Togiak National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan Revision Significant Planning Issues

              Togiak National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan Revision
Significant Planning Issues
April 26, 2001
This report describes the planning issues that are guiding revision of the Togiak
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). It is a living, working document that evolves as work
on the plan progresses. The issues provide a foundation for developing and evaluating
alternative management strategies for the Togiak Refuge. The issues were defined by the
Core Planning Team, which consists of representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the State of Alaska, and tribal governments of six villages associated with the
Togiak Refuge. The issues incorporate verbal comments from local meetings and written
comments received from across the country that were obtained as part of project scoping.
Table of Contents
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Legal Requirements and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Available Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Current Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Possible Ways to Address the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Health of Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Current Management/Available Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Effects of Catch and Release. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Risk of Introduced Disease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Populations of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Possible Ways to Address the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Subsistence Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Indicators of Subsistence Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Status and Availability of Fish and Wildlife Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Access to Preferred and Traditional Fishing Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Trespass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Conflicts with sport anglers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Litter and Waste in the River Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Opportunity for a Safe Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Social Aspects of Subsistence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Current Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
River Rangers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Airport contacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Limits on Guided Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Fishing and Camping Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Possible Ways to Address the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Recreation Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Trends in recreation use patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Guided Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Non-guided Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Indicators of Recreation Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Fishing Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Solitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Camp encounters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Amount of time within sight of other groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Percent of camping areas passed because they were occupied. . . . . . . . . 28
Number of permanent and semi-permanent tent camps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Percent of sites with litter and human waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Possible Ways to Address the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Impacts of Public Use on Wildlife in the River Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Game Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Current Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Bear-Human Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Current Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Data Gaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Possible Ways to Address the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Management of Human Use and Wildlife at Cape Peirce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Laws and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Available Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Pacific walrus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Harbor and Spotted Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Steller Sea Lions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Disturbance of marine mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Aircraft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Boats. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Other Disturbances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Current Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Data Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Possible Ways to Address the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Possible New Land Management Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Wilderness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Wilderness Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Recommendation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Management Direction for Designated Rivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Wild and Scenic River Study Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5
Water Quality
What is the current status of water quality on the Togiak Refuge? What is the
Refuge’s role in improving or maintaining water quality? What is the effect of
human uses on water quality, especially in the Kanektok River?
Preserving water quality is one of the primary purposes for which the Togiak Refuge was
established. Togiak Refuge waters provide habitat for diverse and abundant populations
of fish. Water quality is not just a concern for fish and wildlife; people who live near the
Togiak Refuge depend on high quality river water and adequate treatment facilities for
household use.
There is concern that improperly disposed human waste from Refuge visitors may be
contributing to contamination of waters within and downstream from the Togiak Refuge. A
related concern, although not one that can be dealt with directly by revising the plan, is
the availability of state-approved waste disposal facilities in Quinhagak, Goodnews Bay,
and Togiak.
Another concern is the impacts of mine tailings and abandoned mines on Togiak Refuge
waters. There are approximately 20 active placer claims within the Togiak Refuge, as well
as many abandoned claims. Many other claims are outside the Refuge boundary, but are
upstream from Refuge lands. Most of the claims are along the Salmon River near Platinum,
near the headwaters of the Arolik River, or within the Goodnews River watershed. Heavy
metals associated with gold-bearing minerals can be released into the water during placer
mining and sluicing operations. Some of these metals are toxic to people at low
concentrations and are even more toxic to fish and wildlife either through direct contact
or ingestion of contaminated food items.
Legal Requirements and Regulations
Water quality was established as a primary purpose of the Togiak Refuge in ANILCA.
Standards for water quality are established by several laws and regulations, including the
Clean Water Act. Several agencies monitor and regulate water quality, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency and several agencies of the State of Alaska, including
the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Game, and Department of
Environmental Conservation. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service complies with these
various laws and regulations and cooperates with the various management agencies
responsible for enforcing them.
6
Available Data
Tests on basic water chemistry were conducted as part of the Wild and Scenic River
Study of the Kanektok in the mid-1980s. The Togiak Refuge also sampled water quality in
1990 to determine the fecal coliform counts of the major river drainages within the
Togiak Refuge. These data were not analyzed apparently because laboratory tests would
be unable to distinguish between human fecal coliform and that of other mammals. Other
data have been collected by the Tribal Natural Resources Department in Quinhagak; the
results are not available at this time but the tribe plans to hire a contractor to compile
and analyze them in the near future. The tribe is working on an environmental protection
plan for the watershed.
In 1990 the USFWS conducted a study to determine the level of contaminants from
mining in the Salmon River. Samples were collected from control sites (which should not
have shown any effects from mining), tailing piles, the lower part of the river and from
juvenile salmon. The levels of metals in the control sediments and control fish were higher
than those of the tailings or the downstream samples, except for copper, which were not
significant and did not exceed the action level. This study used a small sample size and the
background levels of metals in the environment were high, two factors that may have
influenced the results. A tour of some abandoned mine sites was conducted in September
2000, revealing a number of site-specific concerns; GPS coordinates are available.
Current Management
Outhouses are available at Kagati lake, at the head of the Kanektok, and at Goodnews
Lake, where many people begin their trips. Information about proper waste disposal is
given to Togiak Refuge visitors when contacted by Refuge personnel or air taxi operators
in Dillingham, or by the river rangers stationed on each river. On the Refuge, visitors are
required to deposit waste at least 100 feet from any lake, river or stream and 4 to 6
inches under ground to encourage bacterial decomposition. Guides either carry out waste,
dispose of it in outhouses at temporary camps, or incinerate it, all legal methods.
Below the Wilderness boundary, the rivers are bordered by private lands. People often
trespass to dispose waste, or do not properly dispose of waste to avoid trespassing. On
the Kanektok, floaters are required to carry out their waste. Currently the village of
Quinhagak in cooperation with the Togiak Refuge ,issues honey buckets for storage of
waste for disposal at Quinhagak, where floaters end their trips. At this time however,
there are poor facilities to properly empty and clean the buckets at the village. This has
led to a number of visitors choosing not to use the buckets.
7
As part of the river ranger program, rangers document the number of campsites with
visible human waste on each of the three rivers. Over the last four years the number of
sites examined on each river has varied considerably, as has the method by which sites
are sampled, making trends difficult to detect. Nonetheless, the data suggest that there
is room for improvement.
Water quality will continue to be an issue for the Togiak Refuge. The ideal condition would
be to reach a level of no contamination, and no campsites with visible human waste.
Although the new plan will not be able to address all of the environmental quality issues,
many of which involve private lands, the CCP planning process is an opportunity to compile
and share existing information and work toward possible solutions.
Data Gaps
Little data exists for water quality on the Togiak Refuge. Several other plans have
recommended that the Togiak Refuge collect water quality data. Collecting data
consistently and in ways that point to actions that should be taken, is a priority.
For the next three years, the Fish and Wildlife Service will expand its studies of water
quantity on the Togiak Refuge to include analysis of basic water chemistry at 20-some
locations. This will greatly expand baseline data available. During summer, 2001 the Togiak
Refuge also will study water on the Kanektok where it flows out of the Togiak Wilderness,
conducting assessments of fecal coliform or e coli. The village of Quinhagak plans to
continues testing on the Lower Kanektok. The Refuge and village plan to coordinate
analysis of these data.
Possible Ways to Address the Issue
Increase water quality monitoring
Improve education on waste disposal
Require floaters to carry out all solid human waste
Work with village(s) to provide/improve waste disposal stations
Increase enforcement of State, Refuge, and Corporation regulations regarding disposal
Install outhouses or waste disposal facilities at select sites along the rivers
8
Health of Fish
Are fish stocks healthy? What are the impacts to spawning areas from public
use, trampling by anglers, and boats with jet units? What is the effect of
catch-and-release fishing on fish mortality? How can the Togiak Refuge
minimize the risks of introduction of whirling disease or other parasites that
could infect fish populations?
The salmon of Bristol and Kuskokwim Bays are the single most important resource in the
entire area. The income and food which these runs provide are critical to the livelihoods
of almost everyone in Bristol Bay. Because of the importance of these fisheries, they are
monitored, sampled, and studied by federal and state agencies to ensure they continue to
provide for the communities near the Togiak Refuge. Of the hundreds of thousands of
salmon which return to rivers within the Togiak Refuge every year, only a few thousand
are caught or taken by sport anglers and local residents. The vast majority of the harvest
is taken by commercial permit. It is unlikely that current or future levels of sport or
subsistence harvest will impact salmon stocks within the Togiak Refuge.
The resident fish populations of the Togiak Refuge are of great value and importance to
people who live throughout Bristol and Kuskokwim Bays. Many people depend on these fish
to contribute to their subsistence needs. These fish are also a primary reason anglers
come from all over the world to the Togiak Refuge. The sport fishing industry which
operates within the Togiak Refuge provides more than 50 jobs and contributes more than
1.5 million dollars of income to the local economy. Because of the importance of these fish
stocks, their management is one of the primary goals of the Togiak Refuge. Continued
monitoring will be required to assess changes occurring in resident fish populations. By
assessing these changes the Togiak Refuge will be able to determine if resident fisheries
management goals are being achieved.
The issue of fish mortality associated with catch-and-release sport fishing has been
raised at village meetings and through the scoping process. This long-standing issue is
broader than a concern over the health of fish stocks; it is clearly also an issue grounded
in cultural values. However, in the context of this issue (health of fish), we will only
address the mortality aspect; the cultural values conflict will be described further under
the Subsistence Opportunity issue. Local residents also may oppose tagging studies,
because of effects on individual fish.
Another concern is protection of fish habitat and the effects of wading or motor boating
on key spawning areas at key times of the season. Research on wading has found variable
9
effects, and studies of motorboat use effects on fish habitat in Alaska have not found
effects large enough to warrant regulation on those rivers. Kicking up eggs to attract fish
does not appear to be a problem on these rivers compared to some locations in the lower
48. Bank erosion from angler trampling appears minimal because most angling takes place
on gravel bars. Many rivers are already seasonally closed to sport fishing for king salmon
to protect spawning fish (for example, the Kanektok is closed for kings after July 25).
