolution in 1980 requesting that state classify Minto Flats for Wildlife Habitat and Forestry. The village council sent the resolution with a "Summary Report" about Minto Flats to the Department of Natural Resources. The Summary Report discusses the fish and game resources, the village's utilization of these resources, and includes a map which identifies historic fishing spots and trails into the Minto Flats. The Department of Natural Resources sent the Summary Report and classification request for interagency review, but in late 1980 the proposal was put on hold so that it can be addressed by the Tanana Area Basin Plan. At the public meeting held in Minto on April 15, 1982 to discuss Tanana Basin Area Plan, residents wanted to know why their classification request had not been processed. 2. Tok River Basin In 1979 the Department of Fish and Game, in response to public opinion in the Tok area, requested that land in the the Tok River Basin be classified as Wildlife Habitat. Division of Forest, Land and Water Management gave public notice of the proposed classification at which time the Tok Chamber of Commerce, Tetlin Village Council and Tok Fish and Game Advisory Board voiced their support of the classification. The Director of the Department of Land and Water and Forests concurred with the classification action and sent the request to the Commissioner, at which time it was decided that the classification should wait until the Tanana Basin Area Plan was under way. The Department of Fish and Game wrote a report in support of the Tok River classification. The report addresses population, economic considerations, wildlife values, nonconsumptive recreation, timber harvesting, mining, management objectives and procedures, and it includes a legal description of the area proposed for wildlife habitat. 2-5 [ r [' L r' L [ [ [ [ [ [ L l L At the public meeting held in Tok on March 31, 1982 to discuss the Tanana Basin Area Plan residents asked about this classification request. 3. Lake Minchumina In August 1979, the Lake Minchumina Homeowners Association sent the Department of Natural Resources a formal classification request based on a Land Use Plan for the Lake Minchumina Area. The community identified nearby lands for wildlife habitat, watershed, public recreation, forestry, greenbelts and dispersed open-to-entry disposal classification. The community wrote a narrative justifying their proposal. The proposal went through in-house and interagency review and public notice. The DFLWM supported the classifications and felt that the proposal had generated "a general scheme for dealing with state lands tht both the public and the district can support". The District sent the proposal to the Commissioner at which time the re- quest was put on hold pending the Tanana Basin Area Plan. 4.a. Yanert-Revine Creek Area Community Land Use Plan In December 1979, the communities in the Yanert-Revine Creek area submitted a land use plan for lands adjacent to their community to the Department of Natural Resources. The plan was "the result of efforts of the entire community" and was developed over a period of· three months during which time the community conducted three public meetings. The plan designated specific areas for disposals, recreation, and wildlife habitat, and included management guidelines for buffers, density of settlement and public easements. The plan did not include any formal classification requests, so it was not processed by the Division of Land and Water. However, the cover letter from the community stated that "We, as a community, strongly urge the Division of Forests, Land and Water Management to consider this proposal and adopt it as its guidelines for land disposals in this area." 5. Lower Tanana-Manley Hot Springs Area The Forestry Section of DFLWM in response to a proposal from Northland Wbod, requested that certain lands along the major river drainages between Nenana and Manley Hot Springs be classified for forestry. The proposal included a land use plan that discussed the following topics: location, criteria for the recommendation, access, vegetation, timber resources, soils, wildlife and fish habitat, recreation, current use, reasons for state selection of the lands, adjacent land uses, benefit to the public, expected impact of forest classification, proposed management guidelines, and justification for requested classification. 2-6 [ [ [ [ [ L c [ [ [ [_ [ L L The request was sent for interagency review at which time it was decided that the classification was premature since other resource potentials of the land had not been assessed fully. 6. Community Strategy Plans Tanana Chiefs Conference has worked extensively over the past several years with most Village Councils in the.Doyon Region to develop Community Strategy Plans. Strategy Plans identify goals and objectives for each community. Most goals and objectives address social services. However, there is a section in each strategy plan that identifies land use concerns and priorities for their area. 7. Interior Village Association Planning Project Interior Village Association, an organization based in Fairbanks, which specializes in helping village corporations do cor- porate planning, -is currently working with Manley Hot Springs and Tanana to develop corporate plans for the village's lands. These plans should be done by September.· At that time, the village ·cor- porations will begin doing feasibility studies on the projects they· identified in their plan. IVA is also encouraging other Village Corporations to do similar plans. 8. Bean Ridge Corporation Classification Request Bean Ridge Native Corporation of Manley Hot Springs on October 15, 1982, requested the state to classify lands surrounding Manley Hot Springs as wildlife habitat. Bean Ridge feels it is critical to protect habitat lands in the Manley area, since the land is used for subsistence by residents of Manley, Minto, Tanana, Nenana and Rampart and sport hunters from residents of other areas. 9. Upper Tanana Land Use Plan The Upper Tanana Development Corporation is currently working on a community and land use plan for the Upper Tanana region. The plan will be based on a coordinated effort of all local governments and interest groups in the area. The Upper Tanana Development Corporation hopes to have some information from their planning effort available in time to be used in the Tanana Basin Area planning process. 10. Lower Tanana Land Use Plan Tanana Chiefs Conference is currently working with the village councils, city councils and village corporations of Minto, Manley, Tanana and Nenana on a set of classification requests for state land in the lower Tanana River basin. Classification requests are for forestry, minerals, and fish and wildlife habitat. Also included in 2-7 [ f' [ [ [ E [ F t.i L [ L the plan is a description of areas that should be off limits to disposals, and lands where some settlement might be acceptable. This effort should be completed in time to be used in the Tanana Basin Area planning process. 11. Land Bank Nominations The states land disposal program allows the public to nominate lands that they would like to see sold to the public. During September 1982, DNR received 7 different nominations for land in the Tanana Basin that should be sold. The decision on these requests were deferred to the Tanana Basin Area Plan for planning team review. B. Tanana Basin Public Meetings Matt Robus, the Tanana Basin Planning Team member from the Alaska State Department of Fish and Game is responsible for incorporating fish and game concerns into the planning process. After attending several of the public meetings and reading the meet- ing notes, he outlined the following local preferencesfor each community in the Basin: Anderson There is a feeling that wildlife forms the basis for several existing land uses, and that the value of these resources should be considered when making allocations to development projects. Appar- ently the people at the hearing felt that small tract agriculture is· an appropriate level of development, and that it can be compatible with wildlife (as opposed to large scale agriculture). Settlement disposals were identified as a conflict with existing uses. Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community has identified which affect the management of this resource include: -Checkerboard pattern for agricultural development. -Desire for a "core" of wildlife habitat lands. -Recognition of fire as a habitat management tool. Cantwell Speakers felt that the eventual amount of development near Cantwell will be limited and that wildlife would continue to do well with the amount ~f habitat left over. An exception was critical habitat areas. The recognition of fire as a habitat management factor was widespread and uniformly positive. The protection of existing access was also a concern. Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community has. identified which affect the management of fish and game include: 2-8 [ [ r~ L [ [ [ [ [ [ t t t L Grazing authorizations in this area will create conflicts with wildlife resources, with most significant problems being related to disease transmission and predator depredation. -The desire for using fire to manage habitat will be a constraint upon settlement disposals. Delta Those present generally perceived the possibility for compatibility between wildlife and agriculture. There is an implication that "agriculture is good for wildlife" but negative aspects, like crop depredation or habitat changes, weren't discussed, saturation of accessible habitat by recreational trappers means conflict during any further development. Dot Lake The use of wildlife is regarded as an extremely important existing use. Any activity that will negatively influence the resource or disrupt existing subsistence uses will meet with heavy local opposition. The overwhelming desire in this community is to keep the land base which supports existing uses intact, and to avoid introducing disruptive activities, or attracting additional people who would add pressure to wildlife resources. Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community has identified which affect the management of fish and game include: Disposals (settlement) Hunting and recreation by non-locals. Mining (if it involves large areas of habitat). Compatible uses as perceived: Fairbanks Forestry. Trapline cabins. Access is an important factor that needs to be preserved, but establishment of improved access is not generally favored. Subsistence and recreational use ongoing and a full-fledged land use. doesn't foreclose options for future. allocations were generally not favored since they preclude use of wildlife. of wildlife resources is Managing land as wildlands Single-use development in important habitat areas, Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community has identified which affect the management of fish and game include: 2-9 [ [ [ [ [ f' L__; [ [ [ [ L t L Healy s·uggestion was to leave backcountry alone, while concentrating development around existing areas. Prime conflicts identified were: a) agriculture (access, loss of habitat, depredation). b) disposals (access and pressure upon resource). c) mining (minimal conflict unless critical habitat is involved). It was felt that wildlife was important enough so that decisions that would bring in potentially conflicting activities should err on the side of conservatism. Concern was expressed about the effects disposals would have upon the use of fire for habitat management, and also for the cost of protecting such dispos~ls from fire. Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community has identified which affect the management of fish and game include: Identify trumpeter swan resting areas and prime caribou winter, calving, summer and migration areas. Lake Minchumina It is felt that the use of wildlife is presently at saturation, and that additional users brought in·by land disposals will cr:eate severe conflicts. A concern for the protection of access was also expressed. As in other remote communities, wildlife is one of the predominant existing land uses, with much value, and potential conflicting activities are viewed with alarm. Manley Wildlife resources are the basis for much ongoing use. there is already the perception that the resource is being pressured by increasing levels of use. Activities such as disposals, which would conflict with trapping and other uses of wildlife are not favored by locals. A "leave it the way it is" atmosphere is evident - indicating satisfaction with the existing lifestyles and methods of making a living. 2-10 r l. [ [ c r t: [ IL I e L L [ Mentasta Lake The use of wildlife resources is one of the most important, and most valued, existing uses. The predominant sentiment expressed was "leave it as it is" and conflictin·g activities (disposals, commercial timber operations) are not favored. Fire was recognized as a habitat management tool. Minto This is another community where the existing use of the land - largely subsistence hunting and trapping -are considered as being of utmost importance. The people value their lifestyle and see no need to change it. They feel that developmental activities of any sort will conflict with present uses of the land and its resources. Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community has identified which affect the management of fish and game include: Nenana Desire for control of fire probably stems from the experience of summer, '81. Exclusion of fire in future will affect distribution and density of wildlife populations. Desire to classify much of Minto Flats as a wildlife area. Concern was expressed over the effects disposals have upon access. This is especially true with regard to traplines. A recommendation was made to keep land as habitat in the case of a direct conflict with disposals. The group seemed willing to consider new development in the area, but also clearly stated that existing uses should be protected. Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community has identified which affect the management of fish and game: Northway Apparently the meeting may not have served as a forum for Native concerns. Wildlife may turn out to be even more highly valued when this is taken into account. Recognition of the importance of existing uses of wildlife. Desire to keep this situation -so development of remote areas is undesireable. If disposals occur, they should border the road. The attraction of outsiders is also undesireable, from the st~ndpoint of local residents. 2-11 r: L C' L [ [ [ c Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community has identified which affect the management of fish and game: Tanacross Fire may be an acceptable managment tool, based on comments of local residents. The use of wildlife is an important existing use and part of lifestyle. Perception is that disposals conflict with habitat, but that some land near roads could be disposed of without much conflict. A concern for protecting and improving access was evident. Tanana The predominant sentiment is that current wildlife use is very important, and that no change is desired. People are concerned about access to habitat areas. Subsistence hunting and trapping support many people and they want it to stay that way. Disposals are acceptable only if they occur a long ways away. Tetiin Again, subsistence use of wildlife is of prime importance to these people, and they express a desire to see it remain the same. They are amenable to a little bit of various activities, but the overwhelming desire is to keep land in its natural state. Tok There should be protection for critical habitats and prime habitats (riparian corridors, etc.), and existing uses. Disposal acreage has outstripped need and creates fire management problems. Finally, a concern for access through developments. One time exploitation of non-renewable resources should be balanced against long term value of habitat it destroys. Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community has identified which affect the management of this resource include: Agriculture may conflict directly with habitat, since they both are tied (generally) with best soils. 2-12 [ [ [ [ r: [ [ c [ L L L INTRODUCTION This chapter briefly discusses the current level of use of fish and wildlife resources in the Basin. This is an indication of demand for these resources, but because use is constrained by regulation, it is not possible to estimate the actual demand. Therefore, it should be recog- nized that this chapter represents only the minimum level of demand. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Historically, fish and game have been extremely valuable resources to the people living in the Tanana Basin. For hundreds of years before Western influence came to Alaska, residents relied on fish and wildlife resources for their survival. Fish and game were the cornerstone around which native lifestyle, religion, social organization and culture developed. The Native population in the Basin, despite the economic· development and social change that has come to the area in the last 100 years, still feel that fish and game are critical to their physical and cultural survival. Wildlife resources have also played an important role in non-Native people•s lives in Alaska. Taken for food and fiber originally, these resources now fulfill additional roles in providing recreation, income, and a sense of heritage to users. Access to and the ability to use fish and wildlife is still a highly valued aspect of the Tanana Basin, and to many, an indicator of the quality of life here. CURRENT USE AND DEMAND Estimates of the number of people annually involved in using fish and wildlife resources are portrayed in Table 3-1. A total of 46,541 individuals are documented. It should be noted that unreported harvest may be a major factor in some parts of the Basin and these users are omitted from this analysis. This includes many subsistence activities for which no reporting systems or data exists. Also, no information is included regarding non-consumptive use. All of the above, in addition to the fact that harvest is regulated through seasons, bag limits, and permits, are reasons for considering these figures to be a minimum indication of demand. Because estimates of user-day information vary widely for a single variable, and since they are not pertir.ent to several sectors of the wildlife econo~,, they are not included here. In addition to estimating the number of people involved in wildlife- related activities, it is instructive to compare the rates of participation with those of residents of other regions cf the U.S. in order to gauge the importance of these activities locally and region- ally. The following facts are drawn from a study by Stephan ~ellert entitled 11 American attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife and natural habitats .. (USF&WS 1980). 1. The portion o ( 3 9. 4 ~' ) i s 86 nation. Alaskans who have huntEd in the las~ ~wo years higher than in the next highest region o~ the 3-1 [ r~ [ [ [ [" [ [ [ [ c c [ c [ t L [ 2. The portion of Alaskans who have fished within the past two years (75.9%) is 49% higher than in the next highest region. 3. Alaskans harvest predominately for meat (83.5% of hunters, 48.2% of fishermen) with sport values being secondary (10.5% and 16.5% respectively). 4. The portion of Alaskans who belong to at least one humane, environ- mental, wildlife preservation, sportsman, or conservation group is 35.3%. By contrast, the next highest region was only 15.0% Additionally, the Outdoor Recreation Plan prepared by the Division of Parks, ADNR (1981) indicated that 71% of the residents of Interior Alaska reported that the opportunities for hunting and fishing were among the major reasons for living here. This interest is reflected in data on participation in these activities. . In 1981, 5,759 harvest reports or sealing records were submitted for hunting cariboa, Dall sheep, moose, black bear and grizzly bear in Game Management Units 12 and 20. More than 80% of these, or 4,629, were from people who live within the Tanana Basin, and 3,300 from people who live in Fairbanks. Moose hunting is the most popular activity and accounts for almost 70% of the total harvest reports from all origins. Sheep hunting, however, is apparently more popular with urban hunters than rural. Bear hunters are required to report only if successful; therefore, many unsuccessful hunters' efforts are not represented. CONCLUSION The current level of use of fish and wildlife resources in the Tanana Basin is largely defined and limited through the action of the Boards of Fisheries and Game. In this light, the number of users of f~sh .and wildlife resources is of li~ited use in estimating demand for those . resources. However, this analysis shows that there is a high level of activity associated with fish and wildlife harvest and, further, that the rate of participation in these activities is generally much higher in Alaska than in other regions of the United States. 3-2 [] L Chapter4 Supply of the Resource Physical Capability of the Tanana Basin for Fish and Wildlife and Associated Uses OCTOBER 19, 1983 ~z s1 z1 9 c S311W NI 31VOS \. ;--·'\ / ./ ....... .,) ' \ .... . , 3S33.LS :--:·· r -· 3l!j-,t,,Y. • / / _J JON ufinOJ08 JDIS 4i ~Jopunoa .. UO!JDAJ8S8~ 8A!JDN ~JDi!I!W JO IDJapa,:i pUD1 SUDid llDiS J&lUO WO~.:i SNOISn1:>X3 NV1d V3~V VNVNV~ 1 _, 1 1 / 1 / 1 / / .. 8l / 1 / 1 ,/ / / 7 \ Vl 1 J 1 / 1 ,. [ [ [ { ·' [ r~ L: [ [ SECTION CHAPTER4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I-PHYSICAL CAPABILITY OF THE TANANA BASIN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND ASSOCIATED USES PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PROCESS USED TO PRODUCE THE MAPS OF PHYSICAL CAPABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Identification of Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Determination of Habitat Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 PRODUCTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Habitat Importance Map Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Human Use Map Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Wildlife Resource Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Habitat Importance and Human Use Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SOURCES OF INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 PART II-WILDLIFE RESOURCES NARRATIVES For the sake of brevity and clarity, these narratives are not included in the ADNR- published version of this element paper. They are available for reference at the offices of the Habitat Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Alaska. For a summary of the values identified and discussed in the narratives, see Appendix I contained in PART III (below). PART III-APPENDICES APPENDIX I-HABITAT IMPORTANCE AND HUMAN USE MATRICES APPENDIX II-ADF&G BIOLOGISTS CONSULTED L L [ [ L L r~ L [ [ r_c L t L L PART I PHYSICAL CAPABILITY OF THE TANANA BASIN FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND ASSOCIATED USES INTRODUCTION This chapter contains a summary of the supply of fish and wildlife resource values (biological and human use) extant within the Tanana Basin, and depicts the dist~ibuiion of lands that supports them. The identification and explanation of such values and their associated land base is a necessary step in preparation for making recommendations for the retention and management of state lands for the protection and optimization of wildlife resource values. By the term physical capability, we mean the relative ability of land to support wildlife resources and/or the use by humans of those r~sources. Rather then attempt to describe why areas are 11 Capable 11 , we have chosen to list and map various values, allowing their distribution to define which lands are capable. At a later stage in the plan (Chapter 7), the values will be aggregated and rated, in order to generate maps of the relative value of areas that support wildlife resource values. That map (the suitability map) is based on the distribution of extraordinary values (critical habitat, for instance) and the density and diversity of other values, and is the basis for making our land allocation recommendations in Alternative 3. Therefore, the foundation to the entire process is the information contained in this chapter. The chapter is organized into an explanation of procedures used to obtain and categorize wildlife resource information, and the products resulting from their application. These products were developed along two parallel tracks: the organization of information relating to habitat quality, and that relating to human ~se of wildlife resources. These two bodies of information remain fundamentally separate until both are used to develop land allocation recommendations (land suitability maps) later. Supply figures, expressed as the area of various categories of allocation recommendations, are included in Chapter 7. Products resulting from this chapter include: A) map overlays covering the Tanana Basin base maps (1:250,000 scale) depicting habitat distribution and relative habitat importance by species, B) map overlays depicting the general distribution and relative intensity of human use of wildlife resources, C) narrative descriptions of wildlife resources and habitat, human use information, and supply information (populations and density estimates), D) matrices summarizing the material contained in the narratives and on the overlays. 4-1 [ [ [ [ E [ [ E [ [ L L L PROCESS USED TO PRODUCE THE MAPS OF PHYSICAL CAPABILITY Identification of Fish and Wildlife Values in -the Tanana Basin The process used to develop physical capability maps for fish and wildlife resources in the Tanana Basin had two steps. The first was to identify all the areas in the Basin that have fish and wildlife values and to describe those values. The second step was to attach a relative value to each of these areas, so that the more important and critical areas were highlighted. These steps led to the creation of maps showing habitat importance by species for the Tanana Basin. Concurrently, human use information was organized and a system for determining relative importance of areas was devised. In order to identify specific areas with significant fish and wildlife habitat values, the following species, or species groups were considered: Bison, black bear, caribou, grizzly bear, moose, and Dall sheep. Furbearers (including one or a combination of: marten, lynx, wolf, mink, beaver, muskrat, fox, otter, wolverine, and coyote). Peregrine Falcon. Other Raptors (including one or a combination of: golden eagle, bald eagle, goshawk, Harlan's hawk, rough-legged hawk, red-tailed hawk, osprey, sharp-shinned hawk, grey owl, great horned owl, gyrfalcon, kestrel; and when data were li~ited, a combination called hawks, eagles, and falcons. Small G~me (including spruce grouse, ruffed grouse, ~harp-tailed grouse, snowshoe hare, rock ptarmigan, and willow ptarmigan. Waterfowl (always a combination of one or severa~ groups of diving ducks, puddle ducks, geese, cranes, and trumpeter swans). Anadromous Fish (always a combination of one or more of the following species: king salmon, cohc salmon, and chum salmon). Resident Fish (including one or a combination of grayling, whitefish (several species), b~rbot, pike, dolly varden, lake trout, and sheefish). The importance of habitat to these species was assessed through interv;J,ews with biologists on Departmental staff, and by assimilating data from s:o.urces mentioned below. Tanana Basin subunits (or blocks of lil<e subunits) '>'{er'e used as reference areas within which descriptions and evaluations wer~<iii'ade. In order to standardize values between areas and betv1een species, a set of criteria was developed which allows the c~aracterization of habitat ···. inpcrtance to 'Jarious species by areu. The categories of inportance .·. (critical, prime, ~r,lportant, or low) defined by the criteria are bilsed a,n 4-2 [ [ f~ [ [ [ r L [ [ [ E [ t b [ grizzly bear habitat, the basic productivity is substantially lower than an area like the Tanana Flats. Importanthabitats -are those habitats in the Tanana Basin capable of supporting medium or high densities of one or more species groups for short or long periods of time and important to the perpetuation of those populations. Important habitat may include areas important for food, shelter, breeding, rearing, and for some species, migration. In general, the habitat quality is lower than prim~ habitat because the plants comprising the habitat are of lower quality as food or cover, are less abundant, or their spatial arrangement is less advantageous to the species in question. Differences in habitat quality usually result from a combination of these characteristics. For example, hills adjacent to the Tanana Flats contain few ponds, sedge meadows, young second-growth willow or birch stands, and dense cover. Willows of a less desirable species are more common. As a result, the hills do not comprise prime moose spring/summer habitat, although portions of them may be prime late fall or early winter habitat. In general, important habitat covers large expanses, and while not as productive of wildlife on a per unit basis, the cumulative values are significant in maintaining overall species population levels in an area. LowValueHabitat-Low value habitat are those that are necessary to support the existing distribution, abundance, and productivity of Tanana Basin fish and wildlife populations. Low value habitats are often characterized by large expanses of land possessing habitats utilized by key species, but not in known moderate or high densities (based on present-day knowledge). However, low value habitat is important as the base habitat for large numbers of wi1d1ife over expansive areas. Large acreages classified as low value may be elevated to prime or important as more on-the-ground information is obtained in the Tanana Basi~. or a~ the result of habitat improvement. Types of Information Used in Determination of Habitat Importance Habitat classes described and mapped herein are based en both empirical and inductive information. Empirical information consists principally of known seasonal habitat use by the species considered. The relative importance of a particular habitat area is based on the known or inferred degree and consistency of use by a population over a period of time. For example, data on seasonal locations of many radio-collared moose for several years document traditional seasonal habitat use. A second source of empirical information is habitat assessment studies on the ground. Considering the whole Tanana Basin and all species, numerous habitat assessment studies have been done. \Jhen these studies are separated according to the wildlife species of interest, further separated by location, and grouped according to the intensity of assessment, habitat assessment efforts are spGtty in coverage and in degree of detail. Again using mcose as an exa~ple, however, 4-4 [ [ [ [ L [ r L r L [ r 1-- L E L on-the-ground habitat assessment has been done i1 numerous representative habitat types in various parts of the Tanana Basin. A third source of empirical information is general knowledge of habitat characteristics based on casual observations of the area in question. These observations are made during aircraft overflights, surface vehicle travel on land and water, foot travel, and horse and dog team trips. The trips usually have some other main objective but afford chances to observe general habitat characteristics in passing. Empirical knowledge of habitat characteristics, seasonal movements of species populations, and influences of physical factors on habitat characteristics enables biologists to generalize about habitat characteristics in areas where little or no detailed study has been done. For example, based on known winter habitat use by moose in general, it is logical to identify riparian willow stands as prime moose late winter habitat. Interior river valleys support various amounts of riparian willows, but essentially all contain prime moose winter habitat.