DOCSLIB.ORG

Mapping Landscape Values and Forest Uses On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mapping Landscape Values and Forest Uses On MAPPING LANDSCAPE VALUES AND FOREST USES ON THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST By Britta Schroeder RECOMMENDED: Dr. Todd Brinkman Dr. Peter Fix Dr. ~a~r~~ry Committee Chair APPROVED: icultural Sciences Date MAPPING LANDSCAPE VALUES AND FOREST USES ON THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST A THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE By Britta Schroeder, B.S. Fairbanks, Alaska May 2014 v ABSTRACT Throughout the world, humans are often faced with the challenge of sustaining economic development while also promoting environmental stewardship. Such is true for the management history of the Tongass National Forest, where the U.S. Forest Service is transitioning away from harvesting old-growth and moving towards a more economically and environmentally sustainable approach. To measure the preferences of local community members affected by this transition, I conducted an interdisciplinary case study on the Wrangell Ranger District in Southeast Alaska. Community members from Wrangell mapped landscape values, acceptable and unacceptable forest uses. By assessing these landscape values and forest uses with respondents’ attitudes towards forest management alternatives, I identify spatial locations of conflicting timber harvest uses and recommend forest management objectives for the district. Through public participation, communities can provide spatially explicit input during the planning process, which creates opportunities for managers to incorporate community needs and better prioritize management objectives. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS SIGNATURE PAGE ...................................................................................................................................................... i TITLE PAGE ............................................................................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... xv 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1 Historical Resource Management ........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 Current Situation ........................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Values and PPGIS .................................................................................................................................. 7 1.2.1 Values............................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.2 Attitudes ......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2.3 Landscape Values ...................................................................................................................... 11 1.2.4 Forest Uses .................................................................................................................................. 13 1.3 Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 14 2. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 2.1 Study Location and Background .................................................................................................. 17 2.2 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................................... 20 2.3 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 25 2.3.1 Respondents compared to non-respondents ................................................................ 26 2.3.2 Socio-demographics ................................................................................................................ 27 2.3.3 Use Preferences ......................................................................................................................... 29 2.3.4 Attitudes ....................................................................................................................................... 30 2.3.5 Landscape Values and Spatial Forest Uses ..................................................................... 31 2.3.6 Spatial Forest Use Conflicts .................................................................................................. 33 3. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 37 viii 3.1 Respondents compared to non-respondents ......................................................................... 37 3.2 Socio-demographics .......................................................................................................................... 37 3.3 Use Preferences................................................................................................................................... 45 3.4 Attitudes ................................................................................................................................................. 53 3.5 Landscape Values and Spatial Forest Uses .............................................................................. 54 3.6 Spatial Forest Use Conflicts ............................................................................................................ 62 4. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................... 65 4.1.1 Socio-demographics ................................................................................................................ 65 4.1.2 Use Preferences ......................................................................................................................... 66 4.1.3 Attitudes ....................................................................................................................................... 67 4.1.4 Landscape Values and Spatial Forest Uses .................................................................... 68 4.1.5 Spatial Forest Conflicts ........................................................................................................... 71 4.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 71 4.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 73 4.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 77 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................................. 79 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................... 81 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................................ 89 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Timber harvest on the Tongass from 1910 to 2012. Source: USDA Forest Service (2013). ................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2. Cognitive Hierarchy Model, adapted from McFarlane and Boxall (2000) and Seymour et al. (2010). ................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3. Study Area, Wrangell Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, Alaska ..................... 19 Figure 4. Types of values and uses included in the mapping exercise ............................................ 23 Figure 5. Workflow for research ....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wilderness in Southeastern Alaska: a History