Neither the State nor the Refuge can tell anglers they can’t wade in the river, but the
State does have the authority to close an area to fishing under some circumstances.
The other facet of this issue is the risk of disease introduced from other regions.
Anglers from around the country and the world travel to Alaska and fish in the remote
waters wearing the same clothing, especially waders, that they may have used in other
waters where infectious disease occurs. Transportation of disease, aquatic vegetation,
and aquatic organisms has occurred in other areas of the country.
Of the greatest concern is whirling disease (Myxobolus cerebralis), a parasite that was
probably introduced to the United States during the 1950's from Europe. This parasite
penetrates the head and spinal cartilage of young trout. This causes the fish to swim
erratically (whirl), and have difficulty feeding and avoiding predators. In severe
infections, the disease can cause high rates of mortality in young-of-the-year fish. Those
that survive until the cartilage hardens to bone can live a normal life span, but are marred
by skeletal deformities. Fish can, however reproduce without passing on the parasite to
their offspring. The spores can be transported by animals, birds and humans. The most
likely means of the parasite’s expansion is the illegal transportation of live fish.
Laws and Regulations
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) directs the Togiak
National Wildlife Refuge to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their
natural diversity. The Togiak Refuge Fisheries Management Plan identified a “wild”
management concept, emphasizing natural reproduction and natural habitat conditions.
The Southwest Alaska Rainbow Trout Management Plan adopted a management policy to
maintain historical size and age distribution of rainbow trout populations in the region.
Togiak Refuge management also reflects the goals of the National Recreational Fisheries
Policy. It will protect fish populations and their habitats by monitoring and evaluating the
effects of public use in sensitive areas. This will also ensure the quality, quantity, and
diversity of opportunities for recreational fishing are maintained.
ADF&G has management responsibility for fisheries in navigable waters and includes a
State mandated management priority for subsistence uses. The State Division of
10
Commercial Fisheries Management and Development manages the commercial fisheries and
monitors subsistence harvest in coordination with the Subsistence Division from the
Bethel and Dillingham offices. The Division of Sport Fish manages the sport fisheries
from the Dillingham office, with frequent communication with the Subsistence Division
and commercial fisheries personnel in Bethel.
The general management strategy within the waters of the Togiak Refuge has been to
promote catch-and-release fishing for resident and anadromous fish species in waters
outside the ADF&G special regulation management areas. ADF&G sport fish special
fishing regulations require releasing all Kanektok River rainbow trout from June 8 to
October 31. Additionally, ADF&G regulations specify only single-hook unbaited artificial
lures may be used in the waters of the Goodnews and Kanektok rivers, to minimize hooking
mortality. Other length and possession limits vary by location.
Angler education has been recognized by both ADF&G and Service managers as the best
method to successfully implement catch-and-release fishing and minimize mortality.
Education of anglers by Togiak Refuge personnel is initiated during airport contacts for
unguided floater trips and by the Togiak Refuge ranger program contacting groups in the
field. A brochure is included in Togiak Refuge information packets sent to interested
parties inquiring about the Togiak Refuge. As part of the guide permitting process, guides
are required to brief all clients on proper catch and release methods. Information
provided to visitors also includes the sensitivity of catch-and-release practices to local
residents.
The Service has been recently charged with management of subsistence fisheries in
waters flowing from the Togiak Refuge. This new management responsibility is being
coordinated with the State of Alaska through a formal Interim Memorandum of
Agreement. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a foundation and direction for
coordinated interagency subsistence fisheries and wildlife management, consistent with
State and Federal statutes, that will protect and promote the sustained health of fish and
wildlife populations, ensure conservation and stability in fisheries and wildlife
management, and include meaningful public involvement.
Current Management/Available Data
As part of the Togiak Refuge Public Use Management Plan (PUMP), the Refuge was divided
into 13 management units. These units are formed loosely along major watershed
boundaries to recognize unique and distinct differences among the resources and use of
these areas. Unit 13 includes all of the lakes within the Togiak Wilderness Area.
11
The ADF&G Sport Fish Division’s mail survey is the primary tool used to monitor refuge
sport fisheries. In addition, on-site creel and fishery survey projects are conducted
periodically on the most active sport fisheries such as the Lower Kanektok, North Fork
Goodnews and Togiak Rivers during the peaks of chinook and coho salmon runs. Public use
data and fish catch and harvest data are collected three ways: air taxi permits, sport
fishing guide permits, and the Togiak Refuge river ranger program.
The level of non-guided use (angling effort) is estimated by trip reports required to be
completed by each group using an air taxi service to access the Togiak Refuge. These
reports provide the number of people in the group, the days spent on the river, and the
drop off and pick up locations. No fish catch or harvest information is required. Sport
fishing guides report the number of clients fishing in a particular area, the number of
hours fished, and the number of each species caught and kept. For smaller fisheries and
tributary streams, guide use reports provide the only estimate of the level of guided
effort, catch rates and harvest.
The Togiak Refuge river rangers collect information on all recreational and subsistence
activities occurring in the Kanektok, Goodnews and Togiak river drainages. The
information provides “use days” which include anglers and the number of guides and
clients.
There is extensive fisheries data related to catch, escapement, harvest, habitat,
migration, age, numbers, etc. for parts of the Togiak Refuge. For other parts, there is
very little data. In general, the data currently available indicate that fish stocks within
the Togiak Refuge are healthy, and should be able to sustain the current levels of harvest
by commercial, subsistence, and sport fisheries.
Effects of Catch and Release. Catch and release fishing has been generally accepted as
a fisheries management tool that provides opportunity for sport fishing while conserving
fish populations. The main objectives behind catch and release fishing regulations are to
minimize fish mortality, maintain catch rates, and conserve larger fish. In some fisheries,
an individual fish may be caught and released several times throughout its life, supporting
a recreational fishery while still going on to reproduce and provide for future generations.
The percentage of mortality caused by catch and release fishing depends on numerous
factors: fish species; the type of lure, area of mouth region the fish is hooked; length of
time between hooking and release; water temperature; size of the fish; if the fish is
removed from the water and for how long; and general care in handling the fish. With
proper catch and release method, fish mortality and population effects can be minimized.
12
The available literature suggests that mortality associated catch and release fishing can
range from about 3 to 12 % for a variety of fish species. It is thought that with the use
of proper catch and release methods, most fish mortality can be held to below 3% for
most sport fish species on the Togiak Refuge. However, increased use of the fish
resources within the Togiak Refuge could increase levels of fish mortality. To address the
long term effects of catch and release fishing at a population level, monitoring of fish
populations with standardized methods of sampling should be implemented.
Risk of Introduced Disease. Rainbow trout appear to be most susceptible to whirling
disease infection. Other species that can be effected to a lesser degree are sockeye,
chinook and coho salmon. Lake trout may be immune to the disease. As part of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Fish Hatcheries’ National Wild Fish Health Survey,
the King Salmon Fishery Resource Office collected tissue samples from ten rainbow trout
populations, two Dolly Varden populations, and one Arctic char population throughout
southwest Alaska during May-October 1998 to test for specific diseases and parasites.
Rainbow trout were collected from the Kanektok and Togiak River drainages. Dolly Varden
and Arctic char were collected from the Togiak drainage.
All tests for Myxobolus cerebralis (whirling disease) were negative. Other bacterial
pathogens tested for were all found at or below normal levels or were nonexistent.
Rainbow trout that spawn in cold water temperatures (less than 50 degrees F) are less
susceptible to the detrimental effects of whirling disease.
Currently there is an effort in the state of Alaska to control the transportation of
whirling disease to state waters. It is illegal to transport live fish to the state from
other areas or to transport fish between drainages within the State. No salmonids are
imported to the state and no stocking programs are occurring in southwest Alaska. It is
currently felt that the likelihood of enough viable spores being transported to Alaska is
very low. Geographic isolation is advantageous in reducing straying and likelihood of illegal
stocking. It is also not known whether a suitable tubifex worm intermediate host is
available in Alaska.
Togiak Refuge is in the final stages of completing a web site which will include
preventative measures anglers can take to minimize the risk of transporting viable spores
and tubifex worms to this area. Similar information is disseminated to air taxi operators
and their clients as part of the Refuge visitor airport contacts. The primary preventive
measures suggested are adapted from the Whirling Disease Foundation, Inc. web site,
such as how to disinfect boots, waders, and gear before going to a new watershed.
Researchers have found that disinfectant like chlorine and high temperatures can destroy
the spores.
13
Populations of Concern. A few specific populations of fish within the Togiak Refuge are
of concern. Data have been gathered about these populations, and on-going studies will
provide more information about the health of these fish stocks.
Unit 5 - Upper Togiak River. Concerns were documented in the Togiak Refuge Public Use
Management Plan over the status of resident fish species and anadromous Char and the
effects increasing sport fishing effort could have on these populations. Togiak residents
have previously expressed concern for an apparent decline in the number and size of Char.
At current levels the fisheries are not likely to be an immediate threat but their
magnitude and lack of abundance information warrant very close observation of the
populations. Long-time sport fish guides have expressed concern for rainbow trout and
Arctic grayling populations in the Togiak drainage tributaries. The sport catch of rainbow
trout has leveled off, and the sport harvest remains very low. Subsistence harvest of
rainbow trout is low compared to that of char and pike. From 1997 to 1999 the Togiak
Refuge tagged and released Dolly Varden along the main Togiak River to gather data
about movements, age structure and growth of fish in this population. The analysis of that
data has not been completed. A genetic study of spawning age Dolly Varden was begun on
the Togiak River in 2000.
Unit 9 - Kanektok River. Sixty percent of the sport fishing effort on the Kanektok River
occurs on the lower 20 miles. The remaining 40% of sport fishing effort occurs on the
upper 73 miles. The rainbow trout population was sampled in a 20-mile section of the
Kanektok River during three different studies; results suggest there may be a size shift
in the population of rainbow trout from larger to smaller fish. The rainbow trout
population appears to be capable of sustaining the current level of the fisheries, however,
the increasing angling effort on the Kanektok River has potential to significantly affect
the rainbow trout population. In 1998 the ADF&G issued more restrictive sport fishing
regulations that should decrease the number of rainbow trout taken and decrease the
mortality of released fish. Future studies specifically designed to assess the population
abundance or effects of the sport fishery are warranted.