· Based on this knowledge, the approximate extent of prime late winter moose habitat can be outlined on maps. Parallers between areas of known importance ane habitat characteristics and areas of unknown importance can be similarly drawn for ~ost seasonal habitats for most wildlife species. This process is essentially a refinement of that used by the hunter and naturalist in seeking a species in unfamiliar country. The biologist can look at a topographic map and inductively make a sound general assessment of probable general habitat quality in a particular area. However, lacking ~ore detailed information on habitat or its use, the biologist will have to settle for the general assessment. PRODUCTS Habitat Importance Map Overlays Habitat distribution maps prepared in the past by the Habitat Division, ADF&G (Region III), were used as a starting point for the preparation of a habitat importance map. As biologists were interviewed, they were asked to modify or supplement the existing maps, using new or updated data and making judgements based upon the aforementioned criteria. The result was a Basin-wide, multi-species map of habitat distribution and quality. These overlays are available for viewing at the Department of Fish and Game office in Fairbanks. Human Use Map Overlays At the time of writing, our human use maps consist solely of a reproduction of the Tanana Basin Land Use Atlas. This Atlas, published by thE Department of Natural Resources as a part of the Tanana Basin Area P:~nning process in 1982, includes an inventory of cackcountry areas, trails, waterways, a:;d sites less than 1,60 acrt=>s (historic and archeological sites, highway 4-5 [ L L [ r· L [ [ E b L turnouts, and access points to trails, rivers, and backcountry) currently used for the following activities: crosscountry skiing,,dog sledding, hiking, horseback riding, off-road vehicles, snowmachine riding, boating, mountain climbing, and wildlife viewing. The Atlas also maps areas of use for hunting, fishing, trapping, and the relative values of each area for these uses. Although we have additional information on human use (which has been used in later stages of integration of wildlife values), it has not been possible to organize and produce additional overlay materials to date. It was felt that despite the generality of the Atlas and the danger inherent in relying on a single product for this information, this map is a useful way to look at: 1) the patterns and combinations of uses occurring in the Basin, and 2) the relationship of the areas valuable for this purpose to those valuable as habitat. Since the Atlas has been reviewed and supplemen~ed at village meetings and public meetings-held in Fairbanks, it is 1 ikely that in a broad sense, it depicts human use accurately. Wildlife Resources Narratives Narratives describing the capability of the land to support wildlife, and also the extent of human use of wildlife, were drafted for each Large Unit addressed in the Tanana Basin Area Plan. Within these, contiguous Small Units with similar wildlife capability and patterns of human use of wildlife were described in a single narrative. In one case, portions of two Large Units were combined. In each of the 20 combined narratives, wildlife species which consistently occurred within the area discussed were addressed. Occasional or uncommon species that were .more abundant in a neighboring set of Small Units were mentioned in both narratives, but discussed in detail only in the narrative for the area in which the greater abundance occurs. Several Basin-wide narratives were written, either because a species was extensive in its ~ovements and use of range (e.g., caribou), or that information did not differ significantly from unit to unit (e.g., raptors, waterfowl, and small game). In cases where pertinent site-specific information was available for these species, it was included ir subunit writeups. Detailed wildlife species and species group accounts were included in the narratives in alphabetical order. The complete list is: black bear, caribou, fish, furbearers, grizzly bear, moose, sheep, and waterfowl. Additional narratives covering larger areas of land for specific wildlife species and species groups were included prior to the combined Small Unit narratives. These additional narratives described small ga~e, raptors, and waterfowl throughout the Tanana Basin and each of the three major caribou herds that use the Tanana Basin. Each combined Small Unit narrative begins with a summary. In the sumr.1ary, all areas of critical or prime habitat and intensive hu~a~ use of wildlife are mentioned. For species or species groups present but uncomr.1Gr in the area, the reader is referred to the :;pecific !~drrative describin9 these 4-6 [ [ [ [ [ [' L [ [ c [ [ c [ L [ L HumanUseandAccess.This section was the same as Human Use and Access section described above. The wildlife resources narratives are available for reference at the offices of the Habitat Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks. Habitat Importance and Human Use Matrices Matrices have been developed for each Large and Small Unit in the Basin and are appended to this chapter. These identify the following: Habitat importance for each species or group of species. These are the same categories that were shown on the overlays and were described in the criteria and narrative sections. Minerallicks. These are critical areas for sheep and very important areas for moose and caribou. They were taken from the overlay depiction. Potential enhancement areas (present or absent)-. These areas were described ~nly in the narrative sections and were not mapped. Associated human uses. Hunting, fishing, and trapping inc1uawg the intensity rating (intensive or moderate) have been taken from the Human Use Overlay. Importantaccesspoints. These points were-taken from the trails overlay which were based on information from the Department of Natural Resources• Tanana Basin Land Use Atlas. SOURCES OF INFORMATION The map overlays and accompanying narratives were developed by Frances VanBallenberghe, Matt Robus, Mike Masters, and Carl Hemming. Data and interpretations were supplied by biologists and technicians of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game listed in Appendix 2. The Habitat Division cartographic staff produced most of the maps. The following sources of information were used: 1. Alaska'sWildlifeandHabitat,Volumel, published by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game in 1973, includes a plant and animal reference list, physiography of Alaska, wildlife species accounts, wildlife distribution, and seasonal use maps. 2. Alaska's Wildlife and Habitat, Volume II, pub 1 i shed in 1978 by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, includes wildlife species accounts for furbearers, small game and raptors, game management unit accounts, and wildlife distribution maps. 3. BigGameDatalndexFiles(BGDIF), Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Game Division. Standard files containing all observations and data routinely recorded on habitat, population 4-8 r [ [ [ r~ I I - L- [ [ [ [ [ c E t PART II WILDLIFE RESOURCES NARRATIVES For brevity and clarity, these narratives have not been inc 1 uded in th.e AONR-pub 1 i shed version of this element paper. The narratives are available for reference at the offices of the Habitat Division, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Alaska. 4-9 [ (' L L r~ n L [ L [ E t r- b L APPENDIX I Notes on Interpretation of Habitat Importance and Human Use Matrices For any species or species group, the highest habitat importance category .found in the Small Unit is always marked. If lower quality habitat is also present, corresponding boxes are usually not filled in. For big game species, the human use section of the matrix is filled out only for the bottom row (combined). If the use applies to any big game species listed, the combined box is filled out. Important access points are defined strictly to include only trailheads, boat launches, landing strips, lakes suitable for light airplanes, and other points of limited areal extent. Roads, trails, rivers, and other extended features providing access are not included. 4-10 Chapter 5 Economic Value of the Resource Economic Value of Fish and Wildlife and Associated Uses in the Tanana Basin November 10, 1983 [ [ [ c L [ [ c [ L c L t L L SECTION PART I-OVERVIEW CHAPTER FIVE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -1 Background ofFish and Wildlife Valuation ............................ S-2 Conceptual Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-3 Valuation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -4 Methodology Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-S Valuation Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-7 Conventional Market Valuation ..................................... S-7 Individual Gross Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-8 Governmental Gross Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -8 Input-Output Multiplier Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-8 Consumer Surplus Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -9 Existence Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -10 Option Value .................................................. S-10 Benefit-Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -11 Cost-Effectiveness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-12 -i- [ [ r [ [ [ C' L [ [ c E c [ E L SECTION CHAPTER FIVE TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) PART II-TANANA BASIN RESULTS PAGE Int:roduct:ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -14 Met:hodology ..................................................... S-14 Limit:at:ions-General Not:e ........................................ S-1 S Commercial (Producer) Economic Values ............................. S-16 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -16 Trapping ..................................................... S-16 Commercial Fisheries ........................................... S-16 Fish Processing ................................................ S-1 7 Fish and Wildlife Guiding ........................................ S-1 7 Subsist:ence (Producer) Economic Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -18 Recreat:ional(Consumer) Economic Values ............................ S-20 Introduction .................................................. S-20 Sport Fisheries ................................................ S-20 Big Game Hunting .............................................. S-20 Small Game Hunting ............................................ S-20 Waterfowl Hunting ............................................. S-20 Other Game Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-21 Special Equipment Bought or Available for Recreational Fishing and Hunting .............................. S-21 St:at:e Income and Expendit:ures ..................................... S-21 -ii- [ [ r r c L [ L e [ L SECTION CHAPTER FIVE TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Gross Economic and Employment Effects from the Tanana PAGE Basin's Fish and Wildlife Resources .............................. S-22 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S-2 2 Methodology and Limitations ..................................... S-22 Economic Multiplier Effect ....................................... S-2~ Personal Income Effect .......................................... S-2~ Total Economic Effect ........................................... 5-24 Employment Effect ............................................. S-24 External Benefits of the Tanana Basin's Fish and Wildlife Resources ........................................ S-2 S PART III-SUMMARY ................................................ S-26 PART IV-LITERATURE CITED ........................................ S-~ 7 PART V-APPENDIXES A. Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 B. Commercial Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 C. Subsistence Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 D. 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildife-Associated Recreation-Alaska State Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1 E. A Selected Bibliography ofFish and Wildlife/Public Recreation Economic Valuation Papers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 -iii- [ [ [ [ c L [ L LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Outline of the Major Methods of Assessing Fish and Wildlife Values .......................................... S-13 2. SummaryoftheDocumentable, 1981 Baseline, Gross Economic Benefits from Fish and Wildlife in the / Tanana River Basin, as corrected to reflect 1983 Real Dollar Values .............................................. S-31 3. Sport Fisheries Personal Income Effects for the TBAP Area in 1981 .............................................. S-32 4. Recreational Hunting Personal Income Effects for the TBAPAreain 1981 .............................................. S-33 5. Multiplier Analysis of the Alaska Economy by impact ranking, 1972 .................................................. S-34 6. Labor/Output Ratios for Alaska's Industrial Sectors in 1972 and 1980 (per million$ output) .............................. S-35 7. Estimated Annual Inflation Rates, U.S. Average and Anchorage for 1971-82 ........................................... S-3 6 -iv- [ L L [ c L [ r~ [ - [ [ L t L Table APPENDIX A LIST OF TABLES (continued) A-1. Summary of Current Gross Revenues from Trapping in Page the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7 A-2. Average Price per Pelt for Exported and Locally Processed Furs, TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8 A-3. Total Costs Associated with Owning, Operating and Maintaining Equipment for Trapping in the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 A-4. Annual Travel Costs Per Trapper Associated with Getting to and Running a Trapline, by mode of Transportation in the TBAP Area .................•.................. A-10 A-5. Annual Miscellaneous Equipment Costs for Trapping in the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12 , A-6. Total Annual Capital and Operating Expenditures for Trapping in the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... A-14 A-7. Current Net Producer Benefits from Trapping in the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 S A-8. 1982-83 ADF&G Trapper Survey, Summary of the Fairbanks Sub-Unit Responses, TBAP Area ..................................... A-16 A-9. 1982-83 ADF&G Trapper Survey Summary of the Rural Sub-Unit Responses, TBAP Area ..................................... A-17 A-1 0. 1982-83 ADF&G Trapper Survey, Summary of the Combined Fairbanks and Rural Sub-Unit Responses, TBAP Area ..................................................... A-18 -v- [ [ c l [ [ L [ c t L. - L Table APPENDIXB LIST OF TABLES (continued) B-1. Gross Revenues, Operating Expenditures and Net Benefits Page from Commercial Fishing in 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3 B-2. Gross Revenues from Commercial Salmon Fishing within the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4 B-3. Gross Revenues from Commercial Fishing Outside the TBAP Area Derived from Fish Produced in the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-S B-4. Total Operating Expenditures, by Statistical Area, Per Year, by Gear Type for TBAP Area Commercial Salmon Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-6 B-5. Equivalent Number of Commercial Fishermen Outside of the TBAP Area Who Harvest Salmon Derived From the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7 B-6. Percent Contribution of TBAP Area King Salmon Stocks to the Commercial and Subsistence Fisheries in the Lower Yukon River Outside of the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-8 B-7. Percent Contribution of TBAP Area Summer Chum Salmon Stocks to the Commercial and Subsistence Fisheries in the Lower Yukon River Outside of the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9 B-8. Percent Contribution ofTBAP Area Fall Chum Salmon Stocks to the Commercial and Subsistence Fisheries in the Lower Yukon River Outside of the TBAP Area ..................... B-1 0 B-9. Percent Contribution ofTBAP Area Coho Salmon Stocks to the Commercial and Subsistence Fisheries in the Lower Yukon River Outside of the TBAP Area ....................... B-11 -vi- r [ [ [ [ \' Table APPENDIXC LIST OF TABLES (continued) C-1. Total Estimated Replacement Cost Values in Dollars of Page the Subsistence Fisheries, TBAP Area Producton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2 C-2. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the King Salmon Subsistence Fisheries for TBAP Area Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3 C-3. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Summer Chum Salmon Subsistence Fisheries for TBAP Area Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 C-4. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Fall Chum Salmon Subsistence Fisheries for TBAP Area Stocks c-s L C-5. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Coho Salmon [ [~ [ c [ [ L Subsistence Fisheries for TBAP Area Stocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6 C-6. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Sheefish Subsistence Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7 , C-7. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Whitefish Subsistence Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-8 C-8. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Fall Chum Salmon Subsistence Carcass Fishery at Big Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-9 C-9. Number of Subsistence Fishing Families Harvesting Salmon Produced in the TBAP Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 0 C-10. Meat, Fish and Poultry Prices, Safeway Stores, Inc., Fairbanks,june 13,1983 .......................................... C-11 -vii- [ r., ~' [ [ r L f [ c c [ b -t'. [ L b L Table APPENDIXD LIST OF TABLES (continued) D-1. Summary of In-State Gross Expenditures for Recreational Page Fishing and Hunting in the Tanana Basin .............................. S-13 D-2. Expenditures for Freshwater Fishing: 1980 ............................ D-6 D-3. Expenditures for Big Game Hunting: 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-8 D-4. Expenditures for Small Game Hunting: 1980 ........................... D-9 D-5. Expenditures for Migratory Bird Hunting: 1980 ........................ D-10 D-6. Expenditures for Hunting Other Animals: 1980 ........ · ................. D-11 D-7. Total 1980 Gross Expenditures for Special Equipment Bought or Available for Fishing and Hunting in the Tanana Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ D-12 D-8. Special Equipment Bought or Available for Fishing and Hunting: 1980 ............................................... D-13 D-9. Standard Errors for Estimated Numbers of Sportsmen or Fishermen 16 Years Old and Over ................................. D-14 D-1 0. Standard Errors for Estimated Number of Hunters 16 Years Old and Over ............................................ D-14 D-11. Standard Errors for Estimated Expenditures by Sportsmen or Fishermen 16 Years Old and Over ........................ D-1 S D-12. Standard Errors for Estimated Expenditures by Hunters 16 Years Old and Over ...................................... D-1 S -viii- [ r" _, [ [ [ [ c t: [ c c c E [ LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE -Page 1. Alaskan Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Participation Rates Relative to U.S. Regional Averages, 1980 ......................... S-13 2. Alaskan Sport, Meat and Nature Hunter Participation Rates Relative to U.S. Regional Averages, 1980 ......................... S-29 3. Alaskan Humane, Environmental, Wildlife Preservation, Sportsman or Conservation Organization Membership Rates RelativetoU.S.RegionalAverages, 1980 .............................. S-30 A-1. Alaska Fur Export Statistics, in Thousands of Pelts, 191 0 to 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-S D-1. DataReporting Units, U.S.F.W.S. 1980National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4 -ix- [ [ [ [ [ [ c [ L c c [ [ c t [ [ In recognition of these 11eeds, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, along with other resource managers participating in the Tanana Basin Area Plan, have initiated preliminary valuations of the economic benefits accruing to the State from the respective resource values in the Basin. Since it is apparent that a valuation study such as this will be both methodologically and empirically precedent setting, it should be noted that the current fish and wildlife eval- uation is considered preliminary and subject to change as valuation techniques are critiqued and refined. The intent of this chapter is threefold: 1) To provide an overview of some of the conceptual issues, conflicts and procedures involved in the valuation of both market and non-market fish and wildlife values, 2) To provide a brief, comparative analysis of the major valuation methodologies, and 3) To present the summary results of ADF&G's preliminary valuation of the documentable baseline economic benefits of the Tanana River Basin's fish and wildlife resources. This chapter does not contain complete answers to the conceptual issues raised by fish and wildlife valuation. Rather, its purpose is to begin the process of bridging the gap between fish and wildlife valuation theory and its application. It provides a synthesis of the state-of-the-art in valuing fish and wildlife and offers information which can be used by economists, biologists, natural resource managers, and politicians to establish a common groundwork for constructive dialogue in resource allocation decisions. Because of the rather broad audience to which this chapter is directed, an effort has been made to present the economic concepts in as basic and elementary a manner as possible. However, the use of some jargon and specific terms was unavoidable due to the rather complex and technical nature of the subject matter. At the same time, some readers may feel that the chapter is not rigorous enough in its treatment of technical discussions. For those who wish to probe in depth the conceptual issues and methodologies discussed, references have been supplied throughout the chapter. In addition, a rather extensive, selected bibliography of fish, wildlife and public recreation economic valuation papers is presented in Part IV of this chapter. BACKGROUND OF FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUATION In recent years, economists and scientists have made impressive developments in fish and wildlife valuation methodologies. Unfortunately, major conflicts have existed both within and between the biological and economic communities as to which methodologies are most appropriate. In part, these differences of opinion exist because valuation methodologies have developed independently in several major disciplines, including economics, sociology, psychology, philosophy, outdoor recreation, ecology, and fish and wildlife biology. Consequently, each discipline has developed their own concepts of value to be measured, terminology and valuation denominator. Therefore, if anything is currently needed in the methodology of resource valuation, it is some form of consensus among practi- tioners on how and when to use these various methods. Many of these tools can make significant contributions to efforts by public agencies to evaluate manage- ment options. Yet, this is not likely to happen if the methods cannot be adapted to the constraints set by theoretical, technical, and institutional factors. Not all of the methods discussed in this chapter will equally satisfy all of these constraints. However, understanding the methods and discussing their strengths and weaknesses will increase their usefulr.ess for resource valuation. As such, the following discussion is presented for the reader's 5-2 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ c [ [ [ L E [ is thus important for one to examine the interpretation of facts and assumptions underlying a method when evaluating the validity of the method. Ultimately, a theoretically valid method is built on recognizable facts and defendable as- sumptions. Applicability can be broadly interpreted as the cost of implementation. The applicability of a method becomes an important consideration when the method is to be subjected to wide uses in solving real world problems. As much as one desires accuracy, any increase in accuracy is usually accompanied by rising implementation costs in terms of data requirements and analytical effort. For example, the advantage of the replacement cost method lies in its low cost. For resources that can be replaced in the marketplace, the necessary information can be obtained easily, such as considering cost of equivalent beef from a store as the replacement cost for moose killed. However, the use of more sophisticated methods such as travel cost may increase the accuracy of the estimate but involves higher expenditures for surveys and statistical analysis. The consid- eration of cost is especially crucial when a method is to be applied to a large regional area where the benefit of incremental effort to improve accuracy may be very small. In other words, the cost of applying a method cannot be judged independently from the benefits of the application. The third criteria is the method•s acceptability, not only to the research community, but also to government agencies. A method is acceptable to the research community if there is a consensus that the method is proven valid through peer reviews and an extended period of challenges. Acceptability to government agencies depends mostly on the credibility the research community attaches to the method and also on the method•s ready understanding and appli- cability. It should thus be recognized that there can be substantial differ- ences between the standards needed by public agencies for planning purposes and those acceptable to the scientific community. Planners and managers need sufficient knowledge of a situation to make rational decisions. The level of accuracy needed for public decision making may be greater, or less, than the arbitrary standards of acceptance often used in the academic community. The sensitivity of the decision to specific elements should be a prime consideration in determining the l~vel of accuracy needed in public planning. METHODOLOGY SELECTION Deciding what type of fish and wildlife economic valuation is most appropriate or whether it is even worth its cost in assisting in the development of a management goal requires an appreciation of the conceptual issues and range of evaluation methodologies. In addition, it is absolutely imperative that plan- ning efforts clearly identify the objectives of public sector involvements. For instance, while the government sector is usually concerned with matters such as the allocation of social welfare concerns, securing changes in the distribution of income and economic stability, most resource plans often fail to specify measures of success related to these objectives. On the other hand, the maxi- mization of net returns is frequently used as a criterion of success although there are generally no policies or laws which stipulate it as such. In fact, if maximizing net returns were the sole objective of government involvement, one could present a strong agrument that the allocation process should occur strict- ly through market mechanisms. The point is that valuation success should be measured in terms of the stated objectives. 5-5 c [ [ [ [ L [ c L [ L L like. In such cases, assumptions based on subjective opinions are usually required as part of an economic evaluation. Consequently, a risk exists that these estimates may be interpreted incorrectly as a result of the hypot~etical nature of their methodologies. VALUATION METHODOLOGIES The major valuation techniques for measuring and comparing fish and wildlife values are listed in Table 1. Over the years, numerous variations and refine- ments of these methods have been proposed. The key assessment problem addressed by most of the methodologies is that of valuating non-market resource values. The following discussion briefly outlines the major valuation techniques, their benefits and their limitations. It should be noted that the valuation method- ologies presented are, by choice, primarily restricted to those which have here-to-for, received fairly widespread political acceptance. While this approach is pragmatically expedient for the Tanana Basin Planning effort, the reader should be advised that other valuation concepts, such as welfare econom- ics, have been advanced by economists and warrant future consideration. ConventionalMarketValuations: Market valuations of fish and wildlife resource values are generally defined in purely monetary terms and is typically referred to as financial analysis. This form of analysis is extremely straightforward and consists of determining the total gross income, operating expenditures and net income (profit) for commercial users of fish and wildlife resources (such as commercial fishermen, guides, fish processors, trappers, etc.). Conventional market valuations of commercial fish and wildlife users are particularly useful for broad, regional analysis of the direct fiscal and employment impacts associ- ated with s-tate government proposals to either expand or contract the harvestable supply of fish and wildlife. It should be noted that government manipulation of harvest rates is not strictly restricted to harvest limits or quotas but may also be related to decisions to convert wildlife habitat to alternative non-compatible uses. Two major limitations should be noted with this approach. First, market analysis does not permit the valuation of un-priced components of the business activity. For instance, commercial fisher- men may also derive recreational and aesthetic benefits from fishing. In addition, market valuation only captut·es the monetary values accruing from 11 Cropping 11 biological populations. No value is assigned for standing stocks, option values, or existence values. Secondly, conventional market analysis may not consider the opportunity costs of labor. In many instances, there may be a net social benefit associated with commercial labor costs. This is the case when opportunity labor costs are less than actual hour wages due to the fact that many of the workers would otherwise be unemployed. This limitation may be negated by considering opportunity costs of labor as diseconomies of scale. There is one additional constraint which should be noted when directly comparing commercial market values (i.e., agricultural development) with recreational 11 Consumer Surplus 11 benefits. These two assessments of value are only comparable if the following two rules ar~ followed (Little, 1957 and Mishan, 1976): 1. Market prices should be used to evaluate benefits and costs when the scale of a project is sufficiently small so that prices of the rele- vant goods are not unreasonably influenced. This could be true for sr.1all increases which are sold in a reasonably competitive market; it is also likely to be true for most inputs purchased in order to 5-7 r [ r [ L [ [ [ L c c [ L ~ b L 2. implement an option. It should be recognized, however, that despite the merits of this simplified approach, market prices are gene1'ally responsive to shifts in demand-supply relationships. Small biases may therefore be incorporated into an economic model when using this approach. If, however, the scale of a project is sufficiently large so as to alter prices of some goods, then it is necessary, for these goods, to account for consumers• surplus changes. Following these rules will ensure that benefit and cost measures for all options and outputs are comparable. IndividualGrossExpenditures: The total gross expenditures by recreational sportsmen for transportation, food, lodging and equipment has frequently been used as an estimate of recreational benefits. By its nature, an expenditure estimate may provide an accurate estimate of monetary costs, but cannot estimate the amount by which total benefits exceed costs, or net benefits. Because economists usually evaluate options be comparing net benefits, they have generally disdained gross expenditure valuations. However, despite the noted limitation of expenditure surveys in estimating net value, there are numerous cases where such data is extremely useful to resource managers. When the impacts of different alternatives are difficult to foresee, then the accepted practice in many decision-making processes is to rely on recognized indicators of general importance. Agriculture may be referred to as a billion-dollar industry. Revenues from car sales may be said to have risen by so many million. Although these figures are not precise indicators of importance, programs to assist agriculture or other sectors of the economy are regularly justified in such terms. Fish and wildlife programs are also typically reviewed at similar levels. In these cases, expenditure and amount-of-use data may bolster a point of view more effectively than an estimate of net value simply because expendi- ture data are more familiar to decision makers. Thus in cases where state or regional public policy makers are attempting to define basic state or regional development goals or policies, an assessment of the gross level of economic stimulation induced by total expenditures for fish and wildlife may be the most appropriate, feasible and cost-effective valuation technique. GovernmentalGrossExpenditures:Prewitt (1949) said 11 a reasonable estimate of the benefits arising from ... (a project or proposal ) ... may be normally considered as an amount equal to the specific costs of developing, operating, and maintain- ing the recommended facilities ... Since by definition, any project undertaken could be justified by this method, it has not generally been popular with either economists or biologists. This type of valuation is most useful for calculating the impact of state expenditures on the gross state product and employment levels. In addition, it is also used as a component of assessing the cost-effectiveness of state programs. Input-OutputMultiplierAnalysis: Input-output