    Wilderness in Southeastern Alaska: A History John Sisk Today, Southeastern Alaska (Southeast) is well known remoteness make it wild in the most definitive sense. as a place of great scenic beauty, abundant wildlife and The Tongass encompasses 109 inventoried roadless fisheries, and coastal wilderness. Vast expanses of areas covering 9.6 million acres (3.9 million hectares), wild, generally undeveloped rainforest and productive and Congress has designated 5.8 million acres (2.3 coastal ecosystems are the foundation of the region’s million hectares) of wilderness in the nation’s largest abundance (Fig 1). To many Southeast Alaskans, (16.8 million acre [6.8 million hectare]) national forest wilderness means undisturbed fish and wildlife habitat, (U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 2003). which in turn translates into food, employment, and The Wilderness Act of 1964 provides a legal business. These wilderness values are realized in definition for wilderness. As an indicator of wild subsistence, sport and commercial fisheries, and many character, the act has ensured the preservation of facets of tourism and outdoor recreation. To Americans federal lands displaying wilderness qualities important more broadly, wilderness takes on a less utilitarian to recreation, science, ecosystem integrity, spiritual value and is often described in terms of its aesthetic or values, opportunities for solitude, and wildlife needs. spiritual significance. Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act captures the essence of wilderness by identifying specific qualities that make it unique. The provisions suggest wilderness is an area or region characterized by the following conditions (USFS 2002): Section 2(c)(1) …generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; Section 2(c)(2) …has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; Section 2(c)(3) …has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient FIG 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Small Vessel General Permit
    ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC NOTICE The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois has requested a determination from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources if their Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) are consistent with the enforceable policies of the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP). VGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 ft. in length. sVGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non- recreational vessels less than 79 ft. in length. VGP and sVGP can be viewed in their entirety at the ICMP web site http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/cmp/Pages/CMPFederalConsistencyRegister.aspx Inquiries concerning this request may be directed to Jim Casey of the Department’s Chicago Office at (312) 793-5947 or [email protected]. You are invited to send written comments regarding this consistency request to the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Suite S-703, Chicago, Illinois 60601. All comments claiming the proposed actions would not meet federal consistency must cite the state law or laws and how they would be violated. All comments must be received by July 19, 2012. Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS LESS THAN 79 FEET (sVGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 2008 ANNUAL REPORT SARAH PALIN, Governor
    STATE OF ALASKA CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMISSION ON FEDERAL AREAS 2008 ANNUAL REPORT SARAH PALIN, Governor 3700AIRPORT WAY CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMISSION FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99709 ON FEDERAL AREAS PHONE: (907) 374-3737 FAX: (907)451-2751 Dear Reader: This is the 2008 Annual Report of the Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas to the Governor and the Alaska State Legislature. The annual report is required by AS 41.37.220(f). INTRODUCTION The Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas was originally established by the State of Alaska in 1981 to provide assistance to the citizens of Alaska affected by the management of federal lands within the state. In 2007 the Alaska State Legislature reestablished the Commission. 2008 marked the first year of operation for the Commission since funding was eliminated in 1999. Following the 1980 passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Alaska Legislature identified the need for an organization that could provide assistance to Alaska's citizens affected by that legislation. ANILCA placed approximately 104 million acres of federal public lands in Alaska into conservation system units. This, combined with existing units, created a system of national parks, national preserves, national monuments, national wildlife refuges and national forests in the state encompassing more than 150 million acres. The resulting changes in land status fundamentally altered many Alaskans' traditional uses of these federal lands. In the 28 years since the passage of ANILCA, changes have continued. The Federal Subsistence Board rather than the State of Alaska has assumed primary responsibility for regulating subsistence hunting and fishing activities on federal lands.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [Show full text]
  • UNDISCOVERED MINERAL RESOURCES of SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA- REVISED MINERAL-RESOURCE-ASSESSMENT-TRACT DESCRIPTIONS by David A