Unit 10 - Arolik River. Studies have found that rainbow trout in the Arolik River were
larger in length at age and had a greater maximum age, maximum length, and a greater
proportion of fish larger than 500 mm in length than those sampled in either the Kanektok
or Goodnews rivers. The rainbow trout population appears to be very healthy and capable
of sustaining the current fisheries. Increasing angling effort on the Arolik River has the
potential to significantly affect the fish populations. Concern about the level of harvest
has been expressed by the public and others familiar with the river. Future studies
specifically designed to assess the population abundance or effects of the sport fishery
are warranted.
14
Unit 13 - Wilderness Lakes. The availability of good rainbow trout fishing is an important
attraction to sport anglers utilizing Pungokepuk and Gechiak Lakes. Rainbow trout have
not been found or reported at the other lakes. Togiak Refuge fisheries surveys have
included the headwater lakes and the tributary streams to the Togiak River. At this time
the rainbow trout population appears healthy and capable of sustaining the current
fisheries. Increasing angling effort at lake outlets has potential to significantly affect
fish populations. In addition people having experience with these fisheries have
expressed concern for fish populations. Future studies specifically designed to assess the
population abundance or effects of the sport fishery are warranted. Abundance
information is not available for most lake trout populations in Unit 13. While these are
slow growing, old age populations, the populations are thought to be relatively stable and
able to withstand the current levels of catch and harvest. However this species is
popular for both sport and subsistence use and should be monitored carefully.
Data Gaps
Baseline population statistics have been collected on many of the rivers within the Togiak
Refuge. Additional information could benefit efforts to address impacts of use on
spawning grounds. Studies addressing catch and release fishing mortality have been
conducted on the major sport fish species found within the Togiak Refuge, but not studies
addressing the effect on Refuge fish population dynamics. A standardized method of
sampling would be needed in all exploited populations of fish to address the effect of
catch and release fishing methods on populations throughout the Togiak Refuge.
Possible Ways to Address the Issue
Educate anglers on avoiding unnecessary impacts to fish populations (how to minimize
damage to spawning areas; proper catch and release)
Research existing literature on effects of motor boat motor use in spawning areas and
consider regulations
Monitor sport fishing and adjust regulations as needed
Continue to monitor fish populations
Work cooperatively with the villages to identify sensitive habitat areas (spawning beds)
and submit joint proposal for protection to State Board of Fish
15
Subsistence Opportunities
How should the Togiak Refuge define and manage for continued subsistence
opportunities? How will the Refuge know if subsistence uses are declining in
quality or becoming significantly restricted? What are the main influences on
subsistence on the three main river systems? How is recreational use of the
three main river systems affecting subsistence?
Residents of villages associated with the Togiak Refuge practice subsistence lifestyles
and rely heavily on resources located within Refuge boundaries. Local residents want to
make sure that there is continued opportunity for subsistence uses as provided by
ANILCA, especially fishing but also hunting, gathering, and use of private lands within the
Refuge boundaries for subsistence and related uses.
Subsistence users are concerned about sport use of the Refuge, and in particular about
sport angling on the Kanektok, Goodnews, and Togiak rivers. Concerns include water
quality, competition for preferred fishing locations, effects of catch and release fishing
practices, displacement of game from the river corridors, increased habituation of bears
and attraction to food sources at subsistence camps and in the villages, safety, and
trespass. Some of these concerns are also covered under other issues.
Laws and Regulations
When the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge was created by ANILCA, Congress identified
one of its purposes as providing the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local
residents, in a manner consistent with conservation of fish and wildlife populations and
habitats in their natural diversity, and with international treaty obligations. By law, the
Refuge cannot be managed in ways that would materially interfere with or detract from
subsistence opportunity. In times of resource scarcity, subsistence use receives
preference over sport use.
As long as the fish and wildlife are present in sufficient populations to meet subsistence
needs, and subsistence users have the opportunity to harvest them, the law is met.
However, another issue is the type and character of subsistence opportunity available--in
other words, the quality of subsistence--especially along the Kanektok, Togiak, and
Goodnews Rivers. Tribal government representatives to the Core Planning Team suggested
adding this aspect to the issue after hearing of Refuge policies designed to provide
quality recreational opportunities. It makes sense also to pay attention to the quality of
subsistence, even if this is not a legal mandate.
16
One of the main aspects of this issue is how sport use is affecting subsistence uses on the
three main river corridors. In order to be allowed, other human uses of the Refuge,
including recreation, must be determined to be compatible with subsistence and the other
Refuge purposes. The Togiak Refuge Manager, the person responsible for determining
compatibility, can place stipulations on other uses so that they remain compatible. These
include limitations on the timing or place where the other uses can occur, routes or forms
of access, types of equipment used, and the number of people involved.
Indicators of Subsistence Quality
What factors contribute to or detract from subsistence opportunities, and what social
and resource conditions are desirable along the three main rivers? The Core Planning Team
has started a list of some of these factors, many of which involve interactions with sport
angling. They are called indicators because, taken together, they indicate the level of
quality present.
Status and Availability of Fish and Wildlife Populations. The primary factor
contributing to subsistence is the health and availability of fish populations, which is
discussed in more detail under the Health of Fish issue (water quality is also discussed as
its own as issue). Fish populations are currently healthy and high-quality habitat is
provided on the Refuge. Fish populations are more subject to influence from commercial
catch, ocean cycles, and other factors rather than anything that happens on the Togiak
Refuge. However there is concern for effects of catch and release fishing on fish
populations and on their use; some local residents will not use fish that have obviously
been caught and released. Another concern is the potential for displacement of wildlife in
the river corridors, and the effects on bears of repeated contact with humans. This is
also discussed as a separate issue.
Access to Preferred and Traditional Fishing Areas. Subsistence users have preferred
and traditional locations where they use set nets to catch fish on the rivers. When a sport
group is camped at those locations or is actively fishing there, these sites are not
available for subsistence use, and can result in the displacement of subsistence users. The
Refuge staff has identified 18 "fishing holes" on the Upper Togiak River which correspond
very closely with the 24 subsistence net sites. Residents of Quinhagak have identified 51
traditional use sites (“fish camps, hunting camps, and other locations”) along the Kanektok
River (Wolfe 1987). Twenty-nine of these sites are located upstream from the
wilderness boundary.
Conflicts over public use of the Goodnews River related to subsistence are not
documented as specifically as for the Togiak and Kanektok rivers, but appear to be similar,
17
focusing on fishing sites. The lower rivers appear to be the areas of most conflict
because subsistence fishing is greatest closer to the communities. The extent or
frequency of this impact has not been measured.
Trespass. Trespass on private lands remains a concern on all three rivers, especially on
lands outside the Togiak Wilderness. River ranger data do not provide a complete picture,
but suggest that the largest problems are on the non-wilderness portions of the Goodnews
and the Kanektok, and that existing methods of dealing with the issue have not been as
effective as possible. This indicator relates not just to subsistence quality, but to effects
of sport use on private lands and existing regulations.
Conflicts with sport anglers. River ranger reports include notation of discourteous
behavior and complaints about crowding. Although these are not measured specifically to
detect conflicts between local and non-local users, there could be some relationship.
There appears to be a downward trend in these indicators. Coupled with anecdotal
information, it appears that direct, onsite conflicts between sport and subsistence users
have diminished, and that there is more of an attitude of acceptance of both types of
uses on the rivers. On the Kanektok, this may be attributable to efforts of villagers to
visit some of the sport camps through the cultural program instituted a couple of years
ago. Guides who operate on the rivers under permit to the Refuge are aware of the issue
and have attempted to be good neighbors.
The nature and number of conflicts is very poorly documented. Some of these conflicts
are based on displacement as noted above, while some stem from basic cultural or social
values differences, such as the local negative view of catch and release fishing, apart
from any on-the-ground impacts to subsistence uses. Some subsistence users will not keep
fish that appear to have been caught and released. Revision of the plan will not resolve the
cultural differences but could further attempts to reduce actual conflicts over them. It is
interesting to note that disapproval or at least questioning of catch-and-release practices
has begun to appear among sport anglers as well.
Litter and Waste in the River Corridor. One of the indicators of a quality subsistence
opportunity is an environment that is not littered or that shows other evidence of past
careless use. As part of their duties, river rangers record evidence of litter and human
waste (as well as cleaning it up where possible). These data bounce around quite a bit, with
no upward or downward trend evident. However, local perceptions are that litter and
waste from all river uses have decreased over the years.
Opportunity for a Safe Experience. Subsistence users expect a safe experience on the
river. One obvious indicator of safety is the number of near or actual collisions involving
18
motorboats. There are no data collected in any systematic manner, but it takes only one
incident, such as the collision of a local boat user with a sport guiding boat on the
Goodnews River in 2000, to highlight the concern and its importance. On this river
especially, there is concern over the size and horsepower of some boats being used by
guides.
Social Aspects of Subsistence. Sharing harvest is an important aspect of the
subsistence lifestyle. However, adequate information about the importance of social
variables while on the river is incomplete. For example, an important component of the
recreation experience in wilderness is opportunities for solitude. Recreational visitors to
the rivers do not expect to encounter large numbers of other groups, and their
experience declines when they do. We do not have comparable information for subsistence
users of the rivers, or other information about how social contact with locals or non-locals
adds to or detracts from a day on the river for subsistence users.
Current Management
The Togiak Refuge and others who have management responsibilities in the river corridors
already take many actions to protect subsistence uses. One of the main sets of actions is
described in the Refuge’s Public Use Management Plan (PUMP), issued in 1991, which
determined that several uses were compatible with the purposes of the Togiak Refuge.
Sport fishing, sport hunting, power boating, and non-motorized boating are some of those
uses. The PUMP contained management direction to insure that those uses remained
compatible, as well as to provide quality recreation.