modeling is a method of describ- ing the flow of goods and services within an economy and allows the interdepen- dencies of industries '.'Jithin the economy to be examined relative to potential impacts on the overall economy due to various policies. Although this form of analysis is generally used to predict the potential impact which may stem, for instance, fro~ the expansion of a particular industry, it is also used to model 5-8 c [ [ [ [ [ [ r~ L [ [ [ E [ c L c [ the existing structural composition of an economy. Gross expenditure and income estimates are the primary inputs in the model. Gross income and employment (multiplier) estimates and basic labor to gross output ratios a1·e the primary outputs. As a limitation, however, it should be noted that input-output analy- sis is a static approach that is most useful in describing historical changes except in periods of long-run economic and technical stability. The primary limitations of this approach for planning are its short time horizon, the lack of consideration for market limitations, and an implicit assumption of unlimited capital availability. Consumer Surplus Benefits: In the absence of rna rket transactions on, which to base the value of the recreational use of fish and wildlife resources, an analysis concept generally referred to as consumer benefit has been developed. Consumer benefits are related to are the increase in the flow of services from an open-access natural resource directly to the public as consumers. These benefits relate to the consumption of resources which takes place outside of the marketplace. This distinction is warranted by the fact that methods dealing with commercial market benefits generally are oriented to an increase of the resource's value based on its marketplace activities, e.g., rent, sales value, profit and business volume, whereas the methods used in measuring public consum- er benefit attempt to create a surrogate market where implicit (shadow) prices can be derived. Presently, there are two general categories of valuation methodologies for estimating implicit values which are being investigated and perfected by econo- mists working in this area. The first category is known as the Travel Cost Method (TCM) and is associated with the names of Hotelling (1949) and Clawson and Knetsch (1966). The second category is known as the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) and derives from the work of Davis (1963). Use of the TCM or "indirect" method begins by observing the rate of participa- tion of certain population groups in outdoor recreational activities at a given site and relating these participation rates to the costs of transportation, opportunity costs of time and other variable expenses. The demand curve so estimated is. then used as the empirical basis for computing the net wil;ingness to pay or "consumers' surplus" associated with the site. Refinements of the TCf~ have included a more complete specification of the demand function to include other causal factors such as income and the examination of the role that travel and participation time plays in the recreationist's decisions and, hence, their net benefits. The CVM is a "direct" technique for resource valuation in that its' approach is to ask recreationists specific questions regarding their v1illingness to pay and/or willingness to accept compensation if opportunities for participation in outdoor recreation activities are altered. As noted, two major forms of valuation are used with the CVM technique: will- ingness to accept (WTA) and willingness to pay (WTP). Because these forms of valuation introduce the concept of property rights into the analysis, it is necessary to understand what each form of valuation is actually measuring and when it is appropriate to use it. Willingness to accept, or sell, implies the possession of a property right and is thus must appropriately applied in sit- uations where resources are presently used to generate fish and wildlife-based experiences -but are under consideration for a possible transfer to an 5-9 [ [ [ [ [ L [ [ f~ I - L r [ [ l [ [ t r ~ l [ alternative and irco~patible use. Willingres5 to pay, on the other hand, implies a desire to obtdin property rights or to influenc~ the exercise of these rights by others and is most appropriately applied to situations in which a transfer of resources from some other purposes to the production of fish and wildlife-based experiences is under consideration. Thus, in situations where a competing use, mining for instance, has initial property rights, the value to users of common property fish and wildlife resources is determined by the income-constrained maximum willingness to pay-to buy out the miner. Where common property fish and wildlife users have the initial property rights, value is determined by the unconstrained minimum amount that will be accepted in exchange for that right. Since these two measures of value are in general not the same, a determination of initial property rights is extremely important - such assignment of rights may determine the outcome of a decision to allocate a resource to its optimal or highest value use. In addition to the TCM and CVM valuation methodologies, several other variants have been proposed but have not received serious consideration due to obvious potential for biases. A quick description of these methods follows: Community"Decision-Meyer (1974, 1975) first told respondents what the municipal expenditures per household by the City of Vancouver were for various areas such as Education and Social Assistance. He asked how he would rearrange these allocations. Then he asked them to state the compa- rable annual values, per household, for a series of activities relating to recreation, includiag wildlife and fisheries. Judicial Award -This variant of the Community Decision was suggested by Meyer (1975) who asked ••rf you were a judge in a court, and someone had been arbitrarily excluded from the activities listed for one year, what dollar damages would you award him or her?" Professional Opinion -Ashton et al. (1974) asked wildlife biologists what they thought an individual of each wildlife species was worth. This method has been little used because of its obvious bias and subjectiveness. ExistenceValue: So far, each of the fish and wildlife values discussed have been rooted in either commercial exploitation or actual recreational activities. However, it is also possible for an individual to derive satisfaction (and thus place a value) simply from knowing that wild birds, fish and animals exist. For example, an individual at home making no sensory contact with or deriving commercial benefit from moose may derive real satisfaction (social benefit) from just contemplating the existence of these animals. In perhaps more down to earth financial terms, individuals who contribute both their time and money to efforts for the preservation of a species such as blue whale (which they are unlikely to encounter either on a sensory level or in the marketplace) demon- strate a behavior which implies the presence of an existence value. Nonetheless, while there is little doubt that existence values should be includ- ed as social benefits, it has been difficult to segregate this value from other fish and wildlife valuation components. Consequently, when existence values are in conjunction with market or recreational activities, they are considered as integral to that activity. In all other cases, however, where existence values cannot be internalized with other valuations, it is generally described as an external benefit and expressed in ~on-financial units. Obviously, a great deal 5-10 [ [ [ [ [ [ c t L [ of work will be necessary to establish a valid, applicable and acceptable valuation methodology for existence values. OptionValues: Option demand and option value exists when an individual places value on having the option for himself, or others (offspring), to participate in an activity in the future. As such, option values are not current use values, but an additional source of benefits which deserve explicit recognition. Option value can exist separately from consumer surplus, or benefits, under three general categories: 1) When there is an uncertainty as to future demand for (and/or supply of) a wildlife species (This encompasses an implicit assumption that there is a certain risk threshold beyond which individuals are reluctant to cross); 2) When re-establishing or expanding a curtailed supply of fish and wildlife would be very costly in the short run or technically impossible (i.e., extinction of a species); and 3) When there is no practical way for the resource owner to be paid for providing the option because exclusion is not possible. The inability to exclude those who do not pay for the option of future consump- tion establishes the relevance of option value for public policy (Adapted from Langsford and Cocheba, 1978). In the case of common property fish and wildlife resources, the ownership rights are obviously vested in the public. In this situation, the provisions of the willingness to accept (sell) apply. Therefore, in these cases, the third category should be amended to read 11 When there is no practical way for the public to be individually compensated for their collective decision to sell their future consumption options ... As one final note, because future participation in a particular fish or wildlife associated activity may require it, an effective option demand requires that the population of a given species be maintained at a level well above that which may threaten extinction. Thus, even when populations are large enough to permit legal hunting and fishing and the value of incremental changes in human popu-• lation are considered, a strong argument still remains for the expression of an option value. Benefit-Cost Analysis: Benefit-cost analysis assesses changes in the value of goods and services that are expected to result from undertaking a management option in comparison to those changes which are expected from an alternative option. Benefits represent the additional value of goods and services produced, while costs are the value of goods and services that could have been produced had the needed resources remained in their most likely alternative use. The difference between benefits and costs is termed net benefits and is intended to be a measure of the gain in social welfare. Consistent definitions of benefit can best be understood if the motivation behind benefit-cost analysis is examined. The benefit-cost test is a 11 potential Pareto" criterion. Under a true 11 Pareto" criterion, an alternative is con- sidered worthwhile if it makes no one worse off and at lease someone better off. In order to pass such a test, it would be necessary for those who benefit from an option to actually make compensatory payments to those who lose. Under a benefit-cost test, however, an option is considered worthwhile if such compen- sation could be made, even though it may not actually be made. Clearly, if the sum of gains and losses is positive, actual monetary transfers could increase welfare above the initial level and the option would therefore pass the bene- fit-cost test. 5-11 [ [ [ [ [ [ c r L [ [ c c [ L L [ With benefit-cost analysis, the concern is with the total or aggregate change in benefits for all affected users--and not the gain or loss of any particular individual. Benefits and costs are ordinarily measured by the sum of each individual recipient's valuations. Thus, leaving aside the distribution of this gain, a dollar of benefit enters with the same weight, ·regardless of who derives the benefit. In order to include distributional effects in benefit-cost analy- sis (i.e., to evaluate the distribution of benefits and costs among the popu- lation), some consensus of the weights to be attached to the gains and losses of each individual would be required. In the absenc~ of such a concensus, the distributional impacts should be considered separately as part of the comprehen- sive analysis (Adapted from Dwyer, 1980). While the use of benefit-cost analysis to judge actions that relate to fish and wildlife may be a political reality, its limitations should be considered. The most obvious is the lack of a public mandate to maximize net returns from fish and wildlife resources. The technique is also often inadequate for public planning because it does not consider distributional shifts which are often a major public concern with political ramifications. Externalities, certainly a matter of public concern, are often ignored. There is also an underlying assumption of total certainty regarding future events, something that even economists cannot guarantee. To realistically plan for the future, the probability of being wrong must be considered. Difficulties with the quanti- fication of many values, uncertainty with respect to the future, and arbitrary discount rates make the technique a questionable ranking mechanism. While benefit-cost analysis can be a useful tool, its limitations must be taken into consideration as it can be extremely misleading. Additional background sources introducing the reader to benefit-cost analysis may be found in Part IV of this chapter. Cost-EffectiveAnalysis: Cost-effectiveness is primarily a method for finding the least cost alternative for meeting a single objective. For example, if the objective is to improve public health there may be several alternative ways to meet this: more hospitals, better health instruction in schools, etc. Each approach could be casted out and the least cost alternative would be chosen. The primary merit of this approach is that it can thus help to determine the least costly means of satisfying socio-politically set objectives, thus elim- inating the need to quantify benefits in monetary terms. This approach, however, is not highly regarded by planners, basically because it does not assist in choosing between dissimilar objectives. If there is not enough money to meet all objectives, then choices between objectives will have to be made and this method will not be of assistance. Despite this limitation, certain applications of cost-effectiveness analysis offer distinct advantages for state policy makers. For instance, although the State currently desires to expand its economic base, it is facing the prospect of declining state revenues. Therefore, one component of all policy decisions must be an awareness of how state expenditures for either management or infrastructure development will compare with their estimated stimulation of the state's economy. In this regard, cost-effectiveness analysis should be indispensably correlated with benefit-cost analysis. 5-12 [ c [ [ [ [ [ r~ L [ [ c [ c L L [ TABLE 1. Outline of the Major Methods for Assessing Fish and Wildlife Values. I. Conventional Market II. Expenditures A. Direct Effects 1. Individual (11 Gross Benefits 11 ) 2. Government B. Indirect (Secondary} Effects 1. Input-Output (Multiplier Effects) III. Consumer's Surplus A. Travel Cost (Simulated Demand) B. Contingent Valuation 1. Participating a. Willingness to Pay b. Willingness to Sell c. Community Decision-making d. Judicial Award e. Professional Opinion 2. Non-participating a. Existence Value b. Option Value IV. Combinations and Manipulations A. Benefit-Cost B. Cost Effectiveness Source: Adapted from Steinhoff, 1982. 5-13 / [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r L [ L c E [ [ E L For the current Tanana Basin Study, benefit-cost analysis generates a signifi- cant empirical problem. A benefit-cost valuation requires that the proposed alternative allocations be specifically defined and that public benefits and losses are clearly measurable. Such a situation is not the case for the current Tanana Basin study. Basin-wide fish and wildlife benefits are present1y accru- ing from natural habitat which is varied in quality and distributed across federal, state, municipal, native corporation and other private land-holdings. With our current lack of knowledge relating to the underlying physical- biological interrelationships of fish and wildlife populations, it is neither credible, applicable, nor acceptable to attempt to project the economic value of fish and wildlife originating from state land covered under the current planning effort. Even if such were not the case, theoretical proble~s originating with· the valuation of "subsistence'' utilization of fish and game, methodological restraints originating from a non-conformance of the Basin's "recreational users" and travel networks with standard simulated demand (consumer benefit) valuations, coupled with basic data gaps would all preclude the use of a standard benefit-cost evaluation for the current study. Therefore, the Tanana Basin fish and wildlife valuation was based on a regionwide assessment of the gross economic impacts stemming from state manage- ment expenditures and the commercial, recreational, and subsistence utilization of the Basin's fish and wildlife resources. As was noted in Part I, gross Arnnnmir ir.1n~r+ ~n.:~~l\JC'OC' r::an ho ac-+;m::a+ar{ .. ,;+h V"l"'\':ll~nn::.hln ::.rr••~~"'" ~r'\,.., ~--"' ,...,,.;+- .._ __ .,....,, .. ,..,.. IUI,..,\AV'W UIIU.IJ..J'-.J '"'U.II lJ\.. '-~VIIIIU\....:;:U V'YI'"'II I'CU~VIIUIJI'C; U\..\,UIO.'-.J 011\..l OIC: '1Uil.t:' useful in regional or state-level policy decisions when the impacts of alterna- tive allocations are difficult to foresee. The basic intent of this valuation is to clearly document the magnitude and importance of the Basin•s current fish and wildlife production values. It is not intended to provide the information needed to estimate net benefit. It obviously follows that this evaluation cannot be used to say that the net economic benefits will decrease by so much if a particular management choice is ~ade. This evaluation, however, does reflect the level of state gross economic activity which currently exists under existing 1 ifestyle, social, cultural, and environmental constraints. · In addition, a separate valuation of the net benefits for commercial users of the Basin•s fish and wildlife resources wasgenerated. This analysis was performed to assess the profitability of commercial fish and wildlife resource development. Finally, a separate valuation was generated for the State's net benefit stemming from the present defacto management of most of the Tanana~sin for fish and wildlife production. This analysis was performed to permit the calculation of the cost-effectiveness (State Net Expenditures to Gross Economic Stimulation) of the State's management of the Tanana Basin for fish and wildlife production. LIMITATIONS-GENERAL NOTE Because economic models are simply abstracts of reality and are thus recursive in nature, they are unfortunately hinged upon assumptions which are derived from the observation of other economic systems. For the Tanana River Basin, these empirical limitations, coupled with the small size of Alaska's boom-bust economy and a lack of historic data, made it difficult to employ traditional economic techniques with the same degree of sophistication or statistical accuracy as for larger, more mature and less rapidly changing areas. Consequently, although diligence was exercised in the choice of assumptions, this preli~inary analysis may be subject to both interpretative and statistical errors. It is therefore 5-15 r~ [ [ [, [ L [ r' L c [ [ -' c L t Tanana Basin salmon stocks which are caught in the Lower and Middle Yukon River commercial fisheries, a computer model (originally developed by ADF&G•s FRED Division to predict the percent contribution of Clear Hatchery releases to the Yukon River fisheries) was modified to permit an estimation of the percent contribution of Tanana Basin salmon stocks to the Lower and Middle Yukon River salmon fisheries. Based on this analysis, the 1981 gross revenue derived from the commercial harvest of Tanana Basin origin salmon in the Lower and Middle Yukon River fisheries was $2,445,156. The combined gross revenue for both fisheries was $2,620,507. The total estimated operating expenditures of these fisheries for salmon attributable to the Tanana Basin were $691,181 in 1981. Therefore, the estimated net revenue or producer benefit for the 1981 fishing season was $1,929,326 (Table 2). The methodologies and assumptions used to derive these estimates are presented in Appendix B. FishProcessing: The commercial or producer benefits generated from the secon- dary processing of commercially caught salmon which are derived from Tanana Basin spawning stocks was calculated by multiplying the first wholesale value of $26,267,500 (Geiger, And-ersen and Brady, 1981) of the entire 1981 Yukon River c salmon pack (based on the type of processing when the fish were shipped out of the Yukon District) times the estimated p~rcent contribution (32.1%) of Tanana Basin salmon stocks to the Yukon River salmon fisheries (see Appendix 8 for estimation methodology). Based on this calculation, the estimated gross revenue generated by the fish processing industry in 1981 was $8,431,867. In order to calculate the net revenue or producer benefit from the fish process- ing industry, it was first necessary to determine total operating expenditures. However, while relatively accurate records are collected and available for the gross revenue received by fish processors, total expenditure data is not col- lected. Furthermore, because of wide variations in processing plant size, operation, efficiency, etc., it is difficult to estimate an average level of expenditures. Therefore, after consultation with the Department of Labor, and a comparison of wages to gross revenue (Geiger, et al, 1981), total processing plant operating expenditures were estimated at 80% of gross revenues. Based on this assumption, the net r~venue or producer benefit generated by the commercial salmon fish processing industry in 1981 was $1,686,373 (Table 2). Because of the methodology by which these estimates were generated, they should be considered an order of magnitude estimate only. Nonetheless, despite these ~ethodological limitations, it is most probable that the total gross revenue generated in-state is actually higher than the current calculations indicate. This probable understatement of in-state total gross revenue is due to the fact that the first wholesale value used does not include the value of fish process- ing which occurs outside of the Yukon District but within Alaska. For instance, in the Yukon District, a significant portion of the total salmon harvest is shipped directly out of the District for processing in other central Alaskan localities. Consequently, a portion of the actual total wholesale value earned in-state is not reflected in this analysis. FishandWildlifeGuiding: The commercial or producer benefit generated by commercial fish and wildlife guiding operations within the Tanana Basin was 5-17 [ [ [ c [ [ c L estimated based on a market analysis prepared by the Professional Guiding Association of Alaska, which represents all guides in Interior Alaska. The chairman of this organization, Lynn Castle, completed a preliminary assessment on the economics of guiding in 1982. Although this assessment is currently unpublished, the following economic analysis is based upon that work as reported by personal interview with Mr. Castle. Mr. Castle estimated that the gross revenue generated by commercial fish and wildlife guiding operations in the Tanana Basin was approximately 1.2 million dollars in 1981. This is based on his assumption that 20 guiding operations grossed slightly over $50,000 that year and 10 operations grossed between 520,000 and $25,000. The total operating expenditures for each guiding operation were estimated by Mr. Castle to be approximately 80% of their total gross revenue. This estimate was based on the following assumed breakdown of operating expenditures: Food. Labor Transport Insurance Debt Service Capital Improvements -less than 10% 30-40% 10-15% 10-15% 5-10% 10% Based on these assumptions, the· total net revenue or producer benefit from commercial fish and wildlife guiding operations in the Tanana Basin was cal- culated as 20% of gross revenue or approximately $240,000 in 1981 (Table 2). SUBSISTENCE (PRODUCER) ECONOMIC VALUES A total economic valuation of subsistence use of fish and wildlife in the Tanana Basin has not been attempted or seen as desirable by the Department of Fish and Game's Division of Subsistence or by any other agency or group concerned with presenting information on subsistence in Alaska. Part of the reason for this relates to data availabil.ity and methodology development. A reasonably complete data base for subsistence uses exists for only a few communities in the state. In addition to the data problem, there are no widely accepted methods of putting a dollar value on subsistence resource uses. In some studies researchers have estimated value by calculating a replacement cost for subsistence foods (i.e., what "store bought" food would cost). Replacement costs, however, are a minimal estimate of a portion of subsistence use values and do not represent all market values or behavioral, social and cultural values which are difficult to quanti- fy. Although recogn1z1ng this concern, a 1974 report commissioned by the Feder- al-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska (FSLUPC) confirmed the signifi- cance of the fish and wildlife subsistence harvests in the Tanana Basin. In 1973, the residents of five rural Tanana Basin villages reported harvesting over 202,000 pounds of wildlife, 2,700 pounds of waterfowl and upland game birds and nearly 197,300 pounds of resident fish for food. In addition, nearly 1,200 furbearers were harvested for non-food and non-commercial purposes; i.e., personal use, clothing, etc. (Patterson, 1974). ·Because of the limited scope of the FSLUPC study and the large potential for methodological under-reporting, the 5-18 {-~ ., [ [ [ L t L actual subsistence harvest in the Tanana Basin was probably much larger than reported. t~1ore recently, a 1981 report on the culture and economy of six Yukon River Delta cummunities (prepared under contract for the Division of Subsistence and the Socioeconomic Studies Program of the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office), estimated that during the period, June 1980 to May 1981, the average family household produced 4,597 pounds dressed weight of subsistence foods or approxi- mately 783 pounds per household member (Wolfe, 1981). Based on replacement cost, the value of this food was calculated at $21,238 per household. This value is significantly higher than the estimated mean annual earned household income which was estimated at $17,512 per household in October 1981 (Wolfe, 1981). While these per household values are not directly transferable to the Tanana Basin, they are indicative of the beneficial economic impact which subsistence use of fish and wildlife can have to rural economies. Current subsistence harvest data is not available for wildlife, waterfowl, upland game birds, or most resident fish stocks. However, in 1981, Tanana Basin subsistence fishermen reported harvesting nearly 407,900 pounds of salmon, sheefish and whitefish. An additional 566,100 pounds of salmon which were produced by Tanana Basin salmon stocks were estimated to have been harvested in the Lower Yukon River subsistence salmon fisheries (see Appendix B for explana- tion of this derivation). Based on conservative replacement cost values for the portions of the total harvest used for human and dog food, the estimated minimum 1981 market value for these fisheries was $2,180,667 (Table 2). The methodology, assumptions &nd limitations of these estimates are presented in Appendix C. Notwithstanding the significance of these values, there are many concerns about the appropriateness of attempting to put a dollar value on subsistence. Most researchers in this area believe that there is a fundamental economic difference between subsistence and market economy activities. In keeping with this view of subsistence valuation, the Division of Subsistence of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game recognizes the following four non-market values for subsistence harvests of fish and wildlife: behavioral values, social values, cultural values and theoretical values. At the behavioral level, research conducted by the Subsistence Division has shown that subsistence hunting and fishing is most often a group activity and that subsistence products are widely shared throughout communities and regions. The individual hunter or fisherperson is not the producing and consuming unit in subsistence systems and may not be motivated by concerns for ~aterial gain. At the social level, subsistence activities are often a major focus of the community and an important force for the intergration of the community. The attention of harvest seasons, harvest activities and harvest responsibilities often underlie family and community organizations. Quite often rural commu- nities are located at sites with good access to fish and game resources, Many communities continue to exist primarily because of this access. At the cultural level, the ideals, beliefs and world views of members of subsis- tence societies are closely joined tc the resources they harvest and the 5-19 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ t [ c L ~ -- ~ [ t environment in which they live. This cultural importance is often reflected in religious beliefs, myths, and folklore, place naming and geographic knowledge. At the theoretical level, a strong argument has been made that a dual econony operates with respect to the subsistence mode of production and that the subsis- tence economy operates according to a different set of rules and principles than the market economy. According to this argument, concepts and methods derived in the context of market economies, eg. benefit/cost, marginal return, profit or producer benefit etc., cannot be applied with success to areas of subsistence economy. Regardless of how the Basin's subsistence hunting and fishing activities are evaluated, it is apparent that they are significant and integral part of the lifestyle of most rural residents. Especially important is the value of subsis- tence hunting and fishing activities to low-income families. Particularly in the rural portions of the Basin where jobs are scarce, subsistence hunting and fishing heavily supplements, and in many instances surpasses 1n value, the earned income of local residents. RECREATIONAL (CONSUMER) ECONOMIC VALUES Introduction: The gross economic values associated with the recreational harvest of the Tanana Basin's fish and wildlife resources were calculated based on the gross expenditures reported by Tanana Basin recreationalists in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife -Associated Recreation -Alaska State Report. ' Following are the summary results of this survey for five categories of recre- ational use: sport fishing, big game hunting, small game hunting, waterfowl hunting, and other (miscellaneous) game hunting. In addition, a sixth category, Special Equipment, is presented which reflects the attributable purchase of special equipment (i.e., boats, tents, recreational vehicles, cabins, etc.) predominantly used in association with the recreational consumption of the Basin's fish and wildlife resources. Since these expenditure summaries a~e based on 1980 dollars, they have been adjusted for inflation to reflect 1981 real dollars to permit direct comparability with the commercial, subsistence and state expenditure summaries (see Table 7 for the inflation rates used). The methodology, assumptions, limitations and tabular summaries for these estimates are presented in Appendix D. Sport Fisheries: The tota 1 1981 estimated gross expenditure in-state for sport fishing in the Tanana Basin was $9,630,612. BigGameHunting: The total 1981 estimated gross expenditures in-state for recreational big game hunting in the Tanana Basin was $2,432,626. SmallGameHunting: The total 1981 est-Imated gross expenditures in-state for recreational small game hunting in the Tanana Basin was $1,073,198. WaterfowlHunting: The total 1981 estimated gross in-state expenditure for recreational small game hunting in the Tanana Basin was 5679,040. 