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNDISCOVERED MINERAL RESOURCES OF SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA- REVISED MINERAL-RESOURCE-ASSESSMENT-TRACT DESCRIPTIONS By David A. Brew 1 Donald J. Grybeck2 Cliff D.Taylor3 Robert C.Jachens 1 Dennis P. Cox1 David F. Barnes1 Richard D.Koch1 Robert L.Morin1 and James L. Drinkwater1 U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-716 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government lU.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park, CA 94025-3591, U.S.A. ^U.S. Geological Survey Anchorage, AK 99508-4667 ^U.S. Geological Survey Denver, CO 80225 1996 UNDISCOVERED MINERAL RESOURCES OF SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA- REVISED MINERAL-RESOURCE-ASSESSMENT-TRACT DESCRIPTIONS By David A. Brew 1 , Donald J. Grybeck2, Cliff D. Taylor3, Robert C. Jachens 1 , Dennis P. Cox 1 , David F. Bames 1 , Richard D. Koch 1 , Robert L. Morin1 , and James L. Drinkwater1 iU.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA 94025-3591, 2U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage, AK 99506- 4667, 3U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO 80225 INTRODUCTION This report presents revisions, re-descriptions, and additions to the mineral-resource-assessment-tract information contained in the Tongass National Forest and adjacent areas reports by Brew and others (1991) and Brew and Drinkwater (1991).The changes to some individual tracts are significant, but the overall effect of the changes on the conclusions of those two reports is not thai great.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1464 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1132
    § 1132 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1464 Department and agency having jurisdiction of, and reports submitted to Congress regard- thereover immediately before its inclusion in ing pending additions, eliminations, or modi- the National Wilderness Preservation System fications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regula- unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. tions pertaining to wilderness areas within No appropriation shall be available for the pay- their respective jurisdictions also shall be ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- available to the public in the offices of re- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation gional foresters, national forest supervisors, System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- priations be available for additional personnel and forest rangers. stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classi- they are included within the National Wilder- fications as primitive areas; Presidential rec- ness Preservation System. ommendations to Congress; approval of Con- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined gress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Ea- A wilderness, in contrast with those areas gles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado where man and his own works dominate the The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where years after September 3, 1964, review, as to its the earth and its community of life are un- suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- wilderness, each area in the national forests tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service primeval character and influence, without per- as ‘‘primitive’’ and report his findings to the manent improvements or human habitation, President.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L
    Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L. 88–363, § 10, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) Sec. 1132. Extent of System. § 1110. Liability 1133. Use of wilderness areas. 1134. State and private lands within wilderness (a) United States areas. The United States Government shall not be 1135. Gifts, bequests, and contributions. liable for any act or omission of the Commission 1136. Annual reports to Congress. or of any person employed by, or assigned or de- § 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System tailed to, the Commission. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of (b) Payment; exemption of property from attach- policy; wilderness areas; administration for ment, execution, etc. public use and enjoyment, protection, preser- Any liability of the Commission shall be met vation, and gathering and dissemination of from funds of the Commission to the extent that information; provisions for designation as it is not covered by insurance, or otherwise. wilderness areas Property belonging to the Commission shall be In order to assure that an increasing popu- exempt from attachment, execution, or other lation, accompanied by expanding settlement process for satisfaction of claims, debts, or judg- and growing mechanization, does not occupy ments. and modify all areas within the United States (c) Individual members of Commission and its possessions, leaving no lands designated No liability of the Commission shall be im- for preservation and protection in their natural puted to any member of the Commission solely condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy on the basis that he occupies the position of of the Congress to secure for the American peo- member of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Winter 2012 Arctic Refuge Plan: Wilderness Stewardship Must Be the Priority by Fran Mauer
    NESS W R A E T D C L I H W • • K E D WILDERNESS E IL P W IN S G S WILDERNE WATCHER The Quarterly Newsletter of Wilderness Watch Volume 22 • Number 3 • Winter 2012 Arctic Refuge Plan: Wilderness Stewardship Must Be the Priority By Fran Mauer northern half of the Refuge, mountains arch elegantly northward but leave a nar- row productive coastal plain filled with coastal lagoons, deltas, and barrier islands. South of the mountains, the boreal forest transitions to taiga and finally to tundra. The variety of landscapes hosts a cor- responding variety of wildlife: all three species of North American bears (in- cluding land-denning polar bears), some 180 species of birds migrating from six continents and all 50 states, and two caribou herds that use the many different habitats for calving, in- sect relief, migration, and winter range. Caribou, moose, Dall sheep, and musk ox support a full spectrum of predators The coastal plain calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd would be and scavengers such as wolves, griz- recommended for Wilderness designation in Alternative E of the Draft CCP. zly bears, wolverine, arctic and red fox, Photo: Fran Mauer/USFWS golden eagles, ravens, gulls, and jaegers. he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) The Refuge founders realized that wild recently released a draft management plan nature and for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in its ecological pro- TAlaska that will profoundly affect the wilderness cesses have freely In This Issue... character of this iconic Wilderness for decades to evolved here since Arctic Refuge Plan Page 1 come.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Areas of the National Forest System