River Rangers. Togiak Refuge began a river ranger program in 1991. This program has
been in place on the Kanektok, Goodnews, and Togiak Rivers since that time, with the
exception of 1995 and 1996 when there was no ranger program on the Togiak River. The
emphasis has been on education and monitoring conditions rather than enforcement. The
rangers also inventory campsites and ask visitors and locals about problems encountered
on their trip. The river ranger program has been a vehicle for hiring locals. n the future,
the river rangers will have law enforcement authority, in response to requests from local
residents and sport visitors alike.
Airport contacts. The Togiak Refuge has a visitor contact program conducted at the
Dillingham airport. The purpose is to educate people about conditions within the Refuge to
reduce negative impacts to the resource and subsistence opportunities, and to address
safety concerns. Handouts and the short presentation focus on bear behavior and safety,
catch and release fishing, leave-no-trace camping practices, private land ownership and
trespassing, and Refuge regulations.
19
Limits on Guided Use. Since the mid-1980s, the Togiak Refuge has limited the number of
sport fishing and sport hunting businesses that are authorized to operate on the three
river systems above the wilderness boundary. The permits also establish the number of
clients and/or boats and camps that businesses may use.
On the Togiak River, there is a limit of 2 permits for guided floats and 4 permits for
guided motorboats. On the Kanektok River, the limit is 8 permits for guides to run float
trips and 2 for motorboats; guided float trips are scheduled in advance (on even or odd
numbered days) to minimize the opportunities for guided parties to encounter each other.
These dates are available at the Togiak Refuge office so non-guided parties can inquire
and are encouraged to schedule their own trips between the guided float trips. At
locations of user congestion, (such as Kagati Lake outlet) sport groups are allowed to camp
only one night. On the Goodnews River, there is a limit of 3 permits for guided float trips
and 2 for guided motorboats.
Fishing and Camping Regulations. Much of the management of the Kanektok, Togiak and
Goodnews Rivers is determined by the State of Alaska. The use of the lands below the
mean high water mark on large portions of the Goodnews, Kanektok and Togiak River
drainages is managed by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, which limits
camping on state lands to 3 consecutive days at one location. This regulation helps to
prevent people from camping on the best fishing holes for extended periods, making them
available to more users.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game sets hunting and fishing regulations for sport
use. The general management strategy within the waters of the Togiak Refuge has been to
promote catch and release fishing for resident and anadromous fish species in waters
outside the ADF&G special regulation management areas. ADF&G sport fish special
fishing regulation require releasing all Kanektok River rainbow trout from June 8 to
October 31. Regulations specify only single-hook, unbaited artificial lures may be used in
the Goodnews and Kanektok rivers.
Fishing regulations have been changed over the years to reflect concerns and issues. For
example, the limits for king salmon were reduced (from 15 to 3) in response to concerns
about overexploitation and the developing “meat” sport fishery. Fish that have been kept
out of the water are legally considered to have been “taken” and should count toward the
limit.
Much of the land within the boundary of the Togiak Refuge belongs to Native
Corporations. Management of those lands is determined by the Corporations, who permit
guiding businesses and camps, require fees for use of private lands, and establish other
20
regulations (for example, carry out of human waste is required on the Lower Kanektok).
The villages have also worked hard to reduce litter and other impacts in the river
corridors. In the past couple of years, the village of Quinhagak has made additional
efforts to reduce conflicts between subsistence users and sport anglers through a
cultural program designed to teach guided sport anglers about local culture and customs
by visiting camps along the river.
Together, all of these management actions have appeared to lessen both environmental
impacts and social conflicts along the rivers compared to previous levels. However, without
better ways of understanding factors that affect subsistence, and how to measure them,
the Togiak Refuge and others will not be able to assess whether progress in protecting
subsistence uses and quality is being made.
Data Gaps
State and federal agencies do not conduct household surveys documenting subsistence use
in villages with any regularity. We also need better information on subsistence quality to
know how uses such as sport angling, or natural fluctuations in populations, affect
subsistence, in order to better protect subsistence uses of the Refuge. The nature and
extent of onsite conflicts with subsistence use are also poorly documented.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is sponsoring a study during Spring 2001 to better
understand subsistence uses and quality on the rivers, and identify uses or conditions that
contribute to or detract from subsistence quality. The study will identify situations that
led to conflicts and the underlying reasons. The study may also identify additional
indicators that the Togiak Refuge could measure to monitor subsistence quality. The study
also will compare conflicts on the Refuge rivers with those present between subsistence
and other uses in Finland, adding a cross-cultural dimension.
Possible Ways to Address the Issue
Conduct research to better identify the social and resource characteristics of the river
corridors that contribute to and detract from subsistence opportunity and monitor these
conditions over time
Change/improve information on private lands provided by river rangers
Increase enforcement of existing regulations
Regulate non-guided use (limit use on Upper Kanektok River and Upper Goodnews River;
21
mandatory registration for float groups on these same two river segments). The Core
Team agreed that limits on the level of non-guided use would be one option considered and
evaluated as part of the planning process
Mark important subsistence camps and private property to minimize trespass
Continue to teach anglers proper catch-and-release fish, to avoid excessive playing with
fish, to use proper equipment such as strong line.
Support Quinhagak cultural program visits to sport fish camps as one way to inform non-local
anglers about local culture and customs
Limit the horsepower for guided boats on the Goodnews River
Formalize the indicators of subsistence quality and standards and then monitor them over
time, taking action as needed to prevent standards from being exceeded.
22
Recreation Quality
How do visitors and the Togiak Refuge define a high quality recreational
experience, and is that experience being provided on the Refuge? What
resource and social conditions are desirable to provide high quality
experiences, and what are the threats to recreational opportunities? What
should the Refuge’s role be in defining and managing for quality experiences on
the Kanektok, Goodnews, and Togiak rivers?
ANILCA and the Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 direct the Togiak Refuge to
provide and facilitate wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities that are compatible
with Refuge purposes.
The Wilderness Act says that the Wilderness portion of the Togiak Refuge must be
managed to provide solitude and a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, where the
land is affected mainly by the forces of nature and the imprint of man’s work is
substantially unnoticeable. Under ANILCA, wilderness areas in Alaska are living, working
places where many types of motorized access methods and related uses will continue to
occur. However, the basic principles and philosophy of wilderness still apply to managing
recreation.
Refuge managers are directed to manage for high quality wildlife dependent recreation
opportunities. Agency policies define what is meant by a quality experience. For example, a
quality fishing experience: contributes to management objectives; maximizes safety for
anglers and other visitors; causes no adverse impact on populations of resident or
migratory species, native species, threatened and endangered species, or habitat;
encourages the highest standards of ethical behavior in regards to catching, attempting
to catch, and releasing fish; is available to a broad spectrum of the public that visits, or
potentially would visit, the refuge; provides reasonable accommodations for individuals
with disabilities to participate in refuge fishing activities; reflects positively on the
System; provides uncrowded conditions; creates minimal conflict with other priority
wildlife-dependent recreational uses or refuge operation; provides reasonable challenge
and harvest opportunity; and increases participants understanding and appreciation for
the fisheries resource.
This issue overlaps with many aspects of the previous issues because sport anglers have
many of the same values and concerns as local residents. Crowded conditions, for instance,
are undesirable to everyone who uses the rivers, and all users highly value clean water and
23
healthy fish populations. An additional dimension of this issue is equity; currently guided
users are limited in a number of ways, while non-guided use does not have comparable
limits.
Trends in recreation use patterns
The main use of the Togiak Refuge for recreation, and the one around which this issue
centers, is sport fishing, primarily on the three main river systems and their tributaries.
Use on the rest of the Refuge is either covered under another issue or will be considered
in the plan revision, but not as a major planning issue.
Guided Use. Sport fishing guides and air taxis have been required to obtain special use
permits from the Refuge since 1982, and the number of permits has been limited since
1986. With the exception of the Upper Goodnews River, all sport fish guiding permits are
issued based on a competitive process. Permit holders are selected from proposals based
on an evaluation to determine which applicants, in the judgement of the Service, are best
qualified to provide services offered. In 2000, the Refuge issued 29 permits for sport
fishing: 14 for float trips, 10 for motorboat trips, and 5 for fly-in day use.
Guided use has been controlled on the Upper Kanektok River since 1986. Refuge special
use permits authorized a total of 24 people in association with guided motorboat based
camps. Refuge permits also allow float boat guides to start every other day with a
maximum of four boats and 12 total people per start. Since 1991, about 1,100 guided
angler days annually have been reported.
In the 1990s, guided motorboat use on the Upper Kanektok has been relatively constant
with the exception of years when one of two motorboat base camp guides had little to no
use. Use of the Lower Kanektok River has fluctuated. Two additional motorboat guide
camps were established on the lower river between 1987 and 1997. Approximately 20-30
percent of the non-guided use takes place in the lower river below the wilderness
boundary during the king and coho salmon fisheries. The remainder 70-80 percent of
visitors are floating from Kagati Lake to the airstrip at Quinhagak and most of their time
is spent in the upper river.
Lower Goodnews River use has remained relatively constant. Guided motorboat use on the
Upper Goodnews River is much lower, and increases seen in 1995 and 1996 are still very
low when compare to past use of 1,460 authorized client use days.
24
The table Trends in Number of Float Groups per Year compares guided to non-guided
float use for the stretches of river receiving most of the float use on the Refuge. Guided
use shows more consistency from year to year, given the limits on special use permits,
while non-guided use fluctuates and shows a general increase, especially on the Goodnews.
Non-guided float use on the Goodnews now equals non-guided use on the Kanektok.
Non-guided Use. Non-guided use is not limited. There has been a substantial increase in
the number of non-guided sport fishing float groups on the Kanektok and Goodnews rivers
since the 1991 Public Use Management Plan (PUMP) was completed, although use has
leveled off the past few years (see following table, Trends in Air Taxi Use; this table
contains only air taxi use by non-guided visitors). The surge of use in 1997 is likely
attributable to the low water that year, and the accompanying abundance of catchable
rainbows. Use on the Togiak has not increased and remains low overall.
25
The PUMP states that long-term management on the wilderness portions of the three
rivers would be directed toward an allocation of 50 percent guided and 50 percent non-guided
use or, at least, river management would be revisited when the 50/50 split was
reached. The PUMP did not define where or how this use was to be measured. Current
data suggest that non-guided float use has exceeded guided float use levels on the
Kanektok and Upper Goodnews rivers, with peak use focused during the chinook and coho
salmon runs.