5-20 r_ t_j r [ [ c [ [, [ [ c [ [ [ L b The gross income and employment multipliers derived from this analysis are presented in Table 5. However, since these relationships were expressed in 1972 dollars. it would be a basic error of modeling to utiliz~ the 1972 labor-to-gross output ratios without first correcting for the effects of inflation; i.e., current outputs must be expressed in. real, not nominal, dollar values relative to 1972. In addition, economic changes induced by the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, technological changes, and a growing tendency within some industrial sectors to substitute capital assets for labor, also suggest that more current labor-to- gross output ratios should be used. Unfortunately, current labor-to-gross output ratios for all industrial sectors in Alaska are not available. Therefore, after consultation with the State Department of Labor, we updated the labor-to-output ratios generated by the 1972 model to reflect: 1) the ratios currently in use by the State Administration for estimating employment shifts induced by State expenditures (Krienheder and Teal, 1982), and 2) an update of the 1972 ratios for all other industrial sectors based on an inflation correction factor derived from the Anchorage Consumer Price Index. ~comparison of the 1972 and estimated 1980 la- bor-to-gross output ratios and the estimated annual inflation rates are present- ed in Table 6 and 7, respectively. Economic Multiplier Effect: The total in-state gross economic income effect from the recirculation of Tanana Basin fish and wildlife expenditures was 63.9 million dollars in 1981. Of this total, 32.8 million dollars, or 51.3 percent, was attributable to commercial users of the Basin•s fish and wildlife; 28.5 million (44.6%) was attributable to recreational uses; and 2.6 million (4.1%) to state expenditures for fish and wildlife management. Because of the methodology utilized to valuate subsistence fisheries did not include a measure of the exchange of money, it was not appropriate to evaluate its• gross income effect. Similarly, no estimates were generated for either subsistence trapping or hunting. The individual in-state gross .economic income effects for each category.of use are presented in Table 2. PersonallncomeEffect: Supplemental to the gross economic income effects stemming from the recirculation of Tanana Basin fish and wildlife expenditures, there is an additional income effect (coined personal income effect) which is derived from a real increase in personal, disposable income when wild fish and game products are substituted for store-bought products. There are some that would argue that in many respects, this effect should not be treated as an economic benefit, in-so-much as they perceive that expenditures are merely being shifted from one market sector to another. To a limited degree, certain aspects of this argument are valid. For instance, in an eval- uation of the State•s swine industry, it would not be appropriate to consider the dollar equivalent of a consumer substitution of pork for beef (assuming state beef production) as an economic benefit to the State. In this instance, benefits have simp 1 y shifted from one sector of the econor:1y to another. Howev- er, if pork prices were reduced, the net savings would reflect a real-increase in disposal income and purportedly would then be available for other purchases 5-23 [ r r [ [ r~ [ [ [ [ --t~, L E l PART III-SUMMARY It should be quite apparent to the reader by now that the Tanana Basin's fish and wildlife resources contribute significantly to the Basin's entire economic structu~e. In 1981, the total in-state, gross economic effect attributable to the Tanana Basin's fish and wildlife resources was approximately 71.4 million dollars. Expressed in 1983 dollars, this represents a current gross income effect of over 79.9 million dollars. In addition, a total of 1,699 full-time jobs are both directly and indirectly attributable to fish and wildlife use expenditures. A summary of the documentable, 1981 baseline, gross economic and employment benefits from the Tanana Basin's fish and wildlife, as corrected to reflect current 1983 dollars, is presented in Table 2. This valuation, however, should not be construed as a summary of all benefits accruing from fish and wildlife production in the Tanana Basin. Rather, it is a preliminary attempt to quantify some of the documentable economic values and may not even quantify all of the value for which valuations are presented. In addition, economic values were not generated for subsistence hunting and trap- ping, some personal income effects, and such external or unquantified benefits as existence value, option value, capital asset value of breeding stock for the production of future harvestable surpluses, and other social, cultural or lifestyle considerations. In order to place some of these non-economic or quantifiable considerations into perspective, it is perhaps appropriate to consider the following general atti- tudes and behaviors of Alaskans towards fish and wildlife resources. The following statistics were prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1980 (Kellert, 1980) and document the high value Alaskans placed on the State's fish and wildlife resources relative to other regions of the United States. As a group, Alaskans demonstrated the following attitudes and behaviors toward fish and wildlife (Figures 1, 2 and 3): 1) In 1980, 39.4% of all Alaskans reported hunting within the past two years. This is a participation rate which is 86% higher than the next highest region in the United States (Rocky Mountains -21.2%). 2) In 1980, 75.9% of all Alaskans reported fishing within the past two years. This is a participation rate which is 49% higher than the next highest region in the United States (South -50.9%). 3) In 1980, 6.9% of all Alaskans reported trapping within the past two years. This is a participation rate which is 229% higher than the next highest region in the United States (South -2.1%). 4) In 1980, 83.5% of all Alaskan hunters reported that securing meat was the primary reason for hunting; 10.5% reported sport as the primary reason; and 6.0% reported that they were nature hunters. 5-26 r r L" [ c r _, [ r; r~ L r [ b E [ [ [~ I.~ L t l 5) In 1980, a total of 35.3% of all Alaskans reported belonging to humane, environmental, wildlife preservation, sportsmen or general conservation organizations. This is a participation rate which is 89% higher than the net highest region in the United States (North-Central 18.7%). 5-27 [ r [ [ [ r L [ r L [ [ [ [: ; L L [ L [ L TABLE S. Multiplier Analysis of the Alaska Economy by impact ranking, 1972 Gross Income Multiplier Employment Multiplier State 2.98 Fish Processing 6.03 Mining 2.93 Construct 3.53 Fish Processing 2.87 State 3.17 Oil & Gas 2.70 Manuf 2.82 Construct 2.34 Pulp 1. 92 Pulp 2.30 Lumber· 1.47 Lumber 1.87 Transport 1. 25 Com/Utl 1.87 Mining 1.25 Transport 1.84 Oil & Gas 1.19 Agric 1.80 Com/Utl 1.19 Fish 1. 74 Trade 1.10 lA----~ , ..,, FIRE 1.07 r·rarru 1 l. I C.. FIRE 1. 70 Service 1.04 Trade 1.69 Fish 1.03 Service 1. 63 Forest 1.02 Forest 1. 61 Agric 1.01 Source: Loqsdon, Charles, L., et al, 1977. 5-34 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r-. L [ [ c e 6 l L L t L TABLE 7. Estimated Annual Inflation Rates, U.S. Average and Anchorage for 1971-82.1 U.S. Average Anchorage 1971 4.3% 3.0% 1972 3.3 2.7 1973 6.2 4.2 1974 11.0 10.8 1975 9.1 13.7 1976 5.8 7.7 1977 6.5 6.6 1978 7.7 7.1 1979 11.3 10.4 1980 13.5 10.2 1981 10.4 8.1 1982 6. 1 5.5 1983 < 4.0 4.0 1 Estimated inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index. See text for discussion. 5-36 [ [ [ [ [ L [ [ [ [ [ b L [ L c L measure of variability among trappers as to the type and degree of participation in trapping. For instance, some trappers derive a significant portion of their income from trapping while others primarily trap for recreational benefits. In addition, most individuals do not exert equal trapping pressure on all furbearer species. For instance, based on trapper responses to the 1982-83 ADF&G Trapper Survey, only 6% of all TBAP Area trappers trapped for beaver. Consequently, the estimates of the average units of gear per trapper were calculated as an average for all trappers. Again using beaver as an example, the results of the 1982-83 ADF&G Trapper Survey allowed us to calculate that the average number of beaver traps set per trapper for those who actually trapped for beaver was 10.8. However, weighted for the number of trappers who did not trap for beaver, the average number of beaver traps set per trapper for the 11 typical 11 TBAP trapper was 0.62. The final step in calculating total operating costs for trapping in the TBAP area was to breakdown expenditures separately for each mode of transportation used by trappers. These subtotals were then summed on a weighted basis relative to the percent of trappers using each respective mode. The distribution of trapping effort by transportation mode was estimated from the 1982-83 ADF&G Trappers Survey and were calculated as follows: Mode Airplane/Walking Airplane/Dog Team Airplane/Snowmachine Vehicle/Walking Vehicle/Dog Team Vehicle/Snowmachine Snowmachine Only Dog Team Only Walking Only Capital Costs Percent of Total Trappers Using This Mode 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.1 1.5 53.0 27.3 1.5 1.5 Various combinations of an airplane, snowmachine, dog team, highway vehicle, and walking are generally used to reach a trapline and to run the line. Each different mode, and combination of modes have different costs associated with them. The amortized cost of owning a piece of equipment is only one of the capital expenses of trapping. There is also the cost of other miscellaneous items such as dog harnesses and gas cans. The total cost of these items must also be prorated over their expected life-cycle to calculate the cost of the equipment per year. Since a particular piece of equipment is generally also used for activities unrelated to trapping, only 40% of the yearly cost of a ~1a~€, and 60% of the cost of a snowmachine and dog team was attributed to trapoing. Since less than l~ of the use of a motor vehicle can be attributed to trapping, no annual capital costs were calculated. However, vehicle operating costs were calculated and are discussed in the next section. A-2 [ f' L [ [ [ [ r= L [ [ [ L r tj L ,--.., t The assumptions which were made to calculate the capital costs of owning equipment used in trapping are broken down in Table A-3. Travel Costs A trapper's operating costs include both the roundtrip costs of getting to and from the start of the trapline and the costs of actually running the trapline. Although the automobile/snowmachine and snowmachine only modes are the most common forms of transportation in the TBAP area, all possible combinations of airplane, automobile, snowmachine, dog team, and foot travel are utilized by trappers. In order to calculate the travel costs it was first necessary to estimate the average roundtrip distance to the start of the trapline and the average length of the trapline. These estimates were calculated based on the pooled Fairbanks Area/Rural TBAP area responses to the 1982-83 Trapper Survey (Table A-8, A-9~ and A-10). Secondly, it was necessary to estimate the average number of times a trapper checks his traps during the 16 week trapping season. Based on assumptions provided by Herb Melchior (ADF&G Statewide Furbearer Biologist) and a review of the 1982-83 ADF&G Trapper Survey, this analysis assumes that the average non-aircraft trapper checks his line 1.5 times a week or 24 times a season. Trappers who utilized aircraft to travel to their traplines were assumed to average one trip per week or 16 times a season. The final assumptions which were included in this analysis of travel costs were the actual operating expenditures per mile (or hour) for aircraft, vehicles and snowmachines. It was assumed that most aircraft trappers use a Super Cub class airplane which consumes approxi~ately 6 gallons of gas per hour. Most vehicle trappers utilize four-wheel drive vehicles which were assumed to have an operating cost of $0.40/mile. Snowmachine trappers typically utilize small, lightweight snowmachines which have a rated mileage of 30 to 40 miles per gallon. However, under actual field conditions (deep snow, sled loaded with equipment, spare fuel, etc.) it is assumed tnat the typical snowmachine only averages 15 miles per gallon. The assumptions which were made to estimate travel costs per trapper are summarized in Table A-4. Other Operating Costs of Trapping In addition to the capital and operating costs of transportation equipment used in trapping, trappers must also purchase a variety of traps, stretcher boards, rifle, knife, ax, and other miscellaneous equipment. The assumptions used to calculate the average cost per year for this ~qu·ipment are presented in Table A-5. As initially indicated, these assumptions represent the average amount of equipment used by the "typical" trapper and have been adjusted to validly reflect the inclusion of trappers who did not participate in a 11 forms of trapping. A-3 "'!.! 1910 • ~ 1915 ~ 1920 !Ill • lllle 1925 :~ !Ill~ 1930 . ~ "'!.! -~ 1935 ~ ~ 1940 = ::t 1945 Cll .... ~-1a~=;n ..... • .;vv C'll .... ""' ~ 1955 C'll ... ;· ~ 1960 = = 1965 C'll ; t 1970 = ~ ~ 1975 tD ::: C'll 1980 ... !Ill \0 1985 !Ill = .... = ~-v Thousands of Pelts Reported-Exported from Alaska ,_. ,_. N N w w .:::. .:::. (J1 (J1 U1 0 U1 0 U1 0 U1 0 U1 0 U1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'1 0'1 0 U1 0 0 "l Cl . } l ~ _1 ] ~1 J J J ] J "-1 -I :_j r-J k ] ] J ] J J J ~ ...... I~ TABLEA-1. Summary of Current Gross Revenues from Trapping in the TBAP Area. %of Gross Revenues Gross Revenue~ 1980-81 %of Price of Gross Revenues Raw Furs Price for From Furs for Exported Fur Harvest Raw Furs Exported From Exported JLocally Furs Locally Locally and Locally Species (#'s) 1) Exported Beaver 1,796 100% Fox 2,021 95% Marten 10,998 95% Mink 1 ,813 99% Muskrat 11 ,883 95% Lynx 707 99% Otter ·51 97% Wolf 200 0 Wolverine 134 0 TOTAL 1) Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 40% to account for unreported harvests. 2) Appendix Table A-2. Furs 2) Furs P1rocessed Processed Processed Processed Furs $ 43.00 77 '228 0 0 0 77,228 90.00 172 '7~6 5% 180.00 18,189 190,985 38.00 397,028 5% 100.00 54,900 451,928 49.00 87,949 1% 100.00 1,800 89,749 4.00 45,155 5% 8.09 4,753 49,908 235.00 164,484 1% 500.00 3,500 167,984 44.00 2' 177 3% 88.00 135 2,312 0 0 100% 300.00 0 60,000 0 0 100% 300.00 0 40,200 $1,130,286 The 1980-81 harvest was estimated by ~djusting the reported fur export upwards by See text for explanation. [ [ [ L [' [ [ [ c c L E L TABLE A-2. Average Price per Pelt for Exported and Locally Processed Furs, TBAPArea. Species Beaver Exported Fox Exported Locally Processed Marten Exported Locally Processed Mink Exported Locally Processed Muskrat Exported Locally Processed Lynx Exported Locally Processed Otter -- 0 -Exported Locally Processed Wolf Locally Processed Wolverine Locally Processed % of Furs Sold at Given Price 1) 100% 95% 5% 95% 5% 99% 1% 95% 5% 99% 1% 97% 3% 100% 100% Price per Pelt 2) $ 43.00 90.00 180.00 38.00 100.00 49.00 100.00 4.00 8.00 235.00 500.00 44.00 88.00 300.00 300.00 1) Alaska Department of Fish and Game. See text for estimation methodology. 2) "The Alaska Trapper and Dog Mushing News," February, 1982, Page 19. Locally processed price was estimated based on ADF&G conversations witt1 local trappers and fur garment manufactures. A-8 > I .... 0 r--'! 1.:, :,. .. J ______..., J TABLE A-4. Annual Travel Costs Per Trapper Associated with Getting to and Running a Trapline, by Mode of Transportation in the TRAP Area. TRAVEL COSTS FROM RESIDENCE TRAVEL COST TOTRAPLINE TO RUN TRAPLINE Miles/Hours Traveled to Total Cost I Times/ Total Cost/ Average Total I Times/ Total Cost/ Start of to get to Season Year to get Trap I ine Transportation Season Year for Trapline Cost/Mile Starting Expend. is to Length (Hfles) ' Cost to Expend. is Trans. to Mode (Roundtrip)1 or Hour Pt. of Line Incurred Trapl ine (Roundtrip} Cos t/Hll e Run Trapline Incurred Run Line Alrplane & 10.20/hr.2 16·4 Foot 1.5 hrs. 15.30 244.80 0 Airplane & 10.20/hr.2 16 4 Oog Team 1.0 hrs. 10.20 163.20 65 864.00 6 Airplane & c Snow-1.5 hrs. 10.20/hr 2 15.30 16 4 244.80 30 0.10/mlle 3.003 16 4 48.00 machine Passenger Vehicle 23 miles .40/mi 1 e 9.20 24 '220.80 5 & Foot Passenger 864.006 Vehicle & 60 miles . 40/mi 1 e 24.00 24 576.00 60 Dog Team Passenyer Vehicle & Snow-63miles .40/mi le 25.20 24 604.00 63 0.10/mfle 6.303 24 151.20 machine Doy Team 864.00 6 only 35 Snowruach i ne only 41 0.10/mile 4.10 3 24 98.40 Foot only 4 StHn·ce: Alaska Department of Fish and Game and local trappers. (continued) TOTAL COST Tota 1 Transport Cost/Year Run Line $ 244.80 1,027.20 292.80 220.80 1,440.00 756.00 864.00 98.40 0 r [ [ [ [ [ [ c [ [ c c L c c [ t L Footnotes: 1 ADF&G 1982-83 Trapper Survey. Unpublished. Fairbanks. 2 1 hour flying times uses up 6 gallons of gas. 6 gallons at $1.70/gallon equals $10.20/hour. 3 Assumes 15 mile/gal. gas@ $1.50 gal. = $0.10/mile. 4 Trappers that use airplanes fly their line once a week or 16 times each season, and then spend 2 days running the line. 5 Average of 1. 5 trips a week over a 16 week season equa 1 s 24 trips a season. 6 Trappers using dog teams do not expend a certain amount of money for fuel on each trip they take. They do however, have to feed their dogs. Each dog costs approximately $12 per month. 10 dogs @ $12/month = $120/month X 12 months/year = $1440/year. However, only 60% of the yearly cost of dogs is attributable to trapping since the dogs are used for other activities as well. 60% of $1440 = $864/year. A-ll [ TABLE A-S. Annual Miscellaneous Equipment Costs for Trapping in the TBAP Area. Average# Total Cost/ %of Yearly Cost Total Cost/ Cost~f of Items Life of Year for Attributable to Year of Equipment Equipment Owned Equipment Equipment Trapping Equipment [ Mink/ Marten S 35.09/doz.1 50.33 2 Traps 5 yrs. $ 29.43 100% $ 29.43. Fox 41.45/doz.1 20.29 2 Traps 5 yrs. 14.02 100% 14.02 Otter 83.84/doz.1 0.29 2 Traps 5 yrs. 0.41 100% 0.41 [ Lynx 57.25/doz.1 27.23 2 Traps 5 yrs. 25.98 100% 25.98 Beaver 103.95.doz.1 0.78 2 Traps 5 yrs. 1.35 100% 1.35 Wolverine 103.95/doz.1 5.03 2 Traps 5 yrs. 8.71 100% 8.71 Wolf 1 5.032 Traps 59.95/ea. 5 yrs. 60.31 100% 60.31 Misc. Traps 65.00/doz. 14.41 5 yrs. 15.61 100% 15.61 Stretcher 7.50 ea.3 Boards ! doz. 5 yrs. 9.00 100% 9.00 [ for Beaver Stretcher [ Boards 19.25/doz.1 for Fox 1 doz. 10 yrs. 1. 95 100% . 1. 95 Stretcher Boards , for 12.95/doz.• 1 doz. 10 yrs. 5.18 100% 5.18 [ Muskrat Stretcher Boards 10.00/doz. 1 for Mink 2 doz. 10 yrs. 2.00 100% 2.00 & Marten -[., L A-12 TABLE A-S continued. Average# Total Cost/ % of Yearly Cost Total Cost/ Cost of ofltems Life of Year of Attributable to Year for Equipment Equipment Owned Equipment Equipment Trapping Equipment [ Stretcher Boards 50.00/doz.1 for Lynx i doz. 10 yrs. 2.50 100% 2.50 [ Stretcher Boards 3 for Wolf 20.00/bd. 2 bds. 10 yrs. 4.00 100% 4.00 L 22 Rifle ~ or 125.00/ea. 1/ea. 10 yrs. 12.50 75% 9.38 Pistol [ Knives, Ax 60.00 3 & Saws 10 yrs. 6.00 25% 1.50 Other Misc. [ Gear 75.00 10 yrs. 7.50 100% 7.50 Bailing Wire 15.00/roll 1 roll 0 15.00 100% 15.00 Lures & 30.00 3 Scents 100% 30.00 TOTAL $243.83 [ Average prices from The TraQQer, Vo 1. 8, No. ll,·July 1983. 2 Based on the average number of traps set per trapper, increased by 25% to reflect spare and replacement traps, as reported in the lg82-83 ADF&G Trapper Survey. [ 3 Estimated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game based on conversations with local [ trappers. L L A-13 r L [ [ [ [ [ [ r:- y-- L. [ [ [ L E [ TABLE A-7. Curren~ Ne~ Producer Benefi~s from Trapping in ~he TBAP Area. 1980-81 Source: Gross Revenues All Trappers 1,130,286 Operating Costs to All Trappers 706,048 Net Revenues or Producer Benefits to All Trappers 424,238 Tables discussed in previous sections of this appendix. A-15 :-- ' TABLE A-B. #Trappers Mode Respond. Airplane & Foot Airplane & Dog 0 Team Airplane & Snow- Machine ~ Passenger .... Vehicle & 3 0\ Foot Passenger Vehicle & Dog Team Passenger Vehicle & 18 Snowmachine Foot Only Dog Team Only Snowmachine Only 7 TOTAL! 33 1 Averages weighted 2 Estimate based on I"''_ .. ...., ( I'd ,...__...., L j _____...., I f h F · banks Sub-unit Responses, 1982-8~ ADF &G Trapper Survey, Summary o t e a1r TB&PArea. Round-trip R.T.Trap Avera1~e Number of Sets per Trapper Average# %of Total Dist. to Line Years Respondents Start of Line' Length Lynx Marten Fox Otter Wolf/Wolver. Beaver Other Trapped 3.0 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 3.0 100 30 15 40 2 0 0 15 0 16 9.1 27 6 9 11 n 0 0 0 17 13 3.0 60 60 16 0 6 0 0 0 10 8 54.5 74 29 14 40 14 0 3 4 7 3.0 0 4 3 18 0 0 0 3 14 3.0 0 35 10 0 30 0 0 0 10 10 21.2 0 43 24 48 13 5 0 4 11 100.0 50.9 29 15 34 14 0.2 3 5 9 by the percent composition for each mode of transportation. respondents address and reported trapping area. rrn ~.· , l TABLEA-9. 1982-~3 ADF&G Trapper Survey, Sumn11ary of the Rural Sub-unit Responses, TBAPArea. Round-trip R.T. Trap Ave:rage Number of Sets per Trapper Average# #Trappers %of Total Dist. to Line Years Mode Respond. Respondents Start of Length Lynx Marten I' ox Otter Wolf/Wolver. Beaver Other Trapped Linez Airplane & Foot 0 0 Airplane & Dog 2 6.0 75 65 16 128 0 3 0 0 0 7 Team Airplane & Snow-2 6.0 100 30 12 25 6 0 20 0 2 9 Machine > Passenger I .... Vehicle & 3.0 10 3 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 ...... Foot Passenger Vehicle & 0 0 Dog Team Passenger Vehicle & 17 52.0 51 99 35 41 26 0 22 0 28 15 Snowmachine Foot Only 0 0 Dog Team Only 0 0 Snowmachine Only 11 33.0 0 40 27 44 12 0 7 0 8 18 TOTAL 1 33 100.0 37 70 29 45 18 0.2 15 0 17 15 I Averages weighted 2 by the percent composition for each mode of transportation. Estimate based on respondents address and reported trapping area. ~ .... 00 i"'l. L....,' ' rr ~ .... '.J r-----, I ' TABLE A-10. 1982-8.} ADF&G Trapper Survey, Summary of the Combined Fairbanks and Rural Sub-unit Resp"onses, TB&P Area. Round-trip R.T.Trap Avera~:e Number of Sets per Trapper Average i; #Trappers %of Total Dist. to Line Years Mode Respond. Respondents Start of Length Lynx Marten Fox Otter Wolf/Wolver. Beaver Other Trapped Line1 Airplane & Foot 1.5 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 Airplane & Dog 2 3.0 75 65 16 128 0 3 0 0 0 7 Team Airplane & Snow-3 4.5 100 30 13 30 5 0 13 0 6 11 Machine Passenger Vehicle & 4 6. l 23 5 8 12 17 0 0 0 13 10 Foot Passenger Vehicle & 1.5 60 60 16 0 6 0 0 0 10 8 Dog Team Passenger Vehicle & 35 53.0 63 63 24 41 :w 0 12 16 11 Snowmachine Foot Only 1.5 0 4 3 18 0 0 0 3 14 Dog Team Only 1.5 0 35 10 0 30 0 0 0 10 10 Snowmachine Only 18 27.3 0 41 26 46 li3 0.5 4 0 6 15 TOTAL' 66 100.0 44 50 22 40 il6 0.23 8 0.62 12 i2 1 2 Averages weighted by the percent composition for each mode of transportation. Estimate based on respondents address and reported trapping area. [· [ [ [ [ L L c (' t: L L [ I. GROSS REVENUES APPENDIXB COMMERCIAL FISHERIES The gross revenue from the commercial sale of salmon which originate in the Tanana Basin can be determined by multiplying the total number of salmon caught by the average weight and price per pound for each species. · lhe total 1981 Tanana Basin commercial salmon catch, average weights, price/pound and total gross revenue is presented, by species, in Table B2. In addition to the commercial harvest of salmon within the Basin, a large number of salmon, which are produced by salmon which spawn in the Basin, are intercepted and harvested commercially in the Lower and Middle Yukon River salmon fisheries. Since data is not currently available which would have permitted us to differentiate Tanana Basin salmon stocks which are caught in the Lower Yukon River commercial fisheries, a computer model (originally developed by ADF&G's FRED Div1sion to predict the percent contribution of Clear Hatchery releases to the Yukon River fisheries) was modified to enable us to estimate the percent contribution of Tanana Basin salmon stocks to the Lower and Middle Yukon River salmon fisheries. The total commercial salmon harvest attributable to Tanana Basin stocks is then calculated by multiplying the percent contribut1on times the total salmon harvests, by specjes, for each individual fishery. II. OPERATING COSTS Total operating cost to the fisherman aftects the profits made trom a season of fishing. The total amount of money spent by the fishermen to part1cipate in this activity, when subtracted from gross revenues as established in the previous section results 1n the net profits to the tishermen, or the producer benefits. A fisherman's operating costs include the amortized costs of owning a boat and motor, the cost of gas to run the boat, and the price of fishing gear (nets, fishwheel), and other miscellaneous gear (licenses). In the Lower and Middle Yukon River commercial salmon fisheries the following capital costs were assumed: 1) 52,000 for a boat with a five year life, 2) $3,000 for a motor with a three year l1te, and 3) $200 for a miscellaneous equipment {gas cans, etc ... ) with a ten year life. In addition $35/year was included for maintainence. These estimates were derived based on conversations with local fishermen. Since boats are also used for transportantion, firewood gathering, berry p1cking, hunting, subs1stence fishing, etc., only 50% of the annual capital expenditures are attributed to commercial fishing activ1t1es. Within the lanana Basin, identical annual capital expend1tures were assumed except that $1,000 was added for a boat trailer with a projected ten year life. Although boats are also used for transportation, recreation, hunting and subsistence fishing, surtace road transportat1on is generally available within the Basin. Therefore, 75: of the annual cap1tal expenditures were attributed to commercial fishing activities. B-1 r [ [ [ [ L [ [ [ c [ [ L Another cost that must be factored into this analysis is the cost of nets or a· tishwheel. It is assumed that a fishwheel is a $1,250 initial investment, which lasts approx1mately 4 years. This comes to $312 per year. ln addition to this cost an add1tional $150 per year must be paid in order to maintain the wheel for a total annual cost of $462. It is assumed that a net is a $1,000 initial investment which last approximately seven years. This averages $143 per year. Each year an additional $500 lS spent on patching these nets for a total annual cost of $643. Fishermen must also pay license fees every year. A vessel license fee costs $20 per year. ln addition, there is an annual limited entry permit license renewal fee of $30 per year. The initial costot obtaining a limited entry commercial fishing license was not included in this analysis. Although entry permit licenses are a cap1tal cost, they are personal property which has consistently grown in real value. Theretore, in actual pract1ce an unrealized capital gain could be assigned to the ownership of the license. Currently, entry permits are valued between $15,000 to $20,000, while fishermen that bought their permits years ago paid next to nothing. Because of the consistent capital growth in the value of limited entry permit 11censes and the absence of deductable depreciation, an :>mrn•+;7C>rl :>nn11::.l rn~+ .f'n,. on+"'" no~;+C' t./.::>C' nn+ inrl11riori ;n +h;c: .::>n.::>l\/c:ic: UIIIVI VI4~\.A UIIIIUYI ._V~ .... lVI \...IIVIJ t-''-IIIIIW.J UU.J IIVV IIIVf\A_'-_ 111 Vlll...l '-"11UIJ..JI..J• The var1ous assumptions relating to total operating costs are summarized in Table 84. III. NET PRODUCER BENEFITS lhe net producer benefit tram commercial salmon tishing during the 1981 season was approximately 1.93 mi Ilion dollars and is presented in Table 81. B-2 r r· [ [ L [ c [ [ [ E [ c L L L APPENDIXC SUBSISTENCE FISHERIES The 1981 estimated minimum net revenue from the subsistence harvest of fish which originate in the Tanana Basin was calculated using a replacement cost analysis (i.e., estimating the 11 Store bought equivalency cost of subsistence harvested fish) and is presented in Table Cl. The equivalent replacement costs were derived by averaging a cross-sectional survey of fish prices at a Fairbanks Safeway Store on June 13, 1983 (Table C10). A cost differential was applied to the Fairbanks base price to reflect the higher prices which are charges in rural areas. The price differential in rural areas adjacent to the road network was projected as a 10% increase over the Fairbanks base price. In rural areas not connected to the road network, this differential was set at 20% above the Fairbanks base price. Subsistence fish harvests within the Tanana Basin in 1981 were calculated by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (Geiger, et al, 1981) and are presented in Tables C2 through C8. In addition to the subsistence harvest of salmon within the Basin, a large number of salmon which are produced by salmon which spawn in the Basin, are intercepted and harvested for subsistence in the Middle and Lower Yukon River subsistence salmon fisheries. Since data is not currently available which permits us to differentiate Tanana Basin salmon stocks which are caught in the Lower and Middle Yukon River subsistence salmon fisheries, a computer model (originally developed by ADF&G•s FRED Division to predict the percent contribution of Clear Hatchery releases to the Yukon River fisheries) was modified to enable us to estimate the percent contribution of Tanana Basin salmon stocks to the Lower and Middle Yukon River salmon fisheries. The total subsistence salmon harvest attributable to Tanana Basin stocks was then calculated by multiplying the percent contribution times the total salmon harvests, by species, for each individual fishery. This model was developed for both the commercial and subsistence salmon fisheries and is described in Appendix B. Appendix Tables B6 through B9 present the model-estimated percent contributions for each species of salmon harvested. C-1 L [ [ [ [ [' [: [ f' 1-- L [ L [ E [ [ [ [ ~ L L L TABLE C4. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Fall Chum Salmon Subsistence Fisheries for TBAP Area Stocks. 1) Region Fairbanks Other Basin Communities Other Alaska Communities TOTAL 1981 Harvest 3,855 22 '777 24,910 51,542 2) 1981 Average Weight/Fish 7.4 7.4 8.0 1981 Harvest (In Pounds) 28,527 168,550 199,280 396,3b/ 1) Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game Estimated Total Value Replacement Per Pound Cost 3.66 3) 104,409 1.13 4) 190,462 1. 96 5) 390,589 fiRt:i_4fiO ---.,·-- 2) 48,036 (total harvest) times 51.858% (percent contribution) = 24,910 3) Estimate 90% used for human consumption, 10% for dog food. Equivalent par value calculated as follows: 90% ($4.04/lb.) + 10% ($0.20/lb.) = $3.66/lb. 4) Estimate 80% used for dog food, 20% for human consumption. Equivalent par value calculated as _follows: 80% ($0.20/lb. plus $0.10 freight= $0.30/lb.) + 20% ($4.44/lb) = $1.13/lb. 5) Upstream of Anvik estimate 80% used for dog food, 20% for human consumptinn. Downstream of Anvik estimate 90% used for human consumption, 10% for dog food. Equivalent par value calculated as follows: 21.6% (percent catch below Anvik) times ·[90% ($4.85/lb) + ($0.20/lb. plus $0.20/lb. freight = $0.40/lb.)] plus 78.4% (Percent catch above Anvik) times [80% ($0.20/lb. plus $0.20/lb .. freight= $0.40/lb.) + 20% ($4.85/lb.)] = $1.96/lb. NOTE: Replacement cost values are a minimal estimate of a portion of the subsistence use values and do not represent all market values or behavioral, social and cultural values which are difficult to quantify. C-5 [ [ [ [, [ c f~ [ [ [ c [ L TABLE C6. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Sheefish Subsistence Fisheries. 1) Region ~airbanks Other Tanana River Basin Communities Other Alaska Communities TOTAL 1981 Harvest 9 101 110 1981 Average Weight/Fish 10 10 1981 Harvest (In Pounds) 90 1,010 1,100 Fish and Game 0 Estimated Value Per Pound 4.04 2) 4.44 3) Par value estimated at $4.04/lb. Total Replacement Cost 364 4,484 Unknown 4,848 1) 2) 3) Source: Alaska Department of 100% utilized for human use. 100% utilized for human use. (freight). Par value estimated at Fairbanks value plus 10% NOTE: Replacement cost values are a minimal estimate of a portion of the subsistence use values and do not represent all market values or behavioral, social and cultural values which are difficult to quantify. C-7 [ [ [ [ [ [' [ [ TABLE C7. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Whitefish Subsistence Fisheries. 1) Region Fairbanks Other Basin Communities Other Alaska Communities 1981 Harvest 53 2,009 1981 Average Weight/Fish 2.25 2) 2.25 2) 1981 Harvest (In Pounds) 119.25 4,520.2~ c Estimated Value Per Pound 4.04 3) 4.44 4) Total Replacement Cost 482 20,070 Unknown f' . TOTAL t, 2,062 4,638 20,552 [ [ [ t [ [ c [ b L 1) Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2) Species composition unreported. Estimated average weight for mixed catch; Bering Cisco 1 lb., Broad Humpback, Least Cisco 2.5 to 5 lbs. Overall average based on estimated catch levels-2.25 lbs. (Anderson, 1983). 