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2015 As of September 30, 2015 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Land Areas of the WO, Lands National Forest FS-383 System November 2015 As of September 30, 2015 Published by: USDA Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250-0003 Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/ Cover Photo: Pecos Wilderness, Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico Courtesy of: Chris Chavez Statistics are current as of: 9/30/2015 The National Forest System (NFS) is comprised of: 154 National Forests 57 Purchase Units 20 National Grasslands 7 Land Utilization Projects 16 Research and Experimental Areas 28 Other Areas NFS lands are found in 43 States as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Total NFS acres as of 9/30/2015 = 192,922,127 NFS lands are organized into: 9 Forest Service Regions 114 Administrative Forest or Forest-level units 515 Ranger District or District-level units The Forest Service administers 127 Wild and Scenic Rivers in 23 States, and 446 National Wilderness Areas in 39 States. The FS also administers several other types of Congressionally-designated areas: 1 National Historic Area in 1 State 1 National Scenic Research Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Recreation Area in 1 State 1 Scenic Wildlife Area in 1 State 2 National Botanical Areas in 1 State 2 National Volcanic Monument Areas in 2 States 2 Recreation Management Areas in 2 States 6 National Protection Areas in 3 States 8 National Scenic Areas in 6 States 10 National Monument Areas in 5 States 12 Special Management Areas in 5 States 21 National Game Refuge or Wildlife Preserves in 12 States 22 National Recreation Areas in 20 States Table of Contents Acreage Calculation ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Supplement to the Minimum Requirements
    ALASKA SUPPLEMENT TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DECISION GUIDE This supplement assists managers in adapting use of the interagency Minimum Requirement Decision Guide of the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center to Alaska’s wilderness units. 1 This page intentionally left blank 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 4 2.0 Wilderness Act Background ........................................................................................ 5 2.1 Origin of the Minumum Requirements Exception................................................... 5 2.2 What is the Purpose of Wilderness? ........................................................................ 5 2.3 What is Wilderness? ................................................................................................ 6 2.4 How is Wilderness Administered?........................................................................... 6 3.0 ANILCA Context......................................................................................................... 8 4.0 Prohibitions and Exceptions Under the Wilderness Act and ANILCA..................... 10 4.1 Wilderness Act Prohibitions .................................................................................. 10 4.2 Exceptions to the Wilderness Act Prohibitions ..................................................... 10 4.2.1 Existing Private Rights ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Roadless Areas
    Appendix C Appendix C Roadless Areas Table of Contents Stikine Area 201 Fanshaw .................................................................................... C-6 202 Spires ........................................................................................ C-8 204 Madan ..................................................................................... C-10 205 Aaron ....................................................................................... C-12 206 Cone ........................................................................................ C-14 207 Harding .................................................................................... C-16 208 Bradfield .................................................................................. C-18 209 Anan ........................................................................................ C-20 210 Frosty ...................................................................................... C-22 211 North Kupreanof ...................................................................... C-24 212 Missionary ............................................................................... C-26 213 Five Mile .................................................................................. C-28 214 South Kupreanof ...................................................................... C-30 215 Castle ...................................................................................... C-32 216 Lindenberg ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In Wilderness
    Helicopter Access to Conduct Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) in Wilderness Final Environmental Impact Statement August 2007 Sections Letter of Availability Chapter 3, Environment and Effects Cover Pages & Acronyms Chapter 4, Lists Table of Contents Appendix A, Response to Comments Summary Appendix B, Agency & Corporation Letters Chapter 1, Purpose & Need Appendix C Wilderness Maps Chapter 2, Alternatives Click on any of the above titles will take you to the appropriate section. If you would like a copy of the FEIS in a different format, please contact: Ken Post, Alaska Regional Office, P.O. Box 21628, Juneau, AK 99802-1628 Or (907) 586-8796 USDA United States Forest Alaska Region P.O. Box 21628 s:::::::::;; Department of Service Juneau,AK 99802-1628 Agriculture File Code: 1950 Date: AUG 2 8 2007 Dear Reviewer: Here is your copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Helicopter Access to Conduct Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) in Wilderness. I am sending out the Final EIS without the Record of Decision so I can share the current analysis ,I with the public and determine if there are any additional concerns that need to be considered prior to making a decision. The Draft EIS had Alternative 4 (helicopter landings at 540 plots) as the Preferred Alternative. After additional analysis, Alternative 1 (no helicopter landings in wilderness areas) is the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS because it minimizes the effects to wilderness character. The analysis considered forested and non-forested plots as part of the proposed inve~9ry. In response to public comments received on the Draft EIS, I am considering excluding the non­ forested plots.
    [Show full text]