Indicators of Recreation Quality
Much of the information on quality from the visitors’ perspective comes from a survey of
sport users conducted for the Refuge during the 1995 use season. On average, visitors
thought the upper segments of the rivers provided and should provide “primitive”
experiences where “one can expect to find solitude and few traces of previous use or
development.” In contrast, they thought the lower segment of these rivers provided and
should provide more “semi- primitive” experiences where “one expects to meet a few other
groups, but where solitude is still possible,” and traces of previous use or development
levels are higher.
When asked about their reasons for wanting to visit one of the three rivers, three types
of reasons were important: (1) wilderness reasons such as being in a natural place and
opportunities for solitude and viewing scenery; (2) fishing opportunities and (3)
opportunities to interact with friends or family.
26
Fishing Quality. Visitors were asked to rate the quality of fishing for different species
on the rivers. The highest quality was for Dolly Varden or char, coho salmon, chinook
salmon, and rainbow trout fishing. Specific comments from respondents suggest that
fishing for all these species can be excellent, but several suggest that there may be a
decline in fishing quality for rainbow trout on the Kanektok. Visitors in 1995 were asked to
rate the quality of fishing by species on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being excellent:
River
Rainbow
trout
Char/Dolly
Varden
Chinook
salmon
Coho
salmon
Goodnews 3.6 4.0 3.9 4.1
Kanektok 3.2 4.1 3.4 4.1
Togiak 3.7 3.5 4.7 4.4
Competition for fishing locations is another indicator of quality. Among the survey
respondents, there was a strong agreement that having to pass by a fishing area more
than 10 percent of the time because it is occupied would be unacceptable. This is
consistent with other interaction standards. Visitors see these rivers as providing fairly
primitive experiences where competition for fishing areas should be minimal. A relatively
significant number of visitors report more fishing competition than expected on the
Kanektok (26 percent), but less than 10 percent reporting this problem on the Goodnews
or Togiak rivers.
Solitude (number and type of groups encountered; perceptions of crowding). Less than
25 percent of the respondents encountered more float groups than they expected,
particularly on the headwater lakes of the Kanektok and Goodnews. However, 45 percent
saw more than they expected on the Lower Kanektok, where densities appear to be higher
than many visitors expected. These results are consistent with a considerable number of
other studies exploring standards in backcountry or wilderness settings where standards
are typically less than four group encounters per day.
Recreational river users largely agreed on how many other float parties they could see per
day before their trip was compromised. About one-third to one-quarter of respondents
did not name a standard for the encounter impact, although very few said this impact
"does not matter". Data suggests that impact levels for float encounters per day should
be less than two or three on the lakes and upper rivers, and less than four or five on the
1 The Upper portion of each river refers to the segment upstream from the Togiak
Wilderness boundary.
27
lower rivers. Managers can pinpoint sections of river where the greatest problems may
exist, such as the large proportion of visitors whose encounter standards were exceeded
on the Lower Kanektok (See table below).
Comparison of encounter standards with reported impact levels (float groups)1
River: % who saw less than
their standard
% who saw the same
as their standard
% who saw more
than their standard
Upper Kanektok 32 44 24
Lower Kanektok 31 24 45
Upper Goodnews 43 45 13
Lower Goodnews 32 42 26
Upper Togiak 47 37 16
Lower Togiak 43 35 22
The findings were similar for encounters with motorboats. People agreed that encounter
rates should be low on the upper rivers (one per day or less) and less than 3-5 per day on
the lower rivers. Floaters and non-floaters had similar standards for the lower rivers, but
different standards for the upper rivers, where floaters preferred not to see any
motorboats but motorboat users had a standard of 3-5 encounters per day. Visitors
reported encountering more motorboats than their standard especially on the Lower
Kanektok. However, written responses on the survey suggested that people understood
the need for locals’ use of motorboats on the rivers as a means of transportation.
Comparison of encounter standards with reported impact levels (motorboat groups)
28
River: % who saw less than
their standard
% who saw the same
as their standard
% who saw more
than their standard
Upper Kanektok 18 52 30
Lower Kanektok 19 26 55
Upper Goodnews 16 72 12
Lower Goodnews 22 41 37
Upper Togiak 62 29 9
Lower Togiak 33 33 33
Most float groups perceive motorized use as an impact, while most motorized users do not
perceive rafts as an impact. Rafters often stated that they do not agree with motorized
use in the wilderness. Because this issue is deeply rooted in individual philosophy about
wilderness, it will most likely never be resolved, especially in Alaska where motorized
access is a way of life and firmly supported by law. Most complaints about motorized
boats are about improper river etiquette, boat speed, size, and the amount of wake.
Camp encounters (percent of nights camping within sight or sound of other camps).
Recreation visitors said that camping within sight or sound of other groups more than
10% of the time would not be acceptable, a standard consistent with that found in other
backcountry settings. Relatively few users experienced more camp encounters than was
acceptable.
Amount of time within sight of other groups. Visitors who answered this question
stated that being within sight or sound of another group more than 10% of the time would
exceed their standard. Results indicate that this standard is being exceeded on the
Kanektok River.
Percent of camping areas passed because they were occupied. About 20 percent of the
Kanektok visitors report more camping competition than expected or tolerated, with much
lower percentages for the Goodnews. Significance tests, however, suggest that camping
competition is not an impact problem at this time.
Number of permanent and semi-permanent tent camps. People indicated that their
29
standard for the Upper Kanektok and Goodnews were less than 1 camp, but that 5-8 camps
on the Lower Kanektok and 2-4 on the Lower Goodnews would be acceptable. Visitors
reported that less than 3 camps on the Upper Togiak and 2-4 on the Lower Togiak would
be acceptable. Most of the visitors to the Goodnews and Togiak Rivers reported that they
saw fewer tent camps than expected. Fourteen percent of the people surveyed on the
Kanektok reported seeing more camps than they expected on the upper portion of the
river, and 41% reported seeing more camps than they expected on the lower portion.
Percent of sites with litter and human waste. Survey respondents reported seeing more
litter and human waste than they were willing to tolerate on the Kanektok and Goodnews
Rivers. On the Togiak very few people saw more litter or human waste than they expected.
Standards for signs of human waste was 0; people said any evidence was not acceptable.
As part of the river ranger program, rangers inventory campsites along the three rivers.
Each inventory includes information about the number of fire rings, the presence and
amount of trash, and the presence of visible human waste. This information has been
collected since 1996. The percent of sites with litter has decreased on the Goodnews and
Kanektok. The percent of sites with fire rings has decreased on the Goodnews. There are
no apparent trends for any of the other indicators, but Togiak Refuge staff suggested
that the situation is generally improving.
Data Gaps
The main information we have about visitors’ perceptions of recreational quality comes
from the 1995 study. A follow-up to that initial study is necessary to assess any changes
in visitor experiences and opinions over the past 5 years, as well as allow for additional
questions that provide information to help revise the plan. A replication and extension of
the 1995 survey is scheduled to take place during the 2001 use season. This will allow
assessment of trends and a re-evaluation of both indicators and standards. Information
gathered by the river rangers about campsite conditions is useful, but has not been
standardized.
Possible Ways to Address the Issue
Consistent with ANILCA and the Togiak Refuge purposes, ensure that recreational uses
are compatible with subsistence opportunities
Conduct another survey of sport anglers during summer, 2001, to replicate and extend the
1995 survey and assess trends in quality.
30
Regulate non-guided use (limit use on Upper Kanektok River and Upper Goodnews River;
mandatory registration for float groups on these same two river segments). The Core
Team agreed that limits on the level of non-guided use would be one option considered and
evaluated as part of the planning process.
Continue to teach/require leave-no-trace practices
Conduct more systematic monitoring of campsites to detect changes over time
“Harden” some campsites to reduce impacts of use
Require float parties to carry out solid human waste; work with villages to ensure proper
disposal sites were available (perhaps with user fee)
Separate float groups better (such as with the staggered launch dates used for guided
float trips)
Improve enforcement of existing laws and regulations
Regulate size of motors or speed of boats for safety and to reduce impacts
Keep some areas closed to guided use
Assign campsites and/or provide better map of desirable campsites
Identify recreation experience and resource condition goals for each management unit
Work with guides to voluntarily reduce motorboat use on upper rivers (such as the number
of trips each boat makes up and down river in a day of fishing)
Work with all users to improve motorboat etiquette
Mandatory registration for unguided users, with feedback on requested dates so users
could voluntarily pick a less-crowded time
31
Work with landowners along the lower rivers to study crowding and explore possible
solutions
Consider the pros and cons of Wild and Scenic River designation to address the issues
Formalize the indicators of recreation quality and standards and then monitor them over
time, taking action as needed to prevent standards from being exceeded.
Consider the spectrum of opportunities that could be provided across all rivers; treating
the rivers as a system may suggest new possibilities for management that people could
understand and appreciate, as opposed to developing direction for each river individually
32
Impacts of Public Use on Wildlife in the River Corridors
Under what conditions are game species displaced from river corridors during
hunting season? What can the Togiak Refuge do to minimize effects on
subsistence hunting? Under what conditions are bears attracted to human
camps along the rivers? What can the Refuge do to minimize the effects of
bears on fish camps and villages, and on recreational visitors?
This issue has two parts: displacement of subsistence game species from the river
corridors; and human-bear interactions that can affect the safety of both bears and
people.
Game Displacement
Locals have expressed concern over displacement of game, especially moose, from the
river corridors as a potential result of increased recreational use. Game displaced from
the river corridors are more difficult for local residents to obtain. State planners have
found that this is a common concern for residents across the state.
Wildlife disturbance can occur in a variety of ways and many of the responses of animals
to disturbance are short-lived. However, immediate responses to disturbance can become
longer lasting or result in behavioral changes such as abandonment of disturbed areas.