3) 100% utilized for human consumption. Par value estimated at $4.04/lb. 4) 100% utilized for human consumption. Par value estimated at Fairbanks value plus 10% (freight). NOTE: Repl~cement cost values are a minimal estimate of a portion of the sub- sistence use values and do not represent all market values or behavioral, social and cultural values which are difficult to quanify. C-8 [ [ TABLE C8. Estimated Replacement Cost Value of the Fall Chum Salmon [ Subsistence Carcass Fishery at Big Delta. [ [ [ [ [ r, L~ [ [ c [ c L E L 1981 1981 1981 Estimated Total Region Harvest Average Harvest Value Replacement Weight/Fish (In Pounds) Per Pound Cost. Fairbanks Other Tanana River Basin 5,030 5.0 25,150 .20 2) 5,030 Communities Other Alaska Communities TOTAL c; n<n ?c; ,c;n c; n<n 'WJ--V --,·--...,, ___ 1) Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2) 100% utilized for dog food. Par value estimated at $0.20/lb. NOTE: Replacement cost values are a minimal estimate of a portion of the subsistence use values and do not represent all market values or behavioral, social and cultural values which are difficult to quantify. C-9 [ [ [ [ [ L [ [ [ [ [ r, b [~ [ E L TABLE C9. Number of Subsistence Fishing Families Harvesting Salmon Produced in the TBAP Area. 1) Fishing Families Origin Raw Number Equivalent Number Fairbanks Other Basin 228 55 542 228 55 174 Other Alaska 2) TOTAL 1) 2) 3) 825 457 Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game (1981 Data). Includes fishermen in the lower Yukon River downstream of the TBAP Area who are intercepting and harvesting salmon produced in the TBAP Area. Because only a percentage of the fish caught by these fishermen can be attributed to the TBAP Area, an equivalent value has been generated which estimates the number of families wholly participating in subsistence salmon fisheries harvesting salmon produced in the TBAP Area. The equivalent is derived by calculating the mean percent contribution, for all salmon species, of TBAP Area salmon caught in the Yukon River ~elow the mouth of the Tanana River. Using the individual species percent contribution data (see supportive tables) an overall contribution percentage for TBAP Basin Stocks is derived as follows: Salmon King Summer Chum Fall Chum Coho % of Total Catch 12.6 62.5 22.5 2.3 TOTAL AVERAGE CONTRIBUTION C-10 % Contribution 8.792 29.648 51.858 34.670 32.103% [ [ [ [ [ [ [' c [ [ [ E L c b [ t L TABLE C10. Meat, Fish and Poultry Prices, Safeway Stores, Inc., Fairbanks, June 13, 1983. · Meat Ground Beef Vienna Sausage Pork Loin Roast Ham Pork Spare Ribs Beef Heart Beef Chuck Roast Ground Sausage Pork Chops Beef Chuck Steak Beef Top Sirlon Hot Dogs Spam Stew Beef Sliced Bacon Beef Tongue Sliced Bologna Beef Top Round Sliced Salami Beef Rib Steak Beef T-Bone Steak Beef New York Steak AVERAGE PRICE/POUND Fish Snapper Tuna Fish Cod Filets Halibut lJover Sole Perch Ling Cod Salmon Roast Salmon Steak AVERAGE PRICE/POUND Poultry Chicken -Whole Cornish Game Hens Duck Turkey Chicken Legs & Thighs AVERAGE PRICE/POUND C-11 Price Per Pound $1.59 1. 76 1. 79 1.89 1.89 1. 99 1. 99 1. 99 2.09 2.19 2.19 2.39 2.47 2.59 2.68 2.79 3.58 3.59 3.96 4.49 4.49 5.99 $2.74 Price Per Pound $2.29 2.84 3.29 3.49 3.69 3.89 4.10 6.19 6.59 $4.04 Price Per Pound $1.19 1. 55 1. 55 1. 59 2.29 Sl. 63 [ r t r L [ r· L' r t~ [ [ c [ L' [ [ r~ L [ Finally, consumers do not purchase all of their equipment in Alaska~ Some items are purchased out-of-state. Therefore, since this analy~is was restricted to .in-state expe~ditures, a correction factor which reflected the estimated. percent of in-state purchases was applied toward each ~xpenditure item category. The Tanana Basin summary calculations and state totals for total special equipment expenditures are presented in Tables 07 and DB, respectively. D-3 ,......--. L I • ,,, "J •) TABLE Dl. Expenditures for Freshwater Fishing: 1980 (Continued) (Population 16 years old and older) Expenditure item AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT USED PRIMARILY FOR FRESHWATER FISHING: CAMPING EQUIPMENT ...... . BI~OCULARS, FIELD GLASSES, ETC. SHOW SHOES AND SKIS ... SPECIAL FISHING CLOTHES ••.. RUBBER BOOTS AHD WADERS . . . ..• MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF EQUIPMEHT PROCESSING AND TAXIDERMY COSTS •.. OTHER ............•... Alaska State Summary Spenders Number (hundreds) 112 ll 12 as 199 •.n -5 9 Percent of all sportsmen 9.l 1.1 1.0 7. 0 16.5 3. 1 0.4 o,a Expenditures Amount (hundreds of dollars) 1153l 772 87ft l681 7510 .l259 ua 6ft 51 Average per sportsman (dollars) 9.60 0.6ft 0.72 l.05 6.22 •2.10 .0.57 S,l5 Note: Shading--based on a sample size les1 than 10. Aater1ak--ba1ed on a sample size greater than or equal to 10 but less than 25. Source: U.S.F.W.S. 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation -Alaska State Report. ,..._...,, I I ' ' TABLE D11. Standard Errors for Estimated Expenditures by Sportsmen or Fishermen 16 Years Old and Over (68 CHANCES OUT OF 100, NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) ESTIMATim EXPENDITURES BASE OF THE ESTIMATE 250 500 1000 2500 5000 10000 25000 50000 25 98 169 307 119 1402 2769 6870 13703 50 86 14 0 242 541 1034 2021 4978 9906 1 0 0 79 123 202 424 789 1513 3684 7301 250 75 111 173 336 !>94 1102 2617 5140 500 73 107 162 301 513 925 2147 4177 1 0 0 0 72 105 157 281 467 822 1868 3601 2000 72 104 154 271 443 766 1711 3275 4000 72 104 152 266 430 736 11127 3099 Source: See Below. 100000 . 27371 19763 14535 10183 8236 7064 6H8 6038 TABLE D12. Standard Errors for Estimated Expenditures by Hunters 16 Years Old andOver (68 CHANCES OUT OF 100. NUMBERS IN THOUSANDS) ESTIMATE:D EXPENDITURES BASE OF THE ESTIMATE 100 250 500 1000 2500 5000 10000 25000 50000 25 27 58 108 210 513 1019 20ll 5066 10124 50 23 45 81 153 366 722 1433 3565 7120 100 20 :n 63 114 263 512 1008 2497 4979 250 19 32 49 82 174 326 628 1533 3042 500 18 29 44 68 132 234 433 1028 2018 750 18 29 42 63 115 193 344 791 1532 1000 18 28 41 60 105 16 9 290 640 1218 1500 18 28 40 57 94 141 222 440 787 .~ j 500000 1000000 136711 273386 98615 197179 72404 144740. 50526 100954 40698 81276 34758 69374 ll368 62580 29528 58889 100000 300000 20240 60705 14229 42665 9943' 29798 6058 18125 H98 11917 3013 8937 2372 6984 1474 4207 Source: U.S.F.W.S. 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation - Alaska State Report. [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r· l-~ L: [ [ c [ L t b L Clark, C.W. 1976. Mathematical bioeconomics. New York. John Wiley and Sons. Clark, R.N., J.C. Hendee, and F.L. Campbell. 1971. Values, behavior, and conflict in modern camping culture. J. of Leis. Res. 3:143-159. Clawson, Marion. 1959. 11 Methods of Measuring the Demand For and Va 1 ue of Outdoor Recreation ... Reprint No. 10, Resources for the Future, Wash. D.C .. Clawson, M., and J. Knetsch. · 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation Baltimore: John Hopkins. Cocheba, Donald J. and William A. Langford. 1978. Wildlife valuation: the collective good aspect of hunting. J. Land Econ. 54(4);490-504. Common, M.S. 1973. A note on the use of the Clawson method for evaluation of recreation site benefits. Regional Studi~s 7:401-406. Convery, Frank J. 1976. Economics applied to outdoor recreation: an evaluation. In Proc. of Southern States Rec. Res. Appli. Wkshp., IIC:::nA l='nl"' C:::al"'~ ~an Ta,-h Donn.-+ C:t:'_O nn 1nQ_1?1 __ ..,,, ''-''• Y'-l't'• U\o,oll• 1\,.VIfe 1''-tJVI\, ..JL-J' ..... ,..,. J.VU .1.'-..L• Convery, F.J. and C.C. cSmith. 1977. The economics of. outdoor recreation and the forest planner. In Outdoor recreation advances in the application of economics (Proceedings of a National Symposium). USDA. Forest Service, General Tech. Rep. W0-2. Washington, D.C. p. 11-15. Coomber, Nicholas H. and Asit K. Biswas. 1972. Evaluation of environmental intangibles: Review of techniques. Ottawa, Canada, Dept. of the Environment, Ecological System3 Branch. 74p. Coomber, Nicholas H. and Asit K. Biswas. 1973. Evaluation of environmental intangibles. General Press, Bronxville, NY. 77p. Coppedge, Robert 0. and Russell C. Youmans. 1970. Income Multipliers in Economic Impact Analysis: Myths and Truth. Special Report No. 294. Cooperative Extension Service, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Crutchfield, J.A. 1962. Valuation of fishery resources. Land Econ. 38(5):145-154. Crutchfield, James J. 1964. Fish and wildlife values in relation to other resources. West Assoc. State Game and Fish Comm. Proc. 44:48-56. Crutchfield, J.A., S. Langdon, O.A. Mathisen and P.H. Pope. 1982. The Biological, Economic and Social Values of a Sockeye Salmon Stream in Bristol Bay, Alaska - A Case Study of Tazimina River. Fisheries Research Institute, University of Washington. E-6 [ L [ f., [ L L r t [ [ [ c b [ L L I SE-9. pp. 163-190. Driver, B.L. and P.J. Brown. 1975. A social psychological definition of recreation demand, with implication for recreation resource planning. In Assessing Demand for Outdoor Recreation, Nat. Acad. Sci., Comm.-on Assessment of Demand for Outdoor Recreation Resour .. Assem. Behavioral and Social Sci. Natl. Res. Counc., Washington, D.C. Driver, B.L. and P.J. Brown. 1978. The opportunity spectrum concept and behavioral information in outdoor recreation resource supply inventories: A rationale. In Integrated inventories of renewable natural resources. Proceedings of the workshop. (Tuscan, Arizona. Jan 8-12, 1978). Gyde H. Lund and others, tech. coord. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-55, Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Sta. Fort Collins, Colorado. 482pp. Drury, Newton B. 1952. Recreation-natural-aesthetic values. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 16:62-71. Dwyer, John F. 1980. Economic Benefits of Wildlife-Related Recreation Experiences. In William W. Shaw and Ervin H. Zube (ed.), Wildlife Values. University of Arizona, Tuscon. Dwyer, J.F. and M.D. Bowes. recreation opportunities. 1978a. Concepts of value for water-based Water International 3:11-15. Dwyer, J.F., and M.D. Bowes. 1978b. 11 Concepts of Value for Marine Recreational Fishing ... Am. J. Agr. Econ. 60:1008-1012 (Dec.). Dwyer, J.F. and M.D. Bowes. 1979. Benefit-cost analysis for appraisal of recreation alternatives. J. For. 77:145-147. Dwyer, John F., John R. Kelly, and Michael D. Bowes. 1977. 11 Improved Procedures for Valuation of the Contribution of Recreation to National Economic Development... University of Illinois Water Resources Center Research Report No. 128. Dyer, Archie Allen. 1968. The Value of Trout Stream Fishery. Utah State University, M.S. thesis, 49 pages. E•cole Pratique des Hautes E•tudes and Mouton & Co. 1972. Political Economy of Environment: Problems of Method. Papers presented at the symposium held at the Maison des Sciences de 1•Horrrne, Paris, July 5-8, 1971. Edwards, J.A., K.C. Gibbs, L.J. Guedry, and H.H. Stoevener. 1976. 11 The Demand for Non-Unique Outdoor Recreational Services: Methodological Issues ... Corvallis, OR. Sta. Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bu 11 . 133. Ellefson, Paul V. 1970. Estimating User Benefits of Public Recrea- tion Areas by Demand Curve Analysis. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Research and Development Report No. 228, 14 pages. E-8 [ [ [ [ [ [ L [ [ [ [ t: b L [ L b L Goldsmith, Scott. 1978. Alaskan Macroeconomy. University of Alaska. Important Economic Relationships in the Inst. of Social and Econ. Research, Gordon, D. 1970. An Economic Analysis of Idaho Sport Fisheries. University of Idaho Cooperative Fishery Unit, Moscow. 60 pages. Gordon, H.S. 1954. The economic theory of a common property resource: the fishery. J. Pol. Econ. April. 1954. 124-142. Gordon, Irene M. and J.L. Knetsch. 1979. "Consumer•s Surplus Measures and the Evaluation of Resources ... Land Economics 55:1-10 (Feb.). Gosselink, James G., Eugene P. Odum and R.M. Pope. 1974. The Value of the Tidal Marsh. Pub. No. LSU-S6-74-03, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 30pp. Gum, R.L., and W.E. Martin. 1975. 11 Problems and Solutions in Estimating the Demand for and Value of Rural Outdoor Recreation ... AJAE 57(4):558-566. Gum, R.L., W.E. Martin, A.H. Smith, and C.C. Depping. 1975. Participation and expenditures for hunting, fishing, and general rural outdoor recreation in Arizona. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Pap. Rep. 270. Tucson. Haines, Bruce. 1972. Cost-Benefit Ratio of Albuquerque-Belen Catchable Trout Fishery. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Project No. F-22-R-12, 12 pages. Hammack, J. and G.M. Brown. 1974. Waterfowl and Wetlands: Toward Bioeconomic Analysis. Wash. D.C., Resources for the Future. Harberger, A.C. 1971. 11 Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics: An Interpretive Essay ... JEL, 9:785-79l (Sept.). Harry, J., J.C. Hendee, and Robert B. Stein. 1972. A Sociological Criterion for Outdoor Recreation Resource Allocation. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association. New Orleans, Louisiana. Hause, J. C. 1975. 11 The Theory of Welfare Cost Measurement... JPE, 83:1145-1183 (Dec.). Haverman, R. 1973. 11 Common Property, Congestion, and Environmental Pollution. 11 Quarterly J. Economics 86:278-287 (May). Hay, Michael J. and Kenneth E. McConnell. 1979. 11 An Analysis of Participation in Nonconsumptive Wildlife Recreation ... Land Economics, 55(4):461-471. Hendee, J.C. 1969. Appreciative versus consumptive uses of wildlife refuges: studies of who gets what and trends in use. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 34:252-264. E-10 [ [ L [ [ [ f' L r_, t [ L [ c L [ r~ L L L Hendee, John C. and Hobson Bryan. 1978. Social benefits of fish and wildlife conservation. Proceedings of Joint Annual Meeting of Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Western Division. American Fisheries Society. San Diego. Hendee, J.C. and R.J. Burdge. 1974. The substitutability concept: implications for recreation research and management. J. Leisure Research 6:157-162. Henderson, A.M. Variation.11 1941. Consumer•s Surplus and the Compensating The Review of Economic Studies 8:117-121 (Feb.)~ Hicks, J.R. 11 The Four Consumer•s Surpluses.11 Rev. of Economic Studies 11:31-41. Hiett, R.L. and J.W. Worrall. 1977. Marine Recreational Fishermen•s Ability to Estimate Catch and to Recall Catch and sffort Over Time. Human Sciences Research, Inc., Mclean, Va. Higgins, M.D. 1974. Market Resources.11 11 Concepts of Value for Market Price and Non- Department of Forestry, Purdue University. Hinote, H. 1967. The Evolution of Methods Used in Evaluating Recreational Benefits of Multiple Purpose Water Resource Projects. Navigation Economics Branch, Division of. Navigation Development, TVA, Knoxville, Tenn. Hoffman, R.G. and H. Yamauchi. 1972. Recreational Fishing: Its Impact on State and Local Economics. Hawaii Division of Fish and Game Paper No. 3, 38 pages. Holbrook, Kenneth Gene. 1970. The economic value of natural areas for recreational hunting. Res. Rep. No. 24, Univ. of Kentucky Water Resources Inst., Lexington, Ky. 132p. Horvath, J.C. Recreation. 1974. Detailed Analysis: Survey of Wildlife Georgi~ State University, Atlanta, Ga. Hunter, G.N. 1960-1964. 11 Economic Value of Hunting and Fishing to the People of the State of Colorado.11 Colorado Game, Fish, and Parks Department, Denver (loose leaf, unpublished). Idaho Cooperative Fishery Unit. 1973. A Report to the National Marine ·Fisheries Service Workshop on Fishery Economics at Moscow, Idaho, and Madison, Wisconsin. Moscow: University of Idaho. Isserman, Andrew M. 1975. 11 Regional Employment Multiplier: A New Approach: Corrment.11 Land Economics 51(3):290-293. Jamsen, G.C. and P.V. Ellefson. 1971. Economic valuation of Michigan•s salmon-trout fishery. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 36:187-194. E-ll [ [ [ [ L L L [ L L [ [ L [ [ [ L L Knetsch, J.L. 1977. 11 Displaced Facilities and Benefit Calculations ... Land Economics 53:123-129 (Feb.). Knetsch, J.L., R.E. Brown and W.J. Hansen. 1977. Estimating expected use and value of recreation sites. In Planning for tourisn development: Quantitative approache~ Ed. C. Gearing, W. Swart, and T. Var. Praeger Publishers. New York. 103-115. Knetsch, J.L., and F.J. Cesario. 1976. 11 Some Problems in Estimating the Demand for Outdoor Recreation: Corrment.11 AJAE 58:596-597 (Aug. ) . Knetsch, J.L. and R.K. Davis. 1966. Comparisons of methods for recreation evaluation. Water Research, ed. A. Kneese and S. Smith. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, Md. Krutilla, John. Resources ... Chapter. 1967. 11 Methods of Estimating the Value of Wildlife Address to the Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. Krutilla, J.V., and C.J. Cicchetti. 1972. 11 Evaluating Benefits of Envi;onmental Resources with Special Application to the Hells Canyon ... Natural Res. Journal 12:1-29 (Jan.). Krutilla, J.V., and A.C. Fisher. 1975. The Economics of Natural Environments. Wash. D.C., Resources for the Future. Kunkel, Clair, and Phil Janik. 1976. 11 An Economic Evaluation of Salmonid Fisheries Attributable to Siuslaw National Forest ... Siuslaw National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region, U.S. Forest Service. Kuntz, Pa~l Grimley. 1970. The serial order of values: an argument against unidimensionality and for multidimensionality. In Laszlo, Ervin and James Wilber (eds.), Human va~ues and matrual science. Proc. Conf. on Value Inquiry, State Univ. of New York, Geneseo. Lacaillade, Harold C., Jr. 1968. New Hampshire Hunter Preference Survey 1964. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Technical Circular No. 22a, 18 pages. Lancaster, K.J. 1966. 11 A New Approach to Consumer Theory. 11 JPE 74: 132-157 (April). Langford, William A. and Donald J. Cocheba. 1978. The Wildlife Valuation Probl~m: A Critical Review of Economic Approaches. Occasional Paper No. 37. Canadian Wildlife Service. Larson, Douglas M. 1981. Recent advances in recreation valuation: a literature search. Alaska Sea Grant College Program. University of Alaska, Fairbanks. E-13 f' I l __ _ ,, l. [ [ [ [ [ L [ L l Leitch, Jay A. and Donald F. Scott. 1977. A Selected· Annotated Bibliography of Economic Values of Fish and Wildlife and their Habitats. Department of Ag. Economics, North Dakota Ag. Exp. Station. North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota. Lerner, L.J. 1958. Quantitative indices of recreational values. Proc. Comm. Econ. Water Res. Dev., W. Ag. Econ. Res. Coun., W. Farm. Econ. Assoc., Reno, Nv. Levenson, A.J. 1971.. Evaluation of Recreational and Cultural Benefits of Estuarine Use in an Urban Setting. Hofstra University Center for Business and Urban Research, Hempstead, N.Y. Lewis, Harrison F. 1951. Wildlife in today•s economy: aesthetic and recreational values of wildlife. Trans N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 16:13-16. Lindsay, Cotton M. 1966. Option demand and consumer•s surplus. Quart. J. Econ. 83(2):344-346. Little, I.M.D. 1957. A critique of welfare economics. Oxford Univ. Press. Lobdell, Charles Henry. 1967~ Socio~economic characteristics of Maine sportsmen. M.S. Thesis, University of Maine. 95pp. Lodico, Norma Jean. 1976. Forecasting demand for hunting and fishing: a bibliography. Info. Services Branch, Nat. Res. Lib. Biblio. Series No. 33, USDI, Washington, D.C. 19pp. Logsdon, Charles, et.al. 1977. Input-Output Tables for Alaska•s Economy: A First Look. Agricultural Experiment Station, U of AK, Fairbanks. Logsdon, Charles L., Wayne C.v Thomas, John Kruse, Monica E. Thomas and Sheila Helgath. 1973. Copper River-Wrangells, Socioeconomic Overview. ISER. University of Alaska. Lovegrove, Robert Emerson. 1971. The economic impact of fishing and hunting on a local Colorado economy. M.S. ·Thesis, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins. 127pp. Mack, Ruth and Myers Sumner. 1965. 11 0utdoor Recreation 11 , in R. Dorfman, Ed. Measuring Benefits of Government Investments, Brooking In st. Mahoney, J. 1960. 11 An Economic Evaluation of California•s Sport Fisheries.11 California Fish and Game 46(4):199-209. Maler, K.G. 1974. 11 Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry.11 John Hopkins University. Baltimore. Martin, W. and R. Gum. 1978. 11 Economic Value of Hunting, Fishing and General Outdoor Recreation,11 Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 6(1). E-14 [ [ L [ [ L L [ [ [ [ L L E L Romm, J. 1969. The Vc ue of Reservoir Recreation. Technical Report No. 19, A.E. Res. 2~ Cornell University Water Resources and Marine Science Cente Ithaca, New York. Rosen, S. 1974. Hedor c prices and implicit markets. J. Polit. Econ. 82:34-55. Rowe, Robert D., Ralph . D1 Arge and Davis S. Brookshire. 1980. "An Experiment on the Ec nomic Value of Visibility ... J. Env. Econ. & Mgmt. 7(1):1-19 (Mar ). Samuelson, P.A. 1954. Review of Economics 11 The Pure Theory of Pub 1 i c Expenditures. 11 nd Statistics 36:387-389 (Nov.). Schaefer, Richard K. ar Kenneth C. Nobe. 1969. Economic evaluation of the land acquisit on program of the Colorado Division of Game, Fish and Parks. De~ . of Econ., Colorado State Univ. NRE-6. 57pp. Schweitzer, D.L., C.T. ushwa, and T.W. Hoekstra. 1978. The 1979 national assessment. f wildlife and fish: a progress report. Trans. N. Amer. Wild . and Nat. Res. Conf. 43:266-273. Schweitzer, D.L. 1981. Recommendations for Economic Valuation of Wildlife and Fish Re ources in the Alaska Region, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collin . c Scott, A. 1965. The v luation of game resources: aspects. Can. Fish. Rep. No~ 4(5):27-49. some theoretical Seneca, J. and C.J. Cic hetti. 1969. "User Response in Outdoor Recreation: A Produ tion Analysis ... J. Leisure Research 1:238-245 (Winter). Shafer, Elwood L., Jr. quantitative and qua Rec. Symp. Proc., NE Pa. p5-22. Shaw, William W. 1978. wildlife. In Daniel assessment of aesthe Sta., USFS, Fort Col 1d George Moeller. 1971. Predicting itative values of recreation participation. ~or.· Exp. Sta., For. Serv., USDA, Upper Darby, Current research on aesthetic values of Terry C. and Ervin H. Zube. 1978. User-based ic resources. Rocky Mtn. For. and Range Exp. ins, Co. In Press. Shaw, William W., Danie J. Witter, David A. King and Merton T. Richards. 1978. No 1unting wildlife enthusiasts and wildlife management. Trans. ~st. Assoc. of Fish and Wildl. Agencies. July. Shelby, B. and M. Danle 1979. Scarcity, conflict, and equity in allocating public re ~eation resources. Paper presented at the Rural Sociological S :iety Meetings. Burlington, Vermont. 21pp. Shepard, Paul, Jr. 195 Am. Wildl. and Nat. A theory of the value of hunting. ~s. Con f. 24:504-512. E-19 Trans. N. ~ [ r [ [ [ L [ r t-= [ [ [ c L c [-~ [ [ L: Shulstad, N. and H.H. Stoevener. 1978. The effects of mercury contamination in pheasants on the value of pheasant hunting. Land Econ. 54{1):39-49. Shulze, William D., Ralph C. D'Arge and DavidS. Brook~hire. 1981. "Valuing Environmental Commodities: Some Recent Experiments." Land Economics 57{2):151-172. Siebert, Horst. 1981. Economics of the Environment. Lexingtoh Books, D.C. Heath ·and Company, Lexington, Mass. Sinden, J.A. 1973. Utility Analysis in the Valuation of Extra-Market Benefits with Particular Reference to Water-Based Recreation. Water Resources Institute, OSU, and Water Resources Research Center, U. Mass. Sinden, J.A. 1974. "A Utility Approach to the Valuation of Recreational and Aesthetic Experiences." AJAE, 56:61-72 (Feb.) Sinden, John and AlbertcWorrell. 1979 .. Unpriced Values, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Sinden, J.A. and J.B. Wyckoff. 1976. "Indifference Mapping: L1n ~mnil"'ir::al MaThnrfnlnn\1 -f=nV" t",...nnnrn;,.. E;u~1 .. ~.,_;"""' "+ +-'-"""' 1111 L.e111fJ11 IVUI 11\...VfiV\.IVIV"::JJ lVI 1..'-VIIVIIII\.. L.VQIUCI,IUII Ul \..lit: Environment." Regional Science and Urban Economics 6:81-103 (Mar. ) . Smith, Courtland L. 1981. "Satisfaction Bonus from Salmon Fishing: Implication for Economic Evaluation." Land Economics 57{2): 181-196. Smith R.J. 1970. The evaluation of recreation benefits: Some problems of the Clawson method. Faculty of Commerce and Social Science Discussion Paper. University of Birmingham. Smith R.J. and N.J. Kavanagh. 1969. The measurement of benefits of trout fishing: Preliminary results of a study of Grafham Water. J. of Leis. Res. 1:316-332. Smith V.K. and J.V. Krutilla. 1974. "A Simulation Model for the Management of Low Density Recreational Areas." J. Env. Econ. and Mgmt. 1:187-201 (Nov.). Smith, V. Kerry. 1975. "Travel Cost Demand Models for Wilderness Recreation: A Problem of Non-Nested Hypotheses." Land Economics 51:103-111 (May). Stanfield, J. Roland and Walter E. Mullendore. 1973. "A Suggested- Form of Benefit-Cost Analysis for an Evaluation of Urban Renewal Projects." Land Economics 49{1) :81-86. Steinhoff, Harold W. 1969. Values of wildlife and related recreation on the Kenai National Moose Range. Rep. to Div. Wildl. Res., Bur. Sport Fish and Wildl., USDI, Washington, D.C. 33pp. E-20 [ [ [ [ [ c f' l [ [ c L l L Steinhoff, Harold W. 1971. Communicating complete wildlife values of Kenai. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. COnf. 36:428-439. Steinhoff, Harold W. 1973. What North America needs is a good five-cent moose. N. Am. Moose Conf. and Wkshop 9: 232-243 .. Ministry of Nat. Res., Ontario. Steinhoff, Harold W. 1978. Big game values. 1_!1_ Schmidt, John L. and Douglas L. Gilbert. Big game of North America -ecology and management. Stackpole, Harrisburg, Pa. Steinhoff, Harold W. 1979. Analysis of Major Conceptual Systems for Understanding and Measuring Wildlife Values. Paper presented at Wildlife Values Workshop on Assessment Methodologies and Information Needs. University Arizona, Tucson, October, 1979. Stevens, J.B. 1965. A study of conflict in natural resources use: Evaluation of recreational benefits as related in changes in water quality. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University. Corvallis. 205pp. Stevens, Joe B. 1966. Angler success sport fishery recreational values. 95(4):357-362. as a quality determinant of Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. Stevens, Joe B. 1966. "Recreation Benefits from Water Pollution Control." Water Resources Research 2(2):167-182. Stevens, Joe B. 1969. Measurement of economic values in sport fishing: an economist's views on validity, usefulmess, and propriety. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 98(2):352-357. Stoll, John R. 1980. "The Valuation of Hunting Related Amenities: A Conceptual and Empirical Approach. Unpub. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kentucky, 168 pages. Strang, William A. 1970. Recreation and the local economy. An input-output model of a recreation-oriented economy. Madison, Sea Grant College Tech. Rep. WIS-SG-71-204. Univ. of Wis., Madison. Stynes, D.J. 1979. An economic model of deer hunting. Paper accepted for publication in Leisure Sciences. Sublette, W.J. and W.E. Martin. 1975. Outdoor recreation in the Salt-Verde Basin of Central Arizona: Demand and value. Tech. Bull. 218. Arizona Agric. Exp. Sta. Tuscan. Swartzman, Gordon L. and George M. Van Dyne. 1975. Land allocation decisions: a mathematical programming framework focusing on the quality of life. J. Env. Manage. 3:105-132. Swift, Ernest. 1961. Esthetic values and merchandising. Wyo. Wildl., August:34-37. Illus. E-21 r~ I [ ~ [ [ I' L C r~ t [ [ c C [ [ L L L [ Takekawa, John Y. and Edward 0. Garton. 1981. "How Much is an Evening Grosbeak ~orth?11 Paper presented at the 1981 Meeting of the West Sec. Wildlife Soc., Ceourd 1 Alene, Idaho, April 23-24, 1981. Talhelm, D.R. 1971. Analytical economics of outdoor recreation: a · case study of the southern Appalachian trout fishery. Ph.D. Dissertation. North Carolina State University. Talhelm, Daniel Roderick. 1973. Defining and evaluating recreation quality. Trans. N. Am. Wild .. and Nat. Res. Conf. 38:183-191. Talhelm, Daniel R. 1973b. Evaluation of the Demands for Michigan•s Salmon and Steelhead Sport Fishery of 1970. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Research Report #1797. Thomas, W.C., C. F. Marsh and C.A. Stephens. 1973. An Economic Analysis of Red Meat, Fish, Poultry and Wild Game Consumption Patterns in Anchorage, Alaska. University Alaska, Fairbanks, Inst. of Ag. Sci. Research Report 73-4. 39pp. Tiebout, C. 1956. "A pure Theory of Local Expenditures.11 Journal of Political Economy 64:416-424. · Tombaugh, Larry W. 1971. External benefits of natural environments. Rec. Symp. Proc., NE For. Exp. Sta., For. Serv., USDA, Upper Darby, Pa. p.73-77. Ullman, Edward L. and Donald J. Volk. 1962. "An Operational Model for Predicting Reservoir Attendance and Benefits: Implications of a Location Approach to Water Recreation." Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, 1961 Meeting:473-484. Usher, Peter J. 1976. "Evaluating Country Food in the Northern Native Economy, 11 Arctic 29( 2). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Walsh, R.G. 1977. Value of deer hunting in Colorado. Dept. of Econ., Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 4p. memo. Weithman, A.S., and M.A. Haas. 1979. Lake Taneycomo socioeconomic study. Research in progress. Missouri Department of Conservation. Wennergren, Boyd. 1965. Value of Water for Boating Recreation. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 453, 27 pages. Wennergren, E. Boyd. 1967. Surrogate pricing of outdoor recreation. Land Econ. 43:112-115. Wennergren, Boyd. 1967. Demand Estimated and Resource Values for Resident Deer Hunting in Utah. Utah State University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 469. E-22 Chapter6 Demand and Supply October 19, 1983 [ [ [ [ L [ r L [ [ L [: L L L There are difficulties in comparing "demand" with "supply" for wildlife resources in the Tanana Basin Area Plan, since the terms are not expressed in common units. "Supply", for the purposes of land use planning, is represented by acreages of habitat falling into a hierarchy of retention priority categories based on its value to wildlife. "Demand" is commonly measured in numbers of animals or hunting/fishing/recreation days. Obviously, the amount and quality of habitat available determines the potential production of the animals that are in demand. However, the process of actually quantifying the habitat-population relationships for all areas and all species in the Basin is not possible at this time. Specific information needed to define carrying capacity, productivity and viable population ranges for any one species basin-wide is presently beyond the practical data-gathering capabilities of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and other management agencies, and exceeds data requirements for current management practices. However, current knowledge provides an adequate basis to make reasonable estimates regarding the relationships between demand and supply. For example, the extensive use of wildlife resources discussed in Chapter 3 illustrates demand, especially among Alaskans. Harvest regulations frequently become more restrictive in response to short-or long-term declines in fish and wildlife availability for population maintenance plus human uses. In some cases, increased human harvest and resultant decrease in wildlife populations has· been the major stimulus for greater restrictions; in other cases, declines in wildlife populations due to natural causes such as severe winters have required greater harvest restictions. In either case, the need for greater restrictions indicates that human demand, as experienced by wildlife managers, has exceeded surpluses available for human use. When fish or wildlife populations rise .(as several have recently), the potential for accomodating increased· human use may result in less restrictive regulations. Also, availability of fish or wildlife may be enhanced by improved access. The increased availability as reflected in increased levels of human use may contribute to an illusion that more fish or wildlife exist than before. However, the overall supply of habitat will still determine the maximum numbers of fish and wildlife. Estimates of potential carrying capacities for some species, based on present supply of habitat in the Tanana Basin, can provide an indication of how well supply meets demand. However, based on historic trends of human use indicators such as fishing, hunting and trapping license sales, demand will probably continue to increase. Supply of habitat, meanwhile, will decline to the extent that land use designations result in the reduction of habitat quantity or quality. While habitat management can, to some extent, compensate for loss in habitat quantity by increasing habitat quality, the full degree of compensation possible is unknown. It is limited by ecological, proprietary, logistical and political conditions. Taking into account all of the above information, it is apparent that for some wildife species in some locations in the Tanana Basin, current demand exceeds supply. As demand increases in the future, while the supply of high quality habitat land decreases or remains constant, demand will increasingly outstrip supply. 6-1 Chapter7 Land Suitability Based on Wildlife Resource and Human Use Values October 19, 1983 [ [ [ [ L [ [ L L L [ t L production, in general, will not shift to other areas if valuable habitat is lost. Therefore, our first effort at prioritization dealt only with habitat values. Suosequent to developing a· preliminary prioritization map on the basis of biological value, a second map was prepared. In this instance, we concentrated on the human use patterns within the Tanana Basin. -Overlays depicting human use (Tanana Land Use Atlas) were placed on our prioritization maps and conclusions drawn from the resultant pattern. It was evident that almost all important use areas were covered by our initial map. However: 1) Some areas of low biological value sustain_ high levels of use, usually because of access. 2) Some areas within our biological value categories have enough use that they are significantly more important than adjacent lands in the same category. Accordingly, we developed a weighted system of evaluating the relative importance of human uses (Table 7-2a) and a further prioritization matrix (Table 7-2b). Using this system of organizing subjective judgements, amend- ments were made to the original prioritization map through the use of an additional overlay. Basically, two kinds of changes are shown on this set of maps. First, areas outside the initially mapped wildlife habitat categories -(Al,A2,Bl,B2) were boosted into one of those categories as a result of the amount of use taking place there. On the whole, the extent of these areas is small, and it was evident that the vast majority of human use occurs on lands covered in our initial prioritization based on habitat quality. The second type of shift in prioritization at this stage irt.volved an escalation in priority of already-identified areas that sustain significant levels of use in addition to being valuable habitat. Appended to this chapter is a listing of values present in priority categories by TBAP subunit. Our final recommendation under this Chapter is depicted by the combination of habitat value and human use overlays. The acreages corresponding to each priority category areolisted in Table 7-3. Due to the stepwise nature of the analysis and the separation of the two major types of values, it is possible to see the reasons (or combination of reasons) that individual areas were prioritized at a given level. The Department of Fish and Game feels that the demonstrated feasibility and benefits of the production and consumption of wildlife resources, as well as the fact that habitat is generally a multiple use classification, make a convincing arguement that the recommendation presented represents a cost-effective way to allocate State-owned lands in the Basin while allowing a maximum of compatible activities to occur at the same time. 7-2 r· [ [ [ [ f' t~ [: •' [ [ c L [ L TABLE 7-1 a: Wildlife Habitat Value Criteria A-1 Critical Habitats (sheep licks, waterfowl nesting areas, caribou calving areas, etc.). A-2 Special Value Areas -contain 11 prime 11 habitat for four or more key wildlife species. B-1 Hildlife Habitat (Conservative Mgmt.)-contain 11 prime 11 habitat for two or more key species. B-2 Wildlife Habitat (Liberal Mgmt.) -contains 11 prime 11 habitat for one key species, c or One 11 prime 11 and one or more 11 important" values, when not in sensitive areas (e.g., upland subalpine), or Two 11 dispersed 11 11 prime 11 values, or Three or more 11 important 11 values. Areas containing two or fewer 11 important 11 values. 7-3 r r [ [ [ [ [ L L L r: t: L virtually all of the consumer, producer, and indirect econqmic benefits that result from affected populations would also be lost. These losses would occur not only on a local basis, but would in some cases, extend nation-or continent-wide. 8. How are transportation costs taken into account? N.A. 9. How are the availability or lack of necessary infrastructure going to be used in categorizing land? Infrastructure is not needed for the production of wildlife. 10. How will the demand vs. supply situation for your resource be taken into account? 'These extremely important production areas are vital to keep supply at a reasonable level. For species not u~ed in the consu~ptive sense, these areas are required in order to prevent extirpation. 11. How will social effects be taken into account in this recommendation? Critical Habitats are necessary to maintain populations that have important social effects. 12. How will environmental effects be taken into account in this recommendation? The dedication of these areas will be a first: significant step in constructing a viable system of wildlife-producing lands in the Tanana Basin. In fact, the preservation of critical habitats is a measure of environmental quality. 13. Other criteria. 7-5 r~ L [ [ [ [ c c b [ L L [' L · 6. ~~hat resource output criteria will be used for this category? (i.e., potential bushels/acre ot board feet/acre) Subunit information is included in Chapter 4. 7. How is economic feasibility information used in this category? Feasibility data is not calculated to the acre. However, our economic information for the Tanana Basin indicated, that the use of wildlife causes significant net benefits. Since A-2 area~ are among the most productive, diverse, and heavily used areas in the Basin, it follows that their dedication as a single-use wildlife area is most feasible. 8. How are transportation ~osts taken into account? For production, transportation is not relevant. Where use occurs, access is already available. 9. How are the availability or lack of n·ecessary infrastructure going to be used in categorizing land? Infrastructure is not needed beyond existing levels to make this proposal feasible. 10. How will the demand vs. supply situation for your resource be taken into account? These extremely important production areas are vital to maintenance and/or improvement of the supply situation. Demand outstrips supply for many species. 11. How will social effects be taken into account in this recommendation? 12. 13. These areas are crucial to social values due to their productivity and diversity. How will environmental effects be taken into account in this recommendation? The allocation of these areas to wildlife habitat would have benefits disproportionate to their size, and would protect significant environmental values. Other criteria. 7-7 [ [ f' [ [ [ [ [ [ L [ I L 12. How will environmental effects be taken into account in this recommendation? The maintenance of the integrity of B-1 lands and their management for uses compatibl~ with wildlife will have a significnt beneficial effect upon the Tanana Basin•s environment in the future by protecting water quality, soil integrity, and other extent natural resources. 13. Other criteria. 7-10 [ [ [ L [ L· L [ [ [ [ [ L L L L TABLE 7-le: Criteria Used to Define Each Category of Recommendation RESOURCE: Wildlife Habitat CATEGORY: TYPE B-2 -t~UL TI PLE USE; RETAIN IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP (lHLDLI FE HABITAT -"LIBERAL MANAGEMENT") GENERALDEFINITIONOFCATEGORY: These areas should be managed for this resource as the primary use, but other activities are allowed as specified in the proposed management guidelines. SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR CATEGORY: 1~ What circumstances or resource values need to be present for land 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. to be placed in this category? 1 -One prime habitat value or 2 -One prime and one important habitat value or 3 -Two "dispersed" prir.1e values in lowland areas or 4 -Three or more important habitat values What criteria separate long-term projects from short-term projects for this resource? N.A. ·How will demand be taken into account in determining which land qualifies for this category? The species used to rate these areas are in high demand. How will local preferences be taken into account in determining which land qualifies for this category? These areas reflect production of species important locally, but generally have poorer access and less use than higher priority categories. What capability and suitability will be taken into account in determining which land qualifies for this category? Capability Criteria Defined in Chapter #4 Suitability Criteria See #1 above ~·Jhat resource output criteria will be used for this category? (i.e., potential bushels/acre or board feet/acre) Maintenence of existing levels of production should be the goal for these areas, although sone local increases in resource ar0~ may be induced by improving access. 7-11 [ [ [ [ [ [ E L L L L [' t 7. 8. 9. How is economic feasibility information used in this category? See previous discussions How are transportation costs taken into account? Existing levels of use require no additional transportation facilities or improvements. Costs incurred for transportation relating to other activities may increase harvest of wi)dlife. How are the availability or lack of necessary infrastructure going to be used in categorizing land? N.A. 10. How will the demand vs. supply situation for your resource be taken into account? The key species used to select this category are in high demand although relative lack of access makes these areas less crucial than foregoing categories. 11. How will social effects be taken into account in this recommendation? See discussion in B-1 12. How will environmental effects be taken into account in this recommendation? See discussion in B-1 13. Other criteria. 7-12 [ [ [ [ [ L [ c t [ [ [ [ L L [ L 8. How ar~ transportation costs taken into account? N.A. 9. How are the availability or lack of necessary infrastructure going to be used in categorizing land? N.A. 10. How will the demand vs. supply situation for your resource be taken into account? N.A. 11. How will social effects be taken into account in this recommendation? Since these lands are not heavily used or especially valuable, social effects ought to be minimal. 12. How will environmental effects be taken into account in this recommendation? Low environmental values will limit the severity of impacts. 13. Other criteria. 7-14 l. l. [ [ [ r: [ [ r~ t [ [ [ [ [ [ b L { . L L TABLE 7 -~: Acres of Land in the Five Wildlife Suitability Categories Throughout the TBAP Planning Area Wildlife Suitability Thousands Category of Acres A-1 504 A-2 1718 B-1 3567 B-2 2476 C* 4209 * (obtained by difference using total planned acreage of 12,474,093) 7-16 [ [ [ [ [ c f' t:· [ [ c [ L [ APPENDIX I SUMMARY OF FISH AND WILDLIFE VALUES BY PLANNING UNIT The following tables represent a listing of fish and wildlife and human use values that were considered in making the land suitability desi·gnations for the Tanana Basin Plan. Recommendations for types of compatible uses are based on these designations (Al; A2, etc.). Some flexibility is necessary in this system due to the unique nature of habitat values for each species. In many cases more than one suita- bility designation occurs within a planning unit. In these cases, the table gives a general description of the geographic area involved. For specific information on geographic areas, the wildlife suitability map should be consulted. Backup information on species habitat values can be fo~nd in the physical capability narratives in Chapter Four. This table should be used as quick reference to the values considered in making land· suitability designations and the associated recommendations. 7-17 UNIT DESIGNATION AREA VALUES I A B'-2 Chi tan a tal a l·lts. 1. Prime grizzly Use -Nod. B/G I A B-2 Southwest corner of 1. Prime grizzly the unit -upland area I A B-2 Lower Chitana River 1. Prime moose Use -14od., Trap, B/G riparian corridor I B B-2 Bitzshtini Mts. 1. Prime grizzly Use -Mod., B/G I B B-2 Southeast corner of 1. Prime grizzly Use -i4od., B/G unit -Kuskokwim Mts. upland area I B B-2 Southwest corner of unit 1. Prime grizzly Use -1·1od., B/G Chitanatala Mts. I B B-2 B-2 Eastern border in center 1. Prime caribou, Use -14od. ,Trap, B/G of unit in Cosna R. area former wintering area I ·s B-1 Cosna River corridor 1. Prime moose Use -14od. B/G, Trap 2. Prime furbearer I C B-1 Zitziana R. corridor l. Prime moose Use -Mod. B/G, Trap 2. Prime furbearer I C B-2 Upper Zitziana R. area 1. Prime furbearer Use -Mod. B/G, Trap I C B-2 l•ioosehea rt Lake and 1. Human use ~--.. Use -Mod. Fish, Trap, B/G Bear Lake l_. Important access points II A B-2 Eastern edge of unit 1. Prime furbea rer Use -Mod., Trap, B/G, Fish Fe (Geskakmina Lake) l~i I I A B-2 West Twin Lake 1. Human use values Use-Mod., Fish, Trap, B/G r ~ Important access point II B B-1 Wien Lake 1. Prime furbearer Use-Mod., Fish, Trap, B/G 2. Human use values L II B A-1 Area south and east of 1. Critical waterfowl Use -Int., Fish, Trap, Lake Minchumina 2. Prime moose = Waterfowl, B/G 3. Prime furbearer I- 7-18 [ [ [ [. [ [ [ L UNIT DESIGNATION II B A-1 II B B-1 Use-Mod., Trap, B/G II B B-2 II B B-2 Use-Mod., Trap, B/G I I B B-1 Use -1•1od. , Trap, B/G II C B-2 Use-Mod., Fish, B/G II c A-1 Use -.Mod., Waterfowl, B/G, II D B-1 Use-Int., Trap; Mod., B/G II D A-1 Use -Nod., B/G, Waterfowl; Int., .Trap. II E B-1 Use-Mod., B/G, Fish; Int., Trap. II E A-1 Use -Int., B/G Hod., Trap. II F B-2 Use -Mod., Trap. II F B-1, B-2 Use-Mcd., Trap, B/G AREA T1·1o sites on Lake Minchumina South end of unit Western boundary southern part of unit North central portion of unit on west boundary Southeast corner of unit Mucha Lake Wetlands south of John Hansen Lake KantishM R. corridor Bearpaw R. wetiands Kantishna and Toklat River corridors. Toklat R. Springs confluence of Toklat and Sushana Rivers Comma Lake area Southern portion of unit 7-19 VALUES 1. Critical raptor - peregrine nest sites 1. Prime caribou 2. Prime furbearer 1. Prime furbearer 1. Prime grizzly 2. Prime furbearer 1. Prime moose 2. Prime furbearer 3. Prime grizzly 1. Humar use values 1. Critical waterfowl 2. Prime furbearer 1. Prime moose 2. Prime furbearer 1. Critical waterfowl 1. Prime moose 2. Prime furbearer 3. Prime grizzly 1. Critical fish (salmon spawning area) 2. Critical waterfowl (overwinterina mallards) 3. Critical grizzly 4. Critical furbearer 1. Inportant moose 1. Prime caribou 2. Prime furbearPr UNIT DESIGNATION AREA VALUES I I H A.,.2 Wetlands south of Tanana l. Prime moose Use -f·lod., Trap. River 2. Prime furbea rer [ 3. Prime black bear III A A-2 Fish Lake area l. Prime moose 2. Prime furbearer Use -f4od., Trap., B/G; 3. Prime waterfowl Int., Fish 4. Prime resident fish [ I I I B A-1 Wetland area west of 1. Critical waterfowl Dugan Hills along 2. Prime moose Use -Mod., Trap. Tanana River east of 3. Prime fud:earer Int., B/G Jennie.M. Is. [ II I B B-1 Tanana, Zitziana and 1. Prime moose Use -Mod., Fish; Cosna River corridors 2. Prime furbearer Int., B/G, Trap. III B B-2 Chitanana R. corridor 1. Prime moose Use -14od., Fish and wetlands associated Int., B/G, Trap. with Zitziana River [ II I C B-1 Southern portion of unit 1. Prime moose 2. Prime furbearer III c B-1 Area near Eureka and l. Boosted from. 8-2 Use -Int., B/G, S/G, Trap. north of Tofty to B-1 due to intensive human use III C B-2 Horthern portion of the 1. Prime moose Use"'" Mod., BIG; Int., Trap. unit I II D B-1 Western portion of unit 1. Prime moose Use -14od., B/G, Trap. 2. Prime furbearer [ IV A B-2 Area near Manley Road 1. Important moose Use -Int., B/G, S/G, Trap. and trail system 2. Important furbearer, * Boosted from. C [ B-2 due to intense human use IV B A-2 Area west of the Tolovana 1. Critical Moose Use -Int., B/G, Waterfowl River 2. Prime furbearer c Mod •• Trap 3. Prime waterfowl IV B A-1 Tanana bluff east of l. Critical raptor - Deadman Lake peregrine nest site [ 7-20 [ [ L [ [ r, t: [ [ [ [ r L b UNIT DESIGNATION· IV B B-2 IJse -Mod., Trap; Int., B/G IV C-1 A-1 Use -Nod., Fish; Int., 8/G, ;Waterfowl, S/G, Trap. IV C-1 A-2 Use-Int., Trap. IV C-2 A-2 Use-Int., Trap., B/G, S/G IV D A-1 IV D A-2 Use-Int.~ Trap., B/G, S/G IV D B-2 Use -Int., 8/G, S/G, Trap. IV E B-2 Use-Mod., Trap. IV E B-1 Use-Int., 8/G, Trap. IV E B-2 Use-Int., BIG, S/G, Trap. AREA Dugan Hills Minto Flats core area Areas bordering core area of ~1into Flats Tolovana R. corridor Grapefruit Rocks Mile 39 Elliott Highway Upper Tolovana River Corridor Strip along Elliott Highway Northern portion of the unit McCord Creek area Strip along El1iott Highway 7-21 * 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. * 1. 2. 1. 2. * 1. 2. * VALUES Boosted from C to B-2 due to in- tensive human use Critical moose Prime black bear Prime furbearer Prime resident fish Prime raptor Prime waterfowl Prime moose Prime furbearer Prime black bear Prime moose Prime furbearer Prime black bear Critical raptor- peregrine falcon nest site Prime moose Prime furbearer Prime black bear Important moose Important furbearer Boosted from C to B-2 due to intensive human use Prime caribou Important moose Prime caribou Important fur- bearer, Boosted from B-2 to B-1 due to intensive human use Important moose Important fur- bearer, Boosted from C t.n B-2 due t.o in- tensive human use [ [ UNIT DESIGNATION AREA VALUES V A A-1 Western portion of unit -1. Critical caribou - Stampede Trail area McKinley Herd Use -Int., Trap. calving ground 2. Prime moose 3. Prime furbea rer V. A A-2 Southern portion of unit 1. Prime moose 2. Prime furbea rer 3. Prime caribou 4. Prime grizzly [ V A A-2 Eastern area central 1. Prime grizzly Use -Int., 8/G, Trap. section of unit 2. Prime furbearer 3. Prime caribou V A 8-1 Northern Area 1. Prime moose 2. Prime black bear Use -Int., Trap.; Mod., 8/G 3. Prime furbearer L V A 8-1 Central Area 1. Prime caribou 2. Prime moose Use -Mod., 8/G, Trap. 3. Prime grizzly 4. Prime furbearer V A 8-2 Clear Area 1. Important caribou Use -Nod., 8/G, Trap. 2. Prime moose r ~ L V A 8-2 Southern tip of unit 1. Prime caribou Use -l-1od., 8/G, Trap. v c 8-1 Northern Edge of unit 1. Prime caribou Use -Mod., 8/G, Trap. 2. Prime grizzly [ 3. Prime sheep v c A-2 Southern and central 1. Prime caribou portions of unit ') Prime sheep L' 3. Prime moose [ VII A-1 A-1 On several drainages in 1. Critical water- the Tanana Flats fowl-swan nest sites [ VII A-1 A-2 Remainder of unit 1. Prime moose Use -Int., 8/G r.iver corridors 2. Prime waterfowl Mod., 8/G other areas; 3. Prime black bear Nod., Trap. 4. Prime furbearer v [ 1 A-2 B-1 Majority of unit 1. Prime moose Use -Mod., 8/G 2. Prime furbearnr Int., Trap. L L L 7-22 [ I. UNIT DESIGNATION AREA VALUES [ VII A-2 A-2 Small area south of 1. Prime moose Use -Int., B/G, Fish, Trap. Blair Lakes 2. Prime furbearer [ 3. Prime waterfowl VII B A-1 Roosevelt Creek at 1. Crit i ca 1 moose headwater area of Gold mineral lick King Creek 2. Critical rap tor l~ peregrine nest site VI I B A-2 ~1ajority of Unit 1. Prime moose l' 2. Prime caribou Use -Int., Trap., B/G 3. Prime furbearer 4. Prime grizzly bear L VII B B-1 South and west portion 1. Prime moose portion of unit 2. Prime caribou Use -Int., B/G, Trap. 3. Prime grizzly [ VII C A-1 Eastern portion of 1. Critical caribou - the unit Yanert Herd Use -Int., B/G, Trap. calving area 2. Prime sheep 3. Prime moose r· 4. Prime caribou fo-~ 5. Prime furbearer L_. VII c A-2 Majority of unit 1. Prime sheep [ 2. Prime moose 3. Prime caribou Use -Int., B/G 4. Prime furbearer VII c B-1 Northern portion of 1. Prime sheep [ the unit 2. Prime moose Use -Int., B/G 3. Prime caribou VI I 0 A-1 Nest site areas 1. Critical raptor - [ peregrine falcon nest sites VII 0 A-1 Headwaters of the 1. Critical caribou - c Wood/Yanert drainages Yanert Herd calving area VI I D A-2 Majority of unit 1. Prime sheep 2. Prime moose [ Use Int., B/G; t4od., Trap. 3. Prime caribou 4. Prime grizzly [ - b f- b L L~ 7-23 r~ 1. [ [ r· r .. . L [ [ L UNIT DESIGNATION XII A-1 A-1 XII A-1 A-2 Use-Mod./Int., atG; Int., Trap. X I I A B-1 Use-Int., B/G, S/G, Trap. XII A A-2 Use-Int., B/G, S/G, Trap, Fish XII B-1 B-2 Use -Int., S/G XII B-1 B-2 Use-Int./Mod., B/G, S/G, Int., Trap . X II B-2 B-1 XII C-1 B-1 Use -Int., B/G, S/G, Trap. XII C-1 B-2 Use-Int., S/G, Trap. XII C-2 C XII 0-1 A-1 XII 0-1 B-1 Use -Int., B/G AREA Selected nest sites Remainder of Unit Chatanika R. Corridor Inner Chatanika R. corridor fro~ Murphy Creek to 01 nes Northest portion of uoit Southern portion of the unit Northern tip associated with Chatanika River corridor Goldstream Creek Corridor West end of Goldstream Creek corridor Entire Unit Nesting cliffs Tanana River corridor 7-24 VALUES 1. Critical waterfowl -swan nest sites 1. Prime waterfowl 2. Prime moose 3. Prime furbearer 4. Prime black bear 1. Prime moose 2. Prime black bear 3. Prime resident fish 4. Critical fish - salmon spawning 5. Important furbearer * Same as above but boosted from B-1 to A-2 due to intensive human use 1. Prime furbearer * Boosted from C to B-2 due to intensive human use See X I I A 1. Prime moose 2. Pri~e black bear 1. Prime black bear 2. Important moose 1. Critical raptor - peregrine falcon nest site l. Prime moose 2. Prime furb'"arer [ UNIT DESIGNATION AREA VALUES [ X I I D-2 A-1 Nesting cliffs 1. Critical raptor - peregrine falcon r.est sites XII D-2 B-1 Tanana River corridor 1 Prime moose ~. [ 2. Prime furbearer Use -Int., B/G, Trap., Fish 3. Prime fish XII E B-1 Goldstream Cr. corridor 1. Prime moose Use -Int., S!G [ X I I E B-2 Ester Dome area 1. Prime furbea rer Use -Int., S/G, Trap. XII F A-1 Nesting Cliffs 1. Critical raptor - peregrine falcon nest sites X I I F c Remainder of unit XII G B-1 Goldstream Cr. corridor 1. Prime movse Use -Int., S/G; Mod., Trap. [ XI I G B-2 Steese Highway -Pedro 1. Prime furbea rer Dome XII G B.-1 Steese Highway area * Boosted from B-2 to Use -Int., B/G; t-1od., Trap. B-1 due to intense human use XII B-2 Eastern portion of the 1. Prime moose unit XII B-2 Western portion of the 1. Prime black bear Use -Int., S/G' Mod., Trap. unit XII J B-2 Steese Highway 1. Prime black bear L corridor 2. Important moose Boosted from B-2 X I I 1 B-1 Steese Highway to B-1 due to v corridor intense human use [ Use -Int., B/G, S/G, Fish, Trap. E - __. [ l L 7-25 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ UNIT DESIGNATION VII D A-1 eastern side Use -Int. B/G Vii D A-1 VII D B-1 Use -Int. B/G VIII A A-2 Use -Int. B/G; Mod. Trap. VIII A B-1 Use -Mod. Trap. Int. B/G VIII A B-1 Use -Mod •• Trap., Int. fish below Central Cr. Int. 8/G below Central Cr. VIII A B-2 AREA Sma 11 area on northern border of Unit between Delta Cr. and E. fork Delta R. East F. Robertson River Remainder of Unit Shaw Cr. Flats Area just outside of Shaw Cr. Flats Goodpaster drainage including upland terrain at headwaters and south fork drainage Remainder of Unit 7-26 VALUES 1. C ri t i ca 1 habitat Delta Caribou Herd calving ground 2. Prime sheep 3. Prime furbearer 1. Critical habitat sheep.mineral lick 1. Prime sheep 2. Prime grizzly 3. Important moose 1. Prime moose 2. Prime black bear 3. Prime furbearer 4. Prime caribou 5. Prime waterfowl 6. Prime resident·fish Shaw Cr. 1. Prime black bear 2. Prime furbearer 1. Prime sheep in headwater area 2. Prime caribou 3. Prime moose up- stream to Central Creek 4. Prime grizzly up- stream to Glacier. Cr. 5. Prime black bear below Central Cr. and South Fork drainage 6. Prime furbearer same area as black bear 7. Prime fish through- out system upstream to Boulder Creek 1. Prime Caribou [ [ ,~ L [ c r~ 1-~ L [ [ [- - I I l L UNIT DESIGNATION VIII A c VI II B B-1 Use -Mod~, Trap., B/G VII I B B-1 Use - VI I I B Use - VI II B VI I I C r~od., Trap. Int. B/G T Lake area Mod. B/G Billy Cr. Int. Fish, B/G; Mod.· Trap. Use -Int. Fish (Mansfield,Fish & Wolf Lakes); B/G Lakes area and B-1 c B-1 Tanana River; waterfowl Jakes and assoc. wetlands AREA Southwest portion of Unit North and East portion of the Uroi t Billy Creek Drainage and Sand Lake area George Lake area Remainder of Unit Mansfield, Fish and Wolf Lakes, Mans- field Cr. and head- water area 7-27 VALUES 2. Prime grizzly elevated terrain in eastern portion of Unit ?nly 1. Prime caribou 2. Prime sheep extreme northern portion of Unit only 3. Prime grizzly 1. Prime moose 2. Prime furbea rer Billy Creek drainage only 3. Prime ~1aterfowl Billy Cr. drainage 4. Prime resident fish 5. Prime black bear l. Prime furbearer ., n .... .: ........ resident fish <.. r f IIIIC' 3. Prime black bear 1. Prime moose 2. Prime caribou - headwater area only 3. Prime furbearer in Mans fie 1 d Creek drainage to Wolf Cr. 4. Prime grizzly - headwater area only 5. Prime waterfowl - Mansfield Cr. Wetlands south of Mansfield, Fish Wolf Lakes [ r I ~~, \_ ~0 [ [ [ [ c r t: [ [ [ [ [ [ L l UNIT DESIGNATION VI II C B-1 VIII C C IX A B-1 Use -Int. B/G Mod. Trap. IX B B-1 A-2 Use-Int., Trap.; Int. B/G,S/G IX B B-2 Use-Int. Trap., S/G; X A B-1 AREA Area north of Mansfield Fish and Wolf Lakes Remainder of Unit Majority of Unit Entire Unit with the exception of an area around Tok which ex- tends roughly from Tanacross to Tok bounded by the Eagle Trail and the Tanana R. Tok R. corridor and N. Face Ak. Range Lower Little Tok R. Drainage Entire Unit 7-28 VALUES *Boosted from C to B-1 due to intensive human use 1. Prime moose 2. Prime furbearer 3. Prime black bear 4. Prime Fish -Tanana River 1. Prime moose except northeast section · 2. Prime caribou - northeast section only -elevated terrain 3. Prime furbearer - Tok R. drainage, N. face of Alaska Range and Tanana R. corridor 4. Prime black bear, north of Ak. Highway 5. Prime grizzly - northeast section of Unit 6. Prime Fish, Tanana River · 7 Prime sheep east of Little Tok River * Boosted from B-1 to A-2 due to intensive human use use 1. Prime resident fish 2. Prime black bear northwest comer of Unit 1 • Prime 100ose - Robertson River Drainage and lower elavation areas [ [ f UNIT DESIGNATION AREA VALUES Use -Mod. Trap.; 2. Prime sheep in [~ Int, B/G higher areas - southern part of Unit. 3. Prime furbearer, [ Tok and Robertson River drainages 4. Prime grizzly bear 5. Important caribou L X 8 B-1 Entire Unit 1. Prime moose -Tok and Robertson R. drainages [ Use -Mod. B/G 2. Prime sheep - higher elevation (entire area); areas throughout Mod. Trap. unit 3. Prime furbearer - [ iok and Robertson R. drainages 4. Prime grizzly in r~ northern portion of ~ the Unit I '\_ _ _,- X B A-2 Tok River and * Intense human use r Clearwater Cr. boosted designation dr.ainages from B-1 to A-? X 8 A-1 1) Clearwater Cr. 1. Critical habitat headwaters sheep m1ne-ral lick c 2) Tok Glacier areas areas 3) Between Dry Tok Cr. and Tok Creek 4 & 5) Sheep Cr. and [ Cathedra 1 Cr. areas XI A B-2 N.E. portion of Unit 1. Prime caribou -40 Use -Mod. Trap. Mile caribou Herd [ 2. Prime grizzly bear XII N B-1 Salcha River Corridor 1. Prime blak bear Use -Int. Fish, 2. Prime furbearer below N. 3. Critical fish -L Fork; Mod. king salmon spawning area B/G 4. Important moose E L f' b L L 7-29 [ [ r· [ [ [ [ [ [ L L UNIT DESIGNATION .<I I N B-1 X I I N B-2 Use -N.E. Corner of the Unit Mod. B/G X I I K B-1 Use-Mod. Trap.; Mod. Fish, X I I K XII K Van Curler's Bar area B-1 8-1 Use-Int. Trap., S/G; Mod. 8/G XII K 8-2 Use -Int. Trap. XII J 8-1 AREA Headwaters of Salcha near West Point Remainder of Unit East Fork Chena R. drainage Chena Hot Springs area -Headwaters Little Chena R./ Anaconda Cr. Drainage Little Chena Drainage North Fork Chena River Remainder of Unit Steese Highway Corridor and head- water area of Chatani ka River 7-30 VALUES l. Prime sheep 2. · Prime grizzly bear 1. Prime grizzly bear east of N. Fk. Salcha R. 2. Prime caribou 3. Important moose 1. Prime moose 2. Prime caribou 3. Prime furbearer 4. Prime black bear downstream from Van Curler's Bar 5. Prime resident fist habitat -criticial salmon spawning habitat 1. Pri r.1e moose· 2. Prime caribou 3. Prime black bear - Chena Hot Springs area 4. Prime furbearer - Chena Hot Springs area * Boosted from B-2 to B-1 due to intensive human use 1. Prime caribou- eastern portion 2. Prime moose - western portion 1. Prime moose -south portion of Unit; important moose - Steese Hwy. Corridor [ [ [ [ r· f' L [ [ [ [ l . -~ L f ' L r , I L: UNIT DESIGNATION Use -Int. Fish (Chatanika R.); Int. B/G, 5/G Steese Hwy. Corridor Use -Int. B/G North of Steese Hwy. XII L B=1 B-2 B-1 Use-Int. Trap., Fish, B/G, S/G AREA C+~~n n~~+h n~ +ho J"'l It' IIVI \,olt VI ""'''~ Steese Highway Remainder of Unit Entire Unit 7-31 VALUES 2. Prime caribou - headwater area near 12-t~ile Summit 3. Prime black bear 4. Prime furbearer - Montana Cr. area; Important furbeare! Chatanika R. drainage 5. Prime sheep - northeast corner o· Unit 6. Prime grizzly - N.E. corner of Unit 7. Critical salmon spawning habitat in Chatanika R. Prime resident fist habitat * Boosted from B-2 to B-1 due to intensive human use 1. Prime Caribou 2. Prime black bear 3. Prime furbearer - north of Steese Hwy. 1. Prime moose 2. Prime black bear 3. Prime furbearer 4. Critical salmon spawn1ng habitat - Chena R., Prime resident fish habitat 5. Raptor habitat - bald eagle [ [ [ [ [ [ [ c [ L L t L [_ CHAPTERS. ALTERNATIVE ~-FISH a: WILDLIFE & RECREATION RESOURCES This alternative (#3) was formulated by comparing fish and wildlife and recreation values with proposals contained in other elements and making land allocations based on perceptions of conflict or compatability with our identified priorities. The intent of this effort was td allow proposals to proceed to the extent that they could be molded into the overall goals we were charged with -namely, to perpetuate and enhance the production and use of wildlife and recreation resources in the Tanana Basin. The alternative was formed on an advocacy basis at the direction of ADNR. Decisions on what kind and to what extent other activities would be allowed under this alternative were made jointly by the team members representing the Department of Fish and Game and the Division of Parks. However, we made a good faith effort to include development activities in response to demand for them, leading to a reasonable and cost-effective mix of land uses. Although some high value wildlife areas were reduced in size in order to allow other proposals to proceed, in general, our high priority areas took precedence over competing or conflicting uses. We did not invest a lot of effort in attempting to allocate lands to other activities according to priorities identified in other elements, and this is one of the manifestations of the advocacy method of formulating alternatives. Interestingly, there were virtually no internal conflicts within Alternative #3. Both the wildlife and recreation resource values depend heavily upon access and preservation of wildlands, so we were able to agree on most allocations. The major differences of opinions centered on the type of guidelines necessary to mitigate and control development, rather on whether or not it should occur at all. The sole direct conflict between the recreation and wildlife elements concerned the development of downhill ski areas. These problems have been solved through modification of some projects and the del~tion from this alternative of others. The possibility for including s~veral of these in other, more development oriented alternatives was discussed. Decisions made by the ADF&G representative on land allocations for this alternative are documented in the summary that follows this narrative. Preliminary guidelines have been submitted to the ADNR Tanana Basin Plan staff, and we expect to formulate in-depth guidelines by activity type for eventual inclusion in the plan. 8-1 [ [ L [ c [ L L E L FISH AND WILDLIFE RECREATION ALTERNATIVE Detailed·Responses to Land Allocations Proposed by Other Elements Organized by Planning Unit This section provides documentation for the decisions made by the ADF&G representative on land.allocations proposed in other elements. Reasons are given for allowing or excluding each specific land allocations, organized by large and small planning units. A separate listing covers land disposals within the Fairbanks North Star Borough. In some cases, a land allocation is allowed subject to specific guidelines or limitations; e.g., disposal for agriculture allowed, but orly for small tract farming. Any limitations on specific land areas (except for settlement lands) are included in this section. Additional preliminary guidelines for each category of land use and for specific settlement areas have been submitted to ADNR, and detailed guidelines are being prepared. With very few exceptions, all other resource uses are allowed in areas of 11 C11 habitat, the lowest habitat value category. In the second part of this section, all land uses within the Fairbanks North Star Borough are allowed in areas of 11 C" and "B-2" habitat quality without specific limitations. When conflicts occured between settlement, agriculture, and forestry, priority was given in the preceeding order for these reasons: settlement land is most limited, and large amount of land has already been identified for forestry in the Tanana State Forest. Unless noted otherwise, settlements are remote parcel (or homestead) offerings. LARGE UNIT I I A Settlement Northwest corner of 1-A. Allowed in total as remote settlement, due to "C" habitat category. Lower Chitartana River Excluded from 11 B-2" habitat area along Chitanana River, allowed as a low density remote in 11 C" habitat area in order to reserve the higher quality wildlife habitat and the area more heavily used by humans along the river for wildlife. See agriculture portion of this area below. I A Agriculture Lower Chitanana River Excluded from "B-2" habitat area along Chitanana River. 8-2 [ Allowed as small tract agriculture within ncn habitat area, for reasons outlined for settlement. Compatible with low density settlement. Upper Chitanana Drainage Allowed in total in ••en habitat due to habitat quality. [ I A/B Minerals [ [ L [ [ L f- L [ L Chitanana Mountains Mineral exploration and development allowed in nB-2 11 habitat area, subject to guidelines to reduce conflicts between humans and summer feeding habitat for grizzly bears. I B/C Settlement Lower Cosna River Excluded from 11 B-ln habitat area along river, in accordance with local preferences, past history of disposals, commissioner's decisions, high wildlife habitat quality and high human use of wildlife. Allowed in adjacent ncu habitat. See personal use forestry portion of this area below. I B Agriculture Lower Cosna River Excluded from 11 B-1n habitat along river, due to loss of high habitat quality riparian vegetation, possible degradation of water quality by siltation, fertilizer runoff. Northern Cosna Drainage Allowed in total in 11 C11 habitat, due to habitat quality. Southern Cosna Drainage Allowed in total in 11 B-2 11 habitat, with guidelines to reduce human-grizzly bear conflicts. I B/1 C Forestry Lower Cosna River Excluded from nB-1 11 habitat along river, due to high wildlife habitat quality and human use and availability of forestry land in adjacent 11 C' habitat. 