Human disturbance can also reduce available critical habitat or reduce food availability
causing changes in distribution and/or abundance. Disturbance can also reduce the vigor
of individuals and ultimately result in death. Elevated heart rates, energy expended in
disturbance flights, and reduction of energy input all increase energy expenditures or
decrease energy input which may reduce the overall health of the individual.
For example, Caribou can adapt more readily to infrequent, regularly spaced traffic than
infrequent and irregular traffic, and ungulates in general are more readily able to adapt or
habituate to disturbances if they are resident in the area rather than only seasonally or
during migration. Substantial human activity late into fall can restrict feeding by non-habituated
adult brown bears. Bears exposed to higher human activity at salmon streams
also have shifted their activity patterns from feeding uniformly throughout the day to a
dusk and dawn pattern, with some abandoning daylight use of the river completely.
Outboard powered boats and rafts have been shown to be particularly disruptive to bears.
Impacts on other species, such as moose, have not been extensively studied.
33
Current Management. It is known that motorized vehicles ,such as boats and snow
machines, and non-motorized vehicles, such as rafts, disturb and displace wildlife along
river corridors in the Togiak Refuge. However, it is not know at what level of use these
activities have a significant impact upon the resource.
Regulations in place restrict human activities near wildlife. These include state hunting
regulations, federal laws, and conditions of special use permits which are issued to
commercial outfitters who operate within the Togiak Refuge. Under the Airborne Hunting
Act, it is prohibited to knowingly participate in using an aircraft to harass any bird, fish,
or other animal. Under year 2000 hunting regulations it is lawful, in the units which include
the Togiak Refuge, to take game by any means, however, a person cannot drive or molest
game with any motorized vehicle such as aircraft, snow machine, motor boat, etc. or use a
helicopter for hunting.
As part of the special conditions for guide permits on the Togiak Refuge, fixed-wing
aircraft, motor boats, and snow machines (during adequate periods of snow cover) are
permitted in Refuge areas designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation
System; all other motorized equipment is prohibited. The discharge of firearms, fireworks
or other explosive devices is prohibited, except in conjunction with authorized hunting
seasons or for protection of life or property. No wildlife species can be baited, harassed,
or approached closely enough to disrupt the animal's natural activity or to endanger human
life, except as part of a legal and authorized hunt for big game. The operation of aircraft
at altitudes and in flight paths resulting in the herding, harassment, hazing, or driving of
wildlife is prohibited. It is recommended that all aircraft, except for take off and
landing, maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above ground level.
Traditionally, the Togiak Refuge has not exercised its full authority to enforce laws and
regulations which relate to wildlife displacement and disturbance. In the past few years
the Refuge has begun to more actively enforce these regulations and to prosecute
violators. In the past there have been proposals to study wildlife displacement within the
Refuge.
Bear-Human Interactions
Brown bears are commonly observed throughout the Togiak Refuge. They are seasonally
abundant along salmon spawning areas, particularly along tributaries of the Togiak,
Kulukak, Goodnews, and Kanektok Rivers. Encounters between bears and sport fishers are
common in these areas. The Togiak Refuge supports a brown bear population which relies
34
upon salmon runs during the summer. The majority of visitor use on the Refuge also
occurs during the salmon fishing season increasing the probability of bear-human
interactions. Chronic bear-human problems are of concern to the Togiak Refuge because
they can lead to unnecessary bear mortality through Defense of Life or Property (DLP)
kills, and present a risk to human safety. Local residents report that sightings of bears in
the villages have increased. There is not a good estimate of the bear population on the
Refuge; if the population is increasing, that could be another reason for increased
sightings and bear-human incidents.
Poor management of food, garbage, and harvested fish and game provides bears
opportunities to learn to associate people with a source of food, i.e. food-conditioning.
Reducing opportunities for bears to become food-conditioned can reduce the likelihood of
food related DLP kills because bears appear to require a progression of several
encounters before learning to aggressively seek food from people. Habituation increases
the probability of food conditioning and habituated or food-conditioned brown bears are
those most often involved in injury or death to human recreationists.
At a meeting in Quinhagak, it was pointed out that when bears are disturbed, the big
bears displace the smaller ones, so the subadults get into trouble in town. This problem is
worse when it happens in the fall, when bears will take more chances anyway to bulk up for
the winter.
Under most circumstances, bears flee upon detecting human activity. Since the river
ranger program began in 1991, several bear incidents have been documented, and they
appear to be increasing. Many of these incidents occur at or near campsites or lodge
facilities. On occasion bears have been wounded or killed as a result of these incidents. As
many as 8 bears in one year have been taken in defense of life and property on the Togiak
River alone in recent years.
Current Management. All visitors contacted by Togiak Refuge personnel are informed of
the possibility of bear encounters. They are given a brochure titled “Bear Facts” (available
at the Refuge office) describing how to avoid encounters and what to do if an encounter
does occur. As a condition of their special use permit, guides operating on the Refuge are
not allowed to bury waste on Refuge lands; all combustible waste may be burned and all
non-combustible waste materials must be removed at the end of the permit period. Any
problems with wildlife (bear or other species), including an animal taken in defense of life
or property, must be reported immediately to the Refuge Manager. River rangers record
bear incidents that are reported and provide additional advice or assistance to people on
35
the rivers.
Permittees and others must also follow Alaska Department of Fish and Game procedures if
wildlife is taken in defense of life or property. As part of a brown bear management plan
developed several years ago, the State increased the limit from one bear every four
seasons to one per season.
Data Gaps
Acceptable levels and timing of use to minimize displacement. Brown bear population
status and areas of potential conflict
Possible Ways to Address the Issue
Increased education of proper food handling and storage techniques to minimize
encounters and habituation
Increase enforcement of existing regulations
Limit people in sensitive wildlife areas
Provide electric fences at fish camps, fish racks, popular camp sites
Request State to liberalize bear hunting regulations; permit more bear hunt guiding
Make sure local residents are aware of past increases in hunting limits for brown bear
Require recreational river users to take additional measures (such as using bear-proof
containers for food)
Monitor and document the extent and timing of the problem; if needed, consider changes
in special use permits or proposals to State to alter seasons or timing of sport use to
reduce game displacement, conflicts with subsistence use, and bear-human conflicts
Make hunting season/limit more liberal (as in Units 17/18) to reduce abundance
36
37
Management of Human Use and Wildlife at Cape Peirce
How can the Togiak Refuge protect marine mammals and other species which
depend on Cape Peirce, while providing opportunities for public use?
At least two hundred and eighty species of resident and migratory wildlife are believed to
occur on or adjacent the Refuge, including 17 marine mammal species. This list includes
Gray whale, Sei whale, Minke whale, Beluga whale, Goosebeak whale, Killer whale, Pacific
White-sided dolphin, Harbor porpoise, Dall’s porpoise, Northern fur seal, Steller sea lion,
Pacific walrus, harbor seal, Spotted Seal, Ribbon seal, Ringed seal, and Bearded seal.
Marine mammal species regularly found throughout the Cape Peirce area are Pacific
walrus, Harbor Seal, Spotted Seal, Steller sea lion, and Gray whale. The Cape
Newenham/Cape Peirce area also supports the largest mainland seabird colonies in the
Bearing Sea. Marine mammals have always been a significant component of the marine
fauna of Alaska, and they have been a cornerstone for support for coastal peoples as far
back as archaeological evidence allows us to delve. Marine mammals continue to be a major
source of food and income for coastal residents of Alaska.
Protection of other species at Cape Peirce is also a concern. Seabird colonies on the cliffs
are sensitive to disturbance. Black-legged kittiwake production is low in most years, so
those populations may be more vulnerable, as are some shorebirds who may travel 600-
700 miles before reaching shore. Waterfowl including Black Brant use adjacent areas in
Chagvan Bay (a state game sanctuary).
Laws and Regulations
The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits the harassment or disturbance of marine
mammals. The authority to enforcement of the Marine Mammals Protection Act belongs to
the USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, and ADF&G. The USFWS enforces this
act only as it pertains to polar bears, sea otters and walrus. Of these, only walrus occur
on Togiak Refuge. Passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 prohibits the
harvest of walrus by non-Natives regardless of the nature of their past dependence on
them. The hunting of walrus by Natives is not regulated. They are prohibited from selling
to non-Natives unless raw walrus materials is made into items of handicraft. Currently,
there is no law prohibiting removal of ivory from tidelands along the Togiak Refuge, which
attracts some people to the beaches where they could disturb hauled out walrus.
38
Concern that the decline in the number of walrus hauling out might be related to the
initiation of the yellow-fin sole fishery resulted in the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council’s decision to restrict the activities of the yellow-fin sole fishery. In
August of 1991 the Council voted to continue indefinitely the 12-mile closure around Cape
Peirce and Round Island with a three mile transit zone around Right Hand Point. The
USFWS has verbal agreements with the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council, and
ADF&G to continue monitoring the walrus at Cape Peirce as part of the effort to assess
the effects of the fishery.
Available Data
The objective of the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge’s marine mammal inventory and
monitoring programs is to estimate the abundance, haulout use, and production of marine
mammals on the Togiak Refuge, southern Kuskokwim Bay, and northern Bristol Bay. The
main tasks are to estimate the daily number of walrus at Cape Peirce and Cape Newenham,
estimate the daily number of Harbor seals and Spotted seals at Cape Peirce, estimate the
number of Stellar sea lions at Cape Newenham as time permits, and document behavioral
responses of marine mammals to aircraft, subsistence, and visitor use.
Pacific walrus. Walrus counts from 1981 through 2000 show a high degree of variability
and no apparent trends. The peak counts occur in the summer months. The Pacific walrus
population has remained relatively stable during this time frame and can not be used to
explain this variability. The issue is complicated by not understanding the dynamics
between the U.S. and Russian terrestrial walrus haulouts.
Cape Peirce is one of only two regularly used terrestrial haulouts for walrus in the United
States (Round Island is the other). Perhaps of greatest significance is the fact that all
areas used regularly by large numbers of walrus are located where the animals are not
subjected to frequent and regular disturbances.