8-3 [ [ [ [ [ r t= [ L [ [ IC Allowed in 11 C11 habitat, in a patchwork with settlement to allow for personal use. Settlement/ Agriculture West Side of Lower Zitziana River Allowed in 11 8-1 11 and in 11 C11 habitat. Portion in 11 B-1 11 riparian habitat limited to a low density, and small total acreage in agriculture, and small plots with wide spacing to avoid significantly decreasing wildlife values. I C Agriculture Central and Southern Zitziana Basin IC Forestry Excluded from 11 8-1 11 and 11 B-2 11 habitat due to high habitat quality, and possible water quality degradation, with the exception of one tract in 11 B-2 11 adjacent to a 11 C11 agriculture area. 11 8-2 11 project for small plot agriculture only. Allowed in total in 11 C11 habitat due to habitat quality. Eastern Zitziana Drainage Allowed in total in 11 C11 habitat. LARGE UNIT II II A Settlement/ Agriculture/Forestry Northern Dry Creek Drainage Excluded 'from 11 8-2 11 habitat wetlands to the north end and to the east, due to higher habitat quality than 11 C11 habitat in which most of area lies; and due to avaliability of alternate access via Kindarina, Geskakmina and Iksgiza Lakes. Any mixture of agriculture, forestry, and settlement allowed in suitable sites. b II A Settlement L [ East Twin Lake area 8-4 ·- [ [ [ [ [ [ c L [ L [ [ Allowed in a band of easily accessable 11 C11 habitat land between West Twin Lake and East Twin Lake, and eastward from the latter into 11 8-2 11 habitat. Lm-1 density remote Setbacks from high human use areas on lakes Waterfront land and trail access to surrounding lands remain as public land (not easements) No further disposals around West Twin Lake Not allowed in less accessable remainder of 11 C" habitat in preference to forestry and containing settled area. II A Agriculture South of Twin Lakes area Excluded from "8-1 11 Kantishna River corridor due to loss of riparian high quality habitat, runoff potential, large amount of 11 8-1" and "C 11 land available. Allowed in total in 11 8-2 11 and "C 11 habitat as small tract agriculture wherever soils are suitable. II A Forestry Twin Lakes area Excluded from 11 8-1" Kantishna River corridor due to loss of high quality riparian habitat and availability of land in "B-2 11 and llcll. Allowed in areas not designated for agriculture and settlement in 11 8-2 11 and "C 11 habitat. Commercial timber harvest not allowed in buffer zone around West Twin Lake. II B Settlement WienLake Excluded from "B-1 11 area of high human use immediately surrounding lake (300-foot buffer zone of public land). Allowed as low density remote in 11 8-2 11 and "C" habitat outside of buffer zone. Trail access to surrounding public land to remain in public ownership (not as easements). 8-5 [ [ [ Lake Minchumina Excluded fro171 11 A-1 11 and 11 8-1" habitat in the vicinity of Lake Minchumina due to: conflicts with critical peregrine falcon and waterfowl habitat; present settlements already at maximum desired density. Allowed somewhere within "B-1 11 habitat southwest of Lake t~inchumina, preferably on west side \'lith access by the winter t ra i 1. Guidelines required to avoid conflict with trapping and other human uses in the area. II D Settlement Bearpaw River Excluded from 11 A-1 11 waterfowl habitat in wetland area along river. r II D Agriculture t [ [ [J Kantishna River Excluded completely from Kantishna River 11 8-1" corridor due to destruction of high quality habitat, runoff and siltation. Toklat River Uplands Excluded completely from 11 8-1" habitat due to: destruction of high quality habitat; access problems to this small plot across the Toklat River upriver of the critical salmon spawning habitat at Toklat Springs; possible disturbances of underground water flow to the Springs; severe conflicts between grizzly bears and farmers. II D Minerals Southeast Uplands Allowed, subject to general guidelines for appropriate habitat category. II E/II F Settlement/ Agriculture Upper Toklat River Excluded from "B-1 11 and 11 8-2" habitat \'Jest of Teklanika River due to: severe grizzly bear-human conflict potential near Toklat Springs critical salmon spawning area; very high \vildlife quality; difficulty of access 8-6 [ [ r, t~ [. [ [ c L [ across Teklanika River; runoff and underground water diversion problems (for agriculture). Allowed in 11 8-2 11 habitat east of Teklanika River, as remote settlement with small-scale agriculture on suitable soils. II E Agriculture Toklat and Kantishna Rivers Excluded completely from 11 8-1 11 riparian habitat along rivers due to destruction of high quality habitat, problems of runoff, siltation, and chemical contamination of river. Excluded from 11 C11 habitat southwest of Toklat Springs, due to reasons mentioned for 11-D Toklat River Uplands. II F Agriculture Teklanika River Corridor II F Forestry Excluded in total from 11 8-2 11 riparian habitat along river corridor due to destruction of high value wildlife habitat, conflicts with local use, runoff problems, large acreages of agricultural land. Lower Teklanika River Allowed in total in 11 8-2 11 habitat along river. II H Agriculture Wetlands south of Tanana River Not allowed due to unsuitability for agriculture due to poor drainage, and high value 11 A-2 11 wetland and waterfowl habitat. III A/C Agriculture/Forestry Fish Lake Drainage Excluded from entire drainage 11 A-2 11 habitat due to: very high human use for subsistence and recreation; very high waterfowl and fish habitat values; siltation and runoff problems. III A/C Forestry Cosna Bluffs 8-7 L [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ l [ Not allowed at all in "B-1" habitat due to: high habitat quality; conflicts with native land claims; high human use along Tanana River for subsistence and recreation, fish camps. III C Settlement South of Tofty Allowed in "B-1" habitat due to proximity to existing settlement and limited area involved. Any density allowed. Manley Road near Overland Bluff and Baker Lake North portion in "B-1" habitat near road allowed as low density remote due to good access. Corridors of public land allowing access from road to public land beyond settJement required. South portion in "B-1" habitat not allowed due to: relatively higher habitat quality and lower accessibility for settlement. Manley Hot Springs Northern portion in due to good access. liD 111 u-J. habitat allowed for low density remote, Southern portion in "B-1" habitat not allowed due to relatively higher habitat quality and much higher human use along Tanana River. Eureka Allowed in total in 11 8-1", 11 8-2 11 , and "C" habitat as large tract, low density settlement, due to good access, mining activity occurring in area, and previous disturbances from mining activities. ·III C Agril':ulture Serpentine River Excluded from "B-1" habitat in southern areas due to high habitat quality combined with high human use, and in the west due to runoff into Fish Lake mentioned above. Allowed in "B-2" habitat in northern band due to relatively lower habitat quality and human use. Small parcel agriculture only. 8-8 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ c c [ [ L E Remainder of III C Excluded from most of area due to 11 B-1 11 habitat quality and high human use. Allowed east of Tofty near Baker Creek along road to Manley due to good access and limited area. Corridors of public land required for access from road into back country. III D Agriculture Excluded from 11 8-1 11 habitat areas due to high habitat quality and high human use, an.d availability of land in 11 C11 habitat. Allowed in total in 11 C11 habitat areas. III D Forestry Not allowed due to high 11 8-1 11 habitat quality and high human use. III A-D Minerals Exploration allowed throughout mineralized area, irrespective of habitat quality. Development allowed throughout with guidelines varying from liberal to strict depending on local habitat quality and extent of prior mining disturbance. Water quality standards must be strictly maintained on rivers (e.g., Hutlinana River) and throughout the entire Fish Lake wetlands drainages. LARGE UNIT IV IV A Agriculture Manley Road near junction with Minto Road Allowed in total in 11 8-2 11 and 11 C11 habitat areas due to ease of access, large area of suitable soils. Any form or size of agricultural project acceptable except grazing, due to conflicts with ungulate and carnivorous wildlife. Forestry or agriculture allowed in conflict area south of the road. IV A Forestry South of Manley Road near junction with Minto Road 8-9 i c [ [ [ p Li - i L Allowed in total in 11 8-2 11 , 11 C11 habitat due to good access, large suitable area, for any type of forestry. Agriculture, forestry or any mixture allowed. IV A Minerals Exploration and development allowed throughout mineralized areas in accordance with general guidelines for respective habitat qua 1 ity areas. IV B Agri«:ulture Dugan Hills and western Minto Flats Excluded in total due to 11 A-1 11 and 11 A-2 11 habitat quality and prox1mity to Minto Flats. For Dugan Hills, also due to remote disposals already made in this area. IV Cl Settlement IVCl C.O.D. Lake Not accepted in 11 A-1 11 habitat due to severe conflicts with human use for subsistence and recreation. Agri«:ulture Tolovana Hot Springs Dome and wetlands Not allowed due to 11 A-1 11 and 11 A-2 11 habitat quality, problems of runoff and sedimentation reaching 11 A-l 11 habitat in t~into Flats. Along Chatanika and other rivers in central Minto Flats Not accepted in 11 A-1 11 habitat due to severe conflicts with human use for subsistence and recreation, and destruction of critical waterfowl habitat. Lower Goldstream Creek and Dunbar area Only projects which have already been reviewed by ADF&G are allowed. No additional projects on lower Goldstream Creek and no projects on Little Goldstream Creek are allowed due to conflicts with high human use and very high wildlife values in 11 A-1 11 habitat. IV Cl Minerals Northern Minto Flats and Tolovana River wetlands 8-10 [ [ [ E L [ t L L Exploration allowed only during the winter when waterfowl are absent and when the wetlands are frozen, under strict guidelines to decrease impact on "A-1" habitat and to avoid conflicts with trappers. Development of minerals allowed only under a lease hold system with strict guidelines. IV C2 Agriculture Allowed in total in "C" quality habitat. IV D Settlement South of Amy Dome Allowed in total in "B-2" habitat quality due to good road access, according to the recommendations included in the Statewide Plan. IV D/E Agriculture Throughout Small Units Allowed for small-scale agriculture in areas relatively near the Elliott Highway in "B-2" habitat. Not allowed in areas far from the highway due to infeasibility of access and rugged topography. IV D Forestry Upper Tolovana River, Snowshoe Pass Allowed in full for personal use or small-scale commercial forestry. IV D/E Minerals Mineralized belts Exploration and development allowed throughout, with provisions to maintain state water quality standards. Follow general guidelines for mining in "B-2" habitat areas. LARGEUNITV VA Settlement Stampede Trail 8-11 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [j [ E Not allowed at all due to conflict with critical calving area for McKinley Caribou Herd and existing settl~ent in eastern part of requested land. East of Denali National Park entrance Allowed in total in "A-2" habitat for any form of settlement due to promixity.to Parks Highway, acceptance by local residents, and previous acceptance by ADF&G. Yanert River Not allowed east of the Healy-Willow Electrical Intertie, due to conflict with "A-2" habitat quality, critical calving area for Yanert Caribou Herd, human use, and incompatability with community land use plan. Allowed as small subdivisions west of the Intertie, due to good road access. All recommendations in community land use plan should be followed. VA Agriculture Clear area andJulius Creek VA Forestry Not allowed in these "B-1" and "B-2" habtiat areas. These areas are covered by a large number of presently approved future settlements and small agriculture projects. Further development than what is already planned is not compatible wit~ maintenance of high quality wildlife habitat. Seventeenmile Slough Not allowed in "B-1" habitat area. This whole area is covered by presently approved settlements and small agriculture projects, with which forestry would not be compatible. Southwest of Clear Allowed in "B-2" and "C" habitat quality areas, if the forestry projects are made compatible with existing settlement in the area. Southwest of Ferry Allowed for local use forestry in "B-1" and "B-2" habitat areas, due to good access and need for a local supply. 8-12 [. [ [ [ [ [., -~ [ [ [ [ D L L [ Jumbo Dome area VA Minerals Not allowed in "B-1" habitat quality area due to "B-1" habitat quality, high human use, marginal suitability for forestry due to lack of trees, and availability of local forestry land in more accessable areas along the Parks Highway. Stampede Trail Western portion of area within critical calving grounds for ~lcKinley Caribou Herd open to mineral entry under strict lease hold guidelines with seasonal restrictions and restrictions on the extent and nature of surface disturbances. Eastern portion in "B-1" habitat area open to mineral exploration and development. General guidelines for "B-1" habitat to apply during development and operation stages, for wildlife protection. LARGE UNIT VII VII At/ Al Settlement Japan Hills Area Requires check with ADF&G. Some remote settlement may be allowed. Vll At/ Al Agriculture Tatlanika and Totatlanika Rivers Not allowed in "A-2" habitat quality area due to conflicts with human use, disturbance or or destruction of trumpeter swan nesting areas, loss of riparian areas important fer moose browse, conflict with trappers, potential conflicts between wildlife, and crops and domestic animals, and for potential for disease transmission to wildlife. Japan Hills and Wood River Areas Requires check with AOF&G. Some small scale agriculture may be allowed. 8-13 j ' ! / [ r" [ [' -> [ [ L r t [ [ [ [ b r~ L L [ L VII A1 I Al Forestry West of Tanana River, Harding and Birch Lake Area Allowed in 11 8-1 11 habitat area for private use and small-scale commercial forestry, due to relatively good access. VII A1/ Al Minerals Japan Hills Area Allowed in mineralized portion of 11 8-1 11 habitat area for exploration and development, with strict guidelines for development. VII B/C/D Settlement Liberty Bell Mine Area Allowed in 11 8-1" habitat area for low density remote settlement, due to relatively lower habitat quality, good access, and presence of settlement and mining activity at present. Not allowed in "A-2 11 habitat area due to high habitat quality. Yanert River Not allowed for reasons given for Small Unit V-A. VII B/C/D Agriculture Totatlanika and Wood Rivers Not allowed in "A-2" habitat due to high habitat quality, importance of riparian corridors for moose, grizzly bears and other wildlife, high human use, potential conflicts between wildlife and crops or domestic animals, and low feasibility of agriculture at high elevations. VII B/C/D Forestry Jumbo Dome Area Not allowed for reasons given under s~all Unit V-A. VII B/C/D Minerals Throughout Mineralized or coal-bearing areas in the western and central Alaska Range Allowed or not allowed depending on habitat quality according to these guidelines: 8-14 [ [ [ r [ [ r~ L [ [ c L L L A-1 Critical habitat: mineral licks: closed to mineral exploration and development. caribou calving grounds (northeast portion of Yanert River drainage and Molybdenum Ridge): mineral exploration and development allowed only under lease hold arrangements with seasonal restrictions and restrictions on the extent and nature of surface disturbance. A-2 Special Value Areas: open to exploration, and to development under strict lease-hold arrangements. As other critical habitat areas such as lambing cliffs are identified, portions of 11 A-2 11 habitat may be upgraded to 11 A-1 11 value and closed to mineral entry. B-1 Multiple use wildlife habitat: open to exploration and to development, with stritt guid~lines for development. B-2 Muitipie use wildlife habitat: open to exploration and to development, with mitigati~n stipulations as necessary for the latter. LARGE UNIT VIII VIII A Settlement Lower Goodpaster River Allowed in total in "B-1" and 11 8-2 11 habitat as a low density remote settlement, due to good access and limited area. A minimum spacing must be maintained between parcels or groups of parcels in the "B-1 11 riparian corridor. Setbacks must be followed along the river itself to allow recreational use of the river. VIII A Agriculture Throughout Small Unit Allowed for small tract agriculture in "B-2" habitat in upper Central Creek and the west fork of the Goodpaster River, nearly contiguous parcels with reasonable potential access. Grazing not allowed due to carnivore, ungulate, and disease problems. Guidelines required to minimize 8-15 [ [ [ [ I' ~- L. [ [ [ L b L conflicts between humans and grizzly bears, and wild ungulates and crops. Not allowed in other "B-2" habitat and in "B-1" river corridors due to higher habitat quality, and access required through high quality habitat. Agriculture is considered to be marginal in these mid-elevation, highly dissected hills with steep slopes, and should be developed only in limited areas. VIII A Fores-try Shaw Creek Drainage Not allowed in "B-2" and "B-1" habitat due to habitat quality, high human use of wildlife, long access routes, and presence of large forest reserve areas with easier access just west of this area. South Fork of Goodpaster River All of these parcels allowed for personal use or commercial forestry in "B-1" and "B-2" habitat. Access can be developed through the forest reserve or adjacent "B-2" and "C" habitat lands. Human use of wildlife is relatively low in these areas. VIII A Minerals Throughout mineralized area Neither exploration nor development allowed in "B-1" river corridors due to critical salmon spawning habitat and other high wildlife values. Exploration and development allowed in "B-1" habitat outside of river corridors, and in "B-2" habitat, with guidelines as for the western and central Alaska Range, Small Units VII B, C, and D. VIII B Se'ttlemen't Lake George Allowed in full in "B-1" habitat as a low density remote settlement due to good access via lake and forestry reserve, and high quality settlement land. Public use areas, access to back country, and buffer strips must be maintained as public land along the lake and the Tanana River. 8-16 [ [ r [ [ L~ c [ L L E L Lower Billy Creek Not allowed in "B-1" habitat due to very high wildlife habitat quality, high subsistence and recreational use. VIII B Agriculture "C" habitat areas throughout Allowed in total for small tract agriculture. Grazing not allowed due to potential conflicts with grizzly bears and caribou. Access to areas northeast ofT Lake must avoid conflict with 11 8-1 11 habitat around the lake and along Billy Creek, with high waterfowl and moose values and high human use. With one exception, not allowed in higher elevation 11 8-1 11 habitat due to higher wiJdlife values, conflicts with grizzly bears and caribou, and lower feasibility for agriculture. One patch allowed to extend into 11 B-1 11 habitat adjacent to a 11 C11 patch north of the forest reserve, due to good access and contiguous area. Guidelines required to minimize human-grizzly bear conflicts. Grazing not allowed. VIII B Forestry Healy River Allowed in full in 11 B-1 11 habitat, due to proximity to forest reserve. Northeast ofT Lake Allowed major portion in "C" habitat. Access guidelines as for agriculture in the same area. Not allowed in minor portion in 11 B-1 11 habitat due to much higher habitat quality and more difficult access. VIII B Minerals Throughout Small Unit VIII B Exploration and development allowed, according to general guidelines for the appropriate habitat suitability designation. In "B-1" upland habitat additional guidelines must be followed to minimize grizzly/human conflicts. VIII C Agriculture North of Mansfield Creek 8-17 [ r~ Allowed in "C" habitat areas, under guidelines as for Small Unit VIII B. Not allowed in "B-2" habitat for reasons explained in Sniall Unit VIII B. Remainder of Small Unit VIII B Not allowed in any areas due to conflicts with intensive subsistence and recreational use of wildlife, access through heavily used "B-1" habitat, runoff into heavily fished lakes, poor access and low feasibility in higher elevation areas. VIII C Forestry Mansfield Creek Drainage Allowed in "C" habitat, not allowed in "B-1" uplands, reasons as for Small Unit VIII B. VIII C Minerals t Throughout mineralized areas [ [ [ L r= u Exploration and development allowed as in Small Unit VIII B. LARGE UNIT IX IXA Settlement Throughout Small Unit IX A Not acceptable in "B-1" habitat, with one exception, due to· high subsistence use of fish and wildlife, recreational use of wildlife, and high habitat quality. Berry Creek Small scale project allowed in "B-1" habitat in western part of this Small Unit~ due to lower subsistence use and good access from the Alaska Highway. IX A Agriculture Throughout Small Unit IX A Not acceptable, with one exception, in "B-1" habitat due to high habitat quality combined with high subsistence and recreational use. 8-18 [ [ L [ BearCreek One project allowed in 11 8-1 11 habitat for small tract agriculture, due to reasonable access and feasible location. Guidelines required to minimize human-wildlife conflicts. Grazing not allowed, due to wildlife conflicts. IX A Mitterab Exploration and development allowed in 11 8,...1 11 habitat according to general guidelines. Critical habitat areas such as peregrine falcon nesting cliffs closed to mineral entry. SMALL UNIT IX B Settlement, agriculture, and forestry all allowed in 11 C 1 habitat area around Tok. The exact locations and mixture of these uses in this area should be determined by others wtth expertise in the appropriate resource. Statewide resources plan must be consulted and followed. r~ t: IX B Setdemettt L [ [ [ E L L TokArea Allowed in any form in 11 C11 habitat area, not to extend south of Old Eagle Trail. Porcupine Creek, northeast of Tetlin Allowed as limited remote settlement in 11 8-1 11 habitat with a public land corridor between this settlement and the FY85 Dennison remote. Elsewhere in Small Unit IX B Not allowed in 11 A-2 11 , 11 8-1 11 , or 11 8-2 11 habitat areas due to high subsistence and recreational use of wildlife and high habitat quality. IX B Agriculture TokArea Allowed as small scale agriculture (family farms) on suitable soils in 11 C11 habitat area near Tok, between Eagle Trail and Alaska Highway. Elsewhere in Small Unit IX B i'lot allowed in 11 A-2 11 , 11 8-1 11 , or 11 8-2 11 habitat areas due to high subsistence and recreational wildlife use, and 8-19 [ [ [ [ [ [ r~ t [ [ [ [ [ c L [ L high habitat quality, and availability of suitable soils with good access in Tok area. IX B Forestry TokArea Allowed in any form in neu habitat area, between Alaska Highway and Eagle trail. Elsewhere in Small Unit IX B Not allowed in 11 A-2 11 , 11 8-1 11 , or 11 8-2 11 habitat areas due to high subsistence and recreational use of wildlife, high habitat quality, large amounts of forest reserve land, and availability of forested land in ueu habitat around Tok. IX B Minerals Throughout mineralized belt In 11 8-1 11 wetlands and flats along the Tanana River and a:--ound Lake Mansfield, Fish and Wolf Lakes, exploration and development allowed only under a strict lease hold system to avoid conflicts with heavy subsistence and recreational use of wildlife. In other areas of Small Unit IX B, exploration and development allowed according to standard guidelines for the applicable habitat designation. LARGE UNIT X X A, X B Settlement West Fork Robertson River Not allowed in "B-1" habitat due to high potential for human-grizzly conflicts, and incompatability with controlled use big game management objectives for the adjacent Macomb Plateau area. X A, X B Agriculture Throughout Large Unit X Not allowed in any location, in "A-1" and "B-1" habitat. Feasibility of agriculture in alpine tundra and high elevation valleys seriously questioned. Severe conflicts with high quality wildlife habitat; between grizzly bears, humans, and domestic ani~als; between domestic and 8-20 [ L [ [ L [ c r t-: [ c c [ r; L L E L wild ungulates; between wild ungulates and crops. Disease transmission to Dall sheep, caribou makes grazing not allowable. X A, X B Minerals Throughout mineralized area Critical habitat sheep mineral licks: closed to mineral entry. Prime sheep habitat in "B-1" habitat category (outlined on map): exploration for and development of minerals under lease-hold arrangements only, with restrictions on the nature and extent of surface disturbance and seasonal use. Critical lambing cliffs and winter range may be identified in the future and may be closed to mineral entry or covered by more stringent guidelines. Other "B-1" habitat: open to mineral exploration and development with strict guidelines for dev2lopment including restrictions on seasonal use. LARGE UNIT XI XI A Settlement Throughout Small Unit XI A Allowed at some point(s) in a strip along and east of the Alaska Highway in "B-2" and "C" habitat for any type of settlement. S\'1ampy areas along Gardiner Creek excluded due to unsuitability for settlement and due to high human use of waterfowl. Public land corridors must be ~aintained to allow access to backcountry. Not allowed in areas distant from Alaska Highway in "C" habitat due to poor access and desireability of limiting settlement to certain areas. XI A Agriculture Throughout Small Unit XI A Not allowed in "B-2" habitat in upper Gardiner Creek due to higher habitat quality, moderate human use, and lower feasibility for agriculture at these higher elevations. Allowed in one location in "C" habitat for small farms, due to access through settlement and large single suitable land area. Not allowed in other "C" habitat due to low feasibility for agriculture in steep, rugged hills and problems of runoff into Tetlin NWR wetlands. 8-21 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ c [ c [ E L [ 6 [ [ XI A Minerals Throughout mineralized area Allowed in 11 C11 habitat subject to general guidelines. LARGE UNIT XII, exclusive ofFNSB central area XIIJ ·Settlement Along Steese Highway Allowed only in some part(s) of 11 8-2 11 habitat north of the highway, due to relatively lower wildlife value and human use. Low density remote settlement. Actual area disposed of to be limited to a small proportion of the mapped disposal area. Not allowed in 11 8:..1" habitat, Chatanika River corridor and headwaters due to high human use and high wildlife values. XIIJ Minerals Throughout mineralized area Entire area open to mineral exploration and development, according to general guidelines for 11 8-1 11 and 11 8-2 11 habitat with emphasis on required maintenance of state water quality standards for fish spawning and rearing and for contact recreation. XII K Settlement Mt. Ryan area, West Fork of Chena River Allowed in. 11 8-2 11 habitat only, due to relatively lower wildlife habitat suitability and human use, reasonable access; presence of Far Mountain disposal already in this area; and preference for keeping settlement within limited areas away from high habitat value and high human use river corridors. Remote low density settlement only, total disposal acreage limited to a small part of total area mapped. Public land corridors required along trails. Elsewhere in Small Unit XII K Not allowed in 11 8-1 11 and 11 8-2 11 habitat due to conflicts with high human use, high wildlife habitat suitability, and access only along high value river corridors. 8-22 [ I-.' _, [ r L c [ [ L L L E L XII K Agriculture Not allowed in 11 8-1 11 and 11 8-2 11 habitat areas due to high human use and high habitat values in river corridor, problems of siltation and chemical contamination of grayling spawning and fishing in river due to runoff from floodplains or upland tracts, only potential access along river through high value habitat, and grazing conflicts with sheep and caribou. Agriculture is not considered feasible in these steep, rugged hills and narrm-1 dark valleys. XII K Minerals Middle Fork of Chena River Mineral exploration and development allowed in 11 8-1 11 and 11 8-2 11 habitat areas, under general guidelines and with a strong emphasis on maintenance of water quality standards for fish spawning and rearing and for contact recreation. XII N Agriculture Salcha River corridor Not allowed in 11 8-1 11 river corridor and adjacent 11 8-2 11 uplands due to: conflict with high human use; high overall wildlife values; major spawning habitat for king salmon; only reasonable access would be along high value river corridor; runoff of silt and chemicals would degrade fish habitat, fishing values. XII N Forestry North of Salcha River and South Fork of Salcha River Not allowed in 11 8-2 11 and 11 8-1 11 habitat areas, because development of access would increase mining activities on upper Salcha River; presence of large areas for forestry \'lith better access in lower Salcha and Goodpaster drainages; conflicts with high human usP., high overall wildlife values, potential runoff problems into king salmon spawning habitat. XII N Minerals Entire Salcha River Basin Closed to mineral exploration and development in 11 B-1 11 habitat along river corridors, due to critical king salmon spawning habitat. Open to mineral exploration and development in 11 B-2 11 habitat uplands and 11 8-1 11 habitat uplands, with strict regulations to maintain water quality for salmon spawning 8-23 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ c L E L and to limit development of access routes through h~gher habitat suitability areas along the river. LARGE UNIT XIII XIII Settlement Mount Pillsbury area Not allowed in 11 8-1 11 habitat due to high habitat quality and difficulty of access across the Delta River. XIII Agriculture Eureka Creek area Not allowed in 11 8-1 11 habitat due to high habitat quality and human use, potential conflicts between domestic animals and carnivorous wildlife, and potential disease transmission from domestic animals to wildlife. The feasibility of agriculture in tn1s area where elevations range between 3000 feet. and 4000 feet is questioned. XIII Minerals Throughout Large Unit XIII Exploration and development allowed in 11 B-1 11 habitat according to guidelines given for Small Units VII B, C, and D. 8-24 [ L L [ [ [ c [ [ c c L L I ~ t FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH Setdement , 120-Aggie Creek, an<:l east of Aggie Creek 121 Allowed in 11 C'' habitat, including small extensions into 11 B-2 11 habitat along the Elliott Highway, for remote settlement. 122-Washington Creek reoffer Allowed in "B-2" habitat for remote settlement. 123-Hayes Creek reoffer Not allowed in "B-1 11 Chatanika River habitat due to high habitat quality and human use, and use of the river for access. Allowed in "C 11 habitat along the Chatanika River as a low density remote. 12 5-Walk-to-it Not allowed in 11 A-2 11 and "B-1 11 habitat along the Chatanika River due to high habitat quality and very high human use, and access via 11 A-2" habitat along the river. Allowed in "C 11 habitat north of the river corridor for low density remote settlement. 126-(west of McCloud) Not allowed in "B-2 11 habitat due to the land being a part of the Forest Reserve. 12 7 -(portion-Murphy) Allowed in "B-2" habitat for residential subdivision. 128-Left Fork reoffer Allowed in "C" habitat for remote settlement. 129-Emma Creek Allowed in "C" habitat for residential subdivision. 13 2, (north and west of Ester Dome) 133 Not allov1ed at all in "6-l" habitut along Goldstream Creek ano "B-2" habitat on Ester Dome due to high habitat value, human use, and high numbers of mining claims in these areas. 8-25 [ [ [ r [ [ [ [ [ c L~ [ [ L E l 134-(east of Ester Dome) Not allowed in "B-1", "B-2", and "C" habitat due to habitat values, human use, and high nu~bers of mining claims. 136-Any Creek reoffer Sa~e as no. 125, Walk-to-it. 137-(south of Vault) Allowed in "B-2" habitat (raised from "C" by human use) due to good road access. 138-(near Fox) 139 Allowed in full in "B-1 11 , "B-2 11 , and 11 C11 habitat due to present settlement and past mining activity, for residential subdivision. 140-Smallwood Allowed in 11 C" habitat for residential subdivision. 141-(north of Tungsten) Allowed in 11 C11 habitat for residential subdivision. 142-(near Pedro Creek) 143 Allowed in full in "B-2 11 and 11 C" habitat due to proximity to Steese Highway and mining roads, for residential subdivision. Many mining claims in this area must be avoided. 144-(west of Little Willow) Not allowed at all in "A-2" and "B-1" habitat along the Chatanika River due to high habitat quality and very high human use adjacent to the river. 145-Bears Den Allowed in "B-2 11 habitat (raised from "C" by human use) due to good road access, and lying north of the Chatanika river riparian zone. 146-( east of Elliott Highway, mile 16) Allowed in "B-2 11 habitat for residential subdivision. 14 7-Little Willow Same as 144. 