Although data are inadequate to estimate rates of mortality due to predation, the impact
is probably slight in comparison to other causes of death. The major known source of
mortality is hunting by humans. Not all walrus killed during hunting are retrieved; it is
likely that the retrieved harvest represents about 60% of the total kill. Although
numerous diseases and parasites have been found in walrus, few deaths can be attributed
to those factors. Trauma caused by rock slides and crushing by other walrus have been
identified as mortality factors at haulouts.
39
When large numbers of walrus are hauled out, “stampedes” may cause death or injury of
numerous animals due to crushing. In addition, regular and frequent disturbances on
coastal haulouts can cause abandonment of those areas. Walrus stampeding is a definite
cause of mortality. Limited data from tagging and radio-tracking studies for walrus
suggest that their preference for certain sites may be interrupted at least temporarily
by human related disturbances. Although responses of walrus to humans are variable, they
often flee haulouts in large numbers all at once in response to the sight, sound, and
especially odors from humans and machines.
While hauled out, even temporary displacement may be detrimental to individuals. There
is some evidence of haulouts being abandoned as a result of prolonged disturbance, but
those cases must be assessed carefully because evidence also exists for changes in walrus
distribution for reasons not fully understood. Any disruption of the animals’ normal
behavioral routine will cause additional and unnecessary expenditure of energy.
Harbor and Spotted Seals. Harbor seals and some Spotted seals haul out along the
Refuge coast, with the highest concentrations at Nanvak Bay (Cape Peirce) and
Hagemeister Island. The number of seals hauling out in Nanvak Bay has declined since the
mid 1970s, but have remained stable since 1990. Population trends examined in the Gulf
of Alaska indicate a similar population decline. Limited data from Prince William Sound
and the southeastern Bering Sea also suggest that since the mid 1970s Harbor seal
numbers have declined.
Causes for the decline in harbor seal numbers [in Alaska] have not been identified.
Possible factors that may be affecting seal numbers include direct and indirect
interactions with fisheries, subsistence harvests, disease, predation, pollutants, and
disturbance.
Seals are easily frightened into the water and may abandon haulout areas where they are
repeatedly disturbed. Intrusions into spotted seal habitat could have long-term
detrimental effects to the population or the capacity of the habitat to sustain spotted
seals.
Apparently harmless activities such as recreational boating and tourism may cause
repetitive disturbances that could cause seals to abandon areas they would otherwise like
to use. Harbor seals off Nova Scotia, Canada, seem to have habituated to human
activities near their breeding and haulout areas. In most areas, however, harbor seals
have reacted to human intrusion by abandoning sites or altering their haulout patterns.
40
Steller Sea Lions. Cape Newenham and Round Island support the two largest Steller sea
lion haulouts in northern Bristol Bay. Sea lion populations have been monitored by ADF&G
staff at Round Island since the late 1970s. Monitoring sea lions at Cape Newenham by
USFWS staff, with funding from NMFS, began in 1990 and continued through 1993. In
1990 the Steller sea lion was listed as a threatened species. The Steller sea lion west of
Cape Suckling (eastern Prince William Sound) is currently listed as endangered, and is
listed as threatened east of Cape Suckling. Steller sea lion abundance has declined by over
80% in the past 30 years in the southeastern Bering Sea.
Close approach by humans, boats, or aircraft will cause hauled-out sea lions to go into the
water. Disturbances that cause stampedes on rookeries may cause trampling or
abandonment of pups. Areas subjected to repeated disturbance may be permanently
abandoned. Low levels of occasional disturbance may have little long-term effect.
Steller sea lions occupy terrestrial haulouts during pupping, nursing, mating, and molting,
which are all potentially times of elevated stress). Consequently, acoustic or visual
disturbance of animals at terrestrial haulout sites could adversely affect these and other
functions, or could further decrease resistance to parasitic infection, thermoregulatory
impairment, disease, and other stress factors.
Disturbance of marine mammals
Continued sensitivity to human disturbances has been linked to both short-term and long-term
haulout abandonments. Disturbances to walrus, seals, and sea lions are recorded
when possible at Cape Peirce and Cape Newenham with estimated values ranging from low
to high level disturbances. In the 16 years that disturbances to marine mammals have
been recorded at Cape Peirce and Cape Newenham, disturbances have been caused by
aircraft, boats, administrative/biological work, visitors, subsistence use/hunts, and other
wildlife.
Aircraft. Low-flying aircraft regularly and predictably cause hauled-out walrus to move
into the water. In general, walrus are more sensitive to low-flying aircraft than high-flying
aircraft, and to aircraft that were overhead as opposed to those closer to the
horizon, and to abruptly changing sounds than to steady sounds.
In recent years, both float plane and wheel plane access has increased. Numerous aircraft
and boats/vessels beachcomb on a continuous basis in the Cape Peirce area. Each instance
41
is a potential cause for a disturbance. Local float plane air taxi operators have worked to
avoid marine mammal disturbances, but further steps need to be taken.
Boats. Boat or vessel noises regularly and predictably cause hauled-out walrus to move into
the water. Walrus are more sensitive to fast moving boats than to slow moving boats, and
show a significant response to boats passing within 400 meters
Other Disturbances. People on foot can cause disturbances if they approach too close to
hauled out walrus, seals or sea lions. Increased walrus activity at Cape Peirce has led to an
increase in illegal poaching and harassment there. Refuge personnel are concerned that
these activities may cause walrus to abandon the haulout altogether.
Natural disturbances can also affect marine mammals. One instance of a caribou crossing
from North Spit was documented that flushed all of the hauled out seals into the bay.
Another disturbance is created by ravens circling above seal haulouts, scaring them and
flushing them into the bay. Ravens are also suspected in some walrus disturbances after
the birds landed on cliffs above the walrus, a disturbance was created, and no other
disturbance was evident. Numerous other marine mammal disturbances have been caused
by unknown sources.
Current Management
Management objectives for the Cape Peirce-Cape Newenham area are: 1) to protect and
maintain the Pacific walrus population; 2) to provide protected haulout areas for the
Pacific walrus population and minimize disturbances; 3) to provide for a subsistence take
of walrus with a minimal of disturbance; and 4) to allow for continued biological studies to
be conducted.
The Cape Peirce-Cape Newenham Management Plan for Togiak National Wildlife Refuge
has given the following management guidelines: 1) Management is the responsibility of the
USFWS; 2) Control visitor activities to minimize disturbance of walrus and other wildlife;
3) Minimize development of facilities; 4) Encourage scientific and educational studies that
are compatible with the Refuge purposes.
There is virtually no public use at Cape Newenham because of the radar station located
there. Permission from the Air Force is required to land a plane, plus the weather is harsh
and the viewing opportunities are not as good as those at Cape Peirce. If this site is ever
42
abandoned, increased management of human use would be needed. In the late 1980s, levels
of PCBs were measured at the base, and cleanup began. Other potential environmental
problems at the site include buried asbestos. Local residents are concerned about toxics
making their way into the food chain. The Bristol Bay Native Association has coordinated a
biosampling program for marine mammals but getting samples out in time is a problem
given lack of scheduled air service from many locations. There is interest in extending
those biosampling programs to fish populations.
Management of public use has focused on the Cape Peirce area, which has been
administratively designated as a wildlife viewing area. Currently, there is a limit of 6
people per day allowed at Cape Peirce. The limit was calculated based on one Beaver load
of passengers because an objective was to limit the number of flights in and out of the
area to reduce disturbances. This number does not include the 2-3 biological technicians
that monitor marine mammal and seabird numbers in the area.
The 6 visitors per day are permitted to go to Cape Peirce on a first-come first-served-basis.
Visitors are given a packet of information that they must read, agree to, and sign
stating that they agree to the conditions. Demand has not yet come close to exceeding the
established capacity. Almost no one who has requested a permit has been turned down.
Guided use is allowed under special use permit and currently there is no limit to the
number of permits available, nor any method to allocate the daily limit between guided and
non-guided visitors. Requests for permits are expected to increase. Guides are required to
report use levels. Problems have arisen from visitors who had not contacted the office for
the permit to access Cape Peirce. During the winter of 2000, Togiak Refuge staff will
take a closer look at the use and disturbance issues at Cape Peirce and update the
guidelines presently in place.
Presently, biological technicians monitoring marine mammals and seabirds make the
contacts when possible but it is secondary to their biological data collection. They are not
able to able to contact every visitor and prevent wildlife disturbance. Most of the
visitors simply do not know how important it is to avoid disturbances to the wildlife of the
area and do not realize the cumulative effects of past people at the site.
To help eliminate some of the disturbance potential to marine mammals at Cape Peirce and
Cape Newenham, the Refuge recommends that all aircraft flying over the Refuge, including
the Cape Peirce and Cape Newenham area, remain 2,000 feet or more above ground level
and ½ mile horizontal from hauled out marine mammals. For boats in the area, it is
recommended that they remain 3 miles offshore while transitioning through the area or at
43
anchor. However, these are just recommendations; at times such as during the herring
fishery there may be hundreds of herring spotter planes in the area over the month.
Refuge staff also have guidelines to follow in monitoring marine mammal, seabird,
waterfowl, and other bird species. They are to conduct their counts in such a way to limit
the number of disturbances to marine mammals. For their counts in certain open areas
they have observation towers to count from that keeps their activities and movements
hidden from hauled out animals.
In the past, enforcement of regulations and management guidelines have not been the
responsibility of the Togiak Refuge. Violations are documented and reported to the
USFWS Marine Mammals Management Office in Anchorage, the National Marine Fisheries
Service or to the Federal Aviation Administration. These disturbances are in violation of
federal law under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. Unfortunately very little has been
done to enforce these regulations and violators are often not prosecuted. Recently the
Togiak Refuge has assumed a more active role in enforcing these laws and regulations in
order to limit the amount of disturbance to marine mammals within the Togiak Refuge.
The Refuge’s authority to regulate water-based use is not clear.
Data Gaps
There is enough data from studies and field observations to date that we may not need
any further work regarding disturbances to marine mammals at Cape Peirce. Efforts at
this point should be directed at reducing disturbance to marine mammals.
Regularly scheduled aircraft into and out of the site support the Cape Newenham Long
Range Radar Site staff. The potential effects of this constant air traffic on hauled out
marine mammals should be further evaluated.