148-Skiview 8-26 [ [ [ [ [ [ r ~-L.: [ [ c E [ c b L b l Allowed in "C' habitat for resort or recreational development. 149-( east of Chatanika townsite) Allowed in "B-1", "8-2", and "C" habitat as low density remotes, due to reasonable access from the Steese Highway and not lying along the very high habitat value and human use riparian zone of the Chatanika River. 150-(south of Kokomo remote) Same as 149. 151-Crooked Creek ~Jestern extension not allowed in "8-1" habitat due to high habitat value and human use, and access across the very high habitat value and human use riparian vegetation zone along the Chatanika River. 152-(north of Kokomo remote) Not allowed in "B-1" habitat between the Chatanika River and Steese Highway due to proximity to campground, encroachment or high quality riparian habitat and very high use area. 153-(north of Steese Highway, mile 39-45) Same as 149. 154-Riverview '84, White Mountain '84 155 Same as 149. Agriculture Not allowed in "B-1" river corridors due to high habitat quality and moderately high human use. Allowed in "B-2"and "C" habitat areas. 8-27 r [ [ [ ,. L [ [ [ [ c c [ J c l~ FISH AND WILDLIFE GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TANANA BASIN AREA PLAN I. INTRODUCTION This paper presents recommendations on how the State should manage and address certain issues dealing with the fish and wildlife resources in the Tanana Basin. The recommendations are based on a close evaluation of the Fish and Wildlife Element paper, and the goals and objectives outlined in the Statewide Natural Reosurces Plan. The first part of this chapter outlines statewide goals and objectives and discusses how land use classifications in the Tanana Basin can help to achieve those goals. Specific information on fish and wildlife in the Tanana Basin and on human use of those resources, gathered in the Fish and Wildlife Element paper, is used as the basis for relating statewide goals to the Tanana Basin. The discussion centers on whether the goals are reasonable, and to what extent they should guide land allocations and management decisions during the development of the Tanana Basin Area Plan. Based on an evaluation of the statewide goals, the second part of this chapter was developed. This section discusses how the fish and wildlife resources in the Tanana Basin will be managed to move the State toward meeting the goals outlined in the first section. This chapter makes specific recommendations regarding how land with fish and wildlife values .will be allocated to different uses and also how that land will be managed. II. RELATIONSHIPS OF STATEWIDE FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT GOALS TO THE TANANA BASIN A. Maintain a Land and Water Habitat Base Statewide Goal: The State will maintain in public ownership suitable land and water areas in order to provide for the habitat needs of fish and wildlife resources. In the Tanana Basin, sufficient undeveloped state land is available to fulfill this goal. In order to produce fish and wildlife, lands and waters reserved for a habitat base must be of high quality and form an interconnected network. The lands should be chosen to support the diversity of 'l'tildlife species used by basin residents in both consumptive and nonconsumptive ways. More than critical and special value areas are required; lands and waters providing high quality habitat during all seasons and for all life cycle functions of wildlife and fish are necessary. Due to the relatively low productivity per unit area of even the highest quality habitat in the Basin (compared to the most productive areas of Alaska), large areas of land are required to support wildlife populations of a sufficient magnitude to survive natural fluctuations in numbers and to allow for human harvest. Large land areas free from development are also necessary to carry out habitat enhancer.:ent. through the use of prescribed burning. Fire suppression has decreased the amount of 9·1 ~~ [ L [ [ [ r [ r, L [ [ [ L [ ,-, L [ L ~-- L [ B. high quality habitat available for some wildlife species important for human use, such as moose. As is true throughout Alaska~ demand for consumptive use of several fish and wildlife species in the Tanana Basin greatly exceeds supply. In some parts of the basin, permit drawings have been established for big game species, including Dall sheep, bison, and moose. In other areas, seasons and bag limits for big game species such as moose and caribou have become more restrictive over the years. This trend is expected to continue as the number of people living in the Basin increases and access is improved. If the land and water base available as habitat is decreased, fish and . wildlife populations can be expected to decrease as well, further increasing the gap between supply and demand. The decrease in numbers of fish and wildlife would not necessarily occur in direct proportion to loss of habitat lands or waters, but might be either greater or less. Local availability of fish and wildljfe resources is important to both rural and urban residents of the Tanana Basin. Therefore, even if supply exceeded de~and in another area of the state, a habitat land base would continue to be necessary in the Basin. One of the most common thernes voiced in public meetings regarding the Tanana Basin Area Plan was an interest in perpetuating wildlife resources. Rural residents, in particular, rely on local availability of fish and wildlife. On the basis of survey results presented in DNR's Outdoor Recreation Plan, availability of local hunting and fishing opportunities is one of the major reasons why 71% of Basin residents choose to live in the Tanana Basin. Ensure Access to Public Lands and Waters StatewideGoal: The State will ensure access to public lands and waters for the purpose of providing and/or enhancing the responsible public use and enjoyment of fish and wildlife resources. Ensuring access to public lands and waters is of equal importance to the maintenance of a habitat land base. Clearly, a network of high quality habitat lands and waters is of little benefit to wildlife users if legal and practical access to those lands has not been reserved and, if appropriate, developed. Access conflicts are developing in the Tanana Basin, when corridors or public use easements and customary or traditional access have not been reserved along routes to state land which lie across Federal lands transferred to private ownership. The State and the Fairbanks North Star Borough have not transferred a high percentage of their lands in the Tanana Basin to private ownership, but if this is done, reservation of access to remaining public lands will become increasingly more important for two reasons. First, transfer of public lands to private ownership or to uses that preclude public access and use of wildlife can block access to remaining public lands and waters. Second, a decreasing public land base will concentrate use on the remaining lands and intensify access conflicts unless feasible access is reserved. As mentioned earlier, local lands are extremely important, making reservation of access to all public lands throughout the Tanana Basin essential. 9-2 [ [ [ [ r: [ ( ~ t L C. Mitigate Losses ofFish, Wildlife and Their Habitats Statewide Goal: Where deve 1 opment is to occur, the State wi 11 seek to maintain as much fish and wildlife habitat as is possible in conjunction with any development project that is undertaken. As will be explained in detail by the following goal, economic diversity is both desirable and anticipated vlithin the Tanana Basin. Availability of land for mining, forestry, agriculture or settlement has been a concern expressed in public meetings in certain Tanana Basin communities. When deciding what types of development to encourage and where to do so, it is important to realize that there is a limited amount of high quality land in the Tanana Basin, and that the same lands and waters that have high habitat value are often those with high forestry, agriculture, or settlement value. Almost any development of state land to realize a potential non-wildlife use decreases its current value as a producer of fish and wildlife by reducing the extent, quality, or useability of the habitat by wildlife. However, decrease in habitat value can be minimized through mitigation, by the proper siting of developments and/or by tailoring the methodology of construction/design. The intent of mitigation is to minimize the i~pacts of developments to fish and wildlife, by planning so that development projects occur in a manner that will allow the productive capacity of the land to be maintained. For example, proper forestry practices can enhance habitat values for certain wildlife species. The high value of fish and wildlife to Tanana Basin residents and the fact that demand for certain wildlife species exceeds supply, render it essential that development projects must be sited and designed to minimize impact on fish and wildlife resources in the Tanana Basin. D. Ec:onomic: Diversity ProposedStatewideGoal: The State will protect fish and wildlife resources which contribute to the regional and state economy directly and indirectly through commercial, subsistence, sport, and nonconsumptive uses. A diversified economy can provide the benefits of long term economic stability to residents of the Tanana Basin, desirable for urban and rural dwellers alike. Fish and wildlife resources have provided a base for long term, nonsubsidized economic activity with substantial direct and indirect benefits to the state and to Tanana Basin residents in the past and continue to do so. Enhancement of fish and wildlife yields is also possible, and should be considered as a part of economic development plans. Direct economic benefits from consumptive use of fish ar.d wildlife resources in the Tanana Basin, include, for example, jobs in guiding, trapping and commercial fishing. The latter is a major source of income statewide as well. Indirect benefits include, for example, jobs created from spending by residents and nonresidents who pay for hunting and fishing experiences in the Basin. Data collected as part of the Tanana Basin Area Plan illustrates that the use of fish and wildlife resources is presently contributing mot·e than 579.9 ~illion (1983 dollars) annually to the economy of the Basin, and employs the fulltime equivalent of 872 people directly 9-3 [ L [ [ [ [ [ L L L and 827 people indirectly. Consumptive use of fish and wildlife resources presently support more jobs that any other element of the Plan, with vet·y low social and environmental costs. Non-consumptive use of fish and wildilfe resources in the Tanana Basin, such as birdwatching, tourism, or nature photography, also generates direct and indirect economic benefits. These benefits were not included in the above analysis, but were considered in the recreation element. It is not possible to precisely determine the correlation between economic benefit and the maintenance of high quality fish and wildlife habitat. However, it is reasonable to expect that if a substantial loss of high quality habitat to development of other resources occurred, a substantial decrease in economic activity related to wildlife would also occur. It has been demonstrated that both consumptive and non-consumptive users of wildlife are unlikely to expend the same, or more, effort and money to obtain such experiences under more crowded, less aesthetic and less productive conditions. ~ Fish and wildlife resources support additional uses and values which are not included in the above economic evaluation, particularly in the rural economy. In the mixed economy, harvesting of fish and wildlife resources for food and trade supple~ent employment in the cash economy. These are forms of employment and income which are very important to the livelihood of rural residents of the Tanana Basin, although they cannot be expressed in standard economic terms at our current level of knowledge of subsistence use. Fish and wildlife· resources are currently contributing substantially to the economy of the Tanana Basin. This contribution is self-regenerating. Allocating lands to other uses means replacing this existing value with a potential one. In order to protect the economic diversity and long term economic health of,the Tanana Basin, it is important to assess whether the value potentially gained by an alternative land use truly offsets the renewable fish and wildlife value lost, both directly ana indirectly. E. Conclusion In relation to the four statewide fish and wildlife habitat goals, discussed above in reference to the Tanana Basin, the fish and wildlife element and the Fish and Wildlife and Recreation Alternative derived from the element were designed to achieve the following results: Maintain fish and wildlife populations at or above current levels by retaining in public ownership a network of high quality habitat lands and waters capable of providing the best opportunities for habitat enhancement (This is related to the first and third statewide goals). Maintain or increase the current opportunities for sustained use of fish and wildlife resources (This is related directly to the second goal ) . 9-4 [ [ [ r· [ [ [ [ L L f' t L Provide for economic diversity and balanced development, and meet reasonably expected demand for lands for other uses by allocating lands to those uses where the land suitability for the other resource use is high and where conflicts with fish, wildlife, and recreation are minimized (This is related to the fourth statewide goal, and also to the third) . The following two principles, in addition to the statewide goals, guided development of the wildlife habitat and human use suitability categories and maps, and the Fish and Wildlife and Recreation Alternative. It is most important to retain in public ownership a system of lands that will produce and sustain wildlife in numbers sufficient to allow management aimed at satisfying demand, rather than to retain public use areas that are not high quality habitats. This is based on the premise that public use can be shifted (e.g., through development of access), if necessary, to where wildlife resources are, while wildlife production cannot, in general, be shifted to other areas if valuable habitat is lost. The wildlife suitability map (Chapter 7 of the Fish and Wildlife Element) is based on habitat value and human use~ but designed so the two values can be disaggregated. If possible, important public use areas will be retained regardless of habitat quality, but when tradeoffs are necessary high quality habitat will be favored over human use areas. Local preferences for land uses should be considered in developing land use alternatives and the draft plan. Particularly in rural areas of the Tanana Basin, residents strongly favor classification of surrounding lands as Wildlife Habitat. If other resource use activities are allowed to occur in these areas, such should be conducted in a manner to protect fish and wildlife values. If this cannot be done, the reasons should be stated explicity and justified in terms of the appropriate regionally interpreted statewide goals and the overall goals of the Tanana Basin Area Plan. III. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Legislatively Designated Fish and Wildlife Areas The Alaska Legislature has recognized the need for designating and preserving a portion of Alaska's outstanding natural habitat and its associated fish and wildlife values. This legislative recognition is manifested in statutes which authorize establishment of State Refuges, Sanctuaries, Critical Habitat Areas, Range Areas, and Endangered Species Habitat (AS 16.20.020-320). These statutes provide that each special area 'will be managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, subject to the close cooperation and concurrence of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, to preserve those unique aspects for which each area was specially designated. Generally, the cited statutes also prescribe a conservation purpose for each type of area, delineate boundaries for each special area, require submittal and approval of development plans, or provide for preparation of area ~anagement plans and regulations. 9-5 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ L [ [ c L L [ The Tanana Basin Area Plan has provided an opportunity to identify special areas that meet the criteria for legislative designation. Due to the uncertainties of the political process, some of the areas that meet the biological criteria may not receive official designation. Therefore, it is imperative that the planning process identify these special areas and provide the necessary management to protect fish and wildlife values. This section defines the criteria proposed for each of the five special area types which pertain only to state-owned portions of the Basin. Where clear statutory guidance was found to be absent, the areas are described by past department policies and management practices. These definitions, therefore, represent Department of Fish and Game interpretation to some extent. I. State Game Refuge Statutory Purpose: 11 ••• to protect and preserve the natural habitat and game populations in certain designated areas of the state.11 AS 16.20.020. Description: State game refuges are characterized by the objective of maintaining or increasing the traditional distribution and normal abundance of fish and wildlife. In this light, refuges are areas where for some reason, e.g. man's activities, species are or could be lost or displaced, and the habitat value and wildlife use of the area could be appreciably altered. The intent of a refuge is to maintain or reestablish a cross-section of the species and habitats of a given locale for continued use and enjoyment by the general public. ManagementPractices: Management of a refuge, while recognizing the need to maintain a diversity of species and habitats, focuses on a featured species or groups of species. Management intensity will vary with the refuge and may include habitat development, rehabilitation, or enhancemen~. Compatible land uses will continue in refuges under permit stipulations that ensure maintenance of the fish and wildlife resources and continued use by the public. Compatible human use of refuges and their fish and wildlife populations is encouraged. AreasldentifiedasStateGameRefuges: ~1into Flats (Waterfowl Refuge); Tok River (Game Refuge). 2. Fish and Game Critical Habitat Area Statutory Purpose: 11 ••• to protect and preserve habitat areas especially crucial to the perpetuation of fish and wildlife, and to restrict all other uses not compatible with that primary purpose." AS 16.20.220 Description: A critical habitat area provides one or more necessary elements to the life cycle of a species, groups of species, or population, and each el~ment is crucial to the perpetuation of that 9-6 r· L [ [ [ f L L L L [ L species or population. Alteration of this habitat element would appreciably decrease the likelihood that the species or population could perpetuate itself. ManagementPractices: Critical habitats should experience only minimal disturbance. Management focuses on maintaining the unique or uncommon character, quality, or productivity of the area's ecosystem. Nondisruptive recreational use and enjoyment of the habitat and species is allowed insofar as those activities are made possible by regulations of the Boards of Fisheries and Game. Other human activities are allowed by permit if the activity is compatible with the protection of the designated habitat and non-disruptive to local species. Development in critical habitat areas will be restricted to a greater extent than on refuges. Areas identified as Critical Habitat: · Tokl at Springs, cri ti ca 1 sa 1 mon spawning area; Alaska Range, critical sheep mineral licks; Alaska Range, critical caribou calving areas. l. State Game Sanctuary Statutory Purpose: 11 ••• preserving the natural habitat and fish and game 11 of the sanctuary. AS 16.20.120 and 16.20.170 Description: State game sanctuaries are created for the primary purpose of preserving the traditional distribution and normal abundance of species and their habitat. A sanctuary consists of undisturbed habitat utilized by an uncommonly large or unique assemblage of a population. It is a well defined area where particular attention is focused upon the species and its habitat for specific reasons. Sanctuaries are areas in which the featured species can find protection and inviolability afforded by an assylum. ManagementPractices: Encroachments upon, or alteration of, a sanctuary may conflict wi.th the species' natural habitat, alter its distribution, or may even preclude the likelihood of its survival. Accordingly, management strategies focus on the featured species and may preclude any habitat manipulations, alterations or human uses, if they affect the species' or sanctuary's ecosystem. Areas identified as State Game Sanctuary: none. 4. State Range Area StatutoryPurpose: " ... to protect free-ranging bison on the land ... by management of habitat to provide an adequate winter range for the bison. It is also the purpose ... to alter seasonal movements of bison herds on the land in order to diminish the damage caused by the herds to agriculturally developed land." Sec. 1, ch. 39, SLA 1979 Description: A State Range Area is an area encompassing the seasonal distribution of particular wildlife species, and in which active manipulatior of wildlife habitat is intended. 9-7 [ [ L [ [ [ [ [ r~ t: r [ c l [ L L L L L Management Practices: Unique management practices are used which result in a desired distribution of the subject species within the designated range. Management practices may include supplying forage, altering existing plant cover, etc., in order to redistribute and protect the subject species and ultimately diminish the species' interference with private and public properties. All lawful land and resource use activities are allowed. Areas identified as State Range Area: none. 5. Endangered Species Habitat Statutory Purpose: " ... to establish a program for ... (the) continued conservation, protection, restoration, and propagation ... " of fish and wildlife that "are now and may in the future be threatened with extinction." AS 16.20.180 Description: Endangered Species habitat is used by a threatened or endangered specie~. The habitat has characteristics analogous to critical habitat areas except that the species of concern is identified as threatened with extinction or listed by the state as endangered. ManagementPractices: The alteration of this habitat would appreciably decrease the likelihood of the species' continued ·existence. Consequently, use of, or disturbance to, the habitat will be kept to an absolute minimum number of compatible uses. Use of or disturbance to the endangered species may only occur by permit and only for certain public purposes pursuant to AS 16.20.195. Areas identified as Endangered Species Habitat: peregrine fa 1 con nest sites as identifed in the fish and wildlife element·of the Tanana Basin A rea P 1 an. 9-8 [ L [ [' [ [ [ [ c c [ [ L L L B. Single Use-Biologically Critical Fish and Wildlife Areas (A-1) Criteria: These areas were identified as the highest priority retention lands in the planning area based on wildlife values. Lands in the ",'\-1" category have unique and valuable qualities that are particularly crucial to the perpetuation of one or more species groups of wildlife. Areas that meet the criteria include, but are not limited to, sheep licks, waterfowl nesting areas, caribou calving areas, peregrine nest sites, and salmon spawning areas. Some of the areas identified as Primary Use Fish and Wildlife have been recommended for legislative designation. All of the areas identified as "A-1" habitat meet the biological criteria and should be considered for proposal for some type of legislative designation within the proposed twenty-year planning period. Areas Identified as Single Use-Biologically Critical Fish and Wildlife: Areas: Identified in the Fish and Wildlife Element and in Alternative 3. Management Guidelines: Generally, management of these areas wi 11 be to maintain the fish and wildlife values. Most other resource activities should be considered incompatible because conflicts may result in harm to the resource or loss of opportunity for use. Maintenance of the utility of these areas for the production and use of wildlife resources should be the primary ~anagement concern. Justification: 1. These extremely important production areas are vital to maintain supply at a reasonable level. For species not used in the consumptive sense, these areas are required in order to prevent extirpation. 2. Critical habitats (defined in the biological sense) are necessary to maintain populations that have important social effects. 3. Loss of production and use of these areas would result in severe impacts on consumer, production and indirect economic benefits that result from wildlife. 4. The dedication of these areas will bE a first significant step in constructing a viable system of wildlife-producing lands in the Tanana Basin. In fact, the preservation of critical habitats is a measure of overall environmental quality. C. Single Use-Special Value Fish and Wildlife Areas (A-2) Criteria: Special Value areas contain "prime" habitat (as defined in Chapter 4 of the Element) for four or more key wildlife species, except in Dall sheep habitat, where fewer species may occur. These areas are extremely valuable on the basis of biological diversity, productivity, end/or human use of wildlife resources. Special value areas are often heavily used by people as well as being extremely important to wildlife populations. 9-10 [" [ [ [ [ r· -' [~ [ r t [ [ [ c - l [ [ L E L D. Areas Identified as Single Use-Special Value Fish and Wildlife Areas: The location and description o~ special value areas can .be found in the Fish and Wildlife Element of the Plan and in Alternative 3. ManagementGuidelines:Protection of wildlife values and associated human use should be the primary management goal for Special Value areas. Most resource uses can be viewed as incompatible with this proposed goal. In some cases, seasonal activity may be compatible. Justification:· 1. These are extremely valuable areas on the basis of biological diversity, productivity and/or huma·n use of wildlife resources. Because of the value of these areas in their present or potential states, they deserve dedication to single use management. 2. Over the long term, enhancement practices could increase the value of these areas. 3. It is because these areas do much to satisfy demand -either directly (on-site) or indirectly (through animal dispersal to other areas) that these areas are identified. 4. Local preference will strongly favor retention and dedication of these lands -because ~is is where these resources are produced and procured. Feasibility is not calculated to the acre. However, our economic information for the Tanana Basin indicated, that the use of \'lil dl ife causes s i gifi cant net benefits. S i nee "A-2" areas are among the most productive, diverse, and heavily used areas in the Basin, it follows that their dedication as single-use wildlife areas is most feasible. 5. These extremely important production areas are vital to maintenance and/or improvement of the supply situation. Remember, demand outstrips supply for many species. 6. These areas are crucial to social values due to their productivity and diversity. 7. The allocation of these areas to wildlife habitat would have benefits disproportionate to their size, and would protect significant environmental values. Multiple Use Wildlife Habitat-Conservative Management (B-1) Criteria for B-1 areas: a) Two or more species' (or species groups) prime habitat of an "intensive" nature. Rarely, when justified by circumstances locally, will one species' habitat qualify b) Two or more species' prime habitat of a dispersed nature, when in upland or subalpine areas that are sensitive to competing uses 9-11 [ : [ [ [ [ [ [ [ L L [_ c) Areas that do not meet above conditions but support high levels of human use have been upgraded to this class. See suitabi 1 ity map for their location. AreasrecommendedasB-1 areas: Areas recommended for this classification are found in the Fish and Wildlife Alternative and in Alternative #3. ManagementGuidelinesforB-lAreas: These areas should be retained in public ownership with wildlife production as the primary use. Other activities are allowed as specified in the proposed management guidelines. Because of the difference in species values occurring in each area with a "B-1" Suitability Category, management guidelines \AJill vary. The intent of all guidelines will be to allow production of fish and wildlife resources. Justification: 1. The key species groups used in the mapping and prioritization processes are in high (and increasing) demand. 2. This cat~gory reflects the desires of many speakers at the TBAP public meetings. Several local communities have submitted wildilfe classification requests that closely approximate the fish and wildlife alternative. Support for wildlife habitat is also found within sportsmen's, native, professional guide and trapping groups 3. These areas are essential for the existing levels of wildlife production and use, and must be maintained to provide the opportunity for significant increased benefits in the future. 4. Fish and wildlife economic analyses are not calculated to the acre. However, this type of area is the largest contributor to the large positive net benefit found for fish and wildlife resources. This is because: a) these areas produce amounts of fish and wildlife disproportionate to their land area, and b) they include the places where most people go to use wildlife resources. The feasibility of producing wildlife resources for the benefit of the public is known to . high on this type of land. 5. By taking human use areas into account when defining "B-1" areas, the accessibility is automatically guaranteed--people are already using these areas. 6. 7. The maintenance of these areas in their present (or some future enhanced) state will have a stabilizing effect upon soical conditions, expecially in rural areas. Any loss of integrity of this system will foster negative social effects. The maintenance of the integrity of "B-1" lands and tlleir management for uses compatible with wildlife will have a significant beneficial effect upon the Tanana Basin's environment in the future by protecting water quality, soil integrity, and other natural resources. 9-12 [ [ [ [ L [ [ [ [ L L r L E. Multiple Use Wildlife Habitat-Liberal Management B-2 Criteria for "B-2" Areas: 1) One prime habitat value; or 2) One prime and one important habitat value; or 3) Two "dispersed" prime values in lowland areas; or 4) Three or more important habitat values Areasrecommendedfor"B-2"category: found in the Fish and Wildlife Element of the Plan. Managementof"B-2" areas: should be for multiple use with 1 iberal management to protect fish and wildlife values. Generally it is recommended that these areas be retained in public ownership and managed to provide a mix of land uses while maintaining existing levels of production of wildlife. Specific guidelines for resource activities on "B-2" lands are found in the guideline sheets. Justification: 1. The species habitat values that were considered on this recommendation are in high demand. These areas reflect production of species important locally, but generally having poorer access and less use than higher priority areas. 2. New access facilities may create more use of these areas, increasing their relative importance in the future. Habitat manipulation may also result in higher relative importance to various species groups. The primary goal should be to maintain or improve the ability of these lands to produce wildlife. As demand increases in the future, the production and use of these areas will increase. Enlightened management will preserve these potentials while allowing other compatible resource activities to· occur. F. Multiple UseAreas-"C" Habitat Criteria for "C" habitat areas: values. areas containing t\-10 or fewer "important" Areasrecommended: are shown in the Fish and Wildlife Element of the Plan. Management guidelines: these areas cou 1 d be managed for a variety of uses, including various settlement options. Wildlife values would be protected by the proposed management guidelines. Justification: 1. 2. These lands do not support the productivity and diversity of valuable wildlife that previous categories do. These lands, in general, do not support local uses to the extent that previous categories do. Habitat menipulation or changes ir access 9-13 [ [ [ [ L [' [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ r - L r: L [: status may increase the value of these areas for wildlife or use of wildlife resources. Opportunities to increase production of wildlife in these areas should be given consideration along with other potential land uses. Areas with lower habitat values should be managed to provide the maximum economic benefit possible using the most favorable mix of land use. Fish and wildlife values should be protected to the maximum extent possible. 9-14