Possible Ways to Address the Issue
Designate the areas as wilderness
Continue to control use as needed
44
Establish a new seasonal position at Cape Peirce to monitor and control public use and
interpret the area’s resources
Consider need to limit guided use and award permits competitively
Consider regulations similar to those in place at Round Island, or at Marmot Island (both
managed by the State)
Attend herring spotting meetings every year to present information about conservation of
marine mammals and other species
Manage the site similar to the way some bear-viewing areas are managed
Recommend that the State prohibit removal of ivory from tidelands
Establish exclusion zone at haulouts (although usual travel patterns in the area are not a
problem)
45
Possible New Land Management Designations
What lands, if any, should the plan recommend for designation as wilderness?
Where and how would additional wilderness help the Togiak Refuge better
achieve its purposes? What effects would additional wilderness designation
have on human uses and administration of the Refuge? What river segments
are eligible for designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers, and which, if any, should
the plan recommend? How would Wild and Scenic River designation help the
Refuge better achieve its purposes, and what effects would it have on human
uses?
Wilderness
Draft Fish and Wildlife Service policy on wilderness management mandates conducting
wilderness reviews every 15 years through the Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP)
process and within two years of acquiring new acreage (for a new refuge or an expansion)
that may qualify as wilderness. The wilderness review process has three phases: inventory,
study, and recommendation. After first identifying lands and waters that meet the
minimum criteria for wilderness, the resulting wilderness study areas are further
evaluated to determine if they merit recommendation from the Service to the Secretary
for inclusion in the Wilderness System.
ANILCA designated about half of the Togiak Refuge (2,270,000 acres) as the Togiak
Wilderness. The Togiak NWR Final Plan, issued in 1986, contained a wilderness review
concluding that nearly all of the remaining portion of the Refuge was suitable for
consideration as wilderness. That Plan’s preferred alternative recommended an additional
334,000 acres of wilderness, including the Cape Peirce/Cape Newenham area and the
South and Middle Forks of the Goodnews River areas. Congress has not designated any
additional wilderness on the Refuge.
Inventory. The Service has new policy direction for evaluating wilderness potential on
refuge lands. Although the new direction (described below) overlaps considerably with the
direction in place when the first CCP was developed, there are some differences. For
example, we are no longer limited to considering only lands for which the government owns
both surface and subsurface estate. If lands otherwise suitable for wilderness
designation were dropped from the original proposal because the Service didn’t own both
the surface and the subsurface estate, then those lands are reassessed.
46
The inventory consists of identifying areas that meet the definition of wilderness as
defined in the Wilderness Act, in accordance with the criteria below. Wilderness Study
Areas are lands and waters that meet the definition of wilderness and are undergoing
evaluation for recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. It is clear that
Congress did not wish to limit wilderness designation to only those areas judged “pristine.”
The area must:
(1) Be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's
work substantially unnoticeable.
(2) Have outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation.
(3) Have at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or be sufficient in size as
to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or
we could restore the wilderness character through appropriate management.
(4) Not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or
other extensive development or alteration of the landscape, or we could
restore the wilderness character through appropriate management, at the
time of review.
(5) Be a roadless island; or
(6) Contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific,
educational, scenic or historical value.
Wilderness Study. During this phase of wilderness review, we study lands qualifying for
wilderness to analyze values (ecological, recreational, cultural, spiritual), resources (e.g.
wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses (management and public) within the
area. The findings of the study help determine whether to recommend the area for
designation as wilderness.
The draft EIS will contain a full range of possible recommendations for Wilderness, from
no additional wilderness to all qualifying acreage. The study phase will continue through
the Final EIS; information provided to the refuges and Service in the form of comments
on the Draft EIS is an important part of the study process.
47
Recommendation. This phase does not occur until the Final EIS is published. The Regional
Director notifies the Director of the Region’s tentative wilderness suitability
recommendations on wilderness study areas evaluated and includes a wilderness study
report that presents the results of the review and a wilderness recommendation. The
study report will draw from several elements of the review process, including the Plan, the
Environmental Impact Statement, and the results of public participation. Following
approval of the Plan, the Regional Director will transmit the additional documentation in
support of the Region’s wilderness recommendation to the Director for review, in
preparation of the Director’s recommendation to the Secretary.
In Alaska, Section 1317(c) of ANILCA provides that designation of a wilderness study
area or the possibility that we may designate the lands in question as wilderness in the
future, does not affect our normal administration of refuge areas. Management direction
prescribed in the current comprehensive conservation plan for the Togiak Refuge will
guide management of these areas.
Wild and Scenic Rivers
The Fish and Wildlife Service is required by law to explore the potential for adding rivers
to the national Wild and Scenic Rivers System whenever doing a major land or water
planning effort. Because there are no designated Wild and Scenic rivers on the Refuge,
many people may not be familiar with them. The Kanektok was considered for possible
designation in the 1980s but was not recommended, primarily because of the lack of local,
state, and federal support for designation at that time..
The purpose of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is to identify rivers or sections of rivers
and their associated lands (in Alaska, an average of ½ mile on each side of the river) that
have outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural,
ecological, or other values, and to manage these rivers in a way that protects these values
for present and future generations. Congress has said that the national policy of
constructing dams and other water developments needs to be balanced by a policy to keep
some rivers in their free-flowing condition.
Rivers or segments of rivers can be designated (added to the system) either by an act of
Congress or by the Secretary of the Interior, based on an application of the governor. To
be considered eligible for designation, rivers must be free-flowing and have one or more
outstanding river-related values within the river corridor. Rivers found to be eligible for
addition to the system are classified as either wild, scenic, or recreational, based on the
48
level of development in the river corridor at the time the river is being considered for
designation. Eligible rivers then go through what’s called a suitability study, which results
in a given river actually being recommended or not recommended for designation. The
suitability outcome depends in part on public comments received. The CCP process can only
result in a recommendation, not in any river actually being designated.
Over the past 10-15 years, one of the main uses of the Wild and Scenic study and
management planning process has been to provide a forum for people who care about a
river and share in management authority to talk about the future of the river. Often many
agencies and landowners have different authorities in a river corridor, requiring close
coordination to conserve resources and manage public use. River planning also allows these
entities to collaborate on management for an entire watershed.
Management Direction for Designated Rivers. The two main directions are to keep the
river in its free-flowing state (no dams or impoundments are allowed) and to maintain the
outstanding values that qualified the river for designation. The goal essentially is to keep
the river, including approximately a ½ mile wide corridor on each side of the river, like it
is today, although this can include restoring some of the values that may have been
diminished in the past. Within these guidelines, river management is very flexible.
Non-federal lands, including the bed of navigable streams, are excluded from the
authorized boundary of designated rivers, so management of those lands is not subject to
provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Designation does not affect determinations
of navigability or ownership of submerged lands. Nothing about designation affects the
jurisdiction of the State of Alaska with respect to fish and wildlife.
No existing recreational or subsistence uses are prohibited. Public use typically continues
at the same level as before designation. Hunting, fishing, and trapping continue, subject to
applicable state and federal laws. If studies show that increasing public use or new
methods of access have the potential to damage outstanding river values, then public use
could be regulated at some time in the future. An agreement between the State of Alaska
and the federal government states that studies should be made of the quantity and mix of
recreation and other public uses that can occur without interfering with public use and
enjoyment of the resource values of the river area.
Many rivers in the system flow through designated Wilderness. Generally, when this is the
case the most restrictive provision applies when a management issue surfaces. In most
cases little additional protection is gained, but there are some distinctions. For example,
49
the President can authorize a dam in Wilderness, but not on a Wild and Scenic River. Also,
there is the possibility that proposed Wilderness will not actually be designated. In that
case, river corridors would still be protected from development. Another consideration is
that even if the river and its corridor are already protected, it may still make a worthy
and unique addition to the national system.
Designation does heighten a river’s visibility, and has led to some increases in use on some
rivers. However, it can be difficult to separate this increase from that which would have
occurred anyway due to increased popularity of river recreation in general. Because of the
remoteness and expense of visiting most rivers on the Togiak Refuge, sudden increases in
use resulting from designation would not be likely.
Wild and Scenic River Study Process. The process begins by identifying the most
outstanding rivers on the Refuge, ones that would truly be worthy additions to the
national system. This step (the eligibility analysis) has been completed by Togiak Refuge
staff and the results approved by the Core Team.
The suitability step relies on additional analyses, public comments collected during the
planning process, and the views of the core planning team. This step identifies which of
the eligible rivers should actually be recommended for designation. The Draft EIS will
consider a range of options, from recommending none to recommending a number of rivers.
Preliminary analyses suggest that the following river segments are eligible for addition to
the system:
The North Fork Goodnews River from Goodnews Lake to the confluence at the
Wilderness boundary 27 miles down, is eligible for its outstanding fish and wildlife
habitat, sport fishery, and cultural values (subsistence resources and uses).
The 30-mile segment of the Togiak River from its headwaters to the Wilderness
boundary is eligible because of its outstanding fish and wildlife habitat,
recreational, and cultural values(subsistence resources and uses).
The Ongivinuk, from the outlet of Ongivinuk Lake 16 miles to its confluence with
the Togiak River, is eligible because of its outstanding recreational, scenic, and fish
and wildlife values.
50
The 70-mile stretch of the Kanektok River from Kagati Lake to the wilderness
boundary is eligible for its outstanding fish and wildlife habitat, sport fishery, and
cultural (subsistence resources and uses) values. The Kanektok was considered for
possible designation in the 1980s but was not recommended. In addition, at the
request of the Core Team, the eligibility and suitability of the Lower Kanektok and
the Arolik will be studied. These rivers were not included in the initial list because
they are bordered exclusively by private lands.
The Kemuk, from the outlet of Nenevok Lake to its confluence with the Togiak
River 28 miles downstream, is eligible because of its outstanding recreational,
scenic, geologic, and fish and wildlife habitat values.
Trail Creek, flowing 27 miles from its headwaters in the Ahklun Mountains at its
headwaters in the northern part of the Refuge to its confluence with the
Izavieknik River, is eligible because of its outstanding recreational, scenic, geologic,
and fish and wildlife habitat values.